HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-09 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 9, 2015
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 February 9, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to
be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that
is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the
entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the
item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council
meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including
while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on
any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting.
Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may
occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the
public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of
the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public
discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after
other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Study Session 6:00-7:15 PM
1.Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones in Palo Alto
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:15-7:25 PM
Oral Communications 7:25-7:40 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Presentation
2 February 9, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Consent Calendar 7:40-7:45 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Macias Gini &
O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of
June 30, 2014 and Management Letter
3. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance
Authorizing the Closing of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, Including Re-
appropriation Requests, Closing Completed Capital Projects and
Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and Approval of the Fiscal Year
2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
4. Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $63,000 to
Contract No. C14149978 With Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional
Planners for Additional Data Collection and Analysis Related to
Downtown Retail and Residential Uses
5. Authorization to Operate the Golf Course from March 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Increase
Golf Course Revenues Estimate in the Amount of $106,000, Provide
Additional Appropriation of $289,424 in Budget for Expenses, and
Reduce the Operating Loss Reserve by $183,424
6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Changes to the
Board and Commission Recruitment Program Including Adoption of an
Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Planning and Transportation Commission; Adoption of a Resolution
Re-aligning Terms on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; Allowing
for Remote Board and Commission Interviews; Limit Applicants to One
Board or Commission Each Recruitment
7. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Increasing Council
Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month, Effective January 1, 2017
(First Reading: January 20, 2015 PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff
no)
8. Approval of Technical Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing
Agreement, Exhibit C-3 to the Mayfield Development Agreement
Between the City and Stanford University
3 February 9, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
9. Adoption of a Resolution to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for:
Management, Professional and Confidential Employees (M&P), Fire
Chief Association (FCA), and Utilities Managers of Palo Alto
Professional Association (UMPAPA); Adoption of an Ordinance to
Update the Fiscal Year 2015 Table of Organization
10. Confirmation of Appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of
Community Services Department
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:45-9:00 PM
11. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26,
2015)
9:00-9:30 PM
12. Public Hearing: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Resolution Setting New Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility Impact Fee Levels as Approved by Council on
December 15, 2014
9:30-10:00 PM
13. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and
Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance
10:00-10:30 PM
14. Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and
Kniss Recommending Adoption of a Resolution Urging CalPERS
Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Closed Session 10:30-11:15 PM
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL
ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (as defendant)
Subject: Claim of Eileen A. Staats, filed January 5, 2015
(Telephone User Tax)
Authority: California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)
4 February 9, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
5 February 9, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Council Retreat Agenda January 31, 2015
Policy and Services Committee Meeting February 10, 2015
City Council Meeting Cancellation February 16, 2015
Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation February 17, 2015
Mayor State of the City Address February 18, 2015
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the First Quarter,
Fiscal Year 2015
Public Letter to Council
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5491)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
Summary Title: Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones
Title: Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones in Palo Alto
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This Study Session provides an opportunity for City Council discussion regarding quiet zones
and no action is recommended.
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2014, a group of citizens, primarily located near the Alma Street Caltrain
crossing, began asking the City of Palo Alto to consider implementing a quiet zone at that
intersection. Following that initial request, Planning & Community Environment staff began
evaluating quiet zones and gathering information for a City Council discussion.
Quiet zones are defined by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as:
“a section of a rail line at least one-half mile in length that contains one or more
consecutive public highway-rail grade crossings at which locomotive horns are not
routinely sounded when trains are approaching the crossings. The prohibited use of
train horns at quiet zones only applies to trains when approaching and entering
crossings and does not include train horn use within passenger stations or rail yards.
Train horns may be sounded in emergency situations or to comply with other railroad or
FRA rules even within a quiet zone. Quiet zone regulations also do not eliminate the use
of locomotive bells at crossings.”
Reference: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0689
Following communication with Caltrain staff on the matter, City staff was referred to LeeAnn
Dickson, a Grade Crossing Manager at United States Department of Transportation Federal
Railroad Administration. Ms. Dickson provided City staff with valuable information regarding
the technical requirements for the establishment of a quiet zone. Those technical requirements
are listed below:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Per the FRA, if any one of the following four Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM’s) is
implemented, an at-grade crossing is automatically eligible to become a quiet zone regardless
of its Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) score:
1. Installing quad gates
o Four gates per crossing instead of two
2. Median Barriers
o 100 ft. continuous barriers (provisions exist for barriers as short as 60 ft. in
certain scenarios)
3. Converting from facilitating two-way traffic to one-way traffic
4. Eliminating the grade crossing (i.e. closing it)
If a given city chooses to implement one or more of the above referenced intersection
improvements, the city has the right to implement a quiet zone. The right of a city to
implement a quiet zone is not dependent on the rail operators impacted by the establishment
of a quiet zone. Essentially, a quiet zone can be implemented by any city at a given intersection
so long as that city goes through the proper noticing and comment procedure.
The noticing and comment procedure required by the FRA includes providing all stakeholders
with a 60-day Notice of Intent (NOI) that the city is seeking to establish a quiet zone at a given
intersection and following the NOI process a 21 day Notice of Establishment (NOE) must be
provided to those operating in the corridor.
It has been the position of Caltrain that they are willing to work with local municipalities if they
seek to establish a quiet zone- however, Caltrain’s position thus far has been that if a quiet zone
is established in the corridor that the local agency would assume liability for any incidents that
occur at a quiet zone intersection. That said, City staff has not been able to obtain any written
policy on this matter from Caltrain.
It’s also important to reiterate that even if a quiet zone is established a railroad engineer
operating in the corridor may blow the horn of his or her train at any time if there is a perceived
or real safety threat. Therefore, quiet zones reduce train horn noise at a given intersection but
do not eliminate it.
For additional technical information regarding quiet zones published by the FRA please see
Attachment A.
Background
According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) website,
“the FRA Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222) became effective on June 24, 2005.
This rule provides a step-by-step process to determine what can be done to offset the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
lack of a train horn, to calculate the risk reduction associated with potential
improvements, to formally document the silencing of the train horns and officially
establish a quiet zone.”
Reference: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/Rail/Crossings/quietzones.htm
According to the CPUC, as of April 2013 there are 36 established FRA quiet zones in California
affecting 181 crossings; however, none currently exist in the Caltrain corridor.
In the fall of 2013, San Mateo did an extensive study on quiet zones and the potential
implementation of quiet zones in San Mateo. From that study (Attachment B) came three
significant findings:
1. The city has the right to establish a quiet zone(s) if it chooses to do so.
2. From the data San Mateo collected, it did not appear that train horns violate the federal
limit on train horn noise.
3. Federal regulations do not prevent a lawsuit against the City in the event of an incident
at a given quiet zone intersection if the city is the originator of the quiet zone.
According to Caltrain staff, San Mateo did not pursue any quiet zones due to infrastructure
costs and potential liability costs.
Legal Aspects to the Establishment of Quiet Zones in Palo Alto
The question whether or not to implement quiet zones is, at its core, a question of policy. From
a legal perspective, there is no legal prohibition on the creation of quiet zones. However, the
City !ttorney’s Office, after careful review of relevant case law and statutes, has concluded that
the establishment of quiet zones may increase the City’s exposure to potential liability. While
we are not aware of any reported case in which a city was deemed solely liable based upon its
implementation a quiet zone, application of basic tort law suggests that a city might well be
subject to increased liability for doing so. While federal regulations require the City to
implement new safety measures to offset the effect of reduction in a core safety measure - the
sound of the train’s horn blowing - the federal statute contains no safe harbor from suit for
compliance.
At the very least, the City may face a marginal increase in litigation costs to defend against
novel theories of liability advanced by persons injured in quiet zones.
Finally, while the City maintains excess liability insurance coverage to cover judgments over a
certain dollar threshold, the City may nevertheless be compelled to undertake significant self-
insurance costs relating to quiet zones, as insurance carriers for other cities have required
express carve-outs for claims and actions related to quiet zones.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 3
If the City is interested in pursuing one or more quiet zones, the City will need to provide
funding for design and implementation of the necessary improvements.
Policy Implications
The Comprehensive Plan supports efforts to address noise pollution (Policy N-40) and
encourages the Joint Powers Board to pursue train technologies to reduce train whistle noise
(Program N-57), but does not speak to quiet zones per se.
The principal policy issues worthy of consideration in the discussion of quiet zones are (1)
whether there is a real or perceived relationship between train horns and safety that could be
compromised if one or more quiet zones are established; and (2) is the potential for reduced
noise if train engineers refrain from blowing their horn worth the cost of improvements and
potential increase in liability to the City?
Environmental Review
This is a discussion item and no action is proposed that would require review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
A - FRA Quiet Zone Brochure_9-2013(PDF)
B - San Mateo Train Horn Noise Assessment Update_9-11-2013 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Guide to the Quiet Zone Establishment Process
Purpose of the Guide
This brochure was developed to serve as a guide for local decision makers seeking a
greater understanding of train horn sounding requirements and how to establish quiet
zones. Its purpose is to provide a general overview and thus does not contain every detail
about the quiet zone establishment process. For more detailed and authoritaƟve
informaƟon, the reader is encouraged to review the official regulaƟons governing the use
of locomoƟve horns at public highway‐rail grade crossings and the establishment of quiet
zones that are contained in 49 CFR Part 222. A copy of the rule can be downloaded or
printed at hƩp://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02809.
About Quiet Zones
FRA is commiƩed to reducing the number of collisions at
highway‐rail grade crossings, while establishing a
consistent standard for communiƟes who opt to preserve
or enhance quality of life for their residents by establishing
quiet zones within which rouƟne use of train horns at
crossings is prohibited.
Federal regulaƟon requires that locomoƟve horns begin sounding 15–20 seconds before
entering public highway‐rail grade crossings, no more than one‐quarter mile in advance.
Only a public authority, the governmental enƟty responsible for traffic control or law en‐
forcement at the crossings, is permiƩed to create quiet zones.
A quiet zone is a secƟon of a rail line at least one‐half mile in length that contains one or
more consecuƟve public highway‐rail grade crossings at which locomoƟve horns are not
rouƟnely sounded when trains are approaching the crossings. The prohibited use of train
horns at quiet zones only applies to trains when approaching and entering crossings and
does not include train horn use within passenger staƟons or rail yards. Train horns
may be sounded in emergency situaƟons or to comply with other railroad or FRA rules
even within a quiet zone. Quiet zone regulaƟons also do not eliminate the use of
locomoƟve bells at crossings. Therefore, a more appropriate descripƟon of a designated
quiet zone would be a “reduced train horn area.”
CommuniƟes wishing to establish quiet zones must work through the appropriate public
authority that is responsible for traffic control or law enforcement at the crossings.
2
Historical Context
Guide to the Quiet Zone Establishment Process
Historically, railroads have sounded locomoƟve horns or whistles in advance of grade
crossings and under other circumstances as a universal safety precauƟon. Some States
allowed local communiƟes to create whistle bans where the train horn was not rouƟnely
sounded. In other States, communiƟes created whistle bans through informal
agreements with railroads.
In the late 1980’s, FRA observed a significant
increase in nighƫme train‐vehicle collisions at
certain gated highway‐rail grade crossings on
the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) at which
nighƫme whistle bans had been established
in accordance with State statute In 1991, FRA
issued Emergency Order #15 requiring trains
on the FEC to sound their horns again. The
number and rate of collisions at affected
crossings returned to pre‐whistle ban levels.
In 1994, Congress enacted a law that required
FRA to issue a Federal regulaƟon requiring the sounding of locomoƟve horns at public
highway‐rail grade crossings. It also gave FRA the ability to provide for excepƟons to that
requirement by allowing communiƟes under some circumstances to establish "quiet
zones."
The Train Horn Rule became effecƟve on June 24, 2005. The rule set naƟonwide
standards for the sounding of train horns at public highway‐rail grade crossings. This rule
changed the criteria for sounding the horn from distance‐based to Ɵme‐based. It also
set limits on the volume of a train horn. The rule also established a process for
communiƟes to obtain relief from the rouƟne sounding of train horns by providing
criteria for the establishment of quiet zones. LocomoƟve horns may sƟll be used in the
case of an emergency and to comply with Federal regulaƟons or certain railroad rules.
3
POINTS OF CONTACT
General QuesƟons:
Inga Toye, 202‐493‐6305
Debra Chappell, 202‐493‐6018
Ron Ries, 202‐493‐6285
Regional Contacts
Region 1 ConnecƟcut, Maine, MassachuseƩs, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont
1‐800‐724‐5991
Region 2 Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia ,
and Washington, D.C.
1‐800‐724‐5992
Region 3 Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee
1‐800‐724‐5993
Region 4 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin
1‐800‐724‐5040
Region 5 Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
1‐800‐724‐5995
Region 6 Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
1‐800‐724‐5996
Region 7 Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah
1‐800‐724‐5997
Region 8 Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon,
Washington, and Wyoming
1‐800‐724‐5998
9
Rail – Moving America Forward
The mission of the Federal Railroad AdministraƟon is to enable the safe,
reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America,
now and in the future.
U.S. Department of TransportaƟon
Federal Railroad AdministraƟon
1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E.
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: 202‐493‐6299
www.fra.dot.gov
Follow FRA on Facebook and TwiƩer
September 2013
10
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
February 9, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Macias Gini &
O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of
June 30, 2014 and Management Letter
The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of Macias Gini & O’Connell’s Audit of
the City of Palo Alto’s Financial Statements as of June 30, 2014 and Management Letter. At its
meeting on December 2, 2014, the Finance Committee approved and unanimously
recommended the City Council accept this report. The Finance Committee minutes are included
in this packet.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Macias Gini & O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial
Statements as of June 30, 2014 and Management Letter (PDF)
Attachment B: Finance Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (December 2, 2014) (PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
December 2, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Macias Gini & O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial
Statements as of June 30, 2014 and Management Letter
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Finance Committee review and forward to the City Council for approval the
City of Palo Alto’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, and the
accompanying reports provided by Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP.
DISCUSSION
The City Charter requires that the City Council, through the City Auditor, to engage an
independent certified public accounting firm to conduct the annual financial audit. The selected
firm reports the results of the audit, in writing, to the City Council. Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP,
a certified public accounting firm based in Sacramento, California, conducted the audits of the
City’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.
The Administrative Services Department provides the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) and Single Audit Report, including the following Independent Auditor’s Reports, to the
Finance Committee:
Independent Auditor’s Reports on the Financial Statements (CAFR)
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards (Single Audit Report)
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal
Control over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A‐133 (Single Audit Report)
We are providing copies of the following financial statements and reports, as prepared by
MGO:
Report to the City Council (the “Management Letter”) – Attachment A
Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Related to the
Article XIII-B Appropriations Limit for the year ended June 30, 2014 – Attachment B
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III, Independent Auditor’s Reports,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Information for the year ended
June 30, 2014 – Attachment C
Attachment A
Page 2
General Obligation Bonds, Capital Projects Fund (a Fund of the City of Palo Alto),
Independent Auditor’s Reports, Financial Statements, and Independent Accountant’s
Report for the year ended June 30, 2014 – Attachment D
Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (a Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto),
Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2014 – Attachment E
Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Independent Auditor’s Report and Financial
Statements for the year ended June 30, 2014 – Attachment F
Cable TV Franchise – Independent Auditor’s Report and Statements of Franchise
Revenues and Expenditures for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 –
Attachment G
I would like to express appreciation to Macias Gini & O’Connell, and Laura Kuryk and her staff in
the Administrative Services Department for their hard work and cooperation during the audit.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Report to the City Council FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment B: GANN Report FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment C: TDA Report FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment D: GO Bonds Report FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment E: Public Improvement Corp FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment F: RWQCP FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment G: Cable TV Franchise Report FY2014 (PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Attachment A
Page 3
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page(s)
Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................................................................... i
Required Communications ......................................................................................................................... 1-4
Current Year Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 5-6
Status of Prior Year Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 7-8
Attachment A
i
Honorable Mayor and the Members of
the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities, the
business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of
Palo Alto, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered the City’s internal control
over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and was
not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses. Given
these limitations, during our audit, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we
consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been
identified.
Following this letter, we have included a report on required communications to those charged with
governance, as required by auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the Mayor and City Council, the
Finance Committee, management and others within the City, and is not intended to be and should not be
used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
This page is intentionally left blank.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
1
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Palo Alto (City) as of
and for the year ended June 30, 2014. Professional standards require that we provide you with
information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government
Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our
audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated July 30, 2014. Professional
standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The
significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the City’s basic
financial statements. The City implemented three new Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) pronouncements, consisting of GASB Statement No. 65, Items Previously
Reported as Assets and Liabilities (GASB 65); GASB Statement No. 66, Technical Corrections –
2012 – an amendment of GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 62; and GASB Statement No. 70,
Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Financial Guarantees.
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented GASB 65 and restated beginning net position by $1.1
million and $0.7 million to write off unamortized bond issuance costs that were previously
reported as assets in governmental activities and business-type activities, respectively. Further,
the unamortized loss on refunding of debt of $0.4 million was reclassified from contra liabilities
to deferred outflows of resources in three major enterprise funds – Water, Gas and Storm
Drainage.
We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of
authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the
financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and
are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and
assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because
of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events
affecting them may differ significantly from those expected.
The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:
Fair value of investments. The City’s investments are generally carried at fair value, which is
defined as the amount that the City could reasonably expect to receive for an investment in a
current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller and is generally measured by quoted
market prices.
Estimated allowance for losses on notes and loans receivable. The allowance for losses on
notes and loans receivable was based on management’s estimate regarding the likelihood of
collectability.
Useful life estimates for capital assets. The estimated useful lives of capital assets were
based on management’s estimate of the economic life of its capital assets.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
2
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Accrued landfill closure/post-closure costs. The City has estimated, based on a study
conducted by consultants, the closure/post-closure costs of the Palo Alto landfill based on
what it would cost to perform all currently mandated closure and post-closure care. Actual
closure and post-closure care costs may be higher due to inflation variances, changes in
technology, or changes in State or federal regulations.
Valuation of the net other postemployment benefits (OPEB) asset. The net OPEB asset is the
amount of cumulative City contributions that exceeded the actuarially determined annual
required contributions, which is based upon certain approved actuarial assumptions.
Annual required contributions to pension and other postemployment benefit plans. The City
is required to contribute to its pension and OPEB plans at an actuarially determined rate and
to measure these benefit costs based upon certain approved actuarial assumptions.
Claims loss reserve. The City is exposed to a variety of risks of loss due to general liability,
workers’ compensation and other claims and records an estimate of these losses based on
actuarial studies performed by third party actuaries. These studies are prepared based on the
City’s prior claims history, which is used as a basis for extrapolating losses for known and
incurred but not reported claims. Actual loss experience may vary from these estimates.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accounting estimates described
above in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the City’s basic financial statements
taken as a whole.
Certain financial statements disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to
financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were
the disclosure of the City’s Pension Plans in Note 11, the Retiree Health Benefits in Note 12 and
the Commitments and Contingencies in Note 16.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our
audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified
during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level
of management. Below is a table that summarizes the uncorrected misstatements of the financial
statements. Management has determined that their effects are immaterial, both individually and in
the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole. In addition, none of
the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were
material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken
as a whole.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
3
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Summary of Uncorrected Financial Statement Misstatements:
Index Fund Description Debit Credit
For Fund Financial Statements
PJE 2014.1 Capital Accounts Receivable 657,749$
PJE 2014.1 Projects Deferred Inflows of Resources (unavailable revenue)657,749$
Fund (To accrue intergovernmental revenue earned by the City as of
June 30, 2014 and to defer recognition, as the receipt of the
reimbursement was not collected within the City's availability
period of 90 days for governmental funds.)
For Government-Wide Financial Statements
PJE 2014.1 Governmental Accounts Receivable 657,749$
PJE 2014.1 Activities Revenue - Capital Grant Revenue for Public Works 657,749$
(To accrue intergovernmental revenue earned by the City as
of June 30, 2014.)
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting,
or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the
financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements
arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management
representation letter dated November 17, 2014.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and
accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation
involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a
determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our
professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the
consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with
other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and
auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However,
these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses
were not a condition to our retention.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
4
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (Continued)
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to Management’s Discussion and Analysis, which is required
supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures
consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing
the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial
statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did
not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and
schedules and the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, as required by the Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations, which
accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we
made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the
information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the
information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared
and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the
financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on the introductory and statistical sections, which accompany the financial
statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other information and
we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
5
CURRENT YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS
Item # 2014-001 – Informational Comment
New Pension Accounting Standards
In June 2012, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved Statement No. 68,
Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions - an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27. This
statement primarily relates to reporting by governments that provide pensions to their employees and is
effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014. Key changes include the following:
Separating how the accounting and financial reporting is determined from how pensions are funded.
Employers with defined benefit pension plans will recognize a net pension liability and pension
expense, as defined by the standard, in their government-wide, proprietary and fiduciary fund
financial statements, as applicable.
Incorporating ad hoc cost-of-living adjustments and other ad hoc postemployment benefit changes
into projections of benefit payments, if an employer’s past practice and future expectations of
granting them indicate they are essentially automatic.
Using a discount rate that blends (a) the expected long-term rate of return on pension plan
investments to projected benefit payments for which plan assets are expected to be available to make
projected benefit payments, and, if applicable, (b) the interest rate on a tax-exempt 20-year AA/Aa-or
higher rated municipal bond index to projected benefit payments for which plan assets are not
expected to be available for long-term investment in a qualified trust.
Adopting a single actuarial cost allocation method – entry age normal – rather than the current choice
among six actuarial cost methods.
Requiring more extensive note disclosures and required supplementary information.
The City will be subject to the provisions of this statement beginning with the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2015. GASB Statement No. 68 replaces the requirements of GASB Statement No. 27,
Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers, and GASB Statement No. 50,
Pension Disclosures, as they relate to pensions that are administered through trusts or similar
arrangements meeting certain criteria. GASB Statement No. 68 changes the existing framework for
accounting and financial reporting of pension costs and obligations of defined benefit pension plans and
enhances note disclosures and required supplementary information for both defined benefit and defined
contribution pension plans.
Recommendation
It is likely that these new pension standards will dramatically change the City’s financial statements and
disclosures related to its pension plans, and may result in the recognition of a significant net pension
liability. We recommend the City start planning and coordinating for the impact of these new pension
standards by working closely with CalPERS, the auditors and the actuaries (plan actuaries and, if
necessary, a separate consulting actuary) and by developing methodologies for recording the pension
information when it becomes available.
Management’s Response
We are aware that GASB No. 68 will dramatically change the financial statements and disclosures related
to the City’s pension plans, and will result in the recognition of a significant net pension liability. In
order to prepare, City staff has been reading published materials, attending seminars and webinars, and
communicating with CalPERS and our auditors on the timing and nature of information that will be
required.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
6
CURRENT YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
Item 2014-002 – Informational Comment
Uniform Guidance for Federal Awards
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published new guidance for federal award programs,
OMB Uniform Guidance: Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards, commonly referred to as the “Uniform Guidance”, on December 26, 2013. The new
guidance is a key component of a larger federal effort to more effectively focus federal grant resources on
improving performance and outcomes while ensuring the financial integrity of taxpayer dollars. By
streamlining eight federal regulations into a single, comprehensive policy guide, the government can
better administer grants and other types of financial assistance by decreasing the administrative burden for
recipients and reducing the risk of waste, fraud and abuse.
The new requirements will become effective a year after its issuance, December 26, 2014, and the City’s
annual single audit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 will be subject to the provisions of the Uniform
Guidance. Federal agencies must implement policies and procedures by promulgating regulations to be
effective December 26, 2014. The City must apply the requirements of the Uniform Guidance to any new
federal awards made after December 26, 2014 and to additional funding to existing awards made after
that date. Of particular importance are the provisions for procurement, time and effort reporting, and
subrecipient monitoring.
We recommend that the City analyze the Uniform Guidance and work closely with its grantor agencies to
determine what system changes are needed to comply with the new grant management requirements
beginning on December 26, 2014. The Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR) and OMB
have conducted webcasts about the Uniform Guidance, which are now archived at www.cfo.gov/COFAR.
COFAR has also published Frequently Asked Questions for New Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200, which
may provide additional guidance to the City.
Management’s Response
We are aware that OMB has published new guidance for federal award programs which will affect the
City’s annual single audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. City staff is preparing by reading
published materials and attending seminars and webinars. City staff will be working closely with
grantors to ensure compliance with new requirements.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
7
STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR RECOMMEDATIONS
2011-01 - A Comprehensive Disaster Recovery Plan Has Not Been Fully Developed and Tested
(Significant Deficiency)
General computer controls should ensure that plans have been developed and documented to provide
contingency for unforeseeable events, including the recovery of operational and financial data in the event
of a disaster. The City, however, has not completed the development of a comprehensive disaster
recovery plan. City’s IT management stated the prolonged plan development process was due to a lack of
sufficient resources. The lack of a comprehensive plan that has been fully tested places the City at an
increased risk of loss of financial data in the event of a disaster that affects the City’s server room.
We recommend the City’s Chief Information Officer (CIO), working with the City Manager, should plan
to budget for the resources necessary to complete the development of a comprehensive disaster recovery
plan. Once the plan is completed, it should be fully tested to ensure the City’s financial data can be
restored in a reasonable amount of time.
Current Year Status:
In Progress. The CIO budgeted for the development of a disaster recovery plan in FY13. The
project was initiated in March 2013. In January 2014, the City engaged Moss Adams LLP to
conduct a Disaster Relief – Business Continuity Planning analysis for critical IT services, such as
SAP, GIS, Internet services, e-mail services, and network services. As a result, the City has issued
an RFP to hire qualified vendors to implement the recommendations. This is expected to be
completed by June 2015.
2011-03 - A Comprehensive IT Risk Assessment Has Not Been Performed
(Significant Deficiency)
General computer controls over the access to programs and data should require that a mechanism or
procedures be in place to identify and react to risks arising from internal and external sources. A
comprehensive means to identify IT risks is through the periodic performance of IT risk assessments.
The City, however, has not performed a formal comprehensive and independent IT risk assessment to
help identify the risks to the delivery of IT services and the accuracy and integrity of the City’s financial
and personnel data.
We recommend the City’s CIO (acting) should plan and budget for an independent IT risk assessment to
be performed on the department’s functions. The risk assessment should focus on identifying all of the
possible risks to the City’s IT department, the delivery of IT services and the accuracy and integrity of the
City’s financial and personnel data. The risk assessment should quantify the likelihood of an event, the
impact of the event and the mitigating controls that would address the possible risk. The risk assessment
should also include network penetration testing to ascertain the vulnerabilities of the City’s computer
network from hacking attempts.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Report to the City Council
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
8
STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR RECOMMEDATIONS (CONTINUED)
2011-03 - A Comprehensive IT Risk Assessment Has Not Been Performed (continued)
(Significant Deficiency)
Current Year Status:
In Progress. The City’s ISM has conducted a preliminary security assessment to identify areas of
improvement. As of April 2014, the ISM has initiated an Information Security Risk Assessment
project with Information Security Risk Assessment (ISRA) project plan. Expected completion of
ISRA is June 2015.
2011-04 - City IT Department Does Not Have Oversight Over Non-Core Financial Applications
(Significant Deficiency)
The City has several applications that are used by the various departments. These include; Class, used by
Parks and Recreation; Chameleon, used by Animal Services; Horizon, used by the Libraries; and Acella,
used for Permitting. These applications are owned by the individual departments and not controlled nor
managed by the City’s IT Department. Since management of the applications is decentralized, the
individual applications may not adhere to best practices for application access (password configuration)
or management of authorization profiles. This places the City’s network and financial data at increased
risk of unauthorized access.
We recommend the City’s Internal Auditor, working with the CIO (acting), should review the password
configuration requirements being used in the City’s non-core financial applications. If it is found that the
password requirements do not meet industry best practices shown in the table below, the password
configuration settings within the applications should be updated, if possible.
Account Setting Best Practices
Password Length (Min.) 7-9 characters
Expiration Period 30-60 days
Account Lockout Threshold 3-5 invalid logon attempts will lock the account.
Strong Passwords Required Yes
Current Year Status:
In progress. ISM will meet with the owners of following application and request them to comply
with the newly developed password policy v2.5:
Class – Parks & Recs
Chameleon – Animal Services
Horizon – Library
Accela – Plan
Expected completion date is December 31, 2014.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying
Agreed–Upon Procedures Related to
the Article XIII-B Appropriations Limit
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Attachment A
1
Independent Accountant’s Report
on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Related to
the Article XIII-B Appropriations Limit
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council, of
City of Palo Alto, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below to the accompanying Appropriations Limit
Worksheet of the City of Palo Alto, California (City), for the year ended June 30, 2014. These procedures,
which were agreed to by the City and the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication
entitled Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIIIB of
California Constitution), were performed solely to assist the City in meeting the requirements of Section
1.5 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. The City’s management is responsible for the
Appropriations Limit Worksheet.
This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these
procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no
representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for
which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
The procedures performed and our findings were as follows:
1. We obtained the completed worksheets setting forth the calculations necessary to establish the
City’s appropriations limit and compared the limit and annual adjustment factors included in
those worksheets to the limit and annual adjustment factors that were adopted by resolution of the
City Council. We also compared the population and inflation options included in the
aforementioned worksheets to those that were selected by a recorded vote of the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet, we added last year’s limit to total
adjustments, and compared the resulting amount to this year’s limit.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
3. We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit
Worksheet to the worksheets described in No. 1 above.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
4. We compared the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations
Limit Worksheet to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
Attachment A
2
We were not engaged to, and did not conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of
an opinion on the Appropriations Limit Worksheet. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had
we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been
reported to you. No procedures have been performed with respect to the determination of the
appropriations limit for the base year, as defined by Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and City management and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this
report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Appropriations Limit Worksheet
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
3
2012-2013 appropriations limit, as adopted 125,012,860$
Adjustment factors:
Population 1.0157
Inflation 1.0512
Total adjustment factors (rounded) 1.0677
Total adjustments 8,463,851
2013-2014 appropriation limit, as adopted 133,476,711$
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III
Independent Auditor’s Reports,
Financial Statements and
Supplementary Information
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report ................................................................................................................... 1
Financial Statements
Balance Sheet ................................................................................................................................... 3
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance (Deficit) ............................. 4
Notes to the Financial Statements .................................................................................................... 5
Supplementary Information
Schedule of Construction Projects with Capital Outlay Expenditures............................................. 7
Internal Control and Compliance Section
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters based on an
Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act............................................... 9
Attachment A
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
(Grants) made to the City of Palo Alto, California (City), by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III, as of and for the year ended
June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes
the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or
error.
Auditor’s Responsibilities
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material
misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinion.
Attachment A
2
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Grants as of June 30, 2014, and the changes in financial position thereof for the
year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
Emphasis of Matter
As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the financial statements of the Grants are intended to
present the financial position and the changes in financial position of only that portion of the
governmental activities and the major governmental fund of the City that is attributable to the activities of
the Grants. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City as of June
30, 2014, and changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Other Matters
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements. The
accompanying schedule of construction projects with capital outlay expenditures (Schedule) is presented
for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements. The Schedule is
the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting
and other records used to prepare the financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the
auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures,
including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other
records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other
additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America. In our opinion, the Schedule is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial
statements as a whole.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act, we have
also issued our report dated November 17, 2014 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over
the Grants’ financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe
the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that
testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance.
That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards
and the Transportation Development Act in considering the City’s internal control over the Grants’
financial reporting and compliance.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
Assets
Due from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 15,000$
Liabilities
Due to the City of Palo Alto 15,000$
Deferred inflows of resources
Unavailable Revenue 15,000
Fund balance (deficit)
Unassigned (15,000)
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources
and fund balance (deficit)15,000$
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
3
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance (Deficit)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Revenues
Grant 55,597$
Expenditures
Capital outlay 55,597
Change in fund balance (deficit) -
Fund Balance (Deficit) - beginning of year (15,000)
Fund Balance (Deficit) - end of year (15,000)$
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
4
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
5
NOTE 1 – DESCRIPTION OF REPORTING ENTITY
The accompanying financial statements are prepared from the accounts and financial transactions
of the City of Palo Alto, California (City) for the projects funded under the Transportation
Development Act of 1971 (TDA) Article III of the State of California, which include the
construction of pedestrian and bicycle paths. The financial statements do not purport to present
the financial position or changes in financial position of the City. The projects represent a portion
of the accounts of the City and, as such, are included in the City’s basic financial statements.
NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
(a) Basis of Presentation
The Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants (Grants) have been accounted for in the capital
project fund, which is a major governmental fund type and is included in the City’s basic
financial statements. The capital project fund accounts for resources used for acquisition
and construction of capital facilities by the City, with the exception of those assets
financed by proprietary funds.
(b) Basis of Accounting
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared on the modified accrual basis
of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded
when the related governmental fund liabilities are incurred. Grant revenues, which are
received as reimbursement for specific purposes or projects, are recognized when they
become measurable and available (received within 60 days after year-end).
(c) Fund Balance (Deficit)
The City reports fund balance for governmental funds in specific classifications
(nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned) based on the extent to
which the City is bound to the constraints on the specific purposes for which funds can be
spent. At June 30, 2014, the Grants reported a fund balance deficit of $15,000. The fund
balance deficit will be cured once the grant reimbursement becomes available to repay
the funds advanced from the City.
(d) Due to the City of Palo Alto
Cash has been advanced to the Grants’ projects for expenditures paid by the City’s major
capital projects fund for the benefit of the TDA Article III projects. The projects are
obligated to immediately repay these advances upon receipt of reimbursement from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
6
NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(e) Deferred inflows of resources
A deferred inflow of resources is defined as an acquisition of net position or fund
balances applicable to a future reporting period and will not be recognized as an inflow of
resources (revenue) until that time. The reimbursement from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.that are not yet available are recorded as deferred inflows of
resources since the balances are not current financial resources.
NOTE 3 – COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
The TDA is defined at Chapter 4 of the California Public Utilities Code commencing with
Section 99200. Funds received pursuant to Section 99235 of the TDA (Article 3) may only be
used for facilities provided for exclusive use by the project.
NOTE 4 – SECTION 99301 – INTEREST EARNED ON ALLOCATED FUNDS
The City incurred and paid expenditures prior to the receipt of the Grant reimbursements; as a
result, no interest was earned on Grant funds.
Attachment A
Ti
t
l
e
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
A
w
a
r
d
s
Ca
r
r
i
e
d
O
v
e
r
fr
o
m
P
r
i
o
r
Y
e
a
r
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
All
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
(R
e
c
i
s
s
i
o
n
)
T
o
t
a
l
A
w
a
r
d
s
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
O
u
t
l
a
y
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
a
s
of
J
u
n
e
3
0
,
2
0
1
3
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
O
u
t
l
a
y
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
O
u
t
l
a
y
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
a
s
of
J
u
n
e
3
0
,
2
0
1
4
St
a
t
u
s
o
f
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
TD
A
1
1
-
1
2
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
12
0
0
1
0
4
2
55
,
5
9
7
$
-
$
55
,
5
9
7
$
-
$
55
,
5
9
7
$
55
,
5
9
7
$
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
TD
A
1
2
-
1
3
F
a
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
13
0
0
1
0
2
7
43
,
3
5
9
-
43
,
3
5
9
15
,
0
0
0
-
15
,
0
0
0
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
TD
A
1
3
-
1
4
C
h
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
"
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
"
P
a
t
h
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
4
0
0
1
0
3
9
-
82
,
7
1
2
82
,
7
1
2
-
-
-
O
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
98
,
9
5
6
$
82
,
7
1
2
$
18
1
,
6
6
8
$
15
,
0
0
0
$
55
,
5
9
7
$
70
,
5
9
7
$
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
o
u
t
l
a
y
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
2
0
1
4
:
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
O
u
t
l
a
y
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Fo
r
t
h
e
Y
e
a
r
E
n
d
e
d
J
u
n
e
3
0
,
2
0
1
4
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
G
r
a
n
t
s
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
F
u
n
d
s
,
A
r
t
i
c
l
e
I
I
I
7
Attachment A
8
This page is left intentionally blank.
Attachment A
9
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters
Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Governmental Auditing Standards and
the Transportation Development Act
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the accompanying financial statements of the
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Grants (Grants) made to the City of Palo Alto, California (City), by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transportation Development Act Funds, Article III, as of and
for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our
report thereon dated November 17, 2014.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control
over the Grants’ financial reporting (internal control) to determine the auditing procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but
not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the
first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that
might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did
not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However,
material weaknesses may exists that have not been identified.
Attachment A
10
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Grants’ financial statements are free of
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, including the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the
Transportation Development Act, including Section 6666 of Title 21, of the California Code of
Regulations, and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of
financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was
not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests
disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under
Government Auditing Standards or the Transportation Development Act.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal
control over compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
Independent Auditor’s Reports,
Financial Statements, and
Independent Accountant’s Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report ................................................................................................................... 1
Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance .................................................... 4
Notes to the Financial Statements ........................................................................................................... 5
Other Reports:
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ....................................... 9
Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance with Measure N .................................................... 11
Status of Current Year and Prior Year Findings ................................................................................... 13
Attachment A
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the City of Palo Alto General Obligation
Bonds Capital Projects Fund (Fund), a fund of the City of Palo Alto, California (City), as of and for the
year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, as listed in the table of
contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes
the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or
error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material
misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Fund as of June 30, 2014, and the changes in financial position thereof for the
year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
Attachment A
2
Emphasis of a Matter
As discussed in Note 2(a) to the financial statements, the financial statements present only the Fund and
do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2014, and the
changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this
matter.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
November 17, 2014 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over the Fund’s financial reporting
and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant
agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal
control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an
opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an
audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal
control over the Fund’s financial reporting and compliance.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
Assets
Restricted cash and investments (Note 3)19,368,023$
Liabilities and Fund Balance
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 5,180,282$
Fund Balance:
Restricted for capital projects 14,187,741
Total liabilities and fund balance 19,368,023$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
3
Attachment A
Revenues
Investment income 47,579$
Expenditures
Capital outlay:
Downtown Library 580
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center 2,864,959
Main Library new construction and improvements 15,180,921
Temporary Facility 284,262
Total capital outlay 18,330,722
Debt service - interest and fiscal charges 82,370
Total expenditures 18,413,092
Net change in fund balance (18,365,513)
Fund balance, beginning of the year 32,553,254
Fund balance, end of year 14,187,741$
Changes in Fund Balance
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
4
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
5
NOTE 1 – BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2008, more than two thirds of registered voters of the City of Palo Alto (City) approved
Measure N and authorized the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds not to exceed $76,000,000 to
be used to construct a new energy-efficient Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, expand and
renovate the Main Library, and renovate the Downtown Library. Funds will also be used to provide
additional space to expand library collections, add new children’s and group program areas, replace
outdated lighting, provide modern ventilation and air conditioning systems and ensure seismic safety and
enhance disabled access.
On June 9, 2010, the City issued General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2010 (2010 Library
Bonds) to finance the costs of constructing a new energy efficient, environmentally friendly Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center, renovating and expanding Main Library, and renovating the Downtown
Library, including enhancements at all three facilities for seismic safety and disabled access, expanded
space for library collections, meeting and study areas, and new air conditioning, ventilation and lighting
systems (Project). Proceeds from the 2010 Library Bonds included par of $55,305,000 and a premium on
issue of $3,766,208 for a total of $59,071,208. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the City issued
General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2013A (2013A Library Bonds) for the remaining
authorized amount of $20,695,000. The premium on issue was $1,011,615 for the total proceeds of
$21,706,615.
Specific projects approved by the City Council to be funded by the 2010 and 2013A Library Bonds
proceeds are as follows:
Amended Budget
Expenditures Not
Charged to Bond
Proceeds
Cumulative Bond
Eligible Expenditures
Encumbrances
Outstanding
Project Balance
Remaining
Downtown Library Improvements 4,208,225$ 356,987$ 4,163,174$ 45,051$ -$
Mitchell Park Library 48,300,843 1,864,673 39,619,458 5,642,996 3,038,389
Library and Community Center
Temporary Facility 639,858 155,529 504,597 23,861 111,400
Temporary Main Library 622,863 42,355 513,693 4,888 104,282
Main Library New Construction
and Improvements 24,453,096 841,665 17,473,271 6,826,158 153,667
Total 78,224,885$ 3,261,209$ 62,274,193$ 12,542,954$ 3,407,738$
Project
As of June 30, 2014
NOTE 2 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
(a) Reporting Entity
The accompanying financial statements present only the financial position and the changes in financial
position of the General Obligation Bonds Capital Projects Fund (Fund) and do not purport to, and do not,
present fairly the City’s financial position as of June 30, 2014, and the changes in its financial position for
the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
6
NOTE 2 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
(b) Basis of Presentation
A capital projects fund (governmental fund) is used to account for the City’s General Obligation Bond
Projects activities. Capital projects funds are used to account for financial resources (e.g., bond proceeds
and investment income) that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditures for capital outlays,
including the acquisition of land or acquisition and construction of major governmental facilities. This
fund is a set of self-balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance, revenues and
expenditures.
(c) Basis of Accounting
Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized. The projects are accounted
for in a governmental fund type, and the modified accrual basis of accounting is used. Under the modified
accrual basis, revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available as net current assets.
Expenditures are recognized when they are incurred. The City considers revenues susceptible to accrual
to be available if the revenues are collected within ninety days after year-end, except for property taxes,
which are available if collected within sixty days after year-end.
(d) Fund Balance
Fund balance is reported in specific classifications (nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned and
unassigned), which create a hierarchy primarily based on the extent to which the Fund is bound to the
constraints of the specific purposes for which funds can be spent. The Fund only has restricted fund
balance at June 30, 2014.
Restricted fund balance includes amounts when constraints placed on use of resources are either: (1)
externally imposed by creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, or laws or
regulations of other governments; or (2) imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling
legislation. The City will spend the most restricted dollars in accordance with restrictions imposed before
less restricted resources in the following order: (a) committed; (b) assigned and (c) unassigned.
(e) Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles
requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts and
disclosures. Accordingly, actual results may differ from those estimates.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
(A Fund of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
7
NOTE 3 – RESTRICTED CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The Fund’s investments are carried at fair value, as required by generally accepted accounting principles.
The Fund adjusts the carrying value of its investments to reflect their fair value at each fiscal year end,
and it includes the effects of these adjustments in revenues for that fiscal year.
(a) Project Fund Investment Policy
Pursuant to terms of the 2010 and 2013A Library Bonds trust agreement, bond proceeds to be used for
project costs were remitted to and are maintained by the City as agent for the bondholders. The City’s
Investment Policy allows it to invest in a variety of types of investments subject to maturity maximums,
concentration limitations, and minimum credit quality requirements. Allowed investment types are
limited to investments permitted by subdivisions (a) to (n), inclusive, of Section 53601 of the California
Government Code, which includes U.S. federal securities and the California Asset Management Program
(CAMP) Pool. CAMP Pool is an investment pool offered by the California Asset Management Trust
(Trust). The Trust is a joint powers authority and public agency created by the Declaration of Trust and
established under the provisions of the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act (California Government
Code Sections 6500 et seq., or the “Act”) for the purpose of exercising the common power of its
participants to invest certain proceeds of debt issues and surplus funds. CAMP Pool’s investments are
limited to investments permitted by subdivisions (a) to (n), inclusive, of Section 53601 of the California
Government Code. The Fund reports its investment in Federal Home Loan Bank at the fair value. The
Fund reports its investments in CAMP Pool at the fair value amounts provided by CAMP, which is the
same as the value of the pool share.
(b) Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Normally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value
to changes in market interest rates. Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the Fund’s
investments to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the
distribution of the Fund’s investments by maturity:
Investment Type Amount Maturities Credit Rating
California Asset Management Program Pool 11,356,920$ 37 Days Not rated
Federal Home Loan Bank 8,000,320 25 Days AA+
Cash held with U.S. Bank 10,783 Not Applicable Not Applicable
(c) Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder
of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization.
Attachment A
8
This page is left intentionally blank.
Attachment A
9
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the City of Palo Alto
General Obligation Bonds Capital Projects Fund (Fund), a fund of the City of Palo Alto, California (City),
as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have
issued our report thereon dated November 17, 2014.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control
over the Fund’s financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but
not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses
may exist that have not been identified.
Attachment A
10
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Fund’s financial statements are free of
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal
control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
11
Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance with Measure N
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have examined the City of Palo Alto’s (City) compliance with certain provisions of Measure N for the
year ended June 30, 2014 as follows:
a) Proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds (Bonds) were used only for the purposes
specified in Measure N;
b) Proceeds from the Bonds were deposited into a Library/Community Center Project Construction
Fund held by the City; and
c) The Administrative Services Director of the City filed an annual report with the City Council
commencing not later than November 1, 2014, containing pertinent information regarding the
amount of funds collected and expended, as well as the status of the Library/Community Center
project listed in the Measure.
Management is responsible for the City’s compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our examination.
Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence
about the City’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the City’s compliance with
specified requirements.
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned requirements for the
year ended June 30, 2014.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council, the Oversight Committee,
the City Auditor and the City’s management and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
12
This page is left intentionally blank.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
(A Fund to the City of Palo Alto)
Status of Current Year and Prior Year Findings
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
13
Current Year Findings:
No matters were noted.
Status of Prior Year Findings:
No matters were noted.
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report ................................................................................................................... 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) .............................................................................. 3
Basic Financial Statements
Government-wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................... 5
Statement of Activities ....................................................................................................................... 6
Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ................................................ 8
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements .................................................................................................. 9
Attachment A
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto, California
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities and the major fund
of Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (Corporation), a component unit of the City of Palo Alto,
California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial
statements, which collectively comprise the Corporation’s basic financial statements as listed in the table
of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes
the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or
error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted
our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities and the major fund of the Corporation as of
June 30, 2014, and the respective changes in financial position thereof for the year then ended in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Attachment A
2
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s
discussion and analysis on pages 3 through 4 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements.
Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the
basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied
certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of
management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for
consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other
knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion
or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with
sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Management’s Discussion & Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
3
The Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (Corporation), a component unit of the City of Palo Alto
(City), follows the provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34
(GASB 34), Basic Financial Statements - and Management’s Discussion and Analysis - for State and
Local Governments.
The Corporation is controlled by the City and was organized to assist the City in financing public
improvements. The Corporation issues debt and turns the proceeds of the debt over to the City under
lease agreements that provide a revenue source for the repayment of this debt. The Corporation has one
debt issue outstanding and has turned the proceeds over to the City, which pledged certain lease payments
as collateral for this debt as discussed in Note 4 to the financial statements.
FISCAL YEAR 2014 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
GASB 34 requires the issuance of government-wide financial statements as well as fund financial
statements. The government-wide financial statements report the balance of the Corporation’s long-term
debt while the individual fund statements do not.
In fiscal year 2002, the Corporation issued its 2002B Downtown Parking Improvements Certificates of
Participation (COPs) in the amount of $3.6 million. In fiscal year 2005, a partial redemption was
completed by placing excess construction and debt service reserve funds into an escrow account to
defease $900 thousand of the 2002B Downtown Parking Improvements COPs.
As of June 30, 2014, the 2002B Downtown Parking Improvements COPs comprise the Corporation’s
outstanding debt.
At the government-wide level, interest and fiscal agent charges were $99 thousand for fiscal year 2014, a
decrease of $8 thousand from the prior year. The interest for leases on the assets securing this COP issue
was $101 thousand, a decrease of $8 thousand from the prior year. The interest on leases from the City
exceeded interest expense by $3 thousand, thereby resulting in an increase in net position of $3 thousand
over the prior year.
The Corporation ended fiscal year 2014 with total assets of $1.7 million, a decrease of $0.1 million from
the prior year. Total assets consist of $251 thousand in cash and investments and $1.4 million of leases
receivable from the City of Palo Alto. Total liabilities were $1.5 million, a decrease of $0.1 million from
the prior year, and included $176 thousand of current liabilities as well as $1.3 million of long-term debt
due in more than one year.
At the fund level, the Corporation’s revenues nearly equaled the expenditures. As of June 30, 2014, the
Corporation had one fund, the Debt Service Fund, which reported a $251 thousand restricted fund
balance.
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Management’s Discussion & Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
4
OVERVIEW OF THE CORPORATION’S BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Basic Financial Statements are in two parts:
1) Management’s discussion and analysis (this part),
2) The basic financial statements, which include the government-wide and the fund financial statements,
along with the notes to these financial statements.
The basic financial statements comprise the government-wide financial statements and the fund financial
statements. These two sets of financial statements provide two different views of the Corporation’s
financial activities and financial positions, both short-term and long-term.
The government-wide financial statements provide a long-term view of the Corporation’s activities as a
whole, and comprise the statement of net position and the statement of activities. The statement of net
position provides information about the financial position of the Corporation as a whole, including all its
long-term liabilities on the full accrual basis, similar to that used by corporations. The statement of
activities provides information about all the Corporation’s revenues and expenses on the full accrual
basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues or expenses of the Corporation’s program. The
statement of activities explains in detail the change in net position for the year.
