HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-04 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
September 4, 2012
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 September 4, 2012
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, Kathryn Shen, 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)
Special Orders of the Day
2. Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to the Rotary Club of Palo Alto
3. Proclamation Declaring the Month of September to be Emergency
Preparedness Month
4. Proclamation Recognizing Suicide Prevention Week,
September 9-15, 2012
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 September 4, 2012
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
April 23, 2012
April 30, 2012
May 7, 2012
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Arlene Demore Upon her
Retirement
6. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Contract
with Three Phase Line Construction in a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$607,997 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor
Project on the City’s Electric Distribution System Near Middlefield and
San Antonio Road
7. Approval of City Response to the Adopted Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 Cycle
8. Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Execution of
the State of California Department of Community Services and
Development 2012-2014 Direct Payment Program Agreement No. 12Y-
1418 Governing the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department's
Administration of Home Energy Assistance Program Funds
9. Approval of Contract with ADPI West for Ambulance Billing Services for
Up to Five Years in a Total Amount not to Exceed $900,000
10. Approval of Amendment No. 19 to the Contract with the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Administration to
Extend the Term for One Year and Add $51,980 for a Total Not To
Exceed Amount of $2,877,244
11. Approval of a Contract for Up to Five Years with York Risk Services
Group, Inc. In a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,175,000 for Workers’
Compensation Claims Administration Services.
3 September 4, 2012
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.
12. Request for City Council to Cancel the Regular Meeting of September
17, 2012 and Call for a Special Meeting on Tuesday, September 18,
2012
13. Approval of Purchase Order with Leader Industries in an Amount Not
to Exceed $393,267 for the Purchase of Two Ambulances (Scheduled
Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program
VR-13000)
14. Approval of Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority for 2010 Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee
Local Road Improvement and Repair Program
15. City of Palo Alto's Ballot for 2012-13 Peninsula Division Executive
Committee Elections
16. 2nd Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance Regarding Massage
Regulations
17. 2nd Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting a Plan for
Improvements at Cogswell Plaza
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.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
18. Consideration of a Vote of Support for the Revote High Speed Rail
Initiative
19. Request for Authorization to Submit a Grant Proposal to the County of
Santa Clara for the "Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program: Connecting
the Bay to Ridge" for $10.4 Million of Recreation Funds Established by
the County/Stanford Trails Agreement
20. Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Pension and Other Post-
Employment Benefits
4 September 4, 2012
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.
21. Approval of City Positions for the 2012 League of California Cities
Resolutions
22. Adoption of Two Resolutions: (1) Adopting a New Compensation Plan
for Management and Professional and (2) Amending Chapter 9 of the
Merit System Rules and Regulations to Revise Rules Related to
Probationary Periods
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 disabilities who require auxiliary 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 September 4, 2012
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
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Action Minutes
July 2, 2012 July 9, 2012 July 16, 2012 July 23, 2012
Informational Report
Gifts to the City Fiscal Year 2012
City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary First Quarter Sales
(January - March 2012)
Update on Public Opinion Research Request for Proposals
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Proclamation Expressing Appreciation to the Rotary Club of Palo Alto
ATTACHMENTS:
Rotary Club (DOCX)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/6/2012 12:37 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Rotary Club of Palo Alto
Whereas, the Rotary Club of Palo Alto, who over the last 90 years has devoted the time and
energy of its members to community projects that have benefited the City and its residents; and
Whereas, the Rotary Club of Palo Alto; established the very successful La Comida Program
at Avenidas, improved gateway entrances to the City, assisted in upgrading the gardens at
Gamble Garden, painted building exteriors and interiors for many non-profits such as the Red
Cross, Abilities United and many more, had the vision to implement the Sister City Sculpture
installed in front of City Hall, and contributes over $50,000 per year to local charities; and
Whereas, the City is most recently grateful to the nearly 50 Rotarians and family members
who volunteered their time over 6 weekends in June and July of 2012 to construct five structures
that provide shade for the picnic tables at Greer Park – Scott Meadow. This adds to the ambience
of Greer Park by providing a shady spot for picnickers and visitors to enjoy; and
Whereas, the City of Palo Alto wishes to thank the Rotary Club of Palo Alto and its members
for their personal commitment and pride in the community, for their significant personal efforts,
and good citizenship.
Now, therefore, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the City Council,
do hereby gratefully extend sincere appreciation to the Members of the Rotary Club of Palo Alto
for their excellent service rendered to the city for many decades.
Presented: September 4, 2012
_________________________
Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Proclamation Declaring the Month of September to be Emergency
Preparedness Month
ATTACHMENTS:
September 2012 National Preparedness Month (DOC)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/27/2012 2:28 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Declaring the Month of September to be
Emergency Preparedness Month
Whereas, this is a unique opportunity for Palo Alto to join forces with thousands of other communities
across the country to promote personal preparedness; and
Whereas; the City of Palo Alto wants to change perceptions about emergency preparedness and help
Palo Altans take simple steps to get "Ready" and to prepare for emergencies and disasters, including all
hazards, including, crime, terrorism, earthquakes, infrastructure failure, and other risks. Even though we
don't know when or where disasters and emergencies may strike, we do know that we can do more to be
prepared for the unexpected; and
Whereas, many things compete for our attention these days. While it may seem overwhelming or
unimportant to get prepared, we know from experience that taking steps to prepare ahead of time can help
you respond better and stay safer in an emergency; and
Whereas, the time and effort you invest now in preparing will help you and your family navigate through
and recover quickly from what may come our way at the most unexpected moment. The time to act is now,
before the next disaster strikes; and
Whereas, the Office of Emergency Services has restructured our Emergency Services Volunteer (ESV)
program to include Amateur Radio (ham) operators, Block Preparedness Coordinators (which includes
Neighborhood Watch), and our Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). There is a role for
neighbors, businesses, and non-government organizations in volunteering or otherwise helping to improve
our community's resilience. The Quakeville community-based disaster exercise will be held on September
22, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the Palo Alto City
Council do hereby declare the month of September to be Emergency Preparedness Month in the City of Palo
Alto. I call upon all citizens of the Palo Alto Community to join together as we support the 9th annual
National Preparedness Month sponsored nationally by the Department of Homeland Security.
Presented: September 4, 2012
____________________
Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Proclamation Recognizing Suicide Prevention Week, September 9-15,
2012
ATTACHMENTS:
Suicide Prevention Week September (DOC)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/27/2012 12:44 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Recognizing Suicide Prevention Week
September 9-15, 2012
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recognizes suicide as a public health problem, and suicide
prevention as a public responsibility, and designates September 9-15, 2012 “Suicide Prevention Week”
in Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, suicide is the 10th leading cause of all deaths in the United States and the 3rd leading
cause of death among individuals between the ages of 12 to 24; and
WHEREAS, in the United States, one person completed suicide every 12.2 minutes; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated at that 4.73 million people in the United States are survivors of suicide;
and
WHEREAS, an increase in the overall suicide rate in our country was seen in 2009, representing a
change in the recent pattern of slight declines; and
WHEREAS, the stigma associated with mental illness discourages persons at risk for suicide from
seeking life-saving help and further traumatizes survivors of suicide; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 the City of Palo Alto adopted a Suicide Prevention Policy and aspires to reduce
loss of life from death by suicide and the pain of survivors affected by suicide of loved ones, through
prevention outreach and training of the signs and symptoms associated with suicide; and
WHEREAS, loss of life by suicide is preventable.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council
do hereby proclaim September 9 -15, 2012 as “National Suicide Prevention Week” in the City of Palo
Alto.
Presented: September 4, 2012
______________________________
Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Arlene Demore Upon her
Retirement
ATTACHMENTS:
Arlene Demore (DOCX)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/6/2012 12:38 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO ARLENE DEMORE UPON HER RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore was born in Sacramento, raised in Santa Cruz, worked for the City
of Palo Alto for 30 years, and returned back to Santa Cruz in retirement; and
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore worked for Santa Cruz University processing student loans and
administering veterans benefits; and
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore provided 18 years of dedicated service to the Palo Alto Police
Department as the Staff Secretary for the Communications and Records Divisions, and 12 years of
service to the City Clerk’s Office as an Administrative Associate III; and
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore received numerous letters of commendation from members of the
public and Police Department for her dedication, outstanding service and professionalism; and
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore served 35 Council Members, typed over 250 sets of minutes,
attended dozens of Standing Committee meetings, and helped countless members of the public; and
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore embraced new technologies, learning how to use computers,
modern minute taking equipment, website tools, agenda software, and more; and
WHEREAS, Arlene Demore kept everyone at City Hall smiling in response to her sharp sense
of humor, outrageous Halloween costumes, and warm personality which will be greatly missed.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
commends the outstanding public service of Arlene Demore and records its appreciation, as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon her retirement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: September 4, 2012
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________ _________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________ _________________
City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2994)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Electric Underground Rebuild & Reconductor Project
Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Contract
with Three Phase Line Construction in a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$607,997 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project on
the City’s Electric Distribution System Near Middlefield and San Antonio
Road
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with Three
Phase Line Construction Inc. in the amount of $552,997 for the Electric Underground
System Rebuild projects along and near Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road (see
attachment C).
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with Three Phase Line Construction for related, additional
but unforeseen, work which may develop during the project; the total of which shall not
exceed $55,000 (10% of the contract price).
Background
As part of its Capital Improvement Program the City’s Utilities Department develops projects to
rebuild the electric system and replace electrical equipment that is nearing the end of its useful
life, or that has been identified, during regular inspection, as requiring replacement. This is to
prevent failures due to age or deterioration, and ensure safe, reliable, performance of the
electric system. Staff has identified six (6) areas for electric system rebuild in Attachment C;
much of this equipment was installed in the early to mid 1970’s. These jobs were bundled
together into one package and put out for bid to ensure that the City receives competitive
pricing and quality service.
Discussion
This project involves the removal and replacement of underground electrical cable and
equipment along Middlefield Road between San Antonio Road and Loma Verde Avenue; San
Antonio Road between East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road; the end of Torreya Court;
Toyon Place, and the Green House Condominiums. The cable in these areas has been in service
for between 30 and 40 years, and needs to be replaced to maintain safe and reliable service to
customers. New cable will be installed and electrical system designs changed to meet current
City and industry standards.
This project also includes converting primary circuits from 4kV to 12kV. Changing the primary
voltage reduces electrical losses, reduces material inventory requirements, and improves
voltage regulation. Electrical system design will be changed to increase flexibility and reduce
potential outage times for customers. Both improvements will increase the area’s overall
reliability and efficiency of operation.
The work to be performed under this contract includes the labor, equipment, and management
of all field activities, in coordination with City’s Operations staff, for the removal and
installation of underground electric cable, transformers, and cable terminations. This part of
the project is being contracted out as there are insufficient resources within the department to
staff these larger projects. All materials to complete the project will be procured by the City.
The following table is a summary of the bid process:
Bid Name / Number Electric Underground Cable Rebuild and Re-
conductor Project / IFB – 144779
Proposed Length of Project 3 months
Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 10
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 2
Total Days to Respond to Bid 21
Pre-Bid Meeting Yes
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid
Meeting
10
Number of Bids Received 3*
Bid Price Range From $552,997 to $741,100
* Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $552,997 submitted by
Three Phase Line Construction be accepted and that Three Phase Line Construction be declared
the lowest responsible bidder by Council. The bid amount is approximately 11% above the
engineer’s estimate of $500,000 and approximately 14% below the next lowest bid.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file and also checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work
performed and found all to be satisfactory.
Timeline
Construction is scheduled to begin the week of September 10 , 2012 and is to be completed
within 90 days.
Resource Impact
Funds for this capital improvement project are available from the following prior and current
approved budgets:
EL-08000 East Charleston 4/12 kV Conversion
EL-09000 Middlefield Road Underground Rebuild
EL-11001 Torreya Court Rebuild
EL-11006 Rebuild Underground District 18
EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condominium Area
EL-12000 Rebuild Underground District 12
Policy Implications
The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies, including the Council
approved Utilities Strategic Plan to operate the distribution system in a cost effective manner
and to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable serivce.
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under
Public Resources Code Sec. 15301 (repair or maintenance of existing facilities), and 15302
(replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Contract# C13144779 (PDF)
Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF)
Attachment C: Project Locations (PDF)
Prepared By: Jim Pachikara, Power Engineer
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C13144779
City of Palo Alto
and
Three Phase Line Construction
PROJECT
“Electric Underground Cable Re‐conductor”
2 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. ....................5
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………..............................5
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. .........................5
3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………......5
3.2 Order of Precedence ……………………………………………………………………………................6
SECTION 4. THE WORK …………………………………………………………………………………..............................7
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM …………………………………………………………………………...............................7
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION …………………………………………………………………............................7
6.1 Time Is of Essence........................................................................................……… 7
6.2 Commencement of Work..................................................................................... 7
6.3 Contract Time....................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Liquidated Damages............................................................................................. 7
6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time........................................................................... … 8
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8
7.1 Contract Sum ………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9
7.3.1 Self Performed Work…………………………………………………………………………………9
7.3.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………….9
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE...................................................................................................9
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION......................................................................................................10
9.1 Hold Harmless ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
9.2 Survival ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION ..............................................................................................10
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ..........................................................................................10
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS..........................................................................11
3 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 13. NOTICES....................................................................................................................11
13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................. 11
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................... 12
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes........................................................................... 12
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ............................................................................... 12
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes …………………………………………………………………………………….12
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election …………………………………………………………...........................12
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13
14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process...............................................................…… 13
14.4.1 Direct Negotiation…………………………………………………………………………………….13
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14
14.4.3 Mediation …………………………………………………………………………..14
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ………………………………………………………………..14
14.5 Non‐Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
SECTION 15. DEFAULT...................................................................................................................16
15.1 Notice of Default.................................................................................................. 16
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ................................................................................ 16
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES..................................................................................16
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ....................................................................................... 16
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services …………………………………………………………...........................16
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17
16.2 Delays by Sureties................................................................................................ 17
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................... 17
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience..................................................................... 18
16.6 Termination Without Cause ................................................................................. 18
16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18
16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination................................................................. 19
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES...................................................................19
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies......................................................................................... 19
4 Rev. May 1, 2012
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage …………………………………………………………………………………..19
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19
17.2 Damages to Contractor ........................................................................................ 19
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS............................................................................................19
18.1 Financial Management and City Access..........................................................……. 19
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ........................................................................ …. 20
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES.............................................................................................20
SECTION 20. NUISANCE.................................................................................................................20
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES............................................................................................20
SECTION 22. WAIVER....................................................................................................................20
SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW .....................................................................................................20
SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT ...........................................................................................21
SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT..........................................................................................21
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES..................................................................................................21
SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION ..............................................................................................21
SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS........................................................................................21
SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES........................................................................................................21
SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS........................................................................................................21
SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY ...........................................................................................................21
5 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on September 4, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between
the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Three Phase Line
Construction ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of
California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the
State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of New Hampshire,
Contractor’s License Number 946712. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of
California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set
forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On May 2, 2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the “Electric
Underground Cable Re‐conductor” (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other
services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and
in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the “Electric Underground Cable Re‐conductor” ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist
of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
6 Rev. May 1, 2012
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005
and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the
preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
7 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other
things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without
limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable
Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires
that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of
the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within ninety calendar days (90) after the commencement date specified in City’s
Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of
Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
8 Rev. May 1, 2012
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all
other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event
Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the
Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per
day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor
achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is
not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City
will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall
be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where
City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by
Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Five Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety
Seven Dollars ($552,997).
9 Rev. May 1, 2012
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover
all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen
difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until
its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to
suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change
Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving
Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by
City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is
attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors
and Sub‐subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor
Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be
computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self‐Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
10 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City,
from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to
any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors, of
any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub‐subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with
the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor
against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of
this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands
the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance
and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
11 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the
Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign,
hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by
operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or
transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor
is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of
Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than
fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in
writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Jim Pachikara
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided
to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
12 Rev. May 1, 2012
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Three Phase Line Construction
PO Box 18, 25 Main Street
Farmington, NH 03825
Attn: Steve Autenreith
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change
of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any
individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged
by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process
set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such
Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to
any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors
of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not
be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the
right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes.
Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such
dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including,
without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final
determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
13 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written
response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the
General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as
set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of
Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a
timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and
binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of
perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the
Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract
Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate
supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a
Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the
following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event‐by‐event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute
involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time
following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute.
City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor.
A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the
damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good
faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall
be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the
process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not
later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good
faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of
the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations,
and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to
City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed
settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim
by a Subcontractor or Sub‐subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn
being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass‐Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor
or Sub‐Subcontractor shall also have a
14 Rev. May 1, 2012
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and
privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project,
subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that
have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time
after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract
Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract
Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the
provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved
Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non‐binding mediation before a
mutually acceptable third party mediator.
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who
is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in
public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20)
hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City.
The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator
shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute
and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the
mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation
shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code
Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be
final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
15 Rev. May 1, 2012
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in
arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties.
The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years
of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public
works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least
twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties
cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract
Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the
qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of
City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator,
be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a
certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and
Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance
with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided,
however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per
party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for
purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an
expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a
jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
16 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.5 Non‐Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise
any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the
rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by
Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without
limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests
for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting
documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the
manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under
the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)
after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such
time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as
City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to
completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after
receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and
withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights
to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as
long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which
event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall
have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
17 Rev. May 1, 2012
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon
the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s
election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by
giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of
notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by
City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive
the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to
terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has
been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of
its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on
all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice
any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract
Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover
all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure
full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably
delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or
its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed
the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall
promptly remit same to City.
18 Rev. May 1, 2012
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as
a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the
Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if
any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered
by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume
and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the
Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order
shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under
this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the
following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion
of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination,
less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close‐out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and
Sub‐subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including,
without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including
attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days
after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other
contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
19 Rev. May 1, 2012
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the
notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms
reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,
that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(iii) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already
in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in
transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any
Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of
an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of
government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This
provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension
notice issued either for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of
notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a
second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive
compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
20 Rev. May 1, 2012
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these
documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution
of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by
law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition
precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City
and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many
enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred
to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent
mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such
court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’
of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or
its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall
provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government
jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses
for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation
shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set
forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
21 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended
only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction
Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment
obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect
after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the
performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered
city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the
exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is
funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds
for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and
authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the
claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys
employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
22 Rev. May 1, 2012
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
THREE PHASE LINE CONSTRUCTION
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
BID SUMMARY
Invitation For Bid 144779
Title Electric Underground Cable Re-conductor
Date July 9, 2012
List of Bidders (Company Name) Bid Total
1. Three Phase Line Construction 552,997.00$
2. Herman Weissker 630,470.00$
3. Cal Electro 741,100.00$
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3084)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: City Response to Adopted ABAG RHNA Allocation
Title: Approval of City Response to the Adopted Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 Cycle
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and direct the Mayor to execute the attached
letter (Attachment A) to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regarding the City’s
response to the Adopted Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 Cycle.
Background
On July 19, 2012 the ABAG Executive Board adopted the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) methodology for the 2014-2022 housing cycle (Attachment B). For the City of Palo Alto,
ABAG projects a need for 2,179 new housing units at various income levels during this time
period. This allocation represents the City of Palo Alto’s share of the 187,990 units the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) projects will be needed
within the Bay Area over that same time period (Attachment C). The City’s number is up
slightly from the ABAG’s most recent prior projection, but is reduced substantially from earlier
iterations. The allocation is also significantly less than the 2,860 housing units assigned during
the 2007-2014 period. That said, it still represents a substantial number of units for a built-out
city.
A new and important aspect of this RHNA cycle is that the cycle does not stand alone. It is an
integral part of, and must be consistent with, the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) for the
region. The SCS attempts to guide Bay Area growth through the year 2040. This planning effort
is intended to implement Senate Bill 375, which expects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by supporting higher intensity development near transit along with substantial
increases in transportation investments. As part of the SCS process, the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) selected the
Draft Preferred Land Use Scenario, known as the “Job-Housing Connection Strategy.” This
scenario assumes that the Bay Area will need to accommodate 1.1 million new jobs and
660,000 new housing units through the year 2040. The preferred scenario anticipates as many
as 29,650 new jobs and 7,410 new housing units in the City of Palo Alto over that time period.
The City has until September 19, 2012 to appeal the RHNA allocation determination. ABAG,
however, is requesting responses by September 11 to accommodate the ABAG Executive Board
meeting schedule. Given the reduction in overall units relative to earlier projections, staff
believes that an appeal may not be necessary for this cycle, but that the City should register
some of its continuing concerns. These concerns relate to continued objections to long-term
population and growth projections, as well as to the proposed allocations for housing on
unincorporated Stanford lands.
Discussion
A draft letter is provided as Attachment A. Based upon past input from the Regional Housing
Mandate Committee (RHMC) and the City Council, the letter focuses on four key points:
1. The regional forecast of jobs and housing for the region, including the inconsistency
with recent historical patterns, and the City’s concerns about the implications of
overstated growth. The overall projections continue to ignore the updated
demographic forecasts from the State Department of Housing (Population Projections,
May 2012). For the upcoming housing cycle, ABAG reduced the overall housing
numbers, primarily based on the depressed statewide housing market and glut of
vacant, foreclosed homes. However, long-term growth assumptions essentially
remained the same. This creates the effect of “back-loading” the housing numbers, and
creating unreasonable and unachievable housing mandates in the current and future
housing cycles. The SCS process will allow long-term growth projection adjustments on a
periodic basis, but staff believes it is appropriate to continue to register the City’s
concerns and oppositions to the projections. The letter therefore encourages ABAG to
adjust future projections so they are more consistent with historical growth patterns
and to consider a range of forecasts, as well as to recent lower forecasts by the State
Department of Finance (DOF). The City’s March 5, 2012 letter to ABAG and
Councilmember Schmid’s projections analysis have been attached to the letter, along
with a chart staff prepared comparing DOF projections to ABAG projections for the
Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2. The proposed RHNA allocation only assigns 77 housing units to the County of Santa
Clara (unincorporated area), while Stanford University’s General Use Permit (GUP) with
Santa Clara County allows for up to 1,500 more residential units to be built on Stanford
lands within the SCS timeframe. The letter acknowledges that those units have not been
allocated to Palo Alto, but that at least some of them are proximate to El Camino Real
and the University Avenue Caltrain station and would be consistent with the objectives
of the SCS and SB375. Specifically, the approximate 350 units on two sites on Quarry
Road just west of El Camino Real would appear appropriate to include somewhere in the
housing analysis. City staff has met with staff from the County and Stanford to evaluate
the potential for an allocation of those units or some portion thereof and County
agreement to a “transfer” of a similar number of units from the City of Palo Alto. The
letter to ABAG identifies the issue (previously noted in a June 28, 2012 letter to ABAG
included as Attachment D) and requests that ABAG remain open to such a transfer. Staff
does not believe that ABAG would alter the overall allocation in the absence of
agreement between the City, County, and Stanford. Those adjustments do not have to
meet the September 18 deadline for responses, so long as the net total number of units
between the jurisdictions does not change.
3. The letter encourages ABAG to provide flexibility within the SCS for local jurisdictions to
provide further means of reducing land use/transportation related emissions. Detailed
examples of Palo Alto GHG reduction policy initiatives were included in the March 5
correspondence to ABAG, and the conclusion provides a list of these initiatives for
future reference.
4. The City continues to have concerns regarding the potentially negative environmental,
school capacity and infrastructure impacts the overstated housing mandates may
create. Additionally, the City will be conducting an environmental review to assess the
full impacts of these mandates.
Regional Housing Mandate Committee (RHMC) Comments
The Regional Housing Mandate Committee met on August 28, 2012 and provided comments on
the draft letter to ABAG. The comments are included in the summary above, and will be
incorporated into the final, draft letter presented to the City Council for review. In summary,
the comments are as follows:
Additional wording should be added stating that the overall projections continue to
ignore the updated demographic forecasts from the State Department of Finance
(Population Projections, May 2012) and therefore overstate growth for the overall SCS
period, through 2040.
The letter should specify that the overstated growth projections create an unrealistic
and unachievable housing mandate for the current and future housing cycles.
Additional wording should be added stating that the City encourages ABAG to regain
public confidence of its numbers by acknowledging the adaptations already made the
Department of Finance to the changing State of California demographics.
Wording should be revised to clarify that City staff has met with staff from the County
and Stanford to discuss the possibility of a joint agreement to transfer a similar
allocation of units from the City of Palo Alto to the County of Santa Clara.
The concluding paragraph of the draft, which encourages ABAG to provide greater
flexibility in GHG reduction strategies and details various GHG emission reduction
strategies the City has adopted, should be made into the third bullet point to provide
greater emphasis.
A fourth bullet point should also be added stating that the City continues to have
concerns regarding the potential negative environmental, school capacity and
infrastructure capacity impacts the overstated housing mandates may create, and that
the City will be conducting an environmental review to fully assess the impacts of these
mandates.
An additional document, prepared by Planning staff and which details the discrepancies
between the Department of Finance projections and Sustainable Community Strategy
projections, should be attached to the letter.
The Committee voted 4-0 to recommend that the Council approve the letter as modified.
Next Steps
ABAG has requested responses by September 11, so they may be included for the Executive
Board’s meeting on the 18th. Staff expects to conclude discussions with the County and
Stanford in September or October, but any adjustments resulting from those discussions could
still be accommodated, so long as the net total number of units does not change. The current
draft Housing Element has been submitted to the State, and a response is expected in October.
Work on the next Housing Element should proceed quickly following the certification of the
current Element, hopefully in early 2013.
Policy Implications
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Sustainable Communities Strategy relate directly
to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and transportation policies, so that a key objective of
the City is to assure that the regional plan continues to allow for implementation of those goals,
policies, and codes.
Resource Impacts
Staff had retained planning and economic consultants for an additional $25,000 for economic
consultant services to provide input to the City’s response to the Alternative Scenarios and
follow-up regarding the specific impacts and options for the City. Given the recent reduction in
overall housing units, the consultant’s services are on hold, and therefore no additional funding
is required at this time.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is necessary by the City to comment on the proposed allocation. An
Environmental Impact Report is expected to be prepared by ABAG and MTC for the Preferred
Land Use Scenario of the Sustainable Community Strategy. Environmental review will be
required for the City’s Housing Element proposed to address the allocations.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft RHNA Allocation Response Letter (see note) (PDF)
Attachment B: July 25, 2012 Letter from ABAG re: Final RHNA Allocations and Timeline
(PDF)
Attachment C: February 24, 2012 HCD RHND Letter to ABAG (PDF)
Attachment D: June 29, 2012 Letter to ABAG re: County RHNA Allocation (PDF)
Prepared By: Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Page 1 of 3
September 5, 2012
Mr. Mark Luce, President
Association of Bay Area Government
Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607‐4756
Re: City of Palo Alto Response to Adopted RHNA Methodology for the 2014‐2022 Housing
Cycle
Dear Mr. Luce:
Thank you for ABAG’s July 25, 2012 memo to Bay area cities and counties, which provided an
overview of the adopted Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) methodology and
jurisdictional allocations for the 2014‐2022 housing cycle. The adopted allocations appear to
have taken into consideration many of the concerns and comments expressed by member
jurisdictions. The target projections will be difficult to attain in Palo Alto, however, given the
built‐out nature of the city and multiple school, service and infrastructure constraints and
impacts. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the City of Palo Alto’s ongoing concerns
regarding the long‐term Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) projections and the potential
impact on future RHNA cycles. Furthermore, this letter provides information about our ongoing
effort to facilitate a joint agreement for transfer of units to the County of Santa Clara for
housing on Stanford lands.
In summary, the City of Palo Alto’s comments are as follows:
1. Although adjustments were made for this housing cycle, the regional forecast of jobs
and housing for the region continues to substantially overstate growth for the overall
SCS period (through 2040) and continues to ignore the updated demographic forecasts
of the State’s Department of Finance (DOF). This creates the effect of “back‐loading”
the housing numbers and potentially creating unreasonable and unachievable housing
mandates in the current and future housing cycles. Although the SCS process does allow
for adjustment of long‐term growth projections on a periodic basis, the City encourages
ABAG to regain public confidence of its numbers by working with HCD to reduce the
2010‐2040 projections by 41% to reflect the adaptations already made by the
Page 2 of 3
Department of Finance to the changing State of California demographics. Furthermore,
future projections should be adjusted so they are more consistent with historical growth
patterns and/or a range of projections should be adopted that reflect meaningful
planning scenarios in response to market changes over time. An analysis of the
inadequacy of the current long‐range projections, authored by Palo Alto Councilmember
Greg Schmid, was submitted to ABAG during the Alternative Scenario selection process
and is attached to this letter. Tables outlining the discrepancies between the most
recent DOF projections and those prepared by ABAG for the SCS are also attached.
2. The proposed RHNA allocation assigns 77 housing units to the County of Santa Clara
(unincorporated), although Stanford University’s General Use Permit with the County of
Santa Clara County allows and plans for up to 1,500 residential units to be built on
Stanford lands within the SCS timeframe. The City acknowledges that these units have
not been otherwise assigned to the City of Palo Alto, but at least some of them are
proximate to El Camino Real and the University Avenue Caltrain station, and would be
consistent with the objectives of the SCS and SB375. Specifically, approximately 350
planned units on two sites on Quarry Road just west of El Camino Real appear
appropriate to include somewhere in the housing analysis. City staff has met with staff
from the County and Stanford to discuss the possibility of a joint agreement to a
“transfer” of a similar allocation of units from the City of Palo Alto to the County of
Santa Clara. This is an ongoing effort, and we will keep ABAG apprised of our progress.
The City requests that ABAG remain open to such a transfer if an agreement between
the City, the County and Stanford is reached.
3. As stated in previous letters, the City of Palo Alto is a national leader in policies and
programs that reduce GHG emissions. Examples of key City sustainability programs
include an aggressive Climate Action Plan, the provision of clean energy to Palo Alto
customers via the City owned and operated electric utility, various utility programs to
reduce emissions, leadership in Green Building and sustainable design, affordable
housing programs, higher density land uses near transit, and numerous “complete
streets” oriented policies and projects. An attached letter, sent to ABAG on March 5,
2012, provides additional detail on these programs. The City encourages ABAG to allow
flexibility within the SCS for local jurisdictions to provide further means, such as those
outlined in the letter, of reducing land use/transportation related emissions.
4. The City of Palo Alto continues to have concerns regarding the potential negative
environmental, school capacity and infrastructure capacity (recreational, utilities,
transit, etc.) impacts the overstated housing mandates may create. The City will, of
course, be conducting an environmental review to fully assess the impacts of these
mandates during the preparation of our Housing Element for this planning period.
Page 3 of 3
Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the adopted RHNA methodology for
the 2014‐2022 Housing Cycle. If you have questions or need additional information, please
contact Curtis Williams, the City’s Director or Planning and Community Environment, at (650)
329‐2321 or curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
Attachments:
1. March 5, 2012 Letter from Mayor Yeh to Mark Luce (ABAG), including two attachments:
a) November 15, 2011 Memorandum: “California Demographic Forecasts: Why Are the
Numbers Overestimated,” prepared by Palo Alto Councilmember Greg Schmid
b) “Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS: Achieving Statewide GHG Reduction
Rates,” prepared by Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
2. Tables Detailing Discrepancies Between Department of Finance (DOF) and SCS Projections
cc: City Council
Planning and Transportation Commission
James Keene, City Manager
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Ezra Rapport, Executive Director, ABAG
Miriam Chong, Interim Planning Director, ABAG
March 5, 2012
Mr. Mark Luee, President
Association of Bay Area Govemments
Joseph P. Bort Metro Center
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Ci!JgfPaloNto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: City of Palo Alto Comments on Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Alternative
Scenarios
Dear Mr. Luce:
Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) staff has requested local agency comments on
its proposed land use Altemative Scenarios developed as a part of the One Bay Area Sustainable
Community Strategy (SCS). We look forward to the fUlther discussion and refinement of the
Preferred Scenario before the final Regional SCS is completed early in 2013. However, at this
juncture we believe it is necessary for the City to express its concerns regarding the SCS
Altemati ve Scenarios and the related regional jobs and housing forecasts, and to suggest
altcl11ative approaches to the Preferred Scenario.
This letter provides the City of Palo Alto's (City) comments, which have been formulated
following the City'S considerable review and analysis of the Alternative Scenarios and related
regional job and housing forecasts. Tbe City acknowledges and appreciates the fact that the SCS
process will continue following release of ABAG's Preferred Scenario, scheduled for March 8,
2012. In summary, the City's concerns are as follows:
• The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader in implementing policies and programs that
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the effectiveness of these efforts should be
considered as a part of the SCS and achieving regional GHG emission reduction targets.
• The regional forecast of jobs and housing being considered as part of the SCS likely
overstates future growth in the Bay Area and at a minimum is highly uncertain; ABAG
should recognize the distinct possibility that actual growth rates in the Bay Area over the
next 30 years may be lower and should phase job and housing allocations and
implementation accordingly.
• Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and housing units under all of the Alternative Scenarios is
excessive by reference to its historical growth trends and development capacity; these
allocations should more accurately consider policy constraints, market feasibility, and the
high infrastructure costs and local fiscal impacts of such intensive redevelopment.
Prh~h:J wHh mY-\)lIsed inks (In 11)0';1" recycled rarer pro(e~8ed without chlorine.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
1 650328.3631 fax
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
• The land use changes contemplated in the SCS Alternative Scenarios have a propottionately
small contribution to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets and there are very
limited differences shown between the Alternative Scenarios; the considerable effort and
investment needed to affect these land use changes should be re-directed to more cost-
effective regional and local GHG reduction measures.
While the City retains serious concerns regarding the Regional Forecast of jobs and housing and
also the allocation of future development under the Alternative Scenarios, Palo Alto is firmly
committed to doing its share to achieve the State-mandated (AB32/SB375) GHG reduction
targets. The measures already adopted by the City provide ample evidence of this commitment.
Going forward, the City expects to cooperate with ABAG and our other regional pattners in the
future efforts needed to achieve substantial reductions in GHG emissions through realistic and
achievable regional and local policies, programs, and investments.
The following items elaborate on the summary points listed above.
1. The City of Palo Alto has been a national leader ill implementillg policies and programs
that reduce GHG emissiolls. '
Over the past decade, the City of Palo Alto has adopted a range of policies, programs and
projects to reduce GHG emissions, focused upon improving energy efficiency, enhancing multi-
modal transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, and creating walkable, mixed-
use districts. Implementing these policies, programs, and investments the City has become a
national leader in reducing GHG emissions. Some of the key programs include:
a. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan (CPP): The CPP, adopted by the City Council in
December 2007, includes goals for the reduction of CO2 from a 2005 baseline level as a result of
changes in City operations and from CO2 reduction efforts within the community.
• The City has surpassed its short term goal of a 5% reduction in emissions by 2009 for a
total reduction of 3,266 metric tons of CO2.
• By 2020, the City and community will reduce emissions by 15% from 2005 levels, equal
to 119,140 metric tons of CO2, consistent with State emission reduction goals.
b. Availability of Clean Energy: The City of Palo Alto is in a unique position as owner and
operator of its electric utility to make available and provide clean energy to City customers. In
this regard, the City Council adopted a goal to have 33% of the electricity supply to be provided
by renewable electricity suppliers by 2015, five years in advance of the State requirement.
• For FY2011, renewable electricity supplies account for 20% of the City's needs.
• Contracts are in place with suppliers to provide 26% of the City's electrical needs as
renewable by FY2014 with the potential to reach 30% from contracts that are still under
negotiations.
• CUiTently, 24% of the City's customers participate in the Palo Alto Green program,
paying a surcharge on electric service to support renewable electricity supplies.
• The City's Utilities Department is preparing a plan to be released later this year for the
electric portfolio to be carbon neutral.
2
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
c. Utility Programs to Reduce Emissions: In addition to providing clean energy options for its
customers, the Utilities Department offers programs such as rebates, assistance, information, and
workshops to help customers increase electricity efficiency and cost savings that reduce
emissions. These successes of these programs are measurable: In FY20 II, Palo Alto customers
reduced CO2 emissions by 12,557 tons through the use of electric and natural gas efficiency
programs, incentives for solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar hot water systems, and other program
efficiencies.
d. Leadership in Green Building and Sustainable Design: In FY 2009, the City Council adopted
the City's Green Building Ordinance to build a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto
that are environmentally responsible and healthy places in which to Jive and work. This program
was one of the first in the nation to mandate green building requirements and certifications for
virtually all public and private buildings.
• In FY 20 II , the City initiated the first LEED-ND pilot program (LEED for
Neighborhood Development) in the United States for assessing a development site's
ability to qualify as a sustainable neighborhood project, including features that reduce
dependence on automobile use, increase walkability, and encourage healthy li ving.
• The City also rolled out energy use disclosure requirements for existing buildings
undergoing small renovation work to better understand the existing buildings' current
performanee and areas where education, policy, and programs can be influential in
reducing energy usage.
• The amount of CO2 diverted from the environment has increased sinee the adoption of
the 2009 ordinance and programs. In 20 I 0, the first full year of the ordinance, CO2 was
reduced by approximately 1,013 tons. In 2011, C02 was reduced by approximately 2,818
tons, a 178% increase over the previous year.
• Prior to the City's ordinance, as few as six green building projects existed throughout the
City. By the end ofFY 2011, more than 240 green buildings have been completed or are
under construction.
'e. Affordable Housing: The City of Palo Alto has been a leader in providing for affordable
housing in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.
• In 1974, Palo Alto became one of the first cities in the United States to adopt an
inclusionary housing program that required the provision of below market rate (BMR)
residential units in new multiple-family dwelling projects.
• Today, the City oversees 239 ownership units and 198 rental BMR units that are
available to qualified applicants. As the cost for housing in Palo Alto continues to
increase, the value of these affordable units to provide hOUSing within the urbanized Bay
Area has also increased. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income
families to Jive closer to their jobs and utilize public transit.
• Recently, Palo Alto welcomed two new BMR housing projects, including the Tree House
Apartments, a 35-unit complex with a Green Point Rating of 193 (the highest score in
Palo Alto for multiple family housing) and Alta Tone, a 56-unit complex for very low-
income seniors.
• Construction is underway at 801 Alma Street, a 50-unit family affordable project
immediately adjacent to CalTrain and within walking distance to shops and services on
University Avenue in downtown.
3
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
f. Higher Density Land Uses Near Transit: The City's Comprehensive Plan designates two
areas of the City (downtown and California A venue) as appropriate for 'Transit Oriented
Residential," in a 2,OOO-foot radius of the City's two Caltrain stations. These areas are identified
for higher intensity residential and mixed-use development focused around a walkable, bieyc\e-
friendly environment.
• In 2006, two years before the adoption of SB375, the City Council adopted the Pedestrian
and Transit Oriented Development combining district (PTOD) for the area around the
California A venue CalTrain station. This district allows for residential densities at 40
units per acre, increased floor area ratios, increased building heights, reduced parking
requirements, and density bonuses for the provision of BMR housing in mixed-use and
multiple family projects.
• In 2007, Council supported the designation of this area as a PriOlity Development Arca
(PDA) as part of ABAG's FOCUS program that would eventually evolve into Plan Bay
Area. This land use planning effort is one example of a pattern of early-adoption
decisions made by the City Council to address growth, transit and greenhouse gas
emissions within our community.
• The Council has directed that housing sites proposed in the City's Housing Element
should be focused in transit-proximate areas, and that increased height and intensity may
be considered in those locations.
g. Transportation Policies and Projects: The City of Palo Alto has developed transpOltation
policies, programs and projects to implement a transit-oriented, walkable and bicycle-friendly
vision that demonstrate leadership of the "Complete Streets" concept promoted by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Some of these key recent measures include:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan: The City is completing its updatcd plan to
accommodate enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and to elcvate the
City's Bicycle-Friendly Community status from Gold to Platinum Icvel.
• Stanford AvenuefEl Camino Real Intersection Improvements: The City has recently
completed improvements at this intersection to enhance safety for pedestrians and
cyclists, including children who use the intersection as a route to school, and to upgrade
the aesthetic qualities of the intersection and of El Camino Real. Wc expect thc project
will serve as a template for improving intersections throughout the Grand Boulevard
corridor.
• Safe Routes to School: The City's Safe Routes to School program has resulted in a
phenomenal increase in school children bicycling and walking to school over thc past
decade. In the 2011 fiscal year, City staff coordinated 140 in-class bike and pedestrian
safety education programs in 12 elementary schools, reaching 4,250 students. Recent
surveys of how children usually get to elementary school showed an average of 42%
choosing to walk, bike or skate to school, compared to a national average of only 13%
(figures for middle schools and high schools are even greater). A reccnt grant will allow
the City to prepare Safe Routes maps for every elemcntary school in the city as well as to
expand our education cuniculum into middle schools and to adults.
• Traffic Calming on Residential Arterials: The City has an ambitious traffic calming
program along "residential arterials" in efforts to support our Safe Routes to School
program and to enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety. In parricular, the ongoing
4
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor project has provided substantial safety
improvements and selective lane reductions to enhance bicycling and walking while
maintaining efficient levels of vehicle throughput similar to those prior to the traffic
calming improvements.
• Bicycle Parking Corrals: The City has recently installed six green "bicycle parking
corrals" in the Bay Area, with each corral providing for up to 10 bicycle parking spaces
in highly visible, signed on-street areas in downtown. Up to a dozen more such
installations are planned in the downtown and Califoll1ia Avenue areas.
• Califoll1ia A venue Streetscape Improvements: A pending grant would support the
substantial upgrade of Califoll1ia Avenue to a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
roadway, incorporating "complete street" principles, and also enhancing access to the
Califoll1ia Avenue Cal train station.
• Local Shuttles: The City, with support from the Caltrain JPB, offers local shuttle services
for commuters, school children, seniors and others between points of interest within the
city. These shuttles futther reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle trips and reduce
traffic congestion and parking needs.
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto requests that ABAG consider the effectiveness of these local
GHG emission reduction effOlts, incorporate them as a part of the SCS and related regional GHG
reduction targets, and provide "credits" to those jurisdictions that have demonstrated
implementation of meaningful GHG reduction measures.
2. The Regional Forecast of jobs alld hOl/sillg being considered as part of the SCS appears to
overstate future growth in the Bay Area.
The regional jobs and housing forecast used for the Altell1ative Scenarios is lower than the
forecast for the Initial Vision Scenario and the Core Concentration Unconstrained Scenario,
reflecting comments received from the local agencies following review of the Initial Vision
Scenario. However, in the City of Palo Alto's view, the most recent jobs and housing forecasts
for the three "constrained" Altell1ative Scenarios remain at the high end of plausible Bay Area
jobs and housing growth over the next 30 years. The City is disappointed and dismayed at the
minimal public discourse around the development of these projections, though we do appreciate
Dr. Steven Levy's recent presentation of the analysis behind the projections. At this point,
however, ABAG has provided insufficient justification for the methods and results of the
regional job and housing forecasts used in the Altell1ative Scenarios. An evaluation of the
Regional Forecast prepared late last year by Councilmember Greg Schmid provides an
assessment of Califoll1ia growth forecasts (see Attachment A), indicating the tendency for
forecasts to overstate growth as compared to actual figures from the Census, and discussing
some of the key factors that will influence Califoll1ia's future growth.
a. Jobs. Regarding the ABAG jobs forecast, a comparison with the last 20 years is noteworthy.
Average job increases between 1990 and 2010 approximated 10,000 net new jobs annually.
