HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1774City of Palo Alto (ID # 1774)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Council Priority: City Finances
Summary Title: Approval of FY 2012 Budget
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of an Ordinance Adopting the Fiscal Year 2012
Budget, including the Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement Program, and
Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of Five Resolutions: (1)
Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase; (2) Amending
Utility Rate Schedules for Fiber Optic Rate Increases; (3) Amending Utility Rate
Schedules for Wastewater Rate Increases pursuant to Proposition 218; (4)
Amending Utility Rate Schedules for Water Rate Increases; (5) Amending the
2010-2011 Compensation Plan for the Management and Professional Personnel
and Council Appointees; and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08
to Create a New Department of Information Technology
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following:
1.The Budget Adoption Ordinance (Attachment 1), which includes:
a.Exhibit A: the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget, previously
distributed in the May 2nd Council Packet
b.Exhibit B: amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget
c.Exhibit C: revised pages to the Table of Organization
d.Exhibit D: amendments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule
2.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Storm Drain Rate Increase
(Attachment 2)
3.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Fiber Optic Rate Increase (Attachment
3)
4.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Wastewater Rate Increase
(Attachment 4)
5.Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedules for a Water Rate Increase (Attachment 5)
6.Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011
Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by Resolution
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 11
(ID # 1774)
No. 9156 to Add Three New Positions, Change the Titles of Six Positions and Update the
Compensation for Five Positions (Attachment 6)
7.Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 2.08.240 Creating a New Department of
Information Technology (Attachment 7)
Executive Summary
The documents attached outline the amendments to the City’s Operating and Capital Fiscal
Year 2012 Proposed Budgets and Utility rate changes.
Background
The City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Operating Budget and the Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Capital Budget were submitted to City Council on May 2, 2011. During the month of
May, the Finance Committee held hearings and reviewed the Proposed Budget, including the
General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Capital Improvement Programs, and
the Municipal Fee Schedule. A total of six public hearings were held on May 3, 5, 12, 17, 24,
and 25 during which the Committee reviewed and discussed the City’s operating and capital
expenditures for the next year.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget process began with a $3.2 million General Fund budget gap. In
addition, in response Council priorities, staff included a $1 million placeholder to create the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) and a $1 million placeholder for increasing pension costs in
Fiscal Year 2013. This gap was addressed by department reductions totaling $1 million and $4.3
million in staff recommended Public Safety concessions. The Finance Committee expressed
concerns regarding the use of Public Safety concessions as a budget balancing strategy. In
response to these concerns, the Fire and Police Departments presented the committee with
budget reduction alternatives that may be utilized in the event that labor concessions do not
materialize. These memos can be found in Appendix 9 of this report.
As a result of the hearings, the Finance Committee and staff have recommended changes to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget as discussed below. Detail for these transactions are listed in
the Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget schedule
(Attachment 1, Exhibit B).
Discussion
This staff report focuses primarily on the financial changes recommended by the Finance
Committee and staff during the public hearing process that followed the submission of the
original proposed budget. Certain key non-financial changes are also highlighted in this report.
All other non-financial recommended changes to the proposed budget are described in
Appendix 6, which was distributed to the Finance Committee on May 25th, and will be
incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget.
Adjustments to Date
This section summarizes actions made by the Finance Committee during the department
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 11
(ID # 1774)
budget hearings that occurred in May and wrapped on May 25th. Detail in this section is
organized by fund then by department. The discussion below segregates changes that were
initiated by the Finance Committee from changes that are initiated by staff. A summary of Full-
Time Equivalent (FTE) changes is presented following fund detail.
General Fund
The Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget presented to City Council on May 2nd resulted in a $0.131
million contribution to the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). Changes approved by the
Finance Committee net to an increase of $13,000, resulting in a $0.144 million BSR contribution
(see Table 1). The BSR balance in Fiscal Year 2012 is projected to be $27.0 million and equals
18.46 percent of the Proposed Operating Budget. The City’s adopted reserve policy stipulates
that a reserve range of 15 to 20 percent of General Fund operating expenditures, with a target
of 18.5 percent, shall be maintained. The Fiscal Year 2012 projected BSR percentage falls within
this range and meets the targeted BSR percentage.
Table 1: Amendments to the FY 2012 General Fund Proposed Budget
(in thousands)
Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning - change to BSR $131
Finance Committee Recommended Changes:
5/12 CSD Public Art maintenance (15)
5/24 COU Council benefits -align with actuals (124)
5/24 NON Offset with pension increase placeholder 124
5/25 NON Add'l funding for capital improvement (500)
Subtotal (515)
Staff Recommended Changes:
5/25 CSD Foothill Parking revenue (65)
5/24 FIR Return remaining OES funding 167
5/24 FIR Stanford revenue related to OES 252
5/12 PCE Rail Corridor funding (110)
5/12 PCE Return remaining Development Center funding 14
5/5 POL Animal Services shelter study (50)
5/24 PWD Proposed staffing changes (restructuring)37
5/25 NON Civic Center debt service transfer 283
Subtotal 528
Ending - change to BSR $144
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
City Council
·Revised the benefits budget for City Council by $123,917. This change has a zero net
impact to the General Fund since it is offset by the pension increase placeholder that
was budgeted in the Non-Departmental budget.
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Community Services Department
·Add $15,000 for maintenance of public art
·Fund Human Service Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) administrative overhead fees
totaling $27,761 with Council Contingency
o The beginning balance of the Council Contingency Fund is $250,000. The balance
after use of Council Contingency for HSRAP administrative overhead fees is
$222,239
·Additional $0.5 million contribution to the Infrastructure Reserve
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
City Manager
·Move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754 and 1.05 FTE, to the City
Manager’s Office (no net change to General Fund).
o Includes reallocating 1.0 FTE Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment
and 0.05 FTE Assistant to the City Manager from PCE to the City Manager’s Office
Community Services Department
·Revenue decrease of $65,000 related to Foothill College parking fee. This parking fee is
not included in the City’s municipal fee schedule; at this time the City does not have
plans to implement this new parking fee
·Reinstate 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Table of Organization. See discussion in the
General Fund Full-Time Equivalents section of this report.
Fire Department
·Office of Emergency Services (OES) budget utilizes $833,325 of the $1 million
placeholder funding in the Non-Departmental budget. Remaining funding totaling
$166,675 will be added to the BSR. Changes include:
o Ongoing costs totaling $498,325, which includes adding 1.0 FTE Emergency
Services Director (salary and benefits totaling $233,325)
o One-time costs totaling $335,000
o Increase in revenue from Stanford University, $252,497
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
·Add $110,000 to the Planning and Community Environment Department budget for the
Rail Corridor project
·Development Center Transition Plan funding which utilized $0.286 of the $0.3 million in
placeholder funding. Remaining transition plan funding totaling $14,231 will be added
to the BSR. Detail for the FTE changes below are discussed in the General Fund Full-Time
Equivalents section of this report. The department proposed:
o Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II, $95,538 in salary and benefits
o Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director PCE,
$28,231 in salary and benefits
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 11
(ID # 1774)
o Add contracted building and planning technicians $162,000
·Move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754, to the City Manager’s
Office (no net change to the General Fund)
o Includes reallocating 1.0 FTE Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment
and 0.05 FTE Assistant to the City Manager from PCE to the City Manager’s Office
·Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist to the Public Works Department, $146,957 in salary
and benefits
Police Department
·Add $50,000 to the Police Department budget for the Animal Services Shelter study to
determine future options for shelter.
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department proposed the following changes (listed below) related to the
department’s restructuring efforts.
·Position changes to the Public Works General Fund budget that total an increase of
$109,783 in salary and benefits
o Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester $30,692
o Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $12,924
o Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
o Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE, $146,957
Non-Departmental
·OES funding that was budgeted in Non-Departmental totaled $1 million. The cost for the
OES Division totals $833,325 (discussed in the Fire Department section of this report).
The remaining $166,675 in OES funding will be contributed back to the BSR
·Return $282,765 to General Fund from Civic Center Debt Service Fund. The final
payment for this bond issue is March 2012 and the Civic Center Debt Service Fund has
enough in reserves for this last payment.
General Fund Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
The Finance Committee approved a net increase of 2.05 FTE to the General Fund.
·Add 1.0 FTE Emergency Services Director as part of the proposed OES plan
·Add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II in Planning and Community Environment
totaling $95,538. This position was eliminated in the FY 2012 Proposed Budget. The
position has been reinstated and the department will utilize this position in the
Development Center. Funding for this position comes from funds set aside for the
Development Center Transition Plan and reinstating this position has no net impact to
the General Fund.
·Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Planning and
Community Environment. This change results in a budget increase totaling $28,231. The
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 11
(ID # 1774)
position will provide more general oversight to the PCE Department and manage the
department’s day-to-day operations to allow the PCE Director to facilitate organizational
issues and direct policy matters.
·Add 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Community Services Department. This is a
temporary reduction in staff due to renovations in the Art Center. Funding for this
reduction in staff has been reduced in the proposed budget as a one-time reduction
however, since this is a temporary reduction in staffing the 0.5 FTE should remain in the
Table of Organization.
·The Public Works Department presented the Finance Committee with the department’s
reorganizational plan. Amendments to the FY 2012 Proposed Budget include:
o Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester $30,692
o Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $12,924
o Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
o Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE $146,957 (results in no net impact
to the General Fund)
Enterprise Funds
Changes to the Enterprise Funds Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget are listed below. These
changes result in an overall $0.477 million increase in reserve balances.
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Water Fund
·Defer funding totaling $0.5 million for the Water Recycling Facilities project (WS-07001)
from FY 2012 to FY 2013
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Refuse Fund
·Increase to contract services for the SMaRT Station $250,000
·Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst to the General Fund; 0.25 to the Storm Drain Fund;
and 0.25 FTE Mgmt Analyst to the Capital Improvement Fund ($99,000)
Storm Drainage Fund
·Decrease to untarped load fee revenue ($12,000)
·Decrease in operating expense for innovative projects ($143,000)
·Increase CIP for the Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements (SD-10101)
$143,000
·Reallocate 0.10 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $11,009
June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Internal Service Funds
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Technology Fund
·Remove the Utilities Customer Bill Redesign project (TE-11004) funding totaling
$150,000 from FY 2012 Technology Fund Capital Improvement Program budget and
return funding back to the respective Enterprise Funds. This follows a Finance
Committee discussion on April 19, 2011 regarding SAP-related Capital Improvement
Projects, wherein the Finance Committee recommended removal of FY 2011 funding for
TE-11004, and subsequently FY 2012 funding
·Creation of the Information Technology Department which requires an amendment to
the Palo Alto Municipal Code. See Attachment 7 for ordinance.
Vehicle Replacement Fund
·Reallocate 0.25 FTE Mgmt Analyst from the Refuse Fund $27,523
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
·Additional $0.5 million contribution from the General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
·Move funding for the Street Improvement Project (PE-86070) in the amount of $2.0
million from FY 2012 to FY 2011
·Reclass 0.2 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $3,232
Debt Service Funds
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
·Reduction in contributions from the General Fund ($282,765) and Parking District
($66,299). The Civic Center Debt Service Fund has adequate funding in reserves to pay
the final debt service payment in March 2012.
Additional Information Requested by the Finance Committee
During the May 25th Budget Wrap-Up Hearing, the Finance Committee requested information
regarding the detail of revenue received for the City’s capital improvement program.
Attachment 8 provides actual revenues for FY 2006-2010 by funding source and includes notes
on major projects funded.
The Finance Committee also requested information regarding staffing costs expensed to the
Library Bonds. To date, the City has incurred $0.6 million in project labor costs. Staff estimates
that labor costs will total $1.5 to $2 million over the life of the project.
The Finance Committee has directed staff to report back during Fiscal Year 2012 on the
following:
June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 11
(ID # 1774)
·An update in September 2011 of labor negotiations for International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF). Use of the one-time OES related costs of $335,000 is postponed until
staff reports back to the Finance Committee with the labor negotiations update
·Conduct a separate study session with the Finance Committee regarding the status of
the Management/Professional Compensation Study
·Present to the Finance Committee staff’s ideas on a financially sustainable rate structure
for the Refuse Fund in July 2011
·Outsourcings or leasing options for the City’s vehicle fleet (excluding Fire, Police, and
specialty vehicles)
·A plan to move customers towards paperless Utility billing by Fiscal Year 2013.
·Return to the committee in September 2011 with a proposed process to address
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and an ongoing strategic CIP
plan
·A process or plan to perform a comprehensive review with the Finance Committee on all
impact fees in the municipal fee schedule
·Bring forward ideas and suggestions to restructure the capital and operating budget
documents
·The Library Bond allows cost for moving library collections. Staff will examine the
possibility of moving potions of the library collection into the Roth Building and attempt
to avoid moving the library collection more than once.
Compensation Plans
Three new positions, six title changes, and compensation updates for five positions are
proposed in the Management and Professional Personnel compensation plan (see Attachment
6).
Table of Organization
Amended pages to the Fiscal Year 2012 Table of Organization are included with this report (see
Attachment 1, Exhibit C). The Table has been revised to reflect the staffing changes presented
in this report. Changes reflected in the Table of Organization will be incorporated into the
relevant department organization charts and the revised organization charts will be published
in the adopted budget.
Compared to the Fiscal Year 2011 Adjusted Budget, the Proposed Budget presented to Council
on May 2nd had a net decrease of 3.5 FTE. During the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, the
Committee recommended a net increase of 1.50 FTE Citywide. These changes result in a net 2.0
FTE decrease in the Fiscal Year 2012 Amended Proposed Budget compared to the Fiscal Year
2011 Adjusted Budget. Below is a summary by fund of these changes (see Table 2). Detail for
the FTE Amendments to the Proposed Budget is discussed previously in this report within each
department section.
June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 11
(ID # 1774)
Table 2: Citywide FTE changes to FY 2012 Proposed Budget
General Enterprise Other
Fund Funds Funds Total
FY 2011 Adjusted Budget 579.00 365.72 73.88 1,018.60
Net Change (4.65) 0.70 0.45 (3.50)
FY 2012 Proposed Budget -beginning 574.35 366.42 74.33 1,015.10
Amendments to Proposed Budget 2.05 (0.80) 0.25 1.50
FY 2012 Proposed Budget -ending 576.40 365.62 74.58 1,016.60
Contracts Greater than $85,000
On May 25, 2011, the Finance Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2012 contract scopes of
professional services agreements greater than $85,000 (CMR #1672).
Municipal Fee Schedule
On May 25, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended that the Council adopt the changes to
the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule (CMR #1673) with amendments (Exhibit
D). The Finance Committee recommended two changes to the City Manager’s Proposed
Municipal Fee Schedule.The two recommendations are:
·Electric Vehicle Charge stations –fee has been reduced based on the department’s
updated analysis of staff time requirements
·A footnote has been added to the User Permits –Wireless facilities fee to clarify that
100 percent of all costs incurred will be recovered
Rate Changes
Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following Utility Rate
Increases:
·Storm Drain Rate Increase (Attachment 2): rates are adjusted annually based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Storm Drainage fee will increase by 1.5 percent to
reflect the annual CPI change. See CMR #1474 for additional information.
·Fiber Optic Rate Increase (Attachment 3): rates are adjusted annually based on CPI. The
Fiber Optic Rate will increase by 1.5 percent to reflect the annual CPI change. See CMR
#1541 for additional information.
·Wastewater Rate Change (Attachment 4): changed to more accurately align revenues
collected from each customer class with the cost attributable to serving that class. See
CMR #1399 for additional information.
·Water Rate Increase (Attachment 5): change is driven by water commodity costs. Cost of
service adjustments are being made to align revenues collected from each customer
class with the cost attributed to serving that class. See CMR #1628 for additional
June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 11
(ID # 1774)
information.
Resource Impact
The Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget as submitted to the Finance Committee resulted in an
increase to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) of $0.131 million. Changes
recommended by the Finance Committee and staff resulted in a net $13,000 contribution
increase to the BSR. In total, the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed budget results in a $0.144 million
transfer to the BSR (see Table 1). The projected ending balance for the BSR in Fiscal Year 2012
is $27.0 million and equals 18.46 percent of the Proposed Operating Budget. Per the adopted
reserve policy, a reserve range of 15 to 20 percent of the General Fund operating expenditures,
with a target of 18.5 percent, shall be maintained. The projected FY 2012 ending BSR balance
of 18.46 percent of General Fund operating expenditures falls within the 15 to 20 percent range
of the adopted reserve policy and meets the targeted BSR of 18.5 percent.
As a result of the changes to the capital budget, the projected ending balance in the
Infrastructure Reserve (IR) for Fiscal Year 2012 is $4.378 million. Additional changes to the
Enterprise Funds result in an approximately $0.477 million net increase in reserve balances in
Fiscal Year 2012 from the proposed document.
Policy Implications
These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies.
Environmental Review
Adoption of the budget does not represent a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
·Attachment 1: Budget Adoption Ordinance with the following Exhibits:(PDF)
·Exhibit A: City Manager's Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget (PDF)
·Exhibit B: Amendments to the City Manager's Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget (PDF)
·Exhibit C : Revised Table of Organization (PDF)
·Exhibit D: Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule (PDF)
·Attachment 2: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 1.5%
CPI (PDF)
·Attachment 3: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to
Fiber Optic Rates (PDF)
June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 11
(ID # 1774)
·Attachment 4: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Wastewater
Collection Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2 and Rule and Regulation 23 Governing
Wastewater Utility Regulations (PDF)
·Attachment 5: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate
Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7 Pertaining to Water Rates (PDF)
·Attachment 6: Resolution Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management
and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 (PDF)
·Attachment 7: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Creating a New Department
of Information Technology (PDF)
·Attachment 8: Capital Projects Fund Revenues Fiscal Years 2006-2010 (PDF)
·Appendix 1: Fiscal Year 2012 General Fund Summary and Reserve Balances (PDF)
·Appendix 2: Fiscal Year 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary and Reserve Balances(PDF)
·Appendix 3: Fiscal Years 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Fund Summaries and Amended
Projects (PDF)
·Appendix 4: Fiscal Year 2012 Internal Service Funds Summary (PDF)
·Appendix 5: Fiscal Year 2012 Debt Service Funds Summary (PDF)
·Appendix 6: May 25, 2011 Memorandum to Finance Committee Detailing Changes to Fiscal
Year 2012 City Manager's Proposed Budget to Date (PDF)
·Appendix 7: Memorandums Distributed "At-Places" During the Finance Committee Budget
Hearings (PDF)
·Appendix 8: Budget Hearing Presentation Slides Distributed During the Finance Committee
Budget Hearings (PDF)
·Appendix 9: Memorandums to the Finance Committee Regarding Public Safety Budget
(PDF)
·Appendix 10: Finance Committee Minutes From May 3, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 11: Finance Committee Minutes From May 5, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 12: Finance Committee Minutes From May 12, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 13: Finance Committee Minutes From May 17, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 14: Finance Committee Minutes From May 24, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 15: Finance Committee Minutes From May 25, 2011 (PDF)
·Appendix 16: Propostion 218 Wastewater Rate Increase Protests Letters (PDF)
Prepared By:Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
Not Yet Approved
ORDINANCE NO. ____
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(g) of Article IV of
the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Chapter 2.28 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the City Manager has prepared and submitted to
the City Council, by letter of transmittal, a budget proposal for
Fiscal Year 2011; and
B. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter, the Council did, on June 13 and 20, 2011, hold public
hearings on the budget after publication of notice in accordance
with Section 2.28.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
C. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8 of Division
1, of Title 7, commencing with Section 66016 of the Government Code,
as applicable, the Council did on June 13 and 20, 2011, hold a
public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Municipal Fee
Schedule, after publication of notice and after availability of the
data supporting the amendments was made available to the public at
least 10 days prior to the hearing.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the following documents, collectively referred to as “the
budget” are hereby approved and adopted for Fiscal Year 2012:
(a) The budget document (Exhibit “A”) containing the proposed
operating and capital budgets submitted on May 2, 2011,
by the City Manager for Fiscal Year 2012, entitled “City
of Palo Alto - City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed
Budget” covering General Government Funds, Enterprise
Funds and Internal Service Funds, a copy of which is on
file in the Department of Administrative Services, to
which copy reference is hereby made concerning the full
particulars thereof, and by such reference is made a part
hereof; and
(b) The Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” and made
a part hereof; and
Attachment 1
2
(c) Changes and revised pages in the Table of Organization,
attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and made a part hereof;
and
(d) Revised pages of the Municipal Fee Schedule attached
hereto as Exhibit “D”; and
SECTION 3. The sums set forth in the budget for the various
departments of the City, as herein amended, are hereby appropriated
to the uses and purposes set forth therein.
SECTION 4. All expenditures made on behalf of the City,
directly or through any agency, except those required by state law,
shall be made in accordance with the authorization contained in this
ordinance and the budget as herein amended.
SECTION 5. Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2011 that are
encumbered by approved purchase orders and contracts for which goods
or services have not been received or contract completed, and/or for
which all payments have not been made, by the last day of the Fiscal
Year 2011 shall be carried forward and added to the fund or
department appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012.
SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to make
changes in the department and fund totals and summary pages of the
budget necessary to reflect the amendments enumerated and aggregated
in the budget as shown in Exhibit “B” and the Fiscal Year 2011
appropriations carried forward as provided in Section 5.
SECTION 7. As specified in Section 2.04.320 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, a majority vote of the City Council is required to
adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 8. As specified in Section 2.28.140(b) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
delegates the authority to invest the City’s funds to the Director
of Administrative Services, as Treasurer, in accordance with the
City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2012.
SECTION 9. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the
changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit “D”.
The amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental
activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to a
payer bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burden
on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. All new
and increased fees shall go into effect immediately; provided that
pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, all Planning Department
Attachment 1
fees relating to a “development project” as defined in Government
Code Section 66000 shall become effective sixty (60) days from the
date of adoption.
SECTION 10. 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.
SECTION 11. Except as specified in Section 9, as provided in
Section 2.04.330 (a)(3) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
______________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
3
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
Fiscal Year 2012
City Manager’s
Proposed Operating and
Capital Budget
These documents were originally
distributed in Council Packet.
Printed copies are available upon
request for $20 per book.
Books may be viewed at any
City of Palo Alto Library or the
City’s website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
Salary and Benefits (123,917)$ Reduce placeholder for pension/healthcare increase in FY 2013
Non-salary (833,325)Move OES budget items to Fire
Non-salary (166,675)Return OES funding to the Budget Stabilization Reserve
Transfers out 500,000 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund
Transfers out (282,765) Return Civic Center debt service to General Fund
(906,682)
906,682$
Salary and non-salary 246,754$ Move Economic Development from PCE to City Manager's Office
246,754
(246,754)$
CITY COUNCIL
Salary and Benefits 123,917$ Revise Council benefit allocation
123,917
(123,917)$
(65,000)$ Remove Foothill College Parking fees
Source Changes (65,000)
Non-Salary 15,000$ Increase Public Art Maintenance
15,000
(80,000)$
252,497$ Increase Stanford revenue related to OES program
Source Changes 252,497
Salary and Benefits 233,325$ Add 1.0 FTE Emergency Services Director
Non-salary 265,000 Add Office of Emergency Services costs
Non-salary 335,000 Add one time OES costs - pending
833,325
(580,828)$
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
GENERAL FUND
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Exhibit B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
FIRE
CITY MANAGER
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
6/7/2011
General Fund 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
Exhibit B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Salary and Benefits (146,957)$ Move 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist to Public Works
Salary and non-salary (246,754) Move Economic Development to City Manager's Office
Non-salary 110,000 Add Rail Corridor Funding
Non-salary (14,231) Return remaining Development Center transition funding to BSR.
(297,942)
Development Center changes from $300,000 transition include:
28,231 Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official; add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
95,538 Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II
81,000 Add contracted Building Technician
81,000 Add contracted Planning Technician
297,942$
Non-salary 50,000$ Add Animal Services shelter study
50,000
(50,000)$
Salary and Benefits 30,692$ Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester
Salary and Benefits 12,924 Reclass 0.8 FTE Sup., Facilities Maintenance to Mngr., Maintenance Operations
Salary and Benefits (141,340) Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager
Salary and Benefits 60,550 Reallocate 0.55 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund
Salary and Benefits 146,957 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from Planning Department
109,783
(109,783)$
Total General Fund Changes to BSR 13,342$
Salary and Benefits 3,232$ Reclass 0.2 FTE Sup. Facilities Maintenance to Mgr. Maintenance Operations
Non-salary (2,021,068) Reduce project PE86070 per BAO #5120 to fund $2,021,068 in FY2011
Transfers in 500,000 Increase transfers in from General Fund to CIP Infrastructure Reserve
Use Changes (1,517,836)
1,517,836$ Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
GENERAL FUND CIP
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
POLICE
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
6/7/2011
General Fund 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ELECTRIC FUND
Non-salary
$ (73,713) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes (73,713)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 73,713
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (73,713) Change in Fund Balance- Distribution
Total Electric Fund $ (73,713)
FIBER OPTICS FUND
Non-salary
$ (566) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes $ (566)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 566
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (566) Change in Fund Balance
Total Fiber Optics Fund $ (566)
GAS FUND 7
Non-salary
$ (28,390) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes (28,390)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 28,390
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 28,390 Change in Fund Balance- Distribution
Total Gas Fund $ 28,390
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit B
6/7/2011
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit B
Non-salary $ (9,513) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Use Changes (9,513)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 9,513
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 9,513 Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Collection Fund $ 9,513
WATER FUND 7
Non-salary $ (16,902) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Non-salary (500,000) Defer WS-07001, Water Recycling Facilities Project, to
FY2013
Use Changes (516,902)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 516,902
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 516,902 Change in Fund Balance
Total Water Fund $ 516,902
REFUSE FUND
Salary and Benefits $ (99,082) Reallocate .9 FTE Mgmt Analyst to other Public Works
funds.
Non-salary (17,231) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Non-salary 250,000 Increase contract for SMaRT Station
Use Changes 133,687
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (133,687)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (133,687) Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund $ (133,687)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
6/7/2011
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2012 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit B
STORM DRAINAGE FUND 7
$ (12,000) Decrease untarped load fee revenue
Source Changes (12,000)
Salary and Benefits $ 11,009 Reallocate .10 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund.
Non-salary (143,000)Decrease operating expense for innovative projects
Non-salary (3,685) Return portion of Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-
11004) project.
Non-salary 143,000 Increase CIP for Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain
Improvements (SD-10101)
Use Changes 7,324
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (19,324)
Fund Balancing Entries
(19,324) Change in Fund Balance
Total Storm Drainage Fund $ (19,324)
6/7/2011
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2012 Category Description
Transfers in (349,064)$ Reduce transfers from General Fund and Parking District Fund
Source Changes (349,064)
(349,064)$
Salary and Benefits 27,523$ Reallocate .25 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund
Use Changes 27,523
(27,523)$
Transfers in (150,000)$ Decrease transfers for TE-11004 project.
Source Changes (150,000)
Non-salary (150,000)$ Close Utilities Customer Bill Redesign (TE-11004) project.
Use Changes (150,000)
-$
Dept charges
156,753$ Increase benefits resulting from position changes during Finance Committee
hearings
Source Changes 156,753$
Salary and Benefits 156,753 Increase benefits - position changes from Finance Committee hearings
Use Changes 156,753
-$
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
INTERNAL SERVICE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Exhibit B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Amount
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
CIVIC CENTER DEBT SERVICE FUND
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
GENERAL BENEFITS & INSURANCE FUND
6/7/2011
Other Funds 2012
Summary of Position Changes
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 1
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Summary of Position Changes
FTE
GENERAL FUND
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 579.50
FY 2011 BAO Position Adjustments
POL - Community Service Officer (0.50)
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 579.00
FY 2012 Additions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate III 0.50
FIR - Emergency Services Director 1.00
FY 2012 Total Additions 1.60
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ATT - Senior Legal Secretary (1.00)
ATT - Claims Investigator 1.00
CMO - Administrative Associate I (0.50)
CMO - Administrative Associate III 0.50
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (1.00)
ASD - Budget Officer 1.00
ASD - Deputy Director, ASD (0.80)
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.80
ASD - Graphic Designer (1.00)
ASD - Administrative Associate III 1.00
ASD - Budget Manager (1.00)
ASD - Chief Budget Officer 1.00
PCE - Chief Planning Official (1.00)
PCE - Assistant Director, PCE 1.00
POL - Animal Services Specialist (1.00)
POL - Animal Services Specialist II 1.00
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (1.60)
PWD - Mgr Maintenance Operations 1.60
PWD - Managing Arborist (1.00)
PWD - Urban Forester 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate I (0.50)
CMO - Assistant to the City Manager 0.05
EXHIBIT C
Summary of Position Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20122
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
CMO - Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment 1.00
PCE - Administrative Associate I 0.50
PCE - Assistant to the City Manager (0.05)
PCE - Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment (1.00)
PCE - Planning Arborist (1.00)
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.35)
PWD - Management Analyst 0.55
PWD - Planning Arborist 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions 0.30
FY 2012 Elimination or Reduction
ATT - Claims Investigator (0.60)
CSD - Coordinator Recreation Programs (0.50)
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.60)
PWD - Mgr Facilities Maintenance (0.80)
PWD - Administrative Associate I (1.00)
PWD - Project Manager (1.00)
FY 2012 Total Elimination or Reduction (4.50)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED GENERAL FUND POSITIONS 576.40
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 365.72
FY 2011 Position Adjustments
UTL - Utilities Installer/Repairer (1.00)
UTL - Coordinator, Utility Projects 1.00
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 365.72
FY 2012 New Positions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst 0.50
PWD - Asst Director, Environmental Services 1.00
UTL - Utilities Key Account Representative 1.00
FY 2012 Total New Positions 2.50
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ASD - Deputy Director, ASD (0.20)
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD 0.20
PWD - Supervisor WQC Operations (1.00)
FTE
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Summary of Position Changes
3
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
PWD - Assistant Plant Manager 1.00
PWD - Supervisor WQC Operations (1.00)
PWD - Operator II, WQC 1.00
PWD - Business Analyst (1.00)
PWD - Senior Technologist 1.00
PWD - Executive Assistant (2.00)
PWD - Management Analyst 2.00
PWD - Landfill Technician (1.00)
PWD - Coord, PW Projects 1.00
PWD - Mgr Environmental Compliance (1.00)
PWD - Watershed Protection Mgr 1.00
UTL - Maintenance Mechanic (1.00)
UTL - Maintenance Mechanic - Welding 1.00
UTL - Coordinator Utility Projects (1.00)
UTL - Business Analyst 1.00
UTL - Utility Engineering Estimator (1.00)
UTL - Business Analyst 1.00
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Assistant Director, ASD (0.10)
PWD - Management Analyst (0.80)
PWD - Senior Engineer (0.50)
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions (1.40)
FY 2012 Eliminated Positions
ASD - Manager Energy Risk (1.00)
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.20)
FY 2012 Total Eliminated Positions (1.20)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED ENTERPRISE FUND POSITIONS 365.62
OTHER FUNDS
FY 2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 73.38
FY 2011 BAO Position Adjustments
ASD (IT) - Chief Information Officer (title change)(1.00)
ASD (IT) - Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer (title change)1.00
POL - Community Service Officer 0.50
FTE
EXHIBIT C
Summary of Position Changes
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20124
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
FY 2011 ADJUSTED TOTAL 73.88
FY 2012 New Positions
None
FY 2012 Total New Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reclassified Positions
ASD (IT) - Administrative Associate II (1.00)
ASD (IT) - Administrative Assistant 1.00
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Mgt (0.40)
PWD - Mgr Maintenance Operations 0.40
FY 2012 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2012 Reallocated Positions
PWD - Management Analyst 0.25
PWD - Senior Engineer 0.50
PWD - Supervisor Facilities Management 0.35
FY 2012 Total Reallocated Positions 1.10
FY 2012 Eliminated Positions
PWD - Superintendent PW Operations (0.20)
PWD - Mgr Facilities Maintenance (0.20)
FY 2012 Total Eliminated Positions (0.40)
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 74.58
FY 2012 TOTAL PROPOSED CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1016.60
FTE
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 5
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Table of Organization
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
GENERAL FUND
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Claims Investigator (3), (4) 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.40
Deputy City Attorney 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Legal Secretary - Confidential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Legal Services Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Secretary to City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Deputy City Attorney 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Legal Secretary (4) 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00)
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 10.60 9.60 9.60 9.00 (0.60)
City Auditor
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Performance Auditor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
TOTAL CITY AUDITOR 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
City Clerk
Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Assistant City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hearing Officer 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
TOTAL CITY CLERK 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 0.00
City Manager
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (5), (12) 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 (1.00)
Administrative Associate II 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20126
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Administrative Associate III (2), (5)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer (17) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager (24)2.00 1.50 1.50 1.55 0.05
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt (24)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL CITY MANAGER 10.00 9.00 9.00 10.05 1.05
Administrative Services Department
Accountant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Accounting Specialist 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Accounting Specialist - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.00
Administrative Associate III (9) 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services (8) 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.50 0.90
Assistant Storekeeper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Budget Officer (6) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Business Analyst 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Buyer 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00
Chief Budget Officer (10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Administrator 2.00 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Deputy Director, Administrative Services (8) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 (0.80)
Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (7) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Graphic Designer (9) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Budget (10) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Purchasing/Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Real Property Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
7
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Real Property Agent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst (1), (6) 6.91 5.81 5.81 4.91 (0.90)
Senior Buyer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Staff Secretary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 41.95 37.49 37.49 37.69 0.20
Community Services Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Administrator Special Events 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arts and Culture Division Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Child Care 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, Recreation Programs (14) 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.00 (0.50)
Cubberley Center and Human Svc Div Mgr 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director, Community Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Golf & Parks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Division Manager, Recreation & Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Rec and Youth Sciences 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Course Equipment Mechanic 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Course Maintenance Person 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Educator 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.00
Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Instructor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Arts 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20128
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Open Space and Parks Division Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maintenance Person 11.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Parks and Open Space Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Crew - Lead 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Producer Arts/Science Programs 13.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Program Assistant I (23)7.75 7.50 7.50 7.50 0.00
Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Ranger 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sprinkler System Repairer 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Superintendent, Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Open Space 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervisor, Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Recreation Program 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 94.25 74.50 74.50 74.00 (0.50)
Fire
Administrative Assistant 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Battalion Chief 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief OPS/Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EMS Chief 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EMS Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
EMT Basic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Apparatus Operator 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00
Fire Captain 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 0.00
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 0.00
Fire Inspector 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
9
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Hazardous Materials Fire Apparatus Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Fire Captain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Services Director (20)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
OES Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Paramedic Captain 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paramedic Operator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL FIRE 122.69 120.74 120.74 121.74 1.00
Human Resources Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director, Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Human Resources Assistant - Conf 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Human Resources Representative 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Manager, Employee Relations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Human Resources & Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Risk and Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Human Resources Administrator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Library Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Library Circulation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, Library Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Director, Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201210
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Division Head, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Library Assistant 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00
Library Associate 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Services Manager 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Specialist 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00
Manager, Main Library Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Librarian 8.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00
TOTAL LIBRARY DEPARTMENT 42.25 41.25 41.25 41.25 0.00
Planning and Community Environment
Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (12) 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50
Administrative Associate II (23)3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrator, Planning & Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir (18)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager (24)0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 (0.05)
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Building Inspector Specialist 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building/Planning Technician 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Planning and Transportation Official (18)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Chief Transportation Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Traffic Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coordinator, Transp Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Director, Planning and Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
11
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt (24)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Planning 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Managing Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Permit Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Planner 6.05 5.75 5.75 5.75 0.00
Plan Checking Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Planning Arborist (21)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Planner 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Supervisor, Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Transportation Manager 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transportation Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 48.85 44.60 44.60 43.05 (1.55)
Police Department
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Animal Attendant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Animal Control Officer 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00
Animal Services Specialist (11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Animal Services Specialist II (11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Assistant Chief of Police 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Communications Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Officer 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communication Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Service Officer 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 0.00
Community Service Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Crime Analyst 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy Director Technical Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Parking Enforcement Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201212
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Parking Enforcement Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00
Police Captain 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Lieutenant 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Police Officer 50.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 0.00
Police Officer Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist II 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Police Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Coordinator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Property and Evidence Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Safety Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Superintendent, Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Police Services 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Veterinarian Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
TOTAL POLICE 161.50 157.00 156.50 156.50 0.00
Public Works Department
Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Accounting Specialist 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I (16) 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.70 (1.00)
Administrative Associate II 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
13
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Public Works 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.00
Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Building Serviceperson 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Building Serviceperson - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coordinator, Public Works Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director, Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Engineering Technician III 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00
Equipment Parts Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Facilities Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facilities Maintenance - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Instrument Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Management Analyst (22)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55
Manager, Facilities Maintenance (16) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 (0.80)
Manager, Maintenance Operations (15)0.12 0.12 0.12 1.72 1.60
Managing Arborist (19)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Planning Arborist (21)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Project Manager (16)1.75 1.75 1.75 0.75 (1.00)
Senior Accountant 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Senior Engineer 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00
Senior Project Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201214
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (16)0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 (0.60)
Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Building Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Facilities Management (13), (15)1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00 (1.95)
Supervisor, Inspec/Surveying, Public Works 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Traffic Control Maintainer - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance II 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forester (19)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 63.67 58.57 58.57 56.37 (2.20)
GENERAL FUND AUTHORIZED POSITIONS 622.51 579.50 579.00 576.40 (2.60)
1 Add 0.10 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
2 Add 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate III
3 Drop 0.6 FTE Claims Investigator
4 Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to Claims Investigator
5 Reclass 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative Associate III
6 Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to Budget Officer
7 Title change from Director, ASD to Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer
8 Reclass 0.8 FTE Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate 0.10 FTE from Utilities Fund
9 Reclass 1.0 FTE Graphic Designer to Administrative Associate III
10 Reclass 1.0 FTE Budget Manager to Chief Budget Officer
11 Reclass 1.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist to Animal Services Specialist II
12 Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I from City Manager's Office to Planning, Community and Environment
13 Reallocate 0.35 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management from Other Funds
14 Eliminated position due to budget constraints
15 Reclass 1.6 FTE Supervisor Facilities Manager to Mgr Maintenance Operations
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
15
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
16 Eliminated position due to department reorganization
17 Title change from Assistant City Manager to Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
18 Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning and Transportation Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir
19 Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist and add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester
20 Add 1.0 FTE Emergency Services Director
21 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from Planning and Community Environment to Public Works
22 Reallocate 0.55 Management Analyst from Enterprise Funds - Public Works
23 FTE was added back during Budget Hearings
24 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Manager Economic Development & Redevelopment and 0.05 FTE Assistant to City Manager from
Planning and Community Environment to the City Manager's Office
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Public Works Department
Refuse, Storm Drainage and Wastewater
Treatment
Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00
Accounting Specialist 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.00
Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Public Works 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Assistant Director, Environmental Services (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Plant Manager (5) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Administrative Associate II 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 0.00
Asst Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Associate Engineer 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst (7) 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.13 (1.00)
Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Coordinator Environmental Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator, PW Projects (10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Coordinator Recycling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201216
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Electrician - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician III 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00
Executive Assistant (8) 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 (2.00)
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator - Lead 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 0.00
Industrial Waste Assistant Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Industrial Waste Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Laboratory Tech, Water Quality Control Plant 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Landfill Technician (10) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Management Analyst (8), (16)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20
Manager, Environmental Compliance (11) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Environmental Control Program 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Manager, Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 0.00
Manager, Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Operator II, WQC (6) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Refuse Disposal Attendant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00
Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Engineer (15) 2.45 2.75 2.75 2.25 (0.50)
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Senior Industrial Waste Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
17
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Operator, Water Quality Control 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Senior Technologist (7) 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.13 1.00
Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Street Sweeper Operator - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (9) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Supervisor, Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water Quality Control Operations (5), (6) 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 (2.00)
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Control Maintenance I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Truck Driver 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator II 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Water Quality Control Plant Operator Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watershed Protection Mgr (11) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS - ENTERPRISE 114.63 115.01 115.01 114.51 (0.50)
Utilities Department
Administration, Electric, Gas, Wastewater
Collection and Water
Account Representatives 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Accounting Specialist 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Assistant Power Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Resource Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Power Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Resource Planner 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201218
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Assistant Director, Administrative Services (4)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Assistant Director Customer Support Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Admin Svc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities/Res Mgmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant to City Manager 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00
Business Analyst (13), (14) 2.87 2.87 2.87 4.87 2.00
Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cathodic Protection Technician/Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Electric Underground Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Inspector Water, Gas, Wastewater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Utility Safety & Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coordinator, Utility Projects (13) 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Customer Service Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Customer Service Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Customer Service Specialist - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Director, Administrative Services (4) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Director, Administrative Services 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Director, Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electric Project Engineer 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrical Assistant I 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Electrician - Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Electrician - Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Engineering Manager, Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Mgr, Water, Gas, Wastewater 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineering Technician III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
19
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Equipment Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equipment Operator - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Field Service Person Water, Gas, Wastewater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gas System Technician 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Gas System Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Hazardous Materials Specialist 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00
Inspector, Field Services 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Lead Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lineperson/Cable Splicer - Trainee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maintenance Mechanic (12) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Maintenance Mechanic - Welding (12) 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Manager Utilities Telecommunication 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Energy Risk (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Manager, Field and Customer Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr, Customer Svc and Meter Reading 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Utilities Marketing Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr, Util Operations Water, Gas, Wastewater 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Manager, Utilities Rates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Marketing Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Meter Reader - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Shops Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00
Planner 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Power Engineer 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Project Engineer 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Project Manager 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Resource Planner 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201220
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Accountant 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Deputy City Attorney 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Electrical Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst (1) 0.60 1.10 1.10 1.60 0.50
Senior Instrument Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Market Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Performance Auditor 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Senior Resource Originator 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Resource Planner 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Senior Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00
Senior Utilities Field Services Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Utility System Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Water System Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Operations & Programs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Project Engineer 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervising Project Engineer 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervisor, Utility Construction Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Util Meter Readers & Field Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water, Gas, Wastewater 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Supervisor, Water Transmission 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
System Operator Scheduler 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tree Maintenance Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Accounting Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Compliance Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Credit/Collection Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Engineer Estimator (14) 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Utilities Engineer Estimator - Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Field Service Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
21
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Utilities Installer/Repairer 11.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Welding 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities Installer/Repairer - Lead Welding 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Utilities Key Account Representative (3) 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00
Utilities Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utilities Rate Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Supervisor 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utility Compliance Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Utility Compliance Technician - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utility Market Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utility System Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Water Meter/Cross Connection Technician 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Water Meter Representative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Meter Repairer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Operator I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water System Operator II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
TOTAL UTILITIES 241.61 250.71 250.71 251.11 0.40
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS POSITIONS 356.24 365.72 365.72 365.62 (0.10)
1 Drop 1.0 FTE Manager, Energy Risk and add 0.50 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
2 Add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services
3 Add 1.0 FTE Utilities Key Account Representative
4 Reclass 0.20 FTE Deputy Director, ASD to Assistant Director, ASD; reallocate 0.10 FTE to General Fund
5 Reclass 1.0 FTE Supervisor WCQ Operations to Assistant Plant Manager
6 Reallocate 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Operator II, WQC
7 Reclass 1.0 FTE Business Analyst to Senior Technologist
8 Reclass 2.0 FTE Executive Assistant to Management Analyst, PW
9 Eliminate 0.2 FTE Supervisor PW Operations due to department reorganization
10 Reclass 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician to Coordinator, PW Projects
11 Reclass 1.0 FTE Manager, Environmental Compliance to Watershed Protection Mgr
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201222
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
12 Reclass 1.0 FTE Maintenance Mechanic to Maintenance Mechanic, Welding
13 Reclass 1.0 FTE Coordinator Utility Projects to Business Analyst
14 Reclass 1.0 FTE Utility Engineering Estimator to Business Analyst
15 Reallocate 0.50 FTE Senior Engineer to Other Funds
16 Reallocate 0.8 FTE Management Analyst to General Fund (0.55 FTE) and Other Funds (0.25 FTE)
OTHER FUNDS
Printing and Mailing Services
Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Mailing Services Specialist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator 1.00 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00
Offset Equipment Operator - Lead 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supervisor Reproduction and Mailing 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES 4.05 1.57 1.57 1.57 0.00
Technology
Administrative Assistant (1)0.07 0.07 0.07 1.07 1.00
Administrative Associate II (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Administrative Associate III 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Administrative Services 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00
Business Analyst 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Dir of Information Technology/Chief Info Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Director, Administrative Services 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Manager, Information Technology 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Business Analyst 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Senior Technologist 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00
Technologist 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
TOTAL TECHNOLOGY 30.65 30.41 30.41 30.41 0.00
Equipment Management
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Table of Organization
23
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equipment Maintenance Service Person 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
TOTAL EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 0.00
Special Revenue
Accounting Specialist 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
CDBG Coordinator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Community Service Officer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00
Planner 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE 1.15 1.65 2.15 2.15 0.00
Capital
Administrative Associate I 1.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Associate Engineer 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Cement Finisher - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 0.00
Engineering Technician III 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 0.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Management Analyst (5)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 0.25
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Table of Organization
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201224
Draft Revision: 530 User: cparas
Timestamp: June 6, 2011 6:40 pm
Manager, Facilities Maintenance (4)0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Manager, Maintenance Operations (6)0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.40
Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Project Manager 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Senior Engineer (2) 2.25 2.05 2.05 2.55 0.50
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Superintendent, Public Works Operations (4) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 (0.20)
Supervisor, Facilities Management (3), (6)0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 (0.05)
Supervisor, Inspection/Surv Public Works 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
TOTAL CAPITAL 24.67 23.67 23.67 24.37 0.70
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 76.60 73.38 73.88 74.58 0.70
1 Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant
2 Reallocate 0.50 FTE Senior Engineer from Public Works-Enterprise Funds
3 Reallocate 0.35 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management from General Fund
4 Eliminate position due to department reorganization
5 Reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from Enterprise Funds - Public Works
6 Reclass 0.4 FTE Supervisor Facilities Management to Manager Maintenance Operations
TOTAL CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1,055.35 1,018.60 1,018.60 1,016.60 (2.00)
Authorization is given to create no more than 7.0 FTE temporary overstrength positions. Overstrength positions are
justified by business needs and provide a vacancy to allow for cross training of a critical classification. These interim
positions facilitate organizational transitions and succession planning in the cases of long-term disability, retirement,
and critical vacancies. This action responds to the City Auditor's recommendation number four in the Audit of Work-
ers Compensation (Issued 04-09-05).
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
EXHIBIT C
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Registrations 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Junior Museum and Zoo Group Admission (for organized groups of 15 to
25, larger groups shall be subdivided with additional group admission
fee)
Fee:$50.00 - $100.00
Non-resident:Fee plus up to 50%
Fee:$50.00-$125.00
Non-resident: Fee plus up to
50%
$607,384.00 $25,000.00 4%
Tours
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood School
Districts, $3.00/student Non-Resident:
$75.00/group
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood
School Districts, $3.00-
$4.50/student Non-Resident:
$528,574.00 $27,500.00 5%
Infant (age 2 and under)
none Fee:$0.00 - $2.00
Non-Resident: $0.00-$3.00
$551,212.00 $448,140.00 81%
Youth (17 and under)
Fee $20.00-$27.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
Fee $25.00-$35.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
see above see above see above
Organic Garden Plots $.40/square feet/year $.50/square feet/year $110,779.00 $26,290.00 24%
Lucie Stern Community Center
Ballroom (Room S) Fee: $114.00/hour
Non-Resident: $171.00/hr
Fee: $132.00/hour
Non-Resident: $198.00/hr
$258,727.00 $110,000.00 43%
Community Room (Room R) Fee: $78.00/hour
Non-Resident: $117.00/hr
Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room (Room D) Fee: $66.00/hour
Non-Resident: $99.00/hr
Fee: $76.00/hour
Non-Resident: $114.00/hr
see above see above see above
Kitchen Fee: $24.00/hour
Non-Resident: $36.00/hr
Fee: $28.00/hour
Non-Resident: $42.00/hr
see above see above see above
Patio Fee: $70.00/hour
Non-Resident: $105.00/hr
Fee: $80.00/hour
Non-Resident: $120.00/hr
see above see above see above
Exclusive Use Package - 5 hour minimum, includes facility attendant Fee: $1,130.00/ for 5 hours; $226.00
for each additional hour
Non-Resident:$1,695.00/ for 5 hours;
$339.00 for each additional hour
Fee: $260.00/hr
Non-Resident:$390.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room and Patio Package Fee: $86.00/hour
Non-Resident: $129.00
Fee: $100.00/hr
Non-Resident:$150.00/hr
see above see above see above
Community Room and Patio Package Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00
Fee: $110.00/hr
Non-Resident:$165.00/hr
see above see above see above
2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Theatre Performance
Standard 2 hour fee
Non-profit: $270.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $185.00/hr
Basic rate: $430.00/hr
delete
Each additional hour
Non-profit: $85.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $65.00/hr
Basic rate: $120.00/hr
delete
Theater Rehearsal Dressing Rooms
Standard 1 hour fee $40.00 delete
Each additional hour $40.00 delete
Theatre building rate
Non-profit: $45.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $36.00/hr
Basic rate: $60.00/hr
delete
Dressing Room, M-3 (6)
$17.00/hr Non-profit:$17.00/hr
Basic Rate:$20.00/hr
$214,032.00*$200,000.00 93%
Dressing Room, M-2 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
Dressing Room, M-4 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
2 hour production fee $150.00 delete
Exhibit D
Open Space and Parks
Package Rentals
Facility: Lucie Stern Community Center
Rentals and Reservations
Cubberley Community Center: Facility Rental
Meeting/Activity Rooms
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Arts and Science
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Resident Coupon Book-10 tickets (available to Palo Alto Residents only)*
Facility Admissions - Community Garden
Recreation Actiivities
Swimming Pools - Rinconada Complex and PAUSD pools when operated by the City - Ages 2 & under -- Free
1) Resident, n Non-profit music/dance/theatre groups, in-residence at Cubberley, may receive a 25% discount on room rental fees when used for weekly rehearsals.
Cubberley Community Theatre
Production Fee
Summary Page 1 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Each additional hour $75.00 delete
Performance Day Package (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $840.00
Basic rate: $1,200.00
see above see above
Additional Performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $210.00
Basic rate: $300.00
see above see above
Additional performance hours past four per performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Additional performance hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $56.00
Basic rate: $80.00/hr
see above see above
Production Day Package (3) (7) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $700.00
Basic rate: $1,000.00
see above see above
Additional Production hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $105.00
Basic rate: $150.00/hr
see above see above
Rehearsal day Package (3) (8) (9) (11)
none Non-profit: $525.00
Basic rate: $750.00
see above see above
Additional rehearsal hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- resident none $34.00/hr (1)$850.00 (1)
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- non-resident none $51.00hr.(1)$650.00 (1)
Inter-Library Loan delete
Inter-Library Out of State Loan delete
Building Permit Fees 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
$1,000,000.01 and up $8,964.92 for the first $1,000,000.00
plus $5.83 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds $10,000,000.00
an alternative deposit and payment
schedule arrangement may be made at
the discretion of the Chief Building
Official .
$8,964.92 for the first
$1,000,000.00 plus $5.83 for
each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds
$5,000,000.00 an alternative fee
arrangement may be established
by the Chief Building Official to
achieve full cost recovery.
title change title change
Electric vehicle charge station
Residential (All types) none $160..00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 1 &2) none $370.00 plus $92.50 for each
additional station
$6,660.00 $6,660.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 3 &4) none $560.00 plus $140.00 for each
additional station
$5,040.00 $5,040.00 100%
Residential Installations System $200.00 each $320.00 $7,680 $7,680 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW)$10.00 for each photovoltaic panel $565.00 $1,130 $1,130 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW - 49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $1,890.00 $7,560 $7,560 100%
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT
7- Production is defined as videography of onstage activity without a live audience, or similar usage
8 - A 20% discount is given for bookings on off-peak days Monday through Thursday
* Does not reflect annual lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District for use of facility and covenant to not develop - approximately $7 million payment in FY 2012
6 - M-2, M-3 and M4 dressing room fees are assessed only when used as dressing rooms for theatre rentals
5- Performance defined as activity onstage with a live audience present. Performance packages include one performance block up to 4 hours time.
4 - Rental groups may use volunteers in unshering positions subject to approval by the theatre manager and compliance with all rules and procedures
3 -Fee package includes event Supervisor, the M-11 drsesing room and all dedicated theatre equipment. Additional technical staff may be required.
Theatre Packages
Photovoltaic systems
Photovoltaic Installations Systems (Does not include plan check fee)
Electrical Permits
9- 20% discount for half-day rentals,(6 or less hours either concluding before 2 pm or startting after 4 pm) or rentals of 6 hours or less booked before or after an existing rental on the same day
11- All other building use falls under this category, including rehearsals, load-in and restore days
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
1 - Department used cost per square foot for a similar room in Lucie Stern Community Center and applied 50% discount for non-profits
Summary Page 2 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Commercial installations System (>49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $3,775.00 $7,550 $7,550 100%
Graywater Systems
Clotheswasher System none $50.00 $100.00 $100.00 100%
Simple System none $55.00 plus plan review at cost
$405.00 $405.00 100%
Complex System none $85.00 plus plan review at cost
$765.00 $765.00 100%
Permit and Application Extension Extension of Building Permit or
Building Permit Application
$50.00 $50.00 title change
Application Reactivations of Expired Building Permit Application $150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
$150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (for Final Inspection
Only)
$335.00 $335.00 or original Building
Permit fee, whichever is less
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (All Others)$335.00 or building permit fee 50% of original Building Permit
Fee not to exceed the full cost to
perform remaining inspections
as determined by the Chief
Building Official.
$2,500 $2,500 100%
Residential:
A. Single Family and Two Family New constructions plus additions >
1.250 sf1, and rebuilds
City Verification Review: $604.00
Outside Verification Review: $160.00
City Verification Review: $604
Outside Verification Review:
$160.00
title change
B. Single Family and Two Family, existing home additions or rebuilds >
1,250 sf1
City Verification Review: $544.00
Outside Verification Review: 100.00
Delete
C. B. Single Family and Two Family, Any existing home renovations,
rebuilds and/or additions totaling > 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and/or >
$100,000 valuation.
City Verification Review: $50.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$50.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
D. C.. Multi-Family New Construction of 3 or More (attached) Units1 City Verification Review: $1,062.00
(1-10 units), $1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units) Outside
Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 (1-10 units),
$1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units)
Outside Verification Review:
$618.00
title change
E. D. Multi-Family renovations or alterations > 50% of the existing unit
sf and that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the
following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system1
City Verification Review: $1,062.00
Outside Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 Outside Verification
Review: $618.00
title change
F. Multi-Family Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual
units > 250 sf and valuation > $100,000 in a single unit1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review:n/a
Delete
Non-Residential:
A. New construction > 1,000 sf (including additions to existing buildings
and rebuilds)
City Verification Review: $1334.00
Outside Verification Review:$800.00
City Verification Review:
$1334.00 Outside Verification
Review:$800.00
title change
B. New Construction > 500 sf and < 5,000 sf (including additions to
existing buildings)
City Verification Review: $1,044.00
Outside Verification Review: $600.00
Delete
C. B. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do
not fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $871.00
Outside Verification Review:427.00
City Verification Review:
$871.00 Outside Verification
Review:427.00
title change
C. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do not
fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$327.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
Documents 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Zoning interpretation, or other zoning letter Administrative extensions
and zoning letters
$150.00/hour; 1 hr min. $150.00/hour; 1 hr min. title change
Development Impact Fees
Plumbing Permits
General and Miscellaneous Fees
1 Plus, if applicable, Construction & Demolition Ordinance Fee in the Refuse Fund under Special Fees on page 21-4.
Green Building Program Fees
Summary Page 3 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule
Parks Residential: Single family1
$9,971/residence (or
$14,890/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $6,527/unit
(or $3,300/unit smaller than or equal
to 900 square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,234 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $1,915 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$10,360/residence (or
$15,471/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$6,782/unit (or $3,429/unit
smaller than or equal to 900
square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,399
per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel $1,990 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof.
$15,468.00 $15,468.00 100%
Community Centers Residential: Single family1
$2,585/residence (or $3,870/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-
family $1,700/unit (or $858/unit
smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $239 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $108 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$2,686/residence (or
$4,021/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$1,766/unit (or $891/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $248 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $112 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof
$7,424.00 $7,424.00 100%
Libraries Residential: Single family1
$902/residence (or $1,344/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi‐
family $539/unit (or $296/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $228 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $96 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$937/residence (or
$1,396/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi‐family
$560/unit (or $308/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $237 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $100 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof.
$2,451.00 $2,451.00 100%
Use Permits - Wireless Facilities (1)Initial Deposit of $3500 plus
legal fees and other Application
Fees
$35,000 $35,000 100%
Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $10,000.00 $10,000.00 100%
Lost Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $150.00 $150.00 100%
Transportation Fees
Residential Parking Permit Program
1. 100% of processing costs will be recovered plus Environmental Impact Assessments and other entitlements necessary to complete the project.
Summary Page 4 of 4 City of Palo Alto
Attachment 2
This page is intentionally left blank.
110324 jb 0130695
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water
Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 1.5% CPI Per
Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2012
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet D-1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The foregoing Utility
Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this rate increase is being imposed to offset the
effects of inflation on labor and material costs pursuant to the annual inflationary fee escalator
provision of the Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure, which was approved by a majority of Palo
Alto property owners on April 26, 2005.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2,
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that modification and approval of this change to the
Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) for the purpose of meeting
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
110324 jb 0130695
operating expenses is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15273(a).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
________________________________________________________
Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Public Works
_____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
110324 jb 0130695
Attachment 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT A
*Not Yet Approved*
1
110411 dm 6050726
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2 of the City of Palo
Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Fiber Optic
Rates
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1.Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule EDF-1 (Dark Fiber Licensing Services) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets EDF-1-1 and EDF-1-2, attached hereto and incorporate herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2.Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2 (Dark Fiber Connection Fees) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet EDF-2-1, attached hereto and incorporate herein. The foregoing Utility
Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 3.The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2,
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
ATTACHMENT A
*Not Yet Approved*
2
110411 dm 6050726
SECTION 4.The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
______________________________________________________
Acting Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
ATTACHMENT B
DARK FIBER LICENSING SERVICES
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 07-01-20101
Supersedes Sheet No.EDF-1-1 dated 7-01-20092010 Sheet No.EDF-1-1
lA.APPLICABILITY:
This rate schedule applies to customer accounts established prior to September 18, 2006, unless the customer elects
to apply the EDF-3 rate to the entire customer account. This rate applies to Fiber Optic services from the City of
Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) pertaining to the City's network (Backbone and associated connections).
B.TERRITORY:
Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the City.
C.FEES:
1. DARK FIBER BACKBONE LICENSE FEES:
The values or ranges for each of these price components are shown below:
(1) Fiber Price………………………………………………………………. $307.0411.65/FM/month
(2) Quantity discount ……………………………………………………… $0 to $59.84/FM/month
(3) Buffer tube discount……………………………………………………….. $0 to $59.84/FM/month
(4) Route length discount…………………………………………………….. $0 to $77.80/FM/month
(5) Ring topology discount………………………………………………………$0 to $23.94/FM/month
(6) Length of term discount…………………………………………………… $0 to $46.80/FM/month
Minimum Backbone License Fee
$464.3971.36/month
Project Minimum Backbone Fees apply to any project proposal signed after September 18, 2006 in which
the project connects with the Backbone.
Description for Discounts:
Quantity discount: based on an array of discounts for quantities of fiber licensed on a specific path.
Buffer tube discount: discount for numbers of full buffer tubes licensed on a specific path.
Route length discount: based on the route length licensed on a specific project.
Ring topology discount: The ring topology discount for customers contracting for complete rings.
Term discount: based on an array of discounts for contracts greater than one and less than ten years.
2. DARK FIBER LATERAL CONNECTION FEES:
Customer responsibilities and fees for drop and custom cable construction are described in the CPAU Rules
and Regulations, Rate Schedule EDF-2, project proposals and other associated documents. In all cases, the
Licensee shall pay an annual Drop/Custom Cable Management Fee based on the follow per foot fees:
(1) Drop Cable Management Fees (for the first 12-Fibers) …………………………… $0.02-$0.06/ft/month
(2) Custom Cable Management Fees (for the first 12-Fibers)……………………….. $0.30/ft/month
(3) Fees for additional Drop or Custom Cable fibers (each additional set of 12-Fibers) $0.06/ft/month
ATTACHMENT B
DARK FIBER LICENSING SERVICES
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 07-01-20101
Supersedes Sheet No.EDF-1-2 dated 7-01-20092010 Sheet No.EDF-1-2
Minimum Drop or Custom Cable Management Fees $229.4632.90/month
Minimum Drop Cable Management Fees apply to any project proposal signed after September 18, 2006.
3. EARLY TERMINATION FEES:
If the Licensee chooses to terminate for convenience the License Agreement or the term of any project
under the License Agreement, then the Licensee shall pay the applicable termination payment as specified
in this schedule or in the License Agreement, as provided below.
Unless otherwise provided in the License Agreement, the Licensee shall pay a termination fee in one of the
following amounts, whichever is less:
·Annual fee of the contract year that the Licensee chooses to terminates in full without term
discounts, or
·Remaining fees of the project term as indicated in the License Agreement.
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. All fees must be paid to the City in accordance with the terms of the Dark Fiber License Agreement, the
customer’s project proposals and all the applicable Utilities Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
2.All fees and minimum charges are subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, to be applied
annually, except as defined by Section D.3 of this Rate Schedule. Discounts will not be modified by
changes to CPI.
3.The CPI adjustment will be based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The adjustment is calculated by dividing the most recent calendar year December CPI by the
December CPI in the year rates last changed.In the event that the change between December CPI’s
indicates an adjustment of less than 1% is required, a change to rate schedules may not be made for the
upcoming year. Future rate changes will take the last year of change as the new base year for purposes of
calculation.
{End}
ATTACHMENT C
DARK FIBER SERVICE CONNECTION FEES
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE EDF-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-01-20101
Supersedes sheet No. EDF-2-1 dated 7-01-200910 Sheet No.EDF-2-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all connections, expansions, and upgrades to the City's Dark Fiber network (Backbone).
B.TERRITORY:
All territory within the incorporated limits of the City and land owned or leased by the City.
