HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2872 (Minutes Included)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2872)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/11/2012
June 11, 2012 Page 1 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Summary Title: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Adoption
Title: Public Hearing – Approval of an Ordinance Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013
Budget, including the Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Improvement Program, and
Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule; Adoption of 10 Resolutions to: 1) Adopt
a Dark Fiber Utility Rate Increase and Amend Utility Rate Schedules; 2) Amend
Gas Utility Rate Schedules for a Rate Decrease and Amend Utility Rules and
Regulations; 3) Adopt a Wastewater Collection Utility Rate Increase and Amend
Utility Rate Schedules; 4) Adopt a Water Utility Rate Increase and Amending
Utility Rate Schedules; 5) Amend Storm Drain Utility Rate Schedules for a Rate
Increase; 6) Amend Refuse Utility Rate Schedules for a Rate Increase; 7) Amend
the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional and
Council Appointees; 8) Amend the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU); 9) Amend the 2010-2014 Compensation
Plan for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF); and 10) Amend the
2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following:
A. Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A), which includes:
1. Exhibit 1: the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Operating
and Capital Budget, previously distributed in the April 30th Council
Packet
2. Exhibit 2: Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2012
Proposed Operating and Capital Budget
3. Exhibit 3: Revised Position Changes and Position Allocation by
Department
4. Exhibit 4: Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Municipal
June 11, 2012 Page 2 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Fee Schedule
B. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate
Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2
(Attachment B)
C. Resolution Amending Gas Utility Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-10, G-
11, and G-12, Repealing Utility Rate Schedule G-6 and Amending Utility
Rules and Regulations 2 and 5 (Attachment C)
D. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Wastewater
Collection Rate Increase, Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2 and
Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules S-6 and S-7 (Attachment D)
E. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Water Rate
Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W-
7 (Attachment E)
F. 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 2.9 Percent Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Attachment F)
G. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Utility Rate
Schedule R-1 for a Refuse Rate Increase (Attachment G)
H. Resolution Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management
and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to Add Two New
Positions (Attachment H)
I. Resolution Amending the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for SEIU
Personnel, Adopted by Resolution No. 9088 to Add Two New Positions
(Attachment I)
J. Resolution Amending the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No.
9204 to Properly Record the Top Step Salary for Two Existing Positions
(Attachment J)
K. Resolution Amending the 2010-2014 Compensation Plan for the Fire Chiefs’
Association (FCA) Adopted by Resolution No. 9234 to Reclassify One
Existing Position (Attachment K)
Executive Summary
The attached documents outline the amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal
Year 2013 Operating and Capital Proposed Budgets, Utility rate changes, and
amendments to various employee compensation plans.
June 11, 2012 Page 3 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Background
The City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Operating Budget and the Fiscal
Year 2013 Proposed Capital Budget were submitted to City Council on April 30,
2012. 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 8, 10, 15, 17, 22, and 29
during which the Committee reviewed and discussed the City’s operating and
capital expenditures for the next year.
The Fiscal Year 2013 budget process began with a $5.8 million General Fund
budget gap. The gap was addressed by department reductions totaling $6.6
million and $1.5 million in concessions from the City’s Police labor groups. In
response the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) and direction from the
Finance Committee, staff included an additional $2.2 million in funding towards
the City’s capital improvement program.
As a result of the hearings, the Finance Committee and staff have recommended
changes to the Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget as discussed below. Detail for
these transactions is listed in the Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year
2013 Proposed Budget schedule (Attachment A, Exhibit 1).
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 29th, and will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year
2013 Adopted Budget.
Adjustments to Date
This section summarizes actions made by the Finance Committee during the
department budget hearings that occurred in May and wrapped on May 29th.
Detail in this section is organized by fund then by department. The discussion
below segregates changes that were initiated by the Finance Committee from
June 11, 2012 Page 4 of 18
(ID # 2872)
changes that are initiated by staff. A summary of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)
changes is presented following fund detail.
General Fund
The Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget presented to City Council on April 30th
reflected a $1.022 million budget shortfall. This shortfall assumed that funding for
the Development Center Blue Print Technology CIP, $0.8 million, and the loan to
the Airport Fund, $0.31 million, would be funded via a draw from the Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR). Changes approved by the Finance Committee resulted
in a net budget gap of $1.1 million which was closed by drawing on the BSR as
recommended by staff and approved by the Finance Committee.
As part of the reconcilement process few changes to the Finance Committee final
presentation need to be made:
1) As part of the original proposal to outsource animal services staff had
transferred allocated charges for vehicle, IT, printing, among others to
other police department cost centers until it determined which charges
would be completely eliminated and by when. Reinstating the charges to
the Animal Services cost centers results in the removal of these charges
totaling $230,000
2) Staff did not remove the Animal Services contracting out cost from the cost
center when providing the live spreadsheet bottom line calculation. This
change results in a reduction of $500,000 to the budget gap.
3) The Animal Services net gap for animal services above the $.5 million cost is
actually $.45 million, resulting in a reduction of $51,000 in the placeholder.
4) Portion of a Management Analyst position was charged to the General
Fund that was meant to be in the Capital Fund. The corrections results in a
savings of $43,000.
The above changes result in a budget gap of $0.39 million (see Table 1) instead of
$1.112 million as previously approved by the Finance Committee. Staff
recommends that the gap be closed by drawing on the BSR.
June 11, 2012 Page 5 of 18
(ID # 2872)
In addition, staff will be returning to the City Council with a specific proposal on
the $0.45 million placeholder. This will include approximately $0.25 million in new
revenue from fee increases.
Based on the latest audited financials (as of June 30, 2011), the BSR balance at the
end of Fiscal Year 2013 is estimated to be $27,380 million, or 17.9 percent of the
Proposed Operating Budget $153.0 million for total expenses. 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 2013 projected BSR percentage falls within this range and meets the
targeted BSR percentage.
June 11, 2012 Page 6 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Table 1
General Fund Amendments to Proposed Budget
Fiscal Year 2013
Dept Description Amount
Beginning - change to BSR ($1,022)
ASD/IT Reallocate retiree medical cost to IT Dept 106
ASD/IT Subtotal 106
CSD Lawn bowling fee revenue (4)
CSD Cubberley artist rent revenue (18)
CSD Community garden fee revenue (15)
CSD Summer concert series (10)
CSD InnVision program funding (13)
CSD Baylands: reinstate Producer Arts/Sci position (net assoc rev)(42)
CSD Lucie Stern Program Assistant - hold vacant 42
CSD Replenish Boronda Lake water (funding limited to donations collected)(65)
CSD Offsetting public contributions for Boronda Lake 65
CSD Subtotal (60)
FIR FTE reallocations to other funds (net of Stanford reimbursement)40
FIR Withdraw Admin Assoc II reclass (net of Stanford reimbursement)12
POL Remove contract costs for Animal Services 500
POL Reinstate Animal Services (net of program revenues)(949)
Public Safety Subtotal (397)
PWD Mitchell Park custodial, maintenance, supplies 30
PWD Correction of FTE distribution- Mgmt Analyst 43
Public Works Subtotal 73
NON Animal Services placeholder 449
NON Additional property tax revenue 300
NON Additional fee based revenue (volume increase)104
NON City Attorney contingent account (125)
Non-Departmental Subtotal 728
Various Tech charge allocation due to retiree medical increase (48)
Various Undo shift of allocated charges to other cost centers related to Animal Services 230
Various Subtotal 182
NON BSR Draw approved by Finance Committee (390)
Ending surplus/deficit $0
June 11, 2012 Page 7 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed
Budget
Community Services Department
Reduce proposed revenue increases by the following amounts:
o Garden rental fee by $15,000
o Cubberley artist rent by $17,500
o Lawn bowling rent by $4,000
Reinstate $10,000 of funding for Summer Concert Series
Increase grant allocation by $13,000 to InnVision to cover funding loss from
Community Development Block Grant
Baylands Interpretive Center:
o Retain 1.0 FTE Producer Arts/Science, salary and benefits $121,724
o Reinstate non-personnel budget of $15,000
o Increase revenue by $94,700
o Hold 0.75 FTE Program Assistant at Lucie Stern Community Center
vacant through December 2012 to offset the net cost of reinstating
the Baylands Interpretive Program, salary and benefits saving
$47,000
Boronda Lake: continue to fill the lake with potable water; institute a drop
box system that recommends an amount for contribution to maintain
water level at the lake.
Community Garden Rent
The proposed budget includes a rent increase of $0.50/square foot to $1/square
foot for plot rental in the City’s community garden. During CSD’s budget hearing
on May 8th, the Finance Committee tentatively approved that the square footage
rent be increased to $0.75/square foot and correspondingly reduced garden
rental fee revenue by $15,000. During budget wrap-up on May 29th with the
Finance Committee, a motion to increase rent to $0.62/square foot (budget
impact is $7,500) instead of $0.75/square foot, was not carried due to a split vote.
Fire Department
Eliminate, rather than freeze, 6 FTE Fire Fighter related to the Department’s
Flexible Staffing proposal
June 11, 2012 Page 8 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Police Department
Continue to provide animal services through Palo Alto Animal Services
Include a $0.5 million placeholder to offset revenue reduction due to
departure of Mt. View
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Administrative Services Department
Reallocate $106,264 in retiree health benefit costs from the Administrative
Services Department General Fund budget to the Information Technology
Department budget. The actuarial report did not reflect the newly formed
IT Department.
Fire Department
Reallocate 0.26 FTE to the Enterprise Funds as follows, $39,729 expense
reduction including off-set of Stanford revenue loss:
o 0.16 FTE Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshall to Utilities (0.08 FTE) and
Public Works Enterprise (0.08 FTE)
o 0.10 FTE Hazmat Inspector to Utilities (0.06 FTE) and Public Works
Enterprise (0.04 FTE)
Withdraw proposed reclassification of 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to
1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant, $12,129 expense reduction including off-
set of Stanford revenue loss.
Public Works Department
Due to delay of the opening of the Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center facility, reduce the Public Works Department budget for custodial
and maintenance services and supplies by $29,900.
Correct pp. 34 and 303 for the elimination of 1.0 FTE Tree Maintenance
Person. This position is funded in the Fiscal Year 2013 proposed budget and
should not be removed from the department’s staffing table.
Non-Departmental
Increase property tax revenue by $0.3 million (total Fiscal Year 2013
proposed, $27.306 million) based on Santa Clara County latest projections.
Increase fee based revenue by $0.104 million; include as a place holder in
non-departmental and allocate to department budgets during the midyear
June 11, 2012 Page 9 of 18
(ID # 2872)
budget process. Total anticipated fee based revenue place holder in non-
departmental is $0.489 million.
Loan to Airport Fund, $0.310 million – fund through draw from BSR
Development Center Blue Print Process Technology CIP – fund through
draw from BSR
General Fund Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
The Finance Committee approved a net increase of 6.74 full-time benefited FTE
and 1.14 temporary FTE to the General Fund.
Community Services Department
o Reinstate 1.0 FTE Producer Arts/Science (Baylands Interpretive
Center)
Fire Department allocations – total decrease 0.26 FTE
o Reallocate 0.16 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
0.08 FTE to Utilities Department
0.04 FTE to Refuse Fund
0.04 FTE to Wastewater Treatment Fund
o Reallocate 0.10 FTE Hazmat Inspector
0.06 to Utilities Department
0.02 FTE to Refuse Fund
0.02 FTE to Wastewater Treatment Fund
o Eliminate 2.0 FTE Fire Captain
o Eliminate 4.0 FTE Fire Fighter
o Withdraw reclassification of 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to 1.0
FTE Administrative Assistant
Police Department
o Reinstate Animal Services (12 FTE full-time benefited; 1.14
temporary)
4.5 FTE Animal Control Officer
2.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist II
1.0 FTE Superintendent Animal Services
1.0 FTE Supervisor Animal Services
1.0 FTE Veterinarian
2.0 FTE Veterinarian Tech
0.5 FTE Volunteer Coordinator
1.14 FTE temporary positions
June 11, 2012 Page 10 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Enterprise Funds
Changes to the Enterprise Funds Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget are listed
below.
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Utility Department
Reallocate the following FTE from the Fire Department:
o 0.08 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
o 0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector
Refuse Fund
$96,430 increase in allocated revenue for debris boxes from the
Wastewater Treatment Fund
$105,557 for debris box revenue from non-utility customers
$416,863 expense reduction for vehicle maintenance and replacement
costs for refuse vehicles taken out of service due to landfill closure
$10,516 reduction in overtime expense
Correction to staffing – elimination of 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor
should have been an add/drop. The correct staffing change is:
o Drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor
o Add 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician
Reallocate the following FTE from the Fire Department:
o 0.04 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
o 0.02 FTE Hazmat Inspector
Wastewater Treatment Fund
$96,430 increase in allocated expense for debris boxes
Reallocate the following FTE from the Fire Department:
o 0.04 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
o 0.02 FTE Hazmat Inspector
Enterprise Funds Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
The Finance Committee approved a net increase of 1.26 full-time benefited FTE to
the Enterprise Funds.
Utilities Department – total increase 0.14 FTE
o 0.08 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
o 0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector
June 11, 2012 Page 11 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Public Works – Refuse Fund – total increase 1.06 FTE
o 0.04 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall from Fire Department
o 0.02 FTE Hazmat Inspector from Fire Department
o Correction to staffing – intent:
Drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor (drop is currently in
proposed budget)
Add 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician (add needs to be incorporated
into proposed budget
o Public Works – Wastewater Water – total increase 0.06 FTE
0.04 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
0.02 FTE Hazmat Inspector
Special Revenue Funds
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue Fund
Increase budget Community Health and Safety (Project Safety Net) budget
for the Track Watch Program, $75,000
Internal Service Funds
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Technology Fund
Reallocate $106,264 in retiree health benefit costs from the Administrative
Services Department General Fund budget to the Information Technology
Department budget; increase citywide department charges for $106,264.
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Reduce vehicle maintenance and replacement revenue totaling $416,863
for out of service vehicles due to the landfill closure.
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Finance Committee Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed
Budget
Shift funding for the Parks Master Plan capital project (PE-13003), totaling
$0.350 million, from Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year 2013. Funding for this
project is from the Infrastructure Reserve (IR)
June 11, 2012 Page 12 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
El Camino Park Dog Park CIP (PE-13007), p. 113 of the proposed capital
budget
o Fiscal Year 2014 project cost of $250,000 will be moved to Fiscal Year
2013. Total project cost for Fiscal Year 2013 is $260,000.
o Funding for this project is from Development Impact Fees. See
updated Special Revenue Summary – Appendix 5)
El Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities (PG-13002), project added per
Council action on April 23, 2012
o Total project cost is $3,435,286 in Fiscal Year 2013
o Funded by Development Impact Fees ($1,793,496) and Utility Water
Bond Proceeds ($1,641,790). See updated Special Revenue Summary
– Appendix 5)
Additional Information Requested by the Finance Committee
In the May 29th Finance Committee meeting, the Committee discussed how
customers purchase parking day permits for garages in the California Avenue
business district. The City currently does not have a ticket machine that dispenses
daily parking permits in the vicinity of California Avenue. All daily parking permits
must be purchased at City Hall. Staff is looking into implementing a ticket machine
system so that daily permits can be purchased at remote locations.
The Finance Committee has directed staff to report back during Fiscal Year 2013
on the following:
Police Department staff continues its commitment to the Safe Routes to
School program and for the Police Department to return to the Finance
Committee mid-Fall 2012 that updates the Committee of the
implementation of adjusted staffing methods in the Traffic Division.
Return to the Finance Committee with a plan to address the $0.5 million
placeholder for animal services. The City Manager’s Office will engage with
stakeholders to consider alternative animal service models and/or
approaches.
Edits to the budget document template
o Category detail by division
Amount paid in credit card fees for online registrations
Develop a process that will provide oversight over how Stanford
Development Agreement Funds will be utilized. Return to Council after
June 11, 2012 Page 13 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Council break
Return to the Finance Committee with additional information that
describes the scope of services, methodologies, and assumptions used in
the cost of service study
Alternatives for service delivery at the Baylands Interpretive Center
Midyear status of donation collections at Boronda Lake for using potable
water to fill the lake
Position Allocation by Department (Table of Organization)
Amended pages to the Fiscal Year 2013 Position Allocation by Department are
included with this report (see Attachment A, Exhibit 3). 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 2012 Adopted Budget, the Proposed Budget
presented to Council on April 30th had a net decrease of 10.25 FTE. During the
Finance Committee Budget Hearings, the Committee recommended
reestablishing a net of 8.0 FTE Citywide. These changes result in a net 2.25 FTE
decrease in the Fiscal Year 2013 Amended Proposed Budget compared to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted 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 11, 2012 Page 14 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Table 2
Citywide FTE Changes
Fiscal Year 2013
General Enterprise Other
Fund Funds Funds Total
FY 2012 Adjusted Budget 584.52 364.12 76.21 1,024.85
Additions 4.25 4.00 1.00 9.25
Eliminations or Reductions (18.50) (9.00) (27.50)
Reallocations 1.05 (2.56) 1.26 (0.25)
FY 2013 Proposed Budget 571.32 356.56 78.47 1,006.35
Amendments to Proposed Budget:
CSD - Reinstate Producer Arts/Sci (Baylands)1.00 1.00
FIR - Reallocate Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall (0.16) 0.16 -
FIR - Reallocate Haz Mat Inspector (0.10) 0.10 -
FIR - Eliminate Fire Captain (2.00) (2.00)
FIR - Eliminate Fire Fighter (4.00) (4.00)
FIR - Withdraw Admin Assoc II reclass - -
POL - Reinstate Animal Services 12.00 12.00
PWD - Add Landfill Technician 1.00 1.00
FY 2013 Proposed Budget (Amended)578.06 357.82 78.47 1,014.35
Municipal Fee Schedule
On May 29th, the Finance Committee recommended that the Council adopt the
changes to the Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule (staff report
#2890) with amendments (Attachment A, Exhibit 4). The staff recommended,
and was accepted by the Finance Committee, five changes to the City Manager’s
Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. The recommendations are:
Citywide Fees:
1. Photocopy fee for copies of Fair Political Practices Forms – revert to
Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted fee of $0.10 per page.
PCE/Transportation Fees:
2. California and University Avenue Parking Districts: Addition of a waitlist
registration fee of $10, which is applied to the permit cost
3. 800 High Street Parking Garage: Deletion of the transferable permit fee
of $65.00/quarter
June 11, 2012 Page 15 of 18
(ID # 2872)
4. Residential Parking Permit Program: Addition of a trial fee for residential
parking permits, $50/permit through trial period
PCE/Building Fees:
5. Reduce fees for electric vehicle charge stations and photovoltaic
systems to Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted amounts
6. Reduce Strong Motion Implementation Program (SMIP) to Fiscal Year
2012 Adopted amounts as these fees are established by – and remitted
to – the state.
In addition to the above changes, a number of development impact fees are
referenced in the Municipal Code and the City’s website (under the Planning &
Community Environment section). On an annual basis the park dedication and
impacts fees are increased by a percentage equal to the percentage increase in
the Engineering News Record Cost of Construction Index. Staff recommends a
listing of development impact fees be included on the Municipal Fee schedule
(see Attachment A, Exhibit 4). The housing impact fee is updated based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Staff has reviewed the parking
in lieu fee based on actual construction costs and, based on the fee calculation
methodology outlined in municipal code section 16.57, this fee is recommended
to decrease to $60,750.
Rate Changes
Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council approve the following
Utility Rate Increases:
Fiber Optic Rate Increase (Attachment B): rates are adjusted annually
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Fiber Optic Rate will increase
2.9 percent to reflect the annual CPI change. See Staff Report #2680 for
additional information.
Gas Rate Decrease (Attachment C): 9.9 percent decrease due to changes in
commodity prices. See Staff Report #2812 for additional information.
Wastewater Collection Rate Increase (Attachment D): 5 percent increase to
balance projected revenue shortfall in Fiscal Year 2013. See Staff Report
#2679 for additional information.
Water Rate Increase (Attachment E): 15 percent increase due to changes in
water purchase cost, operating costs, and capital projects in the fund. See
Staff Report #2676 for additional information.
Storm Drain Rate Increase (Attachment F): rates are adjusted annually
June 11, 2012 Page 16 of 18
(ID # 2872)
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Fiber Optic Rate will increase
2.9 percent to reflect the annual CPI change. See Staff Report #2634 for
additional information.
Refuse Rate Increase (Attachment G): rate increase (varies) to eventually
eliminate the imbalance in rate between residential and commercial
customers. See Staff Report #2706 for additional information.
Compensation Plans
Changes in the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget result in these amendments to
the following compensation plans:
Management and Professional (Attachment H): two new positions – Airport
Manager and Chief Communication Officer
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (Attachment I): two new
positions – GIS Specialist and EMS Data Specialist
International Association of Fire Fighters (Attachment J): adjust top step for
two classifications. There are no authorized FTEs for these two
classifications in the Table of Organization, there is zero budget impact.
o Fire Fighter Trainee – Shift: top step of $23.52/hour
o Fire Fighter Trainee – Non-Shift: top step of $32.93/hour
Fire Chief’s Association (FCA) (Attachment K): reclass EMS Coordinator to
EMS Manager and adjust compensation from $104,969 to $120,000
(annual)
Resource Impact
The Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget as submitted by staff to the City Council
results in a BSR draw of $.39 million. This is a change from the recommendation
of $1.112 million staff had asked the Finance Committee to approve. The
projected ending balance for the BSR in Fiscal Year 2013 is $27.380 million and
equals 17.9 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
2013 ending BSR balance of 17.9 percent of General Fund operating expenditures
falls within the 15 to 20 percent range of the adopted reserve policy.
As a result of the changes to the capital budget, the projected ending balance in
the Infrastructure Reserve (IR) for Fiscal Year 2013 is $5.9 million. Staff will return
with a plan to assign the $2.2 million added to the CIP by the Finance Committee.
June 11, 2012 Page 17 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Additional changes to the Enterprise Funds result in an approximately $1.3 million
net decrease in reserve balances in Fiscal Year 2013 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 A: Budget Amendment Ordinance with the following Exhibits: (PDF)
Attachment A, Exhibit 1: FY 2013 Proposed Budget Previously Distributed (DOCX)
Attachment A, Exhibit 2: Amendments to Proposed Budget (PDF)
Attachment A, Exhibit 3: Revised Table of Org. Pages (PDF)
Attachment A, Exhibit 4: Revised Muni Fees (PDF)
Attachment B - Resolution Water Rate Increase (DOC)
Attachment C - Resolution for Gas Rate Decrease (PDF)
Attachment D - Resolution for Wastewater Collection Rate Increase (PDF)
Attachment E - Resolution of Fiber Rate Increase (DOC)
Attachment F - Resolution for Storm Drain Rate Increase (PDF)
Attachment G - Resolution for Refuse Rate Increase (PDF)
Attachment H - Resolution for the Management and Professional Compensation Plan(PDF)
Attachment I - Resolution for the SEIU Compensation Plan (PDF)
Attachment J - Resolution for the IAFF Compensation Plan (PDF)
Attachment K - Resolution for the Fire Chief's Association Compensation Plan (PDF)
Appendix 1 - General Fund Summaries (PDF)
Appendix 2 - Fiscal Year 2013 Enterprise Fund Summary and Reserve Balances (PDF)
Appendix 3 - Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Fund Summaries and Amended
Projects (PDF)
Appendix 4 - Internal Service Fund Summaries (PDF)
Appendix 5- Fiscal Year 2013 Special Revenue Funds Summary (PDF)
Appendix 6 - May 29, 2012 Budget Wrap Memo to Finance Committee (PDF)
Appendix 7 - Memos Distributed to Finance Committee At Places (PDF)
Appendix 8 - Staff Presentations to Finance Committee (PDF)
June 11, 2012 Page 18 of 18
(ID # 2872)
Prepared By: Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
1
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
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 2013; and
B. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of
the Charter, the Council did, on June 11 and 18, 2012, 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 11 and 18, 2012, 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 2013:
(a) The budget document (Exhibit “1”) containing the proposed
operating and capital budgets submitted on April 30,
2012, by the City Manager for Fiscal Year 2013, entitled
“City of Palo Alto - City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2013
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
ATTACHMENT A
2
(b) The Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2013
Proposed Budget, attached hereto as Exhibit “2,” and made
a part hereof; and
(c) Changes and revised pages in the Table of Organization,
attached hereto as Exhibit “3,” and made a part hereof;
and
(d) Revised pages of the Municipal Fee Schedule attached
hereto as Exhibit “4”; 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 2012 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 2012 shall be carried forward and added to the fund or
department appropriations for Fiscal Year 2013.
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 “2” and the Fiscal Year 2012
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 2013.
SECTION 9. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the
changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit “4”.
The amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental
ATTACHMENT A
3
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
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. Fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule are for
government services provided directly to the payor that are not
provided to those not charged. The amount of this fee does not
exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services.
Consequently, pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section 1(e)(2), such fees
are not a tax.
SECTION 11. 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 12. 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
ATTACHMENT A
4
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment A, Exhibit 1
Fiscal Year 2013
City Manager’s
Proposed Operating and
Capital Budget
These documents were originally distributed in Council
Packet April 30, 2012.
Printed copies are available upon request for $22 per
book.
The Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule was
distributed in Council Packet on May 29, 2012.
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?Blo
bID=31532
Books may be viewed at any City of Palo Alto Library or the
City’s website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
GENERAL FUND
389,684$ Placeholder for draw from BSR approved by Finance Committee
300,000 Increase in Property Tax Revenues Budget
104,000 Increase Placeholder for Fee Revenues
793,684
(449,105) Palo Alto Animal Services Budget Gap Placeholder
Contingency 125,000 Increase in City Attorney Contingency
(324,105)
1,117,789$
Salaries and Benefits (106,264)
Reallocate retiree health benefits costs to Information Technology
Department
Allocated Charges 2,434 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
(103,830)
103,830$
CITY ATTORNEY
Allocated Charges 880 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
880
(880)$
CITY AUDITOR
Allocated Charges 376 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
376
(376)$
CITY CLERK
Allocated Charges 553 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
553
(553)$
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
NON‐DEPARTMENTAL
Exhibit 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Source Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
6/7/2012
General Fund 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
Exhibit 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Allocated Charges 939 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
939
(939)$
CITY COUNCIL
‐
‐$
Fees and Licenses (15,000) Reduction of proposed rent increase for community garden plots
Fees and Licenses (17,500) Reduction of proposed rent increase for Cubberley artists
Fees and Licenses (4,000) Reduction of proposed increase for Lawn Bowlers Club
Fees and Licenses 94,700 Reinstate revenue from Baylands Program
Donations 65,000 New revenue from Boronda Lake donations
Source Changes 123,200
Contract Services 10,000 Reinstate proposed reduction to Summer Concert Series
Salaries and Benefits 121,724 Reinstate 1.0 FTE Producer of Arts/Sciences for Baylands Program
Contract Services 15,000 Reinstate Baylands Program Non‐Personnel Costs
Direct Charges 65,000 Reinstate water costs for Boronda Lake
Contract Services 13,000 Increase funding for InnVision
Salaries and Benefits (42,000) Freeze 0.75 FTE Program Assistant Position through December 2012
Allocated Charges 7,739 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
190,463
(67,263)$
COMMUNITY SERVICES
CITY MANAGER
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
6/7/2012
General Fund 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
Exhibit 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Services Contracts 22,544$ Reduced Stanford revenue from changes below
Source Changes 22,544
Salary and Benefits (57,000)Reallocate 0.26 FTE to Enterprise Funds
Salary and Benefits (17,402)
Withdrawl request to reclassify 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to 1.0 FTE
Administrative Assistant
Allocated Charges 11,128 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
(63,274)
40,730$
Source Changes ‐
Allocated Charges 1,091 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
1,091
(1,091)$
Source Changes ‐
Allocated Charges 2,595 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
2,595
(2,595)$
Allocated Charges (14,942) Correction‐ charges from Printing and Mailing Internal Service Fund
Allocated Charges 3,745 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
(11,197)
11,197$
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
HUMAN RESOURCES
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
LIBRARY
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
FIRE
6/7/2012
General Fund 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
Exhibit 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Various Revenue 934,624$ Reinstate Palo Alto Animal Services revenue
Source Changes 934,624
(500,000) Remove contract costs for Animal Services
1,610,000 Reinstate 13.14 FTE Palo Alto Animal Services Staff
273,639 Reinstate Palo Alto Animal Services Non‐Personnel Costs
(214,099) Remove retiree medical and other placeholders for fund balancing
Allocated Charges 11,928 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
1,181,468
(246,844)$
Salaries and Benefits (43,722)
Correction for FTE distribution of Management Analyst in Public Works;
moved to CIP
Contract Services (15,873) Reduce budget increase for Mitchell Park custodial
Contract Services (9,818)$ Reduce budget increase for Mitchell Park maintenance
Supplies and Materials (4,208) Reduce budget increase for Mitchell Park supplies
Allocated Charges 4,861 Department's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
(68,760)
68,760$
Total General Fund Changes to BSR 1,021,765$
Transfer in 1,641,790
Transfer from Development Impact Fees‐ Parks Fund for CIP PG‐13002 El
Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities
Transfer in 1,793,496
Transfer from Water Fund for CIP PG‐13002 El Camino Park Playing Fields
and Amenities; funded by proceeds from Utility Water Bonds for the
Emergency Water Supply Project
Transfer in 260,000
Transfer from Development Impact Fees‐ Parks Fund for CIP PE‐13007 El
Camino Dog Park
Source Changes 3,695,286
Project Expense 3,435,286 CIP PG‐13002 El Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities
Project Expense 250,000 CIP PE‐13007 El Camino Dog Park; shifted from FY 2014
Project Expense 350,000 CIP PE‐13003 Parks Master Plan; shifted from FY 2014
Project Expense 43,722
CIP AS‐10000 Salaries and Benefits; correction for FTE distribution of
Management Analyst in Public Works
Use Changes 4,079,008
(383,722)$ Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve
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
6/7/2012
General Fund 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
UTILITIES ADMIN
Reimbursements 69,934
Reimbursements from Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection,
Water, and Fiber Optics Funds for Utilities Administration
Source Changes 69,934
Salaries and Benefits 30,288
Reallocate 0.08 FTE Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshall and
0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector from Fire Dept.
Allocated Charges 39,646
Fund's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health
change
Use Changes 69,934
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ ‐
Fund Balancing Entries
$ ‐ Change in Fund Balance
Total Utilities Administration Fund $ ‐
ELECTRIC FUND
Allocated Charges 31,564 Fund's share of Utilities Administration charges
Use Changes 31,564
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (31,564)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 31,564 Change in Fund Balance
Total Electric Fund $ 31,564
FIBER OPTICS FUND
Allocated Charges 1,898 Fund's share of Utilities Administration charges
Use Changes $ 1,898
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (1,898)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 1,898 Change in Fund Balance
Total Fiber Optics Fund $ 1,898
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit 2
6/7/2012
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit 2
GAS FUND 7
Allocated Charges 14,754 Fund's share of Utilities Administration charges
Use Changes 14,754
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (14,754)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (14,754) Change in Fund Balance
Total Gas Fund $ (14,754)
Allocated Charges 8,125 Fund's share of Utilities Administration charges
Use Changes 8,125
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (8,125)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (8,125) Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Collection Fund $ (8,125)
WATER FUND 7
Transfer out 1,641,790
Transfer to Capital Projects Fund for CIP PG‐13002 El
Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities; funded by
proceeds from Utility Water Bonds for the Emergency
Water Supply Project
Allocated Charges 13,593 Fund's share of Utilities Administration charges
Use Changes 1,655,383
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (1,655,383)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (1,655,383) Change in Fund Balance
Total Water Fund $ (1,655,383)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
6/7/2012
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit 2
REFUSE FUND
Net Sales $ 105,557 Increase revenue to anticipated actuals
Net Sales $ 11,430 Increase sales to City departments
Charges to Other
Funds
$ 46,430 Increase debris box revenue
Charges to Other
Funds
$ 50,000 Increase transfer from WWT for hazardous waste mgmt.
Revenue Changes $ 213,417
Salary and Benefits $ 75,857
Drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor; add 1.0 FTE Landfill
Tech
Salary and Benefits
$ 13,356 Increase positions allocated from Fire Department
Salary and Benefits
$ (10,516) Reduce overtime
Allocated Charges $ (416,863) Reduce allocations for vehicles
Allocated Charges $ 6,978
Fund's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health
change
Use Changes (331,188)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ 544,605
Fund Balancing Entries
$ 544,605 Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund $ 544,605
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Allocated Charges $ 2,132
Fund's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health
change
Use Changes 2,132
Net Changes To (From) Reserves $ (2,132)
Fund Balancing Entries
$ (2,132) Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund $ (2,132)
6/7/2012
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2013 Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Exhibit 2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND
Salary and Benefits 13,356 Increase positions allocated from Fire Department
Allocated Charges 50,000 Increase transfer from WWT for hazardous waste mgmt.
Allocated Charges 46,430 Increase debris box expense
Allocated Charges $ 7,030
Fund's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health
change
Use Changes 116,816
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (116,816)
Fund Balancing Entries
(116,816) Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund (116,816)
6/7/2012
Enterprise Funds 2012
FY 2013 Category Description
Transfer out 1,793,496
Transfer to Capital Projects Fund for CIP PG‐13002 El Camino Park Playing
Fields and Amenities; funded by proceeds from Utility Water Bonds for the
Emergency Water Supply Project
Transfer out 260,000 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund for CIP PE‐13007 El Camino Dog Park
Use Changes 2,053,496
(2,053,496)$
Source Changes ‐
‐$
Charges to Other
Funds (416,863)$ Reduce allocation revenue from Refuse Fund
(416,863)
Allocated Charges 1,790 Fund's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
Use Changes 1,790
(418,653)$
Charges to Other
Funds
106,265$ Allocations from funds/departments for IT allocation increase
Source Changes 106,265
Salaries and Benefits 106,265$ Allocation of IT retiree health benefits
Use Changes 106,265
‐$
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
INTERNAL SERVICE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Exhibit 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES‐ PARKS FUND
Amount
CIVIC CENTER DEBT SERVICE FUND
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
Source Changes
6/7/2012
Other Funds 2012
FY 2013 Category Description
Exhibit 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Amount
Source Changes ‐$
Allocated Charges 420 Fund's share of IT allocation increase due to retiree health change
Use Changes 420
(420)$
Source Changes ‐$
Use Changes ‐
‐$ Net Changes To (From) Reserves
GENERAL BENEFITS & INSURANCE FUND
PRINTING AND MAILING
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
6/7/2012
Other Funds 2012
- 1 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Proposed Position Changes
FTE
GENERAL FUND
FY 2012 ADOPTED BUDGET 576.40
FY 2012 BAO Position Adjustments
ASD - Administrative Assistant (1)0.07
ASD - Assistant Director, Administrative Services (2) 0.10
ASD - Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (3) 0.15
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (4)1.00
CMO - Management Analyst (5)(0.50)
CSD - Arts and Culture Division Manager (6)(1.00)
CSD - Assistant Director CSD (6)1.00
PCE - Development Center Manager (7)1.00
PCE - Development Project Coordinator III (9)3.00
PCE - Development Services Director (8)1.00
PCE - Plans Examiner (10)1.00
PWD - Administrative Associate II (11)1.05
PWD - Assistant Director, Public Works (12)0.20
PWD - Management Analyst (13)0.05
PWD - Senior Engineer (14)0.90
PWD - Senior Project Manager (15)(0.90)
FY 2012 Total BAO Positions 8.12
FY 2012 ADJUSTED TOTAL 584.52
FY 2013 Additions
CMO - Chief Communication Officer (16)1.00
CSD - Program Assistant I (17)0.25
FIR - EMS Data Specialist (18)1.00
FIR - GIS Specialist (19)1.00
FIR - Program Assistant (20)1.00
FY 2013 Total Additions 4.25
FY 2013 Elimination or Reduction
CSD - Producer Arts/Science Programs (47)(0.25)
CSD - Program Assistant I (64)(0.25)
FIR - Fire Fighter (4.00)
FIR - Fire Captian (48)(5.00)
PCE - Senior Planner (49)(1.00)
PCE- Administrative Associate I (50)(1.00)
FY 2013 Total Elimination or Reduction (11.50)
FY 2013 General Fund Net Increase/(Decrease)
FY 2013 General Fund Net Change from Additions/Eliminations or Reduction (7.25)
FY 2013 Reclassified, Add/Drop, and Title Changes
CMO - Assistant to the City Manager (21)(0.55)
CMO - Sustainability Manager (21)0.55
FIR - EMS Chief (23)1.00
FIR - EMS Coordinator (23)(1.00)
City of Palo Alto - 2 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Proposed Position Changes
FIR - Fire Captian EMT (24)(1.00)
FIR - Fire Inspector EMT (24)1.00
LIB - Library Associate (25)1.00
LIB - Library Specialist (25)(1.00)
PCE - Chief Planning Official (26)1.00
PCE - Manager, Planning (26)(1.00)
PCE - Planner (27)(2.00)
PCE - Senior Planner (27)2.00
PWD - Project Manager (28)1.00
PWD - Tree Maintenance Person (28)(1.00)
FY 2013 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2013 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (30) (0.15)
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (31)(0.10)
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (72)0.29
ASD- Assistant Director, Administrative Services (29) 0.10
CMO - Administrative Associate I (32)(0.50)
FIR - Administrative Assistant (34)0.50
FIR - Business Analyst (35)0.40
FIR - Deputy Director Technical Services (36)0.20
FIR - Police Chief (37)0.50
FIR - Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead (38)0.40
FIR - Senior Management Analyst (39)0.50
PCE - Administrative Associate I (32)0.50
POL - Administrative Assistant (34)(0.50)
POL - Business Analyst (35)(0.40)
POL - Deputy Director Technical Serivces (36) (0.20)
POL - Police Chief (37)(0.50)
POL - Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead (38)(0.40)
POL - Senior Management Analyst (39)(0.50)
PWD - Accountant (40)0.03
PWD - Accounting Specialist (41)(0.04)
PWD - Administrative Associate I (42)(0.20)
PWD - Manager, Maintenance Operations (43) 0.38
PWD - Project Manager (44)(0.50)
PWD - Senior Accountant (45)(0.02)
PWD - Senior Financial Analyst (75)0.95
PWD - Senior Management Analyst (46)0.05
FY 2013 Total Reallocated Positions 0.79
FY 2013 TOTAL PROPOSED GENERAL FUND POSITIONS 578.06
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FY 2012 ADOPTED BUDGET 365.62
FY 2012 BAO Position Adjustments
PWD -Administrative Associate II (11)(1.05)
PWD - Assistant Director, Public Works (12)(0.45)
FY 2012 Total BAO Positions (1.50)
FY 2012 ADJUSTED TOTAL 364.12
FTE
- 3 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Proposed Position Changes
FY 2013 New Positions
PWD - Airport Manager (52)1.00
UTL - Business Analyst (67)1.00
UTL - Inspector, Field Services (66)1.00
UTL - Utilities Engineering Estimator (65)1.00
FY 2013 Total New Positions 4.00
FY 2013 Elimination or Reduction
PWD - Refuse Disposal Attendant (56)(4.00)
PWD - Heavy Equiptment Operator (57)(4.00)
PWD - Heavy Equiptment Operator - Lead (68) (1.00)
FY 2013 Total Eliminated Positions (9.00)
FY 2013 Enterprise Fund Net Increase/(Decrease)
FY 2013 Enterprise Fund Net Change from Additions/Eliminations or Reduction (5.00)
FY 2013 Reclassified, Add/Drop, and Title Changes
CMO/PW/UTL - Assistant to the City Manager (21) (0.45)
CMO/PW/UTL - Sustainability Manager (21)0.45
PWD - Landfill Technician 1.00
PWD - Supervisor, Public Works (1.00)
UTL - Electrical Assistant I (69)(1.00)
UTL - OH UG Troubleman (68)2.00
UTL - Heavy Equiptment Operator (84)(1.00)
FY 2013 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2013 Reallocated Positions
ASD- Assistant Director, Administrative Services (29) (0.10)
PWD/UTL - Accountant (40)(0.03)
PWD - Accounting Specialist (41)(0.01)
PWD - Engineering Technician III (55)(0.10)
PWD - Senior Accountant (45)0.07
PWD - Senior Financial Analyst (74)0.05
PWD - Senior Financial Analyst (72)(0.20)
PWD- Associate Engineer (54)(0.30)
PWD- Manager, Maintenance Operations (43) (0.38)
PWD- Senior Engineer (53)(0.35)
PWD- Senior Management Analyst (46)(0.05)
UTL - Accounting Specialist (41)0.05
UTL - Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (30) 0.10
UTL - Senior Accountant (45)(0.05)
FY 2013 Total Reallocated Positions (1.30)
FY 2013 TOTAL PROPOSED ENTERPRISE FUND POSITIONS 357.82
OTHER FUNDS
FY 2012 ADOPTED BUDGET 74.58
FY 2013 BAO Position Adjustments
IT - Management Analyst (5)0.50
IT - Information Technology Security Manager (59) 1.00
IT - Administrative Assistant (1)(0.07)
FTE
City of Palo Alto - 4 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Proposed Position Changes
IT - Assistant Director, Administrative Services (2) (0.10)
IT - Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (3)(0.15)
PWD - Senior Engineer (14)(0.90)
PWD - Senior Project Manager (15)0.90
VHE - Management Analyst (60)0.25
VHE - Assistant Director, Public Works (12)0.25
VHE - Management Analyst (13)(0.05)
FY 2012 Total BAO Positions 1.63
FY 2012 ADJUSTED TOTAL 76.21
FY 2013 New Positions
PCE - Management Analyst (62)0.50
CIP - Management Analyst (61)0.50
FY 2013 Total New Positions 1.00
FY 2013 Reclassified Positions
IT - IT Manager (63)1.00
IT - Senior Technologist (63)(1.00)
FY 2013 Total Reclassified Positions 0.00
FY 2013 Reallocated Positions
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (0.40)
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (31)0.10
ASD - Senior Financial Analyst (71)(0.09)
CIP - Administrative Associate I (42)0.20
CIP - Senior Financial Analyst 0.40
IT - Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (30)0.05
PWD - Engineering Technician III (55)0.10
PWD - Management Analyst (73)(0.25)
PWD - Project Manager (44)0.50
PWD - Senior Engineer (53)0.35
PWD- Assoc Engineer (54)0.30
VHE - Senior Financial Analyst (70)(0.08)
VHE - Senior Financial Analyst (70)0.08
FY 2013 Total Reallocated Positions 1.26
FY 2013 TOTAL PROPOSED OTHER FUNDS POSITIONS 78.47
FY 2013 TOTAL PROPOSED CITYWIDE POSITIONS 1014.35
FISCAL YEAR 2013 FROZEN POSITIONS
FIR - 1.00 FTE Program Assistant
LIB - 1.00 FTE Assistant Director, Library Services
LIB - 1.00 FTE Library Services Manager
LIB - 2.00 FTE Librarian
LIB - 1.00 FTE Library Assistant
PLA - 1.00 FTE Plans Check Engineer
POL - 1.00 FTE Police Sergeant
POL - 2.00 FTE Police Agent
POL - 1.00 FTE Police Officer
POL - 2.00 FTE Police Officer - Intermediate
POL - 1.00 FTE Police Captain
FTE
- 5 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
GENERAL FUND
Administrative Services
Accountant 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Acct Spec 11.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Acct Spec-Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Admin Assistant 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.07
Administrative Associate III 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst Director Adm Svcs 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.50 1.70 0.20
Budget Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Business Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Buyer 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00
Chief Budget Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Contracts Administrator 2.00 2.00 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.00
Deputy Dir Adm Svcs 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Director, Office of Management and
Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Graphic Designer 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Pur & Cntr Admin 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Principal Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sr. Accountant 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Sr. Business Analyst 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Financial Analyst 7.91 6.91 5.81 4.91 6.10 1.19
Storekeeper 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storekeeper-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Warehouse Supv 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Total Administrative Services 48.95 41.95 37.49 37.69 39.15 1.46
City Attorney
Asst City Atty 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Claims Investigator 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.00
Legal Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Secretary To City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr. Asst City Atty 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Sr. Deputy City Attorney 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Total City Attorney 10.60 10.60 9.60 9.00 9.00 0.00
City Auditor
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City of Palo Alto - 6 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Sr. Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Total City Auditor 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
City Clerk
Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Asst City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Parking Examiner 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Total City Clerk 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 0.00
City Manager
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.00 (0.50)
Administrative Associate II 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst City Manager/Chief Operating Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst To City Mgr 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.55 1.00 (0.55)
Chief Communication Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communications Mgr 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy City Mgr Spec Proj 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Executive Assistant To The City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 (0.50)
Mgr Communications 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr Economic Dev 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sustainability Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55
Total City Manager 11.50 10.00 9.00 10.05 10.05 0.00
Community Services
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Arts & Culture Div Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Assistant Director CSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Bldg Serviceperson 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Bldg Serviceperson-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Community Services Senior Program
Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Coord Child Care 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coord Rec Prog 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 4.00 0.00
Cub Ctr & Hum Svc Div Mgr 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dir Comm Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Manager, Recreations & Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Golf Cor Equip Mech 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Cor Mt Person 5.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
- 7 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Inspector, Field Svc 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Junior Museum & Zoo Educator 0.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.00
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Arts 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Open Spc & Parks Div Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maint - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Park Maint Person 11.00 11.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Parks/Golf Crew-Lead 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Prod Arts/Sci Prog 12.50 13.00 12.00 12.00 11.75 (0.25)
Program Assistant I 12.00 7.75 7.50 7.50 7.50 0.00
Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sprinkler Sys Repr 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Sr Ranger 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supt Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
Supv Open Space 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supv Parks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supv Rec Prog 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Volunteer Coord 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Total Community Services 96.50 94.25 74.50 74.00 73.75 (0.25)
Human Resources
Adm Human Res 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Dir Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Human Resources Rep 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Human Rsrce Asst Cnf 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Mgr Employee Relations 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Total Human Resources 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00
Library
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Business Analyst 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coord Library Prog 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Dir Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Division Head, Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Library Associate 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.00
Library Asst 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00
Library Services manager 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Library Specialist 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 (1.00)
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
City of Palo Alto - 8 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Sr Librarian 9.25 8.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00
Total Library 43.75 42.25 41.25 41.25 41.25 0.00
Planning and Community Environment
Adm Pln & Comm Envrn 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 (0.50)
Administrative Associate II 4.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Arborist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assistant Director Planning & Comm Env 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assoc Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst Build Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst To City Mgr 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bldg Inspector 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Bldg Inspector Spec 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Bldg/Plg Technician 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Chief Bld Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Plg Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Chief Transp Off 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Off 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Coor Trans Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Deputy City Mgr Spec Proj 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Development Center Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00
Development Services Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Dir Plan/Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engr Tech II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Economic Dev 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr Planning 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00)
Permit Specialist 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Planner 6.00 6.05 5.75 5.75 5.75 0.00
Planning Arborist 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Plans Check Engr 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Plans Examiner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Planner 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Supv Bldg Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Transportation Manager 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Planning and Community
Environment 53.30 48.85 44.60 43.05 47.55 4.50
Public Safety
40-Hr Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Admin Assistant 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Animal Control Off 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
- 9 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Animal Services Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Animal Services Spec II 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Assistant Police Chief - Adv 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Battalion Chief 56-Hour Workweek 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Code Enforcement Off 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Comm Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Community Serv Offcr 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.00
Coord Pol Tech Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Crime Analyst 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00
Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Emergency Medical Svc Chief 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Emergency Services Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
EMS Data Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
EMS Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Fire Apparatus Op 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00
Fire Captain 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 22.00 (5.00)
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 41.00 (4.00)
Fire Fighter Emt 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Inspector 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00
GIS Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Haz Mat Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Haz Mat Spec 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OES Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00
Police Captain-Adv 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Police Chief-Adv 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Lieut-Adv 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Police Officer 51.00 50.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Police Records Specialist II 9.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Program Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Program Assistant I 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Coordinator 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Property Evid Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Disp 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supt Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supv Animal Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
City of Palo Alto - 10 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Supv Police Service 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Veterinarian Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Volunteer Coord 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Total Public Safety 290.69 284.19 277.24 278.24 273.24 (5.00)
Public Works
Accountant 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 (0.02)
Acct Spec 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 (0.04)
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 3.50 1.70 1.70 0.70 0.50 (0.20)
Administrative Associate II 2.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 2.85 1.05
Administrative Associate III 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assoc Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00
Asst Dir Public Wrks 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.30 0.20
Bldg Serviceperson 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Bldg Serviceperson-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Dir Pw/City Engr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engineer 1.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Engr Tech III 4.20 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.00
Equip Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00
Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Facilities Maint-L 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Facilities Mech 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Heavy Equip Oper 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.00
Heavy Equip Oper-L 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00
Inspector, Field Svc 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Management Analyst 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.60 0.05
Managing Arborist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Mgr Fac Maint & Proj 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr Maint Oper 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.72 2.10 0.38
Planning Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Project Mgr 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.75 1.25 0.50
Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.05
Sr. Accountant 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 (0.02)
Sr. Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.10 0.90
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Sr. Project Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 (0.90)
Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supt PW Opns 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supv Facil Mgt 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supv Insp/Surv Pw 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00
Surveying Asst 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
- 11 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Surveyor, Public Wks 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00
Traf Cont Maint I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00
Traf Cont Maint II 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Traf Cont Maint-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Tree Maint Person 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 (1.00)
Tree Trim/Ln Clr 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Tree Trim/Ln Clr-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forester 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Total Public Works 69.23 63.67 58.57 56.37 57.32 0.95
Total GENERAL FUND 651.27 622.51 579.00 576.40 578.06 1.66
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Public Works - Enterprise Funds
Accountant 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.40 0.17
Acct Spec 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 (0.01)
Administrative Associate II 3.00 3.20 3.20 3.20 2.15 (1.05)
Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Airport Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Director, Environmental Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assoc Engineer 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.00 (0.30)
Assoc Planner 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 (2.00)
Asst Dir Public Wrks 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.30 (0.45)
Asst Mgr WQCP 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Asst To City Mgr 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 (0.10)
Business Analyst 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.13 0.00 (0.13)
Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Coord Pub Wks Proj 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coord Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Electrician-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Eng Tech I 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineer 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engr Tech III 1.50 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.30 (0.10)
Environmental Spec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Equip Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00
Executive Assistant 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Haz Mat Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Haz Mat Spec 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equip Oper 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 1.90 (4.00)
Heavy Equip Oper-L 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.15 (1.00)
Ind Waste Inspec 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Ind Waste Invtgtr 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Laboratory Tech WQC 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00
Landfill Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
City of Palo Alto - 12 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Maint Mech 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00
Mgr Env Control Prog 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Mgr Envrn Compliance 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr Lab Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Maint Oper 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.00 (0.38)
Mgr Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr WQC Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Refuse Disp Atten 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 (4.00)
Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 (0.05)
Sr Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Mech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Operator WQC 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Sr. Accountant 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.07
Sr. Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
Sr. Engineer 2.45 2.45 2.75 2.25 1.90 (0.35)
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00
Sr. Technologist 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.13 1.13 0.00
St Maint Asst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
St Sweeper Op 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supt PW Opns 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supv Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
Supv WQC Oper 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Surveying Asst 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Wks 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Sustainability Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Traf Cont Maint I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Watershed Protection Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
WQC Plt Oper II 16.00 16.00 16.00 17.00 17.00 0.00
Total Public Works - Enterprise Funds 113.55 114.63 115.01 114.51 104.06 (10.45)
Utilities
Accountant 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.60 (0.15)
Acct Spec 1.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.55 0.05
Admin Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utilities Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assistant Director Utl Cust Support Svs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assoc Res Planner 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asst Dir Ut/Res Mgmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst Director Adm Svcs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 (0.10)
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
- 13 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Asst To City Mgr 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 (0.35)
Business Analyst 2.87 2.87 2.87 4.87 5.87 1.00
Cathodic Protection Technician Assistant 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cathodic Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Communications Mgr 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coord Util Saf & Sec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Coord Utility Proj 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Cust Srv Specialist-L 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Cust Svc Represent 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Cust Svc Spec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Deputy Dir Adm Svcs 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.10
Dir Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Elec Asst I 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 (1.00)
Elec Undgd Inspec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Electric Underground Inspector - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
Electrician-Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Engr Mgr - Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engr Mgr - WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Engr Tech III 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Equip Operator 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Gas System Tech 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Gas System Technician II 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Haz Mat Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00
Haz Mat Spec 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Heavy Equip Oper 10.00 10.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 (1.00)
Inspector, Field Svc 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.00
Lineper/Cable Spl 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00
Lineper/Cable Spl-L 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Maint Mech 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Manager Energy Risk 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Marketing Eng 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00
Meter Reader-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Cust Svc & Meter Reading 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Electric Oprns 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Util Mkt Svcs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Util Oprns WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Mgr Util Telecomm 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
City of Palo Alto - 14 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Offset Equip Op 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00
OH UG Troubleman 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00
Planner 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00
Power Engr 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Project Engineer 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Project Mgr 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00
Resource Planner 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Restoration Lead 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Mech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Mkt Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Util Field Svc Rep 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr Water Sys Oper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Sr. Accountant 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.70 (0.05)
Sr. Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Sr. Deputy City Attorney 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr. Electric Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.60 1.10 1.60 1.40 (0.20)
Sr. Performance Auditor 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr. Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Sr. Resource Originator 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Resource Planner 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Sr. Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00
Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Supervising Electric Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supervising Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supv Water Trans 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Supv WGW 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Sustainability Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35
Tree Maint Person 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Util Acct Rep 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Util Comp Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Util Comp Tech-L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Util Credit/Col Spec 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Util Engr Estimator 6.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 1.00
Util Fld Svcs Rep 7.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Util Install/Rep 11.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00
Util Install/Rep Ast 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Util Install/Rep-L 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Util Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Util Syst Oper 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utilities Compliance Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Utilities Supervisor 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Utility Key Account Rep - S 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Utl Install Repair Lead-Welding Cert 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
- 15 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Utl Install Repair-Welding Cert 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Warehouse Supv 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Water Sys Oper II 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
Wtr Mtr Crs Cn Tec 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Total Utilities 238.01 241.61 250.71 251.11 253.76 2.65
Total ENTERPRISE FUNDS 351.56 356.24 365.72 365.62 357.82 (7.80)
OTHER FUNDS
Capital
Administrative Associate I 0.00 1.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.20
Administrative Associate III 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Assoc Engineer 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.90 0.30
Asst Dir Public Wrks 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00
Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Cement Finisher Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Contracts Administrator 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 0.00
Engr Tech III 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.40 0.10
Heavy Equip Oper 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Landscape Architect/Pk Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.50 0.25
Mgr Fac Maint & Proj 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mgr Maint Oper 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.00
Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Project Engineer 3.70 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.00
Project Mgr 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50
Sr. Engineer 2.15 2.25 2.05 2.55 2.00 (0.55)
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00
Sr. Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90
Supt PW Opns 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supv Facil Mgt 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supv Insp/Surv Pw 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Surveying Asst 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Surveyor, Public Wks 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00
Total Capital 20.67 24.67 23.67 24.37 26.07 1.70
Information Technology
Admin Assistant 0.07 0.07 0.07 1.07 1.00 (0.07)
Administrative Associate II 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Associate III 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asst Director Adm Svcs 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 (0.10)
Business Analyst 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Chief Information Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00
Dir Adm Svcs/Chief Financial Officer 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25 (0.10)
Information Technology Security Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
City of Palo Alto - 16 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Position Allocation by Department
Authorization is given to create no more than 20.0 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. The overstrength positions also accommodate newly approved provisional
employment programs. Refer to City Council Staff Report ID #1812 for additional information.
Mgr IT 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 1.00
Sr. Business Analyst 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 (0.09)
Sr. Technologist 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 12.00 (1.00)
Technologist 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
Total Information Technology 30.65 30.65 30.41 30.41 31.55 1.14
Printing and Mailing Fund
Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00
Mailing Svcs Spec 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offset Equip Op 1.00 1.00 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00
Offset Equip Op-Lead 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Supv Repro & Mail 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Printing and Mailing Fund 4.05 4.05 1.57 1.57 1.67 0.10
Special Revenue
Acct Spec 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00
Community Serv Offcr 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50
Planner 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.00
Total Special Revenue 1.20 1.15 2.15 2.15 2.65 0.50
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Asst Dir Public Wrks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25
Asst Fleet Mgr 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Equip Maint Serv Per 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Fleet Svcs Coord 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
Mobile Service Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00
Project Engineer 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sr. Engineer 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Financial Analyst 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00
Total Vehicle Replacement Fund 16.20 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.53 0.45
Total OTHER FUNDS 72.77 76.60 73.88 74.58 78.47 3.89
Total Citywide Positions 1,075.60 1,055.35 1,018.60 1,016.60 1,014.35 (2.25)
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
City of Palo Alto Charter Available on-line or through vendor Available on-line or through vendor
200 scale zone map $12.00/page $13.00/page
400 scale zone map $8.00/page $9.00/page
Zoning Map Booklet $44.00 + $4.00 if mailed $48.00 + $4.00 if mailed
600 scale zone map $12.00/page $13.00/page
1,000 scale zone map $12.00/page $13.00/page
24 x 36 inches $25.00/page $27.00/page
18 x 24 inches $14.00/page $15.00/page
36 x 48 inches $35.00/page $39.00/page
Blackline film 2 times blueprinting charges 2 times blueprinting charges
Smaller than 18" x 26"$4.00 each $4.00 each
18" x 26"$5.00 each $5.00 each
25.5" x 27.5" (block book)$7.50 each $8.00 each
22" x 36" or 24" x 36" or 26" x 36"$7.50 each $8.00 each
Roll sizes $1.20/foot, $7.50 minimum $1.30/foot, $7.50 minimum
Outside printing services City cost plus 15%City cost plus 15%
Sepia Vellum film 2 times blueprinting charges 2 times blueprinting charges
Standard drawings and specifications $17.00 each $18.00 each
Standard color/mono Laserjet plots 8 ½ x 11
inches and 11 x 17 inches $1.10 each $1.20 each
WGW Utility Standards, latest edition $30.00 each $30.00 each
Project Specification $25.00 each $25.00 each
Project Plan Set $25.00 each $25.00 each
Xerographic (larger than 11" x 17")2 times blueprinting charges 2 times blueprinting charges
Photocopies - Black & White - all sizes $.12 per page $.13 per page
Photocopies - Fair Political Practices Comm.$.10 per page $.10 per page
Photocopies - Color (1-100) 8 1/2 x 11 Single: $0.80 Double-sided: $1.61 Single: $0.87 Double-sided: $1.74
Photocopies - Color (1-100) 8 1/2 x 14 Single: $1.12 Double-sided: $2.25 Single: $1.21 Double-sided: $2.43
Photocopies - Color (1-100) 11 x 17 Single: $2.09 Double-sided: $4.18 Single: $2.26 Double-sided: $4.52
3.5" diskettes $7.00 per diskette $8.00 per diskette
CD-ROM $10.00 per CD-ROM $11.00 per CD-ROM
Video Cassette*$15.00 per cassette delete
Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater
Electronic Media Duplication
Map Scales
Photocopies
Documents
Standard ink jet plots
CITYWIDE FEES
Blueprinting
Fees shown throughout the fee schedule do not include 9.25% sales tax.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 1- 1
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
Documents
CITYWIDE FEES
$100,000 and Below $26.00 $28.00
Above $100,000 $52.00 or more $56.00 or more
JC Decaux Public Toilet Fee $0.50 $0.50
Bicycle change of ownership $3.00 each application $3.00 each application
Bicycle license $3.00 each application $3.00 each application
Bicycle Traffic School registration $14.00 $15.00
Bicycle renewal $3.00 each application $3.00 each application
On-line processing of parking citation $2.00 each citation $2.00 each citation
Miscellaneous Fees
* This fee does not apply to the sale of City Council or Boards and Commission meeting videocassettes, which are sold directly to
the public by MCMC (Midpeninsula Community Media Center). MCMC charges are based on the direct costs associated with
reproducing the video. These charges are in no way determined by the City of Palo Alto.
Plans and Specifications for Capital Improvement Projects
Note: Charges for some projects greater than $100,000 may be more than $56.00. Assessment to be made at time of
review.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 1- 2
Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Fee (Collected at
Building Permit issuance)
Address changes
Request for Release of Building Plans
Electric Service Safety Inspection
Inspections and investigations for which no fee is
specifically indicated (2 hour minimum)
Residential Inspection Guidelines
All Other Publications
Records Retention
Real Property Research Fee (1 hour minimum)
Re-inspection Fee-Single Family Residential
Re-inspection Fee Multi-Family Residential and Non-
Residential
Technology Enhancements
Extension of Building Permit or Building Permit
Application
Reactivation of Expired Building Permit Application
Reactivation of Expired Building Permit (For Final
Inspection Only)
Reactivation of Expired Building Permit (All Others)
Temporary Occupancy Single Family Residential and
Commercial Tenant Improvement less than 10,000
square feet
50% of original Building Permit Fee
not to exceed the full cost to perform
remaining inspections determined by
the Chief Building Official.
$335.00 or original Building
Permit fee, whichever is less
$150.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
50% of original Building Permit
Fee not to exceed the full cost to
perform remaining inspections
determined by the Chief Building
Official.
$362.00 or original Building Permit
fee, whichever is less
$32.00/each (available free online)
$16.00/each
$4.00/plan sheet $4.00/plan sheet
$180.00/hour for OT at 1.5x
$202.00/hour for OT at 2.0x
$40.00
5% of Building Permit fee
$362.00 $335.00
$114.00/hour $123.00/hour
$275.00 each
$162.00 plus plan check fees as
applicable
General and Miscellaneous Fees
$145.00/hour $157.00/hour
$200.00 single address; $100.00
each additional address
$216.00 single address; $108.00 each
additional address
$0.51 per $1,000.00 construction
valuation
$0.55 per $1,000.00 construction
valuation
$75.00/hour $81.00/hour
$43.00
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Inspections and investigations outside of normal business
hours (2-hour minimum)
$195.00/hour for OT at 1.5x
$218.00/hour for OT at 2.0x
$75.00 each for secondary
inspection types; $275.00 each for
primary inspection type
$54.00
delete - 5% technology enhancement
fee now incorporated into base fees
$50.00
$30.00/each (available free online)
$15.00/each
$81.00 each for secondary inspection
types; $297.00 each for primary
inspection type
$297.00 each
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-1
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
Temporary Occupancy Multi-Family Residential and
Non-Residential and all other Commercial
Certificate of Use and Occupancy
Certificate of Use and Occupancy Replacement Only
Commercial
Residential
Residential/Non-Residential:
$1-$25,000 (Permit Valuation)
$25,001 - $50,000 (Permit Valuation)
$50,001 - $75,000 (Permit Valuation)
$75,001 - $100,000 (Permit Valuation)
Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above
$100,000 (Permit Valuation)
Minimum
Building Plan Check
Elective Plan Check
Fire and Life Safety Plan Check
Zoning Plan Check
Public Works Plan Check
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or
revisions to plans including Alternative Means and
Methods (2 hour minimum): • For Elective (3rd Party)
and over-the-counter reviews (1/2 hour minimum)
Certified Access Specialist (CASp) Review/Consultation
Plan Review Fees
$1.00
12% of building permit fee
30% of building permit fee
12% of building permit fee
Actual cost of CASp Consultant
plus 15%
45% of building permit fee
$184.00/hour
45% of building permit fee
$800.00
$3.00
$170.00/hour
Add $1.00
$4.00
$2.00
$21.00 per $100,000.00 Permit
Valuation ($0.50 minimum)
$4.00
General and Miscellaneous Fees (continued)
$865.00
Note: Does not include additional fees collected by Fire Department.
$119.00
$277.00
Actual cost of CASp Consultant plus
15%
80% of building permit fee
$2.00
Add $1.00
80% of building permit fee
$21.00 per $100,000.00 Permit
Valuation ($0.50 minimum)
$1.00
$1.00
$10.00 per $100,000.00 Permit
Valuation ($0.50 minimum)
$10.00 per $100,000.00 Permit
Valuation ($0.50 minimum)
Use and Occupancy Permits (Certificate of Occupancy)
$256.00
30% of building permit fee
$110.00
$3.00
35% of Building Plan Check fee when
applicant uses an approved 3rd party
plan check agency
35% of Building Plan Check fee
when applicant uses an approved
3rd party plan check agency
SB 1473 Fee (Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund)
$1.00
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-2
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
$1.00 to $1,000.00
$1000.01 to $2,000.00
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00
Building Permit Fees
$66.80
$61.80 for the first $1,000.00 plus
$4.88 for each additional $100.00
or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000.00
$119.60 for the first $2,000.00 plus
$24.16 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$25,000.00
$110.60 for the first $2,000.00
plus $22.34 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $25,000.00
$5,585.86 for the first $500,000.00
plus $8.22 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000.00
$1,584.92 for the first $100,000.00
plus $8.95 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $500,000.00
$624.42 for the first $25,000.00
plus $16.10 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $50,000.00
$61.80
$1,714.09 for the first $100,000.00
plus $9.68 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000.00
Fees according to the following valuations as determined by the Chief Building Official
$675.31 for the first $25,000.00 plus
$17.93 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.00
$1,106.61 for the first $50,000.00 plus
$12.07 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000.00
$66.80 for the first $1,000.00 plus
$5.28 for each additional $100.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$2,000.00
$1,026.92 for the first $50,000.00
plus $11.16 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $100,000.00
$5,164.92 for the first $500,000.00
plus $7.60 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $1,000,000.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-3
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
$1,000,000.01 and up
Building Demolition Permit
Commercial Interior Non-Structural Demolition Permit
Residential:
City
Verification
Review
Outside
Verification
Review
City
Verification
Review
Outside Verification
Review
A. Single Family and Two Family New construction plus
additions > 1,250 sf 1, and rebuilds
$604.00 $160.00 $653.00 $173.00
B. Any existing home renovations, rebuilds and/or
additions totaling > 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and/or >
$100,000 valuation1
$50.00 N/A $54.00 N/A
C. Multi Family New Construction of 3 or More
(attached) Units 1
$1,062.00 (1-10
units), $1,239.00
(11-24 units),
$1,505.00 ( 25
or more units)
$618.00 $1,149.00 (1-10
units), $1,340.00
(11-24 units),
$1,628.00 ( 25
or more units)
$668.00
Fees according to the following valuations as determined by the Chief Building Official
$309.00 (Does not include C&D fees)
Green Building Program Fees
$173.00 (Does not include C&D
fees)
$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.
$286.00 (Does not include C&D
fees)
Building Permit Fees (continued)
$187.00 (Does not include C&D fees)
$9,695.56 for the first $1,000,000.00
plus $6.49 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.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-4
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
Residential: (continued)
City
Verification
Review
Outside
Verification
Review
City
Verification
Review
Outside Verification
Review
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
$1,062.00 $618.00 $1,149.00 $668.00
Non-Residential:
City
Verification
Review
Outside
Verification
Review
City
Verification
Review
Outside Verification
Review
A. New construction > 1,000 sf (including additions to
existing buildings and rebuilds)
$1,334.00 $800.00 $1,443.00 $865.00
C. B.Tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations >
5,000 sf that include replacement or alteration of at least
two of the following: HVAC system, building envelope,
hot water system, or lighting system1
$871.00 $427.00 $942.00 $462.00
D. C. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations >
$100,000 in valuation and/or landscape renovations
21,000 sf that do not fall under Project Type C, above1
$327.00 N/A $354.00 N/A
Green Building Program Fees
1 Plus, if applicable, Construction & Demolition Ordinance Fee in the Refuse Fund under Special Fees on page 21-4.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-5
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
Base Fee
New or remodeled square footage (includes all electrical
work)
Air conditioners, each
Conditional Utility Agreement
Air cooled or oil cooled lighting and/or power
transformer
Electric vehicle charge station
Residential (all types)
Commercial (Levels 1 & 2)
Commercial (Levels 3 & 4)
Fixtures, switches, outlets
For each motor generator
For each motor
For each range, electric clothes dryer, or water heater
For each special circuit (circuits not listed herein)
Service Equipment
For each busway, power duct or floor duct per foot
For each lighting, power and/or control panel board,
switchboard cabinet or panel
Residential System
Commercial System (<10 kW)
Commercial System (<10 kW - 49 kW)
Commercial System (>49 kW)
Not more than 200 ampere
Not more than 800 ampere
Over 800 ampere
Each additional meter
Temporary power pole, each
Temporary wiring for construction; Christmas tree lots,
etc.
$320.00
$26.00
$5.00
$16.00
$160.00
$28.00
$1.00 each
Each KVA shall be considered as one horsepower and charged for as per
motor schedule.
$243.00
$1.00 each
$225.00
$370.00 plus $92.50 for each
additional charge station.
$560 plus $140.00 for each additional
charge station.
$0.11 per square foot$0.10 per square foot
Electrical Permits
$89.00/permit
$565.00 $565.00
$50.00
$5.00
$82.00/permit
$5.00
$3.00/KVA
$20.00 $22.00
$3.00/KVA
$5.00
$26.00
$39.00
$3,775.00
$0.50
$1,890.00
$5.00
$320.00
$17.00
$160.00
$0.50
$5.00
Photovoltaic Systems
$54.00
$28.00
$5.00
$36.00
$54.00
$1,890.00
$3,775.00
For installation of each set of service entrance conductors and/or service switch, including single meter:
$370.00 plus $92.50 for each
additional charge station.
$560 plus $140.00 for each
additional charge station.
$50.00
$5.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-6
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Building Division
Whenever work is started without application approval, an investigation fee in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether
or not a permit application is then or subsequently approved. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the application
fee required.
2013 PROPOSED FEE2012 FEE
Base Fee
New or remodeled square footage (includes all
mechanical work)
Air conditioner or heat pump
Boiler (certified design)
Duct outlet (each)
Each evaporative cooler
Each exhaust hood (kitchen or industrial)
Each furnace and flue
Each vent fan (bath, dryer, residential kitchen)
Fire damper (each)
Flue (each)
Process piping system
Process piping system (hazardous)
Swimming pool heater
Base Fee
New or remodeled square footage (includes all plumbing
work)
Commercial/industrial sewer
Fixtures (each)
Gas outlet
Clotheswasher System
Simple System
Complex System
Industrial waste system
Radiant heat piping system
Rain water system (per drain)
Residential sewer
Solar hot water system (Does not include Plan Check
Fee)
Storm drain system
Swimming pool
Water heater
Water piping system, or repair to a water piping system
$25.00
$27.00
$50.00
$82.00/permit
$25.00
$25.00
$5.00
$5.00
$3.00
$50.00
$55.00 plus plan review at cost
Graywater Systems
$25.00
$27.00
$27.00
$27.00
$5.00
$5.00
$25.00
$216.00
$25.00
$5.00
$27.00
$5.00
$25.00
$25.00
$5.00
$10.00
$27.00
$27.00
$89.00/permit
$11.00
Plumbing Permits
$25.00
$0.10 per square foot
$85.00 plus plan review at cost
$59.00 plus plan review at cost
$3.00
$85.00 plus plan review at cost
$5.00
$0.50
$89.00/permit
$0.11 per square foot
Mechanical Permits
$5.00
$25.00
$200.00
$10.00
$25.00
$82.00/permit
$5.00
$5.00
$27.00
$27.00
$0.50
$27.00
$11.00
$5.00
$0.11 per square foot
$25.00
$0.10 per square foot
$54.00
$54.00
$27.00
$27.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 16-7
Design Enhancement Exception
Architectural Review (Major Project)
Architectural Review (Minor Project)
requiring Architectural Review Board
review
Architectural Review (Minor Project)
requiring staff review only
Signs, minor façade changes,
landscaping, accessory structures, or
similar minor changes to a building
exterior that require staff review only.
Preliminary Review
Signs Erected Without Approval
Signs (exceptions)
Signs requiring Architectural Review
Board review
Temporary Sign permit
Major Project
Minor Project requiring staff level review
Historic Review of Individual Review
Application
$56.00/15 days plus Other Application
Fees on page 17-7.
$1,917.00 plus Individual Review fees and
Other Application Fees on page 17-7.
$610.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,773.00 plus Individual Review fees and
Other Application Fees on page 17-7.
$61.00/15 days plus Other Application Fees
on page 17-7.
$2,892.00 $3,128.00
$660.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
Historic Resource
$1,923.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$359.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
2013 PROPOSED FEE
$1,585.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,204.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,448.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$961.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
Initial deposit of $3,432.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule
or not.
$889.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,778.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Initial deposit of $3,712.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
Assessment and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, whether
indicated as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$1,113.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
$332.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$2,896.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$2,678.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,339.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,448.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Multiple fees below may apply to a single development project; however, when this fee schedule requires a deposit,
only the deposit shall be collected. Processing costs for all permits will be billed against that deposit. If the project
requires an environmental impact report or other study requiring outside consultants, a deposit equal to 100% of
consultant costs shall be collected in addition to any other deposit or fee required.
$1,466.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Architectural Review
$1,339.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-1
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Demolition Application for Historic
Buildings
Transfer of Development Rights Projects
Mills Act Contract - Establish or
Withdraw
Williamson Act Contract - Establish or
Withdraw
Comprehensive Plan Change (outside of
Annual Review)
Development Agreement
Historic Resource - continued
Initial deposit of $590.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, plus Environmental
Impact Assessment and any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100 percent
cost recovery in this schedule or not.
Initial deposit of $1,862.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, including any charges for
specialized consultants.
Initial deposit of $1,638.00, plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered.
$2,386.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Initial deposit of $6,813.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
Assessment plus any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, whether
indicated as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$2,206.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Initial deposit of $1,722.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered, including any
charges for specialized consultants.
Initial deposit of $6,300.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact Assessment plus
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule
or not.
Initial deposit of $546.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, plus Environmental
Impact Assessment and any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100 percent
cost recovery in this schedule or not.
Initial deposit of $1,771.00, plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered.
Development Agreement
Comprehensive Plan Change
Initial deposit of $5,460.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees and on
pages 17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of
processing costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule
or not.
Initial deposit of $5,905.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees and on pages 17-
6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
Assessment and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, whether
indicated as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-2
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Development Agreement – Annual
Review
Parks Residential: Single family1
$10,410/residence (or $15,545/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-
family $6,814/unit (or $3,445/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Residential: Single family1
$10,639/residence (or $15,887/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$6,964/unit (or $3,521/unit smaller than or
equal to 900 square feet).
Initial deposit of $2,385.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered.
Residential: Single family1 $963/residence
(or $1,434/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $575/unit (or
$316/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$4,518 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $2,043 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1
$2,699/residence (or $4,040/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-
family $1,775/unit (or $896/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Development Agreement (continued)
Initial deposit of $2,205.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered.
Development Impact Fees
Additional development impact fees for Traffic and for Housing in-Lieu are specified in the Municipal Code (Chapter 16).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$4,420 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $1,999 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Community Centers
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $243
per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $102 per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
(1) For the purposes of this fee, "single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another
dwelling unit. A second dwelling unit, as defined in 18.04.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is considered a multi-family unit for
purposes of calculating this fee.
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$250 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $112 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$238 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $100 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1 $2,758/residence
(or $4,129/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $1,815/unit (or
$916/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $255
per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $115 per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
Libraries Residential: Single family1 $942/residence
(or $1,403/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $563/unit (or
$309/unit smaller than or equal to 900
square feet).
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-3
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Development Projects "Prescreening" for
Planning and Transportation Commission
and City Council level reviews
Comprehensive Plan *
Tree Manual * or other bound documents
Zoning Map Booklet *
Copy from Optical Disk
Administrative extensions and zoning
letters
Board or Commission Agendas *
Board or Commission Minutes *
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
negative declaration
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
mitigated negative declaration
CEQA Categorical Exemption $300.00
$30.00 + $4.00 if mailed
$80.00 + $4.00 if mailed $87.00 + $4.00 if mailed
Subscriptions *
$108.00 annual per Board or Commission
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
$32.00 + $4.00 if mailed
$27.00 minimum plus $0.50/page
Initial deposit of $3,276.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on
pages 17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of
processing costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact Assessment plus
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule
or not.
Initial deposit of $3,543.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
Assessment plus any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, whether
indicated as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$88.00 + $4.00 if mailed
$25.00 minimum plus $0.50/page
$95.00 + $4.00 if mailed
Documents *
$150.00/hour, 1-hour minimum
$3,060.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Development Projects Preliminary Review
$162.00/hour, 1-hour minimum
$216.00/annual per Board or Commission$200.00/annual per Board or Commission
$100.00 annual per Board or Commission
$1,607.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,738.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$3,309.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$324.00
* These documents are also available free on-line on the City's internet web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-4
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Mitigation Monitoring - Environmental
Impact Report
Mitigation Monitoring - Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Home Improvement Exception
Protected Tree Removal
Neighborhood Preservation Zone
Exceptions
Preliminary Individual Review Meeting
with Architect
Individual Review Minor Revisions to
approved projects
New 2nd story addition or new 2-story
home
$250.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Initial deposit of $1,181.00 plus Other
Application Fees on page 17-7. 100 percent
of processing costs will be recovered,
including any charges for specialized
consultants.
Initial deposit of $1,092.00 plus Other
Application Fees on page 17-7. 100
percent of processing costs will be
recovered, including any charges for
specialized consultants.
$1,595.00 plus cost of notices
$100.00 $108.00
$4,021.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, including
historic review.
$2,056.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 plus Environmental Impact
Assessment.
$270.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
$2,224.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 plus Environmental Impact
Assessment.
$961.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
Director's Approval
$3,718.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project,
including historic review.
$1,475.00 plus cost of notices
Initial deposit of $3,543.00 plus Other
Application Fees on page 17-7. 100 percent
of processing costs will be recovered,
including any charges for specialized
consultants.
Individual Review
$889.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Initial deposit of $3,276.00 plus Other
Application Fees on page 17-7. 100
percent of processing costs will be
recovered, including any charges for
specialized consultants.
Initial deposit of 100 percent of estimated
costs due upon application plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. If estimated costs exceed
$100,000 alternative deposit and payment
schedule arrangements may be made at the
discretion of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. 100 percent of
processing costs will be recovered.
Initial deposit of 100 percent of estimated
costs due upon application plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. If estimated costs exceed
$100,000 alternative deposit and payment
schedule arrangements may be made at the
discretion of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. 100 percent of
processing costs will be recovered.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - continued
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-5
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Expansion of existing 2nd story greater
than 150 square feet
$2,778.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, including
historic review.
$2,569.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project,
including historic review.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-6
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Legal Review Fee-Appeal of Planning &
Transportation Commission,
Architectural Review Board, City
Council, or Planning Director decision
Legal Review Fee-Mitigation Monitoring-
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legal Review Fee-Mitigation Monitoring-
Environmental Impact Report
Legal Review Fee - Demolition
Application for Historic Buildings
Legal Review Fee - Historic Resource
Major Project
Legal Review Fee - Transfer of
Development Rights project
Legal Review Fee - Mills Act Contract -
Establish or Withdraw
Legal Review Fee - Williamson Act
Contract - Establish or Withdraw
Legal Review Fee - Comprehensive Plan
Change
Legal Review Fee - Development
Agreement
Legal Review Fee - Development
Agreement - Annual Review
Legal Review Fee - Development Project
Preliminary Review
Legal Review Fee - Environmental
Impact Report
Legal Review Fee - Nonconforming Use
Exception
Legal Review Fee - Site and Design Fee
Legal Review Fee - Minor Subdivision -
Preliminary Parcel Map
Legal Review Fee - Minor Subdivision -
Preliminary Parcel Map - with Exception
$500.00
$1,500.00
Minimum initial deposit of $5,000.00. 100
percent of legal services and costs
incurred will be recovered.
$1,622.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,082.00
$1,082.00
$2,163.00
$541.00
$1,082.00
$1,000.00
$1,082.00
$1,352.00
Minimum initial deposit of $5,408.00. 100
percent of legal services and costs incurred
will be recovered.
$2,163.00
$811.00
$1,000.00
$1,622.00
$541.00
Legal Review Fees
$250.00 $270.00
$1,000.00 $1,082.00
$1,250.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$750.00
$2,000.00
$750.00 $811.00
$1,082.00
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-7
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Legal Review Fee - Major Subdivision -
Tentative Map
Legal Review Fee - Variance -
Commercial & Manufacturing
Legal Review Fee - Zone Change -
Regular
Legal Review Fee - Planned Community
Zone Change
Legal Review Fee - Minor Change to
Planned Community Zone
Legal Review Fee- Complex Projects
over 50,000 square feet (in-lieu of other
legal review fees)
Public Noticing: 600 ft radius
Public Noticing: 150 ft radius
Record Management Fee (Optical disk
record)
Records Retention
Technology Enhancements
Recording Fee
Major
$811.00
$20.00 per application or permit
$750.00
Initial Deposit of $1,500.00. 100 percent
of legal services and costs incurred
relating to complex matters requiring
specialized legal services or documents
will be recovered.
$2,000.00
Initial deposit of $5,905.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
and any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule or
not.
$4.00/plan sheet
$20.00 per application or permit
County cost of Recording, if required
$4.00/plan sheet
Initial Deposit of $1,622.00. 100 percent of
legal services and costs incurred relating to
complex matters requiring specialized legal
services or documents will be recovered.
Other Application Fees
$25.00 per file
$622.00; if noticing is required
$25.00 per file
$112.00; if noticing is required
$750.00
$673.00; if noticing is required
$121.00; if noticing is required
$2,163.00
$2,163.00
$1,352.00
$2,000.00
Legal Review Fees - continued
$811.00
$1,250.00
County cost of Recording, if required
Initial deposit of $5,460.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact and any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100 percent
cost recovery in this schedule or not.
Site and Design
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-8
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Preliminary Parcel Map
Parcel Map
Preliminary Parcel Map
Parcel Map
Tentative Map
Final Maps
Regular
Wireless Facilities
Use Permit for alcoholic beverage service
only
Minor Change to Existing
Day Care Center
Minor
Initial Deposit $3,500 plus legal,
entitlement and other application fees.
100% of costs will be recovered
Initial Deposit $3,785 plus legal, entitlement
and other application fees. 100% of costs
will be recovered
Subdivision (Minor) with Exception
$889.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$176.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$166.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 plus Environmental Impact
Assessment.
$3,799.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 plus Environmental Impact
Assessment.
$961.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
$190.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
$180.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7 plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
$3,513.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7 plus Environmental Impact
Assessment.
$961.00 plus Other Application Fees on page
17-7.
Temporary Use Permit
Subdivision (five or more parcels)
$1,157.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,251.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$5,165.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7
plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
$4,776.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7
plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
$996.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,077.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
Initial deposit of $5,905.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
and any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule or
not.
Initial deposit of $5,460.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact and any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100 percent
cost recovery in this schedule or not.
$889.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$2,420.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7
plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
Subdivision (Minor)
$2,617.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7
plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
All subdivision proposals require Environmental Impact Assessment applications
Use Permit
$3,116.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$3,370.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-9
2013 PROPOSED FEE
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning
2012 FEE
Commercial and Manufacturing
Fence
Residential
Regular
Planned Community Zone Change
Minor Change to Planned Community
Zone
$1,103.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$1,448.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7.
Initial deposit of $7,086.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
and any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule or
not.
Initial deposit of $5,905.00 plus Legal Fees
and Other Application Fees on pages 17-6
and 17-7. 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus Environmental Impact
Assessment and any other entitlements
necessary to complete the project, whether
indicated as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$1,339.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7.
Initial deposit of $6,552.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact and any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100 percent
cost recovery in this schedule or not.
Initial deposit of $5,460.00 plus Legal
Fees and Other Application Fees on pages
17-6 and 17-7. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered plus
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated as
100 percent cost recovery in this schedule
or not.
$5,138.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7
plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
Variance
$4,751.00 plus Legal Fees and Other
Application Fees on pages 17-6 and 17-7
plus Environmental Impact Assessment.