The fund financial statements report the Corporation’s operations in more detail than the corporate-wide
statements and focus primarily on the short-term activities of the debt service fund. Fund financial
statements measure only current revenues and expenditures; current assets, liabilities and fund balances;
and they exclude capital assets and long-term debt.
Together, these statements along with the notes to the financial statements are called the basic financial
statements.
DEBT ADMINISTRATION
The Corporation issues debt in the form of COPs for future lease receipts from the City of Palo Alto.
Legally, these COP issues are the Corporation’s debt only; the City is liable only for the payment of the
amounts set forth in the lease securing each COP issue.
As of June 30, 2014, the Corporation has one outstanding debt related to the 2002B Downtown Parking
Improvement projects with an outstanding balance of $1.4 million.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND MAJOR INITIATIVES
The economy of the City of Palo Alto and its major initiatives for the coming year are discussed in detail
in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
CONTACTING THE CORPORATION’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
These Basic Financial Statements are intended to provide citizens, taxpayers, investors, and creditors with
a general overview of the Corporation’s finances. Questions about these financial statements should be
directed to the Finance Department of the City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, CA 94301.
Attachment A
Assets
Cash and investments held for operations 12,845$
Cash and investments held by trustee 237,955
Investment in leases to the City of Palo Alto 1,430,000
Total assets 1,680,800
Liabilities
Interest payable 30,983
Long-term debt:
Due in one year 145,000
Due in more than one year 1,285,000
Total liabilities 1,460,983
Net Position
Restricted for debt service 219,817$
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2014
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
5
Attachment A
Expenses
Interest and fiscal agent charges 98,583$
Program revenues
Interest on leases from the City of Palo Alto 101,400
Net program revenues 2,817
General Revenues
Investment earnings 21
Change in net position 2,838
Net position, beginning of the year 216,979
Net position, end of the year 219,817$
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Statement of Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
6
Attachment A
Assets
Cash and investments held for operations 12,845$
Cash and investments held by trustee 237,955
Investment in leases to City of Palo Alto 1,430,000
Total assets 1,680,800$
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable lease receipt from the City of Palo Alto 1,430,000$
Fund balance
Restricted for debt service 250,800
Total liabilities and fund balance 1,680,800$
Reconciliation of fund balance to net position
Fund balance restricted for debt service 250,800$
Accrual adjustment to remove deferred inflows of resources from the balance sheet 1,430,000
Some liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the
the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds:
Interest payable (30,983)
Long-term debt due within one year (145,000)
Long-term debt due in more than one year (1,285,000)
Net position of governmental activities 219,817$
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
Debt Service Fund
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
7
Attachment A
Revenues:
Lease receipts from the City of Palo Alto:
Principal 130,000$
Interest 101,400
Investment earnings 21
Total revenues 231,421
Expenditures:
Debt service:
Principal repayment 130,000
Interest and fiscal agent charges 101,400
Total expenditures 231,400
Net change in fund balance 21
Fund balance, beginning of the year 250,779
Fund balance, end of the year 250,800$
Reconciliation of net change in fund balance to change in net position
Net change in fund balance - debt serivce fund 21$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are
different because:
Repayment of bond principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds,
but in the statement of net position the repayment reduces long-term liabilities. 130,000
Some amounts reported in the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes
in fund balances reflect the collection of an asset which are not includable
as revenues on the statement of activities.
Change in deferred inflows of resources (130,000)
Change in interest payable 2,817
Change in net position of governmental activities 2,838$
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Debt Service Fund
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
8
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
9
NOTE 1 – DESCRIPTION OF REPORTING ENTITY
The Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (the Corporation) was incorporated in September 1983
under the General Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of California to acquire, construct and lease
capital improvement projects. The Corporation is exempt from federal income taxes under
Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Corporation provides financing of public capital
improvements for the City through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs), a form of debt
which allows investors to participate in a stream of future lease payments. Proceeds from the COPs are
used to construct projects which are leased to the City for lease payments which are sufficient in timing
and amount to meet the debt service requirements of the COPs.
The Corporation is an integral part of the City of Palo Alto (City). It primarily services the City and its
governing body is composed of the City Council. Therefore, the financial data of the Corporation has also
been included as a blended component unit within the City’s comprehensive annual financial report for
the year ended June 30, 2014.
NOTE 2 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
(a) Basis of Presentation
Government-wide Statements: The statement of net position and the statement of activities include the
financial activities of the Corporation. Eliminations have been made to minimize the double counting of
internal activities.
The statement of activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each
function of the Corporation’s activities. Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a
program or function and, therefore, are clearly identifiable to a particular function. Program revenues
include (a) charges paid by the recipients of goods or services offered by the programs, and (b) grants and
contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular program.
Revenues that are not classified as program revenues, including interest earnings, are presented as general
revenues.
Fund Financial Statements: The fund financial statements provide information about the Corporation’s
funds. The emphasis of fund financial statements is on major individual funds, of which the Corporation
only reports one debt service fund.
(b) Major Fund
Major funds are defined as funds that have either assets, liabilities, revenues or expenditures equal to ten
percent of their fund-type total and five percent of the grand total. The Corporation has one fund which is
reported as a major governmental fund in the accompanying financial statements:
Debt Service Fund – This fund accounts for debt service payments on the Corporation’s long-term debt.
(c) Investment in Leases
Improvements financed by the Corporation are leased to the City for their entire estimated useful life and
will become the City property at the conclusion of the lease during the year ended June 30, 2022. The
Corporation therefore records the present value of the lease and considers the leased improvement to have
been sold for this amount when leased.
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
10
NOTE 2 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
(d) Net Position
The government-wide financial statements utilize a net position presentation. Net position is further
categorized as net investment in capital assets, restricted and/or unrestricted. As of June 30, 2014, the
entire net position was considered restricted.
Restricted Net Position – This category presents external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors,
contributors or laws or regulations of other governments and restrictions imposed by law through
constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.
(e) Deferred Inflows of Resources
A deferred inflow of resources is defined as an acquisition of net position or fund balances applicable to a
future reporting period and will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. On
the governmental fund balance sheet, the lease receipts from the City corresponding to the debt are
recorded as deferred inflows of resources since the balances are not current financial resources. The City
considers revenues susceptible to accrual to be available if the revenues are collected within ninety days
after year-end, except for property taxes, which are available if collected within sixty days after year-end.
(f) Fund Balances
At June 30, 2014, the Corporation’s governmental funds’ fund balances include the following
classification:
Restricted Fund Balance – includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated by
external resource providers, constitutionally or through enabling legislation. Restrictions may effectively
be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers.
(g) Estimates
The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect
certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
(h) New Accounting Standards Implemented
GASB Statement No. 65, Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities, clarifies the appropriate
reporting of deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources to ensure consistency in
financial reporting. As of July 1, 2013, the Corporation adopted this GASB statement and reclassified the
revenues that were not collected within the availability period from liability to deferred inflows of
resources in the government fund financial statements.
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
11
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS HELD BY TRUSTEE
Under the provisions of the Corporation’s COP issues, a Trustee holds and invests the Corporation’s cash
held for purposes of bond reserves.
(a) Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that a change in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Normally, the longer it takes an investment to reach maturity, the greater will be that
investment’s sensitivity to changes in market rates. Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of
the Corporation’s investments to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that
shows the distribution of the Corporation’s investments by maturity:
Investment Type Amount Maturity Date Credit Rating
Money Market Mutual Fund 237,955$ 38 days AAAm
(b) Credit Risk
Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder
of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization. The actual ratings as of June 30, 2014 for the Money Market Mutual Funds is
AAAm, as provided by Moody’s Investors Services.
(c) Investment Policy
The Corporation must maintain required amounts of cash and investments with trustees under the terms of
certain debt issues. These funds are unexpended bond proceeds or are pledged as reserves to be used if the
Corporation fails to meet its obligation under these debt issues. The California Government Code requires
these funds to be invested in accordance with bond indentures or State statutes. All these funds have been
invested as permitted under the Code. The Investment Policy is described in detail in the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized by the City’s Investment Policy. The
table also identifies certain provisions of the City’s Investment Policy that address interest rate risk, credit
risk and concentration of credit risk. The table addresses investments of debt proceeds held by bond
trustee that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City rather than by the general
provisions of the City’s investment policy.
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
12
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS HELD BY TRUSTEE (continued)
Maximum
Maturity
Minimum
Credit Quality
Maximum
Percentage
of Portfolio
Maximum
Investment in
One Issuer
U.S. Government Securities 10 years (*) N/A No Limit No Limit
U.S. Government Agency Securities 10 years (*) N/A No Limit (A) No Limit
Certificates of Deposit 10 years (*) N/A 20%
10% of the par
value of
portfolio
Bankers Acceptances 180 days N/A 30% $5 million
Commercial Paper 270 days A-1 15% $3 million (B)
Local Agency Investment Fund N/A N/A No Limit
$50 million per
account
Short-Term Repurchase Agreements 1 year N/A No Limit No Limit
City of Palo Alto Bonds N/A N/A No Limit No Limit
Money Market Deposit Accounts N/A N/A No Limit No Limit
Mutual Funds N/A N/A 20%10%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 10 years (*) N/A 10% $5 million
Medium-Term Corporate Notes 5 years AA 10% $5 million
10 years (*) AA/AA2 10% No Limit
(A)
(B) The lesser of $3 million or 10% of outstanding commercial paper of any one institution.
(*) The maximum maturity is based on the Investment Policy that is approved by the City Council
and is less restrictive than the California Governmental Code.
Authorized Investment Type
Bonds of State of California Municipal
Agencies
Callable and multi-step securities are limited to no more than 25% of the par value of the portfolio,
provided that: 1) the potential call dates are known at the time of purchase, 2) the interest rates at which
they "step-up" are known at the time of purchase, 3) the entire face value of the security is redeemed at
the call date.
Attachment A
PALO ALTO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
(A Component Unit of the City of Palo Alto)
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
13
NOTE 4 – CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
The Corporation’s changes in long-term debt are presented below:
Balance Balance Amount due
June 30, 2013 Retirements June 30, 2014 in one year
Governmental Activity Debt:
Certificates of Participation
2002B Downtown Parking
2-4%; due 03/01/2022 1,560,000$ 130,000$ 1,430,000$ 145,000$
On January 16, 2002, the Corporation issued the 2002B Downtown Parking Improvements Certificates of
Participation (2002B COPs) in the amount of $3.6 million to finance the construction of certain
improvements to the non-parking area contained in the City’s Bryant/Florence Garage complex. Principal
payments are due annually on March 1 and interest payments semi-annually on March 1 and September 1
and are payable from lease revenues received from the City from available funds.
The 2002B COPs are payable and secured by lease revenues received by the Corporation from any City
of Palo Alto General Fund revenue source.
Future annual debt service on the 2002B COPs is expected to be provided by the lease receipts discussed
above, and is shown below:
For the Year Interest Total
Ending June 30, Principal Payment Payment
2015 145,000$ 92,950$ 237,950$
2016 150,000 83,526 233,526
2017 160,000 73,776 233,776
2018 170,000 63,376 233,376
2019 185,000 52,326 237,326
2020 - 2022 620,000 82,226 702,226
1,430,000$ 448,180$ 1,878,180$
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLANT
Independent Auditor’s Report
and Financial Statements
For the Year Ended
June 30, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report ................................................................................................................... 1
Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 3
Statement of Quarterly Billings .............................................................................................................. 4
Notes to the Financial Statements ........................................................................................................... 5
Attachment A
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (Plant), an enterprise operation of the City of Palo Alto, California (City), for the year
ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the
Plant’s financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with the financial reporting provisions of the Basic Agreement between the City, the City of
Mountain View and the City of Los Altos for the Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint
Sewer System, dated October 10, 1968, and subsequent letters of agreement dated December 5, 1977,
January 14, 1980, April 9, 1985, July 3, 1990, July 31, 1992 and March 16, 1998, as described in Note 2
to the financial statements. Management is also responsible for the design, implementation, and
maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that
are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted
our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our
audit opinion.
Attachment A
2
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
revenues, expenditures and quarterly billings of the Plant for the year ended June 30, 2014, in accordance
with the financial reporting provisions of the Basic Agreement between the City, the City of Mountain
View and the City of Los Altos for the Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer
System, dated October 10, 1968, and subsequent letters of agreement dated December 5, 1977, January
14, 1980, April 9, 1985, July 3, 1990, July 31, 1992 and March 16, 1998, described in Note 2 to the
financial statements.
Basis of Accounting
As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the financial statements are prepared in accordance
with the financial reporting provisions of the Basic Agreements between the City, City of Mountain View
and the City of Los Altos, which is a basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Restriction on Use
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the
Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos, and is not intended to be and should not be used by
anyone other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Statement of Net Expenditures
City of City of City of
Total Mountain View Los Altos Palo Alto
Direct Expenditures:
Source control program 1,075,218$ 416,647$ 111,608$ 546,963$
Public outreach 77,138 29,891 8,007 39,240
Permitting and enforcement 1,064,727 290,230 17,172 757,325
Operations and maintenance 11,709,460 4,537,416 1,215,442 5,956,602
System improvement CIP (Note 3) 3,252,622 1,260,391 337,622 1,654,609
Total Direct Expenditures 17,179,165 6,534,575 1,689,851 8,954,739
Indirect Administrative Expenditures (Note 4):
Source control program 725,716 281,215 75,329 369,172
Public outreach 1,089 422 113 554
Permitting and enforcement 411,477 267,904 15,852 127,721
Operations and maintenance 2,314,768 896,973 240,273 1,177,522
Total Indirect Administrative Expenditures 3,453,050 1,446,514 331,567 1,674,969
Debt Service Expenditures (Note 5):
Refunding 1990 Series A Bonds 283,420 144,544 22,107 116,769
1999 Wastewater Treatment New Project 541,932 205,338 51,321 285,273
2009 State Water Resource Loan 555,726 210,565 52,627 292,534
Total Debt Service Expenditures 1,381,078 560,447 126,055 694,576
Total Expenditures 22,013,293 8,541,536 2,147,473 11,324,284
Deduct Joint Systems Revenues (Note 6) (365,520) (141,639) (37,941) (185,940)
Net Expenditures 21,647,773$ 8,399,897$ 2,109,532$ 11,138,344$
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
3
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Statement of Quarterly Billings
City of City of
Mountain View Los Altos
Billings by Quarter, Beginning: -
July 1, 2013 1,895,430$ 476,765$
October 1, 2013 2,179,296 544,771
January 1, 2014 1,895,430 476,765
April 1, 2014 2,171,800 534,730
Total quarterly billings 8,141,956 2,033,031
Net expenditures 8,399,897 2,109,532
Excess of total billings over net expenditures (257,941)$ (76,501)$
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
4
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
5
NOTE 1 – THE REPORTING ENTITY
The Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos (the Members) participate jointly in the cost of
maintaining and operating the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and related system (the Plant). The
Members share the original costs of acquisition and construction of the Plant in the same proportions as
the allocation of capacity rights to them. The City of Palo Alto (the City) is the owner and administrator
of the Plant. The Cities of Mountain View and Los Altos are entitled to use a portion of the capacity of
the Plant for a period of 50 years as set forth in the Basic Agreement between the City, the City of
Mountain View and the City of Los Altos for Acquisition, Construction and Maintenance of a Joint Sewer
System dated October 10, 1968 and subsequent letters of agreement dated December 5, 1977, January 14,
1980, April 9, 1985, July 3, 1990, July 31, 1992 and March 16, 1998. The original agreement, as
amended, may terminate any time after 50 years provided that written notice of withdrawal is tendered ten
years preceding the date of withdrawal.
NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The Plant is an enterprise that is operated by the City and its operations are accounted for as an enterprise
fund in the City’s basic financial statements. The accompanying financial statements are intended to
present the Plant’s net expenditures and quarterly billings by the Plant to the Cities of Mountain View and
Los Altos pursuant to the agreement of the Members as described above and are not intended to be a
complete presentation of the Plant’s financial position or results of operations. Additionally, the capital
cost and the outstanding debt of the Plant are not presented in these statements but are presented in the
basic financial statements of the City.
In prior years, commitments representing operating encumbrances with suppliers were included as part of
the billing to the Plant’s partners. Starting in fiscal year 2014, the Plant did not include commitments in
their billing to partners. As a result, the expenditures in the statement of net expenditures represent actual
costs incurred and the statement no longer includes a provision for the change in commitments.
Plant expenditures, and joint system revenues, debt service and industrial waste compliance expenditures
are shared by the Members based on agreed upon allocation percentages. The expenditures and, including
indirect administrative expenditures (see Note 4), are allocated to each of the Members based primarily on
their respective percentages of the annual sewage flow and treatment needed for suspended solids,
chemical oxygen demand and ammonia. Revenues from services, fines and penalties are allocated to each
of the Members in the same proportions as those of expenditures. Debt service payments are allocated
based on percentages established at the time of bond issuance. Industrial waste compliance (Public
Outreach and permitting and enforcement) charges are allocated to Members primarily based on upon the
number of industries and efforts required to maintain compliance with sewage use ordinances and other
regulations from Environmental Protection Agency.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Notes to the Financial Statements (continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
6
NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The percentages used for the year ended June 30, 2014, to allocate expenditures and revenues were:
City of City of City of
Mountain View Los Altos Palo Alto
Public outreach, source control program,
operations and maintenance, system improvement
CIP and joint system revenues 38.75% 10.38% 50.87%
Debt services expenditures:
Refunding 1990 Series A Bonds 51.00% 7.80% 41.20%
1999 Wastewater Treatment New Project 37.89% 9.47% 52.64%
2009 State Water Resources Loan 37.89% 9.47% 52.64%
Permitting and enforcement 37.81% 2.24% 59.95%
The City is allocated 50.87% of total usage of the treatment plant. The City does not fully utilize its
percentage allocation. Therefore, the City has entered into separate contracts to allocate portions of its
excess to other entities. Fiscal year 2014 allocations are as follows:
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 6.24%
Stanford University 6.31%
Town of Los Altos Hills 1.41%
Remaining City percentages 36.91%
Total 50.87%
The agreement the City has with the above entities has no effect on the partnership agreement between
the Members.
Billings are made in advance and are based on the adopted budget for the plant and estimated sewage
flow. Excess billings (over) under net expenditures are offset against the subsequent year payments
during the second quarter of the subsequent fiscal year.
NOTE 3 – SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT CIP (MINOR CAPITAL)
The basic agreement between the Members, dated October 10, 1968, provides that the administrator of the
Plant is responsible for capital additions. These capital additions should be for the replacement of obsolete
or worn-out units, or minor capital additions to improve the efficiency of the Plant’s operations. Per an
addendum to the agreement dated March 16, 1998, the Members agreed that capital additions should not
exceed $1.9 million in 1998-99 (base year). For future years, the base year amount will be adjusted
annually based on increases to the Consumer Price Index-Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for
the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area. For fiscal year 2013-14, the adjusted capital additions limit is
$2,800,893. Actual System Improvement CIP expenditures amounted to $3,252,622 for fiscal year 2014.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Notes to the Financial Statements (continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
7
NOTE 4 – INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES
Indirect expenditures include those costs allocated from the City’s General Fund administrative services,
which supports all operating departments of the City. Other indirect expenses are administrative charges
from the City’s Internal Services Funds. These allocations are applied on a uniform basis throughout the
City. The allocations are in accordance with the subsequent letter of agreement dated April 9, 1985.
NOTE 5 – DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES
Debt service expenditures include principal repayments, interest expense and amortization of bond
discount reduced by any interest income earned from investments with the fiscal agent, related to the
1999 Series A Bonds (split for the portions used for the “New Project” and refunding of the 1990 Series
A Bonds) and the 2009 State Water Resources loan.
In prior years, the City, City of Mountain View, City of Los Altos, Town of Los Altos Hills, East Palo
Alto Sanitary District and Stanford University agreed to issue bonds (1999 Series A Bonds) to finance the
rehabilitation of the Wastewater Treatment System’s two sludge incinerators and to refund the existing
1990 Series A Bonds. In October 2009, the City approved the 2009 State Water Resources Loan to
finance the Ultraviolet Disinfection Project. The outstanding principal amount of debts as of
June 30, 2014are allocated as follows:
1999 Wastewater Refunding of 2009
Treatment 1990 Series A State Water
New Project Bonds Resources Loan Total
City of Palo Alto 1,553,111$ 533,521$ 2,884,164$ 4,970,796$
City of Mountain View 1,542,124 1,088,384 2,863,758 5,494,266
City of Los Altos 385,429 166,459 715,750 1,267,638
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 310,948 253,956 577,437 1,142,341
Stanford University 214,082 87,498 397,556 699,136
Town of Los Altos Hills 64,306 4,268 119,418 187,992
Total 4,070,000$ 2,134,086$ 7,558,083$ 13,762,169$
As required by the Indenture, the City established a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds (the “Reserve
Account”), with a minimum funding level requirement in the Reserve Account (the “Reserve
Requirement”). At the time it issued the Bonds, the City satisfied the Reserve Requirement with a deposit
into the Reserve Account of a surety bond (the “Surety Bond”) in the amount of $1,647,300 issued by
Ambac Indemnity Corporation (renamed to Ambac Assurance Corporation in 1997).
On May 1, 2013, Ambac Financial emerged from bankruptcy protection which had been filed under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in November 2010. Ambac Assurance remains subject to
rehabilitation proceedings undertaken by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. The
City is not certain about the effect of the proceedings, if any, on the Surety Bond.
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
Notes to the Financial Statements (continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
8
NOTE 6 – JOINT SYSTEM REVENUES
The Plant’s joint system revenues for the year ended June 30, 2014 total $365,520, which consisted of the
following:
Salt water marsh services 7,500$
Laboratory services from the City's Water Fund 58,660
Septic hauling services 240,731
Other revenues 58,629
365,520$
NOTE 7 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During fiscal year 2014, the Plant paid the City $2,218,178 for utility costs. Such costs are included in the
Statement of Net Expenditures as source control program, permitting and enforcement, and operations
and maintenance expenditures.
Vehicle replacement charges of $51,957 were paid to the City’s Equipment Replacement Fund, which is
included in the Statement of Net Expenditures as operations and maintenance expenditures.
Attachment A
CABLE TV FRANCHISE
Independent Auditor’s Report
and Statements of Franchise
Revenues and Expenditures
For the Years Ended
December 31, 2013 and 2012
Attachment A
CABLE TV FRANCHISE
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
Table of Contents
Page(s)
Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................... 1-2
Financial Statements:
Statements of Franchise Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................. 3
Notes to the Financial Statements ........................................................................................................ 4-5
Attachment A
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have audited the accompanying Statements of Franchise Revenues and Expenditures of the Cable TV
Franchise (Franchise) for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related notes to the
financial statements.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with the financial reporting provisions of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement signed on June 9, 2009, between the City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of
Menlo Park, the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara and the Town of Atherton for the
provision of cable television and video services as described in Note 1 of the financial statements.
Management is also responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant
to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement,
whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted
our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our
audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
revenues and expenditures of the Franchise for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, in
accordance with the financial reporting provisions of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement signed on June 9, 2009, between the City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of
Menlo Park, the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara, and the Town of Atherton for the
provision of cable television and video services, described in Note 1 to the financial statements.
Attachment A
2
Basis of Accounting
As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the financial statements are prepared in accordance
with the financial reporting provisions of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
signed on June 9, 2009, between the City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park,
the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara, and the Town of Atherton, which is a basis of
accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our
opinion is not modified with respect to that matter.
Restriction on Use
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the governing bodies and management of the
City of Palo Alto, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park, the County of San Mateo, the
County of Santa Clara and the Town of Atherton, and is not intended to be and should not be used by
anyone other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Attachment A
2013 2012
Revenues:
Franchise fees $ 1,738,703 $ 1,691,763
Expenditures:
Franchise administration 37,672 56,250
Consulting fees 4,335 3,600
Total expenditures 42,007 59,850
Net receipts $ 1,696,696 $ 1,631,913
Amount Percent Amount Percent
Allocation of Net Receipts:
City of Palo Alto $ 832,656 49.1% $ 810,493 49.7%
City of Menlo Park 450,460 26.5% 429,336 26.3%
City of East Palo Alto 165,557 9.8% 160,212 9.8%
Town of Atherton 120,600 7.1% 114,205 7.0%
County of Santa Clara 94,067 5.5% 85,227 5.2%
County of San Mateo 33,356 2.0% 32,440 2.0%
Total $ 1,696,696 100.0% $ 1,631,913 100.0%
CABLE TV FRANCHISE
Statements of Franchise Revenues and Expenditures
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
2013 2012
See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
3
Attachment A
CABLE TV FRANCHISE
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
4
NOTE 1 – JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT AND BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
In July 1983, a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement was entered into by and between the Cities of Palo
Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, the Counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara, and the Town of Atherton
(Members) for the purpose of obtaining a state-of-the-art cable service for residents, businesses, and
institutions, within each of their jurisdictions in the most efficient and economical manner possible.
On August 9, 2000, the City of Palo Alto (City), acting on behalf of the Members, signed a Franchise
Agreement with TCI Cablevision of California, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Broadband
(AT&T), third party contractor, which was granted a non-exclusive franchise to construct, operate,
maintain and repair a cable television system within the Members jurisdictions. In 2002, the Franchise
Agreement was transferred from AT&T to Comcast Corporation (Comcast).
TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. also signed an asset purchase agreement with Cable Communications
Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (CCCOPA), the former cable television system operator/owner, and
acquired the system.
In October 1988, the Members entered into a Joint Operating Agreement in which the City was granted
the power and the authority to administer and coordinate the activities of the franchise and exercise the
rights and responsibilities of the City pursuant to the Franchise Agreement. The activities are
administered by the City and are accounted for within the General Fund and the Technology Fund of the
City’s basic financial statements. The program is accounted for using the modified accrual basis of
accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recorded when susceptible to
accrual (both measurable and available) and expenditures are recognized when the liability is incurred.
On January 1, 2007, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) went into effect.
Under DIVCA, cable and video service franchises are now granted exclusively by the California Public
Utilities Commission (Commission) rather than by local franchising entities. On March 30, 2007, the
Commission granted AT&T a statewide franchise. Comcast was allowed to seek a state franchise after
January 1, 2008, when another state franchise holder (in this case AT&T) entered the local market. On
January 2, 2008, the Commission granted Comcast a state franchise.
On June 9, 2009, the Members approved an amended and restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, in
substitution of the existing Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and the Joint Operating Agreement, to
reflect changes in the law due to DIVCA and to continue to allow the City to administer the cable and
video franchise enforcement and monitoring process for state franchise holders.
The accompanying financial statements are intended to present the Franchise’s revenues and expenditures
pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and are not intended to be a complete presentation of
the Franchise’s financial position or results of operations.
As compensation for services under the state franchise agreements, AT&T and Comcast pay annual
franchise fees in an amount equal to 5% of annual gross revenues, taking into account a reasonable
adjustment for bad debts. From these fees the City is first reimbursed for out-of-pocket franchise
administration costs. The remaining fees are distributed to each Member according to the percentage of
revenues derived from the residents and businesses in each of the entities compared to revenues in total.
Attachment A
CABLE TV FRANCHISE
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
5
NOTE 2 – PRIOR FRANCHISE SETTLEMENTS
A prior Franchise Agreement with CCCOPA was set to expire on March 24, 2001. On June 21, 1999, the
City hired a cable communications consultant and retained the services of a law firm to assist in the
franchise renewal process. On July 31, 2000, CCCOPA reimbursed the City $185,000 toward the actual
costs incurred as part of the franchise renewal efforts.
On July 24, 2000, the City reached a settlement with CCCOPA in the amount of $220,000 to resolve
outstanding claims resulting from CCCOPA’s alleged failure to fully perform under the prior Franchise
Agreement.
On November 22, 2004, the City reached a settlement agreement with Comcast regarding cable plant
construction claims in the amount of $175,000. This money was to be used towards the institutional
network connection costs.
In 2006, the City conducted a franchise compliance audit performed by the City Auditor’s Office. A
settlement was reached in the amount of $155,391. In addition, CCCOPA paid the City a $250,000 grant
to acquire, install, and/or maintain equipment to be used in connection with an institutional network
defined in the Franchise Agreement.
The settlements and grant have been deposited and are being held by the City and earning interest. The
City has since spent a part of the balance on various projects including installing and maintaining the
institutional network equipment. As of December 31, 2013, the remaining balance on deposit with the
City, including $5,186 in interest receivable, was $791,240.
Attachment A
FINANCE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
Special Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Chairperson Berman called the meeting to order at 6:08 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman (Chair), Burt, Holman, Kniss
Absent:
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Items
2. Macias Gini & O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial
Statements as of June 30, 2014 and Management Letter.
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, reported the Office of the City Auditor
coordinated the annual financial audit as required by the City Charter and
the Municipal Code. Macias, Gini & O'Connell (MGO) issued an unmodified
opinion for all of the City's basic financial statements. That meant the
financial statements were presented fairly in all material respects. MGO
made two recommendations for the current year, both pertained to
determining actions the City needed to take to comply with new statements
issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). MGO also
reported on the status of four prior-year recommendations which pertained
to the City's Information Technology (IT) Department.
David Bullock, Macias Gini & O'Connell's (MGO), explained that an
unmodified opinion was the highest level of assurance that could be provided
by auditors. Restatements resulted from implementing new GASB
standards. All estimates were listed in the financial statements. MGO's
testing did not disclose material misstatements. MGO passed on one
misstatement as they did not believe it was material to the financial
statements. Nothing negative occurred during the year. The two current
recommendations were not deficiencies but informational. GASB 68, new
reporting standards for pensions, would significantly change the reporting of
Attachment B
MINUTES
Page 2 of 2
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Final Minutes 12/2/2014
pensions in financial statements. With respect to the prior year
recommendations, the City had been strategically addressing them as a
whole. Three remaining items were noted as in progress; although, there
was some question whether the Disaster Recovery Plan was in progress or
complete.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman to approve
the report on the financial statements as of June 30, 2014.
Council Member Burt was unsure whether the Motion contained the correct
action.
Council Member Berman advised that the Finance Committee should forward
the financial statements to the Council rather than approve them.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman to
recommend to the City Council approval of the City of Palo Alto’s audited
financial statements for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014, and the
accompanying reports provided by Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5446)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Close Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Approve Fiscal Year 2014
CAFR
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance
Authorizing the Closing of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, Including Re-
appropriation Requests, Closing Completed Capital Projects and Authorizing
Transfers to Reserves, and Approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
The Finance Committee and Staff recommend that Council:
Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) authorizing closing
of the Budget for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014 including the transfer of
remaining balances to or drawing from the appropriate reserves and the transfer of the
General Fund surplus of $4.0 million from the General Fund to the Infrastructure
Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund; and
Authorize the re-appropriation of FY 2014 funds into the FY 2015 Budget (Exhibit 2,
Attachment A to CMR #4962); and
Close completed Capital Improvement Projects (Exhibit 3, Attachment A to CMR #4962).
Approve the City’s 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Attachment B
to CMR #4962. An electronic copy is available at:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/asd/financialreporting, and hard copies are available
at the Administrative Services Department upon request.
Background
As is customary, the City Council is required to close out the City’s financial results at the end of
each fiscal year. At its December 2, 2014 meeting, the Finance Committee unanimously
City of Palo Alto Page 2
approved closing of Fiscal Year 2014 (Attachment C).
Financial Highlights for FY 2014
General Fund ended on a positive note, with $8.7 million increase to the Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR) from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 due to excess revenue
and expenditure savings.
In accordance with the City Council approved infrastructure Plan, the attached Budget
Amendment Ordinance includes a recommendation to transfer $4.0 million from the
General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund.
As approved as part of the FY 2015 Adopted Budget, $1.7 million of FY 2014 budget
surplus funds are carried forward to FY 2015 for FY 2015 Operating Budget one-time
expenditures.
Enterprise Fund highlights include:
o Water Fund implemented a rate increase of 7 percent effective July 1, 2013.
o Enterprise Funds combined ended the year with an increase in net position of
$4.6 million.
The City received a “clean” audit opinion for FY 2014 from the external audit firm,
Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP, Certified Public Accountants, a firm hired by the City
Auditor. The City also received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association for its FY 2013 CAFR- the
20th consecutive year.
Details that were presented at the December 2, 2014 meeting are included in Attachment C
and minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment D.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Closing of
the Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2014 (DOCX)
Exhibit 1 - Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Year End Adjustments (PDF)
Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations (PDF)
Exhibit 3 - Year End CIP Adjustments (XLSX)
Attachment B: FY 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (PDF)
Attachment C: Finance Committee Report, Dec. 2, 2014, Close Fiscal Year 2014 Budget
and Approve Fiscal Year 2014 CAFR (PDF)
Attachment D: Excerpt from the December 2, 2014 Finance Committee Minutes (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
1
ORDINANCE NO. XXXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AUTHORIZING CLOSING OF THE BUDGET FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2014
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and as set forth in Section 2.28.070 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the Council on June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year
2014; and
B. Fiscal Year 2014 has ended and the financial results, although subject to post-
audit adjustment, are now available.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 2.28.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
City Manager during Fiscal Year 2014 did amend the budgetary accounts of the City of
Palo Alto to reflect:
A. Additional appropriations authorized by ordinance of the City Council.
B. Amendments to employee compensation plans adopted by the City Council.
C. Transfers of appropriations from the contingent account as authorized by the
City Manager.
D. Redistribution of appropriations between divisions, cost centers, and
objects within various departments as authorized by the City Manager.
E. Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations which on July 1, 2013 were encumbered by
properly executed, but uncompleted, purchase orders or contracts.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby approves adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2014
budget as shown on attached Exhibit 1.
SECTION 4. The Council hereby re-appropriates Fiscal Year 2014
appropriations in certain departments and categories, as shown on the attached Exhibit
2, which were not encumbered by purchase order or contract, at year end into the Fiscal
Year 2015 budget.
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
2
SECTION 5. The Fiscal Year 2014 encumbered balances for the departments
and categories shown on Exhibit 4 shall be carried forward and re-appropriated to those
same departments and categories in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget.
SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed:
A. To close the Fiscal Year 2014 budget accounts in all funds and departments
and, as required by the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, to make such interdepartmental
transfers in the 2014 budget as adopted or amended by ordinance of the Council; and
B. To close and adjust various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as shown in
Exhibit 3 and move all completed CIP to their respective reserve funds indicated in
Exhibit 1; and
C. To fund the Budget Stabilization Reserve in accordance with the General Fund
Reserves Policy adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 7. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby
decreased by the sum of Four Million One Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Eighty Two Dollars ($4,127,682) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 8. The Water Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the
sum of Six Million Nine Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven
Dollars ($6,979,697) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 9. The Electric Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
decreased by the sum of Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars
($317,506) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 10. The Fiber Optics Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by
the sum of Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($519,000) as described in Exhibit
1.
SECTION 11. The Gas Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased
by the sum of Eight Hundred Forty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety Six ($841,196) as
described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 12. The Gas Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by
the sum of One Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Dollars ($174,000) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 13. The Wastewater Treatment Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
increased by the sum of Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($4,660) as described
in Exhibit 1.
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
3
SECTION 14. The Refuse Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the
sum of Nine Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($977) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 15. The Storm Drainage Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased
by the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four Dollars ($1,534) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 16. The University Avenue Parking Permit Fund is hereby increased by
Two Thousand Ten Dollars ($2,010) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 17. The California Avenue Parking Permit Fund is hereby increased by
Three Hundred Dollars ($300) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 18. The Federal Equitable Sharing Fund is hereby decreased by Two
Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars ($2,960) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 19. The State Deferred Revenue Fund is hereby decreased by Two
Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight ($2,198) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 20. The Stanford/El Camino Fund is hereby decreased by Four Hundred
Ten Thousand Dollars ($410,000) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 21. The Public Art Fund is hereby decreased by Four Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty One Dollars ($4,661) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 20. The Law Enforcement Services Fund is hereby decreased by Two
Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ten Dollars ($227,710) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 21. The Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund is hereby decreased by
Eight Hundred Twelve Dollars ($812) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 22. The Technology Fund is hereby decreased by Eight Hundred
Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Eight Dollars ($819,378) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 23. The Capital Projects Fund Reserve is hereby decreased by Three
Million, Eight Hundred Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,841,400) as
described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 24. Upon completion of the independent audit, detailed financial
statements reflecting the changes made by the Sections 7 through 18 of this ordinance
shall be published as part of the annual financial report of the City as required by Article
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
4
III, Section 16, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
SECTION 25. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 26. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that the enactment
of this ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and,
therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
SECTION 27. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Service
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Pages 1 of 7 11/19/2014
General Fund 2014
Category Amount Description
GENERAL FUND
Transfer to the
Technology Fund
63,000 Increase the Transfer to the Technology Fund by $63,000 to adjust for the
actual amount of the Technology Fee collected in the General Fund in Fiscal
Year 2014 ($1,163,000).
Transfer to IR
4,000,000
Transfer an additional $4 million to the Infrastructure Reserve in accordance
with the City Council approved Infrastructure Plan (June 9, 2014)
Salary and Benefits (1,106,000) Allocate funding for salary increases to General Fund Departments
Salary and Benefits 1,000,000 Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
Direct Charges 148,682 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
4,105,682
(4,105,682)
Salary and Benefits (149,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(149,000)
149,000
Salary and Benefits (52,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(52,000)
52,000
CITY MANAGER
Salary and Benefits 60,000 Allocate funding for salary increases from Non-Departmental
60,000
(60,000)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Rents and Leases 84,000 To recognize revenue for the Byrant Street rent
84,000
Salary and Benefits (408,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(408,000)
492,000
FIRE
Salary and Benefits 453,000 Allocate funding for salary increases from Non-Departmental
453,000
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
CITY AUDITOR
Source Changes
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Use Changes
Use Changes
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
Pages 2 of 7 11/19/2014
General Fund 2014
Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
(453,000)
LIBRARY
Salary and Benefits (155,000) Allocate salary and benefits savings to the Police Department
Salary and Benefits (166,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(321,000)
166,000
Salary and Benefits 593,000 Allocate funding for salary increases from Non-Departmental
Salary and Benefits 155,000 Allocate salary and benefit savings from the Library Department
748,000
(593,000)
Salary and Benefits (225,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(225,000)
225,000
Total General Fund Changes to BSR (4,127,682)
Reimbursements 4,000,000 Increase transfer from the General Fund in accordance with the City Council
approved Infrastructure Plan (June 9, 2014)
Source Changes Changes 4,000,000
CIP 158,600 Combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A,
Exhibit 3
Use Changes 158,600
3,841,400 Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
POLICE
PUBLIC WORKS
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
GENERAL FUND CIP (CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
11/19/2014
Enterprise Funds 2014
Cost Center Cost
Element Category Amount Description
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ELECTRIC FUND
Direct Charges (494) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
CIP (1,817,000) Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Use Changes (1,817,494)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves 1,817,494
Fund Balancing Entries
20000020 38040 1,817,494 Change in Electric Operating Fund Balance
Total Electric Fund 1,817,494
FIBER OPTICS FUND
CIP 23,000 Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Use Changes 23,000
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (23,000)
Fund Balancing Entries
20000020 38040 (23,000)Change in Fund Balance
Total Fiber Optics Fund (23,000)
GAS FUND
Salary and Benefits 54,000 Increase costs to cover additional labor expenses related to
pension and medical
CIP 80,000 Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Utility Purchases 120,000
Increase costs to cover additional gas commodity purchases
Direct Charges 196 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 254,196
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (254,196)
Fund Balancing Entries
20000050 38170 (174,000)Change in Gas Supply Fund Balance
20000040 38040 (80,196)Change in Gas Operating Fund Balance
Total Gas Fund (254,196)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
11/19/2014
Enterprise Funds 2014
Cost Center Cost
Element Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
WATER FUND 7
Reimbursements 200,508 Increase revenue for the sale of water to the City.
Source Changes Changes 200,508
CIP 81,000 Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Direct Charges 6,205 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 87,205
Net Changes To (From) Reserves 113,303
Fund Balancing Entries
20000060 38040 113,303 Change in Fund Balance
Total Water Fund 113,303
20021103 30010 Direct Charges (4,660) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes (4,660)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves 4,660
Fund Balancing Entries
20000070 38040 4,660 Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Treatment Fund 4,660
REFUSE FUND
Direct Charges 977 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 977
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (977)
Fund Balancing Entries
50050001 38040 (977)Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund (977)
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Direct Charges 1,534 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 1,534
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (1,534)
Fund Balancing Entries
50050001 38040 (1,534)Change in Fund Balance
Total Storm Drainage Fund (1,534)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
11/19/2014
Other Funds 2014
Category Amount Description
Direct Charges (2,010) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes (2,010)
2,010
Direct Charges (300) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes (300)
300
Non-Capital 2,960 Increase to cover additional non-capital p-card expenses for FY 2014
Use Changes 2,960
(2,960)
Operating Transfer 2,198 Transfer to General Fund
Use Changes 2,198
(2,198)
Interagency 410,000 Cost sharing expense between City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara for service
level improvements on Oregon Expressway
Use Changes 410,000
(410,000)
Salaries & Benefits 4,661 Increase costs to cover additional labor expenses
Use Changes 4,661
(4,661)
Facilities & Equipment 227,710 Citizen Options for Public Safety (COPS) Grant funding from the State of California
used to purchase front line law enforcement equipment
Use Changes 227,710
(227,710)
STANFORD/EL CAMINO FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
STATE DEFERRED REVENUE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
FED EQUITABLE SHARING
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
PUBLIC ART FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1
11/19/2014
Other Funds 2014
Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
Facilities & Equipment 812 Increase costs to cover additional non-capital p-card expenses
Use Changes 812
(812)
Transfer from the
General Fund
63,000 Increase the Transfer from the General Fund by $63,000 to adjust for the actual
amount of the Technology Fee collected in the General Fund in Fiscal Year 2014
($1,163,000).
Source Changes 63,000
Contract Services 710,000 Increase costs to cover technology related contractual services
Facilities & Equipment 172,000 Increase costs to cover radio and communication equipment purchasesDirect Charges 378 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 882,378
(819,378)
TECHNOLOGY FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
INTERNAL SERVICE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
General Fund
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
City Manager's Office General
Fund
35,000 Business Registry Certificate Program: At the April 29, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council
approved a recommendation to fund a Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance and Fee
Program as a full cost-recovery replacement/enhancement of the existing Use Certificate Process,
with funds from the City Council Contingency. Staff has not been able to work on this project due
to other competing priorities and the funding becoming available late in the fiscal year. Staff
committed to return to Council before December 30, 2014 for approval of the BRC ordinance and
program implementation and launch. CMR #4619
31070
City Manager's Office General
Fund
25,000 Electric Vehicle Consultant: At the May 13, 2014 Policy and Services Committee Meeting, an
ordinance was approved requiring all new multi-family residential and non-residential construction
to provide for current or future installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers at the recommendation
of the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Task Force. Funding was appropriated from the City
Manager's Contingency to hire a consultant to implement this direction and guide developers in
technical equipment decision making as well as provide training to staff during the review process;
however, since this was not approved until the end of Fiscal Year 2014, staff could not complete
the contract before the end of the fiscal year. CMR #4719
31070
City Manager's Office General
Fund
25,000 Ecological Footprint Analysis: A study is needed to assess the demand and consumption of
resources by the City as a whole compared to the availability of resources in the ecosystem
surrounding and supporting the City. The results will provide a Palo Alto Consumption Land Use
Matrix (CLUM) and the data from the CLUM will be used for the subsequent Climate Action Plan,
that is scheduled to be presented to the Council in fall 2014. Funding was appropriated from the
City Manager's Contingency to conduct this study; however, the project was not able to be done in
Fiscal Year 2014.
31070
Community Services General
Fund
297,834 Teen Programs: At the June 2, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council approved a
recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee to use the net revenue collected from
455 Bryant Street in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 ($213,834) to fund Teen Programs for Fiscal
Year 2015. Per Council action, the fund balance of $213,834 is to be reappropriated in addition to
the $84,000 in Fiscal Year 2014 proceeds for a total of $297,834. A long-term expenditure plan will
be brought to Council in fall 2014, including use the estimated revenue for Fiscal Year 2015 of
$84,000. CMR #4776
33000
Development
Services/Fire
General
Fund
50,000 Digitize Fire Prevention Records: This funding will be used to digitize historical records in the
Fire Prevention Bureau (FPB), and implement an electronic records management system for
historical and future documents with collaboration from the Information Technology (IT)
Department. This funding was appropriated in the Fire Department as part of the Fiscal Year 2014
Operating Budget; however, the IT Department is still developing a citywide electronic records
management strategy. As part of the Fiscal Year 2015 Operating Budget, FPB was moved from
the Fire Department to the Development Services Department. Reappropriation of these funds will
allow FPB to digitize and move their records into an electronic records management system once
IT implements a citywide solution.
31990
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 1 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
Library General
Fund
600,000 Library Publications: In Fiscal Year 2012, the library received a donation of $1.9 million from the
Palo Alto Library Foundation of which $1.4 million was appropriated to the CIP and the balance of
$500,000 was appropriated to the General Fund for the purchase of library collection materials
(CMR #2258). The remaining General Fund balance of $100,000 has been reappropriated through
Fiscal Year 2014 in anticipation of completion of the new Mitchell Park library. In addition, a second
donation of $1.2 million was received from the Palo Alto Library Foundation in Fiscal Year 2014
(CMR #4092) of which $500,000 is requested for reappropriation in anticipation of completion of the
new Rinconada library in Fiscal Year 2015. The balance of $100,000 from #2258 and $500,000
from #4092, for a total of $600,000, will be used for the purchase of collection materials in Fiscal
Year 2015 in order to provide library patrons with the most current publications and productions.
32230
People Strategy and
Operations
General
Fund
50,000 Temporary Salaries: Two employees, one working as a Human Resources Assistant and one
working as a Labor Relations Manager will be out on maternity leave for approximately six months
in Fiscal Year 2015. The PSO Department will have no vacant positions to start Fiscal Year 2015
to generate savings to hire temporary positions. Reappropriating Fiscal Year 2014 vacancy
savings will allow PSO to hire temporary staff to backfill for the vacancies in Fiscal Year 2015.
30030
People Strategy and
Operations
General
Fund
165,000 Management Development: Savings from Fiscal Year 2013 was carried forward to Fiscal Year
2014 to develop a citywide management training program; however, staffing resources were not
available in Fiscal Year 2014 in PSO to implement the program. PSO is fully staffed going into
Fiscal Year 2015, so this funding will be used for training programs in the following areas: Civics
and Citizen Engagement, Leadership and Talent Exchange, Budget, Finance and Procurement,
Interpersonal communication, Ethics and legal awareness, Presentation Skills, Business Writing,
Time Management, Project management, Change Management, SkillSoft for Computer skills,
Safety & Security and Personal and Professional Development.
33140
People Strategy and
Operations
General
Fund
25,000 Wellness Program: Funding will be used to create a holistic, accessible and fun employee
wellness program that encourages and supports healthy eating, work life balance, and an active
lifestyle. The City launched an RFP several months ago, and the Department has received several
responses and is in the process of reviewing the proposals; however, a vendor was unable to be
selected in Fiscal Year 2014.
Planning & Community
Environment
General
Fund
256,596 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan update is a large project involving significant
community engagement. The Plan is scheduled for completion at the end of 2015. Funds were
budgeted in FY 2014 and $56,596 is available for reappropriation in addition to the Council
approved a BAO on March 17, 2014 for an additional $200,000. These expenses include meetings,
advertising, supplies, note taking, and additional professional services to address unanticipated
events CMR #4554
31020
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 2 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
Police General
Fund
78,000 Police Utilization Study: In Fiscal Year 2013, funding was allocated for the department to hire a
consultant to conduct a utilization study of overall police operations; however the study was not
completed due to competing workload demands. The funds were reappropriated to Fiscal Year
2014 to conduct the study; however, the Technical Services Division had many other projects that
took precedence (Tri-City Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management System, Patrol Vehicle
Mobile Audio Video, etc.) and were again unable to conduct the utilization study. Reappropriation
of these funds will allow Technical Services staff to determine the scope of the study, integrate it
into their workload, and hire a consultant to conduct the study in Fiscal Year 2015.
31990
1,607,430$ Total General Fund Reappropriations
Other Funds
Fund Fund Rec. Amount Reappropriation Justification
Airport 530 50,000 Airport Legal Outside Counsel: Council has directed staff to take over the Palo Alto Airport prior
to the end of the lease (2017) with the County of Santa Clara. The 2015 Adopted Operating
Budget has assumed a Fiscal Year 2015 takeover. There are numerous documents that need to
be written, negotiated, and approved by the City Council prior to the City taking back ownership of
the operations. This reappropriation will allow for outside legal counsel that is anticipated due to
the workload of the City Attorney's Office and specific expertise needed in this transaction.
