HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 193-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
APRIL 9, 2007
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
CMR:193:07
DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURES AND OTHER
FUNDING OPTIONS FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS
AND/OR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING: TIMING, SCOPE, AND
RELATED ISSUES
7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council provide direction on the following questions:
1) Does the Council want to move forward with bond measures for a public safety building
and/or library facilities? (Three options to consider: A) Place library and public safety
building on same ballot as one measure; B) Place library and public safety building on
same ballot as separate measures; or C) Place either library or public safety building on
ballot as one measure, e.g. only move forward with one project at this time)
a. If yes, does the Council want to proceed with a combined public safety and
library facilities measure on the same ballot or as separate measures?
b. Does the Council wish to move forward with one or both of these measures
separately?
2) Library proposals:
a. Should the City move forward with a joint community center/library building at
Mitchell Park instead of a library only?
b. If uncertain, should staff continue to work on all remaining options (library only
and combined library/community center each at smaller and larger sizes)?
c.Should the City include renovations/upgrades to Main and Downtown libraries as
part of a library facilities bond measure?
d. Should the City consider placing a parcel tax on a ballot to fund operating
expenses as identified in the Council-approved Library Service Model Analysis
and Recommendations Report (LSMAR)?
e. If yes, should it appear on the same ballot as a bond measure?
3)If the Council decides to move forward with a ballot measure, should the measure be
placed on the June or November 2008 ballot?
If the Council decides to move forward with a ballot measure, staff recommends hiring a
consultant to assist with the educational outreach effort for the measure. Staff will return to
Council at a later date with a funding request and contract award.
CMR: 193:07 Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND
For the past two years, the City Council has placed plans for a new public safety/police building
and enhanced library facilities and operations on the top priority lists. There have been
substantial work efforts by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, Library Advisory Commission and staff
developing proposals for a new public safety/police building and enhanced library facilities and
operations. These efforts culminated in presentations to Council of the Blue Ribbon Task Force
report in June of 2006 and the LSMAR and Mitchell Park Space Study Results in December of
2006.
Following these efforts, the Council authorized staff to proceed with preliminary polling on
potential funding options for the needed improvements. On March 5, 2007, the City Council
received the preliminary results of a survey conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin &
Associates regarding voter sentiment towards potential funding options for enhanced library
facilities and services and a new public safety building. Fairbank conducted an initial telephone
poll between February 21 and 26, 2007 regarding potential public safety building and library
facilities bond measures and a possible parcel tax. Six hundred households were surveyed
regarding overall satisfaction with City services and options for funding potential library and
public safety facilities. Key findings and recommendations included:
The overwhelming majority of voters (93%) rate Palo Alto’s quality of life positively.
This is consistent with the results of the annual citizen survey conducted as part of the
Auditor’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments report.
Solid majorities of voters support potential bond measures for both library and public
safety buildings although support falls short of the 2/3 supermajority threshold.
Support for a library bond is somewhat stronger than for a public safety building bond.
The City should consider deferring a bond election until the November 2008 election
date, allowing ample time for education about the need for library and public safety
facility improvements.
Attachment A to this report provides a copy of the polling presentation with the key findings and
topline polling results from the March meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the March meeting, staff committed to returning to Council with a discussion of next steps
and options stemming from the results of the polling. This report presents the key questions that
the Council must consider related to potential funding options for these critical infrastructure
projects and service enhancements. The following is a presentation of these questions and
related analysis.
Question 1: Does the Council want to move forward with bond measures for a public safety
building and/or library facilities? (Three options to consider: A) Place library and public
safety building on same ballot as one measure," B) Place library and public safety building on
same ballot as separate measures; or C) Place either library or public safety building on ballot
as one measure, e.g. only move forward with one project at this time)
CMR:193:07 Page 2 of 6
a. If yes, does the Council want to proceed with a combined public safety and
library facilities measure on the same ballot or as separate measures?
b. Does the Council wish to move forward with one or both of these measures
separately?
The Council, staff, and the community have already committed significant time and financial
resources towards both the public safety building and the library facilities and operations
enhancements. There is a demonstrated need to replace the public safety building and to upgrade
library facilities. Any delay to either of the facility projects would only result in increased
project costs further down the road. However, the dollar size of the bond measure for the two
projects combined may lessen the measure’s likelihood of success. Additionally, overseeing two
major building projects at the same time would have a greater impact on staff.
If the measures are combined as one on the same ballot, the City would gain some bond issuance
cost efficiencies. Also, the more highly favored project could boost the other project if it is
sitting on the approval threshold. A combined bond measure would fund both high priority
projects at the same time and could bring together the two support groups for these efforts.
Finally, preliminary polling shows that a library measure alone has a slightly better chance of
passing, while the success of a public safety building measure is helped with a combined
measure.
Question 2: Library proposals:
a. Should the City move forward with a joint community center/library building at
Mitchell Park instead of a library only?
b. If uncertain, should staff continue to work on all remaining options (library only
and combined library/community center each at smaller and larger sizes) ?
The joint community center/library building proposal for Mitchell Park creates the
ability for these two facilities to share spaces and staff and creates use flexibility. A
joint facility would allow for a better site plan and site circulation. There would be cost
and construction efficiencies from replacing two outdated facilities at one time. The
community center and library are in need of rehabilitation (electrical/mechanical
systems at end of life and ADA improvements) that is not currently budgeted in the
Infrastructure Plan. There is also the potential that the joint facility would appeal to a
broader range of community interests.
Conversely, the joint facility would add significant costs to a potential bond measure
(approximately $5-10 million). Additionally, there would be a need to broaden the
scope of any educational outreach efforts to educate residents about the need for the
community center. If Council directs staff to continue analysis of all four options, this
will add substantial costs and time to the design phase of the project, leading up to a
bond measure.
c.Should the City include renovations/upgrades to Main and Downtown libraries as
part of a library facilities bond measure ?
CMR: 193:07 Page 3 of 6
Including Main and Downtown library improvements as part of a potential bond
measure would address the LAC and Council-adopted LSMAR recommendations for
the rest of the library system. The results of the poll indicated that the bond measure
would also have a broader appeal to the community. Again, the challenge is the dollar
size of the bond measure.
d Should the City considerplacing aparcel tax on a ballot to fund operating expenses
as identified in the Council-approved Library Service Model Analysis and
Recommendations Report (LSMAR) ?
e. If yes, should it appear on the same ballot as a bond measure?