Excluding the three years that included the Great Recession where substantial jobs losses
occurred (i.e. 2008-2010), the Bay Region added jobs at an average annual rate of 25,200
between 1990 and 2007. The ABAG jobs forecast used for the Altell1ative Scenmios
assumes that the Region will add an average of over 33,000 jobs annually from 2010 to 2040,
5
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March S, 2012
a 32% increase over the pre-recession trend line. The method used to arrive at the jobs
forecast assumes a "shift-share" of a national jobs growth forecast that itself is subject to
question. As a palt of revisions to the regional jobs forecast, ABAG should consider a more
fundamental economic assessment that identifies the key industries in the Bay Area that will
drive job growth and also the distinct possibility that future jobs and housing may be closer
to recent historical growth trends.
b. Housing. Regarding the ABAG housing forecast used for the Alternative Scenarios, an
additional 770,800 households are shown added to the Bay Area between 2010 and 2040 -an
annual average growth of 25,700 households. The average annual housing growth rate
between 1990 and 2010 was 21,000. At the present time, two years into ABAG's forecast
period, the Bay Area, like much of the United States, remains in a weak housing market
characterized by very limited new development, low pricing, slow sales of existing homes,
tight credit, and an oversupply of homes resulting from a historically high number of
foreclosed and distressed propelties. These conditions are expected to continue for several
more years until the existing inventory is reduced and substantial improvement in the job
market and related increases in household income occurs. In any event, the Bay Area will
need to be in "catch-up" mode, meaning even higher additional households per year must be
realized to meet the SCS forecast growth rates, once more normal housing market conditions
emerge. Moreover, ABAG's regional housing forecast is based on a fixed share of a national
population forecast prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau that presumed international in-
migration (primarily of Asian and Hispanic peoples) would continue and comprise
approximately 80 percent of all population growth nationwide.
c. Housing Affordability. In addition to questions regarding job growth (the ultimate cause of
housing demand) there are a number of other questions regarding ABAG's housing forecast
including those related to affordability. A presentation made by Karen Chapple of UC
Berkeley at the ABAG's January Regional Advisory Working Group (RA WG) suggested
that given likely wages paid by the new jobs expected, over 70 percent of all new households
formed in the 2010 to 2040 period will be "moderate" income or below. In many Bay Area
locations, especially the inner Bay Area urbanized areas that are the focus of growth under
the SCS Alternative Scenarios, such "affordable" housing units must be subsidized in one
fashion or another, either as "inclusionary" units burdened upon the market rate units
constructed or by public subsidies such as (now eliminated) redevelopment agency funding
and federal tax credits. Given the loss of redevelopment powers and funding and recent court
cases affecting inclusionary programs (Palmer, Patterson) there is no assurance that adequate
housing subsidy funding will be available.
d. RHNA. Then there is the matter of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). As
presently proposed, the regional forecast and related Preferred Scenario allocations to be
released as a draft on March 8th will apparently serve as the basis of the future RHNA for
each city and county, which will require a one-third of the overall Preferred Scenario housing
allocation to cities in each 8-year "planning period" regardless of any assessment of realistic
development capacity (note: recent information from ABAG indicates that less than one-third
of the 2010-2040 forecast is likely for the 2015-2022 period, however, due to the economic
6
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
housing downturn). This approach seems highly arbitrary, insensitive to local conditions and
constraints, and far beyond what can realistically be expected from an economic perspective.
Accordingly, given all of these concerns, the City strongly recommends that the jobs and housing
forecasts for the Preferred Scenario be reduced to reflect mOrc accurately current conditions,
historical trends, and more fundamental assessment of economic (job) growth potential in the
Bay Area. Developing a more realistic jobs and housing forecast would reduce the implied need
to intensify land uses, reduce projected GHG emissions by lowering energy consumption,
congestion and single occupancy vehicle trips, and require less costly transit and highway
infrastructure investments. The SCS effort is to be revisited and updated every four years, so that
there would be future opportunities to re-evaluate whether a higher forecast is appropriate and
adjustments would be needed.
3. Palo Alto's allocation of jobs and 1I0using UlIitS rmder tile Altemative Scellarios is higilly
unrealistic and excessive relative to lIistorical growth trends and develapment capacity.
Santa Clara County dominates all other Bay Area counties in the allocation of ABAG's regional
forecast of jobs and housing, absorbing 30 percent of the regional job forecast and 26 percent of
the regional housing forecast. Palo Alto is allocated new jobs ranging from 18,040 Outward
Growth) to 26,070 (Focused Growth). Palo Alto households allocated range from 6,107
(Outward Growth) to 12,250 (Constrained Core Concentration and Focused Growth). These
allocations have been made without regard to existing development capacity in Palo Alto (use of
remaining vacant land and redevelopment of existing developed areas), the likely match between
new household affordability and local housing prices, or a range of other potential local costs for
achieving the required high density development.
a. Jobs. The City presently contains approximately 62,300 jobs, according to ABAG. During
the past decade (2000 to 2010), Palo Alto experienced a 14 percent decline in employment
reflecting the combined effect of the "dot-com" bust and the Great Recession. While
economic conditions are expected to improve, there have been stluctura\ changes in
technology industries that have driven growth in the Silicon Valley over the past 50 years
that portend only modest growth. The Alternative Scenarios assume that Palo Alto's job
growth by 2040 will increase over the 20 I 0 estimate by between 27 percent and 40 percent.
b. Housing. The housing projections in the Alternative Scenarios represent a 25-50 percent
increase in housing units from 2010-2040, up to approximately 400 new units per year. The
City has in the past 40 years (1970-2010) produced an average of 148 units per year. To more
than double that output in a relatively built-out city is again entirely unrealistic and using
such an assumption as the basis for growth scenarios and transportation investments will
likely result in failure of the planning effort.
c. Constraints. The City of Palo Alto is highly built out, and the existing limited number of
vacant sites and redevelopment opportunity sites severely limit how the households and jobs
allocated to Palo Alto in the SCS Alternative Scenarios could be accommodated. The
"constrained" scenarios clearly do not appear to consider the many constraints to new
development in Palo Alto, including limited school capacity and funding for infrastructure.
7
ABAG; SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
Accordingly, the City requests that the allocations of jobs and housing units in Palo Alto should
be lowered substantially to more accurately consider policy constraints, market feasibility, and
infrastructure and local fiscal impacts of such intensive redevelopment,
4. The land use changes contemplated ill tlte SCS Altemaiive Scenarios have a
proportionaiely small contributioll to achieving AB32/SB375 GHG reduction targets.
The AB32/SB375 target for Califomia is a reduction to 85 million equivalent metric tons per
year by 2050, an 80 percent reduction from current levels, To retum to 1990 levels of 427
million tons, an 80 million ton reduction of projected 2020 levels is required, Of this 80 million
ton reduction, approximately 96 percent is proposed to be achieved from improved fuel standards,
energy efficiency, industrial measures, and other methods needed to curb emissions from the
construction, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. Only four percent, however, or 3.2 million
tons, would be achieved by altering land use pattems, This is shown effectively on the graph
(Attachment B) prepared by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) in their
letter dated February 15,2012.
a, Negligible Difference Between Alternatives: The potential contributions of the land use
changes contemplated in the SCS Alternative Scenarios show reductions in GHG emissions
through 2040 range from 7.9 percent (Outward Growth) to 9.4 percent (Constrained Core
Concentration), Compared to the initial Current Regional Plan Scenario, the Altemative
Scenarios reduce GHG emissions by 0.9 percent to 2.4 percent of the remaining 4 percent
affected by land use and transportation patterns. This is a negligible difference between the
land use scenarios and argues for a more flexible approach that combines other GHG
emission reduction strategies with a more realistic land use scenario.
b, Regional Transportation Pricing and Policies: The MTC analysis of various transportation
plicing and policy changes (e.g" telecommuting, electric vehicle strategies, parking pricing)
may account for at least a 6,5% further reduction in GlIG emissions, considerably more
significant than the differences between the land use pattems in the Alternative Scenarios.
c, Cost Effectiveness. Given the numerous challenges associated with fundamental changes in
the way that Bay Area land use patterns would otherwise evolve, including wholesale
changes to land use regulations, presuming changes in market characteristics and preferences
of homebuyers, and the need for substantial public investments and subsidies, we question
the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the Altemative Scenarios. Regarding market
feasibility, there is no evidence that the resulting housing capacity and prototypes would
match buyer preferences and affordability, Regarding cost-effectiveness, the comparable
costs (mostly borne by local jurisdictions) of implementing the Alternative Scenarios may be
far higher than other altematives for achieving comparable GlIG emission reductions,
Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto recommends that a performance-based approach, involving
establishing GHG reduction targets for the local jurisdictions along with a menu of options for
achieving these targets (including feasible and realistic alterations inland use policy) should
become the basis of the proposed SCS,
B
Conclusion
ABAG: SCS Alternative Scenarios
March 5, 2012
In conclusion, the City of Palo Alto suggests that the Preferred Scenario for the Sustainability
Communities Strategy should include:
• A focus on GHG emission reductions, with the flexibility for each city and county to
provide for a reasonable minimum amount of housing plus options for other
commitments to GHG emission reductions;
• Grant funding for transportation and planning oriented to Priority Development Areas
(PDAs);
• Realistic housing forecasts limited to each upcoming 8-year RHNA cycle, with review
every four years to update projections; and
• Longer range projections that are not allocated to cities and counties, but are used to
provide context for regional transportation investments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment in advance of your proposal for a Draft
Preferred Scenario. If you have questions Or need additional information, please contact Curtis
Williams, the City's Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or
curtis. williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
/),0
-f Yiaway Yeh
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Attachment A: November IS, 2011 Memorandum: "California Demographic Forecasts: Why
are the Numbers Overestimated," prepared by City of Palo Alto Councilmember
Greg Schmid
Attachment B: "Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS: Achieving Statewide GHG
Reduction Rates," prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority
cc: Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Steve Heminger, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ezra Rapport, Association of Bay Area Governments
John Ristow, Valley Transportation Authority
Palo Alto City Council
9
California Demographic Forecasts: Why are the numbers over-
estimated?
Prepared by City of Palo Alto
November 15, 2011
Actual Califomia Population growth
IAttachment A •
1
Over the last decade, the state of California added 3.4 million people, to reach a total of 37.3 million,
This was an increase of 10% over the decade. This growth rate follows the gradual slowing that started
after 1990, down dramatically from the very high rates of the post-World War II era. Note that the
Department of Finance's (DOF) 2007 projections reflect a very high growth perspective. The DOF
numbers are currently used as the population forecasts for all state and local projects-they are not
schedu led to be revised until 2013.
Table 1, California's population growth over tbe last five decades
(average growth from census to census)
1960s
19705
19805
19905
20005
2010s
2020s
20305
~
29.2
18.5
25.7
13.8
10.0
Dept of Finance Projections (2007)
14.8
12.8
11.6
10.2
Source: US Census Bureau actual Census numbers; California Department of Finance 2007 Projections.
Recent State forecasts have been consistently over-estimated
Even after the sharp decline in growth during the 19905, forecasters consistently tended to be overly
optimistic about population growth rates through the 20005. In 2005, the Public Policy Institute of
California issued a report ("California 2025: Taking on the Future") that included the population
projections of all the key demographic forecasters. The consensus forecast from this group was some
40% higher than the actual outcome for the state:
Table 2. California Population Forecasts for 2010 made before 2005
(Percentage growth expected from 2000-2010)
California Dept of Finance 15.2
U5C Population Dynamics 11.6
UC Berkeley (Lee, Miller) 13.9'
Public Polley Institute of CA 15.2'
CCSeE 17.2
UCLA Anderson Forecasting 16.6
Average of six 2005 forecasts 15.0
'''center point of band
Source: Public Policy Institute of California, "California 2025: Taking on the Future", 2005, Page 29.
2
The consensus forecast was some 50% above the actual numbers. The only forecaster who produced a
number below the actual 10% growth was the UC Berkeley group who stated that there was a 5%
chance thatthe growth rate would be lower than 7,1%. The 2005 PPIC Report stated that "Recenttrends
make population projections for California especially difficult...For these reasons, planners should
consider alternative population scenarios ... as useful alternatives for planners." (PPIC, 2005, pages 27-
28)
Even as late as the end of 2009, on the eve of the decennial census, estimates by the California Dept. of
Finance (the organization responsible for the numbers that are used for all state allocation formulas)
remained strikingly high at 14.1% which was 1.5 million or 44.7% above the above the
contemporaneous and more accurate Census Bureau's Current Population Estimates.
Critical Components of Change and the Future
The Census data provide a nice detailed perspective on the actual components of change during the
decade. While the 3.1 million people added through natural increase (births minus deaths) were the
largest single growth factor, the 2 million net gain from foreign immigration was important In
overcoming a net outflow of 1.6 million from native born emigration, primarily to other states.
Table 3. Components of Population Change in California. 2000·2010
(millions of people)
Births
Deaths
+5.45
-2.35
Net Domestic migration -1.63
Foreign Immigration +2.58
Foreign emigration -0.59
Military, etc -0.07
TOTAL +3.38
Source: USC. Population Dynamics Research Group, "What the Census would show", February 2011.
3
The challenge for projecting change In the future is the dramatic shifts in some of these base categories.
With the aging population, we know that, even with slight increases in longevity, the aging population in
California will raise the annual number of deaths in California from 271K in 2011 to 462K in 2039, while
the number of births will rise slightly from 532K in 2011 to 5511n 2039. The natural Increase will fall
from some 260K today to 90K in 2040.
Thus, over time any increase in California's population will Increasingly rely on migration. Since net
domestic migration has averaged a net outflow of some 160K per year since the early 1990s, any growth
in population will be increasingly dependent on foreign migration, (Source: USC, Population Dynamics
Groups, April 2011).
There is little reason to see a major shift in domestic migration with California's high cost and high
unemployment rate. That leaves foreign migration as the critical component source of long-term
population growth. The most dynamic source for California's growth has been immigration from Mexico,
both legal and illegal. All observers (The Dept of Homeland Security, the Pew Charitable Trust Hispanic
Center, and the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton) agree that net immigration from Mexico has
been down dramatically in recent years with the stricter enforcement of border crossing and the
prolonged recession in the US. Pew estimates that the illegal immigrant population In the US fell by
some 7% between 2007 and 2010. The important debate about the future is whether this is a business
cycle phenomenon or part of a longer term trend.
The group that has the best data source and takes the longer term look is the Mexican Migration Project
at Princeton. For decades they have been tracking migration patterns from Mexico and doing annual
surveys of thousands of families from migration centers in Mexico. They found that the percent of first
time immigrants from the Mexican communities of highest immigration fell from 1.2% of adults in 2000
to 0.6% in 2005 to zero in 2010. They identify that the changes are due to Mexican demographic and
economic factors as much as from U.S. conditions. They identified five internal factors of change in
Mexico:
4
• Fertility rates are falling dramatically from 6.8 births per women in 1970 to 2.8 in 1995 to 2 in
2010 (replacement level).
• The number of young people entering the labor market has fallen from one million a year in the
1990s to 700K today and demographic factors will bring that down to about 300K in 2030, not
enough to meet local job needs.
• The rate of college attendance and college completion has doubled over the last decade, raising
the career path of an increasing share of young workers.
• The wage disparity between Mexico and the U.S. is narrowing sharply with average wage gaps
falling from 10:1 in the 1960s to some 3.7:1 in the early 20005.
• The cost of migration has risen dramatically for illegal entrants, further narrowing the earnings
gap.
All of these factors point to the need, at the least, of looking at alternative scenarios of population
growth in California that are more sensitive to possible underlying changes in migration patterns.
5
Sources of Demographic projections about California
US Bureau of the Census (responsible for the decennial census and does updated estimates each year of
state populations-has been much closer to actual numbers than the Cal Dept. of Finance)
California Department of Finance (responsible for state population estimates between the Census
years-forecasts used as key source for state government planning). Statewide estimates for 2010
(made in 2009) were 41% higher than the 2010 Census numbers for the state, 83% over for the nine Bay
Area counties and 137% higher for the three West Bay counties.
Ronald lee, UC Berkeley, Center for Economics and Demographics of Aging, "Special Report: The
Growth & Aging of California's Population", 2003 (an important repolt that identified the detailed
assumptions that went into the Department of Finance's long-term projections).
Hans Johnson, Public Policy Institute of California, "California 2025: Taking on the Future", Chapter 2
'California's Population in 2025' (a report that gathered projections from eight academic and
government sources). Johnson concluded that "population projections for California are especially
difficulL.ln addition to overweighting contemporary trends, forecasters are notoriously bad at
predicting fundamental demographic shifts ... For these reasons, planners should consider alternative
population scenarios." Pages 27-28.
John Pitkin & Dowell Myers, USC Population Dynamics Research Group, "The 2010 Census Benchmark
for California's Growing and Changing Population", February 2011; "Projections of the Population of
California by Nativity and Year of Entry to the U.S.", April 2, 2011. (Pitkin and Myers had the lowest of
the forecasts in the 2005 study-though still overestimating growth by 16%. They are working with the
California Department of Finance on components for a new longer-term forecast; they are still assuming
a net immigration number of 160,000 holding steady in the future.)
Steve Levy, Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy
UCLA Anderson Forecasting Project
Greg Schmid
October 2011
Required Reductions:
Year Tons·
By 2020 ........... 80
By 2050 ......... 715"
850
800
750
700
650
600 -550 c
Q)
.~ 500
.H-450 427
0" 400
u 350 '" c ~ 300
.!::! 250 I 8O"k
l: ~ 200
c 150 .2
Tons'
CD 2020 Emissions ................................. 507
® Target 2020 Emissions 11990) ............ · .. ·427
@ Forecast 2050 Emissions ...................... 800" o Target 2050 Emissions (20"10 of 1990) ...... · 85
® Target 2035 Emissions fonlefpalatedJ ...... 275
'Million Metric Tons C02 Equivalent
"E>timcte based on Colifomia Council on
Science end T e<hnclcgy Report, 2011
5{)7 CD
~
; 427 : '2'
~\6J
Bay Area Regional Contribution
Scenarios
7.0'Yo CUfTent Regional Plans ------:
7.9"., Outward Growth ~
8.2'% Initial VISion/Core ConcenfTation
9.1% Focused Growth ------~
9.4% Constrained Core Concentrotion
~75i®
I .. ~ I .. , , 0%
15%
~ 100 5 . r.-. t r "\!t
50
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Land Use & Transportation Emissions Reductions
REGIONAL LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION (SCS)
LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS
IMPROVED FUEL EFFICIENCY (PAVLEY I & II)
; NON-TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS REDUCTION
ACTUAL/PROJECTED EMISSIONS
2050 ;e
iii
C'l ::r 3 (J)
::l ~
III
Comparison of Department of Finance (DOF) Interim Projections released on May 2012 and the Preferred Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) Projections released on May 2012
Department of Finance (DOF) Interim Population Projections for California and Counties: July 1, 2015 to 2050 in 5‐year Increments
DOF 'Pop. Growth
2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2010 ‐ 2040
Bay Area Region 6,805,677 7,165,778 7,365,127 7,593,463 7,805,868 8,023,484 8,240,104 8,433,609 8,585,622 8,726,594 1,267,831
Alameda County 1,448,768 1,513,251 1,547,734 1,584,797 1,619,555 1,650,596 1,678,473 1,705,642 1,722,773 1,734,695 192,391
Contra Costa County 953,675 1,052,024 1,102,534 1,161,014 1,209,433 1,263,049 1,323,005 1,381,576 1,438,880 1,496,207 329,552
Marin County 247,424 252,727 253,757 255,502 257,117 259,060 261,982 264,910 267,590 270,275 12,183
Napa County 124,601 136,659 141,951 146,582 152,439 158,538 165,088 171,625 178,478 183,352 34,966
San Francisco County 778,942 807,048 813,090 820,135 826,850 834,693 842,065 845,750 844,247 840,712 38,702
San Mateo County 708,384 719,467 735,025 751,480 765,495 776,862 786,730 791,781 793,885 794,162 72,314
Santa Clara County 1,687,415 1,787,267 1,846,126 1,917,070 1,980,661 2,048,021 2,110,906 2,164,936 2,195,432 2,220,174 377,669
Solano County 395,991 413,154 428,106 446,513 468,039 490,381 512,695 533,041 552,869 574,705 119,887
Sonoma County 460,477 484,181 496,803 510,370 526,280 542,284 559,160 574,347 591,469 612,312 90,166
Projections Prepared by Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, May 2012
Draft Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) Population Projections for Bay Area Counties: 2010 to 2040
SCS 'Pop. Growth
2000 2010* 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2010 ‐ 2040
Bay Area Region 6,784,400 7,150,739 7,787,000 8,133,885 8,497,000 9,299,159 2,148,420
Alameda County 1,510,271 1,988,032 477,761
Contra Costa County 1,049,025 1,334,968 285,943
Marin County 252,409 285,317 32,908
Napa County 136,484 163,609 27,125
San Francisco County 805,235 1,085,656 280,421
San Mateo County 718,451 906,070 187,619
Santa Clara County 1,781,642 2,425,645 644,003
Solano County 413,344 511,482 98,138
Sonoma County 483,878 598,380 114,502
Projections Prepared by ABAG, May 2012
* 2010 SCS based on actual 2010 Census counts
Percentage Difference between 2010 and 2040 DOF Interim and SCS Population Projections for Bay Area, comparing SCS to DOF Interim Population Projections May 2012
2040 Pop. Difference SCS
& DOF
2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2040
Bay Area Region ‐0.3%‐0.2% 2.5% 4.2% 5.9% 10.3% 865,550
Alameda County ‐0.2%16.6% 282,390
Contra Costa County ‐0.3%‐3.4%‐46,608
Marin County ‐0.1%7.7% 20,407
Napa County ‐0.1%‐4.7%‐8,016
San Francisco County ‐0.2%28.4% 239,906
San Mateo County ‐0.1%14.4% 114,289
Santa Clara County ‐0.3%12.0% 260,709
Solano County 0.0%‐4.0%‐21,559
Sonoma County ‐0.1%4.2% 24,033
Percentage Difference 2010‐2040 Projected Population Rate of Growth, comparing SCS to DOF Interim Population Projections May 2012
2010 ‐ 2040 Net Gain
Difference SCS & DOF
2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2010 ‐ 2040
Bay Area Region 48.8% 57.0% 69.5% 880,589
Alameda County 148.3% 285,370
Contra Costa County ‐13.2%‐43,609
Marin County 170.1% 20,725
Napa County ‐22.4%‐7,841
San Francisco County 624.6% 241,719
San Mateo County 159.4% 115,305
Santa Clara County 70.5% 266,334
Solano County ‐18.1%‐21,749
Sonoma County 27.0% 24,336
Estimate Projections
Estimate Projections
Estimate Projections
Estimate Projections
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
July 25, 2012
San Francisco Bay Area
City Managers and Planning/Community Development Directors,
The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process for the San Francisco Bay Area
reached its second milestone. On July 19, 2012, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the Draft
RHNA Methodology and Preliminary Subregional Shares for the fifth cycle: 2014 - 2022 for all
jurisdictions and subregions by income category. The adoption finalized the Draft RHNA
Methodology according to the recommendations submitted by ABAG Staff in response to the
input received during the 60-day public comment period that began on May 18, 2012 and closed
on July 16, 2012. This milestone was reached through your involvement and the diligent efforts
performed by the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). The HMC represents a diverse set
of interests that reflect both local and regional needs. This regional committee created the
adopted Draft RHNA Methodology through an iterative process of workshops and meetings that
began in January 2011. As we have reached the half-way point in the RHNA process, this memo
provides an overview of the adopted RHNA Methodology and Subregional Shares as reflected in
Resolution(s) 12-12 and 12-13. Finally, this memo details the next RHNA steps for local
jurisdictions and subregions.
Page 2 of 6
Final Draft RHNA Methodology
1. Sustainability Component
This component advances the goals of SB 375; this factor is based on the Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy, which allocates new housing development into Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) and non-PDAs. By concentrating new development in PDAs, the Strategy
helps protect the region’s natural resources, water supply, and open space by reducing
development pressure on rural areas. This allows the region to consume less energy,
reducing household costs and the emission of greenhouse gases. Following the land use
distribution specified in the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, 70% (131,593) of the
187,990 units determined by HCD will be allocated to PDAs and the remaining 30%
(56,397) will be directed to non-PDA locations.
As of July 19, 2012, the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy has been modified to a feasible
growth concentration over the 2014-2022 RHNA cycle. This new distribution results in a
shifting of approximately 3,500 units or 1.5 percent of the total regional allocation. This
modification shifts housing units from Oakland, Newark, and San Jose primarily to medium
sized cities within the employment commute shed of these cities.
2. Fair Share Component
This component achieves the requirement that all cities and counties in California work to
provide a fair share or proportion of the region’s total and affordable housing need. In
particular, cities that had strong transit networks, high employment rates, and performed
poorly on the 1999-2006 RHNA cycle for very-low and low income units received higher
allocations. Fair Share scoring is addressed through the factors listed below.
Upper Housing Threshold: If growth projected by the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy
in PDAs meets or exceeds 110% of the jurisdiction’s household formation growth, it is
not assigned additional growth outside the PDA, which ensures that cities with large
PDAs are not overburdened.
Page 3 of 6
Minimum Housing Floor: Jurisdictions are assigned a minimum of 40 percent of their
household formation growth but not to exceed 1.5 times its 2007–2014 RHNA. This
factor encourages all jurisdictions to produce a fair proportion of total housing need.
Past RHNA Performance: In non-PDA areas, the total low- and very-low income units
that were permitted in the 1999–2006 RHNA cycle were used as a factor for this cycle.
For example, cities that exceeded their RHNA obligation in these two income categories
received a lower score.
Employment: In non-PDA areas, the employment was factored using the 2010 job
estimates for a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with higher employment received a higher score.
Transit: In non-PDA areas, transit was factored for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with
higher transit frequency and coverage received a higher score.
3. Income allocation (Amended as of July 19, 2012)
The income allocation factor ensures that jurisdictions that already supply a large amount of
affordable housing receive lower affordable housing allocations. This also promotes the state
objective for increasing the mix of housing types among cities and counties equitably. The
income allocation requirement is designed to ensure that each jurisdiction in the Bay Area
plans for housing people of every income.
The income distribution of a jurisdiction’s housing need allocation is determined by the
difference between the regional proportion of households in an income category and the
jurisdiction’s proportion for that same category. Once determined, this difference is then
multiplied by 175 percent. The result becomes that jurisdiction’s “adjustment factor.” The
jurisdiction’s adjustment factor is added to the jurisdiction’s initial proportion of households
in each income category. The result is the total share of the jurisdiction’s housing unit
allocation for each income category.
Page 4 of 6
On July 19, 2012, the calculation of current income groups by jurisdiction was modified.
This calculation was based on the regional median household income instead of the county
median household income. This adjustment provided a better regional alignment of the
income distribution formula of 175 percent. Using the median income for the region
eliminates this disparity and places all counties on equal footing.
This adjustment did not change a jurisdiction’s total allocation, but shifted the distribution
across its income categories. Counties with residents that are above the regional median
household income (Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) experienced a shift
towards a greater concentration of units in the very-low, low, and moderate income
categories. Counties with residents below the regional median household income (Alameda,
Napa, San Francisco, Solano, and Sonoma) experienced shifts towards a greater
concentration in the above moderate income category
4. Sphere of Influence Adjustments
Every city in the Bay Area has a Sphere of Influence (SOI) which can be either contiguous
with or go beyond the city’s boundary. The SOI is considered the probable future boundary
of a city and that city is responsible for planning within its SOI. The SOI boundary is
designated by the county’s Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO
influences how government responsibilities are divided among jurisdictions and service
districts in these areas.
The allocation of the housing need for a jurisdiction’s SOI where there is projected growth
within the spheres varies by county. In Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma
counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI is assigned to
the cities. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the allocation of housing need generated by
the unincorporated SOI is assigned to the county. In Marin County, 62.5 percent of the
allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI is assigned to the city and
37.5 percent is assigned to the county.
Page 5 of 6
Subregions Shares
Napa, San Mateo and Solano counties with the inclusion of all cities within each county have
formed the three subregions for this RHNA cycle. These counties are each considering an
alternative housing allocation methodology. The share of the RHND total for each of these
subregions is defined by the ratio between the subregion and the total regional housing growth
for the 2014 to 2022 period in the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, which is the same ratio as
in RHNA. Napa will receive 0.7883%, San Mateo will receive 8.7334%, and Solano will receive
3.7113% of the region’s total RHND.
Next Steps
The most recent adoption authorizes the beginning of the 60-day Revisions and Appeals process.
During this period, each jurisdiction and subregion are allowed to request for revisions to its
allocation or submit an appeal to the RHNA process.1 The objective of the appellate process is to
allow ABAG Staff to work directly with local jurisdictions and subregions to discuss its
proposed allocation of housing units for the 5th 2014-2022 RHNA cycle. The deadline to submit
an appeal or to request for a revision is September 18, 2012. To ensure that ABAG Staff will
have adequate time to respond to requests before or by the next Executive Board Meeting on
September 20, 2012, we are recommending that jurisdictions and subregions submit their request
by September 10, 2012. Requests or questions regarding the Revision and Appeals process
should be sent to RHNA_Feedback@abag.ca.gov.
By April 2013, ABAG will issue Final Allocations that will be subject to a final adoption by the
ABAG Executive Board. In June and July 2013, the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) will review the San Francisco Bay Area RHNA Plan. Thank you for your
involvement in this process. By the end of August we will be distributing a technical report that
details the mechanics of the RHNA methodology. In this report, you will find worksheets and
explanations to each step we took to calculate the individual allocations to jurisdictions and
subregions. For a list of the upcoming phases for the RHNA process, please see the attached list
of events at the end of the enclosed packet.
1 Government Code §65584.05(b)
Page 6 of 6
Respectfully,
Miriam Chion
Acting Director of Planning and Research, ABAG
Attachment A: Draft RHNA (released on July 19, 2012)
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014‐2022)
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990
Alameda County
Alameda 442 247 282 745 1,716
Albany 80 53 57 144 334
Berkeley 530 440 581 1,395 2,946
Dublin 793 444 423 615 2,275
Emeryville 275 210 258 749 1,492
Fremont 1,707 922 974 1,829 5,432
Hayward 862 490 625 2,044 4,021
Livermore 835 472 494 916 2,717
Newark 328 166 157 422 1,073
Oakland 2,050 2,066 2,803 7,782 14,701
Piedmont 24 14 15 7 60
Pleasanton 713 389 405 551 2,058
San Leandro 502 269 350 1,156 2,277
Union City 316 179 191 415 1,101
Alameda County Unincorporated 428 226 294 814 1,762
9,885 6,587 7,909 19,584 43,965
Contra Costa County
Antioch 348 204 213 677 1,442
Brentwood 233 123 122 278 756
Clayton 51 25 31 34 141
Concord 794 442 556 1,670 3,462
Danville 195 111 124 125 555
El Cerrito 100 63 69 165 397
Hercules 219 117 100 243 679
Lafayette 146 83 90 107 426
Martinez 123 72 78 194 467
Moraga 75 43 50 60 228
Oakley 316 173 174 500 1,163
Orinda 84 47 53 42 226
Pinole 80 48 42 126 296
Pittsburg 390 253 315 1,058 2,016
Pleasant Hill 117 69 84 176 446
Richmond 436 304 408 1,276 2,424
San Pablo 55 53 75 264 447
San Ramon 514 278 281 338 1,411
Walnut Creek 601 353 379 892 2,225
Contra Costa County Unincorporated 372 217 242 530 1,361
5,249 3,078 3,486 8,755 20,568
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014‐2022)
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
Marin County
Belvedere 4345 16
Corte Madera 22 13 13 24 72
Fairfax 16 11 11 23 61
Larkspur 40 20 21 51 132
Mill Valley 41 24 26 38 129
Novato 111 65 72 166 414
Ross 6444 18
San Anselmo 33 17 19 37 106
San Rafael 239 147 180 437 1,003
Sausalito 26 14 16 23 79
Tiburon 24 16 19 19 78
Marin County Unincorporated 55 32 37 60 184
617 366 422 887 2,292
Napa County
American Canyon 116 54 58 164 392
Calistoga 6 2 4 15 27
Napa 185 106 141 403 835
St. Helena 8 5 5 13 31
Yountville 4238 17
Napa County Unincorporated 51 30 32 67 180
370 199 243 670 1,482
San Francisco County
San Francisco 6,207 4,619 5,437 12,482 28,745
6,207 4,619 5,437 12,482 28,745
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014‐2022)
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
San Mateo County
Atherton 36 27 29 14 106
Belmont 116 63 67 121 367
Brisbane 25 13 15 30 83
Burlingame 280 149 158 388 975
Colma 20 8 9 30 67
Daly City 408 194 225 681 1,508
East Palo Alto 64 54 83 266 467
Foster City 148 87 76 119 430
Half Moon Bay 52 31 36 67 186
Hillsborough 50 29 34 16 129
Menlo Park 237 133 145 219 734
Millbrae 193 101 112 272 678
Pacifica 121 68 70 154 413
Portola Valley 21 15 15 13 64
Redwood City 706 429 502 1,147 2,784
San Bruno 365 166 208 555 1,294
San Carlos 195 107 111 183 596
San Mateo 859 469 530 1,172 3,030
South San Francisco 576 290 318 922 2,106
Woodside 23 13 15 11 62
San Mateo County Unincorporated 100 61 72 106 339
4,595 2,507 2,830 6,486 16,418
Santa Clara County
Campbell 252 137 150 390 929
Cupertino 354 206 230 269 1,059
Gilroy 235 159 216 473 1,083
Los Altos 168 99 112 96 475
Los Altos Hills 46 28 32 15 121
Los Gatos 200 112 132 173 617
Milpitas 1,000 568 563 1,145 3,276
Monte Sereno 23 13 13 12 61
Morgan Hill 272 153 184 315 924
Mountain View 810 490 525 1,088 2,913
Palo Alto 688 430 476 585 2,179
San Jose 9,193 5,405 6,161 14,170 34,929
Santa Clara 1,045 692 752 1,586 4,075
Saratoga 147 95 104 92 438
Sunnyvale 1,780 992 1,027 2,179 5,978
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 22 13 14 28 77
16,235 9,592 10,691 22,616 59,134
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014‐2022)
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
Solano County
Benicia 94 54 56 123 327
Dixon 50 24 30 93 197
Fairfield 861 451 514 1,664 3,490
Rio Vista 15 12 16 56 99
Suisun City 105 40 41 169 355
Vacaville 287 134 173 490 1,084
Vallejo 283 178 211 690 1,362
Solano County Unincorporated 16 9 12 26 63
1,711 902 1,053 3,311 6,977
Sonoma County
Cloverdale 39 29 31 111 210
Cotati 35 18 18 66 137
Healdsburg 31 24 26 75 156
Petaluma 198 102 120 321 741
Rohnert Park 180 107 126 482 895
Santa Rosa 943 579 756 2,364 4,642
Sebastopol 22 17 19 62 120
Sonoma 24 23 27 63 137
Windsor 120 65 67 187 439
Sonoma County Unincorporated 219 126 159 428 932
1,811 1,090 1,349 4,159 8,409
REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
June 29, 2012
Ezra Rapport, Executive Director
Association of Bay Area Governments
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
Re: Regional Housing Needs (RHNA) Allocations for Stanford University
Campus/Santa Clara County
Dear Mr. Rapport:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding the draft regional housing needs
allocations (RHNA) to be considered by the ABAG Board in July. The City of Palo Alto in
general concurs with the principle that housing within Santa Clara County should be allocated to
a city with jurisdiction over the sphere of influence (SOI), as the County has strong programs in
place to direct cities to annex pockets of unincorporated areas. We do have a specific and
substantial concern with allocations of housing for Santa Clara County, as it pertains to the
Stanford University campus area, however.
The Stanford University Campus lies within Palo Alto’s Sphere-of-Influence (SOI), but new
campus development generates population and housing needs that are governed by Santa Clara
County, not the City, and are not subject to potential annexation by the City of Palo Alto
(pursuant to a tri-party agreement between the City, County and Stanford). In the prior RHNA
cycle (2007-2014), the “Stanford share” of the allocation increased the City of Palo Alto’s
allocation by 645 units. It was not until the appeal period, however, that this correction was
made, and the units redistributed to the County, with the concurrence of the City, County and
Stanford.
The proposed RHNA figures allocate only 58 units to Santa Clara County (as compared to 1,090
units in the prior planning period). According to the most recent annual report (see
http://www.sccplanning.org/SCC/docs/Planning,%20Office%20of%20(DEP)/attachments/Stanfo
rd/AR10_all.pdf) regarding Stanford’s General Use Permit (GUP) with the County, however,
approximately 1,000-1,500 new housing units are planned on the campus over the next 10 years
or so. Those units do not appear to be accounted for in any way in the County’s allocation,
although they are already planned and zoned appropriately. The City understands that there is no
Priority Development Area for lands on the campus, but there are some designated housing sites
that are located immediately proximate to El Camino Real and near the University Avenue
Caltrain station. These two sites (H and I in the report) are planned to accommodate a minimum
of 350 units. These sites would be within VTA’s El Camino Corridor area if it was applied on
the west side of El Camino Real.
The City of Palo Alto requests that the RHNA numbers reflect some of this housing development
in the County’s allocation, which we believe is consistent with the County’s current housing
element. While we understand that the reallocation of units does not mean that they reduce Palo
ABAG: Draft RHNA Allocations: June 29, 2012
Page 2
Alto’s allocation accordingly, it would seem that some of them, particularly those nearest El
Camino and the train station, would have that effect.
The City of Palo Alto hopes these allocation issues may be addressed in a timely manner so there
is no need to protest the final numbers, as happened in the prior cycle, and to allow a more
thoughtful evaluation and allocation as part of the current review. The City of Palo Alto has
broached this subject with the County and Stanford, and will continue to meet with them to
assure there are not impacts or unintended consequences for them.
Thank you again for your consideration of the City’s suggestion. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact Curtis Williams, the City’s Director of Planning and Community
Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or Curtis.williams@citofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto
cc: Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
James Keene, Palo Alto City Manager
Bill Shoe, Santa Clara County Planning Office
Charles Carter, Stanford University
Ken Kirkey, Planning Director, ABAG
Hing Wong, ABAG
Justin Fried, ABAG
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2993)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Execution of
the State of California Department of Community Services and Development
2012-2014 Direct Payment Program Agreement No. 12Y-1418 Governing the
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department's Administration of Home Energy
Assistance Program Funds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manager or his designee to execute Direct Payment Agreement No. 12Y-1418 between the
California Department of Community Service and Development (State CSD) and the City of Palo
Alto for the purpose of making direct payment from State CSD to the Utilities accounts of
qualifying low-income residents.
Executive Summary
The United States Department of Health and Human Services annually distributes authorized
funds under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to states to assist
eligible low-income households with payments for heating and/or cooling energy expenses. The
State CSD then distributes these funds, under its Home Energy Assistance Program, to energy
providers under the LIHEAP terms and conditions. LIHEAP eligibility is based on the combined
household income of the residence and provides financial assistance of up to $290 annually per
qualifying Utilities account.
Background
LIHEAP financial assistance is based upon the poverty guidelines used by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal and state agencies. These
guidelines are published annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services under the authority of Title 24, United States Code, 9902(2).
The current LIHEAP administrator for Santa Clara County is the Sacred Heart Community
Service, headquartered in San Jose. The county’s LIHEAP allocation, in combination with a
small-scale utility payment assistance program offered by the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul,
the ratepayer-supported City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Rate Assistance Program, and the
utility customer-supported voluntary contribution PROJECT PLEDGE program, are the currently
available sources of financial assistance for Palo Alto residents with qualifying accounts.
Since October 2003, State CSD has required that the City of Palo Alto’s executed LIHEAP
Agreement be accompanied by a resolution or ordinance authorizing CPAU participation and
execution of the provisions of the Agreement.
Discussion
LIHEAP payments are restricted to the electric and/or natural gas portion of the CPAU customer
bill, and the Agreement with State CSD provides for one energy payment per funding year to
qualifying low-income families. Although the LIHEAP agreement refers to both the Home
Energy Assistance Program and the Energy Crisis Intervention Program, the City is only
participating in the Home Energy Assistance Program at this time.
State CSD, through its county administrator, provides the applying utility customer with
program intake services, including verification of eligibility and determination of allowable
LIHEAP payment. CPAU is provided with the names of applicants determined to be eligible for
LIHEAP assistance, and maximum payment to be applied to the Utilities account. The elapsed
time from CPAU customer initial LIHEAP application to Sacred Heart Community Service,
verification of program eligibility, determination of funding amount, and direct payment by
State CSD to CPAU, averages eight weeks.
In Fiscal Year 2011-12, there were 103 Palo Alto Utility residential accounts receiving $22,838 in
LIHEAP direct payments (averaging $221.73 per customer). The Direct Payment Agreement is a
no-cost contract, but participartion by the City in LIHEAP results in a minor workload impact for
CPAU Customer Service and Credit and Collection staffs for local program administration
(including coordination with other local financial assistance programs), customer contact and
referral, and payment tracking, investigation and reconciliation.
Resource Impact
The estimated impact of LIHEAP on the Utilities Department staff is less than 50 hours per fiscal
year.
Policy Implications
The recommendation is consistent with the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan Strategic
Plan Strategy BP6. “Offer programs to meet the needs of customers and the community.”
Environmental Review
The adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition a project under Public Resources
Code Section 21080 or Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therfore no California
Enviromental Quality Act assessment is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B: City of Palo Alto Direct Payment Agreement No. 12Y-1418 (PDF)
Prepared By: Raveen Maan, Senior Resource Planner
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
120815 dm 6051765
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and
Authorizing the Execution of the State of California Department of
Community Services and Development 2012-2014 Direct Payment
Program Agreement No. 12Y-1418 Governing the City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department's Administration of Home Energy Assistance
Program Funds
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto (“City”), a California charter city, has offered energy
assistance to families of low-income since 1981 as a part of the City’s Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program; and
B. The United States Department of Health and Human Services annually
distributes authorized funds under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(“LIHEAP”) to states to assist eligible low-income households with payments for heating and/or
cooling energy expenses. The State of California Department of Community Services and
Development (“State CSD”) then distributes these funds, under its Home Energy Assistance
Program, to energy providers under the LIHEAP terms and conditions; and
C. The City has a contract (the "Direct Payment Program Agreement") with the
State of California to provide direct credit to the accounts of Palo Alto residents who have been
identified by the State CSD as recipients of payments to be made under and in accordance with
LIHEAP, which includes the Home Energy Assistance Program; and
D. The Direct Payment Agreement No. 12Y-1418 is for the term July 1, 2012
through September 30, 2014;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City of Palo Alto to enter into and
execute with the State of California Department of Community Services and Development the
2012-2014 Direct Payment Program Agreement.
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
120815 dm 6051765
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21080 or Section 15378 of the
CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, no California Environmental Quality Act environmental
assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney ______________________________
Director of Utilities
______________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2989)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
September 04, 2012 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 2989)
Summary Title: Approval for Contract Ambulance Billing Service
Title: Approval of Contract with ADPI West for Ambulance Billing Services for Up
to Five Years in a Total Amount not to Exceed $900,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached Agreement between the City and ADPI West, DBA: Intermedix, for a one
year period through September 30, 2013, with the option to renew for four additional one year
periods.
The total contract amount would not exceed $166,667 per year, or $900,000 over the full five-
year period.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto Fire Department currently bills for ambulance transports through a third
party vendor. Due to the complex and constantly changing regulations in health care billing, it is
necessary to rely on the expertise of a billing vendor. Outsourcing to a third party billing
vendor has increased revenues for the city.
The City Auditor conducted a study in 2007 that recommended very detailed and increased
oversight of patient accounts. A process was put in place to have a continuous review of
accounts and monthly meetings with the vendor to discuss accounts, and the vendor for this
contract will be required to comply with that process.
