Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5190 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5190) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) related to guiding principles, mission and Title: Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) Related to Guiding Principles, Mission and Objectives; Determine the Pace of Fund Disbursement; and Review Ways to Preserve or Extend the Funds Depending on Option Chosen From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee discuss the definition of community health and safety, establish guiding principles, a mission, and objectives. Additionally, to make recommendations to City Council regarding the pace of fund disbursement and review ways to preserve or extend the funds depending on options chosen. Background On September 9, 2014, staff presented to the Policy and Services Committee a report regarding proposed next steps in the distribution of funding from the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement (SUMC) Health and Safety funds. It was the opinion of the Policy and Services Committee that additional information was needed before they could move forward with recommending specifc next steps. Discussion In order to assist the committee, staff conducted research and is providing sample defintions and guiding pricinples. Staff did not provide examples of mission statements or objectives. Staff believes the conversation based on Avenidas, Stanford Hospitals and Project Safety Net will help the committee frame the City of Palo Alto Page 2 mission and objectives. The information provided regarding definition and guiding principles are also samples to help the committee frame the conversation. Definition Historically, the terms ‘Healthy and Safety’ has been linked to workplace activities to ensure safety from hazardous work conditions. The term community health and safety has allowed organizations to broadened the definition. The committee has broad discretion to create a definition for the health and safety allocation. Staff has provided historic, modern and general definitions to assist the committee with their recommendation. Additionally, the committee can include physical health, dental health, mental health, programs for at risk populations such as homeless, children, elderly, disabled, and low income. The committee can also incorporate access to care, food security, disaster recovery, safe neighborhoods and sustainability elements. The United States Department of Labor – Occupation Safety & Health Administration, World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labor Organization (ILO) have defined the term health and safety. An aspected definition created by the WHO/ILO and adopoted by the International Commission on Occupational Health in 2002 is: “Occupational health should aim at: the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations; the prevention amongst workers of departures from health caused by their working conditions; the protection of workers in their employment from risks resulting from factors adverse to health; the placing and maintenance of the worker in an occupational environment adapted to his physiological and psychological capabilities; and, to summarize: the adaptation of work to man and of each man to his job.” Generally speaking, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the following terms:  Community – a group of people who live in the same area; a group of people who have the same interest, religion, race, etc.  Health – the condition of being sounds in body, mind and spirit; the condition of state of something City of Palo Alto Page 3  Safety – freedom from harm or danger; the state of not being dangerous or harmful; a place that is free from harm or danger Additionally, staff found several organizations that frame their definition of Community Health, Safety and Wellness. United Health Foundation: is committed to sourcing, developing and supporting innovative and evidence-based ideas that help the health system work betterwell. We identify meaningful partnerships and initiatives that we believe have the potential to be scaled up, leading to: 1. improved access to care, 2. better health outcomes, and 3. healtierhier communities. Johnson & Johnson Foundation: We fulfill our mission by developing enduring partnerships that deliver community-based solutions to health challenges. We focus in three strategic areas: saving and improving the lives of women and children, preventing disease among the most vulnerable and strengthening the health workforce. Pottstown Health and Wellness Foundation distributes grants according to the following priority areas: 1. Funding Programs and solutions for long-term improvement in healthy behaviors. a. Promoting healthy living through nutrition, activities and programs in public and private schools to reduce obesity and encourage healthy living. b. Improving parks, programming and the built environment to increase access and physical activity. c. Creating and promoting social networks involving healthy living. 2. Funding programs for physical health and emotional well-being. 3. Funding learning opportunities and strategic planning to strengthen non- profits. Phoenixville Foundation 1. To improve health care access for vulnerable populations in our community; City of Palo Alto Page 4 2. To support leadership and innovation in community health systems and service delivery that contributes to better care for residents, better community health outcomes, and lower costs; 3. To enhance the quality of life for all residents by encouraging healthy living and healthy communities; A. To be exceptional stewards of the public's trust and resources. Finally, staff is providing the committee with industry definition for the following terms. A health condition is a disease, impairment, or other state of physical or mental health that contributes to a poor health outcome, e.g., asthma. A health outcome is a result of health conditions in a community that can be described in terms of both morbidity (quality of life) and mortality (death rates), e.g., hospitalizations or deaths due to asthma. A health data indicator is a characteristic of an individual, population, or environment which is subject to measurement and can be used to describe one or more aspects of the health of an individual or population, e.g., the rate of children 0-5 hospitalized for asthma in 2010 is a health indicator. A health need is a poor health outcome and its associated health drivers, or a health driver associated with a poor health outcome where the outcome itself has not yet arisen as a need, e.g., asthma. A health driver is a behavioral, environmental, or clinical care factor, or a more upstream social or economic factor that impacts health, e.g., poor air quality. Guiding Principles Below is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Guiding principles for Community Health Plans. Additionally attached are the Rail Committee, Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee Guiding Principles and the City’s Legislative