C.FEES:
1.ADVANCE ENGINEERING FEES:
Advance engineering (AER) fees must be paid to start the engineering process and are non-refundable. The
fees will be credited against the estimated project cost prior to the collection of the project construction
fees.
(1) Commercial/Industrial AER minimum fee......................................................................$733744.00
(2) Special conditions (requiring expert assessment)............................................................By Estimate
2. ESTIMATED SERVICE CONNECTION AND RECONFIGURATION FEES
All estimated service connection and reconfiguration fees must be paid prior to the scheduling of any
construction or reconnections to the City's Dark Fiber network.
(1) Service connection (Interconnection) fee......................................................By Estimate
(2) Reconfiguration Fees.....................................................................................By Estimate
Labor rates are subject to change as stated in the Utility Rate Schedule C-1.
D. NOTES:
1.The Customer is responsible for the installation and maintenance of all ducts and pathways from the facility to
the property line in compliance with City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations and contract agreements.
2.The City shall not be held liable for delays or interruptions in service, but will make reasonable efforts to
provide timely continuous service.
3.All fees are subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, to be applied annually. The CPI adjustment
will be based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)for the San Francisco-Oakland-
San Jose MSA, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The adjustment is
calculated by dividing the most recent calendar year December CPI by the December CPI in the year rates last
changed.In the event that the change between December CPI’s indicates an adjustment of less than 1% is
required, a change to rate schedules may not be made for the upcoming year. Future rate changes will take the
last year of change as the new base year for purposes of calculation.
{End}
Attachment 4
This page is intentionally left blank.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110126 dm 6051529
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Wastewater Collection Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2
and Rule and Regulation 23 Governing Special Wastewater
Utility Regulations
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing
utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on June
_, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed wastewater collection rate amendments; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the public
hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property
owners subject to the proposed wastewater collection rate amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-1 (Domestic Wastewater Collection and Disposal Service) is hereby
amended to read in accordance with sheet S-1-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal Service) is hereby
amended to read in accordance with sheets S-2-1 and S-2-2, attached hereto and incorporated
herein. The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1,
2011.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rule and Regulation 23 (Special Wastewater Utility Regulations) as amended, attached
hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved and adopted. The foregoing Utility Rule
and Regulation, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
//
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110126 dm 6051529
SECTION 5. The Council finds that a restructuring of wastewater collection rates to
meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
DOMESTIC RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-1-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No S-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to each occupied domestic residential dwelling unit.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater service.
C. RATES:
Per Month
Each domestic dwelling unit..................................................................................................
$24.6527.91
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Any dwelling unit being individually served by a water, gas, or electric meter will be
considered as continuously occupied.
2. For two or more occupied dwelling units served by one water meter, the monthly wastewater
charge will be calculated by multiplying the current wastewater rate by the number of
dwelling units.
3. Each developed separate lot shall have a separate service lateral to a sanitary main or
manhole.
{End}
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-1 dated 11-1-2008 7-1-2009 Sheet No S-2-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all establishments other than domestic residential dwelling units.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater services.
C. RATES:
1. Restaurants
(A) Minimum charge per connection per month..................................................
$24.6527.91
(B) Quantity Rates:
Based on metered water, per 100 cubic feet.................................................. $9.29
8.31
2. Any establishment discharging sewage in excess of 25,000 gallons or quality equivalent of
sewage per day as determined by metered water usage and sampling requiring special
discharge monitoring as defined in Rule and Regulation 23, Section D.
(A) Collection System Operation, Maintenance, and Infiltration Inflow:
$3,706.351,978.61 per million gallons ($2.771.48 per 100 cubic feet of metered water).
(B) Advanced Waste Treatment Operations and Maintenance Charge:
$2,422.41,336.906 per million gallons ($1.821.00 per 100 cubic feet of metered
water).
(C) $ 247.56 per 1000 pounds of COD1
(D) $ 596.62 per 1000 pounds of SS2
(E) $ 3,983.85 per 1000 pounds of NH3 3
1 COD stands for Chemical Oxygen Demand
2 SS stands for Suspended Solids
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Font: Times New
Roman
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-2 dated 11-1-2008 7-1-2009 Sheet No S-2-2
(F) $ 14,781.25 per 1000 pounds of toxics*4
*Toxics include sum of chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc.
3. All Other Establishments
(A) Minimum Charge per connection per month
$24.6527.91
(B) Quantity Rates: Based on metered water per 100 cubic feet...................................................$ 5.07 4.75 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Upon application from establishments maintaining extensive irrigated landscaping, the
monthly charge will be based upon the average water usage for the months of January,
February and March. If a water meter is identified as exclusively serving irrigation
landscaping, such meter will be exempted from sewer charge calculations. 2. Sewage metering facilities may be required, in which case service will be governed by terms
of a special agreement. 3. Charges for large discharges (25,000 gallons per day or greater) will be determined on the basis of sampling as outlined in Utilities Rule and Regulation 23C. However, for purposes
of arriving at an accurate flow estimate, discharge meters, if installed, can be utilized to
measure outflow for billing purposes. Annual charges will be determined and allocated monthly for billing purposes. 4. Dischargers of Unmetered Contaminated Groundwater Quantity rates for collection and treatment of the contaminated groundwater will be based on
the same rates as defined under Section C(.3) of this rate scheduleapplicable to metered
usage for customers discharging less than 25,000 gallons of sewage per day. Discharge
permits are issued by the Environmental Compliance Manager at the Water Quality Control
Plant, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto. 5. Industrial Waste Discharge Fee
3 NH3 stands for Ammonia
4 Toxics include sum of chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: Times NewRoman
COMMERCIAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE S-2
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No S-2-3 dated 11-1-2008 7-1-2009 Sheet No S-2-3
The following fees, as defined in section 16.09.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, will be
required for the issuance of an Industrial Discharge Permit, including any Exceptional Waste
Permits (This fee may be reduced to $250 for a one-time batch discharge permit).:
(A) Small, non-categorical facilities ........................................................$250425
(B) Non-categorical / small categorical with
only minor pollutant concerns .....................................................$1,250750
(C) Categorical or Significant Industrials Users
with ability to impact the RWQCP..............................................
$1,2502,100
{End}
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 1
A. GENERAL
In addition to the general requirements outlined in Rule and Regulation 18 for Utility Service
Connections and Facilities on Customers’ Premises, the following is required:
B. HAULED LIQUID WASTE
The discharge of hauled liquid wastes is regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.09.110. The
following Rules and Regulations are to implement this Provision.
1. PURPOSE
To provide a means of treating certain waste prohibited from entering the Wastewater
system, City of Palo Alto Public Works Department operates a Hauled Liquid Waste
Treatment Site at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Certain wastes may
be hauled to this site for treatment and disposal.
2. WASTES ACCEPTABLE FOR TREATMENT
a. Hauled septic tank wastes
b. Portable toilet pumpings
c. Grease Trap wastes
3. HOURS OF OPERATION
Hours of operation for the Liquid Waste Hauler’s Treatment Site shall be as established by
the Manager, Water Quality Control.
4. WASTE IDENTIFICATION
The hauler must provide a liter sample, taken in the presence of a waste treatment plant
operator, of the contents of each tank to be discharged. The nature and source of the waste
will be verified before the truck is permitted to unload. If laboratory analysis indicates that
the material is not as represented (septic tank waste or toilet piping from a domestic source)
the hauler’s permit may be revoked.
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 2
5. HAULING OPERATIONS
a. To discharge at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, a hauler must:
1. Obtain a Trucker’s Discharge Permit from the Manager, Water Quality
Control;
2. File with CPAU a Certification of insurance and a hold harmless clause:
3. Post a bond or cash deposit with CPAU’s appropriate division.
b. The Trucker’s Discharge Permit shall be issued for twelve-month periods and is
revocable for the violation of any of these Rules. The fee for Trucker’s Discharge
Permits shall be as stated in CPAU Rate Schedule S-4.
c. Insurance policies in force with limits of liability shall not be less than those
specified below as follows:
Coverage for Which Limits of
Insurance is Afforded Liability
Worker’s Compensation & Compensation
Employer’s Liability Statutory
Bodily Injury Liability $1,000,000 each Person
except automobile including $1,000,000 each occurrence
the following coverages:
Coverage for Which Limits of
Insurance is Afforded Liability
Protective, Completed Operations,
Board Form Contractual and
Personal Injury
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 3
Property Damage Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence
except automobile including
the following coverages:
Protective, Completed Operations,
Board Form Contractual and
Personal Injury
Property Damage Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence
except automobile including
the following coverages:
Protective Completed Operations
and Board Form Contractual
Bodily Injury & Property Damage $1,000,000 each Person
Liability Automobile $1,000,000 each occurrence
d. The hauler must agree to save and hold harmless CPAU, its officers, agents, and
employees from any liability of any nature whatsoever caused in whole or in part, by
the negligence of the hauler, or his agents, or employees, arising out of such
operation.
6. BILLING
Waste Haulers will be billed directly for grease, septic tank and portable toilet wastes.
7. REFUSAL OF WASTES
CPAU reserves the right to reject any Load of hauled waste under the following conditions:
a. If the waste is not properly identified
b. If there is not sufficient storage capacity at the plant for the Load
c. For reasons of public health or safety at the discretion of the Manager, Water Quality
Control Plant.
d. If the Load contains waste materials not authorized by these Regulations.
C. MAINTENANCE OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 4
Depending on whether the City’s Wastewater main is located in the public right of way or in an
easement, the Customer may be responsible for a portion of the lateral or the entire lateral. (A
lateral is the pipe connecting a building’s plumbing system with the City's Wastewater main.)
1. CITY WASTEWATER MAIN IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
If the City’s Wastewater main is located in the public right of way, the Customer is
responsible for the upper portion of the lateral, from their home or structure up to and
including the connection to the City Wastewater cleanout box, as shown on the diagram
below. In cases where a cleanout at the property line does not exist, the City is responsible
for the portion of the lateral between the property line and the Wastewater main.
2. CITY WASTEWATER MAIN IN AN EASEMENT
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 5
City Wastewater mains located in easements are often, but not always, located at the rear of
the property rather than under the public street. If the City Wastewater main is located in an
easement, CPAU will be responsible for the maintenance of the Wastewater main. The
Customer is responsible for maintaining the Wastewater lateral including but not limited to:
clearing any stoppages and any clean up related to lateral backups. The diagram below
illustrates the Customers area of responsibility.
3. CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY REGARDLESS OF LOCATION OF CITY
WASTEWATER MAIN
These rules apply no matter where the City’s Wastewater main is located.
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 6
a. If Wastewater maintenance results from a violation of the Municipal Code and/or these
Regulations, CPAU may assign responsibility to the user, and refuse to perform such
maintenance.
b. The Customer will be responsible for replacing non-plastic Wastewater laterals when
building a new structure or constructing additions/remodels that have a value greater
than 50% of the current value of the existing structures on the lot. Reconnection to a
City Wastewater lateral will only be allowed on existing plastic pipe laterals meeting
current WGW Utility Standards. All laterals constructed of non-standard pipe materials
must be replaced, per the WGW Utility Standards, from the main up to and including the
cleanout at the property line at the fees listed in Rate Schedule S-5, or by the Customer’s
contractor at the Customer’s expense.
c. Private sewer mains and laterals are the responsibility of the Customer or Property
Owner up to and including the connection to the City Wastewater main or manhole.
d. The Customer will be responsible for the on-site Wastewater Collection System in
accordance with the Municipal Code, including:
1. Preventing storm Water, roof or yard drainage, basement, foundation or under-
drainage from being discharged into the Wastewater Collection System, unless a
permit is granted by Regional Water Quality Control Plant. In addition, any
plumbing or piping that is connected or could be connected that would allow the
future discharge of storm Water or ground Water into the Wastewater Collection
System is prohibited.
2. Maintaining the condition of the on-site Wastewater Collection System so that it
is water tight and does not allow the infiltration of groundwater.
3. Keeping the clean-out box at ground level and visible. If after a 30 day notice from
CPAU the Customer has not made the clean-out box accessible, CPAU may
remedy the inaccessibility by performing the work and charging the Customer the
actual cost incurred.
4. Installing, maintaining, and ensuring proper usage of Grease Control Devices in
accordance with the Sewer Use Ordinance 16.09.103. If the source of grease
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 7
contamination in the Wastewater Collection System can be linked to a particular
Customer, the Customer may be held responsible for cleaning the Wastewater
System, including any associated costs or damages incurred by the City.
5. Limiting the Water inflow rate to the Wastewater Collection System during fire
system testing to 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates must be diverted to a detention
tank to limit the flow rate to 30 GPM.
6. Limiting Wastewater ejector pumps usage so that the following conditions are met:
The pump(s) output capacity may not exceed 100 GPM. The Wastewater lateral
must change to a 4” gravity flow lateral at least 20’ from the City-owned clean out.
The velocity in the 4” gravity flow lateral must not exceed 3 feet per second. The
tank and float shall be set up such that the pump run time does not exceed 20
seconds or 33 gallons pumped during each cycle.
7. Installing an approved backwater valve per the latest adopted version of the
California Plumbing Code 710.0 when the fixtures or drains connected to the
Wastewater system are less than one foot above the next upstream Wastewater
main manhole cover. The upstream Wastewater main manhole rim elevation shall
be shown on the plans.
4. NOTIFICATION TO CPAU
If a Wastewater stoppage occurs, the Customer shall notify CPAU. CPAU will then
determine if the stoppage is in the portion of the system maintained by CPAU or the
Customer. CPAU will clear stoppage from the property line or clean out to the main.
D. SAMPLING OF INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES IN EXCESS OF 25,000 GALLONS PER DAY
In order to properly apportion costs of operation and maintenance of the RWQCP to the large
industrial or commercial users who, as determined by the Environmental Compliance Division of the
RWQCP, are dischargers of chemicals or effluent of a content and/or quality as to require special
monitoring and charges, it is essential to determine both the quantity and quality of Wastewater
produced by each user discharging 25,000 gallons per day or its equivalent so identified.
The following is adopted as a fair and equitable method of developing the necessary criteria:
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: No underline
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 8
1. FLOW
The quantity Charge shall be based upon the metered Water served to the industrial or
commercial user being billed under Section D of this Rule. Exceptions will be made for the
following:
a. For Customers with one or more cooling towers, the volume of evaporated Water
associated with cooling (inflow less outflow) may be used to offset flow calculations
for Wastewater billing. To be eligible for such offsets, the Customer must comply
with the following items:
1. Inflow Water data
(a) Customer must have inflow Water Meter(s) on all cooling
tower inlet(s);
(b) Meter(s) must be annually certified by County Department of
Weights and Measures;
(c) Proof of Certification(s) must be submitted to Utilities along
with annual Meter Reads;
2. Outflow Water data
(a) Five (5) cycles of concentration will be assumed for outflow
calculations;
(b) Customers whose cycles of concentration are greater than five
(5) and who want to have this reflected in their calculations
must have outflow Meter(s) installed;
(c) Outflow Meter(s), if installed and used for purposes of
calculation, must be annually certified by County Department
of Weights and Measures;
(d) Proof of Certification(s) must be submitted to Utilities along
with annual Meter Reads;
3. Data acquisition and submittal
(a) Customer is responsible for reading and recording each inflow
Meter(s) flow (and each outflow Meter, if applicable) on a
monthly basis;
(b) Meter Reads should be performed at approximately the same
time each month;
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 9
(c) The following data, at a minimum, must be recorded at each
reading:
i. Date of read
ii. Inflow read(s) for each inflow Meter
iii. Outflow read(s) for each outflow Meter (if applicable)
(d) The City of Palo Alto reserves the right to periodically review
Customer's Meter(s) for accuracy;
4. Participation rules and restrictions
(a) Customer must have six (6) months of data in the first year to
be eligible for participation;
(b) Customer must annually submit twelve (12) months of data
thereafter;
(c) Inflow data (and outflow data, if applicable) must be
submitted to the Utilities Customer Service Division
annually by May for consideration in calculations for July
(the start of the City's fiscal year);
b. In cases where the user has extensive landscape irrigation and summer
monthly consumption exceeds the average monthly consumption of January,
February, and March by more than 50 percent (50%), the average of the
January, February, and March consumption shall be used for calculating
wastewater discharge for the remaining months of the year.
c. If an outflow Meter has been installed, such metered outflow will be used to
determine flow in lieu of recorded water meter consumption.
2. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AMMONIA
a. Measurements of the concentration of these constituents shall be taken from
24-hour composite samples collected periodically for each industrial
discharger being billed under Section D of this Rule discharging in excess of
25,000 gallons per day to the wastewater collection system.
1. The constituent concentrations found in these samples and previous
samples shall be averaged to provide the basis for establishing the
Wastewater Treatment Charge to be levied to the discharger being
sampled.
SPECIAL WASTEWATER UTILITY REGULATIONS
RULE AND REGULATION 23
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UTILITIES RULES AND REGULATIONS
Issued by the City Council
Effective 67-1-20101
Sheet No 10
2. All samples shall be analyzed at the laboratory of the RWQCP.
Treatment Charges will be based upon the quantity and concentration
found in the waste stream monitored.
b. If an establishment’s piping configuration, or other physical considerations,
render representative Effluent sampling prohibitively complex or infeasible,
then CPAU shall set the establishment’s level of sewage effluent constituents
for billing purposes at the average effluent levels of industries in CPAU, or
where feasible, at the average effluent constituent levels of similar
establishments.
c. Sampling results are intended to provide an estimate of the quality of
Effluent discharge by the facility. Sampling results can vary significantly
depending on the facility processes operating on the day of sampling. If the
annual sampling results in combination with the flow data indicate a revised
annual bill to the Customer, the amount of the increase or decrease shall not
exceed 25 percent. The 25 percent limitation is independent of any change in
rates or Charges to Rate Schedule S-2.
(END)
Attachment 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility
Rate Schedules W-1, -3, W-4 and W-7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing
utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
June _, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed water rate increases; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the
public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and
property owners subject to the proposed water rate increases;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read
in accordance with sheets W-1-1 and W-1-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-3-1 and W-3-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to
read in accordance with sheets W-4-1 and W-4-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-7-1 and W-7-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
SECTION 6. The Council finds that a restructuring of water rates to meet
operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ............................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rate: (To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................ $3.60
Tier 2 usage ........................................................................................................................ 6.08
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)...................................................................................... 7.64
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 6.50
Deleted: 12.27
Deleted: 19.37
Deleted: 77.65
Deleted: 130.60
Deleted: 260.43
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 3.949
Deleted: (All usage over 100% of Tier
1)
Deleted: 5.624
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level
of 0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29 ccf.
For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 33
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant.................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection....................................................................................................... $7.27
6-inch connection....................................................................................................... 16.13
8-inch connection....................................................................................................... 28.53
10-inch connection..................................................................................................... 44.48
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage .......................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2. No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
4. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 4.20
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: $ 7.00
Deleted: $ 10.75
Deleted: $ 15.75
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-2
5. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6. Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 ½-inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 ........................................................................................................................ $4.486
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................ 4.946
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Per ccf
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per Ccf ........................................................................................................................ $6.325
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
ATTACHMENT 6
** NOT YET APPROVED **
110531 sh 8261606
1
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel Adopted by
Resolution No. 9156 to Add Three New Positions, Change
the Titles of Six Positions and Update the Compensation
for Five Positions
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and
Professional Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9156, is hereby amended to add three new
positions, change the titles of six positions and update the compensation for five positions, as set
forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay
period including July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to
implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ______________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Human Resources
ATTACHMENT 6
** NOT YET APPROVED **
110531 sh 8261606
2
EXHIBIT A
Annual Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes - Effective July 1, 2011
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx.
Annual
Hourly
171 Management Analyst
(compensation correction) TBD 7,286 87,443 42.04
107
Assistant City Manager / Chief Operation
Officer
(title change from Assistant City Mgr)
14 16,619 199,430 95.88
39 Watershed Protection Manager
(title change from Manager Environmental
Compliance)
TBD
9,948
119,378
57.39
181
Supervisor Water Quality Control
Operations
(compensation change)
37 8,542 102,502 49.28
49 Chief Budget Officer
(compensation & title change from Budget Manager) TBD 9,949 119,388 57.39
81 Director, Administrative Services / Chief
Financial Officer
(title change from Director, Administrative Services)
15 16,219 194,633 93.57
TBD Budget Officer
(new position) TBD 8,456 101,479 48.78
TBD
Assistant Director of Environmental
Services
(new position)
TBD 12,021 144,252 69.35
86 Urban Forester
(compensation & title change from Managing
Arborist)
35 8,989 107,869 51.86
128
Director, Information Technology/Chief
Information Officer
(Title and salary grade change from Chief
Information Officer)
16 14,519 174,221 83.76
TBD Emergency Services Director
(new position) TBD 11,484 137,808 66.25
Attachment 7
This page is intentionally left blank.
Not Yet Approved
110606 jb 0130781 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Add Section 2.08.240 Creating a New Department of
Information Technology
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.08 (Officers and Departments) of Title 2 (Administrative
Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 2.08.240 as follows:
2.08.240 Department of Information Technology.
(a) The department of information technology shall be organized and administered
under the direction of a director of information technology who shall be accountable to the city
manager. The duties of the director of information technology shall be as follows:
(1) To provide leadership to the City Council, City Manager and Directors on
alignment of technology with City initiatives, policy and strategic objectives;
(2) To direct and manage interdepartmental technology governance, planning and
coordination activities to accomplish specific City-wide objectives;
(3) To make presentations and prepare reports and plans;
(4) To coordinate with the City Manager, Directors and business managers to
address problems and capitalize upon opportunities as they arise;
(5) To develop and implement organizational policies and procedures regarding
appropriate usage of technology within the organization;
(6) To initiate and develop internal and external partnerships to leverage City
technology investments;
(7) To develop and present funding strategies to support technology investments;
(8) To provide direct oversight and direction on mission critical City-wide
technology;
(9) To negotiate and review complex proposals and contracts for purchase of
Information Technology (IT) products and services, and to develop partnership agreements;
(10) To establish and maintain a working environment conducive to positive morale,
individual style, quality, creativity, and teamwork;
Not Yet Approved
110606 jb 0130781 2
(11) To serve as a member of leadership team, and addresses City-wide policy,
management and strategic issues, including information security and other Cyber risks;
(12) To formulate, recommend and administer policies and procedures governing the
operation of the Information Technology (IT) Department. Establish long-range goals and
implementation plans for services provided by the IT Department;
(13) To plan, develop and direct a comprehensive long-term strategic plan for
automated systems needs for the City of Palo Alto, including centralized computer applications,
personal computers, and telecommunications functions;
(14) To oversee automated systems within the City, including prioritizing requests for
applications development or enhancement, hardware and software standards, equipment
acquisition and replacement;
(15) To coordinate technical staff placed within individual City departments;
(16) To position the City to effectively respond to the rapidly changing technological
environment;
(17) To be responsible for planning, preparing and administering the Information
Technology Department budget, including Operating and Capital budgets;
(18) To be responsible for the future direction of the Information Technology
Department, ensuring the coordination of the department’s effort with the needs of the
organization;
(19) To manage projects to include oversight of funding allocations, oversight and
coordination of resources;
(20) To perform such other duties as may be required.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions
of the Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
110606 jb 0130781 3
SECTION 3. 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:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Human Resources
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment 8
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Attachment 8
Capital Projects Fund Revenues Fiscal Years 2006 - 2010
FY FY FY FY FY
Revenue Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Library Bond Proceeds 59,071
Investment Income 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Unrealized gain/loss on investments 10 -10
Interest Income Fiscal Agent 45 47 38 9
a American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)638
b Federal Grants 89 46 1,152 162 396
c State of California 1,716 759 2,003 2,725 585
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Grants 62
d Donations 20 209 383
e Property Damage 4 26 34 40 147
f From Other Agency 1,548 1,115 96 12 78
Stanford - Other Revenue 31 54 27
Connection Charges 38 15 16 25 2
Other Misc.29
Development Agreement Fee 6
Transfers from Other Funds:
Trf from General Fund 6,212 8,736 11,807 14,648 9,900
g Trf from Water Fund 100 971 4
h Trf from Electric Fund 1,303 672 270 234 65
i Trf from Gas Fund 40 83 9
j Trf from WasteWater Collection Fund 150 71 4
k Trf from Refuse Fund 390
Trf from Fiber Optics 11 4
Trf from Public SVCs 55
Trf from Development Impact Fees Charleston-Arastradero 82 82 82
l Trf from Development Impact Fees - Parks 467 135 620 1,090
m Trf from Gas Tax Fund 641 899 756 485 1,314
n Trf from Parking District California Ave. 200 94 67
Trf from Parking District University 200 200
o Trf from Stanford Research Park/El Camino 690
Trf from Assets Seizure Fund 18
p Trf from Law Enforcement Services Fund 100
$14,210 $13,762 $18,947 $21,764 $73,776
Note
a Funds used for Street Maintenance (CIP PE-86070)
b
c
d
e Funds used to repair Alma Bridge overpass guardrail.
f Funds from PAUSD used for school site irrigation
g Funds used for Cubberley Turf Renovation (CIP PE 07007) $900k and Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005) $171k
h
i Funds used for Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005) $123k
j Funds used for Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005) $221k
k Funds used for Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-08005)
l Funds used for Park Restroom Installation (CIP PE-06007) and Cubberley Turf Renovation (CIP PE-07007)
m
n Funds used for Ted Thompson Garage Improvements ( CIP PF-06001)
o Funds used for Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (CIP PL-05002) $250k
p Funds used for Crime Scene Evidence Collection Vehicle (CIP PD-08000)
Funds used for Street Improvements (CIP PE-86070) $3,309k, Safe Routes to School (CIP PL-00026) $245k, and Thermoplastic
Lane Marking & Striping (CIP PO-11001) $250k
Fund from Friends of Lytton Plaza used for Lytton Plaza Renovation (CIP PE-08004). Funds from Bill Bliss Family used for Art in
Public Places (CIP AC-86017)
Funds from HUD used for Animal Shelter Expansion & Renovation (CIP PE-04010) $357k. Funds from FEMA used for Library &
Community Center Temporary Facilities (CIP PE-09010) 39K in 2010. Funds from Dept of Energy Grant used for Photovoltaic Design
and Installations (CIP PE-05001) $1,152 in FY 2008
Funds from State of California proposition 42 traffic & congestion used for Street Maintenance (CIP PE-86070). Funds from State of
California proposition 1b used for Street Maintenance (CIP PE-86070), Homer Avenue Under crossing (CIP PE-01021), and Hoover
Park Improvements (CIP PE-07002)
Funds used for Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements (CIP PF-01002) $63k, Municipal Service Center Resurfacing (CIP PE-
08005) $501k, Photovoltaic Design and Installations (CIP PE 05001) $1,740k and Homer Avenue Under crossing (CIP PE-01021)
$225k
6/3/2011
Appendix 1
This page is intentionally left blank.
General Fund Summary
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 13
General Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Sales Tax 17,991 18,218 19,507 20,246 739
Property Tax 25,982 25,907 25,323 26,052 729
Transient Occupancy Tax 6,858 7,021 7,400 8,204 804
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,707 3,613 4,002 4,269 267
Utility Users Tax 11,296 11,429 10,824 10,859 35
Other Taxes and Fines 1,634 2,330 2,137 2,330 193
Charges for Services 19,513 20,008 20,924 21,841 917
Permits and Licenses 4,799 4,593 5,101 5,778 677
Return on Investment 2,624 1,646 1,337 1,318 (19)
Rental Income 14,397 13,716 13,776 13,914 137
From other agencies 333 155 222 155 (67)
Charges to Other Funds 11,017 10,622 10,678 10,505 (173)
Other Revenue 2,360 1,490 1,585 1,428 (158)
TOTAL REVENUES $122,513 $120,748 $122,816 $126,899 $4,083
Operating Transfers-In 22,011 18,684 18,678 19,606 928
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $144,524 $139,433 $141,493 $146,504 $5,011
General Fund Summary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 201214
Expenses
City Attorney 2,583 2,369 2,390 2,355 (35)
City Auditor 958 982 989 1,006 16
City Clerk 1,455 1,093 1,335 1,479 144
City Council 287 142 143 319 176
City Manager 2,282 2,178 2,407 2,512 105
Administrative Services 7,873 6,293 6,468 6,514 47
Community Services 20,490 20,032 20,147 20,711 564
Fire 27,733 27,007 27,813 29,780 1,967
Human Resources 2,707 2,817 2,849 2,919 70
Library 6,388 6,609 6,675 6,944 269
Planning and Community Environment 9,350 9,320 9,980 10,021 41
Police 28,841 30,579 30,941 31,918 977
Public Works 12,529 13,084 13,127 13,007 (120)
Non-Departmental 8,745 5,970 5,490 5,038 (451)
TOTAL EXPENSES $132,219 $128,475 $130,753 $134,523 $3,770
Operating Transfers Out 4,737 1,122 1,422 860 (562)
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,978 1,175
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $146,857 $139,399 $141,977 $146,360 $4,383
NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $(2,333) $33 $(484)$144 $628
EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Salaries and Benefits 93,979,629 88,545,459 90,158,774 92,070,036 1,911,262
Contract Services 9,115,612 10,180,114 11,011,954 11,296,566 284,612
Supplies and Materials 2,875,040 3,241,892 3,288,578 3,205,892 (82,686)
General Expense 9,343,262 10,021,636 9,918,010 10,897,509 979,499
Rents and Leases 699,385 735,706 713,756 830,869 117,113
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 1,739,653 452,119 442,098 459,805 17,707
Allocated Charges 14,466,638 15,298,268 15,220,167 15,762,343 542,176
Operating Transfers Out 4,737,252 1,121,819 1,421,819 859,504 (562,315)
Transfer to Infrastructure 9,900,212 9,802,334 9,802,334 10,977,510 1,175,176
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $146,856,683 $139,399,347 $141,977,490 $146,360,034 $4,382,544
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
General Fund Summary
15
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Changes
FY 2011
BAO’s
Projected
06/30/11
FY 2012
Projected
Changes
Projected
06/30/12
Reserves
Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Activity:
BSR 27,396 33 (516) 26,913 144 27,057
Other Reserve Activity:
Encumbrance & Reappropriation 3,778 3,778 3,778
Inventory of Materials & Supplies 3,661 3,661 3,661
Notes Receivable, Prepaid Items, & Interfund Advances 2,920 2,920 2,920
TOTAL RESERVES $37,755 $33 $(516) $37,272 $144 $37,416
Appendix 2
This page is intentionally left blank.
FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20126
FY 2012 Enterprise Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Electric
Fund
Fiber
Optic
Fund
Gas
Fund
Wastewater
Collection
Fund
Water
Fund
Refuse
Fund
Storm
Drainage
Fund
Wastewater
Treatment
Fund
Airport
Fund Total
Revenues
Net Sales 109,963 2,609 42,013 14,485 29,366 23,947 5,536 12,566 0 240,485
Interest Income 4,014 310 948 480 971 301 148 499 0 7,669
Other Income 11,230 740 1,871 904 2,859 3,952 130 8,016 0 29,702
Bond Proceeds 000 0000 00 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $125,207 $3,659 $44,832 $15,868 $33,196 $28,199 $5,815 $21,081 $0 $277,856
Expenditures
Utility Purchases and Charges 69,846 0 19,397 7,954 15,774 13,000 0 0 0 125,970
Salaries and Benefits 11,079 928 4,635 2,074 5,339 4,060 1,005 9,509 0 38,629
Contract Services 4,306 158 4,850 178 740 6,058 373 1,877 0 18,540
Supplies and Materials 811 18 465 222 461 141 103 1,422 0 3,642
Facilities and Equipment Pur-
chases 75 063 1 810 8 10 0 174
General Expense 4,070 25 914 78 435 227 15 411 0 6,176
Rents and Leases 3,939 27 341 202 2,896 4,298 6 0 0 11,709
Allocated Charges 8,344 405 3,910 1,958 3,116 3,255 606 4,709 0 26,304
Debt Service 8,966 0 948 129 3,338 623 950 818 0 15,772
Subtotal $111,436 $1,561 $35,522 $12,795 $32,105 $31,673 $3,066 $18,756 $0 $246,915
Equity Transfer 11,587 0 6,006 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,593
Capital Improvement Program 8,685 500 7,821 4,274 4,369 6,246 2,639 56 0 34,590
Operating Transfers Out 299 9 170 88 104 74 18 105 0 867
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $132,007 $2,070 $49,518 $17,158 $36,578 $37,993 $5,723 $18,918 $0 $299,965
TO/FROM RESERVES $(6,800) $1,588 $(4,687) $(1,289) $(3,382) $(9,794) $92 $2,163 $0 $(22,109)
Enterprise Fund Reserves
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 7
Enterprise Fund Reserves
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Electric Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 9,205 377 9,582 6,355 - 12,710
Supply Rate Stabilization 41,931 (1,319)40,612 31,018 - 62,035
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
Subtotal $111,920 $(6,800)$105,120
Gas Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 10,048 (9,631)417 2,676 -5,353
Supply Rate Stabilization 3,215 4,944 8,159 4,665 - 9,330
Debt Service Reserve 952 0 952
Subtotal $15,215 $(4,687)$10,528
Wastewater Collection Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 5,850 (1,289)4,561 2,156 - 4,311
Subtotal $6,850 $(1,289)$5,561
Water Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 15,148 (3,382)11,766 4,614 -9,229
Debt Service Reserve 3,348 0 3,348
Subtotal $19,496 $(3,382)$16,114
Refuse Fund
Rate Stabilization (5,285) (3,694)(8,979) 2,462 - 4,924
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
Subtotal $(4,627) $(3,694)$(8,321)
Storm Drainage Fund
Rate Stabilization 245 92 337
Subtotal $245 $92 $337
Enterprise Fund Reserves
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20128
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,747 182 1,929 1,929 (max.)
Rate Stabilization (2,526) 1,981 (545) 3,050 - 6,100
Subtotal $(779) $2,163 $1,384
Fiber Optics Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 9,406 1,588 10,994 670 - 1,675
Subtotal $10,406 $1,588 $11,994
TOTAL RESERVES $158,726 $(16,009)$142,717
Emergency Plant Replacement 6,747 182 6,929
Rate Stabilization 87,237 (10,333)76,904
Debt Service Reserve 4,300 0 4,300
Calaveras 55,507 (5,238)50,269
Public Benefit 3,240 (620)2,620
Central Valley O&M 306 0 306
Underground Loan 731 0 731
Shasta Rewind Loan 000
Conservation Loan 000
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 658 0 658
TOTAL RESERVES $158,726 $(16,009)$142,717
Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Liability 10,648 (6,100)4,548
TOTAL RESERVES AND FULLY-FUNDED LIABILITY $169,374 $(22,109)$147,265
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2012
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2012
Changes
FY 2012
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2012
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Appendix 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 88
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
($000)
Fund Category FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
CAPITAL FUND $33,937 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $93,345
Total Reimbursements (25,762)(5,151)(3,355)(3,608)(3,439)$(41,315)
NET CAPITAL FUND $8,176 $11,031 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $52,030
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,347 $640 $425 $425 $425 $4,262
Total Reimbursements (817)(286)(286)(286)(286)$(1,961)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
ELECTRIC FUND $8,685 $11,405 $14,205 $12,710 $10,590 $57,595
Total Reimbursements (1,695)(2,783)(3,785)(3,870)(3,180)$(15,313)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $6,990 $8,622 $10,420 $8,840 $7,410 $42,282
FIBER OPTICS FUND $500 $500 $500 $400 $400 $2,300
Total Reimbursements (200)(200)(200)(200)(200)$(1,000)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
GAS FUND $7,821 $8,188 $5,387 $5,435 $5,599 $32,430
Total Reimbursements (710)(720)(730)(752)(790)$(3,702)
NET GAS FUND $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
WATER FUND $4,369 $9,424 $9,913 $13,051 $21,099 $57,856
Total Reimbursements (767)(776)(785)(795)(8,750)$(11,873)
NET WATER FUND $3,602 $8,648 $9,128 $12,256 $12,349 $45,983
2012-16 CIP Summary by Fund
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201289
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,274 $4,354 $4,516 $4,653 $4,793 $22,590
Total Reimbursements (740)(750)(761)(771)(794)$(3,816)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FUND $3,534 $3,604 $3,755 $3,882 $3,999 $18,774
REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
TOTAL CIP COSTS (ALL FUNDS)$70,338 $56,355 $57,732 $59,620 $63,836 $307,881
Total Reimbursements (30,690)(10,666)(9,902)(10,282)(17,438)$(78,979)
NET CIP COSTS $39,647 $45,689 $47,830 $49,338 $46,397 $228,902
($000)
Fund Category FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
Revenues
Bond Proceeds 59,071 1,400 2,303 16,150 13,847
Other Agencies 78 1,210 1,210 5,828 4,618
State of California 585 0 164 0 (164)
Federal Grants 1,033 0 1,099 0 (1,099)
Stanford University 27 0 0 0 0
Investment Income 1,002 1,035 1,035 1,075 40
Other Revenue 532 0 275 0 (275)
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $62,329 $3,645 $6,086 $23,053 $16,967
Operating Transfers In
General Fund 9,900 9,802 9,802 10,978 1,175
Street Improvement Fund 1,315 750 750 2,150 1,400
Developers Impact Fee-Park Fund 0 220 220 0 (220)
Utility Funds 86 153 263 0 (263)
California Avenue Parking District Permits Fund 67 0 0 0 0
Public Donation Fund 0 0 55 0 (55)
Charleston Arastradero Safety Impact Fees Fund 82 82 82 47 (35)
Law Enforcement Services Fund 0 0 30 0 (30)
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $11,450 $11,007 $11,202 $13,175 $1,973
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $73,779 $14,652 $17,288 $36,228 $18,940
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits 3,331 3,365 3,464 3,387 (77)
Capital Project Expenditures 20,361 17,708 19,939 30,550 10,611
SUBTOTAL EXPENSES $23,692 $21,073 $23,403 $33,937 $10,535
Operating Transfers Out 4,357 0 747 0 (747)
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $28,049 $21,073 $24,150 $33,937 $9,788
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $45,730 $(6,420)$(6,862)$2,291 $9,152
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE YEAR-END BALANCE $8,648 $2,547 $2,087 $4,378 $2,291
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 90
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201291
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
KEY
Shaded areas denote new projects
TBD To Be Determined
Italicized text indicates reimbursement
Capital Fund
Buildings and Facilities
PF-12004 City-Wide Backflow Pre-
venter Installation 250 0 0 0 0 $250
PF-12005 Council Conference Room
Renovations 125 0 0 0 0 $125
PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof
Replacement 0 0 0 151 0 $151
PF-16000
Cubberley Community Cen-
ter Site-Wide Electrical Sys-
tems Replacement
0 0 0 150 1,000 $1,150
PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo
Improvements 0 0 0 0 849 $849
AC-12001
Junior Museum & Zoo
Perimeter Fence and Foot-
path
50 0 0 0 0 $50
PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electri-
cal Systems Replacement 0 0 170 0 0 $170
PE-12004 Municipal Services Center
Facilities Study 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PF-12001 Parks & PWD Tree Shop
Space Improvements 375 0 0 0 0 $375
PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities
Act Compliance 150 100 100 100 100 $550
PF-07002 Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvement 0 0 0 267 0 $267
PF-01003 Building Systems Improve-
ments 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improve-
ments 100 500 0 0 0 $600
PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot
Maintenance 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-11001 Council Chamber Carpet
Replacement 0 80 0 0 0 $80
PF-13002 Cubberley Mechanical and
Electrical Upgrades 0 150 1,300 0 0 $1,450
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 92
PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes
Replacement 105 105 105 105 105 $525
PF-10002 Lot J Structure Repair 500 0 0 0 0 $500
PF-13001 Lucie Stern Mechanical Sys-
tem Upgrade 0 100 400 0 0 $500
PE-11000 Main Library New Construc-
tion and Improvements 16,150 0 0 0 0 $16,150
Bonds (16,150)$(16,150)
PF-05002 Municipal Service Center
Improvements 0 0 341 550 0 $891
PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker
Room 0 0 0 300 0 $300
PF-00006 Roofing Replacement 150 150 150 150 150 $750
PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improve-
ments 0 90 600 0 0 $690
NET TOTAL BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES $2,105 $1,475 $3,366 $1,973 $2,404 $11,323
Parks and Open Space
PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park
Improvements 674 0 0 0 0 $674
PO-12003 Foothills Wildland Fire Miti-
gation Program 200 0 0 0 0 $200
PE-12001 Golf Course Cart Path and
Road 0 0 292 0 0 $292
PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Mainte-
nance 75 75 25 25 25 $225
PO-12002
LATP Site Development
Preparation and Security
Improvements
250 0 0 0 0 $250
PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground 1,300 0 0 0 0 $1,300
Local Agency Grant (1,000)$(1,000)
PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for
Soccer Field 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan
and Design 150 0 0 0 0 $150
PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improve-
ments 65 0 0 0 0 $65
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201293
PG-12001 Stanford/Palo Alto Playing
Fields Netting 50 0 0 0 0 $50
PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Ave.
Irrigation Alternatives 100 0 0 0 0 $100
PG-06003
Benches, Signage, Fencing,
Walkways, and Perimeter
Landscaping
150 150 150 150 150 $750
PE-06010 City Parks Improvements 0 440 200 200 200 $1,040
OS-07000 Foothills Park Road
Improvements 150 0 0 0 0 $150
PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements
(formerly PE-07001)95 0 0 0 0 $95
OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfac-
ing and Repair 0 100 100 100 100 $400
OS-00002 Open Space Lakes and
Ponds Maintenance 50 0 60 0 60 $170
OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Ame-
nities 136 150 164 175 175 $800
PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emer-
gency Repairs 75 75 75 75 75 $375
PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation 0 220 0 220 0 $440
Development Impact Fees (220)(220)$(440)
PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improve-
ments 0 1,260 0 0 0 $1,260
PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements
(formerly PE-11004)100 0 0 0 0 $100
PE-14000 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer
Turf Replacement 0 100 625 0 0 $725
PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing 30 30 30 30 30 $150
PE-10002 Ventura Community Center
and Park 25 0 0 0 0 $25
NET TOTAL PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE $2,775 $2,380 $1,721 $755 $815 $8,446
Streets and Sidewalks
PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs 250 250 250 250 100 $1,100
PL-12000 Transportation and Parking
Improvements 750 250 225 225 225 $1,675
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 94
Gas Tax Fund (750)(250)(225)(225)(225)$(1,675)
PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Tile Deck
Replacement 50 0 0 0 0 $50
PL-04010
Bicycle & Pedestrian Trans-
portation Plan - Implemen-
tation Project
50 50 50 50 50 $250
PL-11002 California Avenue - Transit
Hub Corridor Project 1,175 0 0 0 0 $1,175
Local Agency Grant (1,175)$(1,175)
PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Cor-
ridor Project 0 1,000 1,000 2,000 0 $4,000
PL-00026 Safe Routes to School 297 100 100 100 100 $697
Gas Tax Fund (100)(100)(100)(100)(100)$(500)
Local Agency Grant (528)$(528)
PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs 755 725 719 716 710 $3,625
PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade 50 50 50 50 0 $200
PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements 130 135 140 145 150 $700
General Fund (130)(135)(140)(145)(150)$(700)
PE-86070 Street Maintenance 1,408 3,754 3,754 3,754 3,754 $16,422
Street Improvement Fund (1,300)(1,300)(1,300)(1,300)(1,300)$(6,500)
PE-06011 Street Median Improve-
ments 0 156 156 156 156 $624
PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and
Striping 50 50 50 50 0 $200
PL-05030 Traffic Signal and ITS
Upgrades 200 205 210 215 220 $1,050
General Fund (200)(205)(210)(215)(220)$(1,050)
NET TOTAL STREETS AND
SIDEWALKS $982 $4,734 $4,729 $5,725 $3,470 $19,640
Miscellaneous
FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replace-
ment 180 180 180 0 0 $540
AC-86017 Art in Public Places 50 50 50 50 50 $250
General Fund (50)(50)(50)(50)(50)$(250)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201295
LB-11000 Furniture and Technology
for Library Projects 3,125 1,600 0 0 0 $4,725
Local Agency Grant (3,125)(1,600)$(4,725)
AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - Gen-
eral Fund CIP Projects 3,387 3,553 3,731 3,918 4,113 $18,703
General Fund (1,254)(1,291)(1,330)(1,353)(1,394)$(6,622)
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $2,314 $2,442 $2,581 $2,564 $2,719 $12,621
CAPITAL FUND $33,937 $16,183 $15,752 $14,626 $12,847 $93,345
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(25,762)$(5,151)$(3,355)$(3,608)$(3,439)$(41,315)
NET CAPITAL FUND $8,176 $11,031 $12,397 $11,018 $9,408 $52,030
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Miscellaneous
VR-16000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 0 2,874 $2,874
VR-15000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 0 3,254 0 $3,254
VR-13000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 1,332 0 0 0 $1,332
VR-14000 Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacements 0 0 2,182 0 0 $2,182
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $0 $1,332 $2,182 $3,254 $2,874 $9,642
Technology Fund
Technology
TE-99010 Acquisition of New Comput-
ers 75 75 75 75 75 $375
TE-11005 Implementation of New
Utility Rate Structures 100 0 0 0 0 $100
Enterprise Funds (100)$(100)
TE-11001 Library Computer System
Software 350 0 0 0 0 $350
TE-06001 Library RFID Implementa-
tion 150 215 0 0 0 $365
TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure
Replacement 100 100 100 100 100 $500
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 96
Enterprise Funds (20)(20)(20)(20)(20)$(100)
Stanford (16)(16)(16)(16)(16)$(80)
TE-00010 Telephone System Replace-
ment 1,422 0 0 0 0 $1,422
Enterprise Funds (531)$(531)
TE-11004 Utilities Customer Bill Rede-
sign 0 0 0 0 0 $0
TE-10001
Utilities Customer Billing
System Continuous
Improvements
150 250 250 250 250 $1,150
Enterprise Funds (150)(250)(250)(250)(250)$(1,150)
NET TOTAL TECHNOLOGY $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,347 $640 $425 $425 $425 $4,262
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(817)$(286)$(286)$(286)$(286)$(1,961)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $1,530 $354 $139 $139 $139 $2,301
Electric Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
EL-89028 Electric Customer Connec-
tions 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 $11,000
Others (850)(900)(925)(950)(1,000)$(4,625)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$1,150 $1,200 $1,275 $1,350 $1,400 $6,375
Distribution System - System Improvements
EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer
Replacement 1,000 0 0 0 0 $1,000
EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tenny-
son 4/12 kV Conversion 0 120 400 0 0 $520
EL-13000 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV
Tie 0 0 300 100 750 $1,150
EL-98003 Electric System Improve-
ments 1,200 2,300 2,400 2,450 2,500 $10,850
Others (145)(150)(160)(170)(180)$(805)
EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS 100 0 0 0 0 $100
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201297
EL-09002 Middlefield / Colorado 4/12
kV Conversion 150 0 0 0 0 $150
EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo
Area 350 0 0 0 0 $350
EL-12000 Rebuild UG District 12 0 80 700 300 0 $1,080
EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15 0 400 270 0 0 $670
EL-13003 Rebuild UG District 16 0 300 0 0 0 $300
EL-14002 Rebuild UG District 20 0 0 500 500 0 $1,000
EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Over-
head Transmission System 700 700 700 0 0 $2,100
EL-13002
Relocate Quarry Road/Hop-
kins Substations 60 kV Line
(Lane A & B)
0 0 0 100 750 $850
EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades 200 50 55 60 65 $430
EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV
Conversion 0 400 0 0 0 $400
EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology
Installation 0 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 $11,000
Enterprise Funds (1,333)(2,000)(2,000)(2,000)$(7,333)
EL-11002
St. Francis/Oregon/Ama-
rillo/Louis 4/12 kV Conver-
sion
0 450 0 0 0 $450
EL-89044 Substation Facility Improve-
ments 165 170 180 185 190 $890
EL-89038 Substation Protection
Improvements 250 260 270 280 290 $1,350
EL-08001
UG District 42 - Embar-
cadero Rd. (Between Emer-
son & Middlefield)
0 0 150 2,000 500 $2,650
Others (750)$(750)
EL-11009 UG District 43 - Alma/
Embarcadero 0 150 2,000 500 0 $2,650
Others (700)$(700)
EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/
El Camino Real 150 800 150 0 0 $1,100
Others (400)$(400)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 98
EL-11010
UG District 47 - Middlefield,
Homer Avenue, Webster
Street and Addison Avenue
1,500 200 0 0 0 $1,700
Others (700)$(700)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $4,920 $6,497 $8,215 $6,555 $5,865 $32,052
General Services - Street Lights
EL-10009 Street Light System Conver-
sion Project 800 800 800 800 0 $3,200
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
STREET LIGHTS $800 $800 $800 $800 $0 $3,200
General Services - Communications
EL-89031 Communications System
Improvements 120 125 130 135 145 $655
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
COMMUNICATIONS $120 $125 $130 $135 $145 $655
ELECTRIC FUND $8,685 $11,405 $14,205 $12,710 $10,590 $57,595
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(1,695)$(2,783)$(3,785)$(3,870)$(3,180)$(15,313)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $6,990 $8,622 $10,420 $8,840 $7,410 $42,282
Fiber Optics Fund
Commercial Telecommunications
FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Con-
nections 200 200 200 200 200 $1,000
Others (200)(200)(200)(200)(200)$(1,000)
FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network Sys-
tem Improvements 300 300 300 200 200 $1,300
NET TOTAL COMMERCIAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
FIBER OPTICS FUND $500 $500 $500 $400 $400 $2,300
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(200)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(1,000)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $300 $200 $200 $1,300
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201299
Gas Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
GS-80017 Gas System Extensions 710 720 730 752 790 $3,702
Others (710)(720)(730)(752)(790)$(3,702)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Distribution System - System Improvements
GS-16000 GMR Project 26 0 0 0 0 570 $570
GS-03007 Directional Boring Equip-
ment 0 64 0 68 0 $132
GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine 0 45 250 0 0 $295
GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 306 315 325 335 352 $1,633
GS-11002 Gas System Improvements 200 206 212 219 230 $1,066
GS-10001 GMR - Project 20 5,970 0 0 0 0 $5,970
GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 0 6,150 0 0 0 $6,150
GS-12001 GMR - Project 22 468 0 3,200 0 0 $3,668
GS-13001 GMR - Project 23 0 482 0 3,300 0 $3,782
GS-14003 GMR-Project 24 0 0 492 0 3,465 $3,957
GS-15000 GMR-Project 25 0 0 0 542 0 $542
GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equip-
ment 0 34 0 36 0 $70
GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreim-
bursed 167 172 178 184 193 $893
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
GAS FUND $7,821 $8,188 $5,387 $5,435 $5,599 $32,430
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(710)$(720)$(730)$(752)$(790)$(3,702)
NET GAS FUND $7,111 $7,468 $4,657 $4,683 $4,809 $28,728
Water Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WS-80013 Water System Extensions 420 430 440 450 460 $2,200
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 100
Others (700)(709)(718)(728)(750)$(3,605)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$(280)$(279)$(278)$(278)$(290)$(1,405)
Distribution System - System Improvements
WS-16001 WMR - Project 30 0 0 0 0 344 $344
WS-09000 Seismic Water System
Upgrades 2,700 3,200 3,820 0 0 $9,720
WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data 100 100 100 100 0 $400
Enterprise Funds (67)(67)(67)(67)$(268)
WS-11003 Water Distribution System
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WS-80015 Water Meters 215 222 229 236 243 $1,145
WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities 0 500 500 8,000 16,000 $25,000
Others (8,000)$(8,000)
WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating
Improvements 0 860 590 0 0 $1,450
WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant
Replacement 217 222 229 236 243 $1,147
WS-11004 Water System Supply
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 0 3,152 0 0 0 $3,152
WS-12001 WMR - Project 26 305 0 3,245 0 0 $3,550
WS-13001 WMR - Project 27 0 314 0 3,245 0 $3,559
WS-14001 WMR - Project 28 0 0 324 0 3,345 $3,669
WS-15002 WMR - Project 29 0 0 0 334 0 $334
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $3,882 $8,927 $9,406 $12,534 $12,639 $47,388
WATER FUND $4,369 $9,424 $9,913 $13,051 $21,099 $57,856
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(767)$(776)$(785)$(795)$(8,750)$(11,873)
NET WATER FUND $3,602 $8,648 $9,128 $12,256 $12,349 $45,983
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012101
Wastewater Collection Fund
Collection System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions 340 350 361 372 383 $1,806
Others (740)(750)(761)(771)(794)$(3,816)
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
CUSTOMER DESIGN AND
CONNECTION SERVICES
$(400)$(400)$(400)$(399)$(411)$(2,010)
Collection System - System Improvements
WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 29 0 0 0 0 340 $340
WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting
Machine 33 0 0 0 0 $33
WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole
Rehab/Replacement 565 570 617 636 655 $3,043
WC-15002 Wastewater System
Improvements 206 212 218 225 232 $1,093
WC-12001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 25 300 2,912 0 0 0 $3,212
WC-13001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 26 0 310 3,000 0 0 $3,310
WC-11000 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 24 2,830 0 0 0 0 $2,830
WC-14001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 27 0 0 320 3,090 0 $3,410
WC-15001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/
Aug. Project 28 0 0 0 330 3,183 $3,513
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $3,934 $4,004 $4,155 $4,281 $4,410 $20,784
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,274 $4,354 $4,516 $4,653 $4,793 $22,590
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(740)$(750)$(761)$(771)$(794)$(3,816)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION
FUND $3,534 $3,604 $3,755 $3,882 $3,999 $18,774
Refuse Fund
Miscellaneous
RF-11001 Landfill Closure 6,100 0 0 0 0 $6,100
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
2012-16 Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 102
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
NET REFUSE FUND $6,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,100
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements
WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assess-
ment & Retrofit 0 700 1,050 1,100 1,100 $3,950
WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replace-
ment 0 500 1,450 1,500 1,550 $5,000
NET TOTAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
$0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FUND $0 $1,200 $2,500 $2,600 $2,650 $8,950
Storm Drainage Fund
Collection System - System Improvements
SD-11101
Channing Avenue/Lincoln
Avenue Storm Drain
Improvements
1,590 1,680 1,430 0 0 $4,700
SD-06104
Connect Clara Drive Storm
Drains to Matadero Pump
Station
0 0 0 0 0 $0
SD-13002
Matadero Creek Storm
Water Pump Station and
Trunk Lines Improvements
0 0 315 1,840 1,915 $4,070
SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood
Storm Drain Improvements 143 860 0 0 0 $1,003
SD-06101
Storm Drain System
Replacement and Rehabili-
tation
572 590 607 626 644 $3,039
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM -
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $2,305 $3,130 $2,352 $2,466 $2,559 $12,812
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total
Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 96
PE-86070Street Maintenance
STREET MAINTENANCE (PE-86070)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Construction
• Timeline: FY 2012-2016
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy C-24, T-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PTC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project will make reason-
able efforts to match existing pavement.
• Operating: This project will reduce street mainte-
nance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: This project provides for annual resurfacing, slurry seal,
crack seal and reconstruction of various city streets recommended in
the City Auditor's report on street maintenance. The list of streets to be
included in this project will be prioritized and coordinated with Utilities
Department undergrounding projects.
Justification: The Pavement Maintenance Management System
(PMMS) has identified streets requiring maintenance. This program
systematically schedules the highest priority repairs. By providing a
systemized method of bi-annually rating streets for improvements and
a yearly maintenance program, the City addresses the need to provide
a functioning street system while reducing the maintenance backlog.
Supplemental Information: Staff is developing bid documents for the
second phase of San Antonio roadway and median reconstruction
(from Middlefield Road to the Highway 101 interchange) and has
applied for a HSIP grant for $900,000 which is subject to Caltrans
approval. In FY 2011, a BAO in the amount of $324,684 transferred
street funding to the Storm Drain project for curb and gutter work,
wheel chair ramps and driveway work along Channing Avenue. In May
2011 a BAO in the amount of $2,021,068 was approved by Council in
order to take advantage of a favorable bidding climate and to schedule
all construction work adjacent to schools to be completed prior to
opening. In FY 2012 appropriation for the annual Street Resurfacing
Capital Improvement Project will be reduced by an equal amount.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Construction Costs $1,357,883 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $3,703,635 $16,172,423
Other
Total Budget Request $1,407,883 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $3,753,635 $16,422,423
Revenues: $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $6,500,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Street Improvement
Fund($6,500,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201293
WS-07001Water Recycling Facilities
WATER RECYCLING FACILITIES (WS-07001)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2011-2016
• Overall Project Completion: 10%
• Percent Spent: 35.93%
• Managing Department: Utilities
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-20
• Potential Board/Commission Review: UAC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Project will require environmen-
tal review.
• Design Elements: Any above ground structures
will go through the appropriate review process.
• Operating: Project will increase utilities operating
costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The City of Palo Alto is investigating an expansion of the
existing recycled water delivery system to serve customers in the City.
The pipeline will primarily access the Stanford Research Park and
provide an alternative supply source of 1,000 AFY (acre feet per year).
Justification: Palo Alto is aggressively pursuing all options to meet
future water supply needs. Recycled water provides a stable, drought-
proof supply of water that replaces the need to use Hetch Hetchy
potable supplies for irrigation purposes.
Consultant Services Scope: RMC Environmental is preparing the
environmental report and facility plan for the project.
Supplemental Information: The success of this project to proceed is
dependent on the ability of the Utilities Department to find funding
sources either in the form of a grant or other type of financing
arrangement.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $1,100,122
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 395,241
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Construction Costs $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $24,000,000
Other
Total Budget Request $500,000 $500,000 $8,000,000 $16,000,000 $25,000,000
Revenues:$8,000,000 $8,000,000
Source of Funds:Water Fund with the following reimbursements: Others($8,000,000)
City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 201291
SD-10101Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements
SOUTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENTS (SD-10101)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2012-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Percent Spent: 0.00%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24, Program N-36
• Potential Board/Commission Review: SDOC,
ARB
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15302.
• Design Elements: This project is coordinated
with the street resurfacing program
• Operating: This project may result in increased
operating costs for the Public Works and Commu-
nity Services Departments, depending upon the
drainage measures constructed.
• Telecommunications: There may be a need for
remote monitoring of a rainwater cistern integrated
into the Peers Park irrigation system.
Description: This project will improve drainage within the Southgate
neighborhood. The project will begin with a feasibility study of
innovative techniques, including permeable pavement, rain gardens,
or rainwater cisterns, to handle storm runoff from the neighborhood.
The study will also examine the feasibility of using harvested rainwater
for irrigation of Peers Park. Following the identification of feasible
alternatives, construction documents will be prepared.
Justification: The Southgate neighborhood bounded by Churchill
Ave., the Caltrain corridor, Park Blvd., and El Camino Real, drains to a
single drain inlet at the corner of Mariposa and Sequoia Avenues.
There are no underground storm drains to collect runoff from the
neighborhood. Staff and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee have
concluded that this neighborhood presents an opportunity to utilize
innovative techniques to improve drainage at a lower cost than
traditional pipeline solutions.
Consultant Services Scope: A consultant will conduct the feasibility
study and prepare bid documents for the feasible measures.
Supplemental Information: This improvement is consistent with the
priorities established with the voter-approved storm drain rate
increase. This project has been reviewed with the Storm Drain
Oversight Committee, which has been a strong advocate of the
project. Due to high bid prices on prior Storm Drainage Fund CIPs, no
funding source has been identified for this project to-date. Staff and
the Storm Drain Oversight Committee concur that it is prudent to use a
portion of the annual allocation for innovative storm drain
improvements (which has been used to-date to fund a storm water
rebate program) towards the implementation of this project. A large
surplus has accumulated in the innovative storm drain account over
the past several years, and expenditure of those funds on this high-
priority CIP is justified.
92Capital Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
SOUTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENTS (SD-10101) CONTINUED
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget $0
PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $143,000 $143,000
Construction Costs $860,000 $860,000
Other
Total Budget Request $143,000 $860,000 $1,003,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Storm Drainage Fund
Appendix 4
This page is intentionally left blank.
FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 20122
FY 2012 Internal Service Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
Liability
Insurance
Fund
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund Total
Revenues
Operating Revenue 7,599 11,231 1,137 39,479 3,108 1,608 9,789 73,951
Interest Income 179 353 0 274 438 142 40 1,427
Other Revenue 66 817 2 0 0 40 0 925
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $7,844 $12,400 $1,139 $39,754 $3,546 $1,791 $9,829 $76,303
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures 5,469 10,692 1,122 39,754 3,546 1,791 9,789 72,162
Capital Improvement Program 0 2,347 0 0 0 0 0 2,347
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $5,469 $13,039 $1,122 $39,754 $3,546 $1,791 $9,789 $74,509
NET TO/FROM UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $2,375 $(638) $17 $0 $0 $0 $40 $1,794
Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 3
Internal Service Funds Unrestricted Assets
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
Liability
Insurance
Fund
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund Total
Changes to Unrestricted assets
JUNE 30, 2011 UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $5,260 $2,238 $(12) $200 $100 $100 $25,504 $33,390
FY 2012 Projected Changes 2,375 (638) 17 0 0 0 40 1,794
JUNE 30, 2012 UNRESTRICTED
ASSETS $7,635 $1,600 $5 $200 $100 $100 $25,544 $35,184
Appendix 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
Debt Service Funds
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto 1
Debt Service Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Revenues
Property Tax $0 $3,492 $3,492 $3,495 $4
Other - Interest 10 54 54 30 (24)
SUBTOTAL REVENUES $10 $3,546 $3,546 $3,525 $(20)
General Fund Operating Transfers
Golf Course Corporation 449 528 528 527 0
Public Improvement Corp. (Civic Center) 333 328 328 58 (270)
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable 227 224 224 232 8
University Avenue Permit Fund Transfer 80 80 80 14 (66)
SUBTOTAL OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $1,089 $1,160 $1,160 $831 $(329)
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $1,098 $4,706 $4,706 $4,357 $(349)
Expenses
Debt Service:
Golf Course Corporation - Principal 355 370 370 385 15
Golf Course Corporation - Interest 206 190 190 172 (17)
Public Improvement Corporation - Principal 380 390 390 405 15
Public Improvement Corporation - Interest 46 31 31 16 (15)
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable - Principal 105 110 110 115 5
Parking 2002B COPS Taxable - Interest 129 123 123 117 (6)
Library GO Bonds - Principal 0 0 0 765 765
Library GO Bonds - Interest 0 1,472 1,472 2,503 1,031
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $1,221 $2,686 $2,686 $4,478 $1,792
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $(122) $2,020 $2,020 $(122) $(2,141)
Appendix 6
This page is intentionally left blank.