DISCUSSION
Service Description
The work to be performed under the contract is for patient billing services when ALS/BLS
transport is provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The need for a billing service’s
contractor was necessitated by several factors:
September 04, 2012 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 2989)
Insurance industry reporting challenges and changes require unique expertise in the field of
patient billing. At current staffing levels, it is impossible to cope with increasingly complex
billing and coding changes each year.
MediCare’s flat rate billing process requires significant additional documentation and accounts
receivable processing. Current billing software utilized by the City does not incorporate ever-
changing mandated data requirements, such as insurance codes and MediCare rate
calculations.
Inter-facility scheduled transport billing requires significantly unique documentation and highly
detail-oriented accounts receivable processing.
Average collections for the program over the last three fiscal years (08-09, 09-10, and 10-11)
were approximately 2.3 million per year. The City’s experience with outsourcing medical billing
to a third party administrator has demonstrated a significant increase in revenue generation.
Prior to outsource billing the collection rates were approximately 1 million dollars.
Selection Process
The City issued a request for proposal (RFP) for ambulance billing services earlier this year and
had 6 responses. ASD and Fire Department staff reviewed and rated each proposal. The top
three candidates were interviewed on June 20, 2012 and rated on their proposals and services
offered. The vendor selected by the interview panel was Intermedix. Out of a possible 500
points Intermedix received 490, the second vendor received 477 and the third received 443.
Staff seeks to award this contract to Intermedix as this firm offers a wide-range of services that
will best meet the City’s overall needs. Intermedix will provide the City with a comprehensive
package of billing, collection, follow-up, account posting, accounts receivable reconciliation,
financial accounting, receipts management and reporting services, including the capability to
extrapolate data from the current electronic patient care report system currently used by the
Fire Department. In addition, Intermedix will provide the City with customized financial,
demographic, volume, acuity, performance, response and productivity reports on demand. All
services are to be provided on a contingent fee basis with fees paid on a percentage of
collections.
Intermedix holds many municipal ambulance billing contracts within California and the Bay area
with over 30 years of experience. Intermedix was selected due to the vendor’s experience and
qualifications in ambulance billing.
Intermedix has the resources and expertise necessary to appropriately implement and continue
medical billing. Intermedix has proprietary software and technology for paperless, automated
billing. They have a large Bay Area/Northern California presence: City of Alameda, Berkeley,
Palo Alto, San Francisco, South SF, Sacramento and most recently, Paramedics Plus (Alameda
County Ambulance Service) with 90,000 transports a year.
September 04, 2012 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 2989)
Intermedix offers extensive and customized reporting capabilities, ensuring the City will have
access to accurate information with which to monitor the program. The city has access to all
account information remotely at any time for spot audits and customer requests.
Intermedix has provided billing services to the City for the past three years and consistently met
the performance measures implemented as a result of the ambulance billing audit over the life
of the current contract.
For their service, they retain a percentage of 4.75% fee for net funds collected. The current
contract expires September 30, 2012. They are currently integrated into City’s electronic
patient reporting software and would need no start up time. The new fee for service would
drop to 4.5% net funds collected. Actual monthly fees paid to Intermedix will vary due to the
flexible collections and call volume fluctuations.
The not-to-exceed amounts proposed for this contract allow for some flexibility for future
municipal fee increases and increases in call volume over the next three years. Although
transports have been flat for the last few years, with the implementation of the EMS Study
recommendations in 2012, we are expecting an increase of transport volumes as we capture
transports that have been turned over to the county ambulance services.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Contract fees are based on a percentage (State Percentage) of funds collected for EMS
transport services; thus, revenue generated during the contract extension period will more
than offset the proposed contract cost.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies and will allow the City to continue
the outsourcing of ambulance billing at a competitive rate.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This contract is not a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A - ADPI West Contract 082712 (PDF)
Prepared By: Kim Roderick,
September 04, 2012 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 2989)
Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2885)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Extend the term of Rail Shuttle Bus Administration
Title: Approval of Amendment No. 19 to the Contract with the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Administration to Extend the
Term for One Year and Add $51,980 for a Total Not To Exceed Amount of
$2,877,244
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
amendment to the Rail Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board (JPB), extending the term of the agreement for one year through June 30, 2013
and adding $51,980 to cover the City’s Embarcadero shuttle operating costs during the period
July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. This will increase the cumulative contract expenditure limit
to $2,877,244.
Background
In 1999, the City and JPB entered into the Rail Shuttle Bus Administration agreement for the
provision of shuttle bus services for the Palo Alto shuttle program, through the JPB Caltrain
shuttle bus program. The agreement provides that the agencies may extend the term of the
agreement upon mutual consent. There have been eighteen contract extensions since the
original agreement was executed.
The original JPB agreement contained terms and conditions for two distinct services: (1) the
basic Embarcadero/Baylands Caltrain commuter peak period shuttle route, which is part of the
Caltrain commuter shuttle program and subsidized up to 75% by the JPB, and (2) expanded
shuttle routes, including the Crosstown shuttle and special school commute service, funded
exclusively by City of Palo Alto. In January 2011, the City Council approved a three year contract
with MV Transportation to provide service for expanded shuttle routes, including the
Crosstown shuttle. However, City continues to contract with the JPB for the Embarcadero
Shuttle, which is a part of the Caltrain peak hour commuter shuttle program and is subsidized
heavily by the JPB.
Discussion
The nineteenth amendment to the agreement, in letter format (Attachment A) dated July 17,
2012, provides for continued shuttle services for the Palo Alto shuttle program from July 1,
2012, through June 30, 2013.
Staff is requesting that the Council approve the attached amendment to the Rail Shuttle Bus
Administration Agreement (S0114750) to provide continuing operation of the Caltrain
Embarcadero/Baylands shuttle program for the next year.
The cost of the Embarcadero/Baylands commute period shuttle service for this fiscal year is
estimated to be $207,922. The contract amendment with the JPB stipulates that the City
reimburse the JPB a sum of $51,980, equal to 25 percent of the annual cost of the peak period
Embarcadero/Baylands commute shuttle.
Resource Impact
Funding included in the 2012/2013 operating budget for the Palo Alto Shuttle program is
sufficient to cover the service and operating costs for the Embarcadero Shuttle. No additional
resources will be required at this time. The extension of this agreement with the JPB will not
impact the contract with MV Transportation that provides service for the Crosstown shuttle.
Policy Implications
This request is consistent with existing Council direction to continue and expand the Palo Alto
shuttle project.
Environmental Review
On August 2, 1999, the City Council approved a Negative Declaration finding the shuttle project
would not result in any significant environmental impact.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Caltrain Joint Powers Board Contract Extension Letter Agreement dated
July 17, 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By: Ruchika Aggarwal,
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
July 17,2012
Ms. Ruchika Aggarwal
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Planner
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
RE: EXTENSION OF BA YLANDSIEMBARCADERO SHUTTLE BUS
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
Dear Ms. Aggarwal:
The existing Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement between the City of Palo Alto
("City") and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ("JPB") dated March 30, 1998
("Agreement") terminates on June 30, 2012. This Letter Agreement extends the ternl of
the Agreement for a one year period only from July 1,2012 through June 30, 2013
("Extension Period") by mutual consent, as permitted in the Agreement.
The City will be required to pay the JPB $51,980 during the Extension Period,
constituting twenty-five percent (25%) of the $207,922 estimated cost of operating the
Baylands/Embarcadero Caltrain Shuttle during the Extension Period.
The Baylands/Embarcadero service is currently operating at a cost per passenger of
approximately $3.47. The maximum cost per passenger benchmark is $4.00 per
passenger. The additional riders from other firms support continuation of this route.
The Agreement, when extended, will remain in effect during the Extension Period in all
respects except as expressly revised in this letter.
If the terms of this Letter Agreement are acceptable to you, please sign below, keep a
copy of this letter for your files, and return the original letter to me.
The JPB's obligation to fund the shuttle during the Extension Period is conditioned upon
our receipt of this Letter Agreement no later than August 30, 2012.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
1250 San Carlos Ave. -P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 650.508.6269
1
If you have questions about what these changes mean to your program, you can contact
me at leep@samtrans.com, or at (650) 508-6433.
Sincerely,
Paul Lee
Manager, Bus Contracts
Agreed to and accepted this _ day of _____ , 2012.
City of Palo Alto By: _________ _
Name:
Its:
2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3023)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
September 04, 2012 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 3023)
Summary Title: Workers Comp third-party administration services contract
Title: Approval of a Contract for Up to Five Years with York Risk Services Group,
Inc. In a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,175,000 for Workers’ Compensation
Claims Administration Services.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached
contract with York Risk Services Group Inc. effective July 1, 2012 to provide workers’
compensation claims administration services. The total amount for the three year
contract will not exceed $696,150.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to renew the contract
for two additional one-year periods in the amount not to exceed $239,012 per year;
provided York Risk Services Group Inc. continues to meet the City’s needs and the
quality of its work is acceptable during the term of the contract.
Background
The work to be performed under the contract is for third-party claims administration services
for the City’s workers’ compensation program. These services are currently provided by York
Risk Services Group Inc. These services include: the processing of all workers’ compensation
claims in accordance with applicable Labor Code regulations; engaging services related to the
investigation and defense of claims; engaging the services of appropriate medical providers;
determining what benefits, if any, should be paid; handling all the necessary forms in each
reported claim; and performing all tasks in a timely manner as required under California
workers’ compensation laws. The term of the proposed contract with York Risk Services Group
Inc. ends on June 30, 2017.
September 04, 2012 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 3023)
As it is the City’s obligation to ensure that administration of the workers’ compensation
program is managed in the most effective manner, the City requested proposals from other
claims administrators to see what alternatives other firms had to offer.
Discussion
Selection Process
Staff sent a request for proposals to eight firms on April 20, 2012. The proposal period was
twenty-one days. A total of seven firms submitted proposals ranging between $205,500 to
$250,000 per year. Human Resources staff carefully reviewed the proposals in response to the
Request for Proposal relative to the following criteria:
Public agency experience, specifically with medium size cities including public safety
officers benefits (California Labor Code 4850 provides injured public safety employees
with salary continuation up to one year in lieu of temporary disability and requires
additional handling and knowledge);
Stability of ownership and management experience;
Ability to provide innovative programs and services;
Established, reliable, reporting technology and online capabilities; and
Customer service capability.
Two finalists were selected to be interviewed. York was selected to continue serving as the
City’s third party administrator. York has an exhaustive list of California cities clients and thus
are able to offer knowledge and resources to meet the needs of the City’s workers’
compensation program. They have a proactive claims management philosophy focused on
communication, quality control and partnership. Claim frequency and cost have decreased in
the most recent six-year period and this is attributed to the diligence of the York claim handling
team, their familiarity with the unique needs of Palo Alto’s program and the collaboration
established with the City’s risk management staff. In the previous three year totals of new
claim frequency have decreased from 133 in 2008-2009 to 93 in 2011-2012. The total claim
cost decreased by approximately $400,000. In addition, York has an established, reliable
document management system with superior features and reporting capabilities that has
created efficiencies and provides customer reports. York has successfully demonstrated its
ability to provide a high level of quality, innovative services and results in its claims
administration services and it was not evident that other vendors would provide any higher
level of service or quality.
Resource Impact
York will charge a flat fee, not to exceed $232,050 annually for the first three years of the
contract. Funding for this agreement is currently provided in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget in the
amount of $300,300 for this year. Based on the not to exceed actual amount of the new
contract, the City will experience a $68,250 savings in the FY 13 Workers’ Compensation Fund.
September 04, 2012 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 3023)
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with current City policies.
Environmental Review
This is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Contract For Workers Comp Admin (PDF)
Prepared By: Sandra Blanch, Assistant Director, Human Resources
Department
Department Head: Kathryn Shen, Director, Human Resources
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C12145543
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this day of August, 2012, ("Agreement")
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"),
and YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., a New York Corporation and authorized to do
business in State of California, located at 750 The City Drive, Suite 350, Orange, California 92868
("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion ofthis Agreement.
A. CITY intends to outsource the administration of its Self-Insured Worker Compensation
Program ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to provide Third Party Administration
Services for its Self-Insured Worker Compensation Program ("Services").
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualitications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULT ANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this
Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2015 unless
terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 ofthis Agreement. .CITY retains option to renew for up to
two additional one (I) year periods based upon CONSULTANT's performance of the Services
described in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall complete the Services within the term ofthis
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement
shall be commenced and completed by CONSULT ANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner
based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, during the initial term shall not exceed Two
Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Fifty Dollars per year ($232,050.00), except for Years 4 and 5, if
exercised. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Fifty Dollars
($232,050.00) per year. In the event the City chooses to exercise its option to renew for up to two
additional one year periods, the compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the
services described in Exhibit "A" shall not exceed the amounts specified in Exhibit C.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rate. If applicable, the invoice shall also
describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment
requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the
City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process
and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinformed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
2
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppData\LocaI\Microsoft\ Windows\ Temporary Inlernet FiJcs\Content.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C1214.5.543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL,doc
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. Ifthe total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (1 0%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY
for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement,. shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
CONSULTANT shall be deemed the agent of the City for the limited purpose of discharging its
duties, as specifically set forth in this Agreement.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSUL TANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior v,lfitten consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion ofthe work to be performed under this Agreement
without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsuitant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Marcus Beverly as
the Project Director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution
of the Services and Debra Yokota as the project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the
3
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppData\Local\Microsofi\ Windows\Temporary Inlcrnet Files\Colltent.Outlook\MZKX6Xl8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project
coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project
director and the assignrhent of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior
written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shaH promptly
remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in all acceptable manner, are
uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to
the safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Sandra Blanch, Email: Sandra.B1anch@CityotPaloAlto.org ,
Telephone: (650) 329-2294 Human Resources Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA
94303. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respectto performance,
progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from
time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, aH writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shaH be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shaH be vested
in CITY, and CONSUL TANTwaives and relinquishes aH claims to copyright or other inteHectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, ifany, shaH make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of
the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during
the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSUL T A~T further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fuHest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnifY, defend and
hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified
Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or
injury to any person, property damage or ally other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever
nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting
from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT,
its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is
caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shaH be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnifY an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
3
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppData\Loeal\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\MZKX6XJ8\C1214.5543 Y Qrk Risk Draft W· York
FINALdoc
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification,
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire tenn of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or
in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
5
Professional Serviees
Rev. June 2, 20tO
C:\Uscrs\rrofhery\AppDala\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Flles\Contellt.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\CI2145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL,doc
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event ofa
substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will
survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16,19.4,20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
6
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Uscrs\rrothery\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content,Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT:
With a copy to:
Jody A. Gray
Senior Vice President
York Risk Services Group, Inc.
750 The City Drive, Suite 350
Orange, CA 92868
Peter E. Lind, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
York Risk Services Group, Inc.
99 Cherry Hill Road, Suite 102
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, tinancial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any tinancial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate fmandal disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
7
Professional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
C:\Users\rfOthery\AppData\LocaJ\Microso£l\ Windows\Temporory Internet FiJes\Content.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste
best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling
or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verifY that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charterofthe City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion ofthe
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence
in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
8
Professional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
CIL sers\rrothery\AppDala\Locai\Microsofi\ Windows\Tcmporary Internet Files\Colltent.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section l798.81.5(d) about
a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security
of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing
purposes without City's express written consent.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
9
Professiollal Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrolhery\AppData\Loca\\Microsoft\ Windows\T ernporal)' Internet FiJes\Content.Outlook\MZKX6Xl8\C12 J 45543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
/I
/I
/I
10
Professional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppDafa\Local\Microsoft\Windows\TempoTary Internet Files\Contenl.Oul!ook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
The intent of this Scope of Services is to insure that the CITY and York agree on the service levels
outlined herein this agreement in an effort to maintain the highest customer service standards to the
benefit of the CITY.
I. INTRODUCTION
The CITY of Palo Alto (CITY) is self-insured for workers' compensation in the State of Cali fomi a
through a combination of self-insurance (Certificate #7102) and excess coverage. Under this Scope
of Services, York Risk Services Group, Inc. (York) shall administer the Workers' Compensation
Program of the CITY of Palo Alto, in accordance with the terms of this agreement and as set forth in
this scope of services.
II. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT REOUIREMENTS AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
York Agrees:
A. To examine, on behalf of the CITY, all reports of industrial injury or illness relating to CITY
employees and reported to York;
B. To engage the services ofperson(s) or firm(s) other than York, upon written approval from
the CITY, for services relating to the investigation and defense of claims, and to coordinate services
ancillary to claims.
C. To determine in a timely and accurate mmmer, on behalf ofthe CITY, what benefits, if any,
should be paid or rendered under the applicable workers' compensation laws in each reported claim;
D. To pay compensation, medical expenses, Allocated Loss Expenses, and other benefits as
prescribed by law out of funds provided by the CITY;
E. To maintain a claim file on each reported claim which shall be available to the CITY at all
times for inspection and to conduct, at a time and frequency to be determined by the CITY, claim file
reviews with the CITY at a location to be determined by the CITY;
F. To aggressively handle subrogation claims against responsible parties in order to preserve the
CITY's right to recovery;
G. To consult with and advise the CITY on any matter arising in conjunction with the business
of the CITY which involves the subject matter of this Agreement;
H. To provide all necessary forms and supplies for the efficient operation of the Workers'
Compensation Program, including customized checks bearing the CITY name and seal, and to
prepare and file all legally required forms and documents;
]
Professiona.l Servicc.s
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Conrent.Outlook\MZKX6Xlg\C 12145543 York Risk Draft W-Y ark
FINAL.doc
1. The examiner assigned to the CITY of Palo Alto shall handle the CITY's program
exclusively and will not be assigned to any other accounts. The examiner shall have a minimum of
five years' experience and a minimum of two years 4850 experience, unless other than these
minimums are authorized by the CITY.
J. Supervisor(s) and manager(s) must have a minimum of ten (10) years of experience
handling/supervising workers' compensation and be SIP certified at the time of contract start time.
K. The CITY retains the right to control the selection of all legal, nurse case management and
investigative services. The responsibility for assigning such services shall be with the Assistant
Director ofHR and/or the CITY Safety Officer. The contractor's claims examiner shall coordinate
the daily vendor services.
L. CITY retains the right to control the selection of subrogation counsel. Aggressive
subrogation services are desired as part of the agreement.
M. To engage Qualified Vocational Rehabilitation Representative services if required and shall be
the responsibility of York with the approval of the Assistant Director of HR and/or the CITY Safety
Officer.
N The CITY shall be notified prior to any staffing changes with any claims person assigned to
the account. In the event that York, at any time during this agreement, intends to reassign any claims
person assigned to the account, York shall notifY the CITY prior to reassignment of any staff
member and allow the CITY to be involved in the decision-making process. In addition, the CITY of
Palo Alto shall retain the right to participate in the selection of the senior and assistant examiners
assigned to the account;
O. In the event that the CITY, at any time during the term ofthis agreement, is dissatisfied with
any claims person assigned to the account, the CITY will notifY York of their dissatisfaction. If after
60 days from notification, the CITY is still dissatisfied, York shaH remove said person assigned
immediately upon recei ving written notification from the CITY of the desire for the removal of such
person;
P. To provide the CITY with computer-generated loss runs, case logs, check registers, risk
management reports and any other claim related reports requested by the CITY, at a frequency to be
determined by the CITY;
Q. To biannually provide a loss report for claims with no activity for the previous six months;
R To provide monthly, a comprehensive claims report as described by the CITY two weeks or
less after the end of the reporting period including but not limited to: workers' compensation claims
summary report; workers' compensation fiscal year claim summary report; litigation summary
report; modified duty, status report; and detail claim summary report.
S. To utilize a third party vendor, upon the approval of the CITY, to review and cost control, all
12
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\LJscrs\rrothel}'\AppDa\a\LocaIWicrosoft\ Windows\Temporal}' Internet Files\Content.Out!ook\MZKX6X18\C 1214.'L'543 York Risk Draft w~ York
FINAL.doc
medical, hospital and drug bills and to assist the CITY with designating industrial medical clinics
and hospitals which will provide the CITY with a preferred provider (PPO) discount at fees less than
the Industrial Fees Schedule (IFS), and to provide an itemized list of all medical savings resulting
from this program, at a frequency to be determined by the CITY;
T. To utilize a third party vendor, upon the approval of the CITY, to provide Utilization Review
services consistent with ACOEM guidelines and the California Labor Code to monitor frequency,
duration and appropriateness of all services during the claim life, and to provide an itemized list of
all medical savings resulting from this program, at a frequency to be determined by the CITY;
u. To subscribe to and pay on behalf of the CITY, enrollment in the Index Bureau System on
behalf of the CITY, for workers' compensation claims in Califomiaand to report to the Index Bureau
each and every Indemnity claim filed;
v. To provide toll-free "800" telephone numbers for employees ofthe CITY to contact York
regarding questions or concerns regarding claims information; and
w. To provide a complete and detailed electronic conversiun of all claims data.
X. To coordinate and attend file review meetings with CITY staff and claims staff on a quarterly
basis and may attend additional meetings with other CITY staff as required.
III. SPECIAL CLAIMS HANDLING SERVICES
1. York agrees to provide the following Special Claims Handling Service:
A. To establish Indemnity of Lost Time Claims within five (5) days upon receipt of the
Employers First Report oflnjury (Form 5020) from the CITY.
The definition of an Indemnity Claim shall be an industrial injury or illness claim for which any of
the following benefits are claimed:
1. Temporary Disability
2. Permanent Disability
3. Life Pension
4. Death;
B. To confer wi th the Assistant HR Director or Safety Officer regarding questions, reports, or
issues concerning claims and to assist CITY department managers and supervisors regarding
questions, concerns, or issues involving employee claims
C. To immediately notify the Assistant HR Director, by providing a copy of a Reserve
Computation Sheet, of any reserve changes over twenty-thousand dollars ($20,000.00);
D. To review and obtain advance notice and approval by Assistant Director of HR or CITY
Safety Officer of any Claim Denials;
IJ
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothcry\AppData\LocaJ\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet FiJes\Content.Outlook\:MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINALdoe
E. To close Medical Only Claims within twelve (12) months from the date of injury or within
twelve (12) months from last day of treatment. The CITY will be updated on closures every thirty
(30) days. Exceptions to this requirement shall be reported in writing to the CITY;
F. To confer with the Assistant Director ofHR or Safety Officer as the following conditions
arise:
To approve a Vocational Rehabilitation Plan for injuries prior to (Year to be determined)
To refer a claim to a law firm or attorney
To approve surveillances, sub rosa, or other investigations
To obtain settlement authority over fifteen-thousand dollars ($15,000.00);
G. To promptly acknowledge receipt of voice mail and email messages within 24 hours;
H. To consistently maintain a high level of customer service with CITY staff and injured
employees;
1. To promptly furnish the Assistant Director ofHR or Safety Officer with all required material
papers, which consist of but shall not be limited to:
Applications and Other Legal Documents
Work Restrictions
Letters from Defense Counsel
Vocational Rehabilitation Reports
Private Investigation Reports and Summaries
Benefit Notices
Delay and/or Denial of Claim Notices
Medical Reports, as needed, in cases involving an Industrial Disability Retirement;
J. To submit to the CITY for approval and closure within five (5) days of receipt of written
notice, all undisputed Advisory Ratings.
K. To provide the CITY with a check register and a claims and expense report that balances with
the monthly loss experience report. These reports will be sent no later than ten (10) days following
the end of each month to the Assistant Director of HR.
1. To establish controls and procedures to manage and control the cost of defense.
IV. SPECIAL CLAIMS HANDLING SERVICES OF THE CITY
The CITY agrees to provide the following special claims handling services:
A. To promptly report to York all incidents of employee industrial injuries or illnesses;
B. To promptly forward to York all applications, reports, notices, or any legal correspondence
pertaining to claims administration;
Professional Services.
Rev. June 2,2010
14
C:\Uscrs.\rrothery\AppData\Loeal\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outiook\MZKX6XI8\C 1214554J York Risk Draft W·Y ork
FINAL.doe
C. When applicable, to make all attempts possible to assign employees to modified duty
pursuant to the CITY of Palo Alto Workers' Compensation Modified Duty Policy;
D. To make available to York funds for the payment of benefits or services for industrial injuries
or illnesses;
E. To pay, with funds provided by CITY, all Allocated Loss Expenses defined as: all expenses
incurred on behalf of CITY and reasonably necessary for the adj ustment, handling, settlement, or
resistance of claims, including litigation expenses; and
F. To pay York all service fees as prescribed and included in Exhibit B -Fee Schedule.
V. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
A. The Claims Supervisor shall be responsible for the following:
I. Review and assign all new claims;
2. Review to determine if referral to outside investigation firm is appropriate. Supervisor will
document each review whether investigation is conducted or not;
3. Review to determine if referral to defense counsel is appropriate when any of the following
occur:
a. Notification of applicant attorney representation
b. Suspected fraud
c. Subrogation
d. Filing of 132A or Serious and Willful Misconduct
e. Need for legal discovery or depositions, etc.
f. Issues that may need to be resolved by the WCAB
g. Claims involving presumptions
h. Claims with incurred value over $25,000
The supervisor will document every claim file in which one or more of the above criteria exists
indicating whether or not the claim should be referred to defense counsel and the reasoning for the
referral;
4. Oversee the development of the claims examiner's action plan in those cases in which
various alternatives may be appropriate. Supervisor will contactthe CITY of Palo Alto by telephone
or email to communicate the need to consider alternative action plan options and solicit their input
and/or concurrence;
5. Coordinate and attend file review meetings with CITY staff and claims staff on a quarterly
basis and attend additional meetings with other CITY staff, as necessary; and
15
Proiessional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppDala\Local\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\MZKX6X[8\C 12145543 Yark Risk Draft W ~ York
FINAL.doc
6. Establish a personal relationship with the primary medical vendors used by the CITY of Palo
Alto and maintain a professional rapport and ongoing communication to discuss issues as necessary.
B. The Senior Claims Examiner shall be responsible for the following:
1. To make initial contact with all injured workers by telephone within twenty-four (24) hours
following the date York receives an indemnity claim from the CITY to explain benefits and obtain
medical history, prior workers' compensation claim information and any other pertinent information.
Follow-up phone contact shall be made with the injured worker at least every two (2) weeks
thereafter provided the injured worker remains off work and unrepresented by council. Dates, times,
and details of all telephone contacts must be documented in the claim file;
2. To contact injured workers by telephone when any ofthefollowing occurs, unless the injured
worker is represented:
a. Explain the delay process when claims are placed on delay;
b. Explain the reason for denial when a claim is denied;
c. Explain permanent and stationary findings, permanent disability and ratings;
3. To contact the CITY on delay claims to determine action plan;
4. The claims examiner shall adhere to the following three-tier system:
a. Schedule the most appropriate medical treatment utilizing the designated medical
scheduling service or authorized physicians:
I. Physical therapy treatment shall only be authorized at facilities located in
Palo Alto unless otherwise approved by the Assistant Director of HR or
Safety Officer;
2. In order to expedite proper diagnosis of an injury, the claims examiner will have
the discretion to authorize initial diagnostic tests such as MRI's, CT Scans,
and nerve conduction studies without referral to Utilization Review;
b. Employees on lost time status shall be returned to modified work status within thirty
(30) days if available. Claims examiners shall aggressi vely pursue a release to modified duty for all
CITY employees through written and verbal communication with the medical provider and;
c. Employees on modified work status shall be returned to their usual and customary
duty status as soon as possible;
5. In all cases, the claims examiner must attempt to gain and maintain medical control of cases
per labor code 4600 unless a physician's statement is on file or a written change in treating physician
is provided by the applicant.
VI. COST REDUCTION GUARANTEE
16
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppData\LocaJ\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Ouciook\MZKX6XI8\C 12145543 York Risk Draft W -York
FINAL.doc
York agrees:
A. To guarantee the CITY of Palo Alto at least a 1: 1 indemnity closure ratio in each calendar
year of service under this contract. If this goal is not attained, York will credit the CITY of Palo Alto
$5,000.00 ofthe annual service fee.
B. To guarantee the CITY of Palo Alto that at least 32% of the indemnity claims reported during
service year will be closed by the end of the service year. If this goal is not attained, York will credit
the CITY of Palo Alto $5,000.00 ofthe annual service fee.
VII. PENALTIES
Penalties imposed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), the Department of
Industrial Relations, the Division Of Workers' Compensation, the Federal Government, or any
judicial forum or quasi-judicial forum in the State of California, arising out of the denial of claims
shall be the responsibility of the CITY if imposed as a result of actions taken by York at the express
written direction of the CITY.
Penalties imposed as a result of improper denial of claims shall be the responsibility of York if no
formal request for denial was obtained by or from the Assistant Director of HR.
Penalties imposed as a result of either party's failure to comply with the administrative rules,
regulations and the Labor Code of the State of California shall be the responsibility of the culpable
party.
York shall provide the CITY with a quarterly accounting of all penalties paid by Yark on behalf of
the CITY, including a listing of each penalty payment and the specific claim file to which the penalty
payment was charged. Penalties shall be paid out of the CITY's benefit account and York shall then
reimburse the CITY within thirty days (30) of the issuance of the penalty and fines report, for those
penalties and fines which are the responsibility of York under the terms and conditions of this
agreement.
17
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrolhery\AppData\LocaJ\Mierosoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W -York
FINAL.doc
EXHmIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete the necessary Tasks in a timely
manner and to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY.
18
Professional Services
Rev, June 2, 2010
C:\Uscrs\rrothery\AppDatB,\LoclIl'I'Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet FHes\Col\(eutOutlook\MZKX6Xl&\C12145 543 York Risk Draft W ~ York
F1NAL,do<
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$232,050.00 per year, and the amounts specified below for Years 4 & 5, if the city chooses to
exercise its option to renew the contract in those years~ CONSULTANT agrees to complete
all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY
authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed
$232,050.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a
total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to
the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as described in Exhibit A -
Scope of Services and budgeted below. The CITY's Project Manager may approve in writing
the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided
the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed
$232,050.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $232,050.00,
and the amounts specified below for Years 4 & 5, if the city chooses to exercise its option to
renew the contract in those years.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Year 1
(2012-13)
Year 2
(2013-14)
Year 3
(2014-15)
Year 4
Year 5
NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
$232,050
$232,050
$232,050
The contract price for the period of July 1, 2015,
through June 30, 2016, shall be based on the change
in the annual average increase from April 2014 to
April 2015 in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
Consumers Price Index provided, however, that the
increase shall not be more than three percent (3 %).
The contract price for the period of July 1, 2016,
through June 30, 2017, shall be based on the change
14
Professional Services
Rev. June 2,2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppOata\LocaJ\Microsoft\Windows\TemporBry Internet Files\Content.Outlook\MZKX6Xl8\CI2145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL. doc
in the annual average increase from April 2015 to
April 2016 in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
Consumers Price Index provided, however, that the
increase shall not be more than three percent (3%).
Sub-total Basic Services per year $232,050.00
Reimbursable Expenses $0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $232,050.00
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0
Maximum Total Compensation per year $232,050.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: NONE
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's
project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhib it C-l. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
15
Professional Services
Rev. June 2. 2010
C:\Uscrs\rrorhery\AppData\Local\Mierosofi\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OutJook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W -York
FINAL.doe
Payment for additional serVIces is subject to all requirements and restrictions m this
Agreement
Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be
considered as additional services:
16
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
C;\Users\rrothery\AppData\Loeal\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content. Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C1214554J York Risk Draft W -York
FINAL.doe
EXHIBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PAW ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THETERMOF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN
AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR TIlE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM
BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. AS SPECIFIED, BEWW:
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPWYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJUR Y, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY COMBINED.
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000.000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPE1UY DAMAGE $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES I $1,000,000 I
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSLlRED: CONTRACfOR, AT 1TS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT TIlROUGHOUTTHEENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT,
TIlE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT
AS ADDITIONA L INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES,
ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPWYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING I
L INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE A.MOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROV AL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
IlL ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NA.MED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
18
Professional Services
Rev June 2, 2010
C:\Users\rrothery\AppDala\Local\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C12145543 York Risk Draft W-York
FINAL.doc
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURF.n AGAINST ANOTHER, RUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NON·PA YMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A THIRTY (3D) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON·PA YMENT
OFPREMJUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY ATLFASTA TEN (10) DAY
WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRA nON
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
19
Professional Services
Rev June 2. 2010
C:\Users\rrothcry\AppData\LocaJ\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\MZKX6XI8\C 12145543 York Risk Draft w-York
FINAL.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Request for City Council to Cancel the Regular Meeting of September
17, 2012 and Call for a Special Meeting on Tuesday, September 18,
2012
Staff respectfully requests the City Council meeting of Monday, September 17, 2012 be
cancelled due to the lack of a quorum, and to call a special meeting on Tuesday, September 18,
2012.
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/24/2012 3:06 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3045)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Award of a Purchase Order for Two Ambulances
Title: Approval of Purchase Order with Leader Industries in an Amount Not to
Exceed $393,267 for the Purchase of Two Ambulances (Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program VR-13000)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with
Leader Industries in the amount of $393,267 for the purchase of two
ambulances; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
more changes to the purchase order with Leader Industries for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the
total value of which shall not exceed $10,000.
Background
The vehicle and equipment replacement policy described in the City Policy and
Procedures 4-1 (Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement),
provides for the on-going replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment.
Replacements are scheduled using guidelines based on age, mileage
accumulation, and obsolence.
The City’s fleet currently includes four ambulances. Policy 4-1 prescribes a
replacement interval for ambulances of four (4) years or 85,000 miles. The
existing replacement guidelines are outdated and will be extended in the next
revision to the Policy. Newer ambulances are more reliable and should last in
excess of 100,000 miles. However, the two ambulances that will be replaced
through this purchase (#6043 and #6044) are more than 9 years old, with 124,050
and 141,553 miles respectively. These ambulances were used exclusively for
frontline service from June, 2003 through January, 2012.
Discussion
This purchase is being conducted with full consideration of the recent Audit of
Vehicle Utilization and Replacement. The audit did not include a review of the
City’s inventory of emergency vehicles, and emergency vehicles are generally
exempt for minimum utilization requirements. The vehicles being replaced
through this purchase have greatly exceeded the minimum mileage accumulation
of 2,500 miles annually. Regardless of utilization, the City may face decreasing
capability to respond to emergencies without the new vehicles.
On February 14, 2012, the Fleet Review Committee (FRC) approved replacement
of these vehicles in accordance with the audit recommendations. The approval
was based on the following:
An examination of each vehicle’s current usage;
An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs;
A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each
vehicle with others in its class; and
An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage
reimbursement;pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another utilized
vehicle, or renting.
The FRC determined that there are no alternatives to outright replacement.
Ambulances are used for special tasks and are equipped with a considerable
amount of medical and emergency equipment that renders them unsuitable for
any purpose other than emergency medical response. This precludes their
assignment to a motor pool, and rules out the use of a private vehicle with
mileage reimbursement. They are each used by a single shift on a continuous
daily basis, so there are no opportunities for sharing. There are no similar,
underutilized vehicles available to use as replacements for these vehicles.
Renting these vehicles would not be a cost-effective option because they are
continuously used throughout the year.
Bidding and Selection Process
On February 7, 2011, a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for ambulances was sent to
four vendors. Bids were received from two qualified vendors on March 16, 2011,
as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment A). Bids ranged from a high of
$810,872 to a low bid of $798,483. The total bid price is for four ambulances (two
were purchased in Fiscal Year 2011, and two are being requested now). The total
bid also includes a trade-in credit for two existing ambulances. Staff did not
exercise the trade-in option because the trade-in credit was less than the market
value of the vehicles.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid submitted by
Leader Industries be accepted and that Leader Industries 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
Funding is available for this purchase in Vehicle Replacement Fund Capital
Improvement Project VR-13000.
Policy Implications
Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing
policy.
Environmental Review
The vehicles being supplied are in conformance with all applicable laws and
regulations. This purchase is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act
under the CEQA guidelines (Section 15061).
Attachments:
A - Bid Summary Type III Ambulance RFQ140129 (PDF)
Prepared By: John Moran, Assistant Fleet Manager
Department Head: J. Michael Sartor, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Attachment B
BID SUMMARY
Type III Ambulance
RFQ140129
Leader Industries Bid Total $798,483.00
Golden State Fire Apparatus Bid Total $810,872.42
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3063)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Adoption of Funding Agreement for 2010 Measure B Vehicle
Registration Fee
Title: Approval of Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority for 2010 Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Local
Road Improvement and Repair Program
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Fund Transfer Agreement (Attachment A) between
the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for use of the
2010 Santa Clara Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Local Road Improvement and Repair
Program funds.
Background
Senate Bill 83 (Hancock) was signed into law in 2009, authorizing countywide transportation
agencies such as VTA to implement vehicle registration fee programs of up to $10 per motor
vehicle registered within each county for the support of transportation programs and projects
consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). Within Santa Clara County, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) prepares the Valley
Transportation Plan (VTP) and projects and supported by the Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF)
program must be consistent with the VTP.
On June 3, 2010, the VTA Board adopted a resolution placing the 2010 Santa Clara Measure B
VRF program before Santa Clara County voters in November 2010. Voters approved the
measure by majority vote that year authorizing a $10 increase in the annual fees of motor
vehicle registration for transportation-related projects and programs. The California
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began collecting the fee in April 2011. The initial
distribution of VRF revenues from VTA local member agencies is scheduled to occur in
September 2012 for fees collected through June 2012, slightly more than one year’s worth of
revenues.
The VTA Board of Directors adopted administrative procedures related to the VRF and an
expenditure plan allocating the proceeds from the VRF funds directly back to cities within the
county, along with the establishment of competitive programs. Based on these procedures, the
VRF funds will be distributed as follows:
80% of the VRF funds are dedicated to the Local Road Improvement and Repair
Program, in which the revenue is returned directly to local jurisdictions based on
each city/town’s population and the County of Santa Clara’s road and expressway
lane mileage; The City of Palo Alto will be eligible for an allocation of approximately
$350,000 per year; this first year’s disbursement is $365,751 because the revenue
collection period exceeds one year. These funds are on-going with no sunset date.
15% of the VRF funds are dedicated to the Countywide Program, in which the
revenue is made available for Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects every
three years. The first round of competitive funding was just released by the VTA in
August 2012; the City plans to submit proposals for local ITS projects along
University Avenue including traffic signal controller and cabinet replacements and
pedestrian facilities.
Up to 5% of the VRF revenue is reserved for VTA for Program Administration with
unused funds disbursed through the Countywide Program.
Discussion
Local Road Improvement and Repair Program:
VTA proposes to issue the initial 2012 VRF - Local Road Improvement and Repair program fund
disbursement, in September 2012. The current VRF guaranteed fund for the Local Road
Improvement and Repair Program for Santa Clara County is $11,211,888. Palo Alto’s total
guaranteed amount is $365,751 for the first disbursement. These funds may be used for
pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction, traffic control signals, curb and gutter
rehabilitation and reconstruction, roadway related facilities to improve safety, automobile
related environmental mitigation, including roadway sweeping and litter control. Cities may
also bank their funds to provide for a larger project. This is the approach that staff is
recommending for use of the 2012 VRF funds in Palo Alto. Staff will subsequently recommend
that the first two disbursements be reserved to offset the total project cost of the California
Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project.
Each July, VTA staff will review and update the actual return-to-source funding based on data
from the State of California and population data. Funds will be distributed to agencies each
summer and if funds are banked in that year, interest realized from the banking of the funds
remains with the City as well. The City is required to use the funds and interests earned on the
funds only for eligible categories of projects approved by Measure B.
The attached funding agreement governs the transfer of VRF - Local Road Improvement and
Repair Program funds to the City of Palo. This agreement would be in effect for as long as VTA
continues to make disbursement of funds as approved by the voters of Santa Clara County. If
grants are received through the competitive ITS program, additional agreements may be
required.
This VRF – Local Road Improvement and Repair Program agreement reflects the requirement
that Palo Alto must certify that it will make a Good Faith Effort (GFE) to maintain a level of
expenditures on VRF eligible activities equivalent to the previous maintenance activities.
Specifically, VRF funds cannot be used to replace existing maintenance programs, the VRF
program is intended to supplement and enhanced existing programs. Each VTA member
agency will be required to submit an annual report of how the funds were used and to
document previous year maintenance expenditures. 2011 will serve as the base year for
previous maintenance expenses. Every five years the base line year may be re-evaluated to
demonstrate how the program continues to enhance local maintenance activities for future
program audits. Requirements for the annual report will be made available by the VTA later
this fall.
Resource Impact
No local match is required for the VRF Local Road Improvement and Repair Program. These
grant funds are not expenditure reimbursed, the VTA will issue first fund disbursement
following receipt of the signed funding agreement. Staff expects to bank this first disbursement
as allowed by the program so that two years of revenues can be collected for use towards
funding of the California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape project. Staff will report
annually to the Council projects recommended for funding through the VRF Local Road
Improvement and Repair Program.
Policy Implications
The recommended actions in this report are required in order for City of Palo Alto to receive
funds from VTA in an amount of approximately $350,000 annually. The City of Palo Alto will
receive $365,751 as part of this initial 2012 VRF Local Road Improvement and Repair program
disbursement because the initial revenue collection period exceeds one year. These funds are
on-going with no sunset date.
Environmental Review
The City is entitled to its share of the Measure B funds and approving a contract to receive
those funds is not a project subject to environmental review. However, potential environmental
impacts of specific projects on which these funds will be spent will be analyzed on a project-by-
project basis, as those projects arise.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Vehicle Registration Fee Funding Agreement with VTA (PDF)
Prepared By: Ruchika Aggarwal,
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FOR 2010 MEASURE B VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE LOCAL ROAD
IMPROVEMENT AND REPAIR PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT is between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a “Member Agency”,
referred to herein as "RECIPIENT", and the SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, referred to herein as "VTA". Hereinafter,
RECIPIENT and VTA may be individually referred to as "Party" or collectively referred
to as "Parties.”
I. RECITALS
1. Whereas, on June 3, 2010, the VTA Board of Directors adopted a resolution to place
a ballot measure before the voters of Santa Clara County in November 2010 to
authorize a $10 increase in the Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) for transportation-
related projects and adopted the expenditure plan in Attachment A which allocates the
revenue to transportation-related programs and projects that have a relationship or
benefit to the persons who pay the fee; and
2. Whereas, on October 7, 2010, the VTA Board of Directors adopted administrative
procedures for the VRF program, referred to hereinafter as PROGRAM; and
3. Whereas, these administrative procedures state that VTA will execute PROGRAM
funding agreements with project sponsors; and
4. Whereas, on November 2, 2010, the voters of Santa Clara County enacted the $10
vehicle registration fee on motor vehicles registered within Santa Clara County to pay
for programs and projects bearing a relationship or benefit to the owners of motor
vehicles paying the fee; and
5. Whereas, the PROGRAM includes a Local Road Improvement and Repair Program
consisting of a direct return-to-source formula based on City population and County
of Santa Clara road and expressway lane mileage; and
6. Whereas, VTA and RECIPIENT desire to specify herein the terms and conditions
under which Local Road Improvement and Repair PROGRAM grants are to be
conducted and financed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this
Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
II. VTA’S OBLIGATIONS
VTA agrees:
6
1. To pay RECIPIENT an initial distribution of Local Road Improvement and Repair
Program funds collected by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and
received by VTA from the date of initial fund collection to June 30, 2012, plus
associated interest. The Fund Distribution Formula is based on the County of Santa
Clara’s percentage share of the total roadway lane mileage recorded in the county by
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), with the remaining funds to be
distributed to RECIPIENT based on RECIPIENT’s percentage share of the total
county population (excluding unincorporated areas) as reported by the California
Department of Finance. Funds will be distributed after July 1, 2012, following
execution of the VRF Local Program Funding Agreement and receipt of
RECIPIENT’s initial Annual Report described in Section III-5.