31010
Capital Improvement
Fund
471 65,000 Long Range CCTV Cameras: Reappropriating these funds will allow the Fire Department to
purchase a fire weather camera to replace the current outdated camera that is mounted by Fire
Station 8 in Foothill Park. This funding was originally appropriated as part of the FD-13000 CIP to
replace the existing fire weather camera and add a second camera with thermal detection
capabilities to act as an early warning system for fires in the foothills south of Palo Alto. The
technology needs for the project were reevaluated in Fiscal Year 2014, and it was determined that
the current funding will only be able fund the replacement of the fire weather camera.
Reappropriation of these funds will allow for the purchase of the replacement camera in Fiscal Year
2015. The second thermal detection camera will be brought back for Council consideration in the
future as a separate CIP.
38790
Storm Drainage Fund 528 45,000 Storm Drainage Pump Station: This reappropriation will allow for a repair to one of the 24'
pumps at the Storm Pump Station located at the Airport. During a routine inspection, it was
recently discovered that water was leading from one of the pumps, which could lead to larger
damages. The repair was not completed in Fiscal Year 2014 as a portion of the funding was used
for design and configuration of storm software, a maintenance contract for storm software, and
debris disposal. Funding will be used, in conjunction with Fiscal Year 2015 approved funding, to
repair the pump in Fiscal Year 2015.
31990
Technology Fund 682 35,000 Council Chambers Voting System Replacement: Reappropriating these funds will allow for the
replacement of the existing analog voting system in the Council Chambers, which is over 20 years
old and no longer supported by the manufacturer. This project was unable to be completed in
Fiscal Year 2014 due to other infrastructure and technology related projects that took precedence.
This project needs to be done separately from the other technology upgrades to the Council
Chambers, scheduled for Fiscal Year 2016, because there will be no way to electronically record
the votes if the system fails.
31230
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 3 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
Technology Fund 682 50,000 Virtual Private Network Upgrade: Reappropriating these funds will allow the IT Department to
complete upgrades to the Virtual Private Network (VPN) in order to enhance the security and
scalability of the computing network, create additional functionality and access of mobile devices to
the network, and ensure the City can upgrade to the most current operating system. This project
was approved as part of the application replacement funding in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget;
however, it was unable to be completed due to other infrastructure and technology related projects
that took precedence.
31290
Technology Fund 682 275,000 Virtual Private Cloud: Reappropriating these funds will allow the IT Department to implement a
primary and redundant storage area network through the Virtual Private Cloud. This project was
approved as part of the infrastructure replacement funding in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, and the
Department was going to award the project prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2014; however, a vendor
could not be selected to meet that deadline. This funding will allow the project to be awarded at
one of the first Council Meetings of Fiscal Year 2015, and allow the Department time to select the
best vendor.
35600
Technology Fund 682 - Application Maintenance: Reappropriating these funds will allow the Information Technology (IT)
Department to fund maintenance and support costs, that are unbudgeted elsewhere in the City, for
various technology applications that are used by other City departments and need to be upgraded
to maintain functionality.
31290
520,000$ Total Other Funds Reappropriations
2,127,430$ Total- All Reappropriations
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 4 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Attachment A, Exhibit 3
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Art Center Electrical and Mechanical Upgrades PF-07000 $ 13,000 Reduction to PF-93009 To transfer funds from PF-93009 (Americans
with Disabilities Act Compliance) to cover
expenditures at year end.
Transportation and Parking Improvements PL-12000 $ 46,000 Reduction to Infrastructure
Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Children's Theater Replacement & Expansion AC-09001 $ 7,600 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Temporary Main Library PE-11012 $ 123,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
To transfer funds from PE-11000 (Main Library
Construction) to cover expenditures at year
end.
Dimmer Replacement and Lighting System CC-09001 $ 6,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Safe Routes to Schools PL-00026 $ 38,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Curb and Gutter Repair PO-12001 $ 61,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 294,600
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
Americans With Disabilities Act Compliance PF-93009 $ (13,000)Increase to PF-07000 To transfer funds to PF-07000 (Art Center
Electrical and Mechanical Upgrades) to cover
expenditures at year end.
Main Library Construction PE-11000 $ (123,000)Increase to PE-11012 To transfer funds to PE-11000 (Temporary
Main Library) to cover expenditures at year
end.
Total $ (136,000)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ 158,600
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
1 of 4 1/12/2015
Attachment A, Exhibit 3
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
EL-89044 $ 18,000 Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 18,000
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
EL-10008 $ (130,000)Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-10009 $ (300,000)Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-11014 $ (400,000)Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-89028 $ (700,000)Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-89038 $ (305,000)Reduction as project being placed on hold.
Total $ - $ (1,835,000)
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND CIP MID-YEAR
ADJUSTMENTS
0 $ (1,817,000)
ELECTRIC FUND
2 of 4 1/12/2015
Attachment A, Exhibit 3
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Directional Boring Machine GS-02013 $ 18,000 Gas Fund Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Directional Boring Equipment GS-03007 $ 2,000 Gas Fund Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Gas System, Customer Connections GS-80017 $ 60,000 Gas Fund Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 80,000
TOTAL GAS FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ 80,000
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Fiber Optics Customer Connections FO-10000 $ 23,000 Fiber Optics Fund
Reserves
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 23,000
TOTAL FIBER OPTICS FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ 23,000
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Wastewater Collection
Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 22
WC-09001 $ 140,000 Reduction to WC-10002 To transfer funds from WC-10002 (Wastewater
Collection Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project
23) to cover expenditures at year end.
Total -$ 140,000$
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
Wastewater Collection
Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 23
WC-10002 $ (140,000)Increase to WC-09001 To transfer funds to WC-09001 (Wastewater
Collection Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project
22) to cover expenditures at year end.
Total $ (140,000)
TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND CIP
YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ -
FIBER OPTICS FUND
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
GAS FUND
3 of 4 1/12/2015
Attachment A, Exhibit 3
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Turnouts Regulator WS-07000 $ 74,000 Decrease to WS-08001 To transfer funds from WS-08001 (Wastewater
Reservoir Coating) to cover expenditures at
year end.
Emergency Water Supply WS-08002 $ 157,000 Decrease to WS-09000 To transfer funds from WS-09000 (Seismic
Water Tank) to cover expenditures at year end.
Water System, Customer Connections WS-80013 $ 81,000 Water Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total -$ 312,000$
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
Water Reservoir Coating WS-08001 (74,000)$ Increase to WS-07000 To transfer funds to WS-07000 (Turnouts
Regulator) to cover expenditures at year end.
Seismic Water Tank WS-09000 (157,000)$ Increase to WS-08002 To transfer funds to WS-08002 (Emergency
Water Supply) to cover expenditures at year
end.
Total -$ (231,000)$
TOTAL WATER FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
-$ 81,000$
WATER FUND
4 of 4 1/12/2015
2013-2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
City of Palo Alto, California
FISCAL YEAR ENDEDJune 30, 2014
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2014
2013-2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Prepared by:
Administrative Services Department
City of Palo Alto, California
CITY OF PALO ALTO
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION:
Transmittal Letter .................................................................................................................................... i
City Officials ........................................................................................................................................... vi
Organizational Structure ....................................................................................................................... vii
Administrative Services Organization .................................................................................................. viii
GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ............................................... ix
FINANCIAL SECTION:
Independent Auditor’s Report .............................................................................................................. 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
(Required Supplementary Information – Unaudited) ...................................................................... 5
Basic Financial Statements
Government‐wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ....................................................................................................... 29
Statement of Activities ............................................................................................................ 31
Governmental Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet .......................................................................................................................... 33
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to
the Statement of Net Position ‐ Governmental Activities ................................................. 34
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .................................. 35
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities –
Governmental Activities ................................................................................................... 36
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance –
Budget and Actual – General Fund ................................................................................... 37
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ....................................................................................................... 38
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position ................................... 40
Statement of Cash Flows ......................................................................................................... 42
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statement:
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ....................................................................................... 44
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ................................................................. 45
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ...................................................................................... 47
CITY OF PALO ALTO
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Supplementary Information:
Non‐Major Governmental Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................... 101
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................... 102
Non‐Major Special Revenue Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................... 104
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................... 106
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................. 108
Non‐Major Debt Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................... 114
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................... 115
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................. 116
Non‐Major Permanent Fund:
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................. 118
Internal Service Funds:
Combining Statement of Fund Net Position .......................................................................... 120
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and
Changes in Fund Net Position ......................................................................................... 121
Combining Statement of Cash Flows ..................................................................................... 122
Fiduciary Funds:
Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities – All Agency Funds ...................................... 124
STATISTICAL SECTION:
Financial Trends:
Net Position by Component ......................................................................................................... 127
Changes in Net Position ............................................................................................................... 128
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ....................................................................................... 130
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ..................................................................... 132
CITY OF PALO ALTO
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Revenue Capacity:
Electric Operating Revenue by Source ......................................................................................... 133
Supplemental Disclosure for Water Utilities ............................................................................... 134
Assessed Value of Taxable Property ............................................................................................ 135
Property Tax Rates, All Overlapping Governments ..................................................................... 136
Property Tax Levies and Collections ............................................................................................ 137
Principal Property Taxpayers ....................................................................................................... 138
Assessed Valuation and Parcels by Land Use .............................................................................. 139
Per Parcel Assessed Valuation of Single Family Residential ........................................................ 140
Debt Capacity:
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type .............................................................................................. 141
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt ............................................................................. 142
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin ................................................................................ 143
Revenue Bond Coverage .............................................................................................................. 144
Demographic and Economic Information:
Taxable Transactions by Type of Business ................................................................................... 145
Demographic and Economic Statistics ......................................................................................... 146
Principal Employers...................................................................................................................... 147
Operating Information:
Operating Indicators by Function/Program ................................................................................. 148
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program .............................................................................. 150
Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function .................................................. 152
SINGLE AUDIT SECTION:
Index to the Single Audit Report .................................................................................................. 153
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and
on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ........................................ 155
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A‐133 .................. 157
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .............................................................................. 159
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ......................................................... 160
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ................................................................................ 161
Schedule of Prior Years Findings and Questioned Costs ............................................................. 162
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto i
Transmittal Letter…………………………………………………...…
November 17, 2014
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Attention: Finance Committee
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
Members of the Council and Citizens of Palo Alto:
I am pleased to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014 in accordance with Article III, Section 16 and Article IV, Section 13 of the City of Palo
Alto Charter. The format and content of this CAFR comply with the principles and standards of
accounting and financial reporting adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
and contains all information needed for readers to gain a reasonable understanding of City of Palo
Alto financial affairs. Management takes sole responsibility for the completeness and reliability of
the information contained in this report based upon a comprehensive framework of internal control
that it has established for this purpose. The objective of internal controls is to provide reasonable,
rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of any material misstatements.
The City of Palo Alto’s financial statements have been audited by Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP,
Certified Public Accountants. The goal of the audit is to obtain reasonable assurance that the
financial statements are free of material misstatements and are fairly presented in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Macias Gini & O’Connell issued an unmodified
opinion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. Their report is presented as the first component of
the financial section of this report.
In addition, Macias Gini & O’Connell conducted the federally mandated “Single Audit” designed to
meet the special needs of federal grantor agencies. The standards governing the Single Audit require
the independent auditor to report on the fair presentation of the financial statements, government’s
internal controls and compliance with legal requirements. These reports are included in the Single
Audit section of the CAFR.
An overview of the City’s financial activities for the fiscal year is discussed in detail in the
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the CAFR. MD&A complements this
transmittal letter and should be read in conjunction with it.
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Manager
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
ii City of Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO PROFILE
Palo Alto was incorporated in 1894 and named after a majestic coastal redwood tree which lives
along the San Francisquito Creek where early Spanish explorers settled. Located between the cities
of San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is a largely built‐out community of approximately 67,000
residents. Palo Alto delivers a full range of municipal services and public utilities under the council‐
manager form of government and offers an outstanding quality of life for its residents. It covers an
area of twenty‐six square miles and has dedicated almost one‐third of the area to open spaces of
parks and wildlife preserves. Public facilities include five libraries, four community centers, a cultural
arts center, an adult and children’s theater, a junior museum and zoo, and a golf course. The City
provides a diverse array of human services for seniors and youth, an extensive continuing education
program, concerts, exhibits, team sports and special events. The independent Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) has achieved state and national recognition for the excellence of its
programs.
City Council: The Council consists of nine members elected at‐large for four year staggered terms. At
the first meeting of each calendar year, the Council elects a Mayor and Vice‐Mayor from its
membership, with the Mayor having the duty of presiding over Council meetings. Council is the
appointing authority for the positions of City Manager and three other officials, the City Attorney,
City Clerk, and City Auditor, all of whom report to the Council.
Finance Committee: While retaining the authority to approve all actions, the City Council has
established a subcommittee to consider and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the
Council relating to finance, budget, audits, capital planning and debt. Staff provides the Finance
Committee and Council with reports such as the CAFR, quarterly budget‐versus‐actual results, and
investment and performance measure reports, which are utilized in their review of the City’s
financial position.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK
Employment Trends: The City of Palo Alto is located in the heart of Silicon Valley and is adjacent to
Stanford University, one of the premier institutions of higher education in the nation which has
produced much of the talent that founded many successful high‐tech companies in Palo Alto and
Silicon Valley. With varied and relatively stable employers such as Stanford University, Stanford
Medical Center, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford Shopping
Center and businesses such as Hewlett‐Packard, VMware, Tesla, Palantir and Space Systems Loral,
Palo Alto has enjoyed diverse employment and revenue bases. At the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014,
the City’s unemployment rate had dropped to 2.8 percent from 3.6 percent the prior year, as
compared to Santa Clara County’s unemployment rate of 5.4 percent, and the state’s unemployment
rate of 7.4 percent.
Real Estate Market: In its most recent annual report, the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office noted
that Santa Clara County’s 2014/2015 assessment roll increased 6.8 percent, from $335 billion to $357
billion ‐ “the third highest roll growth in County history.” The assessment roll growth was balanced
throughout the County, with the highest growth rate in Milpitas at 9.7 percent and the lowest in
Monte Sereno at 5.3 percent. Palo Alto’s assessment roll growth rate was 6.5 percent. Property
sales and new construction were the primary factors contributing to the robust growth. With its
highly regarded school district, well‐educated and high‐income population, cultural amenities, and
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto iii
the presence of Stanford University, the City’s real estate values have typically been shielded from
major price swings.
Local Trends: The solid recovery from the Great Recession is anticipated to continue, as the majority
of national, state, regional and local economic indicators point toward continuously improving
economic growth. In the past two years, we have witnessed a continuing gradual increase in
economically sensitive revenue sources such as sales and documentary transfer taxes. The robust
local economy and job growth are also driving increases in other revenues, particularly transient
occupancy tax and permit and license revenues.
Overall, funding sources are expected to be sufficient to cover projected FY 2015 expenses, as
forecasted in the City’s Adopted Budget. The City Council adopted a General Fund budget with
expenses of $171.1 million for FY 2015, an increase of 7.1 percent from the prior year Adopted
Budget. Citywide, full‐time equivalent (FTE) benefited positions are increasing by 14.45 positions, or
1.4 percent, however the total budgeted position count for FY 2015 is still well below the number of
FTEs employed a decade ago. Pension and health care costs continue to rise. Employer pension
rates will increase substantially beginning in FY 2016 as a result of changes in the actuarial method
for calculating pension rates that were adopted by the CalPERS Board of Administration. The most
recent CalPERS valuations show unfunded liabilities for pension and retiree health benefits in the
range of $439 million, a significant increase from the prior valuation as a result of CalPERS changing
amortization and smoothing policies to use market value of assets instead of actuarial value. The
City has proactively taken steps over the past several years to mitigate increased costs by negotiating
increased employee contributions to the CalPERS retirement plan. Also, implementation of a second
tier retirement plan in 2011 and adoption of the state‐mandated third tier pension benefit plan in
2013 will help mitigate future pension cost increases. Similarly, the City is negotiating provisions
such as capping the City’s health care contributions as an additional measure to decrease the rate of
health care cost growth.
Economic growth has increased the demand for housing, parking, and other City services. These
issues were reflected in the setting of City Council priorities for 2014:
Comprehensive Planning and action on land use and transportation: the Built Environment,
Transportation, Mobility, Parking, and Livability
Infrastructure Strategy and Funding
Technology and the Connected City
In keeping with these priorities, City Council has approved funding for enhanced shuttle services and
establishment of a Transportation Management Authority. A newly formed Office of Sustainability
will oversee various sustainability initiatives, and the Public Art Program has been expanded to
facilitate oversight of the public art component of construction projects and manage the City’s
portable art collection. Major initiatives on the horizon include assuming management and control
of the Palo Alto Airport in August 2014 and a significant reconfiguration of the Palo Alto Municipal
Golf Course which will enhance playing conditions, improve wetland areas and achieve flood control.
The City’s infrastructure needs have been quantified as a result of a major effort by the Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC), and the recently formed Council Infrastructure Committee. The
Committee has proposed a five year plan to spend $126 million on infrastructure, which includes
projects such as a new Public Safety Building, a Bike and Pedestrian plan, and a downtown parking
garage. These projects will be funded partially by debt to be repaid with a proposed increase in the
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
iv City of Palo Alto
transient occupancy tax (TOT) rate and the TOT from newly opened hotels, and from other sources
such as impact fees and Stanford University Medical Center development agreement monies. The
City has taken steps to fund its infrastructure needs by increasing General Fund transfers by $2.2
million annually since 2013 for “keep up” costs. In addition, as a result of sound fiscal management
and reserve policies, General Fund surpluses of $7.6 million in FY 2012, $8.9 million in FY 2013, and
$4.0 million in FY 2014 were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve.
The City’s Enterprise Funds implemented minimal rate changes in FY 2014. There were no changes in
electric, gas, wastewater and refuse rates. Water rates increased by 7 percent effective July 1, 2013.
The Fiber Optics and Storm Drainage Funds both implemented a 2.2 percent rate increase effective
July 1, 2013 for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index.
Long Range Financial Forecast: The City of Palo Alto produces a 10 year General Fund Long Range
Financial Forecast (LRFF) annually. This comprehensive report analyzes local, state, and federal
economic conditions, short and long‐term revenue and expense trends, and addresses challenges
such as funding retiree medical benefits and infrastructure needs. The forecast is designed to
highlight finance issues which the City can address proactively. Moreover, it is a tool that allows
policymakers an opportunity to prioritize funding needs over time. Delivered to Council in December
or January, this forecast sets the tone and themes for the annual budget process that begins in
January. The forecast is one of the many tools and reports the City uses for financial planning.
The City Council is conscientious and proactive in its financial planning. While the LRFF projects
General Fund surplus positions over the next ten years, the Council remains fiscally prudent in
approving new ongoing costs that will increase the City’s budget. Further, the City maintains a
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) level of 15 to 20 percent of the General Fund
operating budget, with a targeted goal of 18.5 percent. City Council approval is required to set this
reserve balance lower than 15 percent. For FY 2014, after transferring $4.0 million to the
Infrastructure Reserve, the remaining BSR balance is $35.1 million, or 20.5 percent. $1.7 million was
set aside to balance the FY 2015 Operating Budget due to one‐time costs for expanded shuttle
service, establishing a Transportation Management Authority and the Our Palo Alto program, and
providing an additional loan to the Airport Fund. The remaining BSR balance of $33.4 million is
within reserve guidelines at 19.5 percent. Both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s (S&P) awarded
their highest credit rating of Triple A to the City’s general obligation debt. This rating has been
awarded to only a few cities in California.
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The City of Palo Alto is a community dedicated to meeting the social, cultural, recreational,
educational, commercial and retail needs of its citizens and businesses. As such, open space,
education, recreational facilities, cultural events and safe streets and neighborhoods are important
aspects of the community, and the City has been recognized for its accomplishments with a variety of
awards and recognitions over the past year:
Named as #5 on the Top 100 Best Places to Live and #8 on the Top 10 Best Cities for Kids by
Livability.com, a website that ranks quality of life amenities of America’s small and mid‐sized
cities;
Awarded the Beacon Award for efforts and leadership in addressing climate change and
achieving greenhouse gas reductions and energy savings;
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto v
Named as a 2014 Top Innovator by the Urban Libraries Council for the Library’s makeX: Teen
Mobile Makerspace, a teen‐designed “third space” for middle and high school aged teens;
Named as the 2014 Most Electric Vehicle Ready Community;
Awarded the 2014 Best Solar Collaboration Award for streamlining the solar approval
process;
Awarded the MetLife Foundation Community‐Police Partnership Award for crafting an
extraordinary partnership with Downtown Streets Team, Business and Professional
Association, Parking Committee and the Police Department to improve community safety;
Named as the #1 digital city in America in its population size for its adoption of innovative
technologies such as Open Data, PaloAlto311, Nextdoor and Police ride‐a‐longs via Twitter,
all of which advance and facilitate interaction between City staff, the community, businesses
and visitors; and
Awarded the 2013 Dr. Teng‐chung Wu Pollution Prevention Award to the City’s Regional
Water Quality Control Plant for being a leader in emerging pollutants research, education
and programming.
Awards: During the past year, the City received an award for the prior fiscal year CAFR from the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for “excellence in financial reporting.” The 2014
CAFR will be submitted to the GFOA award program to be considered for this distinguished financial
reporting award.
Acknowledgments: This CAFR reflects the hard work, talent and commitment of the staff members
of the Administrative Services Department. This document could not have been accomplished
without their efforts and each contributor deserves sincere appreciation. Management wishes to
acknowledge the support of Laura Kuryk, Accounting Manager, and the Senior Accountants, Staff
Accountants, Payroll Analysts and Accounting Specialists for the high level of professionalism and
dedication they bring to the City of Palo Alto. Management would also like to express its
appreciation to Macias Gini & O’Connell, the City’s independent external auditors, who assisted and
contributed to the preparation of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Special acknowledgment must be given to the City Council and Finance Committee for their
dedication to directing the financial affairs of the City in a responsible, professional and progressive
manner.
Respectfully submitted,
LALO PEREZ, JAMES KEENE,
Chief Financial Officer City Manager
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
vi City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto City Officials ………………………….…………
Finance Committee
Marc Berman, Chair
Patrick Burt
Karen Holman
Liz Kniss
Policy and Services Committee
Gail A. Price, Chair
Larry Klein
Gregory Scharff
Greg Schmid
Council‐Appointed Officers
City Manager
James Keene
City Attorney
Molly Stump
City Clerk
Donna Grider
City Auditor
Harriet Richardson
City Council
Nancy Shepherd, Mayor
Liz Kniss, Vice‐Mayor
Marc Berman
Patrick Burt
Karen Holman
Larry Klein
Gail A. Price
Gregory Scharff
Greg Schmid
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto vii
Assistant City Manager
(2) Vacant
City Attorney
Molly Stump
City Manager
James Keene
City Auditor
Harriet Richardson
City Clerk
Donna Grider
City of Palo Alto Organization ……………………………………
Palo Alto Residents
City Council
Community Services
Greg Betts, Director
Administrative Services
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer
Fire
Eric Nickel, Chief
People Strategy and Operations
Kathryn Shen, Director
Police
Dennis Burns, Chief Planning & Community Environment
Hillary Gitelman, Director
Utilities
Valerie Fong, Director
Public Works
Mike Sartor, Director
Library
Monique le Conge‐Ziesenhenne,
Director
Development Services
Peter Pirnejad, Director
Chief Communications Officer
Claudia Keith
Office of Emergency Services
Kenneth Dueker, Director
Office of Sustainability
Gil Friend, Chief Sustainability Officer
Information Technology
Jonathan Reichental,
Chief Information Officer
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
viii City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services Organization …………………………
Administrative Division Treasury Division
Accounting Division Budget Division
Purchasing Division Real Estate Division
Mission Statement
To provide proactive administrative and technical support to
City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and
facilitate the optimal use of City resources.
Administrative Services Department
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto ix
Government Finance Officers Association of
the United States and Canada – Award …...…
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of
City of Palo Alto, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Palo Alto,
California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial
statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of
contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes
the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted
our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and
the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinions.
2
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund,
and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2014, and the respective changes
in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and the respective budgetary comparison
for the General Fund for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
Change in Accounting Principles
As discussed in Note 1(m) to the basic financial statements, effective July 1, 2013, the City adopted the
provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 65, Items Previously
Reported as Assets and Liabilities. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s
discussion and analysis, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial
statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the
GASB who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial
statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited
procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods
of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s
responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our
audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the
information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an
opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual
nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, statistical section and the schedule of expenditures of
federal awards, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not
a required part of the basic financial statements.
The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules and the schedule of
expenditures of federal awards are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.
Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to
the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and
individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules and the schedule of expenditures of federal
awards are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the
audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on them.
3
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
November 17, 2014 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our
tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and
other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over
financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on
internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit
performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control
over financial reporting and compliance.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
4
This page is left intentionally blank.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 5
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) provides an overview of the City of Palo Alto’s financial
performance for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. To obtain a complete understanding of the City’s financial
condition, this document should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Transmittal Letter and Basic
Financial Statements.
Financial Highlights
The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City of Palo Alto (City) exceeded its liabilities at
the close of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 by $1,387.1 million. Of this amount, $454.2 million represents
unrestricted net position, which may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to
citizens and creditors.
At the close of FY 2014, the City’s governmental funds reported combined fund balances of $214.0
million, an increase of $3.1 million from prior year. Approximately 17.1 percent of this amount, or
$36.7 million, is unassigned fund balance and available for spending at the government’s discretion.
At the end of the current fiscal year, unrestricted fund balance (the total of the committed, assigned
and unassigned components of fund balance) for the General Fund was $42.1 million, or 27.5 percent
of total general fund expenditures, including transfers.
The City’s total outstanding long‐term debt decreased by $5.5 million during the current fiscal year
due primarily to scheduled debt retirement.
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 65, Items Previously Reported as Assets
and Liabilities. FY 2013 balances were restated to reflect the impact, as detailed in Note 1(m).
OVERVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR)
The CAFR is presented in six sections:
An introductory section that includes the Transmittal Letter and general information
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
The Basic Financial Statements that include the Government‐wide and Fund Financial
Statements, along with the Notes to these statements
Supplemental Information
Statistical Information
Single Audit
Basic Financial Statements
The Basic Financial Statements contain the Government‐wide Financial Statements, the Fund Financial
Statements and the Notes to these financial statements. This report also includes supplementary information
intended to furnish additional detail to support the Basic Financial Statements.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 6
For certain entities and funds, the City acts solely as a depository agent. For example, the City has several
Assessment Districts for which it produces fiduciary statements detailing the cash balances and activities of
these districts. These entities are independent, and their balances are excluded from the City’s government‐
wide financial statements.
Government‐wide Financial Statements
The Government‐wide Financial Statements provide a longer‐term view of the City’s activities as a whole.
They include the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities.
The Statement of Net Position includes the City’s capital assets and long‐term liabilities on a full accrual basis
of accounting similar to that used by private sector companies. Over time, increases or decreases in net
position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or
deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities provides information about the City’s revenues and expenses on a full accrual
basis, with an emphasis on measuring net revenues or expenses for each of the City’s programs. The
Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in net position for the year. All changes in net position
are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of
related cash flows.
The amounts in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities are separated into
Governmental and Business‐type Activities in order to provide a summary of each type of activity.
Governmental Activities ‐ All of the City’s basic services are considered to be governmental activities. Included
in basic services are the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative
Services, People Strategy and Operations, Public Works, Planning and Community Environment, Public Safety,
Community Services, and Library. These services are supported by general City revenues such as taxes, and by
specific program revenues such as fees and grants.
The City’s governmental activities also include the activities of the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation,
which is a separate legal entity financially accountable to the City.
Business‐type Activities ‐ All of the City’s enterprise activities are reported as business‐type activities,
including Water, Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm
Drainage and Airport. Unlike governmental services, these services are intended to recover all or a significant
portion of their costs through user fees and charges, except for the Airport which is currently supported by a
long‐term advance from the General Fund, as discussed in Note 4.
The Government‐wide Financial Statements can be found on pages 29‐31 of this report.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 7
Fund Financial Statements
The Fund Financial Statements provide detailed information about each of the City’s most significant funds
called major funds. The concept of major funds and the determination of which are major funds, was
established by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 and replaced the concept
of combining like funds and presenting them in total. Therefore, each major fund is presented individually,
with all non‐major funds combined in a single column on each fund statement. Subordinate schedules display
these non‐major funds in more detail. Major funds present the major activities of the City for the year. The
General Fund is always considered a major fund, but other funds may change from year to year as a result of
changes in the pattern of City activities.
The Fund Financial Statements display the City’s operations in more detail than the Government‐wide
Financial Statements. Their focus is primarily on the short‐term activities of the City’s General Fund and other
major funds such as Capital Projects, Water Services, Electric Services, Fiber Optics, Gas Services, Wastewater
Collection Services, Wastewater Treatment Services, Refuse Services, Storm Drainage Services and Airport.
Budget and actual financial comparison information is presented only for the General Fund.
Fund Financial Statements include Governmental, Enterprise, Internal Service and Agency Funds.
Governmental Funds
Governmental Fund Financial Statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting, which
means they measure only current financial resources and uses. Capital assets and other long‐lived assets,
along with long‐term liabilities, are presented only in the Government‐wide Financial Statements. In FY 2014,
the City had two major governmental funds, the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund. Data from the
other governmental funds are combined into a single aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each
of these non‐major governmental funds is provided in the Supplemental section of this report.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the Government‐wide Financial Statements,
it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented
for governmental activities in the Government‐wide Financial Statements. By doing so, readers may better
understand the long‐term impact of the government’s near‐term financing decisions. Both the Governmental
Fund Balance Sheet and the Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental
activities.
The Governmental Fund Financial Statements can be found on pages 33‐37 of this report.
Proprietary Funds
Enterprise and Internal Service Fund Financial Statements are prepared on the full accrual basis of accounting,
similar to that used by private sector companies. These statements include all of their assets, deferred
outflows of resources and liabilities, both current and long‐term.
Since the City’s Internal Service Funds provide goods and services exclusively to the City’s governmental and
business‐type activities, their activities are only reported in total at the fund level. Internal Service Funds,
such as Technology and General Benefits, cannot be considered major funds because their revenues are
derived from other City funds. Revenues between funds are eliminated in the Government‐wide Financial
Statements, and any related profits or losses in Internal Service Funds are returned to the activities in which
they were created, along with any residual net assets of the Internal Service Funds.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 8
The Proprietary Fund Financial Statements can be found on pages 38‐43 of this report.
Fiduciary Funds
The City is the fiduciary agent for certain assessment districts such as the University Avenue Area Off‐Street
Parking Assessment District. In this role, the City holds money collected from property owners and awaiting
transfer to the districts’ bond trustees. The City’s fiduciary activities are reported in the separate Statement
of Fiduciary Net Position and the supplemental Agency Funds Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities.
These activities are excluded from the City’s other financial statements because the City cannot utilize these
assets to finance its own operations.
The Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements can be found on page 44 of this report.
Notes to the Financial Statements
The Notes provide additional information that is necessary to acquire a full understanding of the data provided
in the Government‐wide and Fund Financial Statements. The Notes to the financial statements can be found
on pages 47‐99 of this report.
Other Information
The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non‐major Governmental Funds and Internal
Service Funds, are presented immediately following the Notes to the financial statements. Combining
statements and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on pages 101‐124 of this report.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 9
Financial Analysis of Government‐wide Financial Statements
This section focuses on the City’s net position and changes in net position of its governmental and business‐
type activities for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. As noted earlier, the City’s total assets exceed total
liabilities by $1,387.1 million at the end of the fiscal year, an improvement in net position of $52.8 million.
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
As of June 30, 2014
(in millions)
2014 2013 * 2014 2013 * 2014 2013 *
Cash and investments 271.8$ 261.9$ 269.5$ 266.0$ 541.3$ 527.9$
Other assets 55.8 58.4 34.3 42.3 90.1 100.7
Capital assets 452.6 428.9 545.5 522.2 998.1 951.1
Total Assets 780.2 749.2 849.3 830.5 1,629.5 1,579.7
Unamortized loss from refunding ‐ ‐ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources ‐ ‐ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
Long‐term debt 80.9 82.6 76.2 80.0 157.1 162.6
Other liabilities 56.9 52.1 28.8 31.2 85.7 83.3
Total Liabilities 137.8 134.7 105.0 111.2 242.8 245.9
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 386.7 378.1 473.8 446.1 860.5 824.2
Restricted 68.3 71.7 4.1 4.1 72.4 75.8
Unrestricted 187.4 164.7 266.8 269.6 454.2 434.3
Total Net Position 642.4$ 614.5$ 744.7$ 719.8$ 1,387.1$ 1,334.3$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
Governmental
Activities
Business‐type
Activities
Government‐wide
Totals
The largest portion of the City’s net position (62.0 percent) is its investment in capital assets such as land,
buildings, infrastructure and vehicles, less any related outstanding debt that was used to acquire those assets.
The City uses these capital assets to provide a variety of services to its citizens. Accordingly, these assets are
not available for future spending. Although the City’s investment in capital assets is reported net of related
debt, it should be noted that the resources used to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since
the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
The restricted portion of the City’s net position (5.2 percent) represents resources that are subject to external
restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of $454.2 million, representing 32.8 percent of
the City’s net position, is unrestricted and may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to its
citizens and creditors.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 10
At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all reported categories of
net position, both for the government as a whole, and for its separate governmental and business‐type
activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year.
Components of the $52.8 million increase in total net position are discussed in the following sections for
governmental activities and business‐type activities.
Governmental Activities – Net Position
The following analysis focuses on the net position and changes in net position of the City’s Governmental
Activities, presented in the Government‐wide Statement of Net Position and Statement of Activities.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Net Position at June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
2014 2013 *(Decrease)
Cash and investments 271.8$ 261.9$ 9.9$
Other assets 55.8 58.4 (2.6)
Capital assets 452.6 428.9 23.7
Total Assets 780.2 749.2 31.0
Long‐term debt 80.9 82.6 (1.7)
Other liabilities 56.9 52.1 4.8
Total Liabilities 137.8 134.7 3.1
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 386.7 378.1 8.6
Restricted 68.3 71.7 (3.4)
Unrestricted 187.4 164.7 22.7
Total Net Position 642.4$ 614.5$ 27.9$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
The City’s Governmental Activities total net position increased $27.9 million to $642.4 million as of June 30,
2014. Changes in assets and liabilities were a result of the following:
Cash balance increased $9.9 million primarily due to collection of the $3.2 million Maybell loan and
an increase in accounts payable of $5.0 million for Library capital expenditures.
Other assets decreased $2.6 million primarily due to collection of the Maybell loan.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 11
Capital assets net of depreciation increased $23.7 million due to continued construction of the
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center ($4.2 million) and the Main Library ($11.7 million), and
net additions to the City’s network of roadways and sidewalks ($2.3 million).
Investment in capital assets increased $8.6 million to $386.7 million. Restricted net position
decreased $3.4 million to $68.3 million. Unrestricted net position increased $22.7 million to $187.4
million. Unrestricted net position represents current net assets available to finance subsequent year
operations and other expenditures approved by City Council.
Governmental Activities – Revenues
The table below shows that Governmental Activities revenues totaled $166.4 million in FY 2014, a decrease
of $3.9 million from prior year revenues of $170.3 million.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Revenues by Source 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Program Revenues:
Charges for services 54.0$ 75.8$ (21.8)$
Operating grants and contributions 5.4 5.0 0.4
Capital grants and contributions 0.9 0.5 0.4
Total Program Revenues 60.3 81.3 (21.0)
General Revenues:
Property tax 35.3 31.9 3.4
Sales tax 29.4 25.6 3.8
Utility user tax 11.0 10.9 0.1
Transient occupancy tax 12.3 10.8 1.5
Documentary transfer tax 7.8 6.8 1.0
Other tax 1.8 3.7 (1.9)
Investment earnings 5.9 (1.2) 7.1
Rents and miscellaneous 2.6 0.5 2.1
Total General Revenues 106.1 89.0 17.1
Total Revenues 166.4$ 170.3$ (3.9)$
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 12
Total Program Revenues decreased $21.0 million from the prior year due to the following:
$8.6 million decrease in developer impact, housing in‐lieu, and transportation mitigation fees, all of
which vary depending on volume and magnitude of development projects.
$11.7 million decrease in receipts from a Development Agreement with Stanford Hospital Clinics,
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University (SUMC Parties). This was a one‐time payment received from SUMC in the prior fiscal
year.
Program Revenues such as charges for services, operating grants and contributions, and capital grants and
contributions are generated from or restricted to each activity.
General Revenues increased $17.1 million, or 19.2 percent, from the prior year, $7.1 million of which was due
to an increase in fair value of the investment portfolio at June 30. Further analysis of general revenues can
be found in the Financial Analysis of Governmental Funds section of the MD&A.
Governmental Activities – Revenues by Source
The chart below presents revenues by source for Governmental Activities. General Revenues are composed
of taxes and other revenues not specifically generated by, or restricted to, individual activities. All tax revenues
and investment earnings are included in General Revenues.
Program Revenues
36%
Property Tax
21%
Sales Tax
18%
Utility User Tax
7%
Transient Occupancy
Tax
7%
Documentary
Transfer Tax
5%
Other
6%
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 13
Governmental Activities – Expenses
The table below presents a comparison of FY 2014 and FY 2013 expenses by function, and interest and other
expense. Total Governmental Activities functional expense was $155.5 million in FY 2014, an increase of $15.8
million, or 11.3 percent. Of this increase, $7.3 million was a result of General Fund expenditures and the
variance drivers are explained in more detail in the Fund Financial Statements section of the MD&A. The
remaining $8.5 million variance is due primarily to fixed asset related activities such as depreciation and asset
retirements.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Expenses and Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Activities 2014 2013 *(Decrease)
City Council 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.3$
City Manager 2.2 1.2 1.0
City Attorney 1.8 1.6 0.2
City Clerk 0.6 0.3 0.3
City Auditor 0.5 0.5 0.0
Administrative Services 11.3 7.6 3.7
People Strategy and Operations 1.3 1.4 (0.1)
Public Works 24.6 20.8 3.8
Planning and Community Environment 14.9 13.6 1.3
Public Safety 62.9 59.5 3.4
Community Services 23.8 22.7 1.1
Library 7.8 7.3 0.5
Interest and Other Expense 3.4 3.1 0.3
Total Functional Expense 155.5 139.7 15.8
Increase in Net Position
before Transfers 10.8 30.7 (19.9)
Transfers in 17.1 19.3 (2.2)
Change in Net Position 27.9 50.0 (22.1)
Net Position, Beginning,614.5 565.1 49.4
Restatement due to GASB 65 ‐ (0.6) 0.6
Net Position, Ending 642.4$ 614.5$ 27.9$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 14
Governmental Activities – Functional Expenses
The functional expenses chart below includes only current year expenses. It does not include capital outlays,
as those are added to the City’s capital assets. Functions which comprise 1 percent or less of total expenses
are combined into the All Other category in the chart below. All Other includes City Council, City Manager,
City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor and People Strategy and Operations.
Administrative Services
7%
Public Works
16%
Interest and Other
Expense
2%
Planning and Community
Environment
10%
Public Safety
41%
Community Services
16%
Library
5%
All Other
3%
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 15
Business‐type Activities – Net Position
The following analysis focuses on the net position and changes in net position of the City’s Business‐type
Activities presented in the Government‐wide Statement of Net Position and Statement of Activities.
Increase/
2014 2013 *(Decrease)
Cash and investments 269.5$ 266.0$ 3.5$
Other assets 34.3 42.3 (8.0)
Capital assets 545.5 522.2 23.3
Total Assets 849.3 830.5 18.8
Unamortized loss from refunding 0.4 0.5 (0.1)
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 0.4 0.5 (0.1)
Long‐term debt 76.2 80.0 (3.8)
Other liabilities 28.8 31.2 (2.4)
Total Liabilities 105.0 111.2 (6.2)
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 473.8 446.1 27.7
Restricted 4.1 4.1 0.0
Unrestricted 266.8 269.6 (2.8)
Total Net Position 744.7$ 719.8$ 24.9$
* FY2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
BUSINESS‐TYPE ACTIVITIES
Net Position at June 30
(in millions)
The City’s Business‐type Activities total net position increased $24.9 million to $744.7 million as of
June 30, 2014.
Other assets decreased $8.0 million primarily as a result of lower accounts receivable balances of $5.7 million.
The lower accounts receivable balances are due primarily to:
$2.6 million in Electric Fund due to $0.9 million adjustment for a meter malfunction, with the
remainder due to a timing difference in billing of routes.
$2.1 million in Wastewater Treatment Fund due to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)
discontinuing its practice of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
Capital assets increased $23.3 million to $545.5 million in FY 2014 as a result of Water, Electric and Gas
infrastructure improvements. Additions include $9.9 million of capital improvements in Water, $7.7 million of
capital improvements in Electric, and $5.7 million of capital improvements in Gas.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 16
Net investment in capital assets increased $27.7 million to $473.8 million.
Unrestricted net position of $266.8 million, a decrease of $2.8 million from the prior year, represents liquid
assets available to finance day‐to‐day operations and other expenditures approved by the City Council. This
amount includes Council‐designated reserves such as the rate stabilization reserves (RSR) of $136.3 million,
the Electric special projects (Calaveras) reserve for stranded costs of $51.8 million, and the emergency plant
replacement reserve of $7.0 million.
Business‐type Activities – Revenues
The table below presents the revenues for each of the City’s Business‐type Activities or Enterprise Funds. The
City operates the Water, Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse,
Storm Drainage and Airport Funds, which are major funds and are presented in the Basic Financial Statements.
BUSINESS‐TYPE ACTIVITIES
Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Revenues by Source 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Program Revenues:
Charges for services 273.0$ 272.8$ 0.2$
Operating grants and contributions 0.5 0.6 (0.1)
Capital grants and contributions 2.0 2.2 (0.2)
Total Program Revenues 275.5 275.6 (0.1)
General Revenues:
Investment earnings (loss)6.4 (2.8) 9.2
Total General Revenues 6.4 (2.8) 9.2
Total Revenues 281.9$ 272.8$ 9.1$
Business‐type Activities revenues totaled $281.9 million, an increase of $9.1 million from the prior year.
Program revenues were flat year over year. Investment earnings increased $9.2 million from the prior year
due to an increase in fair value of the investment portfolio at June 30.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 17
Business‐type Activities – Expenses
The table below presents a comparison of the FY 2014 and FY 2013 expenses for the City’s Business‐type
Activities. Encumbrances and reappropriations are not included.
BUSINESS‐TYPE ACTIVITIES
Expenses and Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Business‐type Activities 2014 2013 *(Decrease)
Water 31.6$ 30.7$ 0.9$
Electric 113.0 106.5 6.5
Fiber Optics 1.7 1.4 0.3
Gas 26.9 26.8 0.1
Wastewater Collection 13.2 14.3 (1.1)
Wastewater Treatment 21.0 20.6 0.4
Refuse 28.4 28.6 (0.2)
Storm Drainage 3.6 3.7 (0.1)
Airport 0.5 0.2 0.3
Total Functional Expense 239.9 232.8 7.1
Increase in Net Position
before Transfers 42.0 40.0 2.0
Transfers out (17.1) (19.2) 2.1
Change in Net Position 24.9 20.8 4.1
Net Position, Beginning 719.8 699.8 20.0
Restatement due to GASB 65 ‐ (0.8) 0.8
Net Position, Ending 744.7$ 719.8$ 24.9$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
Business‐type Activities expenses increased $7.1 million for a total of $239.9 million. Year over year expenses
were significantly affected by the following events:
Electric Fund expenses increased $6.5 million primarily due to increased energy purchase costs.
Wastewater Collection expenses decreased $1.1 million due to the RWQCP discontinuing its practice
of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 18
FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Analysis of Governmental Funds
As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance‐related
legal requirements.
Governmental Funds
The focus of the City’s Governmental Funds is to provide information on near‐term inflows, outflows, and
balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s financing requirements. In
particular, the unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources
available for discretionary use as it represents the portion of fund balance not yet limited to use for a particular
purpose by either an external party, the City itself, or an entity that has been delegated authority by the City
Council to assign resources for use.
As of June 30, 2014, the City’s Governmental Funds reported combined fund balances of $214.0 million, an
increase of $3.1 million from the prior year. Approximately 17.1 percent, or $36.7 million, constitutes
unassigned fund balance, which is available for spending at the government’s discretion. The remainder of
the fund balance is either non‐spendable, restricted, committed, or assigned to indicate that it is: 1) not in
spendable form ($21.1 million); 2) restricted for particular purposes ($68.5 million); 3) committed for
particular purposes ($27.1 million); or 4) assigned for particular purposes ($60.6 million).
Governmental Fund revenues decreased $6.1 million, or 3.6 percent, from prior year to $164.7 million.
Revenues in the General Fund increased $9.1 million and Capital Projects Fund revenue increased $1.4 million.
Other Governmental Funds revenue decreased by $16.5 million primarily due to $11.7 million less in receipts
from SUMC Parties Development Agreement, and a decrease in developer impact and other fees.
Governmental Fund expenditures were $179.1 million, an increase of $18.9 million from the prior year.
General Fund expenditures increased $7.3 million, Capital Projects Fund expenditures increased by $7.0
million, and Non‐major Fund expenditures increased by $4.6 million. Details of significant changes are
discussed in the following sections.
General Fund
Balance Sheet
The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City. At the end of the current fiscal year, fund balance
of the General Fund was $48.3 million, compared to $42.1 million in the prior year. The fund balance has
been classified as $6.2 million non‐spendable, $5.4 million assigned, and $36.7 million unassigned. Of the
unassigned amount, $35.1 million is designated by the Council for budget stabilization. $1.7 million will be
used to fund one‐time expenses in the FY 2015 Operating Budget. The remaining balance of $33.4 million
represents 19.5 percent of FY 2015 expenditures and operating transfers which is within the reserve guidelines
set by City Council. Excess funds totaling $4.0 million were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve in the
Capital Projects Fund, as allowed by the General Fund Reserve Policy.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 19
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Revenues
The City’s General Fund revenues totaled $141.7 million in FY 2014. This represents an increase of $9.1 million,
or 6.9 percent, compared to the prior year. The year over year change in significant revenue sources is noted
in the following table.
GENERAL FUND
Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Revenues by Source 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Property tax 30.6$ 28.7$ 1.9$
Sales tax 29.4 25.6 3.8
Utility user tax 11.0 10.9 0.1
Transient occupancy tax 12.2 10.8 1.4
Documentary transfer tax 7.8 6.8 1.0
Charges for services 24.0 26.7 (2.7)
Permits and licenses 7.0 7.6 (0.6)
Rental income 14.2 12.9 1.3
All other 5.5 2.6 2.9
Total Revenues 141.7$ 132.6$ 9.1$
Property tax revenue increased by $1.9 million, or 6.6 percent, over FY 2013 for a total of $30.6 million. The
City’s property assessment roll growth of 6.5 percent was supplemented by better than expected receipts
from secured property taxes.
Sales tax revenue increased by $3.8 million, or 14.8 percent, over FY 2013 levels for a total of $29.4 million.
The increase was driven by strong retail activity in auto, electronic equipment, apparel store, restaurant, and
service station sales.
Transient occupancy tax continued to increase, and ended the year $1.4 million, or 13.0 percent, higher than
prior year due to strong business activity and increasing occupancy and room rates.
Documentary transfer tax increased $1.0 million to $7.8 million primarily due to a small number of high dollar
commercial property transactions.
Charges for services totaled $24.0 million in FY 2014, a decrease of $2.7 million from the prior year. The
decrease was primarily due to reduced golf course revenues of $0.8 million resulting from the course
reconfiguration project, reduced other fees of $0.6 million due to a one‐time adjustment to deposit accounts
in the prior year, and reduced net cable franchise fees of $0.7 million due to prior year under accrual of
expense.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 20
Rental income increased from prior year by $1.3 million due to increased revenue from Enterprise and Internal
Service Funds for renting space at City facilities.
All other revenue increased from prior year by $2.9 million to $5.5 million. The increase is due to an increase
in fair value of the investment portfolio at June 30.
Expenditures
General Fund expenditures totaled $134.5 million for FY 2014 compared to $127.2 in the prior year. This
amount excludes encumbrances and reappropriations. The year over year change for major functions is noted
in the following table:
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Expenditures by Function 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Administrative Services 3.0$ 3.1$ (0.1)$
Public Works 11.5 11.5 ‐
Planning and Community Environment 13.2 11.8 1.4
Public Safety 61.7 59.5 2.2
Community Services 22.5 21.5 1.0
Library 7.3 6.9 0.4
Non‐Departmental 8.0 7.4 0.6
All other 7.3 5.5 1.8
Total Expenditures 134.5$ 127.2$ 7.3$
The increase from prior year of $7.3 million, or 5.7 percent, is comprised mainly of the following items:
Police salary expenditure has increased $0.7 million primarily due to fewer vacancies in the current
year.
Police disability expenditure has increased $0.6 million due to several significant long‐term cases.
Fire overtime expense has increased $0.7 million due to coverage for vacancies and long‐term injuries,
and support for succession planning and career development.