5/25/2011
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 25, 2011
SUBJECT: Municipal Fee Schedule
Wrap-Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearing Meetings
Municipal Fee Schedule
A revised schedule of proposed changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule can be found in
Attachment A. Two changes have been made to Planning and Community Environment’s fees.
See page 16 of this memo for the detail of these changes.
The fees for Electric Vehicle Charge stations have been reduced based on the
Department’s updated analysis of staff time requirements.
A footnote is added to the User Permits - Wireless facilities fee to clarify that 100 percent
of all costs incurred will be recovered.
Wrap-Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearing Meetings
Attached you will find a summary of changes to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed
Budget. The first section describes Finance Committee recommended changes made to the
budget along with follow-up items as discussed at the Finance Committee budget hearings held
on May 3, 5, 12, 17, and 24. The second section describes staff-recommended changes to the
proposed budget document.
The items in this memorandum and additional changes made this evening will be incorporated
into the budget adoption staff report scheduled to be presented to the City Council on June 13,
2011.
1
5/25/2011
Adjustments to Date in the General Fund
This section summarizes actions taken by the Finance Committee to date. Detail for each
adjustment and follow-up information is provided later in the memo. A page is referenced where
additional information is discussed later in the memo.
Changes to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR)
The General Fund FY 2012 Proposed Budget includes the following changes totaling $0.3
million in contribution to the BSR. The changes are reflected in the table below:
Table 1: Changes to the FY 2012 Proposed Budget
(in thousands)
Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning - Change to BSR $131
5-May POL Animal Services shelter study (50)
12-May CSD Public Art Maintenance (15)
12-May PCE Rail Corridor funding (110)
12-May PCE Return Development Center Tranistion funding 14
24-May FIR Return OES funding to BSR 167
24-May FIR Stanford revenue related to OES program 262
24-May PWD Proposed staffing changes (restructuring)34
Ending - Change to BSR $433
Position Changes
The Finance Committee has tentatively approved a net increase of 0.05 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) to the General Fund (add 1.5 FTE; drop 2.0 FTE; reallocate 0.55 FTE to the General
Fund). Details of these changes are the following:
1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II in Planning and Community Environment. The
department presented the Finance Committee with a plan on how to use its Development
Center Transition Plan funding. This position was reinstated, totaling $95,538 (salary and
benefits) and will be used in the Development Center. Funding for this position comes
from the Development Center Transition Plan and has does not impact the General Fund
BSR.
0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Community Services Department. This is a temporary
reduction in staff due to renovations in the Art Center. Funding for this reduction in staff
has been reduced in the proposed budget as a one-time reduction however, since this is a
temporary reduction in staffing the 0.5 FTE should remain in the Table of Organization.
3
5/25/2011
The Public Works Department presented the Finance Committee with the department’s
reorganizational plan. Amendments to the FY 2012 Proposed Budget include:
o Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester ($30,692)
o Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $16,156
o Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
o Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE $146,957 (results in no net
impact to the General Fund)
Additional Information Requested by the Committee
Staff has been asked to provide additional information on the following items. This information
requested by the Finance Committee is included within the department summaries of the Finance
Committee Related Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget section of this memo.
A survey of Citywide resources used to track minutes of all boards, groups, councils, and
commissions, see p. 5
Information regarding the Train Depot lease, see p. 8
Actions Needed
This section summarizes the outstanding decision points that need to be addressed by the Finance
Committee. Additional information for each of these items can be found at the referenced page
number.
General Fund
o Tentative approval of the City Clerk’s Office FY 2012 Proposed Budget
o Foothill College Parking at Cubberley Community Center Term Pass revenue
decrease of $65,000 (not included in Table 1), see p. 12
o Civic Center Debt Service return to General Fund $0.3 million (not included in
Table 1), see p. 13
Debt Service Fund
o Civic Center Debt Service, see p. 13
Finance Committee Related Changes to the City Manager’s
Proposed Budget
The items listed below summarize motions made and/or action items made by the Finance
Committee that result in a fiscal change or other recommended change to the FY 2012 proposed
budget.
General Fund
City Attorney
4
5/25/2011
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Attorney’s budget (4-0)
City Auditor
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Auditor’s budget (4-0)
City Clerk
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee moved that City Staff return to the
committee with a cost analysis of minutes for the City’s Council, Committees,
Commissions, and Boards (4-0)
The Finance Committee requested information regarding the amount of City resources devoted
to the taking of minutes. Based on that request, information was solicited from City departments
regarding all current groups for which minutes are taken.
In Fiscal Year 2011, City resources were used to provide minutes to eighteen different boards,
groups, councils, and commissions. Minutes were also provided for specific projects undertaken
by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Of these, sixteen groups have sense minutes taken, one requires action minutes, and one has
verbatim minutes taken. Specific ARB and HRB projects going to Council also required
verbatim minutes.
The City Clerk’s office defines action minutes as minutes that include only the actual motions
taken at meetings. Verbatim minutes are defined as minutes that include everything everyone
said. Sense minutes are defined in the Municipal Code as minutes that include all actions taken
and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as
speak upon a particular matter under discussion.
Most minutes are prepared by City staff, but some are prepared by contractors. The Municipal
Code requires that City Council minutes are to be completed in sense form, but there are no other
regulations in the Municipal Code regarding minutes for other group meetings.
To determine staff costs for each group, the amount of time devoted to the preparation of
minutes was multiplied by the wage rate of the preparer. The all-employees average benefits
ratio was applied. A similar approach was adopted for calculating time for the review of
minutes. If preparation or review staff varied, depending upon the topic, average hourly wages
at the appropriate wage range were used in the calculation.
Contractor costs, which were provided in a cumulative amount and not broken out by group,
were averaged to arrive at a monthly figure.
This methodology resulted in an average monthly cost to the City of $16,207. The figure
represents: 178 hours of staff time per month for the preparation of minutes; 31 hours per month
5
5/25/2011
of staff time to review minutes; and average contractor costs for minute preparation. Copy and
supplies costs are not included in the analysis.
Projecting this figure across twelve months yields an annual estimate of $194,486 in City
resources dedicated to the preparation and review of minutes. Contractor costs make up 29
percent of the total.
For a summarized total of this study, please refer to Attachment B.
City Council
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Council budget (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended that no City funds be
used for the purchase and monthly cost of iPads (2-2)
City Manager
Motions: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 City Manager’s budget (4-0)
On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754, to the City
Manager’s Office (4-0)
Administrative Services Department
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Administrative Services Department budget (4-0)
Community Services Department
Motions: On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Community Services Department budget (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
add $15,000 for maintenance of public art (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval for
Human Service Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) administrative overhead
fees totaling $27,761 be funded by Council Contingency (2-1, 1 absent)
Fire Department
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Fire Department budget (3-0, 1 abstained)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) budget, which includes adding 1.0 FTE OES
Director; ongoing costs totaling $498,325 and one-time costs totaling $335,000;
6
5/25/2011
and an increase in revenue from Stanford University of $252,497 in Fiscal Year
2012 (3-0, 1 abstained)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
staff’s proposed OES Plan that utilizes the $1 million funding in the Non-
Departmental budget and tentatively approved the return of remaining OES
funding, totaling $166,675, to the BSR (3-0, 1 abstained)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested that staff return to the
committee in September 2011 with an update of labor negotiations for
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and to postpone use of the one-
time OES related costs of $335,000 until staff returns with the labor negotiations
update (3-0, 1 abstained)
Human Resources
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Human Resources Department budget (4-0)
Library Department
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Library Department budget (4-0)
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
Motions: On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Planning and Community Environment Department budget (3-0,
1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
add $110,000 to the Planning and Community Environment Department budget
for the Rail Corridor project (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
staff’s plan to utilize $0.3 million in Development Center Transition Plan funding
which included (3-0, 1 absent):
Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II $95,538
Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official and add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
PCE $28,231
Add contracted building and planning technicians $162,000
On May 12, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
return the remaining balance of Development Center Transition Plan funding
totaling $14,231 to the BSR (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
move the Economic Development Division, a total of $246,754, to the City
Manager’s Office (4-0)
7
5/25/2011
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to
reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist to the Public Works Department $146,957
Police Department
Motions: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Police Department budget (4-0)
On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval to add
$50,000 to the Police Department budget for the Animal Services Shelter study
(4-0)
Public Works Department
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Public Works General Fund budget (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Public Works General Fund budget that total an increase of
$113,015 in salary and benefits (4-0)
Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist; add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester ($30,692)
Reclass 0.8 FTE Supvr, Facilities Maint to Mgr, Maint Ops $16,156
Drop 1.0 FTE Project Manager ($141,340)
Reallocate 0.55 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $60,550
Reallocate 1.0 FTE Planning Arborist from PCE $146,957
Non-Departmental
Motion: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Non-Departmental Budget (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to conduct a separate
study session regarding the status of the Management/Professional Compensation
Study (4-0)
The Finance Committee requested additional information regarding the Train Depot rent. The
City pays $0.2 million in rent to Stanford University and payment is a direct pass through to the
Valley Transit Authority (VTA). The City entered into the Lease for the Depot and the bus
transit land area with Stanford in 1981. Simultaneously, the City entered into a sublease with the
VTA for the rehabilitation of the depot and the creation of the bus transit station. The VTA built
and created the bus transit center and used to operate the depot. The authority closed the depot
area and it sat vacant until a few years ago when the VTA, at the insistence of the City, entered
into the sub-sublease with the Café vendor. The initial lease term of the 1981 lease was for 32
years. In 2000 it was amended to provide the City the opportunity to terminate its lease with
Stanford, and assign its sublease w/the VTA to Stanford, on February 26, 2013, with 90 days
advance notice.
8
5/25/2011
Enterprise Funds
Position Changes
The Finance Committee has tentatively approved the reallocation of 0.55 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) Management Analyst from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund ($60,550).
Electric Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Electric Fund budget (4-0)
Fiber Optics Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Fiber Optics Fund budget (4-0)
Gas Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Gas Fund budget (4-0)
Wastewater Collection Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Wastewater Collection Fund budget (4-0)
Water Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Water Fund budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended to tentatively defer
funding for the Water Recycling Facilities project (WS-07001) from FY 2012 to
FY 2013 (4-0)
Refuse Fund
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Refuse Fund (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended an increase to contract
services for the SMaRT Station $250,000 (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Refuse Fund budget that total a $99,000 decrease in salary and
benefits (4-0)
Reallocate 0.90 FTE Mgmt Analyst to other Public Works Funds
($99,000)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested that staff return to the
committee in July 2011 with ideas on a financially sustainable rate structure for
the Refuse Fund (4-0)
9
5/25/2011
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Motion: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Wastewater Treatment Fund (4-0)
Storm Drainage Fund
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Storm Drainage Fund (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended a decrease to untarped
load fee revenue ($12,000); a decrease in operating expense for innovative
projects ($143,000); and an increase CIP for the Southgate Neighborhood Storm
Drain Improvements (SD-10101) $143,000 (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Storm Drainage Fund budget that total an $11,000 increase in
salary and benefits (4-0)
Reallocate 0.10 FTE Mgmt Analyst from Refuse Fund $11,000
Internal Service Funds
Technology Fund
Motion: On May 3, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Technology Fund operating budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Technology Fund Capital Improvement Program budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended to tentatively remove the
Utilities Customer Bill Redesign project (TE-11004) funding totaling $150,000
from FY 2012 Technology Fund Capital Improvement Program budget and return
funding back to the respective Enterprise Funds. This follows a Finance
Committee discussion on April 19, 2011 regarding SAP-related Capital
Improvement Projects, wherein the Finance Committee recommended removal of
FY 2011 funding for TE-11004, and subsequently FY 2012 funding (4-0)
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Motions: On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Vehicle Replacement Fund (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended the following position
changes to the Vehicle Replacement Fund budget that total a $28,000 increase in
salary and benefits (4-0)
Reallocate 0.25 FTE Mgmt Analyst from the Refuse Fund $28,000
10
5/25/2011
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to return to the
committee with outsourcings or leasing options for the City’s vehicle fleet,
excluding Fire, Police, and specialty vehicles (4-0)
Print and Mailing Fund
Motions: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Print and Mailing Fund budget (4-0)
On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to return to the
committee within the next year with a plan to move customers towards paperless
billing (4-0)
General Benefits Fund
Motions: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 General Benefits Fund budget (4-0)
Workers’ Compensation Fund
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Workers’ Compensation Fund budget (4-0)
General Liability Fund
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 General Liability Fund budget (4-0)
Retiree Health Benefits Fund
Motion: On May 5, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 Retiree Health Benefits Fund budget (4-0)
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2012 General Fund Capital Improvement Program budget, subject to
follow up items (4-0)
On May 17, 2011, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
moving funding for the Street Improvement Project (PE-86070) in the amount of
$2.0 million from FY 2012 to FY 2011 (4-0)
On May 24, 2011, the Finance Committee requested staff to return to the
committee in September 2011 with a proposed process to address Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and an ongoing strategic CIP plan
(4-0)
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed
Budget
11
5/25/2011
Listed below is a summary of items presented to the Finance Committee at places that result in a
financial change.
General Fund
Community Services Department (CSD)
CSD proposed to reinstate 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I in the Community Services Department.
This is a temporary reduction in staff due to renovations in the Art Center. Funding for this
reduction in staff has been reduced in the proposed budget as a one-time reduction however,
since this is a temporary reduction in staffing the 0.5 FTE should remain in the Table of
Organization.
The department proposed that administrative fees total $27,761 for HSRAP be funded by the
Council Contingency fund. As an alternative to reducing HSRAP grants by 2.5 percent to cover
administrative fees, the Finance Committee recommends that the administrative fee be funded by
Council Contingency.
Staff proposes a reduction in revenue of $65,000 related to implementing a recommended
parking fee at Foothill College. This proposal was part of the City’s Strengthening the
Bottomline initiative in hopes of generating new revenue. The potential fee was to be collected
by Foothill College with revenues passed along to the City, rather than being included in the
Municipal Fee Schedule. Discussions with Foothill College have focused on bigger, long-term
site issues, so implementation of this fee did not materialize and the revenues should be removed
from the FY 2012 proposed budget.
Economic Development Division
Staff proposed that the Economic Development Division be moved from the Planning and
Community Environment Department to the City Manager’s Office. Moving this division
enhances the city’s focus on economic development by facilitating a more comprehensive plan
for this function across all departments. The budget for this division totals $246,754 and includes
1.05 FTE. Since the division is moving between General Fund departments, there is no net
impact to the General Fund BSR.
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
The PCE FY 2012 Proposed Budget included $300,000 in funding for the transition of the
Development Center. The department presented its intended use of this funding during the fiscal
year which included the following:
Development Center Transition Plan
$300,000
1. Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official; add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
PCE
(28,231)
2. Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II (salary $61,797;
benefits $33,741)
(95,538)
3. Add contracted Building Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
4. Add contracting Planning Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
12
5/25/2011
Remaining Funding for Development Center Reorganization $14,231
The remaining $14,231 in Development Center Transition Plan funding will be returned to the
BSR as surplus.
PCE requested $110,000 in funding for the Rail Corridor Study. In response to proposed
improvements along the fixed rail service tracks in Palo Alto, the intent of this study is to
generate a community vision of land use, transportation, and urban design elements along the
CalTrain corridor.
Police Department
The department intends to perform a thorough review of its Animal Services Shelter operations
to identify possible efficiencies, cost reductions, and revenue enhancements. The study will also
review the City’s relationship with its current partners and the possible outsourcing of animal
control services. An evaluation of the present facility and possible relocation of the shelter will
also be conducted. The cost of this study is $50,000 and will be conducted by an outside
consultant.
Public Works Department
The department reviewed its organizational structure in light of numerous vacancies. By
reducing six divisions to three divisions and combining workgroups, the department will gain
efficiencies in streamlined workflow, program/project oversight and coordination. As a result of
the department’s new structure, staff is recommending the following amendments to the
Proposed Budget:
Increase salaries and benefits expense by $30,692 to drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist,
and add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester
Increase salaries and benefits expense by $16,156 expense to reclassify 0.8 FTE
Supervisor, Facilities Management to Manager, Maintenance Operations
Decrease salaries and benefits expense by $141,340 expense to eliminate 1.0 FTE Project
Manager
Increase salaries and benefits expense by $60,550 expense to reallocate 0.55 FTE
Management Analyst from the Refuse Fund
Move 1.0 FTE Arborist from the Planning Department to the Public Works Department
(no net impact to the General Fund)
Non-Departmental
The final debt service payment for the 2002A Civic Center Refinancing Certifications of
Participation (COPs) is scheduled for March 2012. The Civic Center Debt Service Fund receives
contributions from the General Fund, $341,200, and from the Parking District, $80,000, for the
bond’s annual debt service payment. The Civic Center Debt Service Fund currently has $349,064
in reserves for the bond’s final debt service payment and needs only $58,435 from the General
Fund and $13,701 from the Parking District to pay the final debt service. This results in a return
of $282,765 to the General Fund and $66,299 to the Parking District.
13
5/25/2011
Enterprise Funds
Storm Drainage Fund
A decrease of $12,000 in untarped load fee revenue is proposed. This fee will no longer be
applicable due to the landfill closure in FY 2012.
As a result of the Public Works Department’s new structure, staff is recommending to increase
salaries and benefits expense by $11,009 to reallocate 0.1 FTE Management Analyst from the
Refuse Fund.
A decrease of $143,000 in operating expense for innovative projects is proposed. This funding
will be transferred to CIP SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements.
Previously, this CIP did not contain funding. The project will begin with a feasibility study of
innovative techniques, including permeable pavement, rain gardens, or rainwater cisterns, to
handle storm runoff from the neighborhood. The study will also examine the feasibility of using
harvested rainwater for irrigation of Peers Park. Following the identification of feasible
alternatives, construction documents will be prepared.
Refuse Fund
An increase of $250,000 in contract services is proposed for the SMaRT Station contract. This
increase more accurately reflects the expected expense to be incurred in FY 2012.
As a result of the Public Works Department’s new structure, staff is recommending to decrease
salaries and benefits expense by $99,082 to reallocate 0.9 FTE Management Analyst to the
General Fund, Storm Drainage Fund, and Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund.
Internal Service Funds
Technology Fund
At a Finance Committee meeting on April 19, 2011, the Finance Committee discussed SAP-
related Capital Improvement Projects, and recommended removing FY 2011 funding for TE-
11004 Utilities Customer Bill Redesign, as well as the $150,000 funding proposed for FY 2012.
The funds will be returned to the respective Enterprise Funds.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund
As a result of the Public Works Department’s new structure, staff is recommending to increase
salaries and benefits expense by $27,523 to reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from the
Refuse Fund.
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Street Improvement (PE-86070) – transfer $2.0M from FY 2012 to FY 2011. At a meeting on
May 16, 2011 Council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring $2.0 million from
the Infrastructure Reserve into project PE-86070 Street Maintenance for FY 2011, and thereby
reducing the requested FY 2012 funding for the project by $2.0 million. This would allow the
14
5/25/2011
City to take advantage of current low resurfacing bids and ensure that additional street
resurfacing could occur during the summer while school is not in session.
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor (PL-11002) – options for potential project changes will
be presented to CC in Fall 2011 Staff discussed project PL-11002 California Avenue Transit Hub
Corridor, and the Finance Committee asked about potential widening of the sidewalks on
California Avenue as part of this project. Staff will return to the Finance Committee in Fall 2011
with options for potential streetscape enhancements and additional funding requests if necessary.
Related Memos Distributed “At Places”
May 12, 2011
Amendments to the May 12 Department Hearings
o CSD – add 0.5 FTE Program Assistant I to Table of Organization
o PCE – move Economic Development Division to the City Manager’s Office
o PCE – Development Center Transition Plan
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
o FIR – listing and associated cost with studies in the Fire Department
o POL – detail of allocated charges
o IT – compensation level for the Director of Information Technology/Chief
Information Officer
May 17, 2011
Additional Information Pertaining to May 17 Department Hearings
o NON – detail of the General Fund Non-Departmental budget
o COU – salaries and benefits cost for the City Council budget; information
regarding iPads
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
o CSD – use of reclaimed waster at the Golf Course
May 24, 2011
Additional Information Pertaining to the May 24 Department Hearings
o Information regarding the 2005 Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure
o NON – detail of the General Fund Non-Departmental budget
o COU – salaries and benefits cost for the City Council budget; information
regarding iPads
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
o ASD administrative revenue increase
o Additional information from CalPERS regarding actions taken by other public
agencies
o Responses to questions raised regarding various capital projects
15
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Registrations 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Junior Museum and Zoo Group Admission (for organized groups of 15
to 25, larger groups shall be subdivided with additional group
admission fee)
Fee:$50.00 - $100.00
Non-resident:Fee plus up to 50%
Fee:$50.00-$125.00
Non-resident: Fee plus up to
50%
$607,384.00 $25,000.00 4%
Tours
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood School
Districts, $3.00/student Non-
Resident: $75.00/group
Fee: Palo Alto & Ravenswood
School Districts, $3.00-
$4.50/student Non-Resident:
$528,574.00 $27,500.00 5%
Infant (age 2 and under)
none Fee:$0.00 - $2.00
Non-Resident: $0.00-$3.00
$551,212.00 $448,140.00 81%
Youth (17 and under)
Fee $20.00-$27.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
Fee $25.00-$35.00
Non-Resident:Not Applicable
see above see above see above
Organic Garden Plots $.40/square feet/year $.50/square feet/year $110,779.00 $26,290.00 24%
Lucie Stern Community Center
Ballroom (Room S) Fee: $114.00/hour
Non-Resident: $171.00/hr
Fee: $132.00/hour
Non-Resident: $198.00/hr
$258,727.00 $110,000.00 43%
Community Room (Room R) Fee: $78.00/hour
Non-Resident: $117.00/hr
Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room (Room D) Fee: $66.00/hour
Non-Resident: $99.00/hr
Fee: $76.00/hour
Non-Resident: $114.00/hr
see above see above see above
Kitchen Fee: $24.00/hour
Non-Resident: $36.00/hr
Fee: $28.00/hour
Non-Resident: $42.00/hr
see above see above see above
Patio Fee: $70.00/hour
Non-Resident: $105.00/hr
Fee: $80.00/hour
Non-Resident: $120.00/hr
see above see above see above
Exclusive Use Package - 5 hour minimum, includes facility attendant Fee: $1,130.00/ for 5 hours; $226.00
for each additional hour
Non-Resident:$1,695.00/ for 5 hours;
$339.00 for each additional hour
Fee: $260.00/hr
Non-Resident:$390.00/hr
see above see above see above
Fireside Room and Patio Package Fee: $86.00/hour
Non-Resident: $129.00
Fee: $100.00/hr
Non-Resident:$150.00/hr
see above see above see above
Community Room and Patio Package Fee: $96.00/hour
Non-Resident: $144.00
Fee: $110.00/hr
Non-Resident:$165.00/hr
see above see above see above
2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Theatre Performance
Standard 2 hour fee
Non-profit: $270.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $185.00/hr
Basic rate: $430.00/hr
delete
Each additional hour
Non-profit: $85.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $65.00/hr
Basic rate: $120.00/hr
delete
Theater Rehearsal Dressing Rooms
Standard 1 hour fee $40.00 delete
Each additional hour $40.00 delete
Theatre building rate
Non-profit: $45.00/hr
Non-profit (off peak): $36.00/hr
Basic rate: $60.00/hr
delete
Dressing Room, M-3 (6)
$17.00/hr Non-profit:$17.00/hr
Basic Rate:$20.00/hr
$214,032.00*$200,000.00 93%
Dressing Room, M-2 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
Dressing Room, M-4 (6)
$19.00/hr Non-profit:$19.00/hr
Basic Rate:$23.00/hr
see above see above
2 hour production fee $150.00 delete
Each additional hour $75.00 delete
Attachment A (REVISED)
Open Space and Parks
Package Rentals
Facility: Lucie Stern Community Center
Rentals and Reservations
Cubberley Community Center: Facility Rental
Meeting/Activity Rooms
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Arts and Science
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Resident Coupon Book-10 tickets (available to Palo Alto Residents only)*
Facility Admissions - Community Garden
Recreation Actiivities
Swimming Pools - Rinconada Complex and PAUSD pools when operated by the City - Ages 2 & under -- Free
1) Resident, n Non-profit music/dance/theatre groups, in-residence at Cubberley, may receive a 25% discount on room rental fees when used for weekly rehearsals.
Cubberley Community Theatre
Production Fee
Summary Page 1 of 4 City of Palo Alto 16
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Performance Day Package (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $840.00
Basic rate: $1,200.00
see above see above
Additional Performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $210.00
Basic rate: $300.00
see above see above
Additional performance hours past four per performance (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Additional performance hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $56.00
Basic rate: $80.00/hr
see above see above
Performance Day Package (3) (7) (8) (9)
none Non-profit: $700.00
Basic rate: $1,000.00
see above see above
Additional Production hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $105.00
Basic rate: $150.00/hr
see above see above
Rehearsal day Package (3) (8) (9) (11)
none Non-profit: $525.00
Basic rate: $750.00
see above see above
Additional rehearsal hours past ten (8)
none Non-profit: $70.00/hr
Basic rate: $100.00/hr
see above see above
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- resident none $34.00/hr (1)$850.00 (1)
Downtown Library Program Room Rental- non-resident none $51.00hr.(1)$650.00 (1)
Inter-Library Loan delete
Inter-Library Out of State Loan delete
Building Permit Fees 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
$1,000,000.01 and up $8,964.92 for the first $1,000,000.00
plus $5.83 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds $10,000,000.00
an alternative deposit and payment
schedule arrangement may be made at
the discretion of the Chief Building
Official .
$8,964.92 for the first
$1,000,000.00 plus $5.83 for
each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof.
If valuation exceeds
$5,000,000.00 an alternative fee
arrangement may be established
by the Chief Building Official
to achieve full cost recovery.
title change title change
Electric vehicle charge station
Residential (All types)none $315.00 $160..00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 1 &2)none $975.00 plus $100 for each
additional station $370.00 plus
$92.50 for each additional
station
$6,660.00 $6,660.00 100%
Commercial (Levels 3 &4) none $1,450 plus $150.00 for each
additional station $560.00 plus
$140.00 for each additional
station
$5,040.00 $5,040.00 100%
Residential Installations System $200.00 each $320.00 $7,680 $7,680 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW)$10.00 for each photovoltaic panel $565.00 $1,130 $1,130 100%
Commercial installations System (<10 kW - 49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $1,890.00 $7,560 $7,560 100%
Commercial installations System (>49 kW)$10.00 for each photocoltaic panel $3,775.00 $7,550 $7,550 100%
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT
7- Production is defined as videography of onstage activity without a live audience, or similar usage
8 - A 20% discount is given for bookings on off-peak days Monday through Thursday
* Does not reflect annual lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District for use of facility and covenant to not develop - approximately $7 million payment in FY 2012
6 - M-2, M-3 and M4 dressing room fees are assessed only when used as dressing rooms for theatre rentals
5- Performance defined as activity onstage with a live audience present. Performance packages include one performance block up to 4 hours time.
4 - Rental groups may use volunteers in unshering positions subject to approval by the theatre manager and compliance with all rules and procedures
3 -Fee package includes event Supervisor, the M-11 drsesing room and all dedicated theatre equipment. Additional technical staff may be required.
Theatre Packages
Plumbing Permits
Photovoltaic systems
Photovoltaic Installations Systems (Does not include plan check fee)
Electrical Permits
9- 20% discount for half-day rentals,(6 or less hours either concluding before 2 pm or startting after 4 pm) or rentals of 6 hours or less book booked before or after an existing rental on the same day
11- All other building use falls under this category, including rehearsals, load-in and restore days
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
1 - Department used cost per square foot for a similar room in Lucie Stern Community Center and applied 50% discount for non-profits
Summary Page 2 of 4 City of Palo Alto 17
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Graywater Systems
Clotheswasher System none $50.00 $100.00 $100.00 100%
Simple System none $55.00 plus plan review at cost
$405.00 $405.00 100%
Complex System none $85.00 plus plan review at cost
$765.00 $765.00 100%
Permit and Application Extension Extension of Building Permit or
Building Permit Application
$50.00 $50.00 title change
Application Reactivations of Expired Building Permit Application $150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
$150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (for Final Inspection
Only)
$335.00 $335.00 or original Building
Permit fee, whichever is less
title change
Permit Reactivations of Expired Building Permit (All Others)$335.00 or building permit fee 50% of original Building Permit
Fee not to exceed the full cost
to perform remaining
inspections as determined by
the Chief Building Official.
$2,500 $2,500 100%
Residential:
A. Single Family and Two Family New constructions plus additions >
1.250 sf1, and rebuilds
City Verification Review: $604.00
Outside Verification Review: $160.00
City Verification Review: $604
Outside Verification Review:
$160.00
title change
B. Single Family and Two Family, existing home additions or rebuilds >
1,250 sf1
City Verification Review: $544.00
Outside Verification Review: 100.00
Delete
C. B. Single Family and Two Family, Any existing home renovations,
rebuilds and/or additions totaling > 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and/or >
$100,000 valuation.
City Verification Review: $50.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$50.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
D. C.. Multi-Family New Construction of 3 or More (attached) Units1 City Verification Review: $1,062.00
(1-10 units), $1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units) Outside
Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 (1-10 units),
$1,239.00 (11-24 units),
$1,505.00 (25 or more units)
Outside Verification Review:
$618.00
title change
E. D. Multi-Family renovations or alterations > 50% of the existing unit
sf and that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the
following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system1
City Verification Review: $1,062.00
Outside Verification Review: $618.00
City Verification Review:
$1,062.00 Outside Verification
Review: $618.00
title change
F. Multi-Family Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual
units > 250 sf and valuation > $100,000 in a single unit1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review:n/a
Delete
Non-Residential:
A. New construction > 1,000 sf (including additions to existing
buildings and rebuilds)
City Verification Review: $1334.00
Outside Verification Review:$800.00
City Verification Review:
$1334.00 Outside Verification
Review:$800.00
title change
B. New Construction > 500 sf and < 5,000 sf (including additions to
existing buildings)
City Verification Review: $1,044.00
Outside Verification Review: $600.00
Delete
C. B. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do
not fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $871.00
Outside Verification Review:427.00
City Verification Review:
$871.00 Outside Verification
Review:427.00
title change
C. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > 500 sf and >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations 21,000 sf that do
not fall under Project Type C, above1
City Verification Review: $327.00
Outside Verification Review: n/a
City Verification Review:
$327.00 Outside Verification
Review: n/a
title change
Documents 2011 FEE 2012 FEE
Zoning interpretation, or other zoning letter Administrative extensions
and zoning letters
$150.00/hour; 1 hr min. $150.00/hour; 1 hr min. title change
Development Impact Fees
Parks Residential: Single family1
$9,971/residence (or
$14,890/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $6,527/unit
(or $3,300/unit smaller than or equal
to 900 square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,234 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $1,915 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$10,360/residence (or
$15,471/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$6,782/unit (or $3,429/unit
smaller than or equal to 900
square feet).
Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $4,399
per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel $1,990 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof.
$15,468.00 $15,468.00 100%
General and Miscellaneous Fees
1 Plus, if applicable, Construction & Demolition Ordinance Fee in the Refuse Fund under Special Fees on page 21-4.
Green Building Program Fees
Summary Page 3 of 4 City of Palo Alto 18
ATTACHMENT A
Description Change 2012 Est. Cost 2012 Est. Rev
%
Recovery
Proposed Changes to the 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Community Centers Residential: Single family1
$2,585/residence (or
$3,870/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $1,700/unit
(or $858/unit smaller than or equal to
900 square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $239 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $108 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$2,686/residence (or
$4,021/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$1,766/unit (or $891/unit
smaller than or equal to 900
square feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $248
per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $112 per
1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof
$7,424.00 $7,424.00 100%
Libraries Residential: Single family1
$902/residence (or $1,344/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi‐
family $539/unit (or $296/unit
smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $228 per
1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $96 per 1,000 square
feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$937/residence (or
$1,396/residence larger than
3,000 square feet); Multi‐family
$560/unit (or $308/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square
feet). Nonresidential:
Commercial/Industrial, $237
per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel,
$100 per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
$2,451.00 $2,451.00 100%
Use Permits - Wireless Facilities (1)Initial Deposit of $3500 plus
legal fees and other Application
Fees
$35,000 $35,000 100%
Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $10,000.00 $10,000.00 100%
Lost Guest Permit - College Terrace $25.00/permit $40.00/permit $150.00 $150.00 100%
Transportation Fees
Residential Parking Permit Program
1. 100% of processing costs will be recovered plus Environmental Impact Assessments and other entitlements necessary to complete the project.
Summary Page 4 of 4 City of Palo Alto 19
ATTACHMENT B
Meeting Office Responsible for Minutes Type of Minutes
Prep
Staff
Time
(hours/
month)
Review
staff
time
(hours/
month)
Approx.
Monthly
Costs***
(labor &
benefits)
Architecture Review Board Planning and Community Environment Sense 5 1.5 462.87$
Citizens’ Oversight Committee for
Expenditure of Library Bond Funds Public Works Sense 1.34 0 109.75$
City Council City Clerk Sense 80 16 5,229.96$
City/School Liaison City Manager Sense 8* 1* 604.51*
Finance Committee City Clerk Sense 24 4 1,406.64$
Historic Resources Board Planning and Community Environment Sense 2.5 0.5 184.66$
Human Relations Commission Community Services Sense 2 0.25 123.12$
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission Public Works Action 0.5 0.17 45.33$
Library Advisory Commission Library Sense 5 0.25 284.48$
Library Bond Stakeholders’
Meeting Library Sense 1 By LBOC 91.67$
Parks and Recreation Commission Community Services Sense 2.5 1 201.18$
Planning and Transportation
Commission Planning and Community Environment Verbatim C 0.5 25.90$
Policy and Services Commission City Clerk Sense 18 4 1,104.02$
Public Art Commission Community Services Sense 7.5 0.5 434.41$
Rail Committee City Clerk Sense 16 0 905.07$
Rail Corridor Task Force Planning and Community Environment Sense C0 C
Storm Drain Oversight Public Works Sense 0.67** 0.33** 73.92**
Utilities Advisory Commission Utilities Sense 3.75 0.5 268.27$
Specific ARB/HRB projects to
Council Planning and Community Environment Verbatim C 0.5 34.38$
PCE Average Monthly Contractor
Costs 4,617.00$
TOTALS 177.76 31 16,207.14$
* City and School District rotate minute-taking responsibity. Figure assumes a City responsible year.
** Only two meetings per year. Preparation time approximately 8 hours per year.
Group Minutes: 1 Action, 16 Sense, 1 Verbatim
C - Contractor prepares minutes. Average contractor costs added before total.
*** FY2011 All Groups Variable and Fixed Benefits Ratio of 62.7% included.
20
Appendix 7
This page is intentionally left blank.
5/12/2011 1
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 12, 2011
SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget
Hearings
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining
to the Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings.
Amendments to May 12 Department Hearings
Community Services Department
The proposed budget contains a reduction of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) Program
Assistant I. The proposed reduction reduces two Program Assistant I positions from 0.75
FTE to 0.50 FTE in the Art Center. Since the Art Center is limiting service due to
renovations, this reduction in FTE is temporary and although staff has made a one-time
reduction in funding totaling $48,460, the FTE count on pages 98, 104, 111 need to be
revised to include the 0.5 FTE. See Attachment 1.
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
Attachment 2 to this memo provides revisions to pages 158, 163, 164, and 170 of the
PCE proposed budget. The committee tentatively approved the operating budget for the
City Manager’s Office in the May 3rd Finance Committee hearing. This tentative approval
included a proposal to move the Economic Development Division from PCE to City
Manager’s Office. This change is reflected on pages 160 and 163 of Attachment 2.
As the proposed budget was being developed, the PCE was structuring its plans to
reorganize the Development Center. Staff has included $0.3 million in the proposed
budget to initiate these plans. Since the printing of the proposed budget; staff has
determined the following needs to deliver improved service in the Development Center
while plans are being finalized. These items are funded by the $0.3 million and result in
FTE changes. See Attachment 2 for revised department pages.
5/12/2011 2
Development Center Transition Plan
$300,000
1. Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning Official; add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director
PCE (Attachment 2, p. 160)
(28,231)
2. Reinstate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II (salary $61,797;
benefits $33,741) (Attachment 2, p. 160)
(95,538)
3. Add contracted Building Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
4. Add contracting Planning Technician (non-salary) (81,000)
Remaining Funding for Development Center Reorganization $14,231
On February 14, 2011, Council approved a contract with BMS Design Group to prepare
the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. The scope of work was approved summer 2010 and
$0.1 million was budgeted in FY 2011. The department requires an additional $0.1 million
in FY 2012. See Attachment 2 for revised department pages.
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
Staff is also providing the Finance Committee with follow up items from the May 5th
Budget Hearing meeting. These items are informational and no action is required.
Fire Department
During discussion of the Fire Department budget, the Finance Committee requested a
listing of cost associated with the studies conducted by the Fire Department. Below is a
listing of these studies and associated cost.
EMS Study (PSRG) $50,000
Fire Management and EMS Study (Tri-Data) 80,400
OES Study (Chakos) 22,500
Total $152,900
Police Department
The Committee requested additional information discussing the change in Allocated
Charges for the Police Department. See Attachment 3.
The Police Department charges the Utilities Department and Stanford University for
Communications services. Nine percent of the total number of calls dispatched are Fire
related however, the Police Department does not charge the Fire Department for these
calls for these services. Stanford University reimburses the City for 30.3 percent of the
Fire Department’s budget and 16 percent of the Police Communications budget. If the
Police Department were to charge the Fire Department for service calls, the City would be
double-charging the University.
Technology Fund
The Administrative Service Department is reorganizing its operations to focus more on
city finances and the Technology Division will become its own department.
Correspondingly, staff proposes a title change from Chief Information Officer to Director
98 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
Community Services Department
Organizational Chart
1.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
Greg Betts
RECREATION AND CUBBERLEY
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Division Mgr, Recreation & Golf
0.75-Admin Associate III
RECREATION
2.0-Supervisor, Recreation Programs
4.0-Coordinator, Recreation Programs
1.0-Building Service Person
1.75-Program Assistant I
CUBBERLEY CENTER
1.0-Sr Supervisor, Program Manager
2.0-Program Assistant I
2.0-Building Serviceperson-Lead
1.0-Building Serviceperson
1.0-Program Assistant II
0.75- Prod Arts/Science Program
FY 2012 Position Totals:75.00 Full-time
48.71 Hourly
ARTS & SCIENCES
ADMINISTRATION
1.0- Division Mgr, Arts & Sciences
ART CENTER
1.0- Manager, Arts
4.25-Producer Arts
1.75-Program Assistant I
1.0- Program Assistant II
0.5-Volunteer Coordinator
CHILDREN’S & COMMUNITY
THEATRE
1.0- Manager, Arts
1.0-Theatre Specialist
1.0-Program Assistant I
3.0-Producer Arts
YOUTH SCIENCES & INTERPRETIVE
1.0- Community Services Senior
Program
4.0- Producer Arts/Science Program
1.0-Program Assistant I
2.25 - JMZ Educator
OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Division Mgr, Open Space & Parks
1.0-Program Assistant II
OPEN SPACE
2.0-Supervisor, Open Space
5.0-Park Ranger
PARKS
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Park Superintendent
CITY PARKS & FACILITIES
2.0-Inspector, Field Services
2.0-Sprinkler System Repair Person
1.0-Parks Crew-Lead
1.0-Parks Maintenance Person
ATHLETIC FIELD
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
1.0-Supervisor, Parks
1.0-Parks Crew-Lead
2.0-Sprinkler System Repair Person
5.0-Park Maintenance Person
1.0-Park Maintenance Lead
CAPITAL PROJECTS
1.0 - Program Assistant 1
GOLF
1.0-Community Services Superintendent
Community Services Department
Organizational Chart
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrative Assistant
1.0-Senior Management Analyst
HUMAN SERVICES
1.0-Sr Supervisor, Recreation Program
1.0-Management Assistant
ATTACHMENT 1
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
103
• Community Services staff continues to work closely with youth leadership groups such as the Teen Arts
Council, Youth Council, Teen Advisory Board, and Junior Advisory Board, along with the Palo Alto
Recreation Foundation and volunteers, to help shape programs and services to meet current and future
community needs.
Environmental Sustainability
• The Art Center, working with the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, included “green” building
considerations in their renovation plans to expand the Art Center which is being constructed in 2011 and
2012.
• The Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division continues to actively support partnerships with a variety of
environmental organizations, recreation clubs, sports groups, Acterra, Save The Bay, and Friends of the
Palo Alto Parks in order to provide special interest classes, augment City services, and enhance facilities
and programs offered to the public. Parks staff works with neighborhood associations to “adopt-a-park”
and encourage volunteers to plant colorful flower beds in their local parks. The division also continues to
further limit the use of pesticides in parks. Staff works closely with neighbors and interested parties in the
design of infrastructure improvements.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 1,100,249 1,392,082 1,387,546 1,467,671 80,125
Arts and Sciences 4,606,451 4,255,481 4,345,740 4,401,769 56,029
Cubberley and Human Services 3,110,339 2,822,547 2,838,878 2,903,602 64,724
Open Space and Parks 5,839,351 5,997,186 6,001,092 6,293,806 292,714
Recreation and Golf 5,840,939 5,571,403 5,581,163 5,636,404 55,241
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $20,497,329 $20,038,699 $20,154,419 $20,703,252 $548,833
TOTAL REVENUES $7,250,927 $7,512,698 $7,529,840 $7,417,257 $(112,583)
INTERNAL REVENUES 120,373 99,600 51,659 51,659 0
EXTERNAL REVENUES 7,130,554 7,413,098 7,478,181 7,365,598 (112,583)
ATTACHMENT 1
Community Services
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012104
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 11,510,905 9,879,245 9,951,376 10,576,066
Contract Services 2,980,908 3,718,204 3,762,596 3,979,427
Supplies and Materials 614,137 789,140 803,140 699,232
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 46,420 78,700 78,700 72,700
General Expense 1,268,839 1,376,774 1,373,016 1,386,556
Rents and Leases 16,759 23,766 23,816 24,466
Allocated Charges 4,052,371 4,165,880 4,154,785 3,957,815
Operating Transfers Out 6,990 6,990 6,990 6,990
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $20,497,329 $20,038,699 $20,154,419 $20,703,252
TOTAL REVENUES $7,250,927 $7,512,698 $7,529,840 $7,417,257
Total Full Time Positions 94.25 74.50 74.50 74.00
Total Temporary Positions 52.14 49.32 49.32 48.71
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of Community Services classes and camps taught (SEA)1,072 1,018 967
2. Number of classes and camps sessions cancelled 390 371 352
16,000 16,500 17,000 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,000 19,500 20,000
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Enrollment in Community Services Classes (By Fiscal Year)
ATTACHMENT 1
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Community Services
111
ARTS AND SCIENCES
To instill passion for the arts and sciences in all its forms.
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 3,426,334 3,194,652 3,225,020 3,287,351
Contract Services 570,390 460,319 517,587 495,069
Supplies and Materials 205,782 255,631 254,631 255,631
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 39,178 37,221 37,221 37,221
General Expense 10,385 82,337 85,910 82,587
Rents and Leases 7,264 11,666 11,716 11,666
Allocated Charges 347,118 213,655 213,655 232,244
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,606,451 $4,255,481 $4,345,740 $4,401,769
TOTAL REVENUES $1,436,883 $1,778,218 $1,838,063 $1,778,218
Total Full Time Positions 25.00 23.75 23.75 23.75
Total Temporary Positions 14.49 12.98 12.98 13.16
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of exhibitions at Art Center 332
2. Number of Children's Theatre class, camp, and workshop registrants (SEA)1,436 1,400 1,400
Efficiency:
1. Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days (SEA)8,618 7,500 5,300
2. Youth participants in theatre performances and programs (SEA)555 600 650
Effectiveness:
1. Total Art Center attendance (SEA)- The Art Center is “On the Road” in FY
2012 due to the facility's renovation.60,375 62,822 42,600
2. Attendance at youth theatre performances (SEA)24,983 21,000 21,000
ATTACHMENT 1
1.0-PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DIRECTOR
Curtis Williams
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
1.0-Admin Associate III
0.5 Admin Assocaite II
1.0-Planning Arborist
CURRENT PLANNING
1.0-Planning Mgr
1.0-Admin Associate II
2.0-Senior Planner
3.0-Planner
1.0 Planner (Sustainability Coordinator)
1.0-Associate Planner
ADVANCE PLANNING
1.0-Planning Manager
2.0-Admin Associate II
1.0 Senior Planner (Housing)
2.0-Senior Planner
1.0-Planner (CDBG)
1.0-Planner (Historic)
1.0 Planner
TRANSPORTATION
1.0-Chief Transportation Official
1.0-Transportation Engineer
1.0-Associate Transportation Engineer
1.0-Engineering Technician II
0.5-Commute Coordinator
1.0-Project Engineer
ADMINISTRATION
1.0-Administrator
1.0-Administrative Assistant
FY 2012 Position Totals - All Funds:
46.00 Full-time
2.88 Hourly
BUILDING
1.0-Chief Building Official
2.0-Code Enforcement Officer
1.0 Admin Associate II
PLAN CHECK/COUNTER SERVICES
1.0-Asst Building Official
2.0-Plan Check Engineer
2.0-Building Technician
1.0-Admin Associate I
INSPECTION SERVICES
1.0-Inspection Services Supervisor
1.0-Building Inspector Specialist
4.0-Building Inspector
Planning and Community Environment Department
Organizational Chart
160 City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012
1.0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENT 2
Operating Budget FY 2012 City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment
163
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
FY 2012
Budget
Change
Administration 584,752 946,334 1,118,452 957,479 (160,973)
Planning and Transportation 5,477,573 5,063,790 5,255,741 5,308,282 52,541
Building 2,915,890 3,080,861 3,396,519 3,909,930 513,411
Economic Development 432,120 236,994 216,996 0 (216,996)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,410,335 $9,327,979 $9,987,708 $10,175,691 $187,983
TOTAL REVENUES $5,455,850 $5,027,364 $6,076,953 $6,814,191 $737,238
INTERNAL REVENUES 327,102 128,000 271,557 128,000 (143,557)
EXTERNAL REVENUES 5,128,748 4,899,364 5,805,396 6,686,191 880,795
Number of Building Permits Issued
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Palo Alto San Mateo Sunnyvale Milpitas Mountain
View
2008-09
2009-10
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Operating Budget FY 2012164
INPUTS
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adopted
Budget
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Salaries and Benefits 6,451,390 6,578,489 6,762,443 6,807,958
Contract Services 1,413,436 1,221,561 1,650,755 1,694,630
Supplies and Materials 25,643 31,165 60,165 35,882
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 8,882 11,300 11,300 10,650
General Expense 356,546 398,859 441,769 499,763
Rents and Leases 301,799 299,222 279,222 317,650
Allocated Charges 791,893 779,776 774,447 802,548
Operating Transfers Out 60,746 7,607 7,607 7,607
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $9,410,335 $9,327,979 $9,987,708 $10,175,691
TOTAL REVENUES $5,455,850 $5,027,364 $6,076,953 $6,814,191
Total Full Time Positions 48.85 44.60 44.60 44.10
Total Temporary Positions 1.63 2.37 2.37 2.88
BENCHMARKING MEASURES
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Adjusted
Budget
FY 2012
Proposed
Budget
Workload Outputs:
1. Number of building permits issued (SEA)2,847 3,365 3,350
2. Number of building inspections completed (SEA)15,194 16,825 18,500
3. Number of planning applications completed (SEA)241 269 282
4. Number of zoning plan checks completed 828 705 710
5. Number of new code enforcement cases (SEA)680 650 700
6. Number of Palo Alto Shuttle boardings (SEA)137,825 110,185 110,685
7. Average number of City employees participating in the City commute
program each month (SEA)113 100 115
Efficiency:
1. Number of building permits issued (per plan checker/building technician
FTE)527 623 620
2. Number of building inspections (per inspector FTE)2,171 2,404 2,643
3. Number of planning applications completed (per current planner FTE)40 45 47
4. Number of zoning plan checks completed (per current planner FTE)138 117 118
5. Number of code enforcement cases (per code enforcement officer FTE)340 325 350
6. City's cost per Palo Alto Shuttle rider (SEA)$2.65 $1.97 $1.86
Effectiveness:
1. Percent of building inspection requests for permitted work responded to
within one day - target is 90% (SEA)99% 98%98%
2. Average number of weeks to complete planning staff-level applications
(represents 98% of total volume) (SEA)13.7 weeks 13.2 weeks 13.2 weeks
3. Percent of zoning plan checks completed within 4 week target 90% 82%82%
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 3
Police Department - Allocated Charges Detail
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
FY 2010 FY 2011 % Change FY 2012 % Change % Change
Account Name Actual Adjusted From 2010 Proposed From 2011 From 2010
Desktop Replacement $43,215 $73,758 70.7% $79,713 8.1% 84.5%
Desktop Maintenance 26,434 44,000 66.5% 47,553 8.1% 79.9%
IT Infrastructure - Replace 37,693 47,744 26.7% 51,599 8.1% 36.9%
IT Infrastructure - Maintain 24,156 28,200 16.7% 30,477 8.1% 26.2%
IT Support 998,178 1,255,882 25.8% 1,357,285 8.1% 36.0%
Telecommunications 0 105,402 113,912 8.1%
Application - Replacement 122,514 0 -100.0% 0 -100.0%
Applications -Maintenance 196,098 293,104 49.5% 316,770 8.1% 61.5%
Total IT charges $1,448,288 $1,848,090 27.6%$1,997,309 8.1% 37.9%
Vehicle/Equip Maintenance 475,070 653,480 37.6% 653,480 0.0% 37.6%
Vehicle Replacement Alloc. 340,250 319,777 -6.0% 310,059 -3.0% -8.9%
Total Vehicle/Equip. $815,320 $973,257 19.4%$963,539 -1.0% 18.2%
Utilities Charges 39,001 30,155 -22.7% 38,067 26.2% -2.4%
Mail Charges 20,446 20,563 0.6% 20,563 0.0% 0.6%
Printing Charges 87,191 64,702 -25.8% 64,702 0.0% -25.8%
Liability Insurance (172,802)232,078 234.0% 235,631 1.5% -236.4%
Total - Other ($26,164)$347,498 596.0%$358,963 3.3% 601.6%
TOTAL ALLOCATED
CHARGES $2,237,444 $3,168,845 41.6%$3,319,811 4.8%48.4%
5/26/2011 1
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 17, 2011
SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings.
Additional Information Pertaining to May 17 Department Hearings
Non-Department Budget
Attached for your review is the detail for the General Fund Non-Department Budget
(Attachment 1).
City Council
Staff was requested to calculate the actual cost of Council Salaries and Benefits. The revised
Salaries and Benefits budget for the City Council budget is presented in the below table. This
replaces the Salaries and Benefits line of the Inputs table on page 69 of the proposed budget. The
proposed increase in the Council budget is $123,917 and staff recommends offsetting the
increase with Non-Departmental budget.
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
FY 2010 Adopted Adjusted Proposed Amended
Actuals Budget Budget Budget Budget Change
Salaries and Benefits $193,155 $71,145 $72,309 $94,263 $218,180 $123,917
Salaries $64,800 $64,800
Medicare 940 940
Medical, dental, vision 28,523 107,848
Retiree medical ARC - 44,592
$94,263 $218,180
Council requested information regarding the cost of purchasing iPads to view Council packets
and any other communications from city staff. Potentially, the one-time equipment cost for nine
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Palo Alto
Non-Departmental Summary
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
Adopted Adjusted Proposed Change
Cubberley - Covernant not to Develop $6,878 $6,878 $7,061 $183
Public Safety Consessions - - (4,289) (4,289)
Attrition Savings (1,500) (1,500) (1,000) 500
Retiree Medical ARC 1,097 1,097
Anticipated Pension Increase - - 1,000 1,000
Management Comp Study 310 310 310 -
FCA VMC 21 21 21 -
Subtotal - Salaries & Benefits (1,169) (1,169) (2,861) (1,692)
Funding for OES Program 1,000 1,000
Rent - Land 156 156 156 -
Vehicle Replacement (483) (483) 483
Other Contract Services (118) (118) 118
Property Taxes 81 81 81 -
Subtotal - Other (364) (364) 1,237 1,601
Contingency Accounts
City Manager 250 158 250 92
City Council 250 (14) 250 264
City Attorney 125 - 125 125
Innovation - 100 100
Subtotal - Contingency Accts 625 144 725 581
TOTAL EXPENSE $5,970 $5,489 $6,162 $673
5/17/2011
5/24/2011
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee Members
DATE: May 24, 2011
SUBJECT: Information Pertaining to Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget Hearings.
Additional Information Pertaining to May 24 Department Hearings
Public Works – Storm Drain Fund
The Finance Committee requested additional information regarding revenues and expenditures
related to the 2005 Storm Drainage Fee ballot measure. The 2005 ballot measure approved by a
majority of property owners authorized an increase in the Storm Drainage Fee from the then-
current rate of $4.25 per month to the revised rate of $10.00 per month for a typically-sized
single-family residential parcel. The ballot measure also authorized an annual rate increase
based on the local rate of inflation or 6 percent, whichever is less. In addition, the ballot measure
authorized the accelerated pre-payment of Storm Drainage Fees for City-owned General Fund
parcels in order to provide more up-front funds for implementation of the recommended capital
improvement projects. The increased Storm Drainage Fee will remain in effect for a period of
12 years (through the end of FY 2017). Staff’s financial model assumed annual rate increases of
3 percent per year through FY 2017.
The additional revenue generated by the Storm Drainage Fee increase in the first year (FY 2006)
was approximately $2.8 million. In addition, there was revenue of $0.7 million from the pre-
payment of Storm Drainage Fees from City-owned properties. In the subsequent six years, there
were approved rate increases of 2.0 percent, 3.4 percent, 3.8 percent, 0.0 percent, 2.6 percent,
and 1.5 percent, resulting in increasing revenues. A summary of the financial model prepared by
staff to estimate revenues and expenditures related to the Storm Drainage Fee increase is
attached for reference (See Attachment 1). The original model was based on an assumption of
annual rate increases of 3 percent per year through FY 2017. The model projected total revenue
of $46.1 million over the 12 years the rate increase would be in effect. The attached spreadsheet
also includes actual revenue figures for FY 2006 through FY 2010, including the General Fund
loan that was secured in FY 2008 to help pay for the construction of the San Francisquito Creek
1
5/24/2011
Storm Water Pump Station. Combining available actual revenue figures with estimated revenue
figures for the remaining years, the expected revenue over the 12-year period is $46.0 million.
The 2005 cost estimate for the seven capital improvement projects to be funded by the Storm
Drainage Fee increase was approximately $14.5 million. That is the estimated cost of the work if
it had all been completed in 2005. In reality, construction costs tend to rise each year based on
inflationary and other economic factors. In the financial model, it was assumed that the project
costs would increase at an annual rate of 3 percent. Based on this assumption, it was estimated
that the total cost of implementing the seven projects in an incremental manner over the 12-year
time period would be approximately $19.2 million. The balance of the revenue was slated to
fund augmented storm drain maintenance and storm water quality programs, annual storm drain
rehabilitation projects, additional engineering staff, and innovative storm drain projects. It
should be noted that the total cost of the projects is highly sensitive to the rate of annual inflation
due to the substantial impact of compound interest. The current financial model predicts that
there will be approximately $24 million (including $1 million of Innovative Funds diverted
towards the Southgate Neighborhood CIP) available to spend on the seven capital improvement
projects over the 12-year life of the rate increase. Based on recent analysis, there is a possibility
of accessing additional funds from the Storm Drainage Fund cash reserves for capital projects. It
was originally assumed that the projected revenue would be adequate to cover the cost of all
seven capital projects. After the bids received for the first few storm drain capital projects were
much higher than the adjusted 2005 cost estimates (adjusted by an assumed annual inflation rate
of 3 percent), however, staff worked with the Storm Drain Oversight Committee to adjust the
cost estimates for the remaining years of the capital spending program. Based on the
construction cost patterns of 2007, the original 2005 cost estimates were escalated by an initial
factor of 30 percent, with subsequent annual adjustments of 10 percent for each year thereafter in
the revised financial model. The predictions that there might not be adequate funds to pay for all
seven of the projects are based on this very conservative model. As a result of the economic
downturn of the past several years, construction costs have lowered and remained relatively flat.
Whether or not Storm Drainage Fund revenue will be sufficient to cover the cost all seven
projects is primarily dependent on future construction cost trends. Given the favorable
construction cost climate of the past two years, the decision to divert some of the Innovative
Fund monies, and the possibility of accessing additional funds from cash reserves, staff is
cautiously optimistic that the projected revenue will in fact cover the full cost of the seven
projects.
Attached is a copy of the current Flood Insurance Rate Map for your reference (Attachment 2).
It should be noted, however, that there is not a direct correlation between the flood map and the
location of the proposed storm drain capital improvement projects. The flood map shows areas
that are subject to inundation in the event of major flooding from the overflow of San
Francisquito Creek and/or the overtopping of the Bayfront levees. Alternatively, the storm drain
capital projects are targeted at areas that experience street flooding as a result of undersized
storm drains.
Non-Department Budget
Attached for your review is the detail for the General Fund Non-Department Budget
(Attachment 3).
2
5/24/2011
City Council
Staff was requested to calculate the actual cost of Council Salaries and Benefits. The revised
Salaries and Benefits budget for the City Council budget is presented in the below table. This
replaces the Salaries and Benefits line of the Inputs table on page 69 of the proposed budget. The
proposed increase in the Council budget is $123,917 and staff recommends offsetting the
increase with a decrease in the Non-Departmental budget for a net zero change in the General
Fund.
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
FY 2010 Adopted Adjusted Proposed Amended
Actuals Budget Budget Budget Budget Change
Salaries and Benefits $193,155 $71,145 $72,309 $94,263 $218,180 $123,917
Salaries $64,800 $64,800
Medicare 940 940
Medical, dental, vision 28,523 107,848
Retiree medical ARC - 44,592
$94,263 $218,180
Council requested information regarding the cost of purchasing iPads to view Council packets
and any other communications from city staff. Potentially, the one-time equipment cost for nine
16GB, 3G/WiFi iPads is $6,210, or $690 each. The monthly data plan cost for an unlimited data
plan is $341, or $4,092 annually. The monthly data plan would be paid for out of the Council’s
budget.
Follow-Up Items from Previous Meetings
Staff is also providing the Finance Committee with follow-up items from previous Budget
Hearing meeting. These items are informational and no action is required.
Administrative Services Department (ASD)
May 3rd – Administrative overhead revenue for ASD increased $440,467 between the FY 2011
adjusted and FY 2012 proposed budget. Administrative overhead revenue represents the
allocation of cost incurred by ASD to provide support to the City’s 13 departments. There are
two main reasons for this increase. First, the department’s Personnel Benefits cost increased
$204,467 between the FY 2011 adjusted and FY 2012 proposed budget and this increase is then
charged to departments that ASD supports. Second, the Purchasing Division allocates its cost
based on the number of purchase orders for each department. Between FY 2011 and FY 2012,
the number of purchase orders for Enterprise Funds increased 19.81 percent, or a $202,242
increase in administrative overhead revenue from the Enterprise Funds.
General Benefits Fund
On May 5, 2012, as part of the Finance Committee’s review of the General Benefits Fund, staff
was asked to provide information about initiatives or actions taken by other public agencies to
address escalating pension costs. Cities and counties throughout the state are grappling with the
impact growing pension costs are challenged in their ability to provide quality services for their
3
5/24/2011
respective communities. There is growing concern about the extent to which government is
becoming “a pension provider that provides public services on the side.”
The information contained in Attachment 4 is a listing of the most common changes
implemented – or being sought – in other cities and counties. Some changes were implemented
via the collective bargaining process while others were enacted as a result of voter approved
initiatives. While many of the changes focus on new employees, some agencies have made
changes to existing employees’ benefits.
We have also provided a listing of the most recently approved voter initiatives related to public
sector retirement benefits and a summary of specific pension reform measures implemented – or
being sought – in three other cities. The “Local Elected Official Toolkit”, which CalPERS
developed in response to requests for enhanced communication and transparency in the
administration of these benefits, can be found on the CalPERS website at the following address.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/er-forms-pubs/pubs/local-toolkit.pdf
The City of Palo Alto was one of the first agencies in the Bay Area to implement a second tier
pension plan for new employees and many employers throughout the state have recently
followed suit. However, more changes are needed in order to avoid substantial service level
reductions and/or layoffs. Many knowledgeable individuals and agencies – including the
Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) – have noted the significant disparity between public and
private sector retirement benefits and the inability of public agencies to sustain these costs. As
we move forward with negotiations with our employee associations, pension and healthcare
modifications must be achieved lest the City’s core duties and responsibilities to the public will
be compromised.
Community Services Department (CSD)
May 12th – As requested by the committee, attached is the Cubberley Financial Summary
(Attachment 5). This summary includes FY 2010 actuals, FY 2011 adjusted Budget, FY 2012
proposed budget, and projections for Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014. Staff will incorporate this
Financial Summary into the FY 2012 adopted budget document.
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
May 12th – The Finance Committee noted that the Salary and Benefit change between the FY
2011 adjusted and FY 2012 proposed budget increased $142,210. Personnel Benefit cost
increased $377,737 (see p. 165 of the FY 2012 Proposed budget) mainly due to healthcare and
pension cost increases. In addition, the increase in Personnel Benefit costs is offset by a midyear
increase to temporary salary totaling $113,233 and two position changes contained the proposed
budget, totaling $51,580.