Placing a parcel tax on the ballot for library operating enhancements would present one
solution for funding the approved LSMAR recommendations. It would also address
any potential criticisms that the City has not planned for the increased operating
expenses associated with new library facilities.
The parcel tax proposal did not fare well in the recent polling and a decision to place a
parcel tax on the ballot may be premature given the pending audit of library operations.
The City needs to demonstrate that it has carefully assessed all options for funding
operating expenses before proceeding to the voters with this type of parcel tax proposal.
Question 3: If the Council decides to move forward with a ballot measure, should the
measure be placed on the June or November 2008 ballot?
A November 2008 election date allows more time for educational outreach on the need for
enhanced public safety and library facilities. It would also attract more voters that would
tend to favor the bond measure based on the preliminary polling results. However,
competition from other November 2008 ballot measures may decrease the likelihood of the
City’s measure passing. Waiting until November 2008 increases the risk of disruption of
police and emergency services during a disaster and adds delay which may result in higher
costs for the projects.
Educational Outreach Consultant
The results of the preliminary poll demonstrated that there is a considerable need for an
educational outreach effort related to the City’s needs for a new public safety building and
enhanced library facilities and operations. There are limited staff resources to devote to this
type of effort for any potential funding measure. Additionally, many cities hire consultants
to provide this type of assistance for bond elections. The professionalism and experience of a
consultant will help ensure the effectiveness of any educational effort. Given that the public
safety building and library plan are top priorities of the Council, staff would recommend the
use of the Council’s contingency for this purpose.’ An effective educational outreach effort
utilizing this type of consultant may cost between $70,000 - 100,000. If Council agrees with
this recommendation, staff will proceed with a Request for Proposals and will return to
Council at a later date with a funding request and possible contract award (depending on the
CMR:193:07 Page 4 of 6
cost). Any scope of services would be carefully drafted to ensure that the City is not
engaging in advocacy.
RESOURCE IMPACT
As identified in the December 4, 2006 report (CMR 429:06 - Attachment B) transmitting the
LSMAR report to the Council, there are numerous financial challenges facing the General Fund,
including the need for new revenue sources for facility and service enhancements. As stated in
prior infrastructure studies and as policy approved by Council, new infrastructure efforts and
new service levels require new revenue streams. As the Long Range Financial Forecast has
demonstrated, there is very limited capacity to absorb any new expenses. Debt financing the
capital costs envisioned by the LSMAR and the Blue Ribbon Task Force Report will require a
fresh, ongoing revenue stream to finance the debt service. The estimated total cost for Mitchell
Park library/community center and Main and Downtown library improvements is $45 million
while the estimated cost for a new public safety building is $50 million.
This staff report identifies several potential mechanisms for providing revenue streams for both
facility improvements and operations enhancements. Any decisions made by the Council related
to potential funding measures will be carefully analyzed for its impacts to the General Fund as
staff moves forward. One key consideration is the operating and maintenance cost impacts of
these new facilities. These added costs include new utility costs (electricity, gas, and water),
custodial services, and routine maintenance (painting, carpet cleaning, equipment replacement,
etc.) Preliminary estimates of these costs range from $500,000 - $700,000 annually. In terms of
staffing, there would not be any additional Police staffing necessary to operate the public safety
building. A combined community center/library facility at Mitchell Park may possibly create
staffing efficiencies if some functions are combined between the community center and library
staff. If the Council decides to move forward with both of these projects, staff will continue
discussing options for funding the operating cost impacts during the design phase of the projects.
As mentioned previously, the Council, staff and the community have already invested a
significant amount of resources in these projects. To date, the City has spent approximately $1.8
million on the public safety building with another $600,000 necessary to get to a 2008 bond
election. The Library conceptual study completed by Group 4 Architecture has cost
approximately $250,000 with another $1.3 million necessary to get to a 2008 bond election. At
Council’s direction, staff is also continuing negotiations to purchase property for the public
safety building. All of these costs could potentially be recoverable through bond funding if a
measure is successful.
Additionally, any decision by the Council to use contingency funds for an educational outreach
consultant should be carefully weighed against other competing needs for those funds.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report is consistent with existing City policies and with the establishment of the Library
Plan/Public Safety Building as a Top 4 priority for 2007.
CMR:193:07 Page 5 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Presentation of Preliminary Polling Results, March 5, 2007
Attachment B: CMR 429:06 December 4, 2006 Transmittal of Final Library Service Model
Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR) Report and Request for Approval of
Staff Recommendation to Undertake Community Polling Prior to Final
Decisions on Library Service and Facility Enhancements (without attachments)
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Kelly Morariu
Assistant to the City Manager
Police Chief
DIANE JENNINGS
Director of Libraries
City Manager
CMR:193:07 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
March 5, 2007
220-2276
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
Opinion Research & Public Policy Analysis
Santa Monie~, CA - Oakland, CA - Madison, WI - Mexico City
Fairbank,
Maslitb
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 2
City of Palo Alto, Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Methodology
600 telephone interviews with Palo Alto voters
likely to cast ballots in the November 2008
general election
Interviews conducted between February 21-
27, 2007
Margin of sampling error of +/- 4.0%
[]Some percentages do not add to 100%
because of rounding
FairbanA;
Maslin,
Maulliu &
Associates
Slide 3
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Key Findings
The overwhelming majority of voters rate Palo Alto’s
quality of life positively.
Solid majorities of Palo Alto voters support potential
bond measures to improve public safety and library
facilities.
[]However, support for all potential measures currently
falls short of the two-thirds supermajority threshold.
[]Support for a library bond is somewhat stronger than
support for a public safety bond.
Fairbank,
~laslin,
~Iau/lin &
Associates
Slide 4
City of Palo,,Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Perceptions of the
Community and its Needs
Fairbank,
l~laslit~,
~laullin &
Associates
Slide 5
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Voters believe Palo Alto has an
extremely high quality of life.
Excellent
Good
Just fair
Poor job
5% TOTAL
0%20%40%60%80%
2. Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto as a place to Itve: is it an excellent place to live, a good place to live,only fair, or a poor place to live?
Fairbank,
z~laslitl,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 6
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Ratings for Palo Alto are
more positive than for many
other California cities.
(% Excellent/Good)
, , ,
2. Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto as a place to live: is it an excellent place to live, a good place to live,only fair, or a poor place to live?
FairbanA;
Maslin,
~laullin &
Associates
Slide 7
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Two-thirds of voters see at least some
need for additional library funding.
