HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-22 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
September 22, 2014
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 22, 2014
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the
presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council 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, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times
are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to
another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur
in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
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 up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM
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,
Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch,
Dania Torres Wong)
Unrepresented Employee Group: Management, Professional and
Confidential Employees
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo
Perez, Melissa Tronquet, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossman,
Nancy Nagel, Dennis Burns, Mark Gregerson, Kathryn Shen, Dania
Torres Wong)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2 September 22, 2014
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.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM
Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar 7:25-7:30 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2014
4. Human Relations Commission Funding Recommendation for
Distribution of Additional Human Services Resources Allocation
Funding for FY2015 in the Amount of $68,380
5. Request for Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Rock
Company in the Amount of $1,200,000 to be the Primary Supplier of
Asphalt Concrete Products for Both the Public Works and Utilities
Departments Over a Three Year Period from September 22, 2014
through September 21, 2017
6. Request for Authorization to Increase Compensation of Legal Services
Contract with Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, LLP by an Additional $250,000
For a Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Amount of $275,000 and Adoption
of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Increasing Funding by an
Additional $200,000
7. Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of Municipal Code Changes
Eliminating Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.145, titled
“Consultation with City Auditor” and Amending Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 2.08.150 Titled “Department of Administrative Services”
and Section 2.28.090, titled “Lapse of Appropriations” to Clarify Roles
for Reviewing Fiscal Procedures and Roles of City Auditor and
Administrative Services Department and Lapse of Appropriations
3 September 22, 2014
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.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:30-8:30 PM
8. Council Review of Draft Ordinance Creating a Business Registry;
Policy Direction Regarding Business Registry Questionnaire and Update
on Staff’s Implementation Plan
8:30-9:30 PM
9. Rejection of Construction Bids for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project and Adoption of a Budget Amendment
Ordinance in the Amount of $708,495 in Revenues and $168,036 in
Expenses to Operate the Golf Course From September 1, 2014 to
February 28, 2015, and Establish an FY 2016 Golf Course Operating
Loss Reserve from the Net Revenue of Golf Course Operations in the
Amount of $540,459 (Continued from September 8, 2014)
9:30-10:30 PM
10. Approval of Contract No. C15152971 in the Amount of $658,527.32
with Contract Sweeping Services for the First Year of a Five Year Term
for Street Sweeping Services. Approval of Reduction in the Frequency
of Street Sweeping in Residential/Light Commercial Areas from Weekly
to Every Other Week Only During the Non-Leaf Season. Approval of
Budget Amendment Ordinance with Impacts to Various Funds to
Reflect Savings Due to Implementing the Efficiency and Cost Savings
Plan. Approval of Amendments to the Table of Organization Reflective
of the Proposed Elimination of Seven Positions Budgeted in FY 2015.
Approval of Decrease in the Refuse Rate Street Sweeping Fixed Fee
from $6.66 per Single Family Residence to $5.26
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
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.
4 September 22, 2014
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Policy and Services Committee Agenda Sept. 23, 2014
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Conflict of Interest Biennial Notice
Parks and Recreation Commission Informational Memo Regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Update and Consequences of Growth and
Development for Parks and Recreation
Independent Police Auditor Report Covering the Second Half of 2013
Schedule for Parking Guidance Systems and Revenue and Access Controls
for Downtown Parking Lots and Garages
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
September 22, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2014
The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report
as of June 30, 2014. At its meeting on August 12, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee
approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and
Services Committee minutes are included in this packet.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (August 12, 2014)
(PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
August 12, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Policy & Services Committee
Palo Alto, California
Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2014
RECOMMENDATION
The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and
recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June
30, 2014.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan
and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress
towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an
update on the fouth quarter for FY 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2014 (PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Attachment A
Page 2
Attachment A
“Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government."
Attachment A
2
Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Fourth Quarter Update (April – June 2014)
Overview
The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. As mandated by the City Charter and
Municipal Code, the mission of the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully
accountable city government. We conduct performance audits and reviews to provide the City Council and City
management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which resources are
employed, the adequacy of the system of internal controls, and compliance with policies and procedures and regulatory
requirements. Taking appropriate action on our audit recommendations helps the City reduce risks and protect its good
reputation.
The City Council appointed Harriet Richardson as City Auditor on April 7, 2014. Her start date was April 15, 2014.
Audits
Below is a summary of our audit work for the fourth quarter of FY 2014 (as of June 30, 2014):
Title Objective(s) Start
Date
End
Date
Status Results/Comments
Solid Waste
Program Audit
To evaluate whether the
Public Works Department
effectively manages the
City’s Solid Waste Program
to ensure accurate refuse
billings, ensure sufficient
revenue to recover the cost
of services, and provide
reliable and useful financial
and operational data in
support of management’s
strategic and operational
decisions.
5/2013 6/2014 Complete The audit demonstrated that the
Public Works Department needs
to improve the accuracy of
refuse billing, strengthen its
oversight of GreenWaste of Palo
Alto to ensure the accuracy of
refuse service data, and ensure
that reliable and useful data are
provided to stakeholders for
informed decision making.
We made 16 recommendations
to improve management of the
City’s Solid Waste Program.
Finance Committee approval:
6/3/14
City Council acceptance date:
8/4/14
Franchise Fee
Audit
To determine if the
franchisees have accurately
calculated and remitted
franchise fees in
accordance with the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and
whether the City has
adequate controls to
discharge its responsibilities
to administer and enforce
state franchises.
2/2014 12/2014 In Process To be determined (TBD)
Attachment A
3
Title Objective(s) Start
Date
End
Date
Status Results/Comments
Audit of Utility
Meters:
Procurement,
Inventory, and
Retirement
To determine if proper
procedures were followed
with the procurement,
inventory, and retirement
of utility meters
3/2014 10/2014 In Process To be determined (TBD)
Parking Funds
Audit
To determine if the City’s
parking funds are properly
collected, accounted for,
and used in compliance
with applicable laws,
regulations, policies, and
governing documents. The
audit will focus on the
University Avenue,
California Avenue, and
Residential Parking Permit
Funds, and the Parking In-
Lieu Fund.
5/2014 12/2014 In Process To be determined (TBD)
Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments
Below is a summary of other assignments as of the fourth quarter of FY 2014 (as of June 30, 2014):
Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments
Sales and Use Tax
Allocation
Reviews
The OCA conducts sales and
use tax monitoring in-house
and also contracts with an
outside vendor.
Ongoing The OCA continues to submit inquiries to the State Board
of Equalization. As of the end of the fourth quarter, the
City received $168,916 in total sales and use tax
recoveries, including $12,791 in recoveries related to
new businesses. Due to processing lags at the State
Board of Equalization, there are 42 potential
misallocations waiting to be researched and processed:
20 from OCA and 22 from the vendor.
Total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries for FY 2014: $104,417
from OCA inquiries and $64,499 from vendor inquiries.
Quarterly
Reporting
Each quarter, the OCA
provides Quarterly Status
Updates and Sales Tax
Digest Summaries for
Council review.
Ongoing Quarterly reports are published on the OCA website at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/default.asp.
City Auditor
Advisory Roles
Provide guidance and
advice to key governance
committees within the City.
Ongoing The City Auditor is an advisor to the following: Utilities
Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight
Committee, the Information Technology Governance
Review Board, and the Information Security Steering
Committee.
Attachment A
4
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration
On August 16, 2012, we launched the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline. As of June 30, 2014, we have received a
total of ten complaints, which have all been closed. The chart below summarizes the status of complaints received in
each fiscal year.
Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system as of March 31, 2014
The hotline review committee, composed of the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the City Manager or their
designees, meets as needed to review all activity related to the hotline. We did not receive any new complaints during
the fourth quarter of FY 2014.
7
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FY 2013 FY 2014
Status of Complaints Received in Fiscal Year
Closed Complaints
Open Complaints
Attachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FINAL MINUTES
Page 1 of 4
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Scharff, Schmid
Absent:
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2014.
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, noted the Quarterly Report was the final
one for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. Audit Staff completed the Solid Waste
Program Audit and presented it to the Finance Committee on June 3, 2014
and to the Council on August 4, 2014. The Public Works Department needed
to improve the accuracy of its refuse billing and strengthen its oversight of
Green Waste Palo Alto to ensure accuracy of refuse service data. Staff made
16 recommendations to improve management of the City's Solid Waste
Program. The Franchise Fee Audit has an estimated completion date of
December 2014. The objective of the Audit is to determine whether
franchisees had accurately calculated and remitted franchise fees in
accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and whether the City had
adequate controls to discharge its responsibilities. To assist with the audit,
the City awarded a contract to the Buske Group to verify franchisee
remittances.
Council Member Scharff requested that Staff clarify the objectives of the
audit.
Ms. Richardson explained that the City received franchise fees of 5 percent
from Comcast and AT&T for residential subscribers and 1 percent of Public,
Education and Government (PEG) fees. The Buske Group would verify that
Attachment B
WORKING MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/12/14
franchisees remitted fees for every subscriber within the Joint Power
Authority region. The Audit of the procurement, inventory, and retirement
of water, gas, and electric meters resulted from issues identified in the
Inventory Management Audit. Field work for the Audit was close to
completion, with an expected publication date of October 2014. Auditors
identified issues and discussed them with the Utilities Department. Auditors
were reviewing the University Avenue and California Avenue Parking Permit
Funds, the Residential Parking Permit Fund, and the Parking In-Lieu Fund for
accuracy of calculation of fees, timeliness of collection, and proper
expenditure of funds. The Parking Fund Audit is expected to be completed
in December 2014. The Auditor's Office continued its audit of sales and use
tax allocations. Audit Staff and MuniServices identified vendors whose sales
tax had been misallocated. MuniServices identified approximately $65,000
in misallocated sales tax. The Auditor's Office identified approximately
$105,000 in misallocated sales tax. Approximately 42 potential
misallocations were awaiting research and processing. Quarterly Reports of
sales tax results are published on the City website. The Auditor's Office
continued in advisory roles for the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee,
Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance
Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. The
Quarterly Report did not include work regarding the National Citizen Survey.
Those surveys were released last week. Audit Staff will begin work the
following month for the Annual Performance Report. The Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse Hotline had not received complaints during the quarter. Staff closed
the only remaining open complaint as unsubstantiated. Since its initiation,
the Hotline had received ten complaints, all of which had been closed.
Council Member Scharff asked about the results of the ten complaints.
Ms. Richardson reported one complaint was substantiated and led to the
Contract Oversight Audit. The remaining nine complaints were
unsubstantiated. On May 13, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee
(Committee) directed her to return with recommended changes to the
Municipal Code to clarify which Committee would receive which Audit
Reports.
Council Member Klein inquired about proposed new audits.
Ms. Richardson was working on a proposed audit plan for FY 2015 and will
present it to the Committee on September 9, 2014.
Council Member Schmid understood the mandate of the Oversight
Committee did not provide authority or an ability to examine actions.
Perhaps the Auditor's Office could determine ways to provide better
Attachment B
WORKING MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/12/14
oversight to the Oversight Committee, if that was within the Auditor's
purview. Each of the proposed Audits for FY 2015 was a small piece of the
overall Budget. The previous evening the Council discussed information
needed for it to make intelligent decisions in the Comprehensive Plan Update
process. One of the goals of the Auditor's Office was to handle problems
important to the Council. He inquired whether the City Auditor could assist
the Council with its desire to obtain information.
Ms. Richardson advised that a Public Benefits Audit planned for FY 2014
would be rescheduled for FY 2015. In reviewing topics for FY 2015, she was
reviewing Council Priorities and identifying topics that aligned with Council
Priorities. When presenting the plan to the Council, she would associate
each audit with a Priority.
Council Member Klein did not believe that was the proper role of the
Auditor's Office. The September 9 Committee meeting was the correct time
for such a discussion. All topics mentioned by Council Member Schmid were
more appropriately addressed to the City Manager. The Auditor's Office
would need two or three times the current number of staff to address
information discussed in the August 11, 2014 Council meeting.
Council Member Schmid clarified that he was not requesting more data, but
an analysis.
Council Member Klein remarked that the Auditor responded to concerns.
The Auditor's role was to determine whether things were performed
properly.
Council Member Scharff agreed with Council Member Schmid that the audits
proposed for FY 2014 lacked impact. One role of the City Auditor was to
review City processes and ensure processes were good. The contract and
inventory audits fulfilled that role. In planning for FY 2015, the City Auditor
should consider audits that would drive improvements to City processes.
Chair Price explained that these issues could be discussed in the course of
the Committee's evaluation of the Auditor's work. The Auditor's Office did
not have the expertise to focus on areas other than efficiency and process.
It was not appropriate to hold an extended conversation on items not on the
Agenda. Council Members should be more explicit regarding the types of
issues to be examined in order to assist the Auditor in defining a work plan.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to recommend the City Council approve the Auditor’s Office Quarterly
Report as of June 30, 2014.
Attachment B
WORKING MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
Policy and Services Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/12/14
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5068)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/22/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: HRC funding Recommendations - Additional FY 2015 HSRAP
allocation
Title: Human Relations Commission Funding Recommendation for
Distribution of Additional Human Services Resources Allocation Funding for
FY2015 in the Amount of $68,380
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council accept the funding recommendations of the Human Relations
Commission for the distribution of $68,380 in additional Human Services Resource Allocation
Process funding to ten agencies for Fiscal Year 2015.
Executive Summary
This report transmits to the Council the proposed Human Services Resource Allocation Process
(HSRAP) additional funding allocation recommendations for Fiscal Year 2015, as recommended
by Human Relations Commission, and the proposal summaries submitted for funding
consideration. The funding recommendations will provide $68,380 for up to ten agencies for a
one year period.
Background
At the Council meeting on June 9, 2014, the Council discussed additional funding for HSRAP and
approved the following: An increase in funding for FY 2015 of $68,380 to HSRAP; with PACCC
and Avenidas both being eligible for funding consideration. The allocation is to be
recommended by the Human Relations Commission for Council approval. In addition, an
additional $50,000 one-time contribution to establish a Human Services Reserve, with
additional contributions to be determined as part of the annual budget process. The previously
approved increase of $31,620 (approved at the May 19, 2014 Council meeting), equivalent to a
2.6 percent increase in funding, will be distributed pro-rata to the HSRAP agencies, along with
PACCC and Avenidas. With these additions, the total Fiscal Year 2015 Budget allocation for
HSRAP is $1,366.178.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In order to recommend funding allocations for the incremental $68,380 provided by Council,
the HRC and staff created a streamlined Request for Proposal (RFP) process. All current HSRAP
agencies, as well as PACCC and Avenidas, were eligible to submit proposals explaining how they
would use additional funding to address either new emerging needs or critical existing needs.
Of the 16 eligible agencies, 10 submitted applications for consideration of additional HSRAP
funding (See Attachment A – Applications Additional HSRAP funding 2014.) The sub-committee
reviewed the applications and in doing so decided to prioritize nutrition programs as there are a
number of populations in Palo Alto at risk of going hungry due to recent cutbacks in local food-
based programs. These populations include low-income seniors, the unhoused, and working
families with children. Therefore, the sub-committee recommended to the full HRC additional
HSRAP funding for the existing Breaking Bread program run by InnVision Shelter Network, and
for a new multi-agency program developed by Palo Alto Housing Corporation that will assist
low-income seniors by transporting them to La Comida's subsidized lunch program using a van
leased from Avenidas.
In addition to nutrition programs, the sub-committee prioritized one-time purchases of key
assets such as medical equipment and investments in IT infrastructure. These recommended
allocations will ensure ongoing benefit to needy Palo Altans even if additional HSRAP funding is
not available in the future. The one-time investment in IT infrastructure will also help ensure
Santa Clara County's continuing eligibility for several million dollars' worth of HUD funding to
serve the unhoused.
Finally, the sub-committee focused on service expansion and scalability. A number of HSRAP
agencies stated that they could expand existing programs and serve more residents with
additional HSRAP funding. In some cases, increased demand and growing backlogs are putting
vulnerable residents such as seniors at risk of physical harm. Other agencies requested funding
to pilot new programs or business models so they can serve residents more efficiently.
Given the limited nature of this incremental HSRAP funding for FY 2015, the sub-committee
recommended to the full HRC that applications for nutrition programs and one-time purchases
of assets or infrastructure investments be fully funded. The sub-committee also recommended
that expanded legal services to seniors at risk of elder abuse be fully funded. For the remaining
agencies, the sub-committee recommended partial funding, which will still enable them to
expand or improve their service delivery, although on a smaller scale than originally proposed.
The sub-committee’s recommendations were discussed at the August 14, 2014 HRC meeting
(See Attachment B – FY2015DraftHSRAPallocations.) HRC Chair Jill O’Nan explained that
Commissioners Alhassani and Morin (as well as Chair O’Nan) also served on the sub-committee,
and she thanked them for their service. She recounted the funding application and review
process and the reasoning behind the sub-committee’s recommendation. Seven of the ten
applicant agencies were present at the meeting and addressed the HRC to thank them for their
recommended funding allocation.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
After some discussion by the full HRC, a motion was made by Commissioner Stone and
seconded by Commission Chen to accept the sub-committee’s recommendation and forward
their funding recommendations on to the Council. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) (see
Attachment C – HRCdraftminutes8-14-14).
The HRC’s funding recommendation are, as follows:
Adolescent Counseling Services - $3,000 – To fund an additional counseling intern at a PAUSD
High School.
Community Technology Alliance (CTA)- $2,162 –To fund Palo Alto’s share of unfunded costs
associated with CTA’s support, maintenance and hosting of the Help Management Information
System (HMIS) in Santa Clara County.
DreamCatchers - $4,400 – To help fund the creation of Intergenerational STEM/SEL/ Healthy
Behaviors Teaching Teams at DreamCatchers Middle School sites.
InnVision Shelter Network - $20,000 - To help fund the Breaking Bread program.
MayView Community Health Center - $11,334 – To fund the purchase of two wall mounted
vitals equipment.
Momentum for Mental Health - $5,648 – To fund addition in portion of Palo Alto’s share of
Homeless Outreach Specialist.
Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) - $8,268 – To fund a partnership with Avenidas to use
their van for transport of seniors from a PAHC property to La Comida lunch program and
grocery shopping.
Senior Adult Legal Services (SALA) - $4,500 – To fund expanded service levels of SALA attorneys
at local senior facilities.
Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired - $5,500 - To fund expanded service levels of
the Daily Living Skills Instruction program.