All other category has increased $1.8 million due to reduced cost plan revenue from other funds, and
increased Library expenditures for books of $0.4 million.
Planning and Community Environment expenditures have increased as a result of contract services
that were necessary due to increased development activity and the complexity of development
projects.
Transfers out for FY 2014 were $18.8 million compared to $25.1 million in the prior year. Of the $6.3 million
decrease, $4.9 million was a decrease in the amount of year‐end surplus funds transferred from the General
Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 21
General Fund – Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ‐ Budget and Actual
Original budget compared to final budget
Revenues were originally budgeted at $143.0 million and were revised upward by $11.7 million. Of this
increase, $5.6 million was to adjust for encumbrances. Revenue categories that were adjusted are shown in
the table below.
GENERAL FUND
Budgeted Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Original Final Increase/
Budgeted Revenues Budget Budget (Decrease)
Sales tax 23.8$ 27.3$ 3.5$
Transient occupancy tax 11.5 12.3 0.8
Documentary transfer tax 5.7 7.4 1.7
Charges for services 24.3 22.7 (1.6)
Rental income 12.9 14.0 1.1
All other 54.3 54.9 0.6
132.5 138.6 6.1
Charges to other funds 10.5 10.5 ‐
Prior year encumbrances and appropriations 5.6 5.6
Total Budgeted Revenues 143.0$ 154.7$ 11.7$
Adjustments to the original budget were based on the following:
Sales tax was increased by $3.5 million primarily due to unexpected receipts from a single vendor in
the first two quarters of the year.
Transient occupancy tax was increased by $0.8 million due to higher occupancy rates, increased
average daily room rates, and increased business and visitor activity.
Documentary transfer tax was increased by $1.7 million based on increased real estate transactions
and higher transaction values.
Charges for services revenue was decreased by $1.6 million primarily due to reduced Stanford Fire
Services revenue of $0.8 million, reduced Development Services revenue of $0.4 million to provide
for unearned revenue at June 30, and reduced Golf Course revenue of $0.2 million due to the course
reconfiguration project.
Rental income was increased by $1.1 million due to additional rent from various Enterprise and
Internal Service Funds for space used at City facilities.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 22
Actual revenues of $141.4 million were $2.8 million higher than final budgeted revenues of $138.6 million due
primarily to sales tax revenue which was $2.1 million higher due to stronger than anticipated retail sales.
Expenditures were originally budgeted at $145.6 million and were revised upward by $8.0 million for a final
budgeted amount of $153.6 million, as shown in the table below.
GENERAL FUND
Budgeted Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Original Final Increase/ Actuals, plus
Budgeted Expenditures Budget Budget (Decrease) Encumbrances
City Attorney 2.5$ 3.1$ 0.6$ 3.1$
City Manager 2.5 3.1 0.6 3.1
Community Services 22.7 23.9 1.2 23.4
Public Safety 61.0 63.6 2.6 63.4
Planning and Community Enviornment 13.6 15.1 1.5 14.6
Public Works 13.8 14.4 0.6 14.1
All other 29.5 30.4 0.9 30.1
Total Budgeted Expenditures 145.6$ 153.6$ 8.0$ 151.8
Less: Charges to Other Funds (10.9)
Less: Encumbrances (6.4)
Net General Fund Expenditures 134.5$
Adjustments of $8.0 million to the original budget were primarily due to the following:
$5.6 million for carry‐forward of encumbrances from prior year.
$0.5 million adjustment for Measure D Ballot Measure in November 2014.
$0.2 million for Community Services park maintenance.
The final budgeted expenditure amount of $153.6 million compares to the actual expenditures plus
encumbrances of $151.8 million, a difference of $1.8 million. The lower than budgeted expenditures were
primarily due to non‐salary budget savings across General Fund departments.
Transfers out were originally budgeted at $14.1 million, with the final budget number at $19.1 million, an
increase of $5.0 million. The increase was due to an additional $4.0 million transfer to the Infrastructure
Reserve and $1.0 million transfer of collected Technology Enhancement Fees to the Information Technology
Fund. The actual transfers out for the year were $18.8 million, a difference of $0.3 million from final budget.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 23
Capital Projects Fund
Capital Projects Fund expenditures and other uses were $37.4 million in FY 2014, an increase of $6.8 million
from the prior year driven by construction and renovation of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and
Main Library. This level of expenditure is consistent with the City’s effort to rehabilitate and maintain its
existing infrastructure.
Non‐major Funds
These funds are not presented separately in the Basic Financial Statements, but are individually presented as
Supplemental Information.
Financial Analysis of Enterprise Funds
At June 30, 2014, the City’s Enterprise Funds reported total net position of $742.4 million, an increase of $24.4
million or 3.4 percent over the prior year. The increase was primarily from the Water, Fiber Optics, Gas and
Wastewater Collection Funds for $11.0 million, $3.1 million, $3.3 million and $3.5 million, respectively.
Further analysis is noted in the following section. Unrestricted net position for the Enterprise Funds totaled
$264.4 million, a 1.1 percent decrease from FY 2013.
Following is a table which compares the year over year change in net position for each of the Enterprise Funds:
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Fund Name 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Water 11.0$ 6.8$ 4.2$
Electric 1.7 1.9 (0.2)
Fiber Optics 3.1 2.8 0.3
Gas 3.3 1.3 2.0
Wastewater Collection 3.5 2.5 1.0
Wastewater Treatment (1.9) 0.8 (2.7)
Refuse 2.2 2.3 (0.1)
Storm Drainage 2.7 2.3 0.4
Airport (0.5) (0.2) (0.3)
Total Change in Net Position 25.1$ 20.5$ 4.6$
The most significant factors in the year over year change in net position for Enterprise Funds are as follows:
Water change in net position for the year was $11.0 million, an increase of $4.2 million from the prior
year. The increase is primarily due to a $2.5 million increase in operating revenues resulting from a 7
percent rate increase effective July 2013 and a $1.2 million increase in investment earnings. The
ending RSR balance is $20.1 million, an increase of $2.9 million from prior year.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 24
Gas ended the year with change in net position of $3.3 million, compared to $1.3 million in the prior
year, an increase of $2.0 million. The increase is due to a $0.8 million decrease in operating expenses
for the cross‐bore project and increased investment earnings of $1.1 million. The ending RSR balance
is $16.0 million, an increase of $4.7 million from prior year.
Wastewater Collection ended the year with change in net position of $3.5 million compared to $2.5
million in the prior year. The increased change in net position is primarily due to decreased operating
costs resulting from the RWQCP discontinuing its practice of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
The ending RSR balance is $7.3 million, an increase of $3.2 million from prior year.
Wastewater Treatment ended the year with a change in net position of negative $1.9 million,
compared to $0.8 million change in net position in FY 2013. The decrease of $2.7 million is due to the
RWQCP discontinuing its practice of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 25
CAPITAL ASSETS
GASB 34 requires that the City record all its capital assets, including infrastructure and intangible assets.
Infrastructure includes roads, bridges, signals and similar assets used by the entire population. The table
below shows capital assets and the amount of accumulated depreciation for these assets for Governmental
and Business‐type Activities. Further detail can be found in Note 6 to the financial statements.
Increase/
2014 2013 (Decrease)
Governmental Activities
Capital Assets
Land and improvements 79.0$ 79.0$ ‐$
Street trees 15.2 15.4 (0.2)
Construction in progress 89.9 69.2 20.7
Buildings and improvements 134.6 133.7 0.9
Intangible assets 3.8 3.8 ‐
Equipment 11.9 10.9 1.0
Roadway network 291.3 282.3 9.0
Recreation and open space network 27.6 24.9 2.7
Less accumulated depreciation (215.1) (203.8) (11.3)
Internal Service Fund Assets
Construction in progress 3.1 1.4 1.7
Equipment 51.1 50.9 0.2
Less accumulated depreciation (39.8) (38.8) (1.0)
Total Governmental Activities 452.6$ 428.9$ 23.7$
Business‐type Activities
Land 5.0$ 5.0$ ‐$
Construction in progress 122.2 118.2 4.0
Buildings and improvements 34.1 33.3 0.8
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems 675.8 642.1 33.7
Less accumulated depreciation (291.6) (276.4) (15.2)
Total Business‐type Activities 545.5$ 522.2$ 23.3$
CAPITAL ASSETS AT JUNE 30
(in millions)
Governmental Activities’ capital assets net of depreciation increased by $23.7 million from the prior year. The
increase was primarily due to construction of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, improvements to
the Main Library such as upgrades of structural, electrical and mechanical systems, and street and sidewalk
improvements throughout the City.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 26
In early 2010, the Palo Alto City Council established an Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to review
the City’s General Fund infrastructure needs and to recommend funding mechanisms. The Commission issued
a report in December 2011 in which they identified “keep up” needs and capital expenditure “new and
replacement” needs. Subsequently, a Council Infrastructure Committee was formed, and they proposed a
five year spending plan of $126.0 million for infrastructure projects. In June 2014 City Council approved the
Committee’s project list and their funding plan which consists of projected increases in transient occupancy
tax revenues from opening of new hotels, a two percent increase in the tax, and other sources such as the
SUMC Development Agreement and the Infrastructure Reserve portion of the Capital Projects Fund. The City
is funding “keep up” costs from the General Fund at the rate of $2.2 million per year and, as a result of sound
fiscal management and reserve policies, General Fund surpluses totaling $20.5 million over the past three
years were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve.
Major Governmental Activities’ capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital
commitment of each, are as follows:
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center ‐ $5.6 million
Main Library ‐ $6.8 million
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor ‐ $0.8 million
Business‐type Activities’ capital assets net of depreciation increased by $23.3 million over FY 2013. The
increase is due to Water, Electric and Gas infrastructure improvements.
Major Business‐type Activities’ capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital
commitment of each, are as follows:
Seismic water system upgrade for Water Fund ‐ $2.4 million
Gas main replacement project for Gas Fund ‐ $6.3 million
Plant equipment replacement for Wastewater Treatment Fund ‐ $3.5 million
Wastewater Collection Fund rehabilitation/augmentation project ‐ $1.1 million
The City depreciates its capital assets over their estimated useful lives, as required by GASB 34. The purpose
of depreciation is to spread the cost of a capital asset over the years of its useful life so that an allocable
portion of the cost of the asset is borne by all users. Additional information on capital assets and depreciable
lives are in Note 6.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 27
DEBT ADMINISTRATION
Each of the City’s debt issues is discussed in detail in Note 7 to the financial statements. At June 30, 2014, the
City’s debt was comprised of the following:
LONG‐TERM DEBT AT JUNE 30
(in millions)
Increase/
2014 2013 (Decrease)
Governmental Activities
General Long‐Term Obligations
Certificates of Participation
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements 1.5$ 1.6$ (0.1)$
General Obligation Bonds
2010 52.5 53.5 (1.0)
2013A 20.7 20.7 0.0
2011 Lease Purchase Agreement 2.0 2.4 (0.4)
Add: unamortized premium 4.2 4.4 (0.2)
Total Governmental 80.9$ 82.6$ (1.7)$
Business‐type Activities
Enterprise Long‐Term Obligations
Utility Revenue Bonds
1995 Series A3.3$ 3.8$ (0.5)
1999 Refunding 11.0 11.6 (0.6)
2009 Series A31.6 32.5 (0.9)
2011 Refunding 14.3 15.2 (0.9)
Add: unamortized premium 0.9 1.0 (0.1)
Energy Tax Credit Bonds
2007 Series A0.8 0.9 (0.1)
Less: unamortized discount (0.1) (0.1)‐
State Water Resources Loan
2007 6.8 7.2 (0.4)
2009 7.6 7.9 (0.3)
Total Business‐type 76.2$ 80.0$ (3.8)$
Long‐term debt decreased $5.5 million, $5.1 million of which was due to debt retirements in accordance with
repayment schedules. The remaining $0.4 million was due to reclassification of unamortized loss on refunding
of debt to deferred outflow of resources.
As noted in the Statistical Section of the CAFR, the combined direct debt ratio to assessed valuation for the
General Fund is 0.32 percent compared to the allowable legal debt margin of 15 percent.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 28
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT
Special assessment districts throughout different parts of the City have also issued debt to finance
infrastructure and facilities construction exclusively in their districts. As of June 30, 2014, the City had no
special assessment district debt with City commitment outstanding.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The economy of the City is discussed in the accompanying Transmittal Letter.
CONTACTING THE CITY’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The CAFR is intended to provide citizens, taxpayers, investors, and creditors with a general overview of the
City’s finances. Questions about this report should be directed to the Administrative Services Department, at
250 Hamilton Avenue, 4th Floor, Palo Alto, California. The Department can also be contacted by email at:
adminsvcs@cityofpaloalto.org. This report and other financial reports can be viewed on the City of Palo Alto
website at: www.cityofpaloalto.org. On the home page, select Departments, select Administrative Services,
and select Financial Reporting. Within Financial Reporting, there are links to reports by title and reporting
date.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Governmental Business‐Type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)252,280$ 259,286$ 511,566$
Receivables, net:
Accounts and intergovernmental 9,985 26,640 36,625
Interest receivable 1,355 1,352 2,707
Notes and loans receivable (Note 5)18,520 ‐ 18,520
Internal balances (Note 4)(1,429) 1,429 ‐
Net OPEB asset (Note 12)22,610 ‐ 22,610
Due from other government agencies ‐ 4,500 4,500
Inventory of materials and supplies, prepaids and deposits 4,741 488 5,229
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)19,606 4,166 23,772
Restricted cash for post‐closure landfill (Note 3)‐ 5,907 5,907
Capital assets (Note 6):
Nondepreciable 190,691 127,152 317,843
Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 261,912 418,343 680,255
Total assets 780,271 849,263 1,629,534
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Unamortized loss from refunding ‐ 412 412
LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable and accruals 14,456 15,540 29,996
Accrued salaries and benefits 3,154 1,465 4,619
Unearned revenue 2,384 352 2,736
Accrued compensated absences (Note 1):
Due in one year 3,912 ‐ 3,912
Due in more than one year 6,286 ‐ 6,286
Claims payable (Note 14):
Due in one year 5,665 ‐ 5,665
Due in more than one year 21,088 ‐ 21,088
Accrued landfill closure liability and post‐closure care (Note 9):
Due in more than one year ‐ 11,363 11,363
Long‐term debt (Note 7):
Due in one year 2,106 3,909 6,015
Due in more than one year 78,807 72,291 151,098
Total liabilities 137,858 104,920 242,778
NET POSITION (Note 10):
Net Investment in capital assets 386,696 473,795 860,491
Restricted for:
Special revenue programs 59,946 ‐ 59,946
Debt service 6,940 4,166 11,106
Nonexpendable ‐ Eyerly Family 1,445 ‐ 1,445
Total restricted net position 68,331 4,166 72,497
Unrestricted 187,386 266,794 454,180
Total net position $ 642,413 $ 744,755 $ 1,387,168
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
29
30
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Statement of Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Net (Expense) Revenue and
Program Revenues Changes in Net Position
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and Governmental Business‐Type
Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total
Governmental Activities:
City Council 387$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ (387)$ ‐$ (387)$
City Manager 2,180 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2,180) ‐ (2,180)
City Attorney 1,797 ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,797) ‐ (1,797)
City Clerk 641 ‐ ‐ ‐ (641) ‐ (641)
City Auditor 489 ‐ ‐ ‐ (489) ‐ (489)
Administrative Services 11,388 4,055 ‐ 917 (6,416) ‐ (6,416)
People Strategy and Operations 1,346 ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,346) ‐ (1,346)
Public Works 24,577 1,093 3,628 ‐ (19,856) ‐ (19,856)
Planning and Community Environment 14,926 12,896 1,289 ‐ (741) ‐ (741)
Public Safety 62,883 14,902 366 ‐ (47,615) ‐ (47,615)
Community Services 23,822 20,882 ‐ ‐ (2,940) ‐ (2,940)
Library 7,758 166 77 ‐ (7,515) ‐ (7,515)
Interest on long‐term debt 3,367 ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,367) ‐ (3,367)
Total Governmental Activities 155,561 53,994 5,360 917 (95,290) ‐ (95,290)
Business‐Type Activities:
Water 31,593 40,291 549 995 ‐ 10,242 10,242
Electric 113,004 121,916 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,912 8,912
Fiber Optics 1,661 4,485 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,824 2,824
Gas 26,869 35,737 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,868 8,868
Wastewater Collection 13,235 15,599 ‐ 1,010 ‐ 3,374 3,374
Wastewater Treatment 21,018 18,460 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2,558) (2,558)
Refuse 28,413 30,297 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,884 1,884
Storm Drainage 3,644 6,183 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,539 2,539
Airport 466 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (466) (466)
Total Business‐Type Activities 239,903 272,968 549 2,005 ‐ 35,619 35,619
Total 395,464$ 326,962$ 5,909$ 2,922$ (95,290) 35,619 (59,671)
General Revenues:
Taxes:
Property tax 35,299 ‐ 35,299
Sales tax 29,424 ‐ 29,424
Utility user tax 11,008 ‐ 11,008
Transient occupancy tax 12,255 ‐ 12,255
Documentary transfer tax 7,811 ‐ 7,811
Other taxes 1,849 ‐ 1,849
Investment earnings 5,859 6,379 12,238
Miscellaneous 2,575 ‐ 2,575
Transfers (Note 4)17,103 (17,103) ‐
Total general revenues and transfers 123,183 (10,724) 112,459
Change in net position 27,893 24,895 52,788
Net position, beginning of year, as previously reported 615,574 720,583 1,336,157
Restatement (Note 1(m))(1,054) (723) (1,777)
Net position, beginning of year, as restated 614,520 719,860 1,334,380
Net position, end of year 642,413$ 744,755$ 1,387,168$
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
31
32
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Governmental Funds
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Capital Other Total
General Projects Governmental Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Funds
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)42,013$ 57,841$ 77,434$ 177,288$
Receivables, net:
Accounts and intergovernmental 8,761 177 412 9,350
Interest receivable 642 8 341 991
Notes and loans receivable (Note 5)900 ‐ 17,620 18,520
Prepaid items 352 ‐ ‐ 352
Advance to other fund (Note 4)935 ‐ ‐ 935
Inventory of materials and supplies 4,001 ‐ ‐ 4,001
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)‐ 19,368 238 19,606
Total assets 57,604$ 77,394$ 96,045$ 231,043$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES:
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 4,094$ 7,459$ 122$ 11,675$
Accrued salaries and benefits 2,852 112 17 2,981
Unearned revenue 2,348 36 ‐ 2,384
Total liabilities 9,294 7,607 139 17,040
Fund balances (Note 10):
Nonspendable:
Notes and loans receivable 900 ‐ 13,424 14,324
Prepaid items 352 ‐ ‐ 352
Inventories 4,001 ‐ ‐ 4,001
Advance to other fund 935 ‐ ‐ 935
Eyerly family ‐ ‐ 1,445 1,445
Restricted for:
Transportation mitigation ‐ ‐ 10,616 10,616
Federal revenue ‐ ‐ 4,457 4,457
Street improvement ‐ ‐ 758 758
Local law enforcement ‐ ‐ 113 113
Library bond project ‐ 15,006 ‐ 15,006
Public benefit ‐ ‐ 30,578 30,578
Debt service ‐ ‐ 6,940 6,940
Committed for:
Developer impact fees ‐ ‐ 11,085 11,085
Housing in‐lieu ‐ ‐ 14,491 14,491
Special districts ‐ ‐ 1,457 1,457
Downtown business ‐ ‐ 112 112
Assigned for:
Unrealized gains on investments 672 ‐ 430 1,102
Infrastructure ‐ 3,383 ‐ 3,383
Capital projects ‐ 51,398 ‐ 51,398
Other general government purposes 4,760 ‐ ‐ 4,760
Unassigned for:
Budget Stabilization 35,083 ‐ ‐ 35,083
Reappropriations 1,607 ‐ ‐ 1,607
Total fund balances 48,310 69,787 95,906 214,003
Total liabilities and fund balances 57,604$ 77,394$ 96,045$ 231,043$
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
33
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to
the Statement of Net Position ‐ Governmental Activities
June 30, 2014
Total fund balances reported on the governmental funds balance sheet 214,003$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net position
are different from those reported in the governmental funds balance sheet because
of the following:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current assets or financial
resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds (Note 6)452,603
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of activities
such as insurance, equipment acquisition and maintenance, and certain
employee benefits to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the
internal service funds are therefore included in governmental activities in
the statement of net position (excludes capital assets reported above)58,134
Some liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the
current period and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds:
Interest payable (1,414)
Long‐term debt (Note 7)(80,913)
Net position of governmental activities 642,413$
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
34
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Governmental Funds
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Capital Other
General Projects Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Total
REVENUES:
Property tax 30,587$ ‐$ 4,712$ 35,299$
Special assessments ‐ ‐ 94 94
Sales tax 29,424 ‐ ‐ 29,424
Utility user tax 11,008 ‐ ‐ 11,008
Transient occupancy tax 12,255 ‐ ‐ 12,255
Documentary transfer tax 7,811 ‐ ‐ 7,811
Other taxes and fines 2,136 ‐ 2,095 4,231
Charges for services 23,962 ‐ ‐ 23,962
From other agencies 768 4,324 608 5,700
Permits and licenses 6,950 ‐ 2,040 8,990
Investment earnings 1,327 1,059 1,839 4,225
Rental income 14,215 ‐ 5 14,220
Other revenue 1,240 741 5,490 7,471
Total revenues 141,683 6,124 16,883 164,690
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
City Council 382 ‐ ‐ 382
City Manager 2,125 ‐ ‐ 2,125
City Attorney 1,793 ‐ ‐ 1,793
City Clerk 635 ‐ ‐ 635
City Auditor 487 ‐ ‐ 487
Administrative Services 3,033 ‐ 177 3,210
People Strategy and Operations 1,329 ‐ ‐ 1,329
Public Works 11,548 ‐ 891 12,439
Planning and Community Environment 13,209 ‐ 1,552 14,761
Public Safety 61,742 ‐ 286 62,028
Community Services 22,511 ‐ 133 22,644
Library 7,340 ‐ ‐ 7,340
Non‐Departmental 7,984 ‐ 151 8,135
Capital outlay ‐ 37,035 ‐ 37,035
Debt service:
Principal 374 ‐ 1,150 1,524
Interest and fiscal charges 55 82 3,059 3,196
Total expenditures 134,547 37,117 7,399 179,063
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 7,136 (30,993) 9,484 (14,373)
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in (Note 4)17,912 23,086 685 41,683
Transfers out (Note 4)(18,815) (260) (5,100) (24,175)
Total other financing sources (uses)(903) 22,826 (4,415) 17,508
Change in fund balances 6,233 (8,167) 5,069 3,135
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 42,077 77,954 90,837 210,868
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 48,310$ 69,787$ 95,906$ 214,003$
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
35
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities ‐ Governmental Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Net change in fund balances ‐ total governmental funds 3,135$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different
from those reported in the governmental funds because of the following:
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of
activities, the costs of these assets are capitalized and allocated over their estimated useful
lives and reported as depreciation expense. Therefore, the activities associated with
capital assets are as follows:
Capital outlay added back to fund balance for current year additions 37,589
Depreciation expense is deducted from fund balance (depreciation expense is net of
internal service fund depreciation of $2,544 (Note 6), which has already been allocated
through the internal service fund activities below (11,229)
Disposal of capital assets (3,502)
Principal payments on long‐term liabilities are reported as expenditures in governmental
funds when paid. The governmental activities, however, report principal payments as
a reduction of long‐term debt on the statement of net position. Interest accrued on
long‐term debt and amortization of bond issuance costs and premiums do not require
the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures
in governmental funds. Therefore, the activities associated with long‐term debt are
as follows:
Principal paid during the year 1,524
Change in interest payable (329)
Amortization of bond premium 158
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of activities, such
as insurance, equipment acquisition and maintenance, and employees benefits to
individual funds. The portion of the net revenue of these internal service
funds arising out of their transactions with governmental funds is reported with
governmental activities.547
Change in net position of governmental activities 27,893$
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
36
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts Final Budget
Actual, plus Positive
Original Final Encumbrances (Negative)
23,846$ 27,352$ 29,424$ 2,072$
29,613 30,251 30,587 336
11,545 12,318 12,255 (63)
Documentary transfer tax 5,699 7,395 7,811 416
11,013 11,386 11,008 (378)
2,107 2,107 2,136 29
24,379 22,741 23,962 1,221
8,346 7,952 6,950 (1,002)
769 769 1,042 273
12,891 14,004 14,215 211
252 345 768 423
2,010 2,000 1,240 (760)
132,470 138,620 141,398 2,778
10,574 10,574 10,947 373
‐ 5,571 5,584 13
143,044 154,765 157,929 3,164
2,453 3,137 3,111 26
1,088 1,058 1,027 31
1,258 1,282 1,122 160
497 709 580 129
2,499 3,092 3,078 14
7,280 7,363 7,244 119
22,700 23,888 23,402 486
60,962 63,628 63,403 225
3,265 3,761 3,622 139
7,793 8,254 8,072 182
13,608 15,150 14,637 513
13,751 14,380 14,138 242
8,496 7,907 8,413 (506)
145,650 153,609 151,849 1,760
(2,606) 1,156 6,080 4,924
17,529 17,910 17,912 2
(14,069) (19,139) (18,815) 324
3,460 (1,229) (903) 326
854$ (73)$ 5,177 5,250$
Unrealized gain/loss on investments 285
Current year encumbrances/reappropriations 6,355
Prior year encumbrances/reappropriations (5,584)
6,233
42,077
48,310$
REVENUES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ‐ Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Charges to other funds
Sales tax
Property tax
Transient occupancy tax
Utility user tax
Other taxes, fines and penalties
Charges for services
Permits and licenses
Investment earnings
Rental income
From other agencies
Other revenues
Public Safety
Prior year encumbrances and reappropriations
Total revenues
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
City Attorney
City Auditor
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Administrative Services
Community Services
Total other financing sources (uses)
People Strategy and Operations
Library
Planning and Community Environment
Public Works
Non‐Departmental
Total expenditures
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in
Transfers out
FUND BALANCE AT BEGINNING OF YEAR, GAAP BASIS
FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR, GAAP BASIS
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES, BUDGETARY BASIS
Adjustment to Budgetary Basis:
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE, GAAP BASIS
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
37
Fiber
Water Electric Optics Gas
ASSETS:
Current assets:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)35,770$ 133,501$ 19,616$ 28,113$
Accounts receivable, net 5,012 11,225 443 2,386
Interest receivable 180 677 91 158
Due from other government agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Inventory of materials and supplies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)3,331 ‐ ‐ 835
Restricted cash for landfill closure (Note 3)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total current assets 44,293 145,403 20,150 31,492
Noncurrent assets:
Due from other government agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Deposit ‐ 113 ‐ ‐
Prepaid expense 125 ‐ ‐ ‐
Capital assets (Note 6):
Nondepreciable 51,100 18,562 1,256 13,523
Depreciable, net 61,826 158,603 6,259 83,902
Net OPEB asset (Note 12)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total noncurrent assets 113,051 177,278 7,515 97,425
Total assets 157,344 322,681 27,665 128,917
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Unamortized loss from refunding 155 ‐ ‐ 202
LIABILITIES:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 3,911 4,575 185 2,349
Accrued salaries and benefits 204 476 32 224
Unearned revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accrued compensated absences (Note 1)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Current portion of revenue bonds (Note 7)1,404 100 ‐ 536
Accrued claims payable (Note 14)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total current liabilities 5,519 5,151 217 3,109
Noncurrent liabilities:
Accrued compensated absences (Note 1)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accrued claims payable (Note 14)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Advance from other fund (Note 4)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Landfill closure and post‐closure care (Note 9)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Utility revenue bonds, net of
unamortized discounts/premiums (Note 7)37,822 657 ‐ 7,906
Total noncurrent liabilities 37,822 657 ‐ 7,906
Total liabilities 43,341 5,808 217 11,015
NET POSITION (Note 10):
Net Investment in capital assets 73,700 176,408 7,515 88,983
Restricted for debt service 3,331 ‐ ‐ 835
Unrestricted (deficit)37,127 140,465 19,933 28,286
Total net position 114,158$ 316,873$ 27,448$ 118,104$
Some amounts reported for Business‐type Activities in the statement of net position are different because certain
Internal Service Fund net positions are included with Business‐type Activities
Net position reported in Business‐type Activities
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
38
Governmental
Activities ‐
Wastewater Wastewater Storm Internal Service
Collection Treatment Refuse Drainage Airport Totals Funds
15,465$ 13,760$ 5,148$ 7,802$ 111$ 259,286$ 74,992$
1,798 2,100 3,035 641 ‐ 26,640 635
74 81 53 37 1 1,352 364
‐ 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 388
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,166 ‐
‐ ‐ 5,907 ‐ ‐ 5,907 ‐
17,337 16,241 14,143 8,480 112 297,651 76,379
‐ 4,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,200 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 113 ‐
‐ 250 ‐ ‐ ‐ 375 ‐
20,563 7,925 5,875 8,348 ‐ 127,152 3,094
54,278 31,449 244 21,782 ‐ 418,343 11,259
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,610
74,841 43,824 6,119 30,130 ‐ 550,183 36,963
92,178 60,065 20,262 38,610 112 847,834 113,342
‐ ‐ ‐ 55 ‐ 412 ‐
605 1,200 2,330 336 49 15,540 1,367
135 273 76 39 6 1,465 173
‐ ‐ ‐ 352 ‐ 352 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,912
77 1,252 ‐ 540 ‐ 3,909 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,665
817 2,725 2,406 1,267 55 21,266 11,117
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,088
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 935 935 ‐
‐ ‐ 11,363 ‐ ‐ 11,363 ‐
901 18,490 ‐ 6,515 ‐ 72,291 ‐
901 18,490 11,363 6,515 935 84,589 27,374
1,718 21,215 13,769 7,782 990 105,855 38,491
73,863 24,132 6,119 23,075 ‐ 473,795 14,353
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,166 ‐
16,597 14,718 374 7,808 (878) 264,430 60,498
90,460$ 38,850$ 6,493$ 30,883$ (878)$ 742,391 74,851$
2,364
744,755$
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
39
Fiber
Water Electric Optics Gas
OPERATING REVENUES:
Sales of utilities:
Customers 36,387$ 106,056$ 3,598$ 33,990$
City departments 2,061 3,225 749 852
Surplus energy ‐ 336 ‐ ‐
Service connection charges and miscellaneous 982 2,327 131 654
Charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other 861 9,972 7 241
Total operating revenues 40,291 121,916 4,485 35,737
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Purchase of utilities:
Retail 15,705 68,089 ‐ 14,325
Surplus energy ‐ 697 ‐ ‐
Administrative and general 4,044 6,172 399 4,041
Engineering (operating)381 1,280 ‐ 352
Resource management and energy efficiency 570 6,726 ‐ 1,012
Operations and maintenance 4,986 9,489 909 4,119
Rent 2,192 3,860 51 429
Depreciation and amortization 1,734 7,504 303 2,282
Claims payments and changes in
estimated self‐insurance liability ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Refund of charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Compensated absences and other benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total operating expenses 29,612 103,817 1,662 26,560
Operating income (loss)10,679 18,099 2,823 9,177
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
Investment earnings 975 3,122 433 706
Interest expense (1,915) (8,924) ‐ (282)
Loss on disposal of capital assets (66) (271) ‐ (27)
Other nonoperating revenues 549 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(457) (6,073) 433 397
Income (loss) before transfers and capital contributions 10,222 12,026 3,256 9,574
Capital contributions 995 ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in (Note 4)271 1,089 ‐ 151
Transfers out (Note 4)(530) (11,460) (134) (6,417)
Change in net position 10,958 1,655 3,122 3,308
NET POSITION (DEFICIT), BEGINNING OF YEAR, AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED 103,595 315,262 24,326 114,901
RESTATEMENT (Note 1(m))(395) (44) ‐ (105)
NET POSITION (DEFICIT), BEGINNING OF YEAR, AS RESTATED 103,200 315,218 24,326 114,796
NET POSITION (DEFICIT), END OF YEAR 114,158$ 316,873$ 27,448$ 118,104$
Some amounts reported for Business‐type Activities in the statement of activities are different because certain
Internal Service Fund activities are included with Business‐type Activities
Change in net position reported in Business‐type Activities
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
40
Governmental
Activities‐
Wastewater Wastewater Storm Internal Service
Collection Treatment Refuse Drainage Airport Totals Funds
14,518$ 11,292$ 26,045$ 5,717$ ‐$ 237,603$ ‐$
69 6,915 790 346 ‐ 15,007 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 336 ‐
693 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,787 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77,167
319 253 3,462 120 ‐ 15,235 472
15,599 18,460 30,297 6,183 ‐ 272,968 77,639
6,863 ‐ 13,943 ‐ ‐ 118,925 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 697 ‐
1,322 ‐ 1,889 559 417 18,843 10,766
310 1,801 225 410 ‐ 4,759 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 305 ‐ 8,613 ‐
2,570 15,589 9,103 955 ‐ 47,720 21,481
217 ‐ 2,629 33 ‐ 9,411 ‐
1,907 2,858 13 897 ‐ 17,498 2,544
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,232
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,337
13,189 20,248 27,802 3,159 417 226,466 78,431
2,410 (1,788) 2,495 3,024 (417) 46,502 (792)
339 364 257 178 5 6,379 1,634
(54) (573) (617) (436) (49) (12,850) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (364) (155)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 549 42
285 (209) (360) (258) (44) (6,286) 1,521
2,695 (1,997) 2,135 2,766 (461) 40,216 729
1,010 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,005 ‐
42 59 124 14 ‐ 1,750 1,413
(241) ‐ (29) (42) ‐ (18,853) (1,818)
3,506 (1,938) 2,230 2,738 (461) 25,118 324
86,972 40,906 4,263 28,188 (417) 74,527
(18) (118) ‐ (43) ‐ ‐
86,954 40,788 4,263 28,145 (417) 74,527
90,460$ 38,850$ 6,493$ 30,883$ (878)$ 74,851$
(223)
24,895$
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
41
Fiber
Water Electric Optics Gas
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 37,939$ 111,361$ 4,639$ 34,689$
Cash refunds to customers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (25,910) (87,661) (1,015) (21,911)
Cash payments to employees (4,011) (6,097) (398) (4,018)
Internal activity‐ receipts (payment) from (to) other funds 2,061 3,225 749 852
Other receipts 861 9,972 7 241
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities 10,940 30,800 3,982 9,853
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Receipt of loans from other funds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Interest subsidy received from Build America Bond 549 ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in 271 1,089 ‐ 151
Transfers out (530) (11,460) (134) (6,417)
Cash flows provided by (used in) noncapital financing activities 290 (10,371) (134) (6,266)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (8,149) (12,175) (507) (8,879)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets ‐ 24 ‐ ‐
Capital grants and contributions 995 ‐ ‐ ‐
Principal paid on long‐term debt (1,360) (100) ‐ (520)
Interest paid on long‐term debt (1,905) (8,923) ‐ (282)
Cash flows used in capital and related
financing activities (10,419) (21,174) (507) (9,681)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest received 982 3,228 428 758
Cash flows from investing activities 982 3,228 428 758
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 1,793 2,483 3,769 (5,336)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 37,308 131,018 15,847 34,284
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 39,101 $ 133,501 $ 19,616 $ 28,948
Financial statement presentation:
Cash and investments available for operations 35,770$ 133,501$ 19,616$ 28,113$
Cash and investments with fiscal agent 3,331 ‐ ‐ 835
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year 39,101$ 133,501$ 19,616$ 28,948$
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Operating income (loss)10,679$ 18,099$ 2,823$ 9,177$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization 1,734 7,504 303 2,282
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Change in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable 570 2,642 910 45
Inventory of materials and supplies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Deposit ‐ (45) ‐ ‐
Net OPEB asset ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accounts payable and accruals (2,076) 2,525 (55) (1,674)
Accrued salaries and benefits 33 75 1 23
Accrued compensated absences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Unearned revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Landfill closure and post‐closure care ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accrued claims payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities $ 10,940 $ 30,800 $ 3,982 $ 9,853
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
42
Governmental
Activities‐
Wastewater Wastewater Storm Internal Service
Collection Treatment Refuse Drainage Airport Totals Funds
15,434$ 13,480$ 26,423$ 5,445$ ‐$ 249,410$ 77,945$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (71)
(9,961) (18,789) (25,589) (1,823) ‐ (192,659) (21,697)
(1,295) ‐ (1,885) (554) (395) (18,653) (52,575)
69 6,915 790 346 ‐ 15,007 (4,224)
319 253 3,630 120 ‐ 15,403 42
4,566 1,859 3,369 3,534 (395) 68,508 (580)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 325 325 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 549 ‐
42 59 124 14 ‐ 1,750 1,413
(241) ‐ (29) (42) ‐ (18,853) (1,818)
(199) 59 95 (28) 325 (16,229) (405)
(5,075) (3,253) (1,661) (1,451) ‐ (41,150) (3,652)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24 150
1,010 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,305 ‐
(74) (1,216) ‐ (510) ‐ (3,780) ‐
(53) (556) (618) (435) (49) (12,821) ‐
(4,192) (4,725) (2,279) (2,396) (49) (55,422) (3,502)
354 381 256 180 5 6,572 1,657
354 381 256 180 5 6,572 1,657
529 (2,426) 1,441 1,290 (114) 3,429 (2,830)
14,936 16,186 9,614 6,512 225 265,930 77,822
$ 15,465 $ 13,760 $ 11,055 $ 7,802 $ 111 $ 269,359 $ 74,992
15,465$ 13,760$ 5,148$ 7,802$ 111$ 259,286$ 74,992$
‐ ‐ 5,907 ‐ ‐ 10,073 ‐
15,465$ 13,760$ 11,055$ 7,802$ 111$ 269,359$ 74,992$
2,410$ (1,788)$ 2,495$ 3,024$ (417)$ 46,502$ (792)$
1,907 2,858 13 897 ‐ 17,498 2,544
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
223 2,188 378 21 ‐ 6,977 306
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 204
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (45) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (759)
(1) (1,440) 311 (120) 21 (2,509) (918)
27 41 4 5 1 210 18
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (233)
‐ ‐ ‐ (293) ‐ (293) ‐
‐ ‐ 168 ‐ ‐ 168 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (992)
$ 4,566 $ 1,859 $ 3,369 $ 3,534 $ (395) $ 68,508 $ (580)
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
43
Agency
Funds
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)2,919$
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)2,541
Account receivable 9
Interest receivable 14
Total assets 5,483$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 4,724$
Due to other governments 759
Total liabilities 5,483$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
44
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
45
Page
1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ........................................................................... 47
2. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting ........................................................................................ 56
3. Cash and Investments ............................................................................................................. 57
4. Interfund Transactions ............................................................................................................ 61
5. Notes and Loans Receivable .................................................................................................... 63
6. Capital Assets .......................................................................................................................... 69
7. General Long‐Term Obligations .............................................................................................. 73
8. Special Assessment Debt ......................................................................................................... 80
9. Landfill Closure and Post‐Closure Care ................................................................................... 81
10. Net Position and Fund Balances .............................................................................................. 82
11. Pension Plans ........................................................................................................................... 84
12. Retiree Health Benefits ........................................................................................................... 88
13. Deferred Compensation Plan .................................................................................................. 91
14. Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 92
15. Joint Ventures .......................................................................................................................... 93
16. Commitments and Contingencies ........................................................................................... 96
17. Subsequent Event .................................................................................................................... 99
Notes are essential to present fairly the information contained in the overview level of the basic financial
statements. Narrative explanations are intended to communicate information that is not readily apparent
or cannot be included in the statements themselves, and to provide additional disclosures as required by
the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
46
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
47
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The City of Palo Alto (the City) was incorporated in 1894 and operates as a charter city, having had its first
charter granted by the State of California in 1909. The City operates under the Council‐Manager form of
government and provides the following services: public safety (police and fire), public works, electric, fiber
optics, water, gas, wastewater, storm drain, refuse, golf course, planning and zoning, general
administration services, library, open space and science, recreational and human services.
(a) Reporting Entity
The City is governed by a nine‐member council, elected by City residents. The City is legally
separate and fiscally independent, which means it can issue debt, set and modify budgets and
fees, and sue or be sued. The accompanying basic financial statements present the financial
activities of the City, which is the primary government presented, along with the financial
activities of its component unit, which is an entity for which the City is financially accountable.
Although a separate legal entity, a blended component unit is, in substance, part of the City’s
operations and is reported as an integral part of the City’s financial statements. The City’s
component unit described below is blended.
The Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (the Corporation) provides financing of public
capital improvements for the City through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs), a
form of debt that allows investors to participate in a stream of future lease payments. Proceeds
from the COPs are used to construct projects that are leased to the City. The lease payments are
sufficient in timing and amount to meet the debt service requirements of the COPs. The Board of
Directors of the Corporation is composed of the same members as the City Council. The
Corporation is controlled by the City, which performs all accounting and administrative functions
for the Corporation. The financial activities of the Corporation are included in the Downtown
Parking Improvement Debt Service Fund.
Financial statements for the Corporation may be obtained from the City of Palo Alto,
Administrative Services Department, 4th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
(b) Basis of Presentation
The City’s basic financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. The Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) is the acknowledged standard setting body for establishing accounting and financial
reporting standards followed by governmental entities in the United States.
These standards require that the financial statements described below be presented:
Government‐wide Statements: The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities
display information about the primary government and its component unit. These statements
include the financial activities of the overall City government, except for fiduciary activities.
Eliminations have been made to minimize the double counting of internal activities. However,
interfund goods and services transactions have not been eliminated in the consolidation process.
These statements distinguish between the governmental and business‐type activities of the City.
Governmental activities generally are financed through taxes, intergovernmental revenues, and
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
48
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(b) Basis of Presentation (Continued)
other non‐exchange transactions. Business‐type activities are financed in whole or in part by fees
charged to external parties.
The Statement of Activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program
revenues for each segment of the business‐type activities of the City and for each function of the
City’s governmental activities. Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a
program or function and, therefore, are clearly identifiable to a particular function. Program
revenues include: (a) charges paid by the recipients for goods and services offered by the
programs, (b) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational needs of a
particular program, and (c) fees, grants and contributions that are restricted to financing the
acquisition or construction of capital assets. Revenues that are not classified as program
revenues, including all taxes, are presented as general revenues.
Fund Financial Statements: The fund financial statements provide information about the City’s
funds, including fiduciary funds and its blended component unit. Separate statements for each
fund category – governmental, proprietary and fiduciary – are presented. The emphasis of fund
financial statements is on major individual governmental and enterprise funds, each of which is
displayed in a separate column. All remaining governmental and internal service funds are
aggregated and reported as non‐major funds.
Proprietary fund operating revenues, such as utilities sales and charges for services, result from
exchange transactions associated with the principal activity of the fund. Exchange transactions
are those in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal values. Nonoperating
revenues, such as subsidies and investment earnings, result from non‐exchange transactions or
ancillary activities.
Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and
services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All expenses not meeting
this definition are reported as nonoperating expenses.
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds
The City’s major governmental and enterprise funds need to be identified and presented
separately in the fund financial statements. All other funds, called non‐major funds, are combined
and reported in a single column, regardless of their fund type.
Major funds are defined as funds that have either assets and deferred outflows of resources,
liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, revenues or expenditures/expenses equal to at least
10 percent of their fund type total and at least 5 percent of the grand total. The General Fund is
always a major fund. The City may also select other funds it believes should be presented as major
funds on a qualitative basis.
The City reported the following major governmental funds in the accompanying financial
statements:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
49
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds (Continued)
General Fund – This is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of
the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Capital Projects Fund – This fund accounts for resources used for the acquisition and construction
of capital facilities by the City, with the exception of those assets financed by proprietary funds.
The City reported all of its enterprise funds as major funds in the accompanying financial
statements. These funds are:
Water Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s water
service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.
Electric Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s
electric service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in
the City.
Fiber Optics Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s fiber
optics service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to licensees located in the City.
Gas Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s gas
service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.
Wastewater Collection Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating
to the City’s wastewater collection service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and
business owners located in the City.
Wastewater Treatment Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating
to the City’s wastewater treatment. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business
owners located in the City.
Refuse Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s refuse
service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.
Storm Drainage Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the
City’s storm drainage service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business
owners located in the City.
Airport Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the Palo Alto Airport
(PAO). The City assumed control over operation of PAO from the County of Santa Clara, effective
August 11, 2014.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
50
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds (Continued)
The City also reports the following funds:
Internal Service Funds – These funds account for fleet replacement and maintenance, technology,
central duplicating, printing and mailing services, administration of compensated absences and
health benefits, and the City’s self‐insured workers’ compensation and general liability programs,
all of which are provided to other departments on a cost‐reimbursement basis. Also included is
the Retiree Health Benefits Internal Service Fund, which accounts for benefits to retirees.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance – This fund accounts for the maintenance and
replacement of vehicles and equipment used by all City departments. The source of revenue is
from reimbursement of fleet replacement and maintenance costs allocated to each department
by usage of vehicle.
Technology – This fund accounts for replacement and upgrade of technology, and covers four
primary areas used by all City departments: desktop, infrastructure, applications, and technology
research and development. The source of revenue is from reimbursement of costs for support
provided to other departments.
Printing and Mailing Services – This fund accounts for central duplicating, printing and mailing
services provided to all City departments. The source of revenue for this fund is from
reimbursement of costs for services and supplies purchased by other departments.
General Benefits – This fund accounts for the administration of compensated absences and health
benefits.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program – This fund accounts for the administration of the
City’s self‐insured workers’ compensation program.
General Liability Insurance Program – This fund accounts for the administration of the City’s self‐
insured general liability program.
Retiree Health Benefits – This fund accounts for retiree health benefits.
Fiduciary Funds – These funds account for assets held by the City, an agent for assessment
districts, and members of the Cable Joint Powers Authority. These funds are custodial in nature
and do not involve measurement of results of operations. The City maintains three agency funds.
The financial activities of these funds are excluded from the government‐wide financial
statements, but are presented in separate fiduciary fund financial statements. Agency funds
apply the accrual basis of accounting but do not have a measurement focus.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
51
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds (Continued)
California Avenue Parking Assessment District – This fund accounts for the receipts and
disbursements associated with the 1993 Parking District No. 92‐13 Assessment Bonds.
Cable Joint Powers Authority – This fund accounts for the activities of the cable television system
on behalf of the members.
University Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District – This fund accounts for the
receipts and disbursements associated with the 2012 Limited Obligation Refunding Improvement
Bonds.
(d) Basis of Accounting
The government‐wide and proprietary fund financial statements are reported using the economic
resources measurement focus and the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded
when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when
the related cash flows take place.
Governmental funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and
the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when
measurable and available. The City considers revenues susceptible to accrual reported in the
governmental funds to be available if the revenues are collected within ninety days after year‐
end, except for property taxes, which are available if collected within sixty days after year‐end.
Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, except for principal and
interest on general long‐term debt, claims and judgments, and compensated absences, which are
recognized as expenditures to the extent they have matured. General capital asset acquisitions
are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of general long‐term debt and
acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources.
Revenues susceptible to accrual include taxes, intergovernmental revenues, interest and charges
for services.
Grant revenues are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements are met.
Under the terms of grant agreements, the City may fund certain programs with a combination of
cost‐reimbursement grants, categorical block grants, and general revenues. Thus, both restricted
and unrestricted net position may be available to finance program expenditures. The City’s policy
is to first apply restricted grant resources to such programs, followed by general revenues if
necessary.
Certain indirect costs are included in program expenses reported for individual functions and
activities. Transactions representing the exchange of interfund goods and services have also been
included.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
52
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(e) Cash and Cash Equivalents
Restricted and unrestricted pooled cash and investments held in the City Treasury, and other
unrestricted investments invested by the City Treasurer, are considered cash equivalents for
purposes of the statement of cash flows because the City’s cash management pool and funds
invested by the City Treasurer possess the characteristics of demand deposit accounts. Other
restricted and unrestricted investments with maturities of less than three months at the time of
purchase are considered cash equivalents for purposes of the statement of cash flows.
(f) Investments
The City’s investments are carried at fair value, as required by GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting
and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools. The City
adjusts the carrying value of its investments to reflect their fair value at each fiscal year‐end, and
reports the effects of these adjustments in investment earnings for that fiscal year.
(g) Inventory of Materials and Supplies
Materials and supplies are held for consumption and are valued at average cost. The consumption
method is used to account for inventories. Under the consumption method, inventories are
recorded as expenditures at the time inventory items are used, rather than purchased.
(h) Prepaid items
Prepaid items are recorded at cost. Using the consumption method, prepaid items are recorded
as expenditures over the period that service is provided.
(i) Compensated Absences
The liability for compensated absences includes the vested portion of vacation, sick leave, and
overtime compensation pay. The City’s liability for accrued compensated absences is recorded in
the General Benefits Internal Service Fund. The fund is reimbursed through payroll charges to all
other funds. Earned but unpaid vacation and overtime compensation pay are recognized as an
expense or expenditure in the proprietary and governmental fund types when earned because
the City has provided financial resources for the full amount through its budgetary process.