Zone Change
$1,193.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$2,436.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
$2,252.00 plus Other Application Fees on
page 17-7.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 17-10
Bicycle Locker Rental
Refundable Key Deposit
Rental Fee
Bicycle Training (or other training TBD)
California Avenue Parking District
Wait list registration (applied to permit fee) new $10
All Lots
Transferable Permit
Lot X (Sheraton Parking Lot)
One-Day Parking Permits-California Avenue
One-Day Parking Permits-University Avenue
Replacement Permit
University Avenue Parking District
Wait list registration (applied to permit fee) new $10
All Lots
Transferable Permit
800 High Street Parking Garage
Parking Permit
Transferable Permit
Residential Parking Permit Program
Annual Permit - College Terrace
Lost Annual Permit - College Terrace
Guest Permit - College Terrace
Lost Guest Permit - College Terrace
Day Use Permit - College Terrace
Residential Parking Permit - Other (Trial)
Construction/Maintenance Vehicles
Emergency Repair Vehicles
Wide Load/Heavy Load Permits
Per Vehicle Each Occurrence
To site outside City
To site within City
Valet Parking
Permit Application
Permit Application Renewal (annual)
Short-term Application Fee
On-street Parking Space Rental
Valet Parking Sign and Curb Markings
$579.00
$16.00/day
$10.00
$135.00/quarter, $420.00/year
$135.00/quarter
$43.00/quarter
$27.00
$88.00/year
$270.00
$76.00/space per week
$973.00
$70.00/space per week
$900.00
$250.00
$81.00/year
$40.00/permit
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Transportation
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
$6.00
$16.00-$54.00 per class
$25.00
$15.00-$50.00 per class
$135.00/quarter
Parking Permits – Business Districts
$76.00/space per week
$43.00/quarter, $123.00/year
$26.00/quarter, $75.00/year
$6.00/day
$26.00/quarter, $75.00/year
$7.00/day
$43.00/quarter, $123.00/year
$560.00 plus cash deposit or bond
$65.00/quarter, $250/year $65.00/quarter, $250/year
$65.00/quarter delete - not applicable
$10.00
$135.00/quarter, $420.00/year
$6.00
Parking Permits – Commercial/Construction
$40.00/permit
$606.00 plus cash deposit or bond
$20.00 $22.00
Building Moving/Relocating Permit
$110.00 plus cash deposit or bond $119.00 plus cash deposit or bond
$10.00/permit $10.00/permit
$535.00
$43.00/quarter
$15.00/day
$169.00/year
$70.00/space per week
$183.00/year
new $50 through trial period
$40.00/permit $40.00/permit
$40.00/permit $40.00/permit
$5.00/permit $5.00/permit
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 18-1
(1) For the purposes of this fee, "single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another
dwelling unit. A second dwelling unit, as defined in 18.04.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is considered a multi-family unit for
purposes of calculating this fee.
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$250 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $112 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$238 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $100 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Libraries Residential: Single family1 $942/residence
(or $1,403/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $563/unit (or
$309/unit smaller than or equal to 900
square feet).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $243
per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $102 per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
Residential: Single family1 $963/residence
(or $1,434/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $575/unit (or
$316/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet).
Residential: Single family1
$2,699/residence (or $4,040/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-
family $1,775/unit (or $896/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Residential: Single family1
$10,639/residence (or $15,887/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-family
$6,964/unit (or $3,521/unit smaller than or
equal to 900 square feet).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$4,420 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $1,999 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
Community Centers Residential: Single family1 $2,758/residence
(or $4,129/residence larger than 3,000
square feet); Multi-family $1,815/unit (or
$916/unit smaller than or equal to 900 square
feet).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial, $255
per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel, $115 per 1,000 square feet or
fraction thereof.
Parks Residential: Single family1
$10,410/residence (or $15,545/residence
larger than 3,000 square feet); Multi-
family $6,814/unit (or $3,445/unit smaller
than or equal to 900 square feet).
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial,
$4,518 per 1,000 square feet or fraction
thereof; Hotel/Motel, $2,043 per 1,000
square feet or fraction thereof.
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Impact Fees
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
For more information on impact fees and parkland dedication, refer to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters
16.45; 16.46;16.47; 16.57; 16.58; 16.59;16.60; and 21.50.
Development Impact Fees
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 18-2
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
Impact Fees
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real
CS Zone
San Antonio / West Bayshore Area
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
Charleston/ Arastradero
Parking in lieu fee for the Downtown
Assessment District
Only applies to residential projects that
require a subdivision or parcel map. Land
dedication is
required for subdivisions resulting in
more than 50 parcels. When parkland
dedication applies,
park impact fees (above) do not apply.
$2,987 per net new PM peak hour trip
$0.32 per square foot - commerical;
$1,091.09 per residential unit
$3,053 per net new PM peak hour trip
Traffic Impact Fees
$2.23 per square foot
$10.84 per net new square foot
$0.33 per square foot - commerical; $1,115
per residential unit
$11.08 per net new square foot
$67,100/parking space
Housing Impact Fees
$60,750/parking space
Land required: Single-family = 555 square
feet / unit, Multi-family = 382 sq. ft. / unit
In-lieu Fee: Single-family = $55,300/unit,
Multi-family - $38,062/unit
Parkland Dedication Fee
Land required: Single-family = 555 square
feet / unit, Multi-family = 382 sq. ft. / unit
In-lieu Fee: Single-family = $56,517/unit,
Multi-family - $38,899/unit
$2.28 per square foot
$17.97 per square foot applies to
nonresidential development
18.44 per square foot applies to
nonresidential development
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 18-3
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
Consent to assignment, amendment, extension or hypothocation of
lease or sublease where City is lessor
$470.00 $508.00
License/Grant Deed preparation $1,260.00 $1,362.00
Non-residential/Residential - long term (< 12 months) recordable $1,260.00 $1,362.00
Telecommunication application processing fee $2,620.00 $2,834.00
Summary $1,675.00 $1,811.00
General $3,675.00 $3,975.00
Easement (Commercial and Residential) $1,260.00 $1,363.00
Commercial and Residential
$100.00 initial deposit - actual
cost of advertising to be billed
separately
$100.00 initial deposit - actual
cost of advertising to be billed
separately
2012 FEE 2013 PROPOSED FEE
Annual Budget per book (available for viewing online; also offered
on CD-Rom, see page 1-2) **$20.00 + $4.20 if mailed $22.00 + $8.00 if mailed
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Easement Document Preparation and Processing
Public Notice Mailing/Posting/Advertising Fee
Revenue Collections
Documents
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Real Estate
Processing Fees
Easement Vacation
Conveyance of a permit or other right in real estate to cure an encroachment, or provide for an
encroachment/easement/license/deed, onto City-owned property:
Note: This fee may be waived for non-profit community organizations that meet the following criteria: facility being leased is
accessible to residents and/or community groups without strict date/time limitations.
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 3-1
Annual Financial Report ** $6.00 + $2.15 if mailed $6.00 + $5.00 if mailed
Comprehensive Plan ** $45.00 + $4.20 if mailed $49.00 + $8.00 if mailed
Mailing (Certified) $5.15 + postage $3.00 + postage
Municipal Fee Schedule ** $3.00 $3.00
Returned Payment Charge $25.00 $27.00
Standard Specifications $17.00 $19.00
Overnight Parking
One Time, Month Only $25.00 $27.00
Permit Investigation (non-refundable) $5.25 $6.00
First-Time Homebuyer Rebate Processing Fee $52.50 $58.00
** Document is also available free on-line on the City's internet website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org
Miscellaneous Fees
Parking
City of Palo Alto FY 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule 3-2
*NOT YET APPROVED*
120403 dm 6051693
ATTACHMENT B
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a
Water Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules W-1,
W-2, W-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, fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
June _, 2012, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed water 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 water 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 W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-1-1 and W-1-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1,
as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet W-2-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as
amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 3. 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 and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as
amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water
Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheets W-4-1 and W-4-2, attached and
incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read
in accordance with sheets W-7-1 and W-7-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule
W-7, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
120403 dm 6051693
SECTION 6. 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 7. The Council finds that a restructuring of water rates to meet operating
expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for
capital improvements necessary to maintain service 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). After reviewing
the water rates cost of service study and staff reports presented to the Utilities Advisory
Commission, the Finance Committee and Council, the Council incorporates these documents
herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the
basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
*Not Yet Approved*
120504 dm 6051727a
ATTACHMENT __
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility
Rate Schedules G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-10, G-11 and G-12,
Repealing Utility Rate Schedule G-6 and Amending Utility Rules
and Regulations 2 and 5
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 G-1 (Residential Gas Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance with
sheets G-1-1 and G-1-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-1, as amended, shall
become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-2 (Residential Master-Metered and Commercial Gas Service) is hereby
amended to read in accordance with sheet G-2-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate
Schedule G-2, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-3 (Large Commercial Gas Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance
with sheets G-3-1 and G-3-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-3, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-4 (Large Commercial Gas Transportation Service) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet G-4-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-4, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-10 (Compressed Natural Gas Service) is hereby amended to read in accordance
with sheet G-10-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule G-10, as amended, shall
become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-11 (Large Commercial Fixed-Term Commodity Gas Service) is hereby
amended to read in accordance with sheets G-11-1 and G-11-2, attached and incorporated.
Utility Rate Schedule G-11, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-12 (Large Commercial Custom Commodity Gas Service) is hereby amended to
read in accordance with sheets G-12-1 and G-12-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate
Schedule G-12, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
*Not Yet Approved*
120504 dm 6051727a
SECTION 8. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule G-6 (Municipal Gas Service) is hereby repealed. Section 5 of Resolution 8949,
adopted June 15, 2009, Section 27 of Resolution 8868, adopted October 20, 2008, Section 3 of
Resolution 8828, adopted June 9, 2008, Section 5 of Resolution 8724, adopted June 11, 2007,
Section 5 of Resolution 8618, adopted June 12, 2006, Section 5 of Resolution 8536, adopted
June 20, 2005, Section 3 of Resolution 8490, adopted December 13, 2004, Section 3 of
Resolution 8436, adopted June 28, 2004, Section 3 of Resolution 8305, adopted June 16, 2003,
Section 1 of Resolution 8175, adopted June 17, 2002, and Section 2 of Resolution 8132, adopted
March 11, 2002, each amending Utility Rate Schedule G-6 (Municipal Gas Service), is hereby
amended to delete all references to the foregoing Municipal Gas Service.
SECTION 9. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rule and Regulation 2 (Definitions and Abbreviations) is hereby amended to read in accordance
with sheets 1 thru 21, attached and incorporated. Utility Rule and Regulation 2, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 10. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rule and Regulation 5 (Service Contracts) is hereby amended to read in accordance with sheet 1,
attached and incorporated. Utility Rule and Regulation 5, as amended, shall become effective
July 1, 2012.
SECTION 11. 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*
120504 dm 6051727a
SECTION 12. The Council finds that the Gas Utility Proposed Rate Adjustment staff
report and Gas Utility Cost of Service Study presented to the Council on June 18, 2012, attached
and incorporated herein, are based on staff’s and Utility Financial Solutions, LLC’s thorough and
detailed examination of the City Utilities Department’s revenue requirements, financial
projections, and customer class characteristics. The Council further finds that the incorporated
documents adequately demonstrate that the proposed gas rates do not exceed the reasonable costs
to the City to provide gas service to its customers.
SECTION 13. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing gas rates
to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies, meet financial reserve needs, obtain funds for
capital projects and maintain charter-authorized intra-city transfers 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). After
reviewing the Gas Utility Proposed Rate Adjustment staff report and Gas Utility Cost of Service
Study presented to Council on June 18, 2012, the Council finds that sufficient evidence has been
presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
*NOT YET APPROVED*
120409 dm 6051704
ATTACHMENT _
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Wastewater
Collection Rate Increase, Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1 and S-2 and
Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules S-6 and S-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,
fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on June _,
2012, 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) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheet S-1-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-1, as amended,
shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule S-2 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby amended to read
in accordance with sheets S-2-1 and S-2-2, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-2,
as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, new
Utility Rate Schedule S-6 (Restaurant Wastewater Collection and Disposal) is hereby added to
read in accordance with sheet S-6-1, attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-6 shall
become effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, new
Utility Rate Schedule S-7 (Commercial Wastewater Collection and Disposal – Special
Discharge) is hereby added to read in accordance with sheets S-7-1 and S-7-2, attached and
incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule S-7 shall become effective July 1, 2012.
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*
120409 dm 6051704
SECTION 6. The Council finds that a restructuring of wastewater collection rates to
meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and
obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service 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).
After reviewing the wastewater rate staff reports presented to the Utilities Advisory Commission,
the Finance Committee and Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds
that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim
of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
*Not Yet Approved*
120404 dm 6051706
ATTACHMENT E
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a
Dark Fiber Rate Increase and Amending Utility Rate Schedules
EDF-1 and EDF-2
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 and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule
EDF-1, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
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 and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule EDF-2, as
amended, shall become effective July 1, 2012.
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.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
*Not Yet Approved*
120404 dm 6051706
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution increasing dark fiber
rates by the Consumer Price Index to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials,
meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain
service 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). After reviewing the fiber rate staff reports presented to the Utilities
Advisory Commission, the Finance Committee and Council, the Council incorporates these
documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with
specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Not Yet Approved
120305 jb 0130937
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 2.9% Per Month
Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2013
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, 2012 and shall expire on June 30,
2013.
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
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
120305 jb 0130937
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
GENERAL STORM AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE D-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2012
Supersedes Sheet No.D-1-1 dated 7-1-2011 Sheet No.D-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all storm and surface water drainage service, excepting only those users and
to the extent that they are constitutionally exempt under the Constitution of the State of California or
who are determined to be exempt pursuant to Rule and Regulation 25.
B. TERRITORY:
Inside the incorporated limits of the city of Palo Alto and land owned or leased by the city.
C. RATES:
Per Month:
Storm Drainage Fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).......................................................$11.73
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. An Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the basic unit for computation of storm drainage fees
for residential and non-residential customers. All single-family residential properties shall be
billed the number of ERUs specified in the following table, based on an analysis of the
relationship between impervious area and lot size for Palo Alto properties.
RESIDENTIAL RATES (Single-Family Residential Properties
PARCEL SIZE (sq.ft.) ERU
<6,000 sq.ft. 0.8 ERU
6,000 - 11,000 sq.ft. 1.0 ERU
>11,000 sq.ft. 1.4 ERU
All other properties will have ERU's computed to the nearest 1/10 ERU using the following
formula:
No. of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.)
2,500 Sq. Ft.
2. For more details on the storm drainage fee, refer to Utilities Rule and Regulation 25.
{End}
Not Yet Approved
1
120530 jb 0130969
Resolution No. _______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Utility Rate Schedule R-1 for a Refuse Rate Increase
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
City Council may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services and the
fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the need for an adjustment in refuse
collection rates to avoid a decrease in the Refuse Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve levels; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
_____________, 2012 the Council of the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all
protests against the proposed refuse rate fee 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 subject to the
proposed refuse rate fee increases.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 R-1 (Domestic Refuse Collection) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with Sheets R-1-1, R-1-2 and R-1-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedules, as amended, shall become effective on July 1, 2012.
SECTION 2. The rates contained in the attached Rate Schedules shall be in
effect until Council adopts a new rate structure.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adjustments of the refuse collection rates shall be used only for the purposes set forth in Article
VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Not Yet Approved
2
120530 jb 0130969
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:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Public Works
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 710-01-112
Supersedes Sheet NoRate Schedule .R-1-1 dated
10-01-110 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to each occupied domestic dwelling as required by City ordinance, including
separate single-family domestic dwelling and multi-unit dwellings (4 units or less). An occupied
dwelling unit is defined as any home, apartment unit, cottage, flat or duplex unit, having kitchen,
bath, and sleeping facilities, and to which gas or electric service is being rendered.
B. TERRITORY:
Within the incorporated limits of the City of Palo Alto and on land owned or leased by the City.
C. RATES:
The refuse rates below provide collection, processing and disposal of materials properly deposited in
the number of refuse garbage containers indicated below, as well as collection and processing of
recyclables and yard trimmings from special blue or green carts, street sweeping service, the
household hazardous waste program, and the annual Cclean Uup Dday. The refuse rates below also
provide household hazardous waste programs, waste diversion services, and street sweeping
programs.
Curbside Monthly Collection Refuse Services Cost
Fixed Rate Component
Each residential customerStreet Sweeping $46.6626 per month
Household Hazardous Waste $1.07 per month
Annual Clean Up Day $2.17 per month
Variable Rate Component
Number of Collection Frequency Per Week
Garbage Cans/Carts One Two Three
Mini-can/20-gallon cart * 15.9013.79
1 32-gal. can or 32-gal. cart** 32.8631.64
2 32-gal. cans or 1 64-gal. cart 67.84 151.58 235.32
3 32-gal. cans or 1 96-gal. cart 101.76 219.42 337.08
DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 107-01-112
Supersedes Sheet Rate ScheduleNo. R-1-2 dated
10-01-1101 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-1-2
4 32-gal. cans or 2 64-gal. carts 135.68 287.26 438.84
5 32-gal. cans or 1 64 + 1 96-gal. cart 169.60 355.10 540.60
6 32-gal. cans or 2 96-gal. carts 203.52 422.94 642.36
* Mini-can service cannot be combined with any other can service.
** Standard can service is one 32-gallon can or a 32-gallon cart.
E. SPECIAL ITEM CHARGES:
1. Stove/washer/dryer/water heater pick up * ...................................................................... 25.00
2. Freezer/refrigerator/air conditioner/garbage compactor pick up *................................... 35.00
3. Upholstered furniture pick up (per unit) * ....................................................................... 15.00
4. Mattress pick up * ............................................................................................................ 15.00
5. Tire pick up (per tire, limit of 4 tires) * ........................................................................... 20.00
6. Pallet pick up *................................................................................................................. 5.00
7. Microwave Oven pick up* ............................................................................................... 5.00
* “Surcharge special” fee (see F5. below) applies when special item is not collected under the
aAnnual On-Call Community Clean -Uup Day Program guidelines.
F. SPECIAL LABOR CHARGES:
1. Return trip (next day service)……………………………………………………. .......... 24.00
2. Return trip (same day service) ……………………………………………………. ....... 36.00
3. Urgent special (for service outside standard weekly collection; charged per cubic yard) 55.00
4. Miscellaneous 2 person service rate (waiting time) ................................................... 3.20/min
5. Surcharge special (one time pick up of large or non-standard items; or delivery of containers
for special events) ………….... ................................................................................. 77.00
6. Repair rate ................................................................................................ 2.20/min + material
7. Extra can………………………………………………… ................................................ 10.60
8. Back/side yard collection of garbage (monthly charge per residence) ………………. ... 3.35
9. Hard to service area (monthly charge per premise)………………………………. ........ 0.00
A ‘Hard to Service’ area is one that has limited access, such as an area of hilly terrain, private
streets with restricted access, or alleys. These areas require special equipment to service. A
map of Hard to Service areas can be found on the City of Palo Alto website at
www.cityofpaloalto.org or by contacting the Public Works Department.
G. SPECIAL CART CHARGES:
1. 20-gallon cart rental (monthly) ………………………………………………………. .. 3.00
2. 32-gallon cart rental (monthly)………………………………………………………. ... 3.00
DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE R-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 710-01-112
Supersedes Sheet NoRate Schedule.R-1-3 dated
10-01-1101 through 9-30-11 Sheet No. R-1-3
3. 64-gallon cart rental (monthly)………………………………………………………. ... 3.00
4. 96-gallon cart rental (monthly)………………………………………………………. ... 3.00
5. 32-gallon cart purchase with 20-gallon insert ……………………….………………… 60.00
6. 32-gallon cart purchase…………………………………………………………… ........ 51.00
7. 64-gallon cart purchase……………………………………………………………. ...... 57.00
8. 96-gallon cart purchase…………………………………………………………….. ...... 62.00
9. Cart wash ………………………………………………………………………….. ...... 25.00
10. Cart clean out (by hand)……………………………………………………………. ...... 15.00
11. Recycling cart contamination (entire cart dumped)……………………………….. ....... 30.00
12. Cart exchange (one exchange allowed per cart each calendar year at no cost) ……. ...... 20.00
13. Monthly key service (customer provided lock) ………………………………………. .. 15.00
14. Lock (Collector provided) ………………………………………………………….. ..... 25.00
15. Cart lock installation………………………………………………………………. ....... 40.00
{End}
* NOT YET APPROVED **
120601 sh 8261889 1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Adopted by
Resolution No. 9156 to Add Two New 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 add two new
positions, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
effective with the pay period including July 1, 2012.
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
* NOT YET APPROVED **
120601 sh 8261889 2
EXHIBIT A
Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes – Effective July 1, 2012
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx.
Annual
Hourly
TBD Airport Manager
(New position) TBD 10,908 130,896 62.93
TBD Chief Communication Officer
(New position) TBD 12,342 148,104 71.21
** NOT YET APPROVED **
1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2010-2011 Memorandum of Agreement for
Local 521, Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
Adopted by Resolution No. 9088 to Add Two New
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 Memorandum
of Agreement for SEIU Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9088, is
hereby amended to add two new positions, as set forth in Exhibit “A”,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with
the pay period including XYX , 2012.
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
** NOT YET APPROVED **
2
EXHIBIT A
SEIU Compensation Plan Changes – Effective XXX 2012
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Top Step Approx.
Annual
Approx.
Monthly
TBD GIS Specialist
(New position) TBD 41.37 86,049 7,171
TBD EMS Data Specialist
(New position) TBD 31.84 66,227 5,519
** NOT YET APPROVED **
120601 sh 8261888 1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement with
Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 9204 to Correct the Top
Step Salary for Two Existing 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 2011-2014 Memorandum of Agreement with Local 1319,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), adopted by Resolution No. 9204, is hereby
amended to correct the top step salary of two existing positions, as set forth in Exhibit “A”,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including
March 19, 2012.
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
** NOT YET APPROVED **
120601 sh 8261888 2
EXHIBIT A
IAFF Compensation Plan Changes – Effective March 19, 2012
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Top Step Approx.
Annual
Approx.
Monthly
605 Fire Fighter Trainee- Shift
(correction to top step pay rate) 604 23.52 48,921 4,077
640 Fire Fighter Trainee - Non-shift
(correction to top step pay rate) R04 32.93 68,494 5,708
* NOT YET APPROVED **
120601 sh 8261896 1
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2012-2014 Memorandum of Agreement with
the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association Adopted by
Resolution No. 9234 to Change the Title and Compensation
of One Position
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 2012-2014 Memorandum of Agreement with the Palo Alto
Fire Chiefs’ Association, adopted by Resolution No. 9234, is hereby amended to change the title
and compensation of one position, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, effective with the pay period including July 1, 2012.
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
* NOT YET APPROVED **
120601 sh 8261896 2
EXHIBIT A
Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes – Effective July 1, 2012
Job
Code
Classification Title Grade
Code
Control
Point
Approx.
Annual
Hourly
12 EMS Manager
(title and salary change for the EMS Coordinator) TBD 10,000 120,000 57.69
City of Palo Alto - 6 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
General Fund Summary
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
Revenues
Sales Tax 20,089 17,991 20,746 20,246 22,545 2,299
Property Tax 25,445 25,982 25,688 26,052 27,306 1,254
Transient Occupancy Tax 7,111 6,858 8,082 8,204 9,591 1,387
Documentary Transfer Tax 3,092 3,707 5,167 4,269 5,078 809
Utility Users Tax 11,030 11,296 10,851 10,859 10,731 (128)
Other Taxes and Fines 2,095 1,634 1,547 2,330 2,058 (272)
Charges for Services 19,451 19,513 22,010 21,841 23,882 2,041
Permits and Licenses 4,627 4,799 5,437 5,778 6,614 836
Return on Investment 3,360 2,624 535 1,318 959 (359)
Rental Income 13,646 14,397 14,264 13,914 12,640 (1,274)
From other agencies 158 333 297 155 157 2
Charges to Other Funds 11,179 11,017 11,234 10,505 10,874 369
Other Revenue 2,333 2,360 1,896 1,428 1,577 149
Total Revenues $123,617 $122,513 $127,755 $126,899 $134,012 $7,114
Operating Transfers-In 17,614 22,011 17,932 19,606 18,995 (611)
Total Source of Funds $141,231 $144,524 $145,687 $146,504 $153,007 $6,503
- 7 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
General Fund Summary
Expenses
City Attorney 2,474 2,583 2,338 2,355 2,436 80
City Auditor 817 958 946 1,006 965 (41)
City Clerk 1,150 1,455 1,246 1,479 1,558 79
City Council 279 287 183 319 465 146
City Manager 1,948 2,282 2,299 2,512 2,578 67
Administrative Services 6,994 7,873 6,267 6,514 7,156 641
Community Services 21,149 20,490 20,066 20,711 21,893 1,181
Public Safety 51,642 56,573 59,676 61,698 59,914 (1,783)
Human Resources 2,700 2,707 2,572 2,919 2,982 63
Library 6,224 6,388 6,509 6,944 6,996 52
Planning and Community Environment 9,889 9,350 9,556 10,021 11,111 1,090
Public Works 12,894 12,529 13,112 13,007 13,947 939
Non-Departmental 279 2,101 1,150 (2,022) (908) 1,115
Cubberley Lease 6,556 6,644 6,780 7,061 7,133 72
Total Expenses $124,994 $132,219 $132,700 $134,523 $138,226 $3,703
Operating Transfers Out 1,166 4,737 1,142 860 1,604 745
Transfer to Infrastructure 14,648 9,900 9,857 10,978 13,178 2,200
Total Use of Funds $140,808 $146,857 $143,699 $146,360 $153,007 $6,647
Net Surplus (Deficit)$423 $(2,333)$1,988 $144 $0 $(144)
The Non-Departmental budget includes anticipated savings built into the Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 budget, such as attrition
savings and public safety concessions. Also included is rent expense for the University Avenue train depot, property tax paid by
the City, and contingency accounts. Refer to the Non-Departmental budget section of this document for more detail.
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
Salaries and Benefits 91,581 93,980 94,192 92,070 94,036 1,966
Contract Services 10,116 9,116 9,740 11,297 11,182 (114)
Supplies and Materials 3,013 2,875 2,830 3,206 3,220 14
General Expense 8,990 9,343 9,303 10,898 11,152 254
Rents and Leases 720 699 713 831 1,184 353
Facilities and Equipment Purchases 360 1,740 284 460 518 58
Allocated Charges 10,214 14,467 15,638 15,762 16,933 1,171
Operating Transfers Out 1,166 4,737 1,142 860 1,604 745
Transfer to Infrastructure 14,648 9,900 9,857 10,978 13,178 2,200
Total Expenditures $140,808 $146,857 $143,699 $146,360 $153,007 $6,647
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
City of Palo Alto - 8 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
General Fund Reserves
RESERVES
($000)
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Changes
FY 2012
BAO’s
Projected
06/30/2012
FY 2013
Proposed
Changes
Projected
06/30/2013
Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Activity:
BSR 31,376 144 (3,750) 27,770 (390) 27,380
Other Reserve Activity:
Encumbrance & Reappropriation 3,887 3,887 3,887
Inventory of Materials & Supplies 3,587 3,587 3,587
Notes Receivable, Prepaid Items, & Interfund
Advances 2,498 2,498 2,498
Total Reserves $41,348 $144 $(3,750)$37,742 $(390)$37,352
The BSR is projected to be 17.9% of Fiscal Year 2013
proposed expense budget.
City of Palo Alto - 6 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Enterprise Funds 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 118,906 2,850 37,016 15,124 34,446 26,794 5,620 13,430 0 254,186
Interest Income 3,635 303 813 397 749 209 158 415 0 6,678
Other Income 12,718 724 1,704 908 3,392 3,372 113 8,618 310 31,860
Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Source of Funds $135,259 $3,878 $39,533 $16,429 $38,587 $30,374 $5,891 $22,463 $310 $292,724
Expenditures
Utility Purchases and
Charges 72,991 0 16,286 8,556 15,940 13,315 0 0 0 127,089
Salaries and Benefits 11,522 766 4,543 2,004 5,210 3,293 1,007 9,797 118 38,260
Contract Services 4,389 168 1,792 280 743 5,791 371 1,928 75 15,536
Supplies and Materials 805 11 472 241 451 85 93 1,422 0 3,581
Facilities and Equipment
Purchases 44 0 43 0 11 3 8 10 0 119
General Expense 4,508 22 704 97 452 80 18 414 1 6,296
Rents and Leases 3,948 28 321 176 3,001 2,709 6 0 0 10,189
Allocated Charges 8,779 393 4,019 2,126 3,395 2,747 870 4,642 109 27,078
Debt Service 9,486 0 803 129 3,219 625 947 823 0 16,033
Subtotal $116,472 $1,387 $28,983 $13,609 $32,422 $28,649 $3,320 $19,036 $303 $244,181
Equity Transfer 11,768 0 5,971 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,739
Capital Improvement
Program 10,910 400 7,756 4,354 6,115 175 3,518 2,643 0 35,871
Operating Transfers Out 322 2 207 147 1,705 306 13 12 0 2,712
Total Use of Funds $139,472 $1,789 $42,917 $18,109 $40,242 $29,130 $6,850 $21,691 $303 $300,503
To/From Reserves $(4,213)$2,089 $(3,384)$(1,680)$(1,655)$1,244 $(959)$772 $7 $(7,779)
- 7 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Enterprise Funds Reserves
FY 2013
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2013
Changes
FY 2013
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2013
Reserve
Guideline
Range
Electric Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement $1,000 $0 $1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization $10,955 $(238) $10,717 6,747 - 13,494
Supply Rate Stabilization $60,702 $(3,142) $57,560 31,721 - 63,442
Electric Special Projects $50,320 $0 $50,320
Public Benefit $2,094 $(833) $1,261
Central Valley O&M $305 $0 $305
Underground Loan $736 $0 $736
Subtotal 126,112 (4,213)121,899
Gas Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Distribution Rate Stabilization 7,299 (2,480) 4,819 3,339 - 6,678
Supply Rate Stabilization 6,630 (904) 5,726 4,072 - 8,143
Debt Service Reserve 0 0 0
Subtotal 14,929 (3,384)11,545
Wastewater Collection Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 6,579 (1,680) 4,899 2,253 - 4,506
Subtotal 7,579 (1,680)5,899
Water Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 9,488 (1,655) 7,833 5,427 -10,854
Subtotal 10,488 (1,655)8,833
Refuse Fund
Rate Stabilization (3,852) 1,244 (2,608) 2,746 - 5,491
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 665 0 665
Subtotal (3,187)1,244 (1,943)
Storm Drainage Fund
Rate Stabilization 1,667 (959) 708
Subtotal 1,667 (959)708
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,929 51 1,980 1,980 (max.)
Rate Stabilization 3,020 727 3,747 3,265 - 6,531
Subtotal 4,949 778 5,727
Fiber Optics Fund
Emergency Plant Replacement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 (min.)
Rate Stabilization 11,729 2,089 13,818 715 - 1,788
Subtotal 12,729 2,089 14,818
TOTAL RESERVES $175,266 $(7,780)$167,486
Emergency Plant Replacement 6,929 51 6,980
Rate Stabilization 114,217 (6,998) 107,219
Debt Service Reserve 0 0 0
Electric Special Projects 50,320 0 50,320
Public Benefit 2,094 (833) 1,261
City of Palo Alto - 8 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Enterprise Funds Reserves
Central Valley O&M 305 0 305
Underground Loan 736 0 736
Shasta Rewind Loan 0 0 0
Conservation Loan 0 0 0
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 665 0 665
TOTAL RESERVES $175,266 $(7,780)$167,486
Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Liability 10,771 (6,100) 4,671
TOTAL RESERVES AND FULLY-FUNDED LIABILITY $186,037 $(13,880)$172,157
FY 2013
Projected
Beginning
Balance
FY 2013
Changes
FY 2013
Projected
Ending
Balance
FY 2013
Reserve
Guideline
Range
2013-17 CIP Summary by Fund
- 88 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
2013-17 CIP Summary by Fund
($000)
Fund Category FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
CAPITAL FUND $23,869 $17,752 $14,580 $13,481 $13,249 $82,931
Total Reimbursements (12,895) (5,568) (3,608) (3,439) (3,706)$(29,216)
Net Subtotal $10,974 $12,184 $10,972 $10,042 $9,543 $53,715
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $1,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,225
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Net Subtotal $1,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,225
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,492 $475 $425 $425 $425 $4,242
Total Reimbursements (1,693) (350) (350) (350) (350)$(3,093)
Net Subtotal $799 $125 $75 $75 $75 $1,149
ELECTRIC FUND $10,910 $12,955 $15,605 $14,115 $12,020 $65,605
Total Reimbursements (1,650) (2,152) (3,870) (3,880) (3,240)$(14,792)
Net Subtotal $9,260 $10,803 $11,735 $10,235 $8,780 $50,813
FIBER OPTICS FUND $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $2,000
Total Reimbursements (100) (100) (200) (200) (200)$(800)
Net Subtotal $300 $300 $200 $200 $200 $1,200
GAS FUND $7,756 $5,377 $5,537 $5,617 $6,167 $30,454
Total Reimbursements (720) (730) (752) (790) (812)$(3,804)
Net Subtotal $7,036 $4,647 $4,785 $4,827 $5,355 $26,651
WATER FUND $6,115 $9,813 $6,794 $5,189 $5,402 $33,313
Total Reimbursements (1,001) (785) (795) (750) (771)$(4,102)
Net Subtotal $5,114 $9,028 $5,999 $4,439 $4,631 $29,211
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,404 $4,516 $4,705 $4,793 $4,980 $23,398
Total Reimbursements (750) (761) (771) (794) (817)$(3,893)
Net Subtotal $3,654 $3,755 $3,934 $3,999 $4,163 $19,505
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND $2,600 $2,600 $2,300 $2,750 $2,850 $13,100
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Net Subtotal $2,600 $2,600 $2,300 $2,750 $2,850 $13,100
STORM DRAINAGE FUND $3,130 $2,852 $2,466 $2,559 $2,653 $13,660
Total Reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Net Subtotal $3,130 $2,852 $2,466 $2,559 $2,653 $13,660
TOTAL CIP COSTS (ALL FUNDS)$62,901 $56,740 $52,812 $49,329 $48,146 $269,928
Total Reimbursements (18,809) (10,446) (10,346) (10,202) (9,896)$(59,699)
NET CIP COSTS $44,092 $46,294 $42,465 $39,127 $38,250 $210,229
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
City of Palo Alto - 89 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
CIP General Fund Financial Summary
Fund Summary
($000)
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Budget
Change
Revenues
Bond Proceeds 0 59,071 0 16,150 2,849 (13,302)
Other Agencies 74 78 1,565 5,828 1,200 (4,628)
State of California 2,726 585 124 0 0 0
Federal Grants 162 1,033 661 0 900 900
Stanford University 54 27 65 0 0 0
Investment Income 1,009 1,002 1,184 1,075 1,075 0
Other Revenue 65 532 349 0 0 0
Subtotal Revenues $4,089 $62,329 $3,948 $23,053 $6,024 $(17,030)
Operating Transfers In
General Fund 14,648 9,900 9,857 10,978 13,178 2,200
Street Improvement Fund 485 1,315 750 2,150 1,650 (500)
Developers Impact Fee-Park Fund 1,090 0 220 0 2,723 2,723
Utility Funds 1,371 86 263 0 1,642 1,642
California Avenue Parking District Permits Fund 0 67 0 0 0 0
Charleston Arastradero Safety Impact Fees Fund 82 82 82 47 250 203
Law Enforcement Services Fund 0 0 30 0 0 0
Subtotal Operating Transfers In $17,676 $11,450 $11,202 $13,175 $19,443 $6,268
TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS $21,765 $73,779 $15,150 $36,228 $25,466 $(10,762)
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits 2,649 3,331 3,332 3,387 3,695 308
Capital Project Expenditures 21,761 20,361 28,191 30,550 20,174 (10,376)
Subtotal Expenses $24,410 $23,692 $31,523 $33,937 $23,869 $(10,069)
Operating Transfers Out 2,551 4,357 848 0 300 300
TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $26,961 $28,049 $32,372 $33,937 $24,169 $(9,769)
NET TO (FROM) RESERVES $(5,195)$45,730 $(17,222)$2,290 $1,297 $(993)
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE YEAR-END BALANCE $7,016 $8,648 $3,199 $4,378 $5,895 $1,517
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
- 90 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
KEY
Shaded areas denote new projects
TBD To Be Determined
Italicized text indicates reimbursement
Capital Fund
Buildings and Facilities
PE-12017 City Hall First Floor Renovations 1,210 0 0 0 0 $1,210
PF-93009 Americans with Disabilities Act Compli-
ance 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-07002 Baylands Interpretive Center Improve-
ment 0 0 267 0 0 $267
PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improvements 140 1,500 0 0 0 $1,640
PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance 100 100 100 100 100 $500
PF-11001 Council Chamber Carpet Replacement 80 0 0 0 0 $80
PF-15003 Cubberley Auditorium Roof Replacement 0 0 250 0 0 $250
PF-13002 Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical
Upgrades 0 150 1,300 0 0 $1,450
PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes Replacement 105 105 105 105 105 $525
PE-14012 Junior Museum & Zoo Improvements 0 0 0 849 0 $849
PF-13001 Lucie Stern Mechanical System Upgrade 100 400 0 0 0 $500
PF-15002 Lucie Stern Theater Electrical Systems
Replacement 0 170 0 0 0 $170
PE-11000 Main Library New Construction and
Improvements 2,849 0 0 0 0 $2,849
Bonds (2,849)$(2,849)
PF-05002 Municipal Service Center Improvements 0 0 341 550 0 $891
PE-12004 Municipal Services Center Facilities Study 150 0 0 0 0 $150
PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker Room 0 0 300 0 0 $300
PF-00006 Roofing Replacement 150 150 150 150 150 $750
PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improvements 0 0 90 600 0 $690
NET TOTAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES $2,235 $2,775 $3,103 $2,554 $555 $11,222
Parks and Open Space
PE-13008 Bowden Park Improvements 157 0 0 0 0 $157
PE-13020 Byxbee Park Trails 250 0 0 0 0 $250
PE-13005 City Hall/King Plaza Landscape 50 100 0 0 0 $150
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto - 91 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PE-13007 El Camino Park Dog Park 260 0 0 0 0 $260
Development Impact Fees (260)$(260)
PE-13016 El Camino Park Expanded Parking Lot and
New Restroom 960 0 0 0 0 $960
Development Impact Fees (450)$(450)
PG-13002 El Camino Park Playing Fields and Ameni-
ties 3,435 0 0 0 0 $3,435
Development Impact Fees (1,793)$(1,793)
Enterprise Funds (1,642)$(1,642)
PG-13000 Golf Course Main Line Irrigation 0 877 0 0 0 $877
PE-13010 Greer Park Renovations 300 0 0 0 0 $300
PE-13003 Parks Master Plan 350 0 0 0 0 $350
PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways,
and Perimeter Landscaping 150 150 150 150 150 $750
PE-12001 Golf Course Cart Path and Road 0 292 0 0 0 $292
PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maintenance 75 25 25 25 0 $150
PO-12002 LATP Site Development Preparation and
Security Improvements 0 0 0 0 1,600 $1,600
OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and
Repair 100 100 100 100 100 $500
OS-00002 Open Space Lakes and Ponds Mainte-
nance 30 30 30 30 30 $150
OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Amenities 0 164 175 175 175 $689
PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs 75 75 75 75 75 $375
PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation 220 0 220 0 220 $660
Development Impact Fees (220) (220) (220)$(660)
PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improvements 0 150 1,150 0 0 $1,300
PG-13001 Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Turf Replace-
ment 100 625 0 770 0 $1,495
PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing 30 30 30 30 30 $150
PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Ave. Irrigation
Alternatives 50 0 0 0 0 $50
NET TOTAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE $2,227 $2,618 $1,735 $1,355 $2,160 $10,095
Streets and Sidewalks
PE-13017 El Camino Median Landscape Improve-
ments 0 0 0 0 176 $176
PE-12011 Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek
Bridge Replacement 0 2,500 0 0 0 $2,500
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
- 92 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Others (2,213)$(2,213)
PE-13014 Streetlight Condition Assessment 0 200 0 0 0 $200
PE-13012 Structural Assessment of City Bridges 0 150 0 0 0 $150
PE-13022 University Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle
Underpass Rehabilitation 185 0 0 0 0 $185
PL-04010 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
- Implementation Project 50 50 50 50 50 $250
PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project 250 0 0 0 0 $250
Development Impact Fees (250)$(250)
PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs 350 250 250 100 100 $1,050
PL-00026 Safe Routes to School 100 100 100 100 100 $500
Gas Tax Fund (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)$(500)
PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs 725 719 716 710 1,065 $3,935
PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade 50 50 50 50 50 $250
PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements 135 140 145 150 150 $720
General Fund (135) (140) (145) (150) (150)$(720)
PE-86070 Street Maintenance 4,654 3,754 3,754 3,754 3,754 $19,668
State Grant (900)$(900)
Street Improvement Fund (1,300) (1,300) (1,300) (1,300) (1,300)$(6,500)
PO-11001 Thermoplastic Marking and Striping 50 50 50 50 50 $250
PL-05030 Traffic Signal and ITS Upgrades 205 210 215 220 225 $1,075
General Fund (205) (210) (215) (220) (225)$(1,075)
PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improve-
ments 250 225 225 225 225 $1,150
Gas Tax Fund (250) (225) (225) (225) (225)$(1,150)
NET TOTAL STREETS AND SIDEWALKS $3,863 $4,210 $3,569 $3,414 $3,945 $19,000
Miscellaneous
FD-13000 Lng Rng CCTV Cameras 65 0 0 0 0 $65
FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replacement 180 180 0 0 0 $360
AC-86017 Art in Public Places 50 50 50 50 50 $250
General Fund (50) (50) (50) (50) (50)$(250)
LB-11000 Furniture and Technology for Library
Projects 1,200 0 0 0 0 $1,200
Local Agency Grant (1,200)$(1,200)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto - 93 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP
Projects 3,695 3,731 3,918 4,113 4,319 $19,776
General Fund (1,291) (1,330) (1,353) (1,394) (1,436)$(6,804)
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $2,649 $2,581 $2,564 $2,719 $2,883 $13,397
CAPITAL FUND $23,869 $17,752 $14,580 $13,481 $13,249 $82,931
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(12,895)$(5,568)$(3,608)$(3,439)$(3,706)$(29,216)
NET CAPITAL FUND $10,974 $12,184 $10,972 $10,042 $9,543 $53,715
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Miscellaneous
VR-12001 Evaluation and Possible Replacement of
In-Ground Vehicle Lifts at the MSC 350 0 0 0 0 $350
VR-13000 Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment
Replacements 875 0 0 0 0 $875
NET TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $1,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,225
NET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND $1,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,225
Technology Fund
Technology
TE-12001 Dev Center Blueprint Tech Enhance-
ments 802 0 0 0 0 $802
General Fund (78)$(78)
TE-13002 Employee Self Service/Manager Self Ser-
vice Enhancements 150 50 0 0 0 $200
Enterprise Funds (59)$(59)
General Fund (92)$(92)
TE-13004 Infrastructure Management System 300 0 0 0 0 $300
Infrastructure Reserve Fund (300)$(300)
TE-13001 Interactive Voice Response System (IVR)200 0 0 0 0 $200
Enterprise Funds (200)$(200)
TE-13003 SAP Refuse Billing Improvements 250 0 0 0 0 $250
Enterprise Funds (250)$(250)
TE-99010 Acquisition of New Computers 75 75 75 75 75 $375
TE-11001 Library Computer System Software 150 0 0 0 0 $150
General Fund (150)$(150)
TE-06001 Library RFID Implementation 215 0 0 0 0 $215
General Fund (215)$(215)
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
- 94 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement 100 100 100 100 100 $500
Enterprise Funds (20) (20) (20) (20) (20)$(100)
General Fund (64) (64) (64) (64) (64)$(320)
Stanford (16) (16) (16) (16) (16)$(80)
TE-10001 Utilities Customer Billing System Contin-
uous Improvements 250 250 250 250 250 $1,250
Enterprise Funds (250) (250) (250) (250) (250)$(1,250)
NET TOTAL TECHNOLOGY $799 $125 $75 $75 $75 $1,149
TECHNOLOGY FUND $2,492 $475 $425 $425 $425 $4,242
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(1,693)$(350)$(350)$(350)$(350)$(3,093)
NET TECHNOLOGY FUND $799 $125 $75 $75 $75 $1,149
Electric Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 $11,500
Others (900) (925) (950) (1,000) (1,050)$(4,825)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - CUSTOMER
DESIGN AND CONNECTION SERVICES $1,200 $1,275 $1,350 $1,400 $1,450 $6,675
Distribution System - System Improvements
EL-13005 Colorado 20/21 - Transformer Replace-
ments 100 1,500 0 0 0 $1,600
EL-14003 Hanover 24/25 - Substation Line-up
Install 0 100 3,000 1,000 1,000 $5,100
EL-13004 Hansen Way / Hanover 12kV Ties 75 350 0 0 0 $425
EL-13006 Sand Hill / Quarry 12kV Tie 50 300 0 0 0 $350
EL-13007 Underground Distribution System Secu-
rity 300 300 300 0 0 $900
EL-13008 Upgrade Electric Estimating System 150 150 0 0 0 $300
EL-06001 230 KV Electric Intertie 100 100 0 0 0 $200
EL-14000 Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson 4/12 kV
Conversion 0 0 120 400 0 $520
EL-13000 Edgewood / Wildwood 4 kV Tie 0 0 0 50 400 $450
EL-05000 El Camino Underground Rebuild 300 0 0 0 0 $300
EL-98003 Electric System Improvements 2,300 2,400 2,450 2,500 2,550 $12,200
Others (150) (160) (170) (180) (190)$(850)
EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer Replacement 200 0 0 0 0 $200
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto - 95 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
EL-12003 Hopkins Substation Rebuild 250 500 250 0 0 $1,000
EL-12000 Rebuild UG District 12 80 700 300 0 0 $1,080
EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15 400 270 0 0 0 $670
EL-13003 Rebuild UG District 16 0 0 0 300 0 $300
EL-14002 Rebuild UG District 20 0 0 500 500 0 $1,000
EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Overhead Transmis-
sion System 1,750 0 0 0 0 $1,750
EL-13002 Relocate Quarry Road/Hopkins Substa-
tions 60 kV Line (Lane A & B)0 0 0 100 750 $850
EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades 50 55 60 65 270 $500
EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV Conversion 0 0 75 325 0 $400
EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation 0 1,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 $10,000
Enterprise Funds (667) (2,000) (2,000) (2,000)$(6,667)
EL-11002 St. Francis/Oregon/Amarillo/Louis 4/12
kV Conversion 0 0 100 350 0 $450
EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements 170 180 185 190 195 $920
EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements 260 270 280 290 300 $1,400
EL-08001 UG District 42 - Embarcadero Rd.
(Between Emerson & Middlefield)0 150 2,000 500 0 $2,650
Others (750)$(750)
EL-11009 UG District 43 - Alma/Embarcadero 0 0 150 2,000 500 $2,650
Others (700)$(700)
EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/El Camino
Real 0 800 150 0 0 $950
Others (400)$(400)
EL-11010 UG District 47 - Middlefield, Homer Ave-
nue, Webster Street and Addison Avenue 200 0 0 0 0 $200
Others (600)$(600)
EL-06003 Utility Control Center Upgrades 0 75 0 0 400 $475
EL-04012 Utility Site Security Improvements 200 225 250 0 0 $675
EL-09004 W.Charleston/Wilkie Way to South City
Limit 4/12 kV Conversion 550 0 0 0 0 $550
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS $6,735 $8,198 $10,250 $8,690 $7,175 $41,048
General Services - Street Lights
EL-10009 Street Light System Conversion Project 1,200 1,200 0 0 0 $2,400
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES - STREET LIGHTS $1,200 $1,200 $0 $0 $0 $2,400
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
- 96 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
General Services - Communications
EL-89031 Communications System Improvements 125 130 135 145 155 $690
NET TOTAL GENERAL SERVICES -
COMMUNICATIONS $125 $130 $135 $145 $155 $690
ELECTRIC FUND $10,910 $12,955 $15,605 $14,115 $12,020 $65,605
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(1,650)$(2,152)$(3,870)$(3,880)$(3,240)$(14,792)
NET ELECTRIC FUND $9,260 $10,803 $11,735 $10,235 $8,780 $50,813
Fiber Optics Fund
Commercial Telecommunications
FO-10000 Fiber Optics Customer Connections 100 100 200 200 200 $800
Others (100) (100) (200) (200) (200)$(800)
FO-10001 Fiber Optics Network System Improve-
ments 300 300 200 200 200 $1,200
NET TOTAL COMMERCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS $300 $300 $200 $200 $200 $1,200
FIBER OPTICS FUND $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $2,000
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(100)$(100)$(200)$(200)$(200)$(800)
NET FIBER OPTICS FUND $300 $300 $200 $200 $200 $1,200
Gas Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
GS-80017 Gas System Extensions 720 730 752 790 812 $3,804
Others (720) (730) (752) (790) (812)$(3,804)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - CUSTOMER
DESIGN AND CONNECTION SERVICES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Distribution System - System Improvements
GS-13002 General Shop Equipment/Tools 50 0 52 0 54 $156
GS-15001 Security at City Gas Receiving Stations 0 0 100 0 0 $100
GS-03007 Directional Boring Equipment 64 0 68 0 70 $202
GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine 45 250 0 46 258 $599
GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 315 325 335 352 362 $1,689
GS-11002 Gas System Improvements 206 212 219 230 236 $1,103
GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 6,150 0 0 0 0 $6,150
GS-12001 GMR - Project 22 0 3,200 0 0 0 $3,200
GS-13001 GMR - Project 23 0 482 3,300 0 0 $3,782
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto - 97 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
GS-14003 GMR - Project 24 0 0 492 3,465 0 $3,957
GS-15000 GMR - Project 25 0 0 0 542 3,569 $4,111
GS-16000 GMR - Project 26 0 0 0 0 570 $570
GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equipment 34 0 36 0 37 $107
GS-03009 System Extensions - Unreimbursed 172 178 184 193 199 $925
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS $7,036 $4,647 $4,785 $4,827 $5,355 $26,651
GAS FUND $7,756 $5,377 $5,537 $5,617 $6,167 $30,454
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(720)$(730)$(752)$(790)$(812)$(3,804)
NET GAS FUND $7,036 $4,647 $4,785 $4,827 $5,355 $26,651
Water Fund
Distribution System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WS-80013 Water System Extensions 430 440 450 460 473 $2,253
Others (709) (718) (728) (750) (771)$(3,676)
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - CUSTOMER
DESIGN AND CONNECTION SERVICES $(279)$(278)$(278)$(290)$(298)$(1,423)
Distribution System - System Improvements
WS-13004 Asset Management Mobile Deployment 100 0 0 0 0 $100
Enterprise Funds (75)$(75)
WS-13002 Fusion and General Equipment/Tools 50 0 53 0 56 $159
WS-13003 GPS Equipment Upgrade 200 0 0 0 0 $200
Enterprise Funds (150)$(150)
WS-13006 Water Meter Shop Renovations 115 0 0 0 0 $115
WS-09000 Seismic Water System Upgrades 600 3,820 0 0 0 $4,420
WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data 100 100 100 0 0 $300
Enterprise Funds (67) (67) (67)$(201)
WS-11003 Water Distribution System Improve-
ments 212 218 225 232 239 $1,126
WS-80015 Water Meters 222 229 236 243 250 $1,180
WS-07000 Water Regulation Station Improvements 0 0 600 0 0 $600
WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating Improvements 500 1,000 1,000 0 0 $2,500
WS-80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement 222 229 236 243 250 $1,180
WS-11004 Water System Supply Improvements 212 218 225 232 239 $1,126
WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 3,152 0 0 0 0 $3,152
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
- 98 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
WS-12001 WMR - Project 26 0 3,245 0 0 0 $3,245
WS-13001 WMR - Project 27 0 314 3,345 0 0 $3,659
WS-14001 WMR - Project 28 0 0 324 3,445 0 $3,769
WS-15002 WMR - Project 29 0 0 0 334 3,550 $3,884
WS-16001 WMR - Project 30 0 0 0 0 344 $344
NET TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS $5,393 $9,306 $6,277 $4,729 $4,929 $30,634
WATER FUND $6,115 $9,813 $6,794 $5,189 $5,402 $33,313
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(1,001)$(785)$(795)$(750)$(771)$(4,102)
NET WATER FUND $5,114 $9,028 $5,999 $4,439 $4,631 $29,211
Wastewater Collection Fund
Collection System - Customer Design and Connection Services
WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions 350 361 372 383 394 $1,860
Others (750) (761) (771) (794) (817)$(3,893)
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM - CUSTOMER
DESIGN AND CONNECTION SERVICES $(400)$(400)$(399)$(411)$(423)$(2,033)
Collection System - System Improvements
WC-13002 Fusion and General Equipment/Tools 50 0 52 0 53 $155
WC-17001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug Project
30 0 0 0 0 350 $350
WC-99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replace-
ment 570 617 636 655 674 $3,152
WC-15002 Wastewater System Improvements 212 218 225 232 239 $1,126
WC-12001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project
25 2,912 0 0 0 0 $2,912
WC-13001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project
26 310 3,000 0 0 0 $3,310
WC-14001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project
27 0 320 3,090 0 0 $3,410
WC-15001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project
28 0 0 330 3,183 0 $3,513
WC-16001 WW Collection Sys. Rehab/Aug. Project
29 0 0 0 340 3,270 $3,610
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS $4,054 $4,155 $4,333 $4,410 $4,586 $21,538
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $4,404 $4,516 $4,705 $4,793 $4,980 $23,398
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
2013-17 Capital Improvement Projects
City of Palo Alto - 99 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
TOTAL REIMBURSEMENTS $(750)$(761)$(771)$(794)$(817)$(3,893)
NET WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND $3,654 $3,755 $3,934 $3,999 $4,163 $19,505
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Wastewater Treatment - System Improvements
WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assessment & Retrofit 900 1,100 950 1,200 1,200 $5,350
WQ-10001 Long Range Facilities Plan 400 0 0 0 0 $400
WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replacement 1,300 1,500 1,350 1,550 1,650 $7,350
NET TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS $2,600 $2,600 $2,300 $2,750 $2,850 $13,100
NET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND $2,600 $2,600 $2,300 $2,750 $2,850 $13,100
Storm Drainage Fund
Collection System - System Improvements
SD-11101 Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm
Drain Improvements 1,680 1,430 0 0 0 $3,110
SD-06104 Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Mat-
adero Pump Station 0 500 0 0 0 $500
SD-13002 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Sta-
tion and Trunk Lines Improvements 0 315 1,840 1,915 1,990 $6,060
SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain
Improvements 860 0 0 0 0 $860
SD-06101 Storm Drain System Replacement and
Rehabilitation 590 607 626 644 663 $3,130
NET TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM - SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS $3,130 $2,852 $2,466 $2,559 $2,653 $13,660
NET STORM DRAINAGE FUND $3,130 $2,852 $2,466 $2,559 $2,653 $13,660
($000)
CIP
Number Project Title FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
- 92 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PE-13007El Camino Park Dog Park NEW
EL CAMINO PARK DOG PARK (PE-13007)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: POLICY L-7,L-61,C-22, C-
24,C-26, C-27
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Reviewed
by PRC
• Art in Public Places: Yes
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project has been reviewed
by PRC
• Operating: This project may increase maintenance
costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The Project will result in the design and construction of a
off-leash dog area that is approximately 0.44 acres. The dog area is
designed as a low maintenance facility. The existing substrate, made up
of wood chips, would continue to serve as the substrate. Lighting is
already present. Perimeter fencing, several benches and a water fountain
are also an integral part of the design. Access to the off-leash dog area
comes from the existing bike path along Palo Alto Avenue.
Justification: Council, with input from the Parks and Recreation
Commission, approved the creation of a dog park in the northern end of
El Camino Park.
Supplemental Information: The dog park construction would coincide
with the construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park
Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002).
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $10,000 $10,000
Construction Costs $250,000 $250,000
Other
Total Budget Request $260,000 $260,000
Revenues: $260,000 $260,000
Source of Funds:Development Impact Fees with the following reimbursements: Development Impact
Fees($260,000)
City of Palo Alto - 93 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PE-13016El Camino Park Expanded Parking Lot and New Restroom NEW
EL CAMINO PARK EXPANDED PARKING LOT AND NEW
RESTROOM (PE-13016)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy: L-61, C-22,C-24,C-26
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PTC,
PAC
• Art in Public Places: Yes
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: The Utilities Department’s El Cam-
ino Park Reservoir Project is subject to environ-
mental review under provisions of the CEQA.
• Design Elements: PRC already reviewed the
project. ARB, PAC and PTC will need to review this
project.
• Operating: This project should not increase oper-
ating costs
• Telecommunications: None
Description: Design and install an expanded parking lot at El Camino
Park. Staff presented several alternatives to the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Commission voted to expand the existing parking
lot at El Camino Park. The expanded lot will add 26 parking stalls,
bringing the total to 68. Additionally, the 60-year old restroom needs to
be removed and replaced.
Justification: The existing parking lot at El Camino Park has 42 parking
stalls, which often is inadequate to accommodate current demand. With
the addition of a synthetic field and other improvements associated with
the Utilities Department El Camino Park Water Reservoir Project, the
lack of adequate parking will worsen. The existing restroom structure,
which is 60 years old is in very poor condition, are antiquated, and need
to be demolished to make room for the expanded parking lot.
Supplemental Information: The expanded parking lot and the new
restroom would coincide with the of the Utilities Department’s El
Camino Park Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002).
An EIR has been completed for this project in accordance with the CEQA
requirements. An addendum to the EIR has been prepared to
incorporate the additional park improvements such as the dog off-leash
area.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $70,000 $70,000
Construction Costs $890,000 $890,000
Other
Total Budget Request $960,000 $960,000
Revenues: $450,000 $450,000
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: Development Impact
Fees($450,000)
Council Policy Direction:Yes, Council instructed staff to expand parking at El Camino Park.
- 94 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PG-13002El Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities NEW
EL CAMINO PARK PLAYING FIELDS AND AMENITIES (PG-13002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-17, C-25; Goal C-4
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PTC,
and PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Design Elements: This project has been reviewed
by PRC. ARB and PTC may need to review.
• Operating: This project is anticipated to reduce
annual maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: Construction of playing fields and park amenities at El
Camino Park to coincide with Utilities' water reservoir project located
under the park surface. Upon completion of the water reservoir project,
the park will be renovated. The playing fields will include a both a
synthetic turf field and a natural turf field. The amenities will include
new pathways, landscaping, storage building, fencing, picnic area,
lighting, bike racks, and various other park amenities.
Justification: This project addresses needs for playing fields. Council
approved funding through Development Impact Fees and project is
supplemented by Utilities water bond funds.
Supplemental Information: Funding for this project is from
Development Impact Fees approved by Council on April 23, 2012 (CMR
ID # 2411) and El Camino Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002) for park
reconstruction.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $400,000 $400,000
Construction Costs $3,035,286 $3,035,286
Other
Total Budget Request $3,435,286 $3,435,286
Revenues: $3,435,286 $3,435,286
Source of Funds:Development Impact Fees with the following reimbursements: Development Impact
Fees($1,793,496); Water Fund($1,641,790)
City of Palo Alto - 105 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PE-13003Parks Master Plan NEW
PARKS MASTER PLAN (PE-13003)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Pre-Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-61, C-22, C-24,C-26
• Potential Board/Commission Review: PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project may be subject to
PRC review
• Operating: None
• Telecommunications: None
Description: A Parks Master Plan will provide guidance to staff and the
Parks and Recreation Commission on the recreation and improvement
needs for Palo Alto’s urban parks. A recreation needs assessment will be
conducted. Other issues the plan would address would include an
analysis and recommendations on dog off-leash areas, field space
requirements, prioritizing Parks Capital Improvement Projects, etc. The
plan would also establish goals and objectives for improvements; and
phasing improvements.
Justification: The primary purpose for completing a parks master plan is
to identify the recreation and park land needs and to guide the
development of park facilities and to provide the vision for
improvements and any future expansion. Master Plans are not detailed
construction documents, so additional plans and specifications must be
created prior to implementing the Master Plan recommendations. The
Parks and Recreation Commission have informed staff that a master plan
is a high priority
Supplemental Information: The Parks and Recreation Commission have
informed staff that a master plan is a high priority.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $350,000 $350,000
Construction Costs
Other
Total Budget Request $350,000 $350,000
Revenues:
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve
- 92 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
AS-10000Salaries and Benefits - General Fund CIP Projects
SALARIES AND BENEFITS - GENERAL FUND CIP PROJECTS
(AS-10000)
CIP FACTS:
• Continuing
• Project Status: Other
• Timeline: FY 2010-2016
• Managing Department: Administrative Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Not Applicable
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Not Appli-
cable
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: Not Applicable
• Design Elements: Not Applicable
• Operating: Not Applicable
• Telecommunications: Not Applicable
Description: This project is a placeholder for the estimated salaries and
benefit costs of City staff assigned to manage General Fund CIP projects.
As part of the year-end process, this amount will be allocated to all
General Fund CIP projects that are charged with the actual costs of
salaries and benefits. At the end of each fiscal year, any unused balance
will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve.
Justification: Salaries and benefits costs of City staff assigned to manage
CIP projects are associated costs in the completion of CIP projects. As
such, these costs are capitalized and are added to the total costs of a
project.
PRIOR YEARS
PY Budget ongoing
PY Actuals as of 02/29/2012 ongoing
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs
Construction Costs
Other $3,694,953 $3,731,037 $3,917,589 $4,113,468 $4,319,141 $19,776,188
Total Budget Request $3,694,953 $3,731,037 $3,917,589 $4,113,468 $4,319,141 $19,776,188
Revenues: $1,291,115 $1,329,849 $1,353,378 $1,393,979 $1,435,798 $6,804,119
Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve with the following reimbursements: General Fund($6,804,119)
City of Palo Alto - 2 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Internal Service Funds
Internal Service Funds Reserves
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
General
Liabilities
Insurance
Program
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund
Total
Internal
Service
Funds
Revenues
Operating Revenue 7,284 13,202 1,130 39,025 3,199 1,636 12,868 78,344
Interest Income 193 372 0 319 478 147 87 1,596
Other Revenue 101 2,417 0 0 0 40 0 2,558
Total Source of Funds $7,578 $15,992 $1,130 $39,344 $3,677 $1,823 $12,955 $82,499
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures 5,013 11,540 1,129 39,344 3,677 1,823 12,908 75,433
Capital Improvement Program 1,225 2,492 0 0 0 0 0 3,717
Total Use of Funds $6,238 $14,032 $1,129 $39,344 $3,677 $1,823 $12,908 $79,151
Net To/From Unrestricted Assets $1,340 $1,960 $1 $0 $0 $0 $47 $3,348
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance
Fund
Technology
Fund
Printing
and
Mailing
Fund
General
Benefits
Fund
Workers’
Compensation
Fund
General
Liabilities
Insurance
Program
Retiree
Health
Benefit
Fund
Total
Internal
Service
Funds
Changes to Unrestricted assets
June 30, 2012 Unrestricted Assets $9,580 $683 $0 $965 $100 $100 $26,285 $37,713
FY 2013 Projected Changes 1,340 1,960 1 0 0 0 47 3,348
June 30, 2013 Unrestricted Assets $10,920 $2,643 $1 $965 $100 $100 $26,332 $41,061
- 3 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Special Revenues by Fund
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
Community
Develop.
Funds
Street
Improve
-ment
Funds
Federal
& State
Revenue
Funds
Housing
In-Lieu
Funds
Special
Districts
Funds
Traffic
Mitigation
& Parking
In-Lieu
Funds
Public
Benefits
Funds
BID
Funds
SUMC
Funds
Total
Special
Revenue
Funds
Revenues
Gas Tax 1,764 1,764
Federal and State Grants 512 512
Parking Permit/In-Lieu Fees 82 3,500 1,540 200 5,322
Development Impact Fees 553 553
Interest Income 156 28 6 107 28 96 20 2 442
Operating Transfers 5 5
Other Revenue 208 140 280 628
Business Improvement District (BID)
Special Assessment 160 160
Loan Payoff 7 90 97
SUMC 0 0
Total Source of Funds $791 $1,792 $738 $3,837 $1,568 $576 $20 $162 $0 $9,483
Expenditures
CDBG Project Expenditures 622 622
CDBG Administration Cost Recovery 120 120
Planning / Public Works Department
Transfer for Street Improvement Cost
Recovery 292 292
Community Development Funds CIP
Transfer 2,724 2,724
Charleston-Arastradero Funds CIP Transfer 250 250
Street Improvement Fund CIP Transfer 1,651 1,651
Parking Facilities Debt Service Transfer 0
Parking Garage Maintenance/Operations
Transfer to General Fund 964 964
Parking Lot Sweeping Transfer to Refuse
Fund 542 542
CDBG Projects Transfer from HIP Revenues 5 5
Below Market Rate (BMR) Program
Management Contract 125 125
BMR Loan Program 350 350
College Terrace Parking Program 113 113
University Avenue Parking Permits 23 23
California Avenue Parking Permits 16 16
Residential Housing In-Lieu 4,815 4,815
Commercial Housing In-Lieu 1,100 1,100
Senior Services Grant 28 28
BID Operating Expense 160 160
Impact Fee Study 23 23
SUMC projects 228 228
Total Use of Funds $2,997 $1,943 $747 $6,390 $1,658 $0 $28 $160 $228 $14,151
Net To (From) Reserves $(2,206)$(151)$(9)$(2,553)$(90)$576 $(8)$2 $(228)$(4,668)
City of Palo Alto - 4 -
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Consolidated Special Revenues Funds
FUND SUMMARY
($000)
FY 2009
Actuals
FY 2010
Actuals
FY 2011
Actuals
FY 2012
Adopted
Budget
FY 2013
Proposed
Budget
FY 2013
Change
Revenues
Gas Tax $1,024 $1,061 $1,632 $1,764 $1,764 $0
Federal and State Grants 1,091 138 101 0 0 0
Federal CDBG 1,494 621 338 663 512 (151)
Housing In-Lieu 407 1,900 2,574 3,500 3,500 0
Traffic Mitigation Fees 197 127 50 282 282 0
Developer Impact Fees 437 576 445 553 553 0
Parking Mitigation Fees 1,117 1,287 1,453 1,321 1,540 219
BID Assessment 96 14 92 160 160 0
SUMC 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest Income 585 636 559 535 441 (94)
Other Revenue 185 163 426 794 726 (68)
Subtotal Revenues $6,632 $6,523 $7,670 $9,572 $9,478 $(95)
Operating Transfers From:
Housing Improvement 22 0 0 5 5 0
Subtotal Operating Transfers In $22 $0 $0 $5 $5 $0
Total Source of Funds $6,654 $6,523 $7,670 $9,577 $9,483 $(95)
Expenses
General Expense 4,848 1,182 1,219 7,908 7,497 (411)
SUMC 0 0 0 0 228 228
Operating Transfers To:
General Fund 1,180 1,044 1,202 1,431 1,256 (175)
CDBG 22 0 0 5 5 0
Debt Service 80 80 80 14 0 (14)
CIP 1,657 1,464 1,082 2,197 4,623 2,426
Refuse 116 257 232 220 542 322
Subtotal Operating Transfers $3,055 $2,845 $2,596 $3,867 $6,427 $2,560
Total Use of Funds $7,902 $4,028 $3,814 $11,775 $14,151 $2,377
Net to (from) Reserves $(1,249)$2,495 $3,856 $(2,198)$(4,669)$(2,471)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2889)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/29/2012
May 29, 2012 Page 1 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Summary Title: FY 2013 Budget Wrap-Up Memo
Title: Wrap-Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearing
Meetings
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Executive Summary
This staff report summarizes changes to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2013 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
8, 10, 15, 17, and 22. 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 11,
2012.
Discussion
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)
To date, the General Fund Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget includes the following changes
totaling $0.376 million in reduction to the BSR. The changes are reflected in the table below:
May 29, 2012 Page 2 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Date Dept Description Amount
Beginning staff recommended change to BSR ($1,022)
8-May CSD Garden fee revenue (4)
8-May CSD Cubberley artist rent revenue (18)
8-May CSD Lawn bowling fee revenue (15)
8-May CSD Summer concert series expense (5)
8-May CSD InnVision program funding (13)
10-May ASD Transfer retiree medical cost to IT Dept.106
10-May ASD Tech charge alloc due to retiree medical transfer (48)
15-May FIR Reallocate FTE to Enterprise Funds (net)40
15-May POL Reinstate Animal Services (949)
15-May NON Animal Services offset cost placeholder 500
22-May PWD Mitchell Park custodial, maintenance, supplies 30
Subtotal - Tentatively Approved Changes to Date (376)
Ending change to BSR ($1,398)
Pending Staff Requests as of May 22:
NON City Attorney Contingent Account (125)
NON Loan to Airport Fund - fund from BSR 310
NON Technology capital projects - fund from BSR 802
Subototal 987
Action Items from this Report
FIR Withdraw Admin Assoc II reclass 12
Change to BSR Considering Pending Staff Requests ($399)
Actions Needed
This section summarizes the outstanding decision points that need to be addressed by the
Finance Committee. In the May 29th staff presentation to Finance Committee, staff will propose
funding options to bridge the remaining $0.4 million Fiscal Year 2013 budget shortfall.
Fire Department – operating budget, pp. 194-204
Net $12,133 savings
The proposed Budget includes a reclassification of 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II to
Administrative Assistant. This request is withdrawn and results in a net $12,133 savings (Salary
& Benefits, $17,408; Stanford reimbursement offset $5,275).
May 29, 2012 Page 3 of 14
(ID # 2889)
General Fund – Budget Balancing Items
The proposed budget assumes a $1.022 million budget shortfall. The intent is to solicit the
Finance Committee’s recommendation to fund the loan to the Airport Fund, $0.31 million, and
the Development Center Blue Print Technology Enhancement Capital Project, $0.8 million, from
the General Fund BSR. Staff will present these items, as well as other budget balancing options,
to the Finance Committee during the budget wrap presentation on May 29th.
Position Changes
The Finance Committee has tentatively approved a net increase of 5.74 full-time, benefited
Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) to the General Fund (add 12.0 FTE; drop 6.0 FTE; reallocate 0.26
FTE to the Enterprise Funds). The Finance Committee also tentatively approved reinstating 1.14
temporary FTEs. Details of these changes are the following:
Fire Department
o Flexible Staffing – eliminate 6.0 FTE
Eliminate 2.0 FTE Fire Captain
Eliminate 4.0 FTE Fire Fighter
o Reallocate 0.26 FTE to Enterprise Funds
0.08 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall to Utilities
0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector to Utilities
0.08 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall to Public Works – Enterprise
0.04 FTE Hazmat Inspector to Public Works – Enterprise
Police Department
o Reinstate Animal Services (12 FTE Full-Time benefited; 1.14 temporary)
4.5 FTE Animal Control Officer
2.0 FTE Animal Services Specialist II
1.0 FTE Superintendent Animal Services
1.0 FTE Supervisor Animal Services
1.0 FTE Veterinarian
2.0 FTE Veterinarian Tech
0.5 FTE Volunteer Coordinator
1.14 FTE temporary positions
Public Works Department
o 1.0 FTE Tree Maintenance Person (Specialist) – correct department staffing
information on pp. 34 and 303 – should not have been eliminated.
Notation Regarding Flexible Staffing in the Position Allocation by Department Table
A note that explains overstrength staffing levels that was previously approved by Council was
inadvertently omitted in the Position Allocation by Department Table on pages 311-319 of the
Fiscal Year 2013 proposed operating budget. The following should be noted in regards to the
City’s authorized level Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs):
May 29, 2012 Page 4 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Authorization is given to create no more than 20.0 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. The overstrength
positions also accommodate newly approved provisional employment programs.
Refer to City Council Staff Report ID #1812 for additional information.
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.
Citywide Training Budget
The proposed budget includes a $0.15 million 0.1 million increase in Citywide training ($50,000
for General Fund, $50,000 for Enterprise Funds, $51,000 for Technology Fund). Training budget
is combined with each department’s travel budget. Cost for each department’s travel expense
varies. The proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget for travel and training is as follows:
General Fund: $470 thousand (571.32 FTE)
Enterprise Funds: $490 thousand (356.56 FTE)
Internal Service Funds: $76 thousand (78.47 FTE)
Capital Projects Related to Bicycle Plan
The Committee requested additional information regarding capital projects that are included in
the City’s bicycle plan and how much funding would be needed to accelerate the City’s bicycle
improvement plan. This information is listed in Attachment A.
Public Works Administration Allocation Change in Revenue
The Public Works Department shows a decrease in Administration Allocated Charges totaling
$165,291 (see p. 221 of the proposed operating budget). Prior to Fiscal Year 2013, the
allocation methodology was to allocate total Administration Division cost, which include
salary/benefits and allocated charges. Staff has reviewed this method and has altered the
methodology to only include salary and benefit costs in this charge.
Cubberley Tenant Information
Staff is providing additional information regarding Cubberley tenants – see Attachment B.
AFinance 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 Fiscal Year 2013
proposed budget.
May 29, 2012 Page 5 of 14
(ID # 2889)
General Fund
City Attorney
Motion: On May 8, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2013 City Attorney’s budget (3-0, 1 absent)
City Auditor
Motion: On May 8, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2013 City Auditor’s budget (3-0, 1 absent)
City Clerk
Motion: On May 8, 2012, the Finance Committee moved that City Staff return to the
committee with a change analysis that contains detail of the Council Support
Services division of the City Clerk’s Office (3-0, 1 absent)
Motion: On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 City Clerk’s budget (4-0)
City Council
Motions: On May 8, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2013 City Council budget (3-0, 1 absent)
City Manager
Motions: On May 8, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2013 City Manager’s budget (3-0, 1 absent)
Administrative Services Department
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Administrative Services Department budget (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
reallocate $106,264 in retiree health benefit costs from the Administrative
Services Department General Fund budget to the Information Technology
Department budget in the Technology Internal Service Fund (3-0, 1 absent)
Community Services Department
Motions: On May 8, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of the
Fiscal Year 2013 Community Services Department budget (3-0, 1 absent), with
the following changes, totaling $54,500
1) Fee revenue increase for garden rental be decreased by $4,000
2) Fee increase for Cubberley artist rent be decreased by $17,500
3) Fee increase for lawn bowling fees be decreased by $15,000
4) City staff returns with an alternative to provide $13,000 in funding to
the InnVision program
5) Reinstate $5,000 of funding for the Summer Concert Series
May 29, 2012 Page 6 of 14
(ID # 2889)
6) City staff is to return to the Committee with cost reductions as an
alternative to the changes in fee revenues for numbers #1-3 listed
a. Staff returned with this information and has provided the
Committee with a list of options in the May 17 memo
distributed at places
Fire Department
Motions: On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Fire Department budget (4-0)
On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee moved to eliminate, rather than freeze,
6 FTE Fire Fighter, related to the Department’s Flexible Staffing proposal, and to
adjust the proposed budget, per staff’s recommendation, for the FTE
reallocations as described in the May 15, 2012 memo at places.
Human Resources
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Human Resources Department budget (3-0, 1 absent)
Library Department
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Library Department budget (3-0, 1 absent)
Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
Motions: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Planning and Community Environment Department budget
(3-0, 1 absent)
Police Department
Motions: On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Police Department budget (4-0)
On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee moved to continue providing animal
services through Palo Alto Animal Services, include a $0.5 million placeholder to
offset revenue reduction due to the departure of Mt. View, and for the City
Manager to engage stakeholders to create alternative animal service models or
approaches (4-0)
On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee moved that staff in the Police
Department continue its commitment to the Safe Routes to School program and
for the Department to deliver a report to the Finance Committee in mid-Fall 2012
that updates the Committee of the implementation of adjusted staffing methods
in the Traffic Division (4-0)
May 29, 2012 Page 7 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Public Works Department
Motions: On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Public Works General Fund budget (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
include the following amendments to the Public Works Department budget (3-0,
1 absent):
1) $29,900 expense decrease for maintenance, custodial, and supplies
for Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
2) Correction to pp. 34 and 303 for the elimination of 1.0 FTE Tree
Maintenance Person. This position is funded in the Fiscal Year 2013
proposed budget and should not be removed from the department’s
staffing table.
Enterprise Funds
Position Changes
The Finance Committee has tentatively approved an additional 1.26 FTE increase in the City’s
Enterprise Funds due to the following:
Fire Department allocations – total increase 0.26 FTE
o Reallocate 0.16 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
0.08 FTE to Utilities Department
0.04 FTE to Refuse Fund
0.04 FTE to Wastewater Treatment Fund
o Reallocate 0.10 FTE Hazmat Inspector
0.06 to Utilities Department
0.02 FTE to Refuse Fund
0.02 FTE to Wastewater Treatment Fund
Public Works – Refuse Fund – total increase 1.0 FTE
o Correction to staffing – intent:
Drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor (drop is currently in proposed
budget)
Add 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician (add needs to be incorporated into
proposed budget
Utility Department
Motion: On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
reallocate 0.08 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall and 0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector from
the General Fund which results in a $30,288 salary and benefits increase (4-0)
Electric Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Electric Fund operating and capital budget (4-0)
May 29, 2012 Page 8 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Fiber Optics Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Fiber Optics Fund operating and capital budget (4-0)
Gas Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Gas Fund operating and capital budget (4-0)
Wastewater Collection Fund
Motion: On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Wastewater Collection Fund operating and capital budget
(4-0)
Water Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Water Fund operating and capital budget (4-0)
Refuse Fund
Motions: On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Refuse Fund operating and capital budget (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
include the following amendments in the Refuse Fund budget (3-0, 1 absent):
1) $96,430 increase in allocated revenue for debris boxes from the
Wastewater Treatment Fund
2) $105,557 for debris box revenue from non-utility customers
3) $416,863 expense reduction for vehicle maintenance and replacement
costs for refuse vehicles taken out of service due to landfill closure
4) $10,516 reduction in overtime expense
5) Correction to staffing – elimination of 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor
should have been an add/drop. The correct staffing change is:
a. Drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor
b. Add 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician
On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
reallocate 0.04 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall and 0.02 FTE Hazmat Inspector from
the General Fund which results in a $13,356 salary and benefits increase (4-0)
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Motion: On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Wastewater Treatment Fund operating and capital budget
(3-0, 1 absent)
May 29, 2012 Page 9 of 14
(ID # 2889)
On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
include the following amendments in the Wastewater Treatment Fund budget (3-
0, 1 absent):
1) $96,430 increase in allocated expense for debris boxes
On May 15, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
reallocate 0.04 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall and 0.02 FTE Hazmat Inspector from
the General Fund which results in a $13,356 salary and benefits increase (4-0)
Storm Drainage Fund
Motions: On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Storm Drainage Fund operating and capital budget (3-0, 1
absent)
Internal Service Funds
Information Technology Department (Technology Fund)
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Technology Fund operating budget (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
reallocate $106,264 in retiree health benefit costs from the Administrative
Services Department General Fund budget to the Information Technology
Department budget in the Technology Internal Service Fund and to increase
citywide department charges for $106,264 (3-0, 1 absent)
On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Technology Fund capital budget (4-0)
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Motions: On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Vehicle Replacement Fund operating and capital budget (3-
0, 1 absent)
On May 22, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommendation to
reduce vehicle maintenance and replacement revenue (and corresponding
expense) totaling $416,863 for out of service vehicles due to the landfill closure in
the Vehicle Replacement Fund (3-0, 1 absent)
Printing and Mailing Fund
Motions: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Print and Mailing Fund budget (3-0, 1 absent)
May 29, 2012 Page 10 of 14
(ID # 2889)
General Benefits Fund
Motions: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 General Benefits Fund budget (3-0, 1 absent)
Workers’ Compensation Fund
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Workers’ Compensation Fund budget (3-0, 1 absent)
General Liabilities Insurance Program Fund
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 General Liability Fund budget (3-0, 1 absent)
Retiree Health Benefits Fund
Motion: On May 10, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 Retiree Health Benefits Fund budget (3-0, absent)
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
Motions: On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee recommended tentative approval of
the Fiscal Year 2013 General Fund Capital Improvement Program budget (4-0)
On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee accepted staff’s recommended
changes to the El Camino Park Dog Park CIP and El Camino Park Playing Fields
and Amenities CIP (see Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s
Proposed Budget section below for information related to these changes) (4-0)
On May 17, 2012, the Finance Committee requested that staff return to the
Committee with a proposal of how much additional funding is needed to
accelerate the city’s bicycle plan (4-0)
Staff Recommended Changes to the City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Listed below is a summary of items presented to the Finance Committee at places that result in
a financial change.
General Fund
City Clerk’s Office, net zero impact
As described in the May 10, 2012 memo distributed to the Finance Committee at places, the
City Clerk’s Office recommends reallocating $60,000 in election publishing costs from the
Council Support Services division to the Election/Conflict of Interest division.
Administrative Services Department (ASD), net $57,996 savings
Prior to Fiscal Year 2012, the Information Technology Department was a division of the
Administrative Services Department. In 2011, employee data was submitted to the City’s
consultant to complete the retiree medical liability actuarial study. The study was adopted by
Council on April 16, 2012 (see Staff Report #2655). Upon review of employee data that was
May 29, 2012 Page 11 of 14
(ID # 2889)
submitted to the consultant, staff noted that the medical actuarial required contribution for 11
employees Information Technology employees was included in ASD’s Fiscal Year 2013 retiree
medical costs. Staff recommended, and accepted by Finance Committee motion, to move
$106,264 of retiree medical cost from the ASD General Fund to the Information Technology
Department. This change results in an increase in Technology allocation charges to the General
Fund, Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds.
Fire Department, net $39,729 budget savings
A correction to the Fire Department FTE distribution was described in the May 15, 2012 memo
distributed at places to the Finance Committee. The FTE changes are listed below and results in
an expenditure decrease of $57,000 from the General Fund, with an associated revenue loss of
$17,271 from the Stanford Fire contract. The net General Fund savings is $39,729.
Utilities, additional 0.14 FTE
o 0.08 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
o 0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector
Public Works – Enterprise, 0.12 FTE
o 0.08 FTE Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall
o 0.04 FTE Hazmat Inspector
Public Works, net $29,900 budget savings
The proposed budget includes $90,600 for custodial and maintenance services and supplies for
the new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center facility. Due to the delay in the opening of
the facility, staff recommends a $29,900 reduction custodial and maintenance services and
supplies for the facility. Total recommended budget should be $60,700 for these maintenance
costs.
An elimination of 1.0 FTE Tree Maintenance Person (Specialist) is shown on pp. 34 and 303 of
the proposed budget. The FTE for this position should not be eliminated and is funding for this
position is included in the proposed budget.
Enterprise Funds
Utilities Department, net $30,288 budget impact
To correct the FTE allocation of Fire personnel to the Utilities Department, the following
reallocations will be added to the Utilities Department from the General Fund: 0.08 FTE Deputy
Chief/Fire Marshall; 0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector. See Fire Department section under General
Fund for FTE reallocations. This results in a $30,288 salary and benefits increase.
Public Works – Enterprise
To correct the FTE allocation of Fire personnel to the Utilities Department, the following
reallocations will be added to the Utilities Department from the General Fund: 0.08 FTE Deputy
Chief/Fire Marshall; 0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector. See Fire Department section under General
Fund for FTE reallocations.
May 29, 2012 Page 12 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Refuse Fund, net $443,723 reserve addition
As described in the memo distributed at places on May 22nd, staff recommends the following
changes to the Refuse Fund budget:
Revenue, $201,987 increase
o $91,430 increase in allocated charge revenue form the Wastewater Treatment
for diversion of waste from discharge to sewer systems and debris boxes
o $105,557 increase in debris box revenue from non-utility customers
Expense, $241,736 decrease
o $50,000 increase for diversion of waste from discharge to sewer systems
o $46,430 increase for debris boxes
o $416,863 decrease for vehicles that were put out of service due to the landfill
closure
o $75,857 increase for salary and benefits to correct add 1.0 FTE Landfill
Technician. The department’s intent was to drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor
and add 1.0 FTE Landfill Technician. The proposed budget removed the FTE and
funding for the Public Works Supervisor and did not include the addition of the
Landfill Technician.
o $10,516 decrease for overtime budget
o $13,356 increase for reallocation of various Fire personnel
Wastewater Treatment Fund, net $107,360 reserve reduction
The May 22 memo distributed at places contains the following staff recommended
amendments to the proposed budget:
Expense, $107,360 increase
o $50,000 increase in allocated charges from the Refuse Fund for waste discharge
to sewer systems
o $46,430 increase in allocated charges from the Refuse Fund for debris boxes
Internal Service Funds
Information Technology Department, net zero budget impact
The retiree medical cost for 11 retired Information Technology employees was included in the
Administrative Services Department Budget (see Administrative Services section under General
Fund for reallocation of retiree health liability cost). As a result, $106,264 in retiree medical
costs will be added to the Technology Fund budget. A corresponding revenue increase in this
same amount will be added to the fund’s budget and will be collected from the following fund
types: General Fund, $48,268; Enterprise Funds, $55,787; Internal Service Funds, $2,209.
Vehicle Replacement Fund, net $416,863 budget impact
Staff proposes a revenue reduction totaling $416,863 in charges from the Refuse Fund due to
vehicles put out of service because of the landfill closure.
May 29, 2012 Page 13 of 14
(ID # 2889)
Infrastructure/Capital Fund
El Camino Park Dog Park CIP (PE-13007)
The proposed Fiscal Year 2014 project cost totaling $250,000 will be moved to Fiscal Year 2013.