Youth Community Services - $3,568 – To help fund a youth programming staff member to
assist with programs such as the new Saturday School Initiative in partnership with Palo Alto
Unified School District
Timeline
Upon approval by the Council, the contract period will be October 1, 2014-June 30, 2015.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Resource Impact
As part of the FY 2015 adopted budget, an additional $100,000 was allocated for HSRAP
agencies. The additional funding included a 2.6% pro-rata increase for each applicant, totaling
$31,620. The HSRAP funding recommendation included in this report will allocate the remaining
$68,380 to support up to ten HSRAP agencies. In FY 2016, the additional $100,000 will be
included in the base budget for future HSRAP allocation consideration as part of the next two-
year funding cycle.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Application addtional HSRAP funding 2014 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B -FY 2015 Draft HSRAP allocations (XLSX)
ATTACHMENT C - Draft August HRC 2014 Minutes (DOCX)
Proposed Funding Recommendation FY15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A B C D E F G I J
FY 2014
Agency
Request
FY 2014
Contract
Amount
FY2015
2.6% Increase
(as approved by
Council)
FY2015 HSRAP
Contract
Proposed FY2015
Additional Funding
Recommendation
($68,380.00 available)
Total Proposed
FY15 HSRAP
Recommendation
$431,184.00 $11,211.00 $442,395.00 * $442,395.00
$436,830.00 $11,358.00 $448,188.00 *$448,188.00
$53,111.00 $40,352.00 $1,049.00 $41,401.00 *$41,401.00
Adolescent Counseling Services $110,000.00 $103,434.00 $2,689.00 $106,123.00 $3,000.00 $109,123.00
Community Technology Alliance $8,000.00 $5,823.00 $151.00 $5,974.00 $2,162.00 $8,136.00
$75,000.00 $36,090.00 $938.00 $37,028.00 *$37,028.00
$55,000.00 $8,000.00 $208.00 $8,208.00 $4,400.00 $12,608.00
InnVision Shelter Network $25,000.00 $12,340.00 $321.00 $12,661.00 $20,000.00 $32,661.00
$33,300.00 $32,548.00 $846.00 $33,394.00 *$33,394.00
$25,000.00 $17,231.00 $448.00 $17,679.00 $11,334.00 $29,013.00
Momentum for Mental Health $30,000.00 $25,847.00 $672.00 $26,519.00 $5,648.00 $32,167.00
Palo Alto Housing Corporation $47,730.00 $10,000.00 $260.00 $10,260.00 $8,268.00 $18,528.00
$41,200.00 $26,800.00 $697.00 $27,497.00 *$27,497.00
Senior Adults Legal Assistance $9,000.00 $8,616.00 $224.00 $8,840.00 $4,500.00 $13,340.00
$20,650.00 $5,000.00 $130.00 $5,130.00 $5,500.00 $10,630.00
Youth Community Service $16,000.00 $16,082.00 $418.00 $16,500.00 $3,568.00 $20,068.00
$548,991.00 $1,216,177.00 $31,620.00 $1,247,797.00 $68,380.00 $1,316,177.00
$31,620.00
$68,380.00
$100,000.00
Agencies
Multi-Year Contracts
HSRAP
Peninsula Healthcare Connection
Avenidas
Palo Alto Community Child Care
Downtown Streets Team
La Comida de California
*Agency did not submit an application to be considered for the $68,380.00 additional funding
Vista Center for the Blind & Visually
Impaired
Abilities United
DreamCatchers
MayView Community Health Center
Total Additional Funding
2.60%
Funding to be distributed according to need
DRAFT
Attachment C
1
1 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION 2
Thursday, August 14, 2014 3
Council Conference Room 4
Palo Alto Civic Center 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
7:00 PM 7
REGULAR MEETING 8
9
ROLL CALL: 10
11
Commissioners Present: Alhassani, Chen, O’Nan, Stone, 12
Absent: Morin, Savage, Bacchetti 13
14
Staff: Minka van der Zwaag, Mary Constantino 15
16
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 17
NONE 18
19
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 20
21
Commissioner Stone made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2014 meeting. Seconded by 22
Commissioner Chen. AYES: Unanimous Absent: Morin, Savage, Bacchetti 23
24
Commissioner Stone made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2014 meeting. Seconded 25
by Commissioner Alhassani. AYES: Unanimous Absent: Morin, Savage, Bacchetti 26
27
Commissioner Stone made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2014 meeting. Seconded by 28
Commissioner Alhassani. AYES: Unanimous Absent: Morin, Savage, Bacchetti 29
30
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 31
None 32
33
BUSINESS 34
1. Update on the Microenterprise Assistance Program (MAP) 35
DRAFT
Attachment C
2
Chair O’Nan introduced City Staff Consuelo Hernandez. Consuelo stated that she wanted to 36
provide the Commission with an update on the Microenterprise Assistance Program. The 37
Commission had authorized an additional $150,000 towards a second year of funding for the 38
MAP Program through the Community Development Block (CDBG) grant funding. Hernandez 39
provided a report that will be presented to the Finance Commission next week but because of 40
changing schedules staff did not have time to get feedback from HRC but wanted to present the 41
information. Hernandez met with community partners and identified new structural items that 42
can be added to the program to make it more effective. Hernandez stated that they are hoping 43
that if the Council allows the program to continue with the current funding that the program can 44
identify 25 people to receive micro grants this year. Hernandez referred to page three of the 45
report which includes a bullet list of what they are hoping will be approved for next year. Chair 46
O’Nan asked how she is going to ramp up to potentially 25 grantees from the current six. 47
Hernandez stated that they are averaging about $6,800 per grantee, but they became aware that 48
they needed to provide general liability insurance for each grantee which delayed the execution 49
of the agreements for about 1.5 months. Hernandez explained that they had to add the cost of 50
insurance and then $170,000 was needed for direct grants. All the funding comes from CDBG 51
and the program is for one year. Chair O’Nan asked why the first grant amounts varied widely, 52
is that the nature of the different businesses and are you planning on standardizing the limits? 53
Hernandez explained that some people wanted grants for under $1,000 and with the amount of 54
work that staff provides and the fact the insurance is averaging $500-600 per grantees it wasn’t 55
worth the level of work. Staff wanted the range because it gives the opportunity to better 56
evaluate the program and the effectiveness. Hernandez stated that the Finance Committee can 57
give staff the authorization to continue with the program as presented or they can give staff the 58
recommendation to take it to full Council. Hernandez stated that the second year will be a pilot 59
program because they are taking a new approach and introducing a new structure and eventually 60
will turn the program over to the community and not have staff administer it. Chair O’Nan 61
inquired where the six grantees are now and have they started their businesses? Hernandez 62
replied that a few of the grantees have started their businesses but several are waiting because 63
they are receiving Seed Grants. Hernandez stated that they are going to issue three 64
reimbursement requests next week. Their goal is to identify 25 eligible candidates. There are no 65
applicants from the Buena Vista Motor Home Park. The first year their outreach concentrated 66
on their partnerships with Downtown Streets Team and Palo Alto Housing Corporation, but the 67
second year they plan on expanding their outreach Citywide and look to other non-profit 68
agencies in the City as well as look at the agencies that did not get funded the first year. 69
70
71
2. Report from the HRC Subcommittee regarding their recommendations for additional 72
FY15 Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) Funding. – Chair O’Nan 73
Chair O’Nan stated that this year something very unprecedented happened in that Council 74
awarded the HRC an additional $100,000 in the second year of the HSRAP cycle. Some of that 75
money is to be distributed as a pro rata increase so all of the agencies will receive an increase 76
and for the remaining $68,300 the Council asked the HRC to recommend funding allocations. 77
The HRC formed a sub-committee to address the Council’s request and came up with 78
recommendations to the HRC. The application process was a stream lined request for proposals. 79
DRAFT
Attachment C
3
Because the funding is for FY15 the committee had to evaluate the request to see what could be 80
done within the fiscal year and not depend on future funding. There were 10 applicants. The 81
sub-committee evaluated the 10 applications and felt they were all interesting and very worthy. 82
83
Adolescent Counseling Services is a long time HSRAP grantee. They requested money to fund 84
internships and a staff position. They are serving about 50% more students in the Palo Alto 85
Unified School. The sub-committee decided to recommend an award of $3,000 to fund one of 86
their internships. 87
88
Community Technology Alliance is the organization that is managing Tech SCC the HMIS 89
Compliant software required by the federal government in order for Santa Clara County to 90
receive HUD funding. Palo Alto’s share of the IT infrastructure upgrade is $2,162.00 which will 91
enable the whole county to receive millions of dollars from HUD funding. Therefore, the sub-92
committee decided to fund their request. 93
94
Dreamcatchers is a new agency helping middle school students close the achievement gap in 95
Palo Alto. They requested money for several different programs but the amount was too large 96
for this small incremental funding allocation. Therefore the sub-committee recommended 97
funding one of their programs in the amount of $4,400.00 to teach teens science, technology 98
engineering and mathematics and that is an important focus area for the teenagers. 99
100
InnVision Shelter Network has been struggling with a number of their programs but particularly 101
their food-based programs. They requested $20,000 for their Breaking Bread Program which 102
was seven days a week but has been cut back to five. The subcommittee did not want the 103
program cut back any further so they recommended $20,000 to help shore up the program. 104
105
Mayview Health Center is another long time grantee. They requested money, $11,334.00, to 106
purchase an asset which is two medical equipment monitors and displays. The sub-committee 107
felt that Mayview Clinic is in real need of the infrastructure upgrade. 108
109
Momentum for Mental Health requested that the City fund their Field Specialist, which the sub-110
committee felt was a worthwhile request and an increase of $5,648 was recommended. 111
112
Palo Alto Housing Corporation submitted a request for funding for a very innovative food 113
program to help very low income seniors get to the La Comida lunch program by leasing a van 114
from a third agency, Avenidas. The subcommittee liked the collaboration. The cost for the 115
program is $8,268.00 and sub-committee decided to recommend funding this program. 116
117
Senior Adults Legal Assistance cannot charge for their fees which is a legal requirement with the 118
County and they have a backlog of elders who are at risk of being abused financially and 119
physically. The funding requested would enable them to see more clients. The sub-committee 120
recommended funding at $4,500.00. 121
122
DRAFT
Attachment C
4
Vista is a new agency to HSRAP. They requested money to increase service levels for seniors 123
suffering from visual impairment to help live them independently. The sub-committee 124
recommended $5,500 in funding. 125
126
Youth Community Service reported that they are switching their staffing model to something 127
that will be more cost effective. The sub-committee recommended funding half of their request 128
($3,568.00) to pay for a part time staff to do youth programing more effectively. 129
130
With the recommended spread the sub-committee hoped that every agency will receive a 131
significant amount of money with which they can do something meaningful by continuing a 132
program or starting a program. The HRC plans to share the results of their efforts with Council to 133
demonstrate the impact of the increased funding with the hopes of continued increased funding 134
in future HSRAP cycles. It is difficult to quantify how human services are delivered and what 135
kind of outcomes they have. Chair O’Nan stated that she is very confident that the HSRAP 136
agencies will work with the HRC to provide the information to Council and the community so 137
that they can see what types of good things can be done with these small grants. That was the 138
thinking of the sub-committee’s decision making. Serving on the subcommittee was Chair 139
O’Nan and Commissioners Alhassani and Morin, who is not present tonight. Chair O’Nan asked 140
her fellow Commissioners if they had any questions. 141
142
Commissioner Stone asked “What was the process in determining who got what and what share. 143
There is a large discrepancy between InnVision and other services. How did you make those 144
decisions?” Chair O’Nan replied, “The needs of the agencies are very different. In our view 145
hunger and nutrition were a very key priority. In a community that is affluent, having people, 146
like low income seniors, chronically sick people, and homeless, going hungry is a very 147
disturbing image so we put priority on food base programs. Because the money may not be 148
renewable, we wanted programs and projects that could be completed and do some good for the 149
community. All of the requests were worthy. We had to operate as if the funding is a one-time 150
allocation.” 151
152
Commissioner Chen asked, “What type of work are they doing and how can they achieve?” 153
Chair O’Nan replied, “Some of the agencies are doing good work and would like to do more. 154
For instance, SALA will be doing the same work but adding more clients and Adolescent 155
Counseling Service is seeing more teens. The applicants had new and innovative ideas that were 156
creative and wanted to see what the agencies could do collaborating with each other or reaching 157
a new demographic within the City.” 158
159
Commissioner Stone inquired, “Adolescent Counseling Service (ACS) wanted to fund an 160
additional counselor for one of the Palo Alto high schools. For instance, if they added $6,000 161
would there be a counselor at both high schools?” Chair O’Nan replied, “Adolescent Counseling 162
Service did request two counselors but that grant would have been quite large and that was a 163
difficult tradeoff in the decision making process. ACS received the highest pro rata increase and 164
HSRAP cannot fund the entire program. 165
166
DRAFT
Attachment C
5
Commissioner Alhassani commented that he echoed Chair O’Nan comments. What made it 167
difficult is that you see rising needs in many areas. Chair O’Nan stated that the Human Relations 168
Commission’s key tasks are to ensure that access to community resources such as food, nutrition, 169
education, and medicine; which is a really broad charter. It is difficult for the HRC to fulfill that 170
charter. The additional funding will give the agencies a lift and allow them to do a little more. 171
172
Commissioner Stone inquired as to whether the agencies knew their pro rata increase amount 173
when they submitted their requests. Chair O’Nan replied, “They knew about the pro rata 174
distribution but they did not know the amounts.” 175
176
Chair O’Nan invited the first speaker to present. 177
178
Philip Dah, InnVision Shelter Network (IVSN) 179
Mr. Dah thanked the Commission for all of their hard work. Dah reported that InnVision knows 180
the hunger issues are very vital to the community. Breaking Bread programs has been cut by two 181
days. They are partnering with Loaves and Fishes providing food for the host congregations so 182
the burden for supplying the food will go away, while still maintaining the same volunteers. 183
This program model is sustainable. He gave an update on services at the Opportunity Center. 184
Case managers are overwhelmed, but they are plugging away and making sure clients are having 185
their needs met and moving some clients into permanent supportive housing. Supervisor 186
Simitian has proposed a satellite Social Security office at the Opportunity Center for one or two 187
days a week. Another pilot program is working with the Second Harvest Food Bank to have a 188
satellite office at the Opportunity Center InnVision Shelter Network has made tremendous 189
steps. 190
191
Heiri Schuppisser, Momentum Mental Health. 192
Mr. Schuppisser thanked the Commission for the extra recommended funding. Momentum 193
networks with many agencies. Mr. Schuppisser discussed how he assesses his clients’ needs and 194
determines what agency would help meet their needs. It is all about the community and working 195
together. He stated that food is very important but housing is the main issue. He believes 196
landlords need to be more educated. There is less housing in Palo Alto because there were 160 197
single room occupancy units that were closed in Palo Alto. It is difficult to find housing in Palo 198
Alto. 199
200
Michelle Schroeder, Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) 201
Ms. Schroeder thanked the Commission for allowing her to speak. Ms. Schroeder explained that 202
SALA provides free legal services to seniors in Palo Alto and throughout the county. SALA’s 203
target clients are low income or at risk of abuse or lose of independence. They provide services 204
by appointment at Avenidas, Stevenson House or by home or telephone visits. They continue to 205
see many seniors in crisis. The demand far exceeds what they are able to provide. Ms. 206
Schroeder was very grateful for the recommendation for the additional funding and said that the 207
funding will allow them to expand their services and add an additional appointment day at 208
Avenidas every month. It will increase their capacity to provide more intensive levels for our 209
most needy of clients. 210
DRAFT
Attachment C
6
211
Barbara Sih Klausner, Dreamcatchers 212
Ms. Klausner stated that she is the new Executive Director with Dreamcatchers. Ms. Klausner 213
stated that Dreamcatchers is a young organization and is populated with young people. They 214
have Stanford under grads who are volunteers as afterschool tutors. Over 75 percent of our 215
students they serve are from Palo Alto. For the last six years, Dreamcatchers has had only one 216
full time employee, but they just hired a new second person. Dreamcatchers has a goal to bring 217
in some businesses (local professionals) and more high school students. Ms. Klausner thanked 218
the HRC for the opportunity to request additional funding, and she also wanted to take this 219
opportunity to let the Commission know that the money is important but the aspect of 220
community involvement is as well. She doesn’t have great connection in the business 221
community but wants to reach out and make connections with professionals in Palo Alto. 222
223
Sharon Hudson, Vista Center for the Blind or Visually Impaired 224
Ms. Hudson stated that she is very appreciative of the Human Relations Commission. Vista is a 225
new organization to HSRAP in 2014 but has been around for 78 years. Ms. Hudson stated that it 226
is a boost being supported by Vista’s home town. The Vista Center works with all age groups 227
for people who are losing or have lost their vision to help them maintain their independence. 228
The grant is for seniors and 80 percent of their clients are over the age of 60 and 70 percent of 229
our clients are over the age years of 80. When seniors lose their vision and do not have the 230
ability to read, drive or simple things as pour a cup of coffee or make a meal, it makes a big 231
difference to learn the tasks which allows them to stay in their own home. 232
233
Leif Erickson, Youth Community Service (YCS) 234
Mr. Erickson thanked the Commission for the recommendation to increase the grant with Youth 235
Community Service. Youth Community Service worked with over 1,200 students in service 236
learning. Youth Community Service is one of the HSRAP grantees who have had a significant 237
deficit for their Palo Alto programs and they went back to Palo Alto Unified School District to 238
negotiate a fee-based agreement to help bring down the deficit. Their full time person left the 239
position and the position was divided into two part-time positions. The recommendation is to 240
support a portion of the position working with deepening their programs with students. With 241
youth ages 11-14 they will be working with peer lead campaigns that identifies identity safety 242
issues, bulling, gender roles, where middle school age, whether at school or in the community, 243
feel disrespected and have a lack of confidence. At the high schools, YCS has student peer 244
leadership activities to address issues with decisions about health and behavior. 245
246
Chair O’Nan asked if the Commissioners had any comments or questions regarding the 247
recommended allocations. Commissioner Stone stated that the Commissioners did a great job by 248
the fact that we had a majority of the agencies here to talk to us and the agencies are very 249
thankful. Commissioner Chen stated that she was happy with the recommendations. 250
251
Commissioner Stone made a motion to approve the recommendation from the 252
subcommittee and Commissioner Chen seconded the motion. Ayes: Unanimous (4-0) 253
254
DRAFT
Attachment C
7
Ms. van der Zwaag stated that she will keep the Commissioners and applicants apprised of the 255
next step and what form it will go through the Council. Traditionally it has gone to Finance and 256
then to Council but she is working with leadership in the City for the exact process. 257
258
Chair O’Nan reminded the agencies that these are HRC recommendations but there may be some 259
changes by Council. 260
261
262
3. HRC Retreat planning – 263
264
Chair O’Nan explained that often the HRC Retreat is in August but since there was a HRC 265
meeting in August the Retreat will be in September. The following are items of interest that may 266
be included on the retreat agenda: 267
268
Revisit projects from last year 269
Plan for Study Session with Council 270
271
The following are areas of focus suggested to be considered for the HRC’s work plan for the 272
coming year. 273
274
Homeless Veterans 275
Immigration situation regarding children from South America 276
Chinese Integration/Outreach to Asian community 277
Mental health/depression -- Help support PSN 278
Civility Round Tables 279
HRC more visible in the community. 280
281
Ms. van der Zwaag asked the Commissioners if they would like the Retreat facilitated. Chair 282
O’Nan responded that the facilitator was helpful in the past, but she would rather have a 283
discussion on activities without a facilitator. Staff was requested to poll the commissioners for a 284
retreat date. 285
286
The September 11, 2014 Human Relations Commission meeting is cancelled. 287
288
4. Reports from Officials: 289
A. Commissioners Report: 290
Chair O’Nan stated that she viewed some amazing films developed by the Palo Alto Housing 291
Corporation for low income youth called Digital Leaders. The films were shown at the Palo 292
Alto Media Center. The students work for six weeks and then showed their films in August. 293
The films were amazing. One film made by two immigrants from Nigeria was very moving; 294
it was about class differences in Palo Alto. Chair O’Nan wants to have the filmmakers show 295
their film to the HRC. 296
297
DRAFT
Attachment C
8
Commissioner Chen had nine Chinese immigrants to her home to talk about involvement 298
within the City. They know so little on how the City operates, and they need to be involved 299
in community. 300
301
ANNOUNCEMENTS 302
None 303
CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS 304
305
ADJOURNMENT 306
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 307
308
309
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5044)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/22/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Blanket P.O. for Asphalt Concrete
Title: Request for Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Rock
Company in the Amount of $1,200,000 to be the Primary Supplier of Asphalt
Concrete Products for Both the Public Works and Utilities Departments Over
a Three Year Period from September 22, 2014 through September 21, 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, a blanket
purchase order with Granite Rock Company for asphalt concrete products for a
period of three years with funding in the amount not to exceed of $400,000
for the first year; and
2) Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to authorize, a
blanket purchase order for two additional years in the amount of $400,000
each year plus any increases based on the stone mining & quarry producer
price index (PPI).
Background
The City has three different work groups using asphalt concrete in the Public
Works and the Utilities Departments. The Public Works Department uses asphalt
concrete for performing repairs on damaged sections of roadway and also for
projects designed to improve the pavement condition index throughout the City.
The Utilities Department uses asphalt concrete to repair the streets after work
has been completed on underground services throughout the city.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 2
There are two primary methods of manufacturing asphalt concrete, either
through the use of a batch plant or a drum plant. A batch plant allows City crew’s
to specify what mix that they need for each unique job. A drum plant does not
have the ability to mix asphalt to order, and City crews are forced to use whatever
mix is being produced at the drum plant on any given day. The City requires that
the primary supplier of asphalt concrete produce their product in a batch plant, as
this affords the various crews the most flexibility when it comes to scheduling and
completing jobs throughout the City. Staff also requires that the plant be located
close enough to the City that traffic patterns and other conditions will not delay
the delivery of hot asphalt to the job sites throughout the City. With the increased
importance of the pavement condition index, using the best materials for the job
becomes much more important.
Bidding and Selection Process
A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for asphalt concrete and asphalt concrete products
was sent to three potential vendors. Bids were received from three qualified
vendors on August 5, 2014. Granite Rock Company was chosen by City staff to be
the City’s primary supplier of asphalt concrete and asphalt concrete products for
use on City streets and roadways. Of the three suppliers that responded to the
RFQ, only Granite Rock met all of the specific criteria required with a plant located
less than 10 miles away in Redwood City. Granite Rock has been the primary
supplier of asphalt concrete for the City for numerous years.
The results of RFQ #155219 verified that only one supplier met all of the
requirements to be the primary supplier of asphalt, and are shown here:
RFQ #155219 Results
Company Bidding Meets Criteria
to be Primary
Supplier of
Asphalt
Meets Criteria to
be Secondary
Supplier of
Asphalt
Cost
Granite Rock Yes Yes $443.610.00
Granite Construction No Yes $241,000.00
Reed & Graham No No $325,950.00
The criteria used to determine the primary supplier were the distance from the
Palo Alto Municipal Service Center, and the supplier’s ability to produce asphalt
City of Palo Alto Page 3
concrete in a batch plant. The criteria for the secondary supplier were similar,
except for the fact that staff will accept asphalt concrete from a secondary
supplier that is produced in a drum plant.
Since Granite Rock is the only supplier that is able to meet all of the requirements
to be the primary supplier of asphalt to the City, staff is recommending that
Council approve and authorize the blanket purchase order for asphalt concrete
with Granite Rock as the primary supplier. The City has previously had a blanket
purchase order with Granite Rock, and staff has always been impressed with the
quality of their asphalt concrete products. The fact that they are the closest batch
plant to the City allows the different works groups to specify which particular
product they will need that day, and have it back to the City in the timeliest
manner.
Resource Impact
Funding for the purchase of material under this purchase order is available in the
FY 2015 Public Works and Utility Department’s operating budget. Funding for
contract years two and three are contingent upon Council approval of each
department’s budget for each subsequent year.
Policy Implications
Authorization of the blanket order does not represent any change to the existing
policy.
Environmental Review
The blanket order being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions
laws and regulations. This purchase is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Sections 15061 and 15301(c)).
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
September 22, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Request for Authorization to Increase Compensation of Legal Services
Contract with Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, LLP by an Additional $250,000
For a Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Amount of $275,000 and Adoption
of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Increasing Funding by an
Additional $200,000
Dear Members of the Council:
The Office of the City Attorney requests the Council’s (A) authorization and approval to
increase compensation payable to, and amend the existing legal services contract with, the law
firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, LLP in the current amount of $25,000 by an additional $250,000
for a total not-to-exceed amount of $275,000 for services rendered relating to the transfer of
the Palo Alto Airport from the County of Santa Clara to the City of Palo Alto, and (B) adoption of
a budget amendment ordinance to fund the current and future legal services.
Over the past three years, Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, LLP has provided timely and sound
legal advice relating to the transfer of the Airport in the amount of approximately $55,000. In
May 2014, the demand for legal services substantially increased in order to permit the City to
complete the transfer of the Airport and obtain much needed federal grant funding for an
urgent runway/taxiways improvement project. These fees and costs are expected to reach
$275,000.
On September 16, the Finance Committee approved staff’s recommendation to
reappropriate $50,000 for legal services available in the Airport Fund from Fiscal Year 2014 to
Fiscal Year 2015 as part of the approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Reappropriation Requests to be
Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2015. The City Council approval of these reappropriation
requests is scheduled for October 20, 2014. In order to fund the remaining contract amount of
$200,000, our office recommends approval of the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance
(BAO). Since there is insufficient funding available in the Airport Fund, the BAO also includes a
recommendation to increase the Fiscal Year 2015 transfer from the General Fund to the Airport
Fund by $200,000 from $560,000 to $760,000. The increase of the transfer is offset with a
reduction to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. With this action, the cumulative
loan amount from the General Fund to the Airport Fund will be increased to $1,841,804.
Our Office is seeking the Council’s adoption of the attached Budget Amendment
Ordinance to provide additional appropriations for legal services to the Airport Enterprise Fund
Page 2
and the Council’s authorization and approval to amend the existing contract with Kaplan Kirsch
Rockwell, LLP, to increase total contract compensation to $275,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
BAO XXXX -Airport Legal Services (DOC)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
Attachment x
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE
AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND, INCREASING THE ALLOCATION
FOR CONTRACTUAL LEGAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$200,000, OFFSET BY AN INCREASE TO THE TRANSFER
FROM THE GENERAL FUND. IN THE GENERAL FUND, THE
TRANSFER TO THE AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND WILL BE
INCREASED BY $200,000, OFFSET BY A REDUCTION TO THE
BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B. The Palo Alto Airport has been operated by the County
of Santa Clara since 1967, on leased land from the City. In
the period between Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2014, the
General Fund has loaned the Airport Fund a cumulative total of
$1,081,804; and
C. The Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Budget included a loan
from the General Fund to the Airport Fund in the amount of
$560,000, increasing the cumulative loan amount to $1,641,804;
and
D. On August 11, 2014, the City completed the transfer of
sponsorship, operation and management of the Palo Alto
Airport, allowing for the City to qualify for federal funding
for an urgently needed runway improvement project; and
E. As the City was involved in discussions with the
County of Santa Clara, the Federal Aviation Administration,
the State Lands Commission, the City has relied upon the
outside legal counsel, in conjunction with in-house legal
support, due to specific expertise needed for the takeover;
and
F. It has been determined that an additional $200,000 is
required for legal services. This funding need, unanticipated
in the development of the FY 2015 Adopted Operating Budget,
will support expenses incurred in the months leading up to the
August 2014 Airport takeover, and allow for some minimal level
of outside counsel in the remaining months of the year; and
G. The additional loan of $200,000 will bring the total
Fiscal Year 2015 loan to $760,000 and the total loan amount
from the General Fund to the Airport Fund to $1,841,804.
SECTION 2. The net sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars is
hereby transferred from the General Fund to the Airport Fund,
increasing the total Fiscal Year 2015 loan amount to Seven
Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars. The allocation in the Airport
Fund for contractual services is hereby increased by Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars. In the General Fund, the transfer
to the Airport Fund is hereby increased by Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars, to a total of Seven Hundred and Sixty
Thousand Dollars. Offsetting the increased transfer to the
Airport Fund is a reduction to the Budget Stabilization
Reserve in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars.
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental
impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5061)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/22/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Various Municipal Code Changes reg. Fiscal Procedures and
ASD Roles and Responsibilities
Title: Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of Municipal Code Changes
Eliminating Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.145, titled “Consultation
with City Auditor” and Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.150
Titled “Department of Administrative Services” and Section 2.28.090, titled
“Lapse of Appropriations” to Clarify Roles for Reviewing Fiscal Procedures
and Roles of City Auditor and Administrative Services Department and Lapse
of Appropriations
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
The Finance Committee and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached
Ordinance (Attachment A) eliminating Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.145, titled
“Consultation with City Auditor” and amending Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.150 titled
“Department of Administrative Services” and section 2.28.090, titled “Lapse of Appropriations.”
Finance Committee Review and Recommendation
At the August 19 Finance Committee Meeting, the Finance Committee unanimously
recommended (3-0, Council Member Burt absent; see Attachment B for the Finance Committee
Minutes excerpt) various Municipal Code Changes regarding the review of fiscal procedures and
the role of the City Auditor, Administrative Services Department’s roles and responsibilities, and
lapse of appropriations as detailed in the attached report (Attachment C). The section below
summarizes the various Municipal Code changes as recommended for City Council approval by
the Finance Committee and staff.
Role of City Auditor regarding Review of Fiscal Procedures
The Government Auditing Standards state that auditors should not perform a non-audit service
that may create a threat to their independence, such as performing a service that could later be
significant to an audit (“self-review threat”). This includes performing activities that are
considered management responsibilities that do not pertain directly to the operations of the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
City Auditor’s Office. As currently stated, Municipal Code Section 2.05.145 infers that the Office
of the City Auditor would be approving the Department of Administrative Services’ finance and
accounting procedures. Since this section is in conflict with the current Government Auditing
Standards, staff recommends eliminating this section of the Municipal Code and amend Section
2.08.150 (a) (11) to still provide a role for the City Auditor’s potential review finance and
accounting procedures and internal controls, if requested by the Administrative Services
Department. Related to this Municipal Code change recommendation, staff also recommends
that the roles and responsibilities of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) include a
clarification that ASD coordinates the financial audit activities with the city auditor and external
auditors and that accounting controls should be established to meet generally accepted
accounting principles rather than standard audit requirements. Further, the recommended
changes include an amendment that ASD may seek advice from the City Auditor in developing
procedures, internal controls, and financial reporting requirements.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and its Director
The recommended ordinance change of Section 2.08.150 aligns the Municipal Code to the
current organizational structure by updating the division names within ASD and removing the
responsibilities for the management of the City’s information technology function. In Fiscal
Year 2012, the Information Technology (IT) Department was established. Prior to being its own
department, IT was a division of the Administrative Services Department.
Capital Budget Reappropriations
With the ordinance change, staff recommends that unexpended and unencumbered capital
project appropriations also have to be requested to be reappropriated if they are to be carried
over from one fiscal year to the next in order to finish a project. For example, per the current
Municipal Code, if a project was added as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Budget and
work did not commence, the funding would automatically carry forward to Fiscal Year 2015. If
that same project did not commence in Fiscal Year 2015 as well, and no funds were expended,
it would be deemed a “lapsed” appropriation, and in order for the funding to be carried
forward to Fiscal Year 2016, the City Council would need to approve a reappropriation request.
This Municipal Code change, if approved, would be implemented as part of the development of
the FY 2016 budget. With this change, staff will include all projects with budgeted
appropriations in the annual capital budget with a detailed project page and exception
reporting on the status of a project. Capital project appropriations at the end of FY 2014 will be
automatically reappropriated to FY 2015 per the current Municipal Code language.
Preliminary Reappropriations
Currently, the Municipal Code allows for preliminary authorization of reappropriations by
majority vote of the City Council from the unencumbered and unexpended balance of
appropriations of one fiscal year to the next fiscal year prior to the annual closing of the budget.
The preliminary authorization to reappropriate funds is sometimes recommended by staff due
to the urgency of continuing a project prior to the City Council approval of the closing of the
annual budget, which usually occurs six months into the new fiscal year. The annual closing of
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the budget occurs in conjunction with the approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR). With the annual closing of the budget, staff seeks final authorization for the
reappropriations including those which were approved on a preliminary basis. With the
recommended Municipal Code change, staff proposes to reduce this two-step process
(preliminary and final reappropriation authorization) to one step, to be effective as part of the
development of the FY 2016 budget. If staff brings forward reappropriation requests prior to
the closing of the annual budget, the City Council may authorize such reappropriations, if the
Director of Administrative Services certifies that sufficient unencumbered and unexpended
funds are available for reappropriation.
In addition, the Committee discussed the impact of the recommendation requiring City Council
approval to reappropriate funds for Capital projects on the Capital Budget document. As part
of redesigning the Capital Budget document and for significant changes in information
presented from previous Capital Budget documents only, staff plans to seek input from the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in fall. If applicable, after discussion with the
PTC, staff will return to the Finance Committee regarding potential Capital Budget document
changes.