2. To update roadway mileage and population shares annually with current information
as of June 30 of current year.
3. To distribute subsequent funds, based on the formula described in Section II-1 above,
for the Local Road Improvement and Repair Program funds on an annual basis
consisting of funds received by VTA from the DMV between July 1 of the previous
year and June 30 of the calendar year of disbursement, plus associated interest
generated in VTA’s accounts. The distribution will take place following the
beginning of the next State fiscal year and the receipt of the previous year’s annual
report described in Section III-5 below.
III. RECIPIENT’S OBLIGATIONS
RECIPIENT agrees:
1. To develop eligible project(s) as set forth in Attachment A.
2. To credit VTA’s funding contribution on all signage, electronic or printed materials
distributed to the public that are related to PROGRAM projects.
3. To certify, and continue to certify on a yearly basis, a Good Faith Effort (GFE) to
maintain a level of expenditures (including non-discretionary formula based state
funds) on VRF eligible activities equivalent to the expenditures on these activities
during the fiscal year 2010/11 (base year). The base year may be revised every five
years, if needed, and VRF revenues will be excluded. The following funds are
excluded from the GFE expenditure calculation: State and Federal Discretionary
Grants (including but not limited to ARRA, CMAQ, HBRR, HSIP, SR2S, STP, and
Proposition 1B etc.), associated local matching funds, and one-time local expenditure.
GFE requirements are automatically waived in years where the State of California
fails to make non-discretionary payments of streets and roads funding to Cities and
Counties. VTA may also consider granting waivers based on extraordinary
circumstances beyond the control of a city or town council, County Board of
Supervisors, and/or city and County staff. The certification will be provided by
RECIPIENT to VTA as set forth in Section III-5.
6
4. After receipt of funds from VTA, to track interest earned on unexpended PROGRAM
funds and apply interest to PROGRAM eligible projects as specified in Attachment
A.
5. To submit annual reports of RECIPIENT’S expenditures of PROGRAM funds and
associated interest, in a form to be provided by VTA to RECIPIENT. Each report will
cover twelve months consisting of the previous State fiscal year. Reports are due from
RECIPIENT to VTA no later than October 15 of each year as a condition of receiving
funds. As part of the annual report, RECIPIENT will certify that it continues to make
a Good Faith Effort (GFE) to maintain a level of expenditures as stated in section III-
3. An initial report, containing the notification of GFE base year amount and
statement of GFE for FY2012/13, shall be submitted by RECIPIENT to VTA after
the execution of this agreement.
6. To maintain PROGRAM financial records, books, documents, papers, accounting
records and other evidence pertaining to costs for five years. RECIPIENT shall make
such records available to VTA upon request for review and audit purposes. Financial
audits will be performed at VTA’s discretion. RECIPIENT will be contacted in
writing in advance of any audit or other PROGRAM review.
7. To provide VTA with information regarding scope, award and delivery of projects at
the time of award and completion.
IV. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Both Parties agree:
1. Neither VTA nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
RECIPIENT under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated
to VTA or RECIPIENT under this Funding Agreement. Both Parties agree that
pursuant to Government Code 895.4, RECIPIENT shall fully defend, indemnify, and
save harmless VTA from all suits or actions of every name, kind and description
brought on for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section
810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RECIPIENT
under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
RECIPIENT under this Funding Agreement. This provision shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
2. Neither RECIPIENT nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
VTA under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
RECIPIENT or VTA under this Funding Agreement. Both Parties agree that pursuant
to Government Code 895.4, VTA shall fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless
RECIPIENT from all suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought on
for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring
by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by VTA under or in connection
6
with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to VTA under this Funding
Agreement. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
3. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Funding Agreement shall be valid
unless made in writing and signed by both of the parties hereto and no oral
understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the
parties hereto.
4. PROGRAM costs incurred on or after July 1, 2011 are eligible expenditures.
5. This Funding Agreement contains the entire understanding between the VTA and
RECIPIENT for the PROGRAM. It supersedes any and all other agreements, which
may have existed between the parties. This Funding Agreement shall not be modified
except by written agreement signed by each party. This Funding Agreement shall be
binding upon each party, their legal representatives, and successors for the duration of
the VRF.
6. The term of this Funding Agreement shall commence when fully executed and
continue until terminated due to the repeal of Sections 65089.20 to the Government
Code and Section 9250.4 of the Vehicle Code, as those sections may be amended,
which authorizes the imposition of the VRF.
7. Any notice which may be required under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be
effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, by the U.S. Postal
Service or by certified mail, to the addresses set forth below, or to such addresses
which may be specified in writing to the Parties hereto.
VTA:
Manager, Programming and Grants
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95134
CITY OF PALO ALTO:
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Planning and Transportation Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
8. Within 30 days from the Effective Date of this Agreement, RECIPIENT shall notify
VTA of RECIPIENT’s PROGRAM Liaison and of the Liaison’s address, telephone
number and email address. The PROGRAM Liaison shall be the liaison to VTA
pertaining to implementation of this Agreement and shall be the contact for
information about the PROGRAM and PROGRAM projects. RECIPIENT shall
notify VTA of the change of PROGRAM Liaison or of the Liaison’s contact
information in writing no later than 30 days from the date of any change.
6
9. Each Party to this Agreement represents and warrants that each person whose
signature appears hereon has been duly authorized and has the full authority to
execute this Agreement on behalf of the entity that is a party to this Agreement.
10. No Waiver. The failure of either Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of
the terms, covenant and conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of
any right or remedy that either Party may have, and shall not be deemed a waiver of
their right to require strict performance of all of the terms, covenants, and conditions
thereafter.
11. Dispute Resolution. If a question arises regarding interpretation of this Agreement or
its performance, or the alleged failure of a Party to perform, the Party raising the
question or making the allegation shall give written notice thereof to the other Party.
The Parties shall promptly meet in an effort to resolve the issues raised. If the Parties
fail to resolve the issues raised, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including
mediation, may be pursued by mutual agreement. It is the intent of the Parties to the
extent possible that litigation be avoided as a method of dispute resolution.
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and its performance enforced
under California law.
13. Venue. In the event that suit shall be brought by either Party to this Agreement, the
Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the State courts of the County
of Santa Clara or, if federal jurisdiction is appropriate, exclusively in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San José, California.
CITY OF PALO ALTO (RECIPIENT) SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
James Keene, City Manager Date
Michael T. Burns, General Manager Date
Approved as to Form and Legality:
Approved as to Form:
Molly Stump, City Attorney Date
Evelynn Tran, Senior Assistant Counsel Date
Au><hm •• , A
~llt.. LK.I Tr3n'portation ID ... " ... DI r u.r
Mul. HiU S3 [Ipt.ttilm~ Pb •
....... {I'J'l
1IlII -'".,Ir'''"w UN '",,'dl ~ ... _ ....... ,.c.." '; """-r....,-<l: ... a.. ....J"""-__ '-",,"-)
• u..-_-llll ...... (fY~ll)
· ~~c ;,,~.oIl_"' __ ,u.;...oIooi&o, -.......... -.,~~~ .,_ ...... _-.-
., 7utr.c-> ..... r"' .. _ Ics.,c..._
., ~_u...tf"""'''~s.looy
., ''''';'hll.l-U... "~-w.~s...,;..Ic ~
~"
1 .!lli c... __ fnrao
• u..-_ 11 I _,F, :>Oll)
· ~~c ;',~.oIl_"' __ ,u.;...oIooi&o,
_...... .... __ ., ...... ~s,.->
., ....... r,_ s,.-r".m"q;.,( ___ " , ......
o;£,_ .... m.,-... ~"...... ..-)
., c-_.dollo.-.Jlij-_ .......................... ......
. , J.lo-riuoofad.b f_S-",~-",""._ .,<;,l • .., . .....,
~,..;... ;"m"wiobdoo«<l·,,,,7...,,....... Pba
J. rno rm.....u.r..:_
• u..-_ "l_iF':>Oll~<-_ .... _tm.pc.-y,. .... .....
• ~I';,pomoc ___
., ~.o..dT""''' J -........ ...,.... "' •• __ ...,.. • ....,,00!i.!I _ ......... _. ,< ..... -
., .t...I.,.H<_oI ....... _
Au""hm •• ' A
~11t.. Lou] I r~n,p"'1ation (nn"m.nl Fu.r
.wul. Bill!i3 [Ip ... dilur~ Pb •
....... (1.,-'<)
IRII-[_ .. '''me .• ''''1,,/\ (l)<otc ==_ , • ..,. _ ,.c.." ';
""'-r...,-or ... [)", mol .... -",,,,,,,a-__ ) • :u.-__ \1I1 ...... (fY:'Cll)
l'.:ip;;.1'"j""~(.>ridoo .oIl ____ ,u.;..,oIooi&o, ----.... -.,~!..-~ ., _._;..,,;.,,-.....
o ~_c-> ..... r"'.I.,J· acs.,"",,,,,
, Io.dnr-u.o.tf ......... ,.,."s.>oy ., 1"";'-' 1H .... r..io "~~~r....,;.;,acu...
~"
1 .!lli Con._""",.
:u.-_ $2 1.w..(Ff:>Oll)
l'.:ip;;.1'r,;u~(.>ridoo .oIl ____ ,u.;..,oIooi&o, ____ .... _.,~~s,.->
., ....... r,_ s,-,.r~(. __ ') , K.\riq ...r.,.-d......,m.r............ ..-)
,c-_oiltllo·.-.llij-_ ......................... .....
, J.lo-cioio,,"",b fol..t.S-_LP>U--"""'..-..,ocI • ., . .......,
~ ....... ;,m"w;"t.dootod·, ... ~ ........... Pba
, rh.'~~~ fme.JhO .. ., ..... -:u.-_ "l.w..IA·:>Oll~<-_ .... _~c-,-.-.do
'-' l'.:ip;;. bpomo c--"" , '-"'0;"";,. ...... ,,. -,,,,,,,...,qIt,,,p ,..,..,...,.,,"*-'1
_ ......... _. 'd· ... _
o "-'I.~_01 ...........
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
City of Palo Alto's Ballot for 2012-13 Peninsula Division Executive
Committee Elections
The Peninsula Division League of California Cities 2012-2013 Executive Committee Elections will
be tabulated at the Annual Breakfast on Friday, September 7, 2012 in San Diego, California.
Each city is entitled to one vote for each office.
The candidates for the 2012-13 Executive Committee of the Peninsula Division are:
President:
Rich Garbarino, Mayor, South San Francisco
Vice President:
Chuck Page, Mayor, Saratoga
Secretary-Treasurer:
Kelly Fergusson, Council Member, Menlo Park
At-Large (only one vote for Santa Clara County):
Jason Baker, Council Member, Campbell
Jim Davis, Council Member, Sunnyvale
Nancy Shepherd, Council Member, Palo Alto
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct the City Clerk to provide Council Member Shepherd with the completed ballot for the
City of Palo Alto to bring to the League Annual Conference. The recommendation is for the
Council to cast their vote for: Mr. Garbarino for President, Mr. Page for Vice President, Ms.
Fergusson for Secretary-Treasurer and Council Member Shepherd for the member At Large.
ATTACHMENTS:
Peninsula League Information (PDF)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/24/2012 3:00 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
2nd Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance Regarding Massage
Regulations
Second Reading of the Ordinance approved by the City Council on July 23, 2012, 8-0 Scharff
absent. No report required.
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/28/2012 3:17 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 4, 2012
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
2nd Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance Adopting a Plan for
Improvements at Cogswell Plaza
Second Reading of the Ordinance approved by the City Council on July 23, 2012 (8-0 Scharff
absent). No report required.
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 8/28/2012 3:18 PM by Beth Minor Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3077)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Revote High Speed Rail Initiative
Title: Consideration of a Vote of Support for the Revote High Speed Rail
Initiative
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
On July 25, 2012, the “Revote High Speed Rail” campaign was suspended by its authors as
litigation against the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) moves through the court
system. Therefore, staff recommends that no further action, including a vote of support for the
initiative, is taken on this issue until the campaign is restored. Previously, the City Council Rail
Committee recommended that Council support the “Revote High Speed Rail” initiative because
it is consistent with Council’s adopted policy that the High Speed Rail (HSR) project should be
terminated.
Background and Discussion
The “Revote High Speed Rail” initiative was co-authored by California Senator Doug LaMalfa
and retired US Congressman George Radanovich. If placed on the ballot and approved by the
voters, the initiative would immediately prevent the sale of any additional HSR bonds approved
by the voters under Prop. 1A, effectively ending the currently proposed HSR project. The full
“Revote High Speed Rail” initiative text is attached to this staff report (Attachment A) or can be
viewed at www.revoterail.com. Currently, the campaign is suspended.
With the passage of SB 1029 on July 6, 2012, $4.76B of the $9.95B Prop 1A bonds were
authorized for immediate sale to fund the initial Central Valley HSR segment and connectivity
projects in the Bay Area (i.e. Caltrain Electrification) and Southern California. Therefore,
preventing the sale of these bonds is one of the few means the City has to protect the state
from the negative financial impacts that the City believes this project will cause.
Council’s policy statement opposing HSR asserts that the project as proposed contradicts Prop.
1A. Moreover, Council is concerned that the economic viability of HSR is highly questionable
because the Business Plan is based on faulty assumptions and, therefore not credible. At the
June 13, 2012 City Council Rail Committee meeting the Committee voted 2-1 to recommend
that the City Council support the initiative with Councilmember Burt dissenting and
Councilmember Scharff absent. Councilmember Burt was concerned about the timing of a
potential vote of support by the City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Revote High Speed Rail Initiative Text (DOCX)
Prepared By: Richard Hackmann,
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Revote High Speed Rail Initiative Text
Stop the $100 Billion High Speed Train Act
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS and DECLARATIONS
The people of the State of California find and declare that:
1. When voters approved the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century
in 2008, they were promised a statewide High-Speed Train project including Sacramento, the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San
Diego at a cost of approximately $45 Billion.
2. According to the California High Speed Rail Authority in 2008, the estimated cost for Phase One of
the project linking just San Francisco and Los Angles was $34 Billion. This phase eliminated
Sacramento, Oakland, the Inland Empire, and San Diego. By early 2012, their estimated cost for this
Phase One more than tripled and could reach $118 Billion.
3. Despite spending more than $500 Million, not one mile of track was built between 2008 and early
2012 and plans became dependent on billions of dollars of future federal grants or billions of dollars
of debt or private investments that the taxpayers of California will be responsible for repaying.
4. California cannot afford to pay for a high speed train system that will cost more than $100 Billion at a
time when teachers and police are being laid off, prisoners are being released from prisons, and
taxpayers are being asked to dig deeper into their own pockets to pay for basic services.
5. This measure shall be known as the “Stop the $100 Billion High Speed Train Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 2704.045 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
2704.045. Notwithstanding Section 2704.04, it is the intent of the People of California that no further
bonds shall be issued and sold for purposes of Sections 2704.06 and 2704.095.
SECTION 3. Section 2704.096 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
2704.096. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no further bonds shall be issued
and sold for purposes of Sections 2704.06 and 2704.095 on and after the effective date of this
section.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, all unspent proceeds received from
outstanding bonds issued and sold pursuant to Sections 2704.06 and 2704.095 prior to the effective
date of this section shall be redirected from those high-speed rail purposes for use in retiring the
debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or any other provision of law, with respect to
construction or operation of the high-speed rail project authorized by this chapter, the state shall not,
on and after the effective date of this section, (1) incur any additional debt, (2) accept or use any
federal funds, (3) provide or use any state funds, or (4) accept any local funds.
(d) All agreements entered into by or on behalf of the state relating to the high-speed rail project,
other than agreements related to the issuance and repayment of previously issued bonds under this
chapter, are hereby terminated as of the effective date of this section.
SECTION 4. Severability
The provisions of this measure are severable. If any provisions of this measure or its application is
held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 5. Conflicting Initiatives
In the event that this measure and another measure or measures relating to the Safe, Reliable High-
Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century shall appear on the same statewide election
ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this
measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the
provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or
measures shall be void.
***Source: http://www.revoterail.com/initiative
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3091)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Grant Proposal Submittal - Stanford Campus to Bay Trail
Program
Title: Request for Authorization to Submit a Grant Proposal to the County of
Santa Clara for the "Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program: Connecting the Bay
to Ridge" for $10.4 Million of Recreation Funds Established by the
County/Stanford Trails Agreement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the submittal of a joint grant proposal with Stanford
University for “The Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program: Connecting the Bay to Ridge” in
response to a call-for-projects by the County of Santa Clara for use of recreation funds
established by the County/Stanford Trails Agreement.
Executive Summary
Staff is requesting authority to submit a joint application with Stanford University to develop a
grant proposal for the implementation of the Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program with
targeted improvements between the Baylands and Arastradero Preserve in response to a call-
for-projects by the County of Santa Clara for use of recreation funds established by the
County/Stanford Trails Agreement, which defines both the purpose and beneficiaries of the
fund (Attachment B). The proposal includes five linkages that together respond to the County’s
primary criteria and help to create a strong link between Stanford University and both the
Baylands and the Arastradero Preserve. The program linkages include five distinct components
(Attachment A):
1) Stanford Perimeter Trail ($4.5M)
New Class I trails along Junipero Serra between Old Page Mill Rd and Stanford Avenue;
Stanford Avenue between Junipero Serra and El Camino Real; and El Camino Real
between Stanford Avenue and Quarry Road.
2) Park Blvd. Bicycle Boulevard – Phase II ($200,000)
Extension of the Park Blvd. Bicycle Boulevard between Oregon Expressway and
Charleston Road. Improvements include on-street neighborhood traffic calming
treatments, signage, and roadway marking improvements. This linkage builds upon
Phase I of the Park Blvd. Bicycle Boulevard between Churchill Avenue and Oregon
Expressway, implemented in the Summer 2012 and connects to the Stanford Perimeter
Trail via on-street bicycle lane facilities on Stanford Avenue.
3) Matadero Creek Trail ($1.5M)
The Matadero Creek Trail creates a new Class I bicycle and pedestrian facility along the
existing levee access roads of Matadero Creek maintained by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District. Depending on feasibility findings, the linkage will extend between the
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard and Greer Road. A direct connection to the Park Blvd.
Bicycle Boulevard is provided via the California Avenue Underpass.
4) Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge ($4.0M)
A new bridge crossing over Highway 101 will provide year-round access between Palo
Alto and the Baylands extending access to recreational activities for Stanford and Palo
Alto residents and regional users. The bridge will require additional local and regional
funding and replaces the existing seasonal Lefkowitz Tunnel. This link is currently under
preliminary design and environmental review by the City of Palo Alto. The requested
funding will provide for completion of the design phase and allow for competition of
regional funding to complete construction of the bridge.
5) Arastradero Road Trail Enhancements ($200,000)
Replaces and widens selected areas of the existing Class 1 trail located along the north
side of Arastradero Road between Foothill Expressway and Purissima Road in the Town
of Los Altos Hills. The project connects to the recently completed S1 trail built by
Stanford via bike lanes on Deer Creek Road as well as the soon to be completed C2 trail
that will be constructed by Los Altos Hills. The linkage enhances recreational
opportunities at the Arastradero Preserve as well as for Stanford Research Park and
school employees and students between Los Altos Hills and Gunn High School/Terman
Middle School.
Figure 1
Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program
Project Linkages
Scale: None
DOWNTOWN
PALO ALTO 01'6
~ \?~«'~
STANFORD
RecentTllIill r~nts
ARASTRADERO_ ...... .r-...., PRESERVE
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
BAY
lANDS
MOUNTAIN
VIEW
Background
County of Santa Clara – Trail Program Funding
The fund that the County is administering is unusual in that its purpose is defined by an
agreement between the County and Stanford University to implement the Stanford University
General Use Permit. The Trail Program Funding is intended to provide for recreational facilities
to mitigate impacts to other local facilities caused by the housing and academic build out
permitted in the General Use Permit (GUP) issued by Stanford.
When the County of Santa Clara approved Stanford’s Community Plan and General Use Permit,
it identified a significant impact to recreational opportunities for existing or new campus
residents and facility users. One of the mitigation measures to address this impact required
Stanford to dedicate easements for two trails shown on the 1995 Countywide Trails Master
Plan (Routes S1 and C1). The General Use Permit expanded on the mitigation by also requiring
Stanford to construct the portions of the trails that crossed its lands, and to enter into an
agreement with the County to specify the location and configuration of the trails.
Stanford and the County entered into a Trails Agreement that describes how Stanford would
comply with the mitigation measure and General Use Permit. First, the Agreement required
Stanford to construct the S1 Trail in a location that the County preferred over the location
shown in the Trails Master Plan. Second, the Agreement determined the location of the C1
Trail was along Alpine Road, and required Stanford to offer money to San Mateo County and
Portola Valley for completion of the C1 Trail in those jurisdictions. Third, Stanford agreed to
pay to construct a third trail, the C2 Trail, in Los Altos Hills.
Stanford dedicated easements for and completed the S1 Trail within Santa Clara
County. Stanford reached agreement with Los Altos Hills and will construct that trail in Spring,
2013. Stanford reached agreement with Portola Valley and has constructed the portion of the
C1 Trail that is located in Portola Valley.
The only jurisdiction that did not accept funding was San Mateo County. The Trails Agreement
anticipated this potential outcome, and required that in such an event, Stanford would instead
pay to Santa Clara County the amount it was required to offer to San Mateo County; this is the
$10.4 funding available within the Trail Program. The Trails Agreement requires that Santa Clara
County use the payment only to mitigate the impact identified in the County's EIR for the
General Use Permit: "the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or new
campus residents and facility users that will be caused by the housing and academic
development approved by the GUP, which will reduce the availability of recreational facilities
while increasing the demand for such facilities."
Call for Projects for Trail Program
In Spring 2012, the Board of Supervisors received a proposal by Supervisor Kniss to use the
$10.4 million to fund projects related to the City of Palo Alto’s Adobe Creek/Highway 101
Bridge project, as well as a proposed Dunbarton Bridge/Bay Trail in San Mateo County. The
Board, however, directed County staff to develop a competitive process to allow for submittals
of projects meeting the objectives of providing trail facilities to serve both a) residents of the
Stanford Campus, and b) community members using recreational facilities on the Campus. The
County of Santa Clara then released a call-for-projects for the Trail Program on August 9, 2012,
with a deadline for submittals of September 6, 2012.
Discussion
Staff from the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University have prepared a joint application to
implement the Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program: Connecting the Bay to Ridge project to
take advantage of the entire $10.4M program budget and includes the following five link
elements shown in Figure 1:
Stanford Perimeter Trail
Park Blvd. Bicycle Boulevard Phase II
Matadero Creek Trail
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge
Arastradero Road Trail Enhancements
The Palo Alto-Stanford joint application has been prepared to directly serve the specified and
intended beneficiaries of the grant funds: a) campus residents and b) community members who
use Stanford's recreational facilities. It also directly addresses the impact to Palo Alto and other
local recreational facilities that will be impacted by the GUP build out. Staff believes that each
linkage on its own meets the spirit of the requirements of the County program but when
combined together represent an extraordinary opportunity to implement a series of new on-
street and off-street trail elements that link together the Stanford Campus, Palo Alto park
facilities and local amenities, and regional recreational facilities such as the Baylands and
Arastradero Preserve. The program is consistent with and implements projects identified in the
Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012, adopted in July 2012. It will also allow
the City to be in a competitive position to request other grant funding opportunities
(particularly for the Adobe Creek/101 bike bridge), given the completion of environmental and
design work and the substantial matching funds already available from this program.
Stanford Perimeter Trail
The Stanford Perimeter Trail, Stanford’s primary component of the joint proposal, is of
significant benefit to Palo Alto residents and other community members. The route connects
the S1 trail and the Stanford “Dish” area to El Camino Real and then to the Stanford Shopping
Center, the Intermodal Station, and El Camino Park. Palo Alto residents comprise the largest
number of non-Stanford community members who use the Stanford Dish Recreational Route.
The project will involve subsequent public review at the County level, and the City will be
notified of opportunities for public input.
Conclusion
The proposed Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program takes advantage of and builds upon active
and recently completed projects by both entities. For example, the Stanford Perimeter Trail
connects to the new S1 Trail along Page Mill Road and bike lanes on Deer Creek Road,
extending recreation facility uses to the soon-to-be constructed C2 Trail in Los Altos Hills and to
the Arastradero Preserve through the Arastradero Road Trail Enhancements Link. The same
linkage then extends through the heart of the residential community intended to benefit from
the County recreation fund by expanding the Park Blvd. Bicycle Boulevard and linking it to a
new trail along Matadero Creek. This segment would extend through the Midtown area while
also providing connections to Hoover Park, Seale Park, Greer Park, the California Avenue/Park
Blvd Plaza, and to public schools including El Carmelo, Escondido, and Nixon schools. The Adobe
Creek/Highway 101 Bridge elements will create a new safe year-round crossing over Highway
101 to link all of these facilities with the Baylands. The Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program also
supports two of the three Bay to Ridge Trail alignments suggested by the City of Palo Alto’s
Parks & Recreation Commission via alignments along Matadero Creek and Arastardero Road-
Charleston Road.
Staff from the City and Stanford University collaborated to develop the concept for the Stanford
and Palo Alto Trail Program and to develop a joint application in response to the call-for-
projects. Staff believes that the five link elements of the Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program
meet the goals of the grant program more competitively together than if the links were
submitted as separate stand-alone proposals. The County’s process does not require the
Council to formally approve the application by resolution. If the County funds the joint
proposal, staff will return to Council for subsequent approvals of various types, including a
funding agreement, revisions to CIP projects and budgets, and contracts for design and
construction. Grant proposals are due September 6, 2012 to the County of Santa Clara and the
final proposal was still being developed at the time this staff report was being prepared and so
is not available as an attachment. A map summary of the proposal is included as Attachment A
and is described in the Executive Summary above. A copy of the final proposal submitted to the
County will be provided to the City Council after submittal to the County and will be made
available online at the City of Palo Alto’s Bike Program website at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/bike.
Timeline
Grant applications in response to the County of Santa Clara call-for-projects are due on
September 6, 2012. If the joint application is selected for funding, the City will be required to
enter into a Funding Agreement (Attachment A) with the County of Santa Clara for the
expenditure and implementation of the proposed projects. Stanford University will enter into a
separate agreement with the County for the management and implementation of the Stanford
Perimeter Trail linkage. The schedule for the implementation of each link will vary depend on
the design and community input process.
Resource Impact
Submittal of a grant application has no immediate resource impact to the City but if the
application is selected for funding by the County of Santa Clara, the City will be required to
create new Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects at mid-year or as part of the FY2014
program. Each of the four City linkage projects would be partially funded by the grant program.
The Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge link specifically will require additional regional grant-fund
sources to complete. Staff will, in the coming months, be recommending an immediate
acceleration of a minimum of $1.0M of the Stanford Unviersity Medical Center Sustainability
Program funds to complete the design of that project to make the project more competitive for
additional regional funds. The remaining three city projects will be further defined upon the
completion of feasibility studies.
Policy Implications
Each of the linkages of the Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program: Connecting the Bay to Ridge is
consistent with the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 and the following
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Elements:
Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programd that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling
Goal N-1 A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s Natural
Resources and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents
Environmental Review
The Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 identifies each of the five linkages
of the Stanford and Palo Alto Trail Program. A Negative Declaration was approved for the Plan,
but each project may require subsequent environmental assessment and study as the design of
each project link is refined through the design and community outreach process.
In addition, Santa Clara County's Program EIR for the Stanford Community Plan and General Use
Permit addresses the environmental impacts of development of projects on the Stanford
campus, including related trail mitigation. The County is expected to rely on that EIR in
connection with approval of trail segments on Stanford land in unincorporated Santa Clara
County.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Stanford and Palo Alto Trails Program Overview Map (PDF)
Attachment B: Santa Clara County Call for Trail Projects (PDF)
Prepared By: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
"b
"b
"b
"b
"b
San Fran
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
Trail
San Fran
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
Trail
bbbbbbbbb""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
bbbbbbbbbbbbb"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dish Route
Dish Route
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
Bol
P
a
r
k
P
a
t
h
·|}þ82
280CALIFORNIA
INTERSTATE
£101
C1
C2
S1
3
2
1
1
1
C2
C1
4
5
City of
Portola Valley
Stanford
University
Stanford
Research Park
City of
Palo Alto
Unincorporated
Santa Clara
County
San
Francisco
Bay
City of
Mountain
View
City of
Menlo Park
City of East
Palo Alto
Town of
Los Altos
Hills
City of
Los Altos
Arastradero
Preserve
(Palo Alto)
Baylands
Preserve
Don
Edwards
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Shoreline at
Mountain View
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Oregon Exp
Matadero
C
r
e
e
k
Charle
s
t
o
n
R
d
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
B
i
k
e
B
l
v
d
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Stanford Ave
Page Mill Rd
Sand Hill R
d
Junipero Ser
r
a
B
l
v
d
Arastradero Rd
Mead
o
w
D
r
California Ave
Caltrain Undercrossing Oregon Expy
Overcrossing
!I 0
0
.
5
0.25
Miles
Stanford & Palo Alto Trails Program
Overview Map
Palo Alto Bay to Ridge Trails Network
Other Trails (Select)
Approved Trail (Est. Completion by 2013)
Proposed Grant Projects (New Linkages)
City of Palo Alto Supportive Projects
(Active Projects Funded by Others)
Existing Trail Linkages
Stanford University Properties
1. Stanford Perimeter Trail
2. Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Extension
3. Matadero Creek Trail
4. Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Overcrossing
5. Arastradero Road C-2 Trail Upgrades
Program Linkages
Countywide Trails AlignmentX#
APPLICATION GUIDELINES
FOR
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION RESULTING
FROM THE LOSS OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNIITIES DUE TO
DEVELOPMENT RESULTING FROM STANFORD UNIVERSITY’S 2000
GENERAL USE PERMIT
Background and Purpose
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara has available $10,379,474 to use on
projects that will mitigate for the loss of recreational opportunities for existing or new Stanford
residents and facility users due to development on the Stanford University campus resulting from
approval of a General Use Permit (GUP) in 2000.
In 2000, the County certified a program EIR and issued the GUP to Stanford University for
campus-wide development. EIR Impact OS-3 recognizes that the development permitted under
the GUP would significantly impact recreational opportunities for existing or new campus
residents and facility users. This impact is the result of Stanford housing development on several
sites used for recreation and an overall increase to Stanford’s resident and worker population,
which would reduce the availability of recreational facilities while increasing the demand for
such facilities.
To mitigate the loss of recreational opportunities, two mitigation measures were adopted.
Mitigation OS-3A requires Stanford to improve parks in the faculty area to provide suitable
recreational opportunities for the campus population and to continue to provide neighborhood
recreation opportunities in new residential areas.
Mitigation OS-3B requires Stanford to dedicate the trail easements. Mitigation OS-3B does not
require Stanford to make any improvements to the trail corridors. Mitigation OS-3B was
satisfied by GUP condition I.2 requiring Stanford to dedicate easements for, develop, and
maintain the portions of two trail alignments which cross Stanford lands shown in the 1995 Santa
Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan (Routes S1 and C1). Agreements for the trails easements
were to be executed within one year of GUP approval in 2000.
However, due to complexities associated with the C1 alignment, the Board directed County staff
and Stanford in 2001 to suspend work on the C1 alignment and to proceed with the S1
alignment. In December 2005, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute a Trails
Agreement with Stanford University.
Trails Agreement
The Trails Agreement required Stanford to construct and dedicate one of the specific S1 trail
alignments. Stanford completed construction of the S1 trail alignment and the trail was opened
Page 2
to the public on May 20, 2011. The C1 trail alignment proposed by Stanford generally followed
Alpine Road. Because portions of this alignment ran through jurisdictions of the County of San
Mateo and the Town of Portola Valley, the Trails Agreement gave Stanford time to reach
agreement with those jurisdictions for their portions of the alignment. If Stanford did not reach
agreement with the County of San Mateo and/or the Town of Portola Valley within a certain
amount of time, Stanford was required to pay the County $8.4 million for the portion of the C1
trail in the County of San Mateo and $2.8 million for the portion in the Town of Portola Valley.
The County of San Mateo and Stanford did not reach agreement within the amount of time
identified in the Trails Agreement and, thus in accordance with the Trails Agreement, Stanford
paid the County $10,379,474 on February 29, 2012. These funds are to be used to mitigate the
significant environmental impact on the availability of recreational facilities caused by
development authorized under the GUP. In particular, the Trails Agreement specifies that these
funds must be used to mitigate the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or
new campus residents and facility users that will be caused by the housing and academic
development approved by the GUP, which will reduce the availability of recreational facilities
while increasing the demand for such facilities. The Trails Agreement further provides that
funds shall not be used for facilities on Stanford University lands without Stanford’s consent.
Applicant Eligibility
Local public agencies, 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, and Stanford University are eligible to
apply for funding of recreational facilities.
Project Eligibility Criteria
Before a project may be considered, applicants must submit an application packet that
demonstrates the fulfillment of the following conditions:
• The proposed project must demonstrably provide recreational opportunities to new and
existing Stanford residents and facility users in a manner that will mitigate Impact OS-3,
specifically: “the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or new campus
residents and facility users that will be caused by the housing and academic development
approved by the GUP, which will reduce the availability of recreational facilities while
increasing the demand for such facilities.” (Trails Agreement, §4(i).)
• The proposed project will be located within or near the geographic boundary depicted in
the attached map, Exhibit 1.
• The proposed project shall be located on public land, public park, or on private property.
A public park is a park that is owned or operated by a county, a city, or other public
agency, such as, an open space district. Eligible private property is land where the
proposed project is to be located that is (i) dedicated to public access for recreational use
by deed or other legal agreement and (ii) open to the public on a non-discriminatory basis.
Page 3
Where the proposed recreational use is established by agreement, such as, a lease, the
agreement must provide for continual use for recreational purposes on a non-
discriminatory basis, and the applicant must submit documentation from the property
owner consenting to the proposed project and committing to the execution of a Project
Agreement.
• If the proposed project is located on Stanford lands then provide written consent from
Stanford University with project application submittal.
• Prior to award of County funding, the project will comply with CEQA.
Public Access to Proposed Project
As a condition of receiving funding from the County of Santa Clara, the public must have access
to the proposed project.
As part of an application where public access already exists, the applicant must submit a deed or
other legal agreement demonstrating that the property where the proposed project will be located
is retained for public access and recreational use.
Where the proposed project is located on private property or on public property not available to
public access, the applicant will convey to the County of Santa Clara or other local public entity
an easement or other legal agreement to provide public access deemed sufficient by the Board of
Supervisors. The easement or other legal agreement will ensure that the property where the
project is located will be retained for public access and recreational use. The easement, or other
legal agreement, will be executed by the applicant prior to receipt of grant funding from the
County, and the County or other local public entity will execute and record the easement, or
other legal agreement, upon distribution of grant funding to the applicant.
Funding Assistance Acknowledgement
The applicant is required to publically acknowledge County of Santa Clara funding assistance.
The primary recognition will be a plaque permanently affixed to the recreational facility
structure or on a prominent location on the project site, visible to the public. Additionally, the
applicant must give credit to the County in project-related materials including newsletters,
brochures, and internet messages regarding the project for which the grant funds were used.
The acknowledgement credit shall read: “Project made possible in part by funding from the
County of Santa Clara.”
Operation and Maintenance
Upon completion of the project, the applicant must open the property to the public, and
continuously operate and maintain the property for the benefit of the public. Ongoing
maintenance of the property is solely the responsibility of the applicant.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3081)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: Grand Jury Report
Title: Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Pension and Other Post-
Employment Benefits
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review, provide input, and approve the following response to
the 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “An Analysis of Pension and Other
Post Employment Benefits.”
Background
On June 13, 2012, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report seeking to
answer the question: “Is the cost of providing pension and other post employment benefits
interfering with the delivery of essential City services and is the ultimate cost to the taxpayers a
bearable burden?”
A copy of the Grand Jury report is included as Attachment A.
Discussion
The Grand Jury’s Report culminates in seven findings and recommendations (see pages 26-28 of
the Report). The following discussion responds to the recommendations.
Recommendation 1 – Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond
current retirement plan ages.
Response: Agree. Palo Alto has already created a second tier for Miscellaneous (non-public
safety) employees extending the retirement age for new hires from 55 to 60. In the past year it
has also extended the retirement age for new safety employees from 50 to 55.
Because the City participates in the CalPERS retirement system, it is limited to the retirement
formulas offered by CalPERS. Retirement age is a factor in those retirement formulas and
cannot be altered by the City. In addition, although the extended age retirement formulas set
the standard retirement age at a higher level, employees may still choose to retire at an earlier
age. For example, with respect to the Miscellaneous 2% at 60 tier, retirement at the age of 60
is not required; an employee may retire beginning at age 50 for a lower benefit factor, or after
age 60 for a higher benefit factor. In fact, the formula would go as high as 2.418% for an
employee who retires at the age of 63 or as low as 1.426% at the age of 50. Lastly, CalPERS
offers a 1.25% at 65 formula, but only for state employees who are in the Social Security
system; Palo Alto would not qualify because it does not participate in Social Security.
Recommendation 2A - Some cities, including Palo Alto, have adopted second tier plans, but
further changes are needed. Second tier plans should be implemented for both Miscellaneous
and Public Safety.
Response: Agree. Since the Grand Jury questionnaire was submitted, Palo Alto has now
adopted second tier plans for safety employees as well as miscellaneous.
Recommendation 2B – Cities which have not already done so should implement second tier
plans for Miscellaneous and public safety employees.
Response: Agree. As discussed above, Palo Alto has already implemented this recommendation.
Recommendation 2C – All Cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden
they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age,
increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension plan caps that ensure pensions do
not exceed salary at retirement.
Response: Agree. However, as discussed above, the City’s options are currently limited to the
pre-determined formulas and other optional benefits established by CalPERS. The City has
taken steps to address issues associated with some of its optional benefits, but also would like
to see CalPERS offer more options for additional cost containment. As discussed in the response
to Recommendation 1, the City has already raised the retirement age for new employees in the
Miscellaneous and Safety groups. In addition, as discussed in Recommendation 4, nearly all
employee groups are now paying (or will be paying in the near future) the full amount of the
PERS employee share.
CalPERS does not offer the option of adopting pension caps within its current formulas. The City
has, however, taken steps to minimize increases to final compensation. State law establishes
several “optional benefits” that CalPERS offers to employers that may result in increasing an
employee’s final compensation beyond the actual final salary amount. In some cases, the
application of these benefits may result in an annual pension allowances that exceed the take-
home pay the employee received before retiring. The City has taken steps to reduce or
eliminate some of these benefits in recent years. For example, the City had an optional benefit
that allowed employer-paid member contributions to be converted to pay-rate in the final
compensation period. To the extent that employees are now paying all or part of the member
contribution, that conversion and the resulting increase has been reduced or eliminated.
Similarly, the City had adopted an optional benefit that designated the final year as the final
compensation period. The City has now moved back to the three-year averaging for new tier
employees, and intends to implement it for all formulas by August 2013 The City believes that
these types of reforms are important and appropriate and will continue pursuing them to the
extent possible under existing law.
Recommendation 3 – The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit benefit enhancements
unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting
the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability.
Response: Agree. This recommendation is addressed by the Labor Guiding Principles adopted
by City Council on April 9, 2012. The Principles include #2, which provides that “The City should
be able to meet the cost of any compensation commitment from current and projected on-
going City revenues,” and principle #8 which provides that “The City should pursue short term
and long term strategies to curtail increasing employee benefit costs. It should move away
from providing benefits that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic increases
and toward benefit structures that require negotiations to determine how much and who will
pay for such costs.” Therefore the Council has in effect already implemented this
recommendation.
Recommendation 4A – The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee
contribution rate of a given plan.
Response: Agree. This recommendation has been a key goal of the City in recent negotiations
and has now been implemented across all employee groups with the exception of the Fire
Chiefs Association (FCA), Police Managers Association (PMA), and the Utility Managers
Association. These groups comprise 55 positions out of a total of 1,016 citywide. The City has
proposed this contribution level for FCA and for the Utility Managers Association and expects to
bring PMA in line with the other groups in the next round of negotiations.
Recommendation 4B – Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service
Cost associated with the unfunded liability in proportion to the Benefits being offered.
Response: Agree. The first step in this direction was to bring employees up to paying their
entire employee share of pension costs. In future labor contract negotiations, the City may
explore with employee groups additional measures to ensure that past service costs are
distributed in an equitable and sustainable manner. Moreover, the City would welcome
legislative change that would prohibit retroactive improvements.
Recommendation 5 – Cities should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and
adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible.
Response: Agreed. Palo Alto approved a policy to make full OPEB ARC payments in 2007
(CMR:438:07) when the City established the trust with CalPERS for retiree medical.
Recommendation 6 – This recommendation pertains to the City of San Jose and is not
applicable to Palo Alto.
Recommendation 7 – Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution
plans as the new tier plans are implemented.
Response: Agree in principle. The Council has recognized the importance of new and more
creative options for post-employment benefits going forward and views defined contribution
plans as an important option. The City already offers all employees, in addition to their CalPERS
pension, the option of participating in a IRC 457 retirement plan and contributing a portion of
their pre-tax earnings for retirement.
However, this is another area where CalPERS currently limits the City’s ability to make changes.
As a CalPERS participant, the City cannot opt out of the defined benefit plans offered by
CalPERS without a prohibited exit cost, or otherwise reduce the proportion of retirement needs
to be met through the defined benefit program. As a result, changes in state law would be
necessary before the City could fully implement this recommendation.
A July 2, 2012 Colleagues Memo to Council raised this and many of the other issues contained
in the Grand Jury Report. Council requested a series of community discussions about pensions,
health care and other employee benefits to take place in September and October, 2012. This
Grand Jury response is a prelude to a broader discussion in the commfunity of these very same
issues.
Additional Information and Clarification
Unfunded Liability
On page 10 of the Report, Table 3 shows unfunded liability for pension and OPEB for 8 cities in
Santa Clara County, as well as the County itself, in total and on a per-resident basis. Staff has
reproduced that table below:
FY 2010 Unfunded Liabilities (Not in Risk Pool)
City Pension OPEB Total
Liability per
Resident
Santa Clara
County
1,455,835,322
1,300,000,000
2,755,835,322 $ 1,547.00
Cupertino
18,581,728 18,069,366
36,651,094 $ 629.00
Gilroy
35,100,000 4,900,000
40,000,000 $ 819.00
Milpitas
70,166,975 31,230,798
101,397,773 $ 1,518.00
MV
104,121,296 29,396,467
133,517,763 $ 1,803.00
Palo Alto
153,941,000
105,045,000
258,986,000 $ 4,021.00
San Jose
1,434,696,471
1,706,081,881
3,140,778,352 $ 3,320.00
Santa Clara
223,667,947 23,855,000
247,522,947 $ 2,125.00
Sunnyvale
149,300,000 92,800,000
242,100,000 $ 1,728.00
Total
3,645,410,739
3,311,378,512
6,956,789,251
It appears from the above Table that Palo Alto has a high ratio of unfunded liability per
resident; however several factors must be considered to place this ratio in perspective.
The table does not appear to take into account the level of service and the unique services that
Palo Alto provides in comparison to other cities in the County. First, Palo Alto is the only of the
above cities operating its own utilities: gas, electric, water, waste water collection, refuse,
storm drain, waste water treatment and fiber optic. Utility operations account for 40% of the
Palo Alto workforce. The General Fund administration provides services (HR, finance, etc.) to
the Utilities which they reimburse annually. The other cities would not have the same staffing
levels as a result of Palo Alto having more utilities. Furthermore, the compensation offered to
Utilities employees must be competitive with equivalent private-sector utilities; salaries in the
Enterprise Funds tend to be higher, and they participate in the CalPERS pension based upon
their salaries.