Public libraries
Public schools
Public safety
o%
Great Need ~ Some Need r~ Little Need ~1 No Need r~ DK/NA
38%’ 9% ~ 12%
22%9%
20%40%60%80%100%
3. l am golng to read a short list of public serWces in the city of Palo AIto, Pleaae tell me if you think it haa a great need for additional
fundin[l, some need, a little need or no real need for additional fundincl,
Fairbank,
Maslin,
Maulli~l &
Associates
Slide 8
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Support for Potential
Bond Measures
4
FairbanA;
J~lasli~l,
~laldliu &
Associates
Slide 9
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
$95 Million Library and Public
Safety Bond Description Tested
Let me tell you a little bit more about this potential bond measure, it would authorize
$95 million dollars in general obligation bonds for:
¯A new public safety building that would provide a safe space for interviewing
crime victims; upgrade outdated facilities and technology for storing and
analyzing crime evidence; improve earthquake safety; and provide an
upgraded Emergency Operations Center and 911 dispatch system for police,
fire and paramedic services.
¯A new library and community center at the site of Mitchell Park Library that
would include room for larger collections; more computers and improved
information technology; space for community meetings and rooms that could
be rented to the public for local events; and dedicated spaces for quiet
reading and study. Upgrades would also be made to the Main and Downtown
libraries.
All bond expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and independent audits, and
no money could be used for administrators’ salaries. The projects would meet and
exceed state and federal standards for being energy efficient "green buildings."
5. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this bond measure or no to oppose it?
Fairbank,
~$1aslitt,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 10
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Voters support the measure by a
two-to-one margin, but it falls
short of a two-thirds majority.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
YEs
40%
5. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this bond measure or no to oppose it?
50%
5
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Fairbank,
Maslin,
Maulliu &
Associates
,~,o~;,,_.,=,~::.,:,~$45 Million Library Bondsl,~oll Description Tested
~ne/~nother measure would authorize $45 million dollars in
general obligation bonds to fund construction of a new Mitchell
Park Libra,, including a new community center, and upgrades
to the Main and Downtown Libraries. Improvements would
include room for larger collections, more computers and
improved information technology, space for community
meetings and rooms that could be rented to the public for local
events, and dedicated spaces for quiet reading and study.
These projects would meet and exceed state and federal
standards for being energy efficient "green buildings." ~11 bond
expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and
independent audits, and no money could be used for
administrators’ salaries.
7. If the ele~ion were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it?
Fairbank,
l~asli~t,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 12
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Just under two-thirds of voters
support a library bond.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
20%
---~5%
o%10%3o%40%
7. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it?
TOTAL
YES
63%
5O%
6
FairbanA;
Maslin,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 13
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Support for a library bond changes
little with pro and con arguments.
100%
~Total Yes ~Total No ~Total Undecided
00% ............................................63%65% ..............
20% -
0%
3, o....... 3~,~ ................................3~/o ..............
50,(,5%4%4%
After Cost After Positive After NegativeInitial Vote Information Argument Argument
To~ Yes 63%51%65%62%
~ No 31%44%31%34%
LTotal Undecided 5%5%4%4%
7110a113/14, If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no Lo oppose it?
F~i,b,,,,k,City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
~faslin,Ma.,,i,,~Preliminary SurveyAssociates
.............. ~,~,,o Voters are less enthusiastic about a
S,ide~, measure that does not include funding
for multiple branches.
[] Definitely Yes [] Prob.lLean Yes E:] Prob,/Lean No ¯ Definitely No [] Undecided
$45 million with funding for Mitchell Park
Library, a Community Center and Downtown
and Main Libraries (Full Description)
$35 million with funding for Mitchell Park
and Downtown and Main Libraries (Brief
Description)
$25 million with funding for Mitchell Park
Library (Brief Description)
0%20% 40%60%80%100%
7/11. Tile final structure of this library bond measure has not been determined, I am going to read you brief descriptions of severalalternative library bond measures; only one of them will ultimately be placed on the ballot. For each, please tell me whether you thinkyou would vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose it,
7
FairbanA;
Maslin,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 15
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Voters rate expansion of collections and
improving youth activity areas as the
highest priorities for a library bond.
E] Ext,Nery Impt. [] S.W, Impt. i! Not ImpL [] DKINA
*Expanding children’s reading areas in the library
*Expanding space for books and other items to
accommodate a larger collection at the Library
*Providing updated facilities for after-school
programs such as homework tutoring
*Upgrading and repairing the Main Library
Replacing the Mitchell Park Library with an
upgraded and expanded building
0%20%40%60%80% ~00%
12. I am going to read you a list of specific projects that coul.d be funded by the library and community center bond measure. As Iread each one, please tell me how important It Is to you that the project be funded: extremely important, very important, somewhatimportant, or not important. >~Split Sample
Fairbank,
Maslin,Maullin &
Associates
Slide 16
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Continued
D Ext.Nery Impt. [] S.W. Impt. B Not Impt. [] DK/NA
*Improving lighting in libraries to make it easier
to locate and read books
*Upgrading and repairing the Downtown Library
*Offering more computers for public use at the
Mitchell Park Library
*Providing air conditioning at libraries that
currently do not have any
Building a new community center
20%80%
I !
40%60%100%
12, I am going to read you a list of specific projects that could be funded by the library and community center bond measure. As Iread each one, please tell me how important iL is to you that the project be funded: extremely important, very important, somewhatimportant, or not important. *Split Sample
8
Fairbank,
~aullin &
Associates
Slide 17
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
At the conclusion of the survey, a slim
majority of voters indicated that they
supported a $99 library parcel tax.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
20%
10%20%
t TOTAL
YES
53%
0%30%40%
18. Now I would like to ask you about a separate measure that may be on a future Palo Alto ballot. This measure would be an annual
tax of $99 per parcel to expand library collections, increase library hours by twelve percent, improve cleaning and maintenance of all
local libraries, and expand library programs for children, teens and families. The tax would be limited to twenty years, and all
expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and annual audits. Would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose this ballot:
measure?
Fairbank,
~lasli~,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 18
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
$50 Million Public Safety Bond
Description Tested
One/Another measure would authorize $50 million dollars in
general obligation bonds to fund construction of a new public
safety building to be centrally located in Palo Alto.
Improvements would include an upgraded Emergency
Operations Center and 911 dispatch system for police, fire and
paramedic services; safe spaces for interviewing crime victims;
and upgrades to outdated facilities and technology for storing
and analyzing crime evidence. The project would meet and
exceed state and federal standards for being energy efficient
"green buildings." All bond expenditures would be subject to
citizen oversight and independent audits, and no money could
be used for administrators’ salaries.
8. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose It?