Timeline
If the Municipal Code changes are approved by the City Council, staff will bring forward the
second reading of the ordinance for the October 20 City Council meeting and the ordinance will
go into effect 30 days after the second reading.
Resource Impact
With this recommended ordinance change, no significant resource impact is anticipated.
Environmantal
This is not a project under the California Environmental Impact Report.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Various Municipal Code Changes, draft ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: 08-19-14 Finiance Committe Minutes (DOC)
Attachment C: Various Municipal Code Changes, Finance Committee Aug. 19, 2014
(PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.28.090
(Lapse of Appropriation) of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures), Repealing Section
2.08.145 (Consultation with City Auditor) and Amending Section 2.08.150
(Department of Administrative Services) of Section 2.08 (Officers and
Departments) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2.28.090 Lapse of appropriations of Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
2.28.090 Lapse of appropriations.
The unencumbered balance of appropriations shall lapse at the close of the fiscal year.
Reappropriations may be authorized by majority vote of the city council from the
unencumbered balance of the noncapital appropriations of one fiscal year to the next fiscal
year on a preliminary basis as of the beginning of the new fiscal year before the approval of the
budget closing ordinance as long as the Director of Administrative Services certifies that
sufficient funds are available to be carried forward to the next fiscal year. Final authorization
shall be provided by the city council at the same time as it approves the budget closing
ordinance. However, unless amended by the council, the appropriations of capital
improvement funds for project expenditures shall continue in full force and effect until the
purpose for which each was made has been accomplished or abandoned. The purpose of any
capital appropriation shall be deemed abandoned if two years pass without any expenditure
from the appropriation.
SECTION 2. Section 2.08.145 Consultation with the City Auditor of Chapter 2.08 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety.
The finance and accounting procedures of the city, and the reporting thereof, shall be
established and maintained after consultation with the city auditor.
SECTION 3. Section 2.08.150 Department of Administrative Services of Chapter 2.08
(Officers and Departments) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Page 1
140811 jb 0131213
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
2.08.150 Department of administrative services.
(a) The department of administrative services shall be under the control of a director of
administrative services (Chief Financial Officer (CFO)) who shall be accountable to the city
manager. The duties of the director of administrative services (CFO) shall be as follows:
……
(11) To coordinate audit activities with the city auditor and external auditors, to coordinate
internal audits and to establish accounting controls in accordance with standard audit
requirements. To establish and maintain finance and accounting procedures and internal
controls of the city including financial reporting requirements and to coordinate financial audit
activities with the city auditor and external auditors in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. The department may seek advice from the city auditor in developing
those procedures, internal controls, and financial reporting requirements.
……
(16) To plan and maintain the city's information systems to ensure that the automated systems,
including the computer and telecommunications systems, meet the city's short and long-term
goals;
……
(18)
(b) For organizational purposes, the department of administrative services shall consist of the
following divisions: finance (which includes Purchasing, Treasury, and Accounting), Real Estate,
Stores, Printing and Mailing, and Office of Management and Budget. budget and management
analysis, and information resources.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption of this
ordinance.
Page 2
140811 jb 0131213
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Page 3
140811 jb 0131213
Attachment A
Attachment B
Page 1 of 12
Regular Meeting
August 19, 2014
Chairperson Berman called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman (Chair), Holman, Kniss
Absent: Burt
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Municipal Code Changes regarding Review of Fiscal Procedures and
Role of City Auditor, Administrative Services Department's Roles and
Responsibilities, and Lapse of Appropriations.
Walter Rossmann, Budget Director, suggested cleanup changes in the
Administrative Services Department’s (ASD) roles and responsibilities as
related to finance and accounting procedures and internal controls as well as
a change to the Municipal Code regarding the lapse of appropriations for
Capital project appropriation and the roles and responsibilities of the City
Auditor’s Office regarding the review of internal controls. The current code
stipulates that the City Auditor review changes to finance and accounting
procedures as well as internal controls. This code section was adopted in
the early 1990s, but conflicts with current Auditing Standards. Staff
requested to remove this section from the Municipal Code and to make
recommended changes in the ASD section of the Municipal Code. The
Department of Administrative Services is responsible for establishing and
maintaining the finance accounting procedures and internal controls,
coordinating financial auditing activities with the external and internal
auditors. Staff requested that the Municipal Code be aligned with current
organizational structure, which meant renaming divisions within ASD such as
Real Estate and Stores Printing and Mailing and removing the City
information technology function from ASD’s responsibility. The third
recommended change dealt with lapse of capital budget appropriations.
Currently, the Municipal Code requires that operating budget appropriations
be first approved preliminarily, which usually happens in August or
FINAL MINUTES
Page 2 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
September by the Finance Committee (Committee), and then by the full
Council. When Staff brings forward recommendations regarding the closing
of the annual budget, reappropriations are finally approved, which usually in
January or February. Since there is a big time lag from the time that funds
are approved for reappropriation versus the need to use the funds – usually
for ongoing work - staff asked that this two-step process be removed and
made into a one-step process, as long as the Chief Financial Director
certifies that funds are available for re-appropriation; it was important for
the Council to know that the funds were available before reappropriations
are approved. The second piece dealt with Capital Budget re-appropriations.
The Municipal Code states that City Council approval for reappropriation of
capital project funds is only necessary if, after two years of approval of a
Capital Project, staff had not spent any funds on a project. During the
Committee Hearings in May 2014, the Council asked about projects that
were approved in previous budget years and wanted to know where to find
those projects in the Budget document. There were about 140 projects that
were not found because Staff followed the Municipal Code and did not
display those projects in the Capital Budget document. Staff thought it was
important to update the Council and the Community about the status of
these projects. As a result, Staff was asking to change the Municipal Code
so they were able to change the way the Capital Budget was presented.
This meant Staff would show additional projects that were still active and
ongoing in the Capital Budget document, increasing the pages in the Capital
Budget document. Staff was also considering changing and redesigning the
Budget document and planned to discuss such changes with the Planning &
Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC is responsible to review whether
the Capital Budget is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Once
Staff discussed potential changes with the PTC, they would come back to the
Committee with the potential changes. Some changes were: 1) Indicating
when a project was initially approved; and 2) indicating when a project
started. Staff expected to come back to the Committee in October or early
November 2014. These changes were in line with Best Practices as
identified by the Government Finance Officers Association.
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor said she provided input regarding the
changes presented by Budget Staff related to City Auditor responsibilities.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman
to recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance eliminating Palo
Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.145, titled “Consultation with City Auditor”
and amending Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.150 titled “Department
of Administrative Services” and section 2.28.090, titled “Lapse of
Appropriations.”
FINAL MINUTES
Page 3 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
Vice Mayor Kniss recalled that there was a difference between a Financial
Audit and a Management Audit. She felt the changes delineated the roles of
these audits.
Ms. Richardson clarified that there were two terms: 1) financial audit; and 2)
performance audit. Financial audits referred to the external portion of
financial statements; performance audits dealt with a broad scope of audits,
including some financial aspects, but was not thought of in the same way as
a financial audit.
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services
Department remarked that there were two aspects to following current
projects: 1) displaying the status of projects, what was being done with
them; and 2) what was not being done. Right now, Staff was able to show
Council what was outstanding, but were not showing a lot of detail. For
example, making this change allowed Council to ask questions about
projects that were approved two years ago, but were not complete. This put
more accountability on Departments in front of the Council and the
community.
Vice Mayor Kniss discussed companies that performed management audits,
which were audits performed when companies needed to delete a position or
do a reorganization.
Jim Keene, City Manager remarked that the City brought in outside firms to
support them in a decision at times. Management thought of the City
Auditor as a resource for performance audits. He thought the biggest issue
was the potential for a difference of interpretation in a performance or
management audit and said that was why the relationship of the Auditor and
the organization was important; they made sure that the Council was getting
the benefit of the most important things being attended to, and that Staff
was using their resources wisely.
Vice Mayor Kniss agreed and said there were times that the Auditor and
Management did not agree.
Council Member Holman suggested identifying the year that the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) was approved because it provided more
transparency, otherwise projects get lost. She inquired whether Staff was
going to remove some of the photos in the Budget books to save pages.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 4 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
Mr. Rossmann clarified that Staff was thinking of displaying less information
for projects in the out-years of the five-year Capital Plan because staff
wanted to refine information until projects were ready for Budget approval.
Council Member Holman thought having some indication of potential costs
was good. She suggested information be kept for all projects such as
Impact Analysis and the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan; otherwise it
was difficult to see why costs were being proposed.
Mr. Rossmann agreed to the continued relationship to the Comprehensive
Plan in relation to the Municipal Code and said having these facts in the
Budget book was necessary for PTC review of the CIP.
Council Member Holman asked for clarification.
Mr. Rossmann answered that he was referring to the Impact Analysis.
Council Member Holman noted she was talking about Environmental Design
Elements and the Operating Budget; it was not expected to have numbers in
the chart at the beginning of the Budget books. She thought it was good to
eliminate what board or commissions were anticipated to review a project.
For example, if there was something that had to do with the Baylands, the
Parks and Recreation Commission needed to review that. Eliminating the
photos in the Budget book so the Expenditure Chart could be included on the
same page was doable. As thing carried forward to the second stage, it was
good to have these things in place, so the next person who picked the book
up would know what to anticipate. She questioned whether the full PTC
would be reviewing the CIP.
Mr. Rossmann remarked that was Staff’s intention, for the entire PTC to
review and provide input regarding potential changes to the Capital Budget
document, and then come back to the Committee for any potential changes.
Council Member Holman inquired whether that would be heard by the full
PTC.
Mr. Rossmann hoped that would be the case. Staff had not contacted the
Chair but planned to go before them in August, 2014.
Chair Berman noted that the changes were positive from a process and
transparency standpoint. He inquired about the Operating Budget Re-
FINAL MINUTES
Page 5 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
appropriation two-step process that was in place now, the first step
occurring in August/September and the second step occurring in
December/January and the desire to fold that into a one-step process; he
wanted to know when that was expected to take place.
Mr. Rossmann answered that was expected to take place in September.
August was the month Staff was closing out all funds and that the external
auditor is scheduled to review the numbers in September and October. By
that the time Staff had reasonable understanding for the Chief Financial
Officer to certify the funds for re-appropriation.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Burt absent
2. Microenterprise Assistance Program - Update and Discussion Regarding
the Proposed FY 2015 Budget and Program.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director remarked that the Microenterprise
Assistance Program was good because it demonstrated that innovation and
entrepreneurial qualities are not limited by income level. The program ran
as a pilot for the past year and is now proposed for expansion. Staff wanted
to discuss the future of the program.
Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner recalled that the Budget for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was brought before
the Finance Committee (Committee) in May, 2014. As part of that Budget,
Staff requested an additional $150,000 for the second year of the program.
In April, 2014 Staff said they wanted use the balance of the funds from
Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and add that to the Budget for FY 2015. At that time,
the Committee asked for clarification on how those funds were going to be
spent. Over the last few months Staff met with the community partners, the
Grant Review Committee and their participants, applicants that received
funding, applicants that did not make the eligibility list, and applicants that
submitted an application but did not receive funding. There was a lot of
feedback from those people. Staff wanted to share with the Committee the
funds that were expended or committed, because the Grants were on a
reimbursement term and the information presented was the committed
amount and did not show exactly what was expended. The balance of the
Budget for FY 2014 was $83,010, with the total Budget for FY 2015 of
$233,000. Staff proposed to use that funding for personnel costs, supplies
and printing, technical assistance, insurance requirements, and direct grants
of $170,000. A program improvement was: extending outreach efforts to a
broader community. In the pilot phase Staff focused on the existing
FINAL MINUTES
Page 6 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
partnerships at only two of the site locations with Downtown Streets Team
and Palo Alto Housing Corp. Part of the implementation for FY 2015 was to
do more outreach at a wider audience, as long as they qualified.
Council Member Holman mentioned small grants and wanted to know the
return on those and whether the Staff time on those grants were reduced;
she wanted to know what an applicant could do with that amount of money.
Ms. Hernandez replied that Staff was struggling with the same question.
The community partners wanted a minimum grant amount of $500 but Staff
did not add that to the recommendations because the General Liability
Insurance cost that much alone; Staff was looking at the real benefit. One
grant amount was for $2,000 and Staff was looking at this grantee as an
example of what could be done with $2,000. The amount of Staff time spent
on this grantee was little because she knew what she wanted, compared
with a grantee that had a higher grant amount, which required more Staff
time; Staff time was dependent on the nature of the business and the level
of readiness. As a result, Staff wanted to establish an eligibility list, with a
tailor training program for the individual, provided through the program.
This was suggested to reduce Staff time, preparing the grantee to receive
the funds.
Council Member Holman did not remember reading about a readiness
threshold in the Staff Report. She questioned how it was decided that
grants which grants were of the most benefit for time and finances.
Ms. Hernandez answered that an interview process was instituted to one way
grasp what the business model was and to gain a better understanding of
how the City could help; it was an assessment of their readiness. In the
interview the applicant had to answer questions that determined their level
of readiness and each question was scored, a higher score meant a higher
level of readiness.
Council Member Holman wondered if people in the community were helping
with the interview process.
Ms. Hernandez remarked that the Grant Review Committee reviewed the
applications.
Council Member Holman inquired about applicants that had an existing
business and wanted to upgrade their business with a grant; was that
community being reached out to.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 7 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
Ms. Hernandez replied yes and explained that Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) had thresholds for businesses that qualified as a micro-
enterprise. For example, some HUD regulations included having five or
fewer employees, or requiring that either the business owner or an
employee be a low or moderate income individual. Staff had not explored
this aspect but were able to work with the Economic Manager broaden their
outreach; they were able to target businesses that were eligible.
Council Member Holman wanted to target those individuals because there
was a need to support local businesses on California Avenue and downtown,
and a lot of businesses that fit the criterion.
Jim Keene, City Manager inquired whether low income individuals would be
hired.
Council Member Holman added that it was possible to have a low income
employee hired to satisfy the HUD requirement.
Ms. Hernandez remarked that if the individual was a part-time employee,
they needed to demonstrate how a full time position was going to be
created; either a part-time position needed to be created or a full-time
position from a part-time position needed to be created.
Council Member Holman said there was discussion in the Staff Report about
using this program to engage the community with the hopes that the
community would absorb the program, causing the grantee to no longer
require assistance. She wanted to know if there was a non-profit
organization that might fit this purpose, like the Downtown Streets Team.
Ms. Hernandez replied that Staff had not given the program that level
attention, in identifying an organization. The Downtown Streets Team did
not have the capacity. This fall, Staff planned on issuing a notice of funding
availability for the next two-year funding cycle for CDBG, as well as
launching the Consolidated Plan that was required by HUD. Regarding the
Consolidated Plan, Staff needed to identify the funding needed for the next
five years, including identifying organizations.
Council Member Holman remarked on leveraging, having the funds matched
by some entity to expand the program.
Ms. Hernandez relayed that a goal was to transition the program out of City
hands. When the Grant Review Committee was launched, many people
FINAL MINUTES
Page 8 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
wanted to donate money but the program was not set to accept donations
because of regulations.
Council Member Holman inquired whether it was possible for an entity to
receive donations by not going through the City directly.
Ms. Hernandez relayed that this caused policy issues with the City.
Council Member Holman clarified that she was asking whether recipients
could receive direct donations now.
Ms. Hernandez relayed that the grant agreements did not allow that; there
was a clause about program income because the programs grew through the
funding that the City provided them. After the one year agreement, if there
was a partnership with a private donation or sector, they would no longer
have to report that income to the City.
Ms. Gitelman said the program was audited regularly. Staff was trying to
design a program that provided funding for a year, while afterward having it
supported with donations or by the use of the grantees business idea.
Council Member Holman wanted to enhance the program and said it was
helpful to know the program guidelines.
Ms. Hernandez stated that one objective was to demonstrate that CDBG
program in different ways that were not yet explored, not just by Palo Alto,
but by other municipalities in Santa Clara County. This funding was used as
leverage for an opportunity, and as an individual development arrangement
for youth to save to college. Cities in California did not use the fund for that,
but others have.
Vice Mayor Kniss quoted from previous minutes about CDBG funding where
a Council Member questioned whether this program was a wise investment,
given the limited number of people that were served. She wanted to follow
up on this comment.
Ms. Gitelman replied that the outcome of that Council discussion was a
recommendation that Staff check-in with the Committee.
Vice Mayor Kniss noted that in Attachment A of the Staff Report there was
indication of what the program outcome was; she wanted to know the
FINAL MINUTES
Page 9 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
outcome of the project from the first year.
Ms. Hernandez directed the Vice Mayor to the Packet for this Committee
meeting.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired what the results were of the program; money was
given to a hair stylist, she wanted to know what happened.
Ms. Hernandez explained that staff has reimbursed only one grantee so far,
so there are not final results.
Vice Mayor Kniss confirmed that there were no results so far and inquired
about best practices. She wanted to know if this program came from any of
the micro-programs that went to other countries, like Africa, that were
successful and had support from many non-profits in the United States. She
questioned whether this program was based off those micro-programs, could
they expand, be successful, and could they support themselves. She was
interested in the end result because all the programs were result oriented.
Ms. Gitelman mentioned that Staff did not have the results of the whole
program but the program allowed for counsel sessions with the grantees,
which means there have been some interim achievements. For example,
individuals developed business plans, worked with their mentors, and their
understanding of what was involved in operating a business increased
dramatically. The intention was to grow that program, make sure that more
people apply, and get the benefit of that counsel.
Vice Mayor Kniss remarked that the people learned better in groups, and
there was great value in that level of support. She asked if there was going
to be quarterly reports.
Ms. Hernandez replied yes and added that the grantees liked sharing their
successes with Staff.
Ms. Gitelman thought it was also a good experience for the mentors to meet
with the grantees.
Vice Mayor Kniss agreed that it was a great way for them to share their
expertise.
Chair Berman relayed that there were a lot of the people in the community
FINAL MINUTES
Page 10 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
with experience and knowledge; there was a lot of human capital in place of
financial capital. He wanted to know how a hair stylist spent $15,000 and
wanted to see that proposal.
Ms. Hernandez answered that the proposal for the hair stylist included rent
for the space. She worked part-time now for a solon but was not allowed to
have her own clients and was required to provide all supplies for her own
station. For example, she needed to pay for any machines she would need.
Recently she had to purchase a perm machine; her mentor helped her to
identify the exact supplies she needed. She requested some funding for the
clothing that she has to wear, like a uniform.
Chair Berman inquired about the grantee that required eight hours a week of
Staff time.
Ms. Hernandez noted that the grantees sometimes needed security,
someone to listen to them, and comfort in knowing that they were going in
the right direction.
Chair Berman questioned whether this was a one year grant or were people
able to re-apply for additional funds the following year.
Ms. Hernandez remarked that each individual was capped at $15,000. If a
grantee applied for $4,000 the first year, they would be eligible for more if
the funding was available; they would have to demonstrate how the funds
helped them establish their business and what they needed the additional
funding for.
Chair Berman was concerned about the growth of the program because the
program grew from one grantee to 25 grantees in one year and there was
no evidence of the outcome from the previous year. Regarding the grant, he
assumed Staff was not going to ask for $233,000 the next year. He wanted
to know if Staff was thinking about how they were going to scale back when
they did not have the additional funds that rolled over from FY 2013 and
how they were going to handle that.
Ms. Hernandez said that was taken into consideration. When Staff launched
the program, they received 26 applications, from the 26, only 11 were
identified as potential candidates, and of the 11, only seven submitted an
application; each had a different type of technical assistance.
Chair Berman confirmed that Staff factored in that there was less money
FINAL MINUTES
Page 11 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
next year.
Ms. Hernandez said yes.
Council Member Holman requested that when this Item came to Council that
the outcomes be described. She wanted to see this program expanded to
local businesses and inquired whether Staff wanted a Motion.
Ms. Gitelman remarked that taking the suggestions and adding it to the Staff
Report would be fine.
Vice Mayor Kniss added that this information could be added to the quarterly
reports so the Council was able to know what was going on.
Chair Berman recalled that Staff was able to supply one-pagers on each of
the applicants.
Ms. Hernandez responded yes.
Chair Berman agreed that seeing results and Council updates.
Ms. Hernandez announced that a grantee received her membership to the
Chamber of Commerce.
Council Member Holman suggested having these people invited to the
Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Kniss thought it was great for a community to know that
something quite different was happening. This was good press, and agreed
to get the word out, letting people know about it.
Council Member Holman relayed that there was talk in the Staff Report
about reaching out and working with the grant review community and the
business community; she wanted to know how Staff were reaching out,
specifically, what were they doing; more detail was going to be more helpful.
Chair Berman inquired whether there was a social media element to the
strategy. A lot of entrepreneurial people were using social media.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 12 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Final Minutes 8/19/2014
Future Meetings and Agendas
Chair Berman said the next meeting was September 16, 2014.
Council Member Holman was not sure if she was available on that date.
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer and Director Administrative Services said it
was the normally scheduled meeting on the third Tuesday of each month.
There was a request for the Finance Committee (Committee) to attend the
Inventory Audit; the meeting was the same night as the Inventory Audit
update.
Council Member Holman noted that feedback from the City Manager on the
Animal Shelter was not scheduled for Future Meetings.
Jim Keene, City Manager said Staff was in the process of working on that,
they were working with different groups that were involved before they
came back to the Committee.
Mr. Perez noted that on October 7, 2014 the Committee was going to
discuss the “Use of Gas Cap and Trade Compliance Revenue”.
Vice Mayor Kniss noted that people of the community suggested ideas for
future Agenda’s for the Committee; she thought that would be interesting.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:06 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4898)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/19/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Various Municipal Code Changes reg. Fiscal Procedures and
ASD Roles and Responsibilities
Title: Municipal Code Changes regarding Review of Fiscal Procedures and
Role of City Auditor, Administrative Services Department's Roles and
Responsibilities, and Lapse of Appropriations
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommended Motion
The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance
(Attachment A) eliminating Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.145, titled “Consultation with
City Auditor” and amending Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.08.150 titled “Department of
Administrative Services” and section 2.28.090, titled “Lapse of Appropriations.”
Executive Summary
With this report, staff recommends various Municipal Code changes to clarify the role of the
City Auditor in alignment with auditing standards regarding the review of fiscal procedures,
internal controls, and financial reporting requirements; aligns the roles and responsibilities of
the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and ASD Director to the current organizational
structure; and recommends that any appropriations require City Council approval for being
carried forward to the next fiscal year.
Background
This section of the report describes the various Municipal Code sections recommended for
elimination or amendment.
Description of existing Municipal Code Section 2.08.145 “Consultation with the City Auditor”
This section was added to Chapter 2.08 of the Municipal Code titled “Officers and
Departments” in 1995. It directs that any finance and accounting procedures of the city, and
the reporting thereof, shall be established and maintained after consultation with the city
auditor. Since the adoption of the ordinance, the standards guiding the work of the City
Auditor have changed significantly, which has created a conflict of this section with updated
auditing standards.
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Description of existing Municipal Code Section 2.08.150 “Department of Administrative
Services”
This section describes the roles and responsibilities of the Administrative Services Department
and the Administrative Services Director. Since the adoption of this ordinance, the
organizational structure of the Administrative Services Department has changed as approved
through the annual budget processes.
Description of existing Municipal Code Section 2.28.090 “Lapse of appropriations”
The City Council approves appropriations at the department level for General Fund funded
departments, at the fund level for all funds except the General Fund, and at the project level for
Capital Improvement Fund projects. Municipal Code Section 2.28.090, titled “Lapse of
appropriations”, stipulates that the unencumbered balance of department and fund
appropriations shall lapse at the close of the fiscal year. Therefore, when staff is not able to
undertake a certain project or expend funds and requests to continue the project with the
dedicated funds, a limited number of operating budget reappropriations are brought forward
for Finance Committee and City Council consideration and approval. However, Capital project
appropriations are automatically carried forward by one fiscal year even when no funds are
expended, and thereafter, if some portion of the funds are expended, until the project is
completed.
Further, the same municipal code section states that reappropriations may be authorized by
majority vote of the city council from the unencumbered balance of the noncapital
appropriations of one fiscal year to the next fiscal year on a preliminary basis as of the
beginning of the new fiscal year. Final authorization shall be provided by the city council at the
same time as it approves the budget closing ordinance.
During the recent Finance Committee budget hearings, staff discussed bringing forward
changes to this Municipal Code section to align the treatment of capital budget appropriations
with operating budget appropriations. Further, staff seeks Committee approval to streamline
the process for annual reappropriations.
Discussion
This section of the report outlines the recommended changes to the Municipal Code as detailed
in the attached ordinance (Attachment A) regarding the role of the City Auditor as it pertains to
the review of fiscal procedures; aligning the roles and responsibilities of the Administrative
Services Department to the current organizational structure; as well as capital budget
reappropriations and preliminary approval of reappropriations.
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Role of City Auditor regarding Review of Fiscal Procedures
The Government Auditing Standards state that auditors should not perform a non-audit service
that may create a threat to their independence, such as performing a service that could later be
significant to an audit (“self-review threat”). This includes performing activities that are
considered management responsibilities that do not pertain directly to the operations of the
City Auditor’s Office. Specific examples provided as management responsibilities that would
impair an auditor’s independence are setting policies; accepting responsibility for designing,
implementing, or maintaining internal controls; and providing services that are intended to be
used as management’s primary basis for making decisions. As currently stated, Municipal Code
Section 2.05.145 infers that the Office of the City Auditor would be approving the Department
of Administrative Services’ finance and accounting procedures. Since this section is in conflict
with the current Government Auditing Standards, staff recommends eliminating this section of
the Municipal Code and amend Section 2.08.150 (a) (11) to still provide a role for the City
Auditor’s potential review finance and accounting procedures and internal controls, if
requested by the Administrative Services Department.