Vested accumulated sick pay is paid in the event of termination due to disability and, under certain
conditions, is specified in employment agreements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
53
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(i) Compensated Absences (Continued)
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, changes to the compensated absences were as follows
(in thousands):
Beginning balance 10,431$
Additions 6,484
Payments (6,717)
Ending balance 10,198$
Current portion 3,912$
(j) Property Tax
Santa Clara County (the County) assesses properties and bills, collects, and distributes property
taxes to the City. The County remits the entire amount levied and handles all delinquencies,
retaining interest and penalties.
The County assesses property values, levies bills and collects taxes as follows:
Secured Unsecured
Lien Dates January 01 January 01
Levy Dates October 01 July 01
Due Dates 50% on November 01 Upon receipt of billing
50% on February 01
Delinquent after December 10 (for November)August 31
April 10 (for February)
The term “unsecured” refers to taxes on personal property other than real estate, land and
buildings. These taxes are secured by liens on the property being taxed. Property tax revenues
are recognized by the City in the fiscal year they are assessed, provided they become available as
defined previously within sixty days after year‐end.
(k) Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
A deferred outflow of resources is the consumption of net position that is applicable to a future
reporting period. A deferred inflow of resources is defined as an acquisition of net position
applicable to a future reporting period. Furthermore, GASB No. 65 reclassified certain items that
were previously reported as assets and liabilities to deferred outflows of resources and deferred
inflows of resources. Refer to Note 1(m) for the impact of this statement on the City’s financial
statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
54
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(l) Rounding
All amounts included in the basic financial statements and footnotes are presented to the nearest
thousand.
(m) Effects of New Pronouncements
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented the following GASB Statements:
GASB Statement No. 65 issued March 2012, Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities
amends the financial statement element classification of certain items previously reported as
assets and liabilities to be consistent with the definitions in Concepts Statements No. 4, Elements
of Financial Statements. It also provides other financial reporting guidance related to deferred
outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, such as changes in the determination of
the major fund calculations and limiting the use of the term deferred in financial statement
presentations. Gains or losses between the net book value of debt and funds placed in escrow to
defease that debt are considered as deferred inflows or outflows of resources, respectively, and
are amortized over the remaining life of either the refunded debt or the refunding debt,
whichever is shorter.
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented this Statement and restated beginning net position by
$1.1 million and $0.7 million to write off unamortized bond issuance costs that were previously
reported as assets in governmental activities and business‐type activities, respectively. Further,
unamortized loss on refunding of debts of $0.4 million was reclassified from contra liabilities to
deferred outflows of resources in three major enterprise funds – Water, Gas and Storm Drainage.
GASB Statement No. 66 was issued in March 2012, Technical Corrections – 2012 – an amendment
of GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 62, to resolve conflicting accounting and financial reporting
guidance that could diminish the consistency of financial reporting. As of July 1, 2013, the City
adopted this Statement, which does not have a significant impact on the City’s financial
statements.
GASB issued Statement No. 70 in April 2013, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange
Financial Guarantees. Nonexchange financial guarantees are financial guarantees from a
government for obligations of another entity. Statement No. 70 requires a government that
extends a nonexchange financial guarantee to recognize a liability when qualitative factors and
historical data indicate that it is more likely than not that the government will be required to make
a payment on the guarantee. Statement No. 70 also specifies the information required to be
disclosed by governments that extend nonexchange financial guarantees and also new disclosure
requirements. As of July 1, 2013, the City adopted this Statement, which does not have a
significant impact on the City’s financial statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
55
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(m) Effects of New Pronouncements (Continued)
The City is currently analyzing its accounting practices to determine the potential impact on the
financial statements for the following GASB Statements:
GASB Statement No. 68 issued June 2012, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions – an
amendment of GASB Statement No. 27, establishes accounting and financial reporting
requirements for pension plans that are administered through trusts. Statement No. 68 requires
governments participating in single and agent multiple employer defined benefit plans to
recognize a liability equal to net pension liability. Net pension liability is required to be measured
as of a date no later than the end of the employer’s prior fiscal year (the measurement date),
consistently applied from period to period. Pension expense and deferred outflows of resources
and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions that are required to be recognized by an
employer primarily result from changes in the components of net pension liability—that is,
changes in the total pension liability and in the pension plan’s fiduciary net position. It requires
that most changes in net pension liability be included in pension expense in the period of change.
The effects of certain other changes in the net pension liability are required to be included in
pension expense over current and future periods. It also requires that notes to financial
statements of single and agent employers include descriptive information, such as types of
benefits provided and number and classes of employees covered by the benefit terms, sources of
changes in net pension liability for the current year, significant assumptions and other inputs used
in valuations and the valuation date. The Statement also requires the government to present
required supplementary information for each of the ten most recent fiscal years. Requirements
of this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.
During January 2014, GASB issued Statement No. 69, Government Combinations and Disposals of
Government Operations. It establishes accounting related to government combinations and
disposals of government operations. Government combinations include mergers, acquisitions,
and transfers of operations. Statement No. 69 also establishes the required financial statement
disclosure for government combinations and disposals of government operations. The
requirements of this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.
During November 2013, GASB issued Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made
Subsequent to the Measurement Date – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68. This Statement
improves the accounting and financial reporting by addressing an issue in Statement No. 68. The
issue relates to amounts associated with contributions, if any, made by a state or local
government employer or nonemployer contributing entity to a defined benefit pension plan after
the measurement date of the government’s beginning net pension liability. The requirements of
this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
56
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(n) Use of Estimates
The accompanying basic financial statements have been prepared on the modified accrual and
accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in
the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
NOTE 2 – BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
1. The City Manager submits proposed operating and capital budgets to the City Council for the fiscal
year commencing the following July 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the
means of financing them.
2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain comments on the proposed budgets.
3. The Budget is approved with the adoption of a budget ordinance for all funds except Agency Funds.
4. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, only the City Manager is authorized to reallocate funds from
contingency accounts maintained in the General Fund. Additional appropriations to departments in
the General Fund, or to total appropriations for all other budgeted funds, or transfers of
appropriations between funds, require approval by the City Council. Amendments to budgeted
revenue and expenditures are added to or subtracted from the Adopted Budget and the resulting
totals are reflected as Adjusted Budget amounts.
5. As defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, expenditures may not exceed budgeted appropriations at
the department level for the General Fund, and at the fund level for Enterprise, Special Revenue and
Debt Service Funds.
6. Budgets for governmental funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP), except that unrealized gains or losses are not recognized as investment earnings
on a budgetary basis and encumbrances are treated as budgetary expenditures when incurred.
7. Expenditures for the Capital Projects Fund are budgeted and maintained at a project level for the life
of the project. Budget to actual comparisons for these expenditures have been excluded from the
accompanying financial statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
57
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The City pools cash from all sources and all funds, except restricted bond proceeds with fiscal agents, and
invests its pooled idle cash according to State of California law and the City’s Investment Policy. The basic
principles underlying the City’s investment philosophy are to ensure the safety of public funds, ensure
that sufficient funds are available to meet current expenditures, and achieve a reasonable rate of return
on investments.
Policies
The City invests in individual investments and in investment pools. Individual investments are evidenced
by specific identifiable securities instruments, or by an electronic entry registering the owner in the
records of the institution issuing the security, called the book entry system. In order to increase security,
the City employs the trust department of a bank as the custodian of certain City managed investments.
Classification
Cash and investments are classified in the financial statements as shown below, based on whether or not
their use is restricted under the terms of City debt instruments or agency agreements (in thousands):
Governmental Business‐Type Fiduciary
Activities Activities Funds Total
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 252,280$ 259,286$ 2,919$ 514,485$
Restricted for post‐closure landfill ‐ 5,907 ‐ 5,907
Held with fiscal agents 19,606 4,166 2,541 26,313
Total cash and investments 271,886$ 269,359$ 5,460$ 546,705$
Investments Authorized by the City’s Investment Policy and Debt Agreements
The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized by the City’s Investment Policy. The
table also identifies certain provisions of the City’s Investment Policy that address interest rate risk, credit
risk and concentration of credit risk. The table addresses investments of debt proceeds held by bond
trustees that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City, rather than the general
provisions of the City’s Investment Policy.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
58
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
The City must maintain required amounts of cash and investments with trustees under the terms of
certain debt issues. These funds are unexpended bond proceeds or are pledged as reserves to be used if
the City fails to meet its obligations under these debt issues. The California Government Code requires
these funds to be invested in accordance with City ordinance, bond indentures or state statute. All of
these funds have been invested as permitted under the Code and the investment policy approved by the
City Council.
Maximum
Maturity
Minimum
Credit Quality
Maximum
Percentage
of Portfolio
Maximum
Investment in
One Issuer
U.S. Government Securities 10 years (*) N/A No Limit No Limit
U.S. Federal Agency Securities (C) 10 years (*) N/A No Limit (A) No Limit
Certificates of Deposit 10 years (*) N/A 20%
10% of the par
value of
portfolio
Bankers Acceptances 180 days (D) N/A (D) 30% $5 million
Commercial Paper 270 days A‐1 15% $3 million (B)
Local Agency Investment Fund N/A N/A No Limit
$50 million per
account
Short‐Term Repurchase Agreements 1 year N/A No Limit No Limit
City of Palo Alto Bonds N/A N/A No Limit No Limit
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A N/A (E) No Limit No Limit
Mutual Funds (F)N/A N/A 20%10%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 10 years (*) N/A 10% $5 million
Medium‐Term Corporate Notes 5 years AA 10% $5 million
10 years (*) AA/AA2 10% No Limit
(A)
(B) The lesser of $3 million or 10% of outstanding commercial paper of any one institution.
Debt Agreements:
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(*)The maximum maturity is based on the Investment Policy that is approved by the City Council and is less
restrictive than the California Government Code.
Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and University Avenue Parking Bond 2012 are allowed to invest in the
California Asset Management Program.
Authorized Investment Type
Bonds of State of California
Municipal Agencies
Callable and multi‐step securities are limited to no more than 25% of the par value of the portfolio, provided that:
1) the potential call dates are known at the time of purchase, 2) the interest rates at which they "step‐up" are
known at the time of purchase, 3) the entire face value of the security is redeemable at the call date.
Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and 1999 Refunding allow general obligations of states with a minimum
credit quality rating of A2/A by Moody's and Standard & Poor's.
Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and 1999 Refunding require a minimum credit quality rating of A‐1/P‐1 by
Moody's and Standard & Poor's and maturing after no more than 360 days. Utility Revenue Bonds 1995 Series A
limit the maximum maturity to 365 days.
Water Revenue Bonds 2009 Series A, Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and 1999 Refunding require a
minimum credit quality rating of AAAm or AAAm‐G by Standard & Poor's.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
59
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates may adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Normally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity its fair value
is to changes in market interest rates.
Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the City’s investments (including investments held
by bond trustees) to market rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the distribution
of the City’s investments by maturity or earliest call date (in thousands):
Type of Investment
Less Than
One Year
One to
Three Years
Three to
Five Years
Over
Five Years Total
U.S. Federal Agency Securities 55,445$ 113,015$ 142,698$ 138,181$ 449,339$
U.S. Treasury Notes ‐ ‐ 6,891 4,345 11,236
Local Government Bonds ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,711 5,711
Money Market Mutual Funds 7,336 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,336
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit ‐ 245 9,364 1,465 11,074
California Asset Management Program 21,885 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,885
Local Agency Investment Fund 38,043 ‐ ‐ ‐ 38,043
Total Investments 122,709$ 113,260$ 158,953$ 149,702$ 544,624
Cash in bank and on hand 2,081
Total Cash and Investments 546,705$
Maturities
Local Agency Investment Fund
The City is a participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California
Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. LAIF
management calculates the fair value and cost of the entire LAIF pool. The City adjusts its cost basis
invested in LAIF to fair value based on this ratio. The fair value of the City’s position in the pool is the
same as the value of the pool share. The balance available for withdrawal on demand is based on
accounting records maintained by LAIF, which are recorded on an amortized cost basis. At June 30, 2014,
LAIF had a weighted average maturity of 232 days.
California Asset Management Program
The City is a voluntary participant in the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). CAMP is an
investment pool offered by the California Asset Management Trust (the Trust). The Trust is a joint powers
authority and public agency created by the Declaration of Trust and established under the provisions of
the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act (California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq., or the
“Act”) for the purpose of exercising the common power of its participants to invest certain proceeds of
debt issues and surplus funds. The Pool’s investments are limited to investments permitted by
subdivisions (a) to (n), inclusive, of Section 53601 of the California Government Code. The City reports its
investments in CAMP at the fair value amounts provided by CAMP, which is the same as the value of the
pool share. At June 30, 2014, the fair value approximated the City’s cost. CAMP had a weighted average
maturity of 41 days.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
60
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Money market mutual funds are available for withdrawal on demand and at June 30, 2014, had a weighted
average maturity of 34 days.
Investment with Fair Values Highly Sensitive to Interest Rate Fluctuations
At June 30, 2014, the City’s investments (including investments held by bond trustees) include U.S. Federal
Agency Callable Securities in the amount of $121.1 million that are highly sensitive to interest rate
fluctuations (to a greater degree than already indicated in the information provided in the previous page).
These securities are subject to early redemption at par in a period of declining interest rates.
Credit Risk
Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the
investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating
organization. Presented below is the actual rating as provided by Standard & Poor’s investment rating
system as of June 30, 2014, for each investment type (in thousands):
Type of Investment Rating Total
U.S. Federal Agency Securities AA+ 449,339$
Local Government Bonds AAA 5,711
Money Market Mutual Funds AAAm 7,336
Total Investments 462,386
Not Applicable:
U.S. Treasury Notes 11,236
Not Rated:
California Asset Management Program 21,885
Local Agency Investment Fund 38,043
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 11,074
Cash in bank and on hand 2,081
Total Cash and Investments 546,705$
Concentration of Credit Risk
Investments in any one issuer, other than U.S. Treasury securities, mutual funds, and external investment
pools, that represent 5 percent or more of total City portfolio investments are as follows at June 30, 2014
(in thousands):
Investments Reporting Type Fair Value at Year‐End
Federal Home Loan Bank U.S. Federal Agency Securities 156,621$
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation U.S. Federal Agency Securities 85,624
Federal National Mortgage Corporation U.S. Federal Agency Securities 73,129
Federal Farm Credit Bank U.S. Federal Agency Securities 54,575
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation U.S. Federal Agency Securities 47,270
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
61
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Custodial Credit Risk
California law requires banks and savings and loan institutions to pledge government securities with a
market value of 110 percent of the City’s cash on deposit or first trust deed mortgage notes with a value
of 150 percent of the deposit as collateral for these deposits. Under California Law, this collateral is
considered held in the City’s name and places the City ahead of general creditors of the institution. The
City has waived collateral requirements for the portion of deposits covered by federal deposit insurance.
The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to
a transaction, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that
are in the possession of another party. The City’s Investment Policy limits its exposure to custodial credit
risk by requiring that all security transactions entered into by the City be conducted on a delivery‐versus‐
payment basis. Securities are to be held by a third‐party custodian.
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
Transfers Between Funds
With Council approval, resources may be transferred from one City fund to another. The purpose of the
majority of transfers is to subsidize a fund. Less often, a transfer may be made to open or close a fund.
Transfers between City funds during FY 2014 were as follows (in thousands):
Fund Making Transfer
Amount
Transferred
General Fund Nonmajor Governmental Funds 424$ A
Electric Services Fund 11,203 A
Gas Services Fund 5,811 A
Internal Service Funds 474 A
Capital Projects Fund General Fund 17,235 B
Nonmajor Governmental Funds 4,676 B
Water Services Fund 142 B
Electric Services Fund 134 B
Fiber Optics Fund 133 B
Gas Services Fund 134 B
Wastewater Collection Fund 133 B
Internal Service Funds 499 B
Nonmajor Governmental Funds General Fund 384 A
Capital Projects Fund 260 B
Water Services Fund 27 A
Internal Service Funds 14 A
Subtotal 41,683
Fund Receiving Transfer
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
62
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (Continued)
Fund Making Transfer
Amount
Transferred
Water Services Fund Gas Services Fund 92 B
Wastewater Collection Fund 92 B
Internal Service Funds 87 C
Electric Services Fund General Fund 33 D
Water Services Fund 333 B
Gas Services Fund 333 B
Internal Service Funds 390 C
Gas Services Fund Internal Service Funds 151 C
Refuse Services Fund Storm Drainage Services Fund 36 D
Internal Service Funds 88 C
Wastewater Collection Fund Internal Service Funds 42 C
Wastewater Treatment Fund Internal Service Funds 59 C
Storm Drainage Services Fund Internal Service Funds 14 C
Internal Service Funds General Fund 1,163 E
Water Services Fund 28 B
Electric Services Fund 123 B
Gas Services Fund 47 B
Wastewater Collection Fund 16 B
Refuse Services Fund 29 B
Storm Drainage Services Fund 6 B
Fiber Optics Fund 1 B
Subtotal 3,163
Total 44,846$
The reasons for these transfers are set forth below:
(A) Transfer to reimburse governmental funds for costs incurred for the benefit of funds making the transfer.
(B) Allocation of funds to construct capital assets.
(C) Transfer to refund replacement charges.
(D) Transfer to reimburse the Utility Funds for costs incurred for the benefit of funds making the transfer.
(E) Transfer to reimburse Internal Service Funds for costs incurred for the benefit of the fund making the
transfer.
Fund Receiving Transfer
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
63
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (Continued)
Long‐Term Interfund Advance
On December 6, 2010, the City Council accepted an Airport Business Plan of the Palo Alto Airport (PAO)
and approved creation of the Airport Enterprise Fund to facilitate the transition of PAO control from
County of Santa Clara to the City. The Council approved a General Fund loan of $300,000 to the Airport
Enterprise Fund for environmental analysis, and legal and personnel costs related to the transition.
According to the agreement, the Airport Fund will repay the $300,000, with interest equal to the average
return yield on the City’s investment portfolio, after six years. On July 1, 2012, the City Council approved
an additional $310,000 short‐term loan from the General Fund with the same interest and repayment
terms for transition costs. A further $325,000 was loaned on July 1, 2013 with the same interest terms
and repayment terms of ten years. As of June 30, 2014, the total outstanding principal amount is
$935,000.
Internal Balances
Internal balances represent the net interfund receivables and payables remaining after the elimination of
all such balances within governmental and business‐type activities.
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE
At June 30, 2014, the City’s notes and loans receivable totaled (in thousands):
Palo Alto Housing Corporation:
Oak Manor Townhouse 334$
Tree House Apartments 5,343
Emerson Street Project 375
Alma Single Room Occupancy Development 2,222
Barker Hotel 2,111
Sheridan Apartments 2,248
Oak Court Apartments, L.P.7,835
Mid‐Peninsula Housing Coalition:
Palo Alto Gardens Apartments 100
Community Working Group, Inc.1,280
Opportunity Center Associates, L.P.750
Home Rehabilitation Loans 66
Executive Relocation Assistance Loans 900
Below Market Rate Assessment Loans 53
Stevenson Housing Fire Alarm 48
Oak Manor Townhouse Water System 114
Lytton Gardens Assisted Living 101
Emergency Housing Consortium 75
Alma Gardens Apartments 1,150
2811‐2825 Alma Street Acquisition 1,290
Palo Alto Family Housing, 801 Alma Street 6,810
Total Notes and Loans 33,205
Less: Valuation Allowance (14,685)
Total Notes and Loans, Net 18,520$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
64
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Housing Loans
The City engages in programs designed to encourage construction or improvement in low‐to‐moderate
income housing or other projects. Under these programs, grants or loans are provided under favorable
terms to homeowners or developers who agree to spend these funds in accordance with the City’s terms.
These loans have been offset by nonspendable, restricted or committed fund balances, as they are not
expected to be repaid immediately.
Some of these loans contain forgiveness clauses that provide for the amount loaned to be forgiven if the
third party maintains compliance with the terms of the loan and associated regulatory agreements. Since
some of these loans are secured by trust deeds that are subordinated to other debt on the associated
projects or are only repayable from residual cash receipts on the projects, collectability of some of the
outstanding balances may not be realized. As a result of the forgiveness clauses and nature of these
housing projects and associated cash flows, a portion of the outstanding balances of the loans has been
offset by a valuation allowance.
Oak Manor Townhouse
On January 7, 1991, the City loaned $2.1 million to Palo Alto Housing Corporation Apartments, Inc.
(PAHCA, Inc.) to assist in the acquisition of an apartment complex to be used to provide rental housing for
low and very low income households. This loan bears interest at 3 percent, is due in annual installments
until 2017 and is collateralized by a subordinated deed of trust. Under the terms of the loan agreement,
annual loan payments are forgiven if the Corporation meets the objective of this project. During the year
ended June 30, 2014, the objective was met. The annual loan payment was forgiven for the calendar year
ended December 31, 2013.
Tree House Apartments
In March 2009, the City agreed to loan $2.8 million to Tree House Apartments, L.P. for the purchase of the
real property located at 488 West Charleston Road. The loan shall accrue simple interest at the rate of
three percent per annum. The loan consists of $1.8 million funded by Community Development Block
Grant funds and $1 million funded by residential funds. An additional development loan in the amount of
$2.5 million was approved by the City on October 18, 2010. As of June 30, 2014, the outstanding balance
for Tree House Apartments in aggregate is $5.3 million. Principal and interest payments will be deferred
for 55 years. However, if the borrower has earned extra income, and if it is acceptable to the other entities
providing final permanent sources of funds, payment of interest and principal based on the City’s
proportionate share of the project’s residual receipts from net operating income shall be made by the
borrower. In no event shall full payment be made by the borrower later than concurrently with the
expiration or earlier termination of the loan agreement, which is March 23, 2064.
Emerson Street Project
On November 8, 1994, the City loaned $375,000 for expenses necessary to acquire an apartment complex
for the preservation of rental housing for low and very low income households in the City. This loan is
collateralized by a second deed of trust. The loan bears interest at 3 percent after 2010.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
65
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Alma Single Room Occupancy Development
On December 13, 1996, the City loaned $2.2 million to Alma Place Associates, L.P. for development of a
107‐unit single room occupancy development. This loan bears interest at 3 percent and is collateralized
by a subordinated deed of trust. Loan payments were deferred until May 2014. The principal balance is
due in 2041.
Barker Hotel
On April 12, 1994, the City loaned a total of $2.1 million for the preservation, rehabilitation and expansion
of a low‐income, single occupancy hotel. This loan was funded by three sources: $400,000 from the
Housing In‐Lieu Fund, $1 million from HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds, and $670,000 from
Community Development Block Grant funds. All three notes bear no interest and are collateralized by a
deed of trust, which is subordinated to private financing. Loan repayments are deferred until 2035.
In July 2004, the City agreed to loan up to $41,000 to Palo Alto Housing Corporation to rehabilitate the
interior of the Barker Hotel. The loan is funded entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds
and is collateralized by a deed of trust on the property. Annual loan payments are deferred until certain
criteria defined in the loan agreement are reached. The loan will be forgiven if the borrower satisfactorily
complies with all terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
Sheridan Apartments
On December 8, 1998, the City loaned $2.5 million to Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the purchase and
rehabilitation of a 57‐unit apartment complex to be used for senior and low‐income housing. The loan is
funded by $1.6 million in Community Development Block Grant funds, and $825,000 in Housing In‐Lieu
funds. The note bears interest at 9 percent when available surplus cash from the project equals or exceeds
25 percent of interest calculated using 9 percent. When available surplus cash falls below this level, the
note bears interest at 3 percent. The note is collateralized by a second deed of trust and an affordability
reserve account held by Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Annual loan payments were deferred until Palo
Alto Housing Corporation accumulated $1 million in the affordability reserve account. Two principal
payments totaling $202,438 have been made, and interest has also been paid. The remaining principal
balance is due in 2033.
Oak Court Apartments, L.P.
On August 18, 2003, in connection with the loan to Oak Court Apartments, L.P. discussed in the next
section, the City loaned $5.9 million to Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the purchase of land on which
Oak Court Apartments, L.P. constructed a 53‐unit rental apartment complex for low and very low income
households with children. The note bears interest of 5 percent and is secured by a deed of trust. Note
payments are due annually after 55 years, or beginning in 2058, unless Palo Alto Housing Corporation
elects to extend the note until 2102, as defined in the regulatory agreement.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
66
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
On August 18, 2003, the City loaned $1.9 million to Oak Court Apartments, L.P. for the construction of a
53‐unit rental apartment complex for low and very low‐income households with children, which was
completed in April 2005. The note bears no interest until certain criteria defined in the note are satisfied,
at which time the note will bear an interest rate not to exceed 3 percent. The note is secured by a
subordinate deed of trust. The principal balance is due in 2060.
Maybell Apartments
On November 28, 2012, the City agreed to loan Palo Alto Housing Corporation $3.2 million for the purpose
of acquisition and development of an affordable rental housing project at 567‐595 Maybell Ave. The loan
bears simple interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum commencing with the date of the permanent
closing. On April 28, 2014, the City collected the outstanding amount of $3.2 million for the Maybell loan.
Palo Alto Gardens Apartments
On April 22, 1999, the City loaned $1 million to Mid‐Peninsula Housing Coalition (the Coalition) for the
purchase and rehabilitation of a 155‐unit complex for the continuation of low‐income housing. This loan
is funded by $659,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds and $341,000 in Housing In‐Lieu
funds. The two notes bear interest at 3 percent and are secured by second deeds of trust and a City
Affordability Reserve Account held by the Coalition. Annual loan payments are deferred until certain
criteria defined in the notes are reached. Principal and interest payments began in FY 2008. The principal
balance of $100,000 is due in 2039.
Community Working Group, Inc.
On May 13, 2002, the City loaned $1.3 million to Community Working Group, Inc. for predevelopment,
relocation and acquisition of land for development of an 89‐unit complex and homeless service center for
very low income households. The loan is funded by $1.3 million of Community Development Block Grant
funds. The note bears no interest and is secured by a first deed of trust. No repayment of the $1.3 million
will be required, provided that compliance with the City’s agreement is maintained. After 89 years of
compliance with the regulatory agreement, the City’s loan would convert to a grant and its deed of trust
would be re‐conveyed.
Opportunity Center Associates, L.P.
On July 19, 2004, the City loaned $750,000 for a 55‐year term to Opportunity Center Associates, L.P. for
construction of 89 units of rental housing for extremely low‐income and very low‐income households.
The loan is funded by $750,000 of residential housing funds. The note bears 3 percent interest and is
secured by a deed of trust. The loan remains outstanding and becomes due at the end of the 55‐year
term.
Home Rehabilitation Loans
The City administers a closed housing rehabilitation loan program initially funded with Community
Development Block Grant funds. Under this program, individuals with incomes below a certain level are
eligible to receive low interest loans for rehabilitation work on their homes. These loans are secured by
deeds of trust, which may be subordinated to subsequent encumbrances upon said real property with the
prior written consent of the City. The loan repayments may be amortized over the life of the loans,
deferred, or a combination of both.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
67
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Executive Relocation Assistance Loans
The City Council may authorize a mortgage loan as part of a relocation assistance package to executive
staff. The loans are secured by first deeds of trust, and interest is adjusted annually based on the rate of
return of invested funds of the City for the year ended June 30 plus one‐quarter of 1 percent. Principal
and interest payments are due bi‐weekly. Employees must pay any outstanding balance on their loans
within a certain period after ending employment with the City. As of June 30, 2014, the City had two
outstanding home loans, one from the previous City Manager and one from the current City Manager.
The original purchase cost for the previous City Manager’s home was $1.4 million and the City holds a 60
percent equity share. The loan balance owed as of June 30, 2014 was approximately $356,000. The home
suffered substantial fire damage on May 3, 2014. The loss is covered by insurance and an assessment is
being made as to whether the home will be rebuilt.
The original purchase cost for the current City Manager’s home was $1.9 million and the City holds a 75
percent equity share. The loan balance owed as of June 30, 2014 is approximately $427,000. During FY
2011, the Council authorized a capital improvement loan of $125,000. Loans for capital improvements
are made on a dollar for dollar matching basis, with an equal equity contribution made by the City
Manager. The loan balance owed as of June 30, 2014 was approximately $117,000.
Below Market Rate Assessment Loans
In December 2002, the City loaned $53,000 to below market rate homeowners with low incomes and/or
very limited assets for capital repairs, special assessments and improvements of their properties. The
loans bear interest at 3 percent and are secured by a deed of trust on each property. Loan payments are
deferred until 2032. In 2014, the City did not receive interest payments.
Stevenson Housing Fire Alarm
In December 2006, the City agreed to loan up to $48,000 to Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. to repair
and upgrade the existing fire alarm system at Stevenson House Senior Housing facility. The loan is funded
entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds and bears simple interest of 6 percent. Principal
and interest payments are deferred until July 1, 2014, as long as the borrower continues to comply with
all terms and conditions of the agreement.
Oak Manor Townhouse Water System
On May 12, 2003, the City Council approved an allocation of $113,672 to Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Apartments, Inc (PAHCA, Inc) to replace the water pipes. Repayment of the loan will not be required unless
the property is sold, the program is terminated or purpose of the program is changed without City’s
approval prior to July 1, 2033. The loan for this project is subordinated to the existing City loan with
PAHCA, Inc dated January 7, 1991 for the acquisition of the project site, which is discussed earlier in this
section.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
68
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Lytton Gardens Assisted Living
In June 2005, the City loaned $101,000 to Community Housing, Inc. to upgrade and modernize the existing
kitchens at the senior residential facility known as Lytton Gardens Assisted Living. The loan is funded
entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds, and bears simple interest of 3 percent. Principal
and interest payments are deferred until July 1, 2035, as long as the borrower continues to comply with
all terms and conditions of the agreement.
Emergency Housing Consortium
In November 2005, the City agreed to loan up to $75,000 to Emergency Housing Consortium to cover
architectural expenses that will be incurred in rehabilitating and expanding the property. The loan is
funded entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds, and bears simple interest of 3 percent.
Principal and interest payments are deferred until July 1, 2035, as long as the borrower continues to
comply with all terms and conditions of the agreement.
Alma Garden Apartments
In March 2006, the City agreed to loan up to $1.2 million to Community Working Group, Inc. to acquire a
10‐unit multi‐family housing complex known as Alma Garden Apartments. The loan is funded entirely by
Community Development Block Grant funds. Principal and interest payments are deferred until July 1,
2061, as long as the borrower complies with all terms and conditions of the agreement.
2811‐2825 Alma Street Acquisition
On October 9, 2011, the City agreed to loan $1.3 million to PAHC Properties Corporation (PAHC) to acquire
properties on Alma Street for the purpose of developing an affordable rental housing project. The loan
bears simple interest of 3 percent, with an option to forgive the loan at maturity as long as PAHC maintains
the affordability restrictions. Provided PAHC is not in default of the agreement, no principal payments
shall be due and interest shall not begin to accrue until the closing of the project’s permanent funding.
Principal and interest payments are payable during the term of the agreement on a “residual receipt”
basis as described in the agreement.
Palo Alto Family Housing, 801 Alma Street
On February 14, 2011, the City agreed to loan Palo Alto Family, LP up to $9.3 million for the purposes of
predevelopment expenses and acquiring certain real property for the Alma Street Affordable Multi‐Family
Rental Housing Project. The loan bears simple interest of 3 percent. Principal and interest are due and
payable during the term of the agreement on a “residual receipt” basis as described in the agreement.
Except in the case of default, all remaining principal and interest shall be payable on the Restriction
Termination Date as defined in the agreement. As of June 30, 2014, the outstanding amount is $6.8
million.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
69
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS
Valuation
Capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is not
available. Contributed capital assets are valued at their estimated fair value on the date contributed. The
City’s policy is to capitalize all assets when costs are equal to or exceed $5,000 and the useful life exceeds
one year. Infrastructure assets are capitalized when costs are equal to or exceed $100,000.
Proprietary fund capital assets are recorded at cost including significant interest costs incurred under
restricted tax‐exempt borrowings, which finance the construction of capital assets. These interest costs,
net of interest earned on investment of proceeds of such borrowings, are capitalized and added to the
cost of capital assets during the construction period. Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred.
The City has recorded all its public domain capital assets, consisting of roadway and recreation and open
space, in its government‐wide financial statements. GASB Statement No. 34 requires that all capital assets
with limited useful lives be depreciated over their estimated useful lives. Alternatively, the “modified
approach” may be used for certain capital assets. Depreciation is not provided under this approach, but
all expenditures on these assets are expensed unless they are additions or improvements. The City has
elected to use the depreciation method for its capital assets. The purpose of depreciation is to spread the
cost of capital assets equitably among all users over the life of those assets. The amount charged to
depreciation expense each year represents that year’s pro rata share of the cost of capital assets.
Depreciation of capital assets is charged as an expense against operations each year and the total amount
of depreciation taken over the years, called accumulated depreciation, is reported on the statement of
net position as a reduction in the book value of capital assets.
Depreciation is calculated using the straight line method, which means the cost of the asset is divided by
its expected useful life in years, and the result is charged to expense each year until the asset is fully
depreciated. The City has assigned the useful lives listed below to capital assets.
Governmental Activities Years
Buildings and structures 20 ‐ 30
Equipment:
Computer equipment 3 ‐ 5
Office machinery and equipment 5
Machinery and equipment 5 ‐ 30
Intangible assets ‐ software 5‐20
Roadway network:
5 ‐ 40
Recreation and open space network:
25 ‐ 40
Business‐type Activities
Buildings and structures 25 ‐ 60
Vehicles and heavy equipment 3 ‐ 10
Machinery and equipment 10 ‐ 50
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems 10 ‐ 100
Includes pavement, striping and legends, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, parking lots,
traffic signage, and bridges
Includes major park facilities, park trails, bike paths and medians
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
70
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
General Capital Assets
Changes in the City’s general capital assets during the year ended June 30, 2014 were (in thousands):
Balance Balance
July 1, 2013 Additions Retirements Transfers June 30, 2014
Governmental activities
Nondepreciable capital assets:
Land and improvements 79,047$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 79,047$
Street trees 15,319 102 (244) ‐ 15,177
Intangible assets ‐ Easement 3,567 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,567
Construction in progress 69,218 37,035 (3,258) (13,189) 89,806
Total nondepreciable capital assets 167,151 37,137 (3,502) (13,189) 187,597
Depreciable capital assets:
Buildings and structures 133,711 95 ‐ 794 134,600
Intangible assets ‐ Software 279 ‐ ‐ ‐ 279
Equipment 10,912 357 ‐ 649 11,918
Roadway network 282,298 ‐ ‐ 9,002 291,300
Recreation and open space network 24,888 ‐ ‐ 2,744 27,632
Total depreciable capital assets 452,088 452 ‐ 13,189 465,729
Less accumulated depreciation:
Buildings and structures (68,191) (3,171) ‐ ‐ (71,362)
Intangible assets ‐ Software (76) (65) ‐ ‐ (141)
Equipment (7,108) (386) ‐ ‐ (7,494)
Roadway network (120,383) (6,734) ‐ ‐ (127,117)
Recreation and open space network (8,089) (873) ‐ ‐ (8,962)
Total accumulated depreciation (203,847) (11,229) ‐ ‐ (215,076)
Depreciable capital assets, net 248,241 (10,777) ‐ 13,189 250,653
Internal service fund capital assets
Construction in progress 1,413 1,683 (2) ‐ 3,094
Equipment 50,919 1,975 (1,764) ‐ 51,130
Less accumulated depreciation (38,782) (2,544) 1,455 ‐ (39,871)
Net internal service fund capital assets 13,550 1,114 (311) ‐ 14,353
Governmental activities capital assets, net 428,942$ 27,474$ (3,813)$ ‐$ 452,603$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
71
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Business‐type Capital Assets
Changes in the City’s enterprise fund capital assets during the year ended June 30, 2014 were
(in thousands):
Balance Balance
July 1, 2013 Additions Retirements Transfers June 30, 2014
Business‐type activities
Nondepreciable capital assets:
Land and improvements 4,971$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 4,971$
Construction in progress 118,176 41,058 ‐ (37,053) 122,181
Total nondepreciable capital assets 123,147 41,058 ‐ (37,053) 127,152
Depreciable capital assets:
Buildings and structures 33,380 ‐ ‐ 731 34,111
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems 642,149 63 (2,676) 36,322 675,858
Total depreciable capital assets 675,529 63 (2,676) 37,053 709,969
Less accumulated depreciation:
Buildings and structures (9,199) (649) ‐ ‐ (9,848)
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems (267,224) (16,869) 2,315 ‐ (281,778)
Total accumulated depreciation (276,423) (17,518) 2,315 ‐ (291,626)
Depreciable capital assets, net 399,106 (17,455) (361) 37,053 418,343
Business‐type activities capital assets, net 522,253$ 23,603$ (361)$ ‐$ 545,495$
Capital Asset Contributions
Some capital assets may be acquired using federal and state grant funds, or they may be contributed by
developers or other governments. Generally accepted accounting principles require that these
contributions be accounted for as revenues at the time the capital assets are contributed.
Depreciation Allocation
Depreciation expense was charged to functions and programs based on their usage of the related assets.
The amount allocated to each function or program is as follows (in thousands):
Governmental Activities Business‐type Activities
City Manager 42$ Water 1,759$
City Attorney 2 Electric 7,498
Administrative Services 1 Fiber Optics 303
Community Services 1,117 Gas 2,313
Public Safety 331 Wastewater Collection 1,907
Public Works 9,225 Wastewater Treatment 2,855
Planning and Community Environment 135 Refuse 13
Library 376 Storm Drainage 870
Internal Service Funds 2,544
13,773$ 17,518$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
72
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Construction In Progress
Construction in progress as of June 30, 2014 is comprised of the following (in thousands):
Governmental Activities
Expended to
June 30, 2014
Mitchell Park Library & Community Center 40,218$
Main Library Construction & Improvements 18,366
Art Center Electrical & Mech Upgrades 8,015
Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements 6,528
Telephone Infrastructure and Network 1,698
California Avenue‐Transit Hub Corridor 1,471
VRF 1,396
Transportation and Parking Improvements 996
Furniture/Technology for Library Bond Prj 969
Street Maintenance 969
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass 961
Eleanor Pardee Park Improvement 738
Golf Reconfig and Baylands Athletic Center 737
Curb & Gutter Improvement 662
Library & Comm Center Temp Facilities 630
Magical Bridge Playground 613
Park Restroom Installation 569
City Hall First Floor Renovation 524
Other Construction In Progress 6,840
Total Governmental Activiites Construction In Progress 92,900$
Business‐type Activites
Expended to
June 30, 2014
Water system extension replacements and improvements 40,590$
Gas system extension replacements and improvements 7,306
Sewer system rehabilitation and extensions 5,256
Electric distribution system improvements 4,503
Water quality control plant equipment replacement and lab facilities 3,713
Storm drainage structural and water quality improvements 2,239
Other electrical improvements projects 821
Other construction in progress 57,753
Total Business‐type Activities Construction In Progress 122,181$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
73
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Construction In Progress
Allocations of business‐type activity administration and general expenses of $11.4 million have been
capitalized and included in amounts expended to June 30, 2014.
Major governmental capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital commitment
of each, are as follows:
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor ‐ $0.8 million
Main Library ‐ $6.8 million
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center ‐ $5.6 million
Major business‐type capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital commitment
of each, are as follows:
Seismic water system upgrade for Water Fund ‐ $2.4 million
Gas main replacement project for Gas Fund ‐ $6.3 million
Plant equipment replacement for Wastewater Treatment Fund ‐ $3.5 million
Wastewater Collection Fund rehabilitation/augmentation project ‐ $1.1 million
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS
Long‐Term Obligations
Bond premiums and discounts of long‐term debt issues are amortized over the life of the related debt.
The City’s long‐term debt issues and transactions, other than special assessment debt discussed in Note 8,
are as follows (in thousands):
Original Balance Balance Current
Issue Amount July 1, 2013 Additions Retirements June 30, 2014 Portion
Governmental Activities Debt:
General Long‐Term Obligations:
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements,
Certificates of Participation,
2 ‐ 4%, due 03/01/2022
3,555$ 1,560$ ‐$ 130$ 1,430$ 145$
General Obligation Bonds 2010,
2 ‐ 5%, due 08/01/2040
55,305 53,540 ‐ 1,020 52,520 1,050
2011 Lease‐Purchase Agreement 3,222 2,400 ‐ 374 2,026 383
General Obligation Bonds 2013A,
2 ‐ 5%, due 08/01/2043
20,695 20,695 ‐ ‐ 20,695 370
Add: Unamortized Premium ‐ 4,400 ‐ 158 4,242 158
Total Governmental Activities Debt 82,777$ 82,595$ ‐$ 1,682$ 80,913$ 2,106$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
74
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
Original Issue
Amount
Balanace
July 1, 2013, as
reclassed Additions Retirements
Balance,
June 30, 2014
Current
'Portion
Business‐type Activities Debt:
Enterprise Long‐Term Obligations:
Utility Revenue Bonds
1995 Series A,
5.00‐6.25%, due 06/01/2020
8,640$ 3,779$ ‐$ 445$ 3,334$ 475$
1999 Refunding,
3.25‐5.25%, due 06/01/2024
17,735 11,585 ‐ 605 10,980 635
2009 Series A,
1.80‐5.95%, due 06/01/2035
35,015 32,500 ‐ 885 31,615 915
2011 Refunding,
1.80‐5.95%, due 06/01/2035
17,225 15,240 ‐ 945 14,295 975
Add: Unamortized Premium ‐ 980 ‐ 70 910 ‐
Energy Tax Credit Bonds
2007 Series A, 0%, Due 12/15/2021 1,500 900 ‐ 100 800 100
Less: Unamortized Discount (49) ‐ (6) (43) ‐
State Water Resources Loans
2007, 0%, due 06/30/2029 9,000 7,200 ‐ 450 6,750 450
2009, 2.6%, due 11/30/2030 8,500 7,909 ‐ 350 7,559 359
Total Business‐type Activities Debt 97,615$ 80,044$ ‐$ 3,844$ 76,200$ 3,909$
Description of Long‐Term Debt Issues
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements Project Certificates of Participation (COPs) – On January 16,
2002, the City issued $3.6 million of COPs to finance the construction of certain improvements to the non‐
parking area contained in the City’s Bryant/Florence Garage complex. Principal payments are due
annually on March 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on March 1 and September 1, and are payable
from lease revenues received by the Corporation from the City’s available funds.
2010 General Obligation Bonds (GO bonds) – On June 30, 2010, the City issued $55.3 million of GO bonds
to finance costs for constructing a new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, as well as making
substantial improvements to the Main Library and the Downtown Library. Principal payments are due
annually on August 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on February 1 and August 1 from 2 percent to
5 percent, and are payable from property tax revenues.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $52.5 million
principal and $40.6 million interest as the remaining debt service on the GO bonds, which is scheduled to
occur in FY 2041.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
75
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
2013A General Obligation Bonds – On June 30, 2013, the City issued $20.7 million of GO bonds to finance
costs for constructing a new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, as well as making substantial
improvements to the Main Library and the Downtown Library. Principal payments are due annually on
August 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on February 1 and August 1 from 2 percent to 5 percent,
and are payable from property tax revenues.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $20.7 million
principal and $15.2 million interest as the remaining debt service on the GO bonds, which is scheduled to
occur in FY 2044.
2011 Lease‐Purchase Agreement – On August 2, 2011, the City entered into a master lease‐purchase
agreement with JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. to finance redemption of the 1998 Golf Course COPs. The
lease is secured by a first priority security interest in twenty‐one Fire Department emergency vehicles.
Lease proceeds were $3.2 million. Principal payments are due annually on September 1 and interest
payments are due semi‐annually on September 1 and March 1 at a rate of 2.49 percent, payable from
General Fund revenues.
1995 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A – The City issued $8.6 million of Utility Revenue Bonds on February
1, 1995 to finance certain extensions and improvements to the City’s Storm Drainage and Surface Water
System. The Bonds are special obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of and
lien upon the revenues derived by the City from the funds, services and facilities of all Enterprise Funds
except the Refuse Services Fund, Fiber Optics Fund and Airport Fund. Principal payments are payable
annually on June 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1. A $2.9 million 6.3
percent term bond is due June 1, 2020.
As required by the Indenture, the City established a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds (the “Reserve
Account”), with a minimum funding level requirement in the Reserve Account (the “Reserve
Requirement”). At the time it issued the Bonds, the City satisfied the Reserve Requirement with a deposit
into the Reserve Account of a surety bond (the “Surety Bond”) in the amount of $685,340 issued by Ambac
Indemnity Corporation (renamed to Ambac Assurance Corporation in 1997).
On May 1, 2013, Ambac Financial emerged from bankruptcy protection, which had been filed under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in November 2010. Ambac Assurance remains subject to rehabilitation
proceedings undertaken by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. No assurance can be
made regarding the claims paying ability of Ambac Assurance on the surety bonds described above.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $3.3 million principal
and $0.8 million interest as the remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in FY
2020. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings,
amounted to $243.9 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation
or amortization, amounted to $179.4 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $64.5
million, which represented coverage of 94.7 times over the $0.7 million in debt service.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
76
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
1999 Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds – The City issued $17.7 million of Utility Revenue Bonds on
June 1, 1999, to refund the 1990 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and the 1992 Utility Revenue
Bonds, Series A, and to finance rehabilitation of the two Wastewater Treatment sludge incinerators. The
1990 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and the 1992 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A, were
subsequently retired.
The 1999 Bonds are special obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of and lien
upon certain net revenues derived by the City’s sewer system and its storm and surface water system (the
“Storm Drain System”). As of June 30, 2001, the 1999 Bonds had been allocated to and were repayable
from net revenues of the following enterprise funds: Wastewater Collection (10.2 percent), Wastewater
Treatment (64.6 percent) and Storm Drainage (25.2 percent). Principal payments are payable annually on
June 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1. A $3.1 million 5.3 percent term
bond, and a $5.1 million 5.3 percent term bond are due June 1, 2021 and 2024, respectively.
As required by the Indenture, the City established a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds (the “Reserve
Account”), with a minimum funding level requirement in the Reserve Account (the “Reserve
Requirement”). At the time it issued the Bonds, the City satisfied the Reserve Requirement with a deposit
into the Reserve Account of a surety bond (the “Surety Bond”) in the amount of $1,647,300 issued by
Ambac Indemnity Corporation (renamed to Ambac Assurance Corporation in 1997).
On May 1, 2013, Ambac Financial emerged from bankruptcy protection, which had been filed under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in November 2010. Ambac Assurance remains subject to rehabilitation
proceedings undertaken by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. No assurance can be
made regarding the claims paying ability of Ambac Assurance on the surety bonds described above.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $11.0 million
principal and $3.8 million interest as the remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur
in FY 2024. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings,
amounted to $41.1 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation
or amortization, amounted to $30.9 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $10.2
million, which represents coverage of 8.44 times over the $1.2 million in debt service.
2007 Electric System Clean Renewable Energy Tax Credit Bonds, Series A – In October 2007, the City
issued $1.5 million of Electric Utility Clean Renewable Energy Tax Credit Bonds (CREBs), 2007 Series A, to
finance the City’s photovoltaic solar panel project. The CREBs do not bear interest. In lieu of receiving
periodic interest payments, bondholders are allowed annual federal income tax credits in an amount
equal to a credit rate for such CREBs multiplied by the outstanding principal amount of the CREBs owned
by the bondholders. The CERBs are payable solely from and secured solely by a pledge of the Net Revenues
of the Electric system and the other funds pledged under the Indenture.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
77
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
The pledge of future Electric Fund Net Revenues ends upon repayment of the $0.8 million remaining debt
service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in FY 2022. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including
operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings, amounted to $125.0 million; operating costs,
including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization, amounted to $96.3 million.
Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $28.7 million, which represented coverage of
287 times over the $0.1 million in debt service.
2009 Water Revenue Bonds, Series A – On October 6, 2009, the City issued $35.0 million of Water
Revenue Bonds to finance certain improvements to the City’s water utility system. Principal payments are
due annually on June 1, and interest payments are due semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1 from
1.80 percent to 5.95 percent. The 2009 Revenue Bonds are secured by net revenues generated by the
Water Services Fund. The 2009 Bonds were issued as bonds designated as “Direct Payment Build America
Bonds” under the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Build America
Bonds”). The City expects to receive a cash subsidy payment from the United States Treasury equal to 35
percent of the interest payable on the 2009 Bonds. The lien of the 1995 Bonds on the Net Revenues is
senior to the lien on Net Revenues securing the 2009 Bonds and the 2011 Bonds. The City received subsidy
payments amounting to $549 thousand, which represents 33.5 percent of the interest payments due on
December 1 and June 1.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $31.6 million
principal and $22.2 million interest as the remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to
occur in FY 2035. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest
earnings, amounted to $41.3 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest,
depreciation or amortization, amounted to $27.9 million. Net Revenues available for debt service
amounted to $13.4 million, which represented coverage of 5.22 times over the $2.6 million in debt service.