Second, Palo Alto services include five libraries, theatres, and extensive arts and children’s
programs – far more than comparable cities. These community services, valued by residents as
a part of the lifestyle in Palo Alto, require more employees than the average Parks and
Recreation department. Also to be noted is that Cupertino, with the highest number of
residents per active employee, outsources its public safety services and the figures above apply
to its miscellaneous employees only.
Third, Palo Alto offers regional services, such as our Water Quality Control Plant, our Animal
Services, and our Fire Services provided to Stanford, for which we receive offsetting revenue.
However the full liability is captured in the table.
Fourth, the Cities have unique attributes that make up the OPEB liability, which should be
considered in detail. For instance, comparing Palo Alto to Mountain View’s OPEB liability, Palo
Alto’s is higher due, in part, to covering the cost of dependent healthcare coverage for retirees
while Mountain View does not. Palo Alto also has a greater number of retirees, 860 compared
to Mountain View’s 304. The actuarial calculation of OPEB liability for the two cities differs in a
key assumption related to assumed annual increase in healthcare expense, which increases the
cost of future year liability. Palo Alto’s OPEB actuarial report assumes that healthcare will
increase 9.4% in 2013 and then at least 7.8% per year through 2020. Mountain View’s, on the
other hand, assumes healthcare will increase 7.6% in 2012 down to 5.5% through 2019 and
beyond. Palo Alto’s healthcare cost estimates are very likely to materialize given the recent
trend in healthcare increases. These important differences are a significant factor in while Palo
Alto’s valuation is higher than Mountain View’s.
If we next compare the unfunded liability per employee or per retiree, Palo Alto does not stand
out as much.
City
Unfunded
liability per
active
employee
Unfunded
liability per
retiree
Unfunded
liability/active
employee or
retiree
(combined)
Cupertino $ 226,241 $ 172,883 $ 97,998
Gilroy $ 173,913 $ 156,863 $ 82,474
Milpitas $ 272,575 $ 492,222 $ 175,429
Mountain View $ 256,272 $ 463,603 $ 265,040
PA $ 264,002 $ 202,649 $ 125,615
Santa Clara $ 261,376 $ 398,588 $ 157,859
Sunnyvale $ 270,201 $ 239,941 $ 127,087
AVERAGE $ 191,620 $ 236,305 $ 102,281
Sick Leave Payout
A recent article in the press described the option in some local governments for employees to
get cash for unused sick leave at the time of retirement. Palo Alto made changes to this
practice in the 1980s. Presently there are only 9 long-term employees eligible to receive sick
leave payout. Eventually, all employees eligible will have left the city.
Additional Clarifications
1. On page 15 of the Grand Jury Report (Attachment A), Table 5: Pension Benefit Plan Changes
does not capture Palo Alto’s second tier and employee contribution changes.
The Palo Alto line items should read as follows:
1st Tier Plan 2nd Tier Plan
City year of
increase
Original
Plan
Benefit
Increase
Employee-
Paid
contrib.
Plan
Name
Year
Adopted
Employee-
Paid
contrib.
Palo Alto 2007 Misc. 2%
at 50
Misc.
2.7% at
55
2% -
5.75%
2% at 60 2010 2% to 7%
Palo Alto 2002 Public
Safety 2%
at 50
Public
Safety 3%
at 50
0%-9% 3% at 55 2011-
2012
6.25% to
9%
2. On page 17 of the report, it mentions “Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino are
commended for having begun to implement a “pay forward” strategy [for Retiree Medical],
which demonstrates fiscal responsibility.” Staff wishes to point out that Palo Alto has executed
a “pay forward” strategy since 2007.
3. On page 20 of the report, it mentions that “all Cities surveyed [with a few
exceptions]...either reimburse for accrued unused sick time or permit it to be converted into
service time for purposes of determining pension. Staff wishes to point out that in Palo Alto,
sick leave payouts do not count towards pension credit.
In conclusion, staff requests Council input and final approval of responses to the Grand Jury
report. A final response from the City of Palo Alto regarding the recommendations by the Grand
Jury must be delivered by September 15, 2012. Staff prepared this report before the
Governor's proposal on pension reform was approved. Staff will update the Council on the
Governor's proposal during upcoming discussions on pension and healthcare. It is likely that
elements of the proposal will address the recommendations contained in the Grand Jury report,
but staff will need time to evaluate the proposal before making a final determination.
Resource Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from this report.
Policy Implications
This report is consistent with Council policy to maintain a balanced budget and to pursue
structural changes in employee benefits.
Environmental Review
There is no environmental review required for this report.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report (PDF)
Prepared By: David Ramberg, Assistant Director
Department Head: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3100)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/4/2012
Summary Title: 2012 League of California Cities Resolutions
Title: Approval of City Positions for the 2012 League of California Cities
Resolutions
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote on the five (5) resolutions to be considered at the
Annual League of California Cities (LOCC) Conference to be held in San Diego, September 5-7,
2012 and approve the general guidance provided below.
Background
Each year, the LOCC accepts resolutions from member cities, and elected officials to be adopted
at its annual conference. Before the conference, the resolutions undergo review by the
appropriate LOCC policy committees. On Wednesday, September 5, policy committees will meet
for a final review of the resolutions. Next, the General Resolutions Committee will meet on
Thursday, September 6, to consider the policy committees’ reports and to take action on their
recommended positions. Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee
will then be reported on the floor of the General Assembly at the Annual Business meeting, on
Friday, September 7.
The voting delegates at the Annual Business meeting make the final determination on the
resolutions. The five resolutions to be considered by the League’s Policy Committees are subject
to change in their current form. By approving the recommendation for the resolutions, our City
LOCC representatives, Councilmember Shepherd and Councilmember Scharff (as the alternate)
will have the Council's general guidance for votes to be taken on each resolution and are
authorized to vote on amended resolutions deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
Discussion
The LOCC analyses and original language of the resolutions in their current form are attached
for your consideration. In addition, a summary below has been provided for each resolution and
staff’s recommended City positions.
2012 Proposed League of California Resolutions
1. Resolution calling upon the Governor and the Legislature to
enact legislation that would correct inefficiencies in the
audit system, distribution system and inequities in the
formulas for distributing court ordered arrest and citation
fines, fees and assessments generated by local
government.
Staff recommends
supporting
Revenue from court imposed fines, fees, penalty assessments and administrative costs for criminal
and traffic violations is shared between state, county, and city governments; cities currently receive
a minimal share of revenue from the citations they issue. In addition, because the local
jurisdiction’s distribution is not set by statute, it is the only portion of the fine that may be
amended by a judge resulting in the local jurisdiction bearing the burden of a fine reduction. This
resolution is seeking a more equitable distribution of citation revenues and for a process by which
cities can audit those revenues to ensure they are receiving their fair share.
Source: City of Glendora
Referred to: Public Safety and Revenue and Taxation Policy Committees
City Coordination: Police Department, City Auditor’s Office, City Attorney’s Office
2. Resolution of the LOCC raising public awareness and
supporting tougher laws related to internet crimes against
children.
Staff recommends
supporting
This resolution seeks to increase public awareness of the prevalence of internet crimes against
children and to promote this goal, the resolution requests that the LOCC advocate for legislation
that creates tougher laws for child pornographers and provides additional and more permanent
funding for Interact Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces.
The LOCC staff analysis notes, "the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Program was created
to help federal, state and local law enforcement agencies enhance their investigative responses to
offenders who use the internet, online communication systems, or computer technology to sexually
exploit children. The program is funded by the U.S, Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The program is a nation network of 61 coordinated task
forces representing over 3,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial
agencies. The agencies are engaged in proactive investigations, forensic investigations, and
criminal prosecutions."
Unfortunately internet crimes against children has grown and become more sophisticated as the
technology to reproduce and distribute pornography has developed. Given the tech-savvy nature
of families in the heart of Silicon Valley, our area’s children are likely online more often and become
familiar with electronic devices at very early ages putting them at potentially more risk to online
predators.
Increasing public awareness of internet crimes against children, adopting tougher laws for child
pornographers, and establishing increased and more permanent funding for ICAC Task Forces are
three important goals that staff recommends supporting.
Source: San Diego County Division
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
City Coordination: Police Department, City Attorney’s Office
3. Resolution encouraging California cities to oppose the
California Desert Protection Act of 2011.
Staff recommends
opposing or taking no
position
This resolution encourages California Cities to oppose the California Desert Protection Act of 2011
(S. 138). As introduced by Senator Feinstein on January 25,2011, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, this measure amends the California Desert Protection
Act of 1994 to, among other things:
1) Establish or designate national monuments, wilderness areas, a special management
area, and off-highway vehicle recreation areas;
2) Release specified wilderness study areas;
3) Adjust national park and preserve boundaries; and
4) Specify land withdrawals, exchanges, and acquisitions.
In addition, S. 138 amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate specified segments of rivers
and creeks as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The original California
Desert Protection Act, which became law in 1994, established Joshua Tree and Death Valley
National Parks as well as the Mojave National Preserve. The proposed bill (S 138) will expand
Death Valley and Joshua Tree and will create two new national monuments - the Mojave Trails and
the Sand to Snow National Monuments.
The League justification for opposing Senator Feinstein’s bill for the expansion of the protection of
the desert preserves near the City of Needles, cites the League’s Strategic Priorities for 2012, as
adopted by the League Board of Directors:
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed
constitutional amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city
governments over city revenues, land use, redevelopment and other private activities to
advance the public health, safety and welfare of city residents.
While this strategic priority is consistent with the City’s legislative strategy it does not take into
account the greater need of the State and the Nation for the protection of this unique wilderness
area and wildlife habitat, as well as Senator Feinstein’s flawless record in the area of land
conservation. The expansion of the protection of the desert preserves near the City of Needles
also supports the City of Palo Alto’s Council priority for environmental sustainability. If viewed as a
local issue for the City of Needles and supporting local control, the City of Palo Alto may consider
taking no position on the resolution.
Source: City of Needles
Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Coordination: Community Services Department, Planning & Community Environment, City
Attorney’s Office
4. Resolution requesting consideration of suspension of
Implementation or revision of the California Global
Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 of 2006).
Staff recommends
taking no position
This resolution urges California cities to adopt their own resolutions in favor of suspending the law
until legal and regulatory inconsistencies between its provisions and other state and federal laws
and regulations can be resolved.
The Resolution encourages California cities to:
1) Adopt resolutions requesting the suspension of the implementation of some, if not all, the
regulations promulgated under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) until
such time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved;
2) Asks cities to request the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other applicable state
agencies to examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32, and for
potential conflict with other existing State and Federal regulations including, but not limited
to, the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in another; and,
3) Asks cities to request the CARB and other applicable State agencies to examine the overall
economic impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with
other existing regulations with emphasis upon the potential for job and other economic
activity "flight" from California; and,
4) Asks cities to request the State to encourage the resolution of internal conflicts between and
among existing Federal programs by supporting items, including but not limited to: a)
Reopening the Federal Clean Air Act; b) New Source Review Reform and, c) Efforts to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions under a comprehensive federal program.
Background
AB 32 is California’s 2006 landmark act that requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. The California Air Resources Board is the
implementing agency and outlined emission reduction efforts in its 2008 Scoping Plan. Several
measures have already been taken and regulations have already been implemented. Measures of
interest to cities include: voluntary local government 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions;
regional transportation-related greenhouse gas targets; landfill methane control; and green
building codes.
While the regulations stemming from AB 32 are still evolving despite the first auction being
conducted in November 2012, suspending AB 32 would mean a delay of indefinite length in the
State's efforts to advance environmental policies into practice. The City has a rich history of being
at the forefront on environmental issues and environmental sustainability is a Council priority. The
City's early actions with respect to its electric portfolio and its Climate Protection Plan applicable to
City and Community emissions reductions are consistent with the tenets of AB 32. The resolution
as crafted is not clear as to the conflicts, both direct and indirect, requiring resolution, and is
unclear as to what economic impacts are requiring further review. Without further definition of the
issues of concern, it is recommended that the City take no position on the resolution. Given the
alignment of the overall tenets of AB 32 with the City’s goals, as well as the potential for uncertain
delay in statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while inconsistencies are addressed,
alternatively, the City may consider opposing the resolution.
Source: City of Needles
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
City Coordination: Utilities Department, Planning & Community Environment, City Attorney’s Office
5. A resolution calling for an emergency management mission
for California cities.
Staff recommends
supporting
This resolution asks that the League encourage cities to actively pursue employee and resident
emergency preparedness. In addition, the resolution asks that the "League encourage cities to
actively engage residents in emergency preparedness programs that promote creating a family
plan, including having supplies of food and water, in the promotion of self-reliance." This resolution
also seeks to create a statement of support for emergency preparedness in the LOCC’s existing
policy and guiding principles.
The LOCC staff analysis indicates, "this resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy
Committee by that committee’s Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Subcommittee to
Create a clear" statement of support for emergency response management, and recovery efforts as
a community. While the League has extensive policy that supports related activities, there is no
explicit statement of support in the existing policy or guiding principles."
This resolution is consistent with the City Council’s priority of emergency preparedness and with
emerging best practices of "whole community engagement" and all-hazards planning to have a
city-level emergency management program that involves city staff, residents, businesses, and other
non-governmental stakeholders.
Source: League Public Safety Committee
Referred To: Public Safety Committee
City Coordination: Office of Employee Services, City Attorney’s Office
Attachments:
LOCC 2012 RESOLUTIONS (PDF)
Prepared By: Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
i
July 12, 2012
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
League Board of Directors
RE: Annual Conference Resolutions Packet
Notice of League Annual Meeting
Enclosed please find the 2012 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet.
Annual Conference in San Diego. This year’s League Annual Conference will be held September 5 - 7 at
the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego. The conference announcement has previously been sent to
all cities and we hope that you and your colleagues will be able to join us. More information about the
conference is available on the League’s Web site at www.cacities.org/ac. We look forward to welcoming
city officials to the conference.
Annual Luncheon/Business Meeting - Friday, September 7, 12:00 p.m. The League’s Annual Business
Meeting will be held at the San Diego Convention Center.
Resolutions Packet. At the Annual Conference, the League will consider the five resolutions introduced
by the deadline, Saturday, July 7, 2012, midnight. These resolutions are included in this packet. We
request that you distribute this packet to your city council.
We encourage each city council to consider the resolutions and to determine a city position so that
your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on each resolution. A copy of the resolutions packet is
posted on the League’s website for your convenience: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
The resolutions packet contains additional information related to consideration of the resolutions at the
Annual Conference. This includes the date, time and location of the meetings at which resolutions will be
considered.
Voting Delegates. Each city council is encouraged to designate a voting delegate and two alternates to
represent their city at the Annual Business Meeting. A letter asking city councils to designate their voting
delegate and two alternates has already been sent to each city. Copies of the letter, voting delegate form, and
additional information are also available at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference
September 5 - 7 — San Diego
i
I.
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall
be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation.
Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions
Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, five resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred
to the League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Three policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take
action on resolutions referred to them. The committees are Environmental Quality, Public Safety, and Revenue
& Taxation. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, at the San Diego Marriott
Marquis & Marina Hotel in San Diego. Please see page iii for the policy committee meeting schedule. The
sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings.
Two other policy committees may also be meeting: Administrative Services and Employee Relations.
Administrative Services will meet pending League Board (July 19 & 20) action to determine whether the
committee will review any November General election ballot initiatives. Employee Relations will meet if the
Legislature acts on pension reform in August. If pension reform is passed, the committee will meet to discuss the
details of the proposal. For now, please plan to attend the meeting at the Annual conference. If for some reason
this changes, League staff will send an email notifying the committee.
Three policy committees will not be meeting at the annual conference. These committees are: Community
Services; Housing, Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication, & Public
Works.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 6, at the San Diego Convention Center, to consider the reports of the three policy committees
regarding the five resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the
League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at
12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 7, at the San Diego Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a
resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting
delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting
Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Session of the
General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 6. If the petitioned
resolution is substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration, the petitioned
resolution may be disqualified by the General Resolutions Committee.
Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the League
office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224.
ii
II.
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy
on the important issues facing cities and the League is through the League’s eight standing policy committees
and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment
and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should
adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the
Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which
more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the Board of Directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and Board of
Directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
iii
III.
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
San Diego Marriott Marquis & Marina Hotel
333 W. Harbor Drive, San Diego
POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO
DISCUSS AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Environmental Quality;
Revenue and Taxation
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Public Safety
TENTATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE
TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES
9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Administrative Services
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Employee Relations
Note: These policy committees will NOT meet at the Annual Conference:
Community Services
Housing, Community & Economic Development
Transportation, Communication & Public Works
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 6, 2012, 1:00 p.m.
San Diego Convention Center
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, September 7, 2012, 12:00 p.m.
San Diego Convention Center
iv
IV.
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Please note that one
resolution has been assigned to more than one committee. This resolution is noted by this sign (♦).
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
3 Desert Protection Act
4 Global Warming
PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
♦1 Fines and Forfeitures
2 Internet Crimes Against Children
5 Emergency Management Mission for California Cities
REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
♦1 Fine and Forfeitures
Please note: These committees will NOT meet at the annual conference: Community Services; Housing,
Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s page on
the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
v
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A - Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D - Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N - No Action
R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
Action Footnotes
a - Amend
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa - Approve as amended
** Existing League policy
Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s)
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra - Amend and refer as amended to
appropriate policy committee for study
Raa - Additional amendments and refer
Da - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove
Na - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take
No Action
W - Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note: Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all
qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the floor of the General Assembly. In addition, League policy
provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but not approved by
the General Resolutions Committee:
Resolutions initially recommended for approval and adoption by all the League policy committees to which
the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the
General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a consent agenda for consideration by the General
Assembly. The consent agenda shall include a brief description of the basis for the recommendations by
both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Committee, as well as the recommended action by
each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a resolution from the consent agenda in order to
request the opportunity to fully debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the
request for debate is approved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and subsequently
vote on the resolution.
6
V.
2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
3. RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING CALIFORNIA CITIES TO OPPOSE THE
CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 2011
Source: City of Needles
Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, in 1993 Senator Diane Feinstein introduced the California Desert Protection Act of
1994 which became federal law and was passed by the United States Congress on October 8, 1994, and
WHEREAS, this act established the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave
National Preserve in the California desert; and
WHEREAS, this act designated 69 wilderness areas as additions to the National Wilderness
Preservation System within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), the Yuma District, the
Bakersfield District, and the California Desert District of the Bureau of Land Management permits grazing
in such areas; and
WHEREAS, the Act abolished Death Valley National Monument, established in 1933 and 1937,
and incorporated its lands into a new Death Valley National Park administered as part of the National Park
System. Grazing of domestic livestock was permitted to continue at no more than the then-current level. The
Act also required the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability of lands within and outside the
boundaries of the park as a reservation for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; and
WHEREAS, the Act abolished Joshua Tree National Monument, established in 1936, and
incorporated its lands into Joshua Tree National Park; and
WHEREAS, the Act established the Mojave National Preserve, consisting of approximately
1,419,800 acres (5,746 km; 2,218.4 sq mi), and abolished the East Mojave National Scenic Area, which was
designated in 1981. The preserve was to be administered in accordance with National Park System laws.
Hunting, fishing and trapping were permitted as allowed by federal and state laws, with certain exceptions.
Mining claims were governed by the National Park System laws, and grazing was permitted to continue at
no more than the then-current level; and
WHEREAS, the Act required the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that American Indian people
have access to the lands designated under the Act for traditional cultural and religious purposes, in
recognition of their prior use of these lands for these purposes. Upon the request of an Indian tribe or
religious community, the Secretary must temporarily close specific portions to the general public to protect
the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities; and
WHEREAS, flights by military aircraft over the lands designated by the Act were not restricted or
precluded, including over flights that can be seen or heard from these lands; and
WHEREAS, Congress found that federally owned desert lands of southern California constitute a
public wildland resource of extraordinary and inestimable value for current and future generations; these
desert wildlands have unique scenic, historical, archeological, environmental, ecological, wildlife, cultural,
7
scientific, educational and recreational values; the California desert public land resources are threatened by
adverse pressures which impair their public and natural values; the California desert is a cohesive unit
posing difficult resource protection and management challenges; statutory land unit designations are
necessary to protect these lands; and
WHEREAS, Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act
has introduced legislation “California Desert Protection Act of 2011” that will set aside new land in
the Mojave Desert for conservation, recreation and other purposes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation will take AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 million acres of
Bureau of Land Management land out of potential development, including mining exploration, by
designating two new “National Monuments”, one adjacent to the Mojave National Preserve which
will take 1.5 million acres out of BLM multiple use in addition to 800,000 acres out of private
ownership and one adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park; and
WHEREAS, this legislation will result in just about every square inch of the desert spoken for,
either for military use, national parks, wilderness and special conservation areas, Indian reservations and
other types of land management (half of the lands under BLM management are protected under wilderness
or special conservation area restrictions); and
WHEREAS, projects, such as California mandated solar energy development, that would disturb or
destroy habitat must make up for that loss by purchasing private habitat at ratios of at least three acres for
every one acre disturbed; and
WHEREAS, at that rate, even in the nation’s largest county, San Bernardino, just three solar
projects on federal land will require an amount of private land acquisition of 22,000 acres, or roughly 34
square miles, land will come off of the county’s tax rolls and we will literally run out of mitigation land after
a handful of projects; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that 10,000 megawatts of renewable
energy be generated on public land in the west. To meet California’s mandate of having 33 percent of our
energy come from renewable sources, it requires more that 20,000 megawatts of production and they are
looking mainly at public lands. If we approve that much solar, the result would be a regulatory lockdown on
the rest of the Desert by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department of Fish and Game;
and
WHEREAS, the Desert Protection Act of 1994 encompassed 1.5 million acres or 2,218.4 square
miles plus an additional 800,000 acres of private land or 1,250 square miles; Fort Irwin, 1,000 square miles;
29 Palms Marine Base, 931.7 square miles and they have also applied for an additional 420,000 acres in
2008, or 659.375 square miles totaling 6,059.48 square miles; and
WHEREAS, the California Desert Protection Act of 2011 will take OVER 2,300 square miles, not
including the acreage of wilderness located outside any of the above mentioned areas (this total mileage
would roughly encompass Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut); and
WHEREAS, these public lands have long supported a range of beneficial uses and efforts have
been made to protect the desert inhabitants. Let’s not destroy the desert or our ability to use and enjoy it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the
8
League encourages California cities to adopt resolutions in opposition to the California Desert
Protection Act of 2011.
//////////
League of California Cities Staff Analysis
Staff: Kyra Ross, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252
Committee: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Summary:
This resolution encourages California cities to oppose the California Desert Protection Act of 2011.
Background:
The California Desert Protection Act of 2011 (S. 138) is legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein
which would provide for conservation, enhanced recreation opportunities, and development of renewable
energy in the California Desert Conservation Area. The Measure would:
• Create two new national monuments: the 941,000 acres Mojave Trails National Monument along
Route 66 and the 134,000 acres Sand to Snow National Monument, which connects Joshua Tree
National Park to the San Bernardino Mountains.
• Add adjacent lands to Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park and Mohave National
Preserve;
• Protect nearly 76 miles of waterways;
• Designate five new wilderness areas;
• Designate approximately 250,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas near Fort
Irwin;
• Enhance recreational opportunities; and,
• Designate four existing off-highway vehicle areas in the California Desert as permanent.
S. 138 is a re-introduction of S. 2921, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 which is now dead. S.
138 was introduced in January 2011 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. The measure has not yet been set for hearing by the Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds.
Existing League Policy:
The League’s Mission Statement is “to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.”
Specific to this Resolution, existing policy offers no specific policy on this issue.
The League’s Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, include:
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
>>>>>>>>>>
9
4. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION OF
IMPLEMENTATION OR REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING
SOLUTIONS ACT (AB 32 of 2006)
Source: City of Needles
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, in 2006 the California Legislature adopted the California Global Warming
Solutions Act, commonly referred to as AB 32 (Health & Safety Code §§38500 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, AB 32 aims to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990
levels by 2020 (Health & Safety Code §38550) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and
WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the government agency charged with
determining how the AB 32 goals will be reached (Health & Safety Code §38510); and
WHEREAS, CARB's implementation of AB32 aims to reduce California's GHG emissions
by 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) through a variety of
strategies, including sector-specific regulations, market mechanisms, voluntary measures, fees,
incentives and other policies and programs; and
WHEREAS, there are portions of the state that have been designated as nonattainment for
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and PM, nonattainment for state
ambient air quality standards (SAAQS) for Ozone, PM, Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide, and identified
by CARB pursuant to as overwhelmingly impacted by transported air pollution from upwind air basins;
and
WHEREAS, areas designated nonattainment are mandated under the provisions of the Federal
Clean Air Act (FCAA) to require pursuant to New Source Review (NSR) rules, Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and offsetting emissions reductions (Offsets) on major new or modified stationary
sources of those nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors (42 U.S.C. §§7502(c)(5), 7503)
regardless of whether or not the area so designated has any control or not over the pollution causing the
nonattainment finding; and
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has requested that a
program be developed to implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) which will
require additional analysis for new or modified sources of attainment pollutants including but not
limited to greenhouse gases, which will also necessitate emissions reductions and BACT in some
cases for attainment pollutants; and
WHEREAS, due in part to the limited number of existing sources of air pollutants and the
overwhelming impact of transport some or a majority of the cities have few if any available emissions
reductions available to provide such offsets; and
WHEREAS, many technologies used to attain BACT levels of air pollution control are
based upon the combustion of fossil fuels which also causes emissions of GHGs; and
10
WHEREAS, there are a variety of Federal regulations promulgated and proposed by the
USEPA regarding greenhouse gasses that have the potential to conflict both directly and in their
implementation with regulatory measures to implement AB32 as adopted and proposed by CARB;
and
WHEREAS, there are a variety of other mandates and regulations at the State level
(municipal waste diversion, renewable energy mandate etc.) which have the potential to conflict both
directly and in due to their implementation with regulatory measures to implement AB32 as adopted
and proposed by CARB; and
WHEREAS, such conflicts severely impede the cities or state as well as regulated industry
efforts to comply with both the applicable Federal regulations and regulations implementing AB32;
and
WHEREAS, the existing and proposed regulations on both the State and Federal level result in
an overall regulatory structure that is inconsistent and confusing making it virtually impossible or
incredibly slow to start any new large scale projects within the State at a time where California
infrastructure and its economy are in most need of refurbishment; and
WHEREAS, the existing and proposed regulations and unclear guidelines will also make it more
difficult for smaller, pollution transport impacted air districts like the MDAQMD, to properly
implement and enforce the regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the
League encourages the existing 482 California cities to adopt resolutions requesting a suspension of
the implementation of some, if not all, the regulations promulgated under the California Global
Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 of 2006) until such time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can
be resolved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the California Air Resources
Board and other applicable state agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant
to AB 32 and for potential direct and indirect conflict with other existing regulations at both the State
and Federal level including but not limited to the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in
another; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the California Air Resources
Board and other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic impact of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing regulations with emphasis upon
the potential for job and other economic activity "flight" from California; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the State of California by
and through its Governor, Legislature, and applicable state agencies should encourage the resolution
of internal conflicts between and among existing Federal programs by supporting items including but
not limited to: reopening the Federal Clean Air Act, New Source Review Reform, and efforts to regulate
GHGs under a comprehensive Federal program.
//////////
11
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 4
Staff: Kyra Ross, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252
Committee: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Summary:
This resolution encourages California cities to:
1.) Adopt resolutions requesting the suspension of the implementation of some, if not all, the
regulations promulgated under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) until such
time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved;
2.) Asks cities to request the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other applicable state
agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32, and for potential
conflict with other existing regulations at both the State and Federal level including, but not limited
to, the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in another; and,
3.) Asks cities to request the CARB and other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic
impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing
regulations with emphasis upon the potential for job and other economic activity “flight” from
California; and,
4.) Asks cities to request the State to encourage the resolution of internal conflicts between and among
existing Federal programs by supporting items, including but not limited to:
a. Reopening the Federal Clean Air Act;
b. New Source Review Reform; and,
c. Efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under a comprehensive federal program.
Background:
AB 32 passed in 2006 and requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As
the implementing agency, CARB developed and passed a Scoping Plan in 2008, outlining emission
reduction measures to help the state meet its statutory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2008, a
number of measures outlined in the Scoping Plan have been implemented. Measures of interest to cities
include: voluntary local government 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; regional transportation-
related greenhouse gas targets; landfill methane control; and green building codes.
At the same time, many of California’s 15 air basins are facing ongoing challenges to meeting federal air
quality standards. It’s important to note that regulation of air quality in California is separated into two
levels of regulation. CARB regulates air pollution from cars, trucks, buses and other sources, often referred
to as “mobile sources”. Local air districts regulate businesses and industrial facilities. Local air districts are
the bodies that regulate ozone, PM 2.5 and PM 10. Ground level ozone (ozone), more commonly referred to
as smog, is a pollutant that forms on hot summer days (not to be confused with the ozone that forms in the
upper atmosphere or stratosphere). Ozone is not directly emitted by one source but comes from a
combination of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. In the presence of sunlight, especially on
hot summer days, this mixture forms ozone. Particulate Matter (PM) is made up of fine solid or liquid such
as dust, fly ash, soot, smoke, aerosols, fumes, mists, and condensing vapors. US EPA has set health based
standards for particles smaller than 10 microns (PM 10) and particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5).
When these particles become airborne, they can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. Both PM
10 and PM 2.5 have been determined to cause serious adverse health effects.
According to an April 2012 report by the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association
“California’s Progress Toward Clean Air”:
Despite significant improvements, air quality remains a major source of public health concern in
large metropolitan areas throughout California. The San Joaquin and South Coast Air Basin
12
continue to face significant challenges in meeting the federal health-based standards for ozone and fine particles, despite their regional and state-level controls on mobile and stationary sources that are the most stringent in the nation. In 2007, both regions sought extension for meeting the 1997 8-hour federal ambient air quality standard for ozone. A comparable challenge faces each region with respect to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Due to continued progress in health research, the federal EPA lowered the ambient concentration for the 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM 2.5 standards in 2008 and 2006, respectively. The net effect of these stricter standards is to raise the performance bar for California air basins. This will extend the timeframe for attainment in highly polluted regions as well as increase the number of basins with non-attainment status. Challenges also exist for air districts across California who are in attainment with the federal
standards, as they continue to strive for attainment of the State’s health-based ozone and PM
standards, which are more stringent than the standards adopted by the US EPA.
According to the Sponsor, areas designated nonattainment are mandated under the provision of the federal
Clean Air Act to require (pursuant to New Source Review Rules) Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and offsetting emissions reduction on major new or modified stationary sources of those
nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors regardless of whether or not the area so designated has any
control and not over the pollution causing the nonattainment finding.
The Sponsor also notes that there are a variety of other mandates and regulations at the state level that have
the potential to conflict both directly and indirectly with the implementation of AB 32 measures being
proposed and implemented by CARB. Two measures pointed out by the Sponsor are the existing mandate
for local jurisdictions to divert 50% of solid waste from landfills (Public Resources Code 41780) and the
state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires all retail sellers (Investor Owned Utilities, electric
service providers, and community choice aggregators) and all publicly owned utilities to procure at least
33% of electricity delivered to their retail customers from renewable resources by 2020.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds.
Existing League Policy:
Specific to this Resolution, existing policy states:
Air Quality
• The League believes cities should have the authority to establish local air quality standards and programs
that are stricter than state and federal standards. The League opposes efforts to restrict such authority.
• The League opposes legislation redirecting the funds authorized by Health and Safety Code Section
44223, which are currently used by local governments for locally based air quality programs.
• The League opposes air quality legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities.
Climate Change
• The League recognizes that climate change is both immediate and long term, with the potential for
profound environmental, social and economic impacts to the planet and to California.
• Through the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 (Nuñez) Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006)
California has embarked on a plan that requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. Although uncertainty remains about the pace, distribution and magnitude of the effects of
climate change, the League recognizes the need for immediate actions to mitigate the sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and has adopted the following principles:
1. Action Plans for Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Encourage local governments to complete
13
an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, set appropriate reduction targets, and create greenhouse
gas emission reduction action plans.
2. Smart Growth. Consistent with the League’s Smart Growth policies, encourage the adoption of land
use policies designed to reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create healthy, vibrant, and
sustainable communities.
3. Green Technology Investment Assistance. Support tax credits, grants, loans and other incentives to
assist the public, businesses, and local agencies that invest in energy efficient equipment and
technology, and fuel efficient, low emission vehicles.
4. Energy and Water Conservation and Efficiency. Encourage energy efficiency, water efficiency, and
sustainable building practices in new and existing public, residential and commercial buildings and
facilities. This may include using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or similar
systems.
5. Increase the Use of Clean Alternative Energy. Promote the use and purchase of clean alternative
energy through the development of renewable energy resources, recovery of landfill methane for
energy production and waste-to-energy technologies.
6. Reduction of Vehicle Emissions in Public Agency Fleets. Support the reduction of vehicle emissions
through increased fuel efficiency, use of appropriate alternative fueled vehicles, and/or low emission
vehicles in public agency fleets. Encourage the use of appropriate alternative fueled vehicles, and/or
low emission vehicles in private fleets.
7. Climate Change Impacts. Encourage all levels of government to share information to prepare for
climate change impacts.
8. Coordinated Planning. State policy should encourage and provide incentive for cities to coordinate
and share planning information with neighboring cities, counties, and other governmental entities so
that there are agreed upon regional blueprints and strategies for dealing with greenhouse gas
emissions.
9. Water Supply for New Development. Encourage exchange of water supply information between
state and local agencies, including information on the impacts of climate change on state and local
water supplies.
10. Recycles Content and Green Purchasing Policies. Encourage the adoption and implementation of
recycled content and green procurement policies, if fitness and quality are equal, including the
adoption of an Environmental Management System and authorization of local agencies to consider
criteria other than only cost in awarding contracts for services.
Additionally, the League’s Mission Statement is “to expand and protect local control for cities through
education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.”
Finally, the League’s Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, include:
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
14
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
♦1 A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO
ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CORRECT INEFFICIENCIES IN THE
AUDIT SYSTEM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND INEQUITIES IN THE
FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING COURT ORDERED ARREST AND CITATION
FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS GENERATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Source: City of Glendora
Referred to: Revenue & Taxation Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of criminal and traffic laws is to improve safety for the public,
where the cost involved to implement enforcement falls primarily upon local law enforcement agencies
throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, if State laws are to be effectively enforced then local cities must have a fair revenue
structure to pay the cost of making arrests and issuing citations for criminal and traffic violators; and
WHEREAS, the significant inequity in the amount cities receive in relation to the full cost of a
citation and/or arrest results in an unfair distribution of revenue to cities that are generated by court fines,
fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders; and
WHEREAS, the current inefficiencies in the system makes it practically impossible for cities to
insure transparency and effectively audit, administer and manage public funds that are generated by cities
and distributed by the State and County; and
WHEREAS, to adequately protect and serve the public during this time of declining revenue and
deteriorating services the inequities in the system needs to be changed; and
WHEREAS, court-ordered debt collection and revenue distribution is a complex system where
there are few audits, if ever, done to determine if cities are receiving their fair share of disbursements; and
WHEREAS, once a debt has been collected, in whole or in part, distributing the money is not
simple as there are over 150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue collected from traffic
and criminal court debts. Depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or penalty assessment imposed by the court
has more than 3,100 separate court fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders that
appear in statutes spanning 27 different state code sections; and
WHEREAS, the current system makes it practically impossible for cities to effectively administer
and manage public funds that are generated by cities. Because of the complex system cities cannot
determine if they are receiving their fair share of the fines collected; and
15
WHEREAS, Counties and the State have statutory responsibility and power to conduct their audits,
while cities do not currently have clear legal standing to demand access to court records for purposes of
conducting audits in a thorough and transparent manner which further shrouds the understanding of when
and how revenue is distributed; and
WHEREAS, in December 2011 at the request of the Glendora Police Department the Los Angeles
Superior Court conducted a sample audit of 15 Glendora Police Department-issued citations from 2010. The
results of the sample audit revealed the City of Glendora received about 12% ($253) of the $2,063 in paid
fines for the 12 of the 15 citations submitted. Three (3) of the citations in the audit were sent to collection
or warrants. Based on those results, the city received an average of $21, while the State and County
received an average of $172 for each of the 12 citations. The percentage breakdown for the city was 12.25%
as compared to the State and County’s share of 86.75%; and
WHEREAS, issuing a typical vehicle code violation citation can involve up to an hour of the
issuing officer’s time and the time of a records clerk tasked with entering citations into the database costing
approximately $82 per hour. If the citation is challenged the cost increases another $135 to cover the cost of
court time and handling of the notices associated with such an appeal. Therefore, the cost incurred to issue a
citation currently is between $82 and $217, while the sample audit reveals the city is receiving about $21 in
cost recovery; and
WHEREAS, officials with Superior Court openly admit that similar results would be expected for
almost every jurisdiction in the State issuing citations due to the complexity and “Priority of Distribution”
they must follow from the State of California. “Priority Distribution” is triggered when a court reduces a
fine for a citation. This process prohibits Judges from reducing penalty assessments and thus the only
discretion Judges have in reducing fines, fees and costs is to reduce the base fine, or city portion, of the total
fine. This process has a significant impact on the amount of money cities issuing the citation will receive.
Rarely is the reduction in the fine taken from other stakeholders. Cities are one of the lowest priorities on the
distribution list and often find themselves receiving significantly less share-or no share after deducting State
and County fees and surcharges; and now there let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in San Diego
on September 7, 2012, that the League of California Cities calls upon the State Legislature and Governor to:
1. Create an efficient system to provide cities with a clear authority to audit the distribution of
fines, fees, assessments and administrative costs for criminal and traffic violations;
2. Enact legislation that changes the “Priority Distribution” mandate so cities receive the total cost
of issuing, processing and testifying in court on criminal cases and traffic violations; and
3. That any reduction in fines, fees, assessments or costs should be equally distributed from the
total fine imposed, not just from the city base fine.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: City of Glendora
16
Background:
Court-ordered debt collection and revenue distribution is a complex system where there are few audits, if
ever, done to determine if cities are receiving their fair share of disbursements. The current system makes it
practically impossible for cities to effectively administer and manage public funds that are generated by
cities. Because of the complex system cities cannot determine if they are receiving their fair share of the
fines collected.
Once a debt has been collected, in whole or in part, distributing the money is not simple as there are over
150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue collected from traffic and criminal court
debts, depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or penalty assessment imposed by the court and California has
more than 3,100 separate court fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders that
appear in statutes spanning 27 different government code.
County and state have statutory responsibility and power to conduct their audits, while cities do not
currently have clear legal standing to demand access to court records for purposes of conducting audits in a
thorough and transparent manner which further shrouds the understanding of when and how revenue is
distributed.
At the request of the City of Glendora, in December 2011, the Los Angeles Superior Court conducted a
sample audit of 15 Glendora Police Department-issued citations from 2010. The results of the sample audit
revealed the Glendora received about 12% ($253) of the $2,063 in paid fines for the 12 of the 15 citations
submitted. Three (3) of the citations in the audit had been sent to collection or warrants. Based on those
results, the city received an average of $21, while the state and county received an average of $172 for each
of the 12 citations. The percentage breakdown for the city was 12.25% as compared to the state and
county’s share of 86.75.%
Issuing a typical vehicle code violation citation can involve up to an hour of the issuing officer’s time and
the records clerk tasked with entering citations into the database costing approximately $82 per hour. If the
citation is challenged the cost increases another $135 to cover the cost of court time and handling of the
notices associated with such an appeal. Therefore, the cost incurred to issue a citation that is currently
between $82 about $217, while the sample audit reveals the city is receiving about $21 in cost recovery.
Officials with Superior Court openly admit that similar results would be expected for almost every
jurisdiction in the state because when a court reduces a fine it triggers a process called “Priority
Distribution.” This process prohibits Judges from reducing penalty assessments imposed by the county and
state and thus the only discretion that Judges have in reducing fines is to reduce the Base Fine (City Portion)
of the total fine. This mandate has a significant impact on the amount of money cities issuing the citation
receive. Rarely is the reduction in the fine taken from other stakeholders. Cities are one of the lowest
priority on the distribution so often they find themselves receiving significantly less share-or no share after
deducting state and county fees and surcharges.
The primary cost to implement enforcement falls upon local law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
This Resolution calls upon the State Legislature and Governor to create an efficient system to provide cities
with a clear authority to audit the distribution of fines, fees, assessments and administrative costs for
criminal and traffic violations. In addition, legislation should be developed and passed that changes the
“Priority Distribution” mandate so the cities receive the total cost of issuing, processing and testifying in
court on criminal cases and traffic violations and that any reduction in fines, fees, assessments or costs
should be equally distributed from the total fine imposed.
//////////
17
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Dorothy Holzem, Assoc. Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8214
Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee
Staff: Dan Carrigg, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8222
Committee: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution urges the League of California Cities, through legislative or administrative means, to clarify
the authority for cities to audit the distribution of court imposed fines, fees, penalty assessments and
administrative costs for criminal and traffic violations.
It also urges the League to seek legislative changes to the “Priority Distribution” statutory formula so that
cities receive the total cost of issuing, processing and testifying in court on criminal cases and traffic
violations. The current statutory formula allows reductions to the base fine but maintains the same level of
penalty assessments, based upon the full penalty charge.
Finally, any reductions that may occur in fines, fees, assessments or costs determinations should be equally
distributed from the total fine imposed, not just from the city base fine.
This Resolution raises several policy questions:
1) Should cities have the authority to request audits and receive reports from a county or the state on the
local share of revenue resulting from criminal and traffic violation penalties?
2) Should cost-recovery be a driving factor in setting monetary penalties for criminal or traffic violations?
3) Should reductions (as ordered by a judge) to the fines owed by violators be taken just out of the base fine,
or should the base fine and related penalty assessments be reduced proportionately?
Background:
In California, criminal offenders may have additional penalty assessments made to their base fines. These
penalty assessments are based on the concept of an “abusers fee,” in which those who break certain laws
will help finance programs related to decreasing those violations. For example, drug and alcohol offenses
and domestic violence offenses are enhanced by special assessments on fines that directly fund county
programs designed to prevent the violations. All other criminal offenses and traffic violations are subject to
penalty assessments that are used to fund specific state programs.
According to the Resolution sponsor, the City of Glendora, the court-ordered collection of penalty fines and
additional assessments, as well as the subsequent revenue distribution, is a complex system where few audits
are conducted to determine if cities are receiving their share of collections. The current system makes it
practically impossible for cities to effectively administer and manage public funds that are generated by
cities.
The League recently held in-depth policy discussions related to audit authority in light of the misconduct
charges against the City of Bell in 2011. The League convened a technical working group to review audit
legislation and administrative efforts by the State Controller’s Office. Following the work of this group, the
League Board adopted principles supporting transparent, accurate financial and performance information.
(See “Existing Policy” section below.) However, these principles did not address expanding cities’ audit
authority over the state, counties, or other public agencies.
18
The sponsors state that there are over 150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue
collected from traffic and criminal court debts. Depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or penalty assessment
imposed, there are more than 3,100 separate court fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied
on offenders that appear in statutes spanning 27 different state code sections.