Section 2.08.150 (a) (11):
The recommended changes to this section of the roles and responsibilities of the Administrative
Services Department (ASD) include a clarification that ASD coordinates only the financial audit
activities with the city auditor and external auditors and that accounting controls should be
established to meet generally accepted accounting principles rather than standard audit
requirements. The external auditors, as part of their audit, confirm that the procedures are
established in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Further, the
recommended changes include an amendment that ASD may seek advice from the City Auditor
in developing procedures, internal controls, and financial reporting requirements.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and its Director
The recommended ordinance change of Section 2.08.150 aligns the Municipal Code to the
current organizational structure by updating the division names within ASD and removing the
responsibilities for the management of the City’s information technology function. In Fiscal
Year 2012, the Information Technology (IT) Department was established. Prior to being its own
department, IT was a division of the Administrative Services Department.
Capital Budget Reappropriations
With the ordinance change, staff recommends that unexpended and unencumbered capital
project appropriations also have to be requested to be reappropriated if they are to be carried
over from one fiscal year to the next in order to finish the project. For example, per the current
Municipal Code, if a project was added as part of the Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Budget and
work did not commence, the funding would automatically carry forward to Fiscal Year 2015. If
that same project did not commence in Fiscal Year 2015 as well, and no funds were expended,
it would be deemed a “lapsed” appropriation, and in order for the funding to be carried
forward to Fiscal Year 2016, the City Council would need to approve a reappropriation request.
This change would be implemented as part of the development of the FY 2016 budget. Capital
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto Page 4
project appropriations at the end of FY 2014 will be automatically reappropriated to FY 2015
per the current Municipal Code language.
Section 2.28.090:
With the ordinance change recommended as part of this report, a reappropriation request
would be required to carry the funds over to Fiscal Year 2015, due to the elimination of the
automatic reappropriations. In the example of the Fiscal Year 2014 project for which work did
not commence, the reappropriation could be requested as part of the Fiscal Year 2015
Proposed Capital Budget or through reappropriation requests during Fiscal Year 2015 as part of
or before closing the Fiscal Year 2014 budget.
With this change, staff will include all projects with budgeted appropriations in the annual
capital budget with a detailed project page and exception reporting on the status of a project.
Additionally, with the implementation of the new budget system, staff intends to provide the
City Council with additional information in the annual capital budgets. These enhancements
include more comprehensive expenditure information for multi-year capital projects, including
the total project costs, prior year expenditures, current year estimates, and estimated
expenditures falling outside the five year window of the capital improvement program, and
changes from the prior year. Further, it is anticipated that the annual capital budgets will
include overviews of each capital program, such as the Streets and Sidewalks Capital program
or the Electric Fund Capital program.
This recommended municipal code change, however, will add a significant number of project
pages to the Capital Budget. If this recommended municipal code change had been in place for
the Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Capital budget, another 148 projects would have been described
with a detailed project page. Therefore, staff also proposes to provide only description and
justification information for future projects (Year 2 to Year 5 of the five-year Capital
Improvement Plan) versus a detailed project page. Future projects are defined as projects for
which no funds are appropriated, since they are planned to be started between the second and
fifth year of the five-year capital project plan. With this change, 43 projects that had a detailed
project page in the Fiscal year 2015 Proposed Capital budget would no longer have a page, but
would be highlighted with a description and justification information. When these projects
become part of the first year of the five-year Capital Improvement Plan, staff will refine the
cost, scope, and feasibility of these projects and include a project detail page.
Preliminary Reappropriations
Currently, the Municipal Code allows for preliminary authorization of reappropriations by
majority vote of the City Council from the unencumbered and unexpended balance of
appropriations of one fiscal year to the next fiscal year prior to the annual closing of the budget.
The preliminary authorization to reappropriate funds is sometimes recommended by staff due
to the urgency of continuing a project prior to the City Council approval of the closing of the
annual budget, which usually occurs six months into the new fiscal year. The annual closing of
the budget occurs in conjunction with the approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Report (CAFR). Then, with the annual closing of the budget, staff seeks final authorization for
the reappropriations including those which were approved on a preliminary basis.
Section 2.28.090:
With the recommended Municipal Code change, staff proposes to reduce this two-step process
(preliminary and final reappropriation authorization) to one step, to be effective as part of the
development of the FY 2016 budget. If staff brings forward reappropriation requests prior to
the closing of the annual budget, the City Council may authorize such reappropriations, if the
Director of Administrative Services certifies that sufficient unencumbered and unexpended
funds are available for reappropriation.
Timeline
If the Finance Committee approves this Municipal Code change, then staff intends to bring
forward the ordinance in September 2014 for City Council consideration.
Resource Impact
With this recommended ordinance change, no resource impact is anticipated.
Environmantal
This is not a project under the California Environmental Impact Report.
Attachments:
Attachment A: ORD Amending Section 2.28 and 2.08 of PAMC (PDF)
Attachment C
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.28.090
(Lapse of Appropriation) of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures), Repealing Section
2.08.145 (Consultation with City Auditor) and Amending Section 2.08.150
(Department of Administrative Services) of Section 2.08 (Officers and
Departments) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2.28.090 Lapse of appropriations of Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
2.28.090 Lapse of appropriations.
The unencumbered balance of appropriations shall lapse at the close of the fiscal year.
Reappropriations may be authorized by majority vote of the city council from the
unencumbered balance of the noncapital appropriations of one fiscal year to the next fiscal
year on a preliminary basis as of the beginning of the new fiscal year before the approval of the
budget closing ordinance as long as the Director of Administrative Services certifies that
sufficient funds are available to be carried forward to the next fiscal year. Final authorization
shall be provided by the city council at the same time as it approves the budget closing
ordinance. However, unless amended by the council, the appropriations of capital
improvement funds for project expenditures shall continue in full force and effect until the
purpose for which each was made has been accomplished or abandoned. The purpose of any
capital appropriation shall be deemed abandoned if two years pass without any expenditure
from the appropriation.
SECTION 2. Section 2.08.145 Consultation with the City Auditor of Chapter 2.08 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety.
The finance and accounting procedures of the city, and the reporting thereof, shall be
established and maintained after consultation with the city auditor.
SECTION 3. Section 2.08.150 Department of Administrative Services of Chapter 2.08
(Officers and Departments) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Page 1
140811 jb 0131213
Attachment C
NOT YET APPROVED
2.08.150 Department of administrative services.
(a) The department of administrative services shall be under the control of a director of
administrative services (Chief Financial Officer (CFO)) who shall be accountable to the city
manager. The duties of the director of administrative services (CFO) shall be as follows:
……
(11) To coordinate audit activities with the city auditor and external auditors, to coordinate
internal audits and to establish accounting controls in accordance with standard audit
requirements. To establish and maintain finance and accounting procedures and internal
controls of the city including financial reporting requirements and to coordinate financial audit
activities with the city auditor and external auditors in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. The department may seek advice from the city auditor in developing
those procedures, internal controls, and financial reporting requirements.
……
(16) To plan and maintain the city's information systems to ensure that the automated systems,
including the computer and telecommunications systems, meet the city's short and long-term
goals;
……
(18)
(b) For organizational purposes, the department of administrative services shall consist of the
following divisions: finance (which includes Purchasing, Treasury, and Accounting), Real Estate,
Stores, Printing and Mailing, and Office of Management and Budget. budget and management
analysis, and information resources.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption of this
ordinance.
Page 2
140811 jb 0131213
Attachment C
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Page 3
140811 jb 0131213
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5098)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/22/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Business Registry
Title: Council Review of Draft Ordinance Creating a Business Registry; Policy
Direction Regarding Business Registry Questionnaire and Update on Staff's
Implementation Plan
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Review and provide comments on the draft Ordinance creating a business registry for
the City of Palo Alto;
2. Approve the staff approach to engage our software vendor, Accela, for set-up, licensing
and implementation costs related to the creation of a business registry certificate
program (BRC) and for the City to engage Truepoint Solutions for pre and post go-live
software staffing augmentation needs;
3. Direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for Fiscal
Year 2015 for the BRC software start-up costs, including program development and
outreach for the remainder of the fiscal year.
4. Review and provide policy direction on the BRC Questionnaire.
Background
Essential Data
The need for the City to obtain real data behind employment in Palo Alto business districts is
clear. With such data, the City can begin to measure employment trends, business growth and
activity throughout the City in a cohesive and coordinated manner. Its availability is vital for
developing and measuring the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs,
and other transportation planning efforts. There are several other potentially valuable uses for
the data including:
Land use decisions/ planning
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Economic development
Public safety/ emergency response
Emergency/ disaster preparedness
Regional Water Quality Control Plant compliance
Business outreach
Integration with other city data
Coordination of staff processes/ improvements to business experiences
Council Direction
On February 24, 2014, the Council unanimously approved a Council Colleague’s Memo (See
Attachment D) directing staff to return to Council in short order with a plan for a business
registry program that is online, simple to use, and cost recovery in nature (i.e. not meant to
generate additional revenue for the City). The Council specifically pointed out the need for the
information especially as it relates to “number of employees, types of businesses, and other
information that would be valuable for effective planning purpose”.
On April 29, 2014, Council directed Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to
implement an annual Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full
cost-recovery program with a focus on businesses occupying or planning to occupy commercial
spaces within Palo Alto. Staff was further directed (in phase one) to create an online-based BRC
program through technology incorporated within the City’s existing Permit Management
System (Accela), to develop an outreach and marketing plan including stakeholders from
multiple types of businesses, and to return to Council for approval of the BRC ordinance and
program implementation and launch by 12/31/14, including a plan for initial enforcement.
Excerpt minutes are available as Attachment C.
Discussion
Business Registry Framework
Staff has prepared a draft Business Registry ordinance for Council’s consideration (See
Attachment A). The ordinance requires all businesses operating in a fixed place of business in
the City to obtain a business registration certificate. To obtain a certificate, businesses must
complete a city questionnaire (See Attachment B). Home based businesses and transitory
businesses (such as general contractors whose corporate office is located outside of the city)
are exempt from the ordinance. The business certificate shall last for one year and must be
renewed annually. Businesses must post the certificate in a conspicuous place.
The ordinance authorizes the City to impose penalties for failing to secure a certificate. The
ordinance also allows the Director of Administrative Services to adopt rules and regulations to
further implement the program.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Web-Based Tool
Based on Council Direction, The Palo Alto BRC will be an internet-based program. The interface
needs to be easy to understand and use, and to seamlessly integrate with the City’s existing
permit management system (Accela). This will ensure that the process is as simple as possible
for businesses and should prevent an influx of thousands of business people into the
Development Center.
Companies will be able to complete the entire BRC process online. This includes creating a
business profile, answering the BRC questionnaire, completing an affidavit stating the facts
presented are true, making payment, and generating a BRC certificate. Staff is planning for 2
“virtual kiosks” to be made available at the Development Center to allow businesses the ability
to sign up online.
Fee Structure
As a cost-recovery program, the proposed business registry certificate fee structure will be a
flat annual fee for each business required to register. The fee amount will depend on the actual
number of businesses targeted (subject to refinement of staff’s current list and to further
Council consideration), and based on preliminary staff estimates. At this time, the fee will most
likely be on the lower end of the $35-$75 range previously stated depending on the number of
expected businesses to register with the program.
Staffing
Pending Council action outlined in this report, staff will partner with Accela to implement,
license, and integrate the BRC tool into our permit management system. Accela is currently
used as the City’s Permit Management System and will be able to host the data in a form that is
able to incorporate with numerous other City processes. This is especially important in Phase
One of the BRC as it relates to payments and data reporting and in Phase Two for integration
with other City processes (including Planning, Building, and Fire Department).
In order to also meet the City’s requirement to have a web-based front end that is simple, user-
friendly and integrates with Accela as the back end, Accela partnered with another firm,
OpenCounter.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Beyond the software implementation and integration in phase one, staff will also be needed for
several key tasks as it relates to the development of the BRC. Although many of these efforts
will be conducted with existing staff resources, staff does anticipate the need for one 12-month
contract employee at the Management Analyst level to manage the development of the BRC
program implementation. These tasks included, but are not limited to:
Develop a program centered around registering new and existing businesses in the City
of Palo Alto
Develop streamlined processes that enable the ongoing administration of this new
program
Coordinate marketing campaigns to help facilitate registration of new and existing
companies.
Work collaboratively with other staff and external consultants at the Development
Center to ensure the process integrates with other processes and management and all
personnel are well informed about the program and process.
Develop reports and run queries that track the program’s effectiveness, reach, and
efficiency
Track fees to ensure the program is cost recoverable.
Prepare for integration with other processes (including Use & Occupancy Permitting)
Train and deploy staff to run the program once the system has been established.
Plan and prepare all processes for operational hand-over to Development Center staff
Once implemented, staffing needs will shift to program management, which is anticipated to
add one staff member to the Development Center, likely at the Program Assistant III level, to
manage such things as:
New business outreach
Kiosk Assistance
Customer Support
Report generation/ publishing
Annual Billing
o Largely automated
Collections activities
Staff outlines these costs for Fiscal Year 2015 in the resource impacts section below and will
return to Council as part of the annual budget process for future years’ costs.
Enforcement
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Phase one would be focused mainly on developing/ launching the system, outreach, and
stakeholder engagement. Initial enforcement will rely mainly on staff visitations and mailed
reminders.
Existing staff such as the Fire Department (as they conduct their regular fire-safety system
inspections) as well as on the coordination of other city permits (e.g. staff would require a BRC
to be completed as part of any application for an encroachment, tenant improvement, or other
permit, as appropriate). Businesses would be required to post their BRC in plain sight, so a
simple system could be developed to create spot-checks for businesses in Phase 1 without
additional resources needed.
Although enforcement would not be the focus for Phase 1, staff recommends that the Council
adopt an initial plan including establishing penalties in the form of late fees for non-compliance.
Staff recommends that these fees be cumulative and be subject to collection activities. Staff
would focus on communicating these penalties to businesses in Phase 1 in hopes that the
severity of the penalties would induce more compliance to the BRC.
Additional enforcement tools, techniques, and penalties would be explored during phase two.
Database of Existing Businesses
In collaboration with Muni Services, the City’s sales and property tax consultant, over 260,000
available business records were compiled using numerous sources. These sources included
internal sources such as Palo Alto Utility, Police and Fire Department records, as well as
external sources such as sales tax, property tax, publicly and privately available business
listings, and other records. In scrubbing the database to meet the criteria outline by Council,
the list currently includes over 11,500 individual business listings, addresses, and (in many
cases) phone numbers. Staff will continue to develop this list prior to finalizing estimates. As
the list is further refined, and subject to Council policy direction in this report, the number is
expected to decrease further. For example, many dentists and MDs are listed individually, but
would be considered a “medical group” for purposes of the BRC based on the staff
recommendation.
Initial Outreach
Although the focus of staff has primarily been on creation of the software and systems to host a
working BRC, staff has been able to interface with several stakeholders regarding the creation
of a BRC. The fact that the BRC concept only focuses on businesses operating in commercial
spaces, is a nominal (cost recovered) fee, and will be very simple to use has been generally well
received.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
It was noted on several occasions that the key to success of the BRC will be in informing and
educating the business community about the BRC using all available channels of
communication. It has also been noted that the questions recorded and the quality of
information are integral to the success of the program.
There were some concerns from the business community about what information collected by
the City would be public. In general, staff’s goal is to collect data that would not only be used
by the City, but could also be made publicly available for third party use. However, in
recognition that some businesses have raised privacy concerns regarding certain information,
staff intends to do more outreach with businesses to better understand their concerns. Staff
has committed to having continued conversations with businesses to explore mechanisms for
keeping certain data confidential.
Other concerns expressed were that it would be difficult to enforce the BRC because of a rapid
rate of change in commercial properties. Also, there is some concern that the BRC would set
the stage for a revenue generating Business License Tax.
Additional Outreach
Staff is committed to conducting significantly more outreach to include as part of the
development and eventual implementation of the BRC. Tactics will include, but not be limited
to:
Direct Mail
Online/ advertising and website/ FAQ
Social Media
Phone/ email contacts
Business Organizations
Sentiment surveys via Survey Monkey
In person meetings
Regular email updates
Policy Decisions for Council
Questionnaire
Staff requests that the Council give input regarding the attached questionnaire (Attachment B),
which is an attempt to focus the range of possible questions into a core list to derive the key
information from companies in Palo Alto. Staff worked across departments to develop the list,
and special attention was given to input from the transportation department and the City’s
Transportation Management Association (TMA) consultant to ensure that the questions provide
data necessary for the development of a successful TMA.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Based on council feedback, staff would like to further develop the questionnaire and engage
stakeholders through outreach meetings for additional comments.
Exemptions
The types of businesses that are exempt from a business license tax by the US Constitution, or
Federal or State statutes (such as banks, insurance companies, and non-profit organizations)
are not necessarily exempt from a BRC. Other California cities with a business registry do not
exempt any types of businesses: businesses doing business but not based in the City, non-profit
organizations, and home based businesses are all subject to the fee.
Per Council direction, in Phase One of the BRC businesses not occupying or planning to occupy
commercial space in Palo Alto would not be subject to the BRC. This includes transitory
businesses, home-based businesses, virtual offices and other businesses that do not today
require a Certificate of Use per the City’s Municipal Code. Staff recommends that businesses
that employ contract or “1099” employees or agents, such as real estate brokerage firms, as
well as dental and physicians groups only be required to complete one BRC per location. Staff
recommends that all types of businesses be evaluated for potential inclusion/ expansion into
the BRC during Phase 2.
A key policy question is whether or not non-profit corporations should be exempted from the
BRC or from payment of the BRC. Previous iterations of a business registry in Palo Alto have
proposed that non-profit organizations be required to register but be exempt from the registry
fee. It must be noted that to the extent any specific types of businesses or organizations are
included in the registry but exempted from the registry fee, the operating cost associated with
such a fee exemption must be borne by the General Fund rather than by other businesses in
the BRC. Based on current estimates, this exemption is estimated to cost between $7,000-
$31,500 per year.
Companies with Multiple Locations
Another policy question is how to deal with companies that have multiple locations within Palo
Alto. Since a major intent of the business registry is to derive data regarding how many people
are travelling to jobs in Palo Alto, staff sees an argument for having only one BRC form filled out
for each company, listing the number and address of each location, answering the questions for
the company in a largely amalgamated manner, but breaking down some data points on a site-
specific basis. However, the Council could decide that one BRC should be filled out for each
location.
Timeline/ Next Steps
Stakeholder outreach/ marketing and development of the tool and program will commence
immediately and be ongoing. The ordinance will return for a first/ second reading in October/
November of 2014. The BRC program will launch beginning in January of 2015, with a 90 day
grace period for businesses to comply (e.g. business registration due March 31, 2015). The BRC
will renew annually beginning on March 31, 2016.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
In late 2015, staff anticipates that Phase Two will launch, including exploration of an enhanced
enforcement plan, and integration with the Use and Occupancy Certificate and other processes.
Staff has begun the preliminary examination/ clean up work of other related processes and will
begin the process of integrating them with the business registry and return to Council with an
update/ next steps during Phase Two.
Resource Impact
Staff anticipates a new contract with Accela in an amount not to exceed $42,290 for FY 2015,
and a contract with Truepoint Solutions in an amount not to exceed $25,000 in FY 2015.
Contract staffing costs for program development are anticipated at $80,000 for FY 2015. Staff
would return to Council with ongoing maintenance for Accela and TrPoint as part of the FY
2016 budget process with related adjustment to the annual fee in order to achieve full cost-
recovery of the BRC fee. In addition, staff will be seeking either an extension to the contract
position or an additional FTE at the Program Assistant III level.
Based on the current estimated range of businesses, the FY 2015 costs for a 6-month period
beginning January 1, 2015 is estimated between $170,000 and $190,000 which includes
approximately $35,000 in one-time start-up costs. On April 29, 2014, the Palo Alto City Council
approved staff’s recommendation to transfer $35,000 from the City Council Contingency to the
City Manager’s budget for initial start-up costs for program and technology development
(CMR# 4619). Due to timing between fiscal years, on September 16, 2014, the Finance
Committee approved that the FY 2014 start-up funds in the amount of $35,000 be re-
appropriated to the City Manager’s FY 2015 budget (CMR# 5043). Start-up cost estimates
depend on the number of businesses to be targeted. However, because the tool is web-based,
most of the variable expenses are related only to printing and mailing expenses. Staff will
return with refined costs, including a business registry fee based on the final estimate of
businesses, as part of a Budget Amendment Ordinance once the policy issues have been
finalized in October. In addition to the re-appropriated start-up funds, staff intends to bring
forward a recommendation with this Budget Amendment Ordinance, which would cover the
one-time start-up costs from the City Council Contingency and the ongoing costs from the fee
revenue. Staff would also return with an update to the Municipal Fee Schedule and
Administrative Penalty Schedule at that time.
Further, staff proposes an annual increase in the BRC fee equal to the Consumer Price Index- All
Urban Consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Metropolitan Areas.
Policy Implications
This is consistent with Council Direction on 2/24/14 and 4/29/14, and will be developed to be
cost recovery. The data made available through this business registry will be helpful in
achieving many of the programs outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Environmental Review
Implementation of a BRC is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance: Business Registry (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft BRC Questionnaire (PDF)
Attachment C: BRC Excerpt Minutes 4-29-14 (PDF)
Attachment D: Colleagues Memo - Business Registry (2-24-14) (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
1
140910 jb 0131258 Rev. September 9, 2014
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 4.60
to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Business Registration
Program
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(A) A business registry database will provide data to develop
recommendations on land use trends and to better coordinate transportation programs
such as activities related to a Transportation Management Association, and transportation
demand management.
(B) A business registry database will assist City businesses and residents in
locating goods and services closer to home, promoting retail, business-to-business sales,
and e-commerce.
(C) A business registry database will help the City to better understand its
business community, and help make the City's planning, fire, public safety, and security
assistance activities more responsive to business needs.
(D) A business registry database is needed to support economic
development planning between businesses and the City.
(E) A business registry database will provide the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant with updated information to identify all facilities that must comply with the
sewer use ordinance.
(F) A business registry database will allow the City to make available to
businesses and residents valuable business profile information through a centralized
database on the City’s web site thereby increasing e-commerce within the City.
(G) A business registry database will allow the City to integrate sales tax
information with other measures of business activity (e.g. transient occupancy tax
generators) in Palo Alto.
(H) A business registry database will provide data to help update GIS
information thereby improving the information available to the City’s emergency response
teams and Public Works and Utilities staff for informed, timely, and accurate decision-
making.
Not Yet Approved
2
140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014
(I) A business registry database will encourage businesses to obtain
appropriate permits and to comply with applicable codes, zoning and safety requirements.
(J) A business registry database will help protect the interests of legitimate
Palo Alto businesses in the City from unfair competition from businesses operating in
violation of federal, state, and local laws.
(K) On October ___, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the
addition of Chapter 4.60, Business Registration; and
(L) The City Council, after due consideration of the recommendation and a
duly noticed public hearing held on _____, 2014, finds that the proposed addition is in the
public interest and will promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION 2. Chapter 4.60 (Business Registration) is hereby added to Title 4
(Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM
4.60.010 Definitions
4.60.020 Purpose
4.60.030 Business Registration Requirement
4.60.040 Exceptions from Business Registration
4.60.050 Fee Required
4.60.060 Exemption from Fee
4.60.070 Application Procedures
4.60.080 Contents of Business Registration Certificate
4.60.090 Term and Annual Renewal of Business Registration
4.60.100 Refunds
4.60.110 Duplicate Copies, Modification and Transfer of Business License Certificates
4.60.120 Posting and Keeping Business Registration Certificate
4.60.130 Entry to Inspect
4.60.140 Rules and Regulations
4.60.150 Penalties and Remedies
4.60.160 Appeal
4.60.010 Definitions
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the
meanings set forth in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
(a) “Business” means any commercial enterprise, trade, calling, vocation,
profession, occupation, or means of livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit.
(b) “Business registration certificate” means a written statement issued by the
city to a business owner as evidence of registering a business in the city.
Not Yet Approved
3
140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014
(c) “Charitable nonprofit organization” means an institution or organization
which is conducted, managed or carried on wholly for the benefit of charitable purposes
and from which profit or income is not derived, either directly or indirectly, by an
employee, officer or director of the organization.
(d) “Fixed place of business” means a place of business located in the city
boundaries and occupied for the particular purpose of conducting business.
(e) “Home based business” means a business conducted within a residential
dwelling unit, with the business activity being subordinate to the residential use of the
property. For the purpose of this chapter home based business includes but is not limited
to construction contractors, gardeners, babysitter and tutors.
(f) “Person” means and includes any business owner, individual, firm, co-
partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, estate, business trust, or any other
group or combination acting as a unit.
(g) “Transitory business” means a business which is carried on for a short
duration (such as pumpkin sales, special events, and filming) or a business that does not
have a fixed place of business within Palo Alto (such as landscaping or construction
contractors based in other cities).
4.60.020 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a regulatory mechanism to maintain an
accurate record of businesses conducting business in the city for statistical purposes and to
assist in zoning compliance.
4.60.030 Business Registration Requirement
(a) No person shall conduct any business in a fixed place of business without
first having obtained a business registration certificate, paid the applicable business
registration fee and complied with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
(b) A separate business registration certificate shall be obtained for each
separate type of business at the same location.
(c) The issuance of a business registration certificate under this chapter shall not
excuse the business from complying with other applicable Code requirements.
4.60.040 Exemptions from Business Registration
The following types of businesses shall be exempt from this chapter.
(a) Home Based Business.
(b) Transitory Business.
Not Yet Approved
4
140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014
(c) Any business otherwise exempt from this Chapter’s requirements by virtue
of the Constitution or applicable federal or state statutes.