9
Fah’banA;
J~laslin,
J~faulliu &
Associates
Slide 19
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
A majority of voters support a
public safety bond.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
27 TOTAL
YES
--"-~10~ i
i i i
Undecided ]11% !i
0%10%20%30%40%
8. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it?
50%
Fairbank,
Masl&,
Maullin &
Associates
Slide 20
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Support declines as voters get more
information about a public safety bond.
100%
Total Yes ~ Total No ~ Total Undecided
80% ........................................................................
57% 55%60o/o ............................................................. 50~/o .......
48% - __
4°°’~ .........~44%38%42%
:,OO/o .......32~/o .............................................................
~ ,o 7%3%o%
After Cost After Positive After NegativeInitial Vote .Information Argument Argument
Total Yes 57%48%55%50%
Total No 32%44%38%42%
Total Undecided 1 t%8%7%8%
8/15/16/~.7. If the election were held today, would you vote yes In favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it?
10
FairbanA;
Maslin,
Mmdliu &
Associates
SLide 21
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
Conclusions
No proposed bond measure currently receives the
support of the required two-thirds of local voters.
[]The City should consider deferring a bond election
until November of 2008.
[]In the interim, the City should work to educate local
residents about the need for library and public
safety facility improvements and the work that has
been done to develop proposals to address those
needs.
City of Palo Alto Bond Measure
Preliminary Survey
March 5, 2007
220-2276
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
Opinion Research & Public Policy Analysis
Santa Monica, CA- Oakland, CA - Madison, WI - Mexico City
11
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 21-26, 2007
PALO ALTO BALLOT MEASURE SURVEY
220-2276 WT
N=600
Hello, I’m from FMMA, a public opinion research company. We’re conducting a public
opinion survey about some important issues that concern residents of Palo Alto. I am not trying to sell
you anything and I will not ask you for a donation or contribution of any kind. May I please speak to
? (MUST SPEAK TO VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE
ADDRESS LISTED; OTHERWISE, TERMINATE.)
bo
[]a.
lib.
[]c.
First, I’m going to describe several different types of elections. After I describe each one,
please tell me if you vote in every election of that type, most of them, some, a few or do you not
vote in that type of election? (DO NOT ROTATE)
EVERY MOST SOME FEW NONE (DK/NA)
Statewide November
general elections
Statewide June primary
elections
79%.........18%2%
65% ..........20%7%
1%........TERM ....TERM
3% ..........5% ........1%
Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto as a place to live: is it an
excellent place to live, a good place to live, only fair, or a poor place to live?
Excellent 59%
Good 34%
Just fair ..........................................5%
Poor 1%
(DON’T READ/DK/NA)0%
I am going to read a short list of public services in the city of Palo Alto. For each one, please
tell me if you think it has a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no real
need for additional funding. (ROTATE)
(DON’T
GREAT SOME LITTLE NO READ)
NEED NEED NEED NEED DK/NA
Public safety ......................................9% .........37%
Public libraries ........29% .........40%
Public schools ......28% .........38%
22%........23% ............9%
12% ........14%6%
9%.........13%11%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 2
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES THAT
MIGHT APPEAR IN AN UPCOMING PALO ALTO ELECTION.
One measure would authorize $95 million dollars in general obligation bonds to: replace Palo
Alto’s public safety building; replace .Mitchell Park Library with a new multi-use library and
community center; and upgrade facilities at the Main and Downtown city libraries. If the election
were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this bond measure or no to oppose it? (IF
YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF UNDECIDED,
ASK:) "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes 26%
Probably yes 22%
Undecided, lean yes 6%
TOTAL YES 55%
Undecided, lean no 4%
Probably no ....................................12%
Definitely no 18%
TOTAL NO ....................................34%
(DON’T READ) Need more info ..........10%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA 1%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 3
Let me tell you a little bit more about this potential bond measure.. It would authorize $95 million
dollars in general obligation bonds for:
A new public safety building that would provide a safe space for interviewing crime victims;
upgrade outdated facilities and technology for storing and analyzing crime evidence;
improve earthquake safety; and provide an upgraded Emergency Operations Center and 9-
1-1 dispatch system for police, fire and paramedic services.
A new library and community center at the site of Mitchell Park Library that would include
room for larger collections; more computers and improved information technology; space for
community meetings and rooms that could be rented to the public for local events; and
dedicated spaces for quiet reading and study. Upgrades would also be made to the Main
and Downtown libraries.
All bond expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and independent audits, and no
money could be used for administrators’ salaries. The projects would meet and exceed state
and federal standards for being energy efficient "green buildings."
If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this bond measure or no to
oppose it? (IF YESlNO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF
UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes (ASK 616)--29%
Probably yes (ASK Q6)--22%
Undecided, lean yes (ASK 616)--8%
TOTAL YES .......................................(ASK Q6)--59%
Undecided, lean no (ASK Q6)--4%
Probably no (ASK 6!6)--1 1%
Definitely no (ASK 616)--1 6%
TOTAL NO .........................., ..............(ASK 616)--31%
(DON’T READ) Need more info ........(SKIP TO Q7/8)--8%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA (SKIP TO Q7/8)--2%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 4
(ASK Q6 ONLY IF YES/NO IN QS)
Why would you vote (YES/NO) on this bond measure? (OPEN-END; RECORD VERBATIM
RESPONSE BELOW)
a. Yes
Library upgrade/repair/improvement ,- 26%
Priority issue/important .....................................................................19%
Public safety building replacement/support police ...........19%
Community benefits/good for public/everyone ........................................15%
Library funding - general/like/need library services ..................................12%
Library replacement/new multi-use library & community center ..................10%
Combination of issues covered/need new buildings (general) ......9%
General positive/good idea/sounds good 8%
Education benefits/need new library materials to enhance learning 7%
Personally use facilities/direct knowledge of need 7%
For the future/next generation/kids 5%
Cost is acceptable/good investment -3%
Dedicated funding/money is needed/will go to right places 2%
Bond method of funding favored 1%
Work environment improvement 1%
Library replacement but not community center .........................................1%
Library only - not public safety building 1%
Public safety building only - not library ....................0%
NA/Refused ......................................................................................2%
b. No
Bond method of funding opposed/no more taxes 26%
Priority is wrong/not needed (general)/other issues are
more important ..........................................................~ ...................20%
Cost not acceptable/can’t afford/taxes are already too high 19%
They have enough money/don’t spend current funds right 15%
Combination of issues covered/too many issues in measure 13%
Library upgrade/repair not needed 7%
Library replacement not needed/should renovate current building 6%
General negative/bad idea/will be poorly implemented 5%
Personally don’t use facilities ................................................................4%
Public safety building replacement not needed/should renovate ...................4%
Libraries don’t need more funding 3%
New buildings aren’t needed/
should use vacant buildings they already own 2%
Wording of measure unclear/confusing 2%
Emotion-based reasoning used 2%
Libraries have been closed ..................................................................1%
Voted no on prior measure ..................................................................0%
Miscellaneous other mentions 0%
NA/Refused ......................................................................................0%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 5
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
NEXT, INSTEAD OF THE BOND MEASURE I JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU, THERE MAY BE TWO
SEPARATE BOND MEASURES ON THE BALLOT. LET ME DESCRIBE THEM TO YOU.