Generally, the base fines for criminal and traffic citations are significantly lower than the additional penalty
assessments levied by the state and counties. In some instances, the penalty assessment for state and local
programs can be three or four times the amount collected by the city or county agency that issued the
citation through their local enforcement authority. The amount each program account receives is based on a
statutory formula. For example, if a driving under the influence (DUI) fine is $1000, specific dollar amounts
proportionate to the base fine are added under six different code sections for a total price tag of $3,320 for
the offense.
Some examples of program accounts receiving penalty assessment revenues include Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST), victim witness protection and services, court security, court construction, forensic
laboratories for DNA identification, and automated fingerprint identification. The impact of programs
largely funded, if not solely funded, by penalty assessment revenue casts a wide net of stakeholders
including counties, sheriffs, district attorneys, public defenders, fish and game wardens, victim advocates,
and access to the judicial system advocates. Cities are also partial benefactors of penalty assessment funded
programs related to law enforcement.
For the last three decades, this policy area has been under great scrutiny and study but with little reform
taking place. The recommendations from past studies and reports to consolidate penalty assessment accounts
or their collections efforts, which would require legislative action, have likely not gained traction because of
the inevitable loss of revenue for the specific programs and the affected interest groups.
In 1986, the Legislature enacted Senate Concurrent Resolution 53, requiring the Legislative Analyst Office
(LAO) to study the statutory penalty assessments that are levied by the courts on offenders and the state
programs that the funds support. The completed 1988 study found a complicated system of collection and
distribution of penalty funds. The LAO was unable to fully identify the source offenses that generated
penalty revenues because of limitations in most county collection systems.
In 2005, the California Research Bureau issued a report for the Assembly Public Safety Committee on
county penalty assessments that drew similar conclusions. They stated the complexity of the system means
poor revenue collection, disproportionate justice for debtors, and undermines the usefulness of fines as a
punishment or deterrent. They recommended efforts to streamline and consolidate collections, funding, and
appropriations.
After some delay, the state created the Administrative Office of the Court’s Court-Ordered Debt Task Force,
which is charged with evaluating and exploring means to streamline the existing structure for imposing and
distributing criminal and traffic fines and fees. This Task Force has been asked to present preliminary
recommendations to the Legislature regarding the priority in which court-ordered debt should be satisfied
and the use of comprehensive collection programs. Currently, the League of California Cities has two
appointments to the Task Force. However, the Task Force has been put on hiatus and has not met for
approximately 12 months due to significant state cuts to the court budget in recent years.
Currently, legislation was introduced this year to address the issue of cities not recouping the costs of
issuing citations. The response has been to increase the base fine and not change penalty assessments.
Assembly Bill 2366 (Eng) would increase the base fine of “fix-it” tickets from $10 to $25 dollars. This has
largely been successful in the legislative fiscal committees because with every increase to the base fine for
the issuing agency, so increases the state and county share of penalty assessments proportionately.
19
Lastly, in most instances when the legislature takes into consideration a fine increase, be it for manufacturer
product responsibility or criminal acts, the legislature focuses on how the increased fine will alter behavior,
not on recovering the costs of enforcing that violation.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. Potential additional revenue received by cities, if any, would vary based on total citations issued
and collected.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy offers:
• Cities and the League should continue to emphasize efficiency and effectiveness, encouraging and
assisting cities to achieve the best possible use of city resources.
• The League supports efforts to preserve local authority and accountability for cities, state policies must
ensure the integrity of existing city revenue sources for all cities, including the city share and situs
allocation, where applicable, of property tax, sales tax, vehicle license fee, etc. Audit Principles Adopted by the League Board
• Given the State already has substantial authority to examine local government financial practices, and
recognizes the significant resources required by auditors and local governments to complete audits,
additional authority should only be granted to a State agency when there are documented insufficiencies
in its existing authority.
• Governmental financial audits and performance audits ensure financial integrity and promote efficient,
effective and accountable local government.
• Transparent, accurate financial and performance information is necessary for citizens to have confidence
that their interests are being served, and for decision makers to be accountable for ensuring that public
funds are spent appropriately and effectively.
• Public trust is inspired when auditors perform their work with independence, objectivity and integrity,
remaining free from personal, external and organizational impairments to that independence, both in fact
and in appearance.
• Public confidence in government is maintained and strengthened when financial and performance
information is collected, managed and reported in accordance with nationally recognized professional
accounting and auditing standards.
The League’s Mission Statement is “to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.”
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
20
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
>>>>>>>>>>
2. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RAISING PUBLIC
AWARENESS AND SUPPORTING TOUGHER LAWS RELATED TO INTERNET
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
Source: San Diego County Division
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, technology has brought significant changes to our society over the past two decades,
many of which have had a positive effect on our quality of life while some have threatened the safety and
well- being of our young children; and
WHEREAS, the internet has made victimization of children easier than ever before; and
WHEREAS, the internet has also significantly increased the availability of child pornography, with
more than 6.5 million images being shared via the internet , compared to only a few hundred photos less
than a generation ago; and
WHEREAS, some see viewing child pornography as a “victimless crime,” however these images are
never completely eradicated from the internet and the victims continue to have their horrific photos viewed
over and over again by pedophiles for sexual gratification; and
WHEREAS, in 2007 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported it had
identified 9.6 million images and videos of child pornography and believed there were millions more not
identified; and
WHEREAS, in the 2006 Butner Redux Study, 98 percent of convicted child pornographers had
molested children before their capture; and
WHEREAS, the United States is the number one producer and consumer of child pornography in the
world, with more than 624,000 child pornography users identified nationwide.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the
League of California Cities:
1. Desires to increase public awareness and educate others about the critical issue of internet
crimes against children statewide.
2. Requests the League advocate for the State Legislature to adopt tougher laws for child
pornographers.
21
3. Requests the League advocate for additional and more permanent funding for Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Forces (ICAC) statewide.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: San Diego County Division
Background:
Technology has brought significant changes to our society over the past two decades. While most have had a
positive effect on our quality of life, many have threatened the safety and well-being of our young children.
The internet has made victimization of children much easier than ever before. Today, pedophiles can
network with one another online, encourage one another to commit crimes against children, and share tips on
evading law enforcement. Worse yet, they often use the internet – social media sites, in particular – to find
and prey on young children. Many times, these innocent children are lured away from their homes by these
perpetrators and never seen again.
The internet has also significantly increased the availability of child pornography. More than 6.5 million
child abuse images are being shared via the internet today. Before this technology was in place, the number
of photos available numbered in the few hundreds.
While some see viewing child pornography as a “victimless crime,” nothing could be further from the truth.
One study showed that 98 percent of convicted child pornographers had molested children before being
captured (Butner Redux Study, 2006).
Additionally, these images can never be completely eradicated from the internet once they are placed online.
Therefore, victims continue to suffer the irrevocable damage of knowing their horrific photos are being
viewed over and over again for sexual gratification by pedophiles.
Many believe these horrendous crimes happen mostly in other countries. Sadly, the United States is the
number one producer and consumer of child pornography in the world, and American children are the
primary victims. More than 624,000 child pornography users have been identified nationwide and thousands
of these reside in San Diego County.
While the internet is exploited by these predators to harm children, it ironically is the same tool used by law
enforcement to track down and arrest these criminals.
Your help is urgently needed to secure resources for this effort, increase public awareness, work to
support tougher laws and educate others on this critical issue. While San Diego has one of the nation’s 61
ICAC task forces, its six trained investigators are overwhelmed with cases due to funding shortfalls.
With your help, these predators can be taken off the street and our children will be safer. Here is what needs
to be done:
Change state law. The current "wobbler" (misdemeanor and felony) wording should be eliminated. All
child pornography charges should be made a straight felony.
Strengthen sentencing. State sentencing on child pornography cases needs to be more in line with
22
federal sentencing.
Toughen discovery statutes. State discovery statutes should be amended to comply with the Adam
Walsh Act. Child pornography is contraband that is easily reproduced and should be treated as such.
Change pornography evidence rules. Stop the practice of giving copies of child pornography evidence
to the defense. Instead, provide the defense a secure area where they can view the evidence but not take
procession of it.
Strike current law about possession/distribution of child pornography. Currently, state law allows
for a defendant's conviction for possession and distribution of child pornography to be set aside if he/she has
complied with all probation conditions, pursuant to Penal Code Section
1203.4.
Strengthen disclosure laws. If applying for any job other than public office, licensure by any state or
local agency, or for contracting with the state lottery, a convicted possessor of child pornography does not
need to disclose their prior conviction. That allows people who have been convicted of possessing or dealing
in photos of child exploitation to get closer to children. PC
1203.4 already has exceptions for convictions of PC 286(c), 288, 288a(c), 2813.5, 289m, felony
261.5(d) and 42001(b) of the Vehicle Code. These convictions may not be set aside per PC
1203.4 and must always be disclosed. PC 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.4, 311.10 and 311.11 should be added to
the list of charges to which this type of relief does not apply.
Update reporting laws. The existing mandatory reporting law should be updated to include librarians
and computer technicians.
Provide permanent funding for ICAC. Significantly more permanent funding is needed for Internet
Crimes Against Children Task Forces (lCAC’s). They are tasked with investigating crimes against children
involving electronic devices. The crimes include child pornography, child molestation and peer-to-peer
bullying. ICAC task force’s are severely undersized and underfunded to keep up with the magnitude of the
growing problem.
Increase public awareness. Public awareness of the issue needs be heightened particularly to
parents and children as well as all public officials and the community in order to protect our children against
these unspeakable crimes.
//////////
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Dorothy Holzem, Assoc. Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8214
Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to increase public awareness of the prevalence of internet crimes against children. To
help promote this goal, the Resolution requests the League of California Cities advocate for legislation that
creates tougher laws for child pornographers and provides additional, more permanent funding for Internet
Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces.
Background:
According to the Resolution sponsors, the U.S. Census Bureau (2005) estimates that there are over 24.5
million internet users in the United States between the ages of 10 and 17. They cite that the rapid growth of
internet accessibility has brought forth helpful tools for our children and youth. Unfortunately, it has also
brought with it the increased potential for online victimization including unwanted exposure to sexual
material, unwanted sexual solicitations, and online harassment.
23
The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Program was created to help federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies enhance their investigative responses to offenders who use the internet, online
communication systems, or computer technology to sexually exploit children. The program is funded by the
United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The program is
a national network of 61 coordinated task forces representing over 3,000 federal, state, and local law
enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. These agencies are engaged in proactive investigations, forensic
investigations, and criminal prosecutions.
In FY 2009, ICAC Program received $25 million under the Omnibus Appropriation Act to support ICAC
task forces, training, and technical assistance. The ICAC Program received an additional $50 million
through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to support ICAC task forces, training, technical
assistance, and research. In each of the past two fiscal years, the program received $30 million nationally.
Existing California law addresses the policy area extensively in the areas of solicitation, pornography, and
harassment with additional penalties often levied when the victim is a minor less than 14 years of age.
Internet-based crimes against minors have been a popular topic in recent legislative proposals especially as
new web-based technology is brought into the market. Legislation has included both increased penalties and
greater protections or remedies for victims.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy offers:
The League believes that the children of California must be recognized as our state’s most valuable
resource. Their development, education, and well-being are key to our state’s future. Further, it is essential
that each child have the support needed to become a productive citizen in the world of the 21st Century.
The League supports the promotion of public safety through stiffer penalties for violent offenders.
The League’s Mission Statement is “to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.”
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
>>>>>>>>>>
24
5. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MISSION FOR
CALIFORNIA CITIES
Source: League Public Safety Policy Committee
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, emergency management is a basic responsibility of city government and a fundamental
duty of all city employees; and
WHEREAS, prepared, disaster resilient communities save lives, prevent injuries, protect property,
promote economic stability, and rapid recovery; and
WHEREAS, employees who have a family plan and supplies will be more likely to stay at work or
come to work after an emergency incident; and
WHEREAS, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides guidelines and
requirements to ensure a national coordinated emergency response system, including training requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) provides the foundation for
California cities to ensure a state-wide coordinated, standardized emergency response system. SEMS is
intended to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of all emergency responders in California; and
WHEREAS, emergency managers are responsible for promoting and encouraging personal, family
and community preparedness and readiness. It is critical to focus on and support public education and
training to ensure that the public understands that government entities may need time to recover from
disaster situations, and to spread the message that disaster resilience, or the ability to recover from a disaster
situation, requires participation from the whole community; and
WHEREAS, The League of California Cities (League) recognizes that cities, counties and the state
do not have the reserves to support residents with food, water, and other necessary supplies after an
“emergency event”. Now, therefore let it be
RESOLVED, at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on
September 7, 2012, in San Diego, that the League encourages cities to actively pursue employee and resident
emergency preparedness. In addition, the League encourages cities to actively engage residents in
emergency preparedness programs that promote creating a family plan, including having supplies of food
and water, in the promotion of self-reliance.
//////////
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 5
Staff: Dorothy Holzem, Assoc. Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8214
Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to create a clear statement of support for emergency preparedness in the League of
California Cities existing policy and guiding principles. Specifically, it requests that the League encourages
cities to actively pursue employee and resident emergency preparedness and to engage residents in
25
emergency preparedness programs that promote creating a family plan, that includes provisions for supplies
of food and water, in the promotion of self-reliance, with the ultimate goal of creating “disaster resilient”
cities.
Background:
This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by that committee’s Emergency and
Disaster Preparedness Subcommittee to create a clear statement of support for emergency response,
management, and recovery efforts as a community. While the League has extensive policy that supports
related activities, there is no explicit statement of support in the existing policy or guiding principles.
In addition, numerous articles in Western City Magazine, the League’s monthly publication, have featured
case studies and best practices about emergency response and disaster preparedness. This topic has been a
key component of the Public Safety Committee’s work program for the last five years.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. This Resolution does not seek to create new requirements for the League or cities. Possible costs
to cities that take steps to educate community members about disaster preparedness could be off-set by
future limited damage and loss of life or injury due to those preparedness efforts.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides:
The League supports the 2-1-1 California telephone service as a non- emergency, human and community
services and disaster information resource.
The League supports “Good Samaritan” protections that include both medical and non-medical care when
applicable to volunteer emergency, law enforcement, and disaster recovery personnel. The League also
supports providing “Good Samaritan” protections to businesses that voluntarily place automated external
defibrillators (AEDs) on their premises to reduce barriers to AED accessibility
The League supports activities to develop and implement statewide integrated public safety communication
systems that facilitate interoperability and other shared uses of public safety spectrum with local state and
federal law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and other public safety agencies.
The League supports a single, efficient, performance-based state department (the California Emergency
Management Agency) to be responsible for overseeing and coordinating emergency preparedness, response,
recovery and homeland security activities.
The League supports disaster recovery legislation that includes mitigation for losses experienced by local
government.
The League’s Mission Statement is “to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.”
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
26
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
>>>>>>>>>>
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
♦1 A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO
ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CORRECT INEFFICIENCIES IN THE
AUDIT SYSTEM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND INEQUITIES IN THE
FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING COURT ORDERED ARREST AND CITATION
FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS GENERATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Resolution #1 also referred to Public Safety Policy Committee. Please see Public Safety
Policy Committee section for the resolution, background and staff analysis information.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3011)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/4/2012
September 04, 2012 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 3011)
Council Priority: City Finances
Summary Title: Management Comp Plan 2011-2013
Title: Adoption of Two Resolutions: (1) Adopting a New Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional and (2) Amending Chapter 9 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations to Revise Rules Related to Probationary Periods
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolutions adopting a new compensation
plan (the “Plan”) for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees effective
for the pay periods beginning July 1, 2012 and continuing in effect until revised, and amending
the Merit System Rules and Regulations to change the probationary period from six to twelve
months.
Background
The Management and Professional group includes approximately 202 active, full-time
employees who staff critical roles at the City by managing our services and finances.
Demographically this group is transitioning into retirement, with nearly one-half of City
employees eligible to retire within the coming five years. Connected with the changing face of
City staff is our desire to enhance the drive, innovation, and effectiveness of City employees
while providing a variety of benefits in a fiscally responsible manner. It is no longer a workable
paradigm to provide steady employment with a generous pension and health benefits in return
for narrowly focused jobs that are carried out with pleasant and courteous service. Dynamic
times call for a workforce choosing to serve the City in order to better their community and to
bring City services up to date with current good practices found in businesses and social
institutions around the world. Palo Alto is the center of innovation and technology solutions to
many of society’s needs. Therefore, the City must serve as a beacon of innovative government,
as well as leverage the incredible array of resources at our front door.
September 04, 2012 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 3011)
Dynamic economic times also call for structural changes to City benefits, which have increased
in cost substantially in recent years, and are projected to continue increasing. The ratio of
benefits to salary has risen from 50 percent of salary in 2010 to 62 percent in 2012. Employee
commitment to take accountability for a portion of their own benefits costs is part of a fiscally
responsible total compensation plan. This Plan creates such structural benefit changes that will
serve the City in coming uncertain economic times and that also supports our culture shift to
encourage engaged and innovative employees.
The Management and Professional employees are unrepresented and do not have a
memorandum of agreement or other contract. The benefits for this group are covered in a
compensation plan that is adopted by resolution of the Council. In an effort to lead in
addressing the City’s financial challenges, the Management and Professional group has
contributed over the past decade by implementing various cost-containing solutions including
receiving no salary increases in several years, capping health insurance at the Blue Shield rate
instead of the PERS Care rate, and changing eligibility requirements for retiree medical benefits.
In 2008-2009, the group helped the City to address a significant budget gap by eliminating the
Variable Management Compensation (VMC) benefit. In 2011, this group adopted an employee
contribution to pay for health plan premiums for actives and future retirees. All these
measures have been implemented in support of the City’s goal to create structural solutions to
curtail increasing employment costs while at the same time creating a supportive, accountable
and creative work environment. Complementary to these plan changes are additional budgeted
training funds that will be earmarked in department budgets for employee education and
development. Further to the goal of creating an innovative, learning culture for employees at
the City, the Human Resource Department is focused on leading culture change to support
engaged management and professional staff.
Discussion
This year, the City Manager recommends the following for the new Plan to be implemented in
two phases:
Phase 1
Effective on adoption:
“At-Will” status for key positions
• All newly hired and newly promoted department heads, assistant directors, deputy
directors, division managers and selected other positions will have “At-will” status. At-
will employees may be terminated or asked to resign at any time, with or without cause.
This status differs from the traditional “for cause” municipal employee who has due
process rights in his or her employment. As a policy promoting effective operation and
administration of City business, staff believes that leadership of departments should be
at will.
• This Plan provides that, upon involuntary termination, such employees are eligible for
severance equal to one month (4 weeks) of salary and benefits upon hire, plus 1 week
September 04, 2012 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 3011)
for each year of City of Palo Alto service, to a maximum of 12 weeks’ severance after 8
years’ service
• This provision does not retroactively change any current employee’s status. It is
applicable to employees newly hired and newly promoted into positions on the “At-will”
list.
Administrative updates
• In 2011, the City revised the administrative process for vacation cashout and accrual of
Management Annual Leave to calendar year from fiscal year accrual basis (no change to
the benefit)to ensure compliance with IRS regulations. Plan language was updated to
reflect these administrative changes.
Professional Development
• Eliminate individual use of Professional Development dollars to purchase of electronic
technology; instead use Professional Development budget for job training, development
courses, and educational materials that directly support learning related to job duties
and responsibilities
• Eliminate gym membership reimbursement
• Reduce amount per employee per year from $1,500 to $500
• Remaining $1,000 per employee will be allocated to Departments for training &
development to be determined by department head
Excess Benefit
• Include gym membership as an option in this fund
Phase 2
Effective after First Quarter of FY 13 (pay period beginning October 6, 2012):
Pension
• Employees to pay full amount of CalPERS employee contribution (7% or 8% or 9%
depending on retirement formula employee is enrolled in). Employees are currently
paying 2% of the employee contribution and the City is paying the balance.
Salary
• Salary increase (3%) to partially offset pension contribution costs
Medical cost sharing increase
• Employees to pay full 10% medical plan premium contribution, City to pay 90% of
second highest CalPERS plan
• Future retirees will pay the same contribution as actives as it changes from time to time
• All part-time employees to pay pro-rated contribution for benefits (medical, dental,
vision) (pro-ration previously limited to employees newly hired or assigned to part-time
schedules)
• Alternate medical plan cash out to be reduced to $284/month flat rate
September 04, 2012 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 3011)
Car Allowance
Car allowances for newly hired Directors are eliminated
Other minor changes in the compensation plan have been made in order to clarify existing
benefits, policies, or processes.
In addition, staff recommends adoption of the attached revision to Chapter 8 of the Merit
System Rules and Regulations to extend the probationary period for management employees
who are not hired into at-will classifications from 6 months to 12 months. During the
probationary period, an employee may be released from employment for any reason without
right of appeal, and staff has determined that 6 months is frequently not enough time for
managers to sufficiently evaluate performance. This change will provide managers ample time
for the opportunity to assess performance.
Resource Impact
This section primarily focuses on changes taking effect in FY 2013. These include financial
impacts as a result of the Pension employee contribution increase and the change to the full
ten percent paid employee medical premium contribution as well as medical contributions from
part-time employees.
The total savings expected from this agreement, driven primarily by employees paying an
increased share of pension costs and paying more of the healthercare costs, is $536,000 per
year citywide ($245,000 General Fund).
The implementation of the full 90/10 medical premium cost share plan effective on October 6,
2012 results in 9 months of medical premium savings for FY 13. On an annual basis, employee
contributions of a full 10 percent share are expected to save the City an estimated $109,000 per
year ($79,000 to General Fund) based on 2013 healthcare rates. The change in part-time
employees paying a pro-rated contribution for benefits will save the City $30,741 per year. The
reduction in alternate medical cashout to a flat rate will result in savings an estimated $175,000
per year.
The increase of employee-paid pension contributions to 7% or 8% results in savings of
$271,932 per year that partially offsets the salary increase.
Savings, or more accurately, avoided costs from implementation of the second tier 2.0% at 60
formula implemented last year for Management employees is not anticipated until FY13. Based
on a variety of assumptions and compared to the 2.7@55 retirement plan, the City will avoid
costs of $73,000 in FY 13 (a subset of the $235,000 savings for all of the non-safety employees.)
The annual avoided costs will rise $0.6 million in FY 2022 ($1.95 million for the entire non-
safety group.)
Policy Implications
September 04, 2012 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 3011)
The action recommended by this report is consistent with City Council direction.
Environmental Review (Not Applicable)
Attachments:
Reso Adopting Mgmt Comp Plan 2012 (PDF)
Reso Amending Merit Rules 2012 (PDF)
Management Prof Comp Plan 2012 (PDF)
Mgmt-Prof Comp Plan 2012 Redline (PDF)
Prepared By: Sandra Blanch, Assistant Director, Human Resources
Department
Department Head: Kathryn Shen, Director, Human Resources
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Not Yet Approved
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a
Compensation Plan for Management and Professional
Personnel and Council Appointees and Rescinding
Resolution Nos. 9156, 9180, and 9221
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 Management Compensation Plan, as set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, is hereby adopted for Management and
Professional Personnel and Council Appointees effective July I, 2011 through June 30, 2013 or
until amended.
SECTION 2. The Compensation Plan as adopted shall be administered by the
City Manager in accordance with the Merit System Rules and Regulations.
SECTION 3.
revoked by the Council.
The Compensation Plan shall continue in effect until amended or
SECTION 4. The Director of Administrative Services hereby is authorized to
implement the Compensation Plan adopted herein in his preparation of forthcoming payrolls. He
is further authorized to make changes in the titles of employee classifications identified in the
Table of Authorized Personnel contained in the 2011-2013 budget, if such titles have been
changed in the Compensation Plan.
SECTION 5. Resolution Nos. 9156,9180 and 9221 are hereby rescinded.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
120828 jb 8261966 I
Not Yet Approved
SECTION 6. 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
120828 jb 8261966 2
Not Yet Approved
Resolution No.
Resolution ofthe Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 9 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations to
Update the Requirements for Probationary Periods
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. 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 Human Resources
Director of Administrative Services
120828 sh 8261892 1
Not Yet Approved
CHAPTER 9
PROBATIONARY STATUS
Sections:
901 Probationary period
902 Objective of probationary period
903 Employee performance reports
904 Rejection of probationer
905 Extension of probationary period
901. Probationary period for new employees. Original appointments to full-time or
part-time regular municipal service positions that are not designated as "at-will" shall be
tentative and subject to a probationary period of twelve months for management and confidential
employees, and as set forth in Chapters 14-16 (memoranda of agreement for represented
employees) for other employees.
902. Objective of probationary neriod. The probationary period shall be regarded as a
part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for
securing the effective adjustment of a new employee to his/her position, and for rejecting any
probationary employee whose performance does not meet the acceptable standards of work.
903. Employee performance reports. A report of performance of each probationary
employee shall be made by a department head and shown to the probationary employee on or
before expiration of the probationary period.
904. Rejection of probationer. During the probationary period a new employee may be
suspended, demoted or terminated at any time by the appointing authority without cause and
without right of appeal or to submit a grievance.
905. Extension of probationary period. If a probationary employee is absent from work
during the probationary period for a total of three work weeks or longer, the probationary period
shall be extended for a period commensurate with the duration of the absence in order to provide
the full amount of time to determine whether the employee has met the objectives of the
probationary period.
120828 sh 8261892 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMPENSATION PLAN
Management and Professional Personnel
And Council Appointees
Effective: Pay period including July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013,
except where specifically noted.
1
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Management and Professional Personnel
As used in this Plan, the term “Management and Professional” refers to all employees, including
Confidential employees, previously classified as “Management and Confidential” by the City. This
group will hereafter be identified as “Management and Professional” personnel.
SECTION I. COMPENSATION
This section applies to all management and professional employees and does not include Council
Members or Council-appointed officers. Each Council-appointed officer shall be the responsible
decision-maker under this Plan for those employees in departments under his/her control.
A. MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION POLICY
The City's policy for management and professional compensation is to establish and maintain a
general structure based on marketplace norms and internal job alignment with broad
compensation grades and ranges. Structures and ranges will be reviewed and updated as
necessary based on marketplace survey data, internal relationships, and City financial
conditions.
Individual compensation adjustments will be considered by the Council-appointed officer based
on (1) performance factors including achievement of predetermined objectives; (2) pay structure
adjustments; and (3) City financial conditions.
B. BASIC PLAN ELEMENTS
1. Structure. The compensation plan includes separate multi-grade structures for both
management and professional employees. Each grade will have a control point which is used
for budgetary purposes. All management and professional positions will be assigned an
appropriate pay grade based on salary survey data and internal relationships. Actual salary
within the range is determined by experience and performance. The normal working range
where most actual salaries will fall will be within + 10% of the control point.
Competitive marketplace studies will be conducted as needed by surveying a maximum of
14 organizations similar to Palo Alto in number of employees, funding mechanisms,
population and services provided. These studies will focus on total compensation for
management positions such as first line supervisors, administrative, confidential,
professional and top management. Periodically, studies will include position-by-position
comparisons using market research and internal equity data. The results of these studies may
indicate that the entire pay grade structure be adjusted, that individual positions be
reassigned to different pay grades, or that no change takes place. Such adjustments will only
affect the salary administration framework. No individual salaries will be automatically
changed because of structural adjustments.
A department director may request that HR reevaluate a job or jobs in his or her department
based on significant and permanent changes in job content. In doing so the director will
2
supply needed information and will provide a position description questionnaire as
requested. The Chief People Officer will respond to such requests within his or her
discretion.
2. Compensation Adjustment Authorization. In consultation with feedback received from the
Management and Professional Compensation Committee, the City Manager may propose as
part of the budget process for Council approval of a compensation adjustment based on (1)
competitive market data, (2) changes in internal position relationships, (3) the City's ability
to pay, and (4) a recommendation received from the Chief People Officer. For fiscal year
2013 the compensation adjustment to control point shall be three percent (3%) effective the
pay period including October 6, 2012. In addition, certain below-market positions will be
subject to equity adjustments at a future date based on Management Compensation Study
results and subject to Council approval.
In years when there is an adjustment to control point, this adjustment will be available for
those management/professional employees who have received an overall rating of "meets"
or "exceeds" expectations on their annual review and who have not been on a performance
improvement plan during the preceding fiscal year. Nothing herein shall preclude an
employee's manager from awarding a control point adjustment increase to an employee on a
performance plan at a later date should employee's performance improve.
3. Base Compensation. Compensation for management and professional employees includes
bi-weekly base salary and is paid on a continuing basis. On a fiscal year basis, the bi-weekly
base salary must fall within pay grade limits of no less than 20% below the control point and
no more than 20% above the control point.
Base salary increases are earned in accordance with administrative guidelines based upon
growth within the position and performance, which must meet or exceed position standards,
the salary structure and the City’s ability to pay.
4. Performance Planning and Appraisal. Performance appraisals will be conducted at the end of
each fiscal year during the months of July through September 30 each year prior to
determining individual employee fixed compensation. This process includes both review of
previous performance plan and preparation of the performance plan for the next planning
period (usually the fiscal year). Performance plans are jointly prepared by the employee and
supervisor with the concurrence of the department head or Council-appointed officer. The
performance plans shall contain measurable objectives which place special emphasis on
position description duties or specific assignments. Progress toward meeting objectives shall
be monitored periodically. The performance appraisals should be implemented in a manner
that will achieve the following objectives:
Define the employee’s job duties and expected level of performance for the next
review period to ensure that both the employee and supervisor have a clear
understanding of the employee’s role and responsibilities;
Evaluate and document past performance to serve as a basis for establishing and
obtaining future performance standards/objectives;
Facilitate two-way communication and understanding between the employee and his
or her supervisor;
3
Counsel and encourage employees to work toward a learning development plan and
realize their full potential;
Establish future work plan objectives.
Work plans should include job related projects or special goals related to regular job duties
when applicable. At the conclusion of the fiscal year (or review period), supervisors shall
make a final determination of the overall performance rating.
Recommendations shall be forwarded to department heads and to the Chief People Officer
or appropriate Council appointed officer who will then determine individual fixed
adjustments according to the provisions of the compensation plan. This process should be
completed by September 30.
C. MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORIZATION
1. Council-appointed officers are authorized to pay salaries in accordance with this plan to
non-Council-appointed management and professional employees in an amount not to exceed
the aggregate of approved management and professional positions budgeted at the control
points in the Table of Organization for the applicable fiscal year.
2. Individual management and professional compensation authorized by a Council-appointed
officer under the Management and Professional Compensation Plan may not be less than
20% below nor more than 20% above the control point for the individual position grades
authorized in Table I of this plan.
3. The Council-appointed officers are authorized to establish such administrative rules as are
necessary to implement the Management and Professional Salary Plan subject to the
limitations of the approved compensation adjustment authorization and the approved grade
and control point structure.
4. In the event a downward adjustment of a position grade assignment indicates a reduction in
the established salary of an individual employee, the Council-appointed officer may, if
circumstances warrant, continue the salary for such employee in an amount in excess of the
revised grade limit for a reasonable period of time. Such interim salary rates shall be defined
as "Y-rates."
SECTION II. SPECIAL COMPENSATION
This section applies to all eligible regular management and professional positions including Council
Appointed Officers as applicable and including Council Members where indicated. Eligibility shall
be in conformance with the Merit Rules and Regulations and Administrative Directives issued by
the City Manager for the purposes of clarification and interpretation.
A. OVERTIME
Compensation for overtime work shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and Regulations
and Policies and Procedures.
4
B. IN LIEU HOLIDAY PAY
Employees who work a schedule where a regular day off falls on a holiday will be paid for the
hours they would have normally worked on that day. If the holiday falls on a non-workday for
an exempt employee, the employee may, with supervisory approval, take another day off within
the pay period or the following pay period.
C. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY
Where management and professional employees, on a temporary basis, are assigned to perform
all significant duties of a higher classification, the City Manager may authorize payment within
the range of the higher classification for the specified time frame. Working out of class pay is
normally not to exceed 10% more than the employee’s current salary and shall be documented
on a Personnel Action Form, with a description of the additional duties to be performed and an
end date.
D. STAND-BY PAY
Employees eligible for overtime may be entitled to stand-by pay, approved by the City Manager
on a case by case basis, in extreme circumstances involving unavailability of non-management
staff. Compensation is as follows:
Monday through Friday $40 per day
Saturday, Sunday, Holidays $58 per day
E. CALL OUT PAY
Effective pay period beginning February 26, 2011, Exempt management and professional
classifications will be compensated for Call Out as outlined below with Management approval
(and will not be eligible for overtime pay). Call Out applies when: (1) an employee previously
left City premises, (2) is called back to the work location outside of regularly scheduled working
hours, and (3) the Call Back is for an emergency arising out of situations involving real or
potential loss of service, property or personal danger. Employees called back will be expected to
respond directly to the location of the problem.
Compensation is per Call Out as reported on timecard and will be paid as follows:
Monday through Friday: $140 per day
Saturday and Sunday: $200 per day
F. NIGHT SHIFT PREMIUM
Night shift differential shall be paid at the rate of five percent (5%) to regular full-time
employees who are regularly assigned to shift work between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., or to
employees who are temporarily assigned to work a full shift between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
5
G. UNIFORM PURCHASE PLAN - SWORN POLICE, FIRE PERSONNEL, and OPEN
SPACE PERSONNEL
Uniforms, including cleaning, will be provided with replacement provisions on an as-needed
basis in conformance with department policy.
H. GROUP INSURANCE
1. Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees
For newly-hired regular employees coverage begins on the first day of the month following
date of hire for the health plan, dental plan, vision care plan, long term disability and life
insurance plans if these benefits are elected.
2. Active Employee Health Plan
a) Based on an employee’s family status, the City shall pay up to the monthly medical
premium for the second most expensive plan among the existing array of plans available
during the term of this compensation plan on behalf of eligible employees (including
Council Appointed Officers and Council Members) and dependents, except as provided
in section b, below. Eligible dependents, under current law, include spouses, children
under the age of 26 and never married (natural, adopted, or stepchildren), economically
dependent children, and domestic partners registered with the Secretary of State. If
PERS changes the plans it offers, the City will continue to provide an equivalent benefit
at an equivalent cost.
b) Effective in the pay period including October 6, 2012, participating employees will
contribute 10% of the premium cost for the employee-selected plan, and the City shall
contribute 90%, with a maximum City contribution of 90% of the second highest plan. .
c) City medical premium contributions will be prorated for part-time employees based on
the number of hours per week the part-time employee is assigned to work.
d) Coverage for Domestic Partners:
1) Domestic Partnership Registered with the California Secretary of State: Employees
may add their domestic partner as a dependent to their elected health plan coverage if
the domestic partnership is registered with the Secretary of State.
2) Domestic Partnership Not Registered with the California Secretary of State:
Domestic partners who meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of
Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human Resources Department,
will be eligible for reimbursement of the actual monthly premium cost of an
individual health plan, not to exceed the maximum monthly City employer
contribution for one-party coverage under the CalPERS Health Benefits Program (or
PORAC if a safety department employee) for an employee covered under this
agreement. Evidence of premium payment will be required with request for
reimbursement.
6
e) PERS Choice Reimbursement Plan
Will be eliminated effective January 1, 2013. Management and Professional
personnel enrolled in the PERS Choice medical plan may submit a request for
payment, as specified below, for non-covered medical expenses, incurred during the
period of January 1, through December 31, of the plan year, that exceed $2,500. The
maximum annual reimbursement amount provided under this program is:
$700 for employees enrolled in the Employee-Only category;
$900 for employees enrolled in the Employee and One Dependent
category, and
$1,100 for employees enrolled in the Family category.
Any amounts reimbursed to an individual under this program would be
included in the employee’s gross income and is not PERSable.
This program shall only reimburse employees for medical expenses that are not
reimbursed through any other means and meet the definition in Section 213(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code. (Examples of eligible expenses include medical plan
deductibles and co-payments, prescription drugs, dental care, hearing care, and
vision care.) However, in order to have any expenses reimbursed under this
program, the employee must have allocated 100% ($2,500.00) of their 2010 calendar
Excess Benefit funds into the Medical FSA option during the election that occurred
in December 2009. In addition, all such reimbursements from the Excess Benefit
Program must have been solely for medical expenses, as defined by Section 213(d)
of the Internal Revenue Code. If the employee has designated his/her Excess
Medical funds for any other qualifying expenses (i.e. dependent care, Professional
Development, Deferred Compensation contributions), the employee would not be
eligible for reimbursement under this program.
Employees may submit a final claim for the 2012 plan year’s expenses during January.
Any amounts remaining from the PERS Choice reimbursement plan after the claims for
the plan year had been processed shall be forfeited.
3. Alternative Medical Benefit Program
If a regular employee and/or the employee’s dependent(s) are eligible for medical insurance
through another employer-sponsored or association medical plan, the employee may opt for
alternative medical insurance coverage through the other employer-sponsored or association
plan and waives his/her right to the City of Palo Alto’s medical insurance coverage for same
individuals. Employees electing alternative coverage and no City coverage will receive cash
payments in the amount of 90% of the average monthly premium for one party, which is
$284.00.
4. Retiree Health Plan
a) Employees Hired Prior to January 1, 2004
7
Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected health plan through the
CalPERS Health Benefits Program will be made as provided under the Public
Employees” Medical and Hospital Care Act. The City’s monthly employer contribution
for each employee retiring on or after January 1, 2007 and prior to March 31, 2011 shall
be the amount necessary to pay for the cost of his or her enrollment in a health benefits
plan up to the monthly premium for the second most expensive plan offered to
management and professional personnel during the contract term (among the existing
array of plans.) The City’s contribution for an employee hired before January 1, 2004
who retires on or after March 30, 2011 shall be the same contribution amount it makes
from time to time for active City employees.
b) Post – 1/1/04 Hires
For those Management and professional employees hired after January 1, 2004, the
PERS law vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section 22893 will apply.
Under that law, an employee is eligible for 50% of the specified employer health
premium contribution after ten (10) years of service credit, provided at least five (5) of
those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto. After ten (10) years of service
credit, each additional service credit year increases the employer contribution percentage
by 5% until, at 20 years’ service credit, the employee will be eligible upon retirement for
100% of the specified employer contribution and 90% of their dependent coverage. The
City of Palo Alto’s health premium contribution for eligible post – 1/1/04 hires shall be
the minimum contribution set by PERS under section 22893 based on a weighted
average of available health plan premiums.
5. Dental Plan
a) The City shall pay covered plan charges on behalf of all eligible employees and
dependents. (Domestic partners who are either registered with the Secretary of State or
who meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership,
and are registered with the Human Resources Department are considered dependents
under the plan.) Benefits for regular part-time employees hired or assigned to a part-time
schedule will be prorated in accordance with his/her percentage of a full- time work
schedule.
b) The City’s Dental Plan provides the following:
Maximum Benefits per Calendar Year- $2,000 per person
Lifetime Maximum for Orthodontics- The City will pay up to $2,000.00 for
orthodontia coverage (not included in annual dental maximum)
Major Dental Services 50% UCR*
Orthodontics 50% UCR*
Basic Benefits (All other covered services)
First Calendar Year of Eligibility 70% UCR*
Subsequent Calendar Years 70%-100%
*Usual, Customary, and Reasonable
Composite (tooth covered) fillings for posterior teeth
8
For each dental plan member, the percentage of coverage for basic benefits will begin at
70% for the first calendar year of coverage and increase by 10% (up to a maximum of
100%) effective the first day of the next calendar year as long as the member utilizes the
plan at least once during the current year. Per the Delta Dental contract effective October
1, 2005, if the member does not utilize the plan during the current year, the percentage of
coverage for the next calendar year shall remain unchanged from the current year.
If a dental plan member ever loses coverage under the plan, the applicable percentage of
coverage for basic benefits provided during any future period of coverage will
commence at 70% as if the dental plan member was a new enrollee. Examples of when a
member might lose coverage under the plan would include:
Employee goes on an unpaid leave of absence and elects not to pay the required
dental premiums for his/her family’s coverage during the leave.
Employee elects to drop one or more covered dependents from the plan during an
open enrollment period so that they might be covered on a spouse’s non-City of
Palo Alto dental plan.
6. Basic Life Insurance
The City shall provide a basic group term life insurance with Accidental Death and
Dismemberment (AD&D) coverage, in an amount equal to the employee's annual basic pay
(rounded to the next highest $1,000) at no-cost to the employee. AD&D pays an additional
amount equal to the employee’s annual basic pay (rounded to the next highest $1,000).
7. Supplemental Life And AD&D Insurance
An employee may, at his/her cost, purchase additional life insurance and additional AD&D
coverage equal to one- or two-times his or her annual salary. The maximum amount of life
insurance available to the employee is up to $325,000 and the maximum amount of AD&D
coverage available is up to $325,000.
8. Long Term Disability Insurance
a) The City shall provide long term disability (LTD) insurance with a benefit of 2/3
monthly salary, up to a maximum benefit of $10,000 per month. The City shall pay the
premium for the first $6,000 of base monthly salary. For employees whose base monthly
salary exceeds $6,000, the employee shall pay the cost of the required premium based
upon their monthly salary between $6,000 and $15,000.
b) For employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000 and who have no eligible
dependents covered under the City’s medical, dental or vision plans, the City will pay up
to $17.50 per month towards the employee’s cost for LTD coverage.
9
9. Vision Care
a) The City shall provide vision care coverage for employee and dependents. Coverage is
administered by Vision Service Plan (VSP). The plan provides an exam every 12
months; lenses every 24 months; frames every 24 months, all subject to a $20 co-
payment as defined in the Vision Services Benefits Plan A schedule. Benefits for regular
part-time employees will be prorated as follows:
Employees hired after January 1, 2004, who will work less than full time, will receive
prorated premium costs for vision benefits in accordance with his/her percentage of a
full-time work schedule. Vision benefits for regular part-time employees hired or
assigned to a part-time schedule will be prorated in accordance with his/her percentage
of a full- time work schedule.
b) Effective July 1, 1996, dependents include eligible domestic partners who are either
registered with the Secretary of State or who meet the requirements of the City of Palo
Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human Resources
Department.
I. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLAN
The Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) provides employees with confidential personal
counseling, work and family related issues, eldercare, substance abuse, etc. In addition, EAP
programs provide a valuable tool for supervisors to refer troubled employees to professional
outside help. This service staffed by experienced clinicians is available to employees and their
dependents by calling a toll-free phone line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Guidance is also
available online.
J. SAFETY DIFFERENTIALS
1. Police Department - Personnel Development Program
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following may be
granted to sworn police personnel:
P.O.S.T. Intermediate Certificate: five percent (5%) above base salary
P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate: seven and a half (7 ½%) above base salary
2. Fire Department - EMT Differential
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following may be
granted to sworn Fire personnel:
EMT Differential: three percent (3%) above base salary
10
K. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL BENEFIT PROGRAM
Management and professional employees are eligible for Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the
Management Benefit Program. City Council Members are eligible for Section 3 only.
1. Professional Development - Reimbursement
The purpose of this program is to provide employees with resources to improve and
supplement their job and professional skills. Reimbursement for authorized self-
improvement activities may be granted each management and professional employee up to a
maximum of five hundred dollars ($500) per fiscal year. A departmental training fund of
one thousand dollars per employee ($1,000) will be established for subject matter,
leadership or other training that the Department Director identifies as a need for employees
within that Department.
The following items are eligible for reimbursement:
a) Civic and professional association memberships
b) Conference participation and travel expenses, which must occur within the
compensation plan period.
c) Educational programs, books and videos, and tuition reimbursement designed to
maintain or improve the employee's skills in performing his or her job or future job
opportunities, should support the City’s mission or be necessary to meet the
educational requirements for qualification for employment. Permissible educational
expenses are refresher courses, courses dealing with current developments, academic
or vocational courses, as well as the travel expenses associated with the courses as
defined by the City’s travel expense report from the Policy & Procedures Manual
Section 1-02 ASD.
d) Professional and trade journal subscriptions not to exceed 12 months.
e) Approval will be at discretion of department head and signature is required on
reimbursement form.