Total project cost for this CIP in Fiscal Year 2013 will be $260,000.
El Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities (PG-13002)
In accordance with Council direction (adopted April 23, 2012), total proposed Fiscal Year 2013
project cost is increased to $3,435,286 and will be funded by Development Impact Fees
($1,793,496) and Utility Water Bond Proceeds ($1,641,790).
Related Memos Distributed At Places
May 8, 2012
Correction to proposed budget document
o Revised Citywide Average Salary and Benefits schedule as found on p. 25 of the
proposed operating budget
NON – City Attorney Contingency Account – increase by $125,000
CSD – revised Golf Course Financial Schedule
May 10, 2012
Additional information pertaining to May 10 department hearings
o PCE – correction to the Significant Budget Adjustments table on p. 186 of the
proposed operating budget
Follow-up items from previous meetings
o CLK – summary of changes for the Council Support Services Division
May 15, 2012
Additional information pertaining to May 15 department hearings
o FIR – reallocate various Fire positions from the General Fund to Enterprise Funds
Follow-up items from previous meetings
o CLK – detail of budget changes by division
Information Pertaining to the Proposed Capital Improvement Program
o Letter from Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
o Staff report presented to the PTC for the Fiscal Year 2013 proposed capital
budget
May 17, 2012
Change to General Fund Capital Improvement Program
o Changes to El Camino Dog Park CIP and El Camino Park Playing Fields and
Amenities CIP
Follow-up items from previous meetings
May 29, 2012 Page 14 of 14
(ID # 2889)
o CSD – various items requested from May 8 Finance Committee meeting
May 22, 2012
Follow-up items from previous meetings
o CSD – response from Cubberley artists regarding rent
Additional items pertaining to May 22 department hearings
o Public Works Department amendments to proposed budget for General Fund,
Refuse Fund, Wastewater Treatment Fund, and Vehicle Replacement Fund
Attachments:
Attachment A: List of Bicycle Capital Projects (PDF)
Attachment B - Cubberley Tenant Information (PDF)
Prepared By: Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst
Department Head: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Annual Expenditures
5/24/2012
2011 Projects
Project CIP Fund Source Cost
Arastradero Rd Trial Restriping Phase II PL‐05002 (Project) $250,000
Pavement Program Restriping PE‐86070 $50,000
(Arastradero Road)
California Avenue Streetscape (Design) PL‐11002 (Project) $250,000
Bike & Ped Plan Update GRANT PL‐04010 (Project) $80,000
Citywide Countdown Signals Phase I PL‐05030 (Signals/ITS) $40,000
Bicycle Guideway Sign Trial Project GRANT PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $23,000
Highway 101 Crossing Feasibility PE‐11011(Project) $126,000
Page Mill Bike & Ped Path Stanford Mitigation $250,000*
*Estimated Cost FY Total Allocation: $1,069,000
2012 Projects
Project CIP Fund Source Cost
Pavement Program Restriping PE‐86070 $80,000
(Channing Avenue, San Antonio)
Citywide Bike Rack Installation GRANT PL‐04010 (Bike Plan) $25,000
Green Bike Lane Material Procurement GRANT PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $30,000
Oregon Exp & Ross Rd Traffic Signal TIF Program $410,000
Park Blvd Bicycle Blvd – Phase I GRANT PL‐04010 (Bike Plan) $30,000
Enhanced Crosswalk Beacons GRANT PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $67,000
Vehicle Speed Signs (12) PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $60,000
Wilkie Way Bridge Replacement PO‐12000 (Project) $50,000
Safe Routes to School – Phase I GRANT PL‐00026 (Project) $400,000
Page Mill & I280 Interchange Feasibility PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $15,000
Palo Alto Transit Center/Univ Undercrossing SUMC Mitigation $250,000
Dinah Summerhill Bike/Ped Path PL‐11001 (Project) $300,000
Deer Creek Bike Lanes Stanford Mitigation $100,000
FY Total Allocation: $1,817,000
Proposed 2013 Projects
Project CIP Fund Source Cost
Microwave Bicycle Detection GRANT PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $56,000
Fabian Way Enhanced Bikeways GRANT PL‐12000 (Tran/Parking) $44,000
Charleston Rd Bike Lanes (Fabian to City Limit) PL‐0401 (Bike Plan) $25,000
Adobe Creek Reach Trail Design/CEQA PL‐04010 (Bike Plan) $25,000
Highway 101 Crossing Prelim Design/CEQA PE‐11011 (Project) $250,000
Matadero Road Bicycle Boulevard Design PL‐12000 (Project) $15,000
Park Blvd Bike Blvd Phase II Design PL‐12000 (Project) $30,000
Pavement Program Restriping PE‐86070 $150,000
(Park Blvd., Arastradero Road, El Carmelo, Alma Street, Lytton Ave, Channing Ave.)
VTA Bike Share (Palo Alto Element) Regional Project $500,000
High Street Bicycle Feasibility Study PL‐04101 $30,000
SR2S Engineering Imp Phase I PL‐12000 $50,000
Resurfacing Program Striping Element PL‐12000/PL‐04010 $25,000
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan
Annual Expenditures
5/24/2012
FY Total Allocation: $1,200,000
DRAFT Proposed 2014 Projects
Project CIP Fund Source Cost
Ross Rd/Louis Bicycle Blvd Design PL‐04010 (Project) $100,000
Pavement Program Restriping PE‐86070 $150,000
(Laguna Ave, High Street, Park Blvd., N. California, Castilleja)
Matadero Creek Trail Feasibility PL‐04010 (Project) $250,000
Bicycle Boulevard Compr Signage/Markings PL‐04010 (Project) $90,000
Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard PL‐04010 (Project) $60,000
Webster Street Bicycle Boulevard PL‐04010 (Project) $100,000
Matadero‐Margarita Bicycle Boulevard PL‐04010 (Project) $300,000
Homer/Channing Enhanced Bikeway PL‐04010 (Project) $120,000
Amarillo‐Moreno Bicycle Boulevard PL‐04010 (Project) $80,000
Bicycle Parking Coral/Maintenance Station PL‐04010 (Project) $75,000
Middlefield Road Plan Line Study PL‐04101 (Project) $50,000
Citywide Sharrow & Wayfinding PL‐04010 (Project) $75,000
FY Total Allocation: $1,450,000
ATTACHMENT B
USE SPACE SF MONTH SQ,FT, ANNUAL
------------------------------- -------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foothill A,B,I,J,C,PAV.Offcs,39675 $64,959.00 $1.64 $779,508.00
Exclusive Use WRM,AERO
P-Wing
Part-time Non Exclusive Pavillion/GymB 18485 $15,131.00 $0.82 $181,572.00
Locker/Shower
$80,090.00 $961,080.00
------------------------------- -------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON PROFIT OFFICE
FOPAL K6 & K7 1700 $1,129.00 $0.66 $13,548.00
Hua Kuang Reading Rm 1/2 OF H4 672 $779.00 $1.16 $9,348.00
Wildlife Rescue V 1565 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3937
NON PROFIT DAYCARE
Children's Preschool Ctr S & T1 8772 $2,239.00 $0.26 $26,868.00
NON PROFIT DANCE
Dance Visions/Action L3 3520 $3,576.00 $1.02 $42,912.00
Zohar L4 3740 $4,515.00 $1.21 $54,180.00
7260
FOR PROFIT OFFICE/CHILDCARE/DANCE
ACME Education L1 3910 $6,835.00 $1.75 $82,020.00
Calif. Law Revision D 1, 2; F2 800 $1,661.70 $2.08 $19,940.40
Dance Connection L5, K5 3060 $5,299.00 $1.73 $63,588.00
Good Neighbor Montessori K3,K4 3010 $5,539.00 $1.84 $66,468.00
10780
E, F AND U WINGS
ARTISTS - 22 10 PALO ALTO RES 12395 $0.69
12 NON RESIDENT $8,946.00 $0.75 $107,352.00
$1,447,304.40
CUBBERLEY TENANTS
5/15/2012
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee
DATE: May 15, 2012
SUBJECT: Additional Information Pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
Staff would like to provide the Finance Committee with additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2013
Proposed Budget Hearings.
City Clerk’s Office
To follow up the Finance Committee meeting on May 10, Attachment 1 shows the change analysis between the
adopted Fiscal Year 2012 and proposed Fiscal Year 2013 division budgets. Department benefit increase totals
$19,123, with the Council Support Services division increasing $99,567 and all other divisions decreasing by
$80,444. The main driver of the employee benefit change in the Council Support Services is the change in the
benefits allocation. The allocation methodology changed from budgeted Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) to the
employee’s actual pension/healthcare cost, allocated to the employee’s home cost center.
Fire Department
As part of the Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget, the Fire Department completed a consolidation employee cost
center allocations. During this process partial allocations for seven employees to Utilities and Public Works were
inadvertently removed. An amendment to the proposed budget will restore the position allocations to the same
level as Fiscal Year 2012, showing the following position allocations:
Utilities
0.08 FTE Fire Marshall
0.06 FTE Hazmat Inspector
This results in costs of $18,582 of salary, and estimated $11,706 in associated benefits for a total of
$30,288 that will be added to the budgeted expenditures in Utilities.
Public Works
0.08 FTE Fire Marshall
0.04 FTE Hazmat Inspector
This results in costs of $16,388 in salary, and estimated $10,324 in associated benefits for a total of
$26,712 that will be added to the budgeted expenditures in Public Works Enterprise Funds.
This results in an expenditure decrease of $57,000 from the General Fund, with an associated revenue loss of
$17,271 from the Stanford Reimbursement contract, with a net help to the General Fund of $39,729.
Information Pertaining to the Proposed Capital Improvement Program
Attached for your review is a letter from the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
summarizing the Commissions review of the Fiscal Year 2013‐2017 proposed Capital Improvement Plan
(Attachment 2) and the Planning and Transportation Division staff report that was presented to the PTC that
5/15/2012
contains detail for the Capital Improvement Plan (Attachment 3). These items are reference for the May 17th
Finance Committee meeting.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
LALO PEREZ
Director, Administrative Services/CFO
CITY MANAGER:
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
ATTACHMENT 1
FY2012 Adopted
Budget
FY2013 Proposed
Budget
FY2013 Change
Salary $36,370 $36,370 $0
Benefits $21,450 $6,966 ($14,484)
Non‐Personnel Costs $106,376 $91,378 ($14,998)
Subtotal $164,196 $134,714 ($29,482)
FTE Staff 0.35 0.35 0.00
Salary $64,516 $64,516 $0
Benefits $36,815 $16,404 ($20,411)
Non‐Personnel Costs $0 $870 $870
Subtotal $101,331 $81,790 ($19,541)
FTE Staff 0.90 0.90 0.00
Salary $270,505 $270,524 $19
Benefits $163,840 $263,407 $99,567
Non‐Personnel Costs $114,651 $215,223 $100,572
Subtotal $548,996 $749,154 $200,158
FTE Staff 3.30 3.30 0.00
Salary $68,540 $68,540 $0
Benefits $40,111 $13,772 ($26,339)
Non‐Personnel Costs $324,598 $290,275 ($34,323)
Subtotal $433,249 $372,587 ($60,662)
FTE Staff 0.70 0.70 0.00
Salary $55,830 $55,830 $0
Benefits $32,381 $11,732 ($20,649)
Non‐Personnel Costs $8,609 $14,329 $5,720
Subtotal $96,820 $81,891 ($14,929)
FTE Staff 0.75 0.75 0.00
Salary $68,623 $68,623 $0
Benefits $65,361 $66,800 $1,439
Non‐Personnel Costs $600 $2,334 $1,734
Subtotal $134,584 $137,757 $3,173
FTE Staff 1.23 1.23 0.00
Salary $564,384 $564,403 $19
Benefits $359,958 $379,081 $19,123
Non‐Personnel Costs $554,834 $614,409 $59,575
Subtotal $1,479,176 $1,557,893 $78,717
FTE Staff 7.23 7.23 0.00
Legislative Records Management
Administrative Citations
TOTAL DEPARTMENT BUDGET
City Clerk Budget Detail
Administration
Public Information
Council Support Services
Election/Conflict of Interest
5/15/2012
.
May 14, 2012
Honorable City Council
c/o City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Review of 2013-2017 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
At the meeting of May 9, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
completed its review of the 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determined
that the projects in the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion to determine that that 2013-2017 CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan passed on a vote of 6-0.
The Commission was particularly pleased with the efforts of staff to provide an analysis
of the relationship of CIP projects to Comprehensive Plan elements, the ranking of
projects in terms of Council priorities and staff’s responsiveness to PTC concerns from
last year. The CIP planning team has proposed to meet with the Commission in the
summer months to develop additional measures to analyze next year’s CIP compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. We will forward to Council these recommendations prior
to the start of work on the 2014-2018 CIP.
Respectfully submitted,
Eduardo Martinez, Chair
Planning and Transportation Commission
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
69 Contd. ***PRJ PF-93009
Americans with
Disabalities Act
Compliance 70 MND ARB, HRB x
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
C-32
70 Contd. ***PRJ PF-07002
Baylands
Interpretive Center
Improvement 75 EIR
PTC, ARB,
PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
71 Contd. ***PRJ PF-01003
Building Systems
Improvement 90 MND ARB, HRB x
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
72 Contd. ***PRJ PF-09000
Children's Theater
Improvements 25
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, HRB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
73 Contd. ***PRJ PE-09003
City Facility
Parking Lot
Maintenance 60
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
74 New ***PRJ PE-12017
City Hall 1st Floor
Renovations- NEW 30
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
75 Contd. ***PRJ PF-11001
Council Chamber
Carpet
Replacement 70
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
76 Contd. ***PRJ PF-15003
Cubberley
Auditorium Roof
Repalcement 65
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, HRB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
77 Contd. ***PRJ PF-13002
Cubberley
Mechanical and
Electrical Upgrades 75
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
78 Contd. ***PRJ PF-02022
Facilities Interior
Finishes
Replacement 65
Exempt
(Section
15301) HRB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
79 Contd. ***PRJ PE-14012
Jr Museum & Zoo
Improvements 85
Exempt
(Section
15301) PRC, PTC
Community Services
and Facilities, Land Use
Element C-9 c-18 L-61
C-17 c-19
C-19
C-21
C-24
C-26
C-32
80 Contd. ***PRJ PF-13001
Lucie Stern
Mechanical System
Upgrade 75 MND ARB, HRB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
81 Contd. ***PRJ PF-15002
Lucie Stern Theater
Electrical Systems
Replacement 70
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
C-32
82 Contd. ***PRJ PE-11000
Main Library New
Construction and
Improvement 85
EIR
Approved
in 2008
ARB, HRB,
LAC, PAC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-22 c-20
83 Contd. ***PRJ PF-05002
Municipal Service
Center
Improvements 85
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
84 Contd. ***PRJ PE-12004
Municipal Services
Center Facilities
Study 85
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
List of 2013-2017 CIPs with Comprehensive Plan Goals,Policies and Programs ATTACHMENT C
Page 1
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
85 Contd. ***PRJ PF-15000
Rinconada Pool
Locker Room 75
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-4 C-22 c-19
GC-5 C-24 c-27
C-32
86 Contd. ***PRJ PF-00006
Roofing
Replacement 75
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, HRB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
87 Contd. ***PRJ PF-06002
Ventura Buildings
Improvements 30
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
C-32
91 Contd. ***PRJ PL-04010
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Implementation
Project 100
EIR
Required PTC, CC Transportation Element GT-3 t-20
t-22
92 Contd. ***PRJ PE-13011
Charleston
Arastradero
Corridor Project 40
MND
Approved
on 2003 ARB, PTC Transportation Element T-25 t-41
T-34
T-40
93 Contd. ***PRJ PO-12001
Curb & Gutter
Repair 70
Exempt
(Section
15301)
City
Arborist
Review
Community Services
and
Facilities,Transportatio
n ,and Land Use
Element C-25 L-20 t-41
L-22
94 New ***PRJ PE-13017
EC Median
Landscape
Improvements-
NEW 45
EIR
Required
ARB,
CalTrans
Community Services
and Facilities,
Transportation and
Natural Environment
Elements C-25 c-19 N-17 T-41
c-33 N-19 T-42
95 New ***PRJ PE-12011
Newell Road /San
Francisquito Creek
Bridge
Replacement 65
NEPA and
CEQA
Required
ARB, PTC,
SFCJPA,
CEPA,
PAC
Transportation Element
and Land Use Element l-72 T-14
T-25
96 Contd. ***PRJ PL-00026
Safe Routes to
School 95
EIR
Required PTC Transportation Element T-34
T-40
97 Contd. ***PRJ PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs 97
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-21
C-27
98 Contd. ***PRJ PO-11000
Sign Reflectivity
Upgrade 92
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
99 Contd. ***PRJ PO-05054
Street Lights
Improvements 80
Exempt
(Section
15302) ARB Land Use Element l-79
100 Contd. ***PRJ PE-86070 Street Maintenance 80
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC
Community Services
and Facilities and
Transportation Element C-24 T-20
101 New ***PRJ PE-13014
Streetlights
Condition
Assessment- NEW 60
Exempt
(Section
15302) ARB, PTC Land Use Element l-79Page 2
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
102 New ***PRJ PE-13012
Structural
Assessment of City
Bridges- NEW 60
Exempt
(Section
15302) ARB, PTC
Transportation, Land
Use Element l-79 T-14
T-25
103 Contd. ***PRJ PO-11001
Thermoplastic
Marking and
Stripping 87
Exempt
(Section
15301) None Transportation Element T-20
104 Contd. ***PRJ PL-05030
Traffic Signal and
Its Upgrades 93
Exempt
(Section
15302) ARB, PTC Transportation Element T-38
105 Contd. ***PRJ PL-12000
Transportation and
Parking
Improvements 85
EIR
Required ARB, PTC Transportation Element GT-4
GT-6
106 New PE-13022
University Ave
Pedestrian /
Bicycle Underpass
Rehabahilitation
Exempt
(Section
15301)
ARB, HRB,
PAC
Community Services
and Facilities,
Transportation Element C-24 t-15
109 Contd. ***PRJ PG-06003
Benches,signage,fe
ncing, walkways
and perimeter
landscaping 48
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, PRC
Community Services
and Facilities,
Transportation Element C-24 c-19 T-22
C-26
110 New ***PRJ PE-13008
Bowden Park
Improvements -
NEW 58
Exempt
(Section
15301) PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-17
C-26 c-27
C-32
C-34
111 New ***PRJ PE-13020
Byxbee Park Trails-
NEW 40
Exempt
(Section
15301) PRC
Community Services
and Facilities, and
Natural Environment C-26 N-1 n-3
C-32
112 New ***PRJ PE-13005
City Hall/King
Plaza- NEW 38
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, PAC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
C-26
113 New ***PRJ PE-13007
El Camino Dog
Park- NEW 40
Exempt
(Section
15301) PRC
Community Services
and Facilities & Land
Use Element C-22 L-7
C-24 L-61
C-26
C-27
114 New ***PRJ PE-13016
El Camino Park
Expanded Parking
Lot and New
Restroom- NEW 60
CEQA
Required
ARB, PTC,
PAC, PRC
Community Services
and Facilities and Land
Use Element C-22 L-61
C-24
C-26
115 Contd. ***PRJ PE-12001
Golf Course Cart
Path and Road 55
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-19 c-1
C-24
C-26
116 New ***PRJ PG-13000
Golf Course Main
Line Irrigation-
NEW 58
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
C-26
Page 3
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
117 Contd. ***PRJ PG-12002
Golf Course Tree
Maitenance 56
None
Required
Arborist
Review
Natural Environment
Element N-14
N-16
N-18
118 New ***PRJ PE-13010
Greer Park
Renovations- NEW 58
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB, PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
C-26 c-27
C-32
C-34
119 Contd. ***PRJ PO-12002
LATP Site
Development
Preparation and
Security
Improvements 72
CEQA
Required PTC, ARB
Natural Environment
Element C-19 N-21
N-25
120 Contd. ***PRJ OS-09001
Off-Road Pathway
Resurfacing and
Repair 60
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC
Community Services
and Facilities,
Transportation C-24 c-19 T-22 t-19
C-25
C-26
C-27
121 Contd. ***PRJ OS-00002
Open Space
Lakes/Ponds
Maintenance 55
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC, PRC
Natural Environment
Element N-1 n-2
N-8
122 Contd. ***PRJ OS-00001
Open Space Trails
& Amenities 65
Exempt
(Section
15301) PRC
Community Services
and Facilities,
Transportation, Natural
Environment C-24 c-19 N-1 t-25
c-27 t-26
123 Contd. ***PRJ PG-09002
Park and Open
Space Emergency
Repairs 65
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC, ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
C-26
124 Contd. ***PRJ PE-06007
Park Restroom
Installation 50
Exempt
(Section
15301)
PTC, ARB,
PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-26
C-27
C-32
125 New ***PRJ PE-13003
Parks Master Plan-
NEW 85
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC
Land Use, Community
Services and Facilities
Element C-22 c-19 L-61
C-24
C-26
126 Contd. ***PRJ PE-08001
Rinconada Park
Improvements 60
Exempt
(Section
15301)
PAC, ARB,
PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24
C-26
C-32
127 Contd. ***PRJ PG-13001
Stanford/PA
Soccer Turf 74
Exempt
(Section
15301) ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-4 C-22 c-19
C-24
C-26
128 Contd. ***PRJ PG-06001
Tennis and
Basketball Court
Resurfacing 65
Exempt
(Section
15301) PRC
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-24 c-19
C-26
Page 4
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
129 Contd. ***PRJ PE-12002
Tree Wells -
University Ave.
Irrigation
Alternatives 33
Exempt
(Section
15301)
PAC, ARB,
PRC
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-14 n-17 L-22 l-16
L-23 l-21
133 Contd. ***PRJ FD-12000
ALS EKG Monitor
Replacement 75
None
Required
None
Required
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-1
134 Contd. ***PRJ AC-86017 Art in Public Places 35
CEQA
Exempt ARB, PAC
Business and
Economics, Land Use
and Transportation
Element C-23 l-19 t-41 b-3
l-28
l-70
l-72
135 Contd. ***PRJ LB-11000
Furniture &
Technology for
Library Projects
None
Required
None
Required
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-14
136 New ***PRJ FD-13000
Long Rang CCTV
Cameras- NEW 70
None
Required
None
Required
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-14
137 Contd. ***PRJ AS-10000
Salaries and
Benefits 0
None
Required
None
Required
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-1
GC-2
151 Contd. ***PRJ EL-06001
230 kV Electric
Intertie
CEQA
Required ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-44
152 Contd. ***PRJ EL-14000
Coleridge/Cowper
/Tennyson 4/12
kV Conversion
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Land Use & Natural
Environment Element N-44 L-79 l-81
153 New ***PRJ EL-13005
Colorado 20/21
Transformer
Replacement- NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
154 Contd. ***PRJ EL-89031
Communications
Systems
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Land Use and
Community Design l-81
155 Contd. ***PRJ EL-13000
Edgewood/Wildw
ood 4 kV Tie/
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-44
156 Contd. ***PRJ EL-05000
El Camino
Underground
Rebuild
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC Land Use Element l-81
157 Contd. ***PRJ EL-89028
Electric Customer
Connections
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-81
158 Contd. ***PRJ EL-98003
Electric System
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-81
159 Contd. ***PRJ EL-12002
Hanover 22 -
Transformer
Replacement
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 L-79 l-81
160 New ***PRJ EL-14003
Hanover 24/25
Substation Lineup
Install- NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 L-79 l-81
161 New ***PRJ EL-13004
Hansen Way/
Hanover 12kV Ties-
NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-44
162 Contd. ***PRJ EL-12003
Hopkins Substation
Rebuild
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 L-79 l-81Page 5
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
163 Contd. ***PRJ EL-12000 Rebuild UG Dist 12
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment,
Land Use and
Community Design N-44 l-81
164 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11003 Rebuild UG Dist 15
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-81
165 Contd. ***PRJ EL-13003 Rebuild UG Dist 16
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-81
166 Contd. ***PRJ EL-14002 Rebuild UG Dist 20
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-81
167 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11015
Reconductor 60kV
Overhead
Transmission
System
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC Land Use Element L-79
168 Contd. ***PRJ EL-13002
Relocate Quarry
Road/Hopkins
Substation 60kV
Line
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB Land Use Element L-79
169 New ***PRJ EL-13006
Sand Hill / Quarry
12k V Tie- NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Community Services
and Facilities, Land Use
and Natural
Environment Element C-24 N-44
170 Contd. ***PRJ EL-02010
SCADA System
Upgrades
None
Required UAC
Governance and
Transportation Element t-10 G-3
171 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11000
Seale/Waverley
4/12k V
Conversion
None
Required UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-44
172 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11014
Smart Grid
Technology
Installation
None
Required
None
Required
Natural Environment
Element N-44 T-3
173 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11002
St. Francis/
Oregon/Amarillo/
Louis 4 /12 kV
Conversion
None
Required UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Transportation
Element N-44
174 Contd. ***PRJ EL-10009
Street Light System
Conversion Project
Exempt
(Section
15302) HRB, ARB x
Natural Environment
and Transportation
Element N-44 T-39
175 Contd. ***PRJ EL-89044
Substation Facility
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-44
176 Contd. ***PRJ EL-89038
Substation
Protection
Improvements
None
Required UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
177 Contd. ***PRJ EL-08001
UG District 42
Embarcadero Rd
None
Required UAC, ARB Land Use Element l-80
l-81
178 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11009
UG District 43
Alma/
Embarcadero Rd
None
Required UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-80
l-81
179 Contd. ***PRJ EL-12001
UG District 46 -
Charleston/ El
Camino Real
None
Required UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-80
l-81
Page 6
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
180 Contd. ***PRJ EL-11010
UG District 47 -
Middlefield,
Homer, Webster
and Addision
Street
None
Required UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
and Land Use Element N-44 l-80
l-81
181 New ***PRJ EL-13007
Under Ground
Distribution System
Security- NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Community Services
and Facilities,and
Natural Environment
Element C-24 N-55
182 New ***PRJ EL-13008
Upgrade
Estimating System-
NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) None
Natural Environment
Element N-44
183 Contd. ***PRJ EL-06003
Utility Control
Center Upgrades
None
Required UAC, ARB
Community Services
and FacilitiesElement C-24
184 Contd. ***PRJ EL-04012
Utility Site Security
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) None
Natural Environment
Element N-40
185 Contd. ***PRJ EL-09004
W.
Charleston/Wilkie
Way to South City
Limit 4/12kV
Conversion
None
Required UAC, ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-44
189 Contd. ** PRJ FO-10000
Fiber Optic
Customer
Connections
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, ARB
Business and
Economics and Land
Use Element l-81 b-4
190 Contd. ** PRJ FO-10001
Fiber Optic
Network System
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC
Business and
Economics and Land
Use Element l-81 b-4
195 Contd. ***PRJ GS-03007
Directional Boring
Equipments
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
196 Contd. ***PRJ GS-02013
Directional Boring
Machine
None
Required UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
197 Contd. ***PRJ GS-80019
Gas Meters and
Regulators
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
198 Contd. ***PRJ GS-80017
Gas System
Extensions
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
199 Contd. ***PRJ GS-11002
Gas System
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
200 New ***PRJ GS-13002
General Shop
Equipments/Tools-
NEW
None
Required UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
201 Contd. ***PRJ GS-11000 GMR - Project 21
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
202 Contd. ***PRJ GS-12001 GMR - Project 22
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
203 Contd. ***PRJ GS-13001 GMR - Project 23
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
204 Contd. ***PRJ GS-14003 GMR-Project 24
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
205 Contd. ***PRJ GS-15000 GMR - Project 25
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44Page 7
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
206 Contd. ***PRJ GS-16000 GMR- Project 26
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
207 Contd. ***PRJ GS-03008
Polyethylene
Fusion Equipment
None
Required UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
208 New ***PRJ GS-15001
Security at Cty's
Gas Receiving
Stations - NEW
None
Required UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
209 Contd. ***PRJ GS-03009
Systems Extentions -
Unreimbursed
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
215 New ***PRJ WS-13004
Asset management
Mobile
Deployment- NEW
None
Required None
Natural Environment
Element N-44
216 New ***PRJ WS-13002
Fusion and General
Equipment /Tools-
NEW
None
Required UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-44
217 New ***PRJ WS-13003
GPS Equipment
Upgrad- NEW
None
Required None
Natural Environment
Element N-44
218 Contd. ***PRJ WS-09000
Seismic Water
System Upgrades
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
219 Contd. ***PRJ WS-02014
W-G-W Utility GIS
Data
None
Required UAC Transportation Element t-10 b-16
220 Contd. ***PRJ WS-11003
Water Distribution
Systems
improvement
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
222 Contd. ***PRJ WS-80015 Water Meters
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
223 Contd. ***PRJ WS-07000
Water Regulation
Station
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC, PTC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
224 Contd. ***PRJ WS-08001
Water Reservoir
Coating
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
225 Contd. ***PRJ WS-80014
Water Service
Hydrant
Replacement
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
226 Contd. ***PRJ WS-80013
Water System
Extension
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
227 Contd. ***PRJ WS-11004
Water Supply
Systems
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element
228 Contd. ***PRJ WS-11000 WMR-Project 25
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
229 Contd. ***PRJ WS-12001 WMR-Project 26
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
230 Contd. ***PRJ WS-13001 WMR-Project 27
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
231 Contd. ***PRJ WS-14001 WMR-Project 28
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-20Page 8
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
232 Contd. ***PRJ WS-15002 WMR-Project 29
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-20
233 Contd. ***PRJ WS-16001 WMR - Project 30
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-20
239 New
***PRJ WC-
13002
Fusion and General
Equipment- NEW
None
Required UAC
Land Use & Natural
Environment N-44
240 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
99013
Sewer Manhole
Rehab/Replacemen
t
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
N-25
241 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
80020
Sewer System
Extension
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
N-25
242 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
15002
Wastewater
System
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-19
243 New
***PRJ WC-
17001
WW Collection
Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project
30- NEW
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
244 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
12001
WW Collection
Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project
25
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
245 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
13001
WW Collection
Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project
26
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
246 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
14001
WW Collection
Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project
27
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
247 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
15001
WW Collection
Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project
28
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
248 Contd.
***PRJ WC-
16001
WW Collection
Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project
29
Exempt
(Section
15302) UAC
Natural Environment
Element N-18
251 Contd.
***PRJ WQ-
04011
Facility Condition
Assessment and
Retrofit
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Natural Environment
and Community
Services and Facilities
Element C-24 GN-4 N-25
252 Contd.
***PRJ WQ-
10001
Long Range
Facilities Plan
EIR
Required ARB, PTC
Natural Environment
and Community
Services and Facilities
Element C-19 GN-4 N-25 n-37
253 Contd.
***PRJ WQ-
80021
Plant Equipment
Replacement
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Natural Environment
Element N-25
259 Contd. ***PRJ SD-11101
Channing
Ave/Lincoln Ave
Storm Drain
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302) SDOC
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-36
Page 9
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
260 Contd. ***PRJ SD-06104
Connect Clara Dr.
Storm Drains to
Matadero Pump
Station
Exempt
(Section
15302) SDOC
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-36
261 Contd. ***PRJ SD-13002
Matadero Creek
Storm Water Pump
Station and Trunk
Lines
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302)
SDOC,
ARB
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-36
262 Contd. ***PRJ SD-10101
Southgate
Neighborhood
Strom Drain
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15302)
SDOC,
ARB, PRC,
PTC
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-36
263 Contd. ***PRJ SD-06101
Storm Drain
System
Replacement and
Rehabilitation
Exempt
(Section
15302) SDOC
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-36
272 Contd. ***PRJ VR-13000
Scheduled Vehicle
and Equipment
Replacement
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-41
271 New ***PRJ VR-12001
Evaluation and
Possible
Replacement of In-
Ground Vehicle Lift
at MSC
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Natural Environment
Element N-24 n-41
275 Contd. ***PRJ TE-99010
Acquisition of New
Computers
None
Required None Transportation Element t-10
276 New ***PRJ TE-12001
Dev Center
Blueprint Tech
Enhancements -
NEW
None
Required None
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-1 C-9
GC-2
277 New ***PRJ TE-13002
Employee Self
Service/Manager
Self Service
Enhancements -
NEW
None
Required None
Community Services
and Facilities Element c-11
c-12
278 New ***PRJ TE-13004
Infrastructure
Management
System - NEW
None
Required PTC
Community Services
and Facilities and
Governance Element GC-1 C-9 G-11
GC-2
279 New ***PRJ TE-13001
Interactive Voice
Response System -
NEW
None
Required None
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-2 c-12
280 Contd. ***PRJ TE-11001
Library Computer
System Software
None
Required None
Transportation and
Community Services
and Facilities Element GC-2 t-10
281 Contd. ***PRJ TE-06001
Library RFID
Implementation
None
Required None
Business and
Economics,
Community Services
and Facilities element c-12 B-16
282 Contd. ***PRJ TE-05000
Radio
Infrastructure
Replacement
None
Required ARB
Community Services
and Facilities Element C-9
283 New ***PRJ TE-13003
SAP Refuse Billing
Improvements-
NEW
Exempt
(Section
15301) None
Community Services
and Facilities Element c-12
Page 10
Page
Number
New /
Cont.
Project Project No. Project Title
Project
Ranking
Envt.
Review
Other
Reviews
Historic
Property
Comprehensive Plan
Element
CSE
Goals
CSE
Policies
CSE
Programs
NEE
Goals
NEE
Policies
NEE
Programs
LUE
Goals
LUE
Policies
LUE
Programs
TE
Goals
TE
Policies
TE
Programs
BE
Goals
BE
Policies
BE
Programs
GE
Goals
GE
Policies
GE
Programs
284 Contd. ***PRJ TE-10001
Utilities Customer
Billing System
Continuous
Improvements
Exempt
(Section
15301) PTC
Community Services
and Facilities Element c-12
Page 11
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
189 Contd. UTL ** PRJ FO-10000
Fiber Optic Customer
Connections Enterprise Fund Projects
Fiber Optics Fund
Projects $800,000 FY 2013-2017
190 Contd. UTL ** PRJ FO-10001
Fiber Optic Network System
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Fiber Optics Fund
Projects $1,200,000 FY 2013-2017
134 Contd. CSD ***PRJ AC-86017 Art in Public Places General Fund Projects
Miscellaneous
Projects 35 $250,000 None
137 Contd. ASD ***PRJ AS-10000 Salaries and Benefits General Fund Projects
Miscellaneous
Projects 0 $19,732,466 FY 2010-2016
170 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $500,000 FY 2009-2017
184 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-04012
Utility Site Security
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $675,000 FY 2004-2015
156 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-05000
El Camino Underground
Rebuild Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $300,000 FY 2006-2013
151 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-06001 230 kV Electric Intertie Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $200,000 FY 2006-2014
183 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-06003
Utility Control Center
Upgrades Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $475,000 FY 2005-2015
177 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-08001
UG District 42 Embarcadero
Rd Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $2,650,000 FY 2014-2016
185 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-09004
W. Charleston/Wilkie Way to
South City Limit 4/12kV
Conversion Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $550,000 FY 2008-2013
174 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-10009
Street Light System Conversion
Project Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $2,400,000 FY 2010-2014
171 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11000
Seale/Waverley 4/12k V
Conversion Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $400,000 FY 2015-2016
173 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11002
St. Francis/ Oregon/Amarillo/
Louis 4 /12 kV Conversion Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $450,000 FY 2015-2016
164 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11003 Rebuild UG Dist 15 Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $670,000 FY 2011-2014
178 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11009
UG District 43 Alma/
Embarcadero Rd Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $2,650,000 FY 2015-2017
180 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11010
UG District 47 - Middlefield,
Homer, Webster and Addision
Street Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $200,000 FY 2011-2013
List of 2013-2017 CIPs by Ranking, Fund Source and Project Type ATTACHMENT D
Page 1
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
172 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11014
Smart Grid Technology
Installation Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $10,000,000 FY 2014-2017
167 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-11015
Reconductor 60kV Overhead
Transmission System Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $1,750,000 FY 2011-2013
163 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-12000 Rebuild UG Dist 12 Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $1,080,000 FY 2013-2015
179 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-12001
UG District 46 - Charleston/ El
Camino Real Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $950,000 FY 2012-2015
159 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-12002
Hanover 22 - Transformer
Replacement Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $200,000 FY 2012-2013
162 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-12003 Hopkins Substation Rebuild Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $1,000,000 FY 2012-2015
155 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-13000
Edgewood/Wildwood 4 kV
Tie/ Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $450,000 FY 2016-2017
168 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-13002
Relocate Quarry
Road/Hopkins Substation
60kV Line Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $850,000 FY 2016-2017
165 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-13003 Rebuild UG Dist 16 Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $300,000 FY 2016-2016
161 New UTL ***PRJ EL-13004
Hansen Way/ Hanover 12kV
Ties- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $425,000 FY 2013-2014
153 New UTL ***PRJ EL-13005
Colorado 20/21 Transformer
Replacement- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $1,600,000 FY 2013-2014
169 New UTL ***PRJ EL-13006
Sand Hill / Quarry 12k V Tie-
NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $350,000 FY 2013-2014
181 New UTL ***PRJ EL-13007
Under Ground Distribution
System Security- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $900,000 FY 2013-2015
182 New UTL ***PRJ EL-13008
Upgrade Estimating System-
NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $300,000 FY 2013-2014
152 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-14000
Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson
4/12 kV Conversion Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $520,000 FY 2015-2016
166 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-14002 Rebuild UG Dist 20 Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $1,000,000 FY 2015-2016
160 New UTL ***PRJ EL-14003
Hanover 24/25 Substation
Lineup Install- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $5,100,000 FY 2014-2017
157 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $11,500,000 FY 2013-2017
154 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-89031
Communications Systems
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $690,000 FY 2013-2017
Page 2
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
176 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-89038
Substation Protection
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $1,400,000 FY 2013-2017
175 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-89044
Substation Facility
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $920,000 FY 2013-2017
158 Contd. UTL ***PRJ EL-98003 Electric System Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Electric Fund
Projects $12,200,000 FY 2013-2017
133 Contd. FIR ***PRJ FD-12000
ALS EKG Monitor
Replacement General Fund Projects
Miscellaneous
Projects 75 $360,000 FY 2012-2014
136 New FIR ***PRJ FD-13000
Long Rang CCTV Cameras-
NEW General Fund Projects
Miscellaneous
Projects 70 $65,000 FY 2013-2013
196 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-02013 Directional Boring Machine Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $598,850 FY 2012-2017
195 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-03007 Directional Boring Equipments Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $202,040 FY 2012-2017
207 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-03008
Polyethylene Fusion
Equipment Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $107,283 FY 2012-2019
209 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-03009
Systems Extentions -
Unreimbursed Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $924,675 FY 2011-2017
201 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $6,150,000 FY 2011-2013
199 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-11002 Gas System Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $1,102,746 FY 2012-2017
202 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-12001 GMR - Project 22 Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $3,200,000 FY 2012-2013
203 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-13001 GMR - Project 23 Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $3,782,000 FY 2013-2014
200 New UTL ***PRJ GS-13002
General Shop
Equipments/Tools- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $155,000 FY 2013-2017
204 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-14003 GMR-Project 24 Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $3,957,000 FY 2014-2015
205 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-15000 GMR - Project 25 Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $4,110,950 FY 2015-2016
208 New UTL ***PRJ GS-15001
Security at Cty's Gas Receiving
Stations - NEW Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $100,000 FY 2015-2015
206 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-16000 GMR- Project 26 Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $570,000 FY 2016-2017
198 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-80017 Gas System Extensions Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $3,803,600 FY 2012-2017
Page 3
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
197 Contd. UTL ***PRJ GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators Enterprise Fund Projects Gas Fund Projects $1,689,053 FY 2012-2017
135 Contd. LIB ***PRJ LB-11000
Furniture & Technology for
Library Projects General Fund Projects
Miscellaneous
Projects $1,200,000 FY 2012-2014
122 Contd. CSD ***PRJ OS-00001 Open Space Trails & Amenities General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 65 $689,000 FY 2000-2016
121 Contd. CSD ***PRJ OS-00002
Open Space Lakes/Ponds
Maintenance General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 55 $150,000 FY 2000-2016
120 Contd. CSD ***PRJ OS-09001
Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing
and Repair General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 60 $500,000 FY 2010-2016
124 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 50 $660,000 FY 2009-2017
126 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improvements General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 60 $1,300,000 FY 2013-2014
73 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-09003
City Facility Parking Lot
Maintenance General Fund Projects Building Facilities 60 $500,000 FY 2011-2017
82 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-11000
Main Library New
Construction and Improvement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 85 $2,848,500 FY 2011-2014
115 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-12001
Golf Course Cart Path and
Road General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 55 $292,000 FY 2012-2015
129 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-12002
Tree Wells - University Ave.
Irrigation Alternatives General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 33 $50,000 FY 2012-2013
84 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-12004
Municipal Services Center
Facilities Study General Fund Projects Building Facilities 85 $150,000 FY 2012-2013
95 New PWD ***PRJ PE-12011
Newell Road /San
Francisquito Creek Bridge
Replacement General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 65 $2,500,000 FY 2012-2013
74 New PWD ***PRJ PE-12017
City Hall 1st Floor Renovations-
NEW General Fund Projects Building Facilities 30 $1,210,000 FY 2012-2013
125 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13003 Parks Master Plan- NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 85 $350,000
112 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13005 City Hall/King Plaza- NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 38 $150,000 FY 2013-2014
113 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13007 El Camino Dog Park- NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 40 $260,000 FY 2013-2013
110 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13008
Bowden Park Improvements -
NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 58 $157,000 FY 2013-2013
Page 4
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
118 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13010 Greer Park Renovations- NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 58 $300,000 FY 2013-2013
92 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-13011
Charleston Arastradero
Corridor Project General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 40 $250,000 FY 2013-2016
102 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13012
Structural Assessment of City
Bridges- NEW General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 60 $150,000 FY 2013-2013
101 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13014
Streetlights Condition
Assessment- NEW General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 60 $200,000 FY 2013-2013
114 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13016
El Camino Park Expanded
Parking Lot and New Restroom-
NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 60 $960,000 FY 2013-2013
94 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13017
EC Median Landscape
Improvements- NEW General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 45 $176,000 FY 2013-2013
111 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13020 Byxbee Park Trails- NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 40 $250,000 FY 2013-2013
79 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-14012
Jr Museum & Zoo
Improvements General Fund Projects Building Facilities 85 $849,000 FY 2013-2016
100 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PE-86070 Street Maintenance General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 80 $19,668,175 FY 2012-2017
86 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-00006 Roofing Replacement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 75 $750,000 FY 2012-2017
71 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-01003
Building Systems
Improvement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 90 $500,000 FY 2012-2017
78 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-02022
Facilities Interior Finishes
Replacement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 65 $525,000 FY 2012-2017
83 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-05002
Municipal Service Center
Improvements General Fund Projects Building Facilities 85 $891,000 FY 2011-2015
87 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-06002
Ventura Buildings
Improvements General Fund Projects Building Facilities 30 $690,000 FY 2013-2014
70 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-07002
Baylands Interpretive Center
Improvement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 75 $267,000 FY 2015-2015
72 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-09000
Children's Theater
Improvements General Fund Projects Building Facilities 25 $1,640,000 FY 2012-2013
75 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-11001
Council Chamber Carpet
Replacement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 70 $80,000 FY 2013
80 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-13001
Lucie Stern Mechanical System
Upgrade General Fund Projects Building Facilities 75 $500,000 FY 2013-2014
77 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-13002
Cubberley Mechanical and
Electrical Upgrades General Fund Projects Building Facilities 75 $1,450,000 FY 2013-2014
Page 5
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
85 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-15000 Rinconada Pool Locker Room General Fund Projects Building Facilities 75 $300,000 FY 2015-2015
81 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-15002
Lucie Stern Theater Electrical
Systems Replacement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 70 $170,000 FY 2014-2015
76 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-15003
Cubberley Auditorium Roof
Repalcement General Fund Projects Building Facilities 65 $250,000 FY 2015-2015
69 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PF-93009
Americans with Disabalities
Act Compliance General Fund Projects Building Facilities 70 $500,000 FY 2012-2017
128 Contd. CSD ***PRJ PG-06001
Tennis and Basketball Court
Resurfacing General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 65 $150,000 FY 2011-2016
109 Contd. CSD ***PRJ PG-06003
Benches,signage,fencing,
walkways and perimeter
landscaping General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 48 $750,000 FY 2006-2016
123 Contd. CSD ***PRJ PG-09002
Park and Open Space
Emergency Repairs General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 65 $375,000 FY 2000-2017
117 Contd. CSD ***PRJ PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maitenance General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 56 $150,000 FY 2012-2016
116 New CSD ***PRJ PG-13000
Golf Course Main Line
Irrigation- NEW General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 58 $877,000 FY 2013-2013
127 Contd. CSD ***PRJ PG-13001 Stanford/PA Soccer Turf General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 74 $1,495,000 FY 2013-2016
96 Contd. PLA ***PRJ PL-00026 Safe Routes to School General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 95 $500,000 FY 2000-2016
91 Contd. PLA ***PRJ PL-04010
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
Implementation Project General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 100 $250,000 FY 2004-2016
104 Contd. PLA ***PRJ PL-05030 Traffic Signal and Its Upgrades General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 93 $1,075,000 FY 2012-2016
105 Contd. PLA ***PRJ PL-12000
Transportation and Parking
Improvements General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 85 $1,150,000 FY 2012-2016
99 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PO-05054 Street Lights Improvements General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 80 $720,000 FY 2005-2017
98 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 92 $250,000 FY 2012-2016
103 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PO-11001
Thermoplastic Marking and
Stripping General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 87 $250,000 FY 2011-2016
93 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PO-12001 Curb & Gutter Repair General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 70 $1,050,000 FY 2012-2017
Page 6
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
119 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PO-12002
LATP Site Development
Preparation and Security
Improvements General Fund Projects
Parks and Open
Space 72 $1,600,000 FY 2012-2013
97 Contd. PWD ***PRJ PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks 97 $3,934,551 FY 2007-2017
263 Contd. PWD ***PRJ SD-06101
Storm Drain System
Replacement and
Rehabilitation Enterprise Fund Projects
Storm Drainage
Fund Projects $3,130,000 FY 2006-2017
260 Contd. PWD ***PRJ SD-06104
Connect Clara Dr. Storm
Drains to Matadero Pump
Station Enterprise Fund Projects
Storm Drainage
Fund Projects $500,000 FY 2014-2014
262 Contd. PWD ***PRJ SD-10101
Southgate Neighborhood
Strom Drain Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Storm Drainage
Fund Projects $860,000 FY 2012-2013
259 Contd. PWD ***PRJ SD-11101
Channing Ave/Lincoln Ave
Storm Drain Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Storm Drainage
Fund Projects $3,110,000 FY 2010-2014
261 Contd. PWD ***PRJ SD-13002
Matadero Creek Storm Water
Pump Station and Trunk Lines
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Storm Drainage
Fund Projects $6,060,000 FY 2013-2017
282 Contd. IT ***PRJ TE-05000
Radio Infrastructure
Replacement
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $500,000 FY 2008-2016
281 Contd. IT ***PRJ TE-06001 Library RFID Implementation
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $215,000 FY 2009-2014
284 Contd. IT ***PRJ TE-10001
Utilities Customer Billing
System Continuous
Improvements
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $1,250,000 FY 2010-2016
280 Contd. IT ***PRJ TE-11001
Library Computer System
Software
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $150,000 FY 2012-2013
276 New IT ***PRJ TE-12001
Dev Center Blueprint Tech
Enhancements - NEW
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $802,401 FY 2012-2014
279 New IT ***PRJ TE-13001
Interactive Voice Response
System - NEW
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $200,000 FY 2013-2013
277 New IT ***PRJ TE-13002
Employee Self
Service/Manager Self Service
Enhancements - NEW
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $200,000 FY 2013-2014
283 New IT ***PRJ TE-13003
SAP Refuse Billing
Improvements- NEW
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $250,000 FY 2013-2013
278 New IT ***PRJ TE-13004
Infrastructure Management
System - NEW
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $300,000 FY 2013-2014
Page 7
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
275 Contd. IT ***PRJ TE-99010 Acquisition of New Computers
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Technology Fund
Project $375,000 FY 2013-2017
271 New PWD ***PRJ VR-12001
Evaluation and Possible
Replacement of In-Ground
Vehicle Lifts at MAC
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Vehicle
Replacement Fund
Project $350,000 FY 2012-2013
272 Contd. PWD ***PRJ VR-13000
Scheduled Vehicle and
Equipment Replacement
Internal Service Fund
Projects
Vehicle
Replacement Fund
Project $875,000 FY 2013-2013
244 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-12001
WW Collection Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project 25 Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $2,912,000 FY 2012-2013
245 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-13001
WW Collection Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project 26 Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $3,310,000 FY 2013-2014
239 New UTL ***PRJ WC-13002
Fusion and General Equipment-
NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $154,500 FY 2013-2018
246 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-14001
WW Collection Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project 27 Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $3,410,000 FY 2014-2015
247 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-15001
WW Collection Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project 28 Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $3,513,000 FY 2015-2016
242 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-15002
Wastewater System
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $1,126,000 FY 2011-2017
248 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-16001
WW Collection Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project 29 Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $3,610,000 FY 2016-2018
243 New UTL ***PRJ WC-17001
WW Collection Systems
Rehab/Aug. Project 30- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $350,000 FY 2017-2019
241 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-80020 Sewer System Extension Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $1,860,000 FY 2012-2017
240 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WC-99013
Sewer Manhole
Rehab/Replacement Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Collection Fund
Projects $3,152,000 FY 2010-2017
Page 8
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
251 Contd. PWD ***PRJ WQ-04011
Facility Condition Assessment
and Retrofit Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Treatment Fund
Projects $5,350,000 FY 2004-2018
252 Contd. PWD ***PRJ WQ-10001 Long Range Facilities Plan Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Treatment Fund
Projects $400,000 FY 2010-2012
253 Contd. PWD ***PRJ WQ-80021 Plant Equipment Replacement Enterprise Fund Projects
Waste Water
Treatment Fund
Projects $7,350,000 FY 1980-2050
219 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-02014 W-G-W Utility GIS Data Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $300,000 FY 2011-2015
223 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-07000
Water Regulation Station
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $600,000 FY 2015-2015
224 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-08001
Water Reservoir Coating
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $2,500,000 FY 2008-2015
218 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-09000
Seismic Water System
Upgrades Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $4,420,000 FY 2010-2014
228 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-11000 WMR-Project 25 Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $3,152,000 FY 2011-2013
220 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-11003
Water Distribution Systems
improvement Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $1,125,960 FY 2011-2017
227 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-11004
Water Supply Systems
Improvements Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $1,125,960 FY 2011-2017
229 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-12001 WMR-Project 26 Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $3,245,000 FY 2012-2014
230 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-13001 WMR-Project 27 Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $3,659,000 FY 2013-2015
216 New UTL ***PRJ WS-13002
Fusion and General Equipment
/Tools- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $159,180 FY 2013-2015
217 New UTL ***PRJ WS-13003 GPS Equipment Upgrad- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $200,000 FY 2013-2013
215 New UTL ***PRJ WS-13004
Asset management Mobile
Deployment- NEW Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $100,000 FY 2013-2013
221 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-14001 WMR-Project 28 Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $3,769,000 FY 2015-2017
232 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-15002 WMR-Project 29 Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $3,884,000 FY 2016-2017
233 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-16001 WMR - Project 30 Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $344,000 FY 2017-2018
Page 9
Page
Number
New /
Contd.
Project Dept. Project No. Project Title Project Fund Source Project Type
Project
Ranking
Total Budget
Request Timeline
226 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-80013 Water System Extension Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $2,253,000 FY 2012-2017
225 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-80014
Water Service Hydrant
Replacement Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $1,180,480 FY 2011-2017
222 Contd. UTL ***PRJ WS-80015 Water Meters Enterprise Fund Projects Water Fund Projects $1,180,452 FY 2011-2017
106 New PWD ***PRJ PE-13022
University Ave Pedestrian /
Bicycle Underpass
Rehabahilitation General Fund Projects
Streets and
Sidewalks $185,000 FY 2013-2014
Page 10
1
Attachment E
List of most cited Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY
GOAL C-1:
Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
GOAL C-2:
A Commitment to Excellence and High Quality Customer Service among City of Palo Alto Officials
and Employees.
PROGRAM C-12:
Encourage City work groups to examine and improve operating procedures.
POLICY C-9:
Deliver City services in a manner that creates and reinforces positive relationships among City
employees, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders.
SOCIAL SERVICES
POLICY C-19:
Continue to support provision, funding, or promotion of services for persons with disabilities
through the Human Relations Commission, the Parks and Recreation Division, and other City
departments. Support rigorous compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
POLICY C-22:
Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability
to the changing needs of the community.
POLICY C-24:
Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of
City infrastructure.
PROGRAM C-19:
Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities,
and keep these facilities viable community assets by investing the necessary resources.
POLICY C-26:
Maintain and enhance existing park facilities.
ACCESS
POLICY C-32
Provide fully accessible public facilities to all residents and visitors.
2
PROGRAM C-27:
Continue to implement Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements in City facilities including,
but not limited to, sidewalk curb cuts, building entrances, meeting room access and sight and hearing
adjuncts.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
URBAN FOREST
PROGRAM N-17:
Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees in parks, parking
lots, and City rights-of-way.
POLICY N-14:
Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation, and
a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource.
POLICY N-16:
Provide ongoing education for City staff, homeowners, and developers regarding landscaping and
irrigation practices that protect the urban forest.
POLICY N-17:
Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private
property.
GOAL N-4:
Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban
Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety.
WATER RESOURCES
POLICY N-18:
Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
POLICY N-19:
Secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto.
POLICY N-24:
Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary and
replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or parallel lines.
PROGRAM N-36:
Complete improvements to the storm drainage system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City's
1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified and
approved by the City Council.
POLICY N-25:
Reduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges.
ENERGY
POLICY N-44
Maintain Palo Alto’s long-term supply of electricity and natural gas while addressing environmental and
economic concerns.
3
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
REDUCING AUTO USE
PROGRAM T-10:
Expand the range of City services that can be received via computers or through the mail.
GOAL-T-3
Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling
BICYCLING AND WALKING
POLICY T-14:
Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public
facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal
transit stations.
POLICY T-20:
Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
ROADWAYS
GOAL-T-4
An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users
POLICY T-25:
When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users,
including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS
PROGRAM T-41
The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping,
medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce
traffic speeds.
• Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)
• University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)
• Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)
• Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way)
POLICY T-34:
Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize
these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices
among these measures.
TRAFFIC SAFETY
GOAL-T-6
A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets.
POLICY T-40:
Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect
school travel routes.
4
POLICY T-41:
Vigorously and consistently, enforce speed limits and other traffic laws.
SPECIAL NEEDS
POLICY T-42:
Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking
improvement projects.
LANDUSE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
CENTERS
POLICY L-22
Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an aggressive maintenance,
repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and
landscaping.
CIVIC USES
POLICY L-61
Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community
facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of
community services during both daytime and evening hours.
PUBLIC WAYS
PROGRAM L-72:
Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public
buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe
Creek and San Francisquito Creek.
POLICY L-79:
Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots
to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of
public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually
disruptive.
PROGRAM L-80:
Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street
tree root systems and planting areas.
PROGRAM L-81:
Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching
devices, and back flow preventers. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual
intrusion.
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Verbatim Minutes
March 14, 2012
EXCERPT
Study Session to provide early input on the City’s Preliminary Capital Improvement plan
CIP) for Fiscal Year 2013-17
10
11
12
13
14
Chair Martinez: Thank you. We are going to defer Oral Communications until the start of our
regular meeting at 6:30. We have one agenda item for our Special Meeting at this time and that
is an update on the progress of the Capital Improvement Program document and Staff is going to
provide a presentation of that. Steven.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services: Thank you Chair Martinez,
Commissioners. My name is Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services. With me I have
Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works up front and there is also Staff behind me that are Project
Managers for the various Capital Improvement Programs. As you are aware, we come to you a
couple of times in preparation of the document of the Capital Program to present you what is
being planned in a five year window. First I want to apologize because we had committed to try
to come to you in January as you may recall and we’re not coming to you until now March. I
wanted to give you a couple of other reasons of my excuses if you will. One being we’ve had
tremendous amount of turnover in my budget group and I have a new team almost there. I
thought I had it all until this week and I lost another member of the team but we’re getting there.
The second challenge we had was that as you are well aware we are challenged with the dollars
available for the program. We’re in desperate need for additional funding and obviously Project
Managers want to put in their two cents for the projects they felt they wanted and in January we
ended up having projects that exceeded the budget by over $4 million and the City Manager
wanted us to internally work through those projects and come in within budget so we didn’t want
to come in with a report that had projects that we knew were not going to go forward so for those
reasons we were delayed and so I just wanted to get back to you on that so you understand why
we’re coming back after you requested.
So the process that we undertake, a little bit of that. My group is responsible for calculating the
available dollars of the budget if you will for the fiscal year that is upcoming so the first year of
the five year cycle is what’s adopted. The other four are in concept. Mike and his team work
with the other departments to identify the needs for the organization and we work internally to
try to work within the rankings that you see or we can talk about it further within the report to
see what projects rise to the surface. There’s obviously a lot more need than money. The
decisions that we make are not too difficult because there’s not a lot of money. There’s a
concentration on a lot of maintenance of facilities. For example, streets have been our focus over
the last couple of years so we’ve increased that and then the planning folks with Steven and
others work on the Comprehensive Plan elements and put that together so that’s how we kind of
interact that together for this process.
I believe the slides have been put at your places now. The point that I wanted to make is to give
it a little bit of highlight as to where we are with the commitments that we made to you from
your June 8, 2011 letter to the City Council of things you wanted to see enhanced in this process.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
One of the things you requested is a list of all CIP projects. If you may recall the request was
that we want to see the total comprehensive view of the needs for the City so the IBRC finished
its report and there is a report that came with it that has this view of 25 years and so what we
want to do is if its of interest to you and I believe it is because that’s what you wanted, we want
to make this available to you electronically or if you want us to present this to you in a paper
format we can do that or both. We’ll take direction from you tonight and get that to you in
whatever format you wish to be presented to you.
This was a combination of work between the IBRC, Public Works Staff and ASD that was put
together. Let me turn it over to Steven Turner to address the bullet item 2.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Thank you Lalo. Steven Turner, Advance
Planning Manager. Chair Martinez and Commissioners, Planning is primarily responsible for the
second item with regards to your comment letter to City Council regarding improvements for this
fiscal’s year CIP and that is being able to sort the projects according to their applicable
Comprehensive Plan Element policy and program. What we’ve presented to the Commission
tonight as part of the CIP rough book is essentially a listing of the projects with the
Comprehensive Plan element that would apply to each project. That’s the stage that we’re at.
We are certainly progressing towards having all of the projects sorted by Comprehensive Plan
policy. As of yesterday when we met with the two Commissioners on the pre-Commission
meeting there was a desire for Staff to be able to present at this meeting a list of policies and
programs and the projects that would fall underneath these programs that would be supported by
those policies and programs.
The data on our excel spreadsheet was not easily sorted as we thought by Comprehensive Plan
policy so in about a 24 hour period Staff did a quick entirety but I think very effective analysis
with regards to the Comprehensive Plans policies and programs that most often show up as part
of each project and so what we’ve done, and you have a handout in front of you right now is
approximately a ten page list that lists each of the most commonly identified policies and the
programs within the rough book that fall underneath those policies. It’s not a complete list but in
the amount of time that we had to put this together our Staff focused on those policies that most
often show up. There are quite a few policies and programs that are only supported by one
project or one project supports only one Comprehensive Plan for the purposes of this meeting we
just focused on the ones that show up most often and so in the document if you just look at Page
1 it’s a pretty good summary of the format and structure. We list the policy up at the top and
then in the columns we list the project number, the title, the department and eventually we’ll
have the page number so that Commissioners and members of the public will be able to most
easily reference each project within the rough book or within the final document to get a better
understanding of the project and see how it would support that specific Comprehensive Plan
policy and program.
As you look through the document you’ll notice a theme of policies and programs that tend to
show up more often. It’s not surprising that those policies that are cited most often in the CIP
have to do with reinvestment in aging facilities in terms of design and construction with new
community facilities, maintaining existing facilities, finding new opportunities to develop new
parks and recreation facilities, providing fully accessible facilities to all residents and visitors.
Again, restoration and enhancement of community facilities so those show up most often in this
document here.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This really is not so much of a Draft but an incomplete listing of policies and programs that
apply to projects. As we continue our work, I think we accomplished a lot in 24 hours but as we
go forward and complete this work we’ll be able to provide the Commission with this data and
we won’t have to wait until next time we meet to discuss the CIP. As we finish this part of the
process, as we work with our colleagues in Public Works and ASD we can finalize that and get
that out to the Commissioners and public so they can review this in preparation for our May
meeting when we ask for a recommendation on the CIP plan.
So this is our first take of it. I’m relatively pleased with its outcome. There certainly are a
number of other factors we can track on this list as well and certainly if you have suggestions
with regards to other factors we can track on here we can take that into account and see how we
could incorporate that into here. So that responds to the need to be able to support policies and
programs and sort projects by policies and programs. Thank you.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Mr. Perez: You also asked us to review the prioritization of projects. In the Staff Report we
provided you, on Page 3 we gave you a brief summary that we looked into the International City
County Management Association and the California Society of Municipal Finance Office for
some guidance in trying to figure out what’s out there. What are some other agencies doing to
come up with their priorities? And so we have included them on pages 211 and 212 to give you
a summary of how we arrived at the prioritization for the process so if you wish after the
presentation in whatever order you want to go we can discuss that further.
You also asked us for maps showing locations of projects and status. I think what we’ve done
for the most part is shown you locations. We’ve been looking at different systems to see what
we can do to provide status. The ideal would be, and this is where Mike can jump in because I
don’t want to put him on the spot and commit him to things he can’t quite get into, but what
we’ve been looking at is how we use GIS so people can go look at it.
One of the things that we’ve done for example, and its Mike’s group that’s done it so they
deserve the credit in working with IT is a link for the Park library and you can view the status of
the project visually because there’s a camera link so people can see what’s going on with that
project so stuff like that is what I think we are interpreting you had in mind so we could give a
status and somebody could see what’s happening in the projects.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Turner: I can follow up on that. Planning is also playing an active role in the development
of new maps for the process. We recognize that a lot of the maps in the old plan were
inconsistent from each other. They were illegible. They didn’t provide a lot of useful
information so what our Staff is doing is working with ASD and Public Works Staff to make
sure the maps are consistent, that they’re readable, that they are at a scale that makes sense and
we feel that by the time the final document comes to you you’ll have a set of maps that is more
helpful than in the past. I wouldn’t say that they would be perfect but as the evolution of
improvements occur this is a good first step and future maps, if they are online, would be able to
have those links to GIS that it doesn’t have now but we’re working on it for the future.
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Perez: You had also requested a joint Study Session with the IBRC which occurred. Then
the waiting of the priority which we also did and that is included on Pages 209 and 210. What
are some of the things that we continue to work on and that we want to give you an update on,
we have three Council retreats scheduled in the next three months to continue discussions about
the IBRC recommendations. I expect that we are going to get further direction and clarification
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on some of those recommendations including how we enhance this process, whether it’s a new
Commission, added responsibilities to this or another Commission and changes are going to be
requested and one thing that they have requested already that the Finance Committee has is that
we add 2.2 of a catch up annually to our financial forecast, to our long range financial forecast to
the base model. The message there that they want to send is that we have to address this and
we’ll have to find a way to fund this on an ongoing basis so those are the types of decisions that
we anticipate coming from the Council as we go through these retreats to deal with this most
important subject and it all relates to the document and presentation obviously.
We need to finish the outstanding items that we highlighted. We are committed to that. In
addition to the policy decisions, I touched briefly on the look and feel. You have given us
direction or comments on what you would like to see and part of the feedback that I want to
suggest because I sense some frustrations over the years in how we interact as a Staff and
Commission, my feedback to you is the last process you undertook which was the letter of June
8th, 2011 work well for us because you outlined what you as a Commission felt was important
and then without Council direction, we felt it was important and you were making good
recommendations and you were addressing those and that format appeals to us because we were
able to respond to you formally and tell you what we can do, what we cannot do, what we are
deferring or tell the Council if you want us to do these things then these are the resources we’re
going to need or re-shifting of priorities, whatever it is.
I think that will help because we don’t want to leave you with the impression that we’re going to
address something from the individual comments and then we don’t want you to feel frustrated
because you mentioned something that we haven’t addressed. So we’re looking for a way to
bridge this for the Commission and Staff so we can have a little better response to you and to the
priorities that you set. With that, what I can do is give you an overview of what is in the
document or at your leadership we can handle it, whichever way you’d like.
29
30
Chair Martinez: I think an overview of the document might be in order.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Perez: In that case let me have you turn to Page 5 please. Page 5 is Attachment 2 which is a
summary of the budget basically, where we’re at. This gives you the sources and uses of funds
for the Capital Program for the General Fund. Basically what it’s reflecting here is the first
column is the adjusted budget so it’s the current 2012 budget since our focus is ‘13 I’ll skip to
that but if you have questions on ’12 we’ll come back to it. What we’re telling you is we expect
to have a budget of $19.4 million for projects, sources of funds for the projects. Of that, $2.8 is
bond finance. I highlight that because as you know we were able to get a general obligation
bond approved by the community for our libraries so that’s a unique funding situation and all the
other funding sources that are typical are outlined in here.
In terms of the projects that we are proposing to use, now I’m jumping below to the uses, its
$19.7 million in projects. So that is tapping into our reserve by about $340,000 and we expect a
projected reserve balance of $4.6 million which is not a lot of money and that’s part of the
challenge that I was describing earlier in my opening remarks. So the way you read this is going
forward the adopted in concept years, ’14, ’15 and all the way through ’17 you can see there is
roughly an average of about $15 million per year that we’ve identified in projects. This is of
course without Council direction based on the IBRC Report, any new sources of funding. This is
basically status quo prior to the IBRC.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Assuming this level of expenditure and funding it leaves us a reserve balance of about $2 million
in ’14. That is our projected number. The reason we want to have a balance of about that
amount as a target is in the discussions with the IBRC group they requested for us to look back at
the last five years and see how much in additional funding you need to come up with for things
that were unplanned. They call them pop up I think is the term the IBRC decided to use. So we
looked and the average was about $1.5 million during that period so I feel its important that we
have a balance of a couple of million dollars for that buffer for the things that come up and that is
the reason why we’re not going further in budgeting in ’13 at this point because we know we’re
going to need some of those funds in outer years. So as you can see it’s a pretty constrained
funding source that we have.
The main funding source is the transfers that we make from the operating budget to the capital
budget and that is the first part of the sources of funds and you see that that’s incrementally
increasing over time based on the Council policy to increase those funding sources but we know
that’s not enough so that’s a conversation we need to continue to have with the Council and the
community. Let me stop here in case there are any questions on the budgeting side.
18
19
20
Commissioner Michael: One question was in the Council direction to add an additional $2
million approximately, how was that reflected in this summary?
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. Perez: Good question. Let me clarify, in my summary there is the long range financial
forecast that presented to the Council has been it’s not a budget but a planning tool. So it would
not necessarily be incorporated into the budget until they give us direction so it’s more for
financial planning. Could they, during these retreats make a decision to make us add it to the
budget? They could. So its pending further direction is the answer. That’s why it’s not in here.
27
28
29
Chair Martinez: Okay Commissioner? Any other Commissioners? I want to recognize you
before you speak. Do you want to continue?
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Perez: Thank you. Attachment 3 is the view of the Capital Projects from ’13 to ’17 fiscal
years. The shaded projects are the new projects that were not there so my recommendation is if
you familiarize yourself with the document from last year your focus would want to probably be
on the shaded projects to understand what’s changed since the last time we came to you because
as you’ll recall we brought ’13 to you in concept and now we’re bring it to you as we believe its
going to be proposed to the Finance Committee.
From there we move to Page 11 and this provides you a summary of Capital Projects for all
funds so it’s not just the General Fund. There is a lot of emphasis on the General Fund because
of the fiscal challenges that we have but there’s other funds in the enterprise, Utilities and Public
Works and they are basically funded through their rate base so it’s a different approach. There
are some challenges in the water. We need to address our infrastructure there and Tom Marshall
from Utilities is here if you wanted to have more of a summary of the enterprise projects and
Utilities, Tom can give you that or Mike can talk about funds, storm drain wastewater and others.
You will see additional information coming forward through the discussions of the UAC,
Finance Committee and eventually the Council on some of the rate recommendations and the
drivers of that. Some of it will have to do with internal infrastructure work and others its going
to be external infrastructure work, San Francisco PUC, the Hetch Hetchy system and all of that
and that impacts our rates. It’s not really on the Capital but you hear about that as well so that
gives you a view for the funds.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The following pages give you the breakdowns by fund of what projects are being requested at a
summary level. Starting on Page 26 all the way through Page 207 is the individual project
description. I think the question for you is if this is something you are comfortable with because
part of the feedback that will be helpful for us is if we’re giving you something that’s not useful
to you that would be good to know too so we’re not giving it to you. What I was talking about
earlier about changing the format, we’re looking at this display view that we have. The IBRC
went to other agencies surrounding us and also talked to other agencies, not within our state, to
get some feedback on presentation and we got sufficient comments back on what areas they
would like to see change in the presentation so we have that in place. The Finance Committee
members have also had their comments on the presentation of the CIP so your comments are
welcome on the presentation as we go forward and prepare for changes next year.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Commissioner Keller: The biggest thing that would be helpful to me in terms of Attachment 4 is
starting on Page 13 that whole section would have a reference to the page number of the project
because looking at here and looking at a budget for example… Let me tell you the exercise I
tried to do. I went through this and noticed that PF16000 has a budget of 0 and so I’m
wondering why is there an entry with no budget at all so then what I did is where is PF16000 and
it was quite a challenge trying to find out having to look at another reference on that. Then I
went to the next one which is PE0610 which is on Page 14 a few lines down and what I found
were two entries, so if you go back there’s a reference to it in the previous sections which tells
me its on Page 70 so I looked on Page 70 of the document and I’ll basically see that there are
some projects here so what we’re basically saying is that these things when they come up as
specific projects they actually come up as their own CIPs instead of being on this one? So it says
Baylands Athletic Center, Cameron Park, Johnson Park Phase 2, is that meaning to me that when
these projects come forward they come under their own CIPs?
28
29
Mr. Perez: Let me get some help from Staff to see these.
30
31
32
33
Commissioner Keller: One thing more about that is if you look at Attachment 7 there is a budget
for this item and it’s referenced as being on Page 64 not on 70 so Attachment 7 and Attachment
4 the page numbers aren’t consistent.
34
35
36
37
38
39
Mr. Perez: Let me address the big picture first I think and then I’ll see if Darren Anderson can
help me with the park question. You’re absolutely right. We got to have a matching of the page
and the pagination has to be consistent. What I get out of your comments is that in our summary
of the projects on Attachment 4 it would be ideal to have the page number and we need to make
sure we’re consistent with the pagination.
40
41
Chair Martinez: One of your staff has a comment.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Darren Anderson: Yes I’m Darren Anderson, I’m the Division Manager for Open Space
Parks and Golf and just to address the question there is that general parks improvement CIP that
you referenced and it had several parks in there, restoration projects scheduled out four years in
advance and the past practice has been we would repopulate that CIP and then when the year
came up for example, the Bowden Park which is now due it moves into its own CIP.
In my last conversation with Elizabeth Ames who works with Public Works and helps facilitate
the CIP Process, we talked about doing away with the general CIP and just making them all their
6
1
2
3
own independent ones but I think that’s more discussion to come with Mike Sartor and Elizabeth
Ames and the CSD Staff.
4
5
6
7
Mr. Mike Sartor: Yes, Mike Sartor Public Works Director. If you look at Page 70 for the CIP
page there is no proposed funding so the plan is to eliminate this as a project and as projects are
identified they will be brought forward as individual Capital Projects.
8
9
10
Commissioner Keller: That’s helpful. Maybe another sentence or two indicating that these
projects, not only are they coming up on their own projects but this is a catch all if you will.
11
12
13
Mr. Sartor: What we’re planning to do Commissioner Keller is just eliminate this page in the
final document.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Commissioner Keller: So if you look at Attachment 6 there is actually a budget going forward in
the future so if you eliminate this entry, how will it be captured that there is a budget for these
things and then move forward? In some ways it seems to me that it makes sense to have this as a
project and say the budget line will be moved from one place to another but at least we can be
consistent with Attachment 7 where there is a future budget and Attachment 4 and the earlier
attachment where there isn’t a budget. One place there is and one place there isn’t.
21
22
23
24
Mr. Perez: That’s good feedback. We can work on that. What I’m hearing the Staff say is that
we are going from centralized to decentralized so we would split out the budget for the
individual projects in the ladder table.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Commissioner Keller: If I can make a suggestion, I don’t want to take up too much time on this
but it goes into something a little bit more fundamental which is that it makes sense to keep that
project in an ongoing budget thing with a dollar amount associated with it and then when the
individual projects get approved and there is a budget then the dollar amount gets moved from
one to another and this way you have a dollar amount in the budget as it shows up on Attachment
7 because otherwise when you have out years projects, for example you go to a 5th year project,
you don’t know which project you’re going to choose and if you don’t have the catch all budget
item you’re not going to have the budget amount associated with it and you’ll be under allocating
funds for future projects. So what I’m suggesting is that you actually do what you did in
Attachment 7, list out your numbers, indicate that the budget will be shifted to a new project
when it actually happens as opposed to listing all zeros. Is that a reasonable thing to think about?
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Perez: Yes absolutely and I’d like to make one other comment. As a result of the work of
the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission we have a spreadsheet that we plan to turn into a
database that actually lists all of our infrastructure and our catch up, keep up budgeted needs to
maintain that infrastructure. It’s several hundred and Mark can testify, its several hundred pages
and again as Lalo mentioned at the beginning of the presentation we will make that available to
you. It’s in the IBRC website and available to you so if you want to look at all the City’s
infrastructure and what the budget it that does exist now.
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think it will be helpful. When you’re deciding what project
to do five years out if you don’t have a catch all you’re going to miss that number. For example
if you look at OPE06100 which is in Page 59, on that one which is on Page 39 of Attachment 7
by the way, on Page 59 you haven’t identified which medians you are doing so in that one you
7
1
2
3
don’t have a place to put the placeholder for the future budgets so you got a problem with that so
that’s why the placeholder is helpful. Thank you.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Commissioner Michael: So it looks like you’ve done some excellent work here and I just want
to make a simple comment on the format of the write up for the CIP with respect to the effort to
prioritize the projects which I guess we might come back to later and talk about in more
substance but because you’ve made a good faith effort to apply factors and establish a rating and
thereby come up with a score for prioritizing I think it might be useful to put that into the write
up what score you’ve given it knowing its an estimate but also out of the total number of projects
let’s just say there’s a hundred projects, put the ranking that it has, it might have a score of 68
and it might be project 40 out of 92 or something but I think this would be important for the
public to understand because in an era of limits you have choices to make and if you want one
thing maybe you wouldn’t be able to afford everything so…
15
16
17
18
19
Mr. Perez: That seems very reasonable. Just so I’m clear on my commitment, some of these
changes we’ll be able to incorporate this year and some will be in place for the next year. What
you are requesting seems fair. It’s just because of the challenges that I have with new Staff and
trying to get it done but I don’t have objections to it.
20
21
22
Chair Martinez: Before we go further I’ll open the Public Hearing. I don’t have any speaker
cards but we’ll hold it for a while. Commissioner Tuma.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Commissioner Tuma: In the spirit of what you said Lalo before which was the format of the
letter kind of giving you something to work against I wonder how we capture things like the
request that Commissioner Michael just made. Do we want another letter? How do we keep
these things from maybe you don’t have the time or budget for this year but how do we keep
them, because I agree I think this letter has started a process that you can go back and look at and
we can go back and look at and report against? I’ll get into my comments but I don’t want to let
that pass because I think that was a really good idea and will be very helpful.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Mr. Perez: I agree because then the community knows what we’re thinking and the rationale. I
think the three of us here need to speak up for our areas of responsibility and what we feel we
can commit to and if we feel you need to put it on a letter we should state that to you so so far in
the feedback we don’t have a problem of capturing the notes and I and Staff will give you verbal
commitments in where we feel we need a letter because of the impact and we should let you
know that. Is that fair?
38
39
40
41
Commissioner Tuma: Yeah but I still think and maybe instead of us giving you a letter after this
meeting we get a memo back from you guys saying this is what we verbally agreed to just for
tracking.
42
43
44
45
Mr. Turner: I think we can take a look at the minutes, read through the minutes, take a look at
what you would like to see and submit in the next packet to the PTC our understanding of the
items that you’d like to see.
46
47
48
49
Commissioner Tuma: Great. That would be ideal. Okay a couple of specific things and then a
couple of general things. You had asked about the format of the contents for the IBRC Report.
As far as I’m concerned electronic is fine for now. If there is a need to have it printed out we can
go back but my preference is electronic.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
With respect to items two and three in the June 8th letter, first of all Steven I’d say I’m shocked
that you could get this document produced that quickly so thanks for doing that but the thing
that’s missing is the financial side. This was driven by wanting a cost summary so I think this is
great. We’ve now got it sorted by policy but I think we then need numbers and perhaps subtotals
under each of these policies because I think part of what we’re looking at here was are we
spending money consistent with the policies we think are important so I think that financial
summary is simply another column for subtotals but I think that’s what was driving these two
points and a similar kind of notation on the priorities so if you look at two and three one was
driven by Comprehensive Plan, one was driven by priority but it was the financial piece of those
that would be helpful not just to the Commission but for the Council and the public to realize
where is this money going against the Comprehensive Plan and our priorities.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Turner: I think that’s important as well. The challenge that we’re looking at is often times a
project may have more than one policy and so we haven’t gotten to the point that says 60% goes
to policy C22 and 40% goes to L41. We won’t have that level of detail and it might kind of
skew the amount shown under each policy because since we don’t have that breakdown of
dollars per policy in a multiple policy project say it might skew the numbers a little off and so we
would need to try to figure a way around that because I think we do want to show you the
financial aspect of it but we don’t want to give incorrect information.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Commissioner Tuma: That’s an extremely valid point which brings me to my next comment
which is a bigger picture comment and something Lalo had said before about the IBRC with
outside agencies. Have you looked outside for best practices? We’re kind of over the last five or
six years since I’ve been involved in the CIP, we give you guys ideas on how we think we’d like
to see the data because we think it would help us, the Council and public analyze it but the
overall arching issue that I’ve seen through this time is there’s a lot of data and not much
analysis. So I think the feedback that we’ve tried to give over the years is ways that we think of
analyzing the data. We want to analyze it in terms of its Comp Plan processes and we want to
analyze it by way of its priorities or analyze it by looking at a map. These are ideas that we have
but are there outside agencies or how do other cities do this? How do your peers go through this
process in working with Council and the Planning Commission? Are there types of analyses that
they do that would be helpful? We’ve given you our ideas over time but it strikes me that we’re
just six or seven people who don’t really have a background in this trying to give you ideas on
what analysis would be helpful.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mr. Perez: I think those are excellent observations. I think Steven can respond to this and I’m
willing to work with Steven and his group. When we met with the Chair and Vice Chair they
said it would be helpful if we give them a graph, a pie graph would be helpful that had what were
the elements that would be included for this five year so we could see official representation of
what was being addressed, not enough of this or too much of that. You’re going down the path
where the Council, the Financial Committee, the City Manager and myself expect us to go.
What I shared with the Chair and Vice Chair is my pushback has been my staffing so finally the
Council said here’s my staffing and they authorized the addition of Staff so that is part of what
we want to incorporate.
Some of the things the IBRC found in their discussions with other agencies that we want to
continue exploring is the timing and the cycle. It’s in I want to say a city in Ohio that I believe
one of the IBRC members contacted and they do it much earlier in the process so you don’t feel
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
rushed. It’s ahead of the operating budget and if you made the commitment ahead of time you
know what your targets are and you start the process on a different timeline and it’s not so
jammed. That appeals to me and I think where we’re going we’re going to have difficult
decisions and we may not get all the sources of funding but this gives the Commission or
wherever the responsibility lies ample time to do that and I totally agree with you that we need
that level of analysis so you’re making policies and decisions with better information because
I’ve heard you loud and clear. You throw in a lot of details but where’s the summary?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mr. Turner: And if I could just follow up what I envision is trying to visualize a lot of this data
as much as I can in a manner that I think is going to be useful for the Planning Commission and
members of the public so if they want to they can go through all 200 plus pages and look at the
specific programs that interest them but what I’d like to create is a two to three page document
that would show visually pie charts, just basic analysis where people can review this at a glance
and get a better understanding about the CIP process and the projects and how they fit within the
budget cycle and so I’ll look forward to continuing to work with Greg and Mark to help maybe
identify those visual concepts or those data sets that could be best described in a visual manner
that could then be placed upon a summary document.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Commissioner Tuma: That’s great. I look forward to the day instead of coming to these
meetings and this is what we’re given is this is the reference material. This is the back up for the
analysis. In addition to talking to these guys again reaching to the outside to see if there are best
practices elsewhere that will give us… We like to invent our own wheels here in Palo Alto but
there are a lot of other bright minds in other cities that would be able to offer some guidance.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice Chair Fineberg: I’d like to start by thanking Staff for their hard work. I can’t remember
who but one of you last year likened this process to an ocean going freighter and it moves really
slowly and I’ll speak for myself. Patience is not one of my virtues so I’m trying to be patient.
I’m seeing the ship moving in the right direction. I keep saying that but darn, I wish that ship
would just go faster. I appreciate that Council has allocated more resources. I think, I don’t
know how much is needed but I think that will allow us to get where we’re going and
considering that what we’re talking about, its kind of the City’s discretionary funding. It’s what
a family gets to choose where it spends its money. So much of the City budget is locked into
salaries have to be paid, utility monies have to go to utilities and this is the part of the budget
where we as a community get to make the decisions on what we value and what we’re going to
spend to accomplish that infrastructure improvement so its where the community should have
these conversations about the priorities.
Getting down to specifics, last year if memory serves me correctly, the systems that you used
that I don’t want to call it word processing programs or software systems, but I understood you
were hobbled by your ability to do facile analysis was hobbled by having the information across
several systems that didn’t communicate easily with each other so you couldn’t necessarily do
real quick sorts and listings. Mr. Turner also mentioned today that even though he may have
worked some magic in the last 24 hours, to get us this preliminary list by priority, it wasn’t as
easy as he might have thought. Where are you on having systems that allow you to track, report
and analyze?
47
48
49
Mr. Perez: I think there’s hope is the way I look at it because of cloud systems. The costs have
come down. When we looked at updating our SAP system to accommodate some of these things
that you are referencing it was just cost prohibitive. I knew that the Council would not approve
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
such recommendations from our perspective and so we are looking at different systems that will
help us because the IBRC made a recommendation that we get a system and I believe in that, if
this is where we’re putting our emphasis and this is the most important piece and where a lot of
our money is going to go we can’t afford to have it in an excel spreadsheet. It just isn’t going to
work.
So my Staff and IT Staff, we’ve started doing some demo reviews for different systems so we’ve
got to see how we can incorporate the elements into these systems because they’re hosted
systems, there’s less technical expertise required by Staff that’s more on the other side and we’re
seeing prices and quotes that are more recently in line where I believe the Council and
Committee will accept such recommendations and I think we need that. That’s what we need to
have because that’s what’s going to go back to Commissioner Tuma’s point. Where’s the
analysis? We need that tool to provide better analysis in a quicker manner because otherwise
we’ll still in that steam ship and not making a lot of progress. It is on our radar. We are working
on it and we’re not waiting on the Council recommendation on this. As a matter of fact they
were trying to get me to provide a cost figure and how many Staff members am I going to need
and Public Works or whoever is going to need to get this going and its just a little tour. We have
to do some more homework.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Vice Chair Fineberg: Super. Next year I’m going to be able to say that you’re on a solar
powered ship and not a bunch of guys trying to paddle upstream so I’m pleased with hearing
that. If I could ask you to turn to Attachment 6 which is your waiting priorities, can you
comment on whether you’ve done any analysis, even just studying the list and having emotional
reactions to it… I shouldn’t say emotional but preliminary reactions. I’m looking at the top of
the list and what I’m trying to get at is can you share with us whether you think the exercise of
rating them and ranking them by rating was a productive exercise? Did the results yield what
you expected or did it turn out that it didn’t matter that you did it because for instance, let’s say
whoever puts the Comp Plan priorities have 30 to choose from and uses all 30, then you’re going
to get a nice spectrum with heavy frequency on the ones that actually happen the most but if they
started instead with let’s say three Comp Plan programs and didn’t necessarily use the full spread
of the waiting criteria then it might have just, everything they said, health and safety, health and
safety, healthy and safety, it would dump it all in health and safety and everything would get a
score between 99 and 97. I’m exaggerating because that’s not what the spread was but can you
share with us your thoughts if you’ve done any analysis of the ranking system?
