HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 242-05B. Responsibility of the Selection Committee
1. TheSelection Committee will be formed each year by appointment by the Mayor and
will consist of representatives from the following:
a. Palo Alto Historical Association 1 representative
b. Business Community 1 representative
c. City Council 1 representative
d. Chair of the Human Relations Commission
e. Chair of the Library Advisory Commission
f. Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
g. Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission
h. Chair of the Public Art Commission
1. Chair of the Utilities Advisory Commission
2. The City Manager's Officewill convene a meeting ofthe Selection Committee during
the month of November if nomination(s) were received during the month of October
from the Councilor public.
3. The Selection Committee will consider the criteria below, the written nominations
and conduct a public hearing in forming a recommendation to Council.
4. Once approved, staff will prepare a transmittal and resolution for consideration and
approval by the Council. The transmittal shall include a narrative citing the notable
achievements and contributions of the individual and a copy of the suggestion form.
C. Criteria
The following criteria shall be used in selecting persons for this honor:
1. Ten (10) or more years of significant community service contributions.
2. Sustained the quality oflife or had a positive impact on the lives of Palo Alto citizens.
3. Created opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs.
4. Was a Palo Alto resident during the time the nominee provided community service.
5. The individual has not have been previously honored by other actions of the City,
such as facilities named in their honor or other memorial.
6. Candidate may be living or deceased.
D. Council Action
1. The recommendation(s) received from the Selection Committee shall be placed on the
Council agenda for final approval.
2. Action by the Council shall be taken by Council Resolution.
NOTE: Questions and/or clarification of this policy should be directed to the City Manager's
Office.
CMR 176:05 Page 4 of5
Council Member Cordell said one of the criteria required the diversion of staffing
and asked whether a qualifier was needed.
Mr. Sartor suggested stating "substantial diversion."
Council Member Cordell questioned the criteria that indicated, "project may
require voter approval."
Mr. Sartor said voter approval was needed, for example, if the Council did a
feasibility study for the storm drain program.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg referred to the criteria that stated, "Project would require an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or other master plans" and asked whether
there needed to be a determination of compliance or compatibility if it were not
certain that an amendment was needed.
Mr. Sartor said if the project definition were at the point where staff had to go
b~ck and look at a plan, the project would go back to the Council for review.
Chairperson Freeman said part of the request in the Colleagues' Memo was that
during the budget process, the Council needed to know that potentially, down the
road, there might be some money that the Council needed to think about in the
future.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked whether language could be added to say, "The project
would require a determination of compliance or compatibility and or an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or other master plans." Issues of
compatibility had been raised in past situations. The wording, "significant
changes" in the criteria, "Project involves a significant change in service levels
requiring additional staffing or other resources" was questioned.
Mr. Sartor said a significant change would be the addition of a new building or
budgeting $25,000 per month to maintain ,a system.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said someone told her the storm drain initiative included
another staff person, which was believed to be significant and should be
highlighted. The wording was too vague.
Mr. Sartor said the alternative was to say the "Project involves a change in service
levels."
03/15/05 P&S:3
Council Member Cordell said the language stated, "involves a significant change in
service levels requiring additional staffing." Additional staffing was what was
considered.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked whether there was ever a project that did not require
additional staffing to complete the project.
Mr. Sartor said the IMP program was fully staffed. As the IMP program was
managed, the $10 million per year worth of work was fully staffed. If a new police
building or a $17 million storm drain program were added, those were
unanticipated projects.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg clarified the Council was talking about an unanticipated new
project not already included in a previously approved CIP.
Mr. Sartor said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said she did not want to see staff return with every little
project.
Mr. Sartor said he believed the criteria were targeted at a major new facility or
program that the community wanted to see that was not included in the existing
planning.
Council Member Beecham said the Council periodically retuned staff if needed.
Assistant to the City Manager Chris Mogensen said the wording was subjective on
purpose, because it depended on economic factors. One full time employee (FTE)
might be significant at the current time but that might not be the case in five
years. Quantifying was difficult.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said the significance of the project was focused on rather
than number of employees.
Chairperson Freeman said the criteria were for flagging. Some projects were
approved by the prior Council but came to a' point that required additional
staffing.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg clarified the criteria were for policy direction.