May 17th – City staff has received various emails from the community regarding the Ross Road
Traffic Signal project at Oregon Expressway. The Ross Road traffic signal project at Oregon
Expressway will be funded out of previously collected Traffic Impact Fees. The County will
build the traffic signal as part of their larger Oregon Expressway project which includes
modifying all of the signals along Oregon Expressway between Alma Street and W Bayshore,
4
5/24/2011
street resurfacing, and other items. The 95 percent plans from the County should be out in June
and the City has been actively involved in the review of the plans to date. The 95 percent plans
will also include a detailed cost estimate that has not yet been previously available, and will be
used to determine the city's fair-share contribution towards the project for the Ross Road traffic
signal and other city-requested improvements such as pedestrian crossing improvements to
Oregon Way via W Bayshore Rd. The city did not pursue a CIP but rather funded an agreement
with the County directly from the Traffic Impact Fee program. The agreement will allow for
both a cost reduction if construction bids are received below the engineers estimate and provide
for a cap in city costs if bids are over.
The overall Ross Road Bike Boulevard is in the proposed Bike/Pedestrian Plan. Its priority
hierarchy in relation to other Bike Boulevard projects in the plan is not yet determined since the
City is reviewing public input collected from the community. Priority will be weighted against
community preference, use data, and funding allocations. The Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard
project for example has the highest demand for implementation because of its traversing along
the California Avenue Caltrain Station, Palo Alto High School use, and has active funding from
the VTA for implementation in the amount of $60,000. The Park Boulevard Bike Boulevard is
funded in the proposed FY 2012 CIP in the new Transportation & Parking CIP.
To prioritize implementation of the Bike/Pedestrian Plan the City is exploring seven funding
categories with up to seven projects each, likely:
Bike Boulevard
Trail Corridors
Bike Lanes/Routes
Feasibility Studies
Technology & Research Projects
Pedestrian Safety
Across Barrier Connections
The City will schedule one more citywide community meeting in July as preferred by Council
preference to defer approval until to September to allow for additional public input. Regardless
of the Ross Road priority within the new Bike/Pedestrian Plan the corridor will see significant
improvements. The new traffic signal at Oregon Expressway funded by the traffic impact fee
program for example will cost approximately $300,000, one of the largest funded Bike
Boulevard project elements.
General Fund Capital Improvement Program
May 17th – The Finance Committee requested additional information regarding the following
capital improvement projects. Below are the responses received from the Public Works
Department:
Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement (PF-15003)
This project is planned in 2015 and the justification for the Cubberley Auditorium Roof
Replacement Project states that if the roof deteriorates too far, spray-on roofing will not be
viable. The Cubberley Auditorium currently has a 20 year mineral cap built up roof system
5
ATTACHMENT 1
Storm Drainage Fee Increase Financial Model
(Dollar figures are in thousands of dollars)
Year ----------------------------------------->FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 TOTALS
Estimated Fee Increase Revenue $2,675 $2,821 $2,971 $3,126 $3,285 $3,449 $3,618 $3,792 $3,972 $4,156 $4,347 $4,543 $42,755
Estimated Pre-Payment $1,123 $1,123 $1,123 $3,369
Estimated Total Revenue Increase $3,798 $3,944 $4,094 $3,126 $3,285 $3,449 $3,618 $3,792 $3,972 $4,156 $4,347 $4,543 $46,124
Estimated Annual Rate Increase N/A 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Actual Fee Increase Revenue* $2,804 $2,881 $3,042 $3,468 $3,265 $3,407 $3,491 $3,662 $3,837 $4,018 $4,204 $4,396 $42,475
Actual Pre-Payment $534 $935 $935 $2,404
General Fund Loan $1,100 $1,100
Actual Total Revenue Increase* $3,338 $3,816 $5,077 $3,468 $3,265 $3,407 $3,491 $3,662 $3,837 $4,018 $4,204 $4,396 $45,979
Actual Annual Rate Increase* N/A 2% 3.4% 3.8% 0% 2.6% 1.5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
* Estimated values used for FY2011 and beyond
7
LEGEND: San Francisquito Creek floodplain
Tidal floodplain
8
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Palo Alto
Non-Departmental Summary
FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012
Adopted Adjusted Proposed Change
Cubberley - Covernant not to Develop $6,878 $6,878 $7,061 $183
Public Safety Consessions - - (4,289) (4,289)
Attrition Savings (1,500) (1,500) (1,000) 500
Retiree Medical ARC 1,097 1,097
Anticipated Pension Increase - - 1,000 1,000
Management Comp Study 310 310 310 -
FCA VMC 21 21 21 -
Subtotal - Salaries & Benefits (1,169) (1,169) (2,861) (1,692)
Funding for OES Program 1,000 1,000
Rent - Land 156 156 156 -
Vehicle Replacement (483) (483) 483
Other Contract Services (118) (118) 118
Property Taxes 81 81 81 -
Subtotal - Other (364) (364) 1,237 1,601
Contingency Accounts
City Manager 250 158 250 92
City Council 250 (14) 250 264
City Attorney 125 - 125 125
Innovation - 100 100
Subtotal - Contingency Accts 625 144 725 581
TOTAL EXPENSE $5,970 $5,489 $6,162 $673
5/24/2011
9
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
PENSION CHANGES MADE – OR BEING SOUGHT – IN OTHER AGENCIES
■ New employees in “scaled back” Defined Benefit Plan
■ New employees in “hybrid” (part Defined Contribution, part Defined Benefit) plan
■ New employees in 401(K) type pension plan
■ Reduce pension benefits for current employees’ future years service
■ Cap employer contributions
■ Increase pension contributions for new and existing employees, up to 50% of costs
■ Increase minimum retirement age
■ Increase vesting period for pension and/or retiree medical benefits
■ Prohibit pension “spiking” and “single highest year” formulas
■ Prohibit practice of granting retroactive benefits
■ Reduce pension inflators (“colas”)
■ Restructure pension boards to give taxpayers representation
■ Require voter approval for any future benefit increases
■ Eliminate retiree health benefits for new employees
■ Reduce retiree health benefits (new employees and current employees’ future service)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Pension:
Initially, two separate “plans” were being advanced for a proposed ballot measure for
2012. The first was being advanced by the San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and the
second by San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio. The second proposal was endorsed by
external groups such as the San Diego Taxpayers Association.
In April 2011, both parties agreed to a single initiative for the June 2012 ballot due, in
part, to concerns about potential voter confusion if faced with two competing measures.
The measure is called the “Comprehensive Pension Reform (CPR) Initiative. Below
is a summary:
■ Existing Defined Benefit (DB) Plan
1) For new employees, only police officers would continue in DB plan. New police
officers would have the option of enrolling in the Deferred Contribution plan.
2) The maximum benefit would be 80% of pay at age 55, reduced by 3% for each
year that the employee retires before age 55. The benefit amount would be based
on the average salary paid over a 36 month period, not single highest year
3) Would require “fair sharing” of pension costs for all current employees who
remain in – or new police officers who enter – the DB plan. Employees would
share an equal portion of pension costs “except those costs explicitly and
exclusively reserved to the City”
10
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
4) Any compensation increases granted in the five year period following enactment
would not be counted when calculating the pension benefit
■ New Defined Contribution (DC) Plan
1) All new miscellaneous and fire employees would be in a 401 (K) type plan.
2) The City’s contributions would be “based on private sector benchmarks” but
could not exceed 9.2% (miscellaneous) or 11% (public safety).
3) If the City enrolls in Social Security, the City’s total contributions to Social
Security and the DC plan combined could not exceed the 9.2% and 11%
maximums.
■ Other Provisions
1) City would be required to annually post online the total pension payout per
individual retiree (without names) and the last job classification held by the
individual
2) Prior to granting any future compensation increases, an actuarial analysis would
be required to determine the impact said increases would have on the pension
fund.
Retiree Health
The City Council gave initial approval (6-2 vote) to a proposal on May 13, 2011, with a
final vote scheduled for the end of May. The City has tentative agreement with some of
its employee groups but there are no MOUs yet so all the details are not yet available.
The City eliminated retiree health benefits for new hires in 2005 so the changes would
apply to employees hired before 2005.
1) Provides employees with a series of options for retiree benefits, ranging from a
$8,800 annual benefit with monthly contributions from employees to a defined
contribution from the City with no contribution required from the employee
2) Term of agreement is 15 years, with option for City to modify beginning in 2014
if approved by at least six of the eight Council members
11
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Retiree Health:
1) Miscellaneous employees hired after Jan. 2010 and Safety employees hired after
Jan. 2012 have Defined Contribution retiree health plan
2) Employees hired before Jan. 2010 have option to stay in Defined Benefit plan or
elect the Alternative Retiree Medical Plan (ARMP).
3) Employees who elect ARMP receive a lump sum payment equal to the net present
actuarial value of their current retiree medical benefit. 20% of ARMP payment
must be put into a retirement health savings account. The balance can be taken as
taxable cash and/or contribution to deferred compensation account.
4) ARMP payments to employees were financed with a municipal bond issuance
5) 58% of eligible non-safety employees elected ARMP
6) Estimated reduction in unfunded liability - $91 million over 40 years
CITY OF SAN JOSE
On May 13, 2011 the Mayor recommended that the City declare a fiscal emergency and
prepare a ballot measure to significantly modify pension and retiree health benefits for
current and future employees. The San Jose City Council is set to discuss this on May
24, 2011. The Mayor’s proposal includes the following:
1) Implement a hybrid pension plan (any combination of Defined Contribution,
Defined Benefits and Social Security) for new employees
2) City’s contribution to new Defined Contribution plan would be the lesser of a)
50% of the total costs or b) not less than 6.2%, and not more than 9%, of base
salary
3) If a Defined Benefit plan is part of the hybrid model, the retirement age would be
increased to 65 (miscellaneous) or 60 (public safety)
4) New employees must have 20 years of service to be eligible for retiree medical
benefits and would pay at least 50% of the cost of those benefits
5) Reduce benefits for current employees’ future years service to 1.5% per year of
service
6) Increase age of eligibility for current employees by six months each year until
retirement age is 65 (miscellaneous) or 60 (public safety)
7) Increase retiree medical benefit vesting period for current employees by six
months each year until it reaches 20 years
8) Limit annual pension adjustments (“colas”) for retirees to lesser of the increase in
the Bay Area CPI or 1%
9) Additional modification to pension and retiree medical benefits for current
employees if unfunded liabilities increase beyond June 30, 2010 levels
12
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
BALLOT MEASURES
Agency: City of Bakersfield
Measure: D (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (55.53%)
■ New police and fire employees have 2%@50 based on three year salary average (i.e.
not single highest year)
■ New employees pay 100% of their retirement contribution up to 9% of salary
Agency: City of Menlo Park
Measure: L (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (71.3%)
■ New employees have 2%@60
■ Does not apply to police officers
■Voter approval required for any future benefit increases
Agency: City of San Jose
Measure: W (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (72.14%)
■ Modified City charter to remove binding language about pension benefits for newly-
hired employees
Agency: City of San Jose
Measure: V (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (66.41%)
■ Modified City charter to permit binding arbitration only if outside arbitrators are:
1) Required to based awards to employees primarily on the City’s ability to pay, and
2) Prohibited from creating any unfunded liability for the City, increasing police and
firefighter compensation more than the rate of increase in General Fund revenues, or
granting retroactive benefits
Agency: County of Riverside
Measure: M (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (60.84%)
■ Prohibits increases to public safety retirement or death benefits without voter approval
■ Clarifies that the Board of Supervisors retains the discretion to decrease public safety
retirement and death benefits, to the extent permitted by law, without voter approval
13
ATTACHMENT 4
5/24/2011
Agency: City of Redding (Shasta County)
Measure: A (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (64.23%)
■ Advisory only
■ City employees and officials to pay their own employee contribution (to be phased in
over a period not to exceed four years)
Agency: City of Redding (Shasta County)
Measure: B (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (69.37%)
■ Advisory only
■Voters recommended city workers to work minimum of 5 years, and be enrolled in
Medicare, before city would contribute to retiree health insurance costs
Agency: City of Carlsbad (San Diego County)
Measure: G (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (64.28%)
■■ City enacted second tier pension formula for new public safety in 2010. New formula
is 2%@50 based on average salary over 36 month period
■ November 2010 ballot measure amends City charter to require voter approval of any
future increases to public safety pension benefits
Agency: City of Pacific Grover (Monterey County)
Measure: R (November 2010)
Approved: Yes (73.89%)
■ In 2008, voters approved Measure Y, which moved all existing employees to a Defined
Contribution plan for future years service. New employees are in DC plan as well
■ 2010 Measure R capped the City’s contribution to employee pension costs at 10%
Agency: City of Los Angeles
Measure: G (March 2011)
Approved: Yes (74.54%)
■ New public safety employees have modified pension formula (2%@50, increasing
to max of 90% of salary)
■ Employees currently pay their own contribution (9% for safety)
■ New employees will also contribute 2% of salary toward retiree health costs
14
ATTACHMENT 5
Cubberley Lease & Covenant Revenues and Expenses
2010-2014 (Fiscal Year Basis) with Inflation
Actual Adj Budget Budget Projected Projected
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenues
Property Rental (long term leases) 1,583,925 1,510,348 1,510,348 1,540,555 1,571,366
Facilities Rental (hourly rental) 927,865 927,152 927,152 954,967 983,616
Cubberley Rental (City office space) 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000
Total Revenue 2,584,790 2,510,500 2,510,500 2,568,522 2,627,982
Expenses
Payments to PAUSD
Lease 4,349,313 4,503,598 4,605,341 4,743,501 4,885,806
Covenant Not To Develop 1,680,684 1,727,786 1,779,619 1,833,008 1,887,998
Child Care Sites 566,847 592,790 620,631 639,250 658,428
Utilities (child care sites)46,981 53,603 55,211 56,867 58,573
Subtotal PAUSD 6,643,824 6,877,777 7,060,803 7,272,627 7,490,806
Departmental Expenditures for Cubberley
Lease Management and Maintenance
(PWD and ASD)
414,772 414,029 418,199 430,745 443,667
Non-maintenance Operating Expense
(CSD)
1,505,585 1,449,974 1,446,573 1,489,970 1,534,669
Subtotal Departmental Expenditures 1,920,357 1,864,003 1,864,772 1,920,715 1,978,337
CIP PF-15003 Cubb Auditorium Roof
Replace**
CIP PF-16000 Cubb Elec Systems
Replacement**
CIP PF-13002 Cubb Mech & Elec
Upgrade**
150,000 1,300,000
CIP PF-00006 (portion) Roofing
Replacement**
150,000 50,000 150,000
Subtotal CIP Expenses for Cubberley 150,000 200,000 1,450,000
Total Expenses 8,564,181 8,741,780 9,075,575 9,393,342 10,919,142
Net (5,979,391) (6,231,280) (6,565,075) (6,824,820) (8,291,161)
Cubberley Operations Only
Rev 2,584,790 2,510,500 2,510,500 2,568,522 2,627,982
Exp 1,920,357 1,864,003 1,864,772 1,920,715 1,978,337
Net 664,433 646,497 645,728 647,806 649,645
Factor 1.346 1.347 1.346 1.337 1.328
Lease credits
Fields (aprox.)(308,438) (317,691) (327,222) (337,039) (347,150)
**Note: These projects are all pending a decision to renew the lease agreement with PAUSD. The current agreement
will expire on December 31, 2013 with the option to renew.
5/24/2011 Cubberley Actuals 2011-2021 with CIPs for Fin Comm.xls
15
Appendix 8
This page is intentionally left blank.
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 3, 2011
2
Budget Schedule
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday,7pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 7pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, ASD, ASD Internal Service Funds,
Library
Police, Fire
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
3
FY 2012 General Fund Budget Gap
(in millions)
$0.1Proposed Balanced Budget
(4.3)Less Public Safety Concessions
4.2Revised Gap
0.8Anticipated increase for pension & healthcare
0.1Contingency for Innovations
1.0Funding for Office of Emergency Services
(1.0)Department Reductions
3.3Revised Budget Gap
1.0Expense & Revenue Adjustments to LRFF
$2.3LRFF Gap (3/31)
4
General Fund Overview
Proposed Budget
3.4% revenue increase
3% expense increase
Pension, $2.5M; Healthcare, $0.7M;
Retiree medical, $1.1M
$131 thousand surplus
$27.044 million BSR
balance, 18.5% of
proposed budget
574.35579
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2011 Adjusted FY 2012 Adopted
Mil
l
i
o
n
s
120
170
220
270
320
370
420
470
520
570
Revenue Expense FTE
FT
E
5
General Fund Major Revenues
General Fund Major RevenuesLast 20 Years Plus Forecast for FY 2011 and FY 2012 25.3 26.0
14.0 13.3 14.8
17.9
20.0
18.0 19.3 20.1
18.0 19.5 20.2
9.4
10.8 10.9
6.6 7.4 8.2
5.6 5.7 5.4
3.1 3.7 4.0 4.3
12.1
7.58.1
21.5
Property Tax
8.1 7.7
9.5
13.8
16.7
26.025.4
25.8 22.2Sales Tax
Utility User's Tax
5.9 6.55.8
11.3
7.3
5.0 5.4 5.5 5.1
11.0
5.3 5.7 6.7
3.2 3.1 3.6
Transient Occupancy Tax9.4
5.1
6.97.1
1.41.31.2
Documentary Tax2.0 3.1 4.4
2.9
$-
$3
$6
$9
$12
$15
$18
$21
$24
$27
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Fiscal Year
Millions
6
General Fund Revenue By Type
$146.3 Million / Proposed FY 2012
TOT, $8,204 , 6%
Documentary Transfer Tax,
$4,269 , 3%
Charges for Services , $21,654 , 15%
UUT, $10,859 , 7%
Other Taxes and Fines , $2,330
, 2%
Sales Tax, $20,246 , 14%
Operating Transfers‐In,
$19,606 , 13%
From Other Agencies, $155 ,
0%
Property Tax, $26,052 , 17%
Rental Income, $13,914 , 10%
Charges to Other Funds,
$10,505 , 7%
Other Revenue, $1,428 , 1%
Permits & Licenses, $5,778 , 4%
Return on Investment, $1,318
, 1%
2
7
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund Operating Expenditures by Department
Administration
Public Works
Planning
Public Safety
CSD & Library
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Millions
8
General Fund Summary of Appropriations
by Expenditure Category
$146.2 Million / Proposed FY 2012
General Expense,
$10,868, 7%
Facilities & Equip,
$410, 0%Rents & Leases, $731,
1%
Allocated Charges,
$15,762, 11%Supplies & Materials,
$3,154, 2%
Salaries & Benefits,
$91,750, 63%
Contract Services,
$11,892, 8%
Transfers Out,
$11,620, 8%
9
Citywide Budget Summary
(in millions)
100%$482.594$70.902$411.692Total
$300.453
$182.141
Total
62.3%$34.947$265.506Enterprise Funds
37.7%$35.955$146.186General Fund
Percent
of TotalCapitalOperating
* Table does not include Internal Service Funds
10
Citywide CIP Funding Sources
$72.9 Million / Proposed FY 2012
Bond Proceeds,
$16,150
Gas Tax, $2,150
Fees & Charges,
$6,207
Utility Rate Charges,
$22,037
Other Agencies,
$5,829
Infrastructure
Reserve, $10,145
General Fund, $1,634
Accumulated Cash for
Refuse Post Closure
Liability, $6,100IS Fund Balance,
$1,530
11
Enterprise Funds Overview
Average Projected Residential Monthly Utility Bills
Utility Current FY
11 Bill
Proposed
FY 12 Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%
Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%
User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3%
Total Monthly Bill 328.89 340.96 12.07 3.7%
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysisFY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
12
Citywide Position Changes
Operating Budget, pp. 361‐364
Reduction of 6.6 full‐time equivalent (FTE) positions citywide
Net Citywide change is 1,018.6 to 1,015.1
General Fund net decrease –5 FTE
3.5 FTE ongoing; 1.5 one‐time
Refuse Fund additional layoffs once the landfill is closed
Added 3.1 FTE Citywide
3
13
General Fund Impact of Citywide Changes
Personnel Benefit Increase $4.3M
Pension, $2.5M; Healthcare, $0.7M; Retiree
medical, $1.1M
Allocated Charge Increase $542,176
IT related, $476,280: desktop & application
replacement/maintenance, support,
telecommunications
Other changes in allocated charges $65,896
Administrative Overhead Charge Revenue
Overall increase in employee benefits
14
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
15
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Attorney, pp. 43‐50
Citywide Changes: $65,031
Personnel Benefits increase $59,143
Allocated Charges increase $5,888
Revenue: ($393,519)
Administrative overhead charge decrease, ($358,519)
Revenue from Stanford decrease ($35,000)
Expense: ($10,496)
Decrease outside counsel contract expense ($10,000)Decrease instruction and training ($496)
FTE Changes: 0.60 FTE eliminated; ($67,871)
Eliminate 0.60 FTE Claims Investigator ($74,644)Eliminate Law Clerk Program ($28,160)
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Legal Secretary to 1.0 FTE Claims Investigator $7,149
Funding for possible staffing adjustments $27,784
16
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Auditor, pp. 53‐55
Citywide Changes: $39,368
Personnel Benefits increase $37,224
Allocated Charge increase $2,144
Revenue: ($203,972)
Decrease in reimbursement from Electric Fund ($35,000)
Administrative overhead charge decrease ($168,972)
Expense: ($15,756)
Decrease audit contract expense ($24,256)
Office supplies to instruction and training $2,000
Increase in citizen survey costs $3,500
Increase in two person peer‐review $5,000
17
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Clerk, pp. 59‐66
Citywide Changes: $47,980
Personnel Benefits increase $44,359
Allocated Charge increase $3,621
Expense: $338,000
Increase election expense $320,000
Increase agenda publication $35,000
Decrease contracting for minutes ($10,000)
Decrease recruitment ad costs ($7,000)
18
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Council, pp. 69‐70
Citywide Changes: $23,146
Personnel Benefits Costs increasing $23,146
Revenue: ($105,319)
Administrative overhead charge decrease ($105,319)
Expense: $30,000
Increase contract services for CAO evaluations
$30,000
4
19
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Manager, pp. 73‐81
Citywide Changes: $47,638
Personnel Benefits increase $41,066
Allocated charge increase $6,572
Revenue: $116,019
Administrative overhead charge increase $116,019
Expense: ($12,066)
Decrease supplies and general expenses ($12,066)
20
City Manager (continued)
FTE Changes: $51,325; 0.75 hourly FTE added
Increase of 0.75 hourly Mgmt Spec FTE $38,516
Changes in Administrative support, net $12,809
Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I to Planning and
Community Environment ($43,958)
Reclass 0.50 FTE Administrative Associate I to Administrative
Associate III; added 0.5 FTE, net $56,767
Amendment to Proposed Budget –no net impact to General
Fund
Move Economic Development Division to City Manager’s Office
1.05 FTE, $220,464 (0.05 FTE Asst to CM; 1 FTE Mgr Econ
Development)
Non‐salary, $26,290
21
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Human Resources
Citywide Changes: $107,738
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $100,157
Allocated charge increase $7,584
Revenue: $230,525
Administrative overhead charge increase $230,525
Expense: ($17,104) (one‐time)
Decrease in contract agency personnel, program and
consultants, equipment, and relocation expenses
22
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Library Department, pp. 145‐155
Citywide Changes: $249,911Personnel Benefits costs increasing $189,686Allocated Charge costs increasing $60,225
Revenue: ($28,878)Decrease from Friends of Library (FOPAL) ($23,500)Decrease to reflect historical trend ($5,378)
Expense: ($12,115)
Decrease library portable lease, increase materials (FOPAL) ($21,115)Increase contract for Link+ program (one‐time) $10,000Decrease contract for damaged books ($1,000)
FTE Changes: $53,752, 3.06 Hourly FTE increase
Freeze 1.0 FTE Librarian (one‐time) ($97,269)Increase 3.06 hourly FTE $155,021Eliminate overtime for Library Managers ($4,000)
23
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Administrative Services, pp 85‐96
Citywide Changes: $204,467
Information Technology becomes a department
Personnel Benefits Costs increasing $204,467
Revenue: $440,467Administrative overhead charge increase $440,467
FTE Changes: $17,711; 0.20 FTE added
Drop 1.0 FTE Budget Manager, add 1.0 FTE Chief Budget Officer $19,413
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to 1.0 FTE
Budget Officer $13,094
24
Administrative Services (continued)
FTE Changes (continued):
Reclass 1.0 Deputy Director, Administrative Services
to Assistant Director, Administrative Services;
reallocate 0.10 FTE Enterprise Funds, $24,415
Add 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst $12,271
Drop 1.0 FTE Graphics Designer, add 1.0 FTE
Administrative Associate III ($11,526)
Reduce temporary salaries ($37,949)
Reduce overtime ($2,007)
5
25
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Information Technology, pp. 344‐351
Citywide Changes : $443,312
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $361,068
Administrative overhead cost increase $82,244
Revenue: $154,104
Increase in IT support revenue $839,058
Decrease operating transfers for CIP ($739,054)
Miscellaneous revenue increases $54,100
26
Information Technology (continued)
FTE Changes: $477,991
Correction to base salary $327,972
Title change and comp adjustment 1.0 FTE Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer $48,801
Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant $21,958
Increase temporary salaries $79,260
CIP Impacts to Technology Fund will be discussed 5/24
Net decrease $280,946
Decrease CIP expense ($1,020,000)
Decrease operating transfers in for CIP ($739,054)
27
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Printing and Mailing Fund, pp. 352‐353
Citywide Changes: $7,868
Increase Personnel Benefits costs $20,110
Administrative overhead cost increase ($12,242)
Expense: ($1,500)
Decrease uniforms ($1,500)
28
General Benefits Fund
–FY 2011 Adjusted Budget: $34.1 million
–FY 2012 Proposed Budget: $36.6 million
–$5.5 million (16%) increase driven by:
•$4.2 million increase in Pension costs
•$1.3 million increase in Healthcare costs
29
Actual & Projected PERS Employer Rates
13.105%8.645%FY 2011 to FY 2014 Change
5.5%3.1%Year to Year Change
37.8%26.2%FY 2014 Projected Rate
2.175%1.375%Year to Year Change
32.3%23.1%FY 2013 Projected Rate
5.430%4.170%Year to Year Change
30.125%21.725%FY 2012 Rate
24.695%17.555%FY 2011 Current Rate
SafetyMiscellaneous
30
Citywide Pension Expense
Citywide Pension Expense
$6.1 $4.8 $3.8 $2.4
$15.6
$18.2$19.5$20.8$22.9
$20.0 $19.5
$23.7 $25.2
$29.5
$6.9
$29.0
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$302000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Mil
l
i
o
n
s
6
31
Healthcare Costs
+9.8%$14.9 million2012
Adopted
(.08%)$13.6 million2011
Adjusted
+1.1%$13.7 million2010
Actual
+3.9%$13.5 million2009
Actual
-$13 million2008
Actual
Percent changeCity paid medical, dental and vision
costs
Fiscal Year
32
Workers’ Compensation
136$1,788,1815 Year Avg.
154$2,552,6812006
139$1,648,1602007
140$1,993,1462008
134$1,627,2322009
112$1,119,6872010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million
33
General Liability
137$954,9855 Year Avg.
107$649,2792006
149$1,280,5792007
160$934,4232008
126$691,9862009
144$1,218,6572010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000
34
Retiree Medical Fund
•City is fully funding its Actuarial Required
Contribution (ARC) of $9.8 million in FY 2012
•Change in allocation methodology that
impacts the General Fund
• Revised actuarial study will be completed Fall
2011
35
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
36
Pension Cost Sharing
*Expressed as a percent of salary (e.g. in 2008, for every $100 of salary paid to
misc. employees the City paid $18.50 toward pension costs)
** IAFF members began picking up 9% of these costs in exchange for a 9.9% salary increase
0**39.1%SEIU – 5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU – 24%
MGT – 27.7%
2012
0**33.7%SEIU -5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU –19.8%
MGT 23.55%
2011
033%025.1%2010
033.5%025%2009
032.6%018.5%2008
Employee Paid*City Paid*Employee Paid*City Paid*Fiscal Year
Public Safety PlanMiscellaneous Plan
7
37
Healthcare Cost Sharing
–Cost sharing implemented for
miscellaneous employees in
April 2011 (medical only)
–Full 90/10 split is expected to be
achieved in 3-4 years
–Miscellaneous pay 4% of
medical premiums for
themselves and dependents,
increasing to 10% in future
years
–Public Safety employees do not
currently make a contribution to
the cost of medical premiums
for themselves or dependents
Example of cost sharing for Misc. employees using 2011 Blue Shield rates
$900/yr$21,072/yrEmployee + Family
$696/yr$15,516/yrEmployee + 1
$348/yr$8,364/yrEmployee Only
Employee PaysCity Pays
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 5, 2011
2
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, 6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 6pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, Library
Police, Fire, Technology Fund, ASD, and ASD
Internal Service Funds (Printing & Mailing
Fund, General Benefits, Workers’ Comp,
General Liability, Retiree Medical)
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
3
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Fire Department, pp. 121-132
Citywide Changes: $558,524
Increase Personnel Benefits Costs $484,609
Increase Allocated Charges $73,915
Revenue: $978,002
Increase Stanford Fire Services
Reimbursement $746,002
Increase Plan Checking Fee $232,000
4
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Fire Department (continued)
Expense: $1,252,989
Increase Overtime Salaries $1,247,400
Increase Fees for State Emergency Medical
Technician Certification $4,000
Increase Direct (Utility) Charges $1,589
FTE Changes: $127,483 (one-time)
Backfill OES Coordinator with hourly $49,795
Backfill Deputy Fire Chief with hourly $77,688
5
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Police Department, pp. 173-187
Citywide Changes: $1,429,346
Increase Personnel Benefits Costs - $1,299,681
Increase Allocated Charges - $129,665
Revenue: ($136,142)
Elimination of reimbursement from Utilities for
after hours alarm monitoring - ($175,000)
Other revenue changes - $38,858
6
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Police Department (continued)
Expense: ($115,900)
Eliminate contract expense for parking garage
security – ($160,000)
Add funding for Track Watch program - $70,000
Decrease supplies and other miscellaneous expenses
– ($25,900)
FTE Changes: $8,780
Reclass 1.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist I to
Animal Services Specialist II - $8,780
2
7
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Information Technology, pp. 344-351
Citywide Changes: $443,312
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $361,068
Administrative overhead cost increase $82,244
Revenue: $154,104
Increase in IT support revenue $839,058
Decrease operating transfers for CIP ($739,054)
Miscellaneous revenue increases $54,100
8
Information Technology (continued)
FTE Changes: $477,991
Correction to base salary $327,972
Title change and comp adjustment 1.0 FTE Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer $48,801 (salary and benefits)
Reclass 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to Administrative Assistant $21,958 (salaries and benefits)
Increase temporary salaries $79,260
CIP Impacts to Technology Fund will be discussed 5/24
Net decrease ($280,946)
Decrease CIP expense ($1,020,000)Decrease operating transfers in for CIP ($739,054)
9
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Administrative Services, pp. 85-96
Citywide Changes: $204,467
Information Technology becomes a department
Personnel Benefits Costs increasing $204,467
Revenue: $440,467
Administrative overhead charge increase $440,467
FTE Changes: $17,711; 0.20 FTE added
Reduce temporary salaries ($37,949)
Reduce overtime ($2,007)
10
Administrative Services (continued)
FTE Changes (continued):
ASD Administration Division $36,686
Reclass 1.0 Deputy Director, Administrative Services to Assistant Director, Administrative Services; reallocate 0.10 FTE Enterprise Funds, $24,415
Add 0.1 FTE Senior Financial Analyst $12,271
Budget Division Reorganization $20,981
Drop 1.0 FTE Budget Manager, add 1.0 FTE Chief Budget Officer $19,413
Reclass 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst to 1.0 FTE Budget Officer $13,094
Drop 1.0 FTE Graphics Designer, add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate III ($11,526)
11
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Printing and Mailing Fund, pp. 352-353
Citywide Changes: $7,868
Increase Personnel Benefits costs $20,110
Administrative overhead cost decrease ($12,242)
Expense: ($1,500)
Decrease uniforms ($1,500)
FTE Changes ($25,609)
Decrease temporary salaries ($25,609)
12
General Benefits Fund
–FY 2011 Adjusted Budget: $34.1 million
–FY 2012 Proposed Budget: $39.6 million
–$5.5 million (16%) increase driven by:
•$4.2 million increase in Pension costs
•$1.3 million increase in Healthcare costs
3
13
Actual & Projected PERS Employer Rates
13.105%8.645%FY 2011 to FY 2014 Change
5.5%3.1%Year to Year Change
37.8%26.2%FY 2014 Projected Rate
2.175%1.375%Year to Year Change
32.3%23.1%FY 2013 Projected Rate
5.430%4.170%Year to Year Change
30.125%21.725%FY 2012 Rate
24.695%17.555%FY 2011 Current Rate
SafetyMiscellaneous
14
Citywide Pension Expense
Citywide Pension Expense
$6.1 $4.8 $3.8 $2.4
$15.6
$18.2$19.5$20.8$22.9
$20.0 $19.5
$23.7 $25.2
$29.5
$6.9
$29.0
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$302000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Mil
l
i
o
n
s
15
Healthcare Costs
+9.8%$14.9 million2012
Adopted
(.08%)$13.6 million2011
Adjusted
+1.1%$13.7 million2010
Actual
+3.9%$13.5 million2009
Actual
-$13 million2008
Actual
Percent changeCity paid medical, dental and vision costsFiscal Year
16
Workers’ Compensation
136$1,788,1815 Year Avg.
154$2,552,6812006
139$1,648,1602007
140$1,993,1462008
134$1,627,2322009
112$1,119,6872010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million □FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $2.6 million
17
General Liability
137$954,9855 Year Avg.
107$649,2792006
149$1,280,5792007
160$934,4232008
126$691,9862009
144$1,218,6572010
No. of ClaimsPaidFiscal Year
□FY 2012 Proposed Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000
□FY 2011 Adjusted Budget – Claim Payments Est. $600,000
18
Retiree Medical Fund
• City is fully funding its Actuarial Required
Contribution (ARC) of $9.8 million in FY
2012
• Change in allocation methodology that
impacts the General Fund
• Revised actuarial study will be completed
Fall 2011
4
19
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
20
Pension Cost Sharing
*Expressed as a percent of salary (e.g. in 2008, for every $100 of salary paid to misc. employees the City paid $18.50 toward pension costs)
** IAFF members began picking up 9% of these costs in exchange for a 9.9%
salary increase
0**39.1%SEIU – 5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU – 24%
MGT – 27.7%
2012
0**33.7%SEIU -5.75%
MGT – 2%
SEIU –19.8%
MGT 23.55%
2011
033%025.1%2010
033.5%025%2009
032.6%018.5%2008
Employee Paid*City Paid*Employee Paid*City Paid*Fiscal
Year
Public Safety PlanMiscellaneous Plan
21
Healthcare Cost Sharing
–Cost sharing implemented for miscellaneous employees in April 2011 (medical only)
–Full 90/10 split is expected to be achieved in 3-4 years
–Miscellaneous pay 4% of medical premiums for themselves and dependents, increasing to 10% in future years
–Public Safety employees do not currently make a contribution to the cost of medical premiums
for themselves or dependents
Example of cost sharing for Misc. employees using 2011 Blue Shield rates
$900/yr$21,072/yrEmployee +
Family
$696/yr$15,516/yrEmployee + 1
$348/yr$8,364/yrEmployee Only
Employee PaysCity Pays
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 12, 2011
2
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday,6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 6pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, Wrap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP, Non-Departmental, City Council
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, Library
Police, Fire, Technology Fund, ASD, and ASD
Internal Service Funds (Printing & Mailing
Fund, General Benefits, Workers’ Comp,
General Liability, Retiree Medical)
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
With City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
3
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Community Services Department (CSD),
pp. 98-118
Revenue: ($112,583)
Reduce golf course revenue ($70,000)
Increase middle school athletics & recreation camps revenue $70,000
Decrease class program revenue to reflect historical trend ($47,500)
One-time midyear adjustments ($65,083)
4
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
CSD (continued)
Salary, Benefits, and FTE Changes: $624,690Eliminate 0.5 full-time FTE; add 0.54 hourly FTE
Freeze Program Assistant I ($48,460)Eliminate 0.5 FTE Coordinator for Family Resources Program ($50,711) – results in 1 layoffEliminate 0.48 hourly FTE at Cubberley and Lucie Stern ($17,590)Add 1.02 hourly FTE for Athletics and Camps (offset by revenues) $38,000Personnel Benefits costs increasing $703,451
5
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
CSD (continued)
Expense: ($97,449)
Increase in bank service charges $23,000
Maintenance of public art $35,000
Reduction in water consumption for turf ($25,000)Reduction in Vehicle Fund charges ($137,449) Middle School Athletics materials and supplies $7,000
Expense Related One-Time Midyear
Adjustments: $56,113
Decrease in Allocated Charges ($34,521)
6
CSD (continued)
Amendments to Proposed Budget
0.5 FTE Program Assistant I
Temporary reduction in work hours due to Art Center
renovations
HSRAP Funding
Council Contingency $27,761
Department reorganization
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
2
7
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Planning and Community Environment
(PCE), pp. 158-170
Revenue: $737,238
Increase various permit and planning revenues $1,786,827
Midyear adjustments ($1,049,589)
FTE Changes: $237,748; 0.5 FTE reduced
Reallocate 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate I from
City Manager’s Office $43,958
Personnel Benefits costs increase $377,737One-Time Midyear Adjustments ($183,947)
8
PCE (continued)
Expense: $196,758
Contract expense reductions ($15,000)
Development Center $634,761
Project manager, customer service, plan check, and building inspection consultant expense (one-time) $280,333
Bankcard service charges $36,000
Transition plan funding (add’l staffing and consultant costs) $300,000
Lease expense $18,428
Allocated Charges increase $52,772
One-time Adjustments ($475,775)
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
9
PCE (continued)
Development Center Transition Plan $285,769
Drop 1.0 FTE Chief Planning and Transportation Official, add 1.0 FTE Assistant Director PCE $28,231
Add 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II $95,538
Add one contracted Building Technician $81,000
Add one contracted Planning Technician $81,000
Amendments to Proposed Budget: ($95,769)
Rail Corridor Study (CMR 1319) $110,000Return remaining Development Center Transition Plan Funds ($14,231)
Move Economic Development to City Manager’s Office – no net impact to General Fund ($246,754)
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
10
Proposed Budget FY 2012
• Questions
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 17, 2011
2
2012 Proposed Citywide CIP
Projects by Fund
9
8
7
6
5432
1
1- Capital Project Fund (General Fund) - 49%
2- Technology Fund - 3% = $2.5 million
3- Electric Fund - 12%
4-Fiber Optics Fund - 1%
5- Gas Fund - 11%
6- Water Fund - 7%
7- Wastewater Collection Fund - 6%
8- Storm Drain Fund - 3%
9- Refuse Fund - 8%
3
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
•Internal CIP Committee Process
– CIP Committee began meetings in November 2010
– Reviewed prioritization criteria and prioritized projects
– Reviewed projected Infrastructure Reserve Balance– Reviewed current capacity - staff’s ability to start and complete projects as budgeted
– Met with the Planning and Transportation Commission to get input on the CIP Plan
4
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Total General Fund Proposed Projects - $35.9 million
2
1
3
4
1. Land, Buildings & Facilities - 51%
2. Streets and Sidewalks - 20%
3. Parks and Open Space - 10%
4. Miscellaneous - 19%
2
1
3
4
1. Land, Buildings & Facilities - 51%
2. Streets and Sidewalks - 20%
3. Parks and Open Space - 10%
4. Miscellaneous - 19%
5
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Infrastructure Reserve ($000)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
SOURCES
General Fund Annual Capital Transfer 10,478 10,892 11,334 11,787 12,288 56,778
Interest Income 1,075 946 871 862 944 4,699
Project Reimbursements
Measure N Library Bonds 16,150 0 0 0 0 16,150
Local Agency 5,828 1,600 0 0 0 7,428
Gas Tax Fund 2,150 1,650 1,625 1,625 1,625 8,675
Development Impact Fees -Park 0 220 0 220 0 440
Stanford Research Park Traffic
Mitigation Impact Fees 470 00047
Total Sources 35,728 15,308 13,830 14,494 14,857 94,217
USES
Budgeted CIP Projects 35,955 16,183 15,752 14,626 12,847 95,363
Total Uses 35,955 16,183 15,752 14,626 12,847 95,363
Sources over (short)(227) (874) (1,922) (132) 2,010 (1,146)
Infrastructure Reserve Balance, beginning 4,108 3,881 3,007 1,085 953 4,108
Infrastructure Reserve Balance, ending 3,881 3,007 1,085 953 2,963 2,963
6
Proposed CIP Budget FY 2012
Infrastructure Reserve (IR) Five year projection
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Year
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
2
7
FY 2011 Accomplishments
$3.8M Street Resurfacing Project
Greer Park Improvements
Library ProjectsCompletion College Terrace LibraryDowntown Library Reopening June 2011Started construction on Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
8
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects
Projects removed or moved to FY 2013-2016 from FY 2012 Adopted-In-Concept (as a result of prioritization exercise)
Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements (PF-07002) – moved to FY 2015 - $267KMunicipal Services Center Improvement (PF-05002) –moved to FY 2014 - $341KVentura Building Improvements (PF-06002) – moved to FY 2014 - $600KOff-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair (OS-09001) – defunded for FY 2012 - $100KRinconada Park Improvements (PE-08001) – moved to FY 2013 and budget increased to $1.3M
9
Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design -$150KMunicipal Service Center Facility Study - $100KFoothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program $200KEleanor Pardee Park Improvements - $674KMagical Bridge Playground - $1.3MCalifornia Ave. Transit Hub Corridor - $1.2MStreet Resurfacing - $3.5MSidewalk Repairs - $750KLibrary Measure N Furniture and Technology $3.1M
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Highlights of Projects Funded in FY 2012
(pages 63‐136 of Proposed Capital Budget 2012)
10
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
(IBRC)
Schedule
• July 18 - Council Study Session
• Sept 12 - Interim Report to Council
• Dec 12 – Final Report to Council
IBRC Committees
• “Above Ground” Facilities
• “Surface” Facilities
•Finance
11
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
(IBRC)
Preliminary Needs Assessment
• Deferred Maintenance - $ 69 M
• Replacement /Renovation - $ 196 M
• Planned Maintenance - $ 244 M
• TOTAL CAPITAL NEEDS - $ 509 M
• Next steps: Assessment of “Gap” with respect to
known funding.
12
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Changes to Proposed Document
• PE-86070 Street Improvement: transfer $2.0 million
from FY 2012 to FY 2011
• PL-11002 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor:
options for potential project changes will be
presented to Council in fall of 2011
3
13
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2012
Questions
14
Proposed Technology Fund CIP
Budget FY 2012
Key Projects Funded in FY 2012
(pages 271‐279)
•Library Computer System Software $350,000
•Library RFID Implementation $150,000
additional funding
•Telephone System Replacement $1.4 million
additional funding
15
Technology Fund CIP Budget FY 2012
Changes to Proposed Document
• TE-11004 Utilities Bill Enhancements:
eliminate $150K project funding from 2012
16
Proposed Technology Fund CIP Budget
FY 2012
• Questions
17
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Highlights
Rate AdjustmentsFiber Optics- 1.5% CPI adjustmentWastewater- cost of service analysis adjustment; no net sales revenue changeWater- 12.5% increase plus cost of service analysis adjustment
Position Changes
Add 1.0 FTE Utility Account Representative $121,359
Reclassify 1.0 FTE from Coordinator, Utility Projects to Business Analyst $17,142Reclassify 1.0 FTE from Utility Engineering Estimator to Business Analyst $12,527
Reclassify 1.0 FTE from Maintenance Mechanic to Maintenance Mechanic –Welding $3,567
Drop 1.0 FTE Manager, Energy Risk; Add 0.5 FTE Senior Financial Analyst ($154,446)
18
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 219-237 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($3.5 million)
Reduction in surplus energy - ($1.5 million)
Decrease other income related to Central Valley Project (CVP) loan repayment –
($1.2 million)
Offset by $1.2 million expense reduction – net zero impact to fund
Lower load forecast – ($0.5 million)
Decrease interest income – ($0.3 million)
4
19
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 219-237 (Operating)
Expense decrease: ($4.1 million)Increase energy efficiency program expense – $0.9 millionIncrease salaries and benefits - $0.7 millionAdd 1.0 FTE Utilities Account RepresentativeDrop 0.5 FTE Manager, Energy Risk; Add 0.25 FTE Senior Financial AnalystReallocate 1.0 FTE Resource Planner from Gas Fund
Increase allocated charges – $0.6 million
Increase equity transfer to General Fund – $0.4 million
Increase contract services- upgrade emergency notification system – $0.1 million
Decrease electric commodity purchases – ($4.2 million)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($1.8 million)
Decrease operating transfers to other funds – ($0.6 million)
Decrease in various contract services – ($0.2 million)
20
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 147-175 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $8.7 million
Undergrounding districts and rebuilding – $2.0 million
Substation transformer replacement; 4kV to 12kV conversions – $2.0 million
Customer connections – $2.0 million
General distribution system improvements – $1.8 million
LED streetlight conversion – $0.8 million
21
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Electric Fund, pp. 219-237
22
Last Update: May 11, 2010 (Draft)
0.10440.11410.1151
0.1235
0.1270
0.1273
0.1290
0.12980.13220.13400.13490.13560.13640.1421
0.1422
0.1440
0.1444
0.1450
0.15060.15400.15410.15960.1740
0.1178
Santa ClaraMerced IDPalo AltoSMUD
Turlock ID
Roseville
Redding
LADWP
AlamedaAzusaRancho Cucam. Imperial IDAnaheimModesto IDPasadenaGlendale
Riverside
SCE
Burbank
PGE
LompocLodiSDG&EBanning
(*) Based on self reported survey by California Municipal Rates Group members
2011 Expected Average System Revenue
per KWh ($/KWh)(*)
As of Jan 14, 2011
23
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 241-245 (Operating); pp. 179-180 (Capital)
Revenue increase: $0.3 million
Net increase of 11 new connections (173 individual connections)
1.5% CPI rate adjustment for rate schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2
Expense decrease: ($0.1 million)
Increase Capital Improvement Program – $0.1 million
Decrease allocated charges – ($0.2 million)
Capital Improvement Program- FY 2012 Expenditures: $0.5 million
Fiber optics network system improvements – $0.3 million
Fiber optics customer connections – $0.2 million
24
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 241-245
5
25
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Gas Fund, pp. 249-261 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($0.9 million)Decrease sales revenue due to lower market costs – ($0.9 million)
Expense decrease: ($1.4 million)Increase contract services for crossbore program safety initiative – $3.8 millionIncrease equity transfer to General Fund – $0.7 million
Increase energy efficiency program expense – $0.3 million
Increase personnel benefits costs – $0.1 million
Decrease gas commodity purchases – ($5.2 million)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($0.5 million)
Decrease operating transfers to other funds – ($0.4 million)
Decrease salaries – ($0.1 million)Reallocate 1.0 FTE Resource Planner to Electric FundDrop 0.5 FTE Manager, Energy Risk; Add 0.25 FTE Senior Financial Analyst
26
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Gas Fund, pp. 183-198 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $7.8 million
Gas main replacement projects – $6.4 million
System improvements and replacements –$0.7 million
Customer connections – $0.7 million
27
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Gas Fund, pp. 249-261
Transfer will be made from Supply RSR to Distribution RSR to bring ending reserve balances within guidelines at year-end FY 2012
28
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
Fire Department, pp. 121-132
Citywide Changes: $558,524
Increase Personnel Benefits Costs $484,609
Increase Allocated Charges $73,915
Revenue: $978,002
Increase Stanford Fire Services Reimbursement $746,002
Increase Plan Checking Fee $232,000
Expense: $642,989
Increase Overtime Salaries $637,400 (Total of $1.25 million increase over FY 2011 & FY 2012)
Increase Fees for State Emergency Medical Technician Certification $4,000
Increase Direct (Utility) Charges $1,589
FTE Changes: $127,483 (one-time)
Increase (backfill) OES Coordinator with Hourly $49,795
Increase (backfill) Deputy Fire Chief – EMT with Hourly $77,688
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
City of Palo Alto - Gas Bill Comparison with PG&E
Average Residential Customer Annual Bill30/100 therms per summer/winter month
PG&E Palo Alto
Fiscal Year
29
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 265-271 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($0.1 million)No net sales revenue changeRate changes to align rates with cost of service analysis; 13% residential increase
Decrease other income from ground water discharge revenue – ($0.1 million)
Expense increase: $0.2 millionIncrease wastewater treatment charges – $0.5 millionIncrease personnel benefits costs – $0.2 millionIncrease Capital Improvement Program – $0.1 million
Decrease operating transfer to Refuse Fund – ($0.4 million)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund – ($0.1 million)
30
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 225-239
(Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $4.3 million
Rehabilitation and augmentation of collection systems – $3.1 million
Replacement of sewer laterals and manholes – $0.6 million
Sewer system extensions – $0.3 million
Wastewater system improvements – $0.2 million
6
31
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 265-271
32
Monthly Wastewater Bill Comparison
Residential
22.99 23.09
53.10
24.65 24.20
19.40
48.72
24.24
54.17
27.91
57.50
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Palo Alto Mountain View Santa Clara Redwood City Los Altos Menlo Park
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Bill
($
)
Current Proposed (July 1, 2011)
33
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Water Fund, pp. 275-286 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $1.8 million
Rate increase of 12.5% plus changes to align rates with cost of service analysis
Average residential increase of 11.4%
Expense increase: $0.3 million
Increase water commodity purchases – $3.7 million
Increase equipment rental for lease of emergency generators for water pumps –$0.6 million
Increase personnel benefits costs – $0.2 million
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($4.0 million)
Decrease allocated charges – ($0.2 million)
34
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Water Fund, pp. 201-221 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $4.9 million
Seismic water system upgrades – $2.7 million
Water recycling facility – $0.5 million
System improvements – $0.4 million
Water system extensions – $0.4 million
Water main replacements – $0.3 million
Water meters – $0.2 million
Water service hydrant replacement – $0.2 million
Rate Stabilization Reserve is projected to decrease ($3.9 million) to $11.2
million (above guideline of $4.6 million to $9.2 million)
35
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Utilities Department- Water Fund, pp. 275-286
36
Palo Alto ‐Proposed
Redwood City
Mountain View
Palo Alto ‐Current
Bear Gulch ‐MP
Santa Clara
$‐
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Bil
l
($
)
Usage Per Monthly Bill (CCf)
Single Family Residential Monthly Water Bills
Benchmark City Comparisons
5/8" Meter
7
37
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Average Projected Residential Monthly Utility Bills
Utility Current FY 11 Bill Proposed FY 12 Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%
Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3% Total Monthly Bill 328.89 340.96 12.07 3.7%
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
38
Proposed Budget FY 2012
• Questions
39
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 7pm
May2 City Manager Council Chambers
Proposed Budget
Tuesday, Finance Committee 7pm
May 3 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget ReviewKick-Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 5 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 12 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday,6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Wednesday, Finance Committee 6pm Municipal Fee Schedule
May 25 Special Meeting Council Conf Rm Contracts Greater than $85k, W rap-Up
Monday,7pm
June 13 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 20 Special Meeting – Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
BUDGET ADOPTION
Public Works – General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP
City Council Budget Review and Public Hearing
CSD, Planning
Finance Committee Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund CIP,
Non-Departmental, City Council
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2012
Proposed Budget - Referral to Finance
Committee
Transmittal of 2011 General Fund budget –
Council Appointed Officers, Council, Human
Resources, Library
Police, F ire, Tech no log y F und, ASD , and ASD
Internal Service Funds (Printing & Mailing Fund, General Benefits, Workers’ Comp, General Liability, Retiree Medical)
City of Palo Alto
BUDGET HEARINGS
W ith City Council and Finance Committee
For 2012 Budget
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 24, 2011
2
Office of Emergency Services
(OES)
Re-organization Proposal
3
Current State of Office of Emergency
Services (OES)
• Presently situated in Fire Department
• FY 2012 Budget - $457,000 (salary and non-
salary) (Memo Correction)
– 1.4 FTE - Dedicated OES Staff
– 1.2 FTE - Fire staff allocation in support
4
Recommendations by Consultant
1) OES staff to four
a) OES reports to City Manager
2) Implement plan to improve Emergency
Operations Center
3) Consolidate information from technical
studies and additional analysis
5
Personnel
• Staff recommends (staff of three):
– Senior Manager (Mgmt) $ 233,325
– Senior Coordinator (Mgmt) 152,500
– Hourly Staff Support 90,106
Total: $ 475,931
– Analyze operations after the first year and make decision whether to increase staffing (per consultant’s recommendation)
– Anticipate hiring in the Senior Manager in Summer of 2011
– Other staff members to be hired in Fall of 2011
6
Non‐Salary Costs
• Program & Operating (On-going)- $265,000
(e.g. safety & Office Supplies, storage, rent, indirect, and
misc. costs)
• OES Study Recommendations (One-time)-
$335,00
(e.g. HAZUS, Hazard mitigation plan, operating costs)
7
Cost Summary
• Total Staff and Expenses $ 833,325
– Less: One-time Expenses ( 335,000)
• Total Proposed new OES Expenses
498,325
• Existing OES Budget within Fire 457,000
(Memo Correction)
• Grand Total New & Existing (on-going)
Expenses $ 955,325
8
Examples of OES efforts
• Update City’s Emergency Operations Plan
• Develop and implement training for City Staff and family emergency preparedness
• Enhance interoperable communications with virtual consolidation of dispatch centers
• Develop training and exercise plan
• Implement Foothills Fire Management Plan
• Expansion of CERT Program
• Implement Medical Reserve Corps
• Hold Community Exercise
• Seek grant funding for program improvements
9
Conclusion
• Update Council via information report on
progress with new OES re-organization
and EPREP as a Council Priority at the
mid-year.
Public Works Department
Department Restructure –Current Organization
10
Public Works Department
Department Restructure ‐New Organization
11
Director
EnvironmentalServices EngineeringServices PublicServices
Refuse Programs
Environmental Compliance
Wastewater Treatment (RWQCP)
Capital Projects
Storm Drain Programs
Private Development Reviews
BuildingsStreetsSidewalksParksOpen Space
Urban Forestry
Building Maintenance
Street & Traffic Maintenance
Storm Drain Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Public Works Department
Department Reorganization General Fund Cost Benefit*
12
Eliminate 1.00 FTE Mgr. Fac. Maint & Proj. ($ 177,443)Eliminate .60 FTE Supt. PW Operations ($ 109,264)Eliminate 1.00 FTE Admin. Assoc. I ($ 87,916)Eliminate 1.00 FTE Project Manager ($ 141,340)Eliminate 1.00 FTE Managing Arborist ($ 119,651)Add 1.00 FTE Urban Forester (TBD) $ 150,343Move 1.00 FTE Arborist from Planning to Public Works – Net GF Impact 0Reclass 2.00 FTE Supv. Fac. Maint toMgr, Maint. Operations $ 32,314Reallocate .55 FTE Mgt. Analyst $ 60,550
($ 392,407)
*Includes salaries and benefits
13
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- General Fund, pp. 190-201 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($44,597)
FY 2011 midyear adjustments to permit and fee revenue – ($40,450)Decrease allocated revenue – ($4,147)
Expense decrease: ($116,679)Increase contract services for maintenance of decorative lights on University Ave. – $20,000 (reimbursed by University Ave. Parking District)
Increase salaries and benefits – $20,750
Eliminate 0.6 FTE Superintendent, PW Operations – ($109,264) vacantEliminate 0.8 FTE Manager, Facilities Maintenance and Projects – ($141,954) vacantEliminate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate I – ($87,916) vacantReclass 0.8 FTE Spvr Facilities Mgmt to Mgr Main Ops - $12,926Increase personnel benefits costs – $200,000Amendments to the Proposed Budget – $113,015
Decrease allocated charges – ($143,487)
14
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- General Fund, pp. 190-201 (Operating)
Amendments to the Proposed Budget: $113,015
Drop 1.0 FTE Managing Arborist, Add 1.0 FTE Urban Forester – $30,692
Reclassify 0.8 FTE Supervisor, Facilities Management to Manager, Maintenance Operations – $16,156
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Project Manager – ($141,340)
Reallocate 0.55 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund – $60,550
Move 1.0 FTE Arborist from Planning to PW - $146,957
15
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 301-307
(Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($243,000)
1.5% increase for local CPI changes - $86,000
Increase operating transfer from Vehicle Fund for refund of accumulated
replacement charges related to fleet reduction – $19,000
Decrease operating transfer from General Fund – ($325,000)
One-time transfer in FY 2011 to help fund curb and gutter replacement work related to Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Project
Decrease interest income – ($11,000)
Amendment to Proposed Budget
Decrease revenue from untarped load fee due to landfill closure – ($12,000)
16
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 301-307 (Operating); pp. 251-257 (Capital)
Expense decrease: ($371,000)
Increase Capital Improvement Program – $228,000
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund – ($574,000)Final payment of loan in FY 2011; funds were needed to complete San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station
Eliminate 0.1 FTE Superintendent, PW Operations – ($18,000)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund – ($10,000)
Amendments to Proposed Budget – $11,000Decrease operating expense for innovative projects – ($143,000)
Increase CIP for Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements – $143,000
Reallocate 0.1 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund – $11,000
Public Works Department
Storm Drain Fund
17
$0Not yet budgetedClara Drive SD Improvements
$6.0MBudgeted FY14-17Matadero Pump Station Improvements
$1.0MBudgeted FY12&13Southgate Neighborhood Improvements
$6.4MPh 1 – in process
Ph 2-4 FY12-FY14
Channing Ave/Lincoln
$0.8MCompleteAlma St SD Improvements
$0.7MCompleteGailen Ave/Bibbits Dr SD Improvements
$9.1MCompleteSan Francisquito Ck Pump Station
BudgetStatusProject
Seven capital projects named in 2005 Storm Drain Ballot Measure
Projected revenue from SD Fee increase = $46 million
Projected expenditure on non‐CIP programs = $22 million
Projected expenditure on 7 CIP projects = $24 million
18
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 251-257 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $2.3 million
Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue SD Improvements – $1.59 million
Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation – $572,000
Amendments to Proposed Budget
Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements – $143,000
19
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Storm Drainage Fund, pp. 301-307
20
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($5.5 million)
Increase special revenue from GreenWaste – $0.3 million
Decrease net sales – ($3.7 million)
Reflects expiration of rate increases at the end of September 2011
Decrease disposal fee revenue – ($1.3 million)Decrease operating transfer from Wastewater Collection Fund – ($0.4 million)Decrease operating transfer from Capital Projects Fund – ($0.1 million)
Decrease operating transfer from Vehicle Replacement Fund – ($0.6 million)
21
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297 (Operating)
Expense increase: $3.6 million
Increase Capital Improvement Program – $4.4 million
FY 2011 net expense reductions added back – $2.4 million
Decrease GreenWaste hauling contract – ($1.8 million)
Decrease various non-salary expense for solid waste– ($1.0 million)
Decrease allocated charges – ($0.4 million)
Decrease operating transfer to General Fund – ($0.2 million)
Decrease operating transfer to Technology Fund – ($0.1 million)
Amendment to Proposed Budget
Increase contract services for SMaRT Station – $250,000
22
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297 (Operating)
Expense increase: $3.6 million (continued)
Decrease salaries and benefits– ($75,000)Add 0.5 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services – $110,000Eliminate 0.1 FTE Superintendent, PW Operations – ($18,000)Reclassify 2.0 FTE Executive Assistant to Management Analyst – ($2,000)Reclassify 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician to Coordinator, PW Projects – $7,000Landfill positions to be removed in December, 20111.0 FTE Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead – ($57,000)
2.0 FTE Heavy Equipment Operator – ($106,000)
3.0 FTE Refuse Disposal Attendant – ($128,000)
Decrease in temporary salaries – ($128,000)
Increase in personnel benefit costs – $217,000
Amendment to Proposed Budget
Reallocate 0.9 FTE Management Analyst to other PW Funds –($99,000)
23
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 243 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $6.1 million
Landfill closure – $6.1 million
Funded by cash accumulated in prior years
24
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Refuse Fund, pp. 289-297
Public Works Department
Refuse Fund
25
Overall Goal within 5-10 years:– All rate payer categories pay their actual costs– Full implementation of structural rate changes
• June 2011– Council adoption of FY12 budget (including refuse fund deficit without rate increase)• July 2011– Finalize FY12 plans with FC for expense reductions and recommended rate increase– Council consideration of FY12 plans– Notice rate increase• September 2011– Council adoption of October 2011 rates that fully cover expenses and necessary expense reductions• October 2011– Implementation of 10/1/2011• November 2011– Complete forecasting model and current cost of service analysis• January 2012– Prepare options for new structural changes to rates• July 2012– Implement first of new structural rate changes for FY 2013• Ongoing– Continue to develop forecasting model and ongoing Cost of Service analysis– Achieve +$3 million operating reserve (appox 3 years)26
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Average Projected Residential Monthly Utility Bills
Utility Current FY 11 Bill Proposed FY 12 Bill $ Difference % Difference
Electric (650KWH) 76.33 76.33 - 0.0%Water (14CCF) 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%Gas (100/30TH) 99.42 99.42 - 0.0%Wastewater 24.65 27.91 3.26 13.3%
Refuse 32.86 32.86 - 0.0%Storm Drain 11.23 11.40 0.17 1.5%User Tax 12.39 12.80 0.41 3.3% Total Monthly Bill 328.89 340.96 12.07 3.7%
FY 2012 Refuse proposed rate increases will be presented in July 2011
FY 2012 Water average rate increase is 12.5% increase; residential increase is 11.4% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Wastewater average rate increase is 0%; residential increase is 13.3% due to cost of service analysis
FY 2012 Storm Drain will increase by CPI at 1.5%, effective 7-1-11
27
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 309-317 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $0.5 millionIncrease sales revenue based on estimated flow – $0.4 million
Increase interest income – $0.1 million
Expense decrease: ($2.8 million)Increase salaries and benefits – $0.2 millionAdd 0.5 FTE Assistant Director, Environmental Services –$110,000Reclassify 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Assistant Plant Manager –$24,000Reclassify 1.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations to Operator II, WQC –($22,000)
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Business Analyst to Senior Technologist –$11,000
Reclassify 1.0 FTE Manager, Environmental Compliance to Watershed Protection Manager –($34,000)Pay realignment for 3.0 FTE Supervisor WQC Operations –$19,000Increase operating transfer to Technology Fund – $0.1 million
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($2.4 million)
Decrease chemicals expense – ($0.4 million)Decrease allocated charges – ($0.3 million)
28
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 247-248 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $0
No amounts in FY 2012 budget (funding proposed for FY 2013-16)
Work will continue in FY 2012 for ongoing projects funded in prior years
Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit
Plant Equipment Replacement
29
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Fund, pp. 309-317
30
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund
• FRC reviewed a total of 74 underutilized passenger vehicles identified in the audit and during subsequent utilization review.