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mr. Perez: Let me take a shot at trying to respond to your question Commissioner Fineberg. I’m
looking at Page 211 and you’ll see across the right hand side of the spreadsheet for each project
is the waiting criteria that were scored so you’ll see health and safety is in the first column and
then city facility or infrastructure, does it impact City operations and the definitions for each of
these are on the prior two pages.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Vice Chair Fineberg: My question is correct but I misspoke and I was talking about sorting by
Comp Plan priorities and I meant to say the ranking priorities so ignore my question where I was
saying Comp Plan priorities because the ranking is by the four or five criteria in the waitings, its
just brain hiccup but the question is still, do you think the results of the ranking gave you useful
information?
48
49
Mr. Perez: Yes. It allowed us to prioritize projects on the basis of the criteria. It’s not directly
related to the Comprehensive Plan elements so if you study the spreadsheet you can see how
11
1
2
3
4
5
each individual project was scored and its in descending order from the Bicycle Pedestrian
projects being ranked the highest total score and then we go back all the way down to salaries
and benefits have zero weight so we find this to be very helpful in trying to determine which
projects should be accomplished in each fiscal year based on the money we have available.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mr. Turner: We try to have two views. Mike looks at it from a project perspective and also from
a capacity perspective even if it’s high ranking because right now, and he can speak to it, the
Mitchell Park Library is top priority then everything else falls under that. What was useful to
me, what we noticed, is that transportation was among the highest so that stood out and to me
that’s a good part of this exercise, that we’re walking the talk if you will even with the little bit
of money that we have that we want to address the changes and where we want to go with the
bicycle plans and some of the other projects and work repairs is up there high so I think it is a
helpful tool.
We’re going to have different opinions, even between Staff and you as a Commission and
Council because we’ll have different perspectives. When I look at things from a finance
perspective I have different recommendations that the Project Managers will have. Just the fact
that they submitted projects $4 million above what the target was is a good indication of that. So
it gives us a good dialogue internally to push back and have that discussion.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. The last question on this same thing goes into Attachment 7.
Let’s say for instance we have, I’ll just pick the top 10 priority projects for no particular reason.
So that would go the first third of the page. If we then jump to Attachment 7 and we can see a
quick look that the top 10 projects, the main library is a huge part, let’s stop right above there, its
going to be $2.5 or $3 million so are we spending our money in the same places as we’re having
the ranking system implying what’s the most important. Can we answer that from Chart 6 and
Chart 7? I don’t know that we need an answer today but that’s where when this comes back I
want to be able to look at, are we spending our money on what we believe our priorities to be?
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Mr. Turner: I think that’s a good point. Part of where I think the IBRC was going, the
recommendation that there be a single person responsible to be able to address questions like
yours and so they made a recommendation that the City Manager add a position to oversee the
program and be responsible. The buck stops with that decision and so that’s part of the
discussion that we need to have. From my view I think it works that way and its now how do we
demonstrate that and back it up with the factual details and the analysis.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Martinez: Before we go to our IBRC Subcommittee, Commissioners I wanted to do a little
follow up. I think in the rankings is one place where it would be helpful for everyone to see the
projects that you’re proposing not to fund. That if they appear high in the ranking and yet you
want to put them off for a year or two I think that would be helpful for us to see that broader
picture and if only there I think it would be helpful. I have some more comments but I’m going
to wait until Commissioner Tanaka and Commissioner Michael speak. I’d like to hear a little bit
when you make your comments Commissioners, how useful or what you would like to see in
your meetings with Staff as a Subcommittee and if there is more that we could be doing. Let’s
start with Commissioner Tanaka.
47
48
49
Commissioner Tanaka: Do you want us, actually Commissioner Michael and I kind of prepped a
little bit before this meeting and Commissioner Michael in particular had a really nice summary.
Should we start off with that first and then we can talk more about these general comments?
12
1
2
3
Chair Martinez: Yes absolutely. Commissioner Michael.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Commissioner Michael: So when Greg and I met earlier we considered the 250 pages that you
had given us and the work we had done with you throughout the process. Maybe to serve
purposes of context just so everybody has the same vocabulary, in the IBRC report there were
categories used for deferred maintenance repair which is catch up and current maintenance repair
which is keep up and then new replacement projects. As you noted, the Council has undertaken
or planned a series of meetings to discuss the recommendations in the IBRC report which might
include certain major projects, replacement of the Public Safety Building, expanding the
consultant city for the Municipal Services Center, planning for the Infrastructure Management
System beyond the massive spreadsheet that you have, the funding options, possible bond
measure tax increases possibly and then the task force of the school district looking at Cubberley
plans and options which is an important part of the City’s infrastructure.
Then obviously what you’ve presented us uses the IBRC categories and it appears that the vast
majority of the projects, 70 out of 87, involve maintenance and repair which is catch up and keep
up or both. There’s a fairly limited amount of projects that you’ve classified as other and those
other projects come in different categories within the City’s facilities. Buildings, streets and
sidewalks, parks and open space, miscellaneous, gas fund, electric fund, water fund, wastewater
and technology so that’s a good breakdown and makes a lot of sense.
One question Commissioner Tanaka and I had with respect to our Committee is what value we
might add to all your hard work and classically this might fall into did we lead, are we following
or did we get out of the way and mostly so far we’ve just gotten out of your way. The issue of
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of our feedback to you and obviously Steve
Turner is going to be giving us further information regarding the precise references, I would just
say that at the IBRC and now at the Planning Commission we’re cognizant of the different
timeframes. So your CIP program works on a five year period and the Comp Plan is a ten year
period and infrastructure planning presumably has a much longer scope, maybe 30 or 40 years
because of the useful life of the infrastructure assets so that disconnect may be something that
should be focused on as a potential trap for the unwearied going forward because it might just
step back and say the reason that the Council chartered the IBRC was because they recognized
the significant backlog of unfunded infrastructure needs possibly ranging up to $500 million so
IBRC was asked to look at if this was actually the case and there was more focus on a reduction
of the amount but what caused the backlog and how to avoid similar problems in the future and
just going to Commissioner Tuma’s questions about the really good assembly of data but maybe
a lack of analysis.
What you’re dealing with in the Capital Improvement Project Plan is fairly constrained, hugely
constrained. It’s just a drop in the bucket really. What you have is a budget for maintenance
repair and then a few unplanned projects, maybe a million and a half dollars so against the City’s
infrastructure needs this is just scratching the surface. One of the things missing from the
budgeting process and I know we discussed this at the IBRC. Its one of my favorite issues. I’ll
bring this up again and again probably but it might be helpful Lalo to your task if you had an
additional weapon. I think the weapon that you need is that infrastructure doesn’t last forever
and there’s nothing in here relative to the inevitable cost to replace the infrastructure that wears
out. If you when infrastructure is created or looking at what exists, if you look at it and make
some estimate of its remaining useful life and then use that to benchmark what might be a
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
reserve that would include the inevitability of the replacement need then you’d have a bigger
budget. You’d have a more meaningful budget and so the IBRC I guess the problem put before
the IBRC was what happened and what can be done so it doesn’t happen again so this estimated
remaining useful life and tying that to reserve for placement goes to having a tool that would
minimize the chance of significant unfunded backlog of half a billion dollars because stuff wears
out.
But going back to what our Committee did or didn’t do, I really want to acknowledge all the
meetings we had and the effort by Staff. We met with Director Williams initially regarding the
goals and then were communicated to Staff who cooperated with us. We met with all of you
including Jim Keene and others as sort of a kick-off to understand what your process would be
and then we had an interim follow up meeting with all of you. Maybe Mike was out of town for
that one but your manager came. Then we got the soft copy of the Draft CIP materials although I
personally didn’t give you any feedback at that point because I was feeling a bit overwhelmed.
We didn’t really have a chance to weigh in on prioritization or give you feedback as to projects
in relationship to the Comp Plan and that’s still per Steve Turner’s comments a work in process
or maybe something we can try and do better and more proactively next year.
I think the comment on prioritization from a number of the Commissioners is important to pay
attention to. The notion of there being a cutoff for things that can’t be funded this year I think
would be very helpful for the public to know what might come up next year and what projects
were considered but then ranked lower and therefore excluded. Just as an example we had at a
recent PTC meeting someone from one of the neighborhood groups at Crescent Park who talked
about possible exposure to flood damage if the Chaucer Street Bridge backed up, if there was a
significant problem there and there may be projects like the Chaucer Street Bridge that some
people would like to see is that on the list, or if it isn’t on the list how much would it cost and I
pay particular attention to the comments from the representative of the neighborhood association
because that wasn’t within the scope of what the IBRC looked at at least as I can remember.
That seemed to be an example of something that might be important.
Then I think one of the more controversial recommendations of the IBRC was that there might
actually be a new Commission devoted to infrastructure just because of the importance of this
and I believe this is controversial for a number of reasons. Commissions are expensive, there is
a lot of care and feeding involved and the cost of a Commission. So I think the PTC is
expressing a real desire to fulfill a very constructive role with respect to infrastructure and that
the CIP is part of that but its clear it’s a very small part of it so I think one of the questions that
Commissioner Tanaka and I have as a result of the work we did this season, as we go into this
process for next year, how can we do better so that we are not just looking at maintenance of
infrastructure, overlooking the useful life and the adequacy of the reserve overall which may
come out of the deployment of the new infrastructure management system and could provide
analysis and insight on those topics. Then we might be able to have a fully informed discussion
about how this relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the vision for the City and the policies and
goals that are set forth there. So I’ll turn it back over to Commissioner Tanaka who had lots of
excellent ideas as well.
46
47
Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka.
48
49
Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I think Commissioner Michael summarized it very well
and I think stepping back to look at the bigger picture, I think really the biggest value that the
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
PTC can add to the whole CIP process and its taken me a couple of years to get to that point as
well as serving in the IBRC is really to take the bigger picture and look at the longer term, bridge
the CIP as a five year budget cycle versus as Commissioner Michael said, infrastructure is 40
years or sometimes longer. How do we bridge it because right now I think the CIP is kind of cut
and paste of the last year plus some small tweaks and how do we get some of the big things that
are really important but aren’t urgent enough to make the cut right away and I think its
something that’s in the PTC’s purview to start thinking about these bigger things longer term and
wider ranging type things and try to perhaps work with Staff earlier in the process so right now
we’re making small tweaks, formatting changes, having this and that and there is some value
there to make it more readable. But the biggest value is when we can take some of these big
things.
One of the big things in the IBRC Report was to what to do with the MSC, Municipal Service
Center, site and how to optimize some of the assets that Palo Alto has and so stuff like that, the
big things that would never make it normally into the current CIP budget process. I think that’s
one of the big takeaways that Commissioner Michael and myself took from the meeting with Jim
Keene is this. Trying to look at the big picture and try to get the things that would not normally
get into the process into the CIP process. I think just to summarize on this idea is I think it’s a
chance for us to step it up a bit and after we’re finished with the 2013 CIP budget, that’s where
Commissioner Michael and myself are going to be focused on. It’s really trying to spend this.
It’s like the less urgent cycle of the year on these bigger, longer ranging things and I think this is
something the PTC can deliberate and have Study Sessions on and we have a bigger impact on
the CIP budget. Maybe not immediately but years to come.
With that thought, I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of these other smaller things which
first of all I think having in terms of formatting having the prioritization makes total sense to
have it on each one so I support that completely. In terms of having stuff electronically I think,
and I said this before at the IBRC but I think also here as well we’re in a very educated,
technically sophisticated community and what I saw some other communities do is they make all
the stuff electronic and its amazing when you make all these spreadsheets available for people,
people will do a bunch of stuff. They will analyze it so its crowd sourcing stuff.
I think there is one city in Southern California that put everything over $50 online and it did
wonders in terms of optimizing the budget because people in the community have a lot of time
and technical sophistication so trying to make more stuff electronic, especially stuff that can be
manipulated and calculated, so databases and spreadsheets are something which would help a
small percentage of people but they could do a lot of analysis and some of the footwork. It’s not
a substitute and I acknowledge the constraint you have on your Staff. I’m amazed you’ve pulled
off what you’ve done with the Staff turnover so I think that’s commendable but I think being
able to tap into the community would be a really good thing.
Back to the point about having this information more digestible. I agree we want to have more
analysis and this to be backup. I think that’s a big wish and one thing I mentioned at the IBRC
meeting was the concept of info graphic. How many people here are familiar with that concept?
Basically we have everything summarized on two pages, or maybe one page graphically and I
know that Tommy Fehrenbach had some ideas on that. It might be helpful even in this context
and just back to Attachment 5 and 6, on Attachment 5 on Page 209 and Attachment 6 on Page
211, I think this is actually kind of, for me this was really nice to have this prioritization. I think
in real world constraints it allows us to make choices and puts everything on the table. I think
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Attachment 6 really shows kind of like the return because what we’re looking for in the
community is a return on investment. Attachment 6 is really great because it tells us what the
return is, the benefit in terms of health and safety, facilities, etc., etc.
On Attachment 7 this is kind of our investment. I think the thing that is nice, and this is
something that can be done later is to put the two together somehow so we have a return on
investment. So we have a return on Attachment 6 right, all the benefits to the City somehow. I
don’t know how to do it though but conceptually you could think about it so you have the return
on what our investment is then we have the investment on number 6 and to put the two together
would be kind of neat where you see, not a dollar return on investment but some sort of made up
figure that we can kind of...
So anyways I think that’s about it so why don’t you go ahead. Thank you.
15
16
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Vice Chair Fineberg: I think that’s a fantastic idea and what you said made me realize there’s a
really easy way to capture that metric. If you go for let’s say Item 1 and you say that that has a
total points of 100 and you’re spending $50,000 so you can divide the two numbers and get a
single factor that says how many points per dollar you get and I know that’s kind of a skewed
number because maybe you did or did not get the ranking correct but if you get 50 points per
dollar, wow that’s a bargain compared to if you get two points for $100,000 so its just a single
column and divide the two numbers.
25
26
Chair Martinez: Okay Commissioner Keller, final thoughts.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Firstly, I think this is an improvement that I appreciate,
Attachment 6 and 7. I spent a few minutes studying Attachment 7 and I noticed a few interesting
things about Attachment 7. Other than things being shifted around such as dollars moved to
further years out, there is a City Hall renovation of $1.1 million which is a project that has 30
points out of 100 which seems relatively low priority. I’m wondering with that $1.1 million
what of higher priority might we have done instead of that $1.1 million? I noticed that for
example Charleston Arastradero Road, that project seemed to be zeroed out except for $250,000
in 2013 and so that project being eliminated, I’m not sure where that fits into the community’s
priorities and when the community realizes that that was budgeted and is no longer being
budgeted.
You talked about earlier the idea of City parks and open space and street median improvements
being zeroed out in the out years but that means you have no placeholder for that budget money
coming in individual projects so by zeroing it out you will have no budget amendments that you
are taking new money from something else to fund that so zeroing those out is not helpful for
being able to shift those into projects as they come along.
I notice in the other category things like Bicycle Pedestrian and Safe Routes are all into 2017 and
they seem to be continuing that budget for another year so maybe the idea is that the City Hall
first floor renovation is important for x, y, z reason but either the criteria don’t show that or that
is something that is not as high priority but think of it this way, if the Community knows that
we’re spending money beautifying City Hall as they might think it as opposed to doing it in “my
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
neighborhood” would the community be happy? That’s the kind of optics we have to be
sensitive to.
In terms of the prioritization I think this allows me to do the analysis which I think is very
helpful and if you included the other projects as well that we’re not funding and see where they
are in priority rank that would help us figure out whether we are funding the highest priority
items not just the ones that are on the list on Attachment 6. Thank you.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Chair Martinez: We only have a couple of minutes left. I heard Lalo say that there’s $2 million
in reserve for public projects and I’d like to ask you to spend a little bit of that and next time
maybe put these in binders. They’ll be a lot easier and we promise we’ll return the binders so we
can reuse them.
Steven I was very impressed with this. I didn’t think you could do it. My tip of the hat. The
main vehicle we have to give you feedback is the Comprehensive Plan and as I look at each and
every one of the proposed Capital Improvement Projects they all try to point to where they
comply with it but when a project says T1, T2, these are goals and I’ve said this before. It’s not
very helpful to have very sort of general directions to say this is why this project complies. It
might be useful Steven if you not only provide a copy of this to the department heads but maybe
a little interpretation of how to utilize the Comprehensive Plan and that goals do not help support
the project, somewhat let’s back off and usually for me its all in the policies as former
Commissioner Garber used to say back in the day. It expresses our values but in this case it’s
really the programs underneath the policies that support why this project is in compliance or we
should be supporting it in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. There may not always be a program
there and you may have to come back to it but in writing this memo to the department heads
Steven I would suggest to them, look at the programs, look for a program first that supports it
and then look at the policies. Don’t look at the goals and please stay away from the vision and
then we’ll really have something substantial in our responsibility to look at the CIP in a way that
really we can get behind.
Except for Commissioner Keller’s last comment about questioning the improvements to City
Hall I don’t think any of us had anything to say about the proposed projects that are included
here nor should it be our role to judge which one is better than the others from the point of view
of it costs too much or its long needed or we just did one of those last year. We trust you all to
tell us that’s what it is. It’s the public who is going to come forth and say well what about our
street repair, what about our resurfacing, what about Cubberley, what about this or that? So we
expect your public outreach to be robust enough that you’re going to receive those comments but
when it comes back to us we really need these priorities and the analysis that Commissioner
Tuma mentioned and these ways of helping look at sort of the future of our Capital Improvement
Program, not just what we want to do now but we think you’re probably close to being where
you want to be on that but really where are we going with that and so if you can come back to us
with those kinds of overviews I think that helps us greatly and helps us help you and thank you
all very much. Yes Lalo.
45
46
47
48
Mr. Perez: I just wanted to close the loop on a couple of items to make sure they were on the
same page as my opening remarks. My recommendation to you on Commissioner Michael’s
comments about identifying replacement costs, infrastructure and funding research I think that
would be an ideal item for your letter to the Council from my perspective because you’re
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
advising them and giving them your feedback as to what you think should be the priority as
they’re making their decisions and I think it takes on more weight if it comes from you to them.
I will follow up with Commissioner Tanaka and Fineberg to make sure I get the five and six
combination because I want to have more discussion with you before I commit. It sounds in
concept like something we can do but I want to make sure I understand. I think in terms of
prioritizing beyond the five years I think Mike needs to think about it and respond to it the next
time we come to you. I don’t necessarily think you’re ready to address that. I think everything
else we’ll summarize in our response of the summary of the minutes because I think you’re
giving us good feedback and I appreciate it. It’s a living document and it’s going to continue to
change. I expect to have a lot of good ideas come out of it. We’re excited about where we’re
heading and getting the resources to be able to address them sooner so thank you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Vice Chair Fineberg, you had one comment that I think
I was missing.
14
15
16
Vice Chair Fineberg: Yes. When talking about that letter I think keeping up a pattern is a great
idea. I think it would be most useful if that letter and please Commissioners if there’s
disagreement now is the time for us to all give input but I think it might be most useful if that
letter goes to Council after our May look at this because its still very much a work in progress
and I’m excited that you’re going to come back with tweaks so I don’t think we’re at a place
where we can be final in our comments to Council yet.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Keller: Very quickly I know that undergrounding districts have been a
controversy in the City but I’m wondering if Utilities has some criteria about how they pick
underground districts and in what order and maybe that could be made public. Thank you.
24
25
26
27
Chair Martinez: Thank you all very much. We’re going to take a half an hour break and we’ll
continue with the regular meeting at about 6:35 p.m. Thank you.
28
29
30
- 92 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PE-13007El Camino Park Dog Park NEW
EL CAMINO PARK DOG PARK (PE-13007)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2013
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Public Works
• Comprehensive Plan: POLICY L-7,L-61,C-22, C-
24,C-26, C-27
• Potential Board/Commission Review: Reviewed
by PRC
• Art in Public Places: Yes
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Environmental: This project is categorically
exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.
• Design Elements: This project has been reviewed
by PRC
• Operating: This project may increase maintenance
costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: The Project will result in the design and construction of a
off-leash dog area that is approximately 0.44 acres. The dog area is
designed as a low maintenance facility. The existing substrate, made up
of wood chips, would continue to serve as the substrate. Lighting is
already present. Perimeter fencing, several benches and a water fountain
are also an integral part of the design. Access to the off-leash dog area
comes from the existing bike path along Palo Alto Avenue.
Justification: Council, with input from the Parks and Recreation
Commission, approved the creation of a dog park in the northern end of
El Camino Park.
Supplemental Information: The dog park construction would coincide
with the construction of the Utilities Department’s El Camino Park
Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002).
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $10,000 $10,000
Construction Costs $250,000 $250,000
Other
Total Budget Request $260,000 $260,000
Revenues: $260,000 $260,000
Source of Funds:Development Impact Fees with the following reimbursements: Development Impact
Fees($260,000)
- 94 - City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
PG-13002El Camino Park Playing Fields and Amenities NEW
EL CAMINO PARK PLAYING FIELDS AND AMENITIES (PG-13002)
CIP FACTS:
• New
• Project Status: Design
• Timeline: FY 2013-2014
• Overall Project Completion: 0%
• Managing Department: Community Services
• Comprehensive Plan: Policies C-17, C-25; Goal C-4
• Potential Board/Commission Review: ARB, PTC,
and PRC
IMPACT ANALYSIS:
• Design Elements: This project has been reviewed
by PRC. ARB and PTC may need to review.
• Operating: This project is anticipated to reduce
annual maintenance costs.
• Telecommunications: None
Description: Construction of playing fields and park amenities at El
Camino Park to coincide with Utilities' water reservoir project located
under the park surface. Upon completion of the water reservoir project,
the park will be renovated. The playing fields will include a both a
synthetic turf field and a natural turf field. The amenities will include
new pathways, landscaping, storage building, fencing, picnic area,
lighting, bike racks, and various other park amenities.
Justification: This project addresses needs for playing fields. Council
approved funding through Development Impact Fees and project is
supplemented by Utilities water bond funds.
Supplemental Information: Funding for this project is from
Development Impact Fees approved by Council (CMR ID # 2411) and El
Camino Reservoir Project (CIP WS-08002) for park reconstruction.
FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total Funding
Pre-Design Costs
Design Costs $400,000 $400,000
Construction Costs $3,035,286 $3,035,286
Other
Total Budget Request $3,435,286 $3,435,286
Revenues: $3,435,286 $3,435,286
Source of Funds:Development Impact Fees with the following reimbursements: Development Impact
Fees($1,793,496); Water Fund($1,641,790)
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 1 of 5
Community Services Department Response to Questions
Posed by Finance Committee
at May 8, 2012 Meeting
Baylands Program
The educational programs provided at the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center currently
include year-round nature interpretive classes for both adults and youth, such as bird
watching as well as summer camps and wildlife camps for youth. During the academic
year the Baylands Interpretive Center offers classroom field trips with a focus on earth
sciences and ecology. In Fiscal Year 2011, a total of 3,857 students were served through
all of the classes and camps offered at the Baylands Interpretive Center, with the majority
of these students being youth.
The 1.0 FTE Producer of Arts/Sciences that is proposed for elimination in the Fiscal Year
2013 Proposed Budget is a position that is currently vacant. This position has had the
responsibility to staff the building to accommodate walk-in guests visiting the center, as
well as managing the coordination and teaching of the educational programs.
With the proposal for Santa Clara County or another non-profit agency to staff the
Baylands Center it is possible that similar educational programming would be provided.
In addition, there is the potential for the County or other service providers to provide
daily staffing to allow walk-ins, and utilize other city staff to continue to manage the
camps and classes for youth. The Community Services Department will be meeting with
representatives of Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation and Youth Science Institute
on Monday, May 21, 2012 to discuss specific options for continuing educational
programs. Further details from this meeting will be provided at the Finance Committee
meeting on May 29, 2012.
There are a number of ecology and environmental education programs that are currently
operated in cooperation with partnership agencies that would continue to be managed and
coordinated through the City. These include nature hikes led by city park rangers, as well
as programs offered by Save The Bay Santa Clara Audubon Society, Acterra,Youth
Community Service and the Environmental Volunteers (EVs).
The Rangers provide a wide variety of services ranging from park maintenance,
enforcement of municipal codes and park rules and regulations, wildland firefighting,
resource management, together with conducting some interpretive and volunteer
programs. The rangers work closely with the Environmental Volunteers, Save the Bay
and other partner environmental agencies.
The non-profit group, Save the Bay primarily focuses on habitat restoration projects at
the Baylands. They run the volunteer restoration projects, and incorporate environmental
education into all their programs.
Environmental Volunteers, whose offices recently moved to the old Sea Scout House in
the Baylands (now called the Eco Center) serves as a gathering place for environmental
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 2 of 5
education. The Environmental Volunteers describe it as “a hub on the peninsula for
community connections, a hands-on science center for the next generation of
schoolchildren, a starting-off point for Baylands hikers, and a resource for marshland
ecology education and the advancement of environmental stewardship in California.”
There are regular meeting between the EV’s, Save the Bay, and the Baylands Rangers.
They share information and work cooperatively to form a Baylands campus.
Trail Repair
Staff contacted Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and inquired about options
for partnering or contracting for trail service. Additional meetings would be required to
further explore the details of a potential partnership and to analyze any associated
additional costs.
Staff was able to obtain an estimated cost per mile for trail maintenance from
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District budget staff. The Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District has a total of 30 FTE employees dedicated to trail maintenance, and
with personnel and non-personnel costs included, they spend an average of $8,608 per
mile for trail maintenance.
This is more than four-times the expense that the City of Palo Alto currently spends on
contracted trail maintenance. The Community Services Department has no dedicated
employees for trail tread maintenance, and contracts for this service. The contract for the
maintenance of approximately 25 miles of trails at Foothills Park and Arastradero
Preserve cost $48,000 annually. This is an approximate cost of $1,925 per mile.
If the City were to raise the level of expense for trail maintenance to be comparable with
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, it would require an estimated $167,200
in additional funding for the 25 miles of trails.
Community Gardens
Water Rates
The Utilities Department staff has confirmed that the W4 water rate charged to the
Community Services Department (CSD) for the Community Gardens program is less
than the average Residential water rate. The Community Services Department is paying
the lowest non-residential rate (W-4) for the water to the Community gardens. In
comparison, CSD is charged the regular irrigation rate (W-7) for some of the City’s parks
and golf course, currently set at $7.86 per ccf (hundred cubic feet).
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 3 of 5
Rate Type
Hundred Cubic Feet
(ccf) Range Rate
Residential W1 – Tier 1 0 to 6 ccf $4.54/ccf
Residential W1 – Tier 2
(majority of PA households)
More than 6 ccf $7.06/ccf
Commercial W4
(rate charged to CSD for
Community Gardens)
All ranges $5.75/ccf
Commercial W7
(rate charged to other CSD
divisions)
All ranges $7.86/ccf
While the Residential W1 – Tier 1 rate is lower than the Commercial W4 rate charged to
CSD, the average residential usage in Palo Alto is 14 ccf of water. The majority of
households in Palo Alto are charged the Tier 2 rate.
The average cost for residential water for the average residential use of 14 ccf is $6.45.
This is derived as the total monthly charges for residential water service for 14 ccf of
$90.32 divided by 14 ccf. Total charges include $10 for residential service, plus $4.54 for
first 6 ccf and $7.06 for the remaining 8 ccf.
Trash and Compost Rates
There are three community gardens that have non-compostable trash and compost
services: the Main Garden, the Edith Johnson Garden, and the Eleanor Pardee Garden.
For yard (garden) trimmings, the Main Garden and Eleanor Pardee Garden each have a
permanent 20- cubic yard drop box that is emptied once per month. The Edith Johnson
Garden has four 96 gallon compostables carts that are serviced once per week. The total
cost for these services is $1488.70 per month, or $17,864.40 annually.
These rates are different from the ones charged to single family residents and multi-
family residents with individual refuse accounts. The key difference is that for
commercial customers, the City has specific rates that recover the cost of yard trimmings
collection and processing. The commercial sector includes businesses, city facilities,
multi-family residential with shared service (apartments), and non-profit
organizations. For residential customers, there is currently no separate charge for yard
trimmings (compostable waste). Instead, the overall refuse rates for the customer are
based on their garbage can size (for non-compostable waste) and this covers the yard
trimmings tote and composting.
Another difference is that yard trimmings from residential customers are delivered by
GreenWaste to the Smart Station in Sunnyvale, from there they are trucked to a facility in
Gilroy for composting, while yard trimmings from commercial customers are taken to
GreenWaste’s facility in San Jose and are considered part of the commercial
compostables program.
Staff in CSD and the Refuse Department are currently working with the gardeners to
explore alternative methods for haul-away that may reduce costs in future years. This
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 4 of 5
may include having hauling boxes only available during the quarterly “work party days”
instead of year-round.
Boronda Lake
Well Water
Using well water to fill Boronda Lake is still being investigated. The latest information
from the Santa Clara Valley Water District is that it is unlikely that a well will be able to
provide the amount of water necessary (54,000 gallons) on a daily basis to fill the lake.
In addition, preliminary estimates for the cost for building a well include:
$125,000 for drilling, piping, and installation
$15,000 for surveying for well locations
$5,000 for the pump
Unknown costs for permitting
Dam Seepage
In 1988, Public Works built a seepage recovery system to catch the natural seepage from
the lake through the base of the earthen dam. This is the pump below the dam. The
seepage gets pumped back into the lake. (There used to be a wet marsh from below the
dam where the seepage used to accumulate). This was installed primarily to lower the
water table at the foot of the dam to reduce liquefaction in an earthquake. The bonus is
that this seepage is pumped back into the lake and the water level does not drop as fast.
Without this recovery and dewatering pump, the lake water level would drop 1/3 to 1/2
inch daily.
Lawn Bowls Club
Staff has made an official request to the Palo Alto Lawn Bowls Club for financial data,
and has not yet received the requested information. The Community Services Department
has a follow-up meeting scheduled with representatives of the Club’s Board of Directors
on May 18, 2012 and anticipates obtaining this information as well as progress on
potential long-term financial solutions that would keep the lawn bowling program
sustainable.
A copy of the current rental agreement between the City and the Palo Alto Lawn Bowls
Club for the Club House is included as Attachment 4, which provides the detail on the
responsibilities for building maintenance as requested. This current lease specifically
excludes maintenance of the turf and landscaping. The new fee proposed by Community
Services would offset a portion of this $22,000 annual expense.
Additional Budget Solutions
Community Services staff is continuing to identify potential budgetary solutions and will
return to the Finance Committee with a more specific response on May 29, 2012.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 5 of 5
Some of the strategies CSD staff is investigating include the following concepts (in no
particular order or priority):
Reinstitute a vehicle entry fee at Foothills Park that would provide revenue
($117,000) and could also be used to offset trail maintenance and Boronda Lake
expenses
Reduce City-provided mediation services to only mandated landlord dispute
mediation and resolution.
Eliminate contracted weekend patrol services at Rinconada Park and Mitchell
Park (this eliminates the picnic table reservation service at these two parks)
($20,928)
Reduce customer service and recreation staff at the Lucie Stern Community
Center. There is currently a vacant 0.75 FTE Program Assistant proposed to be
eliminated and remaining customer service and recreation staff would be
reassigned to other facilities. The City will need to provide notice to SEIU
regarding this proposed elimination and review the impact of reassigned
work. Customers would register for classes and services at the nearby Art Center
or Junior Museum and Zoo.
($76,335 estimated FY2013 salary and benefits)
Move up the funding of the City-wide Parks and Recreation Master Planning
project from 2014 to 2013 in order to better determine community recreational
and park needs and priorities.
Investigate contracting out Rinconada Park Aquatic Center to a private vendor.
5/14/2012
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 8, 2012
2
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 8 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 10 Special Meeting Council Conference Rm.
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 15 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 22 Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm Muni Fees
May 29 Special Meeting Council Chambers Wrap Up Night
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 11 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 18 Special Meeting‐Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
Planning, IT Dept., HR, ASD, Printing and
Mailing Fund Budget Hearings, and
Employee Benefits
Police Fire
Public Hearing‐Utility Rates (Prop 218)
and Budget Adoption
Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund
CIP
Public Works‐General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP, and Parking District
Back Up
Budget Review and Public Hearing‐
Budget
2013 Budget Review Kickoff CAO, Council,
Library, CSD
FY 2013 Budget Hearings
3
FY 2013 General Fund Budget Gap
Proposed Operating Budget, p. xix
(in millions)
Beginning Gap (4/30) ($5.8)
Revenue adjustments 4.5
Revised Budget Gap (1.3)
Department reductions 6.6
Department augmentations (5.3)
Non-departmental & transfers (0.9)
Additional infrastructure funding (2.2)
Other 0.6
Less Public Safety Concessions 1.5
Proposed Budget ($1.0)
*Staff recommends $1.2M BSR draw
4
General Fund Overview
Proposed Operating Budget, pp. 31‐44
Proposed Budget
3.1% revenue
increase
3.9% expense
increase
Pension, $0.3M; Healthcare,
$0.3M; Retiree ARC, $1.9M
$1.0 million shortfall
$27.748 million BSR
balance, 17.6% of
proposed budget
General Fund Major Revenues
5
General Fund Revenue by Type
$150.9 Million
6
5/14/2012
2
7
General Fund Expenditures General Fund Expense by Category
$152 Million
8
9
Citywide Budget Summary
(in millions)
Operating Capital Total Percent
of Total
GeneralFund $152.0 $19.8 $171.8 36.5%
Enterprise Funds $263.1 $35.9 $299.0 63.5%
Total $415.1 $55.7 $470.8 100%
Capital Projects by Fund
$58.8 Million
10
1111
Enterprise Funds Overview
Proposed Operating Budget, pp. 47‐57
•Gas rate decrease – 10%
•Water rate increase – 15%•Refuse rate increase – varies, above reflects 32-gal can
•Wastewater Collection rate increase – 5%
•Storm Drain & Fiber Optics rate increase 2.9% (CPI)
12
Citywide Position Changes
Proposed Operating Budget, pp. 303‐319
FY 2012 Adopted FTE 1,016.60
Midyear Changes 8.25
FY 2012 Adjusted FTE’s 1,024.85
FY 2013Proposed Changes (18.5)
FY 2013 Proposed Budget 1,006.35*
*Includes 20 Frozen FTECitywide FTE in FY 2011 was 1,078.50 FTE
5/14/2012
3
13
Allocated Charges
Personnel Benefits
–General Benefits Internal Service Fund
•pension, healthcare
–Retiree Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC)
Allocated Charges
–Technology Fund
–Vehicle replacement & maintenance
–General Fund cost allocation plan
–General Liability costs
–Utility Usage
14
General Fund Citywide Changes
Personnel Benefit Increase, $2.3M
–Before position eliminations/freezes: pension, $0.3M; healthcare,
$0.3M; retiree ARC, $1.9M
–Savings from eliminations/freezes, $1.1M
–Change in allocation methodology, $0.9M
Personnel Benefits Decrease,
Allocated Charge Increase, $1.0M
–IT related, $0.9M
–Utility usage, $0.1M
Administrative Overhead Charge Revenue,
$1.2M
15
Questions
Finance Committee Budget Process
Proposed Budget FY 2013
16
City Auditor, Page 88
Citywide Changes : ($35,885)
Personnel Benefit costs decrease ($70,890)
Allocated Charge costs increase $35,005
Revenue : ($104,420)
Decrease in allocated revenue ($104,420)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
17
City Auditor (continued)
Expense : ($5,000)
Reduction of Peer Review Costs ($5,000)
FTE Changes : None
18
City Attorney, Page 79
Citywide Changes : $95,440
Personnel Benefit costs increase $44,737
Allocated Charge costs increase $50,703
Revenue : ($247,065)
Decrease in allocated revenue ($248,145)
Muni Fee Increase $1,080
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
5/14/2012
4
19
City Attorney (continued)
Expense : None
FTE Changes : None
Other Changes:
Increase Attorney Contingency Account
$125,000 (in non‐departmental)
20
City Clerk, Page 96
Citywide Changes : $27,198
Personnel Benefit costs increase $19,123
Allocated Charge costs increase $8,075
Revenue : $371,233
Increase in allocated revenue $371,233
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
21
City Clerk (continued)
Expense : $91,500
Election Publishing Costs $60,000
Council Meeting Video Broadcasts $20,000
Contract for Minutes $7,000
Records Storage $4,500
Election Costs – revised estimate provided at
wrap up
FTE Changes : None
Administrative Associate III position currently
vacant 22
City Council, Page 104
Citywide Changes : $103,350
Personnel Benefit costs increase $102,320
Allocated Charge costs increase $1,030
Revenue : $221,239
Increase in allocated revenue $221,239
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
23
City Council (continued)
Expense : $43,000
Council Appointed Officer Evaluations $41,000
Tablet Data Plan $2,000
FTE Changes : None
24
Library Department, Page 168‐176
Citywide Changes : $19,127
Personnel Benefit costs increasing $229,573
Allocated Charge costs decreasing ($210,446)
Revenue : $2,500, a 1 percent increase
Expense : $108,400
Increase technology service charges $66,500
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
5/14/2012
5
25
Library (continued)
Expense (continued)
Increase staff training $11,900
Increase contracts for strategic planning and
consultants $30,000
FTE Changes (one‐time): ($87,175)
Freeze 5.00 FTE (one‐time) ($297,048)
Increase 4.64 FTE Temporary staff $169,873
Increase overtime salaries $40,000
26
Community Services, Page 129
Citywide Changes : $952,453
Personnel Benefit costs increase $405,199
Allocated Charge costs increase $547,254
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
27
Revenue : $120,300
Lawn Bowl Fee to Users $10,000
Increase Community Garden Fee $30,000
Field Users to Pay Maintenance $100,000
Increase Cubberly Artist Rental $35,000
Revenue from Mitchell Park $40,000
Baylands Revenue Decrease ($94,700)
Note: Fees will be part of Municipal Fee changes discussed on May 29th
Community Services (continued)
28
Community Services (continued)
Expense : ($110,000)
•Summer Concert Series ($10,000)
•Art in Public Places Maintenance ($20,000)
•Baylands Park Maintenance ($15,000)
•Boranda Lake Water Reduction ($65,000)
29
Community Services (continued)
FTE Changes : ($109,602)
Eliminate vacant 1.0 FTE Producer
Arts/Sciences at Baylands ($121,724)
Eliminate vacant 0.25 FTE Producer
Arts/Sciences at Art Center ($23,441)
Mitchell Park Hourly Positions $35,533
30
City Manager, Page 108
Citywide Changes : $105,867
Personnel Benefit costs increase $57,903
Allocated Charge costs increase $47,964
Revenue : $548,852
Increase in allocated revenue $548,852
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
5/14/2012
6
31
City Manager (continued)
Expense : $12,500
•Media Center Filming $12,500
FTE Changes : $12,053
Add 1.0 FTE Chief Communications Officer
$140,000
Move 0.5 FTE Administrative Associate
($28,430)
Move 0.5 FTE Management Analyst ($47,517)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Temporary Staff ($52,000)
5/14/2012
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 10, 2012
2
FY 2013 Budget Hearings
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Monday, City Council 5pm
Apr 30 Council Retreat Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 8 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Budget Review
Kick‐Off
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 10 Special Meeting Council Conference Rm.
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 15 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee
Special Meeting
6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 22 Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm Muni Fees
May 29 Special Meeting Council Chambers General Fund‐Non‐Departmental
Wrap Up Night
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 11 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 18 Special Meeting‐Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
City Clerk (Cont. from 5/8/12), Planning,
IT Dept., HR, ASD, Printing and Mailing
Police Fire
Public Hearing‐Utility Rates (Prop 218)
and Budget Adoption
Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund
CIP
Public Works‐General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and related CIP, and Parking District
Back Up
Budget Review and Public Hearing‐
Budget
2013 Budget Review Kickoff CAO, Council,
Library, CSD
Presentation and Transmittal of FY2013
Proposed Budget ‐ Referral to Finance
Committee
3
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Planning and Community Environment,
Pages 177‐189
Citywide Changes: $430,960
Personnel Benefit cost $108,902
Allocated Charges cost increasing $322,058
4
Planning and Community
Environment (continued)
Significant Department Changes:
Significant Revenues: $1,256,024
Implement Development Center Blueprint
Process (BAO approved FY2012) $1,256,024
Significant Expenses: $993,508
Implement Development Center Blueprint
Process (BAO approved FY2012) $741,008
High Speed Rail contract support $150,000
SB375 contract support $100,000
5
Planning and Community
Environment (continued)
Comprehensive Plan contract support
$50,494 (one time)
Organizational study $70,000 (one time)
Reduce one‐time contracts from FY12
adopted budget ($567,333)
Increase Development Center rental costs
$449,339 (approved BAO and midyear)
6
Planning and Community
Environment (continued)
FTE Changes:
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate 1
($91,101)
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Senior Planner ($162,643)
Reclass 1.0 FTE Planning Mgr ‐> Chief Planning
Official $20,315
5/14/2012
2
7
Planning and Community
Environment (continued)
2.0 FTE Planners to Senior Planners $43,719
Add .50 FTE Management Analyst $69,780
Move .50 FTE Administrative Associate I from
City Manager’s Office $45,551
Add .25 FTE Management Specialist $36,400 –
temporary staff
8
PCE Budget Highlights
Goal: Create a Sustainable Community
through a Balance of Long‐Range Land Use
and Transportation Plans while being
Responsive to Emerging Community Issues
and Customer Needs
9
Sustainable Land Use
SCS/RHNA
Housing Element and BMR Housing /CDBG
Comp Plan Amendment
Area Plans (East Meadow, California Avenue)
and Rail Corridor Study
Infrastructure Support
PAUSD Demographic Projections and
Coordination
10
Sustainable Transportation
HSR/Caltrain/Bus Rapid Transit
Bicycle/Ped Plan and Implementation
Arastradero Corridor/Traffic Calming
California Avenue Streetscape
Safe Routes to Schools
Updated Traffic Model and Transportation
Element
Downtown and California Avenue Parking
11
Project Review –
Extensive Workload
27 University Ave.
Downtown Projects (Gateway, Casa Olga, etc.)
Cal Avenue (195 and 395 Page Mill Road, etc.)
Research Park Projects (VMWare, Lockheed, HP)
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford Shopping Center
Hotels (4‐5)
12
Enhanced Customer Experience
Development Center Blueprint
Increased Staffing and Space Needs
Fee adjustments to assure cost recovery
Explore zoning process w/PTC/ARB
5/14/2012
3
13
Budget Response
Increase in Development Center resources
Eliminating one senior planner and one
support staff
High Speed Rail
Contract funds: $150,000
+ 0.5 FTE Management Analyst
+ 0.25 FTE Management Specialist
Contract funds for SCS: $100,000
Enhancement to finalize Comprehensive
Plan: $50,000
14
Budget Response
With ever‐increasing workload and less
staffing, need to recognize extra efforts of
staff:
Reclass 2 of Planner positions to Senior
Planners
Current Planning Mgr to Chief Planning
Official
15
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Information Technology, Pages 177‐189
Citywide Changes: $(437)
Personnel Benefit cost ($241,731)
Exhibit B – retiree medical $106,264
Allocated Charges cost increasing $135,030
Significant Department Changes: $3,139,261
Revenue: $3,485,444
Technology Fee $724,000
Operating Transfer in $876,491
16
Information Technology
(continued)
Expense: $887,569
Contract support for Operations $276,750
Contract support for mobile applications
$75,000
Contract support for equipment and audio‐
visual $35,000
Licensing and backup $130,981
$70,000 contract support for IT projects
17
Information Technology
(continued)
TeamMate software $21,900
Increased training $44,280
Equipment costs $11,075
18
Information Technology
(continued)
FTE Changes: $227,196
Staff changes made midyear $255,673
Reclass 1.0 FTE Sr. Technologist ‐> IT Manager
$15,474
Add .48 FTE Temporary Staff Specialist $26,297
3.38 FTE Temporary staff expected to be
reduced by January 1 (not shown in budget).
5/14/2012
4
19
Human Resources Department, Page 144
Citywide Changes : $20,934
Personnel Benefit cost $16,383
Allocated Charges cost increasing $4,551
Revenue : ($65,336)
Decrease cost plan revenues ($65,336)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
20
Human Resources (continued)
Expense : $50,000
Increase citywide training $50,000
FTE Changes :
Increase 0.24 FTE hourly temporary staff
21
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Fund Changes
General Benefits Fund, pp. 299‐300
Expense: ($0.8M)
–Net pension decrease, $0.7M
–Net healthcare decrease, $40,000
–Admin fees & other benefits decrease, $52,000
Workers’ Compensation Fund, pp. 154‐156
Expense: $0.1M for Umbrella Excess Liability
22
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Fund Changes
Retiree Health Benefit Fund, pp. 301‐302
Expense: $3.1M
–Genera Fund: $1.9M
–Enterprise Funds: $0.7M
–Internal Service Funds: ($14,000)
Reallocate cost from ASD to IT Department
(Exhibit B)
23
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Fund Changes
General Liabilities Insurance Program, pp.
151‐153
Expense: $32,081
–Property loss & special liability insurance, $26,000
–Authority of CA Cities (ACCEL) admin fees,
$20,000
–Legal & audit costs, ($14,000)
Revenue: $32,081
24
Administrative Services, pp. 117‐125
Citywide Changes : $545,330
Personnel Benefit costs increase $622,020
Allocated Charge costs decrease ($76,690)
Revenue : $448,247
Administrative overhead charge increase
$448,247
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
5/14/2012
5
25
Administrative Services (cont’d)
Expense : $52,800
Institutional custody services $6,900
Budget document $26,300
Parking permits $16,000 (reimbursed)
Printing supplies $3,600
26
Administrative Services (cont’d)
FTE Changes : $267,440
Various reallocations
0.07 Admin Assistant $8,384 (from IT)
0.20 Asst Director Admin Services $43,872
(from IT and Fiber Optics Fund)
0.19 Senior Financial Analyst $29,223
(to/from various Enterprise, ISF, Capital)
Midyear FY 2012‐Add 1.0 Senior Financial
Analyst $153,806
Increase temporary salaries $32,155
27
Printing and Mailing Fund, pp. 126‐128
Citywide Changes : ($1,465)
Personnel Benefit costs increase $699
Allocated Charge costs decrease ($2,164)
FTE Changes : $15,381
Reallocate 0.10 Senior Financial Analyst
$15,381
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
28
Contact info:
Lalo Perez
Administrative Services Director/CFO
City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services Department
Ph: (650) 329‐2692
Email: Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org
URL: cityofpaloalto.org/asd
5/16/2012
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 15, 2012
2
FY 2013 Budget Hearings
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 15 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 22 Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm Muni Fees
May 29 Special Meeting Council Chambers General Fund‐Non‐Departmental, Special
Revenue Funds
Wrap Up Night
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 11 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 18 Special Meeting‐Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
Police Fire
Public Hearing‐Utility Rates (Prop 218)
and Budget Adoption
Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund
CIP
Public Works‐General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP, and Parking District
Back Up
Budget Review and Public Hearing‐
Budget
3
Public Safety Department, Page 190 ‐214
Merger of Police and Fire Departments
Interim organizational chart, page 191
Reorganization completion planned for FY2014
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
4
Police Department, Page 205‐214
Citywide Changes : $952,453
Personnel Benefit costs increase $1.08 M
Allocated Charge costs decrease ($191,735)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
5
Police Department, Page 205‐214
Citywide Changes : $952,453
Personnel Benefit costs increase $1.08 M
Allocated Charge costs decrease ($191,735)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
6
Revenue : ($1.42 M)
Mountain View Animal Services Contract Loss
July through October, ($300k)
Additional revenue loss from Animal Services
outsourcing, ($905k)
Revenue loss anticipated from staffing
reductions, ($43k)
Revenue adjustments to meet actuals, ($172k)
Police Department (continued)
5/16/2012
2
7
Police Department (continued)
Expense : ($2.5 M)
•Redeploy Staff to Patrol, ($1.13 M)
•Freeze 6.0 FTEs (line level staff)
•Freeze 1.0 FTE (command staff)
•Police Services Utilization Study, $80k
•Transfer of Track Watch Contract, ($70k)
•Outsourcing of Animal Services, ($1.38 M)
•Elimination of current Animal Services Costs, (1.88 M)
•Addition of outsourcing contract costs $500k
•Alternate recommendation by Policy & Services
Committee
8
Police Department (continued)
FTE Changes : ($3.27 M)
Elimination of 13.14 FTE from Animal Services
($1.60 M)
Freeze 6.0 FTE line level staff (one‐time),
($1.13 M)
Freeze 1.0 FTE Police Captain (one‐time),
($196k)
Reallocate 2.5 FTE administrative positions to
Fire Department, ($340k)
9
Police Department (continued)
Animal Services – Budget Outlook
FY2013 FY2014
FY2012 Net Cost $700k FY2013 Net Cost $1.2 M
Mountain View Revenue Loss $300k Achieve savings equal to contract option $500New Net Cost $1.0 M
Contracting Out/
Current Budget $500k New Net Cost $700
New Net Cost $500k
P&S Recommendation $300k Contract Option $500k
General Fund Impact $200k Additional Gap $200k
10
Police Department (continued)
Animal Services: Expenditure Option Staffing Impacts
Job Title FY2012Budgeted FTE Option 1Changes Option 2Changes Option 3ChangesAdministrative Specialist I -Hourly 0.48
Animal Control Off 4.50 (1.00) (2.00) (0.50)Animal Services Spec II 2.00 (1.00)Management Spec - Hourly Vet 0.10Management Spec - Hourly Vet 0.08Superintendent Animal Services 1.00Supervisor Animal Services 1.00 (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)Veterinarian 1.00 (1.00)Veterinarian Tech 2.00 (1.00)
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)Zoological Assistant -Hourly 0.48Animal Control Specialist (New
Classification)
0.00 1.00
Totals 13.14 (2.50) (3.50) (4.00)Expenditure Reductions $277,292 $372,530 $524,421Revenue Impact ($6,467) ($6,467) ($330,387)Net Savings to City $270,826 $366,063 $194,034
11
Fire Department, Page 193 ‐204
Citywide Changes : $952,453
Personnel Benefit costs increase $166,052
Decrease in benefits allocation from proposed
staffing reductions and concessions; increase in
retiree health of $911,296
Allocated Charge costs increase $260,439
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Changes
12
Revenue : $53,884
Ambulance Fee: $322,389
$186,000 from increased emergency medical
response (note 3); $136,389 to meet historical
trends
Development Center Revenue, $354,010
Municipal Fee Increase, $100,951
OES revenue clean up, ($40,420)
Stanford Reimbursement Impact from all
proposed changes, ($683,046)
Fire Department (continued)
5/16/2012
3
13
Fire Department (continued)
FTE Changes
•Temporary Position Changes, (1.48 FTE)
•Eliminate 1.48 FTE
Regular Position Changes, 3.5 FTE
Eliminate 9.0 FTE (SLAC)
Add 6.0 FTE (Emergency Response)
Add 3.0 FTE (Fire Study Recommendations)
Add 1.0 FTE Fire Inspector
Add 2.5 FTE from Police Reallocations
Freeze 6.0 FTE (one‐time)
Reduce Overtime, ($640k)
14
Fire Department (continued)
Expense : ($3.12 M)
•Station 7 Closure, ($1.45 M)
•Closure of station at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
(SLAC), initiated by Stanford (note 1)
•9 FTEs Eliminated ($1.4 million); Supply and Material
Costs ($52,516)
•Net cost after Stanford revenue off‐set, ($972k)
•Flexible Staffing, ($1.09 M)
•As a result of revised minimum staffing requirements,
implement flexible staffing model (note 2)
•Hold 6 FTEs vacant ($913,146); overtime reduction
($180,000)
15
Fire Department (continued)
Expenses Continued
•Increase Emergency Response, $532k
•Double response availability of Medic 2, and staff
with regular employees not overtime (note 3)
•Personnel Costs for addition of 6.0 FTE regular
employees $992,913
•Overtime reduction ($460,660)
•Net Cost is $241k
•Increased revenue from additional response
availability $186k; Stanford reimbursement
$104,915
16
Fire Department (continued)
Expenses Continued:
•Concessions from the International Association
of Fire Fighters (note 4), ($1.57 M)
•Fire Utilization Study Recommended Position
Changes (note 5), $208k
•Reclass EMS Coordinator to EMS Chief
•Add 1.0 FTE EMS Data Specialist
•Add 1.0 FTE GIS Specialist,
17
Fire Department (continued)
Expenses Continued:
•Reallocation of 2.5 FTE Police Department
Administrative Positions, $340k
•Other Changes, ($87k)
•Add 1.0 FTE Fire Inspector, $179k
•Eliminate 1.48 FTE temporary positions, ($166k)
•Freeze 1.0 OES Program Assistant, ($100k)
5/17/2012
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 17, 2012
2
FY 2013 Budget Hearings
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 17 Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 22 Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm Muni Fees
May 29 Special Meeting Council Chambers General Fund‐Non‐Departmental, Special
Revenue Funds
Wrap Up Night
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 11 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 18 Special Meeting‐Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
Public Hearing‐Utility Rates (Prop 218)
and Budget Adoption
Utilities and Utilities CIP, General Fund
CIP
Public Works‐General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP, and Parking District
Back Up
Budget Review and Public Hearing‐
Budget
3
2013 Proposed Citywide CIP
Projects by Fund
1
2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
1‐ Capital Project Fund (General Fund) ‐ 34%
2‐ Vehicle Replacement Fund ‐ 2%
3‐ Technology Fund ‐ 4%
4‐ Electric Fund ‐ 19%
5‐Fiber Optics Fund ‐ 1%
6‐ Gas Fund ‐ 13%
7‐ Water Fund ‐ 10%
8‐ Wastewater Collection Fund ‐ 8%
9‐ Wastewater Treatment Fund ‐ 4%
10‐ Storm Drain Fund ‐ 5%
4
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
Internal CIP Committee Process
CIP Committee began meetings in
November 2011
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
5
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
1
2
3
4
5
Total General Fund Projects ‐$19.8 Million
1‐ Buildings and Facilities ‐ 26%
2‐ Streets and Sidewalks ‐ 35%
3‐ Parks and Open Space ‐ 13%
4‐ Miscellaneous ‐ 8%
5‐ Salaries and Benefits ‐ 18%
6
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Total
SOURCES
General Fund Annual Capital Transfer 13,177,510 11,333,705 11,787,503 12,287,793 12,815,779 61,402,290
Interest Income 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 5,375,000
Project Reimbursements
Measure N Library Bonds*2,848,500 0 0 0 0 2,848,500
Local Agency 2,100,000 2,213,250 0 0 0 4,313,250
Gas Tax Fund 1,650,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 1,625,000 8,150,000
Development Impact Fees ‐Park 670,000 0 220,000 0 220,000 1,110,000
Charleston‐Arastradero Dev Impact Fees 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000
TOTAL SOURCES $21,771,010 $16,246,955 $14,707,503 $14,987,793 $15,735,779 $83,449,040
USES
Budgeted CIP Projects 19,789,937 18,351,994 14,580,005 13,480,980 13,248,776 79,451,692
Transfer to Technology Fund 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000
TOTAL USES $20,089,937 $18,351,994 $14,580,005 $13,480,980 $13,248,776 $79,751,692
SOURCE OVER (SHORT)1,681,073 (2,105,039) 127,498 1,506,813 2,487,003 3,697,348
Infrastructure Reserve Balance, beginning 4,597,599 6,278,672 4,173,633 4,301,131 5,807,944 4,597,599
Infrastructure Reserve Balance, ending $6,278,672 $4,173,633 $4,301,131 $5,807,944 $8,294,947 $8,294,947
Projected Infastructure Reserve
FIVE‐YEAR PLAN
*first bond issuance
5/17/2012
2
7
FY 2012 Accomplishments
Main Library Design
Civic Center Infrastructure – Bldg. Systems,
Exterior & Rest Rooms remodel
Art Center Renovation Construction
Highway 101 Pedestrian Bridge – Predesign
El Camino/Stanford Intersection Construction
Rinconada Park Master Plan
Magical Bridge Playground Design
Park Trails Maintenance
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
8
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects removed
or moved to FY 2014‐2017 from FY 2013
Adopted‐In‐Concept
Children’s Theatre Improvements (p. 72) –
design continued in FY 2013 $140,000;
construction shifted to FY 2014 $1.5 million
Cubberley Mechanical and Electrical
Upgrades (p. 77) – shifted to FY 2014
$150,000 and FY 2015 $1.3 million
Ventura Buildings Improv. (p. 87) – shifted
to FY 2015 $90,000 and FY 2016 $600,000
9
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
Highlights of Changes to CIP Projects (cont’d.)
Open Space Trails and Amenities (p. 122) –
FY 2013 funding of $150,000 removed as a
result of prioritization exercise
Rinconada Park Improvements (p. 126) –
shifted to FY 2014 $150,000 and FY 2015
$1.15 million
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor (p. 92) –
design in FY 2013 $250,000, construction
not planned until funding source identified
10
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
Amount Project Name
$725,000 Annual Sidewalk Maintenance Project (PO‐89003), p. 97
4,653,635 Annual Street Maintenance Project (PE‐86070), p. 100
157,000 Bowden Park Improvements (PE‐13008), p. 110
250,000 Byxbee Park Trails (PE‐13020), p. 111
1,210,000 City Hall First Floor Renovations (PE‐12017), p. 74
350,000 Curb and Gutter Repairs (PO‐12001), p. 93
300,000 Greer Park Renovations (PE‐13010), p. 118
2,848,500 Main Library New Construction and Improvements (PE‐11000),
p. 82
1,200,000 New Furniture and Technology for Library Measure N Projects
(LB‐11000), p. 135
250,000 Transportation and Parking Improvements (PL‐12000), p. 105
Highlights of Projects to be Initiated
or Constructed in Fiscal Year 2013
11
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission (IBRC)
Findings:
Annual maintenance (keep‐up) needs ‐$2.2
million
Deferred maintenance (catch‐up) needs ‐$4.2
million for the next ten years
New and replacement needs ‐$210.7 million
12
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission (IBRC)
Next Steps:
Current and proposed projects
11 catch‐up projects, 57 keep‐up projects
Increase annual transfer from GF by $2.2
million for keep‐up needs
Further review of IBRC recommendations by
City Council
5/17/2012
3
13
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
Changes to Proposed Document
Revise El Camino Dog Park (p. 113)
Add El Camino Playing Fields and Amenities
No change to El Camino Expanded Parking
Lot and New Restroom (p.114)
El Camino projects total $4,655,286,
funded by:
Development impact fees $2,503,496
Utility Water Bonds $1,641,790
Infrastructure Reserve $510,000
14
Proposed GF CIP Budget FY 2013
Questions
15
Proposed Technology Fund CIP
Budget FY 2013 (pp. 275‐284)
FY 2013 Total = $2.5 million
Key Projects
Development Center Blueprint Technology
Enhancements (p. 276) ‐$802,401
Infrastructure Management System (p. 278)
‐$300,000
Library RFID Implementation (p. 281) ‐
$215,000
16
Utilities Department, pp. 253‐294
Rate Adjustments
Electric– no rate change
Fiber Optics – 2.9% CPI adjustment
Gas – 10% decrease
Water – 15% increase
Wastewater Collection – 5% increase
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Summary
17
Proposed Budget FY 2013
18
Utilities Department, pp. 253‐294
Position Changes, net 3.0 FTE increase
Add 1.0 Inspector, Field Services ‐$125,722
Add 1.0 Utilities Engineering Estimator ‐
$147,214
Add 1.0 Business Analyst ‐$164,208
Add 2.0 Overhead Underground Troubleman;
Drop 1.0 Electrical Assistant I and 1.0 Heavy
Equipment Operator ‐$87,038
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Department Summary
5/17/2012
4
19
Electric Fund, pp. 264‐271 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $10.0 million
Higher load forecast ‐$6.2 million
Carbon Cap and Trade Program ‐$2.6 million
Increase income for Central Valley Project loan
repayment ‐$1.2 million
Offset by $1.2 million expense increase –
net zero impact to fund
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
20
Electric Fund, pp. 264‐271 (Operating)
Expense increase: $7.4 million
Increase energy efficiency programs‐$0.4
million
Increase rebates for photovoltaic program ‐
$0.3 million
Increase commodity purchases‐$1.9 million
Increase Central Valley loan repayment‐$1.2
million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
21
Electric Fund, pp. 264‐271 (Operating)
Expense (cont’d.)
Increase salaries and benefits ‐$0.4 million
Increase allocated charges ‐$0.4 million
Increase debt service ‐$0.5 million
Increase Capital Improvement Program ‐$2.2
million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
22
Electric Fund, pp. 147‐185 (Capital)
FY 2013 Expenditures: $10.9 million
Reconductor 60kV overhead transmission
system ‐$1.8 million
LED streetlight conversion ‐$1.2 million
Customer connections ‐$2.1 million
System improvements ‐$2.3 million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
23
Electric Fund, pp. 264‐271 (Operating)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
24
Electric Fund, pp. 264‐271 (Operating)
Based on Palo Alto’s median residential usage levels of 365 kWh/month in
the summer months (May‐Oct) and 453 kWh/month in the winter months
(Nov‐Apr)
FY 2013 proposed Palo Alto monthly median rate is unchanged
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
5/17/2012
5
25
Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 272‐275 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $0.2 million
2.9% CPI rate adjustment for rate schedules
EDF‐1 and EDF‐2
Expense decrease: ($0.3 million)
Decrease salaries and benefits – ($0.2 million)
Decrease Capital Improvement Program –
($0.1 million)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
26
Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 187‐190 (Capital)
FY 2013 Expenditures: $0.4 million
Network system improvements ‐$0.3 million
Customer connections ‐$0.1 million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
27
Fiber Optics Fund, pp. 272‐275 (Operating)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
28
Gas Fund, pp. 276‐282 (Operating)
Revenue decrease: ($5.3 million)
10% rate decrease
Lower market price
Change in procurement strategy from
laddering to market‐based pricing
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
29
Gas Fund, pp. 276‐282 (Operating)
Expense decrease: ($6.6 million)
Decrease gas commodity purchases – ($3.1
million)
Cross‐bore inspection program
One‐time funding FY 2012 $3.8 million
One‐time funding FY 2013 $0.5 million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
30
Gas Fund, pp. 191‐209 (Capital)
FY 2013 Expenditures: $7.8 million
Gas main replacement Project 21 ‐$6.2 million
Gas system extensions ‐$0.7 million
Gas meters and regulators ‐$0.3 million
Gas system improvements ‐$0.2 million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
5/17/2012
6
31
Gas Fund, pp. 276‐282 (Operating)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
32
Gas Fund, pp. 276‐282 (Operating)
Based on median residential usage levels of 18 therms per month in the
summer months (May‐Oct) and 54 therms per month in the winter months
(Nov‐Apr).
FY 2013 proposed Palo Alto monthly median rate is $49.67
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
33
Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 283‐287
(Operating)
Revenue increase: $0.6 million
5% rate increase
Change to winter‐based usage rates for most
commercial customers
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
34
Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 283‐287
(Operating)
Expense increase: $0.9 million
Increase wastewater treatment charges ‐$0.6
million
Update Sewer System Management Plan ‐$0.1
million
Increase Capital Improvement Program ‐$0.1
million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
35
Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 235‐248
(Capital)
FY 2013 Expenditures: $4.4 million
WWC system rehab/augmentation Project 25 ‐
$2.9 million
Sewer lateral/manhole rehab/replacement‐
$0.6 million
WWC system improvements ‐$0.2 million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
36
Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 283‐287
(Operating)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
5/17/2012
7
37
Wastewater Collection Fund, pp. 283‐287
(Operating)
Palo Alto residential charges are fixed monthly charges
FY 2013 proposed Palo Alto monthly rate is $29.31
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
38
Water Fund, pp. 288‐294 (Operating)
Revenue increase: $5.4 million
15% rate increase
Based on cost of service study
recommendations
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
39
Water Fund, pp. 288‐294 (Operating)
Expense increase: $2.0 million
Increase in water purchase costs from SFPUC ‐
$0.2 million
Increase for lease of emergency generators for
water pumps ‐$0.4 million
Increase in Capital Improvement Program ‐
$1.7 million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
40
Water Fund, pp. 211‐233 (Capital)
FY 2013 Expenditures: $6.1 million
Water main replacement Project 25 ‐$3.1
million
Seismic water system upgrades ‐$0.6 million
Water reservoir coating improvements ‐$0.5
million
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
41
Water Fund, pp. 288‐294 (Operating)
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
42
Water Fund, pp. 288‐294 (Operating)
FY 2013 proposed Palo Alto monthly median rate is $62.14
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Utilities Department Summary
5/17/2012
8
43
Questions
Proposed Budget FY 2013
5/24/2012
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 22, 2012
2
FY 2013 Budget Hearings
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 22 Council Chambers
Thursday, Finance Committee 6pm
May 24 Special Meeting Council Chambers
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm Muni Fees
May 29 Special Meeting Council Chambers General Fund‐Non‐Departmental, Special
Revenue Funds
Wrap Up Night
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 11 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 18 Special Meeting‐Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
Public Hearing‐Utility Rates (Prop 218)
and Budget Adoption
Public Works‐General Fund Enterprise
Funds (Storm Drain, Refuse, Wastewater
Treatment), Internal Service Fund and
related CIP, and Parking District
Back Up
Budget Review and Public Hearing‐
Budget
3
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Public Works Department, General Fund
Pages 215‐226
Citywide Changes: $629,437
Personnel Benefit cost $ 403,106 (page 225)
Allocated Charges cost increasing $226,331
4
Public Works (continued)
Significant Revenue Changes: $283,144
Plan Check Fees $103,600
Street cut fees (external) $65,000
Street cut fees (internal) $(54,600)
New construction permit $21,000
Encroachment permit $24,500
Street opening permit $77,000
Allocation revenue $46,644
5
Public Works (continued)
Significant Expense changes: $396,935
Custodial service for Mitchell Park facilities,
prorated $32,227
Building maintenance for Mitchell Park
facilities, prorated $19,932
Supplies for Mitchell Park facilities, prorated
$8,542
Canopy contract (approved midyear) $44,500
Asphalt and road repair supplies (approved
midyear) $25,000
6
Public Works (continued)
FTE Changes: 2.03 FTE
Add/Drop 1.0 FTE Tree Maintenance Person to
Project Manager $46,544
Reallocate .43 FTE from Enterprise to General
Fund $60,853
Reallocate 1.10 FTE from Enterprise to General
Fund (approved midyear) $129,438
5/24/2012
2
7
Enterprise Funds Overview
•Gas rate decrease – 10%
•Water rate increase – 15%
•Refuse rate increase – varies, above reflects 32-gal can•Wastewater Collection rate increase – 5%
•Storm Drain & Fiber Optics rate increase 2.9% (CPI)
8
Public Works, Refuse Fund,
Pages 226‐232
Revenues over expenses presented to Finance
Committee based on cost of service model:
$2.2 million
Revenues over expenses in Draft Budget
including Exhibit B modifications: $1.2 million
Difference between model prediction and
draft budget: $1.0 million
9
Citywide Changes: $(675,066)
Personnel Benefit cost $(243,785)
Allocated Charges $(431,281)
Significant Revenue Changes: $2.16 million
Increased fees and sales $2.3 million
–Of this, $0.85 million is due to proposed
rate increase effective 7/1/12
Increased operating transfers $321,712
Decreased reimbursements $(307,493)
Refuse Fund (continued)
10
Significant Revenue Changes (continued)
Other income $(151,800)
Significant Expense Changes: $(7.8 million)
Reduce landfill rent $(1.6 million)
Landfill closure CIP $(6.1 million)
Various other expense changes $(157,315)
Refuse Fund (continued)
11
FTE Changes:
Add/Drop 1.0 FTE Public Works Supervisor ‐>
Landfill Technician $(30,153)
Eliminate 4.0 FTE Refuse Disposal Attendants
$(169,072) for 2.0 FTE
Eliminate 4.0 FTE Heavy Equip Operator
$(220,217) for 2.0 FTE
Eliminate 1.0 FTE Heavy Equip Op‐Lead (FTE only)
Reallocations of positions to the General Fund
and other Enterprise Funds based on workload
$(172,369)
Refuse Fund (continued)
12
Reallocations of positions to the General Fund
and other Enterprise Funds based on
workload approved midyear $(214,364)
Refuse Fund (continued)
5/24/2012
3
13
Refuse Fund (continued)
Fund reserves ($000)FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013
Projected Projected ReserveBeginning FY 2013 Ending Guideline
Balance Changes Balance RangeRate Stabilization Reserve (3,852) 1,227 (2,625) 2,746 - 5,491
Landfill Corrective Action Reserve 665 0 665
TOTAL RESERVES (3,187) 1,227 (1,960)
Landfill Postclosure Care Liability (Note 1) 4,671 0 4,671
TOTAL RESERVES NET OF CLOSURE AND POST
CLOSURE LIABILITY 1,484 1,227 2,711
OPERATING RESERVE (RSR, net of postclosure care
liability of $5.17 million) 1,320 1,227 2,547Note 1: Landfill Postclosure Care Liability reflects the liability for post closure costs amortized over 30 years.
14
Public Works Department, Storm Drainage
Fund, Pages 233‐238
Citywide Changes: $349,097
Personnel Benefit cost $85,495
Allocated Charges cost $263,602
Proposed Budget FY 2013
15
Significant Revenue Changes: $76,585
Customer sales $85,610
2.9% change based on CPI
Investment Income $9,600
Operating Transfers $(18,625)
Significant Expense Changes: $823,000
CIP $825,000
Training $3,000
Storm Drainage Fund (continued)
16
FY 2013 Budgeted: $3.1 million
Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain
Improvements $1.6 million
Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain
Improvements $0.9 million
Storm Drain System Replacement and
Rehabilitation $0.6 million
Storm Drainage, Pages 257 – 263
(Capital)
17
Storm Drainage Fund (continued)
18
Proposed Budget FY 2013
Public Works Department, Wastewater
Treatment, Pages 239‐244
Citywide Changes: $285,334
Personnel Benefit cost $ 265,252
Allocated Charges cost $20,082
5/24/2012
4
19
Wastewater Treatment (continued)
Significant Revenue Changes: $1.4 million
Net Sales $864,033
Other Income $517,841
Significant Expense Changes: $2.7 million
CIP $2.6 million
Reallocation of staff $47,315
Chronic toxicity contract $32,100
Ash hauling services $50,000
Transportation and disposal of screenings
$(31,200)
20
Wastewater Treatment, Pages
249‐253 (Capital)
FY 2013 Budgeted: $2.6 million
Facility condition assessment & retrofit ‐$0.9
million
Long range facilities plan ‐$0.4 million
Plant equipment replacement ‐$1.3 million
21
Wastewater Treatment (continued)
22
Citywide Expenses:
Benefits: $29,729
Revenues:
Loan from the General Fund $310,000 (total
$610,000)
Expenses:
Legal contract support $15,000
Transition contract support $60,000
Public Works Admin. allocation $108,729
Public Works, Airport Fund,
Pages 245‐247
23
Expenses (continued):
Contracts for groundwater sampling and
monitoring, legal costs (approved midyear)
$176,000
FTE changes:
Add Airport Manager, prorated $88,452
City staff oversight (approved midyear) $1,433
Airport Fund (continued)
24
Airport Fund (continued)
5/24/2012
5
25
Public Works Department, Vehicle
Replacement Fund, Pages 248 – 252
Citywide Changes: $96,100
Personnel Benefit cost $40,286
Allocated Charges cost $55,814
Proposed Budget FY 2013
26
Significant Revenue Changes: $(265,865)
Sales $35,032
Investment Income $13,400
Allocation revenue $(314,288)
Significant Expense Changes: $1.3 million
CIP $1.2 million
Operations study contract $50,000
Vehicle Replacement Fund
(continued)
27
Vehicle Replacement Fund
(continued)
28
FY 2013 Budgeted: $1.3 million
Evaluation and possible replacement of in‐
ground vehicle lifts $0.4 million
Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment
Replacements $0.9 million
Vehicle Replacement Fund,
Pages 271, 272 (Capital)
29
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 22, 2012
5/29/2012
1
1
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 29, 2012
2
FY 2013 Budget Hearings
DATE DESCRIPTION TIME/LOCATION DEPARTMENTS ATTENDING
Tuesday, Finance Committee 6pm Muni Fees
May 29 Special Meeting Council Chambers General Fund‐Non‐Departmental, Special
Revenue Funds
Wrap Up Night
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 11 Council Chambers
Monday, City Council 7pm
June 18 Special Meeting‐Council Chambers
Budget Adoption
Public Hearing‐Utility Rates (Prop 218)
and Budget Adoption
Budget Review and Public Hearing‐
Budget
3
Municipal Fees (“User Fees”)
Proposition 26 (Nov. 2010) – “No Hidden
Taxes”
•User fees must reflect costs incurred
(directly or indirectly) in order to provide
the service or activity for which fee is
charged
Cannot exceed estimated cost but can be set
below full cost recovery level
4
Municipal Fee Revenues
FY 2009 Actual $15.9 mil
FY 2010 Actual $16.1 mil +1.5%
FY 2011 Actual $18.9 mil +17.4%
FY 2012 Adjusted $19.6 mil +3.7%
FY 2013 Proposed $20.1 mil +2.5%
FY 2009 – 2013 Change $4.3 mil +27%
5
$4.3 million increase
87% of revenue increase ($3.7 million) was
from permit or plan check fees (PCE, Fire, PW)
Increase driven largely by volume
•Permit/Plan check fee increases:
FY 2010: 2.2% fee increase (permits)
FY 2011: No fee increases
FY 2012: No fee increases
6
FY 2013 Fee Changes – Two
Phases
Phase I:
8% increase to most fees
•3% General Fund ‐
$570,000
•5% Technology Fund –
$724,000 in Proposed
Budget
Phase II:
Return with Cost of
Services Study ‐Sept.
2012
•Cost recovery
levels
•Industry guidelines
•Comparable fees
in other cities
5/29/2012
2
7
5% Technology Fee
$724,000 tech fee revenue in FY 2013
Proposed Budget:
•$450,000 Telephone Replacement
•$92,000 Employee Self Service
•$64,000 Radio Infrastructure
•$118,000 Future Projects
General Fund Revenue by Type
$150.9 Million
8
General Fund Major Revenues
9 10
11
Additional Budget Reduction Options
•Reinstitute vehicle entry fee at Foothills Park $117,000
•Eliminate contracted weekend patrol at
Rinconada and Mitchell Parks $20,928
•Reduce customer service staff at Lucie
Stern Community Center $76,335
•Reduce city‐provided mediation services
•Move up funding for city‐wide parks and recreation
master planning project from 2014 to 2013
•Investigate contracting out Rinconada Park Aquatic Center
to a private vendor
•
Community Services, pp. 129‐141
12
Revenue, $0.8M
–Cost of Service Study ‐anticipated muni fee
revenue, $0.4M
–Development Center – cost recovery for increased
rent, $0.4M
Expense ‐Salary & Benefits, $1.2M
–Police concessions, $1.5M
–Assumed attrition savings, $0.3M
–Fire Chief’s Association VMC, $21,000
–Benefits Allocation, $0.7M
General Fund Non-Dept, pp. 295-296
5/29/2012
3
13
Expense – Contingencies, $0.2M
–Human Resources (new), $50,000
–Special Events, $50,000
–City Attorney, $125,000
Transfers Out, $2.9M
–Infrastructure program, $2.2M
–Loan to Airport Fund, $0.3M
–Technology Fund, $0.6M
–Debt Service, ($0.2M)
General Fund Non-Dept, pp. 295-296
14
Community Development funds
Street Improvement funds
Federal and State revenues
Housing in‐lieu funds
Traffic Mitigation and Parking in‐lieu funds
Public Benefit funds
Downtown Business Improvement District
Special Revenue Funds
Pages 63‐72
15
Revenues:
Sales and Investments $1.26 million
Expenses:
Salary and benefit costs $807,482
Supplies $52,565
Contracts $399,725
Utilities $121,573
City share $196,506
Fund Balance: $0.7 million
University Avenue Parking
Permit Fund, Page 70
16
Revenues:
Sales and Investments $0.2 million
Expenses:
Salary and benefit costs $96,799
Supplies $7,855
Contracts $17,650
Utilities $18,166
Fund Balance: $0.4 million
California Avenue Parking
Permit Fund, Page 71
17
Committed in FY2012:
–Project Safety Net $65,000
–Design Review and Environmental Studies for 27
University Avenue $250,000
Proposed FY 2013:
Project Safety Net $228,000
Project Safety Net Coordinator $118,000
Supplies $20,000
Contracts $95,000
Stanford University Medical
Center, Page 72
18
Wrap‐up discussion of outstanding issues
Items requiring action
–Withdraw Fire Admin Assoc II reclass
Pending staff requests
–Loan to Airport Fund, $0.3M – draw from BSR
–Technology CIPs, $0.8M – draw from BSR
Recommendation by the Finance Committee
of the proposed budget, including
amendments, to City Council
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
5/29/2012
4
19
City Manager’s Proposed Budget
Finance Committee
May 29, 2012
Finance Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 23
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Price, Scharff, Shepherd (Chair)
Absent: Burt
Oral Communications
None
Sr. Financial Analyst, Christine Paras reported the first At‐Places memo from the
Administrative Services Department (ASD) referred to an email from the
Cubberley artists and outlined agreements to increase rent for a cumulative
increase for Fiscal Year 2013 of $17,868. Palo Alto residents would pay $0.80 per
square foot for rent, and non‐residents would pay $0.88 per square foot. The
second At‐Places memo from the Storm Drain Oversight Committee contained a
review of the Storm Drain Fund Budget. The review compared the 2013 Budget
to the ballot measure.
Chair Shepherd noticed changes to the Public Works Department Budget, and
asked if they would be discussed as the Finance Committee moved through the
Budget.
Ms. Paras answered yes.
Agenda Items
1. Public Works
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
a. General Fund (Operating pp. 215‐225)
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras noted the At‐Places memo outlined several
changes to the General Fund Budget, resulting in a net decrease of expenditures
totaling $29,899. Items 1, 2 and 3 of the changes were related to the Mitchell
Park Library and Community Center. The Proposed Budget included $90,600 in
expenditures for custodial, maintenance and related supplies for Mitchell Park
facilities. Since the opening of the Community Center and Library was scheduled
for spring 2013, Staff had included some savings for custodial, maintenance and
supplies costs. The total savings for Items 1, 2 and 3 was approximately $30,000.
The revised Budget totaled $60,701.
Chair Shepherd asked what Items 1, 2 and 3 referred to.
Ms. Paras explained the Items were in the At‐Places memo under Public Works
Department General Fund. The fourth change was a reduction of a Tree
Maintenance person. This was an error; the Department did not intend to reduce
that position. Staff wanted to correct the staffing table. Citywide changes for the
Public Works Department in the General fund totaled $600,000. Personnel
benefit costs increased by $400,000. The allocated charge increases for this
Department were $200,000 due to Information Technology (IT) allocations.
Revenue changes totaled approximately $300,000. Most of these changes were
related to the 3 percent fee increase that Staff had incorporated into the
Proposed Budget. The increase of $46,000 for allocation revenue was the General
Fund administrative support. Significant Budget change adjustments totaled an
increase of $400,000. These changes included a savings of $30,000. The total
budgeted amount for custodial, maintenance and supplies was approximately
$61,000. Public Works General Fund increased 2 Full‐Time Equivalents (FTE). The
Department was eliminating a Tree Maintenance person and adding a Project
Manager. Staff had reallocated 1.1 FTEs from the Enterprise Fund to the General
Fund.
Vice Mayor Scharff was pleased with the appearance of Downtown after the
steam cleaning. He stated there seemed to be a considerable amount of deferred
tree maintenance, and asked how tree maintenance worked.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Public Works Director, Mike Sartor didn't have a precise answer. The Department
had a number of vacancies in the tree section over the last year and a half, but
was now back to capacity. The tree maintenance program operated across
Departments.
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted a sense of how that flowed together and the long‐
range plan.
Mr. Sartor reported the next big step would be the completion of the Urban
Forest Master Plan. That would be the guiding document to enhance the overall
tree program.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the number of positions in the Department had
decreased from 2009, yet expenditures had increased. He asked if there were
other drivers.
Mr. Sartor indicated the Department had a number of reallocations.
Sr. Management Analyst, Sharon Macway stated Staff decided to reallocate
people to where their assignments were. Over a number of years, they had
transitioned a number of engineers and professionals to those areas of Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP).
Mr. Sartor said staffing allocations essentially moved from the General Fund to
the Capital Program.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if that shift from the General Fund to the Capital
Program increased the Public Works Department Budget.
Mr. Sartor answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the line item for administrative allocation charge
revenue decreased $165,000 in allocated charges.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez said Staff was researching the
information.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Vice Mayor Scharff noticed that long‐term disability had increased substantially.
He asked if employees were being injured more than usual.
Mr. Sartor reported the Department had a few injuries in the tree crews.
Management Specialist, Paul Dornell reported the number of injuries had
decreased, but the cost per injury had increased.
Council Member Price stated they were discussing outputs and things rather than
trying to create performance measures with a quality component. Translating a
quality interpretation into a number was not meaningful. She appreciated having
the performance measures in the document, because it was a framework for
understanding the Department and its Budget.
Chair Shepherd referenced Note 2 regarding proration, and stated there would be
a large increase the following year in order to bring operations to full scale. She
asked if most of that would be managed by Public Works.
Mr. Sartor reported maintenance activities would be in Public Works; however,
the operational impacts would be in the Library and Community Services
Department.
Chair Shepherd asked if there were any segments of Public Works that could be
outsourced.
Mr. Sartor indicated there were opportunities for outsourcing, primarily in the
Public Services Division. The Department was currently fully staffed in that
Division. If reductions were necessary, he recommended the reductions be
implemented through attrition rather than layoffs.
Chair Shepherd asked if the Council acted on this at all.
City Manager James Keene reported the timing of the openings would drive the
uptake. The Department would not have a full year of costs. Staff would track
that, and report to the Council at mid‐year if an additional appropriation was
necessary.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Chair Shepherd wanted to understand that process.
Council Member Price asked if there was a discussion occurring regarding cross
training, job flexibility, and professional opportunities for employees.
Mr. Sartor stated the intent of the Department's restructuring was to provide an
opportunity for cross training within a Division. Staff was working with the
Utilities Department to cross train operational personnel with Utility operational
personnel. Staff was considering increased plans and opportunities for training.
Vice Mayor Scharff was concerned about eliminating services that affected the
citizens of Palo Alto. He wanted Budgets to include outsourcing of services that
the public did not notice. Budget increases for pension and benefits were not
sustainable. The only other solution was outsourcing services without a loss in
services. He encouraged the City Manager to consider that when preparing the
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget.
Mr. Keene indicated outsourcing Animal Services was driven by the opportunity
to maintain services to a large extent. There would be potential areas in the
future where Staff would not have an effective outsourcing strategy. That could
mean service would decline. Staff had made many cuts and adjustments on the
hidden side of the City, and paid the price for it. These transitions would be
multi‐year processes. The time for Staff to plan, strategize and adapt was
affected by the City's focus on being responsive to residents' needs.
Council Member Price felt outsourcing was not a panacea for everything. The
issues were quality of service, relationship to the employer, and knowledge of the
community. Staff had explored the concept of outsourcing and had worked with
it, but it should not be done without awareness and sensitivity.
Chair Shepherd wanted to work together to build the vision of rightsizing Staff.
She wasn't sure how much outsourcing could help with maintenance. She
wanted to ensure the Finance Committee (FC) could support other strategies in
the future.
Mr. Perez stated Staff needed to provide a menu of areas behind the scene and in
the scene along with potential impacts of outsourcing services. There were
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
learning lessons from surrounding communities and the City's own experiences.
The Council would need to review the expectation of level of service; that was
part of the equation. Outsourcing was not the one and only solution. It all
centered on the Cost of Service Study moving forward.
Chair Shepherd noted the FC would review the Airport Budget later in the evening
and stated understanding the rules and regulations involved with an airport was
another learning curve for Council Members. Council Members were overloaded
similar to Staff.
Mr. Keene said conversations about expanding public‐private partnerships and
community engagement were signs of working together. He knew of many cities
in southern California that were contract cities; they had hardly any full‐time
Staff. Staff's manner of providing services and engaging with the community
enhanced the sense of place and community. Bringing people onto Staff and
integrating them into a service‐oriented culture was the best way to serve a
community. Council was forced to identify the areas where it needed Staff and
areas for outsourcing. The leadership team was committed to strengthening the
on‐Staff culture and service mentality while retooling jobs and outsourcing where
possible.