Program. Center for Disease Control and Prevention: City of Palo Alto Page 5  Multi-sector collaborations that support shared ownership of all phases of community health improvement, including assessment, planning, investment, implementation, and evaluation  Proactive, broad, and diverse community engagement to improve results  A definition of community that encompasses both a significant enough area to allow for population-wide interventions and measurable results, and includes a targeted focus to address disparities among subpopulations  Maximum transparency to improve community engagement and accountability  Use of evidence-based interventions and encouragement of innovative practices with thorough evaluation  Evaluation to inform a continuous improvement process  Use of the highest quality data pooled from, and shared among, diverse public and private sources Fund and Resources Impact Of the $4 million set aside in the SUMC Development Agreement for health and safety, the Council has allocated $2 million to Project Safety Net. Of the $2 million for Project Safety Net, $321,000 has been spent or budgeted. At the September 9, 2014 meeting, staff sought the input of the Policy and Services Committee regarding the pace of fund disbursement and ways to preserve or extend the health and safety funds. Initial concepts mentioned included an endowment with perhaps the interest income being distributed to Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) grantees and multi-year disbursements. Council discussed guiding principles for use of the SUMC funds in May and June 2013 (report IDs #3651 and #3883). Themes that have remained consistent in the past year include: 1) the funds should be used for impactful, long-lasting projects; and 2) expenditures of funds should reflect the City’s core values and guiding principles. While the endowment concept for managing the funds was not supported for the bulk of the SUMC infrastructure-related funds, this concept has come up again in discussion of the health and safety funds. Endowment fund concepts discussed with Council in May 2013 included: 1) capital preservation for future generations; 2) capital appreciation should occur in conjunction with creating income streams; 3) the role of an endowment is to support the organization’s mission; and 4) an endowment must strike a balance between spending on current needs and the obligation to preserve the endowment for the future. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Attachments:  Rail Committee Guiding Principles (PDF)  Legislative Program Guiding Principles (PDF)  Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee Guiding Principles (PDF) PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES  The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the  actions of the Committee:   The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following  reasons:  1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters  under Prop. 1A in 2008.  The voters approved the measure based on grossly  underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated  fares.  The voters also required that HSR could operate without a subsidy and that  funding sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior  to construction of an Initial Operating Segment.     2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected  ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that  the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary  to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California.  The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make  HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR,  however, that have not yet been studied or decided.    Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding  Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR:  1. The City supports a non‐elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.    2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.  3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall  be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods.  Adopted mitigation measures should be  proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies.    4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central  Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should  reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.  5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the  HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s  Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of  sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR.   6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review  Committee authorized by AB 3034.  7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our  economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision.   HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive  Plan.   8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and  Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA.   9. The CHSRA should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire  experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to  capture their concerns and suggestions.  10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide  both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help  provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts.   11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or  improved levels of service.  12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain.  However, whether the City supports  electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied  and suitable mitigation measures are implemented.  13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the  Caltrain corridor.  14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and  Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities  Consortium.  15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and  pedestrians.  In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train  service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for  the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements  must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding sources.  16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must  be completed.  Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1)  exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2)    reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct  a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential  impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently  required by law.  17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental  Impact Reports.  The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project.  The  second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for  HSR operation in the corridor.  18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board  (PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain  ridership.  Additionally, such revisions should be made at or prior to a ballot measure  seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one occur.  