2011 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds – On September 8, 2011, the City issued $17.2 million in Lease
Revenue Bonds (2011 Bonds) to refund the outstanding 2002 Series A Utility Revenue Bonds (2002 Bonds)
on a current basis. The 2002 Bonds were issued to finance improvement to the City’s municipal water
utility system and the natural gas utility system. Principal of the 2011 Bonds is payable annually on June
1, and interest on the 2011 Bonds is payable semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1. The 2011 Bonds
are secured by net revenues generated by the Water Services and Gas Services Funds.
The pledge of future Net Revenues of the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $14.3 million principal
and $3.2 million interest as remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in FY 2035.
For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings, amounted
to $77.7 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or
amortization, amounted to $52.2 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $25.5
million, which represented coverage of 17.6 times over the $1.5 million in debt service.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
78
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
2007 State Water Resources Loan – In October 2007, the City approved a $9 million loan agreement with
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to finance the City’s Mountain View/Moffett Area
reclaimed water pipeline project. Under the terms of the contract, the City has agreed to repay $9 million
to the State in exchange for receiving $7.5 million in proceeds to be used to fund the Project. The
difference between the repayment obligation and proceeds amounts to $1.5 million and represents in‐
substance interest on the outstanding balance. Principal payments are payable annually on June 30.
Concurrently with the loan, the City entered into various other agreements including a cost sharing
arrangement with the City of Mountain View. Pursuant to that agreement, City of Mountain View agreed
to finance a portion of the project with a $6 million loan repayable to the City. This loan has been recorded
as “Due from other government agencies” in the accompanying financial statements.
2009 State Water Resources Loan – In October 2009, the City approved an $8.5 million loan agreement
with SWRCB to finance the City’s Ultraviolet Disinfection project. Principal and interest payments are
payable annually on November 30.
Debt Service Requirements (in thousands):
Debt service requirements are shown below for all long‐term debt.
For the Year Ending
June 30 Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total
2015 1,948$ 3,402$ 5,350$ 3,909$ 3,109$ 7,018$
2016 1,995 3,337 5,332 4,049 2,972 7,021
2017 2,066 3,260 5,326 4,198 2,818 7,016
2018 2,156 3,170 5,326 4,363 2,656 7,019
2019 2,251 3,073 5,324 4,533 2,445 6,978
2020‐2024 9,940 14,055 23,995 25,285 9,602 34,887
2025‐2029 11,620 11,616 23,236 15,291 5,471 20,762
2030‐2034 14,625 8,571 23,196 11,285 2,649 13,934
2035‐2039 18,160 4,938 23,098 2,420 144 2,564
2040‐2044 11,910 887 12,797 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 76,671$ 56,309$ 132,980$ 75,333$ 31,866$ 107,199$
Governmental Activities Business‐Type Activities
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
79
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
Debt Call Provisions
Long‐term debt as of June 30, 2014 is callable on the following terms and conditions:
Initial Call Date
Governmental Activities Long‐Term Debt
2002B Certificates of Participation 03/01/11 (2)
2010 General Obligation Bonds
$6.595 million due 08/01/2032 08/01/31 (3)
$4.890 million due 08/01/2034 08/01/33 (3)
$17.725 million due 08/01/2040 08/01/35 (3)
Business‐Type Activities Long‐Term Debt
Utility Revenue Bonds
1999 Refunding 06/01/09 (1)
2011 Refunding 06/01/21 (1)
(1) Callable in inverse numerical order of maturity at par plus a premium of 2 percent beginning on the
initial call date. The call price declines subsequent to the initial date.
(2) Callable in any order specified by the City at par plus a premium of 1 percent beginning on the initial
call date. The call price declines subsequent to the initial date.
(3) Callable in any order specified by the City at par value plus any accrued interest beginning on the
initial call date.
Leasing Arrangements
COPs and Capital Leases are issued for the purpose of financing the construction or acquisition of projects
defined in each leasing arrangement. Projects are leased to the City for lease payments which, together
with unspent proceeds of the leasing arrangement, will be sufficient to meet the debt service obligations
of the leasing arrangement. At the termination of the leasing arrangement, title to the project will pass to
the City.
Leasing arrangements are similar to debt in that they allow investors to participate in a share of
guaranteed payments made by the City. Because they are similar to debt, the present value of the total
payments to be made by the City is recorded as long‐term debt. The City’s leasing arrangements are
included in long‐term obligations discussed above.
Conduit Financing
On December 15, 1996, the City acted as a financial intermediary in order to assist Lytton Gardens Health
Care Center in issuing Insured Revenue Refunding Bonds. The Bonds are payable solely from revenues
collected by Lytton Gardens Health Care Center. The City has not included these bonds in its basic financial
statements since it is not legally or morally obligated for the repayment of the bonds. At June 30, 2014,
the amount of bonds outstanding was $3.2 million.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
80
NOTE 8 – SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT
Special Assessment Debt with no City Commitment
The California Avenue Parking Assessment District No. 92‐13 issued Assessment Bonds of 1993, but the
City has no legal or moral liability with respect to the payment of this debt, which is secured only by
assessments on the properties in this District. Therefore, this debt is not included in Governmental
Activities long‐term debt of the City. At June 30, 2014, the District’s outstanding debt amounted to
$330 thousand.
On February 29, 2012, the University Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District issued Limited
Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds (2012 Bonds), but the City has no legal or moral liability with
respect to the payment of this debt, which is secured only by assessments on properties in this District.
Therefore, this debt is not included in Governmental Activities long‐term debt of the City. At
June 30, 2014, the District’s outstanding debt amounted to $29.4 million. The proceeds from the 2012
Bonds, combined with available Assessment Funds, were used to redeem the outstanding University
Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District Series 2001‐A and Series 2002‐A Bonds.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
81
NOTE 9 – LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST‐CLOSURE CARE
State and federal laws and regulations require the City to close the Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Site (Palo
Alto Landfill) after it stops accepting waste by constructing a final cover on top of the approximately 126
acre landfill to cap the wastes, and by performing certain maintenance and monitoring activities at the
site for a minimum of thirty years after closure. The first section of the landfill closed in 1991 was a 29‐
acre section designated “Phase I” costing $1.6 million. Phase I was subsequently converted to a pastoral
park (Byxbee Park) and opened to the public. The remaining sections of the landfill are designated as
Phase IIA (22.5 acres closed in 1992 at a cost of $0.9 million), Phase IIB (23.2 acres closed in 2000 at a cost
of $1.2 million) and Phase IIC, a 51.2 acre active area that is currently filled to capacity and ceased
accepting waste after July 28, 2011. Phase IIC closure is under way and is expected to be completed by
late summer 2015. The 30 years of post‐closure maintenance costs will be paid after the state certifies
the Phase IIC closure.
In accordance with state regulations, a final closure and post‐closure maintenance plan was approved by
state and local regulatory agencies in 2014. As part of this plan, the City’s consultant updated cost
forecasts for both the remaining Phase IIC closure and for the 30 year post‐closure maintenance activities.
Landfill closure and post‐closure liabilities for FY 2014 and FY 2013 were $11.4 and $11.2 million,
respectively. Changes in the liability for landfill closure and post‐closure costs are the result of an annual
inflation factor that is applied to the estimated costs.
The City is required by state and federal laws and regulations to make annual funding contributions to
finance closure and post‐closure care. The City’s financial assurance for the $5.5 million post‐closure
maintenance is a pledge of revenue agreement with California Integrated Waste Management Board. The
$5.9 million closure liability is under the enterprise fund mechanism. The City is in compliance with these
requirements for the year ended June 30, 2014.
The landfill closure balance as of June 30, 2014 comprised the following (in thousands):
Funding Mechanism
Closure 5,907$ Cash on hand
Post‐closure care 5,456 Future revenues
Balance 11,363$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
82
NOTE 10 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES
Net Position
Net Position is the excess of the City’s assets and deferred outflows of resources over its liabilities. Net
position is divided into three categories that are described below:
Net Investment in Capital Assets describes the portion of net position, which is represented by current net
book value of the City’s capital assets, less the outstanding balance of any debt issued to finance these
assets.
Restricted describes the portion of net position that is reduced by liabilities related to restricted assets.
Generally a liability relates to restricted assets if the asset results from a resource flow that also results in
the recognition of a liability or if the liability will be liquidated with the restricted assets reported.
Unrestricted describes the portion of net position which is not restricted as to use.
Fund Balances
As prescribed by GASB Statement No. 54, governmental funds report fund balances in classifications based
primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which
amounts in the funds can be spent. Fund balances for governmental funds are made up of the following:
Nonspendable – This category is comprised of amounts that are: (a) not in spendable form, or (b) legally
or contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items
that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example: prepaid items, and long‐term notes
receivable. The corpus of the permanent fund is contractually required to be maintained intact.
Restricted – This category is comprised of amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes
stipulated by external resource providers, constitutionally or through enabling legislation. Restrictions
may effectively be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers.
Committed – This category is comprised of amounts that can only be used for the specific purposes
determined by the action that constitutes the most binding constraint (i.e. ordinance) of the City’s highest
level of decision‐making authority, the City Council. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the
City taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally.
Assigned – This category is comprised of amounts intended to be used by the City for specific purposes
that are neither restricted nor committed. Intent is expressed by the City Council or the City Manager, to
whom the City Council has delegated the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes.
Unassigned –This category is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all amounts not
contained in the other classifications. Unassigned amounts are technically available for any purpose.
Other governmental funds may report negative unassigned fund balance, which occurs when a fund has
a residual deficit after allocation of fund balance to the nonspendable, restricted or committed categories.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
83
NOTE 10 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)
The fund balances of all governmental funds are presented by the above mentioned categories on the
face of the financial statements. In circumstances when an expenditure is made for a purpose for which
amounts are available in multiple fund balance categories, fund balance is depleted in the order of
restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned.
The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) is established by authority of the General Fund
Reserve Policy, which is approved by the City Council and included in the City’s annual adopted budget.
The BSR is maintained in the range of 15 to 20 percent of General Fund expenditures and operating
transfers, with a target of 18.5 percent. Any reserve level below 15 percent requires City Council approval.
At the discretion of the City Manager, a reserve balance above 18.5 percent may be transferred to the
Infrastructure Reserve within the Capital Projects Fund. The purpose of the General Fund BSR is to fund
unbudgeted, unanticipated one‐time costs. The BSR is not meant to fund ongoing, recurring General Fund
expenditures.
The Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve (IR) is the portion of capital projects assigned fund
balance not yet adopted for a specific project. It does not include potential outside funding for adopted
projects.
As of June 30, 2014 total outstanding encumbrances related to governmental activities were $6.4 million
for the General Fund, $28.1 million for the Capital Projects Fund, and $0.7 million for the Special Revenue
Funds. General Fund encumbrances are reserved for the following governmental activities: Planning &
Community Environment $1.8 million, Public Works $1.1 million, Community Services $1.2 million, Public
Safety $1.0 million, Library $0.7 million, and administrative departments $1.7 million.
Enterprise Funds
At June 30, 2014, Enterprise Fund unrestricted net position (in thousands) were as follows:
Water Electric Fiber Optics Gas
Wastewater
Collection
Wastewater
Treatment Refuse
Storm
Drainage Airport Total
Unrestricted
Rate stabilization
Supply ‐$ 61,679$ ‐$ 5,924$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 67,603$
Distribution ‐ 8,369 ‐ 10,057 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18,426
Operations 20,132 ‐ 18,415 ‐ 7,285 5,483 (1,640) 1,601 (1,039) 50,237
20,132 70,048 18,415 15,981 7,285 5,483 (1,640) 1,601 (1,039) 136,266
Emergency plant replacement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,980 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,980
Electric special projects ‐ 51,838 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51,838
Reappropriations 10,847 8,715 301 1,488 6,858 2,118 61 4,493 50 34,931
Commitments 5,148 5,737 217 9,817 1,454 4,578 985 1,714 111 29,761
Underground loan ‐ 734 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 734
Notes and loans ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 559 ‐ ‐ ‐ 559
Landfill corrective action ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 701 ‐ ‐ 701
Public benefit program ‐ 2,064 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,064
Central Valley Project 329 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 329
Geng Road Reserve ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 267 ‐ ‐ 267
Total 37,127$ 140,465$ 19,933$ 28,286$ 16,597$ 14,718$ 374$ 7,808$ (878)$ 264,430$
The City Council has set aside unrestricted net position for general contingencies, and future capital and
debt service expenditures including operating and capital contingencies for unusual or emergency
expenditures.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
84
NOTE 10 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)
Internal Service Funds
At June 30, 2014, Internal Service Funds unrestricted net position (in thousands) were as follows:
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance Technology
Printing and
Mailing
Services
General
Benefits
Workers'
Compensation
Insurance
Program
General
Liabilities
Insurance
Program
Retiree Health
Benefits Total
Unrestricted net position:
Commitments 1,689$ 1,990$ 87$ 47$ 77$ 25$ ‐$ 3,915$
Future catastrophic losses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 124 1,560 ‐ 1,684
Retiree health care ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 26,837 26,837
Capital projects 3,458 6,651 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,109
Available 6,358 10,281 (83) 1,397 ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,953
Total 11,505$ 18,922$ 4$ 1,444$ 201$ 1,585$ 26,837$ 60,498$
Commitments represent the portion of net position set aside for open purchase orders.
Future catastrophic losses represent the portion of net position to be used for unforeseen future losses.
Retiree health care represents the portion of net position set aside to defer future costs of retiree health
care coverage.
Capital projects represent the portion of net position set aside for adopted capital projects.
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS
CalPERS Safety and Miscellaneous Employees’ Plans
Substantially all permanent City employees are eligible to participate in pension plans offered by California
Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), an agent for multiple employer defined benefit pension
plans which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member
employers. CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and
death benefits to Plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. The City’s employees
participate in the Safety (police and fire) and Miscellaneous (all other) Employee Plans. Benefit provisions
under both Plans are established by State statute and City resolution. Benefits are based on years of
credited service equal to one year of full‐time employment, age at retirement and final compensation
salary. Funding contributions for both Plans are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30
by CalPERS.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
85
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (Continued)
The Plans’ provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2014, as determined by the valuation dated June 30,
2011, are summarized as follows:
Safety Plan Safety Plan Safety Plan
Fire Fighters, Fire Chiefs Association, Fire Fighters,Police Officers,
Police Officers, Police Management Fire Chiefs Association Police Management
Hire Date Before 6/8/12 Hire Date on or After 6/8/12 Hire Date on or After 12/8/12
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life
Full retirement age 50 551 551
Monthly benefits, as a % of annual salary 3%3%3%
Required employee contribution rates 9% 9% 9%
Required employer contribution rates 34.716% 34.716% 34.716%
1 Employees can retire at age 50 with reduced benefits of 2.4% ‐ 2.88%.
Miscellaneous Plan Miscellaneous Plan
Hire Date Before 7/17/10 Hire Date on or After 7/17/10
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life
Full retirement age2 55 60
Monthly benefits, as a % of annual salary2 2.7%2.0% ‐ 2.418%
Required employee contribution rates 8%7%
Required employer contribution rates 25.536%25.536%
2 Employees can retire at age 50 with reduced benefits of 2.0% ‐ 2.56% if hired before 7/17/10, or 1.092% ‐ 1.874% if hired on or after 7/17/10.
Contributions are collected through payroll deductions and the City remits those contributions to CalPERS.
CalPERS determines contribution requirements using a modification of the Entry Age Normal Method.
Under this method, the City’s total normal benefit cost for each employee from date of hire to date of
retirement is expressed as a level percentage of the related total payroll cost. Normal benefit cost under
this method is the level amount the employer must pay annually to fund an employee’s projected
retirement benefit. This level percentage of payroll method is used to amortize any unfunded actuarial
liabilities. The actuarial assumptions used to compute contribution requirements are also used to
compute the actuarial accrued liability. The City does not have a net pension obligation since it pays these
actuarially required contributions monthly.
Actuarially determined employer and employee contributions for all plans for fiscal years 2014, 2013 and
2012 were $31.9, $28.6 and $27.7 million, respectively. The City made these contributions as required,
together with certain immaterial amounts required as the result of the payment of overtime and other
additional employee compensation.
The City uses the actuarially determined percentages of payroll to calculate and pay contributions to
CalPERS. This results in no net pension obligations or unpaid contributions.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
86
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (Continued)
Annual Pension Costs representing the payment of annual required contributions determined by CalPERS
for the last three fiscal years were as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year Ended
Annual
Pension Cost
(APC)
Percent of
APC
Contributed
Net Pension
Obligation
Safety Plan
June 30, 2012 7,324$ 100%‐$
June 30, 2013 7,871 100%‐
June 30, 2014 8,323 100%‐
Miscellaneous Plan
June 30, 2012 15,687$ 100%‐$
June 30, 2013 15,801 100%‐
June 30, 2014 16,209 100%‐
CalPERS uses the 15 year smoothed market method of valuing the Plan assets. An investment rate of
return of 7.50 percent is assumed, including inflation at 2.75 percent. Annual salary increases are assumed
to vary by duration of service. Changes in liability due to plan amendments, changes in actuarial
assumptions, or changes in actuarial methods are amortized as a level percentage of payroll on a closed
basis over twenty years. Investment gains and losses are tracked and amortized over a 30 year rolling
period, except for special gains and losses in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 which are being amortized
over fixed and declining 30 year periods.
The Schedule of Funding Progress presents multi‐year trend information about whether the actuarial
value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for
benefits. The actuarial value (which differs from market value) and funding progress of the Plans over the
most recently available three years is set forth below at their actuarial valuation date of June 30 (in
thousands):
Safety Plan:
Valuation Date
June 30,
Entry Age
Accrued
Liability
Value of
Assets
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
Unfunded
Liability as a
% of Payroll
2011 313,184$ 254,305$ 58,879$ 81.2% 22,774$ 258.5%
2012 327,608 258,661 68,947 79.0% 20,920 329.6%
2013 338,666 233,417 105,249 68.9% 21,258 495.1%
Miscellaneous Plan:
Valuation Date
June 30,
Entry Age
Accrued
Liability
Value of
Assets
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
Unfunded
Liability as a
% of Payroll
2011 552,716$ 434,985$ 117,731$ 78.7% 60,298$ 195.2%
2012 576,182 447,819 128,363 77.7% 62,910 204.0%
2013 602,540 412,228 190,312 68.4% 64,440 295.3%
Actuarial
Actuarial
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
87
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (Continued)
The significant actuarial assumptions adopted by CalPERS’ Board of Administration that were used to
prepare the City’s actuarial valuations for both the Safety and Miscellaneous Plans are as follows:
Safety Plan
Valuation Date 6/30/2013* 6/30/2011**
Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method
Amortization Method Level percent of payroll Level percent of payroll
Average Remaining Period Not available 30 Years as of the Valuation Date
Asset Valuation Method Market Value 15 Year Smoothed Market
Actuarial Assumptions:
Investment Rate of Return 7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
Projected Salary Increases 3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
Inflation 2.75%2.75%
Payroll Growth 3.00%3.00%
Individual Salary Growth A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
Miscellaneous Plan
Valuation Date 6/30/2013* 6/30/2011**
Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method
Amortization Method Level percent of payroll Level percent of payroll
Average Remaining Period Not available 21 Years as of the Valuation Date
Asset Valuation Method Market Value 15 Year Smoothed Market
Actuarial Assumptions:
Investment Rate of Return 7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
Projected Salary Increases 3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
Inflation 2.75% 2.75%
Payroll Growth 3.00% 3.00%
Individual Salary Growth A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
* The June 30, 2013 valuations, which are the most recent valuations, were used to disclose the funded status.
** The June 30, 2011 valuations were used to determine the contribution requirements for FY 2014.
Audited annual financial statements and six‐year trend information are available from CalPERS at P.O. Box
942703, Sacramento, CA 94229‐2709.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
88
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS
In addition to providing pension benefits, the City participates in the California Public Employees’ Medical
and Health Care Act program to provide certain health care benefits for retired employees. Employees
who retire directly from the City are eligible for retiree health benefits if they retire on or after age 50
with 5 years of service and are receiving a monthly pension from CalPERS. Details of benefits provided to
retirees are noted in the following tables:
Unit
Hired
Before
Retiree
Coverage1
Dependent
Coverage
Retired on
or After
Retiree
Contribution
Management & Professional2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 5/1/2011 10%
Police Management2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 5/1/2011 10%
Fire Fighters2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 12/1/2011 10%
Fire Chiefs Association2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 1/1/2013 10%
SEIU 1/1/2005 100% 100% 5/1/2011 Flat rate4
Police Officers3 1/1/2006 100% 100% N/A 0%
Utilities Managers & Professional2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 5/1/2011 10%
2 Effective 1/1/2007 plan capped at the second highest CalPERS Bay Area Basic plan premium.
3 Effective 3/1/2009 plan capped at the second highest CalPERS Bay Area Basic plan premium.
4 Effective 4/1/2014 City pays $688 for employee, $1,375 for employee +1, $1,788 for family.
Unit
Hired on or
After
Retiree
Coverage1
Dependent
Coverage2
Management & Professional 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Police Management 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Fire Fighters 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Fire Chiefs Association 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
SEIU 1/1/2005 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Police Officers 1/1/2006 50%‐100% Max. 90%
specified employer contribution, with the City portion increasing by 5% for each additional year of service credit.
2 Maximun of 90% once employee completes 20 years of service.
1 100% of benefits if the employee has five years CalPERS service credit and the employee retired from the City.
1 Employees with ten years of CalPERS service, at least five of which are at the City of Palo Alto, receive 50% of the
Retiree contributions for units with the following hire dates are determined by Government Code
Section 22893, 20 year graduated schedule:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
89
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Continued)
During FY 2008, the City elected to participate in an irrevocable trust to provide a funding mechanism for
retiree health benefits. The Trust, California Employers’ Retirees Benefit Trust (CERBT), is administrated
by CalPERS and managed by a separately appointed board, which is not under control of the City Council.
This Trust is not considered a component unit of the City.
Funding Policy and Actuarial Assumptions
The City’s policy is to prefund these benefits by accumulating assets in the Trust Fund discussed above
pursuant to City Council Resolution. The annual required contribution (ARC) was determined as part of a
June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. This is a projected
benefit cost method, which takes into account those benefits that are expected to be earned in the future
as well as those already accrued. The actuarial assumptions include: (a) 7.61 percent investment rate of
return, (b) 3.25 percent projected annual salary increase, (c) actuarial value of assets, (d) inflation rate of
3 percent, and (e) health care cost trend data as noted in the following table:
Year Non‐Medicare Medicare
2013 9.0% 9.4%
2014 8.5% 8.9%
2015 8.0% 8.0%
2016 7.5% 7.8%
2017 7.0% 7.2%
2018 6.5% 6.7%
2019 6.0% 6.1%
2020 5.5% 5.6%
2021+ 5.0% 5.0%
The most current funded status of the plan was determined as part of the June 30, 2013 actuarial
valuation. Actuarial assumptions used for the June 30, 2013 actuarial valuation were the same as those
used for the June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation.
The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that smooth the effects of short‐term
volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets. Actuarial calculations reflect a
long‐term perspective and actuarial valuations involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and
assumptions about the probability of events far into the future. The calculations are based on the types
of benefits provided under the terms of the substantive plan at the time of each valuation and on the
pattern of sharing costs between the City and Plan members to that point. Actuarially determined
amounts are subject to revision at least biannually as results are compared to past expectations and new
estimates are made about the future. The City’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability for retiree health
benefits is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll using a 30 year closed amortization
period.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
90
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Continued)
Generally accepted accounting principles permit assets to be treated as other post employment benefit
(OPEB) assets and deducted from the Actuarial Accrued Liability when such assets are placed in an
irrevocable trust or equivalent arrangement. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City made
contributions and amortized the Net OPEB asset to fund the current year ARC. As a result, the City has
calculated and recorded the Net OPEB Asset, representing the difference between the ARC, amortization
and contributions, as presented below (in thousands):
Annual required contribution 13,035$
Amortization on the Net OPEB Asset 1,989
Interest on the Net OPEB Asset (1,769)
Annual OPEB Cost 13,255
Contributions made:
Contributions to OPEB Trust 6,697
Contributions to Retirees 4,056
City portion of current year premiums paid*3,261
Total contributions made 14,014
Change in Net OPEB Asset 759
Net OPEB Asset, beginning of year 21,851
Net OPEB Asset, end of year 22,610$
* FY 2014 premiums for 905 retirees.
Shortly after year‐end, the City contributed an additional $2.8 million to the Trust.
The Plan’s annual OPEB cost and actual contributions for the past three years ended June 30 are set forth
below (in thousands):
Fiscal Year
Annual OPEB
Cost
Actual
Contribution
Percentage
of OPEB
Cost
Net OPEB
Obligation
(Asset)
June 30, 2012 13,058$ 11,323$ 87% (21,271)$
June 30, 2013 13,194 13,774 104% (21,851)
June 30, 2014 13,255 14,014 106% (22,610)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
91
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Continued)
The Schedule of Funding Progress presents multi‐year trend information about whether the actuarial
value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for
benefits. Trend data from the actuarial studies is presented below (in thousands):
Valuation Date
Entry Age
Accrued
Liability
Value of
Assets
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
Unfunded
Liability as a
% of Payroll
January 1, 2011 165,660$ 40,213$ 125,447$ 24.3% 80,664$ 155.5%
June 30, 2011 * 168,053 44,774 123,279 26.6% 81,785 150.7%
June 30, 2013 203,642 60,070 143,572 29.5% 81,785 175.5%
* In accordance with GASB Statement No. 57, the CERBT required all trust participants to use a common valuation date.
Therefore, the City is required to conduct its biennial valuation on June 30, rather than January 1, effective for 2011.
Retiree activities in the City’s Retiree Health Benefit Internal Service Fund consist of the following for the
year ended June 30 (in thousands):
Retiree Health Benefits 2014 2013
Net Position, beginning of year 27,233$ 26,265$
Interest earnings 51 78
Unrealized gain/(loss) on investments 12 (142)
Interdepartmental charges 11,635 12,986
Retiree health benefits (12,094) (11,954)
Net Position, end of year 26,837$ 27,233$
NOTE 13 – DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
City employees may defer a portion of their compensation under City sponsored Deferred Compensation
Plans created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. Under these Plans, participants are
not taxed on the deferred portion of their compensation until distributed to them. Distributions may be
made only at termination, retirement, death or in an emergency as defined by the Plans.
The laws governing deferred compensation plan assets require plan assets to be held by a Trust for the
exclusive benefit of plan participants and their beneficiaries. Since the assets held under these plans are
not the City’s property and are not subject to City control, they have been excluded from these financial
statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
92
NOTE 14 – RISK MANAGEMENT
Coverage
The City provides dental coverage to employees through a City plan, which is administered by a third party
service agent. The City is self‐insured for the dental claims.
The City has a workers’ compensation insurance policy with coverage up to the statutory limit set by the
State of California. The City retains the risk for the first $500,000 in losses for each accident and employee
under this policy.
The City also has public employee dishonesty insurance with a $5,000 deductible and coverage up to
$1.0 million per loss.
The City’s property, boiler, and machinery insurance policy has various deductibles and various coverage
based on the type of property.
The City is a member of the Authority for California Cities Excess Liability (ACCEL), which provides excess
general liability, including auto liability, insurance coverage up to $100 million per occurrence. The City
retains the risk for the first $1.0 million in losses for each occurrence under this policy.
ACCEL was established for the purpose of creating a risk management pool for central California
municipalities. ACCEL is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives of its member
cities. The board controls the operations of ACCEL, including selection of claims management, general
administration and approval of the annual budget.
The City’s deposits with ACCEL equal the ratio of the City’s payroll to the total payrolls of all entities. Actual
surpluses or losses are shared according to a formula developed from overall loss costs and spread to
member entities on a percentage basis after a retrospective rating.
During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City paid $0.8 million to ACCEL for current year coverage.
Audited financial statements are available from ACCEL at 100 Pine Street, 11th Floor, San Francisco,
California 94110.
Claims Liability
The City provides for the uninsured portion of claims and judgments in the General Benefits and Insurance
Internal Service Funds. Claims and judgments, including a provision for claims incurred but not reported,
and claim adjustment expenses are recorded when a loss is deemed probable of assertion and the amount
of the loss is reasonably determinable. As discussed above, the City has coverage for such claims, but it
has retained the risk for the deductible or uninsured portion of these claims.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
93
NOTE 14 – RISK MANAGEMENT (Continued)
The City’s liability for uninsured claims is limited to dental, general liability, and workers’ compensation
claims, as discussed above. Dental liability is based on a percentage of current year actual expense.
General and workers’ compensation liabilities are based on the results of actuarial studies, and include
amounts for claims incurred but not reported as follows as of June 30 (in thousands):
2014 2013
Beginning balance 27,745$ 27,466$
Liability for current and prior fiscal years claims and
claims incurred but not reported (IBNR)3,232 3,531
Claims paid (4,224) (3,252)
Ending balance 26,753$ 27,745$
Current portion 5,665$ 6,663$
Year Ended June 30
The City has not incurred a claim that has exceeded its insurance coverage limits in any of the last three
years, nor have there been any significant reductions in insurance coverage.
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES
General
The City participates in joint ventures through Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) established under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California. As separate legal entities, these JPAs exercise full powers
and authorities within the scope of the related Joint Powers Agreement, including the preparation of
annual budgets, accountability for all funds, the power to make and execute contracts and the right to
sue and be sued. Obligations and liabilities of the JPAs are not those of the City.
Each JPA is governed by a board consisting of representatives from each member agency. Each board
controls the operations of its respective JPA, including selection of management and approval of operating
budgets, independent of any influence by member agencies beyond their representation on the Board.
Northern California Power Agency
The City is a member of Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint powers agency which operates
under a joint powers agreement among fifteen public agencies. The purpose of NCPA is to use the
combined strength of its members to purchase, generate, sell and interchange electric energy and
capacity through the acquisition and use of electrical generation and transmission facilities. Each agency
member has agreed to fund a pro rata share of certain assessments by NCPA and enter into take‐or‐pay
power supply contracts with NCPA. While NCPA is governed by its members, none of its obligations are
those of its members unless expressly assumed by them.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
94
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES (Continued)
During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City incurred expenses totaling $71.7 million for purchased
power and assessments earned by NCPA.
The City’s interest in NCPA projects and reserves, as computed by NCPA, was $7.5 million at June 30, 2014.
This amount represents the City’s portion of funds, which resulted from the settlement with third parties
of issues with financial consequences and reconciliations of several prior years’ budgets for programs. It
is recognized that all the funds credited to the City are linked to the collection of revenue from the City’s
ratepayers, or to the settlement of disputes relating to electric power supply and that the money was
collected from the City’s ratepayers to pay power bills. Additionally, the NCPA Commission identified and
approved the funding of specific reserves for working capital, accumulated employees’ post‐retirement
medical benefits, and billed property taxes for the geothermal project. The Commission also identified a
number of contingent liabilities that may or may not be realized, the cost of which in most cases is difficult
to estimate at this time. One such contingent liability is the steam field depletion, which will require
funding to cover debt service and operational costs in excess of the expected value of the electric power.
The General Operating Reserve (GOR) is intended to minimize the number and amount of individual
reserves needed for each project, protect NCPA’s financial condition and maintain its credit worthiness.
The GOR funds of $1.5 million are left on deposit with NCPA as a reserve against these contingencies
identified by NCPA.
Members of NCPA may participate in an individual project of NCPA without obligation for any other
project. Member assessments collected for one project may not be used to finance other projects of NCPA
without the member’s permission.
Geothermal Projects
A purchased power agreement with NCPA obligated the City for 6.2 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively,
of the operating costs and debt service of the two NCPA 110‐megawatt geothermal steampowered
generating plants, Project Number 2 and Project Number 3.
The City’s participation in the Geothermal Project was sold to Turlock Irrigation District in October 1984.
Accordingly, the City is liable for payment of outstanding geothermal related debt only in the event that
Turlock fails to make specified payments. Total outstanding debt of the NCPA Geothermal Project at June
30, 2014 is $85.6 million. The City’s participation in this project was 6.2 percent, or $5.3million.
Calaveras Hydroelectric Project
In July 1981, NCPA agreed with Calaveras County Water District to purchase the output of the North Fork
Stanislaus River Hydroelectric Development Project and to finance its construction. Debt service payments
to NCPA began in February 1990 when the project was declared substantially complete and power was
delivered to the participants. Under its power purchase agreement with NCPA, the City is obligated to pay
22.9 percent of this Project’s debt service and operating costs. At June 30, 2014, the book value of this
Project’s plant, equipment and other assets was $465 million, while its long‐term debt totaled $398.6
million and other liabilities totaled $60.9 million. The City’s share of the Project’s long‐term debt
amounted to $91.2 million at that date.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
95
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES (Continued)
Geothermal Public Power Line
In 1983, NCPA, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of Santa Clara and the Modesto Irrigation
District (Joint Owners) initiated studies for a Geothermal Public Power Line (GPPL), which would carry
power generated at several existing and planned geothermal plants in The Geysers area to a location
where the Joint Owners could receive it for transmission to their load centers. NCPA has an 18.5 percent
share of this Project and the City has an 11.1 percent participation in NCPA’s share. In 1989, the
development of the proposed Geothermal Public Power Line was discontinued because NCPA was able to
contract for sufficient transmission capacity to meet its needs in The Geysers.
However, because the project financing provided funding for an ownership interest in a Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E) transmission line, a central dispatch facility and a performance bond pursuant to the
Interconnection Agreement with PG&E, as well as an ownership interest in the proposed GPPL, NCPA
issued $16 million in long‐term, fixed‐rate revenue bonds in November 1989 to defease the remaining
variable rate refunding bonds used to refinance this project. The City is obligated to pay its 11.1 percent
share of the related debt service, but debt service costs are covered through NCPA billing mechanisms
that allocate the costs to members based on use of the facilities and services.
At June 30, 2014, the book value of this Project’s plant, equipment and other assets was zero, and its long‐
term debt totaled zero.
NCPA’s financial statements can be obtained from NCPA, 180 Cirby Way, Roseville, CA 95678.
Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC)
The City is a member of a joint powers agreement with 14 other entities in Transmission Agency of
Northern California (TANC). TANC’s purpose is to provide electrical transmission or other facilities for the
use of its members. While governed by its members, none of TANC’s obligations are those of its members
unless expressly assumed by them. The City was obligated to pay 4 percent of TANC’s debt‐service and
operating costs. However, a Resolution was approved authorizing the execution of a Long‐Term Layoff
Agreement (LTLA) between the Cities of Palo Alto and Roseville. These two agencies desired to “layoff”
their entitlement rights to the California‐Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) (and Roseville’s South of
Tesla entitlement rights) for a period of 15 years to those acquiring Members (Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, Turlock Irrigation District, and Modesto Irrigation District). The effective date of this
Agreement was February 1, 2009. As a result, the City is not obligated to pay TANC’s debt‐service and
operating costs starting February 1, 2009, for a period of fifteen years.
TANC has issued four series of Revenue Bonds and Commercial Paper Notes totaling $421.4 million as of
June 30, 2014 and $93.8 million of Commercial Paper debt backed by a Letter of Credit. The City’s share
of these debts is zero due to the LTLA mentioned above.
TANC’s financial statements can be obtained from TANC, P.O. Box 15129, Sacramento, CA 95851.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
96
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES (Continued)
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)
The City is a member of a regional water district with 26 other entities, the Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA was created on May 27, 2003 to represent the interests of 24
cities and water districts and two private utilities in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that
purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San Francisco regional water system. It has the power to
issue debt and plan, finance, construct, and operate water supply, transmission, reclamation, and
conservation projects on behalf of its members.
In 2013 the City participated in a debt issuance by BAWSCA. The debt was issued to repay certain long‐
term costs associated with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) water supply contract.
The City’s share of the annual debt service is approximately $1.9 million per year, but will vary based on
annual water purchases of the City compared to other BAWSCA agencies.
BAWSCA’s financial statements can be obtained from BAWSCA, 155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, San Mateo,
California 94402.
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Palo Alto Unified School District – The City leases a portion of the former Cubberley School site and twelve
extended day care sites from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The lease is part of a larger
agreement, which includes a covenant not to develop certain properties owned by PAUSD. The lease term
expired on December 31, 2004, upon which the City exercised its first option to extend for 10 years, for a
new expiration date of 12/31/2014. The lease provides for two more five‐year options to extend,
1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019, and 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2024. The City’s rent for the facilities is $7.1 million per
year plus insurance, repairs and maintenance. The rent may vary from year to year depending on the
actual number of days used. Should any new law or regulation require the expenditure of work in excess
of $250,000, per the terms of the lease, the City and PAUSD may renegotiate the lease. This lease is
cancelable upon 90 days’ written notice in the event funds are not appropriated by the City. In addition,
the lease is contingent upon authorization by the Palo Alto electorate if it exceeds the City’s Proposition
4 (GANN) appropriations limitation in any fiscal year. Lease expenditures for the year ended June 30, 2014,
amounted to $7.3 million. Future minimum annual lease and covenant payments for the year ending
June 30, 2015 is $3.6 million.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
97
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
GreenWaste of Palo Alto – GreenWaste of Palo Alto continues as the City’s contractor for waste
collection, transportation, and processing services. The agreement has a term of eight years, expiring June
30, 2017, with an option to extend the contract to 2021. The base compensation for GreenWaste is
adjusted annually based on CPI indicators stipulated in the contract. In FY 2014 payments to GreenWaste
were $10.9 million.
City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant – The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los
Altos (the Partners) participate jointly in the cost of maintaining and operating the City of Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant and related system (the Plant). The City is the owner and
administrator of the Plant, which provides the transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage for the
Partners. The cities of Mountain View and Los Altos are entitled to use a portion of the capacity of the
Plant for a specified period of time. Each partner has the right to rent unused capacity from/to the other
partners. The expenses of operations and maintenance are paid quarterly by each partner based on its
pro rata share of treatment costs. Additionally, joint system revenues are shared by the partners in the
same ratio as expenses are paid. The amended agreement has a term of fifty years beginning from the
original signing in October 1968, but may be terminated by any partner upon ten years’ notice to the other
partners. All sewage treatment property, plant and equipment are included in the Wastewater Treatment
Enterprise Fund’s capital assets balance at June 30, 2014. If the City initiates the termination of the
contracts, it is required to pay the other partners their unamortized contribution towards the capital
assets.
Solid Waste Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT Station) – On June 9, 1992, the City, along
with the City of Mountain View, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of
Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale) to participate in the construction and operation of the SMaRT station, which
recovers recyclable materials from the municipal solid waste delivered from participating cities. Per the
MOU, the City has a capacity share of 21.3 percent of this facility and reimburses its proportionate capacity
share of design, construction and operation costs to Sunnyvale.
On December 1, 1992, the Sunnyvale Financing Authority issued $24.6 million in revenue bonds to finance
the design and construction costs of the SMaRT Station. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, the
1992 bonds were refunded by issuing the 2003 Solid Waste Revenue Bonds in the amount of $20.6 million.
Even though these bonds are payable from and secured by the net revenues of Sunnyvale’s Utilities
Enterprise, the City is obligated to reimburse Sunnyvale 21.3 percent of total debt service payments
related to these bonds. The City’s portion of remaining principal balance for SMaRT revenue bonds as of
June 30, 2014, is $1.5 million. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City paid $0.4 million as its portion
of current debt service.
In FY 2008, the members agreed to finance an Equipment Replacement Project from existing reserves and
proceeds from the Solid Waste Revenue Bond, Series 2007. The City has committed to repay 27.8 percent
of the remaining debt service on the Bonds. The City’s portion of the Bonds amounts to $1.4 million as of
June 30, 2014. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City paid $0.2 million as its portion of current
debt service.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
98
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
UTILITIES ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Electric Power Supply Purchase Agreements – The City has numerous power purchase agreements with
power producers to purchase capacity and energy to supply a portion of its load requirements. As of
June 30, 2014, the approximate minimum obligations for the contracts, assuming the energy or gas is
delivered over the next five years, are as follows:
Year Projected Obligation
2015 $71.3 million
2016 $61.3 million
2017 $62.1 million
2018 $62.5 million
2019 $62.9 million
Contractual Commitments beyond 2019 (Electricity) – Several of the City’s purchase power and
transmission contracts extend beyond the five‐year summary presented above. These contracts expire
between 2021 and 2046 and provide for power under various terms and conditions. The City estimates
that its annual minimum commitments under the contracts, assuming the energy is delivered, ranges
between $63.4 million in 2020 and $3.1 million in 2046. The City’s largest purchase power source is the
Western Base Resource contract, whereby the City receives 12.31 percent of the amount of energy made
available by Western, after meeting Central Valley Project use requirements. The Western contract
expires on December 31, 2024.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – The City purchases water for delivery to its customers from
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) under a contract terminating in 2034. The City’s
wholesale water rate under this contract is determined by a ratemaking process under the authority of
SFPUC. The City is prohibited from purchasing from other water suppliers under this contract, though it
is not prohibited from using ground water. The City’s cost of water under this contract is projected to
increase from $2.93 per hundred cubic feet (CCF) in FY 2015 to $4.31 per CCF in FY 2021 as SFPUC
completes an upgrade to its regional water system facilities under its Water System Improvement
Program (WSIP).
Contingent Liabilities
Many of the uncertainties faced by the Utilities Department as an aftermath of the 2000‐2001 energy
crisis have been resolved. The Ninth Circuit Court determined that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) lacked authority under the Federal Power Act to grant refund relief against governmental agencies,
and the United States Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Nonetheless a number of entities
(“the California Parties”) filed suit against the NCPA and other municipal utilities seeking refunds for sales
made to the CAISO and Power Exchange during the energy crisis. The suit was filed in Superior Court in
Los Angeles in April 2007. In March 2010, the issue was resolved in a settlement agreement and the City
made a payment to the California Parties and no further claims are expected.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
99
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
On April 29, 2010, FERC issued an order approving the settlement between NCPA and the California
Parties. Another dispute between the Western Area Power Administration and PG&E regarding PG&E’s
claim to recover certain CAISO related costs has not been resolved.
Litigation
The City is subject to litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of the City Attorney,
there is no pending litigation, claims or assessments that are likely to have a materially adverse effect on
the City’s financial condition.
Grant Programs
The City participates in Federal and State grant programs. These programs have been audited by the City’s
independent auditors in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Single Audit Act amendments of
1996 and applicable State requirements. No costs were questioned as a result of these audits; however,
these programs are still subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of
expenditures which may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The
City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.
NOTE 17 – SUBSEQUENT EVENT
Assumption of Control of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport
On August 11, 2014, sponsorship, operation and management of the Palo Alto Airport was transferred to
the City from the County of Santa Clara. The Airport is situated on City land and the City is taking over
various agreements with airport tenants, licensees, permit holders and users, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the State Lands Commission.
100
This page is left intentionally blank.
Special Debt
Revenue Service Permanent
Funds Funds Fund Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 69,320$ 6,675$ 1,439$ 77,434$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents ‐ 238 ‐ 238
Receivables, net:
Accounts 385 27 ‐ 412
Interest 334 ‐ 7 341
Notes 17,620 ‐ ‐ 17,620
Total assets 87,659$ 6,940$ 1,446$ 96,045$
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 121$ ‐$ 1$ 122$
Accrued salaries and benefits 17 ‐ ‐ 17
Total liabilities 138 ‐ 1 139
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Notes and loans receivable 13,424 ‐ ‐ 13,424
Eyerly family ‐ ‐ 1,445 1,445
Restricted
Transportation mitigation 10,616 ‐ ‐ 10,616
Federal revenue 4,457 ‐ ‐ 4,457
Street improvement 758 ‐ ‐ 758
Local law enforcement 113 ‐ ‐ 113
Debt service ‐ 6,940 ‐ 6,940
Public benefit 30,578 ‐ ‐ 30,578
Committed
Developer impact fee 11,085 ‐ ‐ 11,085
Housing In‐Lieu 14,491 ‐ ‐ 14,491
Special districts 1,457 ‐ ‐ 1,457
Downtown business 112 ‐ ‐ 112
Assigned
Unrealized gain on investment 430 ‐ ‐ 430
Total fund balances 87,521 6,940 1,445 95,906
Total liabilities and fund balances 87,659$ 6,940$ 1,446$ 96,045$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Governmental Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
101
Special Debt
Revenue Service Permanent
Funds Funds Fund Total
REVENUES:
Property tax ‐$ 4,712$ ‐$ 4,712$
Special assessments 94 ‐ ‐ 94
Other taxes and fines 2,095 ‐ ‐ 2,095
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants 468 ‐ ‐ 468
State of California 140 ‐ ‐ 140
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking 1,762 ‐ ‐ 1,762
California Avenue Parking 206 ‐ ‐ 206
Other permits and licenses 72 ‐ ‐ 72
Investment earnings 1,806 ‐ 33 1,839
Rental income 5 ‐ ‐ 5
Other:
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential 1,640 ‐ ‐ 1,640
Other fees 3,850 ‐ ‐ 3,850
Total revenues 12,138 4,712 33 16,883
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services 177 ‐ ‐ 177
Public Works 891 ‐ ‐ 891
Planning and Community Environment 1,552 ‐ ‐ 1,552
Public safety 286 ‐ ‐ 286
Community Services 133 ‐ ‐ 133
Non‐Departmental 145 ‐ 6 151
Debt service:
Principal retirement ‐ 1,150 ‐ 1,150
Interest and fiscal charges ‐ 3,059 ‐ 3,059
Total expenditures 3,184 4,209 6 7,399
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 8,954 503 27 9,484
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 454 231 ‐ 685
Transfers out (5,100) ‐ ‐ (5,100)
Total other financing sources (uses)(4,646) 231 ‐ (4,415)
Change in fund balances 4,308 734 27 5,069
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 83,213 6,206 1,418 90,837
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 87,521$ 6,940$ 1,445$ 95,906$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Governmental Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
102
103
NON‐MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street Improvement
This fund accounts for revenues received from state gas tax. Allocations must be spent on the construction
and maintenance of the road network system of the City.
Federal Revenue
This fund accounts for grant funds received under the Community Development Act of 1974 and HOME
Investment Grant Programs, for activities approved and subject to federal regulations.
Housing In‐Lieu
This fund accounts for revenues from commercial and residential developers to provide housing under
the City’s Below Market Rate program.
Special Districts
This fund accounts for revenues from parking permits and for maintenance of various parking lots within
the City’s parking districts.
Transportation Mitigation
This fund accounts for revenues from fees or contributions required for transportation mitigation issues
encountered as a result of City development.
Local Law Enforcement
This fund accounts for revenues received in support of City’s law enforcement program.
Asset Seizure
This fund accounts for seized property and funds associated with drug trafficking. Under California
Assembly Bill No. 4162, the monies are released to the City for specific expenditures related to law
enforcement activities.
Developer Impact Fee
This fund accounts for fees imposed on new developments to be used for parks, community centers and
libraries.
Downtown Business Development District
The Downtown Business Development District Fund was established to account for the activities of the
Palo Alto Downtown Business Development District, which was established to enhance the viability of the
downtown business district.
Public Benefit
This fund accounts for the activities of the SUMC Parties Development Agreement (DA) whereby SUMC
will enhance and expand their facilities and the City will grant SUMC the right to develop the facilities in
accordance with the DA.