MOTION: Council Member Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Price to tentatively approve the General Fund Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Burt absent
c. Storm Drain (Operating pp.233‐238; Capital pp. 257‐266)
Sr. Financial Analyst, Christine Paras reminded the Finance Committee (FC) it had
the Storm Drain Oversight Committee's review of the Proposed 2013 Storm Drain
Fund Budget. Citywide changes for this Fund totaled $300,000, primarily for an
increase in allocated charges. Revenue increases totaled $77,000, primarily due
to a 2.9 percent increase in storm drain rates. Significant expense changes
totaled $800,000, most of which were in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Total projects for the Fund were $3.1 million. The projected Reserve balance for
2013 was $700,000. In the current Proposed Budget, there was a decrease in the
Rate Stabilization Reserve of $1 million.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Storm Drain Oversight Committee Chair, Hal Mickelson stated the memorandum
dated April 24, 2012 spoke for itself. The Oversight Committee had the limited
job assignment of verifying that proposed expenditures were in line with the
provisions of the storm drain fee increase approved by property owners in 2005.
Current proposed expenditures were in line with provisions of the fee increase.
This was one of many areas where the City Council, the FC and residents could be
pleased with the hard and imaginative work performed by Staff. As an example,
the Oversight Committee was concerned about the pace at which the needs of
the Southgate neighborhood were being met. One of the steps taken to meet
those needs was to shift the $125,000 for innovative projects to reduce runoff
and pollutant levels. It was a creative application of funds in a much needed area.
Chair Shepherd recalled questions at a prior FC meeting related to rate increase,
and noted the Oversight Committee had reviewed each item.
MOTION: Council Member Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to tentatively approve the Storm Drain Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Burt Absent
b. Refuse (Operating pp. 226‐232)
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras reported the Public Works Department went
to the Finance Committee (FC) regarding projections of the Fund in March. There
were some differences between information presented in March and in the
Proposed Budget. The net impact to the Fund was approximately $1 million. The
majority of that was unanticipated costs for printing and mailing of $200,000 and
salary and benefit increases of $200,000. Citywide changes decreased by
$700,000, $200,000 of which was personnel benefit cost decreases and a
$400,000 decrease in allocated charges. The At‐Places memo contained a few
items that Staff recommended to change in the Refuse Fund. There were a net
revenue increase of $200,000 and a net expense decrease of $340,000. Staff
recommended an additional $50,000 of allocated revenue to the Refuse Fund; a
$100,000 increase in revenue to reflect anticipated debris box revenue from non‐
utility customers; a $46,000 increase in allocated revenues; and, a corresponding
expense increase of $46,000 to the Waste Water Treatment Fund to reflect an
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
increase in revenue for added debris boxes. There was a reduction in expenses of
$400,000 to eliminate maintenance and replacement costs of refuse vehicles that
were taken out of service. The Proposed Budget included elimination of a Public
Works Supervisor and reduction of overtime by $10,000. Staff allocated $600,000
of Fire Staff from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund. There was a $2.16 million
increase in revenue due to increased fees. The increase of $2 million reflected
rate changes that occurred in October 2011 and would occur in July 2012. Other
income decreased by $200,000. Significant expenses decreased in the Fund by
$7.8 million, most of that was due to the decrease in landfill rent. Subsequent to
the printing of the Proposed Budget Book, Staff reevaluated its plan for the
landfill and recommended eliminating the Public Works Supervisor position and
adding a Landfill Technician. The net Budget impact for this change was an
increase of $76,000. The Department proposed eliminating 4 Full‐Time
Equivalents (FTE) of Refuse Disposal Attendants, 4 FTEs of Heavy Equipment
Operators and 1 FTE of Heavy Equipment Operator Lead. The salary decreases
were a bit low, because the Adopted 2012 Budget accounted for half a year of
two of these positions. Staff had removed funding for 2 FTEs of the Refuse
Disposal Attendants in 2012, so the $169,000 decrease represented the remaining
2 FTEs of the Refuse Disposal Attendants. Similarly for the Heavy Equipment
Operator FTE, in the prior year Staff reduced the Budget for 2 FTEs, and the
$220,000 represented 2 FTEs of Heavy Equipment Operator. It was a clean‐up of
the staffing table for the Refuse Refund. All these changes were reflected in the
decrease of $800,000 for salaries and benefits. The Heavy Equipment Operator
Lead was a clean‐up of the staffing FTE table. Various positions were allocated
from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund based on workload. The projected
2013 ending balance of the Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse Fund was a
negative $2.7 million. Once Staff offset the negative Reserve by the post‐closure
care liability, there was a $2.5 million positive balance for this Fund.
Council Member Price stated the City had a contract with GreenWaste, and noted
the expected increase in cost was $315,000. She asked if Staff recalled the
anticipated annual adjustment in that contract.
Solid Waste Manager, Brad Eggleston indicated there were actually four different
consumer price indices used for making the annual adjustments to the
GreenWaste contract, and the adjustments were capped at a 5 percent increase.
The typical increases were in the range of 2 to 3 percent.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Council Member Price referenced Note 3 on page 231 and the lack of historical
data. She inquired if Staff had been tracking it specifically.
Mr. Eggleston reported it was originally budgeted by people in the Solid Waste
group, who were looking at flow numbers and making assumptions about how
much was actually being used in the incinerators at the Water Quality Control
Plant. Since Staff had put this in the Budget, they were using the more accurate
flow control data from the Treatment Plant. This change was based on that.
Council Member Price asked about the contributing factors to the anticipated
reduction in overtime.
Mr. Eggleston indicated overtime costs were for Staff at the landfill, and the
positions were being eliminated.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated there had been problems in the Refuse Fund with
expenditures exceeding revenues, but those issues were resolved and the City
was on track for a sustainable Refuse Fund.
Public Works Director Mike Sartor commended Brad Eggleston, Phil Bobel and
Sharon Macway for their work in resolving that problem.
Vice Mayor Scharff thanked Staff for their hard work.
Chair Shepherd referenced Note 4 regarding the increased transfer, and asked
what the transfer was for.
Mr. Sartor reported the transfer reimbursed the Refuse Fund for the cost of
services through the money collected from the Downtown Parking District.
Chair Shepherd asked if Public Works paid for the Downtown streets team.
Mr. Sartor answered yes.
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez reported Staff isolated costs and
revenues for the University and California Avenue Parking Districts. Because they
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
would be part of Wrap‐Up Agenda, the FC would see that in more detail. The
expenditures were in the various funds, which were reimbursed from the Parking
Districts.
Council Member Price referenced a letter and public inquiries regarding the
possibility of expediting the preparation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
Energy Compost Facility. She asked Staff to respond to the letter.
Mr. Sartor reported Staff would return to Council on July 2, 2012 with
recommendations for a timeline and process for proceeding with the Energy
Compost Feasibility Study related to Measure E. Included with that would be a
recommendation to amend the contract with Alternative Resources Incorporated
to perform some of the things described in the letter.
Assistant Director Environmental Service, Phil Bobel stated the first job was to get
funding for the project, which Staff could do with a Budget Amendment
Ordinance (BAO). The FC has received that letter because there was nothing for
the project in the current Budget. Staff had informed proponents of the project
that the FC could not approve a Budget with that project, because the FC didn't
have the actual item. It made sense to not have it in the Budget, and have a BAO
right after the new year. Staff would propose that to the FC. At a recent public
meeting, several people had raised the issue of using Stanford sustainability
money for the project. Staff would review that, but hadn't completed the process
to determine if it was possible.
Council Member Price asked when the FC would have a complete discussion
regarding the allocation and utilization of the Stanford Development Agreement
monies.
City Manager, James Keene indicated the topic was not on the tentative Agenda
for the Council through the break. Staff could schedule something for the Agenda
after the recess. It would be appropriate to review the amount of funds received
and the schedule.
Council Member Price asked if it could be added to a future Agenda for the FC.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Chair Shepherd stated she had asked for that with a retreat, because she wanted
to discuss the whole context of funding from the Development Agreement. She
asked if that was being planned for a retreat.
Mr. Keene noted it was not on the Agenda, but Staff would be happy to take
direction. If the FC wanted more discussion, Staff could schedule it for a FC
meeting first. The only remaining retreat on the Council's Agenda was the June
14, 2012 retreat related to infrastructure.
Chair Shepherd suggested a conversation to introduce these funds and their
handling and management. She preferred the full Council have that discussion.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff could be prepared to have the basic information for the
June 13, 2012 meeting.
Vice Mayor Scharff was concerned Staff would not be ready by June, because they
would need to prepare reports about options and impacts. He felt it should go to
the full Council, because the full Council would have strong ideas. He was
concerned that discussing it at a retreat without any structure would be a
problem.
Mr. Keene was suggesting Staff prepare information regarding the basic
components of the agreement, the funding stream, and the actions taken by the
Council. If the Council wanted to make decisions, then he would be
uncomfortable that Staff hadn't laid enough groundwork for a decision. He
suggested sharing this with the Mayor at pre‐Council meeting to get his thoughts.
Chair Shepherd wanted to ensure it was discussed, because it had been out there
for a while. She wanted to look at these things as a whole to understand it,
perhaps in a study session, and then have policy discussions.
Mr. Keene recommended considering the best venue and timing through the
Agenda‐planning process with the Mayor.
Herb Borock stated the Refuse Cost of Service Study was not available, and didn't
believe the Council could provide the proper oversight to make a decision on
refuse rates until it had that final report. He urged the FC to inquire about the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
status of the report. The rent expense appeared to be $600,000 more than it
should be. In January 2007, the City Council adopted a smoothing schedule for
the Refuse Fund's rent payments to the General Fund. Under that smoothing
schedule the Fiscal Year 2013 rent payment was $2,094,332. He recalled the line
item for rent shown in the Budget was $2,693,893, a difference of $599,561. He
wanted to know where the $600,000 in additional rent came from, since it
appeared was larger than the amount in the smoothing schedule.
Mr. Eggleston reported the Cost of Service Study report was in the final review,
and would be posted on the website the following day. He explained the
Department had approximately $20 million in deferred rent under the smoothing
schedule, and the Refuse Fund paid interest on that deferred rent. In prior
Budgets, interest was included as an allocated charge in the landfill cost center.
This year the interest on deferred rent was moved into the landfill rent. He
believed the $599,000 figure was the exact amount of interest.
MOTION: Council Member Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Price to tentatively approve the Refuse budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Burt Absent
d. Wastewater Treatment (Operating pp. 239‐244; Capital pp. 251‐256)
Sr. Financial Analyst, Christina Paras noted Staff had two amendments to the
Proposed Budget. The net expense increase for these two changes was $100,000.
These were related to a $50,000 allocated expense increase for the debris boxes,
and an increase of $46,430 also for the debris boxes. Those were related to Items
1 and 3 under the Refuse Fund. Total Citywide changes were $300,000; most of
those were personnel benefit cost increases. The allocated charge increase of
$20,000 included those two items in the amendment. Overall significant revenue
changes increased by $1.4 million; net sales increased by $800,000. Other income
increased by $500,000, which was revenue from our regional partners. The
expense increases totaled $2.7 million; most of them were in Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP). There was an increase of $2.6 million for the
Wastewater Treatment Fund CIP projects. Most of this was for the equipment
replacement project. The projected 2013 Fund Reserves totaled $1.98 million for
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
the Emergency Replacement Reserve and $3.8 million for the Distribution Rate
Stabilization Reserve.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the cost per million gallons of wastewater processed
decreased from 2011 to 2012, yet the overall Budget had increased, except for
Capital Improvements. He asked for an explanation.
Water Quality Control Plant Manager, James Allen reported this was a mistake,
that the numbers had not been properly updated. The proper number for Fiscal
Year 2012 was $2,457 per million gallons and $2,364 per million gallons for 2013.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff was fully allocating long‐term pension and
benefit costs to regional partners.
Director Administrative Services Department Lalo Perez stated Staff did allocate
pension, healthcare and retiree medical costs to Wastewater Treatment. If Staff
could identify where retirees had worked, then Staff associate the retirees with
that cost center. Staff had changed methodologies, but pensions and healthcare
had always been a component of most major costs.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff was confident all costs were allocated.
Mr. Perez answered yes. If someone left the partnership and there weren't
provisions in agreements for ongoing costs of employees, then the City of Palo
Alto picked up the bigger share.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked about the likelihood that a partner city would leave.
Assistant Director of Environmental Services, Phil Bobel stated it was very
unlikely, because a sewer system was a huge expense to reproduce.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for long‐range plans in terms of the incinerators.
Mr. Bobel reported Staff would recommend retiring the incinerator as soon as
practical and initiating a solids facility plan. The long‐range facility plan screened
down the options for replacing the incinerator to a very small number. This next
step was to review the smaller number of options in‐depth and make a decision
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
on an alternative to the current incinerator, so that the incinerator could be
retired as soon as practical.
MOTION: Council Member Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to tentatively approve the Wastewater Treatment Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Burt Absent
e. Airport (Operating pp. 245‐247)
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras reported Citywide expenses totaled an
increase of $30,000 for benefits. There was an increase in the loan from the
General Fund of $310,000, bringing the total amount of the loan from the General
Fund to $610,000. There were expense increases of $15,000 for legal support, a
support contract for $60,000, and an increase in the Public Works Administrative
allocation of $108,000. The Airport had one final contract for groundwater
sampling and monitoring totaling $176,000. Staff proposed adding 1 Full‐Time
Equivalent (FTE) for an Airport Manager, which was approved in the mid‐year
2012 Budget. Staff included in the 2013 Budget only half a year for the Airport
Manager, because Staff believed the position would not be filled until mid‐year.
Staff approved a City/Staff oversight FTE allocation of $1,400. The ending balance
for the Airport Fund was negative $200,000.
Council Member Price asked for the status of environmental issues at the Airport,
given the industrial nature of the use.
Public Works Director Mike Sartor reported a Phase 1 investigation was
performed approximately one year ago by Northgate Environmental. Northgate
performed an initial Phase 2, and found two sites with relatively low contaminant
levels, mostly petroleum hydrocarbons. Staff turned over the results of that
sampling effort to the Fire Department, who submitted them to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board for follow‐up action. Since then the Regional Board
had assigned the Santa Clara County Department of Health to be the lead agency.
The Department of Health wrote a letter to Santa Clara County Roads and
Airports Division requiring a remedial action plan. Just recently Staff met with the
Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Division about the process of the City
taking over the airport and specifically to discuss the status of the remedial action
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
plan. They informed Staff that they had hired an environmental consulting firm to
prepare that plan, and it should be submitted within the next few months.
Council Member Price inquired if there were any potential budgetary impacts.
Mr. Sartor stated that would be subject to negotiations with Santa Clara County.
Staff would prepare an assignment and assumption agreement between the City
and the County and include indemnification language to protect the City.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the City would hire an Airport Manager.
Mr. Sartor indicated the intent was to hire an Airport Manager.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt the prorated salary was low, and asked if it was calculated
for six months or a few months.
Mr. Sartor believed the base salary in the Budget was approximately $140,000 a
year.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the $88,000 covered two or three months.
Mr. Sartor said the bottom line was a $140,000 position.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the ratio of benefits to salary, and thought benefits
were much higher than indicated.
City Manager James Keene indicated the goal was 35‐40 percent. (INAUDIBLE) do
we have the right amount of funding in there to handle the position.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the Airport Manager would be hired in the next
three months.
Mr. Sartor reported the plan was to post the position for hire when the budget
was adopted. The hiring process would take three or four months.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the City would have an Airport Manager and no other
Staff when Santa Clara relinquished the Airport in 2013.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Mr. Sartor indicated the target was to take over the Airport by the end of Fiscal
Year 2013 or beginning of Fiscal Year 2014. He planned to request additional
support Staff for the Airport Manager in Fiscal Year 2014.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if Staff would plan based on information supplied by
the Airport Manager.
Mr. Sartor answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the status of funding for runways.
Mr. Sartor reported Santa Clara County chose not to allow a skydiving operation
to take place at the South County Airport. The FAA indicated the County should
allow that operation and issued a non‐compliance order to the County. The non‐
compliance order applied to all of their airports. Because the County was in non‐
compliance, they were no longer eligible for entitlement funding for airport
maintenance activities. Palo Alto's share of that was $150,000 a year. The County
could lose the next increment of funding that was targeted for runway
maintenance and repair.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked about when those funds be available if the County was
in compliance.
Mr. Sartor indicated the County allocated $150,000 per year to Palo Alto on an
annual basis, and the City received the funds in August or September. The Palo
Alto Airport would lose the next cycle of funding, which would end in September.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if Staff was considering a way to work around that.
Mr. Sartor stated the County had accumulated prior fiscal year funding
allocations. The allocations covered a three‐year period. They would drop off a
prior year and then, once the City took over the Airport, the City would be eligible
for the next cycle. The Airport would lose approximately $150,000 of funding in
the process. Staff had discussed work‐arounds with the FAA. The one potential
work around would be the City taking over the Airport and the County leasing it
back, funding would still be jeopardy. Staff continued to explore options with the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
FAA, but recommended the City take over the Airport from the County as
expeditiously as possible.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether Staff knew the County's reason for not
allowing the skydiving operation.
Mr. Sartor said the County claimed it was not safe because of the proximity to
Highway 101.
Chair Shepherd asked if hiring an Airport Manager meant the City would be
operating the Airport.
Mr. Sartor reported Staff planned to operate or manage the Airport similar to the
way the County managed it. The City would have an Airport Manager and limited
support staff, would lease operations to fixed‐base operators. That was the
consultant's recommendation and Staff's recommendation.
Chair Shepherd asked if the City would operate the Airport.
Mr. Sartor answered no. The City would manage the fixed‐base operators
through contracts. The control tower was owned and operated by the FAA.
Chair Shepherd asked if the City had anything to do with the control tower.
Mr. Sartor responded no.
Chair Shepherd asked if the City would be responsible only for the actual
operations of the Airport.
Mr. Sartor indicated the City would be responsible for leasing tie‐down space for
aircraft, operation of hangars, fueling of aircraft and those kinds of operations.
The City would manage runway maintenance, tree trimming along the Golf
Course, weed control, levee maintenance, and those kinds of things.
Council Member Price asked if employees inside the tower were Federal
employees.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Mr. Sartor answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated the structure of some fixed‐base operator contracts
did not provide an incentive for the operator to improve the facilities. He
suggested providing the right incentives for operators to invest in the facilities.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
tentatively approve the Airport Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Burt Absent
f. Vehicle Replacement (Operating pp. 248‐252; Capital pp. 271‐274)
Sr. Financial Analyst, Christine Paras reported Citywide changes totaled $96,000.
As far as revenue changes, there was a decrease of $300,000, mostly due to the
decrease in revenue for allocated charges. Significant expense changes increased
by $1.3 million, most of which was Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP
Budget for the Vehicle Replacement Fund included a $400,000 increase for the
evaluation and possible replacement of in‐ground vehicle lifts. The scheduled
vehicle equipment replacements increased by $900,000. In response to the audit
of the Fleet Utilization and Replacement Study in 2010, the Vehicle Replacement
Fund had frozen the purchase of all non‐critical and non‐emergency vehicles and
equipment. Beginning in 2013 the Capital Program would be reinstated. The
Fund would begin replacing vehicles and equipment. A five‐year plan was being
developed by Staff. The current Reserve balance in the Vehicle Replacement
Fund reflected funding allocated from City Departments. This Reserve balance
was committed to replacing all vehicles in the proposed five‐year plan. There was
one item on the At‐Places memo for the Vehicle Replacement Fund, a net
revenue decrease of $400,000. This was for the elimination of maintenance and
replacement costs for refuse vehicles taken out of service due to closure. Staff
recommended amending the Proposed Budget for this item.
Council Member Price asked if there were any regulatory requirements, specific
criteria or guidelines regarding replacement cycles for Public Safety vehicles.
Public Works Director, Mike Sartor understood there were guidelines. Staff had a
process in place for replacing all City vehicles, where the owning Department
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
would submit a vehicle replacement request to the Fleet Review Committee. He
anticipated receiving some requests from Police and Fire.
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted to see a different format. He asked how many
vehicles the City owned.
Mr. Sartor noted one performance objective was to increase the number of
alternative fuel and electric vehicles. The fleet was currently comprised of 262
light‐duty passenger vehicles. Staff had received proposals to lease vehicles, but a
Staff review indicated that might not be cost effective. Staff had reduced the
light‐duty fleet by approximately 10 percent and would reduce it again. The
percentage of alternative fuel vehicles in the fleet had been static over the last
few years. Staff was interested in increasing the number of Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG) vehicles and introducing electric vehicles into the fleet. Staff was
working to implement review of fleet efficiencies, and had included in the Budget
a fleet efficiency study. Staff had prepared an RFP to have an outside party
review fleet operations and suggest ways to improve efficiencies and reduce
expenses.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many of the 262 light vehicles were available for
general Staff's use.
Mr. Sartor reported Staff was establishing vehicle pools at primary locations and
assigning vehicles to the pools.
Acting Fleet Manager, John Moran indicated there currently were 20 vehicles in
the pool.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many vehicles were assigned to specific
departments.
Mr. Moran (INAUDIBLE)
Vice Mayor Scharff confirmed Staff shared the 20 vehicles in the pool.
Mr. Moran (INAUDIBLE)
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Vice Mayor Scharff stated six vehicles, and asked if any Department had assigned
vehicles.
Mr. Moran (INAUDIBLE) Department has assigned vehicles.
Vice Mayor Scharff confirmed every Department had assigned vehicles, and
Planning had six that they shared in a pool.
Mr. Moran (INAUDIBLE). Staff was preparing to launch a pool reservation system
Citywide. (INAUDIBLE) City Staff would be able to go online and make a
reservation for City pool (INAUDIBLE).
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether reimbursing employees for use of personal
vehicles would reduce the number of vehicles.
Mr. Sartor stated Staff was encouraging mileage reimbursement for use of
personal cars, but there was a potential liability issue in terms of requiring City
Staff to use a personal vehicle to conduct City business. Staff was actively taking
steps to reduce the number of vehicles in the fleet and the number of assigned
vehicles, and looking at ways to encourage mileage reimbursement or other
means to travel about town.
Vice Mayor Scharff had received the impression from the Budget that Staff was
preparing to purchase light‐duty passenger vehicles again. He wanted to ensure
Staff considered reducing that fleet as much as possible.
Mr. Sartor reported the primary objective of putting together a CIP for probably
mid‐year 2013 was to determine which heavy vehicles needed to be replaced.
Staff was not making plans to replace the light‐duty fleet at this point.
Director Administrative Services, Lalo Perez reported not every Department had
vehicles, but most large Departments had some vehicles.
Chair Shepherd stated 262 light‐duty passenger vehicles covered about a quarter
of City Staff. She asked why there were so many vehicles.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Mr. Sartor stated it was a misnomer to call them passenger vehicles, because they
included pickup trucks and vans.
Chair Shepherd asked if the City performed maintenance work on the vehicles.
Mr. Sartor answered yes. Staff would be looking at that as part of the efficiency
study.
Chair Shepherd suggested outsourcing maintenance.
Mr. Sartor said Staff would consider that.
Chair Shepherd noted the Department was paying approximately $15,000 per
unit. She was concerned that so much capital was involved in rolling stock.
Vice Mayor Scharff suggested having a Study Session to understand how many
vehicles were in the pool, how they were allocated, and which Departments
received vehicles.
Mr. Perez stated Staff could provide that information. Another point to consider
was standards and guidelines. $50,000 was included in this Budget for a study.
Vice Mayor Scharff expressed concerns about the audit. He was concerned that
the Auditor's focus on those recommendations had evaporated with the changing
of the Auditor.
Mr. Perez reported he, Mike Sartor, and the City Manager's office would ensure
Staff responded to the recommendations. As Staff discussed solutions, they
would confer with Audit Staff to determine whether the solutions conformed to
the spirit of the recommendations.
Council Member Price had faith Staff would take the Auditor's recommendations
seriously. She was not interested in a Study Session on this topic until the
Utilization Study was available. Concerning the Utilization Study, she asked if
Staff had conferred with other cities and if a consultant was necessary.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Mr. Sartor indicated Staff met with Mountain View Staff last month to discuss
fleet operations, and was compiling that information. Staff had also contacted
the City of San Mateo and the City of Redwood City on their fleet operations. The
purpose of this Utilization Study was to consolidate information and provide
recommendations on how the City could modify its approach.
Mr. Perez stated Palo Alto was unique in that its fleet included electric and gas
vehicles. That was the difference between comparing Palo Alto to other
jurisdictions. Staff was taking all those factors into consideration.
City Manager, James Keene was thinking about how Staff and the Council
accomplished all these projects and items. He noted the many projects Staff was
working on.
Chair Shepherd stated the range and scope of what Council Members had to
grasp explained why Council meetings were complicated and time consuming.
MOTION: Council Member Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to tentatively approve the Vehicle Replacement Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0, Burt Absent
Future Meetings and Agendas
Mr. Perez reported the Back‐up meeting on May 24, 2012 was not needed. On
May 29th, 2012, Staff would present the Municipal Fee Schedule, the General
Fund Non‐Departmental Budget, Special Revenues, and University and California
Avenue Parking Districts. He explained the purpose of the Non‐Departmental
Budget. Staff had provided an At‐Places memo containing information from
Community Services regarding outstanding issues and recommendations
requested by the FC. Tonight the FC received the Cubberley studio rental rates
and details. Any questions Staff didn't answer were included in the Wrap‐Up
memo. At the Wrap‐Up meeting, the FC could address any issues and bring up
new items. One of the items requested for Wrap‐Up was revenues.
Mr. Perez reported changes for the General Fund. At the May 15, 2012 meeting,
the Fire Department Budget changed to reallocate $40,000. Reinstatement of the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 23
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/22/12
Animal Shelter decreased the General Fund by $949,000, but the FC asked for a
placeholder of $500,000. That was a net change of $409,000. Changes today
resulted in a net help of $30,000 to the General Fund.
Chair Shepherd asked if there was an item for the City Attorney's Fund.
Mr. Perez indicated a hit of $1.398 million. Three items were placeholders that
would return to the FC on Wrap‐Up night. First, Staff recommended the City
Attorney Contingency fund be doubled from $125,000 to $250,000. Staff
recommended using the Budget Stabilization Reserve for the loan to the Airport
and to the Development Center technology CIP. Because the Budget was not in
balance, Staff would have to review those numbers and provide the difference.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated the General Fund had a negative balance.
Mr. Keene (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Perez stated Staff had some ideas for closing that gap without drawing from
Reserves. Revenues were improving more than anticipated for the current year.
Staff would discuss that and determine how to close that gap.
Chair Shepherd noted a $411,000 deficit.
Council Member Price asked if the ideas in Mr. Betts' memo would be open for
discussion at Wrap‐Up.
Mr. Perez answered yes. The concern was the likelihood of being able to
implement some of those ideas. The challenge in some of those ideas was they
had been tried before and had not been well received.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M.
Finance Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 39
Special Meeting
May 17, 2012
Roll Call
Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt, Price, Scharff, Shepherd (Chair)
Absent:
Oral Communications
Rita Morgin stated she was a gardener at Main. She reported gardeners were
saving the City money by cleaning unused gardens, so that the City could retain
deposits. She indicated a $1,100 savings during the past year. She suggested
eliminating consultants. Resident services were more important than
consultants. Another idea was to allow non‐residents to participate in Main and
Eleanor Gardens by paying a non‐resident fee. Many people from Menlo Park and
East Palo Alto were interested in leasing garden space. She suggested removing
the dumpsters, and having them only on the four workdays per year.
Agenda Items
1. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution
Amending Gas Utility Rates Effective July 1, 2012.
Ipek Connolly, Senior Resource Planner reported Staff recommended amending
Utility Rate Schedules G‐1, G‐2, G‐3, G‐4, G‐10, G‐11 and G‐12, amending Utility
Rules and Regulations 2 and 5, and repealing Utility Rate Schedule G‐6. This
would cause a revenue reduction of $4.1 million for the Gas Utility. Staff
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
proposed changing the method for determining supply rates. Commodity rates
would change monthly based on spot market gas prices. Based on the Budget
expectations for future prices, this would cause a 35 percent decrease to supply
rates. Budget projections were based on information dating from December
2011. Staff proposed a 25 percent increase to distribution rates to cover the costs
of distribution of subfund. Underlying these changes was a cost of service
alignment by rate class, based on the Study performed. Associated with these
changes was a review of the Gas Reserve Guidelines. The City Auditor was
reviewing Utility Reserves, and expected the audit to be completed in June 2012.
Staff would return to the Finance Committee (FC) with proposed changes
incorporating the findings and recommendations of the audit. Rate changes at
the overall Utility level were allocated to individual rate classes based on the cost
to serve those classes. The 35 percent decrease on the supply side would impact
the residential and small commercial customers who were currently on fixed
rates. Staff expected, based on December forecasts, the supply rate adjustment
of those classes to be a reduction of approximately 40 percent. Large commercial
customers currently on market‐based rates would have an increase of
approximately 7 percent, because of other components on the supply side. On
the distribution side, the overall 25 percent adjustment would affect the
residential class on average with a 9 percent increase. Small commercial
customers would have a 30 percent increase, and large commercial customers
would have an 89 percent increase on the distribution rate components. Based
on the findings of the Cost of Service Study, there would be changes to the tiers of
residential rates. The Study reviewed the consumption patterns and
recommended the City adjust tier sizes based on median usage levels. Current
rates for Tier 1 for winter would be lowered from approximately 96 therms to 60
therms, while summer rates would remain at 20 therms. The Study analyzed the
consumption pattern, and the recommendation was to shorten the seasonal
definition of the winter period by one month and extend the summer period by
one month. With revised changes, this would be the same as the Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E) seasonal definition. The tiers would be based on distribution cost
allocations, rather than the current supply side allocations. The analysis of the
tier rates resulted in a change to the rates, based on the Cost of Service Study.
Currently there was a difference of $0.57 per therm. The proposed difference
was $0.51 per therm. PG&E's tier difference was $0.31 per therm. On the
distribution side, Staff proposed changing the monthly customer charge to service
charge. The distribution charge was a volumetric charge, and the customer was
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
charged a fixed amount per month. Staff recommended decreasing residential
Tier 1 and increasing residential Tier 2 rates. On the supply side, most of the
revenue was through the commodity charge, and those would change from fixed
to market based. There were two other small rate components: the
administration charge and the transportation charge. Staff proposed changing
them consistent with the specific cost categories. There had been a significant
decrease in the actual prices in the spot market versus the expected forward
prices at the time the Budget was prepared and the current forward prices;
therefore, Staff expected a significant decrease from the amount budgeted. The
current total of all utility bills was approximately $235 per month, and Staff
expected that amount to decrease slightly with the proposed changes including
gas. This was mainly driven by market prices. If the G3 Commodity Rate
continued, then the decrease was expected to be 32 percent. Looking at the
summer and winter comparisons between the City and PG&E, as quantity
increased the difference decreased. The main difference between the two sets of
rates was the City's fixed charge and PG&E's minimum charge. At low quantities,
that created a larger difference. As consumption increased, the commodity
component of the rates became similar and the difference diminished. With
proposed changes to the distribution component of the large commercial rates,
City bills would increase compared to PG&E.
Jon Foster, Utilities Advisory Commission Chair reported the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) recommended approval of Staff's proposal as is. The utility
rates in Palo Alto had multiple tiers with different pricing levels. That was used in
many jurisdictions throughout California to encourage conservation and to reduce
usage. It was thought that tiered pricing models accomplished that. Over the last
year, the UAC had discussed increasing the number of tiers, increasing pricing and
decreasing price to drive greater efficiency and lower utilization of resources. The
UAC had learned that Proposition 218 and Proposition 26 greatly restricted the
ability to set pricing tiers and to create tiers and specific prices that were not
aligned with the cost of providing the service. Trying to deviate from the Cost of
Service Study tended not to be successful because of concerns with Proposition
218 and Proposition 26. The UAC recommendation was to retain the number of
tiers and pricing in accordance with the Cost of Service Study.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Molly Stump, City Attorney had reviewed the Study and spoken with Staff about
their recommendation. She was confident Staff's recommendation complied with
the legal requirements.
Asher Waldfogel, Utilities Advisory Commissioner stated he was the dissenting
vote on the gas rate question. The Cost of Service Study didn't indicate any extra
cost in distributing more gas in the second tier, particularly in the summer time.
It showed there could be some cost effect in the winter time from greater usage.
It raised a Proposition 26 question about whether the City could charge more for
something for which there was no additional cost. He thought they needed to
scrutinize that more closely. Since there was no extra cost in distributing to the
second tier in the summer and the City could only recover the cost within a rate
class, this pricing discouraged and undermined conservation. Because the City
was charging more than the cost for summer Tier 2, it meant the City was
charging less than the cost for winter Tier 1. This discouraged investment in
efficient furnaces, better home insulation and other good conservation ideas.
Customers couldn't make good choices if the City did not send them accurate
market pricing. That was a fundamental problem. He recommended eliminating
the summer Tier 2 rate, or at least raising it to the same level as the winter Tier 2
rate. There was a small discrepancy between the summer Tier 2 price distribution
at $0.90 and the commercial distribution at $0.56.
Council Member Burt noted the significant decrease in supply cost, the bulk of
which was being taken by the increase in the distribution cost. The Staff Report
had one small paragraph that spoke to that, but didn't explain it. He asked why
this was not being explained in more detail as it had a major financial impact.
Ms. Connolly indicated the overall costs and revenue requirements were
presented in detail form in the Financial Projections Report; therefore, Staff didn't
repeat it in this report. In 2009, the City had a 10 percent rate decrease in the gas
Utility, and distribution costs matched distribution revenue. Similarly, supply
costs matched supply revenue. In subsequent years, supply costs decreased and
distribution costs increased. Because the City had enough revenue to cover total
costs on a total basis, Staff did not propose rate changes. Now that supply costs
were being adjusted to market based, the Cost of Service Study showed that
distribution rates had to be increased to match distribution costs. Distribution
costs from 2009 forward were comprised mainly of General Fund transfers and
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
energy efficiency programs. The change in General Fund transfer methodology
caused an increase in General Fund transfers from $3 million to $6 million. The
Budget had a $1 million increase for energy efficiency programs. Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) costs would decrease significantly in the future. She
noted the completion of replacing old pipes, and a one‐time expenditure of $3.4
million for the cross‐bore program in 2012. Because supply costs decreased,
there was not a need to make this adjustment. Now, the alignment had to be
done and that was the cost.
Council Member Burt stated the main causes for the increase was the 2012 cross‐
bore initiative and use of gas Reserve funds. This year, the City had a significant
reduction in supply costs, but was catching up for those two prior expenditures
that exceeded revenue. He encouraged Staff to include a summary explanation
when presenting this to the Council. He asked why the purple line on Slide 9 was
projected to increase so much. He understood the projections for gas commodity
was to remain low.
Ms. Connolly stated the expectations were based on forward market prices, the
price of gas for delivery on those dates if the City were to make the purchase
today.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the forward market price was based on
two factors: the projection of price and the price for buying insurance.
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director Utilities stated some people thought there was a
premium in that, and Staff thought there was a fairly small premium. Every day
the forward curve was different.
Council Member Burt reminded her that, in a recent discussion of moving to
market based prices, Staff concurred with the argument that the City would pay a
premium to lock in prices.
Ms. Ratchye indicated Staff's report stated if there was a factor, it was very small.
Council Member Burt suggested she review the Council conversation.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Ms. Ratchye reported this pointed out how much the forward prices had fallen
since Staff developed the Budget.
Council Member Burt noted the graph indicated this month was the bottom of
the market.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed it was an insurance premium. He indicated Staff's
graphs always indicated it was the bottom of the market. Locking in a low price
meant paying insurance.
Valerie Fong, Utilities Director stated Staff did not want to create a curve, but was
using market data. Speculation would be contrary to prior direction.
Vice Mayor Scharff did not want Staff to speculate. He suggested there was a
fundamental misunderstanding that insurance was built into every market.
Council Member Burt felt Staff was creating a false dichotomy. Either Staff was
speculating or acknowledging a built‐in premium. He asked if Staff had the
presentation they made to the Council in the winter.
Ms. Ratchye noted there had been a declining market for some time. The City
would not be buying anything in the forward market, but rather buying on the
spot market. The forward market was now irrelevant.
Council Member Burt agreed with that point. He asked for Staff's rationale on
why the two tiers for the summer were appropriate.
Ms. Connolly reported Staff was not proposing a change to the tier structure.
PG&E's prices had a similar structure. This was the Cost of Service Study
consultant's view and recommendation as well. Prices were calculated for Tier 1
and Tier 2 as annual prices. In the calculation of Tier 1 rates, the consultant
reviewed the portion of distribution costs related to average excess allocator.
Some costs were there to serve high usage levels. Those costs were the
components that comprised the development of the tiers. In the first step, the
consultant reviewed the maximum demand levels for the residential class and
determined an average rate assuming 100 percent load factor. That set the basis
for the Tier 1 price. Whatever revenue was required to be collected to cover
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
these higher usage‐related costs was factored into the determination of the Tier 2
price. This was used as a signal for consumers throughout the year, not just in the
winter, regarding conservation and energy efficiency.
Council Member Burt stated speculation concerned purchases, while these were
projections. Staff speculated on projections, but none were speculation in terms
of what Staff anticipated.
Ms. Fong agreed.
Council Member Price understood fluctuations in costs would be passed to the
customer, and there would be variation month‐to‐month. She asked how Staff
was making this clear to consumers.
Debbie Katz, Communications Manager believed prior rate changes had simply
meant sending a bill insert after rate increases were approved. With more
dramatic rate changes, Staff had taken more action including bill inserts,
information on the website and outreach to the community. If rates were
approved, she would interact with the press and had done some groundwork in
that respect. There were limitations regarding what could be printed on the bill,
but that was the ideal place to provide an explanation. The usage level would be
the driving factor for most residents.
Council Member Price noted a reference to the Rate Assistance Program. She
asked for comments regarding limitations, if any, of the Rate Assistance Program
and its future relative to Proposition 26.
Ms. Stump reported Staff had not placed the rate schedule for the Rate
Assistance Program before the FC for adjustment. Staff was reviewing the
structure of that Program, the changes currently before the FC, and how those
would interact. Staff was not in a position to provide a full analysis of changes in
the Rate Assistance Program, but would come back to the FC when the analysis
was complete.
Council Member Price asked whether Staff had utilized a range in projections
related to Utilities in the out years.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Ms. Fong reported projections on the distribution rate component were driven by
Staff's forecast from a CIP perspective and other operation expenses that Staff
anticipated. On the market piece, that was not important as monthly rates would
reflect gas costs. She didn't know what a range of forecast did in that instance,
because it was irrelevant to the development of the gas rate.
Council Member Price had often seen projections presented as ranges. She asked
for a brief explanation of minimum cash reserves discussed on page 89 of the Cost
of Service Study. She asked how Staff would address an unanticipated capital cost
of a significant magnitude.
Ms. Connolly indicated the Cost of Service Study had a detailed review of reserves
for the Supply Fund Center and the Distribution Fund Center. Staff provided that
information, because they were reviewing the requirement. On the supply side,
Staff suggested a Reserve of approximately 25 percent of supply costs, which was
similar to the current minimum Reserve. Staff had not reached a conclusion, but
this was one piece of information from the analysis. On the distribution side, the
consultant reviewed a number of reasons to have minimum cash reserves. Staff
had included that in the report as a basis for making recommendations to change
the guidelines. With regard to a significant loss, there were a number of Utility
Reserves, including the Emergency Plant Replacement Reserve. The City had an
insurance policy and the minimum amount was the deductible, approximately $1
million. In the event of a major disaster, the insurance money might not be
readily available; therefore, Staff could recommend having an additional amount
in the cash balance. Staff would come back to the FC with these concerns and
recommendations.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated the City needed to follow the Cost of Service Study as
long as it was performed correctly. He asked for the standards for following a
Cost of Service Study.
Ms. Stump reported Staff was looking to ensure the consultant followed
acceptable industry standards, used a reasonable and well‐articulated
methodology, showed his work, and the recommended rates were consistent
with the analysis.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Vice Mayor Scharff believed the FC's role was to ensure the consultant met those
criteria. When he read the Study, he questioned a number of points, and wanted
to question the consultant, who was not present. He asked how he was to make
a decision without having those questions answered.
Ms. Fong stated Ms. Connolly had a significant rates background, and she would
respond to questions.
James Keene, City Manager suggested her ability to address the consultant's
methodology was relevant.
Vice Mayor Scharff referenced the Cost of Service of Study on page 40 contrasting
load profiles and usage characteristics of residential consumers with commercial
consumers. He noted someone living in an apartment with gas heat could have a
higher gas bill than someone living in a large home with electric heat. He felt they
didn't have the same characteristics. A home with a pool or a spa had a different
load characteristic. He inquired about the basis for saying homogeneity of usage
characteristics when there were many usage characteristics. He didn't
understand how usage characteristics were the same.
Ms. Connolly agreed there were different equipment and usage characteristics in
different homes. When Staff performed rate studies, they reviewed the customer
segment in aggregate. When Staff compared an aggregate load profile for a
residential class, this was homogeneous in contrast to a class profile for a small or
large commercial customer. He was correct in the sense there could be different
equipment in each home; however, the variability among office buildings,
industrial sites and business equipment was much more than what was expected
in the residential profile. The underlying assumption was there would always be
differences. Staff could not have a rate schedule for each case, so they had to
describe the class based on these similarities and develop rates adequate for
these customer classes. In that respect, residential consumption profiles were
homogeneous in comparison to commercial customer classes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether a profile for a small apartment was the same as
a large single‐family house.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Ms. Connolly indicated the apartment may have a lower usage, but in general the
pattern would be similar. The largest use of gas was heating, and that would
show up whether small or not.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for an example in a commercial class where the usage
pattern wouldn't be the same. He asked why a commercial profile would be
different.
Ms. Connolly stated one commercial customer could use 1,000 therms, and
another could use 100,000 therms. Staff could not create a tier that would be
equitable, applicable and efficient for both of these cases. In the residential
sector, there were more similarities than differences.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how it was equitable for someone living in a 300‐
square‐foot apartment compared to someone living in a 5,000‐square‐foot house
with a pool and spa. He asked how that was different than commercial
customers. He felt it was arbitrary for the report to state residential customers
were the same, but commercial customers were not.
Ms. Connolly reported Staff used the law of large numbers. There would always
be different cases, but an aggregate of the residential sector resulted in more
similarities than in the business sector.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if it cost more to distribute gas in the summer than in
the winter; did it cost more to deliver the 21st therm than the 20th therm in the
summer as opposed to in the winter.
Ms. Connolly said the rates weren't different between summer and winter. Tier 1
and Tier 2 had the same rates; it was an average annual rate.
Vice Mayor Scharff believed Proposition 26 required charging for the cost of
service. He believed a consultant's role was to determine the cost to provide a
service. The current Study seemed to indicate the consultant's opinion was
different costs for summer and winter, and different costs for more than 60
therms in the winter and more than 20 therms in the summer. He was hoping for
an explanation of methodology and how that was not arbitrary.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Ms. Connolly reported the consultant determined rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2. The
Tier 1 rate was developed for a baseline usage amount. That's why the consultant
took the maximum demand and assumed a 100 percent load factor. If everyone
used the system at full capacity, he determined the average rate that provided
the lowest rate to service everyone using a minimum quantity.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the City was building capacity based on the average
provided by the consultant.
Ms. Connolly answered no. It was a method to determine an average rate that
addressed the base load situation.
Vice Mayor Scharff wasn't sure what that meant.
Ms. Fong believed the consultant reviewed a ten‐year period and determined the
peak load. Next, he assumed everyone was at peak load over this average ten‐
year period. He then determined the rate on a per therm basis, which was a very
small rate because the denominator was huge. That set the Tier 1 rate, and that
would be applied, based on the tier breakpoints, to that amount. Anything left
over would be a revenue shortfall.
Ms. Connolly stated that was essentially correct, but the justification for the
difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 was this. Tier 1 assumed a flat base load.
Because not everyone used the same amount, the higher the peak load shape,
the higher the second tier rate had to be. So the peak created the difference
between the average rate and the Tier 2 rate. This was only used for those costs
attributable to the higher capacity of the system.
Ms. Fong reported there was a revenue requirement, a total amount of dollars
the City had to collect. Applying this small rate, which was based on some peak
usage over ten years, to the total revenue requirement resulted in not collecting
all the money based on the number of therms sold. Based on the number of
therms sold, there was some difference between the amounts collected at that
rate versus what was not collected. That became the Tier 2 rate, to pick up the
balance of the revenues required to be collected. Revenues were based on the
cost to serve to determine the Tier 1 rate, and whatever was left over became the
Tier 2 rate.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how the Tier 1 rate was set.
Ms. Ratchye indicated a typical year's load shape was low in July and high (peak)
in December/January. Rather than this load shape, she assumed a flat load shape
every single month. The total revenue required to be collected was divided by
the total number of therms used in the flat load shape every day for one year,
which provided the rate of $0.147 per therm on page 40. Based on the real load
shape and Tier 1 breakpoints, the consultant determined how much would be
collected with that Tier 1 rate. The City was collecting on the order of $4 million
over that whole period; $1 million from Tier 1 and $3 million from Tier 2.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how Staff knew what the Tier 1 revenue was.
Ms. Ratchye explained there were a couple of processes that were somewhat
independent. Her prior explanation set the Tier 1 rate. The Tier 1 breakpoint for
summer and winter was the 50 percent usage for the whole residential group.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked why 50 percent was used rather than 75 percent.
Ms. Ratchye stated that was the common assumption.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked why that wasn't an arbitrary assumption.
Ms. Ratchye indicated it could be set at 75 percent, but the consultant chose to
set it at 50 percent. This was the same methodology used on the water Cost of
Service Study. That was the normal and reasonable methodology.
Vice Mayor Scharff wasn't sure why it was reasonable.
Ms. Ratchye explained that determined how much of total actual revenue was
collected from Tier 1 charges. The remainder of the revenue would be collected
from everything above that line, the Tier 2 revenue. That was how the Tier 2 rate
was determined. That rate of $0.663 was located on page 40. To both of those,
$0.24 per therm was added. The $0.24 was a piece of distribution revenue that
was divided evenly per therm for all therms sold in that class. That was the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
General Fund transfer and the energy efficiency programs. The consultant used
this technique. The FC might not agree that it was reasonable.
Vice Mayor Scharff didn't know if it was reasonable, as he couldn't ask the
consultant the question.
Ms. Ratchye wanted to ensure the FC understood how it was calculated.
Vice Mayor Scharff said if everyone used the service at peak, then this would be
the cost per therm of providing the service. Full peak was what everyone would
pay. He was confused about the Tier 1 part. He asked where the $1 million came
from.
Ms. Ratchye indicated the whole $4 million was divided to a "fake" therm
amount, which was the amount of therms if the service was used at peak. That
was more therms than actually sold. That determined the Tier 1 rate.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated anyone above average usage was in Tier 2, and anyone
below average usage was in Tier 1.
Ms. Ratchye reported anyone with slightly above average usage was mostly in
Tier 1.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the justification for assuming everyone used peak. A
system was not designed that way.
Ms. Connolly said that was to generate a low rate.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired why Staff would do that to generate a low rate.
Ms. Connolly explained it was a method to distinguish between having a more
efficient system being used all the time and a system not used most of the time.
The model had to be so much bigger to meet peak conditions. The usage that
contributed to this difference had to bear the cost of the system remaining idle
most of the time.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether there was a study indicating most idleness was
attributable to a different number than the 50 percent. He felt the 50 percent
number was arbitrary; users on the final 20 percent or 10 percent of the curve
were the reason for larger capacity.
Ms. Ratchye explained to the extent the number was increased from 50 percent,
the Tier 2 rate would be considerably higher. There would be fewer therms to
collect the revenue requirement.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether Staff asked the consultant to determine the
cost of service in his best professional opinion or told him to use tiered rates.
Ms. Connolly stated Staff wanted his best opinion.
Ms. Ratchye reported the City had a long history of tiered rates and having
Council support for conservation pricing.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if conservation pricing was driving it rather than Cost of
Service Study when Staff gave directions to the consultant.
Ms. Connolly indicated they were not different.
Ms. Fong stated Staff articulated existing policies and existing thinking. The
consultant understood there were prior considerations regarding conservation
pricing.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated conservation pricing was driving it.
Ms. Connolly said it was a cost‐based tiered rate structure.
Mr. Keene commented the ideas of building more capacity for peak capacity and
which users subsidized the idle period were interesting. They were discussing it
as if there wasn't a gradient to that pipe size. There wasn't just one group using
the extra pipe size. It seemed logical to consider the median as a breakpoint, and
to set the higher rate there. There was a marginal cost increase, depending upon
how much one used. Theoretically every user was paying for the pipe size to
some extent. Because there could not be 1,000 different rates, Staff was
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
attempting to assign a rate that made sense. That would vary by volume and
then the outcome bill. As a consumer he was concerned about the amount of his
bill. It would be impossible to set it exactly if there was one breakpoint for the
extra capacity and idleness.
Ms. Stump inquired if Staff could comment on how the existence of two tiers, as
opposed to more or fewer tiers, and use of the 50 percent level as of the break
point related to industry standard or the types of rate structures common to
other agencies.
Ms. Connolly reported Staff had asked the consultant to provide his best
professional opinion, and his response was this methodology was used
throughout the industry. The breakpoint of 50 percent could be policy driven, but
it was a reasonable level because it was the median point. The consultant
reviewed the load profile, and observed that Tier 1 in the winter was set at a
higher level than what would be recommended. He recommended the Tier 1
cutoff point be lowered from 90 therms to 60 therms, and that was driven by
analysis and his expert opinion.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated the summer tier made no sense to him intuitively.
He didn't believe it cost more to deliver the service in the summer. He deferred
to the consultant on the winter rate.
Ms. Connolly noted it cost more in the winter. That argument applied only to the
peak. If the City had a tier for only the peak condition of the system, then that
rate had to be astronomical. This method averaged the excess requirement on
the system, and allocated it over the whole year. This method provided
customers the price signal to conserve, not just at one point in time but over the
whole year.
Vice Mayor Scharff referenced Commissioner Waldfogel's statement that the
summer rate subsidized the winter rate.
Council Member Burt suggested the explanation was that consumers used less in
the summer while capacity remained the same. He asked if the basic driver was
carrying the same overhead for less volume of commodity.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Ms. Connolly stated the cost of the system was the same, because it was a fixed
cost.
Council Member Burt felt the fallacy was equating the rate to the bill. Consumers
may have a higher rate in summer, but a lower bill amount.
Vice Mayor Scharff understood Proposition 26 was not about the bill; it was about
the rate being charged per therm.
Council Member Burt was offering an explanation of the rate, which was related
to Proposition 218. What seemed counterintuitive was explained by the fact that
the bill was lower, less was being consumed; therefore, the system was spreading
the cost of overhead against fewer commodities being sold.
Ms. Connolly stated Staff was not suggesting a different rate for every single
month. Tier 1 and Tier 2 rates were the same throughout the year. The rate
reflected the fact there was extra capacity on the system in the winter, but it was
borne by usage throughout the whole year. The City was collecting appropriately;
however, the City didn't have seasonal rates. She suggested there was a
disconnect between the concept of average rate and high winter usage.
Ms. Fong indicated costs were set and collected over the entire year. Council
Member Burt's explanation was an easier way to understand it.
Ms. Connolly said Tier 1 was lower in the winter. Tier 1 and Tier 2 were not
related in that manner.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether policy decisions could drive the Cost of
Service Study, or was it intended to be an objective standard.
Ms. Stump stated the discussion was complex. She understood the consultant
had recommended a methodology that was reasonable. There was a rational
structure to it, and the Study was based on that structure. The law did not
require such a level of precision that rates could be determined exactly for each
month. Based on the rationale Staff had described, she was confident the Study
was reasonable and supportable. The alternative would be a crushing load on a
small number of consumers at a small point in time.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the consultant could be present when this Item was
presented to Council.
Ms. Fong answered yes.
Chair Shepherd expressed concerns about rates for senior and disabled citizens.
Ms. Fong reported the Rate Assistance Program involved low‐income and medical
needs residents.
Chair Shepherd asked whether the City could make an accommodation for senior
citizens with medical needs.
Mr. Keene indicated it was for anyone with medical needs.
Chair Shepherd inquired if senior citizens without medical needs were charged at
regular rates.
Ms. Fong stated they were unless they were low income.
Ms. Stump reported it was possible for a municipality to consider subsidizing rates
for certain groups with legitimate needs based on a variety of factors. The legal
issue became complex when the City considered spreading the cost over other
rate payers. There were Constitutional requirements that constrained the ability
to subsidize across groups. Proposition 26 had a non‐retroactive provision that
could affect the impact of that program, and Staff was reviewing that.
Ms. Keene indicated policy was more flexible if the City wanted to fund a subsidy
through the General Fund rather than through rate payers.
Chair Shepherd wanted to consider a program for senior citizens who needed to
stay at Tier 1 rates.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd
to recommend the City Council amend the Utility Rate Schedules G‐1, G‐2, G‐3, G‐
4, G‐10, G‐11, G‐12, amend Utility Rules and Regulations 2 and 5 as of July 1,
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
2012, and repeal Utility Rate Schedule G‐6 as of July 1, 2012 per Staff
recommendations.
Chair Shepherd felt the rate settings were complicated; however, Staff had
determined a solid load factor for a residential home in Palo Alto. She felt the
rate was average and not excessive. She asked if the change in seasonal
definition was firm, because she found that to be a small window for winter.
Ms. Connolly reported that was based on customer usage. It was recommended
by the Cost of Service Study, and was the same seasonal definition used by PG&E.
Chair Shepherd asked if there was any flexibility.
Ms. Connolly indicated that would change the entire methodology, because that
affected the calculation of tier rates.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if that caused Staff to recalculate rates rather than
change methodology.
Ms. Connolly stated Staff would use the same methodology, but it would result in
different rates.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the FC could change the rates without undermining
the Cost of Service Study.
Ms. Connolly indicated there was a relationship between the heating and non‐
heating seasons and the costs borne. It would be more true to the spirit of the
methodology to adopt the consultant's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Scharff offered to amend the Motion to continue the current seasonal
definition.
Council Member Burt asked what the need to remain with the current time
period was.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt people heated their houses then.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Chair Shepherd was convinced the current rate structure would even out over
that period.
Council Member Burt would not accept the amendment.
Vice Mayor Scharff would not support the Motion, because he didn't have enough
information. He might support the Motion after he talked with the consultant,
and if Staff provided information regarding single‐family homes falling within Tier
1. He wanted to know the percentage of single‐family homes within Tier 2.
Council Member Burt asked for a point of order. He felt further questions were
out of order.
Ms. Connolly reported in the range Staff proposed, 20 therms in the summer, 50
percent of homes were under that.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if homes included apartments or single‐family homes.
Ms. Connolly indicated it was individually metered residential homes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked specifically if single‐family homes were all in Tier 2.
Ms. Connolly did not have that information with her.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Staff to present that information at the Council
meeting.
Council Member Price supported the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐1, Scharff no
2. General Fund CIP, Proposed Capital Budget
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer wanted to include the Technology Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) with this discussion. He noted at places was a
memorandum dated May 17, 2012, regarding decisions made at the April 23,
2012 Council meeting. Staff had provided information concerning the Finance
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Committee's (FC) questions of the Community Services Department Budget. The
next FC meeting was scheduled for May 22, 2012. It appeared the May 24, 2012
Back‐up meeting would not be needed. Wrap‐up would be May 29, 2012. Staff's
goal was to provide information for Wrap‐up on Thursday, May 24, 2012. If
research of questions from the May 22, 2012 meeting was required, Staff would
provide information at places. The total amount was approximately $59 million,
which combined the Enterprise and General Funds. The General Fund portion
was approximately $20 million or 34 percent. Staff had an internal CIP group that
began work in November by reviewing the projects based on priority criteria and
projected balances for the Reserve. It was a rolling five‐year plan; therefore,
projects in the conceptual stage in the prior year were the beginning point. Staff
also reviewed the current capacity of Staff's ability to start incomplete projects as
they were budgeted. Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC)
recommendations included adding a layer of responsibility to this process by
having a point person. Staff was identifying the point person within the current
structure to begin addressing IBRC recommendations in terms of review and
reporting requirements. The General Fund was approximately $20 million, the
majority of which was street and sidewalks at 35 percent. That had been a
priority for the prior three years, especially on the street side. He noted 26
percent was for building. For Fiscal Year 2013, Staff proposed transferring $13.2
million from the General Fund, including the FC's requested $2.2 million. There
was a Measure N Library Bond amount of $2.8 million. Staff didn't know the date
or the amount to be issued for the second round, possibly in Fiscal Year 2013 or
2014. Funding was $21.7 million, and total uses of $20 million. He noted Staff
had not identified projects for the $2.2 million during this process, because the
FC's recommendation was made after Staff began reviews. The Infrastructure
Reserve began at $4.6 million, and ended at $6.2 million. Prior to adding $2.2
million, Staff projected $2 million in Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. The City
averaged approximately $1.5 million over the last five years for in unplanned
projects. Staff proposed leaving that balance there. It had increased because of
the $2.2 million commitment.
Mike Sartor, Public Works Director reported Staff had begun the design work of
the Main Library Project, and hoped to request bids when the new Mitchell
Library opened, possibly in the spring of 2013. Staff had completed the latest
renovation of the Civic Center infrastructure, including the heating, venting and
air conditioning systems, and restroom remodels. The building was now
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
operating more energy efficiently. Staff was completing the construction of the
Art Center, was on schedule and within budget, and had accomplished additional
renovations to the courtyard and windows. Staff was also working on the
Highway 101 pedestrian bridge, and would return with a contract amendment to
move into the next phase of design to include a design competition. Staff
completed the El Camino/Stanford intersection improvements, was working with
the community on a master plan for the renovation of Rinconada Park, and was
working with the Friends of the Magical Bridge on a project in Mitchell Park for
the Magical Bridge Playground.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 was actually a
bike bridge.
Mr. Sartor indicated it would be for bikes and pedestrians.
Mr. Perez reported Staff kept the design of the Children's Theatre improvements
in Fiscal Year 2013, and moved construction to Fiscal Year 2014 because of a work
capacity issue. Regarding Cubberley mechanical and electrical projects, there
were discussions about the process in the site use, moving that and the Ventura
Building until Staff had further direction. When Staff reviewed available funding
and projects, they moved the open space trails and amenities of $150,000. The
main driver was another $150,000 towards this type of activity. Because another
$2.2 million had been added to the funding source, the FC could take action if it
wished. Rinconada Park improvements were shifted to Fiscal Years 2014 and
2014. Staff had identified the source of funding for the Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor as $250,000 from Development Impact Fees. The annual street
maintenance project was being increased by approximately $900,000 because of
a grant.
Mr. Sartor indicated the City received a $900,000 grant from the Highway Safety
Improvement Program for Alma Street, which Staff would be doing in Fiscal Year
2013. That was in addition to the regular program coordinated with the Utility
Department.
Mr. Perez reported Library Projects included those funded by Measure N. With
regard to the IBRC recommendations, $2.2 million had been added for keep‐up
and Staff needed to work on catch‐up. Within the CIP Budget, Staff tried to
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
identify how many projects were catch‐up and keep‐up for the reader of the
document. The identification of such was for all projects, meaning those already
funded and those coming on board as new projects. There was a list of projects
and categories on pages 287‐289. In the listing, Staff had noted the page number
on the project. Staff wanted to do that with the main list. He noted the changes
to El Camino Park were not in one project, because they were managed by two
different departments and it was easier for the departments to manage the
project individually. Highlights of projects for Technology were located on pages
275‐284, and they totaled $2.5 million. Some key projects were the Development
Center Blueprint in the amount of $800,000 and the new infrastructure
management system. He didn't have a sense of the dollar amount needed for the
new infrastructure management system. It would be a useful tool and provide
more analytics and information, and manage the capital program. Staff was
reviewing models and demos. The last one was the Library radio frequency
identification (RFID) implementation of $215,000.
Chair Shepherd found the IBRC information throughout the report very helpful.
Mr. Perez stated the list was compiled by Public Works Staff.
Chair Shepherd noted the IBRC recommendations had to be integrated into the
process as it moved forward.
Pamela Radin of Payback and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition was disappointed
that there was only $50,000 attributed to the bike and pedestrian plan. She
wanted to see it increased to $2 million. She'd like to see a commitment reflected
in the Budget.
Jeremy Shaw with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Palo Alto Team, wanted to
understand how much Palo Alto was actually spending on bicycle infrastructure.
He knew it was a goal of the City to be bicycle friendly. He wanted to get a feel
for how the City did year‐over‐year and in comparison to other cities. He found it
difficult to compare Palo Alto with other cities by reviewing the CIP Budgets. He
reviewed the year‐over‐year, and thought funding was decreasing about 4
percent three years ago, 2 percent the previous year and 1 percent in the current
Budget. He was concerned about that.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Andrew Boone agreed it was confusing to try to figure out how much the City was
spending on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, but it was clear the
City was not spending enough. The line item in the general CIP, the PL‐04010
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation, had been $50,000
per year for at least eight or nine years. It was projected to be $50,000 for the
next five years. Clearly that was decreasing over the 15‐year existence. The City
made investments in infrastructure that made biking and walking safer from
funds in addition to the $50,000, through grants. Staff did a good job of
determining how a street could be improved when a general resurfacing project
was done. That $50,000 was the bulk of what allowed the Bicycle Plan to be
implemented, and it was an investment of $35 million, that would take 700 years
to implement. Not much had been built from the prior bike plan. Grants would
continue to be an important source of funding, but comments at previous
meetings showed the Council cared about the project. This CIP Budget did not
reflect that concern, and didn't reflect the need to start building the
infrastructure that had been ignored over the past decades. Those bicycle and
pedestrian projects benefited everybody. If more people bike and walk, then the
streets were safer. There had been a significant change in Palo Alto over the last
ten years, because more children were biking and walking to school.
Transportation choices were shifting away from driving. Budgeting needed to
reflect that change and reflect residents' choice for transportation.
Council Member Price stated one of the key elements was the relationship
between CIP and operating and maintenance costs associated with the CIP
projects. Each of the CIP descriptions under impact analysis did not contain any
reference to or estimate of operating and maintenance costs. She assumed this
was the way it had been done for many years. The IBRC observed that it would
be more thorough and more helpful to make that link when reviewing CIP
projects. She asked why that discussion under operating often said none.
James Keene, City Manager indicated CIPs and the Capital Budgets he had worked
with in the past had included within the Capital Budget that operating cost
connection. Staff would make that change in the following year's Budget, as far
as having that expressed in the CIP. That was the place where it would be easiest
to find and review the issue as it related to existing capital projects in the CIP.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Council Member Price noted it was standard to have it that way. She inquired
whether the infrastructure management system would relate to that or was it a
completely different inventory process.
Mr. Perez reported it would, because the IBRC and Staff were looking at
maintenance in the Operating Budget and in the Capital Budget. It was a part of
the scope of requirement for the system.
Council Member Price asked if the infrastructure management system would be
utilized for inventory or project management.
Mr. Perez stated Staff needed both, and that was part of the challenge.
Council Member Price noticed in the reference to Ventura Buildings and
Cubberley, the proposed CIPs had been pushed out to at least Fiscal Year 2014.
She inquired whether pushing the Cubberley project out further made sense,
given a community group, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the City
were all working on it.
Mr. Perez explained technically the first year was the real spending, and the other
four years were plans and not necessarily commitments. If the FC wanted Staff to
push them out further, they could do that.
Mr. Keene reported Staff kept it in Fiscal Year 2014 in order to retain the focus on
existing problems with the facilities and the need to reinvest. That project could
be pushed out or become a different CIP.
Council Member Price suggested there could be band‐aid approaches initially
during a transition period. She asked if it was necessary to invest the proposed
significant amount in the Baylands Interpretive Center given the possibility of
leasing that building.
Mr. Sartor said the exterior siding on the building needed to be replaced. It
would remain functional another year or two, so Staff had programmed it for
Fiscal Year 2014.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Council Member Price noted $350,000 was proposed for the Park Master Plan,
which was a high priority for Parks and Recreation. She inquired where the
discussion took place about the possibility of pushing that out a year.
Greg Betts, Community Services Director reported the City had completed a first
round of improvements at most of the City Park facilities, and Staff was now
prioritizing projects. At first glance $350,000 was a large sum of money; however,
it worked out to less than $10,000 per facility when considering the number of
parks, playgrounds, exercise facilities and community facilities. Staff had not
performed a citywide analysis in the last 20 years to determine the rightsizing of
tennis courts, the future of inline skating or skateboard parks, and other
amenities that the City needed to have in the future. Because Staff had utilized
public input in developing the Pearson‐Arastradero Trail Master Plan, they were
able to request grants to implement the Plan. The City spent $40,000 on a trail
plan and received $250,000 in grants to implement the plan. Staff hoped to have
good information from the public, in order to receive more grants from more
sources.
Council Member Price supported strategic planning. She asked how the Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) project applied to the status of the CIP proposals.
Jaime Rodriquez, Transportation Official reported the BRT project was in an early
phase. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) would ask the
Council for a list of preferences for design options that they would carry forward
for the next few years. Staff would take advantage of any development project to
identify partnerships with the BRT project. Over the next year, the BRT project
would develop into a tighter scope, so Staff could develop future projects within
the CIP or private partnerships.
Council Member Price stated the map on page 65 looked like a wasteland from
Embarcadero to San Antonio in terms of the dearth of projects. She suggested a
paragraph or two be added to emphasize any projects in that area.
Mr. Sartor said it appeared for the coming fiscal year the preponderance of
projects was on the northerly side of Palo Alto. The universe of active projects
throughout the City that were in the Capital program was not reflected on the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
map. Staff could have another presentation that provided a bigger picture of
activities.
Mr. Keene indicated that was a mapping issue. The General Fund Budget for
capital projects was small at $20 million, because Staff appropriated a big piece of
the Mitchell Park Library project in the current year. At the end of the year, Staff
would carry forward and re‐appropriate money from the Mitchell Park
Community Center, which would be the largest capital expenditure in Fiscal Year
2013.
Council Member Price stated many of the facilities served the entire community;
however, it was important to make these observations and clarifications for the
public.
Vice Mayor Scharff expressed concerns about the trend down in infrastructure
dollars given the City's commitment to infrastructure. He inquired if
infrastructure dollars were trending down while salaries and benefits were
trending up.
Mr. Perez explained grant funding was a variable that was difficult to predict. The
IBRC concluded that Staff's approach of not counting on those sources of funds
was prudent. The Budget had a slightly higher balance since the FC directed the
addition of $2 million. If Staff added that $2 million in infrastructure would be a
slightly better.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the $2 million was in the Budget.
Mr. Perez reported it was in the sources of funds, but not allocated to projects.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the methodology being used to predict salaries and
benefits.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff working on capital projects had been charged to the
General Fund. As the General Fund had more challenges, Staff revisited some of
the decisions, and recommended salaries should be funded from capital projects
since Staff was working on capital projects. The dollar variations for the funding
could fluctuate. For the last couple of years, the Measure N funding had skewed
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
the picture. Staff needed to explore staffing of the projects, such as use of
contractors and restructuring of staff.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the City was spending these CIPs wisely
given the reconfiguration of the Golf Course.
Darren Anderson, Open Space Parks and Recreation Manager was working with
the Golf Course Superintendent to monitor the various plans and impacts of the
trees, as well as the CIP dollars to care for existing trees. They wanted to ensure
any work would address only emergency repairs to the existing trees or trees
outside the scope of the reconfiguration.
Council Member Burt asked if grants were included in the total Capital Fund.
Mr. Perez stated grants were included as an offset to the cost; that was the
reason for it being a negative amount.
Council Member Burt noted the Street Improvement Fund had $1.3 million.
Mr. Perez said there was a $900,000 grant.
Council Member Burt suggested a subtotal on grants, so the FC could see the real
baseline of the City contribution versus the total contribution.
Mr. Perez reported the IBRC made that recommendation, but determined Staff
couldn't do that for 25 years and expect to have trending. The IBRC then
accepted Staff's conservative nature.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff knew whether the decline in the Capital Fund
was caused by fewer grant dollars or decreased City contributions.
Mr. Perez indicated Proposition 22 protected the Street Improvement Fund. Staff
included funds that they felt were certain. The summary on page 36 included
state and federal grants.
Council Member Burt noted Staff was conservatively projecting grants wouldn't
continue. He asked if funding was too uncertain to predict.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Mr. Perez explained the uncertainty was caused by changing Federal and State
funding to local agencies. Staff chose to err on the conservative side.
Council Member Burt noted Federal and State grants had been on a general
pattern of decline.
Mr. Keene stated Staff could provide a band of available grant money, but what
the funds could be applied to would be variable. Staff could try to have a
separate chart for grant revenue streams and have some projections without
allocating them to projects.
Council Member Burt asked if the Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010 State grants had
increased because of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds
Mr. Perez believed those were straight Federal grants, so they would have been
under the Federal Grant column.
Mr. Sartor believed the City received approximately $1.3 million ARRA funds for
street maintenance in the 2009‐2010 timeframe.
Council Member Burt was concerned about spending for the original Bicycle
Master Plan. He asked for an explanation of the lack of budgetary change in the
CIP for the Bike Master Plan.
Mr. Keene stated bike‐related improvements were embedded within street
resurfacing and parking improvement areas. Staff was not doing a good job of
contrasting it with the $35 million implementation costs.
Mr. Rodriguez reported bicycle/pedestrian focused projects were funded from
several CIPs rather than one. Over the past year, the City had dedicated more
than $1 million to bicycle‐focused projects. Staff had not requested additional
funds in the bicycle pedestrian CIP, because the Bike Plan had not been adopted.
The CIPs dedicated in the Plan would fund planning efforts over the next fiscal
year and hopefully advance California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
processes through some projects. When Staff began the following year's CIP
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
process, they would have projects identified and could pursue grants and
additional CIP dollars.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the CIP item for bike improvements
would increase once the Bike Plan was adopted.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated Staff would request additional funds for the upcoming
fiscal year, but wanted to use planning dollars in 2012‐2013 to define projects
from the Bike Plan. The Bike Plan was a visionary document, but many of those
projects needed to be vetted by the community.
Council Member Burt asked if that $50,000 amount was focused on plan design
and implementation; not just the overall general plans but specific plans.
Mr. Rodriguez stated it was all of those things. Some projects were small scale,
and required a few thousand dollars to implement. Staff funded the construction
of those projects from a separate CIP. Staff would pay for design and planning
from the Bicycle Pedestrian CIP, but would implement it through on‐call contracts
funded from a different CIP. That allowed Staff to adapt to the concerns of the
community and to implement projects quickly.
Council Member Burt noted the Bike Plan CIP on page 91 indicated construction
costs, not design costs. He felt it was important to identify those; otherwise, it
looked as though the City didn't have them.
Mr. Perez said supplementary information could include design or improvements
as well.
Council Member Burt stated prior years did not provide a clear picture.
Mr. Perez reported the amount carried over, so there could be accumulation of
dollars.
Council Member Burt asked if there could have been that much rollover from
prior unspent budgets to spend $268 million.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Mr. Rodriguez said much of it was carryover funding, because for several years
the Bike Plan wasn't advanced. The City had a great Bike Plan in 2003, but it
wasn't implemented. There was a balance that had not been spent in the
previous years.
Council Member Burt inquired if Staff budgeted $50,000, but didn't spent that
much.
Mr. Rodriguez answered yes.
Mr. Keene stated Staff could separate and add the components embedded
elsewhere. If Staff was not capturing that, then they were not giving the right
picture of things.
Council Member Burt said a breakout of the degree to which street maintenance
prioritization was influenced by bike use would be useful.
Mr. Sartor didn't believe Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) criteria
for ranking street pavement condition included bicycle rideability. Staff could
look into that.
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer indicated the MTC did not look at bicycle projects
as part of the criteria for pavement condition. Staff did work with Payback on
bike projects.
Council Member Burt asked why MTC's inclusion of bike use in prioritization
criteria was relevant to the City's prioritization of street paving.
Mr. Sartor reported the City's street maintenance program was based on
Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which Staff used as a judging factor of the
condition of the pavement.
Council Member Burt wasn't sure there was a conflict. The City determined which
streets to pave first. If MTC's criteria didn't include the bike issue, then the City
could include it. There was nothing preventing the City from paving first the
streets with both bad vehicle conditions and bike boulevards.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Ms. Ames agreed. Staff tried to wrap bicycle projects into the street resurfacing
program. Staff considered pavement condition, coordination with the Utilities
Department and community outreach when selecting streets for resurfacing.
Council Member Burt inquired where that process was transparent to the FC as
policy makers and overseers.
Ms. Ames stated Staff could better outline transportation projects.
Council Member Burt wanted to see the methodology for integrating bike
priority. He was surprised that MTC didn't include it, and wanted to advocate for
that at MTC.
Mr. Keene suggested a negative number was attached to a street for the bike
condition that dropped the pavement index score. Tracking that would make it
easier to discuss with MTC.
Council Member Burt wanted this issue to have greater transparency and
prominence.
Council Member Price asked Staff to clarify VTA's criteria in the evaluation of
projects.
Mr. Rodriguez reported MTC, VTA and the City of Palo Alto had a strong
commitment to well‐rounded street‐focused projects. The City needed to
advocate for changing the PCI methodology. Bicycle and pedestrian activity was
one of the higher ranking criteria in awarding grants. Projects that promoted that
type of mode shift usually received the highest types of benefits and
consideration for funding.
Council Member suggested there was a disconnect at MTC between Complete
Streets Staff and road Staff. The FC didn't have enough information to determine
if it needed to reprioritize and increase the Budget for bike initiatives this year
and going forward.
Mr. Keene reported the next Council meeting would include the Policy & Services
Committee recommendation about the timing of infrastructure funding.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Considerations in going to the voters in the future were what to seek and the best
way to fund it. The FC should keep in mind the public perception related to
pedestrian and bike safety and important factors on potentially capturing more
funding. The IBRC separated the keep‐up category into two areas: $1.6 million
for maintenance and $600,000 for pop‐up. He suggested the Council could also
consider that funding source and see this as a true keep‐up or pop‐up issue that
needed attention and momentum. On July 9, 2012, Staff would recommend a
Bike Plan to the Council for adoption. There could be a situation for the FC to
earmark funding.
Council Member Burt asked if this item could come back on Wrap‐up night with
more information on the amount needed to accelerate the program,
identification of funds being spent that weren't in the CIP, and the portion of IBRC
keep‐up that would have been toward the Bicycle Plan. From the $2.2 million for
keep‐up, some portion would belong under the bicycle category.
Chair Shepherd agreed with Council Member Burt's suggestion to bring it back at
Wrap‐up. At that time, Staff could help the FC understand how the remaining
funds of the $2.2 million would be prioritized or left in Reserves.
Mr. Sartor reported the $1.6 million portion of keep‐up was intended to allow
more maintenance. Many maintenance activities for infrastructure were in the
Operating Budget in contracts. The IBRC's recommendations and what Staff used
as a placeholder were to increase the dollar amount in those contracts so Staff
could do more work each year in those areas. Staff had not determined how
much money to add to which contract. The $600,000 remaining portion was
intended to fund pop‐up projects each year.
Council Member Shepherd wanted to see all of the infrastructure and inventory
listed in this CIP report, even if the City not spending money on it. It would serve
as a reminder that the City needed to manage all of these infrastructure projects.
If the Council wasn't capturing that picture, then it couldn't explain it to the
community.
Mr. Sartor indicated the spreadsheet developed for the IBRC to identify the keep‐
up, catch‐up and new projects was on the City's website.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Chair Shepherd didn't want to go to five different places to get the picture of
what was happening.
Mr. Perez reported Staff had placed a link to the Budget on the website. The
vision was to integrate the infrastructure management system so that it could be
accessed through the website.
Council Member Shepherd stated the most significant infrastructure project was
street maintenance, and asked Staff to explain that program and how it was
considered accelerated.
Mr. Sartor recalled the IBRC recommended target for City streets was an average
PCI score of 85 with nothing less than 60. The City had a lot of streets below 60.
The plan would bring all streets above that level, and then the overall condition
would be an 85, which was in the very good category. Doubling the Budget for
street maintenance had enabled the City to achieve this accelerated schedule.
Council Member Shepherd wanted to ensure the community understood this was
a focus.
Mr. Sartor indicated Staff didn't list it separately, because the work was
performed every year.
Council Member Shepherd wanted to ensure the community knew the Council
was listening and working on that. She noted salaries and benefits in the General
Fund of $3.6 million were not allocated to projects. She didn't understand why
Staff did not spread this over the load of identified projects. She suggested that
particular line item should be better integrated into the CIP Budget.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt, that the
Finance Committee recommends the City Council approve the General Fund CIP
Budget as recommended by Staff.
MOTION PASSED: 4‐0
3. Utilities Department
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Christine Paras, Acting Principle Analyst reported electric rates had not changed,
fiber optics had a 2.9 percent Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment, gas rates
had a 10 percent decrease, water rates had a 15 percent increase, and
wastewater collection rates had a 5 percent increase. Refuse and storm drain
rates would be discussed at the following meeting. The average residential
monthly bill would increase by approximately $8.94 a month or 3.8 percent. The
Utility Department was working on an organizational review, and the draft would
be transmitted to Staff at the end of June 2012. Staff reviewed the Department's
position requests in anticipation of completion of that review. There was an
increase of 3 Full‐Time Equivalents (FTE), including addition of an Inspector of
Field Services. This Inspector would communicate between Planning and
contractors, consultants and residents for engineering and field site inspections.
The second addition was a Utilities Engineering Estimator, who would work in the
Development Center, would prepare new cost estimates to ensure contract work
conformed to City standards and provide inspection services. The goal of having
this position was to encourage better coordination between Utilities and Building
and Planning Staff on customer projects. The third addition was a Business
Analyst, who would develop and maintain databases for regional, state and
federal requirements. Two Overhead/Underground Troublemen would be added,
and two other positions would be eliminated. The Electric Fund Budget had an
overall revenue increase of $10 million. This increase in revenue was caused by a
higher demand and was driven by commercial site expansion. There was an
increase in income for the Central Valley Project loan repayment of $1.2 million,
offset by a $1.2 million expense increase for the Valley Loan repayment. There
was an overall increase of $7.4 million in expenses, mostly due to an increase of
commodity purchases, higher hydroelectric availability, market prices and
transmission costs. Expenses totaled $1.3 million for salaries, benefits and
allocated charges. There was an increase of $2.2 million for the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Reserve balances in the Electric Fund decreased by
$4.2 million. Palo Alto's monthly electric bill was second lowest in the region,
based on residential usage levels of 367 kilowatts per month in the summer
months and 453 kilowatts per month in the winter months. The Fiscal Year 2013
proposed Palo Alto monthly median rate remained unchanged.
Council Member Price inquired which of the additional positions were related to
regulatory compliance and expertise.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Dean Batchelor, Assistant Director of Operations for Utilities reported the Field
Inspector Position was tied to compliance and safety aspects of the operation.
Despite the recent economic downturn, construction activity in Palo Alto had
increased, and the additional projects that required inspection had also increased.
Staff had upgraded one position on a temporary basis. The current average time
for a customer to have gas service brought into their home was 30 days. Staff felt
that length of time was unacceptable, and wanted to add this position.
Council Member Burt asked how much of the cost of this position would be
recovered in inspection fees.
Mr. Batchelor estimated 30‐40 percent would be recovered. That position would
have all benefits.
Council Member Burt noted some of the functions of that position were related
to general safety and some to remodel projects. He asked if the workload would
be proportionate to the 30‐40 percent of salary recovered from inspection fees.
Mr. Batchelor indicated this position would perform compliance duties; had to be
certified on nuclear gauge; and would spend time on street cuts and replacement
of water and gas mains and sewer lines. This position was a combination of all
three Utilities.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the higher load forecast resulted from VMware.
Valerie Fong, Utilities Director reported there were a couple of large customers.
Vice Mayor Scharff was concerned that the community would think efficiency
programs were not working when they saw loads increase. He wasn't sure how to
report that to the Council or to the public. He wanted to make sure that message
was presented properly, and asked how Staff would approach that.
Ms. Fong stated single‐customer large loads had not suddenly materialized. The
engineering group needed to review engineering facilities to ensure the capacity
was adequate. Staff would have to work on distinguishing between load growth
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
and the effectiveness of efficiency programs. That hadn't materialized yet, but it
needed to be articulated.
Council Member Burt inquired whether server farms or other expansion had
caused these load spikes.
Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director noted VMware was a large load coming in, but
the load had been declining over the years.
Council Member Burt inquired whether expansion of space was driving the load
increase, or were companies installing server farms.
Mr. Marshall indicated companies were expanding space and installing server
farms.
Council Member Burt believed Palo Alto's low electricity rates had attracted
server farms, which skewed programs including clean energy programs. He asked
if the Council needed to implement policies requiring server farms to subscribe to
Palo Alto green practices. He was interested in whether any utilities or
communities had implemented such policies.
Ms. Fong suggested Staff bring back that issue for a more robust discussion.
PG&E had an economic development rate. She didn't believe they added on
additional requirements. Staff would look into that a bit more.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the functions of the Business Analyst position.
Mr. Batchelor reported the Business Analyst position, with all the requirements
from Department of Transportation (DOT) and compliance, would develop and
build new databases. This person would oversee databases and all compliance
matters from wastewater, water and the DOT aspect. The position would track
the status of projects, so that Staff could answer questions regarding compliance.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted electric intertie line would save $2 million, and asked if
this project could be completed as quickly as possible.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Mr. Marshall reported this was study money. The intertie project would be in the
$40 million range and the annual savings would be approximately $2 million. The
project had a fairly short payback of seven to eight years. However, Staff had to
coordinate with the owners of the line, including Stanford National Accelerator
Laboratory (SLAC) and Stanford. Staff was discussing how to make the
interconnection.
Vice Mayor Scharff noticed the Coleridge/Cowper/Tennyson project was
scheduled for 2015, and inquired whether this project could wait until 2015.
Mr. Marshall answered yes. These were long‐term projects to convert old 4 kV
systems to 12 kV. Staff had been working on this for the last ten years or more,
and was in the process of replacing equipment that was 40‐50 years old. Staff
didn't expect it to fail tomorrow, but continued to make progress in replacing
equipment.
Ms. Paras reported revenue increases for the Fiber Optic Fund totaled $200,000,
due to the 2.9 percent CPI rate adjustment for two of the rate schedules. The
expense decrease totaled $300,000, due to a decrease in benefits and the CIP.
The network system improvement totaled $300,000, and the customer
connections CIP totaled $100,000. There was an increase of $2 million to overall
Fund Reserves. The Department intended to report to the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) in June 2012 on a business plan recommendation regarding
fiber assets.
Council Member Price asked how long it would take to complete an agreement
with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and why there was a delay.
Mr. Marshall reported the City had signed a letter agreement with the School
District on extending fiber to the schools. Staff was beginning the engineering
work, and it would take approximately nine months to complete construction.
The City had a tentative agreement on how costs would be divided with the
School District.
Council Member Price asked for the cause of the delay.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Mr. Marshall didn't think the School District had been under any pressure to
switch to the City's fiber optics; however, they now had to pay Comcast for the
connections and were looking to the City as an alternative.
Ms. Paras reported the Gas Fund Budget had a $5.3 million revenue decrease due
to a 10 percent rate decrease. Expenses for the Fund decreased by $6.6 million.
There had been a decrease in gas commodity purchases of $3.1 million, and an
increase for the cross‐bore inspection program. There was one‐time funding in
2012 for $3.8 million, and another $500,000 coming in 2013. The 2013 funding
supplemented the funding from 2012. The goal was to complete inspection and
repair over 12 months. The 2013 expense for Capital in this Fund totaled $7.8
million. Overall there was a $3.4 million decrease in the Gas Fund Reserve. The
Gas Utility residential benchmark comparison as of January 1, 2012, reflected the
average monthly bill for Palo Alto gas rates. The Wastewater Collection Fund
Budget had revenue increases of $600,000, due to a 5 percent rate increase.
There was an expense increase of $900,000, because of the increase of
wastewater treatment charges ($600,000). 2013 expenses for Capital in the
Wastewater Collection Fund totaled $4.4 million. Reserves were projected to
decrease by $6.7 million. The Water Fund Budget had a revenue increase of $5.4
million, due to a 15 percent rate increase. The rate increase was based on the
Cost of Service Study recommendations. Overall, there was a $2 million increase
primarily due to the increase in CIPs. There were $6.1 million in expenses for
Capital, mainly due to the water main replacement project, seismic water system
upgrades, and the water reservoir coding improvements. The Reserve balances in
the Water Fund were projected to increase by $1 million. The proposed 2013
monthly median rate for water was $62.14.