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: READ Q7 THEN Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: READ Q8 THEN Q7)
7. ONE/ANOTHER measure.would authorize $45 million dollars in general obligation bonds to
fund construction of a new Mitchell Park Library, including a new community center, and
upgrades to the Main and Downtown Libraries. Improvements would include room for larger
collections, more computers and improved information technology, space for community
meetings and rooms that could be rented to the public for local events, and dedicated spaces
for quiet reading and study. These projects would meet and exceed state and federal
standards for being energy efficient "green buildings." All bond expenditures would be subject
to citizen oversight and independent audits, and no money could be used for administrators’
salaries.
If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to
oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF
UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes 34%
Probably yes 21%
Undecided, lean yes 9%
TOTAL YES .........................L .....L...63%
Undecided, lean no 6%
Probably no .--10%
Definitely no -- 16%
TOTAL NO ....................................31%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
4%
1%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 6
ONE/ANOTHER measure would authorize $50 million dollars in general obligation bonds to
fund construction of a new public safety building to be centrally located in Palo Alto.
Improvements would include an upgraded Emergency Operations Center and 911 dispatch
system for police, fire and paramedic services; safe spaces for interviewing crime victims; and
upgrades to outdated facilities and technology for storing and analyzing crime evidence. The
project would meet and exceed state and federal standards for being energy efficient "green
buildings." All bond expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and independent audits,
and no money could be used for administrators’ salaries.
If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to
oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF
UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes 27%
Probably yes 20%
Undecided, lean yes 10%
TOTAL YES -57%
Undecided, lean no 5%
Probably no ........11%
Definitely no .....16%
TOTAL NO 32%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
8%
2%
o It is possible that the two bond measures l just described could appear on the same City ballot.
If the $50 million dollar public safety bond and the $45 million dollar library and community
center bond were on the same ballot, would you vote yes on both of them, no on both of them,
or vote yes on just one of them? (IF YES ON JUST ONE OF THEM, ASK: Which one would
you vote yes on?)
Yes on both measures 38%
Yes on public safety bond only ...........14%
Yes on library bond only ....................18%
No on both measures 20%
(DON’T READ) Don’t know .................8%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 7
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: ASK Q10-Q14 ABOUT LIBRARY BOND BEFORE Q15-Q17 ABOUT PUBLIC
SAFETY BOND)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: ASK Q15-Q17 ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY BOND BEFORE Q10-Q14 ABOUT
LIBRARY BOND)
NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL 45
MILLION DOLLAR LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER BOND MEASURE.
10.Suppose that this library and community center bond measure resulted in an annual property
tax increase of (READ EACH, RECORD) per 100 thousand dollars of
assessed value - which is based on the value of the house as identified on your most recent
property tax bill and no~t its current market value. Would you vote yes in favor of it or no to
oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF
UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
(DO NOT ROTATE)
DEF PROB LEAN LEAN PROB DEF (DK/
YE._.~S YE___~S YES N__~O N._~O N_~O NA)
a.20 dollars 28% .......
b.16 dollars 29% .......
c.11 dollars 37% .......
15%.........8% .........6% .........15% .....23% .......6%
17% .........8% .........6% .........12% .....20% .......8%
17%.........8% .........3% ..........8% ......18% .......8%
11.The final structure of this library bond measure has not been determined. I am going to read
you brief descriptions of several alternative library bond measures; only on__.~e of them will
ultimately be placed on the ballot. For each, please tell me whether you think you would vote
yes in favor of it, or no to oppose it. (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just
probably (YES/NO)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?")
(DO NOT ROTATE)
bo
DEF PROB LEAN LEAN PROB DEF (DK/
YES YES YE__~S N__~_O N__~O N__~_O NA)
A 35 million dollar bond
measure that would fund
a new Mitchell Park
Library and upgrades to
the Main and Downtown
libraries, but would not~
include a new community
center ...............22% .......
A 25 million dollar bond
measure that would fund
a new Mitchell Park
Library, but would no__~t
include upgrades to the
Main and Downtown
libraries or a new
community center.17% .......
25%........12% ........
16%........10% .......
8%.........12% .....16% .......5%
11%........17% .....24% .......5%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 8
12.
[]a.
lib.
Next, I am going to read you a list of specific projects that could be funded by the library and
community center bond measure. As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you
that the project be funded: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not
important. (ROTATE)
(DON’T
EXT VERY SW NOT READ)
IMPT.IMPT.IMPT.IMPT.DK/N__._..~A
Building a new community center
Replacing the Mitchell Park Library with an
upgraded and expanded building
.7% ......16% ......
..... 19% .....29% ......
38%....35% .......4%
31% ....18% .......3%
(SPLIT
[]c.
[]d.
lie.
[]f.
SAMPLE A ONLY)
Expanding children’s reading areas in the library .........19% .....35% ......
Upgrading and repairing the Main Library 15% .....34% ......
Offering more computers for public use at the
Mitchell Park Library ..............................16% .....25% ......
Improving lighting in libraries to make it easier to
locate and read books .-16% .....32% ......
28%....15% .......3%
29% ....19% .......3%
31%....23% .......4%
25% ....24% .......3%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]g. Expanding space for books and other items to
accommodate a larger collection at the Library ............22% .....32% ......
[ ]h.Providing updated facilities for after-school
programs such as homework tutoring 20% .....33% ......
[ ]i. Upgrading and repairing the Downtown Library 17% .....26% ......
[ ]j. Providing air conditioning at libraries that currently
do not have any .-18% .....21% ......
27%....16% .......2%
29%....16% .......3%
28% ....23% .......7%
27%....29% .......4%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 9
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
NEXT, I’D LIKE TO READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF
THE PROPOSED 45 MILLION DOLLAR LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER BOND MEASURE.