• FRC recommended 42 vehicles be removed from direct assignment
– 16 will be reassigned to a centralized vehicle pool
– 26 have been removed from fleet inventory
• 23 will have their utilization reviewed again in 12 months
• 9 were left where originally assigned
• These reductions result in annual savings of $53,000 ongoing maintenance costs and avoid $400,000 in capital expense for future replacements
• In FY 2012, FRC will evaluate assigned transport vehicles that exceed minimum utilization requirements.
31
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund – Pending Initiatives
•For completion in FY 2012
– FRC will begin comprehensive review and update of City Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance and Replacement Policy
– Implement fully-automated pool vehicle reservation and key management system by October 2011, installations located at
• MSC Building B
• Civic Center
• Elwell Court
• MSC Building C
32
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund –Initiatives in Progress
– Explore Pool Vehicle Leasing
• FRC considering leasing of automobiles and light duty trucks
– Initial focus to replace vehicles currently in vehicle pool (many of which are more than 10 years old), and police undercover vehicles.
– RFP to be issued Fall 2011
– Advantages to leasing:
• Elimination of capital outlay for vehicle purchases
• Elimination of replacement charges to departments
• Shorter replacement cycles
• More flexibility for adding or removing vehicles from the fleet, or for changing vehicle mix.
33
Public Works Department
Vehicle Replacement Fund –Initiatives in Progress
– Staff will review the fleet database, and verify data for
accuracy and consistency to assist in future planning and analysis.
– Reorganization of existing parts and supplies inventory
• Review parts locations
• Review stocking levels
• Implement bar-code inventory
• Restore period inventory and analysis
– Staff will coordinate vehicle and equipment purchases with
the City’s Sustainability Coordinator, to insure purchases are made in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Climate Protection Plan.
34
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund, pp. 339-343 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($88,000)
Decrease sale of salvage – ($125,000)
Expense decrease: ($8,000)Increase operating transfer to General Fund for refund of accumulated replacement charges related to fleet reduction – $582,000
Increase operating transfer to Enterprise Funds for refund of accumulated replacement charges related to fleet reduction – $97,000
Decrease operating transfer to Refuse Fund for prior year refund of accumulated replacement charges for landfill and composting equipment that will not be replaced –($591,000)Decrease allocated charges – ($73,000)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program – ($23,000)
Decrease temporary salaries – ($16,000)Decrease personnel benefits costs – ($12,000)Amendment to Proposed BudgetReallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from Refuse Fund – $28,000
35
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Summary
Public Works- Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund, pp.
265-268 (Capital)
Capital Improvement Program
FY 2012 Expenditures: $0
No amounts in FY 2012 budget (funding proposed for FY 2013-16)
Budget amendments will be made during FY 2012 as needed
Subject to review by the Fleet Review Committee
Projected available fund balance at year-end FY 2012 is $7.5 million
36
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
($1.7)Total Change
1.0Anticipated Pension Increase
(4.3)Public Safety Concessions
1.1Retiree Medical ARC
$0.5Decrease Attrition Savings
(in millions)Salary & Benefits
Non-Departmental
37
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
0.1Innovation Contingency
$2.3Total Change
0.5Allocated Charges
0.5Use of Contingencies – City Manager, Council, Attorney
0.2Contract Services & Interagency Expense
$1.0Funding for OES
(in millions)Non-Salary Expense
Non-Departmental
38
Proposed Budget FY 2012
Department Changes
City Council, pp. 69‐70
Revenue: ($105,319)
Administrative overhead charge decrease ($105,319)
Expense: $175,871
Increase contract services for CAO evaluations
$30,000
Personnel Benefits Costs increase $145,871
39
FY 2012 Proposed Budget
• Questions
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012
Finance Committee
May 25, 2011
1
Municipal Fee Schedule
•OVERVIEW
–Overall, relatively minor fee changes
–Pending comprehensive review of cost of
services and fee recovery levels to be
completed for 2013 budget
–Review for Prop 26 compliance
–Additional GF revenue ≤$100K
–Cost/revenue/cost recovery information for
new or modified fees
2
Municipal Fee Schedule
User Fees
–Fee cannot exceed estimated cost but can be set below
full cost recovery level
–Proposition 26 (Nov. 2010) –“No Hidden Taxes”
■Reclassified certain state/local fees as taxes
requiring 2/3rd voter approval
■Numerous exemptions for local governments, i.e.
permits, park/rec. fees, inspection fees
■Segregate new/modified fees from fees set before
Nov. 2010
–Fee study will present options for Council: i.e.
increase fees; reduce level of service;
outsource service; eliminate service
3
Municipal Fee Schedule
•COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
–Facility rental fees
–Organic garden plots
–Jr. museum and zoo
–Aquatics program
4
Municipal Fee Schedule
•PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT
–New fees
■Plan review/inspection for electric vehicle charge station and graywater systems
■Plan review/inspection of wireless facilities
–Development Impact Fees (+4.4%)
–College Terrace
5
Municipal Fee Schedule
•LIBRARY
–New fees
■Room Rental at Downtown
–Delete fees
■Inter-Library Loans
•Amendments to the fee schedule
6
Contracts Greater than $85,000
•Finance Committee review of consultant
services agreements scope of services for the
Capital Improvement Program
•Funding for agreements already included in
the FY 2012 budget
•Final approval of agreements would come
before the City Council with final contracts
7 8
Budget Wrap‐Up
Proposed Budget FY 2012
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve Impact
Mtg Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning Surplus $131
5/5 POL Animal Services shelter study (50)
5/12 CSD Public Art maintenance (15)
5/12 PCE Rail Corridor funding (110)
5/12 PCE Return Development Center Transition funding 14
5/24 FIR Return OES funding to BSR 167
5/24 FIR Stanford revenue related to OES program 262
5/24 PWD Proposed staffing changes (restructuring) 34
Subtotal $433
5/25 CSD Foothill Parking revenue (65)
5/25 NON Civic Center debt service transfer 283
Ending $651
Budget Wrap‐Up
•Needed Finance Committee Action
–Tentative approval of City Clerk’s Office
Budget, cost of minutes $194,000 annual
citywide
–Foothill College Parking at Cubberley –
eliminate revenue $65,000 (CSD)
–Civic Center Debt service –decrease GF
expense $283,000
9
Appendix 9
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1 FIN110503
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting
May 3, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
Absent:
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, requested a change in the order
of the agenda.
A. City Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2011(formerly item
10)
Ian Hagerman, Sr. Performance Auditor, spoke regarding the Quarterly Report
as of March 31, 2011. He gave an overview of the work plan and the status of
the audit recommendations. To date, their revenue of monitoring activities
resulted in more than $14,000 in revenue recoveries from the City. They also
received payments from the Federal Government for $70,000 for alternative
fuel tax credits. They have four projects in process currently. He also went
over the employee turnovers and hires and the awards received by the City
Auditor’s Office.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved seconded by Council Member Schmid that
the Finance Committee approve and forward to the City Council with
2 FIN110503
recommendation for Approval the City Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of
March 31, 2011.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
1. Transmittal of 2012General Fund Budget
Chair Scharff discussed how to handle this and subsequent meetings. He
suggested tabling items at approximately 10 p.m. so that meetings did not run
too long. He further suggested they begin subsequent Budget meetings at 6
p.m.
James Keene, City Manager, confirmed that even if they finished items before
the 10 p.m. timeframe, they could not move on to future items since those
items were not noticed or agendized.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, confirmed future Budget
meetings would begin at 6 p.m. versus their usual 7 p.m. start time. He
continued with a PowerPoint slide outlining the six subsequent meetings. He
noted May 25th was the wrap-up meeting as currently scheduled. The Proposed
Budget was scheduled to go to Council on June 13th for review with adoption
scheduled on June 25th. He briefed the Committee on the General Fund
Budget Gap of $2.3 million. In April it was $3.3 million. A million dollars in
reductions across departments has since taken place. Offsetting that decrease
was a non-departmental increase use as a placeholder for the funding of the
Office of Emergency Services. Staff was currently working on a proposal for
Council on what to include in this million dollars. This was a target range for
salary and non-salary expenditures. There was also an increase in the budget
for pension and healthcare costs creating a revised gap of $4.2 million. Staff
was in negotiation with the Firefighters Labor Group, would soon enter in
negotiations with the Police Officers Association, and was in negotiations with
the Police Management Association. A concession target of $4.3 million had
been set for the City where the Proposed Budget was balanced but contingent
on funding for the safety groups with a surplus of $131,000 to the good. He
continued his presentation with the General Fund Overview for the Proposed
Budget with a 3.4% revenue increase, 3% expense increase, $131,000 surplus,
$27.044 million Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) balance which is 18.5% of
the Proposed Budget. The expenses that were being reduced were the
placeholder for the concessions. If they were not received, then the expenses
would increase.
Mr. Keene stated the point was that for fiscal year (FY) 2012, despite the fact
that the revenues have grown, the expenditures have grown faster and were
3 FIN110503
larger than the revenue increases.
Mr. Perez stated not using the reserves was the best policy. The current plan of
$27 million, or 18.5% of the Proposed Budget expenditures was on target. He
had met with Finance Directors in the neighboring counties and discussed their
various approaches. He gave various examples of other counties and what
happened when they used their reserves. They became dependent on loans
from other city funds or drastic funding cuts because of their decisions.
Council Member Shepherd asked why they had not considered using some of
their Budget Stabilization Reserves at this point because the revenues were
starting to pick up.
Mr. Perez stated the approach had been to use reserves for emergencies or
catastrophes and not for the tie-over of a budget process. Having adequate
reserves also improves the City’s credit rating for issuance of debt.
Mr. Keene added the Council had established the reserve policy and a
percentage range for the Budget Stabilization Reserves. They remain within
that 15-20% range.
Mr. Perez continued the presentation with a graph of the General Fund’s Major
Revenues.
Council Member Scharff stated there were long-range deficits. He asked,
without using reserves now, and making structural changes, how they could
manage this.
Mr. Perez stated there was a projected $6.6 million deficit for FY 2013. That
number would change depending on the actual Adopted Budget for 2012 and
whether or not they received the Public Safety concessions. He noted they
would discuss these long-range deficit concerns more throughout the process.
He continued with a pie-chart of the General Fund by type, which charted out
the $146.3 million proposed for FY 2012. He also discussed a graph of the
General Fund Expenditures. Another pie chart dealt with the General Fund
Summary of Appropriations by expenditure category for the $146.2 million
proposed for FY 2012. He discussed the Citywide Budget Summary for the
General Fund and Enterprise Fund. Another chart depicted the Citywide Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) Funding Sources for $72.9 million in total proposed
projects. He discussed the Enterprise Funds Overview including Utilities
increases for Water, Waste Water and Storm Drain. Citywide position changes
were discussed including reductions and layoffs. General Fund Impact of
Citywide Changes were described including personnel benefits increases of $4.3
4 FIN110503
million, allocated charge increases of $542,176 and administrative overhead
charge revenues.
Council Member Schmid discussed the long-term look at revenue sources and
the striking difference between the 1990s and the 2000s. The implication for
the future was that revenue sources and growth in revenue were restricted. A
long-term economic development plan would demonstrate the need to take
care of properties since property and documentary transfer tax is what benefits
Palo Alto. He discussed expenditures and the opposite taking place. Lines were
flat over all departments except Public Safety. He noted that the data showed
there was no funding for City Employee salary increases but there was the $4.3
million increase in benefits. He noted the message there was that the pensions
were taking the money and that employees were getting no real salary
increases. He stated that to reach the balanced budget they depended on
Public Safety concessions.
Mr. Keene stated their recommendation was to balance the budget assuming
they could achieve those savings in the course of the year, but coming back in
the first quarter if they had not received the concessions and present actual
reductions in Public Safety. This may result in the elimination of staffing and
services in Public Safety. He stated they were compelled to do this because
Public Safety costs have almost doubled in the last decade.
Council Member Schmid stated last year the original Budget Proposal had more
cuts than needed. He asked if it were useful or important to identify possible
options in the event that additional cuts had to be made.
Mr. Keene stated they would revise the Public Safety list from the year prior
and identify some possible additional reductions.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated CalPERS did not change their investment return
assumption. He asked for information on the assumptions the City used.
Mr. Perez stated it did not impact the Proposed Budget for FY 2012. The
intention of CalPERS was that it would affect FY 2013. The Long Range
Financial Forecast reflected a $6.6 million deficit but does take into
consideration the decrease from 7.75 percent to 7.50 percent in 2013, which
they will seek direction from Council on whether to reserve 7.75 percent or
assume 7.50 percent in the budget.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated when they get the actual investment returns CalPERS
may not deem them as strong as they would have hoped.
5 FIN110503
Mr. Perez stated revised numbers may be expected in December 2011.
Mr. Keene noted this makes another case for $800,000 that they put in as a
hedge next year for any unforeseen changes.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated they were not de-prioritizing public services but
initiatives and concessions would be necessary for equity across labor groups.
From a community perspective, he noted this continued an added investment in
streamlining services and would be positive for everyone involved.
Mr. Keene agreed this was a good way to look at it. He noted the concession
target number was a realistic number and was achievable.
Vice Mayor Yeh, spoke to the General Fund and Major Revenues. He agreed
with the trend analysis, which Council Member Schmid also mentioned. He
asked how Staff viewed these trends.
Mr. Perez stated these trends were worrisome and the most concern was over
the Utility Users Tax trends where there were significant decreases in telephone
taxes. When they presented the long range forecast they had spoken about
their assumptions on what had driven this, which of course had to do with the
loss of landlines and long distance phone usage plans. He noted in the future it
may be helpful to separate out the telephone and utility budget numbers.
Council Member Shepherd focused on the $4.3 million Personnel Benefit
Increase asking if it was the new trend to have medical retiree benefits exceed
the healthcare benefit for employees.
Mr. Perez stated in FY 2011 they allocated the cost for retiree medical based on
an FTE methodology but it should have been kept at an actuarial methodology.
They should have looked at the current and retired employees. When Staff
reviewed the data there were more General Fund retirees than non General
Fund so they adjusted it to the actuarial methodology. The actuarial study was
last done in January of 2009. The figures they use did not change. It is the 9.7
million. That will change because, by law, they are required to change in June
of 2011. His assumption was that they will see an increase because they have
had a significant number of employees retire. While they eliminated 70+
positions, they also replaced some who left, so they are paying new employees
and retirees. There was an increased cost of medical premiums, and an
adjustment to the methodology. Keeping it at the $9.8 million, the way it was
allocated, the other funds were paying their liability faster. They were not
paying the General Fund liability, but their own fund faster.
6 FIN110503
Mr. Keene stated it could look like the healthcare costs for the current
employees were not growing as fast as for the retirees. They were actually
trying to cover the actuarial costs for the retiree medical for retirees and future
retirees.
Council Member Shepherd asked for a clear explanation of the actuarial.
Mr. Perez stated a study was done to determine the liability, the value of the
benefit, and the money that was set aside for this benefit. The net amount was
calculated for the payments. The cost for current employees and retiree
employees was the same until they reach age 65, and then there was a
reduction in cost for each retiree.
Council Member Shepherd noted this was this the first time that this was
growing faster than their employees.
Mr. Keene stated it was not that the group of retirees was costing them more
than the group of employees. It was because the cost of healthcare was going
up equally for current employees and retires. There was the responsibility to
identify the unfunded liability that they had for the retiree medical and future
retiree costs of current employees in order for sounder actuarial footing for
funding as we go forward.
Council Member Shepherd noted, even though people were not getting salary
increases, they were getting benefits and retirement. She stressed the
importance of making this clear that this is what these funds were used for.
Mr. Keene added the public was just starting to realize this was happening.
They were making a point to address this department by department, noting
the 6-8 percent increase in pension and healthcare that may have otherwise
been a pay increase.
Council Member Shepherd stated it tied together nicely in that it’s 4.3 million
which would balance the budget.
Mr. Perez stated they would get to the total City costs for pensions later in the
discussions.
Council Member Scharff stated they likely could not expect cuts from the Fire
Department, so would they be expecting these from the Police Department.
Mr. Keene stated there were still some limited opportunities in Fire, but a
disproportionate share of the burden would fall on Police.
7 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff stated they were in binding arbitration with Fire. He
asked if outsourcing options had been reviewed by Staff and how long the
process would be.
Mr. Keene stated they had not looked into this. All efforts had been in
negotiations.
Council Member Scharff asked what the timing would be in implementing bids
for outsourcing.
Mr. Keene stated the outsourcing process was a long and transformative
process, which would take at the minimum a year. The budget was formulated
in the framework of a ten-year forecast. They do not have to be implemented
immediately to be worthwhile. The step they were at currently was to focus on
making agreements.
Council Member Scharff asked of the $4.3 million, how much did they project
should come from Fire.
Mr. Keene stated they did not identify a particular number, but the number
would be larger in Police. It seemed that there was about a 25 percent greater
differential for the funding in place when they were looking for one-year cuts
and needed $600,000 from Fire and $800,000 from Police.
Mr. Perez stated it was $1.8 to $2.0 million.
Council Member Scharff noted the 2012 budget would start on July 1, 2011 and
run to July 1, 2012. They were in binding arbitration until September and had
just started to negotiate with Police. If they were seeking concessions on
salary and benefits, he questioned how that translated if they were six months
into the year before they actually might receive the concession.
Mr. Perez stated if they did not get the full amount in a given year, they could
come back and make other reductions, or make a temporary draw from
reserves until the funding came through.
Mr. Keene stated it was possible to recoup a full year’s cost in negotiations, but
that was more often not the process.
Council Member Scharff noted the real concern in the budget process was
saying they were going to get the money in concessions and then maybe not
getting it. He agreed with Council Member Schmid that it was important to
8 FIN110503
have some backup ideas and plans for funding. He stated a midyear budget
adjustment needed a 2/3 vote from Council.
Mr. Keene cited the options available. When it came to midyear, he stated they
had enough flexibility to provide alternatives, not requiring slashing at other
areas of the City’s Budget. He would not have proposed a Budget that would
do that because he did not think other program areas should be cut.
Council Member Scharff stated they were going to start spending money July 1st
as if they had the $4.2 million in concessions. He raised concerns that they
would borrow against reserves as they started spending the money that they
did not officially have.
Mr. Perez stated given the cyclical trends of spending they should be fine.
Mr. Keene stated they appropriated the funds at the start, but they do not
spend all the money. Next year’s pension money for instance, would not be
spent.
Mr. Perez stated the retiree medical was not spent until the end of the year.
Council Member Scharff also wanted to see some possible alternative ideas in
the event that further cuts were needed midyear.
Council Member Shepherd thought Council’s direction was for equity between
all the units but this one still stood out. She noted the importance of looking at
the structural changes.
2. City Attorney’s Office
Christine Paras, Acting Budget Manager, presented the City Attorney Budget for
Fiscal Year 2012 including City wide changes including revenue at $65,031,
decreases in overhead of $393,519 and expenses decreasing at $10,496. The
0.6 FTE position was eliminated at $67,871.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about additional revenue outside Counsel Services.
Don Larkin Assistant City Attorney did not expect any revenue.
Mr. Keene stated there had always been a target budget for outside Counsel.
Last year, the City Attorney reduced the amount of funding they would have,
even though Council realized if they needed more, they would have to spend it.
9 FIN110503
Vice Mayor Yeh stated with the FTE changes, the claims investigator was gone
but the workload had been assumed by an existing employee.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, agreed. Claims were filed against the City every
day; the Staff duties to process them were consolidated with another
employee.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated they saved $28,000 for that position which was not a
large sum.
Ms. Stump stated she was just starting out in her position and needed to look
at the office programmatically in how it was structured in a comprehensive
manner before she made recommendations for adjustments. However, small
funds were set aside for adjustments midyear with Council’s approval.
Mr. Larkin showed a graph of the trends for outsourcing litigation and the
significant decrease in funds for this. They had not eliminated this fund,
although it was not used last year. The funds remained with the hope that they
would be available for any midyear gap budget needs.
Council Member Schmid stated there were staffing discrepancies between the
organizational chart and the table of organization.
Mr. Larkin stated the reason for this was because the positions were shown in
one place and also listed in another place where they were actually funded.
Council Member Schmid also asked what the criteria were for listing employees
as “senior”.
Mr. Keene stated he did not have a comprehensive answer beyond the
Attorney’s office for this classification.
Mr. Perez stated it reflected the level of the job duties. There have been
requests from Council to reclassify these positions when there has been an
elevation of their duties and responsibilities.
Ms. Stump stated in the City Attorney’s Office it was usually based on years of
service.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd, that the Finance Committee tentatively approves the City Attorney
Budget.
10 FIN110503
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
3. City Auditor’s Office
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, gave the presentation for the City
Auditor’s Budget. Citywide changes included $39,000 increases; revenue
decreases $204,000, expense decreases of $16,000.
Vice Mayor Yeh questioned if this was related to the Enterprise Fund Auditor.
In the event that technical expertise was necessary, he asked if there was
budget available.
Ian Hagerman, Sr. Performance Auditor stated there were no funds set aside
for that but there was $6,000 available.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if the information might be in the SEA report and if there
was any room in the Budget for this.
Mr. Hagerman stated the increase was to capture the geographical comparisons
and some of the other enhancements that they have made in the last few
years.
Council Member Schmid knew that Policy & Services was looking at a hotline
addition to the Auditor’s Office. He asked if this was in the net budget or if
there was further impact to this addition.
Mr. Hagerman stated a third party vendor would administer the hotline.
Current staffing would increase. The cost would be less than $10,000. These
costs were not in the proposal, but they were coming to Council in June with
more on this. It came at modest cost, however.
Mr. Keene stated it was his recollection that the cost was absorbed by the
Auditor’s Office in some way. Council Member Scharff noted other increases
were in benefits and not salaries.
Mr. Hagerman agreed this was the case.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd,
that the Finance Committee tentatively approves the City Auditor Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0.
4. City Clerk’s Office.
11 FIN110503
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the budget for the City
Clerk’s Office. City wide changes included increases of $48,000 and expense
increases were $338,000, which included some significant election costs for a
refuse issue.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was reviewing the legality of sharing the costs for this
election process.
Ms. Paras noted the remaining cost increases for the department were $35,000
for Agenda publication and $17,000 in decreased costs from contracting for
Minutes.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the election expenses could be split with the Electric
Fund and the Refuse Fund.
Mr. Perez stated, in the past, the Enterprise Fund picked up the cost if it was of
benefit.
Vice Mayor Yeh spoke on the progress of electronic Agendas and the use of
iPads, and asked if this was reflected in the budget.
Donna Grider, City Clerk, stated it was not reflected in the materials. The
Policy & Services Commission was scheduled to review the project in June
2011.
Mr. Keene stated the costs and savings needed to all be considered. The costs
of the iPads were a capital expense and there were also data charges
associated with them. And there would be significant savings in printing costs.
Vice Mayor Yeh agreed that the cost of the iPads should not be in the budget,
and should be borne by the Council Members.
Council Member Schmid expressed concern regarding the decrease in funding
for the contracting of Minutes. He was a strong advocate for the importance of
minutes and their usefulness in public debate.
Ms. Grider stated she agreed but also mentioned that there was an increase in
the number and the length of meetings with tighter turnaround expectations as
well. All of these factor into bottom line.
12 FIN110503
Council Member Shepherd agreed on the importance of Minutes to Council’s
ability to have an informed discussion. She asked what Minutes the City Clerk’s
Office was responsible for.
Ms. Grider gave additional information on the Minutes process at City Hall. Her
Staff prepares minutes for Council and Standing Committees but not for Boards
or Commissions.
Mr. Keene noted there was no consistent approach to the Minutes or a
centralized processing methodology. He noted the importance of being more
explicit when creating the budget for these.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Policy & Services could look at the hierarchy
of Minutes.
Mr. Keene noted Staff could begin work on this if directed to do so.
Council Member Scharff agreed they needed to bring the Minutes issue back to
the Committee with a detailed cost analysis. He noted there was a varying
quality to the Minutes and agreed Policy & Services should look into the
process. He agreed with Vice Mayor Yeh that the Council Members should pay
for iPads, but it would be understandable for the City to pay for the data plan.
He expressed concern about charging the Refuse and Electric Funds for the
election costs. He said it was a citizen initiative and was not for the benefit of a
specific utility.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that
the Finance Committee request staff detail the costs of Meeting Minutes and
return to the Finance Committee at the Budget Wrap Up meeting on this and
tentatively approve the City Clerk’s Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
5. City Council’s Budget
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the City Council Budget.
City wide changes showed an increase of $23,000, a decrease in revenue of
$105,000, and an increase in $30,000 of contracted services.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked where the Contingency Fund was housed.
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director, stated this was under non-
Departmental and the amount was $250,000. The Human Services Resource
13 FIN110503
Allocation Process (HSRAP) administrative costs were the only identified costs
at this point.
Council Member Shepherd asked what HSRAP had to do with this $250,000.
Mr. Perez stated during the HSRAP discussions there was $24-27,000 in
administrative costs that the Finance Committee moved to not reduce. There
was the recommendation to consider using the Council Contingency but Staff
had not made such a recommendation in this proposed budget.
Council Member Schmid stated that revenues had fallen. He did not recall
where any revenues might have come in.
Ms. Paras stated revenues were related to administrative overhead charges.
Council Member Shepherd recognized the fact that Council was getting a raise
from benefits, though they do not get a pension.
Mr. Perez stated they pay into the system. Whether they vest is a separate
issue. If they do not vest, then the amounts are given directly to the
individual.
Council Member Scharff noted they actually made money for the City as Council
Members.
Mr. Perez stated they will return with more information on this.
Mr. Keene stated the allocation model changed each year.
Council Member Scharff agreed that the allocations change and made it difficult
to understand.
Mr. Perez stated it should not change that drastically for Council, but he did see
it change more in other departments with the priorities going forward.
Council Member Scharff spoke regarding salaries and benefits. He asked for
some clarification of the salary and benefits numbers as they were listed.
Mr. Perez stated it was $28,000 for pension and healthcare and $65,000 for
salaries.
14 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff stated it was just quoted in the paper as $12,000 per
Council Member so it couldn’t be $28,000 in healthcare benefits for all of
Council.
Mr. Perez stated he would check on all of these numbers and get back to the
Committee.
Council Member Shepherd stated in FY 2010 it was $193,000 and asked how it
changed so much.
Mr. Perez stated they recognized they were adding retiree medical costs.
Council Member Shepherd clarified this as they were doing lifetime medical for
those Council Members who had exited.
Mr. Perez stated this was correct.
Council Member Scharff stated they have Council Members who receive lifetime
health insurance and pension benefits. He asked where that is accounted for in
the City Budget.
Mr. Perez stated they were listed by department and are listed under salary and
benefits, specifically under benefits.
Mr. Keene said it was under the ARC distribution. He stated the only thing in
the ARC was the unfunded liability. The actual costs were paid out of the
CalPERS system, and the City made the payments on an annual basis.
Vice Mayor Yeh wanted to also be clear on where these retiree funds show up
on the budget materials.
Mr. Perez stated they were not in the Council Budget materials but in other
departments.
Mr. Keene noted the estimated annual contribution to the fund and the
unfunded liability for retiree medical healthcare was distributed and allocated.
The aggregated charges for any given year was not in the City Council Budget.
The funding costs for the employees today were in the budget.
Council Member Schmid asked where this shows up then as an expenditure
item.
15 FIN110503
Mr. Perez stated the complete ARC was distributed through the other
departments.
Mr. Keene stated 800 employees have retired throughout the City.
Mr. Perez stated it began in General Benefits and then allocated out to the
various departments.
Council Member Schmid noted every dime in General Benefits went to one of
the departments so City Council was allocated in there somewhere as well.
Council Member Scharff asked which department bears the burden of funding
the City Council in this allocation scheme.
Mr. Perez stated it was based on a formula, on an FTE basis.
Council Member Scharff stated it was not a transparent way to do this.
Mr. Keene said they could look at it further. He stated the budget was a plan, a
picture of what the costs were.
Council Member Scharff was not sure he could support the Council Budget on a
tentative basis if he could not reconcile the numbers.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would bring back more information on this.
Council Member Schmid stated it was important to allocate it correctly and also
to establish a formula.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to
direct Staff to return to the Finance Committee with the actual salaries and
benefits dollar amounts at a future meeting.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
6. City Manager’s Office
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the City Manager’s Office
Budget. The City Wide Changes included $48,000 with $41,000 attributed to
personnel benefit costs increases. Administrative overhead charges increased
by $116,000. There was a decrease in the department of $12,000 for supplies
and general expense. There was a change in FTEs in department for a total
increase of $51,000. There were also changes in administrative support at
16 FIN110503
$13,000 with reallocation and reclassification of positions and employee
additions. There was a proposed Amendment to the Budget to move the
Economic Development Division to the City Manager’s Office, which brought
with it no budget impacts.
Council Member Schmid asked where Economic Development Office currently
sat. He hoped it moved with the notion that it was not a business development
plan but also that it could increase the City’s base revenue in property tax. He
also noted that the City Manager’s Office would be working on the
Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Housing Update this year as well as actively
participating in the Regional Housing Needs Application process.
Mr. Keene stated the department was currently in the Planning Department.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the FTE changes affected administrative support. He
asked what kind of assessment they used to determine the need for changing
this from one level to a higher level.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager, stated they wanted to transfer some of
their more administrative clerical tasks to the management analyst.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that went from a halftime to three-quarters position
and therefore a lower benefits load.
Ms. Antil stated they always had a fulltime person, so now they were going to
share an Administrative Associate with the Planning Department with partial
benefits.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what impact the Economic Development Division’s shift
had on administrative support in Planning.
Mr. Keene stated that bringing in the professional Staff person put some
demand on the Support Staff.
Mr. Perez stated the determination was that it would improve customer service.
Council Member Shepherd asked for further clarification on why they moved
Economic Development.
Mr. Keene stated the City Manager’s Office has the job to support every
department. Everything is associated with the City Manager’s office. It is not
separate from the City as a whole. When launching a new program they might
17 FIN110503
pull it into the City Manager’s Office to be able to give it a broader base to
connect to other areas.
Council Member Scharff agreed this was a good move to get it out of planning
and put it in the City Manager’s Office. He also asked if they were still hoping
to hire an Assistant to the City Manager.
Mr. Keene stated they were still in this process but had not done so as of yet.
He noted there was still a need for this position to support the nine council
members. The office supported the constantly changing flux of issues and
needed the extra support.
Ms. Antil stated once the City Manager had that support other Staff could return
to their areas of expertise as they had been helping out until this person was
hired.
Council Member Scharff asked if they had thought about moving to an
Enterprise Fund for the Development Center.
Mr. Keene stated there had been some discussion about this in the past. He
recalled that Council had concerns about it.
Council Member Scharff stated he remembered the discussion as well and
thought it was a good idea to move in that direction.
Council Member Schmid stated people would not likely want to pay fees to get
information.
Mr. Keene noted there was nothing to preclude in a Special Fund, or an
Enterprise Fund, to subsidize a portion of the operations.
Council Member Scharff stated if neighbors came in to inquire on a project, he
did not see a fee being charged. Typically, an Enterprise Fund gave them more
flexibility. He discussed the City basically had full recovery on fees. The reason
he wanted an Enterprise Fund was that they lost revenue and subsequent
services.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approves the City Manager Budget
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
7. Human Resources Department Budget
18 FIN110503
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, presented the Human Resources
Department budget. The City Wide Changes totaled $108,000, the
administrative overhead charges increased by $231,000 with one-time expense
decreases of $17,000.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if HR had done any long-term planning for the retiring
baby boomers and what that meant for not only retirement but gaps in
employment.
Sandra Blanch, Interim Human Resources Director, stated Staff had not
completed a big picture analysis but have reviewed employees who are eligible
to retire over the next five years in order to anticipate retirement possibilities.
They had 75 retirements, this fiscal year, which provided restructuring
opportunities.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he would like more information on the outlook of retirees
as well as how they expected to fill the open positions.
Ms. Blanch stated she was very interested in this and working with local
agencies on strategic measures and outlooks.
Mr. Keene noted there was a triage environment for Human Resources right
now with the complexity of labor negotiations. There was the advice and
processing to be done with the logistics when one considers the number of
people leaving and coming into the City’s workforce. He stated there is a lot of
head-down work that has to be done, although they do recognize how
important it is to look forward. They do plan to be more aggressive in filling
positions in this year’s budget process.
Council Member Schmid noted that they have cut back on Risk Management,
Safety, and Worker’s Compensation while increasing in Administration,
Employee and Organizational Development, and HR Systems.
Ms. Blanch stated they have had to redistribute workloads. Support Staff
working in Risk Management will now be supporting employee development and
Benefits.
Council Member Schmid asked if this was a permanent change or temporary.
Ms. Blanch stated this was support work and likely would be temporary.
19 FIN110503
Council Member Shepherd hoped HR would return with more information on
retention and promotion as they begin to fill in spots. She noted the
community was sensitive to saving services strategically from within.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Human Resources Budget and
request Staff return to the Finance Committee with a report about the vacancy
gaps.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
8. Library Department Budget
Christine Paras, Interim Budget Manager, introduced the Library Department
Budget. The City Wide Changes totaled $250,000 in increases. Revenues
decreased by $29,000. The department decreased expenses by $12,115. The
department increased the salary and benefit budget by $53,752.
Council Member Shepherd stated there were some bond-related salary
expenses. She did not see these in the materials. She thought it was costing
them time to work on the library bond, and that this could come out of bond
dollars. She thought they had looked at this.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez stated he knew that the Library
Staff were tracking their time spent on library remodeling. The Finance
Committee could recommend to Council that this be funded with the bond
proceeds.
Mr. Keene stated Council had discussed this before. There were no legal
restrictions on this.
Mr. Perez stated they were seeing some savings in construction costs versus
engineering estimates. This would allow the City to absorb these additional
costs in the bond without issuing more debt. He clarified that bond funds can be
used for project management, engineering, etc., but not for operating
expenses.
Council Member Shepherd asked if we were jeopardizing library hours by
spending time on project management.
Ned Himmel, Interim Library Director, stated they would need to return to
Council when the downtown library opened on July 16th. They were not putting
20 FIN110503
in for an increase in hours, just a movement of Staff between College Terrace
and Downtown.
Council Member Schmid stated it was never too early to start thinking about
libraries and man power, as well as other ways to extend hours with fewer
services or different forms of staffing.
Council Member Scharff stated the more hours the better and agreed they
should look at flexibility in services and staffing. On the bond issue, he asked
when they had people working on the library bond work and what could be
allocated towards the bond, how much time was spent by the actual librarians.
Mr. Himmel stated a team works on it, mainly Public Works. He was there as
well as other staff as they plan furniture, uses and other practical building
logistics. The librarian comes in there as well. In San Jose they had a library
team and a Public Works team, both of whom were paid for by the bond. He
estimated at least 15% of his time is taken up by bond projects.
Council Member Scharff stated if some of that was their time, and the City paid
for that, then they could get money back from the bond funds, which would go
into the General Fund.
Mr. Keene stated they cannot directly use bond dollars on Operations, but they
could have bond monies allocated in different ways.
Council Member Scharff asked if library hours have been affected by managing
this process.
Mr. Himmel stated the hours have not been affected by this. Some of the
programs and some of the offerings have curtailed because of the amount of
time spent on the project.
Mr. Keene noted that these would be entirely new revenues going to new
things. There could be an argument to not make the charge even though it
was legal. It does free up funding that could be used for other projects. This
was going to be for an abbreviated period of time because they will be done
with the projects. Council Member Scharff agreed that was good point, in that
they could not add Staff, because they could not use a short-term revenue
spike to fund a long-term new position.
Mr. Keene agreed, stating that was a practical policy.
21 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff stated there were good arguments for not charging the
bond for financing. He stated borrowing short-term against the future would be
unwise. He stated they may need to take a vote on whether they should come
back on the issue. He noted he probably would not support it.
Vice Mayor Yeh said that when Council discussed the bond amount they had
also discussed building in a reimbursement for Staff costs for bond
management. What came through was that bids were lower than they
anticipated. He stated it did not necessarily have to go to personnel costs.
They could also use it for one-time purchase of books.
Mr. Keene stated if they went that route they would work it through the
appropriate review and bond oversight committees.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he agreed on the policy side of the issue in that short-
term funding should not go towards long-term costs. He spoke to library hour
flexibility. He saw a shift to hourly for staffing the downtown library. He saw
one fulltime Librarian frozen and how this impacted the reference library. He
was concerned about the interlibrary loan decreases as well.
Mr. Himmel stated delivery of materials from one library to another was not
affected by the drop of the interlibrary loan function. It was dropped because
of the approval of LinkPlus, which makes the interlibrary loan no longer
necessary. He spoke to the need of the Librarian not being as high until the
Main Library opens.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for further clarification of hourly versus FTE employees.
Mr. Himmel stated they did not want to depend on hourly for everything and
they needed the continuity of regular FTE and part-time employees as well.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if a greater level of service was defined as more hours.
Mr. Himmel stated that increasing the hours of the libraries did not necessarily
increase the use of the libraries. (for example: library used to be open on
Friday nights, but didn’t get many patrons.)
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the larger libraries will open up in the next fiscal years.
This was the bridge year for the analysis and community surveying for the
wants of residents and what they would like when it came to hours, staffing and
services.
Mr. Himmel agreed they needed further analyses of hours and staffing.
22 FIN110503
Council Member Scharff asked if they were able to do the pilot programs and
analyses.
Mr. Himmel stated they would be able to do some of analyses, but studying the
hours would be difficult and would not know if the needs of the public was
being fulfilled until after our construction is completed and all libraries are
functioning.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approves the Library
Department Budget.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that
the Finance Committee direct Staff to return to the Finance Committee with a
report on using the Library bond proceeds to reimburse project management
costs to the General Fund.
Council Member Shepherd stressed the importance of the City’s goals and that
the library was one of these goals and priorities.
Council Member Schmid agreed with Council Member Scharff that these were
not free funds and they were essentially asking the homeowners to fund this.
He stressed there was a reason why bond funds were meant to be spent on
capital improvments, so he was hesitant to ask homeowners for funding.
MOTION FAILED: 2-2 Scharff, Schmid no
Mr. Perez reviewed the upcoming item: May 5th- Police Department and the
Fire Department, May 12th- Community Services Department and Planning. He
stated they could break what was left of the Agenda over the next upcoming
meeting since they have that extra hour, and Mr. Perez stated he would book
the Technology Fund as well.
9. Administrative Services Department Budget (Continued to May 5, 2011)
i. Technology Fund
ii. Printing and Mailing Fund
iii. General Benefits and Insurance Fund
23 FIN110503
iv. Retiree Health Fund
10. City Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2011 (Moved to
Agenda Item A)
Future Meetings and Agendas
Lalo Perez, Director Administrative Services reviewed the Finance Budget
Committee hearings Schedule. May 25th had a room conflict and may have to
be in the City Council Conference Room.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.
1 FIN110505
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 5, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh (arrived at 7:41 p.m.)
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Fire Department Budget
Chair Scharff said discussions would begin with the Fire Department’s budget
and Police Department’s budget to follow.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez gave a recap of the prior meeting
No changes were made to the Council’s contingency, and no changes to the
bottom-line of the General Fund Budget at this point. Staff still owed the
Committee the Council Budget and would be agendized to come back to the
Committee with explanations and changes.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a Power Point presentation of the
Fire Department’s Budget. Citywide changes consisted of personnel benefit
costs and increases in allocated charges of $559,000. Revenue increase was
$746,000 from Stanford Fire Services reimbursement and $232,000 in plan
check fees. The department’s expense increase was $1.3 million. There was an
increase in overtime salaries of $1.2 million, State Emergency $4,000 in the
Medical Technician Certifications fee, and $1,589 in Direct Utility charges. The
2 FIN110505
department’s full-time employee (FTE) change was $127,483 in one-time
expenses. The OES Coordinator and the Deputy Fire Chief position were backfill
positions filled with hourly employees.
Council Member Shepherd said she struggled with the numbers and asked Ms.
Paras to help her get a better understanding on how the numbers totaled.
Ms. Paras said the slides summarized some of the changes on the resources
change table. Council Member Shepherd clarified she was having difficulty
following the breakout on the dollar amounts.
City Manager, James Keene said he would help and walked her through reading
line items in salaries and benefits.
Council Member Shepherd said it would be helpful to have an additional line to
see where the heavy load changes were or an extra column for the overall
breakouts on pages 126 and 127.
Mr. Perez said the document was a living document. The majority of what was
seen on the resource level came as a Council directive and the information could
have been presented in different format.
Council Member Shepherd said the numbers should tell a story on how the City
does business and how funds were managed. It was difficult to focus on figures
and numbers when they needed to be patched together to make sense. She
needed an explanation on what resources level notes meant when they stated
“adjustment include one-time appropriation changes from the prior year that did
not carry forward”.
Ms. Paras said the note represented mid-year adjustments that were one-time
in nature and not included in the department’s base and subtracted in order to
get the table to reconcile to the net changes. They were adjustments that could
be tied back to a Budget Adjustment Ordinance (BAO).
Council Member Shepherd said the budget was being prepared for 2012 and
asked how the corrections affected the budget.
Mr. Perez said the language was misleading and sounds like corrections. He
said what was being done was comparing the adjusted 2011 budget to the
proposed FY 2012. Changes are made to the 2011 Adopted Budget throughout
the year or at mid- year and needed to reflect the changes for the departments.
Numbers were not plugged in but were changes during mid-year or in budget
amendments. They were one-time in nature for 2011.
3 FIN110505
Council Member Shepherd said she was still having difficulty in totaling the
numbers and needed further assistance at a later time.
Mr. Perez said the confusion might be on how changes were being titled.
Mr. Keene said the budget format had been the same for many years and there
was room for improvement.
Council Member Schmid said when the City Manager presented the budget he
said Staff was looking for $ 4 million from Fire to balance the budget. He said
page 31 showed the long-term trends and expenditures and was clear that the
Public Safety had taken an increased portion of the salary and benefit part of
the total expenditures from the General Fund Budget. It was important to
understand the critical issues. He said on page 37 there were average salaries
and benefits listed and in the first line noted fulltime equivalents that were listed
for the Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA). He assumed they were
uniformed personnel.
Mr. Perez said he believed they were sworn-personnel.
Council Member Schmid went over the numbers and data for fire, emergency,
violent crimes and staffing issues for PAPOA.
Mr. Perez agreed there were rules which drive the staffing numbers.
Mr. Keene stated it was appropriate to discuss and ask questions on these
staffing issues, but may need to bring back more information. He said Police
and Fire calls were different and needed to understand that Stanford pieced into
the equation. He said the budget was not a financial plan but a program and
service plan for the City. It was appropriate for the Committee to ask
programmatic and service questions as part of the study.
Council Member Schmid said there were discussions regarding sharing the
emergency response system and noted equipment needed to be available for
emergencies. He asked if they had information on what neighboring fire
departments were doing as far as shared services.
Mr. Keene said he had seen this earlier about the paradox in California in having
the most innovative and forward business practices and one of the most public
and convoluted public sectors. He said it was necessary to move forward and
rethink past practices as well.
Council Member Schmid asked if there was anything that could happen in this
4 FIN110505
budget year that would have some impact on the 2012 budget.
Mr. Perez said the City Management Staff was working with Fire to see what
they could implement and something in the works as far as cross-staffing a
rescue unit and could possibly come forward this year with savings of $300-
400,000 but was not in the budget.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on page 121 of the report on
emergency preparedness and the non-departmental budget.
Mr. Perez stated there was a million dollars set aside under non-departmental
which was not in Police or Fire and recommendations would be included in the
wrap-up.
Council Member Schmid noted the funds were in addition to the department’s
budget.
Mr. Keene said the best way to look at this was that the existing emergency
OES function had resided in the Fire Department with some allocated to Police.
The existing Fire Department had some positions in funding carry forward from
this practice embedded in their budget. They added additional funding in this
non-departmental area and would be discussed during wrap-up.
Council Member Schmid said it was mentioned on page 123 that there would be
a burn at Foothills Park and asked if this was in the budget.
Acting Fire Chief, Dennis Burns stated the burn was in the current budget.
Council Member Schmid asked if the FY 2012 proposed budget included the
expected outcome of negotiations and the $4 million.
Mr. Perez stated this was not in the Fire Department or in the Police
Department. There was no reduction in the budget for the concessions that
they planned for in terms of balancing the budget. They were non-
departmental at this point and a placeholder.
Council Member Schmid asked if the budget was tentatively approved would
they be approving a budget that was $4 million out of line.
Mr. Perez stated it was out of line for the department but not for the General
Fund because there was an offset in the non-departmental.
Mr. Keene stated the budget was a plan of what was possible over the course of
5 FIN110505
the coming year. It had to be balanced in order for adoption but was dynamic
and changing.
Council Member Schmid asked if they could put in a formal request to put non-
departmental budget discussions on their schedule.
Mr. Perez said it would be included in the wrap-up.
Mr. Keene stated that the Committee had previously asked them to identify
actual expenditure reductions in Police and Fire and the possibility of discussing
this further.
Council Member Schmid asked when this would be available.
Mr. Keene stated in a few weeks, but he deferred to Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez stated it would certainly be prior to wrap-up.
Council Member Schmid noted this would either be May 24th or May 25th.
Mr. Perez stated it needed to be before them prior to those dates and looking at
May 12th or 17th.
Chair Scharff said he was confused by the non-departmental budget figures. He
asked if they had $4 million dollars previously lying around or if this was an
accounting gimmick. He was very confused as to what they meant by non-
departmental budget and placeholder. He said the requirement was to have a
balanced budget and how did that work.
Mr. Perez noted it went back to the fact that you make certain assumptions and
recommendations. There would be concessions totaling in the $4.3 million
range.
Mr. Keene stated the $4.3 million was planned for money. The non-
departmental portion of the General Fund Budget existed for many reasons.
They could have a revenue or expenditure because it was not allocated
specifically at the moment, but it was an expenditure made or allocated later in
the year. What was being proposed was not ordinary for this year. There were
options if it was not approved by the Council. They could look for more
revenues and reduce spending by $4.3 rather than making cuts that would
affect Police, Fire and Public Safety.
Chair Scharff agreed innovation was important and he saw no need to cut
6 FIN110505
services. He repeated that Fire had not stepped up in the budget process as
much as Police had, and that the concessions and arbitration piece played a role
in future discussions. He spoke about outsourcing. He asked for information on
the Building Inspection process and staffing.
Mr. Burns noted there were currently five people in Environmental Safety
Management and gave an overview of the employees and their duties.
Mr. Perez discussed the revenues for the inspections pieces of Environmental
Safety Management.
Chair Scharff asked how they were going to close the gap if they could not
agree on minimum staffing or wages and benefits. He wondered if they had
other ideas on how to close the gap. Specifically, they cannot lay off personnel,
and was an overtime issue. If they had to reduce money out of Fire, how could
they do that without cutting services. He said if monies needed to be reduced in
Fire how could that be done without cutting services and again mentioned
outsourcing.
Acting Deputy Chief Catherine Capriles, stated they have been brainstorming
and proposed some cross-staffing to help with overtime. She gave an overview
of the difficulties in understanding the flow of employees
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the training and personnel issues.
Ms. Capriles stated the training position consisted of her, training captains and
line personnel. The truck company was the training company, but they also
responded to calls. Line personnel were doing double-duty.
Chair Scharff talking about whether or not they should have a Public Safety
Directory or hire a Fire Chief.
Mr. Keene stated they were still evaluating this. For the long-term, the
efficiencies in support and administrative backbone were worthwhile and the
ultimate long-term location of the Police and Fire in a Public Safety Building
made sense in the long-run for emergency and disaster preparedness.
Chair Scharff asked if there would be less people in management between the
two groups.
Mr. Keene said it was not clear if this was the case or not. In the short-term he
noted setting up a merger of departments would be a manager-intensive
process, where they likely would not make initial cuts. He further discussed
how the future goal would have cross-departmental and department head
7 FIN110505
communications rather than the separate Police and Fire departments.
Council Member Schmid stated the timing was important on their settlement
process when it came to funding issues. He stated there may be incentives to
postpone and how that could be offset.
Mr. Keene agreed this was a good point.
Council Member Shepherd spoke to page 127 and the notes at the end
regarding the additional funds the Fire department needed to align their
budgeted actual costs. She asked if the department was still coming up short.
Ms. Paras stated the increase in overtime on page 126 of $1.2 million dollars
represented the overtime increases to their base budget. The reason it was
shown as 0.6 million as a reconciled item was that the table needed to tie the
adjusted budget to the proposed budget numbers.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the reduction in contract
services on page 125 for the adjusted budget versus the proposed budget
numbers. She referred to page 126 and the increase in Fire services for
Stanford and asked for clarification on how they worked out these numbers.
Mr. Perez explained the expenditure increases and how Stanford did
reimbursements and how this was adjusted in the budget. He stated they were
open to walking the Committee through this at a later time if it would help to
clarify things prior to wrap-up.
Council Member Shepherd stated the graph on page 131 was alarming which
showed that Fire costs were going up and raised concerns. She asked if Fire
and Police costs would ever even out.
Mr. Perez stated they would never even out at the same level as other areas
and discussed the drivers for these departments and their cost structures.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff, to
postpone a decision on the Fire Department Budget until some allocation
applied to the safety unit and reduction in expenses and ask Fire to come
back with some proposed cuts. He wanted them to also look at outsourcing.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Mr. Perez said he had the answer for Council Member Shepherd’s question on
contract services. The decreases reflected in 2012 were one-time increases in
8 FIN110505
2011 for studies, which were done on a one-time basis, which accounted for
why they did not appear in 2012.
2. Police Department Budget
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the Police
Department’s Budget. Citywide changes for this department were $1,429,346
and included the increase in personnel benefits and allocated charges. Revenue
decreases for the department fell at $136,142 due to elimination of
reimbursement from Utilities for after hours alarm monitoring and other revenue
charges. There was a revenue increase of $39,000 for Animal Services and
reimbursement from Stanford University for communication services. Expense
decreases totaled $115,900 due to the elimination of parking garage security,
funding added from the Track Watch program and a decrease in supply costs.
There was a $8,780 cost increase for the reclassification of 1.0 Full Time
Employee (FTE) in Animal Services.
Council Member Schmid stated it was nice to see the Violent Crime Index was at
the low. He asked what was happening with Palo Alto Animal Services and the
City of Mountain View.
Police Chief, Dennis Burn, stated Animal Services contract with the City of
Mountain View for their services in 1997. Mountain View had been reviewing
leaving Palo Alto due to costs and facilities. The Animal Services Department
was working with them to maintain the contract.
Council Member Schmid stated the allocated charges were up substantially from
2010 by close to $1 million. He asked what caused the increase.
Mr. Perez stated the costs were related to Information Technology (IT)related
issues and vehicle replacement costs.
Council Member Schmid stated the Police Department provided dispatching
services for the City. He asked whether they received funds from the Fire
Department.
Mr. Perez stated yes, there were cost allocations to the Fire Department, the
Utilities Department, and Stanford.
Mr. Burns clarified the Police Department did not charge the Fire Department for
dispatching.
Council Member Schmid asked why the IT Department was charging $1 million
9 FIN110505
to the Police Department.
Mr. Perez stated the $1 million was not solely for the IT services. Staff would
return to the Committee with a complete breakout of the charges.
Chair Scharff asked why Fire is not being charged for this.
Chair Scharff asked why the charges were not allocated in that manner.
Mr. Burns stated he was uncertain.
Mr. Perez stated his understanding was the Fire Department was being charged;
therefore he would research the history and return to the Committee with an
accurate response.
Council Member Schmid asked what happened to the citizen complaints or input
that comes through the Police Department.
Mr. Burns stated the information was classified in a variety of ways. The calls
were categorized as solvable by a conversation with an officer, there was an
informal inquiry report which went into an officer’s personnel file, and the most
formal process was a citizen’s complaint with a full investigation.
Council Member Schmid asked how many minor complaints were received.
Mr. Burns stated the Police Department received 20 to 25 information inquiries
annually.
Mr. Burns stated he did not believe the office time was tracked in that manner.
Council member Schmid asked where the personnel time would appear in the
budget.
Mr. Burns stated a specific location or call for service was tracked clearly.
Council Member Shepherd asked why the Traffic Watch contract was showing
$37,000 and not the full $70,000.
Mr. Burns stated over the past two years they had received consistent donations
although they had dwindled this year.
Council Member Shepherd asked why the amount of $14,000 went to $84,000
under General Expense.
10 FIN110505
Mr. Burns stated they anticipated retirements which led to recruiting costs.
There was an expense associated with the academy, outfitting, and testing.
Acting Assistant Police Chief, Mark Venable stated a portion of the funds were
moved to another account to reflect changes in tax reporting requirements.
Chair Scharff asked if there needed to be budgetary cuts, where did the Chief
see those coming from.
Mr. Burns stated the Staff had been reviewing the structure of the department
to determine where there could be further cuts without compromising the safety
and well being of the community. The restructuring would include cuts at both
the officer and management levels. He noted Dispatch and the front office
support had been reduced by 40 percent and there was no room for further
cuts.
Chair Scharff asked if the Police Department received State funds for
participating in State programs such as the Santa Clara County Avoid the 13
Holiday Campaign and the Click-it-or-Tick-it Campaign.
Mr. Burns stated yes, the funds covered the overtime costs.
Chair Scharff understood it was difficult to cut traffic safety, cross guards,
detectives and other various services. He stated if there was a way to maintain
the same level of service while managing the budget he would consider it.
Council Member Shepherd asked how other municipalities managed their
crossing guards.
Mr. Burns stated in many cases the Police Department or the City paid the costs
and there were areas where the School Districts and the City shared the costs.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the City had discussion with the Palo
Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) with respect to sharing the costs for
crossing guards.
Mr. Burns stated there had been discussion and the PAUSD was not interested
in a shared cost at the time.
Council Member Yeh asked what the budget impacts would be to the contract
expenses for the parking garage security and with the possibility of the contract
going away or being minimized, would Staff backfill the security.
11 FIN110505
Mr. Venable stated they were able to retain the two officers’ in the downtown
parking area. This was a program they hoped to continue and were receiving
partial reimbursement from the parking permits program.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated although the cost to the City would increase, the benefits
of the increase in the service level to the business district were factored into the
decision to shift to this particular model.
Council Member Scharff stated he had heard from the downtown business
merchants that this had been a shining success.
Vice Mayor Yeh hoped the process in labor negotiations proceeded smoothly and
there were no proposed cuts for school resource officers. He thanked the Police
Department for their thoughtful budget.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Police Department Budget.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Shepherd moved to have Staff return with a
budgeted amount during the Non-Departmental budget night.
Chair Scharff stated he was not opposed to the Amendment, although he felt
there was a strong difference between Police and Fire. His inclination was to
approve the Police budget with the optimistic belief that it would be a
collaborative process in working with the City.
Council Member Shepherd withdrew her Amendment.
Council Member Schmid stated his understood was Staff would return with a list
of the Public Safety issues at an upcoming meeting.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez stated that was correct.
Mr. Keene stated any cuts in Fire and Police would have impacts on public
safety.
Chair Scharff noted the Policy & Services Committee was looking at the Binding
Arbitration issues at an upcoming meeting.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
3. Technology Fund
12 FIN110505
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated in discussions
with the Council and the City Manager he felt strategically there was a clearer
direction with the Information Technology (IT) Division be separated from the
Administrative Services Department. He requested the IT Division be placed
under the City Manager.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the Information
Technology (IT) Division including Citywide Changes of personnel benefits cost
increases totaling $361,000 and administrative costs increases totaling $82,000.
Revenue for the Division had a net increase of $154,000 with an increase of IT
support revenue of $839,000 and a decrease in operating transfers from Utilities
Funds $739,000. Full Time Employee (FTE) changes totaled $478,000 resulting
from a correction to the base salary of $327,972, there was a title change and a
compensation adjustment for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) which the net
salary and benefit change was $49,000. There was a reclassification totaling
$22,000 which included salary and benefits and an increase temporary salaries
totaling $79,000 due to the 3 current vacancies.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked to have the base salary for the CIO and the
reclassification to the Administrative position clarified.
Mr. Perez stated when the original salaries were created there was a cost center
inadvertently omitted which had 3 positions. There was not a new expenditure
but rather an omission in 2011 which was being corrected in 2012. He stated
the change in compensation for the CIO was based on a comparison of other
department heads and the goal to align the salary and benefits within the same
range. He clarified the administrative position was being elevated in job
description and responsibility due to the need for supporting a department
head.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the City’s internet
connection services.
Mr. Perez stated there were discussions between the current Internet Service
Provider (ISP) and the City to continue the services. He noted the end result
was to have a formal agreement in place. The current ISP was with a non-profit
organization although they had informed the City internet service was not their
core function. He stated within the discussions there will be costs associated
with the services they were providing and if the costs were higher than expected
Staff would go out for a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Council Member Shepherd asked if there were other agreements within the City
13 FIN110505
that were currently non-contracted that Council should be aware of.
Mr. Perez stated at the present time he was unaware of further agreements in
place.
Councilmember Shepherd asked for clarification on the proposal to develop a
citywide wireless service plan.
City Manager, James Keene stated there had been consultants working with the
Fiber Fund Staff on the overall broadband initiative. He noted there were three
main components; 1) the conversion of cell towers around the City, 2) was
there a link from item 1 to the City’s plan on extending nodes for fiber, and 3)
closing the last mile to the premise through fiber was challenging. He stated he
planned to return to Council within the next 6 months for a detailed discussion.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the new Department of Technology would be
exclusively for the service of City Hall or will it expand into some of the fiber to
the premises and other areas of this type of expertise.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had learned there was a benefit to having central
governance. The vision was that wireless could be a central governance led by
the City Manager.
Mr. Keene stated the need to elevate IT to a departmental status was central for
the City to be able to focus on the range of items needing to be completed.
Council Member Schmid stated his hopes for the type of person being recruited
for the IT Department Director was a person whose ideas were how things could
be changed to better the functions of the City.
Chair Scharff asked if there was a program in place or would there be where the
City would share the cost of upgrading or exchanging a PC to a Mac. He wanted
to ensure the technology expansions came with productivity gains.
Mr. Keene stated technology was the tool and not an answer. He stated he
agreed the City needed to be clear on what they wanted to achieve so they
could create the tools needed.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Technology
Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
14 FIN110505
4. Administrative Services Department Budget.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the
Administrative Services Department Budget. She stated the citywide changes
totaling $204,000 from personnel benefits cost increases. Revenue in the
Division was comprised of administrative overhead charges which increased
$440,000, the Full Time Employee (FTE) changes were $17,700 with .2 FTE
added. The Division reduced $39,000 in temporary salaries in the Revenue
Collections Division and reduced overtime by $2,000. She stated in the
Administration Division there was a net increase of $37,000 which was to
reclass the Deputy Director to Assistant Director, the addition of a .1 FTE for a
Senior Analyst position. The Budget Division proposed elevating the Budget
Manager position to a Chief Budget Officer with a net increase I salary and
benefits of $19,000, reclassifying a Senior Financial Analyst to a Budget Officer
with a net increase of $13,000, and the Graphics Designer position was
removed and replaced with an Administrative Associate III.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated once the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC)
completed its work, he asked how the role of the Administrative Services
Department (ASD) would be changed.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated he saw ASD
as having a pivotal role in the infrastructure. He clarified one of the models
being reviewed by the IBRC was similar to the Long-Range Financial Forecast
although with a view that assisted the community in being able to see the
infrastructure from the citizens point of view. ASD touched upon every item that
came through the City that had a financial impact.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated in addition to the shift in structure of ASD he asked
whether there would be more analysis being performed and whether Council
would have a different interaction with the Department.
Mr. Perez stated part of the vision seen by the City Manager was that ASD
would have a different reporting structure for budget and we have to determine
how the community will be a part of that.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated from the Council perspective additional data would enable
the difficult policy decisions. He asked what it meant for SAP to have public
interfacing and as for Accounts Receivable was there going to be automated
payments.
Mr. Perez stated in terms of the collection system, it was internal although Staff
15 FIN110505
was working with SAP and certified partners of SAP to see what else the City
could do with mobile device functionality. He had concerns with the backroom
support structure. He noted if there was a person with a need and Staff was not
able to respond or was overwhelmed with other requests, the challenge is
reduced staffing levels when higher levels were needed for that type of service.
Council Member Schmid asked for names of key persons and their titles on the
organizational chart so he could see how the restructure was going to play out.
Mr. Perez stated David Ramberg and Joe Saccio were his Assistant Directors and
he reiterated he could not run ASD without their assistance. The Accounting
Manager was a critical position to the Department which was currently vacant
although being recruited for and the Chief Budget Officer was critical for the
entire organization as a whole to guide the City Departments in terms of areas
of review and areas of concern.
Council Member Shepherd asked for an update on the Roth Building, Sea Scouts
Building, and the College Terrace Library.