Street Federal Housing Special
Improvement Revenue In‐Lieu Districts
ASSETS:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 559$ 162$ 14,561$ 1,478$
Receivables:
Accounts 199 158 ‐ ‐
Interest 3 ‐ 63 6
Notes ‐ 4,196 13,424 ‐
Total assets 761$ 4,516$ 28,048$ 1,484$
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals ‐$ 59$ 47$ 10$
Accrued salaries and benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ 17
Total liabilities ‐ 59 47 27
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Notes and loans receivables ‐ ‐ 13,424 ‐
Restricted
Transportation mitigation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Federal revenue ‐ 4,457 ‐ ‐
Street improvement 758 ‐ ‐ ‐
Local law enforcement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public benefit ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Committed
Developer impact fee ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ ‐ 14,491 ‐
Special districts ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,457
Downtown business ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Assigned
Unrealized gain on investment 3 ‐ 86 ‐
Total fund balances 761 4,457 28,001 1,457
Total liabilities and fund balances 761$ 4,516$ 28,048$ 1,484$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
104
Downtown
Business
Transportation Local Law Asset Developer Development Public
Mitigation Enforcement Seizure Impact Fee District Benefit Total
10,631$ 83$ 2$ 11,101$ 112$ 30,631$ 69,320$
‐ 28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 385
49 1 ‐ 53 1 158 334
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,620
10,680$ 112$ 2$ 11,154$ 113$ 30,789$ 87,659$
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 5$ 121$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 138
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13,424
10,616 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,616
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,457
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 758
‐ 111 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 113
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30,578 30,578
‐ ‐ ‐ 11,085 ‐ ‐ 11,085
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14,491
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,457
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 112 ‐ 112
64 1 ‐ 69 1 206 430
10,680 112 2 11,154 113 30,784 87,521
10,680$ 112$ 2$ 11,154$ 113$ 30,789$ 87,659$
105
Street Federal Housing Special
Improvement Revenue In‐Lieu Districts
REVENUES:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Other taxes and fines 2,083 ‐ ‐ 12
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants ‐ 468 ‐ ‐
State of California ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,762
California Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ 206
Other permits and licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ 72
Investment earnings 11 (5) 496 29
Rental income ‐ ‐ 5 ‐
Other
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential ‐ ‐ 1,640 ‐
Other fees ‐ 205 ‐ ‐
Total revenues 2,094 668 2,141 2,081
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services ‐ ‐ ‐ 177
Public Works ‐ ‐ ‐ 891
Planning and Community Environment ‐ 667 374 101
Public safety ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Community Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Non‐Departmental ‐ 22 31 7
Total expenditures ‐ 689 405 1,176
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,094 (21) 1,736 905
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ 194
Transfers out (1,917) (2) ‐ (764)
Total other financing sources (uses)(1,917) (2) ‐ (570)
Change in fund balances 177 (23) 1,736 335
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 584 4,480 26,265 1,122
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 761$ 4,457$ 28,001$ 1,457$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
106
Downtown
Business
Transportation Local Law Asset Developer Development Public
Mitigation Enforcement Seizure Impact Fee District Benefit Total
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 94$ ‐$ 94$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,095
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 468
‐ 140 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 140
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,762
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 206
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72
222 5 ‐ 284 3 761 1,806
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,640
2,008 ‐ ‐ 1,637 ‐ ‐ 3,850
2,230 145 ‐ 1,921 97 761 12,138
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 177
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 891
410 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,552
‐ 286 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 286
‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ 128 133
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 85 ‐ 145
410 286 ‐ 5 85 128 3,184
1,820 (141) ‐ 1,916 12 633 8,954
‐ ‐ ‐ 260 ‐ ‐ 454
(435) ‐ ‐ (782) ‐ (1,200) (5,100)
(435) ‐ ‐ (522) ‐ (1,200) (4,646)
1,385 (141) ‐ 1,394 12 (567) 4,308
9,295 253 2 9,760 101 31,351 83,213
10,680$ 112$ 2$ 11,154$ 113$ 30,784$ 87,521$
107
Street Improvement Federal Revenue
Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
REVENUES:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Other taxes and fines 1,905 2,083 178 ‐ ‐ ‐
Charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants ‐ ‐ ‐ 455 468 13
State of California ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other revenue from other agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ 112 ‐ (112)
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
California Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other permits and licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Investment earnings 23 11 (12) ‐ (5) (5)
Rental income ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other:
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 205 205
Total revenues 1,928 2,094 166 567 668 101
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public Works ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Planning and Community Environment ‐ ‐ ‐ 847 667 180
Public safety ‐ Police ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Community Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Non‐Departmental ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22 (22)
Total expenditures ‐ ‐ ‐ 847 689 158
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 1,928 2,094 166 (280) (21) 259
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out (1,917) (1,917) ‐ (2) (2) ‐
Total other financing sources (uses)(1,917) (1,917) ‐ (2) (2) ‐
Change in fund balances 11$ 177 166$ (282)$ (23) 259$
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 584 4,480
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 761$ 4,457$
(Amounts in thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
108
Housing In‐Lieu Special Districts Transportation Mitigation
Variance Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
‐ ‐ ‐ 43 12 (31) ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 1,518 1,762 244 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 195 206 11 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 37 72 35 ‐ ‐ ‐
161 496 335 23 29 6 174 222 48
‐ 5 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
4,120 1,640 (2,480) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 625 2,008 1,383
4,281 2,141 (2,140) 1,816 2,081 265 799 2,230 1,431
‐ ‐ ‐ 204 177 27 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 1,138 891 247 ‐ ‐ ‐
725 374 351 175 101 74 410 410 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 26 ‐ 26 ‐ ‐ ‐
178 31 147 143 7 136 ‐ ‐ ‐
903 405 498 1,686 1,176 510 410 410 ‐
3,378 1,736 (1,642) 130 905 775 389 1,820 1,431
‐ ‐ ‐ 194 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ (763) (764) (1) (435) (435) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ (569) (570) (1) (435) (435) ‐
3,378$ 1,736 (1,642)$ (439)$ 335 774$ (46)$ 1,385 1,431$
26,265 1,122 9,295
28,001$ 1,457$ 10,680$
109
Local Law Enforcement Asset Seizure
Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
Revenues:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Other taxes and fines ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
State of California ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ ‐
Other revenue from other agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
California Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other permits and licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Return on investments 6 5 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐
Rental income ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other:
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total revenues 6 145 139 ‐ ‐ ‐
Expenditures:
Current:
Administrative Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public Works ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Planning and Community Environment ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public safety ‐ Police 319 286 33 ‐ ‐ ‐
Community Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Non‐Departmental 3 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total expenditures 322 286 36 ‐ ‐ ‐
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (316) (141) 175 ‐ ‐ ‐
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total other financing sources (uses)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Change in fund balances (316)$ (141) 175$ ‐$ ‐ ‐$
Fund balances, beginning of year 253 2
Fund balances, end of year 112$ 2$
(Amounts in Thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
110
Developer Impact Fee Downtown Business Improvement District Public Benefit
Variance Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 154$ 94$ (60)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
137 284 147 2 3 1 679 761 82
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
947 1,637 690 6 ‐ (6) ‐ ‐ ‐
1,084 1,921 837 162 97 (65) 679 761 82
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
5 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 289 128 161
‐ ‐ ‐ 230 85 145 ‐ ‐ ‐
5 5 ‐ 230 85 145 289 128 161
1,079 1,916 837 (68) 12 80 390 633 243
260 260 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
(782) (782) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,200) (1,200) ‐
(522) (522) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,200) (1,200) ‐
557$ 1,394 837$ (68)$ 12 80$ (810)$ (567) 243$
9,760 101 31,351
11,154$ 113$ 30,784$
111
112
This page is left intentionally blank.
113
NON‐MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Downtown Parking Improvement
This fund accounts for revenues received from the General Fund to provide payment of principal and
interest associated with the 2002B Downtown Parking Improvement Certificate of Participation as they
become due.
Library Projects
This fund accounts for revenues received from property taxes to provide payment of principal and interest
associated with the 2010 and 2013A General Obligation Bonds as they become due.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Debt Service Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Downtown
Parking Library
Improvement Projects Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 13$ 6,662$ 6,675$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 238 ‐ 238
Receivables:
Accounts ‐ 27 27
Total assets 251$ 6,689$ 6,940$
FUND BALANCES:
Debt service 251$ 6,689$ 6,940$
114
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Debt Service Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Downtown
Parking Library
Improvement Projects Total
REVENUES:
Property tax ‐$ 4,712$ 4,712$
EXPENDITURES:
Debt service:
Principal retirement 130 1,020 1,150
Interest and fiscal charges 101 2,958 3,059
Total expenditures 231 3,978 4,209
(DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (231) 734 503
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 231 ‐ 231
Change in fund balances ‐ 734 734
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 251 5,955 6,206
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 251$ 6,689$ 6,940$
115
Downtown Parking Improvement Library Projects
Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
REVENUES:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 3,938$ 4,712$ 774$
Total revenues ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,938 4,712 774
EXPENDITURES:
Debt service:
Principal retirement 130 130 ‐ 1,020 1,020 ‐
Interest and fiscal charges 101 101 ‐ 3,023 2,958 65
Total expenditures 231 231 ‐ 4,043 3,978 65
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (231) (231) ‐ (105) 734 839
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 231 231 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total other financing sources (uses)231 231 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Change in fund balances ‐$ ‐ ‐$ (105)$ 734 839$
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 251 5,955
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 251$ 6,689$
(Amounts in thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Debt Service Funds
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
116
117
NON‐MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
PERMANENT FUND
Eyerly Family
This fund accounts for the revenues received from assets donated by Mr. and Mrs. Fred Eyerly for the City
and or its citizenry.
Eyerly Family Permanent Fund
Variance
Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
REVENUES:
Investment earnings 34$ 33$ (1)$
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Non‐Departmental ‐ 6 (6)
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 34 27 (7)
Change in fund balance 34$ 27 (7)$
FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR 1,418
FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR 1,445$
(Amounts in thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Permanent Fund
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
118
119
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
INTRODUCTION
Internal Service Funds are used to finance and account for special activities and services performed by a
designated department for other departments in the City on a cost reimbursement basis.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
This fund accounts for the maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment used by all City
departments. The source of revenue is on reimbursement of fleet replacement and maintenance costs
allocated to each department by usage of vehicle.
Technology
This fund accounts for replacement and upgrade of technology, and covers four primary areas used by all
City departments: desktop, infrastructure, applications, and technology research and development. The
source of revenue is on reimbursement of costs for support provided to other departments.
Printing and Mailing Services
This fund accounts for central duplicating, printing and mailing services provided to all City departments.
Source of revenue for this fund is on reimbursement of costs for services and supplies purchased by other
departments.
General Benefits
This fund accounts for the administration of compensated absences and health benefits.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program
This fund accounts for the administration of the City’s self‐insured workers’ compensation programs.
General Liabilities Insurance Program
This fund accounts for the administration of the City’s self‐insured general liability programs.
Retiree Health Benefits
This fund accounts for the retiree health benefits.
Vehicle Printing Workers' General
Replacement and Compensation Liabilities Retiree
and Mailing General Insurance Insurance Health
Maintenance Technology Services Benefits Program Program Benefits Total
ASSETS:
Current Assets:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 11,078$ 19,229$ 12$ 12,665$ 20,964$ 6,899$ 4,145$ 74,992$
Accounts receivable, net 31 ‐ ‐ 35 ‐ 473 96 635
Interest receivable 55 102 ‐ 57 95 30 25 364
Inventory of materials and supplies 388 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 388
Total current assets 11,552 19,331 12 12,757 21,059 7,402 4,266 76,379
Noncurrent Assets:
Capital assets:
Nondepreciable 1,396 1,698 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,094
Depreciable, net 10,977 279 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,259
Net OPEB asset ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,610 22,610
Total noncurrent assets 12,373 1,977 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,610 36,963
Total assets 23,925 21,308 15 12,757 21,059 7,402 26,876 113,342
LIABILITIES:
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals ‐ 263 8 989 68 ‐ 39 1,367
Accrued salaries and benefits 39 133 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 173
Accrued compensated absences 8 13 ‐ 3,891 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,912
Accrued claims payable ‐ current ‐ ‐ ‐ 146 3,230 2,289 ‐ 5,665
Total current liabilities 47 409 8 5,027 3,298 2,289 39 11,117
Noncurrent liabilities:
Accrued compensated absences ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286
Accrued claims payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,560 3,528 ‐ 21,088
Total noncurrent liabilities ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286 17,560 3,528 ‐ 27,374
Total liabilities 47 409 8 11,313 20,858 5,817 39 38,491
NET POSITION:
Net Investment in capital assets 12,373 1,977 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14,353
Unrestricted 11,505 18,922 4 1,444 201 1,585 26,837 60,498
Total net position 23,878$ 20,899$ 7$ 1,444$ 201$ 1,585$ 26,837$ 74,851$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Fund Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
120
Vehicle Printing Workers' General
Replacement and Compensation Liabilities Retiree
and Mailing General Insurance Insurance Health
Maintenance Technology Services Benefits Program Program Benefits Total
OPERATING REVENUES:
Charges for services 7,335$ 11,300$ 1,328$ 41,870$ 3,239$ 460$ 11,635$ 77,167$
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 472 ‐ 472
Total operating revenues 7,335 11,300 1,328 41,870 3,239 932 11,635 77,639
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Administrative and general 1,157 6,207 848 249 737 1,051 517 10,766
Operations and maintenance 3,582 5,234 477 126 485 ‐ 11,577 21,481
Depreciation and amortization 2,116 425 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,544
Claim payments and change in estimated
self‐insured liability ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,491 2,451 (710) ‐ 3,232
Refund of charges for services 62 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71
Compensated absences and other benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,337 ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,337
Total operating expenses 6,917 11,875 1,328 42,203 3,673 341 12,094 78,431
Operating income (loss)418 (575) ‐ (333) (434) 591 (459) (792)
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
Investment earnings 262 485 1 266 434 123 63 1,634
Loss on disposal of capital assets (110) (45) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (155)
Other nonoperating revenues 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)194 440 1 266 434 123 63 1,521
Income (loss) before transfers 612 (135) 1 (67) ‐ 714 (396) 729
Transfers in ‐ 1,413 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,413
Transfers out ‐ (1,818) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,818)
Change in net position 612 (540) 1 (67) ‐ 714 (396) 324
NET POSITION, BEGINNING OF YEAR 23,266 21,439 6 1,511 201 871 27,233 74,527
NET POSITION, END OF YEAR 23,878$ 20,899$ 7$ 1,444$ 201$ 1,585$ 26,837$ 74,851$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
121
Vehicle Printing Workers' General
Replacement and Compensation Liabilities Retiree
and Mailing General Insurance Insurance Health
Maintenance Technology Services Benefits Program Program Benefits Total
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 7,489$ 11,300$ 1,328$ 41,861$ 3,239$ 959$ 11,769$ 77,945$
Cash refunds to customers (62) (9) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (71)
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (3,330) (5,771) (492) (42) (485) ‐ (11,577) (21,697)
Cash payments to employees (1,147) (6,196) (852) (40,818) (706) (1,051) (1,805) (52,575)
Cash payments for judgments and claims ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,488) (1,964) (772) ‐ (4,224)
Other cash receipts 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
Cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities 2,992 (676) (16) (487) 84 (864) (1,613) (580)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfers in ‐ 1,413 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,413
Transfers out ‐ (1,818) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,818)
Cash flows provided by
noncapital financing activities ‐ (405) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (405)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition of capital assets (2,734) (918) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,652)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets 150 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 150
Cash flows (used in)
capital and related financing activities (2,584) (918) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,502)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest received 263 492 1 268 442 126 65 1,657
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 671 (1,507) (15) (219) 526 (738) (1,548) (2,830)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 10,407 20,736 27 12,884 20,438 7,637 5,693 77,822
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 11,078 $ 19,229 $ 12 $ 12,665 $ 20,964 $ 6,899 $ 4,145 $ 74,992
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash
flows provided by (used in) operating activities:
Operating income (loss)418$ (575)$ ‐$ (333)$ (434)$ 591$ (459)$ (792)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss)
to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation 2,116 425 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,544
Other 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
Change in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable 154 ‐ ‐ (9) ‐ 27 134 306
Inventory of materials and supplies 281 (77) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 204
Net OPEB asset ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (759) (759)
Accounts payable and accruals (29) (460) (15) 84 31 ‐ (529) (918)
Accrued salaries and benefits 5 16 (4) 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 18
Accrued compensated absences 5 (5) ‐ (233) ‐ ‐ ‐ (233)
Accrued claims payable ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 487 (1,482) ‐ (992)
Cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities 2,992$ (676)$ (16)$ (487)$ 84$ (864)$ (1,613)$ (580)$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
122
123
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
INTRODUCTION
Fiduciary Funds are used to account for assets held by the City acting in a fiduciary capacity for other
entities and individuals. The funds are operated to carry out the specific actions required by the trust
agreements, ordinances and other governing regulations.
Fiduciary Funds are presented separately from the Citywide and Fund financial statements.
Agency Funds are custodial in nature and do not involve measurement of results of operations. The City
maintains three agency funds, as follows:
California Avenue Parking Assessment District
This fund accounts for receipts and disbursements associated with the 1993 Parking District No. 92‐13
Assessment Bonds.
Cable Joint Powers Authority
The fund was established to account for the activities of the cable television system on behalf of the
members.
University Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District
The fund accounts for the receipts and disbursements associated with the Series 2012 Limited Obligation
Refunding Improvement Bonds.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
All Agency Funds
Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Balance Balance
California Avenue Parking Assessment District June 30, 2013 Additions Deletions June 30, 2014
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 189$ ‐$ 9$ 180$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 189$ ‐$ 9$ 180$
Cable Joint Powers Authority
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 869$ ‐$ 114$ 755$
Interest receivable 5 ‐ 1 4
Total assets 874$ ‐$ 115$ 759$
LIABILITIES:
Due to other governments 874$ ‐$ 115$ 759$
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 2,015$ ‐$ 31$ 1,984$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 2,542 ‐ 1 2,541
Accounts receivable 30 ‐ 21 9
Interest receivable 11 ‐ 1 10
Total assets 4,598$ ‐$ 54$ 4,544$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 4,598$ ‐$ 54$ 4,544$
Total Agency Funds
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 3,073$ ‐$ 154$ 2,919$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 2,542 ‐ 1 2,541
Accounts receivable 30 ‐ 21 9
Interest receivable 16 ‐ 2 14
Total assets 5,661$ ‐$ 178$ 5,483$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 4,787$ ‐$ 63$ 4,724$
Due to other governments 874 ‐ 115 759
Total liabilities 5,661$ ‐$ 178$ 5,483$
(Amounts in thousands)
University Avenue Area
Off‐Street Parking Assessment District
124
125
STATISTICAL SECTION
The statistical section contains comprehensive statistical data, which relates to physical, economic, social
and political characteristics of the City. It is intended to provide users with a broader and more complete
understanding of the City and its financial affairs than is possible from the financial statements and
supporting schedules included in the financial section.
In this section, readers will find comparative information related to the City’s revenue sources,
expenditures, property tax valuations, levies and collections, general obligation bonded debt, utility
revenue debt service, and demographics. Where available, the comparative information is presented for
the last ten fiscal years.
In addition, this section presents information related to the City’s legal debt margin computation, principal
taxpayers, notary and security bond coverages, and other miscellaneous statistics pertaining to services
provided by the City.
In contrast to the financial section, the statistical section information is not usually subject to independent
audit.
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial
performance and well‐being have changed over time:
Net Position by Component
Changes in Net Position
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant local revenue
sources, property tax and electric charges:
Electric Operating Revenue by Source
Supplemental Disclosure for Water Utilities
Assessed Value of Taxable Property
Property Tax Rates, All Overlapping Governments
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Principal Property Taxpayers
Assessed Valuation and Parcels by Land Use
Per Parcel Assessed Valuation of Single Family Residential
Debt Capacity
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels
of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future:
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin
Revenue Bond Coverage
126
STATISTICAL SECTION
Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the
environment within which the City’s financial activities take place:
Taxable Transactions by Type of Business
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Principal Employers
Operating Information
These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the
information in the City’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it
performs:
Operating Indicators by Function/Program
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function
Sources
Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Reports for the relevant year.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Governmental Activities
Investment in capital assets 305,225$ 311,335$ 326,411$ 343,537$ 356,657$ 369,499$ 364,747$ 370,111$ 378,047$ 386,696$
Restricted 27,273 29,885 32,576 27,428 36,632 34,323 16,437 52,934 71,717 68,331
Unrestricted 117,301 123,823 127,190 130,460 118,133 102,199 134,722 142,102 165,810 187,386
Total Governmental Activities Net Position 449,799$ 465,043$ 486,177$ 501,425$ 511,422$ 506,021$ 515,906$ 565,147$ 615,574$ 642,413$
Business‐type Activities
Investment in capital assets 303,473$ 318,738$ 342,922$ 370,303$ 384,313$ 399,317$ 416,418$ 437,151$ 446,597$ 473,795$
Restricted 1,750 1,732 1,732 1,732 1,732 4,300 ‐ ‐ 4,060 4,166
Unrestricted 215,128 228,032 230,912 226,539 208,025 232,420 253,740 262,602 269,926 266,794
Total Business‐type Activities Net Position 520,351$ 548,502$ 575,566$ 598,574$ 594,070$ 636,037$ 670,158$ 699,753$ 720,583$ 744,755$
Primary Government
Investment in capital assets 608,698$ 630,073$ 669,333$ 713,840$ 740,970$ 768,816$ 781,165$ 807,262$ 824,644$ 860,491$
Restricted 29,023 31,617 34,308 29,160 38,364 38,623 16,437 52,934 75,777 72,497
Unrestricted 332,429 351,855 358,102 356,999 326,158 334,619 388,462 404,704 435,736 454,180
Total Primary Government Net Position 970,150$ 1,013,545$ 1,061,743$ 1,099,999$ 1,105,492$ 1,142,058$ 1,186,064$ 1,264,900$ 1,336,157$ 1,387,168$
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Statement of Net Position
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
(Accrual basis of accounting)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Primary Government
Investment in capital assets Restricted Unrestricted
127
PROGRAM REVENUES 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Governmental Activities
Charges for services
City Attorney 22$ 22$ 13$ 16$ 12$ 53$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
City Clerk ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Administrative Services 480 627 835 870 726 984 2,889 1,647 15,629 4,055
People Strategy and Operations ‐ ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public Works 573 805 968 1,310 1,169 1,258 2,419 1,008 1,314 1,093
Planning & Community Environment 4,090 5,509 6,267 5,498 4,704 4,813 7,237 31,491 28,768 12,896
Public Safety 12,356 13,256 13,789 13,692 14,670 14,337 15,274 15,658 16,139 14,902
Community Services 7,592 10,803 9,128 10,314 8,522 8,729 7,724 11,365 13,808 20,882
Library 133 129 146 176 177 199 480 1,600 187 166
Operating grants and contributions 3,677 3,976 5,642 4,029 3,599 4,829 2,884 3,441 5,038 5,360
Capital grants and contributions 804 3,156 1,756 1,930 3,810 1,280 1,903 1,064 515 917
Total Governmental Activities
Program Revenues 29,727 38,285 38,555 37,835 37,389 36,482 40,810 67,274 81,398 60,271
Business‐type Activities
Charges for services
Water 21,041 21,108 23,495 26,510 27,120 26,259 26,624 31,467 37,746 40,291
Electric 88,737 119,418 102,549 103,833 119,320 121,900 122,109 118,886 121,805 121,916
Fiber Optics1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,336 3,105 3,322 3,662 4,382 4,485
Gas 31,206 36,977 42,221 49,021 47,838 44,450 43,584 41,774 34,633 35,737
Wastewater Collection 12,041 13,801 14,848 15,102 14,486 15,136 15,094 14,942 16,077 15,599
Wastewater Treatment 15,982 18,778 16,957 22,889 28,425 16,915 18,830 22,200 21,528 18,460
Refuse 23,387 24,795 25,532 28,805 29,101 28,568 30,469 30,645 30,583 30,297
Storm Drainage 2,484 5,174 5,181 5,450 5,505 5,647 5,796 5,892 6,053 6,183
External Services 766 854 789 112 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Operating grants and contributions ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 361 610 605 572 549
Capital grants and contributions ‐ ‐ 756 1,594 639 475 3,004 1,526 2,224 2,005
Total Business‐type Activities
Program Revenues 195,644 240,905 232,328 253,316 275,770 262,816 269,442 271,599 275,603 275,522
Total Primary Government
Program Revenues 225,371$ 279,190$ 270,883$ 291,151$ 313,159$ 299,298$ 310,252$ 338,873$ 357,001$ 335,793$
EXPENSES
Governmental Activities
City Council 130$ 141$ 180$ 323$ 394$ 455$ 15$ 345$ 94$ 387$
City Manager 1,725 1,563 1,760 2,273 2,085 2,399 1,842 1,960 1,237 2,180
City Attorney 2,653 2,598 2,390 2,653 2,575 2,621 953 1,656 1,642 1,797
City Clerk 770 945 900 1,241 1,098 1,369 803 908 330 641
City Auditor 764 843 838 1,379 2,053 2,601 138 235 464 489
Administrative Services2 6,982 6,972 6,419 15,477 17,784 17,893 9,888 10,100 7,614 11,388
People Strategy and Operations 2,410 2,546 2,472 2,806 3,448 3,707 1,346 1,071 1,420 1,346
Public Works 16,400 17,596 16,645 18,565 21,270 18,658 19,357 14,568 20,816 24,577
Planning & Community Environment 10,162 9,931 12,929 16,388 12,940 12,114 15,031 12,074 13,549 14,926
Public Safety 40,543 42,158 43,391 50,126 52,487 55,799 58,996 62,817 59,452 62,883
Community Services 17,240 17,296 15,729 17,736 19,862 17,171 22,845 21,915 22,705 23,822
Library 4,835 5,323 5,347 6,321 6,244 6,143 6,920 7,323 7,319 7,758
Non‐departmental2 12,474 10,400 12,133 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Interest on long term debt 693 512 477 438 404 370 2,742 2,575 2,562 3,367
Total Governmental
Activities Expenses 117,781 118,824 121,610 135,726 142,644 141,300 140,876 137,547 139,204 155,561
Business‐type Activities
Water 14,969 15,881 16,794 18,842 20,271 21,037 24,268 29,093 30,707 31,593
Electric 73,051 91,570 99,294 108,032 122,268 107,910 100,130 102,030 106,438 113,004
Fiber Optics1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,284 1,407 1,561 1,489 1,437 1,661
Gas 26,656 29,107 30,690 37,211 34,603 32,498 32,051 28,878 26,749 26,869
Wastewater Collection 8,907 11,005 10,085 12,023 14,875 10,696 12,275 14,825 14,313 13,235
Wastewater Treatment 17,457 16,747 15,901 18,902 36,896 13,466 19,731 20,712 20,635 21,018
Refuse 24,959 26,989 25,372 28,827 37,217 28,119 30,684 31,900 28,542 28,413
Storm Drainage 3,336 2,673 2,517 3,202 2,943 2,491 3,229 3,103 3,703 3,644
Airport ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 31 153 246 466
External Services 760 868 767 984 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Business‐type
Activities Expenses 170,095 194,840 201,420 228,023 270,357 217,624 223,960 232,183 232,770 239,903
Total Primary
Government Expenses 287,876$ 313,664$ 323,030$ 363,749$ 413,001$ 358,924$ 364,836$ 369,730$ 371,974$ 395,464$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
128
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
NET (EXPENSE)/REVENUE
Governmental Activities (88,054)$ (80,539)$ (83,055)$ (97,891)$ (105,255)$ (104,818)$ (100,066)$ (70,273)$ (57,806)$ (95,290)$
Business‐type Activities 25,549 46,065 30,908 25,293 5,413 45,192 45,482 39,416 42,833 35,619
Total Primary Government
Net (Expense)/Revenue (62,505)$ (34,474)$ (52,147)$ (72,598)$ (99,842)$ (59,626)$ (54,584)$ (30,857)$ (14,973)$ (59,671)$
GENERAL REVENUES AND OTHER CHANGES IN NET POSITION
Governmental Activities
Taxes
Property tax 16,657$ 18,731$ 21,466$ 23,084$ 25,432$ 25,981$ 29,156$ 30,104$ 31,929$ 35,299$
Sales tax 19,308 20,315 22,194 22,623 20,089 17,991 20,746 22,132 25,606 29,424
Utility user tax 7,269 8,759 9,356 10,285 11,030 11,295 10,851 10,834 10,861 11,008
Transient occupancy tax 5,686 6,393 6,709 7,976 7,111 6,858 8,082 9,664 10,794 12,255
Other taxes 5,580 7,033 6,293 6,261 3,364 4,055 8,156 8,173 10,504 9,660
Investment earnings 4,988 2,567 8,747 12,313 8,525 6,514 3,500 6,238 (1,228) 5,859
Rents and miscellaneous 12,997 10,440 13,670 11,896 15,682 12,729 12,377 14,943 518 2,575
Transfers 14,064 21,545 15,754 18,701 24,020 13,994 17,083 17,426 19,249 17,103
Total Governmental Activities 86,549 95,783 104,189 113,139 115,253 99,417 109,951 119,514 108,233 123,183
Business‐type Activities
Investment earnings 8,093 3,631 11,910 16,416 14,103 10,769 5,722 7,605 (2,754) 6,379
Special item (21,500) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers (14,064) (21,545) (15,754) (18,701) (24,020) (13,994) (17,083) (17,426) (19,249) (17,103)
Total Business‐type Activities (27,471) (17,914) (3,844) (2,285) (9,917) (3,225) (11,361) (9,821) (22,003) (10,724)
Total Primary Government 59,078$ 77,869$ 100,345$ 110,854$ 105,336$ 96,192$ 98,590$ 109,693$ 86,230$ 112,459$
CHANGE IN NET POSITION
Governmental Activities (1,505)$ 15,244$ 21,134$ 15,248$ 9,998$ (5,401)$ 9,885$ 49,241$ 50,427$ 27,893$
Business‐type Activities (1,922) 28,151 27,064 23,008 (4,504) 41,967 34,121 29,595 20,830 24,895
Total Primary Government
Change in Net Position (3,427)$ 43,395$ 48,198$ 38,256$ 5,494$ 36,566$ 44,006$ 78,836$ 71,257$ 52,788$
Notes:1Prior to 2009, Fiber Optics was included in Electric.
2Beginning in 2008, includes Non‐departmental expenses.
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Statement of Activities
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
129
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
General Fund
Nonspendable 3,931$ 4,052$ 5,002$ 7,286$ 6,476$ 6,581$ 6,085$ 6,007$ 5,749$ 6,188$
Assigned 3,401 3,914 6,855 4,851 6,100 7,295 6,235 6,400 5,415 5,432
Unassigned 24,498 26,251 27,551 30,278 30,648 27,581 31,859 29,616 30,913 36,690
Total General Fund 31,830$ 34,217$ 39,408$ 42,415$ 43,224$ 41,457$ 44,179$ 42,023$ 42,077$ 48,310$
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Balance Sheet
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (General Fund)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Nonspendable Assigned Unassigned
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
All Other Governmental Funds
Nonspendable ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 731$ 1,308$ 1,402$ 1,422$ 11,112$ 18,189$ 14,869$
Restricted 1,522 1,822 1,540 1,406 1,412 55,400 50,646 61,324 84,688 68,468
Committed 7,521 18,430 22,883 15,207 22,043 16,962 24,775 14,284 20,400 27,145
Assigned 57,336 46,723 41,684 44,116 36,629 38,538 20,114 33,264 45,514 55,211
Total All Other
Governmental Funds 66,379$ 66,975$ 66,107$ 61,460$ 61,392$ 112,302$ 96,957$ 119,984$ 168,791$ 165,693$
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Balance Sheet
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (All Other Governmental Funds)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Nonspendable Restricted Committed Assigned
131
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenues
Property tax 16,657$ 18,731$ 21,466$ 23,084$ 25,432$ 25,981$ 29,248$ 30,216$ 32,040$ 35,393$
Sales tax 19,308 20,315 22,194 22,623 20,089 17,991 20,746 22,132 25,606 29,424
Other taxes and fines 22,037 25,840 26,215 27,385 24,843 25,063 27,890 29,231 32,141 35,305
Charges for services 17,159 18,672 19,929 19,610 19,837 19,775 22,311 46,273 38,976 23,962
From other agencies 2,757 5,931 3,448 4,300 5,984 3,035 1,614 1,116 4,109 5,700
Permits and licenses 3,183 4,305 4,711 4,761 4,033 4,408 5,433 7,136 8,218 8,990
Interest and rentals 14,968 13,776 17,750 20,507 19,183 19,045 16,553 18,583 12,136 18,445
Other revenue 4,269 4,058 7,503 4,713 6,223 4,724 8,624 12,739 17,570 7,471
Total Revenues 100,338 111,628 123,216 126,983 125,624 120,022 132,419 167,426 170,796 164,690
Expenditures
Administration1 14,509 14,299 14,399 16,250 16,002 17,353 8,351 9,412 8,291 9,961
Public Works 9,060 9,036 9,256 10,072 10,064 9,787 11,317 11,304 11,489 12,439
Planning and Community Environment 9,692 9,292 11,874 9,861 10,462 9,480 10,309 11,966 13,474 14,761
Public Safety 38,732 40,393 42,451 48,650 48,957 51,022 58,874 62,418 59,537 62,028
Community Services 16,298 19,740 16,533 17,138 17,451 16,451 20,029 20,860 21,661 22,644
Library 4,800 5,170 5,260 6,219 5,985 5,900 6,509 7,072 6,902 7,340
Non‐departmental 9,028 10,389 12,122 14,089 10,765 10,149 7,352 6,819 4,567 8,135
Special revenue and capital projects 21,317 13,243 17,478 21,626 21,485 22,006 35,486 29,154 29,542 37,035
Debt service ‐ principal payments 785 810 850 885 800 840 870 1,743 1,489 1,524
Debt service ‐interest and fiscal fees 583 523 489 451 416 382 1,815 2,757 2,659 3,196
Payment to bond refunding escrow ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 586 540 ‐
Total Expenditures 124,804 122,895 130,712 145,241 142,387 143,370 160,912 164,091 160,151 179,063
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
Over (Under) Expenditures (24,466) (11,267) (7,496) (18,258) (16,763) (23,348) (28,493) 3,335 10,645 (14,373)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in 60,429 26,640 27,701 33,437 39,903 34,835 30,323 47,200 50,343 41,683
Transfers out (46,622) (12,390) (15,882) (16,819) (22,399) (21,415) (14,352) (29,782) (33,833) (24,175)
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (101) ‐ ‐ ‐
Proceeds from long term debt ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 59,071 ‐ 3,222 21,706 ‐
Payments to refund bond escrow (1,038) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,104) ‐ ‐
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)12,769 14,250 11,819 16,618 17,504 72,491 15,870 17,536 38,216 17,508
Net Change in Fund Balances (11,697)$ 2,983$ 4,323$ (1,640)$ 741$ 49,143$ (12,623)$ 20,871$ 48,861$ 3,135$
Debt Service as a Percentage of
Non‐Capital Expenditures 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 2.2% 3.5% 3.2% 3.3%
Notes:
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Governmental Funds, Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
1Comprised of the following departments: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services and PS&O.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
132
Commercial and
Fiscal Year Residential Industrial City of Palo Alto Total
2005 13,009$ 56,683$ 2,289$ 71,981$
2006 14,973 67,389 2,492 84,854
2007 15,150 68,214 2,466 85,830
2008 16,109 72,632 2,571 91,312
2009 17,939 83,710 2,823 104,472
2010 19,898 89,315 2,890 112,103
2011 19,848 88,076 2,991 110,915
2012 20,328 85,895 3,352 109,575
2013 19,951 86,998 3,265 110,214
2014 18,744 88,419 3,225 110,388
529 Bryant Street LLC Technology
City of Palo Alto Municipal
Communications & Power Industries (CPI)Research
Hewlett‐Packard Company Computer
Space Systems/Loral Satellite & Satellite Systems
Stanford University Property Management
Stanford Hospital & Clinics Hospital
Varian Medical Systems, Inc.Manufacturing
Veterans Admin Hospital Hospital
VMware, Inc.Computer
Number Kilowatt‐hour
of Customers Sales (kWh)Revenue
Residential 26,439 182,227,583 18,744$
Commercial 2,556 470,229,174 65,244
Industrial 120 213,768,135 23,175
CPA/Other 224 84,559,258 3,225
Total 29,339 950,784,150 110,388$
City of Palo Alto Power Purchase
Western Area Power Administration 27%
Forward Market Purchases 43%
Wind Energy 11%
Landfill Gas Energy 8%
Northern California Power Agency Hydroelectric 5%
Short‐Term Market 6%
Note:
Source: City of Palo Alto, Utilities and Accounting Departments
*The top ten customers accounted for approximately 39.5% of total kWh consumption (375,172,708 kWh) and
35.7% of revenue ($40,928,901). The largest customer accounted for 8.3% of total kWh consumption and 7.4% of
revenue. The smallest customer accounted for 1.4% of total kWh consumption and 1.3% of revenue.
Revenue includes all utilities (metered and non‐metered), revenue adjustments, and Primary Voltage discount.
Revenue does not include CEC surcharge, UUT, Solar and Rap discounts and deposits. Parts of this schedule are
provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the City's Utility Revenue Bond and are not
required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Electric Operating Revenue by Source
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Top Ten Electric Customers by Revenue*
Customer (alphabetical order)Type of Business
133
The top ten customers total consumption is 846,932 CCF with revenue of $6,628,575.
This amount accounts for approximately 16.8% of total consumption and 16.3% of
revenue. The largest customer (other than the City of Palo Alto) accounted for 2.1% of
consumption and 2.1% of revenue. The smallest customer accounted for 0.8% of
consumption and 0.7% of revenue.
Note:
Source:City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Supplemental Disclosure for Water Utilities
Fiscal Year 2014
Top Ten Largest Water Utility Customers (alphabetical order)
City of Palo Alto
Hewlett‐Packard Company
VMware Inc.
This schedule is provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for
the City's Utility Revenue Bond and is not required by Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB).
Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club
Palo Alto Unified School District
Oak Creek Apartments
Stanford Hospital & Clinics
Stanford West Management
Veterans Admin Hospital
Space Systems/Loral, Inc.
134
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Net Local Secured Roll
Land 7,075,300$ 7,941,482$ 8,725,485$ 9,497,746$ 10,420,139$ 11,007,650$ 11,011,160$ 11,352,993$ 12,255,515$ 13,357,851$
Improvements 7,722,660 8,364,668 8,915,623 9,453,436 10,527,617 10,752,671 10,962,928 11,703,597 12,381,306 12,984,735
Personal property 220,585 174,666 213,154 228,875 303,688 288,148 241,280 257,436 287,296 307,499
15,018,545 16,480,816 17,854,262 19,180,057 21,251,444 22,048,469 22,215,368 23,314,026 24,924,117 26,650,085
Less:
Exemptions net of state aid (1,402,039) (1,595,871) (1,639,856) (1,797,327) (1,871,292) (1,809,119) (1,757,241) (2,346,728) (2,589,653) (2,610,521)
Total Net Local Secured Roll 13,616,506 14,884,945 16,214,406 17,382,730 19,380,152 20,239,350 20,458,127 20,967,298 22,334,464 24,039,564
Public utilities 4,150 4,084 3,923 3,174 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573
Unsecured property 1,354,310 1,361,117 1,391,284 1,536,584 1,702,884 1,638,436 1,495,574 1,516,837 1,355,970 1,493,922
Total Assessed Value 14,974,966$ 16,250,146$ 17,609,613$ 18,922,488$ 21,085,609$ 21,880,359$ 21,956,274$ 22,486,708$ 23,693,007$ 25,536,059$
Total Direct Tax Rate 1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Note: The State Constitution requires property to be assessed at 100% of the most recent purchase price, plus an increment of no more than 2% annually, plus any local over‐rides.
These values are considered to be full market values.
Source: County of Santa Clara Assessor's Office
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Assessed Value of Taxable Property
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
$13,000,000
$15,000,000
$17,000,000
$19,000,000
$21,000,000
$23,000,000
$25,000,000
$27,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Total Assessed Value
135
Basic County Total
County County Hospital City Library Santa Clara Direct and
Fiscal Wide Retirement G.O. Bond G.O. Bond Valley Water School Community Overlapping
Year Levy Levy (Measure A)1 (Measure N)2 District District College Rates
2005 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0092 0.0680 0.0129 1.13
2006 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0078 0.0526 0.0119 1.11
2007 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0072 0.0720 0.0346 1.15
2008 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0071 0.0702 0.0113 1.13
2009 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0061 0.0674 0.0123 1.12
2010 1.00 0.0388 0.0122 ‐ 0.0074 0.0686 0.0322 1.16
2011 1.00 0.0388 0.0095 0.0171 0.0072 0.0751 0.0326 1.18
2012 1.00 0.0388 0.0047 0.0155 0.0064 0.0742 0.0297 1.17
2013 1.00 0.0388 0.0051 0.0129 0.0069 0.0718 0.0287 1.16
2014 1.00 0.0388 0.0035 0.0177 0.0070 0.0655 0.0290 1.16
Notes:1The County General Obligation Bond (Measure A) was passed in 2008 to fund the seismic upgrade of the
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. Rates were first levied for the 2009‐10 fiscal year.
2The City of Palo Alto General Obligation Bond (Measure N) was passed in 2008 to fund the construction and
renovation of three of the City's libraries. Rates were first levied for the 2010‐11 fiscal year.
Source: County of Santa Clara, Tax Rates and Information
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Property Tax Rates
All Overlapping Governments
Last Ten Fiscal Years
$1.10
$1.12
$1.14
$1.16
$1.18
$1.20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Rate per $100 of Assessed Value
136
Fiscal Year Total Tax Percentage Collections in Percentage of
Ended June 30 Levy1 for FY Amount of Levy Subsequent Years2 Amount Levy
2005 16,657$ 16,657$ 100%‐$ 16,657$ 100%
2006 18,731 18,731 100%‐ 18,731 100%
2007 21,466 21,466 100%‐ 21,466 100%
2008 23,084 23,084 100%‐ 23,084 100%
2009 25,432 25,432 100%‐ 25,432 100%
2010 25,981 25,981 100%‐ 25,981 100%
2011 25,688 25,688 100%‐ 25,688 100%
2012 26,494 26,494 100%‐ 26,494 100%
2013 28,742 28,742 100%‐ 28,742 100%
2014 30,587 30,587 100%‐ 30,587 100%
Notes:
Source:Annual Financial Statements, Government Funds, Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances.
1During fiscal year 1995, the County of Santa Clara began providing the City 100% of its tax levy
under an agreement which allows the county to keep all interest and delinquency charges
collected.
2Effective fiscal year 1994, the City is on the Teeter Plan, under which the County of Santa Clara
pays the full tax levy due. All prior delinquent taxes were also received in that fiscal year.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Collected within the
Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date
137
Taxable
Assessed
Value Rank
Percentage of
Total Taxable
Assessed Value
Taxable
Assessed
Value Rank
Percentage of
Total Taxable
Assessed Value
Leland Stanford Jr. University 3,689,653$ 1 14.4%2,508,150$ 1 16.7%
Loral Space & Communications 252,085 2 1.0%196,954 2 1.3%
EOSII Palo Alto Technology Center LLC 118,769 3 0.5%
Whisman Ventures, LLC 109,311 4 0.4%
Pacific Hotel Development Venture LP 81,729 5 0.3%
Ronald & Ann Williams Charitable Foundation 61,179 6 0.2%
PPC Forest Towers LLC 55,323 7 0.2%
Blackhawk Parent, LLC 52,224 8 0.2%
529 Bryant St. LLC 44,358 9 0.2%
Park Village Peninsula LLC 39,008 10 0.2%
Agilent Technologies 70,688 3 0.5%
Harbor Investment Partners 61,997 4 0.4%
Hamilton Associates 37,335 5 0.2%
505 Hamilton Avenue Partners 36,358 6 0.2%
California Pacific Commercial Corp.34,492 7 0.2%
Thoits Bros Inc.28,596 8 0.2%
Hyatt Equities LLC 25,944 9 0.2%
Inspire Real Estate Holdings 22,500 10 0.2%
Total 4,503,639$ 17.6%3,023,014$ 20.2%
Total City Taxable Assessed Value:
FY 2014 25,536,059$
FY 2005 14,974,966$
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2005
Taxpayer
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Principal Property Taxpayers
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
(Amounts in thousands)
138
2013‐2014 No. of
Assessed % of No. of % of Taxable % of
Valuation1 Total Parcels Total Parcels Total
Non‐Residential:
Agricultural/forest 34,972,534$ 0.15 % 48 0.23 % 32 0.16 %
Commercial 1,217,725,581 5.07 459 2.23 454 2.25
Professional/office 2,963,762,320 12.33 520 2.53 503 2.49
Industrial/research & development 1,759,861,882 7.32 189 0.92 182 0.90
Recreational 41,605,067 0.17 14 0.07 12 0.06
Government/social/institutional 35,141,795 0.15 113 0.55 45 0.22
Miscellaneous 6,840,061 0.03 18 0.09 17 0.08
Subtotal Non‐Residential 6,059,909,240$ 25.21 % 1,361 6.62 % 1,245 6.17 %
Residential:
Single family residence 14,208,622,113$ 59.11 % 14,926 72.60 % 14,879 73.72 %
Condominium/townhouse 1,911,246,785 7.95 3,006 14.62 3,000 14.86
Mobile Home 56,727 0.00 7 0.03 7 0.03
2‐4 Residential units 375,813,638 1.56 512 2.49 512 2.54
5+ Residential units 1,316,514,149 5.48 335 1.63 310 1.54
Subtotal Residential 17,812,253,412$ 74.10 % 18,786 91.38 % 18,708 92.70 %
Vacant Parcels 167,401,061$ 0.70 % 412 2.00 % 229 1.13 %
Total 24,039,563,713$ 100 % 20,559 100 % 20,182 100 %
Notes: This schedule is provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the City's General Obligation
2010 and 2013A Bonds and is not required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Therefore,
ten years of comparison data is not presented.
1Local secured assessed valuation, excluding tax‐exempt property.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Assessed Valuation and Parcels by Land Use
As of June 30, 2014
139
No. of
Taxable Average
Parcels1 Assessed Valuation
Single Family Residential 14,879 $954,945
No. of % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Taxable Total % of Total Total Total % of Total
Parcels1 Parcels Parcels Valuation Valuation Valuation
1,563 10.50 10.50 122,339,273$ 0.86 0.86
1,890 12.70 23.21 259,842,687 1.83 2.69
918 6.17 29.38 228,694,427 1.61 4.30
760 5.11 34.48 264,491,238 1.86 6.16
749 5.03 39.52 337,588,409 2.38 8.54
796 5.35 44.87 437,697,563 3.08 11.62
683 4.59 49.46 443,390,894 3.12 14.74
608 4.09 53.55 454,451,425 3.20 17.94
688 4.62 58.17 585,819,332 4.12 22.06
682 4.58 62.75 647,931,889 4.56 26.62
615 4.13 66.89 644,701,712 4.54 31.16
529 3.56 70.44 606,657,478 4.27 35.43
506 3.40 73.84 632,593,803 4.45 39.88
503 3.38 77.22 678,992,569 4.78 44.66
431 2.90 80.12 624,094,603 4.39 49.05
390 2.62 82.74 604,251,717 4.25 53.30
311 2.09 84.83 512,381,113 3.61 56.91
277 1.86 86.69 484,873,179 3.41 60.32
202 1.36 88.05 372,949,891 2.62 62.95
225 1.51 89.56 438,425,123 3.09 66.03
1,553 10.44 100.00 4,826,453,788 33.97 100.00
14,879 100.00 14,208,622,113$ 100.00
Notes:
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
This schedule is provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the City's General
Obligation 2010 and 2013A Bonds and is not required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB). Therefore, ten years of comparison data is not presented.
1Improved single family residential parcels. Excludes condominiums and parcels with multiple family
units.
$1,900,000‐1,999,999
$2,000,000 and greater
Total
$1,800,000‐1,899,999
$700,000‐799,999
$800,000‐899,999
$900,000‐999,999
$1,000,000‐1,099,999
$1,100,000‐1,199,999
$1,200,000‐1,299,999
$1,300,000‐1,399,999
$1,400,000‐1,499,999
$1,500,000‐1,599,999
$1,600,000‐1,699,999
$1,700,000‐1,799,999
$600,000‐699,999
$14,208,622,113 $710,650
2013‐2014
Assessed Valuation
$0‐99,999
$100,000‐199,999
$200,000‐299,999
$300,000‐399,999
$400,000‐499,999
$500,000‐599,999
Assessed Valuation Assessed Valuation
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Per Parcel Assessed Valuation of Single Family Residential
As of June 30, 2014
2013‐2014 Median
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
10,625$ 9,915$ 9,175$ 8,405$ 7,605$ 6,765$ 5,895$ 1,685$ 1,560$ 1,430$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 55,305 55,305 54,540 74,235 73,215
325 225 115 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2011 Lease‐Purchase Agreement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,764 2,400 2,026
Add: unamortized premium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,766 3,640 3,514 4,400 4,242
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (571) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10,950 10,140 9,290 8,405 7,605 65,265 64,840 62,503 82,595 80,913
44,735 43,325 41,859 40,334 38,744 72,104 69,551 65,879 63,104 60,224
Energy Tax Credits ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800
State Water Resources Loan ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,629 9,000 13,080 16,696 15,900 15,109 14,309
(1,137) (1,037) (972) (1,053) (2,479) (2,737) (229) 580 543 867
43,598 42,288 40,887 46,310 46,565 83,647 87,118 83,359 79,656 76,200
Outstanding Debt 54,548$ 52,428$ 50,177$ 54,715$ 54,170$ 148,912$ 151,958$ 145,862$ 162,251$ 157,113$
1.89% 1.69% 1.51% 1.53% 1.50% 4.48% 4.10% 3.61% 3.80% 3.39%
Population (actual)61,674 62,148 62,615 63,367 64,484 65,408 64,417 65,544 66,368 66,861
0.88$ 0.84$ 0.80$ 0.86$ 0.84$ 2.28$ 2.36$ 2.23$ 2.44$ 2.35$
Notes:
Sources:
State of California, Department of Finance (population)
California Department of Transportation Long‐Term Socio‐Economic Forecasts (personal income)
Annual Financial Statements, Note 7 General Long‐Term Obligations and Note 8 Special Assessment Debt
Debt Per Capita
1See the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income data. Per capita personal income is only available for Santa Clara
County, therefore personal income is the product of the countywide per capita amount and the City's population.