4.60.050 Fee Required
(a) Every person engaging in business in the city shall pay a business registration
fee as prescribed by resolution adopted by the city council.
(b) The business registration fee is not a revenue raising device, but shall bear a
reasonable relationship to the service to be performed by the city and the costs incurred by
the city in reviewing, processing and acting upon the application.
(c) The city council shall, from time to time, review the resolution fixing the
business registration fee and shall revoke, modify, adjust, add or determine any amount or
rate of such business registration fee.
4.60.060 Exemption from Fee
(a) The following businesses shall be exempt from payment of fees pursuant to
this chapter:
(1) Charitable nonprofit organizations.
(2) Any business otherwise exempt from payment of fees required by this
Chapter by virtue of the Constitution or applicable federal or state statutes.
(b) Any person claiming a fee exemption pursuant to this section shall file a
sworn statement, on a form prescribed by the City, stating the facts upon which the
exemption is claimed and shall furnish such information and verification as may be
required. In absence of such statement substantiating the claim, such person shall be liable
for the payment of the registry fee imposed by this chapter.
4.60.070 Application Procedures
Every person operating a business in the city shall apply to obtain a business
registration certificate on a form prescribed by the city. Upon receipt of a completed
application and any fee required, the city shall process the application and issue a business
registration certificate. The application may be reviewed by other city departments or
governmental agencies to determine if the business premises to be occupied meet the
requirements of federal, state, and local laws.
4.60.080 Contents of Business Registration Certificate
Upon the payment for business registration, the city shall issue to the applicant a
business registration certificate which shall contain the following:
(1) Name of business;
Not Yet Approved
5
140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014
(2) Business location;
(3) Expiration date;
(4) Certificate Number; and
(5) Such other information as deemed necessary by the city.
A separate certificate may be obtained for each and every branch
establishment or separate place of business in which a business is carried on.
4.60.090. Term and Annual Renewal of Business Registration
(a) Term. A business registration certificate shall be no more than one year.
Unless otherwise specified, all certificates shall expire on March 31st. Business registration
fees shall be due and payable annually in advance.
(b) Renewal. Business registration certificates shall be renewed annually on a
form prescribed by the City. Every application for the renewal of a certificate shall be made
at least fifteen days prior to the expiration date of such license. Any person applying to
renew a business registration shall submit to the city a completed renewal application and
pay the renewal fee.
(c) Alternative Periods. If deemed necessary, the city may establish alternative
registration periods for businesses.
4.60.100. Refunds
No business registration fees or penalties collected shall be refundable.
4.60.110. Duplicate Copies, Modification and Transfer of Business
License Certificates
(a) Duplicate business registration. Upon filing a statement indicating that a
business registration certificate has been lost or destroyed, and after paying a fee, a
duplicate business registration certificate shall be issued by the city.
(b) Modification to business registration. A business registration certificate may
be amended to reflect a modification after paying the business registration fee.
(c) Transfer of business registration certificate. A business registration
certificate shall not be transferable.
4.60.120. Posting and Keeping Business Registration Certificate
Any person engaging in business subject to this Chapter shall keep a business
registration certificate posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises where the
business is conducted.
Not Yet Approved
6
140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014
4.60.130. Entry to Inspect
The city shall have the power and authority to enter into a business, free of charge
and at any reasonable time, and require to inspect the business registration certificate
posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises.
4.60.140. Rules and Regulations
The Director of Administrative Services may adopt rules and regulations from time
to time to implement this Chapter.
4.60.150. Penalties and Remedies
(a) Penalties for delinquency. Any person engaging in business in the city that
fails to secure a business registration certificate before commencing business in the city or
fails to timely renew their license shall pay, in addition to the amount of the license fee, a
penalty in an amount to be determined by resolution.
(b) Action to collect. If a business fails to comply with the fee requirements of
this action, the City may refer the matter to a collection agency and/or the city attorney
may file a civil action against any business. Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section,
should court action be required to collect any business registration fee and/or penalties, an
additional penalty shall be charged equal to the cost incurred by the city for court action,
including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. All penalties shall be added to the
business registration fee and shall become due and payable along with the delinquent
business registration fee.
(c) Remedies Cumulative. All remedies prescribed under this Chapter shall be
cumulative and the use of one or more remedies by the City shall no bar the use of any
other remedy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter.
4.60.160. Appeal
Any person aggrieved by any decision of the city with respect to the issuance or
denial of a business registration certificate shall have the right to appeal to the Director of
Administrative Services or his or her designee by filing an appeal with the city clerk within
ten days of the date of the action being appealed and paying any appeal fee determined by
resolution of the city council. The decision of the Director of Administrative Services or his
or her designee shall not be appealable.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
Not Yet Approved
7
140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared
invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would
be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA
Guideline section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and section 15378(b) (3)
in that it involves creation of a governmental funding mechanism or other governmental
fiscal activity which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in
a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ________________________________
Sr. Assistant City Attorney City Manager
________________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Business Registry Certificate
Sample Questions
Business Name, Owner, Address, Mailing Address (if different), email, phone
Emergency Contact Info
Type of Ownership
Business type
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code
Federal Tax ID #
Sellers Permit #
Square footage occupied on site
Start date in Palo Alto
Number of workers onsite (including part time, full time, and contractors ) on a typical business day
Does your company provide on‐site employee parking? If so, how many spaces?
Do you lease any off‐site parking spaces? If so, how many?
What are your business hours? (Fill out simple chart)
Does your company offer commuter benefits? (check all that apply)
Pre‐tax payroll deduction for transit passes
Subsidize transit
Provide shuttle service
Offer flexible work hours
Provide car‐share and/or bike‐share for employees
Other
Would you like more information about the City’s transportation programs?
Palo Alto Free Shuttle
Bike Boulevard program
Bay Area bike share
Zipcar
Caltrain
VTA
SamTrans
Mayor Shepherd understood stakeholder groups disagreed about the use of Measure E property. She inquired whether there was any consensus from stakeholder groups regarding how the land was considered now that the City could utilize it for these facilities. Mr. Bobel indicated there were several stakeholder groups, and he met with each individually. Mayor Shepherd asked if stakeholder groups had come to terms with use of the 10 acres. Mr. Bobel did not see consensus yet. Staff drafted the alternative recommendations when they realized there was no consensus. People opposed to use of Measure E land in any form were vehemently opposed to alternative recommendations. The Staff recommendation was the best chance for a compromise. Mayor Shepherd asked if the Council should discuss that and provide direction to Staff. Mr. Bobel did not have a suggestion for the Council. Mr. Keene advised that the 10 acres was never a certainty. There seemed to be some agreement about not using the slope portion of the 10 acres. The current discussion seemed to focus on limiting the use of the 10 acres to the 3.8-acres portion. Mr. Bobel noted the leadership of proponents stated that alternate recommendations were acceptable. He had seen progress on narrowing the use of the 10 acres. Mayor Shepherd remarked that accepting proposals would determine the Council's view of the 10 acres. Mr. Keene indicated Staff's practice had been to reclaim and return different portions of the 10 acres to the park. Staff would share an interest in defining boundaries as soon as possible in order to complete park components.
12. Approval of Staff Recommended Framework for Development of a
Business Registry Certificate Ordinance & Fee Program as a
Replacement/Enhancement of the City’s Current Use Certificate
Program to be Implemented by December 31, 2014.
04/29/2014 114- 536
MINUTES
Thomas Fehrenbach, Economic Development Manager, reported the City
lacked basic and essential data regarding businesses and employees. Such data could be utilized for transportation and land use planning, economic
development planning, and emergency preparedness. The Council directed
Staff to create a simple online registry to obtain data and to recover costs.
A Use and Occupancy (U&O) Certificate was required for all businesses
operating from a commercial space. Enforcement was limited to businesses
that needed other permits from the Development Center or that needed
random inspections. The objective for the Staff recommendation was to
replace or enhance the current U&O Certificate to include the data
component. Staff recommended a phased approach. Staff proposed
delivering the registry by the end of 2014, enhancing enforcement later, and
extending the business registry beyond businesses occupying commercial
spaces. Staff would return to the Council in the fall of 2014 with a draft
Ordinance and a plan for enforcing the Ordinance. Staff performed initial
outreach with the business community and recommended additional
outreach in the development and implementation stages.
Martin Bernstein, speaking as an individual, requested the Council clarify and specify that no fee would be required for any home-based business owner
with no employees.
Hal Mickelson, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, indicated there was no need
for a business registry within the business community. If a business registry
was deemed necessary for efficient City administration, the Chamber
believed it should be revenue neutral, simple, further simplified for small
business, and exempt home businesses. He urged the Council and Staff to
consider confidentiality, complicatedness, and enforcement.
Council Member Klein commented that virtually every other city in California
had a business registry. Businesses in every community had grappled with
the problems Mr. Mickelson mentioned.
Mr. Mickelson suggested the Council obtain advice from the City Attorney
regarding actions taken by other cities with respect to confidentiality. Some
companies might prefer to pay a fine rather than submit sensitive
information.
Council Member Klein hoped the Chamber would provide ideas.
Mr. Mickelson would continue to work with the City.
04/29/2014 114- 537
Robert Moss felt a business registry would provide a great deal of important
information, including an accurate number of jobs. Businesses should be
required to report periodically. Businesses should report the number of sites
they occupied and how many employees were located at each site.
Eventually home offices should be included.
Dave Lanferman recalled the Colleague's Memorandum directed Staff to
provide an exemption for home-based businesses. Yet, Staff recommended
the City consider expanding the business registry to include businesses not
occupying commercial spaces. Phase 2 would consider enhanced
enforcement. It appeared Staff was asking businesses to pay for the red
tape that would be used to further regulate and tax businesses. He was
unsure whether calling the proposal a business registry circumvented the
requirement for a ballot measure.
Lynn Chiapella referenced parking problems resulting from small business expansions. The City would never obtain a valid number of employees
without a business registry.
Jon Kiya, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board Chair, reported the
Chamber recognized the value of collecting data. Enforcement on large
corporations would be critical to obtaining valid data. Chamber members
were concerned about the use of information, specifically that information
not be used to assess further taxes or fees.
Mr. Fehrenbach advised that the Council's direction to Staff was clear that
home-based businesses would be exempt. The language "businesses not
occupying commercial space" was intended to explore transitory businesses.
Staff would explore actions taken by other cities regarding confidentiality.
The questionnaire was meant to provide a sense of the spectrum of interest
from City Departments. A U&O Permit was required for each separate
building. The business registry would address the number of workers
located in each building. A registry with cost recovery only was not considered a tax. This was an opportunity for proactive outreach and to
convert a paper process to an electronic process.
Council Member Holman recommended Staff revise the recommendation to
reflect information provided in the presentation. Use Certificate and
Occupancy Permits were used interchangeably, which could be confusing.
She inquired about the SIC Code mentioned in the questionnaire.
Mr. Fehrenbach indicated SIC was an acronym for Standard Industry Code.
It was a standard set of numeric codes that segregated types of businesses.
04/29/2014 114- 538
MINUTES
James Keene, City Manager, added that the SIC separated businesses into
categories.
Council Member Holman asked if the SIC identified specific types of
commercial businesses.
Mr. Fehrenbach responded yes.
Council Member Holman noted the questionnaire asked about the number of
workers onsite, but did not address whether employees were part-time or
full-time. The Staff presentation addressed mode of transportation to reach
work, but that was not in the sample questionnaire. The questionnaire
asked about onsite employee parking, but it did not ask specific questions.
She inquired whether the $413 Use Fee was applied to businesses regardless
of size.
Mr. Fehrenbach answered yes. The fee included components for zoning use
compliance and building and fire inspections.
Council Member Holman understood the City could not charge more than the
amount to process it, and questioned whether the $413 fee was equitable
for small and large businesses. The Staff Report indicated 3,000-5,000
businesses complied with U&O Certificate requirements. She inquired about
methods to track businesses that complied with the business registry.
Mr. Fehrenbach reported electronic records extended back to 2004. Records
prior to 2004 were paper-based and located in different places. Staff would
need to review all current U&O Certificates and identify other databases to
compile an initial outreach list of businesses located in commercial spaces.
Staff intended to return to the Council in the fall of 2014 with refined data.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein 1) approve the transfer of $35,000 from the City Council Contingency
Fund to the City Manager’s budget for initial start-up costs including
outreach, training, and program/technology development, and 2) to direct
Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement a Business
Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery
through redesign of the use and occupancy certificate process including:
Phase One
1. A focus on businesses occupying or planning to occupy commercial
spaces within Palo Alto.
04/29/2014 114- 539
2. Creating a new online-based BRC program through technology incorporated within the City’s existing Permit Management System. 3. Developing/implementing an outreach and marketing plan including stakeholders from multiple types of businesses. 4. Return to Council for approval of BRC ordinance and program implementation and launch by 12/31/14, including plan for initial enforcement. 4a.Incorporate sample questions including: how employees get to work, where do employees not accommodated with onsite parking, park. Phase Two 5. Options for enhanced enforcement, including fiscal impacts, for Council consideration. 6. An analysis of options to expand the BRC program to include businesses not occupying/planning to operate from commercial spaces within Palo Alto. Council Member Holman felt it was important to utilize a business registry to the best intentions of the Colleague's Memorandum. The sample questionnaire should include the types of data the Council wanted. The business registry should not replace the U&O Certificate process. Council Member Klein was surprised to read that as demand for commercial spaces increased, the density of commercial space also increased generally. He seemed to recall a study from the Planning Department indicated that information could not be verified. A business registry was different from a tax. Many business people's concerns were protected under Proposition 218. The $413 fee needed review. It was illogical for a large employer to pay the same fee as a small employer. The number that 3,000-5,000 businesses had paid User Fees was nonsense. He hoped the business community would agree to work with the City to build a business registry. The questions Council Member Holman suggested for Item 4a would be onerous for many employers to answer. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to eliminate the new 4a, “Incorporate sample questions including: how employees get to work, where do employees not accommodated with onsite parking, park.” Mayor Shepherd shared Council Member Klein's concerns. Those types of questions should be asked after a business registry was developed.
04/29/2014 114- 540
MINUTES
AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-1 Holman no, Kniss, Scharff absent
Council Member Price inquired whether findings from transportation surveys had been useful in providing profiles of parking and commuting options.
Mr. Fehrenbach indicated the surveys provided a glimpse into parking options.
Council Member Price asked if survey results were tracked to a specific location.
Mr. Fehrenbach did not believe so.
Council Member Price recalled that much of the U&O Fee structure was
based on cost recovery and fees in other communities. She asked if that remained an operating practice.
Peter Pirnejad, Development Services Director, reported Staff would perform a fee study and would determine if fees were cost neutral.
Council Member Price wondered whether a flat fee was common within the U&O arena.
Mr. Pirnejad indicated a business license tax was based on gross receipts, a sliding scale dependent upon the size and success of a business. A business
registry fee should be based on some equivalent non-tax, total receipts
based variable.
Council Member Price understood the current structure was a flat fee of
$413 regardless of the size of the operation. She asked if Staff believed utilization of a flat fee was common in other communities.
Mr. Pirnejad did not believe a flat fee was common for a business registry. A business license tax was typically a flat fee for most businesses. After a
certain size or amount of gross receipts, then the business license tax
utilized a sliding scale.
Council Member Schmid felt voluntary compliance was essential to obtaining
data. He favored separating the business registry from the U&O Certificate process, having only a few questions, obtaining data annually, and utilizing a
flat fee. Comparing City data with an external data source would be
beneficial.
04/29/2014 114- 541
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to restate the first paragraph in the Motion to: “to direct Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement an (annual) Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery.” Mr. Keene reported Staff wanted to have an integrated program linking different requirements in one place. Otherwise, enforcement of a voluntary business license program could be less effective. Council Member Burt believed it was logical to have the two programs linked. However, the business registry would be constructed on what appeared to be a broken system. The Use Permit program had to be corrected first. He inquired if the Use Permit covered subtenants. Mr. Fehrenbach advised that the business occupying the space was required to have a Use Permit. Council Member Burt recalled another area of opposition in the previous business license election concerned sole proprietorships. He asked if Staff knew how many businesses held Use Permits. Mr. Fehrenbach responded yes. Council Member Burt asked if there was a method to handle expired Use Permits. Mr. Pirnejad agreed the Use Permit program needed corrections. Council Member Burt wanted to know the number of expired Use Permits. Mr. Pirnejad indicated the number was difficult to determine because the Use Permit program was paper based. Council Member Burt asked if anyone counted the number of businesses. Mr. Pirnejad reported Staff had difficulty dealing with the paper-based system. Staff did not have a number. Council Member Burt inquired whether Staff removed a business from the Use Permit list once it went out of business or left Palo Alto. Mr. Pirnejad advised there was not a permit retention process to remove businesses. A new U&O process would replace the former process. Council Member Burt asked if Google and Facebook remained listed as Palo Alto businesses according to Use Permits.
04/29/2014 114- 542
MINUTES
Mr. Pirnejad answered yes.
Mr. Keene understood part of the system was automated.
Mr. Pirnejad explained that Staff's proposal was to completely automate the system.
Council Member Burt recognized that Staff was attempting to fix the process. He wanted to have an objective and realistic baseline for building a business
registry.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member XXX to direct Staff to return with this item with a revised structure
to use permit so that the business registry can piggyback on the business registry structure.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Mayor Shepherd understood a Use Permit was charged only once; yet, fire
inspections occurred annually. She asked if the Motion was a different program from Staff's recommendation.
Mr. Fehrenbach believed the Motion created a business registry separate from the U&O Permit program. Businesses would be enticed to update their
information for the business registry.
Mayor Shepherd wanted a business registry that was updated yearly. She
inquired whether businesses obtained Use Permits only once.
Mr. Fehrenbach indicated businesses were required to obtain a new U&O
Certificate when they refurbished a building or had a tenant improvement. A
U&O Certificate was obtained only once. Staff proposed to continue the elements of the U&O Certificate and to add a questionnaire which had to be
updated regularly.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the proposal was for businesses to
complete a questionnaire annually and to remit a fee.
Mr. Fehrenbach reported that was the Staff recommendation.
Mayor Shepherd did not find a recommendation for an annual questionnaire and fee. She asked if Staff would propose those items in phase two.
04/29/2014 114- 543
Mr. Fehrenbach understood Staff's recommendation combined the one-time U&O Certificate with the annual business registry. Staff would automate the U&O component as well as the questionnaire component. Mayor Shepherd asked if there was an annual fee. Mr. Fehrenbach answered yes. It would be an annual, nominal fee in the range of $35 to $75. Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the problem was sorting through paper files to determine which businesses should receive notice of an annual registry. Mr. Fehrenbach indicated Staff needed to focus on adding businesses with and without existing U&O Permits and new businesses to the new online system. Staff would need to build outreach systems and a backend to support each of those different types of businesses. Once businesses were in the system, then the process would be simpler with automatic renewal notices. Mayor Shepherd did not see an annual fee or an annual update of business information in the Motion. Mr. Fehrenbach stated Staff's intent was to receive Council direction and build that into the Ordinance. Mayor Shepherd reiterated that that was not contained in the Motion. She asked how Staff would handle the Motion. Mr. Fehrenbach would take direction from the Council to explore a separate system and attempt to create tools to entice/enforce businesses to update information annually. Council Member Klein noted the Staff Report referred to the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) as being updated annually. It was clear Staff intended an annual update of information. Perhaps the interaction between the U&O Certificate and the BRC should be reversed from Staff's proposal. Staff should build backward from the business registry to the U&O Certificate. There would be no benefit to building a business registry from the U&O Certificate process. Somehow Staff needed to notify landlords and others that a new business had to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy. If compliance with a business registry was easy, then the City would receive needed data. The City could waive the fee for the first year to entice businesses to provide information.
04/29/2014 114- 544
MINUTES
Council Member Price thought the Staff recommendation of associating the
two systems was logical. She inquired whether improving U&O data was
part of the work plan.
Mr. Pirnejad reported the work plan was to clean up the U&O process as part
of the business registry effort. This was an opportunity to combine all efforts, streamline the U&O process, and create an automated system.
Council Member Price felt setting a new baseline would be valuable. She asked if costs reported in the Staff Report remained applicable given the
elements of the Motion.
Mr. Fehrenbach preferred to perform some calculations before answering.
Council Member Holman did not understand the actions Staff proposed with respect to notifying the business community about the business registry.
She asked if notification could occur by address.
Mr. Fehrenbach would need to look at a number of sources including address
and suite number, tax records, and Santa Clara County records to determine
the number of businesses and their locations. Staff needed to build a solid outreach plan to drive businesses to the web site tool.
Council Member Holman suggested any new U&O Permit require completion of a business registry form. The Council was not discouraging work on the
U&O process; rather, the Council was decoupling the two efforts.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to restate the first paragraph in the Motion to:
“to direct Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement an annual Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a
full cost-recovery.”
Mayor Shepherd wanted Staff to launch the business registry while revising
U&O Permits.
Mr. Keene noted the Motion did not define phase one and phase two with
respect to time. The Council wanted to implement the business registry
component with the understanding that work on the U&O component would continue. Ultimately the two processes could be merged.
Mayor Shepherd felt incorporating that into a recommendation after Staff worked on the U&O system would be useful. She inquired whether the
Council needed to provide specific direction to Staff.
04/29/2014 114- 545
Mr. Keene indicated the Council could give Staff general direction without a particular timeframe. Staff would have to work on the outreach process. At a later time, Staff could provide specific recommendations. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Scharff absent
13. Public Hearing - Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: (1)
Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a)
Address Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and
“Build-to” Line Standards, and Context Based Design Criteria) Along
El Camino Real, and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on
CN Zoned Sites Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units
Per Acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of
Lot Area and Add a Definition for “Effective Sidewalk”.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA
per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) (THIS
ITEM WAS CONTINUED BY COUNCIL MOTION ON APRIL 21, 2014 TO
JUNE 2, 2014)
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
14. Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding City of Palo Alto
Response to the FAA Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Regarding
the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the
Metroplex (NorCal OAPM).
James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff wanted to share the issue with
the Council in case the Council wished to submit a letter to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA).
Andrew Swanson, Airport Manager, indicated comments were limited to the
Metroplex Environmental Assessment (EA). Staff questioned the lack of
altitudes in the EA. The FAA felt extra information was not necessary and
the document met requirements. The impacts of the report were difficult to
understand because altitudes were missing and noise contours resembled
flight paths. The FAA modeled noise impacts under conditions of tower staff
handling aircraft.
Mr. Keene advised the EA was unrelated to the Surf Air issue. Apparently
airports around the country were attempting to move more airplanes in and
out of airports more efficiently. Flight paths did not appear to be changing
in ways that would be problematic for Palo Alto.
04/29/2014 114- 546
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
February 24, 2014 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 4493)
DATE: February 24, 2014
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS BERMAN, BURT,
HOLMAN, AND KLEIN REGARDING CREATION OF A PALO ALTO BUSINESS
REGISTRY
Goal:
Palo Alto needs a Business Registry as soon as possible to answer such basic questions as how
many people work in Palo Alto and for what types of businesses. We should implement a
Registry in 2014.
Background and Discussion:
Impacts of commercial development and activity, such as traffic and parking impacts, are at the
forefront of community concerns. The City Council made addressing these issues a council priority
in 2013 and again in 2014. However, the City lacks adequate, reliable, and updated data to analyze
the issues, structure best policies or programs and to measure their effects.
Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region without a business registry or a business license.
Most cities rely on these tools for obtaining and analyzing critical information about the
characteristics of businesses in their communities for purposes such as informing zoning decisions
and public safety planning and service response.
In addition, the Council has committed to developing a strong Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program in 2014 to reduce the traffic and parking impacts in our community.
Good data is essential to design a sound program, establish baselines and monitor progress.
Recommendation:
We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council not later than the end of March with a
proposal for a business registry which would include:
An online registry to reduce costs, accelerate implementation and provide for efficient data
analysis.
Fees limited to cost recovery.
February 24, 2014 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 4493)
A simplified, low cost questionnaire for very small businesses and exemption from
registration for home based businesses.
Questions designed to obtain information on the number of employees, types of businesses
and other information that would be valuable for effective planning purposes.
Staff Impact:
The City Manager and the City Attorney have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following
comments:
Effective implementation and enforcement methods for collecting and updating data will be
important. Staff will evaluate using existing software programs first as means to keep
implementation costs down.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5103)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/22/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Rejection of Golf Course Construction Bids
Title: Rejection of Construction Bids for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in
the Amount of $708,495 in Revenues and $168,036 in Expenses to Operate
the Golf Course From September 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015, and Establish
an FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve from the Net Revenue of Golf
Course Operations in the Amount of $540,459 (Continued from September 8,
2014)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Reject all construction bids received on April 15, 2014 for construction of
the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project (Project),
Capital Improvement Program Project PG-13003; and
2.Direct staff to re-advertise the Project for competitive bids, with timing
contingent on securing the regulatory permits needed for the Project; and
3.Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment A)
amending the Community Services Department operating budget in the
amount of $708,495 in revenues and $168,036 in expenses to fund
operation of the Golf Course from September 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015
and establish an FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve in the General
Fund in the amount of $540,459.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Executive Summary
On June 23, 2014, the City Council conditionally authorized staff to execute a
contract with Duininck, Inc. to begin the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
(Project) if approval of the required regulatory permits for the Project was
imminent. During the summer, staff continued to work with the regulatory
agencies in an effort to obtain the permits, but these efforts have not been
successful to-date. Staff has now determined that it is no longer feasible to begin
construction of the Project in the current construction season, and that
construction must be postponed until at least Spring 2015.