Mr. Perez stated the Roth Building had delays although there was an architect in
place who had developed plans and it was moving in the right direction.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the City was spending funds on the
building since it hadn’t been leased yet.
Mr. Perez stated there was a prior Council direction authorizing Staff to spend a
certain amount and Staff was maintaining that range.
Councilmember Shepherd asked what development rights were being
transferred with respect to the College Terrace Library.
Mr. Perez stated there were development rights available to the City for sale. He
requested to return to the Committee with more specific details at a later date.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the structure of ASD compared to last
year.
Mr. Perez said the Budget Manager was a reclassification so there was not a
position being added for the Chief Budget Officer.
Chair Scharff asked why the position was being elevated at a cost of $20,000.
16 FIN110505
Mr. Keene stated the position was under classed and under priced for the
market for what was needed to be recruited.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the promotion of the Deputy Director to
Assistant Director and then there was an Accounting Manager position.
Mr. Perez stated the Deputy Director position was a promotion and the
Accounting Manager retired.
Chair Scharff asked if Staff felt there would be more changes to the ASD
structure.
Mr. Perez stated he felt in light of the budget situation he wanted to get a better
feel for the needs of the Department once the restructuring was completed and
there was more focus prior to requesting additional Staff.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Administrative Services
Department budget.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a presentation of the Printing and
Mailing Fund. She stated Citywide Changes totaled $7,868 with an increase in
personnel benefits cost of $20,000 and a decrease in overhead costs of
$12,000. The expense decreased in the Division was minimal in the amount of
$1,500 for uniforms and FTE changes were decreased by $26,000 for hourly
help.
Chair Scharff asked whether the Utility bills being mailed out were a large
portion of the costs.
Mr. Perez stated the Utility billings were a large portion yes, he noted there was
an effort being made toward automation of the bills.
Chair Scharff stated the City already had automation where a citizen could pay
their bills online.
Mr. Perez corrected himself and stated there was automation although not at
the level required.
Chair Scharff asked whether there had been analysis completed to show the
funds spend on sending out paper utility bills, and if there was a financial
17 FIN110505
incentive to the customers who paid their utility bills online.
Council Member Schmid asked if the customer was paying online were the funds
being paid through the City or through their bank.
Mr. Perez stated there were possibly two connections; 1) to the bank to pay the
bill and 2) to the City if the desired a printed copy of the bill. He noted there
were 8 to 10 percent paying their bills online at the present time.
Council Member Schmid asked whether Staff meant there were 8 to 10 percent
paying online in total or directly to the City.
Mr. Perez clarified 8 to 10 percent utilizing the City direct online system not the
total online bill payers.
Chair Scharff noted there was more billing and account information available to
customers online than in the paper bill.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Printing and Mailing Fund and
for Staff to return to Council with a plan towards moving customers off of paper
billings by the next budget season.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would need to review the legal impacts from Proposition
218 prior to moving forward with the requested Motion.
Chair Scharff stated there were possible utilities regulations which stated a
paper bill must still go out.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Perez stated the next discussion was the General Benefit Fund and he noted
there were significant increases with a 16 percent increase or $5.5 million
citywide. The process was to allocate all the costs into the General Benefit
Funds and then allocated it out to departments. The $5.5 million was comprised
of $4.2 million in additional Pension costs and $1.3 in additional Healthcare
costs. He stated the assumptions made for the healthcare was a 10 percent
increase, although Staff would not know what the exact increase will be for the
second half of the fiscal year 2012 until later this year. Staff had concern with
the increase in the pension costs projected by California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS).
Mr. Keene stated for Fiscal Year 2012 the City was paying less than 100 percent
18 FIN110505
of the healthcare costs and employees paying some of the costs. He asked the
amount that would need to be added to the adopted 2012 budget to be at 100
percent. He stated in actuality if the 90/10 program had not been put into place
the 9.8 percent increase for 2012 would have been higher.
Mr. Perez stated the savings was in the $300 thousand to $350 thousand range.
He stated the General Benefit Fund was separated from the Worker’s
Compensation Fund and the General Liability Fund. He stated the 5 year
average for the Workers Compensation payout was approximately a $1.7 million
and the General Liability average payout was $954 thousand for the same 5
year average.
Council Member Shepherd stated in each of the Funds there was a category
“other income” of $3 million. She asked for clarification on what the amount
was.
Mr. Perez stated that amount was the outgoing charges to departments. He
stated Staff would re-title the categories for transparency.
Council Member Shepherd asked where the dollar amount shown for medical
costs in the Long Range Financial Forecast came from.
Mr. Perez stated there was a Council direction to use a 10 percent increase.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff felt the insurance company might
consider bundling the multiple types of insurance the City carried.
Mr. Keene stated he agreed there would be benefit to bundle the items although
he felt it would not be an option.
Council Member Schmid stated the City was offering employees zero percent
salary increases yet increasing the benefit payments by $5.5 million. He
requested Staff provide Council with the CalPERS investment portfolio, a risk
assessment, and review of the 401C3 options.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated he felt separating the Funds was a positive step to be
able to track trends and perform analysis on them individually. He asked in
separating them out what if anything had been noticed that may not have been
while they were combined.
Mr. Perez stated it was too soon to see if there were issues individually but as
the trends were calculated more information would be easier to follow.
19 FIN110505
Council Member Yeh asked what was feasible in terms of retirement options for
the employee participation within the retirement systems.
Mr. Perez stated Palo Alto was a leader in what other municipalities were doing
with retirement and pensions. He stated the City of San Diego gave an incentive
to non safety employees of a 2.5 percent at 65. He stated there were options in
changing the structure and CalPERS was currently working on 3 to choose from.
Staff was bringing the information to Council with the updated actuarial report.
Chair Scharff requested a breakdown of medical, dental and vision costs.
Mr. Perez explained on page 87 of the budget book there was a breakdown of
the costs.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the General Benefit Fund, the
Worker’s Compensation Fund, and the General Liability Fund.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved that Staff will return with
information gathered from CalPERS and other communities around the State
who were taking initiatives.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
The next item is consideration of the Retiree Medical Fund. Mr. Perez stated the
actuarial required contribution was $9.8 million for Fiscal Year 2012. He stated
the revised actuarial study would be completed in the fall of 2011.
Council Member Schmid stated a number of accounting agencies had raised
questions regarding the valuations in the retiree health benefits.
Mr. Perez stated he had not heard those questions; however, valuation
methodologies would be discussed with the actuary in the upcoming review.
Council Member Yeh stated if there were concerns if would be helpful to know if
there was a methodology challenge with the GASB 45, absent that he felt it was
good practice to contribute to the unfunded liability.
Mr. Perez stated the funds which had been placed in the Trust was now positive.
20 FIN110505
Chair Scharff stated the Trust was irrevocable which was of benefit to the
employees. He stated he was uncomfortable with a place holder that is not real
money; although the Trust was an actual location where there could be a place
holder with real funds.
Mr. Perez noted included in the $9.7 million the amount for the current retirees
so therefore once that obligation had been taken care of the remainder of the
funds could be a place holder for the $4.2 million.
Council Member Schmid stated the City is underestimating their obligations to
retirees and he is not in favor of a placeholder because this is something we
have to pay for.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Retiree Health Benefits
Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Perez confirmed the Committee approved the requested additional $50,000
for the Animal Services study which changed the bottom line to an excess
balance of $81,000.
Chair Scharff stated he was uncomfortable with the notion of there being an
$81,000 excess with a $4.3 million deficit.
Mr. Keene agreed and stated it needed to be clear that without concessions
from public safety we can’t have balanced budgets off into the future. He noted
Binding Arbitration restructures the timeline on the decisions Council could
make. He indicated we have to receive these savings from public safety as they
comprise the largest portion of our personnel costs in the General Fund and the
most rapidly escalating area of cost.
Vice Mayor Yeh noted he would be out of town during the next budget meeting.
Future Meetings:
-May 12th – Community Services Department Budget and Planning and
Community Environment Budget
-May 17th – Utilities Department and the General Fund
-May 24th – General Fund Enterprise Fund and the Internal Funds
-May 25th – Non-Departmental and Wrap-up
-Asked about meeting on July 5th or an alternative date of June 28th
21 FIN110505
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh
1. Oral Communications
None.
2. Community Services Department Budget
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a brief presentation regarding the
Community Services Department (CSD) proposed budget. She explained CSD
had a revenue decrease of $112,583 made up of a reduction in golf course
green fees, an increase in middle school athletics and recreational camps, and a
decrease in class program revenue. The changes in salary, benefits and Full
Time Employees (FTE) totaling an increase of $624,690 was made up from a
half FTE position freeze, the elimination of a half FTE coordinator from the
Family Resources Center (FRC), the elimination of 0.48 hourly FTE at the
Cubberley and Lucie Stern Centers, and the addition of 1.02 hourly FTE for
athletics programs and camps. There was an increase in personnel and benefits
costs totaling $703,000 due to pension and health care increases. She stated
there was a decrease in expenses of $97,449 from the reduction in Vehicle
Fund charges, an increase in bank service charges for credit card usage, an
increase in Public Art for artwork maintenance, a reduction in water
consumption for turf, and an increase in middle school athletic supplies and
materials.
Mr. Perez stated there were two approvals given by Council, one is for the Staff
positions and the second was for budget. Staff was requesting to maintain the
budget funding for the position temporarily reduced due to the Art Center
construction.
2
Ms. Paras stated the second amendment to the proposed budget was a
discussion where initially CSD proposed charging the 2.5 percent
administrative fees against the Human Services Resource Allocation Plan
(HSRAP) grant funding. An alternative option would be to fund the $27,761 in
administrative fees by using Council Contingency monies.
Council Member Schmid stated with the new division the department appeared
to have 8 service areas with 8 workers in each area thereby providing direct
services to the community. He stated the parks seemed to be the highest usage
of the areas serviced. He asked how the community responded to the eight
areas providing services.
Director of Community Services Department, Greg Betts stated CSD was
attempting to breakdown the silos in the programs in order to achieve synergy
for all of the programs. He stated that included the Open Space areas as well.
Council Member Schmid noted he was struck by the percentage of citizens who
rated the parks very high compared to the surrounding communities’ facilities.
He encouraged CSD to participate in the bicycle and pedestrian pathways
project. He stated the City supplied funding to support the school fields and
facilities and in exchange the schools remain open for public usage of fields for
summers and weekends. He asked where that expense was located in the
budget.
Mr. Betts stated the City has a long standing agreement with the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) for the maintenance of fields for 13 elementary
schools, 2 middle schools and Terman Park. The fields cost was shared on a
50/50 shared split with the PAUSD, in exchange for citizen usage during the
evenings and weekend for sports activities. The City had a role in brokering the
activities at the fields with shared revenue 50/50. The share had changed to
the City receiving 60 percent of revenue to offset the brokering time.
Council Member Schmid stated the City took on the responsibility for the
brokering.
Mr. Betts stated that was correct.
Council Member Schmid asked who performed the maintenance on the fields.
Mr. Betts stated the maintenance was performed by City Staff.
Council Member Schmid asked whether their time was part of the 50/50 split.
Mr. Betts stated yes. He stated approximately a year and a half ago as a cost
saving measure, the City gave the responsibility to the PAUSD for Capital
Improvements.
3
Council Member Schmid stated Cubberley was not mentioned. He asked for
clarification that the City leased the Cubberley fields from the PAUSD.
Mr. Betts stated that was correct and the City maintained and brokered the
fields directly.
Council Member Schmid stated the PAUSD paid 100 percent for those fields.
Mr. Betts stated no, the City paid 100 percent for the fields.
Council Member Shepherd acknowledged the reduction in an FTE for the Family
Resource Center (FRC). She asked why the reduction in Staff.
Mr. Betts stated the Council adopted a policy clarifying the FRC would be
responsible to pay the full cost for the FTE at approximately $96,000. It was
agreed that if through fund raising the FRC was unable to achieve the full cost
for the position, the City would loan the FRC the funds to be paid the following
year. He stated in 2010 the FRC requested the FTE be reduced to half-time due
to the inability to raise the funding to support the position.
Mr. Perez clarified in 2008 Council had approved to loan the FRC additional
funds necessary to maintain the position although currently the loan amount
exceeded $100,000.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the City was clearing the loan.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the City was not collecting on the loan.
Council Member Shepherd commented on the cost of credit card processing.
Mr. Betts stated Staff was reviewing options on reducing the overhead bank
costs by using programs such a Bling and innovative ideas of trying to
encourage people who leave a program to maintain their balance rather than
request a refund to use for other classes.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether there was an expected increase in
golf rounds above the 65,000 in 2011.
Division Manager for Parks & Recreation, Rob De Geus stated the golf course
continued to be a challenge, the rounds were tracked weekly. The goal was to
achieve the 70,000 round or higher. The senior population had increased and
there was a junior golf program increasing.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the 67,000 was a realistic goal
number for 2011.
4
Mr. De Geus stated it was a stretch goal.
Council Member Shepherd it would be helpful if Cubberley became a stand-
alone program.
Mr. Betts stated the Cubberley Center was part of the Recreation Division. Since
the reorganization, Staff was working on a better use of janitorial Staff with all
of the Community Centers.
Mr. De Geus stated there was definitely overlap in management in Cubberley,
Mitchell Park, and Lucie Stern Community Centers. Staff felt there was synergy
and savings in maintaining the two sites together.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether it was possible to receive a stand
alone profit and loss statement for Cubberley. She stated there were significant
considerations on the horizon concerning Cubberley and being able to see true
numbers would be beneficial in making clear decisions.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was preparing a total view for Council with respect to
Cubberley with inclusion of the leases, the covenant not to develop, the
expenditures for the maintenance budget, the revenues, and the net numbers
for the operations as a whole.
Council Member Shepherd asked how difficult it would be to start the separation
with Cubberley now then bring in Mitchell Park as a subtotal in the same type of
profit and loss scenario for the budget purposes.
Mr. Perez stated the Cubberley scenario needed to be completed. The
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee had requested Staff provide them with
the revenue, expenditure and net income for the City’s assets; and the policy
decisions for the rent rates. He anticipated Cubberley being the lead on all of
that information.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was too difficult to incorporate those
numbers into a stand alone facility for the final budget process in 2012/13.
Mr. Perez requested time to discuss it with Staff and determine what they could
come up with for the June 13, 2011 packet.
Council Member Shepherd stated there was consideration whether Cubberley
and Council should have the information for review before the need to decide.
Mr. Perez stated in the past Staff presented the whole picture although the
financial scenario was frequently negative and Council stated there was no need
5
to continue. He stated Staff would compile the information and present it to the
Council.
Council Member Shepherd asked once the Golf Division merged with the Parks
Division how would the rounds be tracked.
Mr. Perez stated the golf division had a separate financial view and it was
planned to continue the financials in that manner.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to have
the HSRAP administration funding matter placed into the parking lot. The
financial burden should not be taken out of the Council Contingency Fund.
Council Member Schmid stated his original notion was to place the above as
Council Contingency. He felt the 2011 year was particularly rough on the
service areas. Budget cuts were being faced at the County, State, and Federal
levels and they were receiving push back in raising funds. In light of this
extraordinary situation where the funding amount being given to HSRAP has
not increased, it would be better to take it from the Council Contingency thus
marking it as a one time expense rather than a part of the budget.
Chair Scharff stated given the extraordinary financial times this would be a one
time give-away then in 2012 the City would return to charging HSRAP the 2.5
percent.
Council Member Schmid stated his understanding was at Mid-Year HSRAP would
be coming to Council with their strategic plan for funding for their future.
Council Member Shepherd stated the City reduced HSRAP funding by 17
percent and she noted this program would always cost the City money. She did
not see the connection to the Council Contingency.
Mr. Betts stated the $27,000 was the operating expense for the entire Human
Services programs not just HSRAP.
Council Member Schmid stated his understanding was 2011 was the first time
the City was identifying the administrative costs. The question was how to deal
with the costs over the long run. He felt CSD had been under pressure to cut
their budget in order to assist CSD in providing services it would be best to
have the Council absorb some of the costs.
Mr. Perez stated Council Member Schmid felt if the funds were to come from
the Budget Stabilization Reserve it was presumed on-going funding, as opposed
to the Council Contingency where it would be a one time funding.
6
Council Member Shepherd stated by adding the HSRAP funding into the Budget
Stabilization Reserve Council was removing the burden from the CSD budget.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification that the HSRAP funding would come from
the Budget Stabilization Reserve. His understanding from the City Manager was
there was a $120,000 in budget surplus. Therefore that is where the funding
would come from.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct, the point he was making was the amount
going to the Budget Stabilization Reserve would be reduced by the amount
coming out of the budget surplus.
Chair Scharff restated his understanding as Council Member Schmid felt the
HSRAP matter should return to Council and they should review whether there
should be a 2.5 percent charge next year.
Council Member Schmid stated his understanding from Staff was HSRAP would
be reviewed strategically at Mid-Year for what amounts were funded and to
which programs.
Mr. Betts stated that was Staff’s anticipation.
Chair Scharff withdrew his second.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to take
the administrative funding for the HSRAP program from the Council
Contingency Fund for the 2012 Fiscal Year, have Staff return to Council at Mid-
Year with a strategic plan and have Council determine whether or not to
continue to fund the program with a 2.5 percent charge.
MOTION PASSSED: 2-1 Council Member Shepherd no, Vice Mayor Yeh absent
Chair Scharff stated he noticed the large increase in bank charges and
encouraged Staff to review the possibility of charging a fee to use a credit card.
Mr. Betts stated Staff had been trying to encourage the customers to register
for classes and make on-line reservations which were available 24/7, it was
convenient and at the same time it reduced the amount of overhead. He
agreed the service charge for bank fees were quite high.
Chair Scharff stated there was a high level of competition in the community for
camps, and the City had to expend funds to market the Parks & Recreation
camps. He asked whether it was beneficial to the City to offer the camps.
7
Mr. Betts stated many of the camps were break even or cost recovery.
Chair Scharff asked whether all of them were in that category.
Mr. Betts stated no. There were some programs in advanced aquatics with full
cost recovery with an entry level swim class that was subsidized. Many of the
art, science, and Children’s Theatre classes were cost recovery with a
therapeutics camp for handicapped children which required high levels of
Staffing so that camp would be subsidized.
Chair Scharff asked what portion of the $444,820 of the HSRAP funding was for
the Palo Alto Child Care subsidy, where the rest of the funding went, who it
subsidized and how it worked.
Mr. Perez stated there were two areas of operation; child care and senior
services. Some time ago it was decided to form Private/Public Partnerships and
Council at that time made policy to fund the programs. He was uncertain of the
total percentage of the City budget that went to the programs. The programs
were located in various sites and some of the sites were leased to house those
programs.
Chair Scharff asked for confirmation the City did not charge a rent fee to those
programs.
Mr. Perez stated it was more than a dollar although it was not up to market
rate.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the elementary school portable rental
space was a part of the covenant with the PAUSD for paying for the child care
on the elementary school campuses.
Mr. Perez stated yes, there was a portion for the elementary schools but he did
not have the exact numbers with him.
Supervisor of Recreational Programs, Minka van der Zwaag, stated the HSRAP
money for childcare was always around the range of $401,000.The majority of
the funding was for childcare subsidies and a portion was for the Palo Alto City
Child Care (PACCC) Coordinator. The youth that received the subsidies from the
City of Palo Alto were in the pre-school program and the after school program.
PACCC had a pass through grant from the State of California, Department of
Education and those monies went to the PAUSD. PACCC administers those
funds for the PAUSD.
Chair Scharff stated the City HSRAP dollars equaled $1.1 million so the
$444,820 was not all HSRAP money. A portion of the Avenidas money and a
portion of the child care monies were not HSRAP monies.
8
Ms. van der Zwaag stated approximately $800,000 of the HSRAP funds went to
PACCC and Avenidas and the remainder went to twelve other smaller agencies
that receive smaller grants from the City. The City had chosen PACCC as the
provider for the after school care on all of the elementary school sites except
for one.
Chair Scharff stated there was $7,800 listed under the recreation and golf
special events. He asked what special event and what entry fees were being
referred to.
Senior Management Analyst, Lam Do stated the entry fees were revenue the
City received for the sales at the event such as tasting kits at the chili cook off.
Other events include the May Fete parade, the Moonlight Run, the Chili Cook
Off, and there were various one time events which were all considered special
events.
Chair Scharff reiterated Council Member Shepherd’s desire to see a Cubberley
break out.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would prioritize the Cubberley matter.
Chair Scharff stated he had heard the City was not maintaining its art due to a
lack of available funds. He stated the proposed budget was requesting $35,000;
although the Public Art Commission had mentioned the restoration and
maintenance costs were upwards of $60,000 to set-up an ongoing maintenance
program to ensure the upkeep.
Management Specialist, Elise DeMarzo stated the last time a condition check
was performed on the art work was in 1998. Restoration tended to run between
the $10,000 to $13,000 range. She noted there were other pieces in the
collection that needed cleaning, waxing and preventative maintenance to
prevent the deterioration to such an expensive stage of restoration within the
next few years.
Chair Scharff stated his understanding was the $35,000 would address the
most deteriorated works but would not prevent the other works from
deterioration.
Ms. DeMarzo stated the $35,000 would address the pieces in most dire need in
restoration and may be able to touch up a couple of the others.
Chair Scharff asked if it was a fair statement to say an additional $15,000
annually would maintain the artwork and help with the preventative
maintenance.
9
Ms. DeMarzo stated yes, having the art work waxed and sealed would prevent
further sun and water deterioration.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to
increase the budget by an additional $15,000 for ongoing regular maintenance
of public art to prevent the pieces from deterioration.
Council Member Shepherd stated in 2010 there was money budgeted, she
asked if the funds were used for the purpose of artwork restoration or
maintenance.
Ms. DeMarzo stated in 2010 there was no money set aside for maintenance.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the $35,000 was a new item and was being
requested as on-going.
Mr. Perez stated yes, Staff was requesting it be approved as on-going and it
become part of the base cost to the budget.
Council Member Shepherd did not support the Motion.
Chair Scharff stated the argument was the $35,000 was setting up the art
maintenance program that would not be addressing the problem. It would be
less expensive to spend the funding now to maintain the artwork rather than to
spend less now. He stated there needed to be a realistic cost built into the art
program for maintenance.
Council Member Schmid asked Staff where the $35,000 amount originated from
and where the funds would be spent.
Ms. DeMarzo stated a few of the most recent restoration pieces ran $12,000, in
the courtyard the piece needed to be moved which was estimated between $9
to $13,000 and there were a number of other works that needed restoration.
MOTION PASSED: 2 -1 Council Member Shepherd no, Vice Mayor Yeh absent
Chair Scharff stated he had questions regarding the municipal golf course
potable water issue. He recalled the matter was discussed in 2010 and the
salinity in the recycled water was too high where Council passed a policy on a
certain number of parts per million of salt. He asked what the possibility was
and how this related to the policy.
Mr. De Geus stated yes, there was a policy in place. The Water Treatment Plant
personnel were more familiar with the particulars of the policy. The salt content
was regularly monitored by the Treatment Plant.
10
Chair Scharff stated his concern was once there was salt put in the ground it
was not removable. He needed to ensure in saving money there was not an
environmental error being created.
Mr. De Geus stated there needed to be a balance between reclaimed water
versus potable water that did not compromise the groundwater.
Chair Scharff asked what the balance was.
Mr. De Geus stated at present it was a mix of 70 percent reclaimed and 30
percent potable; the goal was to go to reach an 80/20 split.
Chair Scharff asked where the 80/20 split left the salt content.
Mr. De Geus stated he was uncertain at this time.
Chair Scharff asked if Staff could retrieve the information and return to the
Committee.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would meet to gain a definitive amount of parts per
million at the next meeting.
Council Member Schmid believed the salinity percentage discussion arose
during the compost activity discussions.
Mr. De Geus added the goal or focus was to reduce water usage and allow
natural Baylands grasses.
Mr. Keene added reclaimed water was used on golf courses throughout the
Country. He stated when Staff returns with the comparisons, Mountain View
would be one because they used reclaimed water from the Water Quality
Treatment Plant on their golf courses.
Chair Scharff stated he understood the City was saving $25,000 on water by
not watering areas of Foothill Park which would cause the grass to turn brown
during the summer. He asked whether the community was aware of the plans
for the park and what was their reaction.
Mr. Betts stated no, there was no outreach completed. He stated there was
research being completed for where the water usage would be reduced. The
irrigation system at the Foothills Park was improved 15 years ago. He noted
prior to the irrigation system upgrades there were areas of the park which were
browner so essentially using less water would put these areas back to where
the community had it prior to the upgrades.
11
Open Space and Park Division Manager, Daren Anderson stated Staff was
targeting the water usage area of the upper turf with a 50 percent reduction.
He stated there was no way to know the time as to how fast the turf would turn
brown.
Chair Scharff stated the landscape by the Interpretive Center would remain
green.
Mr. Anderson stated yes, the high active areas would maintain the present
water usage.
Chair Scharff stated he had concerns with saving a small amount of money
where it had a large impact to the community.
Mr. Anderson stated there may be brown grass at the entrance of the park.
Mr. Betts stated the expectation of every area in CSD has been reviewed and
Staff brought as many options to review as possible.
Chair Scharff stated CSD contributed greatly in terms of bringing up suggested
cuts.
Council Member Shepherd mentioned she was aware Project Safety Net had
been taking a large portion of Staff time and she asked for an estimation of the
amount of Staff time the project was taking.
Mr. Betts stated Staff hoped some funding from the Stanford Development
Agreement could be used towards the Teen Wellness and Health program.
Mr. De Geus stated there had been huge financial support from the community
for the program. He felt CSD played a unique role and it was a good use of time
although it was not sustainable without some dedicated resources. There was a
blueprint in process for how to sustain the program for its longevity.
Council Member Shepherd asked Mr. De Geus how much of a percentage of his
time or the Staff’s time had been taken by the program.
Mr. De Geus stated he had no numbers to reflect the time spent. He felt
passionately about the program and the work being done. He reflected
spending evenings and weekends on the project equated to 15 to 20 percent of
his time on a weekly basis.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether there were issues not being
addressed in CSD that may need temporary assistance until there was a
sustainable plan in place.
12
Mr. Betts stated the cost it would take in administrative support time would be
in the $25,000 range. Some of the support of Human Services was taken out of
the program and Staff identified a shortfall in services so Staff was now
attempting to fill those needs with the $27,000 spoken of earlier in the
meeting.
Mr. De Geus stated CSD had tremendous Staff and they did an outstanding job
even with a reduction in Staffing from 95 to 75 in 2010. He stated one of the
challenges was managing the community centers operations.
Mr. Keene stated Staff was invested in the Project Safety Net Program. He
clarified at the current level of investment the program was not sustainable.
The need for skilled and highly committed persons was more important than
funding.
Council Member Shepherd wanted Cubberley to be looked at through a
microscope to see where there could be improvements and how the community
at Cubberley could assist in the budget.
Council Member Schmid asked why CSD allocated charges were much higher
than any other department.
Ms. Paras stated $1.5 million of the allocated charges were from water sales.
Mr. Perez clarified the cost for water was for the parks, golf course and various
facilities.
Council Member Schmid asked if that accounted for 30 percent of the charges.
Ms. Paras stated there was a $0.2 million for vehicle replacement allocation
which was for use of the City vehicle fleet.
Council Member Schmid stated he was under the impression a number of the
maintenance efforts were contracted out. He asked why it was showing as an
allocated charge.
Mr. Perez stated there was a reduced vehicle use for parks and golf
maintenance; although there was vehicle use for other operations.
Ms. Paras stated the remainder of the charges were IT related, general liability
insurance, and a vehicle equipment maintenance service charge of $0.3 million.
The charge for the general liability insurance was $0.1 million.
Council Member Schmid stated it seemed the $0.3 million, $0.2 million and
such did not add up to the full amount of the allocation shown and it was still
larger than any other department.
13
Mr. Perez stated there was a standard formula used for computers based on the
number of FTE’s. There could be positions in CSD that did not have computers
so there could be some element of over charge.
Chair Scharff stated CSD was being charged $0.5 million for vehicles, and $0.3
million for use of the vehicles.
Mr. Perez stated the vehicle allocation was based on the actual number of
vehicles assigned and maintained by the department.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff had reviewed the vehicle portion and whether
CSD needed all of the vehicles in use.
Mr. Betts stated yes, CSD had reviewed the vehicle usage carefully and noted
the Parks Division was able to reduce four vehicles and the arts and sciences
division was going to a car pooling type of usage. He stated there were a few
vehicles that did not receive a large number of miles although the larger
vehicles were essential for the Open Space Division.
Chair Scharff asked whether the larger equipment vehicles were used daily.
Mr. Betts stated yes, they maintained low mileage with a high frequency of use.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to
tentatively approve the CSD budget as amended.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Yeh absent
Mr. Perez asked the Finance Committee to include the .5 FTE back into the
Table of Organization and the budget since it was only temporarily being
removed due to the construction on the Art Center.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to
correct the .5 FTE back into the budget and the Table of Organization.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification that the money was already
budgeted for the position.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the goal was to ensure when the Director of CSD was in
need of the position it was still available on the Table of Organization.
Council Member Shepherd stated the funding was cut, but Staff’s request was
to maintain the position.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Yeh absent
14
2. Planning and Community Environment Department Budget
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras gave a brief presentation regarding the
Planning and Community Environment proposed budget. Planning had a
revenue increase of $737,000 due to an increase in volume of various permits
and planning revenues. She stated there were FTE changes in the amount of
$237,748 with a net decrease in a .57 FTE, and a .5 allocation from the City
Manager’s office; there was an elimination of 1 FTE which will be discussed later
as an amendment to the proposed budget. She stated the expenses for the
department were increased by a net $196,758; most of the expenses were due
to the renovations of the Development Center. Allocated charges increased by
$50,000 which were primarily IT related. The department was proposing
transition plan funding of $300,000 to facilitate the restructuring of the
Development Center; since the plan was being developed while the budget
process was underway the detail of the expenses were not included in the
proposed budget. The Development Center transition proposal anticipated
eliminating the Chief Planning and Transportation Official and adding an
Assistant Director, the net salary and benefit change was an increase of
$28,000. There was a request to reinstate the Administrative Associate II of 1.0
FTE which would draw down on the transition funding totaling with salary and
benefits of $95,000. There were two planned amendments to the proposed
budget; 1) $110,000 was for a rail corridor study and 2) the refund of the
remaining Development Center transition funds in the amount of $14,000.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated when the
document was prepared there was a $300,000 placeholder in the Planning
Department budget which was for the Development Center project and Staff
was indicating the cost was now $285,769. He also noted in the original
proposal a reduction or elimination of an Administrative Associate II from the
Planning Department had now been altered as a transition position to fill a need
for administrative support at the Development Center.
Ms. Paras stated the At-Places memo outlined the FTE transitions and changes
explained by Mr. Perez.
Council Member Shepherd stated the $110,000 for the Rail Corridor Study had
previously been approved by Council; she asked why it was returning as a
budget item.
Ms. Paras stated that was correct, the item had been approved although the
figure had not been added into the department budget at the time.
Council Member Shepherd asked when Staff felt the planning strategy for the
Development Center would be completed.
15
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated there
had been a pilot program begun at the Development Center which should
provide substantial information by June. He stated with the information taken
from the program they were anticipating fundamental changes through the
implementation phase by the end of the 2011 calendar year. Staff is piloting
the program which equated to a 20 percent completion of the entire project. He
stated by the end of the year there should be 80 percent implemented.
Mr. Keene stated there had been complications encountered with an increase in
the need for services during the first stages of the implementation process. The
efforts being undertaken so far were dealing with Staffing and standards of
customer service levels.
Council Member Shepherd stated her anticipation for the Development Center
was for it to be a hospitable environment. She stated there needed to be a
clear review of increasing fees in order to keep up with the increased service
levels and expenses.
Council Member Schmid stated economic development had been a part of the
Planning Department and under the reorganization it would be moving under
the City Manager. He asked what the long-term economic impacts would be
from the sustainable flow of funds to the City that might come from the mixed
use projects, new housing, retail, and office space. What were the
infrastructure requirements assumed by the City in any development. He asked
how not having the economic development division within Planning affected
Advanced Planning.
Mr. Williams stated the physical move had taken place and the personnel had
been reporting to the Deputy City Manager and to the City Manager for some
time. He felt there had been a close relationship in terms of tying his work in
with the Planning Department. There were mechanisms in place to ensure no
projects were over looked or under considered.
Council Member Schmid wanted to ensure the sustainable flow of income
generated by certain developments.
Mr. Williams agreed the Planning Staff was equipped to manage the economic
development of the City. The Manager of Economic Development and
Redevelopment and the Deputy Director for the Administrative Services
Department advises Staff on what excess information could be required from
the Applicant in an effort to strengthen the core areas.
Mr. Keene stated the City was not staffed at a level of the issues that faced the
City or the expectation of the Council or community for adequate Advanced
Planning. He suggested the need for a multi-year plan being in place if the
direction of the Council was for complex Advanced Planning. He stated there
16
needed to be a serious conversation regarding the City’s direction for Advanced
Planning between the Council and Staff.
Council Member Schmid stated one of the ways to look at the Advanced
Planning was to look at the infrastructure and the housing elements as a joint
entity. He asked what the Council could expect in terms of engagement in
terms of strategic planning changes with the budget, infrastructure, community
needs, housing, and land use changes to ensure those entities were progressing
in a comprehensive manner.
Mr. Williams stated as the projects were brought forward all of the
aforementioned items were components of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Schmid asked if Staff was comfortable with the budget as it
was presented that there were sufficient resources to engage the Council and
the community on the issues discussed.
Mr. Williams stated there was sufficient Staff to engage in the issues although
to engage effectively, he felt there could be more Staffing and time spent on
the issues.
Council Member Schmid asked Mr. Perez if he had sufficient funds in the budget
to support the Planning Department over the next six to nine months with the
issues discussed.
Mr. Perez stated in the short term as the plan was developing, yes although
there were areas that needed to be identified where working with external
consultants may be necessary.
Mr. Williams stated his concern over the past few years was the time factor on
manifesting information to bring to Council.
Council Member Schmid stated when Council met with the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) they were focused on location. Council had concerns
with the number of new households. He asked how Staff saw Palo Alto
participating in that process.
Mr. Williams stated Staff followed up with both Council and the Planning and
Transportation Commission and was putting together a preliminary response to
ABAG after presenting the findings to the Council.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the use of the term administration with
respect to the budget.
Mr. Williams stated administration was the Director and various clerical and
administrative support.
17
Mr. Keene stated half of the Deputy City Manager’s position was allocated to
the Planning Department budget.
Chair Scharff stated in 2010 the actual number for Department Administration
was $584,000 and by the year 2012 the number was doubled to $1.2 million.
He asked for an explanation for the increase.
Administrator of Planning and Community Environment, Mary Figone stated the
increase in the 2010 actual and the 2012 proposed budget was the $300,000
placeholder which was to be reversed in Exhibit B and the High Speed Rail
dollars.
Chair Scharff asked about the job responsibilities of an Administrative Associate
II.
Mr. Williams explained the basic job description for the Administrative Associate
II and noted they were not adding the position but rather transferring the
eliminated FTE position from the Planning Department to the Development
Center.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff was requesting an addition of $100,000 or
was the request to transfer Staff.
Mr. Perez stated the proposed budget indicated the elimination of an FTE and
the funding for the position. Staff was recommending amending the proposed
budget to keep the FTE but move it to the Development Center.
Chair Scharff asked why then could the position not be removed if another one
was being added.
Mr. Perez stated the recommendation was to maintain the position rather than
eliminate it.
Chair Scharff clarified the reality was there was no funding for the position.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was requesting funding beyond the $300,000 placeholder
amount initially requested.
Chair Scharff asked whether there was $100,000 being added to the budget.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the end result was Staff was asking for $100,000 to be
added.
18
Chair Scharff asked for clarification as to how moving a position from a Planning
Department division to another division within the Planning Department
affected the Planning Department budget by $100,000.
Mr. Perez stated when the proposed budget eliminated the position it eliminated
the $95,000.
Chair Scharff asked when the position was eliminated.
Mr. Perez stated the proposed budget indicated the elimination of the
Administrative Associate II position and a placeholder for the $300,000 to Staff
the Development Center.
Chair Scharff clarified the Administrative Associate II was currently employed
by the City, there was a placeholder in the proposed budget of $300,000 for
Staffing the Development Center and then the position was eliminated.
Mr. Williams clarified the initial thought was the position could be eliminated
from the Planning Department although once the Development Center needs
were identified it was determined administrative support was necessary.
Chair Scharff asked why an Administrative Associate I could not perform the
necessary support duties, which was a lower cost.
Mr. Williams stated the position required a higher level customer service skill
whereas an Administrative Associate I position was more for basic filing.
Chair Scharff stated Staff was recommending dropping the Chief Planning and
Transportation Official and adding an Assistant Director position. He asked if the
Chief Planning and Transportation position was no longer necessary or if there
was a promotion being granted.
Mr. Williams stated the Chief Planning and Transportation person retired and
the position was not being filled. He stated there was a more critical need for an
Assistant Director.
Chair Scharff stated the City was hiring someone new at a higher level position
that could support the Director of Planning and take some of the workload.
Mr. Williams stated yes.
Mr. Perez stated the Planning Director did not currently have an Assistant
Director on the organizational chart.
Chair Scharff asked when the rail corridor study was initially proposed was the
amount $200,000 as budgeted or was it $100,000.
19
Mr. Williams stated the proposed budget was $200,000.
Chair Scharff asked how the Planning Department salaries and benefits
remained low while the other departments rose.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would have to look at that issue.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid approval of the tentative budget for Planning and Community
Environment.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Yeh absent
Mr. Perez reviewed the overall budget numbers to date. He stated the meeting
started with a proposed $131,000 excess, Staff requested and the Committee
approved $50,000 to the animal shelter study on May 5th, a $15,000 increase to
the Public Art maintenance, an increase of $110,000 for the Rail Corridor Study,
a return of $14,000 from the initial $300,000 placeholder which left a negative
$30,000. Staff was suggesting a reduction in the placeholder for pension and
health care to make the number back to balance.
Chair Scharff stated his agreement.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was the Rail Corridor Study
was a part of the $300,000 placeholder; she asked what happened.
Mr. Perez stated in the $300,000 placeholder there were the position changes;
the conversion of the Chief Planning Official to the Assistant Director, and the
three new additions which totaled $285,000 and the remaining $14,000 was
being returned.
3. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas
MAY 17
General Fund and Technology Capital Improvement Program
Electric Fiber and Gas Funds (Utilities)
Waste Water and Water as part of the Utilities (Utilities)
Department
non- departmental budget
The return of the City Council budget changes from May 3rd
Council Member Scharff stated on May 17th the General Fund CIP was not being
discussed.
20
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated the title had
changed to include the Technology Fund but yes, the intention was to review
the General Fund CIP.
Council Member Schmid stated it was mentioned possibly having the update for
the public safety on May 17th.
Mr. Perez stated the intention was to present the information for Committee
review then agendize the matter for the 24th of May.
Council Member Schmid stated the agenda for the 24th was a full meeting then
to add the public safety matter to the 24th did not appear feasible.
Mr. Perez stated there could be a meeting added if the Committee felt it was
necessary.
City Manager, James Keene suggested adding the item to the 25th of May and if
the wrap-up needed to be continued it could be.
Council Member Schmid suggested adding the public safety to the schedule for
the 17th and if there was time for it a discussion could be started.
Chair Scharff asked which Staff needed to be in attendance for the public safety
matter. He stated he preferred not to have Staff available if the matter was not
actually discussed.
Mr. Keene stated the Police Chief and a number of Staff would need to be in
attendance.
Chair Scharff suggested Tuesday the 31st of May for the wrap up and the 25th
for the public safety.
Mr. Perez stated holding the wrap-up on the 31st may impact Staff’s ability to
return to Council on the 13th of June.
Chair Scharff suggested placing the public safety on the same night as the
wrap-up and continue the wrap-up if there was a need.
Mr. Perez asked if the Committee Members were available on the 26th of May as
a back-up date in the event Vice Mayor Yeh was unavailable on the 31st.
Council Member Shepherd stated her availability for the 26th.
Council Member Schmid stated his availability for the 26th.
Chair Scharff stated his availability for the 26th.
21
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
1 FIN 051711
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 17, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Chair Scharff (Chair), Council Member Schmid, Council Member Shepherd
Absent: Vice Mayor Yeh (arrived at 7 :24 p.m.)
Oral Communications
Former Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto thanked the Council for supporting Caltrain and urged
them to go forward with the go-pass for City Staff. She spoke regarding the Bike
Boulevard and making progress on a rapid basis.
Agenda Items
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated there was a memo
At-Places dated May 17, 2011 regarding Additional Information Pertaining to Fiscal
Year 2012 Budget Hearings. He stated Staff had intended to provide a listing of
potential reductions for the Public Safety group and the Office of Emergency Services
(OES), although there were more details needing to be addressed therefore there will
be a special packet sent out on Thursday, May 19, 2011.
1. Transmittal of Fiscal Year 2012 General and Technology Fund Capital
Improvement Program
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez gave a presentation on the Citywide Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) which consisted of $72.9 million. He stated the full
amount was broken into different funds with roughly half was related to the General
Fund. He gave a background on how Staff determined which CIP’s were presented to
the City Council; in November a CIP Committee was created consisting of Staff from
2 FIN 051711
Public Works, Community Services, Planning and Transportation, and Administrative
Services. Staff reviewed and prioritized the criteria and the projects submitted by the
various departments. There was a review of the Infrastructure Reserve balance to see
what could be accommodated and a review of current Staff capacity. The CIP General
Fund totaled $35.9 million which was divided with $16 million from Library Bonds
proceeds; there was an annual transfer commitment to the Infrastructure Fund of
$10.5 million. There were donation of $3.1 million from the Friends of the Library and
$1 million from the Friends of the Magical Bridge. The Gas Tax Fund was money
received from the State of California; it was not discretionary funding and must be
used for street maintenance and a small amount for Stanford Research Park Traffic
Mitigation Fee which brought the total to $35.7 million and Staff. He noted there was a
draw on reserves of $227,000 leaving the Infrastructure Reserve Fund at $3.8 million.
He stated Staff was requesting the Committee approve the Fiscal Year 2012 CIP and
approve the next 4 years in concept.
Interim Director of Public Works Mike Sartor gave a presentation on the
accomplishments of the Public Works projects. He stated there was an accomplishment
of $4 million in street paving projects which was $2 million more than in prior years;
completed the renovations of Greer Park playing fields, irrigation and the Scott Annex;
the College Terrace Library was completed, the Downtown Library was expected to
open June of 2011, the Mitchell Park Library was 35 percent completed in construction,
and the design for the Main Library had been started. He noted changes to the CIP
projects; the Baylands Interpretive Center was moved out to 2015, the Municipal
Services Center upgrade had bee moved out to 2014, the Ventura Building had been
moved out to 2014, the Off-Road pathway resurfacing and repairs was de-funded by
$100,000 primarily due to some outstanding remaining funding left over from the
current level of funding from 2012, Rinconada Park improvements was moved to 2013
and the budget was increased to $1.3 million. He stated there was a request for
$200,000 as part of the $700,000 recommendation to complete wild fire mitigations in
the foothills; the first step was to clear shrubberies along the Arastradero and Page Mill
Roads to provide a buffer against wild fires; there was an Eleanor Pardee Park
improvement project which was primarily to irrigation systems and the turf project; the
Magical Bridge playground and as was previously mentioned there was a $1 million
commitment from the Friends of the Magical Bridge, there had been a commitment
from the General Fund of $300,000; the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Program, street resurfacing of $3.5 million, he noted $300,000 would be used to
reconstruct the curb and gutters alongside Channing Avenue, and $750,000 for
sidewalk repairs. He stated the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) had
plans to return to the full Council to present a progress report on the work that had
been accomplished to date. The IBRC had achieved a preliminary needs assessment of
$69 million for deferred maintenance requirements, $196 million in future
improvements needed, $244 million in planned maintenance over the next 25 years.
3 FIN 051711
Chair Scharff asked if Staff was suggesting if you were to take $244 million and divide
it over 25 years that would be the cost for planned maintenance.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, although with the caveat that the $244 million was in 2011
dollars and not what potential inflation might be.
Chair Scharff stated it was roughly an additional $10 million per year.
Mr. Sartor stated slightly less than that amount but yes. He noted the IBRC was going
to be assessing the gap with respect to known funding. He stated Staff was not
prepared to present the prioritized order or what the potential funding mechanisms
might be although the IBRC would be presenting the information to the full Council in
June of 2011.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the current rate of planned maintenance was it
between $10 and $11 million annually and the $244 million over the next 25 years was
in addition to the current amount.
Mr. Sartor stated currently the City was spending $10 to $12 million annually on
planned maintenance.
Chair Scharff stated with the amount you provided multiplied over 25 years the
amount was $244 million. He asked if that was the amount provided and the amount
currently being spent although he did not understand where the confusion was.
Mr. Sartor stated the gap was in the deferred maintenance and the replacement
renovation projects.
Chair Scharff confirmed the City was spending the correct amount on planned
maintenance so if Staff cured the $69 million on the deferred maintenance and the
replacement maintenance of $196 million then on an ongoing basis of the $10 or $11
million the City was good.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, Phil Bobel stated the reason the numbers
were not comparable was because the slide shown was reflecting all sources of
funding whereas on the previous slide the amount was only reflective of the
Infrastructure Reserve Fund.
Chair Scharff stated he was interested in what the planned maintenance gap actually
was.
4 FIN 051711
City Manager, James Keene stated it may be too early to determine where the IBRC
was and what their categories were and how to cross reference those back to the
current amount built in to the planned maintenance.
Chair Scharff stated when Staff returned to the Finance Committee he requested there
be a clear understanding of if the deferred maintenance was removed and a decision
was made on the replacement and renovation issue so the City would not fall further
behind in the future. He reiterated the City spent $10 million annually and the question
was does that number need to be increased or whether it was a sufficient amount.
Mr. Perez stated there were other funds that came into the program where the amount
was closer to $18 to $20 million that was spent. There was funding from local
agencies, donations, grants, and the gas tax money. Those amounts needed to be
added into the General Fund as transfer monies.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the gap being shown between the
annual General Fund transfer in the order of $10 million annually and the infrastructure
funding need rising up to $30 million. He stated the average spending on CIP’s was on
the average of $19 million annually.
Mr. Perez stated the Capital Program of $35.9 million included the $16 million in
Library Bond monies. If the Bond monies were removed the CIP was down to $20
million. There was the Furniture and Technology Project at a cost of $3 million for the
project LB11000, $3.384 million of salaries and benefits for a total cost of $6 million
which was not addressing what he considered a regular program.
Council Member Schmid stated he reviewed the past 5 years and there had been some
sort of Public/Private Partnership which tended to contribute funds. He stated in terms
of the salaries he expected with consideration of capital costs the salaries and benefits
of those Staff members working on the projects would be included in the overall costs.
Mr. Perez stated he agreed and was trying to provide more clarity with what the net
contribution towards the planned maintenance and other categories was. He noted
some of the funding was not controlled by the City Staff as in the Gas Tax Funding;
while it has been consistent over the past few years there was no certainty that there
would be consistency in the future.
Mr. Keene stated the questions being asked appeared to be more focused on the IBRC
than the 2012 budget. He stated information for the IBRC was what was truly in the
categories that totaled $509 million and was that completely the long-term needs of
the City or were there criteria being applied to generate that number. He stated in the
10 year Long-Range Financial Forecast there was a built-in a base line Infrastructure
5 FIN 051711
Reserve of $10 million annually which was separate from the $10 million below the line
that the Finance Committee had discussed. He stated if the current forecast covered
half of the IBRC forecasted needs then the question was did the outside funding
received cover the remainder of the gap. He noted some of the outside funds received
may not be going towards the infrastructure needs and in general there were cash flow
needs throughout the City.
Council Member Schmid stated in reviewing the past 5 years it appeared all of the
outside funding was fairly steady. He asked for a history showing the steady flow of
outside incomes and where they came from. He requested that the IBRC have the
most accurate and up to date information to work with in order for them to present
accurate information to the Council.
Mr. Keene stated lets look back say 5 to 10 years and say oh look, it looks like we
actually have a decent flow of funding coming into the capital budget. Then I would say
as City Manager then why are so many of our streets in such crummy condition. Why
are so many of our sidewalks in need and do we really think our replacement program
was ok. Because we can not accelerate it because we did not have enough funding.
Something seems off there to me, It was not as if we were right where we wanted to
be and we have a cycle where we can replenish it.
Chair Scharff stated he agreed and in reviewing the CIP there were items that had not
been replaced in years and with a deferred maintenance of $69 million it showed true.
He understood there was $10 million spent annually although that was mainly for new
projects and not to planned maintenance. He asked Staff to return with how much was
actually spent on maintenance.
Deputy Director of Administrative Services Department, Joe Saccio stated the IBRC in
conjunction with the Public Works Staff was putting together an extensive inventory of
all of the City’s assets. The intention was to isolate the costs, especially the
incremental costs and integrate what was being called gaps into the Long-Range
Financial Forecast and tailor it to show all of the funds. He stated the goal was for the
final product to show all of the revenue sources and the needs for the next 25 years.
Mr. Perez stated based on the approval you made last night there was a change to the
document to move $2 million from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year 2011 for street
improvement.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification.
Mr. Perez stated during last nights meeting, Staff requested approval to move forward
award of a contract and to move forward funding from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year
6 FIN 051711
2011.
Chair Scharff clarified that request was on the Consent Calendar during the City
Council meeting.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, the full Council approved the moving of the funds during the
May 16, 2011 City Council meeting. He clarified there would be an advance in the 2012
Street Maintenance Project to allow Staff to start the project during the summer
months, particularly in the areas of the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
Mr. Keene stated it was in essence an early contract award.
Mr. Perez stated the net impact was zero and the City was still funding the programs at
the same level previously proposed.
Chair Scharff asked whether there needed to be a separate vote for this item.
Mr. Perez stated no, the Council made the approval therefore this was merely a
notation.
Chief Transportation Officer, Jaime Rodriguez stated the California Avenue Project was
beginning the design phase where the design consultants were to be interviewed in
early June. The first task being asked of the consultants was to provide samples of
what widening the sidewalks along California Avenue would look like. He clarified the
Council would be reviewing the different approaches to the widening of the sidewalks in
early September. He stated Staff was not currently requesting additional funding,
however, in February Council had requested the addition of widening the sidewalks to
the project which would incur a cost not included in the original proposal.
Council Member Shepherd asked for confirmation that a grant was secured from the
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, there was a grant secured and the City had the support from
the VTA to work with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. He stated Staff was
working with the City Attorney’s office on a law suit that was received during the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the whether there were design
plans for the Park Boulevard Plaza Fountain.
Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, $300,000 of project funding was dedicated to reconstruction
of the Plaza.
7 FIN 051711
Council Member Shepherd clarified the $300,000 was a portion of the $1.1 million.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd stated when Staff returned with the California Avenue
review there would only be the widening of the sidewalks remaining.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct, in September the only item would be the
widening of the sidewalks although throughout the phases of the project Staff would
be returning to Council several times to solicit input on the designs for the entire
project.
Mr. Keene stated his understanding was the City had secured the VTA grant for the
landscape work and within discussions with the Council there were discussion of
widening sidewalks there was always the potential that that could be more costly than
what was within the VTA funding.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Mr. Keene stated he wanted to be sure there was clarity with the Council that there
may be additional cost associated with the completion of the California Avenue Project.
Council Member Schmid stated for clarification the VTA Grant monies did include some
sidewalk widening in the design although the current discussion was an extension of
the widening. Staff insinuated there would be additional budget requests needed
although the amount would not be substantial.
Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff was unaware of the additional costs for widening the
sidewalks which would be dependent upon the option Council chose during the
September meeting.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was requesting tentative approval of the General and Technology
Fund for Fiscal Year 2012.
Council Member Shepherd stated with respect to the Cubberley Community Center
there were improvements in the 2013 and 2014 budgets; she asked when the
covenant expired.
Mr. Perez stated the covenant expired in 2014.
Council Member Shepherd stated it appeared there was a proposal of inputting $1.5
8 FIN 051711
million into Cubberley before the covenant expired. She asked for clarification on how
secure Staff was on the appropriation.
Mr. Perez stated a lot of it was triggered by the notification the City had to give to the
PAUSD by December 2013 which coincided with the timing of the projects. He stated
Staff would need to review where they were in the process for that option and if they
were not ready to make a decision then none of the projects at Cubberley would move
forward.
Council Member Shepherd asked when Staff presented the Cubberley document would
it include the real estate, property management fees, and all of the salaries.
Mr. Perez stated yes, the document included revenues and expenditures; expenses for
Community Services, Public Works, and Administrative Services; and the revenue and
expenses for the Cubberley operations.
Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff would present a rent role which provided a
sketch of the leases per square footage and who the tenants were.
Mr. Perez stated yes.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the Ventura project.
Mr. Perez stated there were 2 projects for Ventura.
Mr. Sartor stated one of the projects was a renovation of the playing field of $25,000.
Council Member Shepherd stated the PAUSD called out their interest in utilizing
Ventura. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was aware of the interest and both he and the City Manger had
been in discussions with Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) with respect to their
lease and the option on a short-term basis to renew the lease until the situation was
resolved. He noted the site was the property of the City although there was a one-year
notification clause in the agreement where the PAUSD could provide a notice if they
would like to buy the site back from the City.
Council Member Shepherd stated she was unaware of the buy back clause. She noted
it took time for the PAUSD acquisition and she asked if Staff had a time frame as to the
possibility.
Mr. Perez stated the due to the Cubberley prioritization discussions, the Ventura
9 FIN 051711
discussions were placed below that priority. He noted he and the City Manager had
been to PACCC and the Public Works department was scheduled to review the needs in
order to prepare for the discussions with the PAUSD.
Chair Scharff stated he was unaware there was a $100,000 repair threshold where the
City needed approval from the PAUSD for capital work. He stated his concern was on
page 86 it showed by 2013 the City had gone just below the $100,000 on the design
work and if the PAUSD did not approve the project at the $600,000 level the funds that
had been spent were wasted.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would have a discussion with the PAUSD on the overall picture
prior to starting any of the design work.
Chair Scharff stated his understanding was there would be no funds expended on
Cubberley during the 2012 fiscal year.
Mr. Perez stated Staff was not proposing any new projects at the Cubberley site but he
was uncertain as to whether there were existing projects occurring.
Mr. Sartor stated there was paving occurring at Cubberley in some of the parking areas
under the current paving contract.
Chair Scharff asked the cost.
Mr. Sartor stated it was approximately $300,000.
Mr. Perez stated there was roofing repair work also occurring.
Chair Scharff stated that was the project he had noticed earlier at a cost of $150,000
for buildings J and K. He asked if that repair work was being performed on the 8-acres
owned by the City.
Mr. Perez stated he did not believe so; the City had the H building.
Chair Scharff asked whether Staff had considered whether that was a good use of
funds at this time.
Mr. Keene stated appropriate Staff were not available although the information would
be retrieved and returned to the Committee at the next meeting.
Mr. Sartor stated that was an annual project but he would check with his Staff on the
necessity of the repair.
10 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated there was a section referring to the Cubberley site with a roof
repair that required sealing; he asked if there was more detailed information.
Mr. Sartor stated the roofs at the Cubberley site were flat roofs which required tar and
gravel.
Chair Scharff clarified it was the Cubberley Auditorium. He stated when he saw the
$150,000 he wondered if that cost could be deferred and then he had concern with the
description of the auditorium roof being in dire need of repair.
Mr. Sartor stated according to the proposed budget the spray-on roofing was not
schedule until 2015.
Chair Scharff stated that was correct although it also stated the roof was in dire need
of repair and if the repairs waited too long the spray-on roof would no longer be
sufficient.
Mr. Sartor stated the spray-on roof cost was $150,000 whereas the cost to replace the
roof was a significantly higher cost. Staff had assessed the roof needed to be repaired
by 2015 or it would be in need of replacement.
Council Member Schmid stated the Safe Routes to School had an expenditure of
$291,000 and then funding from the Gas Tax Fund and local agency grants adding up
to $528,000. He asked where the money was being spent.
Mr. Rodriguez stated historically the Safe Routes to School CIP Program was used for
traffic calming along suggested routes to schools. The new CIP Program provided for
capital and more programmatic type of improvements. The ongoing $100,000 annually
was funding the capital improvements in response to the community requests for
traffic calming improvements. The injection of funding, the $291,000 was to cover the
monies received through the Grants.
Council Member Schmid asked what the other $300,000 went towards.
Mr. Perez stated he would research the requested information and return with the
appropriate response.
Mr. Rodriguez stated there was $528,000 reimbursement funds from the Grants.
11 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated the City was committing $300,000 and were expecting the Friends
of the Magic Bridge to raise $1 million, he asked if Staff was aware of the amount of
funds the group had already raised.
Director of Community Services Department, Greg Betts introduced Olenka Villa Real,
Chair of the Friends of the Magical Bridge Organization who stated the Friends have
currently raised $150,000.
Chair Scharff asked what happened to the $300,000 if the Friends were unable to raise
the remainder of the $1 million.
Mr. Perez stated at the end of Fiscal Year 2012 Staff projected a balance of $3.8
million, however if the donation did not materialize the remainder came out to the
projected balance. He clarified it did not affect the projects in 2013 although would
affect the projects in 2014 and 2015.
Chair Scharff stated for clarification the City was committed to donate to the project a
sum of $300,000 and if the $1 million being raised by the Friends did not materialize
the project did not happen this year.
Mr. Sartor stated the project would not go away if the funds were not raised. The
project would carry forward in the budget until the adequate funds had been raised.
Mr. Perez stated there were some projects that were completed and then
reimbursement was received while other projects the funds were collected then the
project was completed.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the Staff recommendation was it that if the
Friends raised $1 million the project moved forward and the City provided $300,000. If
the Friends did not raise the $1 million the $300,000 would theoretically be there for
the 2013 Fiscal Year. Since the funds were not spent in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget it
would need to be moved to the 2013 budget and it would need to be voted on again.
Mr. Sartor stated that was not correct, once the Committee adopted a budget and
funded a project, that project stayed alive.
Chair Scharff asked if there was a time at which point the funding commitment expired
if the Friends were unable to raise the funding necessary to complete their donation.
Mr. Perez stated the Municipal Code clarified if a project did not have expenditures
after 2 years it closes.
12 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated for clarification by voting for the project there was a 2 year time
limit placed on the friends group to raise the funds.
Mr. Betts stated one of the first steps taken with Public/Private Partnerships was to go
before the City Council with a Letter of Intent; the Friends of the Magical Bridge had
been working on the Letter of Intent. At the end of the 2 years they returned to the
Council with a funding agreement where all of the plans had been worked out and the
funds were readily available in the bank.
Ms. Villa Real asked when the 2 years began for fundraising.
Mr. Perez stated July 1, 2011 began the fiscal year.
Chair Scharff asked how people would donate funds to the Magical Bridge.
Ms. Villa Real gave a web address of www.magicalbridge.org and the Friends also
accepted checks.
Chair Scharff stated the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvement Project description
noted water intrusion. He stated water damage was expensive and waiting until 2015
may cause a higher cost by creating more severe damage. He asked whether there
was currently water intrusion.
Mr. Sartor stated there was a general building study completed 3 years ago with a
consulting firm and they surveyed all of the City buildings and made recommendations
on maintenance efforts over a twenty year span. He recalled their recommendation
was the water intrusion work be performed in 2015. He stated he would verify the
work had not been deferred.
Chair Scharff stated that survey report was completed in 2008, 3 years ago and the
recommended work to be completed in 4 years with the justification for the work being
water infiltration. His concern was the reasons behind the necessary work were more
severe than what Staff was confirming.
Mr. Sartor stated Staff would clarify the language.
Chair Scharff asked what was being done for the system upgrades on the Fire Station 1
mechanical and why was it a priority compared to other items.
13 FIN
051711
Mr. Sartor stated the Facilities Maintenance Staff maintained records of all of the City
buildings being worked on and there were planned maintenance activities each year.
The maintenance was planned a number of years ahead in the planned maintenance
program.
Mr. Keene noted Fire Station 1 was the highest volume station in the City and
maintenance and upkeep were necessary.
Chair Scharff asked why this item was prioritized and if there was a justification for the
urgency.
Mr. Sartor stated it was determined that ongoing maintenance was important as to not
end up in a deferred maintenance situation. He stated there were other maintenance
projects occurring not just the Fire Station 1.
Chair Scharff stated according to the report he did not believe so.. He had question on
the City’s responsibility for the back flow prevention when his understanding was the
private businesses received notice of their responsibility to install and have them
inspected.
Mr. Sartor stated he needed to refer to the Utilities Department on whether the City
was in compliance with the requirement but he assured the Committee with the project
underway compliance was eminent.
Director of Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated she did not recall the specifics of
the negotiation with the City although the Department of Health was aware that for
those facilities that were not yet in compliance there were commitments and progress
being made and they were willing to accept that as part of the compliance. She stated
currently if the backflow devices were not installed the City was out of compliance
although there was proof provided to the Department of Health compliance was in
progress.
Chair Scharff stated the justification to replace the Council Chambers carpet suggested
it should be replaced now although it was not being requested until 2013. He asked if
the delay was for budgetary purposes and if the current state of the carpet was what
determined the need for replacement.
Mr. Sartor stated the Council Chambers carpet replacement had been discussed for a
few years and when the prioritization was underway it was chosen to wait on the
replacement until 2013 as a workload issue.
14 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated the carpets were being replaced on other floors in City Hall and he
asked how those carpets compared to the Council Chambers.
Mr. Keene stated he was uncertain how the other areas compared although he knew
there was other work being performed in the Council Chambers which may cause
damage to the newly installed carpet.
Chair Scharff asked whether the Parking Lot J repairs included the design costs.
Mr. Sartor stated that project was currently under design and the design costs were in
the prior year budget. The construction portion was being requested under the current
proposed budget. He noted Staff was in discussions with the Parking District in sharing
the cost or a recover cost.
Chair Scharff stated if the Parking District agreed and fund would be reimbursed to the
Infrastructure Fund.