Amounts under this professional development program will be pro-rated in the first
year of employment or promotion into a position covered by this Compensation Plan
2. Physical Examinations
All management and professional employees are eligible to receive an annual physical
examination as follows:
a) Use the periodic health exam benefit as provided under the PERS Health Plan option
you have selected. Each of the PERS Health Plans provides for a periodic physical
examination. The examination must be performed by your primary care physician—
unless he/she refers you to another physician.
11
b) The types of tests and the frequency of the tests cannot exceed AMA guidelines. The
guidelines are a suggested minimum based on research studies concerning
preventative care. The judgment of your physician is the final determinant for your
care.
c) Any additional necessary asymptomatic tests that are required by your physician that
are not covered by your health plan, will be reimbursed by the City. Any
symptomatic tests will be covered under your PERS Health Plan.
The Reimbursement for Periodic Physical Exam Form is available on the Human Resources
Intranet site. This benefit will not be pro-rated.
3. Excess Benefit
This benefit is designed to meet the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue
Code, with exception of Gym or Health Club Membership. Every calendar year, each
employee will be provided with $2,500 that they can designate among the following options:
a) Medical Flexible Spending Account (Medical FSA). Provides reimbursement for
excess medical/dental/vision, or expenses that are incurred by employees and their
dependents which are not covered or reimbursed by any other source, including
existing City-sponsored plans. This includes prescribed medications and copayments
as well as over-the-counter drugs, including: antacids, allergy medicines, pain
relievers and cold medicines. However, nonprescription dietary supplements (e.g.
vitamins, etc.) toiletries (e.g. toothpaste), cosmetics (e.g. face cream), and items used
for cosmetic purposes (e.g. Rogaine) are not acceptable.
b) Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account (Dependent Care FSA). Provides
reimbursement for qualified dependent care expenses under the City's Dependent
Care Assistance Program (DCAP), subject to the following limits: Dependent care
expenses will be reimbursed only to the extent that the amount of such expenses
reimbursed under this Management Benefit Program, when added to the amount (if
any) of annual dependent care expenses that the participant has elected under the
City's Flexible Benefits Plan, do not exceed the maximum permitted under the
DCAP.
1) The annual amount submitted for reimbursement cannot exceed the income
of the lower-paid spouse.
2) The expenses must be employment-related expenses for the care of one or
more dependents who are under 13 years of age and entitled to a dependent
deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 151(e) or a dependent who is
physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself.
3) The payments cannot be made to a child under 19 years of age or to a person
claimed as a dependent.
12
4) If the services are provided by a dependent care center, the center must
comply with all state and local laws and must provide care for more than six
(6) individuals (other than a resident of the facility).
5) Dependent care expenses not submitted under this section are eligible under
the City Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP). However, the maximum
amount reimbursed under DCAP will be reduced by any amount reimbursed
under the Excess Benefit Plan.
c) Non-taxable Professional Development Spending Account. Provides reimbursement
for Non-Taxable professional development expenses (e.g.,job-related training and
education, seminars, training manuals, etc.) to the extent they are not paid or
reimbursed under any other plan of the City.
d) Gym or Health Club memberships. Provides reimbursement for annual or monthly
memberships, including personal trainers. Reimbursement of this expense is taxable
to the employee.
e) Deferred Compensation. Provides a one-time contribution to the employee’s City-
sponsored 457 Deferred Compensation plan with either ICMA-RC or the Hartford.
Amounts designated by employees to either the Medical FSA, Dependent Care FSA, or
Professional Development options are done so on a “use –it-or-lose-it” basis. This means
that any amounts designated and not used by the end of the calendar year (or end of the
extended grace period for the medical FSA) will be forfeited by the employee and returned
to the plan.
Specified amounts under this benefit will be applied on a pro-rata basis for employees who
are part-time or who are in a management or professional pay status for less than the full
fiscal year. Such benefits will be pro-rated in the first year of employment (based on hire
date) but will not be pro-rated upon separation of employment.
L. LEAVES
1. Sick Leave
a) Sick leave shall be accrued bi-weekly provided the employee has been in a pay status
for 50% or more of a bi-weekly pay period. Sick leave shall be accrued at the rate of
3.7 hours per bi-weekly pay period for those employees working a 40-hour duty
schedule. Those assigned work schedules which are greater or lesser than 40 hours
will accrue sick leave at the ratio of their work schedule to 40 hours.
b) Employees may use up to 20 hours of sick leave per calendar year for personal
business. The scheduling of such leave is subject to the approval of the appropriate
level of Management.
c) Employees leaving the municipal service shall forfeit all accumulated sick leave,
except as otherwise provided by law and by Section 609 of the Merit Rules and
13
Regulations. In the event that notice of resignation is given, sick leave may be used
only through the day which was designated as the final day of work by such notice.
d) Employees that were hired before December 1, 1983 and who leave the municipal
service in good standing, or who die while employed in good standing by the city,
and who have 15 or more years of continuous service shall receive compensation for
unused sick leave hours in a sum equal to two and one-half percent (2½%) of their
unused sick leave hours multiplied by their years of continuous service and their
basic hourly rate of pay at termination. Full sick leave accrual will be paid in the
event of termination due to disability. See Merit System Rules and Regulations,
Chapter 6, Section 609.
e) Up to nine (9) days of sick leave per calendar year may be used for illness in the
immediate family, including a registered domestic partner.
f) Management and Professional employees eligible, as specified above if hired before
December 1, 1983, to be compensated for sick leave may annually convert sick leave
hours in excess of 600 to cash or deferred compensation, according to the formula set
forth above, up to a maximum of $2,000 per fiscal year.
g) In accordance with the City Merit Rules and Regulations, a new employee may, if
necessary, use up to 48 hours or shift equivalent of sick leave at any time during the
first six (6) months of employment.
2. Management Annual Leave
a) Exempt Employees
Regular management and professional employees will be credited with 80 hours of
annual leave. This leave is granted in recognition of the extra hours Management and
Professional employees work over their regular schedule. This leave may be taken as
paid time off, added to vacation accrual (subject to vacation accrual limitations),
taken as cash or taken as deferred compensation. When time off is taken under this
provision, 10-hour shift workers will receive one shift off for each 8 hours charged;
24-hour shift workers will receive one-half (½) shift off for each 8 hours charged.
In 2012, the City will be transitioning this benefit from a fiscal to calendar year basis
for administrative purposes. Therefore, on July 1, 2012, employees will be credited
with 40 hours of annual leave for the period of July 1 to December 31, 2012.
Beginning in 2013 and each calendar year thereafter, employees will be credited with
80 hours of management annual leave.
Entitlement under this provision will be reduced on a prorated basis for part-time
status, or according to the number of months in paid status during the year;
employees who have used more than the pro-rated share at the time they leave City
service shall be required to repay the balance or have it deducted from their final
check. Unused balances as of the end of the year will be paid in cash unless a
different option as indicated above is elected by the employee.
14
b) Non-Exempt Employees
Based on an audit recommendation to eliminate payment of overtime as well as
management leave for non-exempt employees in the management group, the City is
transitioning away from providing management leave to non-exempt employees. As
part of the transition, and in order to minimize impacts to current employees, the
City will phase-out elimination of the 80 hours of management leave for all current
non-exempt Management and Professional employees (those eligible to earn
overtime). Continuing through Fiscal year 2013-2014, there will be no change to
management leave benefits for current employees; these employees will maintain
their 80 hours of management leave and also receive pay for any overtime hours
worked. Beginning on July 1, 2014 all employees in non-exempt positions will
receive overtime pay for hours actually worked, but will no longer receive
management leave.
Employees hired into non-exempt management positions on or after February 26,
2011 will receive overtime only and will not be eligible for management leave.
3. Vacation
Vacation will be accrued when an employee is in pay status and will be credited on a bi-
weekly basis. Total vacation accrual at any one time may not exceed three (3) times the
annual rate of accrual. Each eligible employee shall accrue vacation at the following rate for
continuous service performed in pay status:
a) Less than nine (9) years. For employees completing less than nine (9) years
continuous service: 120 hours vacation leave per year; provided that:
i. The City Manager is authorized to adjust department head annual vacation
accrual to provide for a maximum of 160 hours for those hired between July
1, 1996 and June 30, 2001; and
ii. The City manager is authorized to adjust the annual vacation accrual of
employees hired on or after July 1, 2001, to provide up to 40 additional hours
(i.e., to a maximum annual accrual of 160 hours) for service with a prior
employer.
b) Nine (9), but less than fourteen (14) years. For employees completing nine (9), but
not more than fourteen (14) years continuous service; 160 hours vacation per year.
c) Fourteen (14), but less than nineteen (19) years. For employees completing fourteen
(14), but not more than nineteen (19) years continuous service; 180 hours vacation
leave per year.
d) Nineteen (19) or more years. For employees completing nineteen (19) or more years
continuous service; 200 hours vacation leave per year.
15
e) Employees are eligible to cash out vacation accrual balances in excess of 80 hours.
An employee may cash out a minimum of eight (8) hours to a maximum of 120
hours of accrued vacation provided the employee has taken 80 vacation hours in the
previous 12 months and has followed the election procedures set forth in this section.
Employees must elect the number of vacation hours they will cash-out during the
next calendar year, up to the maximum of 120 hours. For the 2012 calendar vacation
year, employees will make their election for vacation hours to cash out no later than
November 1, 2012. The election will apply only to vacation hours that are accrued
in the next calendar year and that are eligible for cash-out.
The election to cash-out vacation hours in each designated year will be irrevocable.
This means that employees who elect to cash-out vacation hours must cash-out the
number of accrued hours pre-designates on the election form.
Employees who do not elect a cash-out amount by November 1 of the prior calendar
year will be deemed to have waived the right to cash out any leave in the following
tax year and will not be eligible to cash-out vacation hours in the next tax year
Employees who elect cash-out amounts may request a cash-out at any time in the
designated tax year by submitting a cash-out form to payroll. Payroll will complete
the cash-out upon request, provided the requested cash-out amount has accrued and
is consistent with the amount the employee pre-designated. If the full amount of
hours designated for cash-out is not available at the time of cash-out request, the
maximum available will be paid. For employees who have not requested cash-out of
the elected amount by November 1 of each year, Payroll will automatically cash-out
the elected amount in a paycheck issued on or after the payroll date including
November 1.
4. Bereavement
Leave of absence with pay of three (3) days may be granted an employee by the head of
his/her department in the event of death in the employee’s immediate family, which is
defined for purposes of this section as wife, husband, son, son-in-law, step-son, daughter,
daughter-in-law, step-daughter, mother, mother-in-law, father, father-in-law, brother,
brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, grandmother, grandmother-in-law, grandfather,
grandfather-in-law, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, registered domestic partner, or a
close relative residing in the household of employee. Such leave shall be at full pay and shall
not be charged against the employee’s accrued vacation or sick leave. Requests for leave in
excess of three days shall be subject to the approval of a Council-Appointed Officer for
employees under his/her control.
M. RETIREMENT PENSION
1. Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the City’s Public Employees’ Retirement System
(PERS) benefits changed to the 2.7%@ 55 formula for non-safety members (from 2% @55).
16
For miscellaneous employees hired on or after July 17, 2010, the City offers the CalPERS
retirement formula two percent (2.0%) of final salary at age sixty (60).
For Safety members, the City currently offers the CalPERS "3% at 50" full formula (Section
21362.2) benefit. Local Fire Safety members newly hired after 6/08/12 will be placed in the
3%@55 formula. As soon as administratively possible, the City intends to modify the Local
Police Safety formula for new hires to 3%@55 formula.
2. Employee PERS Share.
The City currently pays 6% of the employee’s CalPERS share for employees under the
2.7%@55, 5% for employees under the 2%@60 formula, and the full employee share for
those with public safety formulas.
a) Beginning with the pay period including October 6, 2012, employees under the
2.7%@55 retirement formula will pay the full eight percent (8%) employee
contribution.
b) Beginning with the pay period including October 6, 2012, employees subject to
the 2%@60 retirement formula shall pay the full seven percent (7%) employee
contribution.
c) Beginning with the pay period including October 6, 2012, Public Safety
employees will pay the full nine percent (9%) PERS employee contribution.
3. Final Compensation.
Final compensation for purposes of retirement shall be as set forth in the City’s contract with
CalPERS, including, when applicable, the Government Code Section 20692: Optional
Benefit.
4. Employee PERS contributions shall be made on a tax deferred basis, in accordance with
Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. All provisions of this subsection are subject
to and conditioned upon compliance with IRS regulations.
N. COMMUTE INCENTIVES and PARKING
1. Civic Center Parking. Employees assigned to Civic Center and adjacent work locations. The
City will provide a Civic Center Garage parking permit. Employees hired after June 30,
1994 may initially receive a parking permit for another downtown lot, subject to the
availability of space at the Civic Center Garage.
2. Alternative Commute Incentives: Employees who qualify may voluntarily elect one of the
following commute incentives for those using an eligible commute alternative on 60% or
more of their scheduled work days per month:
a) Public Transit and Vanpool. The City provides tax-free commute incentives up to the
current IRS limit, as may be amended from time to time, (currently $125/month) are
17
available through the Commuter Check Direct (CCD) website for employees using
Bay Area public transportation or riding in a registered vanpool at least 60% of their
scheduled work days. Administration of the Commuter Check benefit shall be
subject to the rules and regulations of the third- party administrator.
b) Bicycle. The City will provide employees with a tax-free incentive of $20 per month
to eligible employees who ride a bicycle to work.
c) Carpool. The City will provide with a taxable incentive of $30 per month to each
eligible employee in a carpool with two or more licensed drivers.
d) Walk. The City will provide employees with a taxable incentive of $20 per month to
eligible employees who walk to work.
O. AT-WILL STATUS
Certain Management and Professional Positions are designated as having “at-will” employment
status. “At-will” positions are intended to be of a limited duration and employees hired to fill
these positions shall have no constitutionally protected property or other interest in their
employment with the City. Notwithstanding any provision in the Merit System Rules and
Regulations or any other City rule, policy or procedure, at-will employees have no right to
continued employment or pre-or post-disciplinary due process and work at the will and pleasure
of the hiring authority (City Council, City Manager or Council-Appointed Officer). Work for
an at-will employee may be eliminated and/or the employee may be terminated, or asked to
resign, at any time, with or without cause, upon notice to that employee, and the employee may
resign at any time upon written notice to the hiring authority.
1. At-will Management & Professional positions.
Department heads hired after July 1, 2004 and prior to the date of adoption of this plan were
hired as at-will employees whose terms of employment are specified by an employment
contract that includes a severance package.
Effective on the date of adoption of this plan, new employees hired or promoted to
department head, assistant department director, and all other positions listed on Attachment
B shall be at-will employees.
At-will employees will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health
insurance, PERS contribution to the extent paid by City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and
management leave as are generally provided to management employees and described in
this compensation plan, as amended from time to time. At-will employees who are
terminated or asked to resign shall, upon execution of a release of all claims against the City,
be eligible for a severance payment equivalent to four (4) weeks of salary and benefits,
increasing after completion of the first full year of service by one (1) week for every
completed year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks. For example, an at-will employee
who has completed six (6) years of service would be eligible to receive ten (10) weeks of
severance (4 weeks plus 1 week for each year of service). No severance shall be paid if the
employee is terminated for serious misconduct involving abuse of his or her office or
18
position, including but not limited to waste, fraud, violation of the law under color of
authority, misappropriation of public resources, violence, harassment or discrimination. If
the employee is later convicted of a crime involving such abuse of his or her position the
employee shall fully reimburse the City as set forth in Government Code section 53243.3.
2. Provisional employees.
The City has created a program for Provisional employment when funding is available. The
program’s purpose is to create limited duration senior management level work for the City
Manager’s Office or as designated by the City Manager. A Provisional Employee will be an
“at will” employee whose term of employment shall be no more than two (2) years. A
Provisional Employee shall be exempt and not eligible to earn overtime. A Provisional
Employee will receive limited benefits as specified in an Employment Agreement. Sections
I and II of this Compensation Plan shall not apply to Provisional Employees, except as
specified by the City Manager.
3. Management fellows.
The City has created a program for Management Fellows when funding is available. The
program’s purpose is to create limited duration entry level positions for graduate students. A
management fellow will be an “at will” employee whose term of employment shall be no
more than one (1) year. A Management Fellow shall be PERS exempt, but may receive
limited vacation, limited sick leave, limited health care benefits and other limited benefits,
as determined by the City Manager. Sections I and II of this Plan shall not apply to
Management Fellows, except as specified by the City Manager.
P. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
The Mayor shall receive $150 monthly, and the Vice Mayor $100 monthly to defray additional
expenses of these offices.
Q. REIMBURSEMENT FOR RELOCATION EXPENSE
Policy Statement
The City of Palo Alto, in rare instances, may provide a Basic Relocation Benefits Package for
new management and professional employees, upon the approval of the City Manager or
designated subordinate. In addition, the provision of “Optional Benefits” or portions thereof,
may be extended for exceptional circumstances and only the approval of the City Manager or
designee, or for Council-appointed officers, the City Council.
The details of the Relocation Expense program are specified in the City’s Relocation Expense
policy.
19
R. MEAL ALLOWANCE
Management and professional employees assigned to attend night meetings are eligible to
receive reimbursement for up to $20.00 per dinner. This provision covers only receipted meals
actually taken and submitted for reimbursement.
S. GRIEVANCES REGARDING COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
Notwithstanding the grievance procedures provided in Chapter 11 of the City of Palo Alto’s
Merit System Rules and Regulations, any Management and Professional employee who is
supervised by a Council Appointed Officer and has a grievance against that Council Appointed
Officer or regarding the conduct of that Council Appointed Officer shall, following an attempt
to resolve the grievance pursuant to Step One (informal discussion), summarize the grievance
regarding the Council Appointed Officer in writing and submit it to the Director of Human
Resources for review and resolution using the methods he/she considers appropriate.
T. MERIT RULES
The City will include members of the Management/Professional Compensation Committee in
discussions regarding revision of the Merit Rules and Regulations.
Class No.
/Job Code Title
Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx
Annual
Approx
Biwkly Hourly
FLSA
Status
190 Accountant 47 6,836.04 82,032.45 3,155.09 39.44 NON-EXEMPT
50 Adm Pln & Comm Envrn 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
76 Admin Assistant 70 6,514.68 78,176.13 3,006.77 37.59 EXEMPT
1009 Administrator, Refuse 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
126 Assistant Director Community Services 90 12,475.36 149,704.32 5,757.86 71.97 EXEMPT
2007 Airport Manager 91 11,235.24 134,822.88 5,185.50 64.82 EXEMPT
1007 Assistant Director Human Resources 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
1001 Assistant Director Planning & Comm Env 20 13,520.33 162,243.91 6,240.15 78.00 EXEMPT
1003 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 19 13,872.04 166,464.48 6,402.48 80.03 EXEMPT
6 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 21 13,193.61 158,323.32 6,089.36 76.12 EXEMPT
1002 Assistant Director Utl Cust Support Svs 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
2001 Assistant Director, Library Services 29 10,774.49 129,293.88 4,972.84 62.16 EXEMPT
111 Assistant Fire Chief 25 11,931.39 143,176.63 5,506.79 68.84 EXEMPT
132 Assistant Police Chief - Adv 19 13,872.04 166,464.48 6,402.48 80.03 EXEMPT
115 Asst Build Official 33 9,738.99 116,867.88 4,494.92 56.19 EXEMPT
108 Asst City Atty 26 11,626.09 139,513.13 5,365.89 67.07 EXEMPT
109 Asst City Clerk 44 7,371.64 88,459.65 3,402.29 42.53 EXEMPT
107 Asst City Mgr / Chief Operating Officer 14 17,117.78 205,413.31 7,900.51 98.76 EXEMPT
143 Asst Dir Public Wrks 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
65 Asst Dir Ut/Res Mgmt 19 13,872.04 166,464.48 6,402.48 80.03 EXEMPT
73 Asst Director Adm Svcs 25 11,931.39 143,176.63 5,506.79 68.84 EXEMPT
10 Asst Director Planning & Comm Envrnmt 20 13,520.33 162,243.91 6,240.15 78.00 EXEMPT
168 Asst Fleet Mgr 41 7,955.44 95,465.30 3,671.74 45.90 EXEMPT
102 Asst Mgr WQCP 33 9,738.99 116,867.88 4,494.92 56.19 EXEMPT
30 Asst To City Mgr 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
2004 Assistant Director Environmental Service 60 12,381.63 148,579.56 5,714.60 71.43 EXEMPT
2003 Principal Financial Analyst 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
118 Chief Bld Official 26 11,626.09 139,513.13 5,365.89 67.07 EXEMPT
49 Director, Office of Management and Budget 88 13,002.72 156,032.64 6,001.26 75.02 EXEMPT
2008 Chief Communications Officer 92 12,712.26 152,547.12 5,867.20 73.34 EXEMPT
112 Chief Plg Official 27 11,342.23 136,106.71 5,234.87 65.44 EXEMPT
82 Chief Transp Off 27 11,342.23 136,106.71 5,234.87 65.44 EXEMPT
96 Claims Investigator 46 7,002.07 84,024.89 3,231.73 40.40 NON-EXEMPT
169 Comm Services Senior Program Manager 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
24 Communication Specialist 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
38 Communications Manager 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
154 Community Service Manager 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
83 Community Services Superintendent 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
89 Contracts Administrator 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 EXEMPT
186 Coord Lib Circ 48 6,659.29 79,911.48 3,073.52 38.42 NON-EXEMPT
123 Cub Ctr & Hum Svc Div Mgr 28 11,067.28 132,807.33 5,107.97 63.85 EXEMPT
191 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 22 12,875.82 154,509.89 5,942.69 74.29 EXEMPT
9 Deputy City Attorney 36 9,032.00 108,383.97 4,168.61 52.11 EXEMPT
99 Deputy City Auditor 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
71 Deputy City Clerk 51 6,175.47 74,105.62 2,850.22 35.63 EXEMPT
55 Deputy City Mgr Spec Proj 18 14,216.61 170,599.27 6,561.51 82.02 EXEMPT
52 Deputy Dir Adm Svcs 27 11,342.23 136,106.71 5,234.87 65.44 EXEMPT
75 Deputy Dir Pw Oprns 25 11,931.39 143,176.63 5,506.79 68.84 EXEMPT
159 Deputy Director Comm Svcs 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
7 Deputy Director PCE/Chief Planning Off 25 11,931.39 143,176.63 5,506.79 68.84 EXEMPT
195 Deputy Director Technical Services Div 28 11,067.28 132,807.33 5,107.97 63.85 EXEMPT
20 Deputy Fire Chief 21 13,193.61 158,323.32 6,089.36 76.12 EXEMPT
60 Deputy Fire Chief 22 12,875.82 154,509.89 5,942.69 74.29 EXEMPT
1013 Development Center Manager 35 9,258.67 111,104.04 4,273.23 53.42 EXEMPT
City of PaloAlto
Management and Professional Compensation
Effective October 6, 2012 - 3% Increase to Control Point
Attachment A
Salary Schedule
Class No.
/Job Code Title
Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx
Annual
Approx
Biwkly Hourly
FLSA
Status
City of PaloAlto
Management and Professional Compensation
Effective October 6, 2012 - 3% Increase to Control Point
1012 Development Services Director 25 11,931.52 143,178.24 5,506.86 68.84 EXEMPT
81 Dir Adm Svcs / Chief Financial Officer 15A 16,706.00 200,472.03 7,710.46 96.38 EXEMPT
72 Dir Comm Svcs 16 14,953.95 179,447.42 6,901.82 86.27 EXEMPT
133 Dir Human Resources 18 14,216.61 170,599.27 6,561.51 82.02 EXEMPT
128 Dir IT / Chief Information Officer 16 14,954.57 179,454.84 6,902.11 86.28 EXEMPT
131 Dir Libraries 21 13,193.61 158,323.32 6,089.36 76.12 EXEMPT
134 Dir Plan/Comm Envir 18 14,216.61 170,599.27 6,561.51 82.02 EXEMPT
135 Dir Pw/City Engr 16 14,953.95 179,447.42 6,901.82 86.27 EXEMPT
121 Dir Utilities 9 17,774.78 213,297.39 8,203.75 102.55 EXEMPT
2002 Division Head, Library Services 37 8,798.13 105,577.51 4,060.67 50.76 EXEMPT
1006 Division Manager, Recreations & Golf 26 11,626.09 139,513.13 5,365.89 67.07 EXEMPT
12 Emergency Svcs Coord 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 EXEMPT
2005 Emergency Services Director 61 11,828.52 141,942.24 5,459.32 68.24 EXEMPT
129 Engr Mgr - Electric 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
120 Engr Mgr - WGW 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
138 Executive Assistant 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
1005 Executive Assistant to the City Manager 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
139 Fire Chief 16 14,953.95 179,447.42 6,901.82 86.27 EXEMPT
127 Fleet Manager 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
194 Golf & Parks Div Mgr 25 11,931.39 143,176.63 5,506.79 68.84 EXEMPT
163 Hearing Officer 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
91 HR Business Analyst 37 8,798.13 105,577.51 4,060.67 50.76 EXEMPT
101 Human Resources Rep 49 6,495.05 77,940.55 2,997.71 37.47 EXEMPT
90 Landscape Architect/Park Planner 37 8,798.13 105,577.51 4,060.67 50.76 EXEMPT
69 Legal Services Administrator 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
78 Library Services Manager 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
171 Management Analyst 65 7,505.54 90,066.45 3,464.09 43.30 EXEMPT
167 Manager Employment 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
21 Manager Energy Risk 22 12,875.82 154,509.89 5,942.69 74.29 EXEMPT
79 Mgr Accounting 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
164 Mgr Comm Oper 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
192 Mgr Comm Svc Fac 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
84 Mgr Communications 38 8,576.74 102,920.85 3,958.49 49.48 EXEMPT
179 Mgr Cust Svc & Meter Reading 30 10,520.97 126,251.59 4,855.83 60.70 EXEMPT
63 Mgr Economic Development and Redevelopment 28 11,067.28 132,807.33 5,107.97 63.85 EXEMPT
185 Mgr Electric Oprns 27 11,342.23 136,106.71 5,234.87 65.44 EXEMPT
44 Mgr Emp Benefits 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
45 Mgr Employee Relations 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
93 Mgr Env Control Prog 36 9,032.00 108,383.97 4,168.61 52.11 EXEMPT
105 Mgr Fac Maint & Proj 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
151 Mgr Human Res & Dev 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
57 Mgr Inv Debt & Proj 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
158 Mgr Lab Services 33 9,738.99 116,867.88 4,494.92 56.19 EXEMPT
175 Mgr Main Lib Svcs 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
92 Mgr Maint Oper 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
51 Mgr Planning 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
95 Mgr Pur & Cntr Admin 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
103 Mgr Real Property 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
198 Mgr Risk & Benefits 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
160 Mgr Solid Waste 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
110 Mgr Tech Support 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
87 Mgr Util Info Syst 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
150 Mgr Util Mkt Svcs 30 10,520.97 126,251.59 4,855.83 60.70 EXEMPT
156 Mgr Util Oprns Wgw 29 10,774.49 129,293.88 4,972.84 62.16 EXEMPT
48 Mgr Util Telecomm 25 11,931.39 143,176.63 5,506.79 68.84 EXEMPT
178 Mgr Wqc Plant 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
Class No.
/Job Code Title
Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx
Annual
Approx
Biwkly Hourly
FLSA
Status
City of PaloAlto
Management and Professional Compensation
Effective October 6, 2012 - 3% Increase to Control Point
141 Mgr, Arts 41 7,955.44 95,465.30 3,671.74 45.90 EXEMPT
32 Mgr, IT 30 10,520.97 126,251.59 4,855.83 60.70 EXEMPT
2006 Mgr, IT Security 89 10,658.44 127,901.28 4,919.28 61.49 EXEMPT
1008 OES Coordinator 38 8,576.74 102,920.85 3,958.49 49.48 EXEMPT
172 Open Spc & Parks Div Mgr 78 11,104.77 133,257.24 5,125.28 64.07 EXEMPT
100 Performance Auditor 47 6,836.04 82,032.45 3,155.09 39.44 EXEMPT
147 Police Captain-Adv 23 12,543.75 150,525.02 5,789.42 72.37 EXEMPT
148 Police Chief-Adv 15 15,327.09 183,925.08 7,074.04 88.43 EXEMPT
149 Police Lieut-Adv 86 12,283.09 147,397.08 5,669.12 70.87 EXEMPT
77 Project Mgr Facilities 41 7,955.44 95,465.30 3,671.74 45.90 EXEMPT
2009 Project Mgr Trees 41 7,955.44 95,465.30 3,671.74 45.90 NON-EXEMPT
137 Rec & Yth Sc Div Mgr 26 11,626.09 139,513.13 5,365.89 67.07 EXEMPT
74 Safety Officer 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
188 Senior Electrical Engineer 29 10,774.49 129,293.88 4,972.84 62.16 EXEMPT
157 Senior Human Resources Administrator 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
14 Senior Management Analyst 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
130 Senior Performance Auditor 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 EXEMPT
25 Senior Resources Planner 27 11,342.23 136,106.71 5,234.87 65.44 EXEMPT
117 Sr Accountant 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 EXEMPT
152 Sr Asst City Atty 20 13,520.33 162,243.91 6,240.15 78.00 EXEMPT
187 Sr Engineer 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
199 Sr Financial Anlyst 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 EXEMPT
26 Sr Project Engineer 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
53 Sr Project Manager 29 10,774.49 129,293.88 4,972.84 62.16 EXEMPT
64 Sr Resource Planner 29 10,774.49 129,293.88 4,972.84 62.16 EXEMPT
33 Sr Technologist 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
13 Sr. Business Analyst 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
11 Sr. Deputy City Attorney 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
106 Sr. Executive Assistant 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
70 Staff Asst To Cm 46 7,002.07 84,024.89 3,231.73 40.40 EXEMPT
27 Supervising Electric Project Engineer 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
28 Supervising Project Engineer 36 9,032.00 108,383.97 4,168.61 52.11 EXEMPT
155 Supt Animal Services 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
183 Supt Golf Course 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 NON-EXEMPT
173 Supt Parks 34 9,501.54 114,018.53 4,385.33 54.82 EXEMPT
165 Supt Pw Opns 31 10,249.60 122,995.23 4,730.59 59.13 EXEMPT
144 Supt Recreation 32 9,987.16 119,845.90 4,609.46 57.62 EXEMPT
43 Supv Animal Svcs 47 6,836.04 82,032.45 3,155.09 39.44 EXEMPT
85 Supv Bldg Inspection 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 EXEMPT
162 Supv Bldg Services 49 6,495.05 77,940.55 2,997.71 37.47 NON-EXEMPT
97 Supv Data Proc 36 7,869.75 94,436.95 3,632.19 45.40 NON-EXEMPT
47 Supv Elect Opns Prog 39 8,366.07 100,392.86 3,861.26 48.27 NON-EXEMPT
161 Supv Facil Mgt 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 EXEMPT
113 Supv Insp/Surv Pw 41 7,955.44 95,465.30 3,671.74 45.90 EXEMPT
22 Supv Open Space 42 7,767.98 93,215.78 3,585.22 44.82 EXEMPT
166 Supv Police Service 41 7,955.44 95,465.30 3,671.74 45.90 EXEMPT
174 Supv Public Works 40 8,157.19 97,886.26 3,764.86 47.06 NON-EXEMPT
58 Supv Rec Prog 42 7,767.98 93,215.78 3,585.22 44.82 EXEMPT
62 Supv Recycling Prog 48 6,659.29 79,911.48 3,073.52 38.42 EXEMPT
124 Supv Repro & Mail 51 6,175.47 74,105.62 2,850.22 35.63 EXEMPT
176 Supv Revenue Coll 47 6,836.04 82,032.45 3,155.09 39.44 EXEMPT
177 Supv Theatre Programs 43 7,562.67 90,752.06 3,490.46 43.63 EXEMPT
181 Supv Wqc Oper 37 8,798.13 105,577.51 4,060.67 50.76 EXEMPT
86 Urban Forester 35 9,258.74 111,104.91 4,273.27 53.42 EXEMPT
1011 Utilities Compliance Manager 29 10,774.49 129,293.88 4,972.84 62.16 EXEMPT
114 Utilities Supervisor 68 10,713.78 128,565.38 4,944.82 61.81 EXEMPT
Class No.
/Job Code Title
Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx
Annual
Approx
Biwkly Hourly
FLSA
Status
City of PaloAlto
Management and Professional Compensation
Effective October 6, 2012 - 3% Increase to Control Point
184 Veterinarian 33 9,738.99 116,867.88 4,494.92 56.19 EXEMPT
146 Warehouse Supv 50 5,911.24 70,934.91 2,728.27 34.10 EXEMPT
39 Watershed Protection Manager 62 10,246.62 122,959.38 4,729.21 59.12 EXEMPT
Confidential Classifications
Class No.
/Job Code Title
Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx
Annual
Approx
Biwkly Hourly
FLSA
Status
905 Human Rsrce Asst Cnf 82 5,741.63 68,899.58 2,649.98 33.13 NON-EXEMPT
903 Legal Sec-Conf 80 5,923.74 71,084.83 2,734.03 34.18 NON-EXEMPT
67 Secretary to City Attorney 67 7,191.33 86,295.91 3,319.07 41.49 NON-EXEMPT
1004 Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 85 6,514.68 78,176.13 3,006.77 37.59 NON-EXEMPT
20
Attachment B
At-Will Positions
Management and Professional Unit
The intent of this provision under the Management/Professional Compensation Plan is to
designate classifications at the department head, assistant director, deputy director, and division
manager levels as at-will. The applicable Council Appointed Officer may designate newly
created positions at those levels not included on this list as at-will. Existing classifications that
shall be at-will include but are not limited to:
Department Heads- All departments
Assistant Directors- All departments
Deputy Directors- All departments
Division Managers
Administrative Services
Director, Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Management & Budget
Assistant Director, Administrative Services
Chief Budget Officer
Manager, Accounting
Manager, Purchasing & Contract Administration
Manager, Real Property
City Attorney
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
City Auditor
Deputy City Auditor
Sr. Performance Auditor
City Clerk
Assistant City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Deputy City Manager
Assistant to City Manager
Chief Communications Officer
Communications Manager
Manager, Economic Development
21
Community Services
Director, Community Services
Assistant Director, Community Services
Manager, Recreation & Golf
Manager, Open Space & Parks
Human Resources
Director of Human Resources/Chief People Officer
Assistant Director, Human Resources
Human Resources Manager
IT
Director, IT/Chief Information Officer
Information Technology Governance Manager
Information Technology Manager
Library
Director, Libraries
Assistant Director, Library Services
Division Head, Collection & Technical Services
Manager, Library Services
Planning & Community Environment
Director, Planning & Community Environment
Assistant Director, Planning & Community Environment
Division Manager, Advance Planning
Division Manager, Chief Building Official
Division Manager, Chief Planning Official
Division Manager, Chief Transportation Official
Division Manager, Development Services Director
Public Safety
Chief of Police/Director of Public Safety
Fire Chief /Assistant Public Safety Director
Assistant Police Chief
Emergency Services Director
Deputy Director – Technical Services Division (police department)
Deputy Fire Chief
Public Works
Director, Public Works/City Engineer
Assistant Director, Public Works – Environmental Services
Assistant Director, Public Works – Public Services
Assistant Director, Public Works – Engineering
Airport Manager
22
Water Quality Control Plant Manager
Utilities
Director, Utilities
Assistant Director Utilities Engineering*
Assistant Director Utilities Operations*
Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services*
Assistant Director Utilities/Resources Management*
Communications Manager*
Engineering Manager – Electric*
Engineering Manager –WGW*
Manager Customer Service & Meter Reading*
Manager Electric Operations*
Manager Utilities Mkt Services*
Manager Utilities Operations WGW*
Utilities Compliance Manager*
*Management positions up to and including Assistant Director in Utilities are represented
by UMPAPA and currently under negotiations
CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMPENSATION PLAN
Management and Professional Personnel
And Council Appointees
Effective: Pay period including July 1, 20102011 through June 30, 2013
through June 30, 2011 except where specifically noted
2
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Management and Professional Personnel
As used in this Plan, the term “Management and Professional” refers to all employees,
including Confidential employees, previously classified as “Management and Confidential”
by the City. This group will hereafter be identified as “Management and Professional”
personnel.
SECTION I. COMPENSATION
This section applies to all management and professional employees and does not include
Council Members or Council-appointed officers. Each Council-appointed officer shall be
the responsible decision-maker under this Plan for those employees in departments under
his/her control.
A. MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION POLICY
The City's policy for management and professional compensation is to establish and
maintain a general structure based on marketplace norms and internal job alignment
with broad compensation grades and ranges. Structures and ranges will be reviewed
annually and updated as necessary based on marketplace survey data, internal
relationships, and City financial conditions.
Individual compensation adjustments will be considered by the Council-appointed officer
based on (1) performance factors including achievement of predetermined objectives;
(2) pay structure adjustments; and (3) City financial conditions.
B. BASIC PLAN ELEMENTS
1. Structure. The compensation plan includes separate multi-grade structures for
both management and professional employees. Each grade will have a control point
which is used for budgetary purposes. All management and professional positions
will be assigned an appropriate pay grade based on salary survey data and internal
relationships. All positions are assigned to a pay grade. Actual salary within the
range is determined by experience and performance. The normal working range
where most actual salaries will fall will be within + 510% of the control point.
The City began a benchmarking survey in 2006 to establish an updated structure for
management and professional personnel. This survey is expected to be completed
in 2011. Upon the completion of the Management and Compensation study, any
equity adjustments will be addressed in the future.
As needed, and no less than every two years and commencing fiscal year 2005-
2006, cCompetitive marketplace studies will be conducted as needed by surveying a
maximum of 12 14 mutually agreeable agencies organizations similar to Palo Alto in
3
number of employees, funding mechanisms, population and services provided.
These studies will focus on general salary trends for groups oftotal compensation for
management positions such as first line supervisors, administrative, confidential,
professional and top management. Periodically, and no less often than every four
years, studies will include position-by-position comparisons using market agencies
research and internal equity data. All studies conducted pursuant to this section
shall be completed by December 31st and in no event later than March 31 in order to
allow time for Committee review. Depending on tThe results of these studies may
indicate that , the entire pay grade structure may be adjusted, or that individual
positions may be reassigned to different pay grades, or that no change takes place.
Such adjustments will only affect the salary administration framework. No
individual salaries will be automatically changed because of structural adjustments.
An employee may request in writing a re-evaluation of his/her job based on
significant changes in job content or significant discrepancies between job content
and classification description, and which cannot be described as “other duties as
assigned.” The request must contain justification and may be made only during the
period of August 10 through September 10. A statement by management that a job
re-evaluation request will be submitted with the departmental budget does not
relieve an employee from the responsibility of submitting his/her own request during
this period. The HR Director or his designee will respond to such requests within
ninety (90) days, however, this timeline may be extended if necessary . If HR
approves change, the request will be forwarded to ASD who will determine if there is
sufficient funding to cover the cost of the change. If approved by ASD, the
reclassification will be sent to the City Manager for approval. If approved, the
change would be reclassified as part of the budget process and will require Council
approval. Any changes approved as part of the budget process will become
effective the first pay period of the following fiscal year, or, if not approved, the job
will be returned to its previous status.
A department director may request that HR reevaluate a job or jobs in his or her
department based on significant and permanent changes in job content. In doing so
the director will supply needed information and will provide a position description
questionnaire as requested. The Chief People Officer will respond to such requests
within his or her discretion.
2. Compensation Adjustment Authorization. Each year, inIn consultation with
feedback received from the Management and Professional Compensation
Committee, the City Manager will may propose as part of the budget process for
Council approval of a compensation adjustment based (1) competitive market data,
(2) changes in internal position relationships, (3) the City’s ability to pay, and (4) a
recommendation received from the Chief People Officer. For fiscal year 2013 the
compensation adjustment to control point shall be 3% effective the pay period
including October 6, 2012. In addition, certain below-market positions will be
subject to equity adjustments at a future date based on Management Compensation
Study results and subject to Council approval.on recommendation received from the
4
Management/Professional Compensation Committee. For fiscal year 2010-2011 the
compensation adjustment to control point shall be 0%.
2.In years when there is an adjustment to control point, this adjustment will be
available for those management/professional employees who have received an
overall rating of "meets" or "exceeds" expectations on their annual review and who
have not been on a performance improvement plan during the preceding fiscal year.
Nothing herein shall preclude an employee's manager from awarding a control point
adjustment increase to an employee on a performance plan at a later date should
employee's performance improve. An additional one percent (1%) (half percent
(.5%) attributable to amount allocated in 2007-2008 plan and additional half percent
(.5%) allocated in 2008-2009 compensation plan) will be allocated toward equity
adjustments to address compaction problems as determined by the City Manager
and will be retroactive to July 1, 2007.
In the future, the compensation adjustment request will be based on the following
factors: competitive market, changes in internal position relationships, and the
City's ability to pay. Council authorization is required prior to implementation by
the Director of Human Resources.
3. Base Compensation. Compensation for management and professional
employees includes bi-weekly base salary and is paid on a continuing basis. On a
fiscal year basis, the bi-weekly base salary must fall within pay grade limits of no
less than 25%20% below the control point and no more than 20% above the control
point.
Base salary increases are earned in accordance with administrative guidelines
based upon growth within the position and performance, which must meet or exceed
position standards, the salary structure and the City’s ability to pay.
The City Manager eliminated the Variable Management Compensation program
effective with the 2008-09 fiscal year.
4. Performance Planning and Appraisal. Performance appraisals will be conducted
at the end of each fiscal year during the months of July through September 30 each
year prior to determining individual employee fixed compensation. This process
includes both review of previous performance plan and preparation of the
performance plan for the next planning period (usually the fiscal year). Performance
plans are jointly prepared by the employee and supervisor with the concurrence of
the department head or Council-appointed officer. The performance plans shall
contain measurable objectives which place special emphasis on position description
duties or specific assignments. Progress toward meeting objectives shall be
monitored periodically. The performance appraisals should be implemented in a
manner that will achieve the following objectives:
5
Define the employee’s job duties and expected level of performance for the next
review period to ensure that both the employee and supervisor have a clear
understanding of the employee’s role and responsibilities;
Evaluate and document past performance to serve as a basis for establishing
and obtaining future performance standards/objectives;
Facilitate two-way communication and understanding between the employee
and his or her supervisor;
Counsel and encourage employees to work toward a learning development plan
and realize their full potential;
Establish future work plan objectives.
Work plans should include job related projects or special goals related to regular job
duties when applicable. At the conclusion of the fiscal year (or review period),
supervisors shall make a final determination of the overall performance rating.
Recommendations shall be forwarded to department heads and to the Chief People
Officer or appropriate Council appointed officer.or who will then determine individual
fixed adjustments according to the provisions of the compensation plan. This
process should be completed by September 30th.
C. MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORIZATION
1. Council-appointed officers are authorized to pay salaries in accordance with this
plan to non-Council-appointed management, and professional employees in an
amount not to exceed the aggregate of approved management and professional
positions budgeted at the control points in the Table of Organization for applicable
fiscal year 2010-11.
2. Individual management and professional compensation authorized by a Council-
appointed officer under the Management and Professional Compensation Plan may
not be less than 2520% below nor more than 20% above the control point for the
individual position grades authorized in Table I of this plan.
3. The Council-appointed officers are authorized to establish such administrative rules
as are necessary to implement the Management and Professional Salary Plan
subject to the limitations of the approved compensation adjustment authorization
and the approved grade and control point structure.