Chairperson Freeman noted the staff report (CMR: 165:05) indicated
"recommended criteria to be used to determine when a CIP project needs to be
brought forward for policy direction." The Colleagues Memo, authored by Council
03/15/05 P&S:4
commissions as part of the selection committee were suggested which
incorporated different aspects of ways that people-contributed to society. When
proposals were brought forward for the naming of a facility, there would be
documentation that staff essentially created a resume or outline that helped
present the information to the Council for consideration and for the history of the
recognition. The Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) was very involved in the
naming of facilities. The tradition in Palo Alto tended to be that facilities were
named after people who made significant historical contributions. The proposed
change was that the selection committee was broader. Staff looked for a location
for the display. One of the most fitting places was in the Council Chambers lobby
hallway. Alternatives, such as Centennial Way, were looked at; however, some
members of the PAHA did not fe'el that location was not actually in the
Government seat or a place that was on par with the recognition of former Council
Members and Mayors. Criteria to be used in selecting person included: (1) Ten
(10) or more years of significant community service contributions; (2) Sustained
the quality of life or had a positive impact on the lives of Palo Alto citizens; (3)
Created opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs; (4)
Was a Palo Alto resident during the time the nominee provided community
service; (5) The individual has not been previously honored by other actions of
the City, such as facilities named in their honor or other memorial; and (6)
Candidate may be living or deceased. -
Council Member Cordell asked whether a person had to meet all six criteria or a
portion. I
Mr. Betts said the intent was that the individual met all of the criteria.
Council Member Cordell questioned the wording "Sustained the quality of life or
had a positive impact on the lives of Palo Alto citizens." Sustaining the quality of
life had a positive impact on people's lives.
Council Member Beecham suggested one of the phrases might refer to a one-time
event versus continuous.
Chairperson Freeman suggested adding the words "sustained or improved" the
quality of life.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said naming anything after people who were alive was not a
good idea. The criteria, although well thought out, were vague and subjective. Mr.
Betts did a great job. The research, care, and thought that went into the
recommendation for recognizing individuals were outstanding. There was no way
to get around the subjective, emotional, dramatic misunderstandings that were
03/15/05 P&S:8
part and parcel of an effort to do something good and nice when people were
alive and might misunderstand and feel slighted.
Mr. Betts stated nothing was said the prior year about whether there was a Wall
of Honor that was Specifically for a person who was living or deceased. The cities
of Mountain View and Menlo Park had specific rulings for their parks and facilities
that the person had to be deceased for five years.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said state parks had a similar rule.
Mr. Betts said some people suggested that in order to recognize people while they
can enjoy the merits of their work, it was nice to honor them.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said the Paid Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was a
companion governmental agency, which broke ranks with virtually all the other
school districts in the state by not nominating teachers of the year. The PAUSD
chose not to single out one teacher because all the others were special, and there
were differences of style and contribution.
Council Member Beecham said his concerns related to the capacity of the wall and
how much recognition was done annually. The proposed recognitions were for
individuals rather than organizations. T.here were groups of people who made
significant contributions to the City.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said Tall Tree recognized organizations in addition to
individuals.
Chairperson Freeman said not every person would be honored. People who did
great things in the City should be honored. The application required ten years of
significant community service contributions. The contributions needed to be
documented and referenced. "Significant community service contributions"
needed to be clearer. Working on campaigns was a civic duty that might be
considered. A representative of the PAUSD on the selection committee was
suggested. The' Palo Alto Neighborhoods Association president was also
suggested. A concern was that many people did not go to City Hall. Bricks in
Heritage Park were suggested as a place for recognition.
Mr. Mogensen said Mr. Betts did research on the brick option.
Mr. Betts said normally bricks were used for fundraisers or a walkway were cast
and done with a minimum quantify of 50 bricks at a time. An alternative included
sandblasting a piece of slate or brick, and the expense was greater than the
concept of a standardized plaque. An alternative might be using a bronze plaque,
03/15/05 P&S:9
which cost from $200 to $1200, depending on size. Many parks had decomposed
granite walkways, which worked like sandpaper on brick or slate. The PAHA had a
difficult time choosing names for what was finally called Heritage Park. The vision
was that benches in the park gave honor to historical figures. The PAHA had a
strong sense of ownership on the future recognitions in the park.
Chairperson· Freeman said Heritage Park was public. Bricks could circle a tree
rather than be on a path. There were issues with bronze plates on the ground
because they can be slippery.
Council Member Beecham said he was less enthused about the project and
. probably would not support it ..
Council Member Cordell asked whether there was a limit on the amount of people
who would be nominated in one year.
Mr. Betts said the limit was not discussed.
Council Member Cordell suggested there be a limit each year.
Mr. Betts said the City of Foster City honored one individual per year.
Council Member Cordell said her concern was that there might be more upset in
the community about who was recognized.
Chairperson Freeman said she would err on the side that citizens received
recognition for the amount of work they did. The Tall Tree awards were given to
two individuals and an organization. Honoring the same number of people was
suggested.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg expressed opposition to the Wall of Honor because not
everyone would be recognized. Many people who were not well known to Council
Members and Commission Members but who did small acts of public service.
Honoring a few people who were well known became a popularity contest. Cost of
such an honor needed to be taken into consideration.
Council Member Cordell clarified the Wall of Honor was a new idea.
Mr. Betts said yes.
Council Member Cordell asked whether there were other ways that the City
honored people other than parks and facilities.
03/15/05 P&S:10