Mr. Sartor stated that was correct.
Chair Scharff asked if studies were normally a part of the CIP.
Mr. Sartor stated yes, Staff considered the Conceptual Design Study through the actual
contract as part of the Capital Improvement Project.
Chair Scharff stated $375,000 was a large sum of money for Tree Shop Space and he
asked how many shop areas there were.
Mr. Sartor stated the funding was for the Park Maintenance Shop and the Tree Section
Maintenance Shop which included a meeting room and equipment maintenance areas.
Chair Scharff asked what the reason was behind this being chosen as a priority.
Mr. Sartor stated for health and safety reasons, it was a poor working environment at
present.
Council Member Shepherd asked for an update on what the requested budget funds
were being used for with respect to the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project.
Mr. Rodriguez stated the requested funds would be used for the Charleston Road
portion of the project from Fabian Way to El Camino Real and it did not include the
Arastradero Road area.
15 FIN
051711
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the Charleston Road portion had already
been designed.
Mr. Rodriguez stated no, the requested funding would account for both the design and
the construction.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification that this request was not a part of the
current piloting project with respect to Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct.
Chair Scharff asked once the work was performed on the medians what was planned to
prevent them from returning to the current state of disrepair. He noted concern for the
description of damage was due to water conservation.
Mr. Sartor stated the issue was a number of the medians had been neglected and had
not been maintained causing irrigation systems to break and the plant life to die. In
response to maintaining the new medians he referred to Mr. Betts.
Mr. Betts stated there was a contract for median landscape maintenance and the City
changed the plant life to a more native species with a simpler pallet.
Chair Scharff stated once the medians were repaired the City should be able to
maintain them on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Betts stated yes.
Chair Scharff asked if the City of Mountain View shared the cost in maintaining the
Wilkie Way Bridge.
Mr. Keene stated the entire bridge was within the City of Palo Alto.
Council Member Schmid stated maintained medians made for a walkable community.
Chair Scharff stated concern for the Golf Course tree maintenance that the description
stated the trees had become dangerous. He hoped once the CIP had been completed
there will not be a repeat of trees damaged to that level.
Mr. Sartor stated the tree maintenance was a Parks Division matter.
16 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff stated he was aware and there was no response required.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what trends were being seen with respect to construction costs
for budget versus the actuals.
Mr. Sartor stated the BID’s on the Mitchell Park Library were considerably below
estimate and the Street Maintenance BID and estimate which was recently awarded
came in together due to the Staff dramatically lowering the cost per ton for asphalt
materials. He stated there would be a better understanding on the question later this
month when the BID’s for the Art Center Project. The construction trend showed the
costs continued to be depressed.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether or not the budgeted and estimated cost for the CIP
determined whether or not there was a competitive procurement process.
Mr. Sartor stated all of the Capital Projects were competitively bid.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether there was a dollar threshold that triggered the process.
Mr. Sartor stated in professional services there were times when an informal bid was
done with a threshold of $25,000, for the construction projects there was always
opened for competitive bidding.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the current budget was from 2012 to 2016 and to the extent
there were projects that extended out fiscal years. He asked where that locked in the
City in terms of the vote.
Mr. Perez stated the Capital Plan was similar to the Long-Range Forecast with one
caveat that there may be a decision made to spend on a design in 2012 and in 2013
the project may not move forward even though there had already been a significant
investment. He noted the vote was in no way giving approval for years 2 to 5, they
would be reviewed again through the next budget cycle.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated there were several Cubberley projects beyond 2012 but he
asked whether the one project for 2012 had been discussed with the IBRC.
Mr. Perez stated there was discussion earlier in the meeting with respect to the
$150,000 roofing cost. Staff was to return to the Committee with a response at the
next meeting on the urgency of the project. He clarified all of the other maintenance
had been deferred until after the discussion with the PAUSD.
17 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if this matter would be returned during Mid-Year due to the
uncertainty of the disposition.
Mr. Perez stated if there was an agreement reached on the facilities prior to the current
timeline and there was an immediate need from the departments it was possible.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for an explanation of the division between the Public Works
Department and the Utilities Department with respect to the street lighting projects.
Mr. Sartor stated the Street Light General Fund Project was primarily for street lights
that were knocked down or for installing new street lights where utility poles were
undergrounded. He noted generally all of those types of lights were installed with the
standard high pressure luminaries and the LED project was with the Utilities
Department.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked the proposed timing of any activity going on with the Los Altos
Treatment Plan (LATP) and what would need to be done to surmise the usable acreage
or space.
Mr. Sartor stated the Los Altos Treatment Plant Project was completing the actual
clean-up activities at the Plant so it could be used for future uses although it was not
specific to those uses.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked when the deadline was for maximizing usable land.
Mr. Sartor stated he was uncertain.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated some of the justification included was the exact use of the
facility was not known and the US Army Corps of Engineers approved wetlands expired
on August 24, 2013 and the CIP was needed to initiate the permit process to maximize
the usefulness of area b. He asked when the permit process would need to start for the
City to have maximizable usable land.
Mr. Sartor asked for the page number so he could follow along.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated page 113.
Mr. Bobel stated the manner in which to think of the LATP was two separate areas. One
which would be more suitable for some type of development towards the Highway 101
and one as restoration of wetlands towards the back side. He stated the more likely
area to swap or to leave as wetlands would be not the area currently being studied but
the rest of the area.
18 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked the total acreage of the plant.
Mr. Sartor stated if the City wanted to get a wetlands delineation that gave the City
more developable land, the delineation map needed to be instituted prior to the
deadline. He stated at present the developable land was between 6 and 9-acres and
depending upon the work to be done. There are some settling ponds that may or may
not be included; part of the work was to work on that.
Vice Mayor Yeh said the work would actually be in fiscal year 12-13.
Mr. Sartor agreed, saying work with the Corp of Engineers takes time.
Mr. Perez said the site was owned evenly by the General and Refuse Funds.
Council Member Shepherd asked about salary and benefits reimbursements. She
asked if this fund was being used to reimburse Departments now for the work being
done on design and the build project for the libraries.
Mr. Perez confirmed that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd questioned why the fund did not take a big dip once the
library opened.
Mr. Sartor said this did not fund all of the design work; the bulk of it was private
consulting firms.
Council Member Shepherd said when he went to the Library to work was that billed to
this fund.
Mr. Sartor said it was. He did not foresee a need to reduce Staff at this point.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the Librarians were assigned their time out of this
budget.
Mr. Perez said the Operating General Fund was used.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they should follow their time on the project to
allocate it to this fund.
Mr. Perez said their time was tracked.
19 FIN
051711
Mr. Sartor said the Staffing was mainly Engineering Staff and their time was being
tracked. Library Staff time managing the libraries was not tracked as it was in the
Operating Budget.
Council Member Shepherd agreed it was in their budget.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid,
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Transmittal of Fiscal Year 2012
General Fund Capital Improvement Program
Vice Mayor Yeh confirmed that Staff was going to follow up on the Cubberly roof
replacement.
Council Member Schmid asked if Staff would follow up on the revenue.
Mr. Perez said that as part of the infrastructure work, they would update the
information.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Administrative Services Director Perez reviewed the fund. It totaled $2.5 million of
which about $1 million was reimbursements for a net cost to the fund of $1.5 million.
He reviewed a few of the programs including the Library Computer project which was
$350,000, and the RFID project which was $150 million. Changes included the SAP
CIP recommendations the Finance Committee had made. The item will go to Council
on June 13, 2010. Staff recommended they approve the defunding of the Utility Bill
Enhancement for 2012.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the Radio Infrastructure Replacement project. The shift to
regional technology was a frequency shift, he wanted to know if it included radio
frequency.
Deputy Director Technical Services , Charlie Cullen stated that fund was in place and
had been in place for a few years. Most would be paid for by grant funding. Portable
radios would have to be replaced by the City. Funding needed to be in place to keep
the current system in operation until the new system is in place.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that covered all emergency responders.
Mr. Cullen stated it would.
20 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the contracting that was in place such as HARA and O
Power.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated there were small projects they
could move forward with for bill enhancements. She stated waiting one year would
provide a better plan. Staff would meet all the mandated requirements for bill
presentation.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Transmittal of Fiscal Year 2012 Technology
Fund Capital Improvement Program.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Chair Scharff clarified the Motion included the defunding.
Mr. Perez stated he agreed.
2. Utilities Electric Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement
Program, Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras spoke to the Utilities Electric Fund. She stated
the Fiber Optics rates increased 1.5 percent, Waste Water increased for the Cost of
Service Analysis adjustment, and the Water Rates increased 12.5 percent. Financial
forecast rate changes were recommended previously for approval. She said that the
position changes included one Full Time Employee (FTE) for an account representative.
Council approved the action in CMR 218:10. Another position change included one
eliminated FTE and the addition of a half.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong clarified the waste water rate would
not involve a rate increase, but an adjustment as a result of the Cost of Service Study.
Ms. Paras recapped the revenue decreases to the department which was $3.5 million in
total. She said the Electric Fund expenses decreased by $4.1 million. This included a
net increase of an energy efficiency program for $.9 million. The majority of the
decrease was due to the decrease in electric commodity purchases of $4.2 million. She
recapped the Capital Budget for the Electric Fund. The total expenditures increased by
$8.7 million including the under grounding districts and rebuilding project and the
substation transformer replacement. There were no Electric Rate increases in the
Proposed Budget.
21 FIN
051711
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez clarified they needed both
the Operating and Capital for the Electric Fund.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the under grounding districts. He confirmed the Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG&E) subsidy had been discontinued. He wanted an overview of the
program.
Ms. Fong stated it was AT&T that had approval to collect from its customers the costs
of under grounding. There were some projects with clear conditions for recovery of
costs. Once the conditions are no longer applicable AT&T would change the amount
they would cover. That is still undetermined beyond the next few years.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about pursuing new projects with allocated Enterprise Funds.
Ms. Fong stated dedicated Enterprise Funds being used could be discussed.
Assistant Utilities Director, Tomm Marshall stated they were separate issues. A portion
of revenues are set aside for under grounding. The repair is based on need.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the lifecycle of an underground district.
Mr. Marshall stated it was more expensive to maintain underground, they do not last
as long.
Ms. Fong added that it was more difficult to find issues underground.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that was quantifiable.
Mr. Marshall stated he did not have the exact amount.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated this was significant and he appreciated that it would go to the
Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC).
Ms. Fong stated Staff would review it sometime this year.
Council Member Schmid asked about stopping under grounding.
Ms. Fong stated she was not aware that had been discussed.
Council Member Schmid asked if the economics had changed enough that they should
22 FIN
051711
discuss rebuilding above ground.
Ms. Fong stated that would be a policy discussion. She assumed the residents would
not approve the process.
Council Member Schmid asked if that was for purely aesthetic reasons.
Ms. Fong stated yes, it would be for aesthetics.
Council Member Schmid asked for a map of where the current underground districts
were.
Mr. Marshall stated the map could be located on the website.
Council Member Schmid asked to see it.
Ms. Fong stated that the Capital Budget Book showed a map of the CIPs.
Council Member Schmid stated he wanted to see the specific districts. He asked if it
were better to have above or below ground lines during an emergency.
Ms. Fong stated above ground was certainly easier to work on.
Mr. Marshall showed a map of the districts from the City Website.
Council Member Schmid stated AT&T drove it toward the Commercial Districts.
Mr. Marshall confirmed areas with heavy concentration of wires would fit within their
criteria. They have made some exceptions in the past, but they no longer will.
Ms. Fong stated the criteria was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC). They issued the criteria.
Council Member Schmid stated the strategic discussion with the UAC would be to
determine future policy.
Ms. Fong stated they could petition the CPUC, though she was not sure it would work.
Vice Mayor Yeh discussed the shift toward wireless technology. He said he thought a
feasible alternative would be to use light poles. He asked how the conversation with
the UAC would start.
23 FIN
051711
Ms. Fong said they would discuss the issues with them. They would want to engage
the community in the discussion. They would fully vet the issue with the community.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if it would be helpful if the Council Members could have an early
role in the conversation.
Ms. Fong clarified that if they forget that step, it would go to the UAC probably several
times.
Chair Scharff stated he thought this was an important issue for the community. He
stated there were costs with under grounding and that was a community choice. It
was different than a General Fund cost. It would be helpful to have Council input early
in the conversation.
Ms. Fong stated there was a joint UAC Council meeting in July.
Chair Scharff stated that may not be enough time to have a detailed conversation.
Council Member Shepherd stated there was an innate sense of equality and fairness
that this issue comes in line with. Navigating the conversation will be difficult as this is
a very long term project.
Chair Scharff stated that was a valid point. He said they could have a surcharge on
rates. It would be interesting to know how much it would take to get this done in five
years.
Ms. Fong stated the City currently collected 2 percent for under grounding.
Chair Scharff stated if that were raised, it could help and should be discussed.
Vice Mayor Yeh discussed the LED project and what the reduction in energy use would
be.
Ms. Fong stated it would be about .4 percent of the total electric load for the City.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated in terms of savings it was expensive to achieve. He asked if the
analysis showed it was cost effective.
Ms. Fong stated when the project started the cost of LEDs were more expensive
making it more cost effective now. Over time they anticipate they will save money,
24 FIN
051711
but they couldn’t determine exactly what that would be because of the newness of the
technology. There was a safety issue involved as the lighting was improved with LED
street lights so it was more than just the cost savings under consideration.
Chair Scharff asked about the indoor LED research program.
Ms. Fong stated the results of the program included customer satisfaction levels, and
what level they were willing to pay for it.
Chair Scharff stated the program showed that customers were willing to pay about ¼
of the market price.
Ms. Fong stated this meant that they probably would not do a rebate program.
Chair Scharff felt the program was not successful just because they were taken quickly.
The quality of information seemed to miss how they would move forward.
Ms. Fong stated they learned that the price of the bulbs needed to be different. Staff
were surprised by the demand.
Chair Scharff stated he was glad Staff took the risk to have the program. He just
wished there were more substance in the information.
Council Member Schmid discussed the street light project being completed by Spring
2011.
Ms. Fong stated the roll out was slower than anticipated.
Mr. Marshall stated they had a contractor installing them, but then pulled out. They
were currently looking for another one.
Ms. Fong stated the pilot lights were still up.
Mr. Marshall stated some were up outside of City Hall on Bryant.
Council Member Schmid stated regarding demand side management, the Operating
Budget showed $3.6 million capturing other than just demand.
Ms. Fong stated it was their best estimate.
Council Member Schmid stated that came to over 3 percent of sales.
25 FIN
051711
Ms. Fong agreed.
Council Member Schmid stated in addition they spent about 5 percent on alternate
fuels and then one percent on Palo Alto Green.
Ms. Fong felt Palo Alto Green was less than one percent.
Council Member Schmid stated in total it was roughly 10 percent for sustainability
programs.
Ms. Fong agreed.
Council Member Schmid asked if that was a reasonable target.
Ms. Fong stated they identify programs and then what it would take to fund them.
There were State Standards in effect. About $2 million in the Calaveras reserves were
set aside in the current year budget. With respect to alternate fuels they haven’t spent
a lot of that money, though they do attempt to identify programs.
Council Member Schmid stated he was interested in knowing if 10 percent was a good
number.
Ms. Fong stated they hadn’t set aside that level in the other funds.
Council Member Schmid noted in the Electric Utilities that spending on Capital went
down.
Ms. Fong stated they had some uncompleted projects to carry forward. It did not
make sense to fund new projects. They funded what was doable.
Council Member Schmid stated regarding reserves, there was an electric supply
reserve of $40 million, a distribution reserve of $9.3 million. The Calaveras reserve
had a $5 million transfer into the electric fund. He asked if there was too much
reserve.
Ms. Fong stated Staff was going to have the UAC review that in July. One opportunity
would be another transmission line which could take the entire Calaveras fund.
Council Member Schmid stated in the near term he was concerned about the transfer.
He asked about the Equity Transfer which was going up by $400,000.
26 FIN
051711
Sr. Financial Analyst Dale Wong stated the equity transfer calculation was revised a
few years ago and prior to that it was a flat rate increase each year. Now it is based
on the asset base.
Council Member Schmid stated the systems improvements CIP fell by $1.5 million.
Mr. Wong stated there was a lag on the calculations.
Mr. Perez stated they could present the exact formula at a future meeting.
Council Member Schmid stated that would be helpful.
Council Member Shepherd asked if they monitor where the LED lights end up. It
seemed most are not properly recycled.
Ms. Fong stated the LEDs should not be burning out yet. She did not think there was a
mechanism for monitoring that.
Council Member Shepherd suggested the process should be communicated.
Utilities Advisory Commission Chair, Asher Waldfogel stated this had been reviewed by
the Commission and it seemed consistent to prior year budgets. He requested that if
they do review the under grounding issues Council should clearly direct the
Commission on how broad of a scope the review should be.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Electric Fund.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Scharff asked if Ms. Fong needed a motion for the under grounding project.
Ms. Fong stated Staff was clear on what was needed.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated if there was a mechanism Staff envisioned that would be useful
otherwise Colleagues Memos would work.
Ms. Fong stated she envisioned going to the UAC, getting community response, then
going to Council for guidance. Then they could discuss policy after that with the clarity
of Council guidance.
27 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh suggested a motion that would be for the City Manager to direct the
Utilities Department to bring back to the Finance Committee a proposed process for
reviewing the under grounding districts.
Ms. Fong suggested that a motion would add an extra step and delay the process. She
felt Staff was clear on what needed to be done. They could not do anything without
Council input anyway.
Council Member Shepherd stated a 50-100 year process was unsustainable. She
thought Council should be consulted prior to the UAC.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to direct Staff to hold a
Study Session with the UAC and the Finance Committee prior to the UAC discussion.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
3. Utilities Fiber Optic Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement
Program, Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras discussed the fund. The revenue increase was
$.3 million and decreased $.1 million. The fund had $12 million in reserve. The ending
balance was well above the guidelines.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the Operating Budget showed additional study. He asked if
more funds would be needed to supplement this as tied to wireless.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated this would be brought to
Council later in the fall. Without a specific project, they had not requested the budget
yet.
Council Member Schmid stated it was an impressive growth in the fund. He confirmed
the Capital CIP showed $300,000 per year was a place holder.
Council Member Shepherd stated aggressive movement was important. She wanted to
see a plan for fiber optics.
Chair Scharff stated it appeared the more they spent the more they made without
meeting demand. He wanted to know why it wasn’t moving quicker.
Ms. Fong stated Staff was doing what they could manage. There was a Staffing issue.
28 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff asked why they couldn’t contract the work out.
Ms. Fong stated they did not have the Staff to manage the contractors in the design
phase.
Chair Scharff asked why they couldn’t hire a consultant to do that.
Ms. Fong stated they could, but they still have to build it. They have been capturing
the low hanging fruit. She said it was currently profitable.
Chair Scharff asked why they didn’t ramp up to build it out.
Ms. Fong asked for clarification.
Chair Scharff stated he was talking about the fiber backbone. He asked how they were
getting the revenue without growing the business.
Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering, Tomm Marshall stated the backbone was in
place. They were making customer connections. There were particular customers that
needed this and were already using it. Adding additional customers creates a more
competitive market.
City Manager, James Keene asked what the schedule for returning to Council was.
Mr. Marshall said it was going to the UAC in June.
Utilities Advisory Commission Chair, Walt Waldfogel said the UAC had asked the same
questions. They concluded they should review the study in June. The questions were
legitimate, but it wasn’t clear if more advertising dollars were the right investment.
Council Member Shepherd asked what the study parameters were.
Ms. Fong stated there was a market assessment for Fiber to Premises and what it
would cost.
Council Member Shepherd stated if the demand was not there they might build it
anyway.
Ms. Fong stated they would share the study results and then they will formulate the
29 FIN
051711
plan. She felt fiber to the homes would probably not be attractive.
Mr. Keene stated if the goal was fiber to the premises they would have that updated. If
it was out of the question the stages of investments would be the next conversation.
Council Member Shepherd stated that the conversation about under grounding utilities
could be put behind this. The community wanted the answer to the feasibility of fiber.
Chair Scharff asked if they did under ground, if it would come from the electric fund.
Ms. Fong stated it would be jointly shared.
Chair Scharff asked if there was synergy with under grounding the fiber at the same
time to pay for all of it.
Mr. Marshall stated conduit would be put in for future fiber connections.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was to the curb.
Mr. Marshall stated in some cases yes.
Chair Scharff asked how expensive it would be to go from the curb to the house.
Mr. Marshall stated the expense would be getting the fiber to the homes from where
they are aggregated together.
Ms. Fong stated individual customer drops were expensive.
Chair Scharff stated it was different for where the customer was.
Mr. Keene stated this would come back to both the UAC and the Council.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that the Finance
Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Fiber Optic Fund.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the June report should go to Council when it goes to the UAC.
Mr. Keene stated Staff would provide that.
30 FIN
051711
4. Utilities Gas Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement
Program, Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras provided an overview of the Utilities Gas Fund.
She said some of the revenue increases and decrease were, the revenue decrease was
$1.9 million that resulted from decrease in revenues due to lower market cost.
Expense decrease was $1.4 million due to the decrease in gas commodity purchases
that was offset by an increase in contract services for Crossboar Program Safety
Initiative. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures was $7.8 million
which was made up of the gas main replacement projects. The gas rate stabilization
reserves increased by $5 million with a projected balance of $8.2 million that was
above the maximum guideline of $19.3 million. The distribution RSR decreased by
$9.7 million with a projected ending balance of $.4 million which was below the
minimum guideline of $2.7 million. A transfer will be made at the end of the fiscal year
between the Supply RSR and the Distribution RSR to ensure that both balances were
between guideline ranges.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how the Crossboar Program tied into the gas main replacement.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated the Crossboar Program was
when a service lateral had board through a sewer line to the house and the gas main
was in the streets. They were two different pieces of the system.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Crossboar service was done through a contractor.
Ms. Fong stated some of the City’s work crew was involved.
City Manager, James Keene stated Staff was not able to scale the contract up to
complete the program in an expeditious manner and had a mixer in services.
Council Member Schmid asked if the demands of the Crossboar study caused the CIP
to fall by $500,000.
Mr. Marshall stated the department was working on gas main projects and was behind
due to staffing and the amount was reduced to allow catching up with the gas main
projects.
Council Member Schmid asked if there was concern of postponing the project.
Mr. Marshall stated there was always concerns about the integrity of the City’s
infrastructure and reason for replacements but did not feel there were any immediate
issues.
31 FIN
051711
Council Member Schmid stated the equity transfer was growing by 15 percent and
asked why the dramatic increase.
Ms. Fong stated it was due to the lag reflected when the asset base was calculated.
Council Member Schmid asked if it was trend that was anticipated to continue.
Ms. Fong stated that would be correct.
Council Member Schmid stated it was a concern when it gets to be 15 percent of sales.
He said regarding commercial customers had an option of taking current prices or
signing a contract for 12 to 24 months. He asked how a 12-month contract compared
to rates that residential consumer were paying.
Ms. Fong stated a 12-month strip of gas reflected the forward market price for a 12-
month strip of gas. Latering strategy was used on residential customers where some
gas was purchased during the current year, some in prior years. Currently, it was
higher for residential customers than the 12-month strip.
Council Member Schmid asked if that was true for the last 18-months.
Ms. Fong stated probably true for the last 18-months.
Council Member Schmid asked if it was a problem in offering that to residential
customers.
Ms. Fong stated currently we have rate stability for residential customers
Chair Scharff asked if the demand side needed to be related to gas.
Ms. Fong stated they did.
Chair Scharff stated the compact flood light rebate program did not relate to gas, as
well as some other things.
Ms. Fong stated that was an error.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Gas Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
5. Utilities Wastewater Collection Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital
Improvement Program, Rates, and Reserves
32 FIN
051711
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras discussed the fund. She said the fund had a
$.1 million decrease in revenue, expenses increased as $.2 million. The Capital
Improvement Program the 2012 expenditures totaled $4.3 million. The reserves for
the fund projected to end above the maximum guideline.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what other cities maintained laterals.
Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering, Tomm Marshall stated most cities do not.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what the lower rates were attributed to.
Director of the Utilities Department, Valerie Fong stated she did not have the exact
data available but Palo Alto had three utilities with a shared workforce.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked about the laterals as a liability.
Ms. Fong stated that they had reviewed the issue. As the economy dived they knew
this would not be successful. As the economy recovers, they would have to review the
timing issue.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had heard that the community was concerned
about the need to replace laterals. The homeowner should best know, and the City
should ease out of this with a long lead time as it would be in their best interest.
City Manager, James Keene stated when homeowners owned the responsibility no one
was building a fund to deal with it. In one sense the transition was a policy versus a
financial transition.
Chair Scharff confirmed the City maintained the lateral starting at the house, other
cities deal with it from the property line. He asked how the homeowner could request
an inspection.
Mr. Keene stated the Crossboar project was for the City to inspect them all. That data
could be used for this decision.
Chair Scharff stated residents could pay for someone to inspect it prior to the City
transitioning their responsibility. This could bust the budget with people requesting
replacements prior to the transition.
Ms. Fong stated preliminary thoughts would be to review the integrity of the laterals
prior to transition.
33 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how long it would take to cycle through all the laterals in the
City.
Mr. Marshall stated it would take a long time. It could be 50 years or more.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated there were opportunities with the video. He asked what the
next step was.
Ms. Fong stated the program wasn’t ready to be designed now.
Council Member Schmid stated the City had some responsibility with the City owned
tree roots interfering with the laterals. He also said the City had some responsibilities
regarding backflow in the flood zones.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd,
that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Wastewater Collection
Fund.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
6. Utilities Water Fund – Includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program,
Rates, and Reserves
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras discussed the Utilities Water Fund, operating
budget, CIP budget, rate and reserves. She reviewed revenue increases of $1.8 million
due to a rate increase of 12.5 percent plus changes to the line rates, expense increase
of $.3 million due to increase in water commodity purchases which was offset by a
decrease in the CIP of $4 million. The Water Fund CIP of 2012 expenditure of $4.9
million, the bulk was due to seismic water upgrades, estimated budget for project was
$9.7 million over next 3 years, estimated completion in 2014. The rate stabilization
reserve was projected to decrease $3.9 million to a total of 11.2 which was above the
guidelines of 4.6 million to 9.2 million. Future RSR balances would be lower due to
water commodity costs were expected to increase, more than double from 2011-2016,
seismic CIPS will also increase in FY 2013 and FY2014.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how Council’s policy of a 20 percent reduction in water
Efficiency affects the factored into the Water Fund.
Ms. Fong stated it was built into the forecast when the rates were calculated.
34 FIN
051711
Vice Mayor Yeh stated as far as the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC)
and pass through of the San Francisco Project, he asked whether the City exposed to
any budget increases due to the BAWSCA network.
Ms. Fong stated there was always that potential. The SFPUC and BAWSCA had both
been very careful with the construction and auditing of the project. SFPUC has been
very conservative with its rates.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked with the CIP Street Improvements approach, which into Fiscal
Year 11/12 and Fiscal Year 12/13 was the City spreading them out evenly or how was
it being distributed.
Ms. Fong stated yes there was cost consideration, it was often how best to coordinate
with the street resurfacing projects.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated even if there was a change in the purchase of water, would the
City see rate impacts when they reached the 20 percent efficiency as a lot of it was
going to capital costs and investments. Total costs for Water versus capital costs
wouldn’t change that much, so we were facing a different set of issues as compared to
the other funds.
Ms. Fong stated with the Water Fund everything was a fixed cost, even what the
SFPUC tried to recover through the water they delivered to their customers similar to
the Western Project on the Electric Fund, it was a fixed cost allocated over a certain
amount of units that were sold.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated we were in the same position with the Water Fund as the Refuse
Fund. As consumption changed and efficiency was achieved the same risks were
realized.
Council Member Schmid asked why none of the projects are in 2012, your goal is to
reach a certain mileage count each year but you don’t have an item for 2012 are you
skipping a year to save money
Mr. Marshall stated Staff was trying to catch up with CIP’s in the Water Fund
Council Member Schmid stated the work was continuing but it was with funds
transferred from previous years.
Mr. Keene stated there was one more item.
35 FIN
051711
Council Member Schmid stated yes, although it was just design.
Council Member Shepherd stated she saw Staff was designing for Fiscal Year 2012 but
not constructing for two years after. She asked if it was typical to have a 2 year gap
between design and construction.
Mr. Marshall stated no, it was not typical. There were actually two water projects
occurring simultaneously, which were large projects. Usually the design would be
completed one year and construct the next.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was typical to have a project a project one year
and spend the money 2 years later.
Mr. Marshall stated yes, it was typical.
Mr. Keene stated it can be closer to one year if the contract was done towards the end
of one year and the next year the funds were spent, it could look like a 2 year gap.
Council Member Schmid what about the project # 208 water recycling project, it is a
large project, it starts with a 3 year design costs fairly substantial, what is the status
Ms. Fong we are going through the EIR process now. We intend to apply for grant
money when we are close to starting the project.
Council Member Schmid asked if Staff was going to get Stanford to assist with funding
this as well as grants.
Ms. Fong stated yes.
Council Member Schmid there are some options about how we treat the water and how
it comes out of our water treatment plant. He asked if they were looking at options on
changing how we treat our water as a part of this project and the salinity of it.
Ms. Fong stated she didn’t think this project doesn’t address that, this project has to do
with building the distribution for the recycled water.
Mr. Marshall stated this project included the salinity issue and it is also addressed in
the waste water rehabilitation project. They were trying to get salt water filtration into
the pipes that are having salt water problems.
36 FIN
051711
Council Member Schmid asked if we were successful there would be a likelihood that
this would work.
Mr. Marshall stated it would improve the quality of the water. Mountain View was
working on their distribution also. The Water Treatment Plant was also trying to find
out where the salt water infiltration was.
Council Member Schmid stated Staff believed that $500,000 each year was a good
investment.
Ms. Fong stated that was only for the waste water distribution system and the salt
water infiltration project.
Chair Scharff stated concerned about the water recycling. Stanford did not want the
water because the salinity ws too high, and we were going to spend $25 million. We
had not solved the water intrusion problem, and we now had the highest water rates in
the area. He asked if water rates were expected to go up 12 percent.
Ms. Fong stated she believed it was a $50 million fund, but it would be recovered over
time and through bond financing. There may not be an impact on rates.
Chair Scharff asked if we were going to finance this with bonds.
Ms. Fong stated yes.
Chair Scharff asked if there were any reason why they could not start the design
process in 2013 when we have a better sense of the salinity.
Ms. Fong stated it would depend on what the EIR study comes back with. There was a
time when there was a lot of stimulus money, however now there is not. She said it
was up to the Committee if they should stop the investigation of the project.
Chair Scharff stated it was a $.5 million investigation.
Ms. Fong stated not all of the funds may need to be expended.
Chair Scharff asked if there was any reason why we could not wait for a year on this
and see where we were on the salinity problem. Our water rates were now the highest
in the area and he was concerned at the
37 FIN
051711
Ms. Fong stated she believed the salinity level was going down, but did not know exact
numbers.
Chair Scharff asked if there was any reason that delaying this project for a year would
hurt.
Ms. Fong stated the time frame was when Staff believed the need for water would be
reached.
Chair Scharff stated it had been mentioned how over burdened Staff was with projects
and by putting this one off it would alleviate some work load.
Ms. Fong stated our engineering Staff would be happy to not do the project, but it was
not really in the engineering shop right now.
Chair Scharff asked for Staff to provide background information on the Fiscal Year 2012
$2.7 million Palo Alto Water Tank Project
Ms. Fong stated there was reference in the project to a 1987 seismic evaluation
however, the recommendation Staff was giving was based on a 2010 study. There
were a number of concrete tanks that had structural issues that we want to fix.
Chair Scharff asked for confirmation on the recent upgrade to the emergency water
tank on El Camino Real.
Ms. Fong stated the City financed the El Camino Real tank with bonds and all the
funds had not yet been spent.
Chair Scharff asked when the tank would be insatlled.
Ms. Fong stated in 2015.
Chair Scharff asked if we were using the tanks, how much have we lowered them.
Ms. Fong stated at least 1/3.
Mr. Marshall stated we have lowered the level in one tank due to the integrity of the
outer shell. The other issue was with the Mayfield Resevoir which had to be replaced.
There was another tank in the foothills that had foundation problems that needed to be
reinforced.
38 FIN
051711
Chair Scharff asked if by approving the budget request Staff would be taking care of
the issues.
Mr. Marshall stated yes.
Chair Scharff asked if these repairs were a critical need.
Ms. Fong stated yes, all of the tanks along with the $2.5 million gallon resevoir on El
Camino.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if Montebello, Corte Madera, Dahl, Borunda were underground
tanks.
Mr. Marshall stated no, they were above ground. The Mayfield tank was partially
underground.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked what the shell was.
Mr. Marshall stated some of the shell of the tanks were concrete with a banding around
them. Staff had found that the banding inside the shells were deteriorating.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if our resevoirs had roofs.
Mr. Marshall stated yes all of them did.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if while teh City was retrofitting would Staff look at the weight of
photo voltaic systems on the roofs.
Mr. Marshall stated that design had not yet been started, therefore it could be an
option.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if the $10 million cost over the next 3 year fiscal years included
photo voltaic systems on the roofs.
Mr. Marshall stated not all of them were considered resevoirs.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on which ones would be considered for photo
voltaic.
Mr. Marshall stated that some of them had wood roofs, which might require
reingineering to place solar cells on them.
39 FIN
051711
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh, that the Finance
Committee tentatively approve the Utilities Water Fund and to postpone the CIP (WS-
07001) for the water recycling facility until 2014-2015.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Perez asked to put non departmental items, Council, Fire, Police department and
OES on May 24th. This would provide flexibility to be able to discuss this if time
permits. Staff has reserved May 25, 2011 as a possible date. The memo at places with
additional info about council and non department (Attachment 1) please review to save
time. Addtionally staff will prepare a memo with the potential cuts for public safety
and additional information on OES.
Vice Mayor Yeh inquired about the Ross Road CIP
Mr. Perez clarified that this was the project we had received emails about from citizens,
Vice Mayor Yes the bike boulevard
Mr. Perez please provide us with your questions and staff will address.
Vice Mayor Yeh as long as it is available at wrap up night that’s fine.
Mr. Perez confirms that the direction is to look at the emails and respond and provide
information on the Ross Road Bike Boulevard CIP.
Chair Scharff inquired do we need to schedule another meeting or can we schedule as
late as May 24th.
Mr. Perez indicated an additional meeting would only require 24 hour notice
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
1 FIN 05/24/11
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 24, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Council Member Schmid, Council Member Shepherd,
Absent: Council Member Yeh (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)
Oral Communications
Herb Borock spoke on the Fire Protection Services contract with Stanford
University, its level of services, its development through the years and its
various agreements dating back to the late 1970s.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez discussed the At-Places items
before the Committee which contained information regarding the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2012 Proposed Budget Hearing. Also included was a booklet Local Elected
Official Toolkit on Pension and Retiree Healthcare Benefit Funding.
NOTE: Meeting started with 1b and then 1c and then 1a.
Agenda Items
1. Discussion and Recommendation Regarding the Following 2012 Department
Budgets and Programs.
a. Fire Department Budget (continued from May 5). (continued to after 1c)
b. Follow-up on Preliminary Reductions to Public Safety if Compensation
Concessions are not materialized (separate staff report prepared by Friday,
May 20)
2 FIN 05/24/11
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez, noted if the compensation
concessions did not materialize, it was estimated the Police Department would
have to eliminate 11 officers to meet the $2 million budget target. This
presented definite community service impacts. He stressed this was a
preliminary analysis. He stated this was subject to a meet and confer with the
Police and Fire Departments.
Council Member Schmid asked if there were a series of alternatives prepared in
the event the Police and Fire union negotiations did not meet expectations. He
also asked for clarification on what it meant to meet and confer.
City Manager James Keene stated any alternative discussions they might have
were separate from the regular contract discussions, but part of the
requirements of labor relations. He noted to meet and confer was when they
sit down with the labor group and discuss issues. It does not mean to meet
and agree.
Chair Scharff stated it was their duty to sit down with the union in good faith to
talk and then move on.
Mr. Keene noted it had some negotiation aspects but was different in the sense
that there were no specific contract discussions.
Council Member Shepherd spoke to Item 1b. She did not want to see a repeat
of last year as concern in the community rises when there is talk of reducing
officers and how this affects community safety, crossing guards and the traffic
team. She hoped the second Resource Officer would be added back in. She
had concerns over the fact that there were more fire personnel than police
officers and wondered if this discrepancy was common in other jurisdictions.
She did not see that the agreement with Stanford University would fully
account for the increased number of Fire Department personnel.
Mr. Keene stated in his experience it was more common in other cities to have
more police than fire personnel.
Police Chief Dennis Burns stated the Stanford University contract had two
engines which accounted for 18 personnel members. He noted that no area
was free from cuts, since they were cutting 11 spots. He noted the cuts
proposed last year, including the Traffic Team. The Traffic team was currently
composed of one Sergeant and three Officers. This is the 8th out of 9th year
that they’ve made cuts, creating a situation with limited options. The nuts and
bolts of the operation is Patrol, they are not obligated to have a Traffic Team or
Investigations Unit.
3 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member Shepherd understood the minimum staffing requirement with
the Fire Department and the contract with Stanford University. She requested
clarification on why it was still typical in many communities to have more police
than fire personnel on staff and asked how Palo Alto got in the position it was
in.
Mr. Keene stated it was generally true for a variety of reasons dependent on
the community, its geographical scale, population and crime levels. He noted
the City was in the position it was due to the location of Palo Alto’s fire stations
and the impact of incremental decision making.
Council Member Shepherd stated this was what she was trying to understand,
peeling back the incremental history of how this had all occurred.
Council Member Schmid directed everyone to the relative staffing figures on
page 37 of the Operating Budget and its notations for fulltime equivalents (FTE)
by union groups. After comparisons and some discussion, he noted that the
service needs and response for safety was relatively the same for Police and
Fire and yet Fire staffing was 40 percent higher for uniformed firefighters.
Mr. Burns stated he had not analyzed it in quite the same way. He noted Police
in Palo Alto were typically staffed one per vehicle, while Fire personnel are in
groups of three on a truck with equipment. Fire personnel also train in these
groups of three. He stated Stanford also contributed 30.3 percent towards the
Fire budget.
Council Member Schmid recalled the comment from the public stating that
conditions at Stanford University have changed since the 1970’s. He asked if
this has undergone any ongoing analysis as far as demand for services, and not
just the callouts but the requirements in the Stanford agreement.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated the Fire Services and Utilization
Study looked at the contract in terms of what equipment and personnel was
required, in particular in relation to overtime, slack, and backfill. She noted
they review whether or not they are recouping costs. It was on their ongoing
list of things to do, to reevaluate this based on changes, station locations,
agreements, level of service to the city, and also to Stanford’s campus changes.
Acting Deputy Fire Chief, Catherine Capriles, stated this was one of the pieces
they have been asked to look at and have begun to explore. A full analysis had
4 FIN 05/24/11
not yet been done. It was important to remember they review the contract
regularly.
Council Member Schmid had further comments about staffing of uniformed
personnel, noting there were times of the day where minimum staffing was not
an efficient utilization of their resources. He asked if it was appropriate to
continue asking the Police Department to make further staffing cutbacks.
Ms. Antil noted if they were not successful in gaining the concessions for
employee benefits and pay, the dollars had to come from somewhere. She
noted the Fire Department Utilization Study showed an opportunity to make
some changes based on consolidation and merging of stations, but it would
take some changes in infrastructure as well. Minimum staffing issues still
came into play as far as the union was concerned. Some alternatives included
strategic staffing, cross-staffing, merging of staffing, all which allowed the
reduction of resources and people. Six sworn positions were indicated in the
study.
Council Member Schmid asked if staffing issues were a meet and confer or
contract negotiations.
Ms. Antil stated in theory you could sit down and bargain with likely changes or
proposals. However, the Chief had noted broader discussion and analysis was
essential. The Fire Department brought forth the preference to get the dollars
needed in the form of the union concessions and then work on utilization.
Mr. Keene stated it was not his recommendation to eliminate 11 Police Officers
or make changes in the Fire Department. Staff had the alternative
recommendation to seek concessions. Personnel costs were what comprised
the Public Safety budgets; Spending could not be reduced without cutting
personnel costs. They can take the approach of reducing the costs across the
board with salary and benefits negotiations with savings and concessions.
Otherwise, they were forced to eliminate positions. There were impacts for
both choices, but the significant impacts came with the personnel reductions in
such a way that they cannot maintain services by reorganizing the Staff that
was left.
Chair Scharff remained optimistic that the labor discussions and concessions
would be achieved. It was his understanding that the CIP budget held funds for
refurbishment of fire stations. He suggested that maybe that money could be
used to; for instance, replace a traffic officer back on the scene versus a
refurbishing expense.
5 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Keene stated they had obviously come into a situation where capital
spending was in a triage environment. They were looking at stop gaps for the
short-term until they could figure out the best long-term approach. He noted
Staff worked hard on the recommendations and tried to allocate funds to cut
costs in Police and Fire. They applied their theories based on ballpark
concession figures. He noted different situations will arise when the cuts and
service impacts become apparent.
Council Member Schmid stated they were driving towards a sustainable budget
and were being asked to vote and recommend a budget starting July 1st. He
asked what the timing was, six months or some other time period, on when
they would know more.
Mr. Keene stated if the Committee adopted their recommendations, he
suggested a first quarter check-in with Council. He said going past the second
quarter would make an adaptation more difficult. It was then discussed that
binding arbitration discussions occur in September and October with results
coming back in January.
Mr. Perez noted their policy decisions on the contribution to retiree medical, by
practice; the contribution was not made until the end of the fiscal year. That
couple of million dollars was an option for Council to consider the best
methodology to reduce any liability. There were discussions of this as they
have quarterly reviews. If they were not meeting targets, they could make
other operational adjustments across departments.
Mr. Keene stated these choices surfaced again because they were in this triage
position, trying to figure out what to do short-term in the budget process while
looking for long-term strategies.
Chair Scharff said he did not like using these funds in that manner.
NO ACTION REQUIRED
c. Office of Emergency Services Recommendations (separate staff report
prepared by Friday, May 20)
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez reiterated they had put a
placeholder of a $1 million in the Proposed Budget that was published.
City Manager, James Keene noted there was the baseline funding in the Fire
Department Budget, which was related to Emergency Services. This was why
they were doing this prior to the other budget discussions.
6 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Perez noted corrections on several slides, as well as a memo dated May
20th/1c Office of Emergency Services (OES) with their recommendations that
had some proposed changes and mathematical corrections.
Chief of Police, Dennis Burns reviewed the three recommendations that the
Police and Fire Department offered based on the suggestions the consultant
team proposed. These included increasing the Office of Emergency Services
(OES) Staff to four members with the function reporting to the City Manager,
implementation of a plan to improve the Emergency Operations Center and
Consolidation of the information from the technical studies and additional
analyses. He noted the OES was currently situated within the Fire Department.
The Fiscal (FY) 2012 Budget was $457,000 for salary and non-salary expenses.
He reviewed the personnel recommendations and costs. He discussed senior
management recruitment and selection, recruitment and position fulfillments.
He discussed non-salary costs for program and operations as well as OES study
recommendations. He reviewed the cost summary for total staff and expenses,
total proposed new OES expenses, existing OES budget with Fire, and the
grand total for new and existing expenses. Examples of OES efforts were
summarized including an update of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and
the development and implementation of training for City Staff and family
emergency preparedness, the enhancement of interoperable communications
with virtual consolidations of dispatch centers. He also discussed the
development training and exercise plan implementation for the Foothills Fire
Management Plan, the expansion of the Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT), the implementation of the Medical Reserve Corp, holding community
exercises and seeking grant funding for program improvements.
Mr. Perez recapped Staff’s recommendations regarding the million-dollar
placeholder.
Mr. Keene stated the total in both accounts in the base budget presented had a
surplus that can be returned during budget discussions. When the one-time
expenses were taken out, they were proposing an ongoing addition as opposed
to a $1 million annual ongoing addition.
Chair Scharff clarified this was a $0.5 million dollar cost on an ongoing basis.
Council Member Shepherd stated the million-dollar place holder was actually a
half-million dollar place holder because the position was taken out of Fire and
moved to Operations.
7 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Keene stated this $1 million was actually new, but in an ongoing way it
became only $0.5 million.
Council Member Shepherd asked what the Medical Reserve Corp involved.
Mr. Burns stated the Corp was comprised of physicians and physician’s
assistants and the like who volunteer with the City and who were not already
otherwise involved in activities with their practices or hospitals.
Council Member Schmid appreciated the work on this budget. He was very
excited to see some leveraging of the volunteer base as it was an important
resource for the City and this department.
Chair Scharff questioned whether they were prematurely planning on hiring an
OES Budget Director.
Mr. Keene stated they had not made a final determination and recommendation
on how to proceed on Public Safety versus Police, Fire and a Fire Chief. He did
not think the OES Director position was something that could be undertaken by
the Fire Chief. He noted the expectations of the OES Director were broader.
Chair Scharff stated regarding structural expenses, perhaps there were
alternative methods that could be implemented. As an example, maybe they
would rather have that one more officer on the street than a new OES director,
and again he was only giving this as an example of how they might have to
review a variety of options during these difficult times.
Mr. Keene stated these were all good points. He agreed as well that there was
a tremendous network of community volunteers and that this and the
emergency preparedness components were at risk of losing steam without the
addition of the OES Director. He noted he, the Fire Chief and various
community leaders have been discussing this ongoing, realizing it was
important to support and leverage what they have in order to move forward
successfully.
Council Member Schmid agreed the momentum was important. He also
thought the one-time study funds were optional.
Chair Scharff asked if maybe they could follow up on the one-time study funds
and whether or not they could slow down on that.
Mr. Keene said it was important to keep that aspect in, but it was something
that was expendable. They did not, however, need to make that decision
8 FIN 05/24/11
currently. He stressed they had made a commitment to the community for
emergency preparedness, planning, integration of plans and data.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification of what should be included in the Motion.
Mr. Keene noted the new position in OES was a separate budget. If the
Committee desired, they could direct Staff to reallocate. He suggested they
keep it in the Fire Department Budget and as they implement and bring it back
to Council.
Council Member Shepherd saw no reason not to move forward quickly to get
the position filled.
Mr. Perez reminded to the Committee that Staff would adjust the
reimbursement from Stanford University’s agreement, with any changes to Fire,
so that these calculations would be included in the Motion.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the firefighter’s pension and other
compensation costs were included in Stanford’s reimbursements.
Mr. Perez stated the 30.3 percent reimbursement included pension plans.
a. Fire Department Budget (continued from May 5).
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Fire Department
Budget and come back to the Finance Committee in September with an update
on the tentative negotiations and agreements including the Office of Emergency
Services initiative but postponing this one-time spending until after the
September Meeting.
Chair Scharff asked if they would have this $335,000 before September.
Mr. Keene stated no spending occurred before the first quarter, so the question
was about sequestering these funds. The Motion was therefore appropriate as
it stood.
Chair Scharff noted even if that was not in the Motion, Staff would need to
return to Council with a Consent item.
Mr. Keene stated the contract award process occurred first on those sorts of
items. Their first efforts were towards recruitment of the Director of Emergency
Services.
9 FIN 05/24/11
Chair Scharff wanted to be clear that the Emergency Preparation language was
in the Motion.
Council Member Shepherd wanted to see this move forward with them coming
back on Consent regarding the $335,000 as it continued to move on.
Mr. Keene noted the way he interpreted their Motion was, given the uncertainty
on how to achieve the goals for the FY 2012 budget, rather than committing to
not spending the money prior to the first quarter, they had instead asked for a
first quarter check-in. The flipside to the Motion was, they still do not spend
the money, but at the first quarter check-in the Council had full latitude to
make recommendations or adjustments as they saw fit. He wanted to be sure
they understand both positions and sides to the Motion. Some other plans may
be at risk if they do not make progress on some of their goals, which Council
Member Schmid had also alluded to in his discussions.
Council Member Schmid stated the critical point was not to spend a huge
amount on consulting contracts before the new director was in place. Instead
they were putting the money in the budget and proceeding with caution.
Mr. Keene stated it was not a matter of not being in the budget. They were
putting an asterisk next to the funds reminding the City Manager not to proceed
with spending of these funds, even with the appropriation, until the first quarter
check-in.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Yeh Abstained
d. Public Works Department Budget – General Fund Operating Budget
Acting Public Works, Mike Sartor, gave a presentation regarding restructuring of
Public Works Department. He reviewed the current six divisions in the Public
Works Department. He then reviewed the consolidation of these into three
areas, which would be more efficient and eliminate redundancies. The three
remaining divisions included Environmental Services, Engineering Services and
Public Services. He detailed the functions and Management Staff under each
service area. He discussed the cost benefits of the restructuring, vacancies,
retirements, consolidations and reorganizations, which netted savings of nearly
$400,000. This was an ongoing structural change for the department.
Chair Scharff asked why refuse was under Environmental Services and not
Public Works. He reiterated the Zero Waste Program brought in zero dollars
and was poorly managed.
10 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Sartor stated the overriding consideration was having the refuse and the
solid waste and water quality control plant working in a similar arena. The plan
was to have the Director of this division streamline these programs, bringing
synergy to the programs under this umbrella.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on what happened next with the Refuse
Fund after the landfill closed, including issues regarding the Green Waste
contract.
Mr. Sartor discussed the Zero Waste Program. The Solid Waste Manager was
set to manage the Zero Waste Program outreach to the public and also work
with the Refuse Fund and its future. He noted landfills do not actually fully
close and must meet environmental compliance issues and capital functions for
at least 30 years.
Chair Scharff asked if the maintenance management of the landfill for the 30
years out came from the Refuse Fund or the Parks Fund.
Mr. Sartor stated the Refuse Fund continued the financial responsibility for this
in accordance with California State Law.
Council Member Shepherd questioned whether Environmental Services was the
appropriate language for a department that handled refuse and that it would
take the public some time to get used to it. She agreed the synergy was
important but wondered if there was a better title for the division.
Mr. Sartor agreed it did take time to get used to the language but it was a
model that San Jose was using, as well as other cities. He noted everything
was a work in progress and they were open to improvements.
Mr. Keene stated many communities had departments of environmental quality
or management. He stated the staffing structure was considered and any
advances they could make in restructuring four divisions down to three, while
still having the appropriate and effective leadership at the top tier. He felt they
had come up with the right combination and suggested they implement it on a
trial basis.
Council Member Yeh agreed, and noted it reminded him of certain grad school
practices where they consolidate and streamline, which was the exciting part.
He asked where they go beyond the test basis, and if there was going to be a
later check-in point on how this reorganization was working out.
11 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Keene clarified the question was not about the net structure, because they
were recommending eliminating positions and cost savings. Staff wanted the
Committee to know that they would be coming back with ongoing conversations
on how the new structure was working. They would not, however,
automatically come back, so the Committee might make that suggestion for a
time once budget talks are completed.
Chair Scharff fully agreed that a solvent Refuse Fund was of great importance
for the future. Also of importance was their focus on environmental issues in
this reorganization.
Mr. Keene noted no matter what they called it, it had to be solvent, it had to
make sense, the charges had to be appropriate and it had to work.
Mr. Sartor agreed the Refuse Fund and its functionality was their number one
priority. They recently hired and promoted a Solid Waste Manager for this
reason.
Council Member Yeh stressed it was encouraging to see the reorganization and
the goals moving in the right direction in Public Works.
Council Member Schmid agreed the Refuse Fund needed a strong economic
angle. He appreciated the restructuring and the leaner view of Public Works.
He looked to page 193 of the Operating Budget, and the Budget Changes for
the last one or two years where Administration goes up but Streets, Trees and
Structures was going down. He did not see this as going leaner, and asked for
an explanation.
Mr. Perez stated part of what they wanted to do was give an overview of the
structuring first, but they would look into his question further.
Chair Scharff asked, if they had an Environmental Services Department, if the
Office of Sustainability should be there as well. Then all the synergies would be
together. He suggested they consider this at some point.
Mr. Keene took note of this suggestion. He also spoke about the urban forestry
aspects of Public Works, which were also incorporated in the restructuring.
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras answered the previous question by
Council Member Schmid about Administrative costs being much higher than
those of Streets, Trees and Structures in the last several years. She stated this
was due to an increase in benefits and an increase in information technology
charges. In previous presentations these were city wide. She stated others
12 FIN 05/24/11
had to do with some of the reorganization plans in Public Works. She continued
with a PowerPoint overview of the General Fund Operating Budget for FY 2012
with a department summary for the Public Works General Fund operating
budget including revenue increases and decreases. She summarized the
amendments to the proposed.
Council Member Schmid spoke regarding Urban Forestry and the arborist
positions.
Mr. Sartor noted they had worked very closely with Planning and the City
Manager, as well as with the Development Center and the Blueprint Initiative
collectively as the City consolidated responses and reviews on private
development. This was what drove bringing an arborist into the group. The
primary function was to serve the development community. This arborist will
be a liaison to all departments. The other arborist position in Public Works was
related to street trees and private developments. That position was being
elevated to the senior level position of Urban Forester and would now be part of
the Urban Forestry Master Plan. They will not only manage the tree trimming
crews, line clearing operations with Utilities, but also out in the community
working on canopies and the like.
Council Member Schmid noted this was a more strategic tree plan, but he asked
if they were asking one person to do the job of two people.
Mr. Sartor stated this was not the case. The Planning Arborist would in fact
have a project manager on staff as well.
Ms. Antil stated the piece that was missing in the past was the City never had
an Urban Forester to begin with, so that person was the missing link. With the
retirement of an arborist, they could look at reorganizing and handling it in a
way where it’s two positions staying as two positions with one elevated, in a
sense, to that of Urban Forester.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification, on the new organization charting, which
groups fit under which funds versus those, which had their own independent
enterprise funding or separate funds.
Mr. Sartor stated the Environmental Services Division was funded by the Waste
Water Treatment and Refuse Fund. Engineering Services received funding from
the General and Storm Drain Fund. Public Services was funded through the
General Fund, Refuse Fund, Storm Drain and Vehicle Replacement Funds.
Vice Mayor Yeh noted it made a difference to be able to look at the chart and
13 FIN 05/24/11
see the organization and the funding cohesively.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had discussed in earlier meetings the need to make
changes to better reflect this.
Mr. Keene noted they were getting some of the basic budget process out of the
way in the first sessions, the allocation models, the fluctuations, performance
measures, before they put in any aggregation overlays in, but they would do
this in future discussions.
Council Member Yeh stated Palo Alto has always been acknowledged for their
budget work. He asked if the maintenance team had considered a “pothole
blitz” process versus their scheduled repair process. He asked as well if
sending in photos of repair areas was helpful or a hindrance in their processes.
Fleet Manager, Paul Dornell spoke regarding the pothole repair process. He
noted repair notices were batched and crews went out every other Friday. Tags
were gathered and crews go out with a full day’s work. He noted he was
familiar with the “blitz” way of doing it but currently they were keeping up, with
their goal of filling potholes within 15 days of their reporting. He stated input
from the public was always helpful not only for potholes but also downed trees,
storm drain and other repair issues. They had an inbox for this.
Mr. Keene noted the question became more of whether or not using the mobile
platform affected expectation or compounded the batching process.
Council Member Yeh asked for clarification on the Capital Improvement Projects
in Public Works and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) review
of this budget, compliance and how this fit in with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sartor stated the P&TC was frustrated with their role in implementing the
Comprehensive Plan rather than just making sure the CIP program is in
compliance with the plan.
Mr. Keene stated the tension was driven by the fact that there was not much
money in the Capital Budget.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on how much of this discussion has
actually occurred with the P&TC.
Mr. Sartor stated they informed the PTC of the work of the Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission (IBRC) and they would like to have a Study Session with
14 FIN 05/24/11
the IBRC possibly in July.
Council Member Schmid stated this was not about allocating dollars but
establishing priorities. He asked if it made sense to meet late in the fall.
Mr. Sartor stated they would have that opportunity this fall because the IBRC
would have draft reporting at a Study Session in September. The P&TC could
also participate in this.
Chair Scharff stated it was difficult as a committee to put a rubberstamp on CIP
proposals if they did not understand what went into what they are seeing in the
end discussions. He noted it would be helpful to have some discussion time
going into things to at least see what was important and what options existed..
In this way they would better understand what they were looking at and
eventually recommending in their process.
Mr. Perez went over the various logistics of the PTC discussions and how the
information was out there in November, February, April and May, but there was
no schedule discussion time with the Committee about these meetings or this
information. There was a budget meeting in October through November,
December for projects requested by Departments.
Mr. Keene suggested they could try meeting with the Finance Committee in
February to share some of this information going in.
Chair Scharff agreed February or March might be a good time for this type of
meeting.
Mr. Perez stated the P&TC shared in the frustration that there was no general
list or information about recommended versus not recommended projects.
Mr. Keene stated he did not have an issue with any of this, but he did not want
them to derail in the requirement that the City Manager present the Proposed
Budget to the City Council.
Council Member Yeh stated they were not short-circuiting the budget process
but weighing in strategically. He agreed a master list was needed.
Mr. Keene discussed the challenges behind putting the budget together and
meeting deadlines. He understood the intent of their proposal but wanted to
fully understand it in process.
Chair Scharff stated with there being more question the budget
15 FIN 05/24/11
recommendation process, it was clear there needed to be another meeting for
clarification purposes.
Council Member Schmid agreed with the City Manager’s perspective that they
should not micromanage the people that were already managing the budget
process. He discussed the differences between micromanaging and strategic
planning.
Mr. Keene stated from a practical standpoint the January, February or March
early discussion process made more sense than October or November when
Staff would have already started working on budget recommendations.
Council Member Shepherd agreed the transfer of knowledge was important and
part of their job was to work through the layers of information and inform the
public as well.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the request was not to add more to the IBRC but to have
an opportunity in September for Staff to return with a proposed process.
Mr. Keene stated November would probably be the best time, but in this year it
would be a different dynamic because the IBRC was coming forward.
MOTION: Council Member Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council
Member Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public
Works Department Budget – General Fund Operating Budget
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarity on the $3.3 million dollars for
engineering and what this was spent on.
Mr. Sartor gave a broad view of the expenditures in Engineering for the
Operating Budget in the various programs of streets, structures, private
development, parks and open space. A certain number of engineers were also
assigned to the Capital Fund, which was set up when the Infrastructure
Management Plan was established. They were spread through the Operating
Budget and the Capital Fund. He noted they all work in the Engineering
Division.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the CIP budget revenues.
16 FIN 05/24/11
Sr. Budget Manager, Sharon McWay, stated the Capital Program salaries
included employees from all departments. Engineering was the Engineering
Division of Public Works, which mostly was the private development section.
Council Member Shepherd said they work with homeowners or businesses,
which bring in revenues from fees. She asked if the IBRC was looking at the
pull out of the engineers as part of their scope.
Mr. Sartor asked if she was looking at the operating page or the capital page.
The Capital Budget was not the development section rather it was the
Engineering Staff assigned to capital projects from all General Fund
departments.
Council Member SHEPARD stated Staff did not spend money from their own
departmental budget, but it was still 20 - 25 percent of the $10 million spent
overall. .
Mr. Keene stated the 25 percent corresponds more directly to the annual
infrastructure reserve transfer. The Capital Budget was larger than that, so the
percentage was actually a lower percentage.
Mr. Sartor stated in addition to the transfer they have a gas tax transfer, a
bond program for the libraries, grant money from the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA), as well as monies from private donors and friends’ groups.
Council Member Shepherd stated there was a CIP budget, on page 25, growing
by percentages, and was the IBRC taking a look at these equations. She asked
if Staff knew the dollar amount for infrastructure repairs.
Mr. Sartor stated Staff was aware of staffing costs for infrastructure repairs,
staffing, and design.
Council Member Shepherd said it was decided not to spread this across
projects.
Mr. Keene stated on page 136 there were multiyear allocations for salaries and
benefits, roughly inflated over a five-year period. He asked for clarification on
this.
Ms. McWay stated they were allocated over cost centers for structures, grounds
and streets. The item was charged to the project involved.
17 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member Shepherd stated this does not include extra staff time for
department heads in the libraries, but she was looking for better clarification
and she said a large number like that should be detailed out and matched with
the project.
Mr. Sartor stated they did not track the actual time spent by Engineering Staff
spent on a project.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
e. Public works Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Storm Drainage
(includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and Reserves)
Vice Chair, Stepheny McGraw, Storm Drain Oversight Committee, stated the
presented budget had been reviewed and agreed upon. She summarized some
of their hopes for the budgeted funds.
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras provided a presentation on the Public
Works Storm Drain Fund’s Operating Budget including revenue decreases of
$243,000. She discussed the expenses for the Storm Drain Funds, which
included the Operating and Capital budgets as well. Budget amendments were
discussed. She recapped the status of the CIP projects in the storm drain fund,
which included seven projects. The Capital Improvement Program, Storm Drain
Fund and projects were summarized.
Council Member Schmid appreciated the response to his questions. He said it
was difficult to understand since there are no revenue numbers in any of the
materials they received. He noted the table given to them by the Storm Drain
Committee was confusing. He asked for clarification.
Sr. Engineer, Joe Teresi stated the figures at the top of the table he received
from the oversight committee were the 2005 estimates, a snapshot in time.
The financial model was where they assumed a rate of inflation at 3 percent,
where it would take $19 million to finish in 12 years. In the early years the
costs escalated by far greater amounts and it was now estimated that it would
cost $24 million. Looking at their financial model, they believe they will have
adequate revenue to fund the seven projects. Based on whatever rate of
inflation they assume in their model, it fluctuates depending on the
compounding of the interest. They are cautiously optimistic about the fund,
and continuing projects.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on the Southgate Project.
18 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Teresi stated runoff was directed to a single inlet, which worked at first
development. There was no constant slope at this point. The original plan was
a storm drain network. However, permeable pavement, rain gardens and
resurfacing to save money was suggested to achieve the ultimate goal of
proper drainage and flow. He described cisterns versus water pipes.