This report recommends that Council reject the April 2014 construction bids,
direct that the Project be rebid, and approve a BAO to reflect that the Golf Course
is now expected to remain open through at least February 2015. Rebidding of the
Project will be contingent upon first obtaining the required regulatory permits.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board)
continues to tie certification of the Project to the outcome of the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority’s (JPA) permit application for its Bay-to-Highway 101
Flood Protection Project. On August 29, 2014, the Water Board Executive Officer
issued a new notice of incomplete application letter to the JPA, creating even
greater uncertainty regarding the timing of Water Board certification of the
Project. This report also updates the Golf Course financial projections to reflect
the change in Project implementation schedule, as well as more conservative
assumptions about the projected post-Project increase in annual rounds played
that affect future revenues.
Background
On February 24, 2014, a notice inviting formal bids (IFB) for the Project was
posted at City Hall and sent to four pre-qualified golf course builders for a bidding
period of 50 days. Bids were received from all four contractors on April 15, 2014,
as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment B). The bid of $8,987,809
was submitted by Duininck, Inc., who was determined to be the lowest
responsible bidder for construction of the Project. Because the bids received
were higher than the initial Project budget, staff worked with Duininck,Inc. to
identify cost-saving changes that could be made to the project design in order to
reduce construction costs and negotiated a deductive change order that would
have eliminated or modified several non-essential components of the project
without affecting its functionality.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
On June 23, 2014, staff presented the Project construction bids to Council and
secured conditional Council authority to award the contract and the deductive
change order to Duininck, Inc. The authority to award the contract was
conditioned on staff’s ability to secure the regulatory permits required to
construct the Project before Duininck’s bid expired on July 13, 2014.
Implementation of the Project will require the acquisition of regulatory permits
from state and federal resource agencies. Specifically, the Project requires a
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (which also
involves consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to
potential impacts to federally-listed endangered species) and a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification from the Water Board. Permit applications for the Project
were submitted on December 23, 2013. As described to Council during the June
23rd Council meeting, it has proved to be extremely challenging to secure the
required permits for the Project, particularly the Water Quality Certification from
the Water Board. The issuance of the federal Corps permit typically follows the
Water Board Certification.
Since the initial submittal of permit applications, staff has received three
sequential letters from the Water Board (dated January 16, February 28, and
May 1, 2014) in response to our permit application, citing “deficiencies” with the
application. Staff has submitted a series of letters to the Water Board (dated
January 31, April 7, and May 16, 2014),responding to each of the items cited in
the three deficiency letters. In spite of repeated efforts to provide supplementary
information and justification to help resolve the Water Board staff’s outstanding
issues and the City Manager’s personal entreaties to the Executive Officer of the
Water Board,requesting his personal intervention to expedite the permitting
process, the Water Board has still not deemed the City’s application to be
complete, and the Water Board will not provide us with a clear road map and
timeline to achieve the required project permit.
The primary contentious issue that has delayed issuance of the Water Quality
Certification for the Project is the Water Board staff’s insistence on withholding
the Certification until they have certified the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority’s (JPA) Bay-to-Highway 101 Flood Protection Project. Water Board staff
continue to request that more of the City-owned Golf Course land be made
City of Palo Alto Page 4
available for creek widening because they believe that a widened creek would
reduce the volume of creek overflow into the environmentally-sensitive Faber
Tract marsh and thereby lessen impacts to endangered species that inhabit the
marsh.
The JPA staff and their technical consultants have provided ample evidence that a
widened channel would not provide environmental or flood protection benefits,
but the Water Board staff continue to debate the issue. The Water Board staff
has been unwilling to issue the Certification for the Project to-date because of
their opinion that approving the footprint of the Golf Course reconfiguration
would preclude further expansion of the creek into the Golf Course. At a formal
meeting of the Water Board on August 13, 2014, Water Board members
encouraged the Board’s Executive Officer to quickly resolve any issues in
permitting the JPA’s flood protection project. In spite of this Board guidance, on
August 29, the Executive Officer issued a lengthy notice of incomplete application
letter in response to the JPA’s resubmittal of its permit application in July. As of
the date of this report, JPA staff and their consultants have not yet determined
the significance of the issues raised in the letter to the ultimate JPA project
certification decision and timeline. In any case, it is clear that the August 29 letter
will further delay the issuance of water quality certification for the JPA flood
protection project, which in turn will delay Water Board action on the City’s
application for the Project.
Discussion
Rejection of April 2014 Construction Bids and Rebidding of the Project
Duininck, Inc. has been very cooperative and has continued to work closely with
staff to explore options for implementing the Project in spite of the permit-
related delays. It agreed to extend its bid for an additional 30 days (to August 13,
2014) in exchange for compensation for material cost increases that it has
incurred since its bid was submitted on April 15, 2014 (approximately $28,000)
and a contract time extension commensurate with the delays to the Project start
date.
After months of concerted efforts to find a way to award a contract with Duininck,
Inc. and proceed with the implementation of the Project, staff has concluded that
it is not practical to do so and is hereby recommending that Council reject the
bids received on April 15, 2014 and start a new bidding process once regulatory
City of Palo Alto Page 5
permits are in-hand.
The primary reason for postponing the Project is the uncertainty surrounding our
inability to secure the required regulatory permits. Without the permits in-hand
or a clear schedule for when the permits will be issued, staff is not able to give the
contractor a reliable start date for the Project. In addition, so much of the 2014
construction season has been lost that it unlikely that the Project can be
completed prior to August 1, 2015 as originally contemplated. There is not
sufficient time remaining in 2014 for the contractor to complete a significant
percentage of the grading and earthwork prior to the onset of the winter storm
season.
Delaying a large portion of the earthwork until Spring 2015 will in turn delay
subsequent construction tasks, most notably the planting of the new turf grass. If
the grass is not planted prior to mid-Summer 2015, it will not take hold and
mature enough to allow the Golf Course to reopen for play before the grass
enters its dormant period, which starts in early Fall and extends through the
following Spring. Since the grass does not grow and thicken during its dormancy,
delays in planting the grass beyond mid-Summer 2015 effectively delays the Golf
Course opening date well into Summer 2016. We can achieve the same Golf
Course reopening date and shorten the duration of construction if we are able to
start the work by March 2015, which enables the contractor to follow an
optimized schedule that provides for grading and earthwork during the dry
season and planting of the grass at the ideal time of year. This timeline is the
best-case scenario based on current conditions and is contingent on first securing
the necessary regulatory permits. Continued delays in permitting for both the JPA
flood protection project and the Project would significantly jeopardize our ability
to begin the work in March 2015.
Rebidding the Project may result in higher bid prices. Prices of irrigation
equipment have increased over the past year and the improving economy has
increased the number of golf course projects in construction, which has in turn
driven up bid prices. Although it is difficult to predict the prices that contractors
will bid when the Project is again advertised for competitive bids, staff estimates
that bids may increase by up to 10%or approximately $957,000. Staff will
endeavor to keep bid prices as low as possible by conducting a new round of
bidder pre-qualification in hopes of attracting new qualified golf course builders
City of Palo Alto Page 6
to the bidders pool and by rebidding the project in late Fall 2014, before golf
course builders have identified and committed to other golf course construction
work in 2015. The proposed best-case Project rebidding schedule is outlined in
the Timeline section of this report.
After receiving policy direction from Council, staff will complete a comprehensive
review of all options for proceeding with the Project with a goal of reconstructing
the Golf Course as soon as possible and return to Council in the near future with
recommendations for next steps.
Budget Amendment Ordinance for Extended Golf Course Operation in FY 2015
The Golf Course was modified and shortened in mid-2013 to accommodate the
stockpiling of imported soil for the Project and the JPA’s Flood Protection Project.
It was assumed during the development of the FY 2015 budget that the Golf
Course would be closed during the entire fiscal year. With the delay in securing
the permits from the Water Board and the related delay in the start of Project
construction, the City Council approved a BAO on June 23, 2014 that increased
revenues and expenditures by $324,000 to keep the Golf Course open during the
first two months of the fiscal year.
With the further postponement of the Project until at least March 2015, staff is
recommending that the Golf Course remain open to the public in its interim state
for an additional six months. Although the Golf Course has been incurring
operational losses since the course was shortened, the delay in the start of
construction will result in decreased financial losses for FY 2015 because the
financial losses under the open course scenario are less than those incurred when
the course is closed. Staff is therefore recommending that Council adopt another
BAO amending the Community Services Department operating budget in the
amount of $708,495 in revenues and $168,036 in expenses to fund Golf Course
operations from September 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015. The reason the
expenses to operate the Golf Course for an additional six months are not higher
than $168,036 is because the approved Golf Course budget has funds allocated
for what was to be the grow-in and maintenance of the new turf during the
March through June 2015 period.
These funds for the grow-in and maintenance of the new turf are no longer
needed this fiscal year and are being reallocated to help fund the operation of the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
golf course for the additional six months. In addition, staff is also recommending
that a FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve be established in the General
Fund in the amount of $540,459, utilizing the FY 2015 net revenue increase from
Golf Course operations to offset anticipated FY 2016 operating losses due to
anticipated closure of the Golf Course in FY 2016. See Attachment C for Golf
Course Budget Amendment Ordinance Financial Statement.
Updated Golf Course Pro Forma
The delay in Project implementation also impacts financial projections beyond the
current fiscal year. Based upon the currently projected Project implementation
scenario, staff has prepared revised projections for the performance of the Golf
Course in the five years following completion of construction of the Project (see
September 2014 pro forma, Attachment D). Staff’s updated projections of the
performance of the Golf Course are more conservative than those provided in the
National Golf Foundation (NGF) 2012 financial analysis. Staff believes that
adjusting the pro forma to be more conservative in the first five years after the
Project is prudent because the more time that elapses since the 2012 NGF
projections were prepared, the less reliable the projections are likely to be.
Further, due to the delay of the Project and the anticipated higher construction
cost, the City will likely need to incur higher debt, and the annual debt service is
expected to increase by approximately $46,500. While the Golf Course may in
fact perform as well or even better than the NGF projections, staff has provided a
more conservative projection as a cautionary measure in the revised Golf Course
pro forma. The reconfigured Golf Course is still anticipated to fully recover
operating costs by the second year after reopening, but by less optimistic margins
than those projected by NGF.
In order to clarify what the construction delay is estimated to cost, staff has
included the more conservative growth of golf play after re-opening in both the
current and prior pro forma. This approach shows that the delayed Project
implementation schedule, under which the construction of the Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project begins in March 2015 and concludes by September 2016,
is estimated to result in a $645,000 increase in net losses over the next three
fiscal years (2015 -2017). More details of the budget impacts are provided in the
Resource section of the staff report.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Timeline
The following timeline represents the ideal milestone dates for the rebidding and
implementation of the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. These dates are
based on timely receipt of Project permits, however, and will not be feasible if the
permitting issues for the Project are not resolved in the next two months. At this
time, it is not possible to identify a definitive alternative schedule for the
rebidding process given that the ability to proceed with the Project is tied directly
to the permitting process, which is beyond the City’s control.
September 29, 2014:Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking
additional golf course builders to qualify for pre-
qualified status. (The four firms already pre-qualified
will retain their favored status.)
October 28, 2014:Due date for contractor pre-qualification submittals
November 3, 2014:Advertise project for construction bids
December 16, 2014:Bid opening date
January 12, 2015:City Council award of construction contract
February 2, 2015:Issue Notice to Proceed to contractor
March 2, 2015:Close Golf Course, begin construction activity
September 1,2016:Open Baylands Golf Links for public use
Resource Impact
The resource impact, resulting from the need to delay the Project start until
March 2015, as described in the discussion, spans three fiscal years and is
summarized below. There are impacts to the operating budget of the Golf Course
and the Project budget.
With regard to the operating budget, estimated net losses are expected to
decrease by $540,439 in FY 2015, increase by $792,000 in FY 2016 and increase by
City of Palo Alto Page 9
$393,000 in FY 2017. The total change from the previous projections is an
increase in net losses of $645,000 over three fiscal years (between FY2015 and FY
2017). This calculation includes revisions to both the current and previous Golf
Course pro forma to include a more conservative growth trend in golf rounds
played after re-opening as well as a higher annual debt service. The increase in
the annual debt service is due to the anticipated higher construction costs of
approximately 10% ($957,000) which will require a higher debt issuance amount.
While the Golf Course may perform better than projected staff believes it is
prudent to moderate the out year projections as a cautionary measure given the
delays in the project. For details of the current pro forma see Attachment D. The
current pro forma is also summarized in Table A below.
Below are three tables summarizing a) the current Golf Course pro forma, b) the
prior Golf Course pro forma, revised to reflect a more conservative growth trend
after re-opening the Golf Course, and c) the June 23, 2014 projections.
In the past, staff has provided four alternative scenarios of how the Golf Course
may perform following completion of the Project, with scenarios of reduced
rounds of play and/or reduced fees due to market conditions, as presented in
Table C below. Table A represents the scenario that staff believes to be most
likely at this time, which assumes some of the prior sensitivity analysis regarding
slower growth in golf play after the Golf Course reopens. The performance of the
Golf Course in FY 2017 –21 will depend on many factors, including the quality of
the completed golf course and the subsequent maintenance program,
performance of the pro shop and on-site golf professional, performance of the
restaurant, along with broader economic conditions and the quality and
performance of other local golf courses.
Table A)
Current Pro forma –Revised to include project delay, BAO to operate the Golf Course through FY 2015,
increased project costs and subsequent increased debt and a more conservative growth after re-
opening the Golf Course. In thousands of dollars.
Scenarios FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Revenue 1,759 1,212 170 2,252 3,010 3,097 3,184 3,271
Expenses (2,362)(2,044)(1,667)(2,875)(2,993)(3,047)(2,876)(2,916)
Net Loss/
Income
(603)(831)(1,496)(623)16 51 308 354
Rounds of Golf 47 31 0 49 67 69 71 73
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Table B)
Previous Pro Forma from June 23, 2014 Council meeting -Revised to include a more conservative
growth after re-opening the Golf Course as assumed in the “Current” Pro Forma Table A above. In
thousands of dollars.
Scenarios FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Revenues 1,765 504 2,239 2,894 3,257 3,357 3,393 3,425
Expenses (2,461)(1,875)(2,943)(3,124)(3,232)(3,257)(2,854)(2,885)
Net Loss/
Income
(696)(1,371)(704)(230)25 100 539 540
Rounds of
Golf
46 10 49 67 69 71 73 75
Table C) Pro Forma from June 23, 2014 meeting:
Scenarios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Base-Projection (696)(1,344)(444)174 324 333 772 777
Sensitivity Analysis:
1. Lower Rounds (696)(1,344)(883)(366)(176)23 460 468
2. Lower Fees (696)(1,344)(561)25 164 172 610 620
3. Lower Fees/Rounds (696)(1,344)(910)(485)(307)(120)315 317
With regard to the project construction budget, while difficult to predict prior to
rebidding, the City is at risk of the lowest competitive rebid being higher than the
previous April 2014 lowest bid. If for example the bid of the lowest responsible
bidder increased by 10%, this would translate into a $957,000 increase in project
costs to be funded by Golf Course debt service. This potential increase in project
costs and subsequent increase in the annual debt service amount are assumed in
the current projections above (Table A).
In addition to the impacts above, there are also staff time impacts. There
continues to be considerable time spent following up with the regulatory agencies
to secure needed regulatory permits, and there will also be staff time needed to
rebid the Project, evaluate bid submittals and draft a new contract for Council
consideration.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to evaluate the proposed
potential impacts of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
and to identify the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Council, acting on
behalf of the City of Palo Alto in its role as lead agency for purposes of CEQA,
adopted a resolution on February 3, 2014, certifying the final EIR for the project.
Attachments:
·A -Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOC)
·B -Bid Summary (PDF)
·C -Golf Course Financial Statement (PDF)
·D -Updated Golf Course Pro Forma (PDF)
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 TO INCREASE GOLF COURSE REVENUE ESTIMATES BY
$708,495, PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF
$168,036 IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUDGET FOR GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, AND ESTABLISH AN
FY 2016 GOLF COURSE OPERATING LOSS RESERVE FOR
FUTURE GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS FROM THE NET REVENUE
OF GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$540,459.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B.As part of the approval of the Fiscal Year 2014
Adopted Capital Budget, the City Council approved the Golf
Course Reconfiguration Project; and
C. The Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Operating Budget assumed
the closure of the Golf Course effective July 1,2014; and
D.In anticipation of the Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project, the City applied for permits from the State Water
Board; and
E. Due to delays in receiving permit approval which has
delayed construction as well as contractual obligations with
the City’s concessionaires at the Golf Course,in June 2014
the City Council authorized an additional appropriation of
$324,800 offset by commensurate revenues to keep the Golf
Course open for a two-month period to allow the State Water
Board to issue regulatory permits; and
F. Due to continued delays in receiving permit approval,
staff has rejected all bids for the Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project and will reissue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) in the fall of 2014, for a projected
construction start date of March 1, 2015; and
G. Therefore, staff is requesting an additional
appropriation to keep the Golf Course open through February
2015; and
H. In anticipation of future needs due to the closure of
the Golf Course, establish an FY 2016 Golf Course Operating
Loss Reserve in the General Fund from the net revenue from
Golf Course Operations.
SECTION 2.The revenue estimate for Charges for Services in
the Community Services Department for Golf Course operations is
hereby increased by Seven Hundred Eight Thousand Four Hundred
Ninety Five ($708,495).
SECTION 3.The Community Services Department expenditure
budget for Golf Course operations is hereby increased by One
Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Thirty Six ($168,036).
SECTION 4.A Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve is hereby
established in the General Fund in the amount of Five Hundred Forty
Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Nine ($540,459).
SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 7.The actions taken in this ordinance do not
constitute a project requiring environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney Director of Community Services
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment B
BAYLANDS GOLF LINKS – PALO ALTO
BID SUMMARY
Dunnick Wadsworth
Landscapes
Unlimited Frontier
Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Bid Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Bid Amount Bid Amount Bid Amount Bid Amount
1 Mobilization/Bond (NTE 1.5% of Total Bid) 1 LS $105,000 $105,000 1 1 LS $133,000 $133,000 $141,400 $67,500 $128,500
2 Staking/Layout 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 2 1 LS $120,000 $120,000 $88,500 $45,000 $24,485
3 Existing Tree Protection 120 ea $65 $7,800 3 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 $48,493 $29,000 $57,800
4 Construction Mitigation Measures Cost Estimate 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 4 1 LS $85,000 $85,000 $10,000 $38,000 $228,670
Schedule 1 Total $177,800 Subtotal $413,000 $288,393 $179,500 $439,455
5 Demo Cart Paths/Bury 1 LS $54,500 $54,500 5 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $40,963 $42,500 $138,4006 Demo Existing Features 1 LS $54,000 $54,000 6 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 $10,000 $15,500 $34,7207 Tree Removal/Bury 650 Ea $100 $65,000 7 1 LS $115,000 $115,000 $156,730 $95,000 $59,808
Schedule 2 Total $173,500 Subtotal $175,000 $207,693 $153,000 $232,928
8 Strip Existing Sod, Bury or Till 135 AC $400 $54,000 8 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $40,000 $55,000 $179,840
9 Baylands Areas/Pond Earthwork (cuts) 70000 CY $2 $112,000 9 1 LS $201,000 $201,000 $166,500 $116,768 $227,025
10 Fairway Topsoil Management (Harvest /place Sand Cap) 38000 CY $3 $106,400 10 1 LS $135,000 $135,000 $260,000 $174,420 $485,36011 Place Import Fill from Stockpile 60000 CY $3 $162,000 11 1 LS $225,000 $225,000 $325,000 $356,000 $158,50012 Oversee/Shape GC Placement of Import by Others 260000 CY $1 $260,000 12 1 LS $185,000 $185,000 $520,000 $390,000 $279,030Add unit fopr import 13 10000 cy $3 $30,000 $32,500 $35,600 $17,300
Deductive unit for export 14 -10000 cy $1 -$10,000 -$32,500 -$13,000 -$17,300
13 SWPPP & Winter-Over Construction 1 LS $70,000 $70,000 15 1 LS $140,000 $140,000 $301,542 $290,000 $60,500
14 Rough Shaping 20 Holes $6,300 $126,000 16 1 LS $175,000 $175,000 $213,800 $285,000 $308,75016 Bunker Shaping - New 44 Each $1,200 $52,80015 Grade/Shape Buffer Mounding 1 LS $17,000 $17,000 17 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $7,000 $15,000 $21,555
Schedule 3 Total $960,200 Subtotal $1,116,000 $1,833,842 $1,704,788 $1,720,560
17 New Subsurface Drainage Piping 4" Perf 18328 LF $5 $91,641 18 17500 lf $8 $140,000 $139,125 $151,375 $134,750
18 New Subsurface Drainage Piping 6" Non-Perf 27012 LF $6 $162,072 19 1 ls $265,000 $265,000 $350,881 $246,000 $281,940
19 New Catchments 235 EA $130 $30,550
20 Drain Observation Risers 50 EA $75 $3,75021 Drain Outfalls 24 EA $350 $8,40022 Connect New Drains to Existing Inlets 21 EA $550 $11,550
23 Bury/Raise/Connect to Existing Backbone Drain Inlets 21 Ea $2,000 $42,000 20 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 $27,517 $22,000 $19,930
24 Drainage Culvert Pipes 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 21 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 $10,540 $6,500 $8,500
25 Greens Construction USGA Method 147300 SF $6 $810,150 22 1 LS $745,000 $745,000 $745,743 $709,500 $741,62526 Tee Construction 141000 SF $1 $197,400 23 1 LS $175,000 $175,000 $165,539 $213,000 $256,04027 Bunker Construction New 43840 SF $4 $175,360 24 1 LS $225,000 $225,000 $424,031 $177,000 $238,600
Schedule 4 Totals $1,544,873 Subtotal $1,660,000 $1,863,376 $1,525,375 $1,681,385
28 Irrigation - In play areas 1 LS $1,527,300 $1,527,300 25 1 LS $1,987,000 $1,987,000 $1,860,296 $1,875,000 $1,940,225
29 Irrigation - Native areas 1 LS $184,000 $184,000 26 1 LS $115,000 $115,000 $80,040 $124,000 $116,600
30 Irrigation - Buffer Mounding 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 27 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 $14,690 $21,200
35 Irrigation – Embarcadero Road Area 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 28 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $27,670 $129,000 $14,31031 Irrigation - Athletic Field Supply Pipeline 1 LS $24,100 $24,100 29 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $21,330 $19,000 $24,65032 Irrigation - Youth Area 1 LS $40,500 $40,500 1 LS33 Irrigation - Practice Area 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 1 LS
34 Irrigation - Tree Bubblers 1 LS $26,300 $26,300 1 LS
36 Irrigation Staking, Programming and Asbuilts 1 LS $42,000 $42,000 30 1 LS $45,000 $45,000 $42,270 $39,500 $44,000
37 Replacement of Irrigation Pump Station 1 LS $220,000 $220,000 31 1 LS $235,000 $235,000 $305,982 $287,500 $315,000
Schedule 5 Totals $2,154,200 Subtotal $2,457,000 $2,352,278 $2,474,000 $2,475,985
38 Cart Paths and Foot Paths 208000 SF $3 $624,000 32 214000 sf $3 $642,000 $691,220 $716,900 $642,00039 Path Roll Curb 3000 LF $1 $3,30040 Cart Path 4" Curbing 3000 LF $4 $12,000 33 5500 lf $7 $38,500 $44,000 $23,375 $41,195
41 Maintenance Routes (Gravel) 2000 LF $8 $16,400 34 14206 sf $2 $21,309 $17,473 $17,757 $15,200
Schedule 6 Totals $655,700 Subtotal $701,809 $752,693 $758,032 $698,395
42 Finish Shaping 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 35 1 LS $175,000 $175,000 $113,476 $125,000 $198,525
43 Fine Grade Prep & Soil Amend Paspalum Area 79 AC $2,800 $221,200 36 1 LS $330,000 $330,000 $193,445 $203,000 $83,79444 Fine Grade/Soil Prep Native areas 55 AC $780 $42,900 37 1 LS $185,000 $185,000 $112,241 $40,000 $42,15848 Native Area "A" Hydro Seeding (with Amendments) 42 AC $4,325 $181,650 38 1 LS $130,000 $130,000 $152,722 $205,500 $202,000
49 Baylands Area "B" Hydro Seeding (with Amendments) 13 AC $4,160 $54,080 39 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $45,146 $62,000 $57,000
45 Paspalum Sod 25.0 AC $25,265 $631,620 40 1 LS $635,000 $635,000 $634,914 $775,500 $715,480
46 Sprigged Paspalum Areas 53.0 AC $5,200 $275,600 41 1 LS $260,000 $260,000 $306,777 $255,000 $312,640
47 Seed & Amend Greens 148000 SF $0 $32,560 42 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 $29,032 $32,000 $49,70050 Bridge & Bulkheads 1 LS $57,000 $57,000 43 1 LS $110,000 $110,000 $49,243 $54,500 $113,16451 New Trees 300 Ea $300 $90,000 44 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 $67,305 $70,000 $74,640
53 Landscape Along Embarcadero 1 LS $23,000 $23,000 45 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $39,501 $22,000 $50,752
52 Fence at Youth Golf Area 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 46 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $40,478 $44,500 $41,583