13.First, here’s what supporters say about the library and community cente’r bond. Palo Alto
libraries have limited space for collections, poor lighting, and do not meet standards for
earthquake safety or disabled access. This bond measure will fund upgrades at all Palo Alto
branch libraries that have not already been upgraded, and will fund a new Mitchell Park Library
and community center with room for expanded collections, better lighting and air conditioning,
and more computers for public use. It will also make it possible to offer Palo Alto children and
teens more safe after-school activities.
Now that you have heard more about it, let me ask you again. Would you vote yes in favor or
no to oppose the 45 million dollar library and community center bond measure? (IF YES/NO
ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yeslno)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do
you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes ..................................33%
Probably yes --22%
Undecided, lean yes 10%
TOTAL YES ...................................65%
Undecided, lean no ...........................5%
Probably no ...........10%
Definitely no ........16%
TOTAL NO ....................................31%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
3%
1%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 10
14.Next, here is what opponents say about the library and community center bond. The proposed
bond measure is a waste of taxpayer money. Our current libraries and community centers
already meet the city’s needs, and nearly all the money from this measure would be spent on
just the Mitchell Park Library. The City should tighten its belt and cut waste from the existing
City budget to fund library improvements.
Now that you have heard more about it, let me ask you one last time: would you vote yes in
favor or no to oppose the 45 million dollar library and community center bond measure? (IF
YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yes/no)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:)
"Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes -32%
Probably yes -21%
Undecided, lean yes 9%
TOTAL YES ...................................62%
Undecided, lean no 5%
Probably no 12%
Definitely no .......17%
TOTAL NO 35%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
3%
0%
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: ASK Q15-Q17 ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY BOND BEFORE Q10-Q14 ABOUT
LIBRARY BOND)
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: ASK Q10-Q14 ABOUT LIBRARY BOND BEFORE Q15-Q17 ABOUT PUBLIC
SAFETY BOND)
NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL 50
MILLION DOLLAR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING BOND MEASURE.
15.Suppose that this public safety building bond measure resulted in an annual property tax
increase of 22 dollars per 100 thousand dollars of assessed value - which is based on the
value of the house as identified on your most recent property tax bill and no.__~t its current market
value. Would you vote yes in favor of it or no to oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that
definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:)"Well, do you lean
towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes 21%
Probably yes 20%
Undecided, lean yes 7%
TOTAL YES 48%
Undecided, lean no 6%
Probably no 13%
Definitely no 25%
TOTAL NO ....................................44%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
5%
3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 11
NEXT, I’D LIKE TO READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF
THE PROPOSED 50 MILLION DOLLAR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING BOND MEASURE.
16.First, here is a statement from supporters of the public safety building bond. Palo Alto’s current
public safety building is dangerously out-of-date, with inadequate facilities. These problems
could cut off public safety services in an emergency or leave the city open to lawsuits by
employees and fines by the state. This bond measure will replace the public safety building
with one that will provide safe interview spaces for rape, domestic abuse and child abuse
victims; ensure that the chain of crime evidence is maintained; and ensure our public safety
officials can still respond rapidly in the event of a natural disaster or emergency.
Now that you have heard more about it, if the election were held today, would youvote yes in
favor or no to oppose the 50 million dollar public safety building bond measure? (IF YES/NO
ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yes/no)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do
you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes 26%
Probably yes 20%
Undecided, lean yes 9%
TOTAL YES ...................................55%
Undecided, lean no 7%
Probably no ....11%
Definitely no 20%
TOTAL NO ....................................38%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’TREAD) DK/NA
7%
1%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 12
17.
18.
Next, here is what opponents say about the public safety building bond. This bond is just
another costly measure we do not need. There is no serious crime problem in Palo Alto, police
and fire response times are good enough, and our Police Department is doing a good job with
its current facility. City administrators are just trying to scare us into giving them more money to
build a fancy new City building. If we really do need improvements, they should use existing
funds to upgrade the current facility instead of building a brand-new 50-million dollar building.
Now that you have heard more about it, let me ask you one last time, would you vote yes in
favor or no to oppose the 50 million dollar public safety building bond measure? (IF YES/NO
ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yes/no)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) "Well, do
you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes .-23%
Probably yes .-20%
Undecided, lean yes 7%
TOTAL YES ...................................50%
Undecided, lean no 7%
Probably no 13%
Definitely no ....22%
TOTAL NO ,42%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
7%
1%
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT A SEPARATE MEASURE
THAT MAY ALSO BE ON A FUTURE PALO ALTO BALLOT.
This measure would be an annual tax of 99 dollars per parcel to expand library collections,
increase library hours by twelve percent, improve cleaning and maintenance of all local
libraries, and expand library programs for children, teens and families. The tax would be limited
to twenty years, and all expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and annual audits. If
the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose this ballot measure?
(IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yes/no)?" (IF UNDECIDED,
ASK:) "Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?"
Definitely yes 26%
Probably yes ,--20%
Undecided, lean yes,7%
TOTAL YES ,53%
Undecided, lean no 6%
Probably no 10%
Definitely no 21%
TOTAL NO ...........* ........................38%
(DON’T READ) Need more info
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
6%
3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 13
THESE ARE MY FINAL QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY.
19.Do you ... (READ LIST)
Own a single family home .71%
Own a condominium 5%
Rent an apartment or home 22%
(DON’T READ) DK/NNREFUSED .......2%
(ASK Q20 ONLY IF HOMEOWNER- CODE 1 OR 2 IN Q19)
20. Did you buy your home before 1978, or in 1978 or after?
Before 1978
In 1978 or after
(DON’T KNOW/NA)
34%
65%
1%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
21. Do you live north or south of Oregon Expressway?
North
South
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
47%
49%
4%
22.What was the last level of school that you completed?
Grades 1-8 1%
Grades 9-12 1%
High School graduate ........................4%
Less than 4 years of college ..............16%
College graduate (4)38%
Post graduate work/
Professional school 41%
(DON’T READ) Refused 0%
23.Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home?
Yes 32%
No 67%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA 1%
24.With which racial
Caucasian, Black
background?
or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Latino or Hispanic, White or
or African-American, Asian-American, or some other ethnic or racial
Hispanic/Latino 3%
White/Caucasian .-79%
Black/African-American 1%
Asian-American --- 10%
Other (SPECIFY .).1%
(DON’T READ) DK/NNREFUSED .......6%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2276 WT PAGE 14
25.
26.
In what year were you born?