Council Member Shepherd stated it was important to be clear on this
information as the neighborhood would definitely be asking questions on this.
Mr. Teresi stated they would definitely be informing the neighborhood, but
there would be requests for proposals and feasibility studies prior.
MOTION: Council Member Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council
Member Shepherd, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the
Enterprise Funds: Storm Drainage (includes Operating Budget, Capital
Improvement Program and Reserves)
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
f. Public works Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Refuse (includes
Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and Reserves)
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras gave a presentation on the details of the
Refuse Fund including revenue decreases. She recapped Staff’s proposed
amendments and the fund’s deficits; however, the state will meet the landfill
closure and post closure liabilities. She also reviewed staffing proposals in
relationship to closing the landfill. These positions will be terminated at
midyear. She discussed the fund’s expenditure increases, which were mainly
due to the landfill closure project. There was one amendment for contract
services at the Smart Station related to the landfill closure. She recapped
staffing changes. Capital Improvements activities were discussed within the
fund. She discussed the fund’s RSR balance.
Acting Director of Public Works Mike Sartor spoke on the preliminary
recommendations for the Refuse Fund Cost of Service Study and the ideas they
were thought about. They had recommended that the Committee approve the
budget in concept assuming that the rate increases expire in October. In June,
with the Committee recommendations, this would be the case that 6 percent for
residents and 9 percent for commercial will expire in October. They will come
back in July with some options for correcting that, including two or three
options for increasing rates. The basis will be to retain the 6 and 9 percent,
carry those forward and add additional increases to both residential and
commercial rates. The timeline was discussed for the Refuse Fund.
19 FIN 05/24/11
Ms. Paras finished the presentation with a summary of what had been
presented to the Committee thus far in rate increases and changes without the
Refuse Fund increases.
Council Member Schmid spoke about how they were paying for services now
that had occurred in the past. He did not think rate increases were an effective
way of handling this and thought that this was how they got in the current
predicament.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on the Green Waste contract.
Solid Waste Manager, Brad Eggleston stated in the $2.4 million there was a
$1.6 million decrease in the Green Waste contract, and then the $1.6 million
was added back, so then $1.8 was added back for a difference of $1.2
million.
Vice Mayor Yeh wanted to make sure that the Green Waste contract remained
as part of the review in the continuing timeline as far as reviewing level of
service and cost of service.
Mr. Eggleston stated they had begun discussions with Green Waste on ways to
decrease expenses. In the short-term, for FY 2012, they were looking at
operational expense reductions at the recycling center and what to do with the
center when the landfill closes. They were also in the process of factoring
customer outreach into their timeline and discussions with Green Waste.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the budget numbers for the Smart
Station.
Mr. Eggleston stated the initial budget amount was for a midyear projection.
Smart Station prepared a budget and they based their original number from
what they received in January. Basically, the Smart Station was charging more
than was originally anticipated.
Chair Scharff stated they were also paying $600,000 a year or more for but not
using Kirby Canyon.
Mr. Eggleston stated the put-or-pay cost for Kirby Canyon was slightly less than
that but he was not sure exactly. He stated they would be bringing information
on this in their presentation in July.
20 FIN 05/24/11
Chair Scharff there was also some money still being spent on a Smart Station
for put-or-pay.
Mr. Eggleston said Staff would bring that information back to the Committee.
Chair Scharff noted then there were two numbers where they were paying for
things they were not using, and hoped they would come back with those
numbers then in July. At Kirby Canyon could they sell off that used capacity
and it was indicated that there was no interest in this, but he heard rumors that
communities were looking for refuse space.
Mr. Sartor stated this was a good point and a way to alleviate contractual
obligations. They intended to research this.
Chair Scharff discussed his concerns over language about overall goals
extending out five to ten years, which was not allowed under Proposition 218.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, Phil Bobel stated some of the five to
ten year goals had to do with some conservation and incentive-based pricing
that will occur in the future of the refuse world.
Chair Scharff reiterated it was not legal to go out beyond three or five years.
Mr. Bobel noted they would return in July with more options on how to reduce
the discrepancies between residential and commercial rates structures.
Mr. Sartor stated they will also modify their goals to meet the three to five year
timeframes.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff, that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public works
Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Refuse (includes Operating Budget,
Capital Improvement Program and Reserves)
Council Member Shepherd looked forward to more work being done on the Zero
Waste program. She agreed with the goals and looked forward to hearing back
from them in July. She noted helping the community understand that recycling
came with a cost was going to be of importance.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to
request Staff come back with rate ideas tailored towards a financially
sustainable rate base.
21 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member asked how that was different to what was coming back in July.
Mr. Sartor stated they were looking at a sustainable rate structure and expense
reductions which started last fall with the closure of the landfill.
Chair Scharff noted the many ways this program was not currently sustainable
and that the twin goal was to make the environmental goal to be zero waste
but also sustainable.
City Manager, James Keene stated it was hard to craft something that said they
were charging more for less service.
Mr. Sartor noted a sustainable model meant no free curbside cans for anything.
Outreach was going to be of great importance to get this across.
Council Member Schmid note the Water Fund had undergone similar problems
and debate in order to finally reach the idea of a flat fee across the board for all
services with incentives.
Mr. Sartor took feedback about every other week service and other options and
noted he would check codes and get back to the Committee on these issues.
Mr. Bobel noted they are in discussions on this as well as separating out organic
items making it possible to leave other “dry” garbage out longer for pickups.
Council Member Shepherd and Vice Mayor Yeh agreed that the additional
information in July would be helpful.
Mr. Bobel discussed the bulk of what they would continue to look at including
the revenue and also the options in dealing with the residential versus
commercial rates, the smaller cans, minimums and maximums. He appreciated
the Amendment to the Motion but noted some of the Green Waste ideas were
longer term discussions.
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED: 4-0.
g. Public Works Department Budget – Enterprise Funds: Wastewater
Treatment (includes Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program and
Reserves)
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras discussed the revenue increases for the
fund, expense decreases and the increase in salaries and benefits due to the
restructuring in Public Works. There were no CIP expenditures in 2012.
22 FIN 05/24/11
Ongoing projects are making use of funds from prior years. She recapped
where things stood with the Waste Water Treatment Fund reserves, which were
in the positives.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on the Ballot Measure coming forward for
the anaerobic digester and any impacts to the proposed budget.
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor stated nothing was included the
current budget. If the vote undedicated the land adjacent to the treatment
plant, they would be looking at options that involved the incineration process at
the treatment plant. All was dependent on Council’s direction.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if there were any potential amounts as to what this might
entail. He asked if there was an interim report prior to the Master Plan next
summer.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, Phil Bobel stated he had no potential
estimates at this time. He did point out that it did help that they were
midstream in their long term planning for the plant. There was no interim
report, but there is was an ARI study.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid, that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public Works Department Budget –
Enterprise Funds: Wastewater Treatment (includes Operating Budget, Capital
Improvement Program and Reserves)
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
h. Public works Department Budget – Internal Service Funds: Vehicle
Replacement/Maintenance (includes Operating Budget and Capital
Improvement Program)
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor gave a presentation and
introduction overview of the vehicle replacement plan, its recommendations,
reductions, savings, evaluations and re-evaluations. They are in the process of
a comprehensive review of the City’s Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance
and Replacement Policy. They were also establishing fully automated pool
reservation systems. They are also exploring pool lease programs and
contracts. He discussed the intentions and the advantages to these leasing
programs. The fleet database, parts and supply were discussed.
Acting Budget Manager Christine Paras went over the details of the Vehicle
Maintenance and Replacement Fund including revenue decreases and expense
23 FIN 05/24/11
decreases. Budget amendments were also discussed. She summarized the CIP
and that zero dollars are budgeted for 2012. Amendments will be made as
needed and reviewed by the Fleet Review Committee.
Council Member Shepherd stated it tightened up nicely, looked to outsourcing
and so she thought that it was appropriate for leasing or outsourcing.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked for clarification on the decrease in salvage revenue.
Fleet Manager, Keith Lahaie stated part of the reason for decrease, was that
they had not replaced vehicles since the replacement program was restricted.
The 26 surplus vehicles had also not yet sold. If they expand the motor pool,
they will also not sell those vehicles this year.
Mr. Sartor stated in answer to the Committee members’ questions, noted that
outsourcing was feasible and they would get back to the Committee on this in
the future.
City Manager, James Keene stated there were different scales and levels of this
partial and/or complete, as far as the analysis of what will work for the city.
Chair Scharff asked how the compressed natural gas pilot program is working
out.
Mr. Sartor gave an overview of this process.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd, that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Public works Department
Budget – Internal Service Funds: Vehicle Replacement/Maintenance (includes
Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program)
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Chair Scharff amendment that you do come back with options on the
outsourcing from complete to partial to or leasing.
Mr. Sartor clarified Staff would not be looking to outsource Fire or Police but
transport and pool vehicles.
Mr. Keene stated Staff could return with an initial or preliminary scope for the
Committee to review and then start the analysis.
i. Non-Departmental Budget
24 FIN 05/24/11
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras recapped the City Council Proposed
Budget for FY 2012 which included various placeholders which Staff had
incorporated to bridge the budget gaps; $4.3 million in Public Safety
concessions, $1 million in attrition savings for Staffing vacancies in the General
Fund, $1.1 million for funding for the retiree ARCarc in non-departmental and
an anticipated pension increase. The subtotal for salaries and benefits was a
negative $2.9 million. She added included in the non-departmental budget was
funding for the Office of Emergency Services (OES) program, since not all of
the funding was utilized there was a return to the Budget Stabilization Reserve
(BSR) of $167,000, also included was rent for land (rent paid to Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) for the train depot) of $156,000, also included
in this section are City paid property tax for rentals of El Camino Park and
various rentals in San Mateo County and Stanford Substation. She stated there
were various contingency accounts; City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Council and new to Fiscal Year 2012 was an Innovation Contingency Fund.
Council Member Shepherd asked what train depot the City was paying rent for.
Ms. Paras stated it was the Caltrain station at University Avenue where Café del
Dodge was located.
Council Member Shepherd asked who owned the train station.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated Stanford
owned the station.
Council Member Shepherd asked why the City was renting the entire station for
a café.
Mr. Perez stated the City was renting from Stanford and then subleased to VTA,
essentially it was a pass-through. He noted Staff was working on exiting the
City from the agreement so they were not part of the third party due to the
majority of the usage being VTA.
Council Member Shepherd asked what the train station was being rented for
originally from Stanford.
Mr. Perez stated he would need to research and get back to the Committee. He
recalled a portion had been used by the City for bicycle storage.
Chair Scharff stated when Staff returned he requested information on the date
the lease expired.
25 FIN 05/24/11
Mr. Perez stated he recalled the lease expired within the next couple of years
and that was why Staff was working on getting out of the agreement to allow
VTA and Stanford to coordinate without the City’s involvement.
Chair Scharff asked if there was an issue with the City pulling out of the
agreement by Stanford.
Mr. Perez stated no, it was more there was an enforceable lease and the City
was fortunate that VTA needed the space and they were able to pick-up the
cost.
Council Member Schmid asked about the $310,000 for the Management
Compensation Study.
Mr. Perez stated the amount shown had been carried for 5 years and Council
had approved it at that time. He stated Staff could provide the specific fiscal
year if requested. The City Manager at that time recommended Staff set
funding aside for when the review of the classification of the Management and
Professional benchmarking was done.
Council Member Schmid asked whether the Study had been completed.
Mr. Perez stated it has not.
City Manager, James Keene stated the Study had been essentially completed
although was not ready to be fully implemented. It was currently in the
beginning stages of review by the departments.
Council Member Schmid stated the proposed budget implied there was
$310,000 each year rather than being passed on.
Mr. Perez stated that was not the function and Staff would add a notation for
clarification.
Mr. Keene clarified the amount was being re-appropriated each year and not
expended.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated Public Safety concessions were listed under the non-
departmental budget and he asked what non-departmental referred to.
Mr. Perez stated initially non-departmental was used as a budget tool as a place
holder for expenses that had yet to be realized. He stated the manner in which
26 FIN 05/24/11
Staff viewed the concessions for Public Safety were they did not want to
decrease the Fire Department budget per se because there were no assurances
of the concessions. He clarified if Staff reduced the Fire Department budget, the
revenue reimbursement from Stanford would need to be reduced by 30.3
percent.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated there was no mention of the Cubberley Community
Center in the presentation.
Mr. Perez stated Cubberley should have been mentioned. He stated Staff could
note which items were ongoing or one-time items which may help the
Committee understand. He noted the Cubberley amount included the lease and
the covenant not to develop.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated it was an item that would be incurred in 2011/12.
Mr. Perez stated right now, the City had an agreement with the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) that had an option that the City must notify the
PAUSD by December 2013 to effect the option, which was in 5 year increments,
so if the City was to exercise the option it would be in effect January 2015.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked why the Council Contingency went from $250,000 to
$264,000
Mr. Perez stated Staff needed to make the changes reflective of the adjusted
budget.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the Management Compensation Plan.
Mr. Keene stated essentially there was an agreement with the Management
Professional Group to restructure both the internal equity of the positions and
to align them with the market. The figure was a specific amount so the
decisions to make any adjustments in the Management Professional Group were
going to be dictated by the amount of funding available.
Chair Scharff stated the concept made sense for incoming positions although
for existing position was being paid adequately or they would have left the
position.
Mr. Keene stated the Study being performed was for the current salaries in the
City in relation to fifteen to twenty benchmark agencies. He stated that was
data that should be available consistently to ensure the City was at market
value with their employees. He stated the question with what to do with the
27 FIN 05/24/11
data was being limited by the $310,000. He clarified if there were to be any
actual adjustments they would be limited to the amount of funding availble
which would be the $310,000.
Chair Scharff stated his preference was to limit the funds available to
recruitment and not increase current salaries.
Mr. Keene suggested a separate session be held with respect to the funding
since the dollars would not be spent prior to July 1, 2011.
Chair Scharff stated Staff would be returning to the Finance Committee prior to
July 1, 2011 so there was no need to make a separate Motion.
Mr. Keene stated no, Staff would be bringing back the Management
Compensation Study final recommendations. The adjustments needing to be
made to the Compensation Plan which Council would need to approve once the
Finance Committee approved them.
Mr. Perez stated the funds could not be spent without Finance Committee and
Council approval so by bringing the Compensation Plan both entities could
review the specific recommendations by classification.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to tentatively
approve the non-departmental budget for Fiscal year 2012 with the detail that
there would be Staff follow-up on the Management Compensation Study
returning to the Finance Committee the following fiscal year.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
j. City Council Budget (continued from May 3, 2011)
Acting Budget Manager, Christine Paras stated the original City Council budget
was presented to the Finance Committee on May 3, 2011. She stated the
revenue decreases totaling $105,000 which was a decrease in administrative
overhead charges; expense shows an increase which Staff was returning to
Council with a view of updated salaries and benefits totaling $145,000. Staff
had reviewed the actual health care costs for the full Council totaling $107,848
and the Council portion of the retiree medical actuary contribution was
$44,592.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez stated all of the major expenses;
healthcare, pension, retiree healthcare in the general benefits then it was
28 FIN 05/24/11
allocated to all of the departments. The methodology used was based on
salaries which did not work for the Council portion. He stated the information
requested regarding the iPad costs were reflected on page 3.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to tentatively
approve the Council budget with the detail that there would not be an
expenditure of City funds on the iPad in Fiscal Year 2012.
City Manager, James Keene stated there were two parts to the iPad
expenditure; 1) the purchase or acquisition cost and 2) the ongoing monthly
service charge.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated his understanding was with Wi-Fi there would not be a
need for a data plan on a monthly basis to be able to access the online services.
Mr. Perez stated the concern would be the interruption of Wi-Fi if the system
has an issue or the abundance of Wi-Fi equipment in use in the Council
Chambers during a given meeting; the City had procured a few iPads for test
purposes.
Chair Scharff asked for confirmation there was a Wi-Fi connection in the Council
Chambers.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct; there were both secured and public accesses.
Chair Scharff stated when the Council received their packets it would not be the
night of the meeting. He asked why would Council need to access the Wi-Fi
while in the Council Chambers. He stated once the packet was released it could
be downloaded to the device of choice. Therefore, he was uncertain as to why
there needed to be a 3G connection at a cost of $5,000 as a back-up to Wi-Fi.
Mr. Keene stated the assumption by Staff was the Council would access the
packet from their chosen device in different locations and there was the ability
to instantaneously update the packet if there was a supplemental.
Chair Scharff argued no matter when a supplemental was received the user
would still need to click on a link and download the item which could be done
utilizing Wi-Fi. He stated the question was why would you want the City to pay
for an item that could be perceived by the community as abuse of City funds.
Mr. Keene stated that seemed to be more of a political policy question for the
full Council.
29 FIN 05/24/11
Chair Scharff stated the technical question was whether it was needed or not
and then there was the policy issue.
Mr. Keene stated there were times where Wi-Fi was unavailable when he was
working and the 3G would be an available back-up.
Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated in her residence there were 3 iPads,
1 with 3G service and that one downloads items quickly, it is usable on an
airplane or in the car, when the iPad was not configured with the 3G the service
was slow and the user needed to search for Wi-Fi service.
Chair Scharff stated the Wi-Fi service in his residence was faster than the 3G he
had on his personal iPad therefore he did not see the importance of the extra
cost to the City. He clarified if Council was utilizing the device for City business
as it was intended, which was downloading and reviewing the Council packet,
the Wi-Fi service was more than sufficient.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated the conversation was being driven away from the Council
budget into political commentary. He stated his preference was to proceed
slowly in terms of increasing the costs as it related to supporting the City
Council. He felt the issue was he was uncertain as to whether the full Council
would be accepting of the iPad. He noted the proposed information indicated a
$4,000 per Council Member cost and assuming the maxim was a $35,000 cost
for the entire Council. If a Council Member opted into the iPad process, the Wi-
Fi level should be tested for adequacy before determining the monthly plan was
necessary.
Mr. Keene clarified the $4,000 cost was for the full Council not an individual
cost. The 3G cost was based on $30.00 per month. He noted in one month the
cost of creating a paper packet with Staff time and delivery was higher than a
full year of 3G service.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had heard there was an expectation for
individual Council Members to purchase their own iPad device which she was
uncertain she agreed with that policy. She felt the decision should be with the
full Council. The $30 monthly service fee it was not a large amount the other
option was not having access to your email for the entire day. She
recommended the item be continued to the full Council unless the
recommendation from Staff was for the Finance Committee to make a decision
regarding the iPad.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated it was not a Staff recommendation although he included
it in the Motion.
30 FIN 05/24/11
Council Member Shepherd stated she would not be supporting the Motion for
the purposes of the iPad.
Council Member Schmid stated he did not feel any Council Member should pay
a fee for access to information. He stated if there was a hint that Council
Members, as a representative of the public, needed to buy in to information he
would vote against it.
Chair Scharff stated in terms of the iPad, why would there be a determined use
of that specific device.
Mr. Keene stated it was possible to use different types of devices. He noted
there needed to be standardized software or platform used to distribute the
information.
Mr. Perez stated there was no Staff recommendation for iPads at this time.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated Chair Scharff had split the Motion into two separate
questions; 1) tentative approval of the City Council budget and 2) the issue of
iPads.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to tentatively
approve the City Council budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Vice Mayor Yeh stated his concerns with all Council Members preferring an
electronic interface. The question was in the future if someone chose not to
have an electronic device, would there be an option to receive a paper packet.
Mr. Keene stated his understanding was the City Clerk’s department would
produce paper packets.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated for purposes of public access there needed to be paper
copies available.
Mr. Keene stated there were and would continue to be paper packets available
at the City libraries. The policy question was how much access to information,
in what formats, and how much of that would the City underwrite.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated that was where he saw the iPad item as a choice and if
Council Members chose that type of an interface that was the basis where his
31 FIN 05/24/11
discomfort arose. It was not mandatory for City Council Members to interface
electronically and therefore the basis for the Motion was if it was a choice it
should not involve City funds.
Council Member Schmid stated his basic belief was good information was key to
good decisions by the Council. He felt valid questions had been raised regarding
the electronic access, especially the search options available on the City
website. If the City was moving in that direction he was in favor of a budget
that assisted the City prepare for a transition where search ability in an
electronic format was as good as what could be done in a paper format.
Chair Scharff stated the first issue was if the City supplied iPads. The lifespan of
the device was 3 to 4 years at most. The second issue was Wi-Fi and was it
necessary to have 3G or should there be a slow move to determine the need.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Chair Scharff to not expend
City funds on the iPad in Fiscal Year 2012.
MOTION FAILED: 2 – 2 Scharff, Yeh yes – Schmid, Shepherd no
Information Items
-Storm Drain Oversight Committee Review of Proposed FY2012 Storm Drainage
Fund Budget
Future Meetings and Agendas
Mr. Perez noted the items coming forward for the next meeting included
information on the practices and costs for minutes preparation, the train station
leasing information, the Municipal Fee Schedule, the approval for the scope of
services for the consulting agreements and the Wrap-Up.
The next meeting was scheduled for May 25th, 2011.
Wrap-Up was scheduled for
-June 7th the Finance Committee will meet on Utilities and the City Auditor will
introduce the new City Auditor.
-Tentative meeting for 3rd quarter financials on the 31st, but he suggested
moving this out to July 5th with the Refuse discussion.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 1
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Special Meeting
May 25, 2011
Roll Call
Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Conference
Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Scharff (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Yeh
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Request to approve changes to the Fiscal Year 2011 Municipal Fee Schedule
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez reviewed the At-Place
memo which covered changes in the Municipal Fee Schedule, where the City was with
the General Fund, and the Committee had requested Staff return with information on
the costs for citywide tracking the minutes for Council and other Committees and
Commissions. He stated there was an average monthly cost of $16, 207 for 31 hours.
He noted 29 percent of the cost was contracted out.
Council Member Schmid asked why the verbatim minutes cost was so much less.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would research the question and return with a response.
City Clerk, Donna Grider stated verbatim minutes were straight typing from the
transcription tape where sense minutes required a thought process of extracting the
summary of what was said.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 2
Chair Scharff asked if the City went to verbatim minutes for all Committees and
Commissions excluding Council would there be a large sum of funds saved.
Ms. Grider stated sense minutes would take longer due to the complexity although she
was not comfortable confirmng there would be a cost savings. She noted verbatim
minutes were difficult to follow.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the verbatim minutes were contracted out.
Ms. Grider stated that was correct, the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) had their minutes done in a verbatim format with a contracted transcriptionist.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the difference between Action Minutes and
Sense Minutes.
Ms. Grider stated Action Minutes were the Agenda Item, the Motion, and the vote with
no discussion responding to said Item. She noted many cities had converted to Action
Minutes and there was a cost savings in that accomplishment.
Chair Scharff stated the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) did Action
Minutes at a cost of $45 monthly, the P&TC did verbatim minutes at a cost of $25
monthly, and the Policy & Services Committee did Sense Minutes at a cost of $1,100
per month.
Ms. Grider stated the Council, Finance Committee, and Policy and Services Committee
meetings were hours longer than either of the others mentioned.
Chair Scharff stated the Architectural Review Board (ARB) did verbatim at a cost of $34
per month.
Mr. Perez noted that contract costs were at the bottom of the page and stated the
P&TC, the ARB, and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) had an average monthly
contract with an outside transcriptionist (the department did not provide a breakout to
Staff before the meeting and that needed to be taken into consideration). Returning to
the At-Place memo he said the Committee requested Staff return with information on
the Train Depot lease. He stated in 1981 there was a meeting between the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), Stanford and the City to enhance the service in the
area and at present Staff was in the process of (fixing) the relationship. The option
comes up on January 26, 2013.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department, David Ramberg stated Item
1 was regarding the Staff recommendations for the Municipal Fee Schedule. He noted
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 3
there was a Comprehensive Cost of Service Recovery Study planned which would
include suggestions or recommendations for the 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule. Staff
reviewed the fee changes proposed for FY 2012 and he noted all of the changes fell
within the exemptions for Proposition 26. The increased General Fund revenue was on
the low side compared to prior years. He reviewed the changes to the Community
Services Department fee schedule which included increases to facilities rental fees,
organic garden plots, the Junior Museum and Zoo, and the Aquatics Program. He
reviewed the changes to the Planning and Community Environment fee schedule which
included 2 new fees 1) a plan and inspection fee for gray or reclaimed water systems,
and 2) review and inspection fee increases for the wireless facilities to take into
account the additional Staff time needed. Development impact fees increased by 4.4
percent, and the College Terrace Parking Permit Program increased to $40 annually for
guest permits to achieve full cost recovery. He reviewed the Library fee schedule
changes which included a new fee for room rental at the Downtown Library and a
deletion of the inter-library loan fee.
Council Member Schmid stated it appeared there were two options, either an increase
in fees or a decrease in services. He asked what the thought process was behind
charging for the spaces at the libraries.
Mr. Perez stated a fundamental issue is that the libraries have no funding for the
operations. Staff was working on ways to raise the funds to support the operations. He
noted the Capital Fund assisted in the furnishings and the technology equipment.
Council Member Schmid stated his assumption was the 2013 budget would include
those costs. He stated there was a substantial rise in the fees and he asked whether
that was a good message to be sent.
City Manager, James Keene stated with the Capital improvements there were now
spaces the community wanted to use. He stated seeing the libraries as a multi-purpose
and multi-use facility there were considerations being reviewed for Staffing and times
where the facilities would be open for business.
Assistant Library Director, Cornelia van Aiken stated the libraries had not previously
had a space such as what was being built so there were Staffing issues being created
in order to sufficiently use the space as in setting schedules, sign-up sheets, and
organizing the area to ensure maximum use.
Council Member Schmid stated he did not want the fees to discourage the community
from utilizing the libraries.
Ms. van Aiken stated the only room being charged a fee was the larger community
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 4
rooms.
Chair Scharff asked if Staff had reflected on the availability schedule of the room,
would it be available for an all-day rental or broken into hours and would it be reserved
or first come first served.
Ms. van Aiken stated the room would be rented by the hour.
Chair Scharff asked if there were similar rooms in other libraries.
Ms. van Aiken stated Staff had reviewed other communities and libraries and was
utilizing similar models. She stated it was planned for the room to be heavily used by
Staff for projects and for community meetings.
Chair Scharff asked how the fee was calculated.
Ms. Van Aiken stated Staff took a comparable room at a community center and based
the fees by square footage as did the Community Services Department.
Council Member Schmid stated the inter-library loan was very expensive and was
hardly used. His understanding was the City was trying to eliminate the concept and
yet the budget was to eliminate the fee which seemed the complete opposite of what
was thought to happen.
Ms. van Aiken stated the fee was being eliminated because Staff was interested in
eliminating the service. She stated it was not cost effective to continue to supply the
service.
Council Member Schmid asked how the development impact fees increase was
calculated by the cost of construction. He stated the sale price for property in Palo Alto
was driven more by the land cost than the construction costs. He felt the development
fees should be based on the land value not the construction costs.
Mr. Keene stated the development impact fees were set-up in an Ordinance.
Council Member Schmid stated it was time to change the concept of the impact fees.
Mr. Keene stated it was appropriate for Staff to follow-up and return to the Committee
with the available options.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had discussed updating the Nexus Study and how close they
were to the market. Staff was reviewing the Fee Study for the other areas and felt the
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 5
development impact fees should be revisited as well. He noted a consultant would
need to be brought in for the review.
Council Member Schmid stated the size of the scale of the impact fees relative to the
cost of property.
Administrator of Planning and Community Environment, Mary Figone stated the fees in
question were established by an Ordinance and therefore a change was not a simple
process although it could be done if Council felt the need.
Council Member Schmid asked if there needed to be a vote to change the Ordinance.
Ms. Figone stated yes, there was an election involved (vote of the Council).
Chair Scharff asked if the increased fees were based on Staff time or was there a
formula followed to determine the increase amount.
Ms. Figone stated there was a formula in place used by Staff to calculate Parkland
dedication based on the numbers of acreage charged by a dollar amount.
Mr. Keene stated generally the methodology was closer to the impact additional use by
new people or development will have on the facilities.
Chair Scharff stated the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) had discussed
3,000 more housing units for the next cycle. He asked if Staff knew when the last time
the City updated the fees for park usage.
Mr. Perez stated an internal review was conducted two years ago, but it has been
about seven to nine years since we did an external study.
Chair Scharff asked if other municipalities performed an external review to establish a
nexus.
Mr. Perez stated he was uncertain.
Council Member Schmid stated for 30 years Palo Alto had the same population then at
the turn of the century there was a growth and now there were approximately 64
thousand people.
Mr. Keene stated he did not feel a comparison with other jurisdictions would be
beneficial in costs. The impact on who paid was of interest due to Proposition 13.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 6
Council Member Shepherd wanted to see if other communities based their development
impact fees on land value or construction. She asked where she would locate the fee
for the cell tower usage.
Mr. Perez stated the Municipal Fee Schedule included the cell tower fee information.
Council Member Shepherd asked for Staff to describe a wireless facility.
Ms. Figone stated a wireless facility was a facility housed within a replica tree or the
like.
Council Member Shepherd stated the AT&T facility that was going to occur at St Albert
the Great Church was a wireless tower.
Ms. Figone stated it could have been a wireless tower or a cell tower. She stated those
types of projects were taking a large amount of Staff time and therefore it was
preferred to have a deposit from the applicant upfront.
Council Member Shepherd stated the 488 University project would have been a $3,500
fee.
Ms. Figone stated there would have been a $3,500 deposit and at 80 percent
completion there would have been an additional amount due.
Council Member Shepherd stated AT&T did not pay a fee or deposit for the installation
of their most recent towers.
Ms. Figone stated there was a CIP fee which did not cover the costs expended.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the fee for Photo Voltaic checks were going away
and the plan checks fees were going to be all inclusive and yet the amount for the plan
check did not increase.
Chief Building Official, Larry Perlin stated the current fee derived the amount for
commercial systems installed on commercial buildings on a per panel basis at $10 per
panel. Staff learned there was not an appropriate ratio between the number of panels
and the complexity of the services. The solution was a flat fee for 3 different types of
systems; 1) small, 2) mid sized, and 3) large or complex.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the flat rate was more expensive.
Mr. Perlin stated the flat fee rate decreased the charges for the commercial projects.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 7
He clarified on average the current fee for the small system was $570.00 and the
proposed fee was $565.00, the mid-size was currently $2,600.00 and the proposed fee
went down to $1,890.00, and the larger systems the current was $6,650 and the
proposed fee would be $3,775.
Chair Scharff asked if there were any fees which were raised where the revenue
remained the same or there was lost revenue. He asked if Staff was tracking the fees
that were increased last year to determine whether the increase was beneficial.
Mr. Perez stated currently there was not a proper tracking system which was why Staff
was seeking to complete the study for verification that fees were at the proper rate.
Chair Scharff stated his question was when a municipality raised certain fees there
could be less usage due to the higher cost thereby losing revenue. He asked if there
were records indicating a deterred usage due to fee increases.
Mr. Perez stated generally speaking the departments tracked the revenue for their fee
based programs.
Mr. Keene stated with the ASD Staffing being short a Budget Analyst those types of
answers were not detailed in the budget books. He agreed there should be a process to
evaluate the nexus between price and usage.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification on the $528,000 cost to have the school group tour
the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ).
Director of Community Services Department, Greg Betts stated there were 2 different
fees; the first was for groups visiting the JMZ which was listed in the budget book as a
4 percent recovery. There is not an admission fee for the public at large – individuals
and families - and therefore there was no assistance in the operational costs. The
second area was the Project Look Program at the Art Center, which has similar
circumstances in terms of operational cost offsets
Chair Scharff asked where the Art Center was located in the budget book.
Mr. Betts stated the Art Center was listed as tours under Arts and Sciences. He clarified
the only ability to recoup the costs for the operations and upkeep of the sculpture
gardens, exhibits, and gallery was the Project Look Tours.
Chair Scharff stated when admissions were charged for groups it should be a marginal
cost to deal with that specific group rather than the full cost. If there was a fixed
operational cost there may be more tours with a less expensive opportunity for groups.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 8
Mr. Betts stated there were docents used to provide the program and there was
funding being received from the Art Center Foundation so if Staff was to review just
the cost for the tour and not that of the building costs or the display or exhibit costs
there would be a higher rate of return.
Mr. Perez stated the reason behind the study was to better understand the needs and
costs for every aspect of the financial responsibilities of the City. The IBRC was
indicating the costs for the building maintenance should be included but in doing so the
rate of return dropped. Staff felt after the study was completed Council could make
policy decisions on how to track the fees and revenue.
Chair Scharff stated it did make sense to not charge the majority of the visitors to the
JMZ yet charge a group tour for the entire fee for supporting the JMZ.
Council Member Shepherd stated Project Look did have a docent, a craft project and
were hands on with computers so there was added value when groups visited.
Chair Scharff stated you meant added cost.
Mr. Betts stated yes, there was value on having a person there to show the group the
different displays and explain what was being seen.
Chair Scharff stated he supported Project Look although his concern was having fees
and costs on the entirety of Project Look that were not incurred by the Program.
Recovery costs should reflect those costs for recovery of the Program itself and not
that of other programs. The marginal costs needed to be segregated. He asked why
there was not a charge for infants at Rinconada Park and now there will be.
Supervisor of Recreational Programs, Khashayar Alaee stated historically there was no
fee for the infants although infants do utilize the pool with the parents and since the
City was in the mode of increasing cost recovery it was determined to charge a
nominal fee for the usage.
Chair Scharff asked if other cities charged for the same service.
Mr. Alaee stated the City of Menlo Park did have a fee but the City of Mountain View
did not.
Council Member Shepherd asked the actual fee.
Mr. Alaee stated with the drop-in fees there was a range to give the program the
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 9
flexibility to decide the actual entrance fee based on the market.
Chair Scharff stated the hourly fee was being increased with respect to the Ball Room
and Community Room at Lucie Stern. He asked if those rooms were fully reserved
frequently or were they under utilized.
Mr. Alaee stated Lucie Stern was very popular and was usually reserved a full year in
advance for the entire year.
Chair Scharff requested to have Staff return with the impacts on the Parks and general
infrastructure due to development.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would return with options for Council to review.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the Finance
Committee tentatively approve the increase in the Fee Schedule and request Staff to
return with a plan to review Development Impact Fees.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Yeh absent
2. Approval of Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Scopes of
Services for Consultant Agreements Greater than $85,000.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department, David Ramberg stated the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was a part of the budget where Council was able
to review projects that were larger than $85,000. He explained the projects being
brought before the Finance Committee were not for approval, but for a review of the
proposed Scope of Service for each project. Staff would return to the full Council for
contract approval once vendors were selected. He informed the Committee the El
Camino Real/Stanford Avenue Streetscape Project was a return project from 2010 and
was inadvertently carried over.
City Manager, James Keene asked why the projects were brought forward for review
now then presented to Council.
Director of Administrative Services Department, Lalo Perez stated the process was put
into place approximately 9 years ago when the Finance Committee Members felt when
they approved the Capital Program they did not have a chance to review the Scope of
Services related to the Capital Program and there was a desire to understand what was
going to be done before the bid was approved.
Chair Scharff stated all of the CIPS before the Committee had been reviewed
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 10
previously by the Council. He asked if there was new information.
Mr. Keene recommended removing this process from the budget review. The projects
were reviewed by the Council, then reviewed by the Finance Committee, then once
they were contracted reviewed by the Council again. He felt there was additional
Committee and Staff time being inefficiently utilized.
Council Member Shepherd asked how the revenue correlated to the Safe Route to
Schools Project.
Mr. Perez stated the revenue shown in the budget books was from private projects and
the funds were being collected for reimbursement of project expenditures.
Council Member Shepherd stated the Safe Route to Schools was a cost of $1.2 million
and yet in the Capital Improvement Projects listing it showed $697,000.
Mr. Perez stated if you were to add the prior year expenses to the current year budget
the total was $1.2 million.
Council Member Schmid stated he found it helpful to review the larger projects. He
stated he was surprised with the California Avenue project that with a $350,000
consulting cost the City was not going to widen the sidewalks. He did not understand
how to plan a street without sidewalks.
Mr. Perez stated he recalled the Consultant felt the sidewalks could be determined at a
later time.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Motion needed to reference the additional funding
necessary to complete a specific project or was it implied within the CIP.
Chair Scharff stated it may be necessary to ensure there was sufficient funding. He felt
it was inherent that there needed to be additional funding necessary to widen the
sidewalks since the original CIP was for the street.
Mr. Keene stated his initial understanding was there was variability with the contract.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was the City was not at the
widening of the sidewalk point in the contract.
Chair Scharff stated he was not comfortable approving a budget of $1.17 million when
his understanding was Staff was to bring a firm budget.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 11
Mr. Keene stated his thought was this amount was definitely going to be utilized and
the question was would there be an additional cost coming forward with alternates.
Council Member Schmid stated the project budget was about $1.2 million 2012.
Mr. Keene stated for the most part that would be from the VTA Grant funding.
Council Member Schmid stated his concern was the VTA binding the City for certain
things and with this project they were binding the City to the street.
Mr. Keene requested the Committee approve this portion of the project with the
knowledge there would be another part containing alternatives coming at a later date.
Chair Scharff stated there were Stanford funds which may still come in. He did not feel
there was a shortage of funding to be located.
Mr. Perez stated the project had $550,000 in the prior year budget and the $1.2 million
was in the 2012 budget. He stated if the Committee wished to add to the Scope of
Services what it was they wished to see when the project returned the Council it made
sense.
Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was this process was for the
Committee to approve the contracts to get them signed so the projects can move
forward.
Mr. Keene stated there were multiple purposes which were converging in this process.
His understanding is that $85,000 was the threshold above the City Manager’s
approval and bringing the list forward was to give a preview of what would be coming
to Council in the next budget year. He stated the California Avenue Project was not
complete although the approved budget was the dollar amount necessary to complete
the parts of the Project for that budget year.
Mr. Perez stated at this time the request was for approval of the Scope of Services so if
there were items that the Committee wished to add to the Scope this process granted
that opportunity.
Chair Scharff stated he did not understand why this report was being approved. He
suggested moving to the Wrap-up to discuss the individual items there and approve
the entire budget.
Mr. Perez stated it was not a Staff request but a Staff response to a prior Council
direction.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 12
Mr. Keene recommended treating the report as an information item and have the
discussion of the CIP’s at the Wrap-up.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid that the Finance
Committee include the Capital Improvement Programs in the budget wrap-up.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Yeh Absent.
3. Wrap-Up – Discussion of Outstanding issues from Prior 2012 Budget Hearing
Meetings and Recommendation to Council.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department, David Ramberg stated in
response to the location of the cell tower fee, the Municipal Fee Schedule showed the
information on page 17-9 under the Planning Fees under Minor Change to Existing.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether there was a wireless fee separate from the
cell tower fee.
Administrator of Planning and Community Environment, Mary Figone stated both types
of service would fall under the same wireless facility fee.
Mr. Ramberg reviewed the items that had been discussed through the budget process
and the financial related decisions made. In the General Fund there was a beginning
balance of $131,000 and from May5th through to May 24th decisions were made which
brought the balance to $433,000. He stated there was an outstanding tentative
approval needed for the City Clerk’s budget. There was a revenue line item that had
not been brought to the Committee’s attention and from a budgetary perspective Staff
wished to remove the item from the budget. He explained a few years back there was
a recommendation for a Foothill Parking Fee at the Cubberley Community Center and
that fee was never negotiated with the Foothill/De Anza District therefore the $65,000
revenue had not had actuals in it.
Council Member Schmid asked about the transfer from the Debt Service Fund where
there was a positive $283,000.
Mr. Perez stated when you issue debt you were required to have a Reserve Fund in
case you were unable to make the payments. The General Fund transfer to the Debt
Service Fund had been left and Staff recognized the monies set aside were not
necessary since the loans had been paid; therefore the transfer setup was not
necessary.
Council Member Schmid stated the funds were a surplus.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 13
Mr. Perez stated that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd referred to page 136 in the Capital Budget booklet. She
asked how the City managed the allocation of the salary budget for Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) which appeared for Fiscal Year 2012 to be 10 percent and
yet in Fiscal Year 2013 it went incrementally higher due to fewer CIP’s in the Capital
Fund. She stated by allowing a pooling of funding for all projects there was not true
cost.
Mr. Perez stated on page 136 the amount included the salaries and benefits for those
positions which had been identified specifically for Fiscal Year 2012 that had been
allocated to Capital Project program. There was an assumption made that that number
would remain the same each year. He stated year after year the budget Staff worked
with the departments with the Capital Programs to identify whether those resources
were still allocated in the same manner. Currently there were 96 positions budgeted for
all of the Capital Programs so the General Fund was a central budgeted location. At the
end of a Fiscal Year, charges are transferred from the General Fund to that specific
project to match the actual expenses from staff logging their time spent on each
project.
Mr. Ramberg stated there was a secondary form of reporting to the Council at the Year
End process where the actual labor charge for each Project was reflected.
Chair Scharff asked for clarification that the $3.384 million amount in the Capital
Budget book was a space holder.
Mr. Perez stated yes, it was a budgeted amount.
Chair Scharff stated the actual amount was charged at the end of the Fiscal Year and
the charge could go up to the budgeted $3.384 million.
Mr. Perez stated if a Project was being charged and there was a need for more salary
monies the department would need to request additional funding.
Chair Scharff asked for the budgeted and actual numbers for Fiscal Year 2010.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the summary for Fiscal Year 2012 included
the $3.384 million space holder amount.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 14
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the $16 million summary for Fiscal Year 2013
included the $3.5 million space holder amount.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd stated she had an issue with those amounts.
Mr. Keene stated page 136 showed $3.3 million budgeted in General Fund salaries but
when the schedule was reviewed there was $35 million worth of Projects. He asked
whether there were other salaries being charged against the $35 million beyond the
$3.3 million.
Mr. Perez stated no.
Mr. Keene asked whether there were Staff working on the Measure N Library Bonds.
Mr. Perez stated yes and some of the same Staff was being charged from the $3.384
million.
Council Member Schmid stated the revenue shown on page 32 excluded the funds from
outside sources so the revenue picture was not a true statement.
Mr. Perez stated the assumption for cost allocation for Staff in 2012 was the same Staff
members would be carried forward each year. That may not be true which was why
those numbers needed to be adjusted annually.
Council Member Schmid stated the CIP information needed to be updated to show a
more real time revenue and expense.
Mr. Keene stated any numbers entered would be pure conjecture in a sense right now;
therefore making it difficult to include the numbers in the proposed budget book.
Council Member Schmid stated he understood the real numbers could not be entered
into the books although the actual ratio of salaries against the CIP could be.
Mr. Keene stated he agreed it would be more beneficial and easier to track budgeting
on a project by project basis.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it made sense to have that type of ratio of a labor
pool of engineers and the projects. She stated the CIP’s should be separated out and
reviewed by project and expense either from Council to the IBRC or the reverse. She
noted she was uncomfortable approving such a large amount without a clear
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 15
understanding of the funding.
Mr. Keene stated for 2012 the proposed budget was fairly accurate.
Council Member Shepherd stated a 10 percent of fees was normal.
Mr. Keene stated there were hard costs included in the 10 percent not just the
engineering and design Staffing.
Council Member Shepherd stated the indication in the proposed budget book was the
10 percent was inflation of salaries and benefits. She recommended the IBRC review
the CIP budgeting process since the current process was to decipher the information
and make it clearer for Council and the public.
Mr. Perez stated in going back to the question for Chair Scharff, on page 27 it showed
Fiscal Year 2010 actuals of salaries and benefits of $3.331 million while the budget was
$3.5 million. The expenditures for the CIP’s were $20.3 million.
Chair Scharff stated the adopted budget for 2011 was 3 over 17.
Mr. Perez stated no, it was 3 over 21.
Council Member Shepherd asked if hard costs were still included.
Acting Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor stated it was not hard costs for materials
just Staff costs. He stated on page 383 of the Operating Budget it showed the Staffing
associated with the CIP budget.
Mr. Perez stated in 1999 there was a decision made that for every $1 million there
needed to be a dedicated engineer.
Council Member Shepherd stated that there was a mix of contract and in house labor,
and that not all of the funds used to pay for them came from the grant funds.
Mr. Sartor stated the Transportation Division Staff was not included in the CIP budget
but were included in the Operating Budget.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the Staff in that group were hands on in a design
manner.
Mr. Sartor stated yes.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 16
Mr. Keene wanted to clarify the proposed budget books were not the financial plan for
every aspect of every project in the City. The role of the document was an executive
legislative summary to allow the Committee and Council to see what was going on with
in the City. Stated the City Manager and the Director of Administrative Services needed
to set aside time to revamp the budget documents in a way that the information better
fits the current Council’s questions and concerns moving forward.
Chair Scharff stated Council Member Shepherd’s concern as he understood it was $3.4
million cost on an ongoing basis of a $20 million CIP budget then removing the Bond
funds which that in the budget where the CIP budget was going down. He stated in
2012 you reached $4 million cost to manager $12 million CIP budget which was 25
percent. He stated he agreed the projects should be broken out by project and if there
were non management Staff working on the project there needed to be separate line
items.
Mr. Keene proposed scheduling special sessions with the Finance Committee as Staff
moved through changing the budgeting process.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it would helpful to Staff to break the Finance
Committee into subgroups and have Staff work with the subgroups on Questions and
Answers (Q&A) that way when Staff returned to the full Finance Committee a large
portion of the Q&A has been dealt with.
Mr. Keene stated he did not want to Finance Committee Members to perform actual
work, their function was setting policy.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the IBRC incorporated the CIP component in
their discussions.
Mr. Sartor stated no, not at this point.
Council Member Shepherd stated the numbers presented to the Committee were rough
numbers but without the IBRC having reviewed them how rough were they.
Mr. Sartor stated the numbers presented to the Committee last week were the
estimated costs for the brick and mortar projects for the next 25 years without
including the Staffing costs.
Council Member Shepherd said she was referring to all Staff costs, and if the numbers
showed that.
Mr. Perez said there were both operating and capital costs which were budgeted for
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 17
separately.
Council Member Shepherd said was trying to have confidence in the overall picture.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the
Finance Committee request Staff return with presentations regarding suggested
changes for redesigning the Budget Documents.
Chair Scharff said the goal was to accept the City Manager proposal and request that
Staff return with the requested presentations without an overwhelming time frame.
Mr. Keene said that Staff would work to restructure the Budget documents to include
more of the necessary information and less of the unnecessary. This will allow the
Finance Committee to have better input through a more effective budget document.
Staff would return periodically to the Finance Committee for guidance on the changes.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh Absent
Council Member Shepherd asked about Measure N Capital funds. She asked if there
was a way to start identifying it so Council or the Finance Committee could decide what
should apply to the Measure and what should be absorbed by the budget.
Mr. Sartor said Staff did track within each CIP the Staffing costs, but they did not
charge them back to it. Staff could bring those charges back to the Finance Committee
for their consideration.
Council Member Shepherd asked how difficult that would be for Staff to manage.
Mr. Sartor said that when Staff codes the CIP numbers in the SAP system already, so
that data can be recovered.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Scharff that the
Finance Committee request Staff calculate Staff cost related to bond projects and
return to the Finance Committee.
Chair Scharff said he would agree as long as it is only used for CIP projects that last 30
years and are not applied to the General Fund.
Council Member Shepherd agreed, and said that should have been in the Motion
originally.
Mr. Sartor said it would apply to Staff time spent on bond projects only.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 18
Mr. Perez said Library Staff was in a bond process as well.
Council Member Shepherd said she would like to see all of that if the SAP program can
manage it.
Mr. Sartor said that the SAP system tracks the data by Cost Center, and the bond
project Staff time is a different cost center, so it is set up to track.
Chair Scharff said he would not want to see the cost of projects increase because Staff
had to spend the time to bring them back to the Committee.
Mr. Perez asked if they wanted Staff to go to Council or return to the Finance
Committee.
Chair Scharff said they should return to the Finance Committee.
Council Member Shepherd agreed and reiterated that they were not making any
decisions, just reviewing the funds.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on how the Public Works Staff bills their
time.
Mr. Sartor said they bill their time to the Capital Project; the Staff is built into the CIP.
Mr. Perez stated that the fund is not being reimbursed by the bond for Staff time.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh Absent
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to
remove the $15,000 Art Restoration Fund from the Proposed Budget.
Council Member Shepherd said that was a lot of money and would like to see it go
before Council before the decision is made.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
Council Member Schmid discussed Capital CIP Revenue. Balancing revenues and
expenditures was critical. He expressed concern over using Capital Transfer to balance
this.
Mr. Perez said they were balanced. He said it was important to identify one time
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 19
versus on-going expenses. Just because the Return on Investment is five years
doesn’t mean the City will see it in five years. Demonstrating the breakdown with
variable versus fixed is an important component of the process.
Council Member Schmid said it was appropriate to look at the 5-20 year history. He
reviewed some of the decisions made by the Finance Committee during the Budget
process. He asked if the contract cost Staff reported for minutes transcription was
included in the City Clerk’s Budget.
Mr. Perez said it was spread out through the various departments that complete
minutes. Staff was attempting to show how much the minutes cost, at the request of
the Finance Committee, it was not a request to increase the budget.
Council Member Schmid confirmed that all the adjustments made during the budget
process were included in the Wrap Up.
Mr. Perez said that was correct.
Council Member Schmid then confirmed they were reporting a Budget with an excess
of $650,000.
Mr. Perez said that was correct, but included the assumption that they would get the
$4.3 million in concessions from the Safety groups.
Mr. Keene reviewed the Budget stating that it was an operating document, a planning
document, and a policy document. He reiterated the need for the Public Safety Groups
to share in the concessions already made by the other operating groups. He said Staff
was optimistic these concessions could be achieved. The Non-Departmental Summary
included the budgeted savings for a variety of items as well as $1 million for next
year’s pension increases. He recommended placing the $650,000 in the Non-
Departmental Fund to allow for flexibility. He recommended not spending the money.
They needed to closely monitor their cash flow through the year because of the
dependency on the concessions. Staff wanted to assure Council they would manage
the awarding of contracts and hiring decisions as they try to manage the cash flow.
Chair Scharff said liquidity should not be a problem with the ability to borrow from the
Calaveras Fund.
Mr. Keene agreed, stating that liquidity may not have been the right term. They just
don’t want to make commitments or obligate ourselves to spend money.
Council Member Schmid asked about the Refuse Fund Reserves.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 20
Mr. Perez reviewed the Projected Balance Table which showed a balance of $27.7
million. He recommended a loan as a funding source.
Mr. Keene reiterated that a $5 million liability will have to be carried on the books.
Next year they have to have $3.7 to cover expenses in the Refuse Fund. A loan places
the liability into the General Fund.
Chair Scharff asked about using another CIP as a placeholder for $300,000. They had
discussed moving the historical collection from the Main Library. He said he would like
Staff to review the feasibility of not moving it and return to Finance Committee to
determine whether this makes sense. We can then decide to proceed or not.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to create
another CIP with a placeholder for $300,000 and for Staff to review the feasibility and
return to the Finance Committee to discuss whether moving the historical collection
makes sense.
Chair Scharff reiterated that he wanted Staff to hold the money and then determine if
it makes sense to proceed.
Mr. Sartor clarified that the project included moving costs. The current plan was to
move the collection from the Main Library to the temporary library when they break
ground and then back to the Main Library at a later point.
Chair Scharff said he did not feel it made sense to move the collection twice.
Council Member Shepherd said she felt it was premature to make this decision. She
asked if the Library Advisory Commission voted in favor of the project.
Chair Scharff said they voted in favor of it conceptually.
Mr. Perez said the Cubberly contract expires shortly. Staff would return with a request
for an extension.
Mr. Keene discussed the California Avenue project and suggested sequestering
funding. He said a potential CIP relief fund was another idea that could provide a safety
net for CIP issues.
Chair Scharff said this should go to Council in June or July. The Cubberly option
expires in June and they had not determined funding yet.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 21
AMENDMENT: Chair Scharff moved that Staff look into the issue of moving the library
collection, and return with options for not moving the collection twice.
Council Member Shepherd said she agreed, but felt it was a conversation for the
following year.
Mr. Sartor stated the plan as it stood was to move the collection from the Main Library
to Cubberly and back to the Main Library in 2013. He said it would be ideal if the Roth
Building was already built, but that was not the case.
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED: 3-0, Yeh Absent
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to earmark the
entire $651,000 into an infrastructure CIP safety net fund.
Mr. Perez confirmed that the amount was $651,000 not the $650,000 previously
mentioned.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved seconded by Chair
Scharff to move $500,000 into a CIP safety net fund, instead of the full $651,000.
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Chair Scharff discussed the City Manager’s suggestion regarding the California Avenue
project.
Mr. Keene said there was a specific amount of money in the project fund for follow up.
Staff needed to know how additional funding would be managed.
Chair Scharff stated the Finance Committee expects Staff to return with a variety of
options for the fund.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams suggested they
move that the scope may be expanded upon review of the design options.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to request Staff
return to the Finance Committee with options for the scope to possibly be increased.
Mr. Williams suggested a September 2011 time frame.
Chair Scharff confirmed that the intent was that by approving the $1.75 million Staff
will come back to the Finance Committee with options to enhance the California
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 22
Avenue project with a range of options, including increasing sidewalks, without limiting
the project to the $1.75 million.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve the
City Clerks Proposed Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Mr. Perez said they still needed to approve the Scope of Services.
Chair Scharff said they decided they did not need to do that.
Mr. Perez said they still needed the approval.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve
Scope of Services.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
Chair Scharff asked about the Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation Plan. He said he
had much feedback about this priority, yet there was only $50,000 in the budget
request. He wanted Staff to return, prior to approving the CIP Budget and the
Stanford Fund vote, to discuss how they could use some of that Stanford Fund to help
this project.
Mr. Keene reviewed the Stanford Fund. If approved by Council on June 6, 2011, the
use of the funds is at the discretion of the Council. It can be used for Capital
Improvement Projects. Staff would have to review those options prior to the Budget
approval.
Mr. Williams said outlining a project would be possible.
Mr. Keene said a recommendation had been made regarding that fund regarding
Project Safety Net.
Council Member Schmid said as the plan was already in formation, it would be great to
get some money added to it.
Mr. Williams reviewed the status of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation Plan.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 23
Chair Scharff said he suggested Council should discuss the CIP process to determine
whether or not it would be funded so that Staff could determine how much work to put
into it.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX that
Staff return to Council, if Stanford was approved, with a plan for a potential CIP to get
a sense on the plans feasibility.
Council Member Shepherd said she did not know if she could second that. She
believed they should review the objectives to entice people to get out of their cars.
She discussed the shuttle funding. She would like to see if the funds were attached to
some type of parameters regarding sustainability.
Mr. Keene said that he felt the project was developed enough that these decisions
could be made once the funding was available. Council could decide whether or not to
proceed.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CHAIR SCHARFF
Council Member Shepherd asked if the funding was in place because of other
sustainability conversations.
Mr. Keene said he did not remember all of the details but there were some City policies
relating to green standards that influenced the negotiations.
Council Member Shepherd said then the funds could be used for shuttles.
Mr. Keene said he thought the language in the Development Agreement would allow
some flexibility.
Council Member Shepherd confirmed it should be discussed during the CIP.
Chair Scharff reiterated that he heard from the public that the $50,000 was not the
right amount and that was why he had made the withdrawn motion. He wanted to
make sure Staff was prepared to answer the questions that would inevitably come up
regarding these funds. He thought specific amounts were designated to a variety of
options giving the City a very wide discretion with how the money is used.
Mr. Keene said that the June 6th Council Agenda was dedicated to Stanford and this
could be discussed at that time.
Finance Committee 05/25/2011 24
Mr. Perez suggested the Committee move to approve the City Manager Proposed
Budget with the changes that were approved during the budget process.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to
tentatively approve the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Proposed Budget with the approved
changes made by the Finance Committee during the Budget Process.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Yeh absent
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
~'tr ~ Ph ~ f ~D ~tD l C~ ~1~'6 ( .1
••
11t\n: Ci~ Lte-r4-
5\.),( ~Joch~~ bhl.,\ hL'l'o.~!hl(
'16 tlv~ l ~~ ~CA-", ;
~\ V ~ ~~ r~ t; ~ Aj~-,jr~t
~ q t~ ~~~L:
o /,Q~e-~~,l.~J
iJ Lv ~ lNct:v-~<~ '<-.
t-u\ ~ I,}/ ",
1bb=t ~ ~<tt. ~~ v13) ~ ct);,,6
acvl-{t~ S=-lb 3i1
~. v.' ~ ~ <i: ~, he
()s .d!,l!\
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301.
May 10, 2011
Re: Wastewater Rate Increase.
My account number is: 30010361
f CITY OF P. .. .
CITy CLE~k9S AO .. t10. CA FF'ICE
I I HAY 16 AH II: OS
I am writing to protest the proposed City of Palo Alto Utilities Wastewater Rate
Increases. I do not waht the rates to be increased.
Thank you,
Larry Shapiro
391 Curtner Ave, Apt A
Palo Alto, CA 94306-3426
May 3, 2011
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear City Clerk:
•
.J
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
II HAY -6 AM 10: at.
' .• f'~ ~,
Your notice of water/wastewater rate increases arrived last week. We have some significant
concerns, based on the information provided.
Wastewater: It appears from the chart that Sl-Residential and S2-Commerical & Restaurant pay
the same rates for wastewater services, and that a 13.2% rate increase is proposed. I do not think
that it is fair that commercial and restaurants pay the same as residential for two reasons:
1) A large 'portion of residential water does not go back into the wastewater treatment
system, but in fact is absorbed into the ground. Most homes use a lot of water on
landscaping, where is it most unusual that restaurants and businesses have extensive
landscaping.
2) Commercial & restaurants use more water that goes directly into the wastewater
treatment system than residences.
F or these reasons, I think that residential rates should be less for w;astewater treatment.
Water: I think that increasing the base charge per month hurts individuals who are conserving
water. Water rates should be based on the amount used, not for the fact that one has water in a
home or business. I see no justification for raising the base service charge. If Palo Alto really
wants people to conserve water, then raise the rate for the amount used.
If you need further thoughts or clarification, please contact us at the address below.
Sincerely,
J~--~,~
Steve and Nancy Suddjian
703 Ensign Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
--c / pZo/1 'I'~ I
DONNA 1. GRIDER, MMC
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Dear Ms. Grider,
CITY OF PALO ALT. O. G ..... JA CITY CLERK'S OFFIC£
'f MAY 23 AM !t 30
MAY 18,2011
I write to protest the increase in rates of the water service and the wastewater service.
I protest the proposed increase in water rate IT IS UNJUSTIFIED.
I protest the proposed increase in wastewater rate IT IS UNJUSTIFIED.
!
I most strongly object to inapproptiately increasing utility costs to rate payers in order to make a profit
center operation of the utility department.
Sincerely, RICHARD A. RUNKEL
741 GARLAND DRIVE
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
6503277589
\
• CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLE\3-K'S OFFICE
11 JUN -3 PM 1: f) 2
~) -\ -~'D II
'0 ~ s;' y~ ~-+c) . ' ~ ~ ~.\)u.-V\C. ~ -~ ~~\.~
~ ~ \~ \ ~ k...~,-\ !\-Iv1 j~ ~\ l\J .. '. c ,.
;'\"""\'~''r\~ \ ... J\J\.C'\.ll.CVU:vJ 'c.J \.w~
\:0~ t~ \.-u ~~ C~,;;;.)~/
~\t-.~1 \~1, .'~~ .
;-5. '-\' I\-.o-W ~~. W\A ... ~v'> l~~
'l\'-J"\ ~.t0v. y' 1:-' ~'L/~ ~-.v .iV,-.. ;+--
~"'\0 ~~\.o.. \ .. ~/~ l\.J\..A. ~~ C\ ...... i~ , •
384 Madeline Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Utility account #: 30042376
.r
RE: PROTEST AGAINST UTILITY RATE CHANGE
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Madam/Sir:
•
clry OF PALO AllO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OfFICE
II HAY -4 AM 9:26
W' ~,? f '11 'iI!
April '30, 2011
This letter is to protest against the proposed increase in wastewater and water meter
service charges for the 2011 fiscal year. We urge the City of Palo Alto Utility
Department to investigate and implement cost-saving measures of operation instead of
increasing customer utility charges.
Sincerely,
r;i~Vtfire<
Tetyana Obukhanych
·!
tAJi2.. preted-ars.f:tflie tr~fCf;g?r •
\)../P,(£f a.../li vVtute M/tv{:e/("' H~~--r.:-i-cz.-'1e.-~/it-Ge-
~Vr"-lC u «-e-t~ rtt:6d CV1-e -LJk/r f-I-t:l.~i'l &>/1-By/"
c/ -H'0 ~U'1 f-4., Sp'-1f.-f.t, clp~z< (+w~7·,.
tAle G:~ ,rt-e 6l-~~ ~ ~ 4~tl
-zM (t) cr~-~(()~ ~-I f~I{)ltJl6rJ/ C/J-f4~)
(A p;t/ ~ I L 7 -02 -(!,71-2. )
Ul-i' 4 +-1 ~:,(. ,4c~~ " if ,,? () 0 1-ret/ f
<:( '-'w .'-' 0-. tJ... r--l..J.... -'0 « o~
-1::'::: <0::: CLW
-' ;,:,u
",->--I->---.
U{'...)
r-
ll')
<5
JC c:r
r-
J
Z ~ -,
(~frf-j ~~( J(
Ge'-~~vl L{' L--L_
d
•
April 27, 2011
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ayenue
Palo Alto,CA 94303
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
O'ITY CLERK'S OFFICE
II HAY -4 AM to: 56
I am protesting both the residential water and wastewater
increases.
Both increases are too much.
" Sincerely,
1V\~~a--J ItcCDLu,t-* 3 ()00D73/
Masao Sumida·
1040 Newell Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303-2930
{,
. ~ .... ~................... .f .. 7'.~.--......................................... ;:. ........ j .. ·r· .-... .
..... ~
... r/-.-.
__ . _ .. __ .---l
.•....... .c ..
. -.. ~.-~ _.