4. In the event a downward adjustment of a position grade assignment indicates a
reduction in the established salary of an individual employee, the Council-appointed
officer may, if circumstances warrant, continue the salary for such employee in an
amount in excess of the revised grade limit for a reasonable period of time. Such
interim salary rates shall be defined as "Y-rates."
6
SECTION II. SPECIAL COMPENSATION
This section applies to all eligible regular management and professional positions including
Council Appointed Officers as applicable and including Council Members where indicated.
Eligibility shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and Regulations and Administrative
Directives issued by the City Manager for the purposes of clarification and interpretation.
A. OVERTIME
Compensation for overtime work shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and
Regulations and Policies and Procedures.
B. IN LIEU HOLIDAY PAY
Employees who work a schedule where a regular day off falls on a holiday will be paid
for the hours they would have normally worked on that day. If the holiday falls on a
non-workday for an exempt employee, the employee may, with supervisory approval,
take another day off within the pay period or the following pay period.
C. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY
Where management and professional employees, on a temporary basis, are assigned
to perform all significant duties of a higher classification, the City Manager may
authorize payment within the range of the higher classification for the specified time
frame. Working out of class pay is normally not to exceed 10% more than the
employee’s current salary and shall be documented on a Personnel Action Form, with a
description of the additional duties to be performed and an end date.
D. STAND-BY PAY
Employees eligible for overtime may be entitled to stand-by pay, approved by the City
Manager on a case by case basis, in extreme circumstances involving unavailability of
non-management staff. Compensation is as follows:
Monday through Friday $40 per day
Saturday, Sunday, Holidays $58 per day
E. CALL OUT PAY
Effective pay period beginning February 26, 2011, Exempt management and
professional classifications will be compensated for Call Out as outlined below with
Management approval (and will not be eligible for overtime pay). Call Out applies when:
(1) an employee previously left City premises, (2) is called back to the work location
outside of regularly scheduled working hours, and (3) the Call Back is for an emergency
arising out of situations involving real or potential loss of service, property or personal
7
danger. Employees called back will be expected to respond directly to the location of
the problem.
Compensation is per Call Out as reported on timecard and will be paid as follows:
Monday through Friday: $140 per day
Saturday and Sunday: $200 per day
F. NIGHT SHIFT PREMIUM
Night shift differential shall be paid at the rate of 5% to regular full-time employees who
are regularly assigned to shift work between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., or to employees
who are temporarily assigned to work a full shift between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
G. UNIFORM PURCHASE PLAN - SWORN POLICE, FIRE PERSONNEL, and OPEN
SPACE PERSONNEL
Uniforms including cleaning will be provided with replacement provisions on an as-
needed basis in conformance with department policy.
H. GROUP INSURANCE
1. Pursuant to the 09-10 Compensation Plan, the City, Management/Professional
Committee and all bargaining units formed a working committee to study alternatives to
the 90/10 “SEIU Plan”. The City Council did not adopt any alternative; therefore the
“SEIU plan” shall apply to the management and professional employees, CAO’s and
Council Members effective 4/1/2011, including active employees retiring after March 31,
2011.
It is the intent of the City Manager and Management and Professional Committee to
have substantially the same health benefit as SEIU.
2.1. Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees
For newly-hired regular employees coverage begins on the first day of the month
following date of hire for the health plan, dental plan, vision care plan, long term
disability and life insurance plans if these benefits are elected.
3.2. Active Employee Health Plan
a) Based on an employee’s family status, the City shall pay up to the monthly
medical premium for the second most expensive plan among the existing array
of plans available during the term of this compensation plan on behalf of eligible
employees (including Council Appointed Officers and Council Members) and
dependents, except as provided in section b, below. Eligible dependents include
8
spouses, children under the age of 26 and never married (natural, adopted, or
stepchildren), economically dependent children, and domestic partners
registered with the Secretary of State. If PERS changes the plans it offers, the
City will continue to provide an equivalent benefit at an equivalent cost.
b) Effective in the first period including October 6, 2012, April, 1, 2011, the City
and participating employees will contribute 10% of the premium cost for the
employee-selected plan and the City Shall contribute 90%, with a maximum City
contribution of 90% of the second highest plan. share equally each premium
increase (beginning with increases effective January 1, 2011) up to ten
percent that occurs for the plan in which the employee is enrolled at their
respective level of enrollment (i.e. one party, two party, family). If a given
increase exceeds ten percent, the balance of that increase will be paid by the
City. If sufficient increases occur that the employee portion of the premium for
the plan in which he or she is enrolled equals ten percent of the total premium
at the employee’s level of enrollment, the employee’s share of further premium
and increases shall be ten percent and the City’s share shall be ninety percent.
c)Through December 31, 2010, the City agrees to offer a program to active
management and professional personnel (including Council Appointed Officers
and Council Members) enrolled in PERSCare prior to 1/6/07 who elected the
PERSChoice health plan in which the City will reimburse the employee and/or
dependents for any covered medical expense which exceeds the $2 million
Lifetime Maximum Benefit. The lifetime maximum was eliminated from PERS
health plans effective January 31, 2011; therefore, excess coverage from the
City will no longer be offered for expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2011.
d)c) City medical premium contributions will be prorated for part-time employees
hired or newly assigned to a part-time work schedule on or after January 1,
2010 based on the number of hours per week the part-time employee is
assigned to work.
e)d) Coverage for Domestic Partners:
(1) Domestic Partnership Registered with the California Secretary of
State: Employees may add their domestic partner as a dependent
to their elected health plan coverage if the domestic partnership is
registered with the Secretary of State.
(2) Domestic Partnership Not Registered with the California Secretary of
State: Domestic partners who meet the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered
with the Human Resources Department, will be eligible for
reimbursement of the actual monthly premium cost of an individual
health plan, not to exceed the maximum monthly City employer
9
contribution for one-party coverage under the CalPERS Health
Benefits Program (or PORAC if a safety department employee) for
an employee covered under this agreement. Evidence of premium
payment will be required with request for reimbursement.
f)e) PERS Choice Reimbursement Plan
Will be eliminated effective January 1, 2013. Management and Professional
personnel enrolled in the PERS Choice medical plan may submit a request
for payment, as specified below, for non-covered medical expenses, incurred
during the period of January 1, through December 31, of the plan year, that
exceed $2,500. The maximum annual reimbursement amount provided under
this program is:
$700 for employees enrolled in the Employee-Only category;
$900 for employees enrolled in the Employee and One
Dependent category, and
$1,100 for employees enrolled in the Family category.
Any amounts reimbursed to an individual under this program would be
included in the employee’s gross income and is not PERSable.
This program shall only reimburse employees for medical expenses that
are not reimbursed through any other means and meet the definition in
Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. (Examples of eligible
expenses include medical plan deductibles and co-payments, prescription
drugs, dental care, hearing care, and vision care.) However, in order to
have any expenses reimbursed under this program, the employee must
have allocated 100% ($2,500.00) of their 2010 calendar Excess Benefit
funds into the Medical FSA option during the election that occurred in
December 2009. In addition, all such reimbursements from the Excess
Benefit Program must have been solely for medical expenses, as defined by
Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. If the employee has
designated his/her Excess Medical funds for any other qualifying
expenses (i.e. dependent care, Professional Development, Deferred
Compensation contributions), the employee would not be eligible for
reimbursement under this program.
Employees may submit onea final claim for the entire 2012plan year’s expenses
during January. Any amounts remaining from the PERS Choice
reimbursement plan after the claims for the plan year had been processed
shall be forfeited.
4.3. Alternative Medical Benefit Program
10
If a regular employee and/or the employee’s dependent(s) are eligible for medical
insurance through another employer-sponsored or association medical plan, the
employee may opt for alternative medical insurance coverage through the other
employer-sponsored or association plan and waives his/her right to the City of Palo
Alto’s medical insurance coverage for same individuals. Employees electing
alternative coverage and no City coverage will receive cash payments in the amount
of 90% of the average monthly premium for one party, which is $284.00. of
approximately half of the “average monthly premiums: for their medical insurance
coverage. “Averaged monthly premiums” are the average of the Kaiser HMO, Blue
Shield HMO and PERS Choice PPO premiums for the employee’s City medical
coverage available through the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS).
The rates for 2010 are as follows:
One party: $269.77
Two parties: $528.81
Family: $701.41
The rates for 2011 are as follows:
One party: $301.00
Two parties: $602.00
Family: $783.00
5.4. Retiree Health Plan
a) Employees Hired Prior to January 1, 2004
Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected health plan
through the CalPERS Health Benefits Program will be made as provided under
the Public Employees” Medical and Hospital Care Act. The City’s monthly
employer contribution for each employee retiring on or after January 1, 2007
and prior to March 31, 2011 shall be the amount necessary to pay for the cost
of his or her enrollment in a health benefits plan up to the monthly premium for
the second most expensive plan offered to management and professional
personnel during the contract term (among the existing array of plans.)
For the 2010 calendar year, theThe City’s contribution for an employee hired
before January 1, 2004 who retires on or after March 30, 2011 shall be the
same contribution amount it makes from time to time for active City employees.
toward dependent coverage is 85% of the difference between the applicable
“Employee and One Dependent” or “Family” maximum employer contribution for
active management and professional personnel and the maximum employer
11
contribution for “Employee Only” coverage. For 2011 the City’s contribution will
increase to 90%. For 2011, the City’s contribution will increase to 95%.
b) Post – 1/1/04 Hires
For those Management and professional employees hired after January 1,
2004, the PERS law vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section
22893 will apply. Under that law, an employee is eligible for 50% of the
specified employer health premium contribution after ten years of service credit,
provided at least five of those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto.
After ten years of service credit, each additional service credit year increases
the employer contribution percentage by 5% until, at 20 years’ service credit,
the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified employer
contribution and 90% of their dependent coverage. The City of Palo Alto’s
health premium contribution for eligible post – 1/1/04 hires shall be the minimum
contribution set by PERS under section 22893 based on a weighted average of
available health plan premiums.
Active employees retiring after March 30, 2011 will be subject to health
premium contributions as set forth in Resolution #8994, modification 8 and
section 3(b) of this Plan.
It is the intent of the City Manager and Management and Professional
Committee to have substantially the same health benefit as SEIU.
6.5. Dental Plan
a) The City shall pay covered plan charges on behalf of all eligible employees
and dependents. (DDomestic partners who are either registered with the
Secretary of State or who meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto
Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human
Resources Department are considered dependents under the plan.)
Benefits for regular part-time employees hired or assigned to a part-time
schedule will be prorated in accordance with his/her percentage of a full-time
work schedule. will be prorated as follows:
Employees who will work less than full time, will receive prorated premium
costs for dental benefits in accordance with his/her percentage of a full-
time work schedule.
Part time employees currently receiving full benefits will not be impacted.
b) The City’s Dental Plan provides the following:
Maximum Benefits per Calendar Year- $2,000 per person
12
Lifetime Maximum for Orthodontics- The City will pay up to
$2,000.00 for orthodontia coverage (not included in annual dental
maximum)
Major Dental Services 50% UCR*
Orthodontics 50% UCR*
Basic Benefits (All other covered services)
First Calendar Year of Eligibility 70% UCR*
Subsequent Calendar Years 70%-100%
*Usual, Customary, and Reasonable
Composite (tooth covered) fillings for posterior teeth
Effective 1/1/07 the City added composite (tooth covered) fillings for
posterior teeth to the dental plan.
For each dental plan member, the percentage of coverage for basic
benefits will begin at 70% for the first calendar year of coverage and
increase by 10% (up to a maximum of 100%) effective the first day of the next
calendar year as long as the member utilizes the plan at least once during the
current year. Per the Delta Dental contract effective October 1, 2005, if the
member does not utilize the plan during the current year, the percentage of
coverage for the next calendar year shall remain unchanged from the current
year.
If a dental plan member ever loses coverage under the plan, the
applicable percentage of coverage for basic benefits provided during any
future period of coverage will commence at 70% as if the dental plan
member was a new enrollee. Examples of when a member might lose
coverage under the plan would include:
Employee goes on an unpaid leave of absence and elects not to pay
the required dental premiums for his/her family’s coverage during the
leave.
Employee elects to drop one or more covered dependents from the plan
during an open enrollment period so that they might be covered on a
spouse’s non-City of Palo Alto dental plan.
7.6. Basic Life Insurance
The City shall provide a basic group term life insurance with Accidental Death and
Dismemberment (AD&D) coverage, in an amount equal to the employee's annual
basic pay (rounded to the next highest $1,000) at no-cost to the employee. AD&D
pays an additional amount equal to the employee’s annual basic pay (rounded to the
next highest $1,000).
8.7. Supplemental Life And AD&D Insurance
13
An employee may, at his/her cost, purchase additional life insurance and additional
AD&D coverage equal to one- or two-times his or her annual salary. The maximum
amount of life insurance available to the employee is up to $325,000 and the
maximum amount of AD&D coverage available is up to $325,000.
9.8. Long Term Disability Insurance
a) The City shall provide long term disability (LTD) insurance with a benefit of
2/3 monthly salary, up to a maximum benefit of $10,000 per month. The
City shall pay the premium for the first $6,000 of base monthly salary. For
employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000, the employee
shall pay the cost of the required premium based upon their monthly
salary between $6,000 and $15,000.
b) For employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000 and who have
no eligible dependents covered under the City’s medical, dental or vision
plans, the City will pay up to $17.50 per month towards the employee’s cost
for LTD coverage.
10.9. Vision Care
a) The City shall provide vision care coverage for employee and dependents.
Coverage is administered by Vision Service Plan (VSP). The plan provides
an exam every 12 months; lenses every 24 months; frames every 24
months, all subject to a $20 co-payment as defined in the Vision Services
Benefits Plan A schedule. Benefits for regular part-time employees will be
prorated as follows:
Employees hired after January 1, 2004, who will work less than full time, will
receive prorated premium costs for vision benefits in accordance with
his/her percentage of a full-time work schedule. Vision benefits for regular
part-Part time employees hired or assigned to a part-time schedule will be
prorated in accordance with his/her percentage of a full-time work schedule.
currently receiving full benefits will not be impacted.
b) Effective July 1, 1996, dependents include eligible domestic partners who
are either registered with the Secretary of State or who meet the
requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership,
and are registered with the Human Resources Department.
I. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLAN
14
The Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) provides employees with confidential personal
counseling, work and family related issues, eldercare, substance abuse, etc. In addition,
EAP programs provide a valuable tool for supervisors to refer troubled employees to
professional outside help. This service staffed by experienced clinicians is available to
employees and their dependents by calling a toll-free phone line 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. Guidance is also available online.
J. SAFETY DIFFERENTIALS
1. Police Department - Personnel Development Program
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following
may be granted to sworn police personnel:
P.O.S.T. Intermediate Certificate: 5% above base salary
P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate: 7 -1/2% above base salary
2. Fire Department - EMT Differential
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following
may be granted to sworn Fire personnel:
EMT Differential: 3% above base salary
K. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL BENEFIT PROGRAM
Management and professional employees are eligible for Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the
Management Benefit Program. City Council Members are eligible for Section 3 only.
1. Professional Development - Reimbursement
The purpose of this program is to provide employees with resources to improve and
supplement their job and professional skills. Reimbursement for authorized self-
improvement activities may be granted each management and professional
employee up to a maximum of Five Hundred dollars ($500)$1,500 per fiscal year. A
departmental training fund of One Thousand Dollars per employee ($1000) will be
established for subject matter, leadership or other training that the Department
Director identifies as a need for employees within the Department.
The following items are eligible for reimbursement, and employees are encouraged
to pursue activities under subsections (a)-(d) as the top priority:
a) Civic and professional association memberships
15
b) Conference participation and travel expenses, which must occur within
the compensation plan period.
c) Educational programs, books and videos, and /tuition reimbursement
designed to . The education must maintain or improve the employee's
skills in performing his or her job or future job opportunities, or be
necessary to meet the express requirements of the City or the
requirements of applicable law. The education to which the
reimbursement relates should support a the City’s mission or be
necessary to meet the educational requirements for qualification for
employment. career path and must not be part of a program qualifying
the employees for another trade or business; or be necessary to meet
the minimum educational requirements for qualification for employment.
Permissible educational expenses are refresher courses, courses
dealing with current developments, academic or vocational courses, as
well as the travel expenses associated with the courses as defined by
the City’s travel expense report from the Policy & Procedures Manual
Section 1-02 ASD.
d) Professional and trade journal subscriptions not to exceed 12 months.
e)Gym/health club memberships. Reimbursement of these expenses is
limited to the compensation plan year and taxable to the employee.
f)Effective July 1, 2009, purchase of job related computer hardware is limited
to one purchase every three (3) years. ipads, tablets, and similar
computing devices purchased on or after July 1, 2010 will be considered
“computer hardware” for purposes of this section. Purchase of other
peripheral hardware such as printers and monitors is limited once every
three years from the last date purchased after July 1, 2009. The size of
free standing monitors purchased are not to exceed 26 inches.
e) Approval will be at discretion of department head and signature is
required on reimbursement form.; and will be approved in pro-rated
amounts for computer and other hardware purchases. Reimbursement
of any of these expenses is taxable to the employee.
g)Internet access, computer software and telecommunication equipment will
be approved at discretion of department head. Reimbursement of any of
these expenses is taxable to the employee.
Amounts under this professional development program will be pro-rated in the first
year of employment or promotion into a position covered by this Compensation Plan.
(based on the number of pay periods remaining in the calendar year) but will not be
pro-rated upon separation of employment.: The maximum amount for Professional
Development reimbursement for employees who move into a position covered by
16
this compensation plan from a position under another City of Palo Alto bargaining
group will be the lesser of:
(1)$1,500 less any amounts they have received in the fiscal year of
their position change through any other City of Palo Alto Tuition
Reimbursement or Professional Development program; or
(2)An amount obtained by subtracting any amounts the employee may
have received in the fiscal year of their position change through any
other City of Palo Alto Tuition Reimbursement or Professional
Development program from the sum of:
(i)the number of months of the current fiscal year that the employee
served in previous bargaining unit and multiplying it by one-
twelfth of that unit’s Tuition Reimbursement or Professional
Development annual maximum benefit; and,
(ii)the number of months of the current fiscal year that the employee
will serve in the position covered by this compensation plan
multiplied by $125.
2. Professional Development Leave
Authorized paid leaves of absence for up to one year may be granted in accordance
with the following requirements:
a)Eligibility is subject to a minimum City service requirement of five years.
b) Compensation during the Professional Development Leave shall not exceed
50% salary and full benefits.
c) When granted, a Professional Development Leave shall require an
employee commitment of at least two-years' service following return from the Leave.
To the extent the full two-year commitment is not fulfilled, the employee shall re-pay
the City a pro rata amount of the salary paid during the Leave based on the
percentage of the two-year commitment not fulfilled.
d) The Professional Development Leave program shall relate to the
employee's job assignment.
e) An employee's job assignment activity shall be adequately covered during his/her
absence with emphasis on the development of subordinates.
f) The leave of absence period shall be adequately coordinated with
departmental priorities and workload.
17
g) Professional Development Leaves shall be based on internship exchanges, and/or
loaned executive arrangements; scholastic and/or authorship programs; or
educational travel-study plans.
Leave of absence schedules will be apportioned among all levels of management and
professional employees and will be based on an evaluation of each employee's
performance record. Each paid sabbatical leave will be limited to a maximum of one
year and not more than two employees being on leave simultaneously. Sabbatical
leaves must be cleared in advance and approved by a Council-appointed officer for
his/her subordinates. Professional Development Leaves granted in excess of 30 days
shall be noticed to the Council.
3.2. Physical Examinations
All management and professional employees are eligible to receive an
annual physical examination as follows:
a) Use the periodic health exam benefit as provided under the PERS
Health Plan option you have selected. Each of the PERS Health Plans
provides for a periodic physical examination. The examination must be
performed by your primary care physician—unless he/she refers you to
another physician.
b) The types of tests and the frequency of the tests cannot exceed AMA
guidelines. The guidelines are a suggested minimum based on
research studies concerning preventative care. The judgment of your
physician is the final determinant for your care.
c) Any additional necessary asymptomatic tests that are required by your
physician that are not covered by your health plan, will be reimbursed by
the City. Any symptomatic tests will be covered under your PERS
Health Plan.
The Reimbursement for Periodic Physical Exam Form is available on the Human
Resources Intranet site. This benefit will not be pro-rated.
4.3. Excess Benefit
This benefit is designed to meet the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code with exception of Gym or Health Club Membership. Every calendar
year, each employee will be provided with $2,500 that they can designate among the
following options:
a) Medical Flexible Spending Account (Medical FSA). Provides reimbursement
for excess medical/dental/vision, or expenses that are incurred by
employees and their dependents which are not covered or reimbursed by
18
any other source, including existing City-sponsored plans. This includes
prescribed medications and copayments as well as over-the-counter drugs,
including: antacids, allergy medicines, pain relievers and cold medicines.
However, nonprescription dietary supplements (e.g. vitamins, etc.) toiletries
(e.g. toothpaste), cosmetics (e.g. face cream), and items used for cosmetic
purposes (e.g. Rogaine) are not acceptable.
b) Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account (Dependent Care FSA).
Provides reimbursement for qualified dependent care expenses under the
City's Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP), subject to the following
limits: Dependent care expenses will be reimbursed only to the extent that
the amount of such expenses reimbursed under this Management Benefit
Program, when added to the amount (if any) of annual dependent care
expenses that the participant has elected under the City's Flexible Benefits
Plan, do not exceed the maximum permitted under the DCAP.
1) The annual amount submitted for reimbursement cannot exceed the
income of the lower-paid spouse.
2) The expenses must be employment-related expenses for the care of
one or more dependents who are under 13 years of age and entitled to
a dependent deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 151(e) or
a dependent who is physically or mentally incapable of caring for
himself or herself.
3) The payments cannot be made to a child under 19 years of age or to a
person claimed as a dependent.
4) If the services are provided by a dependent care center, the center must
comply with all state and local laws and must provide care for more than
six individuals (other than a resident of the facility).
5) Dependent care expenses not submitted under this section are eligible
under the City Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP). However, the
maximum amount reimbursed under DCAP will be reduced by any
amount reimbursed under the Excess Benefit Plan.
c) Non-taxable Professional Development Spending Account.
Provides reimbursement for Non-Taxable professional development
expenses (e.g.,job-related training and education, seminars, training
manuals, etc.) to the extent they are not paid or reimbursed under any other
plan of the City.
d) Gym or Health Club Membership. Provides reimbursement for annual or
monthly memberships, including personal trainers. Reimbursement of this
expense is taxable to the employee.
19
d)e) Deferred Compensation.
Provides a one-time contribution to the employee’s City-sponsored 457
Deferred Compensation plan with either ICMA-RC or the Hartford.
Amounts designated by employees to either the Medical FSA, Dependent Care
FSA, or Professional Development options are done so on a “use –it-or-lose-it”
basis. This means that any amounts designated and not used by the end of the
calendar year (or end of the extended grace period for the medical FSA) will be
forfeited by the employee and returned to the plan.
Specified amounts under this benefit will be applied on a pro-rata basis for
employees who are part-time or who are in a management or professional pay
status for less than the full fiscal year. Such benefits will be pro-rated in the first
year of employment (based on hire date) but will not be pro-rated upon separation of
employment.
L. LEAVES
1. Sick Leave
a) Sick leave shall be accrued bi-weekly provided the employee has been in a
pay status for 50 percent or more of a bi-weekly pay period. Sick leave shall
be accrued at the rate of 3.7 hours per bi-weekly pay period for those
employees working a forty-hour duty schedule. Those assigned work
schedules, which are greater or lesser than forty hours will accrue sick leave
at the ratio of their work schedule to forty hours.
b) Employees may use up to twenty hours of sick leave per calendar year for
personal business. The scheduling of such leave is subject to the approval of
the appropriate level of Management.
c) Employees leaving the municipal service shall forfeit all accumulated sick
leave, except as otherwise provided by law and by Section 609 of the Merit
Rules and Regulations. In the event that notice of resignation is given, sick
leave may be used only through the day which was designated as the final
day of work by such notice.
d) Employees that were hired before December 1, 1983 and who leave the
municipal service in good standing, or who die while employed in good
standing by the city, and who have fifteen or more years of continuous
service shall receive compensation for unused sick leave hours in a sum
equal to two and one-half percent of their unused sick leave hours
multiplied by their years of continuous service and their basic hourly rate of
pay at termination. Full sick leave accrual will be paid in the event of
termination due to disability. See Merit System Rules and Regulations,
Chapter 6, Section 609.
20
e) Up to nine days of sick leave per calendar year may be used for illness in
the immediate family, including a registered domestic partner.
f) Management and Professional employees eligible, as specified above if
hired before December 1, 1983, to be compensated for sick leave may
annually convert sick leave hours in excess of 600 to cash or deferred
compensation, according to the formula set forth above, up to a
maximum of $2,000 per fiscal year.
g) In accordance with the City Merit Rules and Regulations, a new employee
may, if necessary, use up to forty-eight hours or shift equivalent of sick leave
at any time during the first six months of employment.
2. Management Annual Leave
a) Exempt Employees
At the beginning of each fiscal year rRegular management and professional
employees will be credited with 80 hours of annual leave. This leave is granted in
recognition of the extra hours Management and Professional employees work
over their regular schedule. This leave may be taken as paid time off, added to
vacation accrual (subject to vacation accrual limitations), taken as cash or taken
as deferred compensation. When time off is taken under this provision, 10-hour
shift workers will receive one shift off for each 8 hours charged; 24-hour shift
workers will receive one-half shift off for each 8 hours charged.
In 2012, the City will be transitioning this benefit from a fiscal to calendar year
basis for administrative purposes. Therefore, on July 1, 2012, employees will be
credited with forty (40) hours annual leave for the period of July 1 to December 31,
2012. Beginning in 2013 and each calendar year thereafter, employees will be
credited with 80 hours of management annual leave.
Entitlement under this provision will be reduced on a prorated basis for part-time
status, or according to the number of months in paid status during the fiscal year;
employees who have used more than the pro-rated share at the time they leave
City service shall be required to repay the balance or have it deducted from their
final check. Unused balances as of the end of the fiscal year will be paid in cash
unless a different option as indicated above is elected by the employee.
b) Non-Exempt Employees
Based on an audit recommendation to eliminate payment of overtime as well as
management leave for non-exempt employees in the management group, the City
21
is transitioning away from providing management leave to non-exempt
employees. As part of the transition, and in order to minimize impacts to current
employees, the City will phase-out elimination of the 80 hours of management
leave for all current non-exempt Management and Professional employees (those
eligible to earn overtime). Continuing through Fiscal year 2013-2014, there will be
no change to management leave benefits for current employees; these
employees will maintain their 80 hours of management leave and also receive pay
for any overtime hours worked. Beginning on July 1, 2014 all employees in non-
exempt positions will receive overtime pay for hours actually worked, but will no
longer receive management leave.
Employees hired into non-exempt management positions on or after February 26,
2011 will receive overtime only and will not be eligible for management leave.
3. Vacation
Vacation will be accrued when an employee is in pay status and will be credited on a
bi-weekly basis. Total vacation accrual at any one time may not exceed three times
the annual rate of accrual. Each eligible employee shall accrue vacation at the
following rate for continuous service performed in pay status:
a) Less than nine years. For employees completing less than nine years
continuous service: 120 hours vacation leave per year; provided that:
i) The City Manager is authorized to adjust department head annual
vacation accrual to provide for a maximum of 160 hours for those
hired between July 1, 1996 and June 30, 2001; and
ii) The City manager is authorized to adjust the annual vacation accrual
of employees hired on or after July 1, 2001, to provide up to 40
additional hours (i.e., to a maximum annual accrual of 160 hours) for
service with a prior employer.
b) Nine, but less than fourteen years. For employees completing nine, but
not more than fourteen years continuous service; 160 hours vacation
per year.
c) Fourteen, but less than nineteen years. For employees completing
fourteen, but not more than nineteen years continuous service; 180 hours
vacation leave per year.
d) Nineteen or more years. For employees completing nineteen or more
years continuous service; 200 hours vacation leave per year.
e)e) Once each calendar year an employee Employees may are eligible to
cash out vacation accrual balances in excess of 80 hours. An employee
22
may cash out a minimum of 8 hours to a maximum of 120 hours of accrued
vacation provided the employee has taken 80 vacation hours in the previous
12 months and has followed the election procedures set forth in this section.
e)Employees must elect the number of vacation hours they will cash-out
during the next calendar year, up to the maximum of 120 hours. For the
20123 calendar vacation year, employees will make their election for vacation
hours to cash out no later than November 1, 2012. The election will apply
only to vacation hours that are accrued in the next calendar year and that
eligible for cash-out.
The election to cash-out vacation hours in each designated year will be
irrevocable. This means that employees who elect to cash-out vacation
hours must cash-out the number of accrued hours pre-designates on the
election form.
Employees who do not elect a cash-out amount by November 1 of the prior
calendar year will be deemed to have waived the right to cash out any leave
in the following tax year and will not be eligible to cash-out vacation hours in
the next tax year
Employees who elect cash-out amounts may request a cash-out at any time
in the designated tax year by submitting a cash-out form to payroll. Payroll
will complete the cash-out upon request, provided the requested cash-out
amount has accrued and is consistent with the amount the employee pre-
designated. If the full amount of hours designated for cash-out is not
available at the time of cash-out request, the maximum available will be paid.
For employees who have not requested cash-out of the elected amount by
November 1 of each year, Payroll will automatically cash-out the elected
amount in a paycheck issued on or after the payroll date including November
1.
4. Bereavement
Leave of absence with pay of three (3) days may be granted an employee by the
head of his/her department in the event of death in the employee’s immediate
family, which is defined for purposes of this section as wife, husband, son, son-in-
law, step-son, daughter, daughter-in-law, step-daughter, mother, mother-in-law,
father, father-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, grandmother,
grandmother-in-law, grandfather, grandfather-in-law, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
nephew, registered domestic partner, or a close relative residing in the household of
employee. Such leave shall be at full pay and shall not be charged against the
employee’s accrued vacation or sick leave. Requests for leave in excess of three
days shall be subject to the approval of a Council-Appointed Officer for employees
under his/her control.
23
M. RETIREMENT PENSION
1. Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the City’s Public Employees’ Retirement
System (PERS) benefits changed to the 2.7% at 55 formula for non-safety
members (from 2% at 55).
The City amended its contract with CalPERS to provideFor miscellaneous
employees hired on or after July 17, 2010, the City offers with the CalPERS
retirement formula two percent (2.0%) of final salary at age sixty (60).
For Safety members, the City currently offers the CalPERS “3% at 50” full formula
(Section 21362.2) benefit. Local Fire Safety members newly hired after 6/8/12 will
be placed in the 3%@55 formula. As soon as administratively possible, the City
intends to modify the Local Police Safety formula for new hires to 3%@55 formula.
2. Employee Share. Effective May 1, 1984, the City agreed to pay the 7% employee
contribution to PERS. Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the employee
share of the PERS contribution increased to 8% from 7%. The City currently pays
6% and of the employee's pays 2% of the 8% PERS employeeCalPERS share for
the 2.7% at @ 55, retirement benefit formula. 5% for employees under the
2%@60 formula, and the full employee share for those with public safety
formulas. This provision applies to Council-appointed officers and all regular
management and professional employees, except that for sworn police and fire
management employees the City shall continue to pay the mandatory nine
percent (9%) of the employee's PERS contribution.
a) For employees hired after the implementation of the 2%@60 retirement
formula pursuant to CMR 249:10, Beginning with the pay period including
October 6, 2012, employees under the 2.7%@55 retirement formula will
pay the full eight percent (8%) employee contribution. employees covered
by that formula shall pay two percent (2%) of pay toward the seven
percent (7%) employee contribution and the City shall pay (5%).
b) Beginning with the pay period including October 6, 2012, employees
subject to the 2%@60 retirement formula shall pay the full seven percent
(7%) employee contribution.
b)c) Beginning with the pay period including October 6, 2012, Public Safety
employees will pay the full nine percent (9%) employee contribution.
3. Final Compensation. Final compensation for purposes of retirement shall be as
set forth in the City’s contract with CalPERS, including, when applicable, the
Government Code Section 20692: Optional Benefit. which provides that final
compensation may be the pay rate and special compensation during any
consecutive twelve month period.
24
4. Notwithstanding subsection 2 above, if an employee designates his or her final
compensation period as the year of employment immediately preceding the
effective date of his or her retirement. upon filing a notice of retirement, the
amount of the PERS contribution as described above will be converted to a salary
adjustment of equal amount on a one-time irrevocable basis
5.4. Employee PERS contributions shall be made on a tax deferred basis, in
accordance with Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. All provisions
of this subsection are subject to and conditioned upon compliance with IRS
regulations.
6. As of October 20, 2001 and March 9, 2002, the City provides the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Benefit, "3% at 50" full formula (Section
21362.2) for safety members.
N.AUTOMOBILE EXPENSE ALLOWANCE
For those employees whose duties require use of a City automobile, the City Manager
(or in the case of Council-appointed officers, the City Council) may authorize payment
of up to $325 per month in lieu thereof.
O.N. COMMUTE INCENTIVES and PARKING
Employees who qualify may voluntarily elect one of the following commute incentives:
1. Civic Center Parking. Employees assigned to Civic Center and adjacent work
locations. The City will provide a Civic Center Garage parking permit.
Employees hired after June 30, 1994 may initially receive a parking permit for
another downtown lot, subject to the availability of space at the Civic Center
Garage.
2. Employees who qualify may voluntarily elect one of the following commute
incentives for those using an eligible commute alternative on 60% or more of
their scheduled work days per month.
a) Public Transit and Vanpool. The City provides tax-free commute
incentives up to the current IRS limit, as may be amended from time to time,
(currently $125/month) are available through the Commuter Check Direct
(CCD) website for employees using Bay Area public transportation or riding
in a registered vanpool at least 60% of their scheduled work days.
Administration of the Commuter C heck direct benefit shall be the subject to
the rules and regulations of the third-part administer.
25
b) Bicycle. The City will provide employees with a tax-able incentive of $20
per month to eligible employees who ride a bicycle to work.
c) Carpool. The City will provide with a taxable incentive o $30 per month to
each eligible employee in a carpool with two or more licensed drivers.
d) Walk. The City will provide employees with a taxable incentive of $20 per
month to eligible employees who walk to work.
2.Public Transit. The City will provide monthly Commuter Checks worth the value of:
$40 for employees traveling two or more zones on Caltrain;
$40 for employees using the Dumbarton Express, BART, the ACE train or a
commuter highway vehicle;
$35 for employees traveling within one zone on Caltrain;
$35 for employees using VTA, and other buses.
These vouchers may be used toward the purchase of a transit pass.
3.Carpool. The City will provide $30 per month to each eligible employee in a carpool
with two or more licensed drivers.
4.Vanpool Program. The City will provide Commuter Checks worth the value up to
$60 to each employee voluntarily participating in the Vanpool Program. These
may be used toward payment of the monthly cost of the vanpool. Employees
must fulfill the basic requirements of the Employee Commute Alternatives
Program to qualify.
5.Bicycle. The City will provide employees with $20 per month to eligible employees
who ride a bicycle to work.
6.Walk. The City will provide employees with $20 per month to eligible employees
who walk to work.
P.O. AT-WILL STATUS
Certain Management and Professional Positions are designated as having “at-will”
employment status. “At-will” positions are intended to be of a limited duration and
employees hired to fill these positions shall have no constitutionally protected property
or other interest in their employment with the City. Notwithstanding any provision in the
Merit System Rules and Regulations or any other City rule, policy or procedure, at-will
employees have no right to continued employment or pre-or post-disciplinary due
process and work at the will and pleasure of the hiring authority (City Council, City
Manager or Council-Appointed Officer). Work for an at-will employee may be eliminated
and/or the employee may be terminated, or asked to resign, at any time, with or without
cause, upon notice to that employee, and the employee may resign at any time upon
written notice to the hiring authority.
26
1. At-will Management & Professional positions.
Department heads hired after July 1, 2004 and prior to the date of adoption of this
plan were hired as at-will employees whose terms of employment are specified by
an employment contract that includes a severance package.
Effective on the date of adoption of this plan, new employees hired or promoted to
department head, assistant department director, and all other positions listed on
Attachment B shall be at-will employees.
At-will employees will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e.,
health insurance, PERS contribution to the extent paid by City, etc.) and vacation,
sick leave, and management leave as are generally provided to management
employees and described in this compensation plan, as amended from time to time.
At-will employees who are terminated or asked to resign shall, upon execution of a
release of all claims against the City, be eligible for a severance payment equivalent
to four (4) weeks of salary and benefits, increasing after completion of the first full
year of service by one week for every completed year of service, up to a maximum
of 12 weeks. For example, an at-will employee who has completed six (6) years of
service would be eligible to receive ten (10) weeks of severance (4weeks plus 1
week for each year of service). No severance shall be paid if the employee is
terminated for serious misconduct involving abuse of his or her office or position,
including but not limited to waste, fraud, violation of the law under color of authority,
misappropriation of public resources, violence, harassment or discrimination. If the
employee is later convicted of a crime involving such abuse of his or her position the
employee shall fully reimburse the City as set forth in Government Code section
53243.3.
1.2. Provisional employees.
The City has created a program for Provisional employment when funding is
available. The program’s purpose is to create limited duration senior management
level work for the City Manager’s Office or as designated by the City Manager. A
Provisional Employee will be an “at will” employee whose term of employment shall
be no more than two years. A Provisional Employee shall be exempt and not eligible
to earn overtime. A Provisional Employee will receive limited benefits as specified in
an Employment Agreement. Sections I and II of this Compensation Plan shall not
apply to Provisional Employees, except as specified by the City Manager.
2.3. Management fellows.
The City has created a program for Management Fellows when funding is available.
The program’s purpose is to create limited duration entry level positions for graduate
students. A management fellow will be an “at will” employee whose term of
employment shall be no more than one year. A Management Fellow shall be PERS
27
exempt, but may receive limited vacation, limited sick leave, limited health care
benefits and other limited benefits, as determined by the City Manager. Sections I
and II of this Plan shall not apply to Management Fellows, except as specified by the
City Manager.
Department heads hired after July 1, 2004 will be “At-Will” employees whose
terms of employment are specified by an employment contract. Any current
department head or the Assistant City Manager may elect to remain covered by
the Merit Rules or to become At-Will employees with an employment contract
that shall include a severance package. All current executive managers shall
maintain all the benefits they presently have or would have as a new executive
manager.
The City has created a program for Provisional employment when funding is
available. The program’s purpose is to create limited duration senior
management level work for the City Manager’s Office or as designated by the
City Manager. A Provisional Employee will be an “at will” employee whose term
of employment shall be no more than two years. A Provisional Employee shall
be exempt and not eligible to earn overtime. A Provisional Employee will receive
limited benefits as specified in an Employment Agreement. Sections I and II of
this Compensation Plan shall not apply to Provisional Employees, except as
specified by the City Manager.
Q.P. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
The Mayor shall receive $150 monthly, and the Vice Mayor $100 monthly to defray
additional expenses of these offices.
R.Q. REIMBURSEMENT FOR RELOCATION EXPENSE
Policy Statement
The City of Palo Alto, in rare instances, may provide a Basic Relocation Benefits
Package for new management and professional employees, upon the approval of the
City Manager or designated subordinate. In addition, the provision of “Optional
Benefits” or portions thereof, may be extended for exceptional circumstances and
only the approval of the City Manager or designee, or for Council-appointed officers,
the City Council.
The details of the Relocation Expense program are specified in the City’s Relocation
Expense policy.
S.R. MEAL ALLOWANCE
28
Management and professional employees assigned to attend night meetings are
eligible to receive reimbursement for up to $20.00 per dinner. This provision covers
only receipted meals actually taken and submitted for reimbursement.
T.REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE
The City will make every effort to follow the 2005 transition plan if a reduction in
workforce is necessary . The Management/Professional Compensation Committee
shall be involved in development of changes to the transition plan.
S. GRIEVANCES REGARDING COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
Notwithstanding the grievance procedures provided in Chapter 11 of the City of Palo Alto’s
Merit System Rules and Regulations, any Management and Professional employee who is
supervised by a Council Appointed Officer and has a grievance against that Council Appointed
Officer or regarding the conduct of that Council Appointed Officer shall, following an attempt to
resolve the grievance pursuant to Step One (informal discussion), summarize the grievance
regarding the Council Appointed Officer in writing and submit it to the Director of Human
Resources for review and resolution using the methods he/she considers appropriate.
V.T. MERIT RULES
The City will include members of the Management/Professional Compensation
Committee in discussions regarding revision of the Merit Rules and Regulations.
SECTION III. MANAGEMENT FELLOW PROGRAM
The City has created a program for Management Fellows when funding is available.
The program’s purpose is to create limited duration entry level positions for graduate
students. A management fellow will be an “at will” employee whose term of
employment shall be no more than one year. A Management Fellow shall be PERS
exempt, but will receive limited vacation, limited sick leave, limited health care benefits
and other limited benefits, as determined by the City Manager. Sections I and II of this
Plan shall not apply to Management Fellows, except as specified by the City Manager.
29
Attachment A
Salary Schedule
30
Attachment B
At-Will Positions
Management and Professional Unit
The intent of this provision under the Management/Professional Compensation Plan is to
designate classifications at the department head, assistant director, deputy director, and division
manager levels as at-will. The applicable Council Appointed Officer may designate newly
created positions at those levels not included on this list as at-will. Existing classifications that
shall be at-will include but are not limited to:
Department Heads- All departments
Assistant Directors- All departments
Deputy Directors- All departments
Division Managers
Administrative Services
Director, Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Management & Budget
Assistant Director, Administrative Services
Chief Budget Officer
Manager, Accounting
Manager, Purchasing & Contract Administration
Manager, Real Property
City Attorney
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
City Auditor
Deputy City Auditor
Sr. Performance Auditor
City Clerk
Assistant City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Deputy City Manager
Assistant to City Manager
Chief Communications Officer
Communications Manager
31
Manager, Economic Development
Community Services
Director, Community Services
Assistant Director, Community Services
Manager, Recreation & Golf
Manager, Open Space & Parks
Human Resources
Director of Human Resources/Chief People Officer
Assistant Director, Human Resources
Human Resources Manager
IT
Director, IT/Chief Information Officer
Information Technology Governance Manager
Information Technology Manager
Library
Director, Libraries
Assistant Director, Library Services
Division Head, Collection & Technical Services
Manager, Library Services
Planning & Community Environment
Director, Planning & Community Environment
Assistant Director, Planning & Community Environment
Division Manager, Advance Planning
Division Manager, Chief Building Official
Division Manager, Chief Planning Official
Division Manager, Chief Transportation Official
Division Manager, Development Services Director
Public Safety
Chief of Police/Director of Public Safety
Fire Chief /Assistant Public Safety Director
Assistant Police Chief
Emergency Services Director
Deputy Director – Technical Services Division (police department)
Deputy Fire Chief
Public Works
Director, Public Works/City Engineer
Assistant Director, Public Works – Environmental Services
Assistant Director, Public Works – Public Services
32
Assistant Director, Public Works – Engineering
Airport Manager
Water Quality Control Plant Manager
Utilities
Director, Utilities
Assistant Director Utilities Engineering*
Assistant Director Utilities Operations*
Assistant Director Utilities Customer Support Services*
Assistant Director Utilities/Resources Management*
Communications Manager*
Engineering Manager – Electric*
Engineering Manager –WGW*
Manager Customer Service & Meter Reading*
Manager Electric Operations*
Manager Utilities Mkt Services*
Manager Utilities Operations WGW*
Utilities Compliance Manager*
*Management positions up to and including Assistant Director in Utilities are represented
by UMPAPA and currently under negotiations