Council Member Price inquired whether the $400,000 increase for lease of
emergency generators was a one‐time or ongoing expense, and was it a lease or
purchase agreement.
Mr. Marshall indicated it was an ongoing expense. Staff needed to have 14
generators on the water system in case of loss of all power. Bids ranged from $1
million to $3 million. The lowest bid covered leasing of new generators and
maintenance of existing generators. Staff would re‐issue bid requests and
consider purchase or lease‐to‐purchase agreements to decrease costs.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 39
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/17/12
Council Member Price asked if the $400,000 was an annual, ongoing expense.
Mr. Marshall reported the annual, ongoing expense for all 14 generators was $1
million. That was the lowest bid for generators.
Ms. Fong explained in Fiscal Year 2012 Staff had approved $640,000 for
emergency generators. Because the bids were too high, Staff did not spend those
funds. Staff was now asking for $360,000 to bring the total amount to $1 million.
Staff wanted to restructure the Request for Proposal (RFP) to consider purchase
and/or a lease with the right to purchase after a period of time.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff for the Finance Committee to recommend the City Council approve the
Utilities Department Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4‐0
Future Meetings and Agendas
Mr. Perez noted there was only one meeting the following week on Tuesday, May
22, 2012. May 24, 2012 was scheduled as Back‐up, but it didn't appear to be
needed at this point.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:02 pm.
Finance Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 44
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Roll Call
Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Council Member Burt, Price, Shepherd (Chair), Scharff
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. City Clerk Budget (continued from 05/10/12)
Acting Financial Analyst Christine Paras reported Staff had included additional
detail requested at the last Finance Committee (FC) meeting. In Memorandum
Attachment 1, Staff included detail by Division for salary, benefit and non‐
personnel costs. The item in question was the $200,000 increase in Council
Support Services. She noted a $99,000 increase in benefits and a $100,000
increase in non‐personnel costs. She explained $60,000 of non‐personnel costs
was an increase for election publication services, which would be reallocated to
Election/Conflict of Interest Division. The item in question was the $19,000
increase in total for the City Clerk Budget. There was a $99,000 increase in
Council Support Services, with offsetting decreases in the other Divisions. Those
decreases were driven by the change in allocation methodology for the benefits
allocation. In prior years, Staff had used Full‐Time Equivalents (FTE) to allocate
the costs. Now, Staff was using the employees' actual pension and healthcare
costs. Staff felt this was a more accurate method to allocate benefits to the
various Divisions across the City Clerk's Budget and Department wide.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Chair Shepherd inquired if Staff wanted a Motion to approve tentatively this
Budget.
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez answered yes. This level of detail was
not included in the document. If the FC felt this level of detail would be helpful
for Staff to include as part of the template for all Departments, Staff could make
that change in the next set of documents.
Chair Shepherd noted each Division had non‐personnel costs, and asked if that
contained the shifting of funds from the Clerk's Budget. For example, Council
Support Services had a $100,000 change. That category contained the specific
items Staff had reported at the FC's last meeting.
Mr. Perez stated non‐personnel costs would show the shifts. For example, in the
Election Costs, contract costs would show up there. If there was a reallocation
from one grouping to another it would also show up there.
Council Member Burt inquired if the change in reporting methodology more
accurately indicated the allocation of benefits.
Mr. Perez responded correct.
Council Member Burt stated it was almost impossible to compare year‐over‐year
changes, because they were not apples‐to‐apples. He thought that point should
be made up front, so that everyone understood what had happened and how.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would reread the explanations on how to read the
document, and discuss that. It was a concern, but Staff felt the change was
necessary to better reflect cost allocations.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd
to tentatively approve the City Clerk’s Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4‐0
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
2. Police Budget
Chair Shepherd noted the Police Budget included Animal Services. She wanted to
have public comment after Staff presentation.
City Manager James Keene stated the Council charged the Finance Committee
(FC) with reviewing and reconciling the Proposed Budget, then forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council. The first component of the Police Budget
was Animal Services. The policy question concerning Animal Services was should
the City accept Staff's recommendation to outsource Animal Services to another
agency as a cost‐saving measure, or continue providing Animal Services. The
Policy & Services Committee (P&SC) rejected the recommendation to outsource
Animal Services, and suggested the City provide Animal Services with reduced
costs. Their recommendation was to reduce City costs in the first year by
$300,000, comprised of $100,000 of revenue increases and $200,000 of
expenditure decreases. P&SC also recommended subsequent levels of reductions
in Fiscal Years 2014 and 2016. The FC was not obligated to accept and react to
P&SC recommendations. Staff suggested presenting the Animal Services Budget
and financial picture. He proposed a Budget with a series of revenue
recommendations, maintenance of services, and program and staffing cuts across
a range of City programs and services. That Proposed Budget had a deficit of $1
million, but Staff proposed drawing on a Reserve for two one‐time expenditures
to cover that $1 million deficit. Staff's focus was to ensure the FC was aware of
the impacts its changes to the Proposed Budget had on the Fiscal Year 2013 and
subsequent Budgets.
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras noted the inclusion of an interim
organizational chart on page 191. The reorganization and merger of Fire and
Police would be completed in 2014. Citywide costs totaled approximately $1
million, with personnel benefit costs increasing by $1 million. Of these benefit
costs, $500,000 was attributed to healthcare and pension, and $800,000 was an
increase related to the retiree medical payment. The Department had a revenue
decrease of $1.4 million, of which $300,000 was related to the departure of
Mountain View from Animal Services. This $300,000 amount represented the
prorated amount of revenue lost from November through the end of the year.
Outsourcing Animal Services would result in a $900,000 decrease in revenue loss.
The Department had various revenue losses related to staffing reductions. There
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
was $200,000 in revenue adjustments to meet actuals, based on Staff's analysis of
historical trends for various revenue streams within the Department. It included
administrative citations, false alarm fees, penal code violations, and impound
fees. Expense decreases for the Department totaled $2.5 million. Other than
outsourcing Animals Service, the Department proposed a redeployment of Staff
to patrol which equaled a decrease of $1.13 million. The Department proposed
freezing 6 Full‐Time Equivalents (FTE) of line‐level Staff and 1 FTE of command‐
level Staff. There was an $80,000 increase for a Police Services Utilization Study.
Staff proposed a decrease for the Track Watch Contract, which would be funded
in the Stanford Development Agreement Fund. Outsourcing Animal Services
resulted in a savings of $1.38 million. Changes in FTEs totaled a savings of $3.27
million, and included eliminating 13.14 FTEs for Animal Services, freezing 6 FTEs
for redeployment of Staff to patrol, freezing 1 FTE Police Captain, and reallocating
2.5 FTEs administrative personnel from the Police Department to the Fire
Department.
Mr. Keene suggested viewing Fiscal Year 2012 as a typical budget year for Animal
Services. The City had a cost‐sharing agreement with Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and
Mountain View to provide Animal Services. Mountain View decided to leave the
partnership effective November 1, 2012, and requested a transition period
beginning July 1, 2012. That request was denied. The City of Palo Alto's net cost
for providing Animal Services was $700,000 in a typical year. The net loss for the
City in 2013 would be an additional $300,000, because the City would lose two‐
thirds of Mountain View revenue for the year. The net cost for Palo Alto and the
two remaining cities would be $1 million. In the Proposed Budget, Staff inserted a
target number based on information that was not the result of a specific Request
for Proposal (RFP). If Animal Services was outsourced, the City could have a net
cost in Fiscal Year 2013 of $500,000 based on the target number. If Animal
Services was kept in‐house, the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 would have a net gap
of $500,000. The P&SC recommendation left a $200,000 shortfall in the Proposed
Budget without requiring new money or shifting costs to other programs. He
suggested the real number for the FC's consideration was $500,000. If the FC
made $500,000 in cuts or revenue increases this year, then net costs would be
$1.2 million the following year. If the FC made $500,000 in revenue increases or
cost reductions in 2013, the following year the FC would need to increase
revenues $200,000. If the FC agreed to retain Animal Services in‐house, it would
need to cover the $500,000 gap this year, while knowing there could be another
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
$200,000 gap the following year. The Humane Society's recommendations
included more than $400,000 in expenditure reductions and $400,000 in revenue
increases. These recommendations were conceptually good, but practically
challenging. Staff thought any transition, whether outsourcing or maintaining,
would not be wrapped up by the beginning of the Fiscal Year on July 1, 2012. All
of the numbers presented by Staff assumed the City would remain in a status quo
situation through the first third of the Fiscal Year. The real impact of this decision
would occur over the final two‐thirds of the Fiscal Year. Expenditure reductions
meant eliminating Staff and service impact reductions. There could be economies
of existing scale or diseconomies of scale; revenue‐sharing agreements might not
match up with service shifts. He couldn't imagine closing a $500,000 gap without
rethinking how to provide services in‐house. The concern with outsourcing was
the change in services. Revenues also had several challenges, such as increasing
revenue while maintaining the volume of business and providing services tied to
demand. This was a major change and would take time to resolve. Staff wanted
the FC to be aware of the implications of these changes.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether she could have public comment twice on one
Agenda Item.
City Attorney Molly Stump stated she had discretion in managing the public
comment process, as long as the public had an opportunity to speak before the
Committee took any action.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff was finished with their presentation.
Mr. Keene answered no.
Sr. Financial Analyst Amber Cameron reported Option 1 was a reduction in
supervisory and management capacity as well as a slight reduction in field
services capacity. It amounted to a reduction of 2.5 FTEs, which resulted in a
$276,000 estimated expenditure savings. There would be a slight revenue impact
to the store revenue, because operations would be closed an additional day. The
net anticipated savings for that option was about $271,000. Option 2, which
provided the most net savings, would expand Option 1 while reducing a Field
Animal Control Officer and office staff and creating a combination classification.
The combination classification would pickup duties for Animal Control during the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
summer (high season) and then pickup office duties during the low season
(winter). That would provide $372,000 in expenditure reductions with the same
slight revenue impact, with a net savings of $366,000. Option 3 was a movement
to mandated services only. The City would close the spay and neuter clinic, and
focus on Animal Control Services. That would eliminate four Staff with the
highest level of expenditure reductions of $524,000; however, closing the spay
and neuter clinic would reduce revenue by approximately $330,000, resulting in a
net savings of $194,000. These were the three best options that Staff had been
able to compile with reducing Staff to offset the Mountain View revenue loss. To
continue operations with reduced levels of service would not begin to have a net
savings of $370,000. In future years, the annualized revenue loss of $470,000
would create Budget deficits.
Mr. Keene indicated a need of $500,000, and Option 2 yielded the most amount
of money at $366,000. The City would need another $136,000 in either revenues
or other expenditure cuts. The service implications of those cuts would be
reducing half of the Animal Control Officers during a portion of the year. One of
the comparative issues between outsourcing and in‐house services was a faster
response time from in‐house service. As positions were reduced, there could be
reductions in the level of service. The Humane Society proposed $410,000
potential new revenues. It was theoretically possible to make up the rest of that
with new revenue; however, projecting revenues was challenging. The City
Attorney had reviewed the degree of flexibility the City had under State law and
different issues on raising revenues.
Ms. Stump reported the City had a fair amount of flexibility to adjust fees for the
optional services it provided through the Animal Shelter. The FC could raise fees
and create a fee structure that maintained lower fees for residents or member
entities of the Shelter, and charge higher fees to people who used the Shelter
from outside those entities.
Council Member Burt inquired if the amounts under the options were fiscal year
impacts or prorated impacts.
Mr. Keene answered full‐year cost impacts.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Burt asked if Committee Members had the Humane Society
proposal.
Mr. Keene replied yes. There were many similarities on the expenditure side.
Chair Shepherd noted Carole Hyde was present and would speak.
Assistant City Manager Pamela Antel indicated items sold in the pet shop
operation could be purchased at warehouse discount stores; therefore, the City
didn't have much traffic on those items. The Cost of Service Study consultant was
reviewing cost recovery on different pieces of the operation within Animal
Services. For example, spay and neuter services were about 61 percent cost
recovery, which would indicate there was room to raise fees. Animal Services
fees were the same or slightly higher than fees charged by similar operations. She
noted 76 percent of spay and neuter clients came from outside the four member
cities, and stated they might not travel to Palo Alto if the rates were consistent
with the market place. Those were the issues Staff was weighing and balancing
with regard to fee increases.
Mr. Keene stated in many of these situations, it was not a straight linear
relationship between two factors; there might be five factors to consider. Staff
wanted to have as thorough an analysis as possible to know the risk being taken.
He reported the net cost number in the outsourcing proposal was based on
survey information and conversation, rather than a direct proposal. The issue was
cost impacts to the City, whether Animal Services or another program or service
in the City that had to pick up the slack.
Council Member Price asked whether the reduction in Staff under Option 2 would
reduce the number of hours the facility was open.
Ms. Antel reported the estimates were based on keeping the hours of operation
the same, until the facility was closed. One of the options provided closure on
potentially one day. Option 2, with the removal of two Animal Control Officers,
changed the schedule to ten hours per day, four days per week to cover the entire
week. The only way to cover the schedule with two people rather than four was
to change the schedule.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Price stated there would be a reduction in the number of hours
the program was open under these options.
Ms. Antel noted Staff had estimated a worst‐case scenario. It had been suggested
that volunteers could supplement Staff to maintain the hours of operation. In
terms of certain types of regular operations, we would need to close part of the
operation because of the number of staff available.
Council Member Price noticed the Humane Society proposal included a
recommendation for additional hours on the weekend as a possibility to bring in
additional revenue. There were an infinite number of models; however, the issue
was costs for providing services and revenue options.
Ms. Antel reported Staff did not recommend Option 3; however, it was presented
to show the numbers if spay and neuter services were discontinued.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired what the hours of operation were.
Superintendent Animal Services Sandra Stadler indicated the facility opened at
6:00 a.m. for the spay and neuter clinic, closed at 7:30 a.m., reopened at 11:00
a.m. and remained open until 5:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The facility
was closed every other Friday, Sundays and holidays.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether that would change under Option 1.
Ms. Antel stated Option 1 did not change the hours of operation with the
reduction of 3 FTEs.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired which services would change under Option 1.
Ms. Antel indicated Option 1 reduced one Animal Services Supervisor, one Animal
Control Officer, and one Volunteer Coordinator. The Volunteer Coordinator
worked in the Shelter and the community to bring in volunteers. Animal Services
currently had more than 50 volunteers who donated approximately 3,000 hours
to the Shelter. Volunteers were cost effective and good for the health and
welfare of the animals. Because the Volunteer Coordinator was not essential to
operations, that position was identified for elimination. The Volunteer
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Coordinator ensured the correct number of volunteers were present at
appropriate times, and matched volunteers to the different services.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Humane Society proposed to reduce the
Volunteer Coordinator by 25 percent, while Staff proposed to reduce it by 50
percent.
Ms. Antel stated it was currently 0.5 FTE.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether the Volunteer Coordinator was full‐time or 0.5
FTE.
Ms. Antel said part‐time.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the Humane Society proposed to reduce the Volunteer
Coordinator by 25 percent of $110,597, and asked if the City paid $110,597 for a
part‐time position.
Ms. Antel couldn't speak to the Palo Alto Humane Society's proposal.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the salary and benefits amount for the part‐time
position.
Ms. Stadler responded $56,000.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the City would save $56,000 by eliminating
that position.
Ms. Antel answered correct.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if eliminating the Volunteer Coordinator would result in
loss of volunteers.
Ms. Antel stated there would still be volunteers, but she wasn't sure how they
would be managed.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how they would be coordinated without that position.
Ms. Stadler indicated it would be very difficult to have a volunteer program
without a coordinator to recruit and train volunteers. Staff evaluated volunteers,
and if they didn't fit, they couldn't stay. Senior volunteers, who were well trained
and had a proven track record, possibly could be retained without a Volunteer
Coordinator. If the Volunteer Coordinator and a Supervisor were reduced, the
remaining Staff would not have time to manage volunteers, especially at the level
of the current Volunteer Coordinator.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if a volunteer could work as Volunteer Coordinator.
Ms. Stadler stated Staff could consider that, but no one had expressed interest in
taking over that task. Most volunteers wanted to deal with animals rather than
the office.
Mr. Keene stated the comparison of the savings in reducing the Volunteer
Coordinator position needed one correction. The proposal was to cut 25 percent
of a full‐time position (2 x $56,000 = $112,000), because they had a savings of
$27,000. The Humane Society factored it based on 1 FTE rather than the actual
0.5 FTE. This gave the impression the position was reduced to 75 percent, rather
than the actual 25 percent.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated there was a range of options, and he was having
difficulty understanding the outcome in terms of costs and services for the
community. The Humane Society proposal appeared very similar to Option 2,
rather than Option 1. He wasn't sure there was a meeting of the minds on what
the Humane Society and Staff thought the Humane Society proposal would look
like.
Ms. Antel said the Humane Society Option 1 was very similar to Staff's Option 2.
The primary difference was part of the Humane Society proposal was predicated
on some level of revenue increase that Staff didn't completely understand.
Mr. Keene reported expenditure impact was easier to estimate, because
expenditures were known; however, revenue was challenging to project, because
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
it had many variables. Because both proposals reduced staffing by two‐thirds,
there would be a change in the level of service.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether Option 2 or outsourcing provided better
service to the community.
Ms. Antel reported three Animal Control Officers currently patrolled in Palo Alto,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. Under Option 2, that number
would change to one Animal Control Officer patrolling three cities. Staff
anticipated longer response times and increased activity. She suggested the
outsourced activity would mirror that in some way, because one Animal Control
Officer would patrol a larger geographic area. That would be the most noticeable
difference between Option 2 and outsourcing. Another difference would be only
members of the member community could use that particular shelter.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether response times would be better with Silicon
Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) or Option 2.
Ms. Antel stated there could be the same delay based on implementing Option 2
and the geographic area. Response times were currently 19 to 30 minutes, and
Staff anticipated that rising to 55 minutes.
Vice Mayor Scharff understood the Humane Society's revenue proposals for
additional licensing and compliance to mean there would be better enforcement
of licensing requirements.
Ms. Antel reported some communities had an ordinance that required one of two
things. For example, private veterinarians were required to provide rabies
vaccination information to the City so that the City could enforce dog licensing.
The second required private veterinarians to issue licenses when pets were
vaccinated. The best chance for licensing compliance was through the rabies
vaccination.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what the current licensing fee was.
Ms. Antel said the current fee was $15 if the dog was spayed or neutered and $35
if it was not.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how much of the $95,000 amount resulted from
increasing the licensing fee by $5.
Ms. Stadler reported the total licensing fee was paid to the City of Palo Alto. Staff
estimated 18 percent license compliance, and felt there was room to increase it.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how many people licensed their dogs in Palo Alto.
Ms. Stadler indicated Staff processed approximately 3,500 licenses a year, and
there were approximately 10,000 licenses in the City of Palo Alto. Staff also
handled licensing for the other cities.
Mr. Keene stated $17,500 a year resulted from the $5 license fee increase.
Chair Shepherd understood the $500,000 amount assumed outsourcing would
begin with the Fiscal Year on July 1, 2012; however, that wouldn't happen and the
current status of Animal Services would continue. She asked where the $500,000
budget number came from.
Mr. Keene reported if the City outsourced Animal Services and if $500,000 was
the right number, there would be a $60,000 budget gap. If the City did not
outsource, then the gap would be $500,000.
Chair Shepherd asked for Staff's confidence level for outsourcing.
Administrator Services Director Lalo Perez stated Staff provided numbers to
SVACA, who then inflated the numbers for a cushion and provided Staff with the
estimates. It was not as good as a formal RFP, but Staff felt fairly good with that
information.
Chair Shepherd heard SVACA was full, and asked if SVACA could take animals from
Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
Ms. Antel said SVACA's director reported they would need to build out another
piece of their warehouse facility in order to accommodate the animals.
Chair Shepherd noted SVACA hadn't built out yet.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Keene stated the City would need to know the delivery time of their building
the space, whether it would be complete by November 1, 2012 or in a year.
Second, if the City moved forward with cost cutting and/or outsourcing, it had the
option of issuing an RFP to obtain a more specific cost comparison.
Chair Shepherd asked how large Mountain View’s population was.
Ms. Antel reported the number of animals served was 1,000.
Ms. Cameron noted the Fiscal Year 2011 payment indicated approximately 1,000
animals for Mountain View, 1,760 for Palo Alto, 393 for Los Altos, and 150 for Los
Altos Hills.
Chair Shepherd didn't understand why there would be a change in response time
if one Animal Control Officer was patrolling a city approximately the same size as
Palo Alto. She asked whether there would be a reduction in personnel or
contraction of services if the City continued to provide Animal Services, or was
this the way Animal Services needed to be staffed.
Ms. Antel reported Animal Services Staff had increased by only 0.5 FTE since
adding services to member communities. Animal Services Staff was having
difficulty determining how to decrease services when they expanded services
with the same amount of Staff. The level of service would be different due to
having only one Animal Control Officer (rather than two) in the field to respond to
calls from all member cities.
Chair Shepherd noted the Budget included 4.5 FTE for Animal Control Officers,
and Option 2 would decrease it by 2 FTE. She asked what their duties were.
Ms. Antel reported one Animal Control Officer was dedicated to the Shelter and
three were in the field.
Ms. Stadler stated regular services were provided from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.,
and on‐call services from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following morning. Animal
Control Officers often worked regular duty, were on‐call over night, and returned
to regular duty the following day. A kennel person was on duty five days a week,
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
but the kennels had to be covered seven days a week. There were days when two
officers were not on duty because of time off.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff knew how long it would take SVACA to
accomplish a build out.
Ms. Antel indicated SVACA didn't have an issue with taking cities immediately,
because they had days with high volume of animals and days with low volume.
Council Member Burt inquired if the spay and neuter clinic was recovering only 61
percent of cost, yet was charging market rate.
Ms. Antel said the nature of low‐cost spays and neuter was to provide a service at
a lower rate to encourage compliance with spay and neuter. It was a way of
doing business that allowed residents to obtain services they couldn't afford in
the private market.
Council Member Burt inquired if it would be correct to say the City had 61 percent
cost recovery, and was at market rate with other providers who also were not at
full cost recovery.
Ms. Antel stated other providers who provided a similar low‐cost or subsidized
service.
Mr. Keene suggested cost recovery had to do with volume and productivity and
not just pricing. An ability to accelerate work with the same base cost would
shrink costs.
Council Member Burt asked if the various scenarios included retaining staffing
levels as City employees, with the exception of one scenario that called for a
contract veterinarian.
Senior Management Analyst Ian Hagerman stated under Option 3, the City would
contract vet and veterinary technician services. That created a number of issues
that had to be considered. The Shelter had a mandatory obligation from State
law to keep an injured animal alive for six days to give the owner a chance to
claim it. If a vet was not providing services at the Shelter, then the animal would
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
be taken to a private vet or an animal hospital, and the City would incur charges
for that. He noted a fine line between eliminating that service in‐house and the
increased cost that would come with it. The City currently charged $55 to neuter
and $80 to spay cats, $85 to $195 to neuter dogs depending on weight, and $100
to $215 to spay dogs depending on weight. Those fees at a private vet in Palo
Alto ranged from $350 to $700 for a comparable service.
Council Member Burt inquired if contracting veterinarian services under Option 3
was off‐site.
Mr. Hagerman indicated it would be a private vet. A contract vet could be
brought in for spay and neuter services. Emergency care would happen off‐site at
a private vet or an animal hospital.
Council Member Burt asked how many of the alternative service provision
scenarios used non‐government employees for a variety of services, and how
many were partially or wholly staffed by private non‐profit employees. He asked
if there was $500,000 budgeted to subsidize services and if Animal Services were
outsourced to SVACA, was there a scenario to subsidize services in Palo Alto for a
comparable amount.
Ms. Antel reported employees at the Animal Shelter were City employees,
employees of SVACA were part of the Joint Powers Authority, and employees of
the Silicon Valley and Palo Alto Humane Societies were employees of the Humane
Societies. Staff reviewed different scenarios, but couldn't find a cost recovery
scenario that provided the same level of service without incurring more costs. If
the level of service remained the same, costs increased. If costs were reduced,
then the service level decreased or more costs were at risk
Council Member Burt asked if the Silicon Valley Humane Society received
subsidies from participating cities.
Ms. Stump stated Council Members needed to be sensitive to the fact that
whether a given person providing services to the public on the City's behalf was
an employee or a contractor wasn't something the City unilaterally decided. That
was a function of federal law.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Burt wanted to consider contracting the City's facility to an
agency such as the Humane Society. If Silicon Valley was supporting themselves,
then the budgeted amount of $500,000 could be sued to provide services within
Palo Alto. That could be a hybrid model that certain functions were City
employees and certain functions were Humane Society employees.
Ms. Antel indicated an RFP could include the option to provide services at the
City's facility if it was available. Staff would not have an answer on the viability of
such a program until they issued an RFP.
Council Member Burt acknowledged the long‐term issue of the facility condition
and the capital costs associated with that. He asked if it was public information
that Mountain View was carrying dollars in its capital plan to contribute to the
capital upgrade of Palo Alto's facility.
Mr. Perez reported the City Manager prior to Mr. Keene had discussed with
surrounding cities the possibility of sharing the cost of a new facility, given the
interest in relocating it. Staff had received a verbal commitment that Mountain
View would be interested in doing that.
Leonor Delgado noted the outpouring of support for not outsourcing Animal
Services and the Animal Shelter at the previous P&SC meeting, and the P&SC vote
in favor of appointing a task force to study the issue and present concrete
measures. He asked the FC to recognize that outsourcing was not a viable option.
Outsourcing to SVACA would create unacceptable time lags for Animal Control to
remove dead animals and intervene in dangerous situations such as dogs running
loose. The kind of service that Palo Alto Residents had received in the past
through Animal Services would be lost. Outsourcing would also result in no
possibility for surrender of found and owned pets. SVACA would accept animals
for a fee of $150 animals; however, unemployed pet owners could not afford to
pay to surrender their pets. The homeless pet population on the street could
conceivably grow by leaps and bounds. Removal of the low cost spay and neuter
clinic along with all of Animal Services would result in even more homeless
animals.
Carole Hyde represented the Palo Alto Humane Society. They were grateful to
P&SC and City Staff for the recommendation of deficit reductions with
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
benchmarks in the Budget of Animal Services. The Humane Society supported the
proposal for the creation of a task force to determine options for the best
provision of Animal Services for the community and the development of a vision
for the future. They would be pleased to serve on the task force and to work with
the City to support the work of Animal Services. She would be pleased to answer
questions on the Humane Society's proposal. A few things had not been
commented on. The goal was to keep the Shelter open and Animal Services
localized. To do otherwise would be a radical departure from 60 years of a policy
of Safe Communities. She wanted to include the moral imperative to care for
animals.
Council Member Burt asked Ms. Hyde to comment on his earlier question
regarding subsidies to the Humane Society in Silicon Valley.
Ms. Hyde noted the Silicon Valley Humane Society was separate from the Palo
Alto Humane Society.
Council Member Burt assumed there was an affiliation.
Ms. Hyde indicated all Humane Societies were separate. They were oriented to
jurisdiction; however, the Palo Alto Humane Society served regionally and was
purely non‐profit.
Council Member Burt asked if she knew how Silicon Valley was supported.
Ms. Hyde believed they had a contract with Sunnyvale; otherwise, they were a
non‐profit organization.
Carol Schumacher, one of the owners of the Mid‐Peninsula Animal Hospital,
believed she had been accepted to participate on the task force. The animal
hospital had received a letter from Animal Services requesting the names and
addresses of clients who received rabies vaccines, and they would be happy to
comply. She volunteered to answer economic questions regarding spay and
neuter costs. She was also interested in disaster planning, and stated both
federal and state laws required all jurisdictions to include animals in disaster
plans.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff was not aware a task force had been created, and asked who
notified Ms. Schumacher she had been chosen for the task force.
Ms. Schumacher indicated she had not been notified officially.
Mary Donoghue was present when Mountain View voted on the Animal Services
issue. Mountain View had to purchase a van for SVACA's use and subsidize the
construction of animal space, in addition to the annual fee. She felt there must
be a reduction in costs associated with the reduced number of animals
surrendered to the Shelter. She had been with the Stanford Cat Network for 20
years, and had seen the results of dumped animals. She suggested there was a
market for additional services the Shelter could provide, such as limited, low‐cost
veterinary care. Residents might be willing to license their pets to save the
Shelter. Perhaps Stanford could support Palo Alto rather than contracting with
Crane. She also suggested soliciting corporate donations.
Reine Flexer indicated the Silicon Valley Humane Society received many grants,
including one grant of $1 million. She felt SVACA was not ready to offer a spay
and neuter clinic or to place animals. Mountain View would receive less services
while saving only $40,000 per year. She preferred services be reduced rather
than outsourced, and stated services could be reinstituted when the Budget
situation was better. SVACA had not provided a definitive estimate, and was not
a benefit to the community. She trapped feral cats to have them spayed and
neutered, and indicated there were many feral cats in the Mountain View area.
Christina Peck, resident of Mountain View, co‐founded the Stanford Cat Network
to help abandoned cats on campus. She had also founded a local group to help
community cats. It was premature for the Committee to vote on an option for
Animal Services. She urged the Committee to accept the recommendation of
P&SC to increase revenue by $100,000 and reduce expenditures by $200,000.
There were a great many variations of models. She had utilized the spay and
neuter clinic for over 3,000 cats in the past 20 years. The spay and neuter clinic
would not be part of the contract with SVACA as it was not a mandated service.
SVACA had spay and neuter services one day per week for shelter animals,
another spay and neuter day for residents' animals, and a third day for non‐
residents' animals. That didn't compare with the spay and neuter clinic at Palo
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Alto Animal Services. She was concerned that SVACA would not be able to
increase staffing.
Scottie Zimmerman wanted to discuss other shelters. He compared websites of
other animal services to the Palo Alto website. He noted other websites allowed
online donations and had sponsors. He assumed there was income involved with
sponsors. The Humane Society of Silicon Valley served only Sunnyvale. He noted
there was only one kitten in the Shelter, and there had not been a large kitten
population at the Shelter in years. The spay and neuter clinic was beneficial to
the community.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Humane Society proposal was that the spay and
neuter clinic could increase revenue by $225,000 if Staff worked harder.
Ms. Hyde believed that point would go unnoticed, until Mr. Keene commented on
it. The proposal pointed to several unrealized efficiencies in services. The Palo
Alto Humane Society spent as much as $150,000 on it’s spay and neuter
underwriting program, while only $30,000 or $40,000 was redeemed at Palo Alto
Animal Services. The remainder went to low‐cost clinics in the East Bay, because
the Palo Alto clinic did not accommodate the kinds of animals the Humane
Society had. She believed if those animals were admitted, revenue would expand
greatly.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what she suggested the vet do to capture that revenue.
Ms. Hyde recommended the vet spay and neuter all day, until 4:00 p.m. rather
than stopping at noon, and all kinds of animals (primarily feral cats) be admitted
into Animal Services.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the vet remained until noon.
Ms. Hyde understood from various sources the vet had a short surgical day.
Ms. Stadler reported surgery began between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and ended
when all animals had been through surgery, normally around 1:00 p.m. People
began picking up their pets at 2:00 p.m. Two vet technicians began work at 6:00
a.m. and departed at 3:30 p.m. The vet arrived between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
and departed at 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Staff needed time to prepare for the
following surgery day and to allow pets to wake up from surgery.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if they were City employees.
Ms. Stadler answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if they were full‐time employees and if they were
working the full amount of hours.
Ms. Stadler responded yes. They worked a 9/80 schedule.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Ms. Hyde to explain the proposal further.
Ms. Hyde was simply recalling the prior production and services of the clinic. That
was the basis for the proposed revenue from the spay and neuter clinic.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff was not working.
Ms. Hyde would not comment on that aspect.
Council Member Price asked if donations and grants were possible for the City.
Ms. Hyde answered certainly. The purpose of a task force would be to review the
options and provide a report. Municipal shelters usually operated at a deficit;
therefore, the City would have to subsidize it. There were various models for
Animal Services, and a task force should be allowed to review that in detail.
Council Member Price inquired about examples of service delivery models that
included partnerships.
Ms. Hyde suggested Silicon Valley Humane Society, San Jose Animal Care Center,
and Peninsula Humane Society were examples.
Council Member Price inquired if there were foundations that supported these
kinds of activities.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Hyde stated there were brick and mortar foundations for remodeling the
facility, spay and neuter grants were available and private donors believed in the
Humane Society mission.
Council Member Price asked if services overlapped between Animal Services and
the Humane Society.
Ms. Hyde reported the overlap could be humane education, and the Humane
Society often partnered with Animal Services in community programs. The
Humane Society's spay and neuter work was an underwriting program. They had
a program to provide veterinary assistance to people who couldn't afford the bills.
Council Member Price inquired how a task force would affect Staff resources and
time. She noted there was a great deal of public interest in a task force.
Mr. Keene stated the P&SC recommended a task force be appointed by the City
Manager to have community members work with Staff. No appointments to a
task force had been made, because it was only a recommendation. If the goal
was to have a transition plan and strategy in place by November 1, 2012, that was
a short time and Staff could not work on that until the Budget was finalized. He
preferred some other language than task force, as it was laden with expectations
of large size and many meeting. The impact would be large for Staff at this point,
because of existing initiatives and Committee meetings. Collaboration with and
input from stakeholders was necessary for generating ideas and sharing research.
He proposed something less formal than a task force. This was not the same as
the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission.
Council Member Price felt a real issue was Staff's workload. She inquired which
service option would continue if a task force were appointed with a defined scope
and a stated schedule.
Mr. Keene said that was dependent on the gap that needed to be closed. He
recommended closing the full gap of $500,000. The number of animals being
served would be reduced by one‐third with the departure of Mountain View, and
there should be a commensurate reduction in costs. The assumption needed to
be when the fiscal year began July 1, 2012; Animal Services would remain in
status quo until November 1, 2012. However, to the extent Staff could identify
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
revenue changes and expenditure reductions, those would be implemented as
quickly as possible to increase cost savings.
Council Member Price asked if the numbers reflected the loss of Mountain View
costs and revenue.
Ms. Antel reported the numbers had been adjusted for the one‐third of the year
Mountain View was a member of the agreement.
Council Member Price inquired if the Budget assumed the reduction in number of
clients as well.
Ms. Antel stated the detail in the report provided to P&SC backed out the
revenues.
Council Member Price asked if a revised service model assumed fewer clients.
Mr. Keene answered yes. For the most part, the options in the Staff Report were
designed to accommodate the reduction in service demand from the loss of
Mountain View. Those cuts generated the $366,000 amount. That didn't mean
there would not be service impacts on Palo Alto.
Council Member Burt noted the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget included subsidy revenue
from member cities and retail revenue from individual services. He asked if the
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget factored in loss of retail revenue as well as the subsidy.
Ms. Antel stated it was difficult to reduce the operational costs of the Shelter by
one‐third, because Animal Control Services didn't line up in terms of the total cost
of revenues.
Council Member Burt noted item 7 on the user fee study summary sheet was
veterinary services other than spay and neuter, and inquired what kind of services
were these and why was cost recovery so low.
Ms. Antel reported those veterinary services covered injured animals brought to
the clinic. Those costs were not recovered if the animal was not claimed by its
owner.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Stadler stated outgoing costs were recovered if someone redeemed an
injured pet. Unfortunately, the cost recovery was low for those situations.
Mr. Keene noted 61 percent of costs were recovered for spay and neuter, yet 76
percent of animals spayed and neutered were outside the member cities. Palo
Alto citizens were subsidizing a service to people outside of Palo Alto and the
member cities. That raised important policy questions of who decided where
taxpayer money was spent.
Council Member Burt felt there were far too many unanswered questions
concerning SVACA's policies on surrender, spay and neuter, and capacity. He
wanted specific statements from SVACA on those issues and to have a site visit.
He stated a decision would not be made tonight, yet there was not much time to
reach a good decision. Stakeholders had emerged during the process and would
be easy to identify. Perhaps the SVACA model adequately addressed emergency
response plans, but it was unclear how that need was fully met by SVACA. He
wanted to understand if there were hybrid models that could leverage non‐profit
services being provided for some portion of current services. The FC couldn't
achieve budgetary savings with these questions pending, yet it needed to move
forward on the Budget. He asked Staff what they were comfortable with in terms
of how to proceed on the Budget element given the discussions.
Mr. Keene suggested the FC direct Staff to prepare a Budget that maintained
Animal Services in‐house, but closed the $500,000 gap through a combination of
revenue and expenditure changes in this fiscal year. That Budget would not be
ready next week, but Staff could have a good idea of the components by Wrap‐
up. It would be a mistake to ignore the reality of a $500,000 gap, and the FC
should direct Staff to close the gap as part of this Budget.
Council Member Burt said this Item would be a placeholder budgetary item.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff that we
have $500,000 dollar reduction in deficit for Animal Services for Fiscal Year 2013,
the service would remain in Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2013, and City Manager,
upon engaging with stakeholders on alternative approaches, will include
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
recommended means to achieve those objectives subsequent to this Committee
meeting.
Mr. Keene stated Staff could have a better sense of the risks by the time the
Budget was adopted; however, practically it would be after adoption of the
Budget. Engaging with the community and research would require time.
Council Member Burt wanted to include within the Motion that this was $500,000
in this cost area or something approaching that with commensurate savings
elsewhere in the Budget.
Mr. Keene saw that as a default issue. It was important to maintain pressure to
accommodate the costs. The Humane Society had noted opportunities for
rethinking services and programs.
Council Member Burt removed the modification from the Motion. If something
was presented that was a variation, the FC would consider it at that time.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether imposing fees was the remaining area to
consider reaching the $500,000 amount from the $372,000 savings of Option 2.
Mr. Keene agreed. Staff wanted to understand the implications of these changes
in service.
Council Member Burt indicated it was also revenue and volume potential.
Vice Mayor Scharff expressed concern with eliminating the Volunteer Coordinator
position. If Animal Services continued in Palo Alto, volunteers were worthwhile.
He supported the motion, and felt the FC had to close the $500,000 gap.
Chair Shepherd asked if the real costs for running this operation was $1.7 million.
Mr. Keene indicated the costs were in the range of $1.7 million to $1.9 million.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the $366,000 in net savings for Option2 was coming off
the $1.7 million.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Perez answered yes.
Chair Shepherd said the City would be sharing in this reduction of personnel with
partner cities. She wanted to make clear this was not all Palo Alto's savings.
Mr. Keene indicated it was both in net and gross. The City would have
conversations with its partners about that.
Chair Shepherd asked if Los Altos and Los Altos Hills were interested in moving to
SVACA or were they interested in reducing services to be competitive with SVACA.
Mr. Keene reported they had been happy with the relationship, and they wanted
to stay with Palo Alto. Their flexibility, given their scale, was limited. A significant
change in their contribution amounts could drive them to an alternative.
Chair Shepherd stated this was a lot of employees for the City to carry. A public‐
private partnership and keeping services local would be ideal. She noticed that
net costs had been $700,000 and $500,000 was already booked, so they were
trying to craft out $200,000. She indicated a friends group was needed for Animal
Services.
Council Member Price supported the motion. Her biggest concern was long‐term
implications of changes in service. She was also concerned about Staff's capacity
to manage a stakeholders group. She assumed Staff would indicate what they
could not do to achieve this.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated the stakeholder group should not require a large
amount of time, and encouraged limiting the groups to a small number of
members with few meetings.
Mr. Keene suggested it was easy to be effective and efficient by design. The
Council had directed Staff to work on several other projects simultaneously, and a
small group of Staff supported these policy analyses and citizen interfaces.
MOTION PASSED: 4‐0
Mr. Perez noted Staff had presented a recap of the Police Budget earlier.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Penny Ellson was speaking as an individual, because the City School Traffic Safety
Committee had not reviewed the Budget or taken a formal position. The City had
one Supervisor and seven Officers on the Traffic Team in approximately 2000.
The Traffic Team was currently budgeted for four members, which was the bare
minimum for an effective team. She recognized there was a problem in
organizing the Department to work with the limited number of bodies. She
encouraged the FC not to eliminate the Traffic Team. Eliminating the Traffic Team
would remove the enforcement arm of the Safe Routes to School Partnership.
The Traffic Team's involvement in education programs had been important in the
evolution of good programs. The Traffic Team interacted with children differently
than Patrol Officers, because they understood the development differences of
children. They approached children with the goal of educating them to be safer
road users.
Council Member Burt inquired for the percentage of children who biked and
walked to school.
Ms. Ellson reported approximately 46 percent of elementary students used foot‐
powered modes of transportation, 54 percent used alternative modes of
transportation. Bicycling counts had increased significantly at the secondary
schools. It was important to understand they were laying the groundwork in
elementary school for actions in secondary school. Secondary schools had higher
percentages of students bicycling, and it was impossible to count the students
who walked.
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of the use of the Traffic Team and
volunteers.
Ms. Ellson indicated people thought the solution to a traffic problem on a school
commute route required police involvement. A dedicated Traffic Team was a
draw for volunteers; however, once volunteers understood the program, they
understood it was a cooperative problem solving process.
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of her perspective of having
dedicated police personnel for coordination.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Ellson explained the Traffic Team had a seat on the City School Traffic Safety
Committee. The Traffic Team provided a great deal of information to the
Committee about education programs and traffic problems. The Traffic Team
shared information from Committee meetings. That kind of cooperation has
resulted in progress.
Council Member Price wanted to hear her perspective regarding the importance
of the Traffic Team as it supported efforts to find funding for Safe Routes to
School.
Ms. Ellson reported the fact that there was a comprehensive Safe Routes to
School Program helped them receive the VERBS grant. She thought there would
be opportunities to investigate grant dollars to support the enforcement arm in
some way.
Council Member Price asked for a history of the Traffic Safety Team, current
staffing, and how redeployment would affect the Team and safety, education and
enforcement issues.
Captain Ron Watson indicated in 1995 there were a sergeant and five officers on
the Team. In 1996 the City increased the Team to one sergeant and six officers.
In 2000, another officer was added. In 2004, three members of the Traffic Team
were eliminated. Two years ago, one more position was eliminated. Today there
were one sergeant and three officers. There were 92 allocated sworn positions,
14 vacancies, 3 people on disability, and 1 person in the academy within the
Department. Those 18 positions represented approximately 20 percent of the
Department. It was not unusual for the Department to have ten Staff not on the
street at any given time. The real impact was losing 13 positions within the last
ten months. The normal hiring process and ability to find applicants had not kept
up with that. July 1, 2012, the Department would probably consolidate the two
remaining Traffic Team members into Patrol Operations. Those two positions
would be assigned to regular patrol teams on day shift, and would have a specific
assignment of continuing traffic enforcement under the supervision of a patrol
sergeant. Their primary mission will continue to be prevention of traffic
accidents, school commute safety, general traffic enforcement, and
representation on the City School Traffic Safety Committee. Other officers on
dayshift would have to assume a greater role in terms of traffic safety efforts at
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
the school and increased traffic enforcement. Two Traffic Team members were
injured for most of the year, so having only two officers would not be that much
different. The Department did not have the numbers to place a supervisor and
four officers on that Team. He hoped the Department could gain some Staff and
then bolster traffic as well as other divisions.
Council Member Price inquired if there was a method to accelerate recruitment.
Mr. Watson stated recruitment was a priority. He had been meeting regularly
with personnel and training to ensure they had the necessary resources to hire
employees. The first problem was finding qualified applicants; 300 applicants had
been reduced to six being considered for employment. The time from application
to working solo on the street was approximately 16 months.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many vacancies the Department had last year.
Mr. Watson noted 13 Staff were lost in the last ten months, and one had been
hired. The Department was short 11 in December and had lost three since then.
They were considering shift change this year after losing 13 Staff from shift
change last year. It was hard to do the same thing the same way.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the proposal was to freeze six positions and hire
another eight positions.
Mr. Watson stated it was a freeze of seven, and they could hire seven today.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Traffic Team was operating independently or in
the model he mentioned.
Mr. Watson reported it was operating this year as a Traffic Team with the caveat
that it was half a Traffic Team due to injuries.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked why eliminating six positions and retaining the Traffic
Team wasn't feasible.
Mr. Watson stated if he had those other six positions, he could do that. The
reality was new hires would attend the academy in July 2012, and they would be
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
solo officers at this time in 2013. The Department would not have that capability
at the beginning of the Budget Year or the school year. As officers were hired,
they could reinstate a Traffic Team.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Ms. Ellson if her concern was losing the Traffic Team
permanently.
Ms. Ellson indicated one of her concerns of eliminating the dedicated Traffic Team
was the necessity to rebuild a team if it was reinstated.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if there could be a dedicated Traffic Team if six or
seven Staff were hired.
Mr. Watson said if he could have seven officers who could work solo tomorrow,
he could do that.
Vice Mayor Scharff suggested there was no choice but to do something between
now and the time those officers could be trained. He was concerned about losing
the knowledge and structure of the Traffic Team.
Ms. Ellson indicated when the Department reached full staffing; she didn't want
to fight to rebuild the Traffic Team. She understood temporary reorganization
was necessary at the current time. She was uncomfortable giving up the current
Team because it worked very well.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff agreed with continuing the Traffic Team when six
or seven Staff were hired.
Ms. Antel reported Staff was not recommending elimination of those positions,
because they were needed. The issue was as ranks decreased, overtime
increased, which was the reason for filling those vacancies.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if Staff wanted to fill vacancies beyond seven
positions by freezing six positions.
Ms. Antel stated the seven or eight positions provided enough staffing in the
regular patrol schedule to allow a focus on traffic.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated the following year's Budget would include these
positions.
Mr. Keene stated Staff was not ready to eliminate these positions. When the
proposal was presented, Staff was focused on freezing them as a cost savings, and
it gave Staff the opportunity to determine the impacts and allowed the
Department to rethink providing services without those positions. If the
Department was fully staffed except for these six or seven positions in the
following year, it was possible to make it all work and save money.
Vice Mayor Scharff was confused as to what was being asked of the Committee.
From a practical point of view, there were 13 vacancies, yet Staff was proposing
not hiring six positions that wouldn't be hired anyway. The issue was, after hiring
those people, keeping the Traffic Team intact without losing the institutional
knowledge and structure.
Mr. Watson suggested he was looking at two different issues. Normally the
Department would fight to prevent freezing of positions. It made sense to freeze
those positions that would not immediately impact the Department. Once all
authorized hires had been completed, then they could discuss whether or not to
release freezes. The Department had Staff filling two positions, and would make
adjustments. Freezing the positions was a budget situation that the Department
couldn't object to.
Mr. Keene explained freezing a position meant it would be excluded from the
Budget, whereas a vacancy was a funded position. Staff was not going to fill these
positions this year and would reduce the Budget. If Staff did not do that, they
would have to cut a service from another part of the City to keep a Budget
appropriation for an expenditure Staff could not make. He didn't care about the
programatic changes; the Chief would have to determine the best deployment of
those Staff.
Vice Mayor Scharff didn't understand the purpose of freezing positions, and asked
how it worked.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Keene explained when Staff budgeted money for a Department, the
Department was authorized to spend it. Whether or not the Department spent
the money was a different issue. When Staff froze positions, they were
unauthorizing the Department to spend funds, and actually were giving the funds
to another Department to spend. In that case, Staff was ensuring another service
area was not cut. If these were the only vacancies and they were frozen this year,
then Staff would be in a position to discuss next year the possibility of returning
them to the Budget or permanently cutting them. He believed freezing rather
than eliminating the positions was the advisable course.
Council Member Burt inquired whether a surplus was created at the end of the
year by allocating funds in the Budget but not spending them. He noted some
years had resulted in a surplus, and other years had unexpected expenses
resulting in deficits. He asked if Staff anticipated a portion of anticipated savings
would move to overtime because of these vacancies.
Mr. Watson stated the following year would not be any different than most years.
The Department always carried a certain number of vacancies, and they offset the
overtime beyond the normal overtime budget. It was traditional that salary
savings offset additional overtime. Because the vacancies would not be filled
prior to July 1, 2012, the Department would begin accruing salary savings to offset
overtime. Overtime had increased because of the 14 vacant positions, but still in
the range to be offset by vacancies.
Council Member Burt indicated there were two potential categories of vacancies
that could impact overtime: the allocated positions that may not be filled, and
the frozen positions. He inquired if the Department would have overtime that
filled in for the frozen positions.
Mr. Watson believed the vacancies beyond the frozen positions would cover
overtime.
Council Member Burt asked if the Department would incur additional overtime to
backfill the frozen spots.
Mr. Watson replied no.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Burt inquired if the two Traffic Team member who were out due
to injuries were scheduled to return.
Mr. Watson reported one was back and one remained out.
Council Member Burt asked if there were three qualified people for that area.
Mr. Watson stated there were two officers and a supervisor.
Council Member Burt wanted a process to confirm the Department was staying
on track in supporting those functions. He suggested Staff and stakeholders
report in the fall to make policy decisions if adjustments were needed. At a policy
level, the City had a commitment to support this function.
Mr. Watson agreed and indicated Ms. Ellson would notify them if the program
was working.
Council Member Burt noted the dedication of the officers in this group to serving
those needs.
Chair Shepherd was surprised to see the Budget being balanced with police
officers. She understood the reconfiguration with fire fighters, but wanted a
better explanation for the redeployment of police officers. She felt the increase
in students biking and walking was beneficial and needed to be protected. This
was a way to keep kids safe, and that was important to her as well. She asked
whether the resource officer was still in the schools.
Mr. Watson indicated there was one position and it was staffed.
Chair Shepherd asked if the City controlled the amount of fines for drivers in
school zones during the commute.
Mr. Watson stated almost all tickets for moving violations tended to be $150 to
$200 and, with court fines, totaled $400 to $500. He didn't believe there were
enhanced fees for school zones; however, officers were more likely to write a
ticket in a school zone.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Chair Shepherd asked if those charges were set by the County.
Mr. Keene believed those were set by the State. The Department had complete
discretion as to issuing a warning or a ticket.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff that
Staff’s recommendation with the additional language that the Police Department
to Safe Routes to School to continue the longstanding policy of the City and City
Council and that we want a report back in the mid‐fall of implementation of the
staffing method in the traffic.
Vice Mayor Scharff believed the Safe Routes to School and its infrastructure
needed to be protected.
Council Member Price reiterated the importance of filling those positions, and
noted the impacts of additional responsibilities and overtime.
Chair Shepherd wanted to hear how the redeployment of officers was being
managed and made contemporary. She wanted to ensure the community was
being taken care of while the Department was being right sized and redeployed.
MOTION PASSED: 4‐0
Mr. Keene stated this was a sea change in government, and a symptom of his
discussions with Council regarding degree of change, recruitment issues and
competition. In this particular case, the City had Penny Ellson watching, but there
were other areas without a watch dog or advocate. There were other gaps in the
City that the Council was not aware of or that were moving around. He thought
the next several years would have this kind of flux, a radical departure of people.
The baby‐boom generation and State benefits had enabled that. The City would
have holes in the organization from time to time, and it could have a dramatic
impact on the City. This was a reflection of the dynamic.
3. Fire Budget
Sr. Financial Analyst Christine Paras reported Citywide changes totaled $426,491,
and personnel benefit costs increased by $166,000. Details for this could be
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
found on page 204 of the Proposed Operating Budget. There had been an
increase of $900,000 because of retiree medical costs, most of which were offset
by International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) concessions achieved in the fall
of 2011. Allocated charges increased by $300,000, most of which was due to the
Information Technology (IT) allocation charge. The City received a credit in billing
that offset the reimbursement from Stanford for fire contract services. The
ambulance fee increased by $300,000, comprised of a $186,000 increase for
emergency medical services response and $135,000 to align the Budget with
actual trends. There was an increase of $400,000 for Development Center
revenue. Staff estimated municipal fee increases of $100,000. Revenue clean‐up
items decreased by $40,000. The Department proposed to reduce its temporary
Staff by 1.48 Full‐Time Equivalents (FTE), to increase regular positions by 3.5 FTEs,
and to eliminate 9 FTEs related to the closure of the Stanford National Accelerator
Laboratory (SLAC) Fire Station. Offsetting that, the Department proposed an
increased service level for emergency response. In line with Fire Study
recommendations, the Department proposed adding 0.3 FTE and 1 FTE Fire
Inspector, and reallocating 2.5 FTE from Police for administrative oversight and
assistance. The Department proposed a one‐time freeze of 6 FTEs related to
proposed flexible staffing. Also included in the salary changes was a reduction of
overtime of $600,000, related to adding 6 FTEs in emergency response and
staffing that with actual FTEs rather than through overtime as had occurred in the
past. The proposed closure of Station 7 was initiated by Stanford, and the
proposal was to eliminate nine Staff and some supply and material costs. The net
cost of closing the station after the Stanford reimbursement revenue offset of
30.3 percent was a savings of $900,000. The second proposal was to freeze 6
FTEs in flexible staffing as a result of revised minimum staffing requirements
achieved in concessions with IAFF. The Department proposed to reduce overtime
by $200,000. The expense increase for the increased level of emergency response
service was $500,000. This proposal would double the response availability of
Medic 2 with regular employees rather than overtime, which had been done in
the past. The net cost, including revenue that Staff anticipated from increased
availability, was $200,000, which was offset by the Stanford reimbursement. The
net cost of this increased level of service was $241,000. She noted Staff achieved
salary and benefit concessions with IAFF totaling $1.57 million. The Department
completed the Fire Utilization study, and recommended re‐classing an EMS
(Emergency Medical Service) Coordinator to an EMS Chief and adding an EMS
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Data Specialist and a Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist. There was
an $87,000 increase for other changes.
Assistant City Manager Pamela Antel added there were a number of changes
yielding a tremendous amount of savings. Staff had placed resources in areas
where they were needed, which was a benefit of not only the Fire and Resources
Utilization Study, but also the work by the Fire Command Staff to rethink delivery
of services. The total savings was approximately $2.3 million.
Council Member Price inquired about the implications of freezing the position of
Program Assistant in the Office of Emergency Services (OES).
Ms. Antel reported the plan was to hire an OES Director, then a Program
Coordinator and lastly a Program Assistant. Staff wanted to see the outcome of
the OES Coordinator and the work being performed.
Council Member Price asked for a dollar amount for the Stanford reimbursement
reduction of 30.3 percent.
Ms. Antel explained Stanford had agreed to reimburse the City 30.3 percent of
the total cost of fire services. With the closure of Station 7, the City agreed to
review the reimbursement rate based on the new level of service. A Fire Study
consultant was working to determine the appropriate reimbursement rate. Not
knowing an exact number, Staff placed a number in the Budget to represent that
amount, and hoped to have a reconciliation in the next 60 days.
Mr. Keene reported the SLAC cut was approximately $1.8 million, so 30 percent of
that would be the offset amount.
Council Member Price inquired if the City was in the process of renegotiating the
terms of the agreement and the percentage.
Ms. Antel responded correct.
Council Member Price inquired whether the methodology was unique to this
area.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Ms. Antel indicated Staff had met with Stanford and the consultant, and they
would make a series of recommendations. The percentage would be based on
quantifiable items such as calls for service, value of the property being served,
specialized equipment and a variety of other things. That report would be
provided to the Council when it became available.
Council Member Price asked what the general term of that type of agreement
was.
Assistant Director of Administrative Services, David Ramberg stated the
agreement was renewed in 2006 and expired in 2056.
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez stated pending negotiations would
potentially impact the Budget at some point.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether Stanford asked to reopen negotiations
because of the closure of Station 7.
Ms. Antel replied yes. The City charged Stanford 30.3 percent, and Stanford split
that allocation between its general budget and SLAC Department of Education
(DOE). The City did not participate in determining the allocation of costs to DOE.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated Stanford now had to pay all of it from its general
budget.
Ms. Antel explained the amount Stanford allocated to Station 7 was greater than
the amount the City allocated for operational costs for Station 7.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the agreement had a renegotiation clause.
Ms. Antel responded there was a triggering mechanism.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what happened if an agreement was not reached.
Ms. Antel explained much of the agreement was difficult to track, because there
was not an exact method for determining the origination of the 30.3 percent. The
City and Stanford had agreed to renegotiate the agreement.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Ramberg corrected the agreement expiration date from 2056 to 2026. The
agreement began in 1976 and expired in 2026; the City renewed it with the same
term in 2006.
Fred Balin of the College Terrace Residents Association stated he expected a Staff
Report prior to the meeting; however, he learned the Proposed Budget stood in
its place. He read note 2 on page 201. He had to infer and confirm that the
vehicle would be Engine Company 2 at the Hanover Street Station alone. Taking
Engine Company 2 out of service would increase response times within the
district. If the plan was approved, he expected the impact to be felt quickly;
because of the additional daytime summer staffing that occurred at Station 8 in
the Foothills. The College Terrace Residents Association had researched the
proposal and related studies, communicated with the Fire Chief and Department
personnel, and kept neighbors apprised. They were pleased to learn that
paramedic staffing at Station 2 was proposed to return to 24/7 dedicated staffing.
They were concerned about a brown‐out of Engine 2. They understood it was a
one‐year trial, but it also stood within the context of the consultant's
recommendation to merge Stations 2 and 5 into a new location near Foothill and
Arastradero. He stated there would be construction of approximately 185 units of
predominantly multi‐family housing in Research Park adjacent to College Terrace
after the deadline of December 2013 for submittal of building plans. He trusted
the City would carefully study the matter of any degradation in engine company
response and how to equitably apportion any required service cuts within the
community.
Brent Barker of the College Terrace Residents Association reported the station on
Hanover Street would be cannibalized if there were vacancies at other stations.
He indicated three people were needed on the truck and, if one was removed, the
engine would be out of service. He didn't know the specifics, but hoped the FC
would not rush into a decision before understanding the budgetary
considerations as well as the risk imposed on the community served by that
particular station. Taking one station and cannibalizing it for the others put an
undue burden on that community. He stated there was increased marginal risk of
response time by not having an engine available. He believed that risk should be
dispersed more broadly throughout the community, possibly by rotating it on a
monthly basis.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Council Member Price asked Staff to respond to comments made by the public.
She asked if Staff had examined the concept he proposed.
Ms. Antel reported the Fire Department and Staff had studied the
recommendations in the Fire Utilization and Resources Study for more than a
year. She suggested an overview of flexible staffing, why it would work, and its
basis.
Deputy Fire Chief Geoffrey Blackshire stated there were several things to consider
when discussing the flexible staffing model. Engine 2 was selected because the
Hanover Fire Station was special for several reasons. First, the location was
centralized. The Fire Utilization and Resources Study showed that Station 2's
response time of 4:03 was faster than other stations. If Engine 2 was not in
service, then Rescue 2 would respond to medical calls and fire calls within that
particular district. However, the rescue vehicle did not have water, so there was a
different level of service. Engine 2 responded to 19 different response areas, and
had the least amount of calls since Engine 7 had been out of service. With
medical calls having a higher volume of response, the rescue vehicle would pick
up those calls if the engine were out of service. The rescue vehicle alone ran
slightly more than 1,000 calls in the prior year, with Engine 2 just below that at
1,000. Because Engine 2 and Rescue 2 responded to approximately 275 calls
together, Rescue 2 would pick up approximately 1,800 calls total in a year.
Another consideration was mileage; by June that apparatus would have 200,000
miles on it. Engine 2 responded first to Stanford campus. He indicated the
Stanford side of the campus extended to College Terrace, and Engine 2 was first in
that district. By Fire guidelines, Fire Staff could hypothetically respond on medical
calls within a decent amount of time. The rescue vehicle was not limited to that
district alone, and responded to all fires, structure responses, and vehicle
accidents on Highways 101 and 280. Because of this, it was not always located in
that district to respond to emergencies. If it was eliminated, there would only be
a medical vehicle and not an engine. Staff considered several things: the district,
the apparatus, and the level of calls. Based on information from the Utilization
Study, that was the rig selected for flexible staffing.
Ms. Antel asked him to comment on which engine could respond in place of
Engine 2.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Blackshire stated there was a response order for apparatus if an engine was
out of service. If the order was Engine 1, Engine 2, Engine 3 and Engine 2 was out
of service, then the order would be Engine 1, Engine 3 and the next due engine. If
Engine 2 were out of that order, then Fire Staff would take the next closest
apparatus to respond to that emergency. All of these response zones were based
on time trials performed approximately ten years ago. Station 2 responded more
than any other in the City, because it was centrally located. That's why that
ambulance was effective. He explained the response area was large, because it
extended from El Camino to Greer and Sheridan, and to Skyline. If Engine 2 was
eliminated, the next due engine (depending on where it was located) could be
Engine 3 on Embarcadero, Engine 5 on Arastradero or Engine 6. Those engines
weren't in the immediate response time, because of the time trials. Fire Staff
would take the next engine in the response order and move it in.
Chair Shepherd asked if the FC needed to address the memo at places on this
Item.
Mr. Perez stated it did not impact the Fire Department Budget.
Ms. Paras reported Staff proposed reallocating a couple of Fire positions from the
General Fund to Utilities and Public Works Enterprise. Staff had outlined the FTE
changes. For example, Staff wanted to move 0.08 FTE of Fire Marshal to Utilities,
which would provide net help of $40,000 to the General Fund. The offsetting
Stanford reimbursement for these costs would be $17,000.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff needed a Motion incorporating that information.
Mr. Perez requested the FC add this information to any Motion to approve the
Budget.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted the proposal to freezing 6 FTEs, and asked what those
FTEs would normally do.
Deputy Fire Chief Catherine Capriles explained currently those 6 FTEs were being
moved around, but they would eventually be all line personnel; two fire fighters,
two operators and two captains.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 40 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the positions were being frozen because they were
vacant.
Ms. Capriles responded correct.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if those positions were needed.
Ms. Capriles replied yes. These positions would affect the flexible staffing
scenario in that it would happen more often.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted there was not an issue with adding positions when they
were needed. He inquired why Staff wanted to hold these positions rather than
eliminate them.
Ms. Capriles reported Staff would perform an analysis of flexible staffing to
determine the effect it had on responses and whether it was an acceptable
change in response service levels.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for a response from the City Manager's Office.
Sr. Financial Analyst Amber Cameron reported the six frozen positions were
connected to the flexible staffing scenario, in which Engine 2 would be taken out
of service when staffing fell below a certain level on any given day.
Ms. Antel indicated Staff had determined that flexible staffing for Engine 2 could
be implemented safely based on the numbers from throughout the City. Based
on the prior year's Fire Staff absence rate, 6 FTEs was the equivalent number of
positions that could potentially be eliminated from the Budget. However, Staff
wanted to ensure the program worked practically as well as theoretically before
eliminating the positions.
Vice Mayor Scharff suggested eliminating the positions now, and adding them
later if the program wasn't feasible.
Ms. Antel explained Staff preferred to keep the paper trail in the Budget with the
number of FTEs to prevent future confusion. She stated in theory those positions
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 41 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
could be eliminated, and Staff would ask the FC to add them in the future if the
program didn't work out.
Vice Mayor Scharff didn't think this issue related to SLAC.
Ms. Antel agreed it didn't relate to SLAC. She reported SLAC provided an
opportunity for Staff to place resources in other areas.
Mr. Keene thought it was slightly different than the Police situation. Staff had
performed a study and time comparisons. Staff needed to determine if flexible
staffing could work, and would perform a study on operational issues after
adoption of the Budget. He felt the risk with Police was slightly higher than in this
particular situation. He stated there was a net increase in FTEs on paper, along
with a footnote indicating the true meaning of the freeze. Given some of the
objectives Staff tried to achieve in Fire Service in terms of overall staffing, an
elimination in the Budget would accurately reflect these objectives. Staff could
support eliminating the positions with the understanding that, if flexible staffing
was not feasible, Staff could request adding the six positions.
Ms. Antel suggested the FC was not comfortable with freezing the positions.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with the City Manager that the Police situation was
riskier. He noted with Fire a study had been performed, it was well thought out,
and Staff had negotiated minimum staffing. He didn't feel there was a downside
to eliminating the positions and making a structural change.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff seconded by Council Member Burt to tentatively
approve with the changes eliminating the 6 FTE.
Mr. Keene confirmed the six positions proposed to be frozen would actually be
eliminated.
Vice Mayor Scharff thought the FC should make structural changes in the Budget.
He felt data indicated the 6 FTEs could be eliminated, and the positions could be
reinstated if flexible staffing did not work out; although, Staff would need to
justify reinstating the positions. He indicated there was a precedence for adding
positions. He thought Staff was not eliminating positions in one area and then
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 42 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
adding positions to the entire Department. Rather Staff was freezing or
eliminating positions, which was more transparent to the public.
Mr. Keene agreed that was a better recommendation. Staff had indicated its
willingness to reduce capacity and to find ways to redeploy. The City had a
growing demand for emergency response and less for fire, and was adding 6 FTEs
in emergency response. This shift of positions would allow the City to provide
better service.
Council Member Burt thought freezing positions didn't present an accurate
picture and didn't demonstrate the efforts being made to control costs. He
inquired about current overtime amounts for the Department.
Mr. Perez reported the Adjusted Budget for 2012 was $2.3 million, and the actual
number for 2011 was $2.1 million.
Ms. Capriles indicated the overtime amount for the current year would be high,
because vacant positions were filled through the use of overtime. The overtime
budget for 2013 would be different, because of eliminating the 12‐hour medic van
and adding FTEs in emergency response.
Council Member Burt expressed concern regarding the historic pattern of
overtime in both the Police and Fire Departments. He wanted assurance that the
projected overtime amount for 2013 would be close to accurate.
Mr. Perez noted Staff presented a clean‐up Budget Amendment at year end, and
clearly explained the adjustments between areas of savings and areas of deficits.
Staff projected an overall deficit for 2013 because of retiree medical benefits;
however, Staff projected a surplus for 2012.
Ms. Capriles felt flexible staffing would contribute to the elimination of overtime.
Council Member Price inquired if Staff knew the amount of estimated overtime
for the Foothill Station.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 43 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
Mr. Perez explained the FC had requested quarterly updates; therefore, Staff
tracked such items as out‐of‐area fires and reimbursement for that. He stated
$280,000 was the amount of overtime for the Foothill Station.
Council Member Price thought the original proposal concerning freezing 6 FTEs
was reasonable. She stated freezing positions did not add to costs, and
interpreted freezing positions as a placeholder.
Chair Shepherd supported the Motion, because of the study with the Fire
Department. She expected this to return holistically with recommendations.
Ms. Antel noted an update of Fire Resources Study recommendations was
scheduled before the Policy & Services Committee in June 2012, and that would
be made available to the Council.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether one Fire Chief position was vacant.
Ms. Antel responded yes. The City was recruiting a new Fire Chief/Assistant
Director of Public Safety.
Chair Shepherd stated the Study indicated the City should have a Public Safety
Director who served over both Departments. She asked if Staff had decided not
to follow that recommendation.
Mr. Keene indicated the Fire Chief would report to the Public Safety Director.
Chair Shepherd asked whether Fire Chief Dennis Burns would serve in two roles.
Mr. Keene said Chief Burns was serving as Public Safety Director with Fire
Command, with a vacancy in the Chief position. The Police Department was also
reporting to Chief Burns.
MOTION PASSED: 4‐0
Mr. Perez stated at the May 10, 2012 meeting, expenditures for the
Administrative Services Department (ASD) Budget were decreased by $106,000.
Some of those funds would be allocated to the General Fund, resulting in a
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 44 of 44
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/15/12
positive net of $58,000. Fire Department expenditures decreased by $40,000,
because they belonged in the Enterprise Funds. They were just short of $1
million. Staff would ask for $125,000 for the City Attorney Contingency Fund
during non‐departmental Budget Wrap‐up. These changes assumed the FC's
latest direction on the $500,000 for Animal Services.
Chair Shepherd said Staff began with a negative of $1.22 million, which was not
accurate, because Staff was taking from Budget Reserves in order to fund two
one‐time items.
Mr. Perez suggested having a Motion concerning that at Wrap up.
Chair Shepherd requested Staff place that with the attorney's fees. There were
two items, one for IT.
Future Meetings and Agendas
Mr. Perez reported a consultant would be available to speak regarding gas rates.
Staff would possibly request the FC to amend the order of the Agenda at the next
meeting in order to hear from the consultant.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 P.M.
Finance Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 27
Special Meeting
May 10, 2012
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:14 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Council Member Burt, Price, Shepherd (Chair)
Absent: Scharff
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. City Clerk Budget (continued from 5/8/12)
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst recalled at the last meeting the
Finance Committee (FC) requested information regarding the $200,000
increase in Council Support Services. That detail was provided in the
memorandum at places. She explained the change was comprised of
$20,000 per Council meeting video broadcast, $7,000 for contract Minute
transcription, $60,000 for election publishing costs, $99,000 benefit
increase, and $13,000 allocated charge increase. On review of this detail, it
was noted that $60,000 for election publishing costs should have been
allocated to the Election/Conflict of Interest Division rather than the Council
Support Services Division. Staff had listed in the memo the detail of that
change and its effect on the Proposed Budget in those Divisions.
Chair Shepherd noted the Proposed Budget remained the same. She
indicated Council Support Services would be reduced by $60,000, and the
savings would be $662 rather than $60,662.
Ms. Paras answered yes.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Council Member Burt asked where the $99,000 amount in benefit increases
was shown in the Operating Budget Book.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services explained it was part of the
figures listed on the benefit allocations on page 103.
Council Member Burt inquired where the $99,000 increase was.
Mr. Perez responded it was cumulative.
Ms. Paras indicated the $99,000 increase was in the Council Support
Services Division. In the Election/Conflict of Interest Division, there was a
$26,000 increase. This net number was the net of those increases.
Mr. Perez reported Staff didn't provide the FC with a breakdown of salary
and non-salary by Division on page 101. The FC had asked for the change
in the $200,158 amount under Council Support Services. Staff provided the
details for the change, but not a breakdown in the document. He suggested
Staff could include that in their work plan. On page 103, this $99,000
amount was part of the numbers Staff vetted in the process.
Ms. Paras stated there was a $99,000 increase in Council Support Services
for salaries and benefits, a decrease of $20,000 in Public Information for
salaries and benefits, a decrease of $26,000 in Election/Conflict of Interest,
and a $21,000 decrease in Legislative Records Management. The total net
of all those changes was $19,000. She explained when Staff computed
benefits allocation, they reallocated based on cost center, and part of the
change in the various cost centers for benefits had to do with that.
Mr. Perez indicated the cost center of Council Support Services had 3.3 Full-
Time Equivalents (FTE), and cost allocations were based on the salaries of
those 3.3 FTEs. Costs were allocated within cost centers, and costs shifted
up and down depending on the movement of Staff among the cost centers.
Donna Grider, City Clerk reported quite a bit of Staff time in the past year
had been spent on Minutes and Agenda preparation, both part of Council
Support Services.
Council Member Burt noted the General Fund had a series of Department
expenditures as lump sums, and elsewhere were cumulative costs under
staffing. He couldn't readily correlate them. He inquired how there was a
benefit increase of $99,000, when that was separate from the allocated
charges. He asked where the $99,000 benefits increase for Council Support
Services came from.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Perez reported it was based on increasing costs for retiree medical.
Council Member Burt noted a total of $19,000 for benefit-related costs in the
2013 Proposed Budget, and a $99,000 increase for Council Support Services
alone. He felt an explanation of increasing benefit costs wasn't sufficient.
He stated there had to be some other explanation.
Mr. Perez said some were going up and some were going down. Ms. Paras
had calculated the different changes to determine a net change of $19,000.
He suggested Staff provide a further breakdown.
Council Member Burt understood how those changes netted out at $19,000,
but didn't understand the $99,000 increase.
Ms. Paras reported there were various decreases in the other Divisions that
caused that $19,000 net amount.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the $99,000 increase in benefits was
for Council Support Services or across the entire Department Budget.
Mr. Perez said it was one cost center. Staff needed to provide the change
for all cost centers so the FC could determine the $19,000 net amount.
Council Member Burt said his concern was with the $99,000 amount.
Mr. Perez explained $350,000 was allocated among all those cost centers on
page 103, and the $99,000 increase was part of the $350,000. Staff needed
to provide the balance of the $350,000 total to show where the $99,000
increase was.
Council Member Burt didn't understand how there could be such a benefit
increase without a much larger increase in salary than shown.
Ms. Grider reported she was allocating Staff time into this category more this
coming year than in past years.
Council Member Burt stated benefits trailed the personnel being reallocated.
He didn't see a big number for salary being reallocated, just a big number
for benefits being reallocated. He noted the benefit increase of $99,000 on
the supplemental sheet, and questioned if that was across the Department
or just in Council Support Services.
Ms. Paras answered just Council Support Services.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Perez suggested Staff provide the other entries to determine the total.
Ms. Paras reported benefits for the remaining Divisions in the Clerk's Office
(Administration, Public Information, Elections, Legislative Records
Management and Administrative Citations) had decreased by $79,000,
because of the shift in FTEs.
Chair Shepherd didn't see a shift of FTEs, but thought Staff had a new
methodology for allocating salaries between FTEs. For example,
Election/Conflict of Interest was not driven by salary.
Ms. Grider reported there were fewer employees allocated to election costs,
because she handled 90 percent of election work.
Chair Shepherd shared Council Member Burt's concerns. She thought Staff
had a methodology change, and the explanation was more than reallocating
FTEs. She asked Staff to provide a further explanation.
Council Member Burt didn't know if that would require further research or an
explanation of the information.
Mr. Perez stated the FC didn't have the same level of detail that would be
provided at the Department level. He thought, with detail at the
Department level, the FC would see the composition of the numbers and be
able to match them to the Departments.
Council Member Burt noted the supplemental memo added up to $200,000,
and that was the explanation of the increase in the allocation to Council
Support Services. He thought there should be a bigger number for salaries,
because of the $100,000 benefit increase.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff gave the FC an explanation of the change, rather
than the whole $749,000 total for Council Support Services. He stated the
FC had only a partial view of the $200,158 increase, and suggested the
Budget should contain all details so the FC could follow and correlate the
changes.
Council Member Burt hoped that would help him understand it, but he still
didn't understand why there wasn't twice that number in salary shifts.
Mr. Perez committed to providing more detail if the FC approved the Budget.
Council Member Burt said the FC would roll it over, rather than approve it.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
The item was continued to May 15, 2012.
2. Planning Department Budget
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services identified a document titled
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Process was a summary of the changes made to the
Proposed Budget from the previous Tuesday night meeting. Staff committed
to capturing the changes and reviewing the changes with the Finance
Committee (FC) at the following meeting. Staff could make any necessary
changes at any point in the evening and at the wrap-up meeting as well.
Staff would be providing this at the beginning of each meeting to check in
with the FC on changes.
Chair Shepherd noted the Proposed Budget was in deficit, and that Staff had
not drawn from reserves to cover the deficit.
Mr. Perez stated that Staff was waiting on Council direction.
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported Citywide changes totaled
$430,000, with personnel benefits increasing by $108,000. The detail for
this could be found on page 189. Allocated charges increased by $322,000;
the majority of this increase was due to Information Technology (IT)
charges. Suggested Department changes included increasing revenues to
$1.3 million. In December 2011, a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO)
was approved for the Development Center Blueprint Process. This would be
an ongoing Budget increase from 2012 due to the volume of activity at the
Development Center. Significant Budget expense changes totaled
$993,000; $700,000 related to the Development Center Blueprint Process,
$150,000 for High Speed Rail (HSR), and $100,000 for SB 375. She
explained SB 375 was legislation requiring regional planning to identify
appropriate land uses and density around transit stations and transit
corridors. There were also one-time increases for Comprehensive Plan
contracts and an organizational study ($70,000). The Department intended
to determine how best to integrate various planning, permitting and
transportation services provided by the City. The Department also had one-
time reductions from 2012. Development Center rent and costs had
increased by $400,000, and included increased rent for the first floor and
additional rent for the second floor. Full Time Employee (FTE) changes
included the elimination of an Administrative Associate I and a Senior
Planner, re-classing a Planning Manager to Chief Planning Official, adding a
Management Analyst (0.5 FTE), reallocating an Administrative Associate
from the City Manager's Office, and adding a Management Specialist (0.25
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
FTE) to help with the HSR Project. The Department was considering creating
a promotional opportunity for Planners to Senior Planners.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment said the
Department's goal was to create a sustainable community through a balance
of long-range land use and transportation planning, while at the same time
trying to be responsive to customer needs and emerging community issues.
He reviewed four different categories as the areas that the Department
focused on. The primary activities in sustainable land use included the
Sustainable Community's Strategy and the regional housing needs process.
Developed within the current Housing Element were the Below Market Rate
(BMR) Housing Program and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, the Comprehensive Plan amendment and its area plans, and the
Rail Corridor Study. The Department provided support to the infrastructure
effort, and was taking a more active role in the School District planning. On
the transportation side, the Department was taking on HSR support. The
Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan and a number of other traffic calming programs
continued. He noted the California Avenue streetscape project was ongoing,
and safe crossing school had ramped up with the help of a grant. The
Department continued to work on a program to address Downtown and
California Avenue parking issues with the business owners and residents.
The third category was project review. On the planning side, the
Department had had and continued to have a high number of projects. The
Department reviewed the cost bills and inspected the Hoover Pavilion. There
were also a couple of projects unrelated to the Center itself being torn down
and replaced. The Stanford Shopping Center was extremely active along
with the Apple Store, and Bloomingdale's. There were four or five hotels in
the process or under construction. The last category was enhanced
customer experience. This went directly to the Development Center
Blueprint Process with increased Staff and space needs. He reported the
Department would move one position to the Development Center, four other
positions would be posted this month, and the Development Center Services
Director position was under recruitment. Staff was adjusting fees to assure
that all of those as well as increased rents were covered by the fee
structure. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had discussed
working together and having more efficient processes. The Department's
Budget response to some of these issues was to increase Development
Center resources. Staff proposed eliminating one Senior Planner. One
support staff position would be eliminated. For HSR, $150,000 was
allocated. Staff recommended adding an estimated $100,000 for the
Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) process. The Department needed
support for analysis and performing background work as part of zone
planning. There was a request for an additional $50,000 to complete the
Comprehensive Plan. He explained the funds were for some formatting
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
requirements, for legal support to review the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), extended timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan, for consultants'
rates.
Council Member Price inquired how the items not identified in the
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) report would be funded, and
how the Post Office study had been funded.
Mr. Williams reported Staff had retained an appraiser, a structural engineer,
and a historic architect for the Post Office site. The appraisals were
performed through the Administrative Service Department's (ASD) property
management group. He was not sure of the funding.
Mr. Perez stated funding came from the City Manager's contingency fund.
Mr. Williams noted those studies cost about $30,000, and thought a
combination of funds from the City Manager's contingency fund and the
Administrative Staff budget had been used to pay for the studies. He stated
the Communications Power Industry (CPI) study was different. The Council
had directed Staff to draft an explanation of costs and a schedule. Staff
would need to identify resources for that, or determine which other projects
could be deferred or postponed. The Council had also directed Staff to
indicate and describe the resource impacts.
Council Member Price understood the Municipal Code prescribed noticing
requirements. She asked whether Staff was able to utilize electronic
opportunities in terms of notification to reduce printing and mailing costs.
Mr. Williams reported Staff was required by code to mail information. Staff
developed email lists in many cases, and then used both. He stated Staff
could discuss electronic only options with the City Attorney, but felt the
response would be to continue paper notification. He thought Staff could
reduce some printing costs because the Council was working with electronic
copies. He noted three Boards had not moved to electronic submissions.
Council Member Price inquired if Staff had those conversations with all the
Boards and Commissions.
Mr. Williams thought the discussion was to wait a certain period of time after
the Council converted to electronic packets, before broaching the subject
with the Boards and Commissions. He believed it was a good time to have
that discussion.
Council Member Price noted she was a member of several regional boards,
and they gave members the option for electronic or hard copies.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Council Member Price inquired whether Staff included the Housing Element
within the broader concept of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Williams reported the Housing Element would be rolled into the
Comprehensive Plan, as it was in the mainstream of costs. The consultant
working on the Comprehensive Plan was not doing the Housing Element;
therefore, Staff did that and it would be wrapped in.
Council Member Price asked if all the concept plans were included in the
scope of services with the $50,000 amount.
Mr. Williams responded yes.
Council Member Price inquired if the position for the green building planner
was included in the Budget.
Mr. Williams replied yes, it was in the Budget.
Council Member Price whether the organizational study would be conducted
by an outside consultant.
Mr. Perez noted the last ones performed were in approximately 1996-1998.
Staff planned to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Council Member Price inquired if that would be for Planning & Community
Environment.
Mr. Perez answered correct.
Council Member Burt asked if the HSR was in Planning & Community
Environment's Budget previously or had it been added.
Mr. Williams indicated it had been added.
Council Member Burt stated the gap between revenues and expenditures
varied somewhat from year to year. He noted the Budget projected an
increase in revenue of approximately $1.5 million and an increase in
expenditures of approximately $1.1 million. The gap between the two was
approximately $2.9 million. He indicated that was quite a bit below the
average over the five-year period on average. Only in 2011 was the gap
lower at $2.1 million. He asked Staff what they projected for the future.
Mr. Williams said the Budget reflected increased fees to some extent now.
Staff had also conducted an overall fee study for the whole City, which was
partially reflected in the Budget and would continue. He thought the fee
study would bring them closer into alignment. Staff was trying to ensure the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Development Center was 100 percent covered, and that the planning side
was as high as possible.
Council Member Burt inquired if the activity increase for the Development
Center was caused by commercial or residential construction, and was it
primarily new development or redevelopment.
Larry Perlin, Chief Building Official said it was both. It was across all
segments.
Council Member Burt asked for the proportion of the increase.
Mr. Perlin indicated he would need to review the numbers. The revenue
increases were disproportionately on the commercial side, because those
were larger projects that generated more revenue. From a permit issuance
standpoint, he felt it was probably occurring more in residential, because the
City received more residential generating permits. He offered to generate
statistics if the FC was interested.
Council Member Burt thought Staff would want to know that on an ongoing
basis. He suggested another way to categorize it was new development and
redevelopment. He assumed most of it was redevelopment.
Mr. Perlin thought it was both.
Mr. Williams reported commercial construction was the cause for high
activity in the previous month, and noted commercial projects were high-
dollar projects that generated many fees.
Council Member Burt stated most of those were not significant net changes
in floor area.
Mr. Williams said that was correct
Council Member Burt inquired whether the construction was providing more
square footage or modernization. He asked if residential construction was
increasing square footage versus building new homes. He suggested there
wasn't much new home activity.
Mr. Perlin stated there were a fair number of tear-downs.
Council Member Burt noted one item under performance measures was
decreased traffic congestion on roads and intersections. He asked whether
that was a realistic goal and, if so, how Staff proposed to achieve it.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Williams proposed achieving that goal through a combination of signal
improvements and repaving efforts. He thought people would perceive
better traffic flow, because the street was in better condition. Staff
attempted to compile some quantitative information.
Council Member Burt agreed that the bicycle and pedestrian project and
transit projects, when implemented, would have some effect; however, not
many of the projects that would be implemented in the current year would
have a measurable impact. He wanted to see goals that were a stretch but
realistically achievable.
Mr. Williams suggested adding something to measure bicycle and pedestrian
use.
Council Member Burt didn't want to focus too much on the pedestrian side,
but noted it was a Department metric. Demonstrating to the community an
increased use of bike and pedestrian and transit translated into less car
congestion and more available parking spaces, and car drivers perceived
that as a benefit. He felt the community perceived it as dollars spent on
bicycle improvements at the expense of car drivers. He reported
notifications by electronic means could provide an acknowledgement of
receipt, which hard-copy mailings didn't provide. There were cost and
quality advantages for almost the same price.
Mr. Perez indicated Council Member Burt was looking at a net cost. He
reported the Operating Budget did not include any capital projects, which
the FC might want to consider in that net cost. The net cost would vary
from year to year depending on activities in each Department. He stated
the FC would review capital projects on capital night.
Council Member Burt was fine with keeping those segregated. He asked if
Staff support for a capital project was allocated on the capital side.
Mr. Perez said it depended on the project. Most of the construction-type
staffing was allocated to engineering, for example, but not typically for
technology projects.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the Stanford Hospital Project was affecting
receipts for the Department. She assumed there were more people working
in the Department even though Stanford was paying for it.
Mr. Williams reported it was in the building phase at this point. He noted
that hospitals worked through the State not the City.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Perlin indicated Stanford was contributing money to fund the costs to
oversee and administer the projects in the Department, particularly at the
Development Center. The large projects were the Hoover Pavilion and
several parking garages. The clinic outbuildings generated considerable
revenue. The plan review and inspections were managed at the
Development Center. The Department had not added Staff. He indicated
there were mechanisms in place to deploy additional resources if those
projects became active and other projects throughout the City came online
at the same time. Contributions from Stanford would pay for that.