1989-1983
1982-1978
1977-1973
1972-1968
1967-1963
1962-1958
1957-1953
1952-1948
1947-1943
(18-24)4%
(25-29)6%
(30-34),5%
(35-39)7%
(40-44)..........................10%
(45-49) ..........................10%
(50-54)..........................10%
(55-59) ..........................10%
(60-64)8%
1942-1933 (65-74) ..........12%
1932 or earlier (75 & over) ................13%
(DON’T READ) Refused 5%
Idon’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that
includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2006. Was it:
Under $50,000 a year---: ...................12%
$50,001 to $100,000 17%
$100,001 to $150,000 .......................16%
$150,001 to $200,000 .......................10%
$200,001 to $250,000 ........................4%
Over $250,000 5%
(DON’T READ) Refused 35%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES
THANK AND TERMINATE
GENDER (BY OBSERVATION):
PARTY REGISTRATION:
Name
Address
Zip
Phone #
Cluster-#
220-2276 WT PAGE 15
Male ............48%
Female .........................52%
Democrat ........................................54%
Republican 21%
Decline to State .........22%
Other .......3%
Precinct #
Interviewer
Voter I D#
FLAGS
P02 .....................38%
G02 60%
R03 70%
P04 60%
G04 87%
N05 74%
P06 92%
G06.88%
VOTE BY MAIL
1 "20%
21 9%
3+ ......................................29%
Blank 42%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes 40%
No 60%
A/B SPLIT
A 50%
B 50%
C/D SPLIT
C 50%
D 50%
HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE
Dem 1 25%
Dem 2+20%
Rep 1 8%
Rep 2+ .................................7%
Ind 1+ .................................14%
Mix .....27%
LIKELY JUNE 2008 VOTER
Yes,
No
76%
24%
Attachment B
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY
DATE:DECEMBER 4, 2006 CMR: 429:06
SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL LIBRARY SERVICE MODEL ANALYSIS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (LSMAR) REPORT AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO UNDERTAKE COMMUNITY POLLING PRIOR
TO FINAL DECISIONS ON LIBRARY SERVICE AND FACILITY ENHANCEMENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Library Advisory Commission recommends that the Council:
1)Accept the recommendations for enhanced library programs and services as .outlined in
the attached transmittal to the LSMAR report (Attachment 2 -pp. 6-10).
2)Move forward with Group 4 Architecture’s Option 3 (combined library and community
center) for an enhanced Mitchell Park library recognizing the many advantages and
opportunities of a joint use facility. The LAC acknowledges the library program can be
accommodated in Option 2 (new stand alone library) but strongly urges the Council to
recognize the needs of the community and to plan for the future.
3)Expand planned infrastructure improvements for the Main, College Terrace and
Downtown libraries to include updates to public and staff spaces in the form of fresh
paint, carpeting, better lighting, and sufficient funds be provided for new furniture and
shelving.
4) Further analyze the needs at Main library for group study space and a program room.
Staff recommends that the Council:
1) Accept the final LSMAR report and LAC transmittal document.
CMR: 429:06 Page 1 of 7
CMR: 429:06 Page 2 of 7
2)Direct staff to undertake community polling prior to making any final decisions on
library service and facility enhancements. The scope of any polling would also include
the public safety building.
3)Provide preliminary input on the programs and services scaled options and continue this
discussion throughout the spring of 2007 as information from the City Auditor’s report
and community polling becomes available.
4)Refer to the City/School Liaison Committee the recommendations outlined in the
LSMAR for further analysis of partnership opportunities.
BACKGROUND
In December 2004, the City Council directed the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) to
"recommend a strategy for creating a full-service library at the existing or another site; a strategy
to include maintaining neighborhood facilities and distributed services; to maintain collection
services; and to ... recommend a redefinition of branch services." Since that time, the LAC and
staff have worked to develop this strategy, now called the "Library Service Model Analysis and
Recommendations (LSMAR)."
The LAC presented a draft of the LSMAR report and recommendations to the Council on May
’15, 2006.
The Council conceptually approved these key concepts in the draft report:
¯ Maintain all current library locations;
° Expand and!or improve access to services and collections and seek technological and
other efficiencies; and
¯Upgrade Mitchell Park library services from branch library resource levels without
downgrading the Main library.
The Council stated that existing General Fund revenues committed to library services would not
grow (other than inflation) to cover any library improvements, but rather, the additional required
funding for non-capital and operating costs should come from a parcel tax or another non-
General Fund source.
Given these principles, the Council directed the LAC and staffto:
°Determine methods to reduce operating costs;
°Determine how big Mitchell Park library would need to be;
°Determine facilities growth requirements (if any) at other libraries;
°Be explicit about service levels at Main assuming that Main library will continue to serve
adults, teens and children;
°Maintain 4th and 5th grade services at Children’s library;
°Prepare preliminary cost models/projections/estimates for capital and staffing needs;
°Develop scaled versions of the recommendations with costs;
¯Identify strategy and funding for increasing collections;
CMR: 429:06 Page 3 of 7
®
Provide more analysis of strategies related to City/School partnerships; and
Outline what would need to happen at the libraries if no funding for the recommendations
can be approved.
DISCUSSION
Since the May meeting, staff and the LAC have worked to create a framework for addressing
Council’s directives. The LAC has held public meetings approximately every two weeks since
July to address specific focus areas of the LSMAR, The LAC also formed an ad hoc committee
to address Mitchell Park site planning issues. This committee worked as part of the Space Study
Project Management Team working with Group 4 Architecture to develop site and space
recommendations for Mitchell Park. The working schedules for the LSMAR and the space study
are included with this report as Attachment 1. The two CMRs on the December 4 Council
agenda are a culmination of these efforts by the LAC, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the
community and staff.
Addressing Council Directives:
This section provides an overview of how each Council directive has or will be addressed.
1) Determine methods to reduce operating costs
At its October 23 meeting, the City Council approved a staff recommendation to delay
consideration of this directive until after the City Auditor finishes her report in the spring
of 2007. After completion of the report, staff will work with the LAC to present options
to the Council for accomplishing this objective. This work will be key to ensuring the
efficiency of library services and will help determine the total amount of funding
necessary for additional program and service funding. It will be important to finalize this
analysis and discussion before the Council decides whether to move forward with a ballot
measure to fund improvements to library services.
2) Determine how big Mitchell Park library would need to be; and
3) Determine facilities growth requirements (if any) at other libraries
The presentation by Group 4 Architecture at this evening’s study session and the related
staff report regarding library facility enhancements will address these directives. The
scope of services for Group 4 included an analysis of population growth and future
library usage at all of the branches. A library planning consultant, Page + Morris, was
hired as a subconsultant to Group 4. Based on the subconsultant’s recommendations,
Group 4 then developed facility growth options for each of the branches within the Palo
Alto library system.