58 Grow-In 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 46A 1 LS $115,000 $115,000 $87,553 $150,000 $324,985
Schedule 7 Totals $1,754,610 Subtotal $2,190,000 $1,871,833 $2,039,000 $2,266,421
54 Driving Range Poles and Netting 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 47 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $60,795 $89,500 $89,01055 Concrete Range Tee 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 48 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $10,885 $12,400 $13,13356 New Synthetic Turf 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 49 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $4,799 $4,500 $25,623
57 Grassing of Range Area 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 50 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $21,421 $32,000 $5,400
Schedule 8 Totals $77,000 Subtotal $55,000 $97,900 $138,400 $133,166
59 Restroom (Inc locking doors) 1 LS $88,550 $88,550 51 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 $140,669 $298,000 $128,31060 RR Sewer 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 52 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $32,740 $70,000 $53,732
61 RR Electrical Supply 1 LS $14,000 $14,000 53 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $36,484 $200,000 $52,517
Schedule 9 Totals $122,550 Subtotal $180,000 $209,893 $568,000 $234,559
62 Base Bid Total $7,620,433 Base Bid Total --->$8,947,809 $9,477,901 $9,540,095 $9,882,854
PLAN G
DLS Page 1 of 1 9/2/2014 9:41 AM
Golf Course Budget Amendment Ordinace
Financial Statement
ATTACHMENT C
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Projected
(Unaudited)
FY 2015
Adopted
FY 2015
Revised
June 23, 2014
FY 2015
Revised
September 8,
2014
REVENUES
Tournament fees 1,878 1,670 4,037 ‐ ‐ ‐
Green Fees 1,779,053 1,630,018 1,051,732 ‐ 277,000 753,059
Monthly play cards 161,672 151,387 51,679 ‐ 14,400 34,450
Driving range 355,594 343,883 313,633 99,044 94,644 208,553
Cart/club rentals 301,225 279,795 225,310 ‐ 49,600 141,033
Proshop lease 29,966 27,248 25,051 18,000 19,000 22,000
Restaurant lease 43,827 48,880 53,487 51,788 40,988 23,400
Restaurant Utilities 21,600 21,600 16,260 10,368 8,368 18,000
Other Fee 25,326 24,319 18,219 ‐ ‐ 12,000
Total Revenue 2,720,141 2,528,800 1,759,408 179,200 504,000 1,212,495
EXPENDITURES
Operating Expenses
Salaries 88,340 85,469 59,958 97,676 102,676 102,676
Benefits 41,246 49,479 62,676 47,497 47,497 47,497
Miscellaneous
Supplies and Materials 12,238 3,292 14,902 8,000 8,000 15,000
General Expense 754 1,014 1,038 1,438 1,438 1,438
Rents and Leases ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,000 1,000 1,000
Allocated Charges 314,651 524,116 401,431 467,713 523,019 361,817
Subtotal 457,229 663,370 540,005 623,324 683,630 529,428
Contract Services
Golf Maintenance 772,539 808,801 780,755 329,955 516,484 608,972
Miscellaneous 18,318 18,566 8,462 24,030 24,030 24,030
Range fees 135,310 130,676 119,180 84,188 80,357 108,606
Cart Rentals 114,621 112,083 86,034 ‐ 21,824 56,413
Club Rentals 6,061 5,950 4,666 ‐ ‐ ‐
Fixed management fees 343,544 344,537 338,292 30,500 82,972 240,384
Credit card fees 41,474 32,508 30,000 ‐ 7,500 17,000
Subtotal 1,431,867 1,453,121 1,367,389 468,673 733,167 1,055,405
Total Operating Expenses 1,889,096 2,116,491 1,907,394 1,091,997 1,416,797 1,584,833
Income From Operations 831,045 412,309 (147,986) (912,797) (912,797) (372,338)
Debt Expenses
Debt Service (refunded) 559,539 428,180 429,020 428,194 428,194 428,194
Subtotal 559,539 428,180 429,020 428,194 428,194 428,194
Cost Plan Charges 24,873 23,871 26,224 30,485 30,485 30,485
Net Income (Loss) 246,633 (39,742) (603,230) (1,371,476) (1,371,476) (831,017)
Golf Rounds 64,000 51,794 46,527 ‐ ‐ 31,000
PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE
PRO FORMA
ATTACHMENT D
Reject all bids, rebid project, award construction contract March 2015, reopen Golf Course September 2016
GOLF COURSE FINANCIAL SUMMARY FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
ACTUALS PROJECTED
REVISED Golf
Course open July ‐
Feb closed March‐
June
REVISED Golf
Course closed July ‐
June
REVISED Golf
Course closed July ‐
Aug, open Sept PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
REVENUES
Tournament fees 1,670 4,037 0 0 2,400 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Green fees (Monthly play cards ) 1,781,405 1,103,410 787,509 0 1,573,650 2,162,760 2,227,320 2,291,880 2,356,440
Driving range 343,883 313,633 208,553 80,000 283,050 353,400 364,002 374,922 386,170
Cart/club rentals 279,795 225,310 141,033 0 249,225 332,300 342,269 352,537 363,113
Other fees 24,319 18,219 12,000 1,760 12,700 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Proshop lease 27,248 25,051 22,000 21,520 28,500 30,700 30,700 31,300 31,300
Restaurant lease 48,880 53,487 23,400 23,400 49,800 49,800 52,290 52,290 52,290
Restaurant Utilities 21,600 16,260 18,000 18,000 27,000 27,400 27,400 27,900 27,900
Interest Income ‐ Debt Service 25,700 25,900 25,900 25,900 25,900 25,900 25,900
Total Revenue 2,554,500 1,759,407 1,212,495 170,580 2,252,225 3,009,760 3,097,381 3,184,229 3,270,613
EXPENDITURES
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Benefits 134,948 122,634 150,173 169,500 165,700 173,200 181,000 189,100 197,600
Advertising & Publishing 11,307 7,916 7,500 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Supplies and Materials 3,292 6,986 7,500 45,100 45,800 46,500 47,200 47,900 48,600
General Expense 1,014 1,038 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Facilities Repairs & Maintenance 7,259 1,438 22,300 22,600 22,900 23,200 23,500 23,900
Water Expense 381,966 319,204 260,000 296,000 184,500 188,000 197,000 206,000 215,500
Other Direct Charges 48,448 46,126 56,034 33,200 42,100 42,700 43,300 43,900 44,600
Indirect Charges 93,702 36,099 45,783 83,280 105,700 107,300 108,900 110,500 113,900
Subtotal 681,936 540,003 529,428 680,380 597,400 611,600 631,600 651,900 675,100
Contract Services
Golf Maintenance 808,801 780,755 608,972 419,415 821,135 796,262 820,150 820,150 820,150
Miscellaneous 18,566 8,462 24,030 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Range fees 130,676 119,181 108,606 68,000 56,610 70,680 72,800 74,984 77,234
Cart rentals 112,083 86,034 56,413 0 49,845 66,460 68,454 70,507 72,623
Club rentals 5,951 4,666 0 5,700 5,800 5,900 6,000 6,100 6,200
Fixed Management Fees 339,045 338,292 240,384 30,500 255,084 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Green Fees to Golf Professional (5%) 0 0 0 0 78,683 108,138 111,366 114,594 117,822
Credit Card Fees 38,000 30,000 17,000 0 33,047 45,418 46,774 48,129 49,485
Subtotal 1,453,121 1,367,390 1,055,405 523,615 1,310,203 1,402,858 1,435,544 1,444,465 1,453,514
Total Operating Expenses 2,135,057 1,907,393 1,584,833 1,203,995 1,907,603 2,014,458 2,067,144 2,096,365 2,128,614
Net Income From Operations 419,443 (147,986) (372,338) (1,033,415)344,622 995,302 1,030,237 1,087,864 1,141,999
Debt and Other Charges
1998 Debt Service 428,180 429,020 428,194 430,800 423,200 432,300 431,200 0 0
New 2014 Debt Service 0 0 511,342 511,342 511,342 511,342 511,342
Cost Plan Charges 23,871 26,224 30,485 32,009 33,610 35,290 37,055 38,907 40,853
Capital Reserve 0 0 0 0 229,188 235,644
Subtotal ‐ Debt and Other Charges 452,051 455,244 458,679 462,809 968,151 978,932 979,596 779,437 787,838
Net Income (Loss)(32,608) (603,230) (831,017) (1,496,224) (623,529)16,370 50,641 308,427 354,161
Golf Rounds 58,000 46,527 31,000 0 48,750 67,000 69,000 71,000 73,000
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4892)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/22/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Approval and Other Street Sweeping
Recommendations
Title: Approval of Contract No. C15152971 in the Amount of $658,527.32
with Contract Sweeping Services for the First Year of a Five Year Term for
Street Sweeping Services. Approval of Reduction in the Frequency of Street
Sweeping in Residential/Light Commercial Areas from Weekly to Every Other
Week Only During the Non-Leaf Season. Approval of Budget Amendment
Ordinance with Impacts to Various Funds to Reflect Savings Due to
Implementing the Efficiency and Cost Savings Plan. Approval of Amendments
to the Table of Organization Reflective of the Proposed Elimination of Seven
Positions Budgeted in FY 2015. Approval of Decrease in the Refuse Rate
Street Sweeping Fixed Fee from $6.66 per Single Family Residence to $5.26
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached contract with Contract Sweeping Services (Attachment A) for an
amount not to exceed $658,527 in the first year, including an initial base
amount of $598,661 and an initial additional services amount of $59,866;
2) Direct the City Manager or his designee to maintain the contract for up to
four additional years provided the contractor is responsive to the City’s
needs and the quality of the contractor’s work is acceptable. The not to
exceed amounts will be adjusted annually, and shall be tied to the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area. Funding for each additional year is
City of Palo Alto Page 2
contingent upon Council approval of that Fiscal Year’s budget;
3) Approve reducing the frequency of street sweeping in residential/light
commercial areas from weekly to every other week only during the non-
leaf season;
4) Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance to reflect the impact
of implementing the efficiency and cost savings plan (as described below),
including a reduction of seven budgeted positions (1.0 Lead Heavy
Equipment Operator, 1.0 Heavy Equipment Operator, and 5.0 Street
Sweeper Operators); and resulting changes to the Table of Organization;
and
5) Approve decreasing the Refuse Rate street sweeping monthly fixed fee
from $6.66 per single family residence to $5.26 in order for residents to
realize the cost savings from these Council actions.
Executive Summary
Staff is recommending implementing an efficiency and cost savings plan for street
sweeping services that would save approximately $649,000 annually by
outsourcing the street sweeping and material handling operation and changing
the frequency of street sweeping in residential/light commercial areas to every
other week during the non-leaf season. Leaf season is typically mid-October
through mid-February and non-leaf season is comprised of the remaining eight
months of the year. Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP), evaluated
proposals and recommends award of a five year general services agreement to
“Contract Sweeping Services” to perform the City’s street sweeping and debris
management operation. The FY 2015 impact of this action differs from the annual
savings due to the implementation date, one-time training and outreach costs,
and a one-time transfer from the Vehicle Fund to the Refuse Fund. In FY 2015,
net savings are anticipated to total $378,000. In addition, the Refuse Fund will
benefit from a one-time transfer from the Vehicle Fund in the amount of
$1,060,927, representing vehicle and equipment replacements that will no longer
be required due to the proposed change in the service delivery model.
The sweeping frequency would remain the same in the University and California
Avenue areas (3 times per week), as well as El Camino (weekly), and would be
City of Palo Alto Page 3
reduced from weekly to every-other-week in residential and light commercial
areas during the non-leaf season. Contracting out this street sweeping and
material management work would eliminate seven Full Time Equivalent positions
(FTEs) and associated non-salary funding; and remove street sweeping equipment
from the City fleet inventory. Additionally, savings will be realized in future years
through reduced pension and healthcare costs.
A monthly Refuse Fee reduction of $1.40 per customer would be passed on to the
rate payers beginning October 1, 2014 to reflect the savings.
To date, two employees out of the seven affected positions have been promoted
or reassigned. Potentially displaced street sweeping personnel have been offered
and are receiving cross-training that would help them qualify for open positions
within the City. The City has spent approximately $5,000 on outside training
based on the employee’s qualifications and career interest. The remaining
$25,000 of training funds remains available in the event that affected staff
members request training. Additionally, Contract Sweeping Services is amenable
to interviewing and potentially hiring up to four of the displaced sweeping
personnel.
Background
Currently, the City performs all of its street sweeping and sweeper debris handling
operations with in-house staff and equipment. Residential/light commercial areas
are swept weekly year-round and the University/California Avenue areas (i.e. the
Parking District areas) are swept 3 times per week year-round. El Camino is swept
weekly under an agreement with Caltrans. The estimated cost to conduct these
operations is approximately $1.4 million per year. Most of these costs are funded
within the Refuse Fund, with a portion funded from the University Avenue and
California Avenue Parking Permit Funds. Based on 2012 survey results received by
the City’s Administrative Services Department, Palo Alto sweeps its streets more
frequently than any of the neighboring cities that were surveyed with most cities
being swept every other week on average during the year with some exceptions
for the large retail/commercial areas.
On March 19, 2013, staff met with the Finance Committee to present options for
reducing costs in the City’s street sweeping operation (Staff Report No. 3483). The
Finance Committee directed staff to perform an every other week street
City of Palo Alto Page 4
sweeping pilot program to test the feasibility of reducing the frequency of
sweeping in residential/light commercial areas to every other week during the
non-leaf season. On December 9, 2013, staff returned to the Finance Committee
(Staff Report No. 4128) and presented an updated efficiency and cost savings plan
and the results of the every other week sweeping pilot. The pilot results
demonstrated that the City could reduce the frequency of sweeping in the
residential/light commercial areas to every other week during non-leaf season
without adverse impacts to the public or the environment. At the meeting on
December 9, staff explained that the next steps in the efficiency and cost savings
plan was to develop and issue an RFP for street sweeping and debris management
services that could confirm the expected cost savings. The Finance Committee
unanimously approved the efficiency and cost savings plan and directed staff to
obtain Council approval for the issuance of the RFP.
On February 3, 2014, staff received Council’s approval for the issuance of the
sweeping RFP (Staff Report No. 4337). An RFP for Street Sweeping Services was
distributed to qualified street sweeper contractors on February 4, 2014.
Contractors had six weeks to review the RFP and submit proposals to the City.
Proposals were received from two qualified contractors on March 18, 2014. A
summary of their proposals is included below.
Summary of Request for Proposals Process
Proposal Name/Number
RFP Number 152971 For General
Services – Street Sweeping
Total Days to Respond to RFP 42
Number of Firms at Pre-Proposal Meeting 7
Number of Proposals Received 2
Proposal Price Range *$598,661.20 – $1,231,238
*Note: Fee proposal before minor scope of work modifications, and adding 10%
contingency.
An evaluation committee consisting of three staff members from the Public
Works Department, Public Services Division evaluated the proposals and of the
two proposals received, staff unanimously selected Contract Sweeping Services as
the preferred proposer due mainly to the large cost difference. A local company,
Contract Sweeping Services currently sweeps many cities similar to Palo Alto.
Some of their contracts include the cities of Cupertino, Foster City, San Carlos,
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Saratoga, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto. Staff has checked references that
Contract Sweeping Services provided in their proposal. All of the references
provided positive reviews for the services provided by Contract Sweeping
Services.
Both of the proposals that were submitted indicated that a five-year term would
be the minimum term of the agreement that they would accept. Staff has found
that a multi-year contract is advantageous to the City because it allows a
contractor to amortize their major equipment purchases, and bid lower prices for
the work to be performed. All of the cities that staff spoke with which had similar
size and complexity of the proposed operation had contracts in place of at least
five years.
Staff returned to the Finance Committee on June 3, 2014 to present the results of
the RFP (Staff Report 4539) as well as to present the plan’s next steps that include
development of a contract with Contract Sweeping Services. The Finance
Committee unanimously approved staff’s plan, and directed staff to develop a
general services agreement and take the agreement to the Council for approval.
The Finance Committee approved the following motions:
1. Reduce the street sweeping frequency for Residential and
Light/Commercial areas to every other week during the non-leaf season;
2. In response to the City’s recent Request for Proposals, negotiate and
develop an agreement with Contract Sweeping Services and return to the
City Council for a contract award and a related Budget Amendment
Ordinance;
3. That the savings from the switch to semi-weekly sweeping in non-leaf
season be translated into the fixed charge to residents and businesses for
street sweeping;
4. Staff make their best estimate of that savings at the time of the
implementation of program and implemented at that time;
5. Authorize People Strategy and Operations Department to invest up to
$30,000 in Focused Training for employees who otherwise may not qualify
to be transferred to new positions, and that $30,000 would come out of the
first year’s savings from this program.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Implementing an every other week sweeping program during the non-leaf season
and approving the attached general services agreement with Contract Sweeping
Services would allow the City to contract out most of its street sweeping and all
debris management services, and save approximately $650,000 annually.
Executing this agreement would result in the City reducing 7 full time equivalent
budgeted positions and reduce the City’s fleet by 7 pieces of equipment. The City
would retain staff and equipment to sweep parking lots, sidewalks, dead-ends,
bike paths and respond to emergency response events such as water main breaks
or traffic accidents.
Some highlights of the efficiency and cost savings plan are:
1 Continue sweeping Downtown/California Avenue three (3) times per
week. Contract for this work.
2 Continue weekly cleaning of parking lots, bike paths, dead-ends and
downtown sidewalks. Continue using in-house staff and existing
contracts to complete this work.
3 Reduce sweeping frequency to every other week during non-leaf season
(except for Downtown/California Avenue areas and El Camino Real).
4 Contract for the main street sweeping operation (i.e. street sweeping
performed by the large sweepers).
5 Contract for materials management (i.e. hauling leaf litter/debris to
SMaRT).
6 Require the successful contractor to obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans to continue sweeping El Camino Real weekly.
7 Manage emergency responses with both in-house and contractor
resources (traffic accidents, water main leaks, large rain events etc.).
Comparison - Staffing and Equipment Cost Savings Plan (Entire Public Services
Sweeping and Cleaning Group)
Staff Current
Program
Efficiency and
Cost Savings
Plan
Staffing
Reduction
Lead Heavy Equipment
Operator
1 0 -1 FTE
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Heavy Equipment
Operator
1 0 -1 FTE
Street Sweeper Operators 7 2 -5 FTE
Street Maintenance
Assistants
2 2 0
Total Staff 11 4 -7 FTE
Equipment Current
Program
Proposed
Program
Equipment
Reduction
Large Street Sweepers 7 2 -5 large
sweepers
Parking Lot Sweeper 1 1 0
Large Leaf Trucks (for
picking up and hauling
debris)
2 0 -2 large trucks
Green Machines (small
sweepers used to clean
sidewalks and bike paths)
3 3 0
Small Dump Truck 1 1 0
Total Equipment 14 7 -7
Operational Changes
The proposed plan calls for significant changes to the current operations that are
currently being used.
Current Operation Proposed Changes
Residential/Light Commercial Street
Sweeping
Contract out this portion of work
Leaf Debris Removal Contract out this portion of work
Every Week Sweeping for
Residential/Light Commercial Areas
Reduce Frequency to Every Other Week
Sweeping During the Non-Leaf Season
Only
Material Deposited Directly Onto The
Ground During the Non-Leaf Season
Material Will be Hauled Directly To The
SMaRT Station During this Time Period
Downtown North Neighborhood Posted
For No Parking On Sweep Day Year
Round
Downtown North Neighborhood Posted
For No Parking On Sweep Day During
The Leaf Season Only
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Environmental Benefits
There are environmental benefits with the reduced frequency every other week
sweeping during the non-leaf season. The City would realize a 22% reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions per year equaling approximately 37 metric tons CO2
emissions per year.
Another potential benefit is the possible reduction of other air pollutants based
on the fact that Contract Sweeping Services plans to use brand new PM10
compliant sweepers. These clean diesel sweepers are subject to stringent air
quality regulations, and are tested to be up to three times cleaner than sweepers
that comply with federal air quality standards.
The contractor stated that they will not collect sweeper debris in piles on the
street during the approximate 8 months of the non-leaf season. They will drive
the sweepers directly to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station
(SMaRT). This would be an improvement for the City in terms of wind-blown
litter/loose debris reaching storm drains, creeks and the bay.
Targeted Community Outreach
Staff plans to conduct outreach for these changes using several methods. The
outreach campaign will be a multi-month, phased-in effort to inform the
community first about the new street sweeping contractor and then about the
changes to their service frequency. The goals of the campaign are to:
1. First, inform the community about the new contractor starting in October.
2. Second, inform the community about the new every-other-week schedule
(during the non-leaf season) that will not be implemented until early next
year (i.e. February 2015). and
3. Third, assure residents in areas with trees that have leaf fall outside of leaf
season that their neighborhoods will be swept more often as needed to
keep their areas clean.
The bulk of the outreach campaign will be implemented in January, February and
March 2015, to raise awareness about the seasonal change from weekly to every-
other-week sweeping service and assure residents in areas with non-deciduous
City of Palo Alto Page 9
street trees that the City has planned for supplemental service in their area to
account for their leaf fall issues. A variety of outreach mechanisms will be utilized
to reach as much of the community as possible. It will include a bill insert, print
ads for local papers and publications, Palo Alto Online ads, Facebook ads, and
Pandora ads. It will also include a variety of unpaid outreach such as Facebook
and NextDoor posts, emails to our contact list, and a press release. All outreach
will direct readers to visit the Street Sweeping webpage or call Public Works for
detailed information.
Staffing Impact
If street sweeping is contracted out as recommended by staff, then there are
seven FTE positions that would be eliminated. Currently, five of those positions
are filled, and two vacancies resulted from employees moving to other positions
in the City. Staff has met with SEIU on seven occasions in 2014 (March 12, May
15, June 5, June 12, June 13, June 26, and August 4) to discuss the City’s street
sweeping proposal, the training plan, and SEIU proposals to mitigate the effect on
staff. In addition, Contract Sweeping Services has indicated a willingness to
interview and potentially hire up to four affected members of the Street
Sweeping crew at a wage that is comparable to their current salaries in Palo Alto.
Any interviews with Contract Sweeping Services would not take place until after
the contract has been executed.
Training for Potentially Displaced Employees
On March 12, 2014, in an effort to mitigate any negative effect outsourcing may
have should the Council decide to move forward, staff proposed to offer training
opportunities to potentially affected street sweeping staff members. Staff
recommended beginning training as soon as possible, rather than waiting until
the Council makes a final decision, to maximize the time that employees have to
train as well as minimize operational impacts to the current operation by
stretching the training time over a longer period. On June 3, 2014, the Finance
Committee directed staff to allocate $30,000 of the savings (from implementing
the efficiency and cost savings plan) towards training the affected employees in
order to prevent any potential layoffs. Following the allocation of funding for
training, affected employees have been and continue to be offered cross-training
for current and expected open positions within the City as well as training in
Departments without current vacancies.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
In addition to the cross-training, the City is working with NOVA Workforce
Services to provide career advice to the Street Sweeper crew. NOVA is a
nonprofit, federally funded employment and training agency that provides
customer-focused workforce development services. NOVA provides career advice,
interview and resume counseling, and access to job postings. NOVA offers more
than 20 workshops to assist job seekers in learning how to navigate the job-
search process — including gaining a clear focus, writing a résumé, searching for
the right job, interviewing, and negotiating a job offer. In addition to attending
Nova training sessions, Street Sweeping crew members will each have the
opportunity to meet with a NOVA career counselor for individual meetings and to
devise a personalized career plan.
In addition to the training employees will be receiving at the City and NOVA,
employees may also request specialized training such as enrollment in a
certification course, training on a specific piece of equipment, and/or training to
refine certain skills. Some highlights of the proposed training program include:
Each Street Sweeping crew member will be allowed to train on City time
with another workgroup in which they are interested and for which a
training opportunity can be arranged.
Training requests submitted on or before August 28 were addressed and
prioritized on a first-come-first-served-basis. The department managers will
continue to work with PSOD to set up training opportunities. Directors and
managers of all City departments have been made aware of this training
effort and will try to accommodate all requests. Opportunities are,
however, subject to operational needs and relevant requirements in both
departments.
As of August 31, 2014, affected employees have received training with the
Administrative Services Department in the Stores Warehouse, with the Utilities
Department on the Vac-Con Truck, training at the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant, training with the Police Department’s Community Service Officers, training
with the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Section and the
Equipment Maintenance Section. Specialized training was also provided on
backhoe operation during this time for potential opportunities in different
departments that may arise.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
In the event City Council approves outsourcing of the street sweeper operation,
the City will consider adding training opportunities for employees who may be
affected by bumping. At this time, the City’s goal and focus is to train the Street
Sweeper crew so that they may be qualified and selected for other City positions
or positions in other agencies.
SEIU Proposals to City Staff
The City has informed SEIU of and invited them to attend all Council and
committee meetings on this topic since it began considering the issue in the
spring of 2013. Staff provided SEIU with a copy of the RFP when it was released in
February 2014 and provided the opportunity to submit any ideas, alternatives,
responses, or other suggestions so that the City could consider SEIU’s input at the
same time it is reviewing proposals from other entities. The City met with SEIU on
six occasions to discuss the City’s and SEIU’s proposals, to discuss training for
potentially displaced employees, and to answer any questions that they had
regarding the current in-house operation.
On June 26, 2014, SEIU Local 521 presented several proposals to staff with the
goal of preventing potential layoffs while still offering cost savings to the City.
SEIU’s proposed changes included reducing the number of budgeted FTE’s by
three, rearranging the schedules of the remaining FTE’s, hiring temporary
employees for four months of each year, and the elimination of three pieces of
equipment which are used as spares in the event of a breakdown. Staff reviewed
the SEIU proposals, and found that their proposals would undermine staff's ability
to effectively meet the needs of Palo Alto’s residents, without providing the full
costs savings included in staff’s efficiency and cost savings plan. Their proposal
did not take into account the difficulties associated with hiring hourly employees,
and the fact that staffing and equipment levels would be reduced to minimal
levels. Should any unforeseen events occur such as employee illnesses or
equipment breakdowns occur, the ability to effectively deliver service to Palo Alto
residents would be compromised. After a final meeting between staff and SEIU an
August 4, 2014, staff determined that impasse had been reached. This was
conveyed to SEIU in a memo dated August 20, 2014.