19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted  written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies.  In case of any  conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.      Last updated:     June 24, 2013  Previously updated:  December 19, 2011  October 12, 2011  May 17, 2010  City’s Legislative Program    Policy Statement    The objective of the City of Palo Alto legislative program is to keep the City Council, community  and staff fully advised of proposed legislation with a potential impact upon the City. It is the  City's general policy to take timely and effective action in support of, or opposition to, proposed  legislation affecting Palo Alto at the County, State, and Federal levels. In addition, the City,  where appropriate, will take the initiative to seek introduction of new legislation beneficial to  Palo Alto and other local government entities.     General Legislative Priorities    1. Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates.   Oppose Federal or State legislation, policies and budgets that have negative impacts  on services, revenues and costs. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets do not  detract from Palo Alto’s ability to draw on local revenue sources.    2. Protect and increase local government discretion, balancing that with City values and  priorities.    Acknowledge the fundamental issues with the governance structure at the State  level and ensure that legislative or Constitutional reforms align with the City’s values  and maintain and/or enhance local discretion.    3. Ensure that legislation, policies and budgets retain or increase, but generally don’t  decrease, the amount of local discretion held by the City and protect local decision making.  Oppose legislation, policies and budgets that reduce the authority and/or ability of local  government to determine how best to effectively operate local programs, services and  activities.  The City retains the right to exceed State goals, standards or targets.     4. Protect and increase funding for specific programs and services   Support County, State and Federal funding for local service by maximizing existing  funding levels and seeking new and alternative funding for programs. Promote  increases in the allocation of funds to cities and flexibility in distribution.    5. Proactively advocate for, respond to, and propose legislation on behalf of the City.     6. Identify key legislative areas to monitor annually.  Take a proactive role in working with  Federal and State legislators to draft and sponsor legislation around key City priorities.     Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee  City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent Community Advisory Committee    Guiding Principles  Approved by the Board of Education Agenda May 8, 2012  Approved by the Palo Alto City Council May 14, 2012    The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of two Palo Alto Unified School  District (PAUSD) Board members appointed by the School Board President and three  City Council members appointed by the Mayor.  The PAC shall be the primary advisor to  the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re‐use or  joint use of the Cubberley campus.    The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is jointly appointed by the City  Manager and Superintendent, and shall represent a cross section of Cubberley,  neighborhoods, schools and citywide representatives. The CAC shall review Cubberley  background and history and provide the PAC with community input including but not  limited to possible re‐use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan  configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and  compatible standards.    1. The City and PAUSD recognize that our citizens have substantial investments, both  emotional and financial in the Cubberley Campus, and shall work to reach  decisions for the benefit of our entire community.     2. The Committees shall maintain open and transparent processes at all times, and  members of the public shall be invited to all meetings. The CAC shall complete a  final report. PAC and CAC meetings shall be audio‐recorded with minutes  completed for the PAC, and notes completed for the CAC. (Costs of minutes shall  be cost‐shared by the City and PAUSD).     3. Documents, architectural drawings and other written communication provided to  the Committees shall be made available to the general public as soon as possible.    4. The City and PAUSD recognize that Cubberley is a major cultural, educational,  recreational and non‐profit resource, very important to the community’s health  and vitality.    5. Acknowledging that each entity has different regulations and governing legislation,  the City and PAUSD shall seek to work cooperatively to explore all practical joint‐ uses of the Cubberley campus for both educational and community services.    6.  The City and PAUSD have ownership interests in portions of the campus: PAUSD  owns 27 acres and the City owns 8 acres. The parties may consider relocation of  their ownership interests within the site to facilitate optimal site layout and  efficiency.    7.  The City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent shall jointly prepare a project  budget for 2012/13, with costs shared equally between the City and PAUSD.    8.  While the Policy Advisory Committee planning shall occur as cooperatively as  possible, the City Council representatives and the PAUSD Board Members shall  retain independent recommending authority should consensus not be reached.    9.  Maintaining the quality of PAUSD schools is a significant community value, and  planning for a growing population is essential to maintaining educational  excellence and the overall health and well‐being of our community.     10.  Cubberley programs enrich the community and criteria shall be developed to  prioritize and/or retain existing uses as well as assess prospective new uses.    11. The City and PAUSD recognize that joint‐use could result in stronger educational  and cultural programs provided more efficiently.    12. The City Council and PAUSD representatives on the Policy Advisory Committee  shall report, not less often than every other month, to their respective bodies on  Cubberley planning activities.    13.  The City and PAUSD shall work to continue community access to Cubberley to the  extent possible. Recreation facilities provided at the Cubberley campus produce  important services benefitting the community at large.    14.  The residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley shall be considered in  determining the compatibility of possible changes on the Cubberley campus.    15. Transportation issues and access to and within Cubberley shall be considered in  determining possible options including improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.    16.   All recommendations shall be mindful of the dynamic short‐, mid‐, and long‐term  forces impacting the PAUSD and City.