4)Be explicit about service levels at Main assuming that the Main library will continue to
serve adults, teens and children
The revised LSMAR continues the current level of services at Main library.
CMR: 429:06 Page 4 of 7
5) Maintain 4th and 5th grade services at Children’s library
The revised LSMAR maintains 4th and 5th grade services at Children’s library.
6) Prepare preliminary cost models/projections/estimates for capital and staffing needs; and
7) Develop scaled versions of the recommendations with costs
The attached transmittal document of the LSMAR (Attachment 2) identifies the scaled
options recommended by the LAC for programs and services. For each category, there is
a "top-tier" level of investment and a "mid-tier" level of investment. The LAC has
recommended both tiers of investment. The mid-tier level of investment was developed
in recognition of the fiscal constraints under which the City is currently operating and
stemmed from an interest in recommending a more reasonable level of enhancements for
the library system. The programs and services descriptive information appears on pages
6-10 of the transmittal document and the table in Attachment A to the transmittal outlines
the costs associated with each tier. Attachment A also identifies those enhancements
available with existing funds,
The Council also directed the LAC to develop scaled options for facilities. As it was
necessary to complete the LSMAR report before completion of the facility study, the
LAC determined that it was premature to recommend these scaled options. Instead, the
LAC recommended that both the low and high size ranges for a new Mitchell Park library
or combined library/community center be further evaluated as additional information on
the costs and site impacts is developed. The LAC also wanted more information on costs
to upgrade Main library and make the additional improvements at the Downtown and
College Terrace libraries before making a recommendation on how to scale or phase in
these improvements.
On the programs and services scaled options, staff also recommends that the Council
provide preliminary input on these recommendations and continue this discussion
throughout the spring of 2007. If the Council decides to put a measure on the ballot to
fund library services (e.g. a parcel tax), there are not the same schedule constraints as
those associated with a bond measure. This will allow time for analysis and discussion of
the Auditor’s report recommendations, other library costing information, and community
polling information.
8) Provide more analysis of strategies related to City/School partnerships
The attached transmittal of the LSMAR provides a section that addresses this directive
(Attachment 2, pp. 13-14). The "scaled options" format was not appropriate for a
discussion of this directive. Consequently, the analysis focuses on recommended areas
for future discussion with the School District. In addressing the directive, the LAC
worked with PAUSD and City staff and sought input from the Palo Alto Council of PTAs
to analyze existing and future opportunities for City/School partnerships. The LAC
recommended numerous specific items for further exploration, analysis and discussion.
CMR: 429:06 Page 5 of 7
Many of these recommendations will require cooperation between the School District and
the City, with input from the City Council, the School Board and staff members. The
LSMAR has provided a starting point for these discussions and staff recommends that the
Council refer these recommendations to the City/School Liaison Committee for further
discussion.
9)Outline what would need to happen at the libraries if no funding for the recommendations
can be approved
The Council, at its October 23 meeting, provided direction to delay analysis related to
this directive until after completion of the City Auditor’s report in the spring. Staff from
the Library and Administrative Services Departments have begun preliminary discussions
about projected operating costs increases for the next five years. These costs come from
the Long Range Financial Plan projections and will help to inform the discussions. Staff
will prepare an analysis of potential trade offs for the library system for discussion with
both the LAC and the City Council. The LAC has expressed a strong interest in
reviewing this analysis and providing the Council with its recommendations. Library
staff will work with the Auditor, after completion of the report, to ensure the LAC has
adequate time to review and comment on any recommendations made.
Community Outreach/Polling: At the October 23 meeting, the City Council asked staff to return
with information about the timing and scope of polling for community sentiment towards
fianding for the public safety building and any library facility and!or service enhancements.
Based on initial discussions with a polling consultant, staff is recommending that preliminary
polling occur before the City invests time and money on environmental and design work for any
library facility enhancements. While it is possible that the library projects could still proceed in
time for a June 2008 ballot if this recommendation is approved, there is the possibility that the
time required to do the design and environmental assessment on a selected library project may
push the library measure out to a November 2008 ballot. Staff believes, however, that
information from the community polling is integral to Council making a decision on a library or
library/community center project. This could result in two potential measures going before the
public on different ballots. Staff recommends proceeding with a RFP immediately to hire a firm
and begin polling in the early spring for both the public safety and library facilities projects. If
the scope of this work exceeds the City Manager’s contracting authority, staff will return to the
Council in January or February to award the contract and request funding for the polling firm.
RESOURCE IMPACT
As the Council considers options for renovation of the libraries and enhanced services, it is
important to note the many financial challenges facing the General Fund and the need for new
revenue sources for facility and service enhancements.
In the Long Range Financial Forecast, to be presented to the Finance Committee on December
12, relatively modest operating surpluses are projected through 2010-11. Major cost items such
as the General Fund’s contribution to retiree medical benefits, the recently approved 2.7% at 55
retirement benefit, and Council’s long-time goal of contributing an additional $1.0 million to the
CMR: 429:06 Page 6 of 7
Infrastructure Reserve are contained in the Forecast. Between cost offsets such as the cap on
employee medical costs and improving revenues, the City has been able to address these
expenses and liabilities.
Nevertheless, the General Fund faces additional challenges. These include, for example, meeting
Council’s goal of an additional $3.0 million annually in infrastructure funding, offsetting reduced
Refuse Rent beginning in 2010-11, the potential loss of an estimated $1.5 million in UUT
telephone revenues due to changing technology, and the possible exit of more automobile
dealerships. Although recommendations and plans are underway to cope with these issues, the
City still has the daunting task of reducing programs and services (yet to be identified) by $1.5
million to reach the $3.0 million infrastructure goal.
As stated in prior infrastructure studies and as policy approved by Council, new infrastructure
efforts and new service levels require new revenue sources. As the Long Range Forecast will
show, there is very limited capacity to absorb any new expenses. Debt financing the capital costs
envisioned in this report will require a fresh, ongoing revenue stream to finance debt service.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Any LSMAR recommendations implemented will undergo environmental review,
if and to the extent required.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Working schedule forLSMAR and Mitchell Park Space Study
LAC Transmittal, including final LSMAR document and other
supporting attachments
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
KELLY MORARIU
Assistant to the City Manager
DIANE JENNINGS
Library Director
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 429:06 Page 7 of 7