Resource Impact
As described throughout this report, two significant changes are being proposed
to the street sweeping program. First is a reduction in the frequency of street
sweeping services to every other week during the non-leaf season in residential
City of Palo Alto Page 12
and light/commercial areas. The pilot results demonstrated that the City could
reduce the frequency of sweeping in the residential/light commercial areas to
every other week during non-leaf season without adverse impacts to the public or
the environment. Making this change alone while retaining City staff and
equipment would result in anticipated savings of only approximately $87,000, and
would not result in the elimination of positions. Because the City lacks the
flexibility to effectively add or reduce the crew size before and after the leaf
season, the crew would need to be fully staffed year round in order to
accommodate that workload. The anticipated savings of $87,000 would be from
the result of reduced fuel consumption, vehicle maintenance, and vehicle
replacement charges. Partially offsetting the savings would be reduced parking
citation revenue. The savings from changing the frequency of street sweeping,
while using City staff and equipment, are outlined in the following table:
Savings from reducing the frequency of street sweeping services
provided by In-house City Staff and Equipment
Category Projected Savings
Fuel-Refuse Fund $17,000
Vehicle Maintenance-Refuse Fund $36,000
Vehicle Replacement-Refuse Fund $71,000
Reduced citation revenue-General Fund ($37,000)
Total $87,000
The second change proposed is to contract out this service, at the reduced
frequency described above. Outsourcing the regular street sweeping operations,
in conjunction with the reduced frequncy of sweeping, would save approximately
$649,000, across all funds, per year as shown in the following table. The cost of
the street sweeping contract will be spread across the Refuse Fund, University
Avenue Parking Permit Fund, and California Avenue Parking Permt Funds. The
parking permit funds receive an enhanced level of street sweeping, and therefore
will be charged for their proportional usage of the contract. It should be noted
that the FY 2015 savings from the change would be reduced due to the project
mid-year implementation date. Overall anticipated savings in FY 2015, included
as part of the accompanying BAO, total $378,000. This amount is lower than the
annual savings of $649,000 due to staff costs and vehicle maintenance,
operations, and replacement charges incurred during the first three few months
of the fiscal year under the current service model, as well as one-time outreach
City of Palo Alto Page 13
and training costs. Before the end of the year, it is also anticipated that the
Refuse Fund will further benefit as a result of this action through the sale of
equipment no longer required due to the outsourcing (currently estimated at
$400,000). This additional one-time revenue will be added to the Rate
Stabilizaiton Reserve to gradually achieve a healthy fund reserve in accordance
with the existing rate stabilization reserve guideline range (between $2.7 million,
and $5.5 million).
It should be noted, that consistent with previous Finance Committee direction,
the savings resulting from the outsourcing will be passed on to customers in the
form of reduced street sweeping charges. Due to the one-time nature of the
transfer from the Vehicle Fund to the Refuse Fund, the $1,060,927 being returned
to the Refuse Fund is recommended to augment the Refuse Fund Rate
Stabilization Reserve. As indicated in the 2015 Adopted Operating Budget, the
Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve currently has a negative $1.8 million
balance, which is attributable to liabilities associated with maintaining the closed
landfill, as mandated by the Public Resources Code and the California Code of
Regulations. While the transfer will still leave the Rate Stabilization Reserve
below the reserve guideline range (between $2.7 million, and $5.5 million), the
return of these funds will aid in returning the Refuse Fund towards a position of
financial stability.
Annual Cost Estimates for the street sweeping operation with reduced
frequency (Affected Staff and Equipment)
Current Costs
In-house
Outsourced
and Reduced
Frequency
(Annual
Savings)
all funds
City Equipment Costs
Fuel $79,000 $4,000 ($75,000)
Maintenance/Repair $164,000 $4,000 ($160,000)
Vehicle Replacement $321,000 $57,000 ($264,000)
Subtotal $564,000 $65,000 ($499,000)
Personnel Costs (with benefits)
(1) Lead Heavy Equipment
Operator
$137,000 0 ($137,000)
(1) Heavy Equipment Operator $128,000 0 ($128,000)
(5) Street Sweeper Operators $566,000 0 ($566,000)
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Associated Non-Salary Expenses
(Uniforms, Supplies, etc.) $19,000 0 ($19,000)
Subtotal $850,000 $0 ($850,000)
Contractor Costs
Sweeping fee - 17,272 curb miles
@ $28.35 /mile.
$490,000 $490,000
Debris management fee – 2,500
tons per year @ $28.00 per ton
$70,000 $70,000
Unscheduled Service 500 hours @
$65.00 per hour
$33,000 $33,000
Emergency Service (as requested) $10,000 $10,000
Contract Contingency @ 10% $60,000 $60,000
Subtotal $663,000 $663,000
Parking Citation Revenue $55,000 $18,000 $37,000
Total Annual Net Costs $1,359,000 $710,000 ($649,000)
Other cost impacts which are not included in cost comparison above:
1) Existing equipment could be salvaged at auction. A preliminary estimate
shows that the equipment would be sold for over $400,000. These one-
time funds would be returned to the Refuse Enterprise Fund that ultimately
has funded the purchase of this equipment. At this time, the budgeted
revenue estimate is not recommended to be increased.
2) Some indirect allocated charges, such as General Fund cost allocation plan,
which spreads the cost of the City’s administrative functions across the
organization, could be reduced. These changes are difficult to quantify,
however, as the annual charges are dependent upon many factors, such as
the level of support provided to each fund/department, the overall budget
for each department and fund, and the number of positions in each
department and fund. As a result, these savings are not included in the
anticipated ongoing savings amount of $649,000.
3) Long-term liabilities for pension and retiree health care would be reduced
by the elimination of seven full time positions. These costs are not included
in the savings amount, as it is difficult to predict with any level of certainty
these cost avoidance figures.
4) Allocation of costs to various funds for the remaining Street Sweeper
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Operators and Street Maintenance Assistants: as the new service delivery
model is implemented and time estimates for remaining staff are refined,
changes may be brought forward for City Council consideration at a later
date.
Notes
1) Fuel and Maintenance costs estimated using an average of costs per
equipment from FY 2012, FY 2013 and FY 2014 (projected).
2) Vehicle replacement costs represent the estimated replacement charge
necessary to replace equipment every seven years.
3) The City will retain two sweepers that are operated by the two Street
Sweeper Operators for part time sweeping of permanently posted areas
and use in problem areas as needed. As a result of the reduced utilization
for the remaining sweepers, the annual replacement allocation will be
reduced, as reflected in the table above.
4) Personnel costs are based on the 2014 approved pay increases, inclusive of
benefit costs.
5) The University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and California Avenue Fund will
be charged for the vehicle maintenance and replacement charges
associated with the work performed in these areas.
Modifying the Fixed Street Sweeping Fee
As directed by the Finance Committee, the fixed fee for residential street
sweeping services will be reduced by $1.40 per residence from the current
amount of $6.66 to $5.26 beginning October 1, 2014 to reflect the FY 2015
savings of approximately $378,000. Proposition 218 noticing is not required if
Council adopts a lower rate schedule.
Environmental Review:
Outsourcing the street sweeping operation and adoption of a Budget Amendment
Ordinance are not projects under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). In addition, the reduction of sweeping from weekly to every other week
in residential/light commercial areas during the non-leaf season is exempt from
CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Most neighboring cities sweep less frequently than Palo Alto and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board has stated that residential areas are not a large
City of Palo Alto Page 16
generator of litter. The City’s recent every other week pilot project showed no
significant adverse affects to the environment. Finally, positive environmental
impacts are expected such as:
Less impacts to roadway surfaces because of less frequent sweeping;
The contractor will not generate leaf piles throughout the City during the
non-leaf season, thereby decreasing wind blown debris;
The contractor would utilize new sweeping equipment with lower air
quality emissions; and
Less sweeping means less environmental impacts to noise, traffic
congestion, vehicle emissions, etc.
Attachments:
Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Contract #C15152971 for Street Sweeping Services
(PDF)
Attachment B - BAO - Outsource Streetsweeping (DOC)
Attachment B, Exhibit 1 - Table_of_Organization_Modified_7-29-14 (PDF)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
DocuSign Envelope ID: 781C389F-93FD-48E7-9A75-0EDF4B29A432
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE
GENERAL FUND, REFUSE FUND, UNIVERSITY AVENUE
PARKING PERMIT FUND, CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING
PERMIT FUND, AND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND AS A
RESULT OF CHANGES TO THE SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL FOR
THE STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B. At the time the 2015 Adopted Budget was being
considered by the City Council, the Finance Committee had not
yet completed their review of the Street Sweeping program
service delivery change; and
C. The service delivery change will reduce the frequency
of street weeping in residential/light commercial areas to
every other week during the non-leaf season. Sweeping
frequencies would remain unchanged in the University Avenue
and California Avenue areas (3 times per week), as well as El
Camino (weekly). Further, street sweeping and material
management work would be outsourced, resulting in the
elimination of seven Full Time Equivalent positions (FTEs) and
associated non-salary funding. Eliminated positions include
1.0 Lead Heavy Equipment Operator, 1.0 Heavy Equipment
Operator, and 5.0 Street Sweeper Operators; and
E. Bids were received from two qualified contractors on
March 18, 2014, ranging from $598,661 to $1,231,238, before
minor scope of work modifications and adding 10%
contingency; and
F. Staff recommends that the bid of $598,661 submitted by
Contract Sweeping Services be declared the lowest responsible
and responsive bid; and
G. A contingency amount of $59,866, equal to ten percent
of the total base bid contract amount, is requested for
related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop
during the project.
SECTION 2.
A. The net sum of Two Hundred Ninety Four Thousand, One
Hundred Seventy Three Dollars ($294,173) is hereby
reduced from the Refuse Fund, offset by an increase to
the Rate Stabilization Reserve. The Reduction in the
Refuse Fund is split as follows:
1. Three Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand, Two
Hundred Sixty Seven Dollars ($357,267) as reduced
transfers to the Vehicle Replacement Fund;
2. Four Hundred Forty Nine Thousand, Eighty One
Dollars ($449,081) from salaries and benefits as
a result of the elimination of seven positions,
effective October 23, 2014, partially offset by
increased contract services expenditures of Five
Hundred Twelve Thousand, One Hundred Seventy Five
Dollars ($512,175) for the Refuse Fund portion of
the street sweeping contract and
training/outreach expenses.
B. In the General Fund, the revenue estimate for
citation revenue is hereby reduced by Twenty Seven
Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($27,750),
offset by a corresponding decrease to the Budget
Stabilization Reserve.
C. In the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund,
budgeted expenditures are hereby decreased by One
Hundred Six Thousand, Eight Hundred Forty Three
Dollars ($106,843), offset by a corresponding increase
to the ending fund balance. This adjustment is
attributable to decreased salary and benefit expenses
of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand, Two Hundred Thirty
Two Dollars ($115,232), partially offset by increased
vehicle maintenance and replacement charges of Seven
Hundred Fifty Three Dollars ($753) and the Fund’s
proportional share of contract services expenses of
Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Thirty Six Dollars
($7,636).
D. In the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund,
budgeted expenditures are hereby decreased by Four
Thousand, Four Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($4,462),
offset by a corresponding decrease to the ending fund
balance. This adjustment is attributable to reduced
salary and benefit expenditures of Eighteen Thousand,
One Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars ($18,127), partially
offset by increased vehicle maintenance and
replacement charges of One Thousand, Two Hundred
Twenty Six Dollars ($1,226) and the Fund’s
proportional share of contract services expenses of
Twelve Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars
($12,439).
E. In the Vehicle Fund, Transfers in from other funds
will be reduced by Three Hundred Fifty Five Thousand,
Two Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars ($355,288), offset by
a reduction to the ending fund balance in the amount
of One Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred
Eighty Dollars ($187,980), and a reduction to contract
expenses in the amount of One Hundred Sixty Seven
Thousand, Three Hundred Eight Dollars ($167,308).
F. The Vehicle Fund will transfer to the Refuse Fund
the amount of One Million, Sixty Thousand, Nine
Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars ($1,060,927). This
adjustment will be offset by a decrease to the ending
fund balance in the vehicle fund and an increase to
the ending fund balance in the Refuse Fund, and is
attributable to the return of funds originally
transferred to the Vehicle Fund for vehicles and
equipment that will no longer need to be replaced due
to the proposed change in service delivery model.
This transfer will be used to increase the Refuse Fund
Rate Stabilization Reserve.
G. Expenditure savings are to be passed on to customers
in the form of a reduced street sweeping monthly fixed
fee for street sweeping services.
SECTION 4. The Table of Organization shall be modified as
provided in Exhibit “1”.
SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
//
//
SECTION 6. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
finds that adoption of this ordinance is not a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no
environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Deputy City Attorney Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 427
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
General Fund
Administrative Services
Account Specialist 7.00 7.00 5.95 5.95 5.95 0.00 0.00%
Account Specialist-Lead 5.00 5.00 4.59 4.59 4.59 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Administrative
Services 1.50 1.80 1.65 1.65 1.65 0.00 0.00%
Buyer 1.95 1.95 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Procurement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Contracts Administrator 1.40 1.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 0.00%
Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.50 0.55 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00%
Director Office of Management and
Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Principal Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 4.81 6.10 5.90 0.00 0.00 -5.90 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.90 5.90 5.90 0.00%
Storekeeper-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Warehouse Supervisor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Total Administrative Services 37.69 39.30 37.99 37.99 37.99 0.00 0.00%
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Claims Investigator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Legal Fellow 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Legal Services Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Secretary To City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Attorney 9.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 11.11%
428 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
City Auditor
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Performance Auditor 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Senior Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Auditor 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00 0.00%
City Clerk
Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Hearing Officer 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Total City Clerk 6.75 6.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 0.00 0.00%
City Manager
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 100.00%
Assistant to the City Manager 1.55 1.05 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Chief Communications Officer 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00%
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Executive Assistant to the City
Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Communications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Economic Development 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Manager 10.05 9.55 9.05 9.05 9.05 0.00 0.00%
Community Services
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Community Services 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Recreation Programs 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Community Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Division Manager Open Space, Parks &
Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 429
Division Manager, Recreations & Golf 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Junior Museum & Zoo Educator 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.75 2.75 0.50 22.22%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Community Services 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Community Services Sr Prgm 3.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 25.00%
Park Maintenance - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Park Maintenance Person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Parks/Golf Crew-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Producer Arts/Science Programs 12.00 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant I 7.50 7.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Sprinkler System Repairer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Superintendent Community Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Recreation Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Total Community Services 74.00 73.75 74.32 75.82 75.82 1.50 2.02%
Development Services
Administrative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 3.02 3.02 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.00%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00%
Associate Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00%
Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00%
Building Inspector Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00%
Building/Planning Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00%
Chief Building Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Chief Planning Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00%
Code Enforcement Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00%
Development Project Coordinator II 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00%
Development Services Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.10 2.10 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
430 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Fire Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.89 1.89 0.00%
Industrial Waste Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00%
Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00%
Manager Development Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Manager Environmental Control Prgm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Manager Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00%
Manager Urban Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00%
Manager Watershed Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00%
Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00%
Planning Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00%
Plans Check Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00%
Project Manager Trees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00%
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.00%
Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00%
Senior Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00%
Supervisor Inspection And Surveying 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.00%
Total Development Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.58 38.58 38.58 0.00%
Library
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Library Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Division Head Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.70 6.70 1.70 34.00%
Library Assistant 5.50 5.50 5.50 4.50 4.50 -1.00 (18.18)%
Library Associate 4.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 40.00%
Library Specialist 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Library Services 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Librarian 7.75 8.25 8.25 8.50 8.50 0.25 3.03%
Total Library 41.25 41.75 41.75 44.70 44.70 2.95 7.07%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 431
Office of Sustainability
Assistant to the City Manager 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Total Office of Sustainability 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
People Strategy and Operations
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Human Resources/CPO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Human Resources Assistant -
Confidential 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Human Resources Representative 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Employee Benefits 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Employee Relations 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Human Resources
Administrator 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total People Strategy and Operations 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00%
Planning and Community Environment
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 (50.00)%
Administrative Associate I 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 3.80 3.80 3.80 1.00 1.00 -2.80 (73.68)%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrator Planning & Community
Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Planning &
Community Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 -0.90 (90.00)%
Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Inspector Specialist 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00 (100.00)%
Building/Planning Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 -1.80 (90.00)%
Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Chief Planning Official 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 -0.20 (20.00)%
Chief Transportation Official 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.50 -0.40 (44.44)%
Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 -0.50 (25.00)%
Coordinator Transportation System
Management 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.40 80.00%
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Development Project Coordinator II 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
432 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00 (100.00)%
Development Services Director 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Director Planning/Community
Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Engineer Technician III 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00%
Manager Development Center 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Manager Planning 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.20 1.20 -0.80 (40.00)%
Planner 5.75 3.75 3.75 3.15 3.15 -0.60 (16.00)%
Plans Check Engineer 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Plans Examiner 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.65 1.65 0.65 65.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Planner 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.60 7.60 0.60 8.57%
Senior Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 -0.80 (80.00)%
Supervisor Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Total Planning and Community
Environment 43.05 49.05 49.35 28.20 28.20 -21.15 (42.86)%
Public Safety
40-Hour Training Battalion Chief 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
40-Hour Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 -1.00 (16.67)%
Animal Control Officer 4.50 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.00 -1.00 (25.00)%
Animal Control Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Animal Services Specialist II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Battalion Chief 56-Hour Workweek 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Communications Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Community Service Officer 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.00 0.00%
Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Crime Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.00 -0.84 (100.00)%
Deputy Director Technical Services
Division 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Office of Emergency Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 433
Emergency Medical Services Data
Specialist 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Emergency Medical Services Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Apparatus Operator 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Captain 27.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Fighter 45.00 41.00 41.00 40.00 40.00 -1.00 (2.44)%
Fire Inspector 3.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 -4.00 (100.00)%
Geographic Information System
Specialist 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.01 0.01 -1.89 (99.47)%
Office of Emergency Services
Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Captain 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Lieutenant 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Officer 49.00 49.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Records Specialist II 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Property Evidence Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Dispatcher I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Dispatcher-Lead 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Manager I 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 -1.00 (33.33)%
Public Safety Manager II 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Superintendent Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Animal Services 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Veterinarian Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Safety 278.24 272.24 273.24 264.51 264.51 -8.73 (3.19)%
Public Works
Account Specialist 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 0.70 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
434 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Administrative Associate II 1.80 2.85 2.65 2.63 2.63 -0.02 (0.75)%
Assistant Director Public Works 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.28 -0.02 (1.54)%
Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson-Lead 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00%
Director Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 3.30 3.30 3.20 1.20 1.20 -2.00 (62.50)%
Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Maintenance-Lead 2.00 2.00 1.85 1.85 1.85 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 5.55 5.55 5.55 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 2.13 2.13 2.13 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 1.33 0.83 0.83 -0.50 (37.59)%
Management Analyst 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Manager Maintenance Operations 1.72 2.10 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00 0.00%
Manager Urban Forestry 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 -0.04 (4.00)%
Planning Arborist 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 -0.25 (25.00)%
Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Project Manager 0.75 1.25 1.70 0.45 0.45 -1.25 (73.53)%
Project Manager Trees 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 1.18 1.18 0.00%
Senior Accountant 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 0.20 1.10 1.20 1.47 1.47 0.27 22.50%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 -0.16 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.11 1.11 0.16 16.84%
Senior Project Manager 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Inspection And Surveying 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.53 0.53 -0.27 (33.75)%
Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.31 0.31 -0.47 (60.26)%
Traffic Control Maintainer I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.00%
Traffic Control Maintainer II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Traffic Control Maintainer-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Trim/Line Clear 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Trim/Line Clear - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Works 56.37 57.32 56.35 52.98 52.98 -3.37 (5.98)%
Total General Fund 576.40 579.71 577.80 588.58 588.58 10.78 1.87%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 435
Enterprise Funds
Public Works
Account Specialist 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 3.20 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Assistant Director Environmental
Service 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.75 0.30 0.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 333.33%
Assistant Manager WQCP 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant to the City Manager 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 3.30 3.00 1.50 1.35 1.35 -0.15 (10.00)%
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00%
Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Public Works Projects 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Electrician - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 1.40 1.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 -0.10 (33.33)%
Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 1.90 1.61 1.61 0.61 -1.00 (62.11%)
Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 3.15 2.15 1.86 1.86 0.86 -1.00 (53.76%)
Industrial Waste Inspector 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.99 2.99 -0.01 (0.33)%
Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.79 1.79 -0.21 (10.50)%
Laboratory Technician WQC 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.50 20.00%
Landfill Technician 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 1.20 1.20 1.30 2.30 2.30 1.00 76.92%
Manager Airport 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Environmental Control
Program 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.90 3.90 0.90 30.00%
Manager Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
436 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Manager Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Watershed Protection 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 -0.05 (5.00)%
Program Assistant I 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant II 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 1.85 1.81 1.81 -0.04 (2.16)%
Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00%
Refuse Disp Atten 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 2.25 1.90 1.80 1.76 1.76 -0.04 (2.22)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 -0.16 (100.00)%
Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 -0.01 (1.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.16 320.00%
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Operator WQC 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Technologist 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.00 0.00%
Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 5.96 5.96 0.96 -5.00 (83.89%)
Supervisor Public Works 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor WQCP Operations 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00%
Technologist 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Traffic Control Maintainer I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00%
WQC Plant Operator II 17.00 17.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Works 114.51 104.06 99.19 99.98 92.98 -6.21 (6.26%)
Utilities
Account Specialist 2.50 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 0.75 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Administrative
Services 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Utilities Customer
Support Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Utilities Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant to the City Manager 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 437
Associate Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Asst Director Utilities/Resource
Management 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 4.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 0.00 0.00%
Cathodic Protection Technician
Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00%
Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Utility Projects 4.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 16.67%
Coordinator Utility Safety & Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Customer Service Representative 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Customer Service Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Customer Service Specialist-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00%
Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Director Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Underground Inspector-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 -14.00 (100.00)%
Electrician - Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 -6.00 (100.00)%
Electrician Assistant I 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Manager - Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Manager - WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 33.33%
Equipment Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Gas System Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Gas System Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 9.00 8.00 8.70 8.70 8.70 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Lineperson/Cable Spl 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00%
Lineperson/Cable Spl-Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Communications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Customer Service & Meter
Reading 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 (50.00)%
Manager Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Utility Marketing Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
438 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Manager Utility Operations WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Utility Telecommunication 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager, Utilities Credit & Collection 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Marketing Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Meter Reader-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Metering Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00%
Metering Technician - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Offset Equipment Operator 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00%
Overhead Underground Troubleman 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Planner 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Power Engineer 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Principal Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Manager 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 -0.75 (100.00)%
Project Manager Trees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00%
Resource Planner 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
SCADA Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00%
Senior Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Electrical Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 1.60 1.40 1.40 0.00 0.00 -1.40 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.40 2.40 1.40 140.00%
Senior Marketing Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Performance Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 -4.00 (80.00)%
Senior Resource Planner 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00%
Senior Utility Field Service
Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Water System Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber
Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber
Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 439
Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber-
Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Substation Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00%
Substation Electrician-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Supervising Electric Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Water Trans 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor WGW 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor, Inspection Services 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Maintenance Specialist 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utilities Compliance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utilities Supervisor 5.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Account Representative 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Comp Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Comp Tech-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Credit/Collection Specialist 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Engineer Estimator 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Field Services Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install/Representative 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install/Representative - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install/Representative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Key Account Representative 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Safety Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Utility System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install Repair Lead-Welding
Cert 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install Repair-Welding Cert 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Warehouse Supervisor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Water Meter Cross Connection
Technician 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Water System Operator II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Utilities 251.11 253.76 255.36 258.36 258.36 3.00 1.17%
Total Enterprise Funds 365.62 357.82 354.55 358.34 351.34 -3.21 (0.91%)
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
440 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Other Funds
Capital
Administrative Associate I 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.89 0.89 -0.01 (1.11)%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 0.60 0.90 2.70 2.69 2.69 -0.01 (0.37)%
Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Cement Finisher Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00%
Contracts Administrator 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Transportation System
Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.08 2.08 -0.62 (22.96)%
Engineer Technician III 2.30 2.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.47 0.47 -0.20 (29.85)%
Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.49 1.49 -0.01 (0.67)%
Manager Maintenance Operations 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 4.85 5.09 5.09 0.24 4.95%
Project Manager 0.50 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 2.55 2.00 2.00 1.09 1.09 -0.91 (45.50)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 -0.60 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00%
Senior Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00%
Senior Project Manager 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Inspection And Surveying 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00%
Total Capital 24.37 26.07 27.48 27.26 27.26 -0.22 (0.80)%
Information Technology
Administrative Assistant 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Administrative
Services 0.40 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.35 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Director Information Technology/CIO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Information Technology 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 441
Manager Information Technology
Security 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Principal Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Senior Technologist 13.00 12.00 12.00 13.50 13.50 1.50 12.50%
Technologist 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 -2.00 (50.00)%
Total Information Technology 30.41 31.40 32.20 31.70 31.70 -0.50 (1.55)%
Printing and Mailing Fund
Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Offset Equipment Operator 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Total Printing and Mailing Fund 1.57 1.67 1.62 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.00%
Special Revenue Funds
Account Specialist 0.50 0.50 1.55 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00%
Account Specialist-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.20 -0.20 (50.00)%
Building Serviceperson-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)%
Community Service Officer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Maintenance-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Mechanic 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Painter 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00%
Manager Community Services Senior
Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100.00%
Manager Maintenance Operations 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00%
Planner 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.75 0.75 -0.20 (21.05)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.20 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00%
Senior Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Street Maintenance Assistant 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Sweeper Operator 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.00%
Total Special Revenue Funds 2.15 2.15 9.17 9.77 9.77 0.60 6.45%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
442 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Equipment Maintenance Service Per 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Manager Fleet 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 -1.00 (14.29)%
Motor Equipment Mechanic-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 -0.08 (100.00)%
Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00%
Total Vehicle Replacement Fund 16.08 16.53 16.53 16.53 16.53 0.00 0.00%
Total Other 74.58 77.82 87.00 86.88 86.88 -0.12 (0.01)%
Total Citywide Positions 1,016.60 1,015.35 1,019.35 1,033.80 1,026.80 7.45 0.73%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 443