Chair Shepherd asked when the California Avenue Project from Stanford
would come online.
Mr. Williams indicated Stanford was considering meetings with Staff over the
next couple of months to get things in order. They were required to submit
plans for that project before the end of 2013.
Chair Shepherd inquired if that would be 250 homes.
Mr. Williams stated it was a total of 250 homes, 180 in the California Avenue
project and 70 on El Camino. The Development Agreement called for the
California Avenue plan to be submitted by the end of 2013, and they were
starting work on plans for concepts.
Chair Shepherd inquired if Staff thought increased construction activity was
the result of the Stanford Projects, and if construction would slow down in
2015.
Mr. Perlin reported the California Avenue and Research Park Projects were all
part of Stanford. He thought construction was going to slow down before
now, but it was on a trajectory unlike anything Staff had seen.
Mr. Williams stated Mr. Perlin had developed a good system of having
contract, plan check and inspection personnel assigned to handle
construction projects, without utilizing Staff. It was harder to do that on the
planning side.
Chair Shepherd noticed that the leases across the street were due in
December 2013 or December 2014.
Mr. Perlin reported the City had exercised the two two-year options, and had
two more two-year options to exercise.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether Staff envisioned the requirement for
having this quantity of Staff in the future as well.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Williams noted Staff from Fire, Utilities, Planning and Public Works
Departments were being relocated to the second floor of the Development
Center, because they were related to the Development Center operation. He
stated Staff would be available to help the public, whether they were located
on the first or second floor.
Mr. Perlin suggested, as the leases matured, the Council consider the best
location for the Development Center, the number of Staff from other
Departments to be located at the Development Center, and how much space
would be needed.
Chair Shepherd thanked Mr. Williams for taking on many projects for the
City during the past year. She inquired if the study concerning bicycling to
work was part of the Budget, or if there was a grant.
Mr. Williams indicated the City had received a grant.
Council Member Burt noted two years ago the City received a grant for
bicycle share programs and they never happened.
Mr. Williams stated it was a regional program, and he thought it would begin
in the spring.
Council Member Price said the discussion at the Policy Advisory Committee
indicated the roll-out would be within the next six months.
Chair Shepherd asked if the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) was implementing the program.
Council Member Price noted it was a bike share program.
Mr. Williams indicated it was handled throughout the region by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through VTA and others.
Chair Shepherd suggested the Council consider having that on the list of
public benefits.
Council Member Burt noted Facebook also had such a program.
Council Member Price inquired whether funding for the planning studies
related to 27 University was embedded within the Budget.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Perez replied they would discuss special revenue later in the Budget
hearings.
Council Member Price asked if Staff had any comments about the almost
non-existent training funds included in the Budget.
Mr. Williams noted the lack of funding for training was Citywide. He
reported there were enough funds for Staff education to maintain
certifications. On the planning side, there were funds of approximately $300
per person per year for training, such as one-day seminars on the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He stated making time for training was
also a problem.
Mr. Perez believed training was critical for the organization. The Budget
contained approximately $50,000 in the General Fund and another $50,000
for the Utilities Department for training, and Staff was addressing some
training dollars in IT. He felt training for management was important,
because there was a tremendous amount of turnover throughout the
organization. The City needed to increase that level of funding and have
plans for more development.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
tentatively approve the Planning and Community Environment budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
Chair Shepherd indicated there were several large Proposed Budgets on the
Agenda.
Council Member Price asked if any of the items could be deferred to a
different night.
Mr. Perez stated Items could be deferred. Items 7 and 8 could be deferred if
the Finance Committee chose to do so.
3. IT Department Budget
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported Citywide changes included
personnel benefit cost increases of $.22 million. The detail of that could be
found on page 167. Staff had a controller's exhibit B item related to the
retiree medical Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC). Staff reviewed the
data for retiree medical costs provided to Bartel Associates and found that
there were a number of Information Technology (IT) personnel retiree
medical health costs that were allocated to the Administrative Services
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Department (ASD). Staff proposed moving those costs appropriately to the
IT Department.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services explained Staff proposed to
review the list of retirees by legacy area and move those inappropriately
classified.
Chair Shepherd stated that put more money in the IT Budget.
Mr. Perez indicated some funds would go back to the General Fund.
Ms. Paras reported allocated charges included $135,000. Within Significant
Department changes, revenue increased $3.5 million this year, and
approximately $900,000 of that was related to media costs that were
approved by the Council at mid-year 2012. The current year charges that
were rolled into that $3.5 million revenue increase amounted to $1 million.
Also included in that revenue increase was a $900,000 increase in operating
transfers to the Technology Fund for various technology Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP). Staff noted on page 164 under the Significant
Budget Adjustments table, the first two lines showed a revenue increase of
$700,000 for the Technology Enhancement Fee and an increase in allocated
revenue. She explained Staff had doubled the Enhancement Fee revenue
increase, when it was included in the $3.4 million amount.
Mr. Perez said Staff wanted IT to be its own department, and were looking
for a way to help the General Fund with the structural deficits. Staff used a
model that earmarked revenue for technology. Staff wanted to dedicate
funds to CIPs from the General Fund. There was a CIP for Technology that
benefited all the funds. Staff made allocations based on whether a project
would benefit the General Fund, if so then the General Fund must pay its full
share of that project. The one technicality was that the monies had to be in
the Technology Fund and, as the projects came in, it paid for them. Even
though it was a General Fund, it had to be housed in the Technology Fund.
Staff felt this methodology would help with structural deficits. It had an
intent and purpose no different than what the FC had already.
Ms. Paras indicated expenses increased in the IT Department by $900,000.
The majority of this was for contract support for operations of $300,000, to
provide additional operating support for the Department. She noted other
increases included the purchase of TeamMate software for the Auditor's
Office, increased training, and an $11,000 increase for equipment costs.
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) changes in the Department totaled an increase of
$200,000. Various Staff changes were made at mid-year which included a
reallocation from the IT Department to ASD and a re-class of one Senior
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Technologist to IT Manager. The Department proposed adding 0.48
temporary Staff Specialists. She reported on page 166 there was a 4.86 FTE
in temporary auditing positions, which the Department expected 3.38 of
those FTEs to be reduced January 1st.
Council Member Price asked why the TeamMate software for the City
Auditor's Office was in the IT Budget rather than the Auditor's Budget.
Mr. Perez explained the practice was to allocate cost plus some additional
funds to cover unexpected items, but noted that was not the only method
available. As Mr. Reichental reviewed the allocations, he could have a
different approach and Staff would discuss that. He reported Staff had over
allocated funds over a period of years to pay for the SAP upgrade.
Council Member Price felt that made sense for the SAP upgrade, because it
was systemic. However, she stated this seemed like an outlier in concept as
it appeared to go in the opposite direction of everyone else.
Mr. Perez explained it was similar to purchasing software only Public Safety
would use, because it was funded by the Technology Fund.
Jonathan Reichental, Director of Information Technology reported Staff had
re-classed an open position for IT Governance and Time Manager for IT.
This was a very common role and not unique to Palo Alto. He explained it
would add value to the assessment of the methodology for allocating funds.
He believed it would bring together the Staff and City to determine if IT was
working on the right projects in the right sequence, and if IT had aligned
projects with available funds and funding sources. The benefits were that
the IT Department would be acting according to the Council's goals. Staff
thought it would materially advance the goals of the City and the ability for
IT to be more efficient, because it would work on the right things at the right
time.
Council Member Price inquired whether there was a strategic plan in the
Department.
Mr. Reichental replied yes, there was. Staff had completed work with a
consulting company, and many of their observations were consistent with
his. Staff would take key parts of those observations as their plan for the
future, which focused on governance and protecting the continuity of the
business of government. staff was working on some projects that were long
term such as the telephone replacement project and the 911 replacement
system. He thought his biggest asset was 31 amazingly passionate people,
but they needed guidance, structure and training. Those were the four key
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
areas that would constitute the 24-month focus areas, and then Staff would
begin to implement components of cloud computing and some innovation
that they wanted to embrace.
Council Member Price asked if the consultant had experience with public and
private sector analysis.
Mr. Reichental responded they only worked with public agencies.
Council Member Burt wondered how the number of CIP projects compared to
historic project loads. He inquired if Staff had a sense of the proposed
project load compared to traditional loads in one year in IT CIP.
Mr. Perez noted there had been a strong movement towards the CIP over
the last few years. In terms of dollars, he thought they were on par with
prior years. He stated Staff had not had time to work on several projects.
Lisa Bolger, Information Technology Manager reported CIPs had been
stagnant for the last few years; Staff had not had an increase in CIPs. She
noted one additional project pertaining to the Development Center in the
upcoming year. Staff had a number of CIPs on the books for quite some
time. She stated several CIP listings were directly allocated for other
Departments.
Council Member Burt asked how it netted out compared to prior years.
Ms. Bolger noted IT had one additional CIP.
Council Member Burt inquired whether all those others projects were roll-
overs.
Ms. Bolger said they were.
Council Member Burt asked if these were standard annual expenditures with
the exception of the Development Center Blueprint project.
Ms. Bolger responded yes.
Mr. Perez indicated the FC would discuss CIP projects on the 22nd, and Staff
would review the Technology at that time.
Council Member Burt stated the City was making a considerable commitment
toward enhancing whole technology systems. He asked how Staff would
attempt to measure significant segments of those achievements in terms of
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
either productivity gains or increased levels of services. When he reviewed
the metrics, he noted there weren't historic numbers for these three. He
asked if they were being tracked.
Mr. Perez said he would need to look them up in the previous document.
Council Member Burt wanted to see other metrics that attempted to
measure productivity and service gains. He recalled the discussion with
Planning & Community Environment regarding electronic notification. He
suggested allowing residents and businesses to opt-in for a variety of things
could enhance communication in different forms, reduce costs and possibly
increase service. He asked if that was in the work plan.
Mr. Reichental reported the City was to become more of a digital City, which
meant having less paper and less documentation. One component was
portable technology, such as laptops, that alleviated the need for printing
and storing documentation, and the associated costs. Another component
was using social media and the City's website to sign up for newsletters and
access information. He noted the overhead to get to that information was
lower and easier in a digital format.
Council Member Burt stated the community was interested in the kind of
communication provided by the Community Alert and Notification System
(CANS), but used in non-emergency situations. An ability to have layers of
opting in from residents and businesses could enhance communication and
service and perhaps at lower costs. He suggested discussing that at a
strategic planning meeting.
Chair Shepherd noted the City had wireless capabilities in 22 locations. She
asked where there was wireless at the landfill.
Ms. Bolger thought it was a solution for old technology, as it had an
antiquated system. From a connectivity standpoint, wireless access was
easier to install than landlines.
Mr. Perez reported the City temporarily set up wireless access for Council
retreats at the Baylands Interpretive Center.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the public could access wireless at the Baylands.
Mr. Perez stated not right now.
Council Member Price felt that was a good idea.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Chair Shepherd indicated the FC could track the IT Department as they
received more data and it became stable. She asked if IT could perform the
SAP service so the City didn't have to continue the contract work.
Mr. Perez explained SAP support was a supplement to the internal team, and
provided specific expertise for improving the system. He suggested Mr.
Reichental could provide recommendations once he was familiar with the
system.
Chair Shepherd was happy to receive an online bill for utilities. She reported
Staff had asked for $50,000 to update paper bills and Council said no.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
tentatively approve the Information Technology budget with the adjustment
for the retiree medical increase of $106,000.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
4. Human Resources Department Budget
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported Citywide changes in this
Department totaled $21,000, of which $16,000 was related to personnel
benefit changes. The detail of the personnel benefit could be found on page
150. Allocated charges increased in this Department by $4,551. Revenue
decreased by $65,000; these revenues were related to the General Fund
Cost Allocation Plan. She indicated an expenses for the Department for
$50,000 related to Citywide training for the General Fund side. Staff had
also increased training in the Enterprise Funds for Public Works and Utilities
by $50,000. The Department was also increasing its hourly Staff by 0.24
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE).
Chair Shepherd referenced a performance measure regarding facilitating
promotional opportunities. She stated that was a one of her goals, and felt
it important to grow employees.
Kathryn Shen, Director of Human Resources indicated employee
development was a priority. Development was more than just training. She
noted research on learning and how people learn indicated 10 percent of
learning was formal training, 20 percent thought to be mentoring/coaching,
and 70 percent on-the-job. The employee development process was more
than training, which was important particularly with certifications. Employee
development meant looking at the whole person, how to help them craft
their path. That was one of the Department's goals.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Chair Shepherd didn't notice any dramatic changes in the Budget from the
prior year. She felt that was an important feature, especially when the City
was going through an unstable environment with employee morale. She
asked if Staff had a sense of diversity issues. She recalled the difficulties of
accommodating the different cultures.
Ms. Shen stated diversity would be part of the strategic plan. She had been
working with Staff to develop a people strategy and diversity would be a
part of it.
Chair Shepherd felt the City was in that mix with the public sector report.
Ms. Shen agreed the City was in that mix. She indicated the Millennial
Generation was interested in community involvement and was civic minded.
If the City engaged employees as they left school and helped them grow,
then the City would see them make a positive difference.
Council Member Price inquired if there was a way to increase training
budgets a little more. She stated this $50,000 amount was for 1,000
employees.
Mr. Perez indicated it was $100,000, because there was $50,000 for Utilities
as well as $50,000 for the General Fund.
Council Member Price asked how many employees were in Utilities.
Mr. Perez thought there were 600 employees in the General Fund and
almost 400 in Utilities.
Council Member Price inquired how many people were spanned by the
$50,000 training amount.
Mr. Perez responded 600 people.
James Keene, City Manager replied it was about $90 per person.
Sandra Blanch, Assistant Director of Human Resources noted hourly
employees also received training.
Council Member Price assumed training included face-to-face and online
training and mentoring. She referenced a performance measure regarding
training management and best practices. She inquired whether employees
had been involved in the discussion about what they needed.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Ms. Shen planned to have Human Resources (HR) Staff perform a training
needs assessment. She wanted to understand each part of the organization,
what kind of critical competencies employees needed, and how that
translated into plans for development and training. She had been
interviewing Department heads and would move to other levels of
employees, because she wanted feedback about what people needed and
what kind of skills would propel the City's workforce forward for the next ten
years. She had heard comments about project planning, writing and
speaking, presentation skills, and analytical skills. Staff had begun this kind
of needs assessment as well as ongoing training. She had some ideas on
how to maximize training dollars, such as in-house experts, Palo Alto
companies, and professional associations. There were ways of stretching
training funds for maximum effect.
Mr. Keene explained the $100,000 training amount for Utilities and HR were
additions to the Budget. Staff was engaged in conversations about
redirecting existing dollars, and would review ways to channel existing
dollars into training over the next couple of months.
Council Member Burt thought the proposed goals were below the trailing
average. He suggested they be reexamined. He felt Staff should set
metrics that were achievable.
Ms. Shen indicated they should also show improvement. She would review
the goals.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to
tentatively approve the Human Resources department budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
5. Employee Benefits
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported expenses decreased by
$800,000 in the General Benefits Fund.
The increase in cost was offset by various position freezes and eliminations.
She noted 20 positions were frozen in the General Fund, and 18.5 Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs) were reduced from the General Fund, for a total pension
cost savings of $800,000. Citywide the Department saved $900,000 by
eliminating positions in the Refuse Fund due to the landfill closure. Staff
assumed a 10 percent increase in medical costs, and 4 percent increases in
dental and vision costs, resulting in a $500,000 increase Citywide for
healthcare. Due to savings from the various position freezes and
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
eliminations, the Department had a savings of $500,000. The Department
also had $52,000 of fees and other benefit decreases. The one significant
change in the Workers' Compensation Fund was a $100,000 increase for
umbrella excess liability with the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC). The Retiree Health Benefit Fund had an overall expense increase
Citywide of $3.1 million. Within the General Fund there was an increase of
$1.9 million and the other Funds, mostly Enterprise, had a $700,000
increase. The costs for this item were consistent with the plan adopted by
the Council in April. She also noted reallocating costs from Administrative
Services Department (ASD) to Information Technology (IT) of approximately
$106,000.
Chair Shepherd asked if this was the aggregate form.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services answered correct, and noted
it was similar to the Technology Fund. Staff aggregated the costs and then
allocated them.
Chair Shepherd suggested reviewing this Budget prior to all others in order
to understand the allocations.
Council Member Price inquired if the healthcare opt-out noted in every
Department allowed an employee to opt-out of healthcare options and to
receive a stipend in lieu of benefits.
Mr. Perez explained it was an incentive for an employee who might be
covered by another policy or might not need health insurance. The incentive
ensured the employee didn't sign up and reduced the cost to the City.
Ms. Paras indicated Fiscal Year 2012 was the first year Staff budgeted for the
opt-out expense. Prior to that Staff had depended on salary savings through
attrition and benefit cost savings throughout the year to offset that.
Mr. Perez reported Staff had allocated from the aggregate in previous years.
The financial struggles had forced Staff to review cost details of labor groups
by their category. Staff decided to allocate pension to Fire and Policy. The
General Fund was absorbing a hit because allocations had been refined.
Council Member Price noticed the numbers varied considerably among
Departments.
Mr. Perez expected that to be the case, because it was dependent on
personal circumstances.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Sandra Blanch, Assistant Director of Human Resources explained that when
the program began, Staff calculated the incentive amount to be 50 percent
of premium costs
Chair Shepherd inquired whether this amount was taxable.
Ms. Blanch responded yes.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
tentatively approve the budget for Employee Benefits.
MOTION PASED: 3-0 Scharff absent
6. General Liabilities
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported expenses in this Fund
totaled $32,000, most of which was in the normal course of premium
increases for property loss and special liability. Citywide costs included an
increase in the Authority of California Cities' administrative fees of $40,000.
Revenue also increased by $32,000.
Chair Shepherd inquired if there was a reason for this minimal increase.
Ms. Blanch explained the City was in a risk pool with 12 other mid-sized
agencies similar to Palo Alto. Staff had met with the underwriter of the
excess liability policy in April and, based on the pool's claim costs, premiums
would be stable.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to
tentatively approve the budget for General Liabilities.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
7. Administrative Services Department Budget
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported Citywide charges increased
by $500,000, and personnel benefit costs increased by $600,000. The detail
for that could be found on page 125. Revenue increased by $400,000, for
the Administrative General Fund Cost Allocation. Expenses increased by
$62,800, primarily for printing of the Budget document as Staff moved
toward color printing. The Department also had a $16,000 increase for the
parking permit program, where they were introducing new scratcher permits
for purchasers of one-day permit uses. The last details of the FTE changes
in the Department were an increase of $200,000. The Department had
various reallocations from the Information Technology (IT) Department and
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
from the Fiber Optics Fund to the General Fund. Staff increased the Office of
Management & Budget staffing by one Senior Financial Analyst, and also
increased temporary salaries by $32,000.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services (ASD) indicated the
Department remained stable at this point. The first level of changes was in
the Operating Budget. Staff was anticipating enhancement of technologies.
The Department was expanding its card system to allow faster activity in
terms of acquiring widgets for services. He noted it financial incentives
made it worthwhile to proceed. The Department was also considering
automating payments to vendors, and using a multitude of vendors that had
new tools to create efficiencies. Staff was reviewing some highly needed
tools to help monitor activity on the credit cards. The shift was good for the
City in that activity and reporting were online, and would provide more
analysis and better oversight of funds spent. The Department was working
on a prototype to query the Budget in an intuitive manner on the website.
The Department in conjunction with Planning was working on the parking
permit program. He felt it made no sense for Downtown merchants and
employees to come to the City to acquire permits; therefore, Staff was
developing a new online system to acquire permits. The goal was to have
more people collecting outstanding bills than processing paper and permits.
The Department was reviewing efficiencies with the City Manager's Office
and the City Attorney's Office to expedite procurement, especially in
construction. He hoped to come back to the Finance Committee (FC) in six
months with changes to the Municipal Code that would decentralize some
procurement areas and allow faster turn-around times.
Council Member Burt stated the columns in the table on page 124 did not
add up to the stated totals, and suggested Staff reexamine that.
Ms. Paras noted 4.2 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) increases on page 124 and
decreases on page 123.
Chair Shepherd stated the table continued from the prior page.
Council Member Burt agreed the total was correct.
Mr. Perez thought of two positions that were switched to capital; otherwise,
they were legitimate.
Council Member Price asked if Staff had discussed with Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) efficiencies that could be achieved in terms of bulk
ordering.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
Mr. Perez reported he had discussed consultant services, but not
procurement issues. Staff met with PAUSD once a year to discuss budgets
and gaps, and once a month to discuss regional services. He stated the
challenge was different systems and processes between the two entities. He
thought it was time to consider a change, because the City couldn't afford to
remain stagnant. In procurement Staff wanted to piggyback contracts. He
felt there was more room for cooperative efforts in procurement.
Council Member Price suggested the key performance measures didn't
showcase Staff's actions as well as they could. For example, she didn't
understand the value of measures such as more efficient service delivery
models and dollar amount of purchase per full-time equivalent position.
Mr. Perez admitted he didn't spend as much as he should have in reviewing
various options. He noted the City had joined the International City/County
Management Association's (ICMA) group of performance measures and
benchmarking. He thought reviewing that would allow Staff to determine
meaningful demonstrations of achievements to the community.
Council Member Price observed the entry points framed what each
Department did, and stated it was important to have easily understood
performance measures. She recognized that some of these measures had
been related to things in the past, and the Department couldn't necessarily
start from zero.
Mr. Perez was very proud that the Department had been able to stay above
other benchmark cities on return on investment.
Chair Shepherd asked about financing debt.
Mr. Perez indicated if Staff put it as an accomplishment rather than a
measurement it would work
Chair Shepherd inquired about transitioning credit card fees. She recalled
the City was spending a large amount, due to online bill payments and
recreation registrations.
Mr. Perez requested time to perform an update. He reported some laws
restricted government agencies on how they could pass on some of the
costs, but thought they had become less restrictive. He indicated a third-
party vendor was handling a processing charge for parking citations. He
believed the charge was $1.25, which was charged to the receiver of the
citation. Staff wanted residents to utilize online utility payment; however,
that required residents to log into the City's website. He felt people
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
preferred to log into one website for all financial transactions, such as
personal online banking. He reported the Departments asked for the money
if Staff allocated the cost to each Department. He explained this was why
the cost was sometimes an item.
Chair Shepherd noted the cost was in the tens of thousands of dollars in the
prior year, and asked for the current figure.
Mr. Perez didn't recall a line item increase in the Department for that
activity.
Chair Shepherd indicated the City paid credit card fees, and didn't ask for
handling or processing fees.
Mr. Perez suggested they were discussing adding a handling fee to each
transaction. He requested time to research that, as there had been issues
about handling fees.
Chair Shepherd recalled that from the prior year. She wanted to discuss the
Budget format at a future time.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
tentatively approve the Administrative Services budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
8. Printing and Mailing Fund Budget
Christine Paras, Acting Principal Analyst reported a $1,465 decrease in
Citywide charges, and a $15,381 increase in salaries and benefits due to the
allocation of 0.1 Senior Financial Analyst to the division. The Senior
Financial Analyst's role would be to manage and carry on the day-to-day
operations of the printing and mailing shop.
Council Member Price inquired if Staff was in the process of transitioning to
digital copies.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services indicated it was getting much
better. Staff was preparing over 60 paper Council Packets, but had
decreased to approximately 22 paper Packets. He felt part of the problem
was change and acceptance. He noted Community Services used blast
emails, which saved paper. He reported utilizing better equipment allowed
Staff to copy in a more efficient and effective manner. He wished to move
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
faster in transitioning utility bill mail-outs, and indicated he would work with
Marketing Staff to keep that issue before the community.
Chair Shepherd suggested an email notification that the utility bill was ready
to be paid.
Mr. Perez thought it was a matter of awareness. Staff would continue
working on that.
Council Member Price asked if the Budget reflected color printing.
Mr. Perez reported this Budget had been copied by an outside vendor as it
was finished at the last minute.
Council Member Price inquired whether that was part of the contract services
he mentioned.
Mr. Perez responded yes. He indicated outside vendors were not interested
in printing the Packet, so Staff would continue to print it.
Council Member Burt asked if the green initiatives were being quantified as
part of cost savings for sustainability efforts.
Mr. Perez stated Staff tracked them, and the shop received the green
certificates.
Council Member Burt stated one way to include the initiatives was the cost
savings from sustainability programs. He said Staff was not capturing that
information.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff was not doing that as well as it could. He explained
he had removed the supervisor position, and asked the Revenue Collections
Supervisor to manage the Staff. He needed to help them set up a structural
review.
Council Member Burt said the City also reported this in the climate
protection plan. He felt that was more complicated, because there were
different ways to quantify the savings and potential offsets. He suspected
Staff was not capturing some of those.
Mr. Perez reported Staff wanted a better system to track the jobs, because
the current system was paper-based. As Staff moved to a digital system,
they could implement structures and capture those items.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 27
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/10/12
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
tentatively approve the Printing and Mailing budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Scharff absent
Council Member Burt noted some Council Members had had some questions
about revenue assumptions, in particular the Documentary Transfer Tax.
The median home price had increased to $2 million, and Staff was using
either $600,000 or $1 million.
Mr. Perez thought the assessed value was different.
Council Member Burt didn't know how current those numbers were. With
increasing expenses, he wanted to ensure Staff was not understating
revenue projections.
Mr. Perez suggested adding that topic to the Agenda of a meeting the
following week or as part of wrap-up. Staff was prepared to give a
response.
Council Member Burt preferred a date other than May 22nd or 24th, as he
was unavailable those dates.
Mr. Perez suggested waiting until May 29th. He reported two websites he
had found gave two different numbers, $2.1 million and $1.7 million. He
thought part of the problem was informing Council Members of Staff's
assumptions. Staff would be prepared to discuss it (INAUDIBLE)
Council Member Burt did not know if these were detached single-family
homes. He reported a month-over-month increase of 20 percent since
January, and a year-over-year increase of approximately 15 percent.
Mr. Perez stated Staff would include it on the May 29th Agenda.
Future Meetings and Agendas
May 15, 2012
Adjournment: Meeting Adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Finance Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 49
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Roll Call
Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt, Price, Shepherd (Chair)
Absent: Scharff
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
1. Overview of FY 2013 Budget
Chief Financial Officer, Lalo Perez, indicated there were six hearings scheduled for
discussion of the Budget, with a back‐up night scheduled for Thursday, May 24th.
He explained if an item could not be heard, then it would be scheduled for the
back‐up night. Staff requested the Finance Committee (FC) tentatively approve
each Budget as they moved through the Agenda. He reported the FC would
finalize its recommendations to the City Council on wrap‐up night. During that
process, Staff could make clarifications or adjustments to the Proposed Budget, or
the FC could provide direction to Staff. Staff was prepared to track changes on a
spreadsheet, and would inform the FC of the net results of any changes. Once
wrap‐up was completed on May 29th, Staff would forward the FC's recommended
Budget to the City Council for the first of two hearings on June 11, 2012. He
explained the Budget would be open for public hearing, discussion and questions,
before returning to the FC on June 18, 2012 for a final adoption of the Budget. He
reported the City started the current fiscal year with a gap of $5.8 million. Over
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
the last couple of years, Staff had made structural adjustments of $14 million and
reduced over 60 positions; however, that hadn't been enough. He indicated the
downturn in the economy had been deep, and revenues had not kept pace with
expenditures. The primary costs of the $5.8 million gap were: 1) the annual
required contribution for retiree medical; and 2) fewer concessions from Public
Safety groups. The required contribution for retiree medical had increased $2
million for the General Fund. Since the last actuary report, Bartel Associates had
updated the actuarial report for the costing of this benefit. He stated the City was
approximately $2.3 million short of the goal for concessions from Public Safety.
He reported at the last Council meeting regarding the Long Range Financial
Forecast that revenues had reached 2008 levels; however, they were not covering
expenditures. Some of the revenues reporting increases were Sales Tax ($2.3
million), Property Tax ($1 million), and the Transient Occupancy Tax ($1.4 million).
The shortfall forced Staff to make significant changes, which impacted delivery of
services to the community. He reported the Budget contained $6.6 million in
Department reductions, elimination of 18.5 Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) benefited
employees, and a freeze of 20 FTE benefited employees. He stated elimination of
these 38.5 positions along with the previous 60 positions was a significant impact
to the work force in the General Fund. He noted there were some
augmentations, because some areas allowed delivery of services to take
advantage of the change. Paramedic staffing, which had been staffed through
overtime, could now be staffed with permanent employees. He stated the
majority of calls to the City were of a medical nature; therefore, it made sense to
staff paramedics at the appropriate levels. There were some non‐departmental
increases and transfers for technology and a loan to the airport. According to the
FC's direction, Staff had increased infrastructure funding by $2.2 million, in line
with the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) recommendation. This
increase didn't address the whole recommendation. He reported there were
other changes of approximately $600,000. Staff hoped to receive a concession
from Police Department officers of approximately $1.5 million. Meeting that goal
would leave a negative of approximately $1 million in the General Fund. City
Manager Keene's transmittal letter mentioned several one‐time projects within
the Budget. One was a technology project for the Development Center of slightly
more than $800,000, and a loan to the airport of more than $300,000. He
indicated if these projects had occurred off the Budget cycle, then Staff most
likely would have asked for a Budget Amendment. Staff recommended the FC
consider drawing from reserves for those two items. He noted paying for these
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
two projects from reserves would leave approximately $200,000 in reserves. He
reported revenues had increased by 3.1 percent while expenditures had grown by
3.9 percent. Increased expenditures were partially driven by healthcare
retirement contributions and retiree medical. He noted $300,000 for pension,
$300,000 for healthcare and $2 million for retiree medical were prior to the
change in methodology recommended by Bartel Associates. He explained
drawing on the reserve would leave a reserve in the General Fund of about $28
million or 17.6 percent, which was well within the range approved by the Council
of 15 to 20 percent of expenditures. In the past, Staff had urged the FC not to use
reserves, and spoken to labor groups and City employees about the purpose of
reserves. He noted the last fiscal year closed with an approximate $4 million
surplus in revenues, above the amount anticipated. At that point, Staff asked the
FC to move those funds into the reserves, because future years remained
uncertain. In Fiscal Year 2012 Staff asked the FC to consider withdrawing $2.3
million. He stated this additional $1 million was within that $4 million amount.
Staff's position had been to manage the reserve prudently and not use it to fund
ongoing expenses. He stressed the importance of maintaining adequate funds in
the reserve as they were the only funds available to the general operation of the
City. He noted reserves affected the City's credit rating. The Proposed Budget
outlined the revenues, expenditures and FTEs since the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted
Budget. He reported Sales Taxes matched the last peak of approximately $22.2
million, Property Taxes had remained level, and Utility User Taxes had gone into a
flat, almost downward direction. The Utility User Tax had slightly decreased
because of a decrease of 10 percent in the Gas Fund and a decrease in the
Telephone Users Tax. He noted the Transient Occupancy Tax was at the 9.6
percent level, which almost matched the 2000/2001 peak. He indicated the
Documentary Transfer Tax had been volatile over the last few years; however,
Staff had noticed an uptrend and adjusted the forecast along those lines.
Revenues were comprised of 50 percent taxes and 50 percent charges for
services, transfers, rental income, and charges to other funds. Staff had managed
the increase in General Fund expenditures and stabilized expenditures for the
majority of the Departments. Staff had not made adjustments to Public Safety,
because they wanted that to be the last resort. In terms of expenditures, like
most municipalities the City was heavily dependent on employees to deliver
services; therefore, employees accounted for about 62 percent in salary and
benefits. The other expenditures were for contract services, operating transfers,
charges for vehicles, technology, and various general expenses. He noted the FC's
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
focus would be on the General Fund, with detailed discussions of the other Funds
at future meetings. He reported the Enterprise Fund comprised the majority of
the Budget, because Palo Alto was one of the few cities that managed different
commodities. The Capital Fund had a Budget of approximately $59 million for the
various entities, and the General Fund had almost $20 million or 34 percent of
expenditures including $2.2 million for infrastructure. He reported the projected
rate increases/decreases for residents would result in a $9 increase, or a 3.8
percent increase, for the average residence. In terms of staffing, the City began
Fiscal Year 2012 with approximately 1,016 employees, and increased that to
1,024.85 in mid‐year, because of staff increases for the Development Center.
Staff recommended decreasing the number of positions by 18.5, to 1,006
positions. Staff recommended 20 positions remain frozen, so those positions
would not be filled if the FC accepted the recommendation. The Proposed Budget
contained roughly 72 FTEs fewer than the Adopted Fiscal Year 2011 Budget. Staff
wanted to inform the FC of items included in benefit changes and allocated
charge changes for each Department's Budget. Allocated charges to the General
Fund had increased by approximately $1 million, approximately $900,000 related
to technology and $100,000 related to the commodity use for Utilities. He noted
this was a revenue side increase. Administrative expenses that supported the
operations of commodities were charged to those commodities. He stated
administrative costs were increasing predominantly because of the cost of
benefits. Staff would maintain a list of questions they were unable to answer
immediately, and would respond to them in a written format by the next meeting.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether matters having a split vote would be placed in a
parking lot, and whether a 3 to 1 vote meant the item carried forward into the
Budget. She suggested the FC begin with the General Fund, and then decide how
Staff would track discussion.
Council Member Price asked if all of the eliminated 18.5 FTE positions were
related to the General Fund.
Mr. Perez said the 18.5 FTEs were all funded by the General Fund.
Council Member Price said allocated charges were challenging to follow. She
inquired if the FC would discuss them in each of the Departments, as she had
specific questions related to Community Services.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Perez said they could discuss them with each Budget. He suggested Staff
provide the FC with a summary of the changes for the various allocations at the
next meeting.
Council Member Price stated the Information Technology Budget would be
discussed on Thursday, so the FC could ask specific questions then.
Mr. Perez responded yes. He explained his Department determined the
methodology recommendations for the distribution of costs; therefore, he would
be responding rather than the new Chief Information Officer. Council Member
Price inquired if Staff anticipated any reduction in positions funded by the
Enterprise Fund.
Mr. Perez said there were four increases and nine decreases in positions funded
by the Enterprise Fund. The decreases were in the Refuse Fund as a result of
closure of the landfill.
Chair Shepherd noticed the Proposed Budget was different than previous years
with respect to the Departments. She liked the stating of goals and percentages
of achievement for the different Departments. She also noticed that retiree
medical was spread throughout the Departments, but didn't remember seeing
that last year.
Mr. Perez explained feedback from Commissions, Committees, the Council, the
City Manager, and the public indicated a desire for additional information. In
previous Budgets, retiree medical was lumped into benefits. Staff had researched
and modeled the current Proposed Budget on other cities' Budgets that had
received recognition. In the interest of full disclosure, he noted there was some
similarity to the City of San Diego's Budget. Staff encouraged the FC to provide
feedback. Staff was focusing on significant changes: the objectives, a description
of the Department, and employee compensation.
Chair Shepherd indicated the largest number of public speakers concerned the
Community Services Budget. She suggested adjusting the Agenda to discuss that
Item when the City Manager was available. She asked for Staff's preference for
handling the possible parking lot and directions for changes.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Perez noted the past protocol of two Committee Members having to agree
that an Item should be placed in a parking lot. He indicated directions and
questions to Staff were placed on a list for follow‐up. Staff would follow the FC's
direction as to procedure.
Chair Shepherd confirmed that two votes could force an Item into a parking lot,
whether or not the Committee was short one Member. She stated three votes
would be a decision to make the change.
Mr. Perez stated a 2‐1 vote was a majority and would make a permanent change,
without the need for a parking lot. However, Staff was agreeable if the FC wanted
to use a parking lot in that format.
2. City Auditor Budget
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras reported Citywide changes in this
Department included a decrease of $35,000, primarily due to personnel benefit
cost decreases. Details for those decreases could be found on page 95 of the
Operating Budget Book. She noted a $35,000 increase in allocated charges,
primarily due to technology fund increases. Revenues decreased in this
Department, and these were revenues for the General Administration
Department Cost Allocation Plan. There were minor decreases in the Department
for reduction of peer review costs, a one‐time event in 2012.
Council Member Price hoped the work from the City Auditor's Office would result
in great savings and great recommendations. She asked if there were
placeholders in the Budget for anticipated savings, even though Staff had no idea
of what they would be at this stage.
City Auditor, James Pelletier reported Staff did not budget for those, because the
audit plan for the following year was not in place yet. Staff could potentially set
goals to do that; however, Staff had no control over what an audit found and
what that could mean in terms of dollars.
Council Member Price inquired if costs associated with peer review were for
review of another agency or review of Palo Alto.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Pelletier stated the City did both. He believed this was the cost of the peer
review of Palo Alto.
Council Member Burt asked what the drivers were for the significant reduction in
benefits allocation and retiree health located on page 95.
Ms. Paras reported the main driver was the latest actuarial study presented by
Mr. Bartel. The decrease in the benefit allocation was based on a change of
methodology for allocating pension and healthcare costs. Healthcare costs were
based on the actual plan Department employees were in. She indicated in
previous years the total in the General Benefits Fund had been allocated on a flat
Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) basis.
Council Member Burt stated that was a more accurate allocation; however, those
numbers would shift somewhere else.
Mr. Perez agreed. Because healthcare costs for current employees and for
retirement medical benefits had increased, there would be decreases in some
areas and increases in other areas.
Chair Shepherd inquired if Staff could correlate retirees with their former
Departments.
Mr. Perez reported approximately 100 people could not be identified, because
the City did not have legacy system records to track retirees from the 1960s. He
noted Staff would refine it further, as they were learning more with each actuarial
report.
Chair Shepherd indicated the City owed approximately $130 million just for
retiree medical and was attempting to pay it off over an amortization of 30 years.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to that
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the City Auditor’s
Office Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
3. City Attorney Budget
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras reported Citywide changes totaled
$95,000, with personnel benefit costs increasing by $44,000. Detail for those
personnel benefit cost increases could be found on page 87. Allocated charges
increased in this Department by $51,000, and total revenue decreased by
$200,000. There were no expense increases or decreases in this Department or
Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) changes. Staff proposed increasing the Attorney's
contingency account by $125,000, to a total of $250,000. In 2011, the Council had
decreased the Attorney's contingency fund by $145,000. This increase would
bring the contingency fund balance to its historical level.
Council Member Price asked if this was the account set aside for contract legal
services.
City Attorney, Molly Stump reported the fund was used to pay expenses of
defending the City and other legal expenses that arose during the year. She noted
funds not spent during the year remained available and rolled over to the
following year.
Council Member Price inquired if the City Attorney was comfortable with the
proposed balance. She noted the City was engaged in several items, and asked if
this amount was useful at this point.
Ms. Stump suggested the Finance Committee (FC) consider the contingency fund
as a regular and consistent budgeting item. She felt the historic amount of
$250,000 was appropriate when reviewed over time, and was a good baseline to
begin the year. Staff tried to work within the budgeted amount; however, there
were exception processes available if extraordinary projects or issues arose during
the year.
Council Member Price asked which part of the Budget was set aside for
settlements.
Ms. Stump explained there were various funds available to pay legal settlements
depending upon the nature of the settlement.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Legal Services Administrator, Stacy Lavelle reported funding for settlements came
from the Liability Fund. Any portion of a settlement, depending on the amount,
was set aside in the incurred but not recorded (IBNR) study. She indicated there
was a fund of approximately $600,000 for basic settlements.
Chief Financial Officer, Lalo Perez clarified the IBNR study was a Staff estimation
of the potential payout of that liability. He noted there was an annual update of
these outstanding liabilities, because the amount could change based on
circumstances of the case. Unfortunately Staff did not know this amount until
August, because the estimation was performed after the fiscal year.
Chair Shepherd appreciated having the new page of goals and objectives. She
noted the City Attorney and Auditor had goals that were new to the FC.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the City Attorney’s
Office Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
Chair Shepherd reported the FC did not vote on the $125,000 increase of the City
Attorney's contingency fund.
Mr. Perez suggested the vote wait until consideration of non‐departmental funds,
as the money would be placed outside the Department. He noted this practice
was recommended by the FC a couple of years ago
4. City Clerk Budget
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras reported Citywide changes totaled an
increase of $27,000 with personnel benefit costs increasing by $19,000. Details
for this could be found on page 103 of the Budget document. She noted an
increase in this Department for $400,000 in General Fund Cost Allocation Plan
Revenue. Expenses increased by $92,000 primarily due to election publishing
costs of $60,000, which Staff recently learned were no longer needed. She
indicated the total increases in the Department would be $92,000. There are no
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) changes in the Department; however, the Department
was holding an Administrative Associate III position vacant. The Department
would not fill this position to test contracting of transcription of Minutes.
Chair Shepherd asked what changed with respect to election publishing costs.
City Clerk, Donna Grider stated the increase was not for election publishing costs.
She explained the Registrar of Voters provided costs for a standalone election,
when the election scheduled for November was a special election.
Chair Shepherd indicated there were items on the ballot this November.
Chief Financial Officer, Lalo Perez explained election costs were treated as a one‐
time event, and would be added to the Budget in election years. Treating them as
one‐time events caused the variances in the City Clerk's Budget.
Chair Shepherd stated the City didn't budget election costs until it actually
received a petition.
Mr. Perez agreed.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the City Clerk’s
Office Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of the significant increase to
Council Support Services. He said it was a significant increase that he wanted to
know before approving the Item; however, he failed to inquire prior to voting.
Ms. Paras reported the majority of the $200,000 increase was comprised of
$80,000 in benefits normally due to pension healthcare increases, and $50,000
for election publishing costs. She indicated a $23,000 increase in printing and
mailing allocations from Administrative Services Department (ASD) was an
allocation for ASD's printing and mailing support services based on activity.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Council Member Burt inquired whether election publishing costs were separate
from election/conflict of interest.
Ms. Grider said Council Support was comprised of City memberships such as
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and League of California Cities, and
advertising for Agendas. Under elections, she noted advertising and costs.
Council Member Burt inquired what was driving the increase of $200,000 in
Council Support Services.
Ms. Grider noted a decrease in election costs of $60,000, which she needed for
publishing of advertisements both in the Palo Alto Weekly and in bilingual
newspapers. She suggested it might be a misallocation in category, because the
only costs she was changing this year were due to elections.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd to direct
Staff to rescind the previous motion and return with a more thorough evaluation
of the City Clerk’s Office Budget as it pertains to City Council Support Services and
Election costs.
Chair Shepherd asked Staff if they could bring this back at the next meeting.
Mr. Perez responded yes. He asked if the Motion concerned Council Support
Services and Election or the whole Budget.
Council Member Burt answered it was primarily those two items.
Chair Shepherd asked Staff to clarify at the next meeting if Minutes were part of
Council Support Services.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
5. City Council Budget
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras reported personnel benefit costs
increased by $100,000 in this Department. The majority of that was due to the
retiree Annual Required Contribution (ARC) increase. Staff based healthcare costs
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
for Council Members on the healthcare plan the group was in. That detail could
be found on page 107 of the Operating Book. She indicated an increase of
$200,000 in General Fund Cost Allocation Plan Revenue, an increase in expense
for Council‐appointed officer evaluations of $41,000, and a small Budget increase
for tablet data plans for Council Members.
Council Member Price asked for the number of former Council Members who
received retiree health benefits, because that was no longer a benefit to Council
Members.
Chief Financial Officer, Lalo Perez thought approximately 12 former Council
Members were on the retirement roll for retiree health, but he would confirm
that information.
Council Member Burt asked what the time period was during which Council
Members could receive lifetime medical after five years of service.
Assistant Director, Human Resources, Sandra Blanch indicated the City adopted a
20‐year schedule in 2004. She explained 50 percent of the healthcare premium
would be paid for employees after 10 years, and would increase by 5 percent until
employees reached 100 percent after 20 years.
Council Member Burt noted the five‐year vesting schedule stopped in 2004, and
asked when it began.
Ms. Blanch responded it began when the City joined California Public Employees'
Retirement System (CalPERS) in 1992.
Council Member Burt confirmed from 1992 until 2004 the City provided Citywide
employees with lifetime medical after five years. In 2004 the City changed that to
20 years to be eligible for lifetime medical; although, after ten years they could
receive partial benefits.
Ms. Blanch replied correct.
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of ARC.
Mr. Perez reported the Council had hired a firm to review data of retirees to
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
calculate the cost of those medical benefits. That cost amount was allocated
based on the number of retirees to the specific Departments or Funds.
Council Member Burt explained the Council had accepted many of the aggressive
calculations of the new actuary, which meant the liability for retiree medical was
greater.
Mr. Perez stated that was correct. He noted the new actuary made assumptions,
which the previous actuary had not included. The cost of medical had also
increased significantly over the last few years.
Council Member Burt asked what the increase in contract services was related to.
City Clerk, Donna Grider stated OIR and Human Relations Consultant, Sherry Lund.
Council Member Burt inquired if that was the cause of the increase.
Ms. Grider responded yes. She reported Ms. Lund would perform a mid‐year
review for Council Appointed Officers, which hadn't been performed in the past.
Chair Shepherd stated the Budget included Ms. Lund's mid‐year review; although,
she didn't recall this coming forward again. She noted it was a $41,000 increase
over the Adopted 2012 Budget. She asked if the budgeted amount would include
catching up reviews for Council Appointed Officers.
Ms. Grider reported the Council had recently approved mid‐year reviews and a
modified 360 degree review for the upcoming year, which increased the
expenditure to Ms. Lund more than in years past.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the $2,000 expenditure relating to tablets was to
provide information electronically to Council Members.
Ms. Grider reported this was the monthly cost for three City‐owned iPads. Two
Council Members and the City Clerk’s Office had possession of City‐owned iPads.
Council Member Burt remarked that was an annual cost of approximately $700
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
per iPad.
Ms. Grider stated the cost was approximately $36 per iPad per month for three
City‐owned iPads.
Council Member Burt commented that the math didn't add up.
Ms. Grider indicated that Budget line included the monthly cost for City
telephones used by three or four Council Members.
Chair Shepherd asked if the contract for Sherry Lund had been approved.
Ms. Grider answered yes.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether the contract could be changed.
Ms. Grider replied no.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the City Council’s
Budget.
Chair Shepherd asked if the Finance Committee (FC) needed to agendize the issue
of converting to an electronic Packet as a separate Item.
Ms. Grider thought that would be a conversation for Policy & Services Committee.
Council Member Price suggested a verbal report or a brief memorandum
indicating the status of transitioning from hard copies to electronic copies of the
Packet.
Chair Shepherd inquired where in the Budget was the City Council Discretionary
Fund.
Mr. Perez stated it was under non‐departmental on page 295. He indicated the
City Council contingent amount was $250,000.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Chair Shepherd asked what those funds could be used for.
Mr. Perez indicated the FC had discretion to recommend to the Council to use for
any part of this process. The intent was that it be an amount for the full fiscal
year.
Chair Shepherd inquired if use of funds was at the Council's discretion.
Mr. Perez replied yes.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
6. Library Department Budget
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras noted some significant events had
impacted the Department's Budget in Fiscal Year 2013. The Main Library would
close for renovation in Fiscal Year 2013; a temporary main library would open in
the Arts Center Auditorium with a reduced collection; and hours would be added
at branches to meet the public's demand. The new Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center would open to the public in Fiscal Year 2013, and would have
expanded facilities and technology as well as additional programs. The
Department was proposing a number of position changes and freezes for the
Library's operations to maintain its current schedule of operations and to provide
a high level of program delivery. Citywide changes for this Department included a
$19,000 increase, with personnel benefit costs increasing by $200,000. Detail for
the personnel benefit cost increases could be found on page 176. Allocated
charges in this Department would decrease by $200,000. Non‐salary expenses
would increase by $100,000, primarily because of a technology service charge
increase of $66,500. The Department would also increase Staff training by
$11,900 and contracts for the Department's strategic planning by $30,000. The
Department proposed one‐time freezes of 5 Full‐Time Equivalents (FTEs), which
saved $300,000. To meet customer demand and to provide the same level of
service to the public, the Department would increase its hourly FTE by 4.64 FTE.
To implement the new programs and technologies being installed in the Mitchell
Park Library, the Department proposed an increase of overtime salaries of
$40,000.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of FTEs, because the City Manager
had indicated partial closure of libraries during construction would lead to a
reduction in FTEs.
Library Director, Monique le Conge reported the freeze was on five regular full‐
time positions; one that had been frozen all year, two that had been vacant all
year, and two additional management‐level positions. The temporary hourly
workers were on‐call Staff, and did not have the same benefit costs associated
with them.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the temporary FTEs were at a lower cost
structure.
Ms. le Conge responded yes.
Council Member Burt asked whether Library Staff would utilize hourly FTEs over
the year or whether they were on‐call.
Ms. le Conge stated hourly FTEs were primarily on‐call, but not completely
because the Library Department had a number of hourly Staff.
Council Member Burt inquired if the Budget was conservatively high on
temporary workers.
Ms. le Conge indicated Staff budgeted for approximately 80 percent of a full‐time
person. Depending on when changes were made at different branches, Staff
would have some flexibility in terms of their ability to work.
Council Member Burt stated the bottom of page 175 reflected the frozen
positions.
Chief Financial Officer, Lalo Perez reported the tables typically included staffing
FTEs but not the dollars.
Council Member Burt noted the 2013 Budget included five full‐time positions that
would not be filled this year.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Perez stated correct.
Council Member Burt couldn't locate the temporary workers as described in the
Budget.
Mr. Perez stated the net change of 4.64 FTEs could be found on page 176.
Council Member Burt noticed that since 2009 there was a net reduction of two
positions overall in the Library Department.
Ms. le Conge said there was a decrease in the number of Senior Librarians.
Council Member Burt said as of the current year, there were 7.5 fewer full‐time
positions than in 2009, not counting temporary workers who are on‐call. He
asked if the temporary workers had always been part of the program.
Ms. le Conge said temporary workers had been used in the past, but not recently.
Council Member Price commented on the significance of the $40,000 increase in
overtime salaries.
Ms. le Conge said that was to cover new equipment troubleshooting time. The
new equipment included the automated materials handling system, the door
sensors, and all of the computers.
Council Member Price noted a reduction in the allocated costs related to IT
support.
Mr. Perez said Staff was reviewing methodologies as part of the Cost of Service
Study, and this is one of the areas under review. The new CIO will be involved in
the process and review. He provided several examples of allocations, such as
desktop computers were allocated to specific departments. However, general
benefits such as networks, software systems, financial systems, payroll, and HR
systems are allocated to the Budget. As the size of the Budgets move, then the
allocation dollars move. That was driving some of these fluctuations in
technology.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Council Member Price said different Departments had different numbers and
large differences in number of FTEs.
Mr. Perez said Staff would provide more detail about which components of
different allocations would go through, based on the methodologies versus
recommendations for use going forward.
Chair Shepherd said the current year was a transitional year, Mitchell Park Library
would open during the current Budget period, and the Main Library would move
into temporary space at the Art Center. She understood that these five positions
were being held and that there would be a need to hire librarians. She said the
positions were not in the long range forecast, and asked if they would be refilled.
Ms. le Conge said when the Main Library closed Staff not assigned to the
temporary location would be assigned to the Mitchell Park Library to help with
that transition, or would be assigned to the smaller branches. Staff would have
time to It was part of the discussions, but for now these will stay frozen until we
can figure out what we need and what the community wants us to accomplish.
Chair Shepherd suggested they have one more year of a conservative budget for
the Libraries but then they should review an analysis. Mitchell Park will have
enough automation to relieve some of the load from librarians.
Ms. le Conge said it would be a load off of Library Assistants and Clerks. For
example, the children's area in Mitchell Park had slightly less square footage than
Children's Library, but one staff person opposed to quite a few more staff at
Children's.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the Library
Department Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
Mr. Perez reported there were 14 Council Members on the retired medical.
7. Community Services Budget
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras noted a replacement for information on
page 141 of the golf financials in the Operating Budget. Staff corrected the
information to show a total budgeted amount of benefits of $70,659.
Chair Shepherd asked if that information replaced a blank line.
Ms. Paras stated the Golf Course Financial Summary, as printed, had an incorrect
benefits Budget shown on the schedule.
Chair Shepherd asked for the incorrect amount.
Chief Financial Officer, Lalo Perez responded $131,693 on page 141.
Council Member Burt asked for the correct amount.
Mr. Perez stated $70,659.
Ms. Paras reported the total increase in Citywide changes was close to $1 million,
and half of that was due to personnel benefit cost increases of $405,000.
Allocated charges increased in the Department by $500,000. The majority of the
personnel benefit cost increases were for the retiree Annual Required
Contribution (ARC). A majority of the allocated charge increases were for water
rates, calculated on actual use by the Department from the previous year. As far
as revenue changes, Staff had a few proposed fee changes which would be
discussed on May 29, 2012 during the municipal fee presentation. Staff proposed
a number of fee increases in Community Services Department (CSD), which
totaled $100,000. One of them was the lawn bowl fee to users. She indicated
there were 100 users of the lawn bowl, who paid approximately $100 annually.
The second change in municipal fees for CSD was the increase in the Community
Garden fee, which would yield about $30,000. The proposal was to increase the
rent from $0.50 per square foot per year to $1.00 per square foot. This increase
would cost users an additional $80 to $160 per year depending on the size of the
user's garden plot. Staff proposed an increase in the field user’s maintenance fee
of $100,000. She stated the City had long subsidized the cost of maintaining fields
for local and youth/adult sports. The City would ask permitted field users to pay a
higher portion of field maintenance and booking costs. The next fee increase was
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
the rental fees for Cubberley artists. She noted 17 studios were rented to 22
artists. Staff proposed an increase of $0.30 per square foot, which was still
below‐market. The last revenue decrease was in Baylands Interpretative Center
revenue. The Department proposed turning this over to the County, which would
have an associated decrease in Full‐Time Equivalents (FTE). The Department had
an $110,000 expense decrease, one of which was a decrease in costs for the
summer concert series. The Department proposed to conduct the same number
of concerts during the year; however, they would use more up‐and‐coming bands
who charged lower rates. The Department also proposed a decrease in Art in
Public Places maintenance. In the 2012 Adopted Budget, an additional $50,000
was given to the Department to provide ongoing maintenance and to address a
backlog issue with Art in Public Places. After the Department had performed the
work over the year, it was found that current ongoing maintenance and repair of
Art in Public Places could be addressed with the Department's current Budget of
$30,000. The Boronda Lake water reduction would save the City $65,000; the
proposal was to refill the lake with rain water rather than fresh water. The result
would be fluctuating lake levels based on rain levels. The proposed changes
resulted in a 0.1 percent decrease in salaries and benefits. One of the decreases
was to eliminate a Producer of Arts and Sciences position at the Baylands
Interpretative Center, associated with surrendering the Baylands Interpretative
Center to the County. The Department had also proposed eliminating a 0.25 FTE
Producer of Arts and Sciences at the Art Center. Staff proposed increasing the
number of hourly employees at Mitchell Park, because the Department
anticipated an increased level of people wanting to rent the facility. She noted
the FTE changes did not include the mid‐year reclass that Council adopted last
month, which was to reclass a Manager of Arts to Assistant CSD Director.
Director, Community Service, Greg Betts wanted to provide background
information as there were several members of the audience present related to
the CSD Budget. Staff's target was to reduce programs by $435,000; however,
they did not reach that goal. He stated for five years Staff had cut program
services and activities in CSD, and Staff now needed direction from the Finance
Committee (FC) on how to proceed. The FC had requested Staff not to bring back
items that had previously been brought to the FC. In the past Staff had tried to be
creative in terms of leveraging funds from its many partners. He stated CSD had
over 100 different partner and friend groups. Staff had proposed a day use fee at
Foothills Park in 2010 and 2011. He reported that would have brought in
between $150,000 and $100,000 depending on how many parks charged a day
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
use parking fee. Staff had proposed parking fees at Foothill College, which would
have provided $65,000. Staff had discussed eliminating the summer concert
series; however, it was decided to scale those back. Staff had proposed reducing
the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP) funding grants by
$50,000. That was rejected. Staff had proposed a pay to play fee at the
Children's Theater, a set admission fee for the Art Center, and a set admission fee
for the Junior Museum and Zoo. All of those were rejected. Over the last four
years, Staff had reduced 22 full‐time positions through layoffs. Staff had
contracted landscape services for small neighborhood parks, larger parks such as
Rinconada, Mitchell, and Lucie Stern, and many of the 165 landscape areas. Last
year Staff also reduced water costs for Foothill Park by $25,000 by turning off the
water on some of the turf. Over the last four years, Staff had reduced its Budget
$1.8 million and increased revenue $470,000. He thought it was appropriate to
acknowledge some outside fund sources, as it was hard to discuss the Budget
without understanding contributions from Friend groups. The Art Center
Foundation funded $38,000 in direct cash contributions to the City, and indirectly
paid $200,000 for programs for Project Look and Cultural Kaleidoscope. The
Foundation also funded more than $2.5 million for the Art Center expansion. The
Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theater funded $80,000 towards programs this
last year. Friends of the Junior Museum had funded between $25,000 and
$100,000 a year. This last year, the Friends of the Parks provided $30,000, and
Save the Bay provided $25,000 of plant material free of charge each year. The
Recreation Foundation provided $47,000, and the Magical Bridge Friends were
raising $1.3 million for the new playground at Mitchell Park. He had met with the
Board of the Lawn Bowls Club and explained the City was seeking $10,000
towards the $22,000 it cost to maintain the landscaping at the Lawn Bowls Club.
He had asked members of the Club and Friend groups to provide their thoughts to
the FC about funding mechanisms. He had discussed alternative methods of
service delivery for some programs with Administrative Services Department
(ASD). He indicated Staff would issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek better
efficiency in some of the larger programs, such as swimming, diving and tennis.
Staff had approached the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District about
different options for either operating the Baylands Nature Center or partnering
for better efficiency for trail management and training. Staff was seeking as many
creative ideas as possible.
Chair Shepherd inquired if Staff wanted to review the HSRAP grant process.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Betts noted Minka Van Der Zwaag, Manager of Human Services office, was
attending the Human Relations Commission, but would be present a bit later. He
noted the City was in the second year of a two‐year cycle for HSRAP. Grants were
allocated the prior year, and applications were not being taken for the current
year. He indicated InnVision was the only recipient of both a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HSRAP. The other agencies were not
HSRAP fundees. If Staff considered a mechanism to fund organizations in need,
the FC would need to provide a direction on a new RFP at mid‐year or wait until
the following year in the regular funding cycle. He stated the Lawn Bowl Club,
Community Gardeners, Cubberley Artists and field users were unique in that they
were exclusive‐use activities. Benefits of a garden plot were for the gardener, not
the community in general. Similarly, field users had exclusive use of a field. Lawn
Bowls was enjoyed by the public who watched tournaments, but the field was not
used for croquet, bocce or any other sport. He commented it was a policy
question as to whether these fee increases should address exclusive use of
community facilities.
Chair Shepherd noted municipal fees would be discussed on May 29th. She asked
whether changing fee structures on May 29, 2012 would affect the CSD Budget.
Mr. Perez reported the FC could approve the revenue, and the formal approval of
the fee would be done on May 29. If the FC took action other than what was
recommended by Staff, then Staff would adjust the fee according to the change.
Council Member Burt thought the prior Budget had provided a review of different
service areas, and asked if that was available for this Budget.
Mr. Perez indicated there was a summary, but it was not broken out with more
detail. Staff welcomed feedback on that.
Council Member Burt asked for an explanation of shifting the Baylands
Interpretive Center to County management.
Mr. Betts reported the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center was one of three
nature centers, but the only one staffed by a full‐time and part‐time naturalist.
The Foothills Park Nature Center was unlocked in the morning, and served as a
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
staffing office for the rangers, who were not always present. The Pearson‐
Arastradero Preserve was a self‐service education center. Staff was pursuing a
couple of different models for the Baylands Nature Center. One option was a self‐
service center, where the rangers would open the Baylands Nature Center in the
morning and answer questions when at the ranger station. He explained the new
Director of Parks and Recreation for Santa Clara County was interested in
expanding Santa Clara County's interpretative program, and was discussing
options for managing the Baylands Interpretive Center. In the meantime, Staff
probably would provide open hours on the weekends at the Nature Center or
when docents or volunteers were available.
Council Member Burt inquired about the current source of revenue.
Mr. Betts indicated revenues came from the operation of Bay Camp each summer
and outreach programs
Council Member Burt asked if those programs would be lost under the Proposed
Budget.
Mr. Betts responded yes.
Council Member Burt inquired if that been discussed. He stated the Proposed
Budget indicated a revenue decrease, but not the elimination of programs.
Mr. Betts stated that was represented by the $121,000 decrease for the Producer
at the Baylands.
Council Member Burt felt Staff should not only indicate lost revenue, but also
discuss the programs being eliminated.
Mr. Betts explained CSD partnered with the Audubon Society as well as Save the
Bay for the Canoes to Sloughs programs. A number of programs would continue
to be offered at the Baylands, but they would not be provided by the City
Naturalist.
Council Member Burt remarked there would be reductions in programs, but the
reductions were not laid out.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Perez stated an explanation could be found in Note 7. Staff did not provide
detail in their presentation, but there was a fair amount of detail in Note 7.
Council Member Burt inquired if Staff had discussed the Sea Scouts, assuming
some of the staffing for the program was volunteer based.
Mr. Betts stated environmental volunteers provided staffing during the school
year from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., and the City provided staffing in the
afternoons. However, volunteer staffing had shifted and volunteers were being
used in classrooms in San Mateo and Santa Clara County. Staff had discussed
volunteer staffing on weekends, but in the past that had resulted in an irregular
schedule at the Nature Center.
Council Member Burt asked Staff to discuss trail management. He felt trail
maintenance in Foothills Park was not good, but quite good in the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District.
Mr. Betts reported the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District had their own
in‐house crews for trail maintenance and their own trail machines. The City had a
separate contract with an Oregon company to maintain the trails at Baylands,
Foothills Park and Arastradero. He didn't have information on the price
difference.
Division Manager, Open Space and Golf, Daren Anderson didn't have hard figures
on cost comparison with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. He noted
the City had partnered with them in many areas, and several Staff members had
gone to work there. He indicated the amount of work the invested in their trails
was intensive and exceeded what the City could invest. He felt the City's
contractor was excellent; however, he lived in Oregon and couldn't sustain all the
trails.
Council Member Burt disagreed with characterizing the contractor as excellent.
He thought there was a problem with the quality of trail maintenance at Foothills
Park. With respect to the Gardens, he recognized the most direct benefit was to
the gardeners, but thought Community Gardens benefited a wider group of the
community and were perceived widely as a community benefit.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Betts clarified his intent was not to make a value judgment. The total cost of
the Community Garden program was $110,000, and revenue was $30,000. He
noted the fee increase would bring in another $30,000, leaving the City's subsidy
at $50,000 a year.
Council Member Burt stated the amount of the subsidy was a separate discussion.
He indicated there were other intrinsic values placed on Community Gardens by
the community members who did not garden. The general community treated
and perceived Community Gardens as park areas.
Council Member Price inquired whether allocated charges of $411,000 for IT
could be reduced to allow reallocation of resources.
Mr. Perez indicated there could be other options. The Budget for CSD was almost
$22 million, roughly 14 percent or 15 percent of the Budget. The CSD Budget was
a driver of the methodology utilizing the Budget size to make part of the cost
allocations. He stated it would be part of Staff's review with the Cost of Service
Study. He reported that allocation would decrease in 2014 by $204,000,
assuming Staff applied the same methodology
Council Member Price inquired whether the fee increase for field users would
result in cost recovery.
Mr. Betts stated part of the $100,000 fee came from attained revenue and part
from new fees.
Division Manager, Recreation and Golf, Rob De Geus said it did not provide cost
recovery for maintenance of the athletic field program. Maintenance of the fields
cost well over a $1 million, while total revenue generated for use of the fields was
about $300,000.
Council Member Price asked if those figures were based on the current fee
structure.
Mr. de Geus answered correct.
Council Member Price inquired if Staff had discussed a hybrid solution of another
entity providing services and the City receiving revenue for use of facilities with
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
regard to the Baylands Nature Center.
Mr. Betts reported he was meeting on May 29, 2012 with the Executive Director
of Youth Science Institute, and wanted to discuss a contract for cost sharing. Staff
would also discuss a possible contract provision with Marine Science Institute in
Redwood City.
Chair Shepherd noted there were different mechanisms for raising revenue at the
ballot box. The Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) had suggested
many options for funding catch‐up items, which were the things CSD was utilizing
operationally. She thought the Council needed solid community support to have
a general tax in order to shore up the Budget. She felt the Council needed a plan
to incrementally increase costs to services.
Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue, had sent an email to the City Council
expressing his concern over proposed changes to the 2013 Budget affecting the
Palo Alto Lawn Bowls Club. While the Club had 100 members, he doubted many
could justify an added expense of $100 per year. The Lawn Bowls Club was less
familiar to the general public than other venues under review. In his letter, he
tried to stress how, in its 80‐year history, the Club had frequently served this City
as a valuable goodwill ambassador.
Rita Morgin was a Palo Alto Community Gardener. She explained the Main
Garden was an open garden where non‐gardeners walked daily. She stated the
Gardens were not exclusive use, because the Junior Museum and Art Center
classes used the facilities when they have bug classes and drawing classes. She
asked if the Gardens would be locked if gardeners were asked to pay the full
costs. She thought water should be charged at the residential rate if residents
were going to be charged directly. She stated the Gardens didn't need a paid City
coordinator, and volunteered to coordinate the Main Garden. She suggested the
FC consider a sliding scale for the Gardens, and not making the payment due in
full in January to accommodate lower income families.
Barbara Kerckhoff was in favor of Ms. Morgin's statements. She began gardening
behind the Main Library about ten years ago. Her rent had increased by 43
percent in the last three years. If the Council approved Staff's proposals, she
would be paying double the current rate and nearly three times the rate charged
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
in 2009. Her increase would be approximately $260 a year, well over the $80 to
$150 mentioned earlier. While working in the Garden, she observed more people
using that space for walking, jogging, painting and photography than for
gardening. She explained the land was not dedicated for private use; it
functioned as a park, and to expect the direct costs be covered only by the
gardeners was unfair. Marguerite Fletcher was a painter and grateful member of
the Cubberley community of artists. She explained this residency began when
fast‐rising rents forced artists out of their loft studios above Downtown buildings.
The City of Palo Alto had the vision and fortitude to create a residency program
devoted to establishing affordable space for serious, vocational artists. She
suggested the local public was aware of the looming possibility that the very
existence of an accessible community of artists was at risk, because an intensified
quantity and quality of responses from visitors had occurred at the recent open
house. Artists understood the City was facing real financial dilemmas, and asked
for time to work with the Council to preserve the artistic community and find
equitable solutions.
Nora Raggio thanked those who had supported the Cubberley artist program
throughout more than two decades. She explained artists applying to the
program were required to submit to a rigorous and intense jurying process. She
read an abstract of a fact sheet that included the rigorous selection guidelines as
a two‐step process. While in the program, artists developed their craft to where
their work won fellowships such as the Eureka Fellowship or First Place Exhibition
Award, Environment and Conservation, Los Altos, California, or Encouragement
Grant through the San Jose Creative Entrepreneur Project. Given the caliber of
this longstanding merit‐based program, she hoped to continue this Item of raising
Cubberley rents by 47 percent to a future meeting.
Julia Nelson‐Gal had been a Cubberley artist for seven years. Her time at
Cubberley had affected her work and life in innumerable ways. There were 20
artists in the program, from six different countries, ranging in age from 20s to 70s,
half held Masters Degrees, and placed works in 100 to 200 exhibits per year. She
reported artist donations to the City totaled $26,000, a holiday raffle had raised
$3,500, and donations of in‐kind gifts to create programs totaled $1,700. A
quarter of artists taught for the Palo Alto Art Center, and artists had allowed their
studios to be used while the Art Center was under construction. In 2010 artists
created a four‐part lecture series for the City. In 2012 artists created a
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
sketchbook project involving hundreds of Palo Alto residents, many of whom
were not artists.
Nancy White explained most fine artists worked in isolation from each other, yet
had a common language and concerns that were as particular to their field as
those of engineers and financial experts. Cubberley was a vital, creative
community where artists could work among their peers, which was unusual. This
program met a profound need for communication among visual artists, and
fostered collaboration and artistic inspiration. Because the artists were a
community, they were able to provide many public programs, classes and
exhibitions to the greater Palo Alto community, which wouldn't be possible
without this group.
Linda Gass was an artist at Cubberley, making stitch paintings. Every year artist
rent had increased according to their leases, which stated that rent adjustments
were made annually by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
typically around 3 percent. Artist leases required artists to use studios for
producing and displaying art. Other lease requirements included donating a piece
of artwork to the City and performing community outreach and service; none of
these requirements applied to other tenants. She requested this Item be
continued to provide time for discussions with Staff. She reported previous
success working with the City on a win/win solution. She felt completion of the
Cubberley Master Plan in six months would be the logical time to make changes in
the program, if needed. She requested clarification of discrepancies among the
Proposed Operating Budget, Mr. Betts' letter, and artist calculations.
Ulla de Larrios was a textile artist at Cubberley. As a Cubberley artist, she was
able to have a space for three large looms to do her work, and was very thankful
for her studio. The intention of the Cubberley studio program was to provide
affordable space for the creation of art. Many of the artists worked part‐ or full‐
time jobs to support themselves. A 47 percent increase in rent was a big increase
in one year, and many of the artists would no longer be able to afford their
studios. Staff alternately proposed reducing the number of studios by limiting
studios to Palo Alto Residents only. She felt either reduction would affect the
program negatively. She asked if it would be possible to meet with Staff to
explore alternatives.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Rhonda Wongo had a different perspective. She learned about the studio
program in October, when she was anticipating a career change. She said it
changed her life. The caliber of the workshops and classes was equal or better
than those she attended at UC Berkley. The classes were affordable, and the
artists were incredible. She hoped the FC would be able to work with the artists,
because the program brought so much to the community.
Terry Hogan, of 1775 Gwenda Street, Palo Alto, stated he and his wife, Liz, had
been members of the Palo Alto Lawn Bowling Club for 14 years. He was a past
president and his remarks represented the views of the Board of Directors. He
reported the Club had more than 75 years of positive relationships with the City
and that continued with Community Services Director Greg Betts, Manager Mark
Robero and others. The Club currently paid $6,000 annually; the proposed
increase was $10,000. $16,000 a year was a shock to their system, especially
since the Club had just spent $9,000 to buy a self‐propelled riding roller for the
green. The Club had a long list of equipment and improvements it had made to
the facility over the past few years. In addition to dollars, members donated
hundreds of hours of labor to help maintain the buildings and grounds. The Club
proposed its increase for the Budget year be 100 percent or $6,000 to a total of
$12,000. To do its share, the Club was implementing plans to charge players for
each day they bowled in addition to the dues they paid annually. The Club
wanted to increase its efforts to recruit new members, especially Palo Alto
Residents, and to schedule more outside events for groups and clubs.
Walter Sedriks had a community plot at Johnson Park in Downtown North. He
added his voice to those who considered the increase for Community Gardens
excessive. An increase of 150 percent over the last two years was excessive by
any measure. Johnson Park Gardens were next to a children's playground, and he
spent a lot of time there responding to kids' interests and questions.
Joan Larrabee had a garden plot at Eleanor Pardee Park for about 25 years. The
plot was 18 feet by 21 feet, which totaled 378 square feet. The current charge
was 50 cents a square foot, for a total of $189. She received a discount because
she was a senior. The proposal to increase the fee by 100 percent would bring
the plot of 378 square feet to $378 per year. She felt that was outrageous. She
stated the Garden was open to the public, and was not exclusively for the people
who pay. She felt safe going there alone, because there were people walking
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
their dogs and jogging. Margaret Adkins stated she had her own Budget concerns
as an employee and as a SEIU member. She believed going to the Garden was
similar to therapy, and lawn bowling allowed personal interaction and exercise.
She felt many people benefited indirectly from these programs. Rather than
charge more from those who have less, she suggested finding other means of
raising revenue, such as charging for premium parking space Downtown or using
contingency funds.
Council Member Burt felt the Budget was well organized and clear, but it didn't
have the depth of previous years. He asked if Boronda Lake was refilled with
Hetch‐Hetchy water.
Mr. Betts said it was.
Council Member Burt inquired if there was evaporation and seepage in that lake.
Mr. Betts answered yes
Council Member Burt asked if local groundwater could be used to refill the lake.
Mr. Betts reported pumps were used to recover some of the seepage along the
dam, but he was not sure of the percentages.
Mr. Anderson stated primarily Hetch‐Hetchy water was used to refill the lake.
Once the lake reached capacity, then water flowed into the adjacent creek. He
didn’t know the precise volume of seepage, but stated the primary reason water
needed to be added was evaporation. If Staff did not add water to the lake, then
the water level would drop between 2 and 4 feet from June through December
from evaporation.
Council Member Burt suggested Staff review the feasibility of limited
groundwater pumping as an alternative. He asked if Staff was considering
eliminating water replenishment.
Mr. Anderson thought largely all supplemental water would be stopped; however,
if the lake reached a critically low level, supplemental water would be added.
Clearing vegetation for the safety of the dam required a certain water level. He
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
believed supplemental water could be added, if needed, to allow clearing of
vegetation.
Council Member Burt noted fishing was a main use of that lake and park. He
hoped Staff's proposal would not significantly degrade the use of that lake. He
again suggested Staff review groundwater pumping and considers alternatives.
He asked for a report on cost of the trail repair. He felt the doubling of fees for
lawn bowls was too abrupt. He welcomed the Association's proposal. On the
Community Gardens, he asked Staff to provide the expense structure and
information on charging water expenses to individual gardeners.
Mr. Anderson explained Johnson Park Community Garden had one meter for the
entire park, Eleanor Pardee Community Garden had a separate water meter, and
the Main Garden had a separate meter. The fees for Johnson Park Community
Gardens were extrapolated from averages for Eleanor Pardee and the Main
Garden.
Council Member Burt asked for a comparison of the rate structure to other water
rates.
Mr. Betts would report back with that answer. He noted the Parks Department
paid for irrigation of parks and medians at the agricultural rate.
Council Member Burt assumed the agricultural rate was not higher than the
residential rate.
Mr. Betts reported the total cost of water for the Community Garden Program
was $18,000.
Mr. Anderson indicated the rate for park irrigation was $7.86 per ccf, one of the
higher rates possible. The Community Gardens paid the W4 rate which was $4.93
per ccf in Fiscal Year 2012, but had increased to $5.75 per ccf.
Council Member Burt inquired about other expenses to the City for managing the
Community Gardens.
Mr. Betts reported current revenues of $27,280, compost removal $17,472, trash
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
disposal $810, water $18,000, fencing and irrigation repair $1,000, staffing
$57,080 including benefits, for a total of $94,362, with a Cost Allocation Plan
expense of $16,000, for a total of $110,779.
Council Member Burt inquired if the compost fee was for vegetation that was
turned into compost.
Mr. Anderson responded correct.
Council Member Burt inquired why the City charged for compost removal at the
Gardens but not at residences.
Mr. Anderson noted the Parks Department paid that fee from its Budget.
GreenWaste charged fees for dumpsters or totes, $376 for four totes.
Council Member Burt stated the trash bins at residences subsidized the compost
bin. Because the City was not paying a trash fee, GreenWaste must be charging
for compost.
Mr. Anderson didn’t know the answer to that. He could state the fee for this
service came from the Parks Budget.
Council Member Burt requested Staff provide a further explanation later. He
asked Staff if field users had voiced concerns about the impacts of this large
increase, $100,000.
Mr. Betts replied yes. He noted parts of these fees were being attained, because
the Parks Department had been over Budget in revenue.
Mr. De Geus reported the expected Budget for revenues on the fields was about
$250,000. Last year fields generated about $300,000, and Staff was expecting an
additional $50,000 next year. Staff had been talking to the field users throughout
the year, letting them know that fees would increase to offset the cost of
maintenance. For the most part, the field users understood that costs were
increasing and they needed to share those.
Council Member Burt asked if the revenue increase was actually $50,000, even
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
though it was shown as a $100,000 increase.
Mr. De Geus answered correct.
Council Member Burt noted Department trends for the Baylands was $20,000 less
than the budgeted revenue of $94,700. He inquired if the Department would
reach revenues of $74,000 or $75,000.
Senior Management Analyst, Lam Do reported the budgeted amount was
$94,000, but actual attained revenues was in the $70,000 range. The higher
amount of $94,000 would be removed from the budgeted revenue.
Council Member Burt asked how many pieces of art and how often artists were
required to donate to the City.
Art Center Manager, Karen Kienzle answered one work of art per residency
period, with each residency period being five years.
Council Member Burt asked if the FC should continue these donations, given the
amount of art in storage and in the community rather than on exhibition.
Management Specialist, Elise DeMarzo reported the art work was inventoried and
listed in the database; it was a matter of having that on the website. In the
construction of the Art Center and having to move the collection, Staff was able
to hang most of the collection. Because the collection was primarily comprised of
artists who had lived and worked within the community, she felt it appropriate
that the art work from Cubberley come into the City collection.
Council Member Price recognized the value these facilities and programs offered.
The dilemma was the cost issues that had been identified. She noted many
speakers had indicated a willingness to discuss with Staff a phased approach to
increasing fees or other means to increase revenue. She felt one of the issues
was IT support, and requested a serious and measured discussion about how
these numbers were determined. She stated the contributions from the artists
were to the City's advantage. In terms of the lawn bowling, she said it was a
program and facility used and appreciated. She indicated the FC needed a
modest increase in fees and a discussion with the Lawn Bowling Board of
Directors. She asked Staff if it was performing a comparison of residential and
non‐residential fees between Palo Alto and other communities.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Mr. Perez reported Staff had selected eight surrounding communities for
comparison. He indicated Staff would not be able to compare all fees, but would
provide an indication for similar programs.
Council Member Price inquired whether there would be sufficient time to meet
with representatives prior to presentation of municipal fees and adoption of the
Budget.
Mr. Perez said Staff couldn’t finalize the Cost of Service Study before the Budget
adoption. Draft documentation would be available for discussion to clarify some
of the information.
City Manager, James Keene reported the Cost of Service Study would review
comparisons, the cost of a service and how the revenue could be recaptured, to
determine a ratio. It also informed the discussion of who pays and who benefits.
He stated that could be an involved public policy discussion. Staff would not have
that until after this year's Budget process. He indicated the fee recommendations
were moving in the direction of the kinds of issues the Council would confront.
If revenue adjustments were adopted in this Budget, and then data from the Cost
of Service Study indicated the City had overreached in a revenue increase, then
there could be the opportunity to consider changing that. It will generate
challenging questions for the Council to decide how much to associate the cost of
a service with a particular group versus the general public. The whole issue of
phasing in fees was a different issue.
Council Member Price thought the community benefit issue was qualitative. She
felt it was difficult to put a figure to some of these concepts. She viewed a
Community Garden as an open space, extending the park experience.
Mr. Keene stated the Council would have hard negotiations on these issues. The
issue of equal access between a park and a Community Garden informed the
public versus private good. The fact that a park was equally open to everyone
informed a policy discussion in one way versus it being restricted. The Council
and community would have to take ownership of these kinds of issues. He felt
these discussions would provide more transparent public policy decisions.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Council Member Price said the discussions today concerned the upcoming
Budget, and the proposals had significant amounts of money. She felt the Budget
notes provided rationales for the Budget.
Mr. Perez requested the FC provide feedback to Staff regarding changes to the
next iteration of the document.
Chair Shepherd noted public comments that some people didn't have the means
to pay more. She indicated human resources grants had been reduced, when
they directly helped the homeless.
Mr. Betts asked if she was referring to the CDBG funding or the HSRAP funding.
Chair Shepherd replied a combination of the two. She reported the Council had
to approve a reduced Budget for CDBG, because federal dollars decreased. She
was concerned about retaining and sustaining the incredible assets of the City,
regardless of a financial crisis. She noted the complex situation with the benefit
package for employee unions, and said it would not cure itself in the next couple
of years. She thought The Art Center, Art Foundation, Cubberley studios, Teen
Art Council, Palo Alto Art Council, Project Safety Net, Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) were not connected. She asked when the last time rents were
increased for the artists.
Mr. Perez indicated leases for each studio contained a CPI increase.
Chair Shepherd confirmed rent was increasing incrementally. She asked Art Staff
to discuss that.
Ms. DeMarzo stated she was the Staff Liaison for the Public Art Commission,
which oversaw the Art in Public Places collection and the portable collection of
donated art work. The Public Art Commission was the collecting entity, while The
Art Center was a non‐collecting entity. She reported she and Ms. Kienzle had
collaborated on numerous projects and reached out to Breaking Through the
Silence and a number of different groups, and collaborated with Gunn High
School students to commission a mural.
Ms. Kienzle said one of the particular challenges with the Teen Arts Council was
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
its changing leadership. It had been difficult to coordinate partnerships with that
group, but Staff had a commitment to do so.
Chair Shepherd noted Art Staff didn't speak about the reduction in its Budget. She
asked Art Staff to explain the staffing shift. The City was subsidizing rents at
Cubberley, but dance studios were being charged at the business rate.
Ms. Kienzle reported the Art Center's reduction in staffing was a 25 percent
reduction to Arts Producer position, the curator position. Staff was reducing the
exhibition gallery space slightly with the renovation, and was confident they could
make that work.
Ms. DeMarzo indicated the Commission had addressed many of the immediate
maintenance needs this year. The Commission certainly couldn't address all of its
needs, but was willing to do its part.
Chair Shepherd said it was nice to see community artwork hanging in the Art
Center while the rest of it was under renovation. She inquired if Staff had
performed an analysis of what other communities charged for these types of non‐
profit rents.
Ms. Kienzle indicated Staff had not performed a study recently; however, the
artists had performed some independent research.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the Cubberley artists had performed research.
Ms. Kienzle replied yes. In Palo Alto there was transport studio space available,
which was more expensive than the Cubberley spaces and there was a significant
waiting list. Staff could explore similar programs in California to see how Palo
Alto's program rated.
Chair Shepherd felt the FC had been egalitarian with reductions in the north and
south Palo Alto artist communities. She was glad to hear that artists were juried,
because that helped ensure the community received artists who were capable,
serious and good contributors to the community.
Ms. Kienzle reported the Art Center and the Commission had a sustained and
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
wonderful collaboration with Cubberley artists. They collaborated on a holiday
family day, and the artists performed demonstrations and activities in the studios.
Artists contributed time and effort to the Commission and the Art Center. She
felt collaborating and integrating arts programs had been a success.
Chair Shepherd wanted to sustain this program, but the FC couldn't do that
without partnering with all of these programs. She asked how the Lawn Bowls
Club operated.
Ms. Harris explained it was called a club, but it was open to anyone who wanted
to lawn bowl. Members paid fees to maintain and improve the facility. Lawn
bowling dues covered all costs of the Club; insurance, utilities, any maintenance
inside the park, all backboards and the sunscreens. The Club was proactive in
introducing lawn bowling to the community. The gates were open whenever
anyone was present.
Chair Shepherd asked if it was staffed by City Staff.
Ms. Harris replied no.
Chair Shepherd asked if the Club had Bylaws.
Ms. Harris responded yes.
Chair Shepherd stated the Club was an association.
Ms. Harris reported the Bylaws were written to protect the City's investment, to
ensure that all members who used the Club contributed to the cost of
maintenance, and to regulate behavior.
Chair Shepherd asked how the Club's finances worked.
Ms. Harris indicated equipment used to roll the green was destroying the green,
so the Club raised dues to pay for new equipment. She explained the Club rented
the building to groups, and members volunteered their time to teach law bowling.
Chair Shepherd inquired if rental fees were paid to the Club or the City.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Ms. Harris said rental fees were paid to the Club. The Club had a lease with the
City set to expire in 2013. The lease called for rental payments of $560 with
increases yearly, similar to Cubberley leases.
Chair Shepherd stated the Club leased the facility.
Mr. Betts reported for five years the Club had paid for the upkeep of the
clubhouse, but had not paid for the lawn or landscaping component. The total
cost of landscaping of the Lawn Bowls Center was $22,000, the majority of which
was for maintenance of the lawn bowl surface. He indicated there were separate
Departments, such as Public Works, that maintained the trees and provided
irrigation improvements and water, in addition to the $22,000.
Ms. Harris thought the Club had always paid to maintain the clubhouse, except
two years ago when the City made it Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
accessible. Five years ago when the Club signed a lease, the understanding was
the Club would contribute to the cost of maintaining the green.
Council Member Burt asked if Staff was attributing the grass outside the fence to
the expense of the Club.
Mr. Betts answered no. The total cost paid to the landscaper for that corner of
Churchill and Embarcadero was $22,000. Staff was asking the lawn bowlers to
pay for the area inside the fence, approximately $10,000 and less than the actual
cost to maintain that specialized turf.
Chair Shepherd inquired about the actual costs. She wanted the Club to be
independent of City subsidies. She asked how the City and the membership could
work to reach a solution.
Ms. Harris stated the Club was committed to doing everything it could, because
the lawn bowling green was important to the lawn bowler and the City. She
indicated the Club had not participated in conversations about what it could do
other than pay money, but felt there were many options.
Chair Shepherd assumed the Club was raising more money for capital
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
improvements.
Ms. Harris said they were trying to raise more money. Penny Bayliss, the Club's
facility person, spent untold hours talking to the public who wanted to rent the
facility and arranging volunteers. The Club turned people away, because
members needed time to bowl, and volunteers could be used only so often
before they decided they didn't want to play. She said the Club would continue to
work very hard.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the Club could share information on how it was
progressing with earning these capital improvement funds.
Penny Bayliss reported rental of the facility for team‐building events and picnics
provided revenue for capital improvements. She noted membership dues paid
for the lease and maintenance.
Chair Shepherd asked if there was information about expenses.
Mr. Betts reported under the term of the lease for the use of the clubhouse, the
Club was required to provide an accounting to the real estate office. He offered
to obtain recent copies of the Club's reports.
Terry Hogan explained the Club partnered with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks,
which allowed members to make tax‐deductible donations to the Friends. He
noted the Club had $2,700 in that account. The Club had purchased a shed for
the lawn bowling green, and some of the funds came from this account.
Ms. Bayliss said the clubhouse was available for City use, and noted Avenidas had
used it at no charge.
Ms. Harris reported the Club had just completed a three‐month collaboration
with the Art Center with Project Look at no charge. Children came to the facility
three times a week for classes and to watch lawn bowling.
Chair Shepherd stated the FC had determined how to make the program
sustainable. Regarding resident and non‐resident municipal fees, she wanted
residents to have first opportunity for use. She wanted more details regarding
outsourcing the Interpretative Center. In Note 14, she noticed Staff proposed to
reduce landscaping of the City‐owned properties with the School District. She
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 40 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
asked if Staff had talked to the School District, and how would the fields look after
reducing landscaping.
Mr. Betts reported the Park Section maintained over 165 different locations
throughout the City; the West Bayshore Road sound wall with plants, any City
parking lot Downtown, pump stations, animal shelters, fire stations, libraries, and
medians down El Camino and Oregon Expressway. In some areas Staff recognized
the economic importance of having an area look nice. The City had a spectrum of
playing fields, from small practice fields to fields with onsite parking, bathrooms,
snack shack, lights, and artificial turf. Because of the cost of Hetch‐Hetchy water
increases and the cost of maintenance in general, the City could not sustain all
those locations at the same level as Embarcadero, for example. Staff had not had
discussions with the School District. The lawns at the elementary schools were
mowed three times a week during the spring, and Staff wanted to reduce that to
four times every two weeks. The difference wouldn't be noticeable to the school
children, but it would have a small effect on the play of the ball in soccer. He
didn't think the public would notice this cost savings.
Chair Shepherd noted this was a means to avoid an increased cost. She inquired if
it had been bid to determine the change in costs.
Mr. Anderson didn't have all the information on that. The intent was to spread it
out so changes wouldn't be noticed; however, the field users would notice things
like extra‐long grass clippings. Staff had been trying to be strategic on how to do
that without impacting users, and was still working out details.
Mr. Betts noted there was one more year on the current contract with Gachina
Landscaping, which maintained a number of facilities. Gachina had informed Staff
that they felt they underbid the project, and at one point they asked for an
additional $200,000 to comply with the contract. The City declined that, and had
been holding them to their bid. Staff anticipated next year's bids would be
higher.
Chair Shepherd inquired when the contract ended.
Mr. Betts said the contract would begin July 1, 2014.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 41 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Chair Shepherd inquired why Staff wanted to reduce the level of service when
there was not an increase in an expense item.
Mr. Betts explained there was a built‐in escalator in every year of the contract,
and Staff was trying to keep it at the current year's rate.
Council Member Price stated the Council was facing real challenges because of
the critical value of these programs and facilities.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to
request City Staff make very modest increases to the fees for Fiscal Year 2013 in
the following manner; 1) Community Gardens will be $0.70 a foot instead of up to
a dollar a foot, 2) Cubberley Artist Program will be $0.75 for residents and $0.95
for non‐residents, and 3) Lawn Bowling will have a $50 dollar a year increase.
Chair Shepherd noted the Lawn Bowls Club had agreed to the $6,000 increase.
Council Member Burt indicated the increase was a fee to the City, and how they
generated those funds was their business. He recommended framing it in terms
of revenue to the City.
Council Member Price understood revenues to the City from lawn bowlers would
be 50 percent of the original proposition.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Burt asked if Council Member Price was making a second Motion
or adding to the first Motion.
Council Member Price replied the original Motion was in three parts; the first part
was fee structure, the second part was related to directions to Staff.
Chair Shepherd indicated there wasn't support for the first Motion.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to
request Staff meet with representatives of the Lawn Bowlers, Community
Gardens, and Cubberley Artists, after adoption of Fiscal Year 2013 Budget to
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 42 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
explore options for additional revenue to offset City costs for these facilities and
programs, focusing on alternative funding for both the short term and the next
decade
Council Member Burt was aligned with the first and second recommendations,
but was inclined to direct Staff to return on May 15th with alternative
recommendations in response to tonight's directions.
Council Member Price felt the issue was how to frame the Motion relative to
Staff. She recommended this be brought forward again for discussion.
Council Member Burt suggested the Motion should request that Staff return on
May 15, 2012 or May 17, 2012 with alternative recommendations based on the
guidance provided by the Finance Committee at the current meeting.
Council Member Price wanted City Staff to explore other options for reducing
expenses to make up the differences related to the first part of her Motion. She
explained if the FC reduced the proposed fees, then in the next iteration of this
discussion Staff would review other elements of this proposal including reduction
of expenses, IT support and provide additional information about field
maintenance.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Burt was concerned about the change in the summer concert
series. He was uncertain if public attendance would decrease because of the
change in performers. He supported having a hybrid program to determine if
attendance was constant with local performers. He wanted to include in HSRAP
restoration of the InnVision funding. He suggested restoring the amount
InnVision lost in CDBG through HSRAP. At the prior FC and Council meetings, he
understood they would have an opportunity to restore lost CDBG funding to the
three service groups during HSRAP discussions. Tonight's discussions indicated
only InnVision had a vehicle to do that.
Minka Van Der Zwaag reported InnVision was the only agency that was in both
CDBG and HSRAP. She stated the only way to provide more money to InnVision
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 43 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
would be to take money from other HSRAP contractors or to receive more money
from some source.
Council Member Burt inquired if the FC could budget for that.
Mr. Perez responded yes. The FC could use reserves, the contingency or ask Staff
to reallocate funds.
Council Member Burt suggested the FC needed to ensure they were framing
these issues correctly.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to accept the
proposal from the Lawn Bowlers to reduce their expenses by $4,000 and to meet
with other groups to build a sustainable future for all groups including the
Community Gardens. Staff would return to the Finance Committee with a
proposed mechanism for capturing the $30,000 either through expense
reductions or an agreed upon increase in rents for the Community Gardens. Staff
would also bring back to the Finance Committee a plan to bring the Cubberley
Artists rents into conformity.
Mr. Do believed the earlier correction referred to Golf Benefits Fees and not to
the Community Gardens.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Price inquired when Chair Shepherd was recommending the
discussion with the artists occur.
Chair Shepherd indicated the discussions would occur when the item came back.
They had discussed May 15th or 17th, but before the Budget Wrap‐up meeting.
Council Member Burt thought it was realistic to have that kind of solution within
the next week. He agreed with the concept of having Staff return in a week with
a certain portion of cuts, and addressing the remaining issues for the following
Budget‐year cycle.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 44 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Chair Shepherd asked Staff if there were other cost savings that could be captured
for the Gardens by working with the gardeners to reduce expenses.
Mr. Betts didn't think Staff could cut the water costs, but he would review the
composting and garbage costs.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff would double check that the water cost had not been
misclassified. Assuming it was classified correctly, Proposition 218 prohibited the
City from providing any subsidies.
Chair Shepherd stated commercial rates provided some savings, but that needed
to be explained.
Mr. Perez would validate the classification.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
request Staff return to the Finance Committee on May 15, 2012 with alternative
changes to the Budget that would include; 1) an increase of approximately 50% of
the proposed amount for the Community Gardeners, 2) an increase of
approximately 50% and a greater spread of fees between resident and non‐
resident for the Cubberley Artists, 3) an increase of $6,000 for the Lawn Bowlers,
4) restoration of funds to InnVision to recover depletions from the Community
Development Block Grant Program, 5) an alternative to have the summer concert
savings be 50% of what is proposed and implement half the concerts from the
current proposal, 6) Staff would return with any other alternative reductions in
the Community Services Budget that would make up for the cuts.
Council Member Burt thought this allowed Staff to digest FC proposals and
perhaps allowed some solutions from Staff or community members over the next
week. This reflected significant changes for these organizations, but didn't require
radical changes in one year.
Mr. Betts reported the Palo Alto Philharmonic and Air Force Band would provide
pro bono summer concerns. Teens would be allowed a musical voice. He noted
concerts for 2012 were mostly set, because some artists required advance
contracts. The FC had suggested changing the mix of performers to determine
attendance, and for Staff to report to the Council.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 45 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Council Member Burt inquired if Staff had booked acts that presupposed this
budgetary decision.
Mr. Betts responded yes.
Council Member Burt asked if the performers were set.
Mr. Do didn't think all performers were set, but Staff was in discussions with
groups and booking them. Any adopted changes to the summer concert Budget
under discussion would apply to concerts in the summer of 2013.
Council Member Burt thought Staff had booked or were in the process of booking
performers to reflect a budgetary change that the Council had not previously
considered.
Mr. Do stated Staff was utilizing funds provided in the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to
book groups for the summer of 2012.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Staff would spend $27,000 on that.
Mr. Do responded correct. Any change in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget would be
reflected in concerts performed in the summer of 2013.
Chair Shepherd asked if Council Member Burt wanted to keep the $5,000 for
concerts.
Council Member Burt answered yes.
Chair Shepherd inquired if Council Member Burt wished to add the expenditure
for HSRAP to the HSRAP Budget. She preferred it attach to the HSRAP Budget.
Council Member Burt noted the Motion allowed that.
Mr. Perez asked if the FC wanted to make a one‐time or ongoing change to
InnVision.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 46 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Chair Shepherd inquired whether $19,000 was cut from InnVision from the CDBG
grants.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag stated they had asked for $50,000, but were given $37,000.
Chair Shepherd noted that would increase the HSRAP funds, which the Council
had not increased from last year to this year, by $13,000.
Mr. Perez requested clarification as to whether it was a one‐time or ongoing
increase.
Chair Shepherd thought it was 1 percent of Budget, which meant this should be
$1.5 million rather than $1.1 million. She needed to understand how this figure
was determined and whether it was locked.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported the FC would receive more detail on June 16 when
the Needs Assessment Report was presented. HSRAP had never been a certain
percentage of the City's Budget. It started historically with combining some non‐
profits, and increased as the City provided CPI increases.
Chair Shepherd stated anything making these programs sustainable was very
important to her.
Mr. Keene noted it would be important to have these conversations over the next
year. The Policy & Services Committee's recommendation to the Council would
be not to pursue a revenue measure for 2012, but to focus on 2014 for funding
the potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure needs. He thought
Staff recommendations from Community Services about the fee increases were
appropriate in relation to connecting the costs and the City's ability to support
those things. The Council's role was to modulate recommendations, but the
pacing or the implementation was clearly the responsibility of the Council being
able to listen to the public. The Council's challenge was to get the public's
attention about these other things not being addressed.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
Mr. Perez reported the FC's changes resulted in $54,500 to the negative side of
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 47 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
the balance sheet. He inquired whether the InnVision funding was one‐time or
ongoing.
Chair Shepherd stated ongoing, because of the two‐year cycle. She felt the FC
would have a robust conversation in June regarding HSRAP.
8. City Manager Budget
Acting Principle Analyst, Christine Paras reported Citywide changes totaled an
increase of $100,000, with half of it allocated towards benefit cost increases and a
$49,000 increase in allocated charges. The General Fund Costs Allocation Plan
Revenue to the City Manager's Office increased by $500,000. There was one non‐
salary expense increase in the amount of $12,500 for the Media Center filming.
She indicated the intent was for the City Manager's Office to expand its use of
video and social media. The video work would include such items as capturing
community events, people engaged in activities and various programs, employees
performing their day‐to‐day work, public service announcements and how‐to
information related to the City of Palo Alto and events in the City. The video
would also capture brief interviews with community members of interest and
create a sense of place footage showing the environs of Palo Alto. Full‐Time
Equivalent (FTE) changes in the City Manager's Office totaled a net increase of
$12,000. Plans were to allocate 1 FTE to add a Chief Communications Officer,
reallocate .5 FTE of an Administrative Associate to the Planning & Community
Environment Department, reallocate .5 FTE of a Management Analyst to the
Information Technology Fund and eliminate 1 FTE of temporary staff.
City Manager, James Keene reported the key issue was a net reduction of 1 FTE as
the Budget was proposed. The cost differential was much closer than that, and
the real item was the addition of the Chief Communications Officer.
Council Member Price asked if current studies were being paid from
Administrative Service Department (ASD) or Planning & Community Environment.
Mr. Keene indicated a lot of the Staff work was being shared between the
different offices and Departments. Operational expenses for consultants could be
paid from various Departments or from the City Manager's contingency fund.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 48 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Council Member Price inquired if the contingency fund was listed in the Budget.
Mr. Perez noted the City Manager's contingency was a non‐departmental item in
the amount of $250,000.
Chair Shepherd asked if the Media Center filming could be funded by the
discretionary account for a year, and then be brought back for an official line
item.
Mr. Keene wouldn't recommend the Finance Committee (FC) do that right now.
The important thing to acknowledge was it took people away from their work,
and the City was not doing as much as it needed to be doing as far as visual and
media communications.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd that the
Finance Committee recommend to the City Council to accept the City Manager’s
Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3‐0 Scharff absent
Chair Shepherd noted Staff had two items to bring back to the FC. One was the
City Clerk's $200,000 change.
Assistant City Clerk, Beth Minor reported Staff had scheduled a meeting to discuss
it.
Mr. Perez suggested adding it to the Agenda as Staff would able to respond.
Chair Shepherd indicated the second item was the Motion with Community
Services.
Mr. Perez reported Staff would introduce those Items at the beginning of the
following meeting to validate the numbers.
Future Meetings and Agendas
Mr. Perez stated the Agenda for Thursday included Planning, IT, HR, his
Department, and Internal Service Funds which included employee benefits.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 49 of 49
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/8/12
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:34 P.M.
Finance Committee
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 45
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Roll Call
Chairperson Chair Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt, Price, Scharff, Chair Shepherd (Chair)
Absent: None
Oral Communications
None
Agenda Items
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Chair
Shepherd to move Item Number 5 to become Item Number 1A.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services noted the first Item was the
Municipal Fee Schedule. The Finance Committee (FC) had received the
revenue impacts of these fee recommendations through each Department's
Budget. This was the technical aspect of specific fee increases. The
Community Services Department Budget was a continuation of the May 8,
2012 meeting. The FC asked the Community Services Director to propose
reductions or changes to offset the $54,000 impact resulting from reduction
of fees. The third Item on the Agenda was the non-departmental piece.
Over the years the FC had requested Staff provide more detail about the
non-departmental piece, so Staff had done that in the Budget document and
would have it in the presentation. The FC had asked Staff to expand on the
parking districts. Staff had shown more detail for both University and
California Avenues. Technically, the Budgets had been approved within the
Departments involved. This provided the comprehensive view of what was
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
being spent for those two districts within their own funds. On Item No. 5,
the FC had asked for more detail on some of the key revenues:
Documentary Transfer Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, and property tax.
Staff would present recommendations for adjustments to close the $400,000
gap. Staff recommended moving Item No. 5 to Item No. 2 in order to
discuss the revenue portion first. For the sixth Item, Staff would discuss any
outstanding issues the FC had. The last Item was somewhat associated with
the Budget, but related more to the FC's request for a projected outlook for
Fiscal Year 2012.
James Keene, City Manager suggested having the revenue update at the
beginning in order to put discussions in the right context. The decisions the
FC had made to date had essentially laid the framework for the Fiscal Year
2013 Budget. The FC had taken a direct path to the endpoint of Budget
discussions, while listening to the public's concerns and input. He
commended the FC for reaching the final evening.
Chair Shepherd asked Staff to comment on the Cost of Service Study in
terms of its timeline and how it would integrate into Budget discussions.
Mr. Perez stated the Cost of Service Study was an integral piece of the plan
going forward. Staff expected to receive a draft report in June 2012, and
hoped to present it to the Council in early fall. The Study would provide an
understanding of where the City was in terms of net costs in programs.
Staff would present items with and without a fee that needed to be part of
the discussion. Staff would need a policy-setting process through this event
that would allow them to make decisions on cost recovery, service levels,
formats of delivery of service, and private/public partnership opportunities;
and to set the structure and view of how Palo Alto would deliver its services.
The Cost of Service Study was the vehicle that allowed Staff to begin those
discussions and then have community outreach.
James Keene, City Manager reported Staff would have made different
Budget recommendations if they had received the results of the Cost of
Service Study before formulating this Budget. He envisioned next fall being
a prelude to the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget. The Study was important to the
Council's three-pronged approach: 1) greater cost sharing from employees,
2) increasing revenues in different ways, and 3) rethinking services. The
Council had established a clear, balanced framework for ensuring the best
quality of life within affordable costs. Staff would make recommendations
on providing and funding programs based on the Cost of Service Study.
Council Member Burt envisioned adjustments taking place over nine months
or more. It was important to frame for the community that the Cost of
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Service Study wasn't intended to determine decisions; it was to help inform
decisions. Cost of service was interlaced with the value placed on the
service. He was apprehensive that this would be misinterpreted
Chair Shepherd agreed this would be another informed decision-making
process, which would have a different tone and demeanor to Budget
discussions. She hoped to work with community partners and
Commissioners on processing this information to begin a plan for
implementation of changes.
No Action Taken
Mr. Perez explained tonight was the final Budget hearing where the FC made
final recommendations and forwarded them to the City Council. The City
Council Budget review process had two steps that would begin on June 11,
2012 with a public hearing. The Council would not make a formal
recommendation on the adoption of the Budget until June 18, 2012.
1. Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services reported Proposition 26, the
No Hidden Tax Proposition, required user fees to reflect the cost incurred
directly or indirectly in order to provide the service or activity for which the
fee was charged. Staff had reviewed fees prior to completion of the Cost of
Service Study; the City was in compliance with Proposition 26. The City
could not charge more than the cost to deliver a service, but could charge
less. Growth in revenues between Fiscal Years 2009 and 2013 was
approximately $4.3 million, or 27 percent. 87 percent of the revenue
increase was the result of permit or plan check fees for Planning &
Community Environment, Fire Department and Public Works. This was
largely driven by volume rather than fee increases. Staff was taking a two-
phase approach to fee changes. Phase 1 had an 8 percent increase for most
fees; 3 percent for General Fund fee increases totaling approximately
$570,000, and 5 percent for a technology fee. Staff would segregate funds
in the Technology Fund for the benefit of General Fund activities. It would
have to be a City-wide technology initiative; it cannot be specific to one
area. There were $367,000 in increases for Departmental Budgets and
$203,000 for non-departmental until the Departments could adjust their
Budgets. An additional $185,000 could be addressed with that approach for
General Fund fees. Phase 2 meant Staff would come to the FC with cost
recovery levels, industry guidelines and comparable fees to other cities. The
revenue increase could be used for these items currently in the Budget:
$450,000 for City-wide telephone replacement; $92,000 for employee self
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
service; and, City-wide radio infrastructure. In addition, Staff could set
aside money for other projects yet to come.
Council Member Price asked whether a comparison to other cities was
already underway with regard to permit and plan check fees.
Gail Wilcox, Management Specialist reported MGT, the consultant, was
surveying approximately one-third of each Department's fees. The
consultant was comparing fees that were the most common or generated
the most revenue. In Planning & Community Environment, those fees would
be building permit fees.
Council Member asked how this related to the Innovation Fund, and if there
was any overlap in allocations.
Mr. Perez reported the Innovation Fund provided more leeway than the
technology fee, because the technology fee could be used only for City-wide
technology projects. The Innovation Fund could be program specific to a
Department.
Council Member Price inquired whether it was conceivable that the findings
from the Cost of Service Study could result in recommendations for the mid-
year Budget adjustment.
Mr. Perez answered yes. If Staff found opportunities for adjustments, they
would inform the Finance Committee (FC).
Chair Shepherd asked how fees for credit card transactions were
incorporated into costs.
Mr. Perez reported collection of those fees varied among Departments,
based on how the Department adjusted its fees. There were opportunities
for administrative fees; however, Staff would have to be careful how they
were charged and handled.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff associated the 3 percent increase in fees to an
incremental increase.
Mr. Perez stated Staff based the 3 percent increase on past increases and
cost of living increases.
Chair Shepherd said fee increases might not be accurate if based solely on
cost of living increases. She asked if the Cost of Service Study would allow
Staff to determine a methodology or formula to determine fee increases.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Perez answered yes. Staff could base fees on some other rationale with
a cap or range. The FC could require fees be placed in different categories,
and fee increases could be based on formulas for those types of categories.
There had been similar experiences regarding construction and storm drains.
Chair Shepherd noted on page 6-1 the resident coupon book was eliminated
for Palo Alto residents for the swimming pool. She asked if that was a
strategic change.
Ms. Wilcox reported there were problems controlling the tickets and not
being able to ensure residents were using them.
Rob De Gues stated they wanted to move away from ticket books and to
memberships, which was more efficient. Over the last several years, Staff
had been moving swim books out of the process.
Chair Shepherd noted on page 7-1 of the Fee Schedule birthday parties at
Foothills Park were eliminated. She asked if it was incorporated into another
activity.
Mr. Perez reported they were rolled into the total fee for the Interpretive
Program, including tours and birthday parties.
Chair Shepherd asked about a charge on the Cubberley Community Center
Fee Schedule called “street shoe use.”
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services Department explained street
shoes were hard-soled shoes that tended to scuff the hardwood floors. It
was a charge to cover the damage caused by the shoes.
Chair Shepherd indicated there was a $115 per item charge for losing a
book, which sometimes didn't cover the cost of a book. She asked if this
was a cost of recovery.
Monique Le Conge, Director of Library Services reported the amount was set
by agreement of all member libraries.
Council Member Burt noted the Cubberley Community Center had non-profit
and basic rates. He asked if basic rates were for organizations other than
non-profit groups.
Mr. Perez answered yes.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Burt recalled rental rates at Cubberley Community Center
were based on square footage. A space of less than 1,000 square feet on a
non-profit, regular, weekly basis rented for $21 per hour, 1,000 to 2,000
square feet for $27 per hour, and 2,000 to 4,000 square feet for $33 per
hour. He asked why there was so little disparity in costs between drastically
different sized spaces.
Mr. Betts indicated the major portion of the fee would cover the overall
janitorial upkeep of the room and opening and closing the room. Those
kinds of services wouldn't depend on the square footage of the facility.
Periodic activities, such as floor maintenance, was incremental between the
rates.
Council Member Burt suggested charges were based on operational costs for
the smaller spaces. For long-term renters, the City charged based upon
square footage, which had a strong correspondence to the cost to the City of
leasing that space from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
Mr. Perez reported fees typically included some, but not all, maintenance
costs, but replacement was not included.
Council Member Burt felt some of the charges were ripe for reform under the
Cost of Service Study; however, the FC didn't have the basis to correct them
at this time. He asked how Staff knew the Cost of Service Study
consultant's methodology was completely sound.
Mr. Perez reported Staff wanted to review and compare that type of item
when the comparison with other cities was available. Methodologies used by
other cities would be part of the information. He indicated the work wasn't
finished when Staff received the report.
Council Member Burt stated a comparison to other cities was one way to
determine whether the methodology might be right or wrong. The other
way was to review the methodology. He didn't want to have a community
debate assuming the methodology was correct, and then have stakeholders
point out flaws. The Study would inform rather than dictate decisions. He
expressed concerns about not knowing the methodology before receiving the
results. He wanted to review some examples to ensure the methodology
was solid.
Mr. Keene would determine the best form to express the methodology. Staff
could refine the scope of services and share that with the Council. He
guessed and hoped the methodology was sound. Assuming the
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
methodology was acceptable to the Council, the variable would be the values
and how the City and City Council valued those values in relation to costs.
The City would be subject to questions and criticisms based upon how
services were valued. Staff would determine a means to share the
methodology with the Council as soon as possible.
Council Member Burt suggested Staff spot check some areas to learn if they
included all factors and were correctly weighted. He was concerned the
public and press would use initial information as a stalking horse for the
entire conversation. He suggested framing the discussion around the
consultant's current costs and the historic context for the pricing structure.
He felt the Cost of Service Study would be contentious, and wanted to
consider possible trouble areas in discussions regarding the Study.
Mr. Keene stated the FC would have a lot of latitude in making those
decisions. Staff expected discussions to be contentious.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the consultant could be present to discuss his
methodology.
Mr. Keene stated the fundamental piece was explicitly identifying costs
through comparisons, and then relating that to the current customer base.
Between the comparative benchmark data and comparing areas, it would be
transparent. He believed the cost methodology would not be overly
complicated. There were many ways to increase the cost of a service, other
than increasing the price.
Chair Shepherd asked if the consultant had a methodology for navigating
non-resident fees.
Ms. Wilcox answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff understood user fees must reflect the costs incurred
under Proposition 26. He asked if that applied to rental space.
Molly Stump, City Attorney reported the City had considerable latitude in
deciding what it wanted to do with respect to its rental space.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated the methodology for rental space could be
different. Staff should review how frequently facilities were used. He asked
if Staff considered frequency of rental when setting fees on rental space.
Mr. Perez answered no, but Staff could do that.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the criteria for renting the Children's Theatre at
$100 per hour versus $2,000 per hour.
Judge Luckey, Manager of Arts indicated the cost was dependent on the
space. Use of a rehearsal room cost $100 per hour; use of the entire space
cost $1,000 per hour.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Children’s Theatre was fully utilized or was
there a waiting list.
Mr. Luckey stated it was fully utilized during the school year, and rented out
approximately ten days per year.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the Children's Theatre was rented ten days per
year and available more than ten days.
Mr. Luckey said it was available for rental more than ten days.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many days it was available for rental.
Mr. Luckey indicated it was available approximately 75 days out of 365 days.
Mr. Keene would inform the Cost of Service Study consultant that the FC
would thoroughly review his work.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if there were fees listed that were never used.
Mr. Perez reported there were some historical fees listed, and Staff retained
them in case the position changed. The vast majority were used.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff that the
Finance Committee tentatively approve the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst reviewed the requested changes to
the Municipal Fee Schedule.
Transportation Fees:
1. California and University Avenue Parking District: addition of a wait
list registration fee of $10, which would be applied to the permit
cost.
2. 800 High Street Parking Garage: deletion of the transferable
permit fee of $65/quarter.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
3. Residential Parking Permit Program: addition of a trial fee for
residential parking permits, $50/permit through trial period.
Building Fees:
1. Revert fees for electric vehicle charge stations and photovoltaic
systems to the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted amount.
2. Revert fee for Strong Motion Implementation Program (SMIP) to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted amount. These fees were established by
and remitted to the State.
Ms. Wilcox highlighted the fees reverting to the Fiscal Year 2012 amounts.
The Department proposed keeping those fees at the current year level.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if individuals had to pay $10 to be placed on the
wait list for a parking permit.
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment reported
the $10 fee to be placed on the wait list would be credited against the total
permit fee once the resident was accepted.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether individuals signed up for particular
garages.
Mr. Williams answered California Avenue was not specific like that. The
permit was for any space in the parking district.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the University Avenue garage permits were
specific.
Mr. Williams replied yes, it was specific to the lot or garage.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if that was to prevent people from signing up for
multiple garages at the same time.
Mr. Williams stated yes. The new software system would not allow residents
to sign up for more than one garage at a time.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what the fee for residential parking in College
Terrace was.
Mr. Williams responded $40.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the increase would provide full cost recovery.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Williams indicated Staff would present the trial program to the Council in
July. At this point, Staff was considering having no initial fee for one
resident per household, and a $50 fee for subsequent residents and non-
residents. That could be adjusted as Staff moved through the process.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if he should consider this a placeholder and Staff
would return with plans for the actual process.
Mr. Williams responded yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what had been done at the 800 High Street
Parking Garage.
Mr. Williams stated permits could be transferred between residents to be
consistent with the Parking District. The recommendation was to remove
the transferable permit.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if that was the only garage where transfers were
allowed.
Mr. Williams answered yes
Chair Shepherd asked if the $10 wait list fee was an adequate charge.
Mr. Williams indicated there was an administrative aspect to maintaining a
wait list.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include the changes listed below:
Transportation Fees:
1. California and University Avenue Parking District: addition of a
waitlist registration fee of $10, which is applied to the permit cost
2. 800 High Street Parking Garage: deletion of the transferable permit
fee of $65/quarter
3. Residential Parking Permit Program: addition of a trial fee for
residential parking permits, $50/permit through trial period
Building Fees:
1. Revert fees for electric vehicle charge stations and photovoltaic
systems to the Fiscal Year 2012 adoption amount
2. Revert fee for Strong Motion Implementation Program (SMIP) to the
Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted amount. These fees were established by
and remitted to the state
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
1A. (Former Item Number 5) General Fund Revenues
Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services reported the
distribution of revenues was balanced, and some revenues were sensitive to
the economy. He reviewed actual revenues versus trends for the Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Documentary Transfer Tax. TOT revenues in
Fiscal Year 2011 increased over Fiscal Year 2010, and revenues for Fiscal
Year 2012 through March increased over Fiscal Year 2011. The increases
were supported by an increase in occupancy and per diem rates. This didn't
include any new hotels, and Staff didn't expect any new hotels in 2013. The
Documentary Transfer Tax was more problematic. Staff hoped to reach $4.8
million in Documentary Transfer Tax revenue with the final three remittances
of 2012. Staff projected $5.1 million for Fiscal Year 2013, because the
number of transactions was down compared to those during the same period
in the prior year. In the residential market, prices were increasing but the
number of transactions was down. Staff was concerned about the lack of
activity. This revenue source was a function of how many large commercial
transactions occurred in any one year. Staff had seen improvement in tax
revenues; however, they were not keeping pace with expenses. Staff had
been aggressive in projecting revenues, and was aware of the importance of
revenue forecasts.
Chair Shepherd asked if Staff was recommending changes to the revenue
forecast.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services indicated the first part
addressed the Finance Committee's (FC) request for information on the
Documentary Transfer Tax and TOT, and the second part was recommended
changes to the property tax.
James Keene, City Manager said Staff wanted to present an enhanced
revenue projection for Fiscal Year 2013. Staff's methodology was sound on
not recommending changes to the TOT or Documentary Transfer Tax and
recommending changes in other areas.
Mr. Saccio reported the County was giving a positive picture of increases in
the property tax roll for the following year. Appeals by commercial entities
had decreased, because the County was clearing its backlog and fewer
appeals were being made. Demand was increasing, but supply was limited.
Everything seemed to indicate stabilization as well as an increase in the roll.
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) had conservative projections.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Perez proposed amending the Budget for revenues by $300,000 for
property tax. The Budget had an approximate $400,000 gap pending any
further changes the FC made. Actual revenues were approximately
$800,000 better than budgeted revenues, when comparing Fiscal Years 2011
and 2012. Staff's recommendation was to amend property tax revenues by
$300,000 and Municipal Fees by $100,000 in volume rather than by fee, and
that be a part of any Motion to adjust revenues.
Council Member Burt asked what percentage of the Documentary Transfer
Tax was residential versus commercial
Mr. Saccio indicated 60 percent was residential.
Council Member Burt stated a high percentage of commercial property was
on Stanford ground lease land. He asked whether that was exempt from the
Documentary Transfer Tax.
Mr. Saccio stated any property within the incorporated area was subject to
the Documentary Transfer Tax.
Council Member Burt asked what sale occurred since it was leased land.
Mr. Perez reported a long-term lease was treated as a sale. The Stanford
Shopping Center within the last few years had entered into a long-term
lease, and that triggered the Documentary Transfer Tax.
Council Member Burt asked if that applied to long-term leases of Research
Park lands.
Mr. Saccio answered yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated Staff was asking the FC to be more aggressive
with property tax revenues in order to increase revenue by $300,000. He
asked whether Staff projected the volume of fees collected by the City would
increase by $100,000, because of increased economic activity.
Mr. Perez answered yes based on the latest review of trending. Staff could
potentially recommend an increase of $200,000 with the current trending,
but preferred to be conservative and close the gap.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if Staff was being still being conservative.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Perez responded yes, given the recommendation was based on an
increase in volume and not fees.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt the FC had been conservative regarding revenues
over the last few years, but had underestimated costs resulting in Staff
asking for mid-year Budget adjustments.
Mr. Keene stated it was accurate from an impression point of view. Typically
revenues were more difficult to predict than expenditures, since there was
less control over revenues. The fact that many costs were related to
personnel and the City had not controlled the timing of negotiations with
labor groups to attain cost savings had played a big role in that uncertainty.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff felt expense estimates were accurate.
Mr. Perez felt comfortable with the base. The number of vacant positions
and attrition were the unknown variables. With the non-departmental
Budget, Staff would be more aggressive in terms of vacancies.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt it was fine to be aggressive on some things, but not
everything.
Mr. Perez did not want to ask for a draw on Reserves. Managing finances
and keeping Reserves for true needs had made the City a good organization
over the years.
Council Member Price inquired if there were fewer appeals of commercial and
residential property.
Mr. Saccio reported that was particularly true for commercial property. He
understood commercial appeals had decreased.
Council Member Price asked if Staff was assuming that appeals would remain
at the same level during 2012-2013.
Mr. Saccio replied yes. Each year Staff worried about surprises in the
number of appeals the County distributed to local jurisdictions. Staff felt
there wouldn't be as many surprises as in the past, or there wouldn't be as
much money deducted from expected revenues.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price that
the Finance Committee to accept the changes to the revenue for $300,000 in
property taxes and $100,000 in Municipal Fees.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Chair Shepherd asked if the line item for the $100,000 under Municipal Fees
was for permits and licenses.
Mr. Perez clarified it would be across the board. Staff recommended the FC
authorize them to place the $100,000 in non-departmental initially and
allocate the funds based on specific trends.
Chair Shepherd did not want to make the $400,000 change, because that
was the amount needed. Yet there had been significant changes in property
taxes. It was challenging to explain budget cuts when the City was
experiencing increased revenues from property sales.
Council Member Price suggested remaining positive about an improved
economy.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
2. Community Services Department Budget (continued from 5/8/12)
Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst recalled the Community Services
Department (CSD) Budget was tentatively approved on May 8. CSD
suggested reinstituting the vehicle entry fee at Foothills Park, which would
result in an additional $117,000 in revenue. This revenue could be used to
offset trail maintenance and Boronda Lake expenses. The second option was
to eliminate the contracted weekend patrol at Rinconada and Mitchell Parks.
That would provide an expense decrease of $21,000. A third option was to
reduce customer service Staff at Lucy Sterne Community Center, resulting in
a savings of $76,000. She noted the position was currently vacant, and
customers would have to register for services at the Art Center or Junior
Museum and Zoo. Staff did not have projected savings amounts for the
proposals to reduce City-provided mediation services, to move up funding
for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan from Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year
2013, and to consider contracting the Rinconada Park Aquatic Center.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services indicated this related to the
$54,000 adjustment made on May 8, 2012. With changes made in revenue,
the Budget was balanced.
Council Member Price asked how much the vehicle entry fee would be per
car, and asked Staff to explain the fee structure over the prior ten years.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services Department reported the entry
fee was predicated on a per-car fee of $5. That compared with $6 per car
charged by Santa Clara County Parks and San Mateo County Parks. Staff
proposed an annual pass with a cost of $40. A $2 entry fee was imposed
when the Boronda Lake dam was reconstructed. The intent of that fee was
to pay off the capital cost of dam construction and rehabilitation; however,
the fee was abolished before dam renovations were paid in full.
Council Member Price asked for the annual use of Foothills Park.
Daren Anderson, Open Space & Parks Division Manager reported
approximately 72,000 vehicles entered Foothills Park each year.
Council Member Price understood there was a significant amount of costs
related to maintenance of roads within Foothills Park. She asked for
estimated costs for road maintenance.
Mr. Betts explained Foothills Park roads and roadways at the Baylands
Nature Center beyond the duck pond were closed at night and considered
private roads. Therefore, gasoline taxes could not be used for repair or
maintenance of those roads. In the prior five years, there had been three
projects to resurface all roads in Foothills Park costing approximately
$500,000.
Council Member Price asked for the number of individuals served by the
mediation program, and whether there was a sliding fee scale.
Minka Van Der Zwaag, Recreation Program Supervisor indicated there were
approximately 140 cases in Palo Alto in the prior year; 102 of which were
landlord/tenant cases, and 38 were non-landlord/tenant cases.
Council Member Price asked where individuals would go for support and help
if this service were reduced.
Ms. Van Der Zwaag was uncertain. She stated individuals could have
disputes addressed by code enforcement offices or Palo Alto Police
Department.
Council Member Price asked if they would be absorbed by existing Staff in
Public Safety.
Martin Eichner reported there was no other program equivalent to Palo
Alto's. The program was designated a sole source provider, and was unique
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
in working with landlords and tenants and offering mediation services. The
program was also a HUD housing counseling agency.
Council Member Price asked if Staff knew the impact of contracting the
Rinconada Park Aquatic Center on existing staffing, and if this was a concept
only.
Mr. Betts indicated the proposal was entirely conceptual, and there had not
been any discussions with Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
The Aquatic Center generated a great deal of revenue; therefore, Staff
wanted to determine whether contracting it out would provide maintenance
and staffing cost reductions.
Council Member Price asked how the Finance Committee (FC) was to
respond to the nature of the proposal and impacts on staff and costs, given
it was a concept.
Mr. Betts suggested Staff could pursue the proposal in the next fiscal year
and present information during Budget discussions the following year.
Council Member inquired whether Staff wanted the FC to discuss these
proposals in the current Budget cycle or the next Budget cycle.
Mr. Perez suggested Director Betts was attempting to respond to the FC's
request for proposals to close the $54,000 gap. From a Staff perspective,
some of the proposals had challenges and some had been tried previously.
Council Member Price asked whether the proposals would be considered for
this Budget cycle if they had support.
Mr. Perez stated that was an option for the FC. Some of the proposals had
formal steps to be undertaken.
Council Member Price indicated some could be considered prior to the mid-
year Budget modification.
Ed Lauing, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, reported the
Parks and Recreation Commission had reviewed the CSD Budget. Given the
staff cuts over the past few years, he did not support further Staff
reductions. If these things had to be reduced, he supported the FC's earlier
decision to scale back the increases in fee rates. The proposal to move up
the Master Plan was a cost item. In the past, the Parks and Recreation
Commission had opposed any vehicle fees; however, reinstituting vehicle
fees at Foothills Park would be considered to balance the Budget.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Martin Eichner stated the mediation program had been part of the
community for more than 30 years, and had served the community
effectively. Ten years ago, the City Council mandated a program to assist
tenants facing high rental costs. It would be ironic to cut the program now,
because rental rates had increased dramatically. He felt the program was
cost effective as it reduced the workload of other City agencies. Most of the
work in the program was performed by Palo Alto volunteers. The program
served approximately 500 residents per year.
Ann McMillan, representative for the artists of the Cubberley Studio Program,
thanked the FC for considering alternatives to the original proposed rent
increase for studios. A majority of artists agreed to offer a total rent
increase for Fiscal Year 2013 of $17,868. Residents would pay $0.80 per
square foot, and non-resident would pay $0.88 per square foot. This
increase represented a 16 percent resident increase and a 17 percent non-
resident increase, and included the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
current year. The increase would be a hardship for many artists. Artists
would address the ideas of increasing visibility in the community, exploring
grants and sponsors, and reducing costs over the coming year. They did not
wish to create a wider spread between resident and non-resident rates, as it
would undermine the artists' collegial bond and dilute the power and depth
of their contribution to the City.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Staff to confirm the CSD Budget had been
balanced; therefore, further cuts were unnecessary.
Mr. Keene replied yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated these proposals were provided if the FC wanted to
make further reductions.
Mr. Keene indicated the proposals were being advanced because the Council
directed Staff to bring them back.
Vice Mayor Scharff recalled there had been issues about collecting the
vehicle fee. He asked if the prior discussion of installing a lock box was for
parking.
Mr. Betts reported one issue was how the fee would be collected and how
would it be enforced. The second issue was philosophical. Fees at other
parks were collected by a live ranger or by an iron ranger. Cars without a
receipt would be given an administrative citation.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Vice Mayor Scharff stated it seemed premature to consider these proposals
without the appropriate Staff work. He was opposed to an entry fee to
Foothills Park. He asked if Staff wanted direction on these items.
Mr. Keene recommended not taking the CSD proposals into consideration,
unless there was a new expense at the end of the Budget. He was not
comfortable with Staff's ability to provide the impact of staffing reductions.
He suggested the proposals be included in the Cost of Service Study
discussions in the following year.
Vie Mayor Scharff asked if CSD would be discussed again at Wrap-Up.
Mr. Perez reported any area of the Budget could be discussed at Wrap-Up.
Council Member Burt agreed the proposed items were not viable for
decisions in the current Budget discussions. The FC received proposals that
were sudden announcements of major changes. This process was not
functional; it was crisis management. He suggested policy discussions that
narrowed these alternatives, rather than waiting until the Budget process.
Discussions should include experiences of neighboring cities with the same
issues. There was a discussion regarding a reservation service provider at
Lucy Sterne Community Center. He didn't feel it was an inconvenience to go
to the Junior Museum and Art Center to make reservations. He asked if
there were three locations within a few hundred yards of each other to make
reservations.
Mr. Betts answered yes, as well as online registration. CSD attempted to
decentralize operations to make it convenient for residents to come to the
Sterne Center, Junior Museum or Art Center. This would be a fundamental
change of eliminating registration at the front desk at Lucy Sterne.
Council Member Burt felt there were other things in the Budget that were
more important.
Mr. Betts reported there would be a workload issue at the Junior Museum
and the Art Center, which would impact their operations.
Council Member Burt asked if the workload issue would occur or had
occurred, because that position was vacant.
Mr. Betts indicated the vacancy was temporary, because the Art Center was
closed.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Burt stated the point was the City providing those services
with the current Staff. He inquired if the current staffing level was sufficient.
He hadn't heard any complaints.
Mr. De Gues believed the impact of reducing this position would be large but
not immediate. Over the past three years, CSD had reduced three customer
service Staff. The Lucy Sterne Community Center handled camping and
picnic reservations and 50 percent of all walk-in registrations. Without this
Staff position, CSD would have to close one of the front desk operations.
Council Member Burt asked for the portion of reservations being made
online. He felt in-person reservations were probably a declining pattern.
Mr. De Gues reported online reservations accounted for 40 percent of total
reservations. Some people preferred talking to an individual.
Council Member Burt asked about the transactional cost of in-person
reservations versus online reservations. If Staff pushed, more transactions
would be handled online. The community should make the decision of
reducing services or Staff. He felt this proposal should remain open for
discussion.
Mr. De Gues agreed with his comments. He had not considered the impact
on the new Mitchell Park Center and Lucy Sterne Center. Given when the
Mitchell Park Center would open, Staff did not need to fill the position in the
next six months. Staff could review and consider the proposal further.
Council Member Burt inquired if Staff intended to fill the position before the
Mitchell Park Center and Art Center reopened.
Mr. De Gues indicated the position would be filled when the Mitchell Park
Center reopened.
Mr. Keene stated the position would be budgeted, but the funds not spent.
Mr. Keene questioned whether this was the timeframe to make those
decisions. He thought there was more information to be had to ensure
making the right choice. Staff kept positions vacant just to save money.
These were good points, but he recommended against making a decision
unless there was a pressing rationale for using the expenditure allocation for
something else.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with Council Member Burt's comments. He felt
the FC was not doing things that had the least impact on the community.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
He preferred reducing Staff and having residents use online services.
Sometimes it could be worth more to spend more on CSD and less
somewhere else. That was not an easy thing for the FC to decide. He asked
if he was supposed to make those kinds of decisions tonight.
Mr. Keene acknowledged the responsibility the FC undertook for the entire
City. It was hard to reconcile everything that happened simultaneously in a
city. He hadn't given the FC a revised Proposed Budget with these
recommendations. Staff needed the rationale to make changes, and that
affected the rate at which Staff could move. He wanted the FC to give Staff
the responsibility of balancing revenues and expenditures.
Chair Shepherd was concerned about Boronda Lake not being filled. The
issues was finances and not a lack of water. She agreed with Staff's
assessment that the capacity of a well to fill the lake was unknown. She
wanted further consideration of donations for entry to Foothills Park. The
Parks and Recreation Master Plan would provide good information for the
Cost of Service Study. She asked Staff to comment on that.
Mr. Betts reported the Master Plan indirectly impacted the General Fund
Budget. When Staff brought projects forward, the community suggested a
full range of amenities. Quantifiable data on the kinds, numbers and
locations of amenities would provide information on rightsizing capital
projects. Having a Master Plan and gathering information from stakeholders
and user groups positioned the City to seek grant funding. Moving up the
Master Plan provided more information for consideration of the Capital
Budget.
Chair Shepherd noted the Master Plan was a Capital Budget item, and asked
if it would be shifted from one column to another.
Mr. Betts indicated it was currently in Fiscal Year 2014, and the
recommendation was to move it to Fiscal Year 2013.
Mr. Keene explained there would be an additional appropriation. Staff would
take the cost from the Infrastructure Reserve in 2013.
Chair Shepherd noted the $2.2 million requested by the FC would be placed
into Reserves.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
the Finance Committee move the Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan
from 2014 to 2013.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Burt explained moving the timeframe was not an additional
expenditure. It was a sound planning process. He was apprehensive that
the community would misunderstand it.
Mr. Keene noted it was a $350,000 cost item in the Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). This was a programmed expenditure for the next fiscal year.
The CIP was generally funded through contributions to the Infrastructure
Reserve. Not funding the project in 2014 was the only reason not to do this.
Council Member Burt explained the project was already programmed into the
two-year Budget cycle, and Staff was moving the project from the second
year to the first year.
Mr. Keene stated moving forward should generate more value and return on
other decisions and potentially save funds in expenditures in other areas.
Council Member Price felt keeping the schedule as proposed would provide
the needed outcomes and guidance. Given all the activities occurring, it was
prudent to keep the current schedule and to do it well.
Mr. Betts explained it largely depended on the consultant Staff used. A
Rinconada long-range study was being performed by a capable consulting
firm, and was moving quickly. The Magical Bridge project was also on the
fast track and progressing well. In both of these cases, consultants had
been gathering and analyzing data. It would mean other Parks projects
would have to be delayed.
Council Member Price stated quality projects required people to manage
consultants carefully.
Vice Mayor Scharff was trying to find a reason why the City wouldn't move
up the Master Plan. He wanted to know why Staff had not asked the FC for
the project if it was a good idea, and why was it on a list of items to save
money. He asked how much money would the City be spend.
Mr. Betts stated the cost in the CIP was $350,000. The cost savings came
from prudently deciding where and how much to spend.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked why it was not included in an At-Place memo. He
inquired if the Staff was capable of doing this project, and if there was a
reason not to do it.
Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works didn't know if Staff could add this
project to the current workload.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for Staff's recommendation on this project.
Mr. Betts recommended moving forward with the Master Plan. If Public
Works was unable to handle the project, then CSD would cover it.
Council Member Burt asked if authorization of the expenditure in Fiscal Year
2013 required completion in Fiscal Year 2013.
Scharff asked if spreading the project over two years would increase costs.
Mr. Betts answered no.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Price No
3. General Fund – Non Departmental – Proposed Operating Budget
pp.295
Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst explained costs in the Non-
Departmental Budget were comprised of Cubberley lease payments to the
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), various rent payments, contingent
accounts, and offsetting placeholders in the Non-Departmental Budget.
Revenue increased by $800,000, which included anticipated Municipal Fee
revenue of $400,000. Also included in the Budget was a placeholder for
$400,000 for the Development Center. Rent for the first floor had increased,
and the City had recently leased the second floor. The intent was to have
the occupant of the second floor provide cost recovery. The Planning
Department and Public Works and other Departments were discussing which
one would occupy the second floor. Expenses increased by $1.2 million.
Staff included a placeholder of $1.5 million in the Proposed Budget for Police
Concessions. Staff increased the assumed attrition savings in the General
Fund from $1 million to $1.3 million, and eliminated $21,000 for the Fire
Chief Association's Variable Management Compensation (VMC) program.
The last item related to salary and benefits was an increase of $700,000 for
benefits allocation. Although these costs were included in the General
Benefits Fund discussion, this was the General Fund's portion of that cost.
Contingencies increased by $200,000, and Staff added a Human Resources
(HR) Contingency Fund in the amount of $50,000. Another new contingency
fund was the Special Events Contingency Fund. Staff proposed increasing
the City Attorney's contingency fund by $125,000. Transfers out increased
by $2.9 million, comprised of $2.2 million for infrastructure, $300,000 for
the airport loan and $600,000 for the Technology Fund. There was a
decrease in transfers to the debt service funds in the amount of $200,000.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Price understood the training program under this category
was purely training; however, the presentation referenced negotiations. She
asked whether a portion of this amount was for training of HR Staff related
to elements of negotiating. She asked which category contained negotiation
costs.
Mr. Paras explained the caption for Note 10 should have been placed under
contingency accounts. It was not for training programs; it was a
contingency dedicated to employee investigations and unexpected items.
James Keene, City Manager indicated there was $50,000 elsewhere in the
General Fund for training along with additional funding for the other Funds.
Ms. Paras noted an attachment in the At-Places memo contained the training
budget. The HR Department had $50,000 for Citywide training.
Council Member Price noticed the $50,000 for Citywide training. She asked
if this was consulting fees, special examinations of personnel issues, or
something else.
Mr. Keene explained it was not for training. It didn't preclude training.
There could be some labor-based joint training, consultant assistance
regarding labor negotiations. Separately Staff added $50,000 in the General
Fund and $50,000 in the other Funds. That was in addition to individual
training accounts that existed in each Department. The City manager could
allocate the $100,000 in the Innovation Fund to training that was focused on
transformation and innovation in the organization. Some of the funding in
the Innovation Fund could supplement the $50,000 for training.
Council Member Price said the cost of implementing the Management
Compensation Study, understood this was an examination of comparables
and compensation for management and professionals. She asked why this
had continued for five or six years, and what factors the $300,000 amount
was based on.
Mr. Keene reported that was the identified number used to allocate funds.
The amount of funding would play a role in decisions regarding changes to
the Compensation Plan as a result of the Study. Over the past year, it
became clear Staff needed to add the full compensation costs and program
as a comparison; therefore, the analyses had been reworked to include the
wider data. Additional analysis was needed, because some of the early work
was stale. The Compensation Plan would be implemented in 2013.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Price inquired if the number was estimating costs for
implementation, which was separate from the cost of the Study itself.
Mr. Keene answered yes. These funds would be allocated to compensation
changes for management professional positions skewed away from market
rates.
Council Member Price asked who performed the Study.
Mr. Keene reported a consultant was involved in addition to Staff.
Chair Shepherd asked why the City rented the Caltrain Depot and then
leased it to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services explained the City had uses in
the past. Because VTA had a bigger need, the City entered into a sublease
agreement. Staff anticipated exiting that agreement and allowing VTA to
negotiate with Stanford.
Chair Shepherd asked if the lease was with VTA.
Mr. Perez stated the City was leasing from Stanford, and then subleasing to
VTA. There was no cost to the City.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd that
the Finance Committee tentatively approve the General Fund – Non
Departmental – Proposed Operating Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Burt Absent
4. Special Revenue Funds (including Parking District) – Proposed
Operating Budget pp. 65-72
Christine Paras, Senior Financial Analyst noted there were new pages for
University Avenue and California Avenue parking permits and the Stanford
Development Agreement.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services recalled this change was
requested by the Parking District. Staff met with Parking District Staff to
review the format and the numbers. The change and presentation were
satisfactory.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Ms. Paras reported sales and investment revenue totaled $1.3 million.
Salary and benefit costs were among the Administrative Services
Department (ASD) in revenue collections. Staff had captured within the
$800,000 salary and benefit costs employees from Planning, Public Works
and Police Department Patrol. The budgeted amount for supplies was
$53,000. Contract services totaled $400,000, and was comprised of
landscaping, the Downtown streets team, maintenance for elevators and fire
sprinklers in the parking garages. Utility costs were $100,000. The line
item of City Share in the amount of $197,000 was the City's portion of the
cost for City employees using parking garages. Sales and investments for
the California Avenue Permit Fund totaled $200,000; salary and benefit
costs were slightly less than $100,000; and supplies, materials, contracts
and utilities totaled approximately $50,000. The Stanford University Medical
Center Fund was a new fund established in 2012 to capture the revenue
from the Stanford Development Agreement. The costs committed in 2012
were for Project Safety Net and design, review and environmental studies.
Costs proposed for 2013 were the continuation of Project Safety Net in the
amount of $200,000. Approximately $75,000 of total contract costs was
related to Track Watch. Staff reduced the Police Department's Budget by
$70,000, and would transfer those funds to the Stanford Development
Agreement Fund. That contract costs for outside security services to
monitor tracks totaled $75,000. Staff recommended that amendment to the
Proposed Budget.
James Keene, City Manager the Fund earned interest on funds received to
date. Even with the low rate of investment return, the Fund earned
approximately $540,000 per year in interest. In one year's time the Fund
would earn more than the total expenditures for 2012 and 2013.
Council Member Burt asked if the line item Day Passes under Parking
Districts was the new program of selling day passes.
Mr. Perez indicated a program was already in place, so this was a mix of the
new and existing program.
Mr. Keene stated more day passes were being sold under the enhancement
of the program.
Council Member Burt asked what the enhancements were.
Mr. Keene noted Staff was not present to explain.
Council Member Burt asked if individuals had to go to City Hall to purchase
the day pass.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Perez didn't have the answer, but would supply the information before
the Council meeting.
Council Member Burt expressed concerns that this was not an efficient
means to sell passes.
Chair Shepherd noted Staff would review parking on July 16, 2012.
Mr. Keene stated it would be more relevant to bring the detail to the full
Council. Staff wanted to explain the revenue stream. Staff could have long-
term productivity and revenue enhancements with use of technology.
Council Member Burt indicated there could be service enhancements.
Vice Mayor Scharff reported there were no machines located on California
Avenue. He asked if income from parking operations remained in the
Parking Fund.
Mr. Perez reported funds remained within the District and were utilized to
offset future increases in costs or maintenance. If Staff anticipated a
shortage, then they recommended a fee increase.
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted machines located there to sell day passes. He
asked if the Finance Committee needed to make a Motion to do that.
Mr. Keene stated Staff did not need a Motion.
Chair Shepherd was waiting for the July 16, 2012 meeting on parking to
pose her questions.
MOTION: Council Member Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council
Member Burt that the Finance Committee tentatively approve the Special
Revenue Funds (including Parking District) – Proposed Operating Budget.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
5. General Fund Revenues
6. Wrap-Up Discussion of Outstanding Issues from Prior Budget Hearings
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services suggested public speakers
could be entertained.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Chair Shepherd asked if the Garden fee and Lawn Bowl revenues were
exchanged.
Mr. Perez stated yes. In the descriptions on page 2 of 14 of the City
Manager's Report, the numbers for Garden fee revenue and Lawn Bowl fee
revenue should be reversed. The Lawn Bowling Fee revenue was $4,000,
and Garden Fee Revenue was $15,000.
Fred Balen corrected his statement on May 15, 2012 that Engine 2 would be
out of service for 270 full days. Shutting down an engine company was a
major policy decision requiring clear, detailed explanation, public outreach
and adequate discussion. It had been slipped into the Proposed Budget with
almost none of that. On the May 15, 2012, Deputy Chief Blackshire spoke
directly to some of the implications of an engine shutdown at Station 2 on
Hanover Street. Rescue 2, the only rescue vehicle in town, would pick up an
additional 800 Engine 2 calls, almost doubling its workload and, therefore,
rendering it less likely to be available for its primary mission. These and
several other problematic scenarios would occur no matter which engine
company was shut down. Increasing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) by
a full day of one vehicle met the need, significantly reduced the prospect of
longer response times from the County, and recaptured a significant amount
of service costs. Mechanisms to reduce overtime on 120 dayshifts in the
Foothills and 360 dayshifts at Medic 2 also made sense. Eliminating nine fire
fighting positions for a year without full disclosure, a complete, clear and
public explanation and discussion of impacts was troublesome. Quick
justifications on the May 15, 2012, were offered. Keep in mind the Fire
Services Study did not recommend the elimination of a fire company until
after a merger of fire stations. The Finance Committee (FC) was moving far
too quickly, quietly and extensively on fire engine service reductions, in what
could now be reasonably viewed as a plan for a permanent shutdown of one
engine company.
Marianne Mueller, a community gardener, was aware the community was
enjoying a benefit of the gardening center. She was prepared to pay
increased fees, but she believed the increase would double her fee from
$200 to $400. She was concerned increased fees would eliminate those
community members who used the community gardens as a source of food.
She felt all Parks and Recreation Budget cuts were disproportionate. She
was concerned that the City would pay $5 million for a bike bridge, when
there were so many cuts in Community Services.
Penny Proctor, Volunteer Liaison at the Eleanor Community Garden reported
garden meetings had lively discussions regarding fee increases and ideas for
decreasing costs. She suggested having a dumpster 13 days and emptying
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
it six times a year would reduce waste removal costs from $7,892 to $3,482
per year. At Eleanor Community Garden, water and waste removal costs
were currently $17,122, which was $0.67 per square foot. Implementing
her suggestion would reduce the cost to $14,357, which was $0.56 per
square foot. She asked the FC to consider having the fee reduction program
apply to low-income adults for Community Gardens.
Chair Shepherd asked if the items should be walked through one at a time.
She noted changes in proposed Lawn Bowling, Community Garden and
Cubberley artist fees.
Mr. Perez indicated that was correct.
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services Department stated the Lawn
Bowls Club operational cost was $22,000, and Staff had proposed a $10,000
annual lease fee. The club's compromise proposal was $6,000. The Board of
Directors of the Lawn Bowls Club had proposed several good cost savings,
such as renovating the turf every other year; a savings of approximately
$2,500 per year. The current fee for lease of community gardens was $0.50
per square foot; Staff had proposed a fee increase to $1.00 per square foot;
and, the FC recommended a compromise of $0.75 per square foot.
Gardeners had made a counteroffer of $0.625 per square foot. Fees for the
artists at Cubberley were $0.68 for residents and $0.73 for non-residents;
Staff had proposed $1.00 for residents and $1.10 for non-residents. The
artists made a counteroffer of $0.80 for residents and $0.88 for non-
residents. Artists also suggested increasing their access to the public,
assisting with restoration and renovation of some of the City's public art
collection, and more mentoring at the Art Center. A good portion of the
$100,000 revenue from field user fees was being achieved through active
use and brokering of fields. Staff had not heard any opposition from field
users.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether the Cubberley artists' proposal matched
the changes the FC made.
Mr. Betts responded yes. The proposal totaled $17,868.
Chair Shepherd noted community gardeners had proposed a 25 percent
increase. She asked if the FC approved the gardeners' proposal, would the
deficit be increased by $7,000.
Mr. Betts indicated the deficit would be $7,500.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Burt commended the community groups for proposing ideas
and solutions. He asked whether the gardeners' cost reduction proposal
would correspond to their request to reduce the fee increase. He also asked
if the change to waste removal could be made.
Mr. Betts reported there were 22-yard boxes present year round at Eleanor
Pardee Park and the Main Garden. The proposal for the Main Garden was to
have the box present four times a year for clean-up days, and slightly more
often at Eleanor Pardee Park.
Daren Anderson, Open Space and Parks Division Manager stated Staff had
received the proposal that day and needed to evaluate it further. It
appeared the savings on waste removal would be $4,400 to $4,900 per year
for all three gardens.
Council Member Burt asked how much that would save per square foot.
Mr. Anderson did not have that information. There were discussions
regarding mandatory irrigation training and reduction of Staff involvement.
There were opportunities for savings, but it was difficult to assign a number
to the savings.
Council Member Burt noted there were hard numbers for savings on waste
removal, and soft numbers on other suggestions. He asked if Staff felt the
alternative fee increase and cost savings measures were reasonable.
Mr. Betts felt the proposal was worth trying. It was a modest increase
considering the total cost of the program. He was skeptical about the water
savings.
James Keene, City Manager suggested charging a differential for inefficient
water systems.
Mr. Betts indicated there wasn't a spigot at each garden plot.
Mr. Keene asked whether the gardeners could identify their irrigation
method. Those not using an efficient system were passing on costs to the
other gardeners.
Council Member Burt felt the savings on Staff costs a potentially significant
savings. He noted fees were at the high end in comparison to other cities.
He wanted to see this project move toward a model of fewer City costs
rather than increasing charges to gardeners. He was comfortable accepting
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
the gardeners' proposal for Fiscal Year 2013. He asked what would be the
expense for not increasing the rate for low-income adults.
Mr. Betts noted a number of gardeners took advantage of a senior discount.
Staff did not have demographic information on low-income participants, and
would have to analyze that.
Council Member Burt saw a comparison on trail maintenance costs versus
open space. He didn't see anything that indicated performance standards on
trail maintenance. He stated the current trail maintenance did not work.
Mr. Betts reported the 15 miles of trails in Foothills Park were engineered
and built by students in the early 1960s. The City had trail standards for
Foothills Park and for the Arastradero Preserve.
Council Member Burt was concerned about overgrown shrubs and grasses
making the trails impassable.
Mr. Betts stated that was included in the City's Maintenance Policy.
Council Member Burt noted a volunteer organization dealt with plantings in
Arastradero Park, and asked if some environmental groups would be willing
to take on limited trail maintenance, such as cutting shrubs.
Mr. Betts reported the Friends of Foothills Park and Acterra Volunteers
performed trail maintenance at Foothills Park and Arastradero, while the
Kiwanis Club helped out with trail maintenance at the Baylands.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the total garden fee reduction was $15,000
under the FC direction.
Mr. Perez indicated the gardeners' proposal was to lower fees to $7,500 and
to save $4,500 in compost expenses. It was a net of $3,000 cost difference.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how much money could be saved if all gardeners
used drip irrigation.
Mr. Betts did not know that information.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for the current water cost.
Mr. Betts reported it was approximately $35,000.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether gardeners could self-police the cost
differential for not using drip irrigation.
Mr. Betts believed it could be self-policed.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the differential was a viable suggestion.
Mr. Betts suggested inspecting a garden plot for an efficient irrigation
system and if it had one, then the bookkeeper could note a reduced fee for
that plot.
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted to ensure the City did not spend more money or
resources to enforce this. If the gardeners could certify to the City which
plots had an efficient system, then the City would not spend money on those
issues.
Mr. Keene inquired if the rate increases in the original proposal from Staff
would cover 100 percent of the cost for community gardens.
Mr. Betts indicated Staff's proposal increased revenue to $70,000, and total
operating costs were $110,000. The City subsidized community gardens by
$40,000.
Mr. Keene stated the cost increase to $1 per square foot would cover
approximately 70 percent of costs. A restricted public good was being
allocated to private individuals and being subsidized by other people. One
could theoretically hold title to this private benefit forever, such that people
who subsidized the garden didn't have the chance to share in that benefit.
He agreed there was a community benefit to having the gardens. Another
public good was conservation, and it would be good to incent that to
happen. Otherwise, the taxpayers would subsidize unnecessary use of
water.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what the length of time was for the waiting list.
Mr. Betts reported the wait time was between one and two years.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if there was or wasn't a waiting list.
Mr. Betts indicated the City Manager was on the waiting list.
Mr. Keene stated he could get one, but not necessarily where he wanted it.
That didn't change the fact that theoretically not everyone could have a
garden, and water conservation should be factored into the equation.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Burt agreed moving toward efficiency would reduce costs.
The City should determine whether those programs would qualify under
Santa Clara Valley Water District programs for low water use. He was
concerned about the methodology of the Cost of Service Study, and felt
there would be no metric for determining the public benefit of the gardens.
Council Member Price was more comfortable increasing fees incrementally.
She supported the community gardeners' alternative proposal, because the
fee would increase by only 25 percent.
Chair Shepherd appreciated the nexus between Cubberley artists and Staff.
She had reviewed the Lawn Bowls lease, and asked if the City was renting
out the facility.
Mr. Betts indicated the City had occasional rentals. Staff was discussing the
possibility of taking overflow bookings from Gamble Gardens.
Chair Shepherd noticed the facility could not be rented on an hourly basis.
She wanted the Lawn Bowls facility to be cost neutral and independent. She
noted Palo Alto had a brief website about the gardens, and felt it could be
better integrated. A possible rule for community gardens was efficient
watering systems, which would emulate the Council's concerns and
programs for conservation.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Burt
for the Finance Committee to accept Staff recommendation for Cubberley
Artists, the Lawn Bowling, and the Community Gardens; with a modification
to the fee structure to accept the community gardener’s proposal of 62.5
cents per square foot
Council Member Burt, as seconder to the Motion, requested the Motion
include language that Staff would work with community gardeners on cost
reduction measures in conjunction with the fee change.
Chair Shepherd clarified the fee would increase from $15,000 and the City
would bring back $7,500, for a total of $22,500 for the gardeners’ line item.
Council Member Burt stated it would change only assuming there was no
corresponding cost reduction.
Chair Shepherd said the total would be $22,500 if they accepted the rental
rate.
Council Member Burt said it was one half of an equation.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
MOTION PASSED: 2-2 Burt, Price yes
Chair Shepherd stated the original FC recommendation made on June 8,
2012 to increase fees by 100 percent had been reduced to 50 percent.
Council Member Burt believed the 2-2 vote meant the proposal would be
presented to the Council without a FC recommendation.
Chair Shepherd said there was a recommendation, and it had a 4-0 vote.
Council Member Burt indicated that was a preliminary recommendation. The
latest recommendation had a split vote.
Vice Mayor Scharff suggested the vote was for tentative approval rather
than final approval. It was acceptable to tell the Council there was a split
vote on the item.
Council Member Burt did not want to misrepresent to the Council that there
was a 4-0 vote that superseded the current action.
Vice Mayor Scharff wanted to agree to approve the Community Services
Budget with a disagreement concerning the increase in fees for community
gardens.
Mr. Keene reported the Council wanted to know the FC's recommendation
and that the FC was being transparent. The Council could disagree with the
FC's recommendation if the FC's vote was unanimous.
Chair Shepherd asked for an explanation of the process for transmitting this
item.
Mr. Perez explained Staff would transmit to Council a report of actions and
would note any votes that did not pass.
Chair Shepherd stated this was not a Staff recommendation; it was a
gardeners' recommendation.
Council Member Burt indicated it was not a gardeners' recommendation, but
a Motion by Council Member Price.
Mr. Keene reported they were clear on how to accommodate the FC's
specific Motions on the different revenues. He wanted to know if there was
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
a way to identify FC exceptions to Staff recommendations. He asked the FC
to adopt the Community Services Budget recommendations with exceptions.
Chair Shepherd asked Staff to list those items.
Mr. Perez reported tentative approval of a 50 percent increase in fees for
community gardens, or a $15,000 reduction in revenues.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted Staff recommended the Summer Concert Series be
reduced by $10,000, the FC suggested $5,000. He asked if the suggestion
was to have the same number of concerts, but less costly bands.
Judge Luckey, Arts Manager reported the level of the bands would be
reduced.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the $5,000 difference would provide a higher
level of bands.
Mr. Luckey stated yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the full $10,000 would provide an even
higher level of bands.
Mr. Luckey indicated Staff negotiated lower contracts based on the Budget.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the contracts had been executed.
Mr. Luckey stated the prices had been negotiated, but contracts had not
been signed.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether Staff would negotiate prices with more
popular bands if it had more money.
Mr. Luckey replied yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff reported the Summer Concert Series was enjoyed by all
Palo Alto citizens. He didn't understand why Community Services wanted to
reduce the Budget each year.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt for
the Finance Committee to recommend reapplying $10,000 from the budget
to the Summer Concert Series.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Vice Mayor Scharff recalled the Summer Concert Series on California Avenue
had created many positive comments from the public. It would be a mistake
to decrease funds, which could decrease public interest.
Council Member Burt stated the City spent the bulk of funds on costs and
services that weren't readily apparent to the public. This program had a
small cost, but was perceived as a good public benefit.
Council Member Price felt the reduction in the proposal was workable. There
were many talented musicians and bands, who would be delighted to
perform in this venue and who would satisfy the public.
Chair Shepherd understood Staff had lined up the bands, spent the Budget
and didn't need the $10,000. She asked why this had changed.
Mr. Betts reported the funding was for the 2013 summer season.
Chair Shepherd supported having a high caliber of bands in 2013.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Price no
Vie Mayor Scharff noted the City would save approximately $20,000 because
of the loss of $97,000 in revenue. He asked why Staff didn't propose
increasing the fee for the Baylands Interpretive Center rather than losing the
whole program.
Mr. Perez stated the revenue target was not being met, and wasn't sure if a
fee increase would meet the target. It was based on the aggregate of the
total collected revenue.
Mr. Betts reported PTAs or parents paid for field trips to the Center. He
didn't know if PTAs could pay more for field trips.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if revenue targets were in the report.
Mr. Perez indicated it was located at the end of Note 7.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether the revenue shortfall was a trend.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff reviewed a couple of years, and should have
decreased the Budget.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if field trips to the Center would stop.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Betts recalled the FC had discussed continuing to work with the Audubon
Society, Acterra, Save the Bay and environmental volunteers. Staff was
working to fill the gaps in services with partnership organizations, rather
than having Staff provide the programs.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether that would happen.
Mr. Betts indicated it could based on the involvement of four different
partnership organizations.
Council Member Burt asked for the difference between expenses and
revenue.
Mr. Perez stated approximately $40,000.
Council Member Burt recalled there was a frozen position identified as
making reservations for various Community Service venues. He suggested
using funds for the frozen position to keep the Interpretive Center operating.
Mr. Keene stated the Council needed to review expenditures to contrast the
choices and impacts. However, Baylands Interpretive Center Staff versus
support Staff in reservations was a different issue. That was a forced
choice, but the tradeoffs were clear.
Council Member Burt inquired whether reallocating dollars from a frozen
position to retaining Interpretive Center Staff was possible.
Mr. Keene stated yes. The loss or change in the Baylands Center was worse
than repurposing this support service. Staff could work that out.
Council Member Burt noted Community Services Staff was a leaner group,
but would argue that was a reason for online reservations.
Vice Mayor Scharff supported that point.
Council Member Price was not comfortable with the suggested tradeoff,
because the services for the Interpretive Center could be provided by other
agencies. The original proposal regarding alternatives for the Interpretive
Center were logical. There was a difference between online and personal
relationships, and local government should engage with community
members. She felt the baseline was not accurate due to the opening of new
facilities. She did not support that kind of tradeoff. She suggested
reviewing this item after facilities had opened to better understand the
implications. She assumed more people used a range of Community
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Services programs than visited the Interpretive Center. The FC did not have
enough information to address these items at the current time.
Vice Mayor Scharff was in favor of retaining the position and using the funds
from the frozen position. He did not want to eliminate the position without
Staff having reviewed it.
Mr. Keene preferred the FC retain the position and allow Staff to decide how
to handle it.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt the interaction between children and the Interpretive
Center was more valuable than Staff interacting with the community to
make reservations. He was open to a concrete proposal for other agencies
operating the Interpretive Center.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
the Finance Committee approve the retention of the Baylands
Naturalist/Educator position.
Vice Mayor Scharff felt the FC would be acting precipitously if they did not
allow Staff to propose alternative services, especially with the possibility of
offsetting it with the Lucy Sterne Community Service issue.
Council Member Burt clarified that use of alternative agencies for programs
at the Baylands Interpretive Center was hypothetical. There was a great
difference between the value provided to the community by the Interpretive
Center and a ticket-taker. As the Council considered retaining services long
term, if it didn't provide services more efficiently, then the expenses from
pension and medical benefits would deprive the community of services.
Chair Shepherd inquired whether environmental volunteers had offered
services at the Baylands previously or services were being replicated with
the Interpretive Center.
Mr. Betts reported the ECO Center was not intended to replicate the
Baylands Interpretive Center, but was a training facility for volunteers and
housed staff offices. They emphasized augmenting interpretive panels along
the marsh front trail, had developed an application for self-guided tours of
the Baylands, and hosted a summer camp. It was complementary to the
Interpretive Center's programs.
Chair Shepherd asked if the two programs operated independently of each
other.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Betts replied yes.
Mr. Keene recommended the Finance Committee maintain the Baylands as a
recommendation. The position was frozen, but could be filled after six
months. Staff would credit the Budget for those six months, which would
balance this particular item. Before the six-month period ended, Staff would
have more specific information about the other Staff position.
Chair Shepherd inquired if this would reduce expenses by $27,000.
Mr. Perez stated it would be a $47,000 impact that would be offset by the
savings of the vacant position. There would be no impact to the bottom line.
Chair Shepherd asked if the FC needed to take action on this.
Mr. Keene suggested a recommendation would be appropriate, because the
FC was modifying the Proposed Budget by this action.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the current Motion captured that.
Mr. Keene suggested they needed to have the understanding that they
weren't considering only one piece.
Chair Shepherd inquired if the Motion was appropriate for Staff.
Mr. Keene answered yes.
Council Member Price asked for confirmation that this position would not be
eliminated, with the understanding there would be additional discussion in
the fall when the FC had more information about alternatives; and, this had
no direct relationship at the current time to the Community Services position
discussed earlier.
Mr. Keene responded essentially yes, but Staff would reduce funding for the
Community Services position to offset the cost differential on the Baylands
position. Staff would return to the FC with this item in the first quarter of
the fiscal year.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Vice Mayor Scharff felt Boronda Lake being empty was a huge loss to
Foothills Park.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
MOITON: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt for
the Finance Committee to incorporate the cost to fill Boronda Lake at
Foothills Park into the budget.
Council Member Burt felt a donation box could be a worthwhile effort. The
impact of a water-level reduction wasn't clear. He felt pumping could be a
long-term solution, and asked for the estimates for capital and operational
costs for pumping.
Mr. Betts reported the City would have to pay a fee to Santa Clara County
Water District for well water.
Council Member Burt asked if the fee was one-time or ongoing.
Mr. Betts stated it was a monthly fee per unit of well water used.
Mr. Anderson indicated the well fees were $1.30 per ccf, and the W4 rate
was $4.93 per ccf.
Council Member Burt stated one-time costs totaled approximately $145,000,
and approximately $40,000 per year savings in water. He would support a
Motion for a drop box with a recommended amount of contribution per
entrant and that contribution funds would be allocated to maintaining the
water level of Boronda Lake.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with the language. He asked who was charged
W4 rates.
Mr. Anderson reported some parks were charged the W4 rate, while the W7
rate was for straight irrigation. It wasn't clear why Boronda Lake was
charged W4 rather than W7.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Cost of Service Study determined the W4
rate. He wanted to determine if the W4 rate affected only this or other
things in the City.
Chair Shepherd stated the W4 rate was not agendized to discuss.
Vice Mayor Scharff indicated that drove the cost level.
Chair Shepherd wanted the Park Ranger to ask for donations when checking
identification.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 40 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Council Member Price inquired whether a donation could be handled without
personnel at the gate.
Mr. Betts replied yes.
Council Member Burt said the Motion was for a donation box, in true
voluntary fashion.
AMENDMENT: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member XX for
the donations to be prescribed in a formal manner.
FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Mr. Perez suggested not adding anything to the Budget, but adding the
language of the Motion. At mid-year, Staff would report the amount
collected and projections for future collections, and change the Budget at
that point.
Council Member Burt noted water replenishment would probably occur
during the second half of the May through October season, which fell over
two fiscal years. He asked whether that meant there would not be funds for
replenishment from July 1, 2012 into the fall, but the following spring funds
could be available depending on donations.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff could estimate a number and insert that into
offsetting revenue, or return during the year with information on donations.
Mr. Keene preferred to place the funds in the Budget as offsetting revenue
that would be collected through donations.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff for the
Finance Committee to tentatively approve the Community Services
Department budget adjustments of $65,000.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Shepherd asked if the next item was the Information Technology (IT)
Budget.
Mr. Perez reported the FC didn't need to go through each of the items,
unless they preferred to do so. Staff could highlight outstanding items, and
then the FC could entertain a Motion to approve the Proposed Budget with
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 41 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
any changes. He recommended approval of three items: the Fire
Department's withdrawal of the re-class of the Administrative Associate III;
funding the loan from the airport in the amount of $310,000; and, the
Development Center Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the amount of
$802,000). With approval of these three items, the Budget would have a
deficit of $4,000. Staff could adjust revenues to balance the Budget,
assuming the FC's tentative approvals were still acceptable.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Staff to discuss the Request for Proposal (RFP) for
Animal Services.
Mr. Keene recalled the discussion was to issue an RFP in order to compare
services. He expressed concerns about an RFP being taken seriously by
potential vendors.
Mr. Perez reported vendors would not submit proposals if they felt the RFP
was issued to explore possibilities.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if Staff's recommendation was not to issue an
RFP.
Mr. Keene preferred having information; however, he questioned whether
issuing an RFP would confuse the public regarding the FC's intentions to
outsource Animal Services.
Council Member Burt asked Staff to review the prospective impact of Engine
2 at Station 2.
Catherine Capriles, Deputy Fire Chief reported the Fire Department had
reviewed the Study and recommendations. The public speaker referred to
the specific recommendation to combine Engine 2 and Engine 5 and a new
fire station. That was an unrealistic goal at this point. The Fire Department
was attempting to accommodate the spirit of that recommendation while
impacting service as little as possible. Reductions would have an impact;
however, the Fire Department didn't know the exact impact. The Fire
Department would try to supplement an Engine Company with a different
kind of company. The Fire Department did not want to eliminate the Rescue
Company, because it served an important purpose and was unique. If one
engine company and service was eliminated for one day, the Fire
Department would have the same system to backup those services. There
would be an impact, but Staff would have to discover that impact over the
course of the year. The general impact would be extended call times.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 42 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Mr. Keene Station stated three stations were in close proximity to each
other. One advantage to the proposal was the addition of a fully staffed
paramedic vehicle.
Ms. Capriles indicated the paramedic vehicle was technically a cross-staffed
unit. The Fire Department proposed eliminating overtime and staffing the
unit properly, but that would not increase the service from that ambulance.
Mr. Keene reported the City had more emergency/medical calls than fire
calls.
Ms. Capriles stated that was common for most fire departments.
Mr. Keene said fire engines were responding to emergency calls, and being
removed from fire response service. Staff was emphasizing effective
provision of emergency services.
Ms. Capriles reported Staff was considering other fire engines, because
Engine 2 was the most commonly used engine due to its vicinity within the
City. If it was not the first-due on a call, it was very often the second-due
because it was close to the surrounding pieces of equipment. Staff was not
sure that would be the most logical engine to remove from service. The
First Department continued to consider the least impactful engine to remove
from service.
Pam Antil, Assistant City Manager indicated the Fire Utilization Study
recommendation was to merge those two fire stations and completely
eliminate an engine. The current recommendation was a different type of
staffing. Engine 2 had busy minutes per day on average of 54 minutes. The
data reflected a consistently low call volume over the last three years.
Savings would come from the elimination of overtime. Staff did not
anticipate the flexible staffing plan would endanger residents or the
community at large.
Council Member Price asked Staff to address response times and the
community's perception of being adequately covered.
Ms. Capriles said the data being collected over the next year would
determine the effects on response times, particularly in the district where
flexible staffing was being considered. Because of logistical issues, Staff was
considering implementing flexible staffing with a single engine. Historical
data would not benefit Staff in this case. Engine 2 could respond faster than
other engines, because of access routes.
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 43 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Ms. Antil stated the consultant estimated response times would meet the
national standards with the elimination of Engine 2.
Ms. Capriles reported the Fire Department would meet standards, but
response times would decrease compared to the current response times.
Chair Shepherd inquired if Staff needed further action.
Mr. Perez said if the FC accepted Staff's recommendations to increase
revenues an additional $4,000 to balance the Budget, to withdraw the
Administrative Associate III position from the Fire Department, and to
withdraw $1.112 million from the Budget Stabilization Reserve for those two
items, then the FC could formalize the total Budget and forward it to the City
Council.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff that the
Finance Committee approve the adjustments to the budget including 1) the
additional $4,000 2) $12,000 cost reduction in fire for the re-class, 3) the
withdraw of $1.112 million from the Budget Stabilization Reserve.
MOTION PASSED 4-0
Chair Shepherd asked if the Motion formalized the entire Budget.
Mr. Perez answered yes. The next Motion would be to present the Amended
Proposed Budget to the Council.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd that the
Finance Committee forward the amended proposed budget to the City
Council for approval on June 18, 2012.
PASSED 4-0
7. Fiscal Year 2012 Retiree Medical Contribution
David Ramberg, Assistant Director for Administrative Services reported in
the actuarial report for retiree medical dated October 11, 2011, there was a
General Fund increase to the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) in the
amount of $2.7 million. On April 16, 2012, the City Council approved
changes to the amortization method and the asset smoothing actuarial load.
Each one of those changes resulted in an approximate $300,000 reduction to
the ARC, for an approximate $1 million total reduction in the ARC. That
reduced the General Fund portion of the ARC to $2.1 million, and reduced
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 44 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
the proposed transfer to the Trust of $2.1 million, which was a reduction of
$600,000. Staff had set-aside for the employee cost share of retiree
medical approximately $400,000 for the General Fund portion. That
produced a revised General Fund transfer to the Trust of $1.7 million. Staff
was asking the Finance Committee (FC) to take final action on the $1.7
million amount. The Fiscal Year 2012 Mid-Year Budget had a draw on the
Budget Stabilization Reserve of $2.3 million. Through a combination of
revenue increases and cost savings, Staff anticipated Fiscal Year 2012 would
close in a positive direction. $2.1 million would be the net effect of positive
revenues as well as cost savings. Staff projected approximately $354,000 in
additional revenue over the mid-year Budget, comprised of $131,000 in the
Utility User's Tax for telephone and approximately $233,000 in property tax.
Salary savings were approximately $1.9 million after covering overtime in
the Public Safety Department. That resulted in a revised Fiscal Year 2012
projected contribution to the Budget Stabilization Reserve in the General
Fund of approximately $276,000. The revised projected ending balance for
the Budget Stabilization Reserve as of June 30, 2012 was $29.9 million,
after factoring in the Fiscal Year 2012 projected contribution and the retiree
medical transfer to the Trust. Staff had not received the incurred by not yet
reported figures for workers' compensation and general insurance liability,
and did not have any information on either one of those amounts. Two
months of actual expenditures remained in Fiscal Year 2012; however, most
of those expenditures should stay on track. Budget controls would prevent
non-salary expenditures from going over Budget. As part of year-end, Staff
would factor in the inventory reserve, which would impact the Budget
Stabilization Reserve via year-end balancing transactions. Also outstanding
was the unrealized gain and loss in City investments. That was usually one
of the final year-end transactions that could shift things.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services recalled the FC asked Staff to
project the net balance for the current fiscal year. Staff projected the City
would have enough funds to make the $1.7 million transfer. It was
appropriate for the FC not to take action and allow the mid-year budget to
remain unchanged. Staff would continue to make the full contribution of the
ARC, because Staff expected a balanced Budget at the end of the year.
Chair Shepherd left the meeting at 11:18 p.m.
James Keene, City Manager reported on the parking garage machine issue.
He would attempt to obtain more information.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff that
the Finance Committee fully fund the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) for
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 45 of 45
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Draft Minutes 5/29/12
Fiscal Year 2012 based on Staff’s estimates that the City would have the
funding to do so.
Mr. Burt stated a large increase in the ARC resulted in the decrease of the
Budget Stabilization Reserve year-over-year.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Chair Shepherd absent
Future Meeting
Mr. Perez indicated the next meeting was June 5, 2012 to discuss SAP
security follow-up and the Palo Alto Historic Museum Business Plan.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.