County of Santa Clara (assessed valuation)
2The City adopted GASB Statement No. 65 in FY 2014 and wrote off accumulated bond issuance costs. Prior years have not been restated.
Percentage of Personal Income1
Certificates of Participation
General Obligation Bonds
Special Assessment Debt
Less: unamortized discount/
issuance costs2
Total Governmental Activities
Business‐type Activities
Utility Revenue Bonds
Less: unamortized discount/
issuance costs2
Total Business‐type Activities
Total Primary Government
Governmental Activities
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Total Governmental Activities Total Business‐type Activities
141
2013‐2014 Assessed Valuation 25,536,058,396$
Percentage Amount
Applicable Applicable
Total Debt to City of to City of
Outstanding Palo Alto1 Palo Alto
Santa Clara County 804,700,000$ 7.64%61,438,845$
Foothill‐DeAnza Community College District 613,179,288 22.53% 138,124,766
Palo Alto Unified School District 319,849,249 89.48% 286,197,910
Fremont Union High School District 290,570,108 0.02%63,925
Los Gatos Joint Union High School District 41,805,000 0.01%5,853
Mountain View‐Los Altos Union High School District 65,436,599 0.91%596,127
Cupertino Union School District 261,223,462 0.04%94,040
Los Altos School District 76,158,560 0.99%753,208
Mountain View‐Whisman School District 46,000,000 0.84%384,100
Saratoga Union School District 40,224,483 0.03%12,470
Whisman School District 23,045,269 2.14%493,399
City of Palo Alto 77,457,000 100%77,457,000
El Camino Hospital District 140,010,000 0.09% 126,009
City of Palo Alto Special Assessment Bonds 29,745,000 100% 29,745,000
Santa Clara Valley Water District Benefit Assessment District 115,045,000 7.64% 8,783,686
Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 604,276,338
757,814,320 7.63% 57,859,123
375,419,144 7.64% 28,663,252
9,730,000 7.64% 742,886
13,468,694 22.53% 3,033,958
7,925,000 0.01% 1,110
4,170,000 0.91% 37,989
5,240,000 0.03% 1,624
City of Palo Alto Certificates of Participation 1,430,000 100% 1,430,000
City of Palo Alto 2011 Lease Purchase Agreement 2,026,000 100% 2,026,000
3,275,000 7.63% 250,046
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Park District General Fund Obligations 133,209,717 13.19% 17,574,358
$ 111,620,346
40,732,468
$ 70,887,878
$ 675,164,216
Ratio to
Assessed Valuation
Total Direct Debt 0.32%80,913,000$
Total Overlapping Debt 2.33%594,251,216
Total Direct and Overlapping Debt 2.64%675,164,216$
Notes:
1Percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the city
2Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and
non‐bonded capital lease obligations.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Santa Clara County Pension Obligations
Santa Clara County Board of Education Certificates of Participation
Foothill‐DeAnza Community College District Certificates of Participation
Los Gatos‐Saratoga Joint Union High School District Certificates of Participation
Santa Clara County General Fund Obligations
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt
As of June 30, 2014
Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt
Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Mountain View‐Los Altos Union High School District Certificates of Participation
Saratoga Union High School District Certificates of Participation
Less: Santa Clara County supported obligations
Total Net Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Overlapping debt is the financial obligations of one political jurisdiction that also falls partly on a nearby jurisdiction. The amount of debt of each
unit applicable to the reporting unit is arrived at by 1) determining what percentage of the total assessed value of the overlapping jurisdiction
lies within the limits of the reporting unit, and 2) applying this percentage to the total debt of the overlapping jurisdiction.
Santa Clara County Vector Control District Certificates of Participation
Total Gross Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Total Combined Debt
142
Assessed Valuation:
Secured property assessed value,
net of exempt real property 25,536,059$
Bonded Debt Limit (3.75% of Assessed Value) 1 957,602
Direct Debt:
Certificates of Participation 1,430
Lease Purchase Agreement 2,026
General Obligation bonds 73,215
Total Direct Debt 76,671
Less: Amount of Debt Not Subject to Limit 2 3,456
Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit 73,215
Legal Bonded Debt Margin 884,387$
Total Bonded Total Net Debt Legal Total Net Debt Ratio of Net General
Fiscal Assessed Debt Limit Applicable to Bonded Debt Applicable to the Debt to Bonded Debt
Year Value (AV)(3.75% of AV)Limit Margin Population Debt as a %Assessed Value Per Capita
2005 14,974,966$ 561,561$ ‐$ 561,561$ 61,674 0.00%‐ 0.00
2006 16,250,144 609,380 ‐ 609,380 62,148 0.00%‐ 0.00
2007 17,609,613 660,360 ‐ 660,360 62,615 0.00%‐ 0.00
2008 18,922,488 709,593 ‐ 709,593 63,367 0.00%‐ 0.00
2009 21,085,609 790,710 ‐ 790,710 64,484 0.00%‐ 0.00
2010 21,880,359 820,513 55,305 765,208 65,408 6.74%0.0025 0.85
2011 21,956,274 823,360 55,305 768,055 64,417 6.72%0.0025 0.86
2012 22,486,708 843,252 54,540 788,712 65,544 6.47%0.0024 0.83
2013 23,693,007 888,488 74,235 814,253 66,368 8.36%0.0031 1.12
2014 25,536,059 957,602 73,215 884,387 66,861 7.65%0.0029 1.10
Notes:
Source:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin
As of June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
1California Government Code, Section 43605 sets the debt limit at 15% of the assessed value of all real and personal property of the City. Because
this Code section was enacted when assessed value was 25% of market value, the limit is calculated at one‐fourth, or 3.75%. This legal debt margin
applies to General Obligation debt. Prior year limits have been adjusted to conform to the current year methodology.
2In accordance with California Government Code Section 43605, only the City's General Obligation bonds are subject to the legal debt limit of 15%.
Enterprise Fund debt is not subject to legal debt margin.
Annual Financial Statements, Assessed Value of Taxable Property and Note 7 General Long‐Term Obligations
Total Assessed Value for FY 2005 was restated due to correction of data.
143
Less: Net Revenue
Fiscal Gross Direct Operating Available for
Year Revenue Expenses2 Debt Service Principal Interest3 Total Coverage Ratio
2005 171,493$ 147,123$ 24,370$ 1,365$ 2,257$ 3,622$ 6.73
2006 213,337 143,703 69,634 1,410 2,203 3,613 19.27
2007 203,146 151,196 51,950 1,465 2,147 3,612 14.38
2008 219,801 173,620 46,181 1,525 2,088 3,613 12.78
2009 242,693 180,880 61,813 1,590 2,024 3,614 17.10
2010 230,308 171,320 58,988 1,755 1,954 3,709 15.90
2011 234,278 151,641 82,637 2,655 3,261 5,916 13.97
2012 235,160 169,777 65,383 2,945 2,959 5,904 11.07
2013 237,842 173,510 64,332 2,875 3,167 6,042 10.65
2014 239,948 176,718 63,230 2,980 3,073 6,053 10.45
Notes:1Airport, Refuse and Fiber Optics funds have no debt and are therefore excluded from this schedule.
2Excludes depreciation and amortization expense.
3Excludes federal interest subsidy.
Source: City of Palo Alto, Accounting Department
Debt Service
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Revenue Bond Coverage
Business‐type Activities1
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Net Revenue Available for Debt Service Total Debt Service
144
Fiscal
Year
2005 2,621 2,206 1,176 1,310 356 533 317 3,590 7,105 19,214
2006 2,664 2,306 1,168 1,346 370 595 392 4,244 7,104 20,189
2007 2,751 2,486 1,109 1,485 374 602 203 5,075 7,139 21,224
2008 2,685 2,566 1,685 1,497 349 622 405 4,682 6,797 21,288
2009 2,251 2,443 1,431 1,258 315 493 214 4,284 6,635 19,324
2010 2,215 2,418 1,402 1,254 343 549 219 4,458 5,556 18,414
2011 2,374 2,621 1,564 1,292 381 630 242 4,873 6,322 20,299
2012 2,445 2,937 1,590 1,492 387 722 257 5,049 7,034 21,913
2013 2,478 3,160 1,465 1,656 424 765 259 4,056 13,729 27,992
2014 2,097 3,541 1,555 2,041 392 772 444 4,845 9,890 25,577
Source: California State Board of Equalization, compiled by MuniServices LLC
Sales Tax Rates for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2014
State Rate:6.00%
Local (County/City) Rates:
Palo Alto (State‐City or County Operations) 0.75%
State/Palo Alto (Fiscal Recovery Fund to pay off Economic Recovery Bonds 2004)0.25%
Sate (Local Public Safety Fund to support local criminal justice activities 1993)0.50%
Special District Tax Rates:
Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCT)0.50%
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (SCVT)0.50%
Santa Clara VTA BART Operating and Maintenance Transactions and Use Tax (SVTB)0.125%
Santa Clara Retail Transactions and Use Tax (SCCR)0.125%
Total Sales and Use Tax Rate:8.750%
Source: California State Board of Equalization
Food
Markets
Service
Stations
Drug
Stores
Other
Retail All Other
Apparel
Stores
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Taxable Transactions by Type of Business
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Total
ECONOMIC SEGMENT
Department
Stores Restaurants
Furniture/
Appliance
Department Stores
8%
Restaurants
14%
Furniture/ Appliance
6%
Apparel Stores
8%
Food Markets
1%
Service Stations
3%
Drug Stores
2%
Other Retail
19%
All Other
39%
Fiscal Year 2014
145
Santa Clara Santa Clara
City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Santa Clara City Population County Total County Per Capita
Fiscal City of Palo Alto Unemployment School County as a Percentage of Personal Income Personal Income
Year Population Rate Enrollment Population County Population (in thousands)(in thousands)
2005 61,674 2.8%10,527 1,759,585 3.51% 82,300,000$ 46,772$
2006 62,148 2.5%10,607 1,773,258 3.50% 88,300,000 49,795
2007 62,615 2.6%11,056 1,808,056 3.46% 96,100,000 53,151
2008 63,367 3.5%11,329 1,837,075 3.45% 103,500,000 56,340
2009 64,484 6.5%11,329 1,857,621 3.47% 104,300,000 *56,147 *
2010 65,408 6.2%11,565 1,880,876 3.48% 95,500,000 *50,774 *
2011 64,417 5.3%12,024 1,781,427 3.62% 102,600,000 *57,594 *
2012 65,544 4.7%12,286 1,816,486 3.61% 111,900,000 *61,602 *
2013 66,368 3.6%12,396 1,842,254 3.60% 118,600,000 *64,378 *
2014 66,861 2.8%12,483 1,868,558 3.58%129,600,000 *69,358 *
Note: Data on personal income and per capita personal income is only available for Santa Clara County.
Source: California State Department of Finance (population)
State Employment Development Office (unemployment rate)
Palo Alto Unified School District (school enrollment)
* California Department of Transportation Long‐Term Socio‐Economic Forecasts (personal income). Forecasts from prior years are updated annually.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
60,000
61,000
62,000
63,000
64,000
65,000
66,000
67,000
68,000 City Population
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000 School Enrollment
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%City Unemployment Rate
146
Number of
Employees Rank
Percentage of
Total City
Employment
Number of
Employees Rank
Percentage of
Total City
Employment
Stanford University 11,128 1 8.9%9,821 1 7.0%
Stanford University Medical Center/Hospital 5,886 2 4.7%5,025 2 3.6%
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital 4,215 3 3.4%3,326 4 2.4%
VMware Inc.3,509 4 2.8%
SAP 3,500 5 2.8%
Veteran's Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System 3,000 6 2.4%3,500 3 2.5%
Space Systems/Loral 2,720 7 2.2%1,700 7 1.2%
Hewlett‐Packard Company 2,500 8 2.0%2,001 5 1.4%
Colubris Networks, Inc.2,201 9 1.8%
Palo Alto Medical Foundation 2,200 10 1.8%2,000 6 1.4%
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1,500 8 1.1%
Palo Alto Unified School District 1,304 9 0.9%
City of Palo Alto 1,074 10 0.8%
Total 40,859 32.8%31,251 22.3%
Estimated Total City Day Population:
FY 2014 125,000
FY 2008 140,000
Notes:
Source:
1Comparable data was not available until FY 2008.
AtoZdatabases, http://facts.stanford.edu/governance.html, http://facts.stanford.edu/hospital.html, www.lpch.org/aboutus/, The City
of Palo Alto, A Report to Our Citizens.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Principal Employers
Current Year and Six Years Ago
FY 2014 FY 20081
Employer
Available data sources have been shown to be unreliable in the past. These numbers will be refined with the creation of a City business
registry.
147
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Governmental activities
Community Services
Number of theater performances 175 172 183 171 166
Total hours of athletic field usage2 ‐ 65,748 65,791 70,769 63,212
Number of rounds of golf 83,728 78,410 76,000 76,241 74,630
Enrollment in recreation classes (includes summer camps 16,435 15,127 14,768 14,460 13,851
Planning and Community Environment
Planning applications completed 409 327 390 299 257
Building permits issued 3,236 3,081 3,081 3,136 3,046
Green Building permit applications processed3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Caltrain average weekday boarding 2,825 3,264 3,882 4,132 4,589
Police
Calls for service 52,489 52,233 57,017 60,079 58,742
Total arrests 2,577 2,134 2,530 3,059 3,253
Parking citations issued 47,860 52,235 56,502 57,222 50,706
Animal Services
Number of service calls 3,575 4,994 2,861 2,990 3,059
Number of sheltered animals 3,780 3,514 3,839 3,578 3,532
Fire
Calls for service 6,675 6,414 6,897 7,236 7,723
Number of fire incidents 248 224 211 221 192
Number of fire inspections 793 1,488 899 1,021 1,277
Library
Total number of cardholders 50,171 52,001 55,909 53,099 53,740
Total number of items in collection 267,693 264,511 260,468 270,755 279,403
Total checkouts 1,314,790 1,282,888 1,280,547 1,414,509 1,542,116
Public Works
Street resurfacing (lane miles)17 20 20 32 27
Number of potholes repaired 2,907 3,221 2,311 1,188 1,977
Sq. ft. of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired 115,352 132,430 126,574 94,620 83,827
Number of trees planted 242 164 263 164 188
Total tons of waste landfilled 61,266 60,777 59,276 59,938 61,866
Tons of materials recycled 49,268 50,311 56,013 56,837 52,196
Business‐type activities
Electric
Number of customer accounts 28,482 28,556 28,653 28,684 29,024
Residential MWH consumed 158,099 161,440 161,202 162,405 162,680
Gas
Number of customer accounts 23,216 23,301 23,353 23,357 23,502
Residential therms consumed 11,700,335 12,299,158 11,745,883 11,759,842 11,969,151
Water
Number of customer accounts 19,557 19,605 19,645 19,726 19,942
Residential water consumption (CCF)3,000,645 2,686,507 2,647,758 2,807,477 2,746,980
Wastewater collection
Number of customer accounts 21,830 21,763 21,784 21,789 21,970
Millions of gallons processed 8,238 8,497 8,972 8,853 8,510
Notes:
2Some data not available.
Source: City of Palo Alto Performance Report (formerly the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report)
1Ten most recent years available.
3In FY 2009, a new Green Building Program was established under the City's Green Building Ordinance to build a new
generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto that are environmentally responsible and healthy places in which to live and work.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Operating Indicators by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years1
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
FUNCTIONS/PROGRAMS
148
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
159 174 175 175 184
45,762 41,705 42,687 44,226 ‐
72,170 69,791 67,381 65,653 60,153
13,091 12,880 12,310 11,703 11,598
273 226 238 204 307
2,543 2,847 3,559 3,320 3,682
341 556 961 887 1,037
4,863 4,796 5,501 5,730 5,469
53,275 55,860 52,159 51,086 54,628
2,612 2,451 2,288 2,212 2,274
49,996 42,591 40,426 41,875 43,877
2,873 2,692 2,804 3,051 2,909
3,422 3,147 3,323 3,379 2,675
7,549 7,468 7,555 7,796 7,904
239 182 165 186 150
1,028 1,526 1,807 1,654 2,069
54,878 51,969 53,246 60,283 51,007
293,735 298,667 314,154 306,361 277,749
1,633,955 1,624,785 1,476,648 1,559,932 1,512,975
23 32 29 40 36
3,727 3,149 2,986 3,047 2,726
56,909 54,602 71,174 72,787 82,118
250 201 150 143 245
68,228 48,955 38,524 43,947 45,411
49,911 48,811 56,586 51,725 47,941
28,527 29,430 29,708 29,545 29,299
159,899 163,098 160,318 160,604 156,411
23,090 23,724 23,816 23,915 23,659
11,003,088 11,394,712 11,476,609 11,522,999 10,834,793
19,442 20,134 20,248 20,317 20,043
2,566,962 2,415,467 2,442,415 2,513,595 2,521,930
21,210 22,231 22,320 22,421 22,152
7,958 8,184 8,652 8,130 7,546
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
149
2005 2006 2007 2008
FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Public Safety
Fire:
Fire Stations 8 8 8 8
Fire Apparatus 25 25 25 23
Police:
Police Stations 1 1 1 1
Police Patrol Vehicles 30 30 30 30
Community Services
Acres ‐ Downtown/Urban Parks 170 170 157 157
Acres ‐ Open Space 3,731 3,731 3,744 3,744
Parks and Preserves 35 35 36 36
Golf Course 1 1 1 1
Tennis Courts 52 52 51 51
Athletic Center 1 1 4 4
Community Centers 4 4 4 4
Theaters 3 3 3 3
Cultural Center/Art Center 1 1 1 1
Junior Museum and Zoo 1 1 1 1
Swimming Pools 1 1 1 1
Nature Center 2 2 3 3
Libraries
Libraries 5 5 5 5
Public Works:
Number of Trees Maintained 35,096 34,841 34,556 35,058
Electric Utility1
Miles of Overhead Lines 225 217 194 193
Miles of Underground Lines 188 210 252 253
Water Utility
Miles of Water Mains 226 217 217 217
Gas Utility
Miles of Gas Mains 207 207 207 207
Waste Water
Miles of Sanitary Sewer Lines 202 202 202 202
Note:
Source: City of Palo Alto
1The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department recently completed the conversion of its electric system maps
to a GIS mapping system database. Therefore, the distances reported for FY 11/12 and forward are more
accurate than the distances reported in previous years.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
150
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
8 8 8 7 77
28 28 27 29 28 28
1 1 1 1 11
30 30 30 30 30 30
157 157 157 157 157 157
3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3744 3744
36 36 36 36 36 36
1 1 1 1 11
51 51 51 51 51 51
4 4 4 4 44
4 4 4 4 44
3 3 3 3 33
1 1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 11
3 3 3 3 33
5 5 5 5 55
34,991 35,025 34,977 34,874 34,907 34,741
193 193 193 223 222 223
253 253 253 245 246 249
214 214 214 234 233 236
207 205 205 210 210 214
207 207 207 217 217 217
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
151
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Governmental Funds
General Fund:
Administrative 96 97 99 98 98 89 83 83 85 83
Community Services 98 99 97 96 97 94 74 74 74 74
Office of Emergency Services5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3
Fire 126 127 127 127 127 123 121 122 119 116
Library 44 44 44 44 44 42 41 41 41 42
Planning and Community Environment 53 53 53 53 53 49 44 43 48 49
Police 165 164 163 163 164 161 157 157 154 155
Public Works1 68 68 68 68 69 64 59 56 57 56
Subtotal General Fund 650 652 651 649 652 622 579 576 578 578
All Other Funds:
Capital Projects Fund 20 20 20 20 21 24 24 24 26 27
Special Revenue Fund 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 9
Total Governmental Funds 671 673 672 670 674 647 605 602 606 614
Enterprise Funds
Public Works2 113 113 113 113 113 115 115 115 104 99
Utilities3 234 236 235 235 238 242 251 251 254 255
External Services4 6 6 6 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Enterprise Funds 353 355 354 354 351 357 366 366 358 354
Internal Service Funds
Printing and Mailing 4 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2
Technology 30 30 30 30 31 31 30 30 31 32
Vehicle Replacement 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17
Total Internal Service Funds 50 51 50 50 51 51 48 48 50 51
Total 1,074 1,079 1,076 1,074 1,076 1,055 1,019 1,016 1,014 1,019
1Fleet and Facilities Management
2Refuse, Storm Drainage, Wastewater Treatment
Numbers adjusted for rounding purposes.
Source: City of Palo Alto ‐ Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget
5Effective in 2014, emergency services and disaster preparation activities have been removed from the Fire Department and
are now shown in newly created Office of Emergency Services.
4Effective in 2009, External Services was dissolved. 5 FTEs were eliminated and 1 FTE was transferred to the Technology
Fund.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Full Time Equivalent Employees as of June 30
3Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Water
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fu
l
l
Ti
m
e
Eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
Governmental Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds
152
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Index to the Single Audit Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
153
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ..................................... 155
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program and
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A‐133 ................................... 157
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ........................................................................................... 159
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ...................................................................... 160
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ............................................................................................. 161
Schedule of Prior Years Findings and Questioned Costs ........................................................................... 162
154
This page is intentionally left blank.
155
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of
the City of Palo Alto, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes
to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have
issued our report thereon dated November 17, 2014.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control
over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses
may exist that have not been identified.
156
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal
control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
157
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and Report on
Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A-133
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Palo Alto’s, California (City) compliance with the types of compliance
requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and
material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2014. The City’s
major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying
schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grants applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City’s major federal programs
based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of
compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the
standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of
compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal
program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance
with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major
federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Program
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements
referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the
year ended June 30, 2014.
158
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our
audit of compliance, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the types of
requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the
auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in
accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a
federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal
program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in
internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material
weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over
compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However,
material weaknesses may exist that were not identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our
testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of
OMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Grantor Federal
Identifying CFDA Subrecipients
Grantor/Pass‐Through Grantor/Program Title Number Number Expenditures Expenditures
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Pass‐through from California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA)
CA Fire Assitance Agreement 6022‐9 10.09‐FI‐11052012‐150 50,542$ ‐$
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development
Direct
CDBG ‐ Entitlement Grants Cluster
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants B‐10‐MC‐06‐0020 14.218 672,923 574,221
U.S. Department of Interior
Direct
ARRA ‐ Water Reclamation and Reuse Program R10AP20003 15.504 5,599 ‐
U.S. Department of Justice
Direct
Equitable Sharing Program CA0431200 16.CA0431200 2,315 ‐
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pass‐through from State of California Department of Transportation
Highway Planning and Construction HSIPL‐5100(014)20.205 898,474 ‐
Highway Planning and Construction STPL‐5100(019)20.205 544,927 ‐
Highway Planning and Construction BRLS‐5100(017)20.205 117,770 ‐
Subtotal 1,561,171 ‐
Pass‐through from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Highway Planning and Construction CML‐5100(018)20.205 69,548 ‐
Total Highway Planning and Construction 1,630,719 ‐
National Endowment for the Arts
Direct
NEA Research: Art Works 197662 45.024 11,300 ‐
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Pass‐through from California State Library
Grants to States LS‐00‐11‐0005‐11 45.310 65,710 ‐
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Direct
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System EMW‐2011‐CA‐K00047 97.025 16,705 ‐
Pass‐through from Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services
Homeland Security Grant Program 13‐31307 97.067 14,900 ‐
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security 31,605 ‐
TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS 2,470,713$ 574,221$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
See Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
159
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
160
NOTE 1 – REPORTING ENTITY
The schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes expenditures of federal awards
for the City of Palo Alto, California (City), and its component unit as disclosed in the notes to the basic
financial statements.
NOTE 2 – BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the
accounts and reported in the financial statements, regardless of measurement focus applied. All
governmental funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting. All proprietary
funds are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting. Expenditures of federal awards reported
in the Schedule are recognized when incurred and all eligibility requirements have been met.
NOTE 3 – DIRECT AND INDIRECT (PASS‐THROUGH) FEDERAL AWARDS
Federal awards may be granted directly to the City by a federal granting agency or may be granted to
other government agencies which pass‐through federal awards to the City. The Schedule includes both
of these types of federal award programs when they occur.
NOTE 4 – RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
Amounts reported in the Schedule agree to or can be reconciled with the amounts reported in the
related federal financial reports.
NOTE 5 – RELATIONSHIP TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Federal awards and expenditures agree to or can be reconciled with the amounts reported in the City’s
basic financial statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
161
Section I ‐ Summary of Auditor’s Results
Financial Statements
Type of auditor’s report issued on the
basic financial statements of the City:
Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es) identified? No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified?
None reported
Noncompliance material to the financial statements
noted?
No
Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified? No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified?
None reported
Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for
major programs:
Unmodified
Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with section 510(a) of OMB
Circular A‐133?
No
Identification of Major Programs: 14.218 CDBG – Entitlement Grants Cluster
20.205 Highway Planning and Construction
Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A
and type B programs:
$300,000
Auditee qualified as a low‐risk auditee? Yes
Section II – Financial Statements Findings
No findings reported.
Section III ‐ Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs
No findings reported.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Schedule of Prior Years Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
162
Schedule of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Finding #SA 2013‐01 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment
Federal Program Title: Highway Planning and Construction
Federal Catalog Number: 20.205
Condition: The City did not contain a certification within the contract
showing that the contractor was not suspended or debarred,
nor was there any evidence that the City verified that the
contractor was not suspended or debarred by checking the
Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General
Services Administration. The amount reimbursed by the federal
grant for this contract was $144,081.
Status of Corrective Action Plan: In progress. Due to an unexpected staffing change, the City will
hire a new management analyst to draft the policy and
procedures to document the proper verification.
...……………………………………………………………………….
City of Palo Alto 163
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT
In compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
this document may be provided in other accessible formats.
For information contact:
ADA Coordinator
250 Hamilton Avenue
(650) 329-2550
ADA@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 P 650.329.2100 W cityofpaloalto.org
The City of Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County, approximately
35 miles south of the City of San Francisco and 12 miles north of the City of San Jose.
Spanish explorers named the area for the tall, twin-trunked redwood tree they camped
beneath in 1769. Palo Alto incorporated in 1894 and the State of California
granted its first charter in 1909.
30% post-consumer recycled
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4962)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/2/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Close Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Approve Fiscal Year 2014
CAFR
Title: Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, Including Reappropriation Requests, Closing
Completed Capital Projects and Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee review and forward to the City Council for its
approval
1. The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) and associated exhibits to:
a. Close the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Budget including the transfer of remaining
balances to or drawing from the appropriate reserves and the transfer of the
General Fund surplus of $4.0 million from the General Fund to the Infrastructure
Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund (Exhibit 1); and
b. Authorize re-appropriation of FY 2014 funds into the FY 2015 Budget (Exhibit 2);
and
c. Close completed capital improvement projects (Exhibit 3).
2. The City’s FY 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (Attachment B).
Financial Highlights for FY 2014 – General Fund
FY 2014 ended on a positive note with $8.7 million increase to the Budget Stabilization
Reserve (BSR) from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 due to excess revenue and expenditure
savings.
In accordance with the City Council approved infrastructure Plan, the attached Budget
Amendment Ordinance includes a recommendation to transfer $4.0 million from the
General Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
As approved as part of the FY 2015 Adopted Budget, $1.7 million of one-time FY 2014
budget surplus funds are carried forward to FY 2015 for FY 2015 Operating Budget one-time
expenditures.
Financial Highlights for FY 2014 – Enterprise Funds
Water Fund implemented a rate increase of 7 percent effective July 1, 2013.
Enterprise Funds combined ended the year with an increase in net position of $4.6 million.
It should also be noted that the City received a “clean” audit opinion for FY 2014 from the
external audit firm, Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP (MGO), Certified Public Accountants, a firm
hired by the City Auditor. Once again, the City was awarded the prestigious GFOA award for
Excellence in Financial Reporting for FY 2013 – the 20th consecutive year.
Background
The City’s fiscal year closes on June 30, at which time its financial records are closed for the
year and financial reports are prepared. The reports, along with the City’s financial data, are
audited by MGO. MGO issues an audit opinion on the financial position of the City’s activities
and, together with the City’s financial statements and other information, this comprises the
City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) and related exhibits to this Staff
Report provide the necessary documents for closing the FY 2014 Budget and reauthorizing FY
2014 funds to FY 2015. In addition, they provide detailed information on the City’s financial
activities for FY 2014 and highlight key fiscal issues affecting the City of Palo Alto. The
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the CAFR (Attachment B) also
provides a discussion and analysis of the City’s current fiscal health, and includes financial
statements and analysis that is compared to the prior year, along with capital asset and debt
administration data.
Discussion
Economic Environment
The City is now in a solid recovery mode from the impact of the Great Recession. There has
been a rebound in economically sensitive revenue sources such as sales tax, which is being
driven by strong retail activity in auto, electronics, and department store sales. Increased
business traffic to the City and an active real estate market are resulting in higher transient
occupancy tax and documentary transfer tax revenues.
The City has been proactively taking steps the past few years to align expenses with revenues
through employee compensation savings, service and program realignments, and revenue
enhancements. The City Council adopted a General Fund expenditure budget of $171.1 million
for FY 2015, an increase of 7.1 percent from the prior year adopted budget. One of the primary
drivers of increased expenditures for FY 2015 are pension and retiree medical costs, which
City of Palo Alto Page 3
continue to trend upward. The City has been mitigating the upward trend by taking measures
such as negotiating increased employee contributions to the PERS retirement plan,
implementing a second tier retirement plan, and capping the City’s share of health care
premiums.
In spite of these measures, the City still faces a significant long-term liability for pension and
retiree medical costs. The combined unfunded liability reported in the June 30, 2014 CAFR is
$439 million. Funded ratios based on Market Value of Assets for the Safety and Miscellaneous
plans based on June 2013 actuarial valuations are 68.9 percent and 68.4 percent respectively,
and 29.5 percent for the retiree medical plan based on the June 2013 actuarial valuation. The
City continues to fully fund its annual required contribution for these liabilities. An irrevocable
trust fund for retiree medical benefits was authorized by the City Council in May 2007 with
initial funding of $32.8 million in March 2008. Subsequent contributions of $21.6 million and
investment earnings of $21.5 million have increased the trust balance to almost $76 million as
of August 2014. The $76 million balance in the trust fund equates to an estimated 35 percent
funded level for retiree medical as of August 2014.
The City is facing a significant backlog in infrastructure investment. A newly formed Council
Infrastructure Committee has taken up the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon commission (IBRC)
report, and has proposed a five year plan for infrastructure projects and funding sources. As
recommended by the IBRC, the General Fund has been contributing $2.2 million annually since
FY 2013 for “keep up” needs, and has also transferred a total of $20.5 million General Fund
surplus funds to the Infrastructure Reserve over the past three fiscal years. Further, in June
2014, the City Council approved an Infrastructure Plan in the amount of $126 million. The
funding plan for this infrastructure investment assumed voter approval of a Transient
Occupancy Tax increase from 12 percent to 14 percent, which the voters approved on Nov. 4,
2014 per the unofficial results from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.
Reappropriations:
On October 20, 2014, the City Council preliminarily approved the FY 2014 reappropriation
requests as summarized in Exhibit 2. FY 2014 reappropriation requests total $2,127,430 and
are categorized as follows:
Timing and Workload Delays - Certain projects were delayed due to competing workload
demands, appropriation of funds late in the fiscal year, or other unanticipated delays. Examples
of projects in this category include the Police Utilization Study, Airport Legal Outside Counsel,
Comprehensive Plan, Business Registry Certificate Program, Ecological Footprint Analysis,
Virtual Private Network Upgrade, Virtual Private Clout, and Council Chambers Voting System
Replacement.
Capital Projects with no Expenditures in FY 2014 or FY 2013 - The Long Range CCTV Cameras
capital project has not had funds expended for two years; however, staff still intends to
complete the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Library Materials - Savings were realized in the area of Library Materials in FY 2014 in
anticipation of the 2015 openings of Mitchell Park Library and the Rinconada Library. These
funds, from the Palo Alto Library Foundation, will allow for the library to purchase publications
and materials for library patrons.
Teen Programs - At the June 2, 2014 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a
recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee to use the net revenue collected
from 455 Bryant Street in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 ($213,834) to fund Teen Programs.
Per City Council action/direction, the net revenue from prior years in the amount of $213,834 in
addition to $84,000 for FY 2014 for a total of $297,834 for reappropriation. A long term
expenditure plan will be brought to the City Council in fall 2014, including the use of estimated
FY 2015 revenue of $84,000.
Management and Professional Development funds - A number of City employees, as part of
their compensation plan, are eligible for certain professional development and self-
improvement activities. These funds are available to certain employees for civic and
professional association memberships, conference participation and travel, educational
programs, certain tuition costs and professional and trade journal subscriptions, and are
recommended to be carried over to FY 2015 to improve and supplement the job and
professional skills of employees.
Results by Fund
General Fund Reserves
At the end of the current fiscal year, as outlined in the CAFR, the fund balance of the General
Fund was $48.3 million, an increase of $6.2 million from the prior year. The $48.3 million
balance is comprised of several reserves: the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR),
encumbrances, notes and loans, inventory, prepaid items, unrealized gain on investments, and
reappropriations.
At the close of FY 2014, there was a General Fund surplus of $10.2 million. After adjusting all
other non-BSR reserve balances, the remaining $8.7 million was added to the BSR balance.
Based on prior City Council direction, staff recommends a transfer of $4.0 million to the
Infrastructure Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund.
The year over year change in General Fund reserve balances on an accounting basis is
summarized in the following table.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
($ in millions)
Balance Net From Transfer to Balance
06/30/13 Operations Infrastructure 06/30/14
Budget Stabilization Reserve 30,357$ 8,726$ (4,000)$ 35,083$
Other Reserves:
Encumbrances 5,029 (269) 4,760
Reappropriations 556 1,051 1,607
Notes and loans receivable 1,540 295 1,835
Prepaid items 645 (293)352
Inventories 3,564 437 4,001
Unrealized gains on investments 386 286 672
Total General Fund Reserves 42,077$ 10,233$ (4,000)$ 48,310$
GENERAL FUND RESERVE SUMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 2014
Accounting Basis
The $35.1 million BSR balance on an accounting basis includes unrealized gain on investment in
the amount of $285,000. On a budgetary basis, the unrealized gain on investment is deducted,
which leaves a BSR balance of $34.8 million to be carried forward to FY 2015.
The approval of the FY 2015 Adopted General Fund Budget assumed a FY 2014 General Fund
surplus of $1.7 million to be carried forward to FY 2015 for one-time FY 2015 expenditures.
Therefore, $1.7 million of the BSR balance of $34.8 million carried forward will be used to pay
for FY 2015 Operating Budget one-time expenditures. This will leave an available BSR balance
of $33.1 million on a budgetary basis, or 19.33 percent of FY 2015 adopted budgeted
expenditures and operating transfers. This BSR level is within Council’s approved reserve
guidelines. During FY 2015, the City Council approved various net adjustments to the BSR in the
amount of $390,000 such as funding for the Climate Action Plan, increase to the loan to the
Airport Fund, and adjustments to the Golf Operating budget. After these adjustments, the
current BSR balance is $32.7 million or 19.10 percent of the FY 2015 adopted budget
expenditures.
The following graph provides a snapshot of the General Fund BSR balance and percentage of
budgeted expenditures for the past ten years. Additional information regarding the City’s
General Fund BSR reserve policy can be found in the FY 2015 Adopted Budget document.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
$21.1 $22.7
$27.5 $26.1 $24.7
$27.4 $26.5 $27.1
$30.4 $31.2
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fiscal Year
General Fund BSR Balance FY 2005-2014
From the FY 2015 Adopted Operating Budget
($ in millions)
Infrastructure Reserve
As discussed, this report includes a recommendation to transfer $4.0 million from the FY 2014
budget surplus to the Infrastructure Reserve. With this recommended transfer of $4.0 million,
the City has transferred a total of $20.5 million in year-end surplus funds from the General Fund
to the Infrastructure Reserve since 2012. The Infrastructure Reserve (IR) balance fluctuates due
to timing differences in the receipt of grant funds and reimbursements, and the timing of
adjustments to close projects. An example is the Golf Course renovation project which calls for
debt financing in addition to a San Francisquito Creek JPA contribution totaling over $9 million
which is expected to be received once the project goes forward. As of June 30, 2014 the IR
balance was $3.4 million.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
General Fund Revenues
Total General Fund revenues for FY 2014 were $152.3 million which represents an increase of
$7.8 million or 5.4 percent in comparison to FY 2013. The table below compares the year over
year changes in each of the major tax revenue categories. As shown, the receipts from major
tax increased by $8.2 million or 10 percent from FY 2013 to FY 2014.
Category FY 2013 FY 2014 % Change
Property tax $ 28,742 $30,587 6.4%
Sales tax 25,606 29,424 14.9%
Utility user tax 10,861 11,008 1.3%
Transient occupancy tax 10,794 12,255 13.5%
Documentary transfer tax 6,810 7,811 14.7%
Total $82,813 $91,085 10.0%
Sales, transient occupancy, and documentary transfer taxes are economically sensitive revenue
streams, and all of those categories experienced double digit growth over the prior year. The
following chart depicts the relative contribution of each tax category over the past six years
(2009 through 2014). Sales tax in FY 2009 made up 30.9 percent of the total tax revenues and in
FY 2014 has grown to 32.3 percent. Likewise, documentary transfer tax revenue is now 8.6
percent of tax revenue totals compared to 8.2 percent in FY 2009.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
General Fund Tax Revenues
Actual Fiscal Years 2009 – 2014
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures for FY 2014, including encumbrances and transfers, totaled $170.7
million, an increase of $1.0 million from the prior year. The FY 2014 Adopted Budget of $159.7
million was increased to the Final Adjusted Budget amount of $172.7 million. Actual
expenditures were $2.0 million, or 1.2 percent less than the Final Adjusted Budget.
The following chart compares actual departmental costs, including encumbrances, over the
past six years and budgeted cost for FY 2015. The chart does not include operating transfers out
to other funds.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
General Fund Departments
Actual Expenditures Fiscal Years 2009 – 2014 (including encumbrances)
($ in thousands)
Overall, the General Fund had approximately $79,000 in salary and benefits savings, which was
within 0.08 percent of the Adjusted Salary and Benefit budget of $98.1 million. Actions
recommended as part of this report reallocate funds from the salary reserve to several
departments; salary savings within departments; and salary savings to non-departmental. In FY
2014, assumed salary savings in the General Fund were budgeted in the non-departmental
section of the budget. The Fire and Police Departments exceeded their overtime budgets by
$812,000 (46 percent) and $212,000 (14 percent) respectively. Although there was sufficient
vacancy savings within departments, and elsewhere in the General Fund to absorb these
overages, overtime spending for public safety continues to exceed budget and will be
reexamined as part of the development of the FY 2016 Operating Budget.
Capital Projects Fund
The Capital Projects Fund ended the year with a fund balance of $69.8 million, which is
comprised of the following:
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Fund Balance Component Amount
($ in millions)
Restricted for Library projects $ 15,006
Assigned for all other Capital projects 51,398
Infrastructure Reserve 3,383
Total Capital Projects Fund Balance $ 69,787
Restricted for Library projects of $15.0 million is the portion of fund balance dedicated to
remaining Library expenditures as approved in the FY 2014 Adopted Capital Budget, and those
expenditures will be paid for with cash from bond proceeds. If expenditures for the Library
projects exceed the Adopted Budget amounts, they will be funded from the Infrastructure
Reserve. Non-bondable expenditures such as salaries and benefits are already funded from the
Infrastructure Reserve, as established at the time of the bond issuance.
Assigned for all other Capital projects of $51.3 million represents the amount of unspent funds
associated with Adopted Capital projects other than Library projects. Outside funding sources
such as grants, donations, and future debt issues are not factored into this component of fund
balance until they are actually received. Thus, all capital projects are considered to be fully
funded from existing cash resources.
Infrastructure Reserve (IR) of $3.4 million is the balance remaining after all Adopted Capital
project expenditures have been satisfied, without regard to anticipated future funding sources
such as grants, donations, and debt issues for existing Adopted Capital projects. This presents
the most conservative and fiscally prudent view of the IR balance.
The IR balance will increase as a result of:
savings from completed or cancelled projects;
surplus funds transferred from the General Fund;
receipt of reimbursable grants, donations, or debt issuances related to existing adopted
projects.
Enterprise Funds
At June 30, 2014 the City’s Enterprise Funds reported total net position of $742.3 million, an
increase of $24.3 million, or 3.4 percent compared with the prior year. The change in net
position for each of the Enterprise Funds is detailed in the following table.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Enterprise Funds
Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in Millions)
Increase/
Fund Name 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Water 11.0$ 6.8$ 4.2$
Electric 1.7 1.9 (0.2)
Fiber Optics 3.1 2.8 0.3
Gas 3.3 1.3 2.0
Wastewater Collection 3.5 2.5 1.0
Wastewater Treatment (1.9)0.8 (2.7)
Refuse 2.2 2.3 (0.1)
Storm Drainage 2.7 2.3 0.4
Airport (0.5)(0.2)(0.3)
Total Change in Net Assets 25.1$ 20.5$ 4.6$
The total Change in Net Assets of $25.1 million, an increase of $4.6 million from the prior year,
was primarily due to the Water Fund rate increase and increased investment earnings due to a
favorable cost to market adjustment at year-end. More detailed changes are discussed in the
MD&A section of the CAFR.
Residential Affordable Housing Fund – Return of Maybell Loan
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation returned $720,220, which staff deposited in the Residential
Housing Fund. This amount was for the Maybell project that was not approved. The funds
originally came from the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement funding
to be used for affordable housing. The $720,220 will remain in the Residential Affordable
Housing Fund until an appropriate affordable housing project is identified and the funds are
approved by the City Council for use on the project. In 2013, Council also approved a $2.6
million short-term loan for Maybell out of the Stanford funds. This loan was not needed,
consequently the funds were not transferred to the housing fund and they remain part of the
Stanford funds.
Questica Budget System Update
In June 2014, the City Council approved a contract with Questica, Inc. to implement a best-in-
class budget system. This new system will be used to develop the City’s annual operating and
capital budgets, long-range financial forecast, labor cost modeling, and financial budget to
actual reports. In addition to these elements, staff engaged with Questica to pioneer the
development of a fee module that will automatically calculate most of the City’s 1,000
municipal fees in accordance with state law and City policy. Prior to Questica, the City
City of Palo Alto Page 12
developed its annual operating and capital budgets, General Fund Long Range Financial
Forecast (LRFF), and labor negotiation costing analysis through email processes, spreadsheets,
an unsupported capital budget publication software, and SAP. Municipal Fees were
documented on individual spreadsheets. Budget data, including budget numbers and related
analysis, was kept in different systems and file types, increasing the risk of version control
issues and inconsistent data, and decreasing the ability to collaboratively develop the budget
with City departments.
In July 2014, Office of Management and Budget staff met with Questica representatives to kick-
off the budget system implementation and, to date, has reached the following milestones: (1)
importing of FY 2014 operating and budget data and five years of prior year actual data; (2)
configuration of the system; (3) importing of capital data from SAP and the unsupported capital
budget publication software; and (4) preview of Questica to select departments to solicit
feedback regarding user needs and functionality. The results of the Questica preview were
positive and departments expressed excitement to collaboratively engage in future budget
processes, model data, and take advantage of the streamlined workflow processes. OMB staff
will incorporate department feedback into the department roll-out process scheduled for
December 2014.
The next major implementation step consists of developing and building the overnight interface
with SAP for budget to actual reporting. This feature which will be implemented by July 1, 2015
will allow departments to monitor actual to budgeted expenditures with an accessible interface
and to submit and approve administrative budget change requests with an online process.
Separately from acquiring and implementing the City’s new budget system, staff also evaluated
options for implementing a new Infrastructure Management System as outlined in
recommendations from the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee. One of these
recommendations included the long-term budgeting (depending on the life cycle of various
types of infrastructure) of infrastructure maintenance and replacement. Staff evaluated
various potential systems and found that the new budget system can serve as this long-term
financial planning tool.
In August, Questica also released a separate performance measure and management module
which allows staff to link performance and financial data, enter or upload performance data
from other systems, and visualize the data via dash boards. The current system the City
acquired provides rudimentary performance measure input fields and a dashboard
functionality. However, it does not allow staff to link performance with financial data. As
discussed by the City Auditor with the Policy and Services Committee at the September 9, 2014
meeting, the Auditor’s Office and City departments spend an extraordinary amount of time on
data compiling and analysis using spreadsheets. Per the City Auditor, her office spends
approximately 1,600 staff hours to produce the annual performance report. Further, the
annual performance report includes many measures, which link performance and financial
data.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Therefore, to allow for the implementation of the performance measure and management
module, streamline the annual Performance Report, and address the IBRC recommendation,
staff intends to bring forward an amendment to the Questica contract for City Council
consideration in December 2014, which will amend the license agreement for the system from
seat licenses to a site license. A site license allows unlimited access to as many employees as
necessary. With this change, many authorized department users versus one or two central
contacts in each department can enter, view, and analyze financial, budgetary, and
performance data and set up their own dashboards to more effectively manage the part of the
organization they are responsible for. Questica has identified the City of Palo Alto as one of
their clients with the most advanced use of performance measures and is offering the City a
substantive discount on the acquisition of the site license. With the acquisition of Questica, the
City paid $130,000 in seat license cost. The regular site license cost is $250,000. If the City
signs on to the performance measure and management model, Questica has offered the City to
reduce its one-time site license cost by $90,000 from $250,000 to $160,000. So, the additional
cost for the site license is $30,000. If the City were to purchase minimal additional seat licenses
to effectively implement the IBRC recommendation, streamline the annual performance report
process, and link financial and performance data, the cost over the life of the contract would be
greater as will be detailed in the forthcoming CMR regarding the Questica contract
amendment.
Environmental Review
This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2014 Year End BAO (DOCX)
Exhibit 1 to BAO - Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Year End Adjustments (PDF)
Exhibit 2 to BAO - Reappropriations (PDF)
Exhibit 3 to BAO - Year End CIP Adjustments (PDF)
Exhibit 4 to BAO - General Fund Budget to Actual (PDF)
Attachment B: FY2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
1
ORDINANCE NO. XXXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AUTHORIZING CLOSING OF THE BUDGET FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2014
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and as set forth in Section 2.28.070 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the Council on June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year
2014; and
B. Fiscal Year 2014 has ended and the financial results, although subject to post-
audit adjustment, are now available.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 2.28.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
City Manager during Fiscal Year 2014 did amend the budgetary accounts of the City of
Palo Alto to reflect:
A. Additional appropriations authorized by ordinance of the City Council.
B. Amendments to employee compensation plans adopted by the City Council.
C. Transfers of appropriations from the contingent account as authorized by the
City Manager.
D. Redistribution of appropriations between divisions, cost centers, and
objects within various departments as authorized by the City Manager.
E. Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations which on July 1, 2013 were encumbered by
properly executed, but uncompleted, purchase orders or contracts.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby approves adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2014
budget as shown on attached Exhibit 1.
SECTION 4. The Council hereby re-appropriates Fiscal Year 2014
appropriations in certain departments and categories, as shown on the attached Exhibit
2, which were not encumbered by purchase order or contract, at year end into the Fiscal
Year 2015 budget.
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
2
SECTION 5. The Fiscal Year 2014 encumbered balances for the departments
and categories shown on Exhibit 4 shall be carried forward and re-appropriated to those
same departments and categories in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget.
SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed:
A. To close the Fiscal Year 2014 budget accounts in all funds and departments
and, as required by the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, to make such interdepartmental
transfers in the 2014 budget as adopted or amended by ordinance of the Council; and
B. To close and adjust various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as shown in
Exhibit 3 and move all completed CIP to their respective reserve funds indicated in
Exhibit 1; and
C. To fund the Budget Stabilization Reserve in accordance with the General Fund
Reserves Policy adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 7. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby
decreased by the sum of Four Million One Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Eighty Two Dollars ($4,127,682) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 8. The Water Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the
sum of Six Million Nine Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven
Dollars ($6,979,697) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 9. The Electric Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
decreased by the sum of Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars
($317,506) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 10. The Fiber Optics Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by
the sum of Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($519,000) as described in Exhibit
1.
SECTION 11. The Gas Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased
by the sum of Eight Hundred Forty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety Six ($841,196) as
described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 12. The Gas Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by
the sum of One Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Dollars ($174,000) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 13. The Wastewater Treatment Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby
increased by the sum of Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($4,660) as described
in Exhibit 1.
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
3
SECTION 14. The Refuse Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the
sum of Nine Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($977) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 15. The Storm Drainage Rate Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased
by the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Four Dollars ($1,534) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 16. The University Avenue Parking Permit Fund is hereby increased by
Two Thousand Ten Dollars ($2,010) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 17. The California Avenue Parking Permit Fund is hereby increased by
Three Hundred Dollars ($300) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 18. The Federal Equitable Sharing Fund is hereby decreased by Two
Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars ($2,960) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 19. The State Deferred Revenue Fund is hereby decreased by Two
Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight ($2,198) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 20. The Stanford/El Camino Fund is hereby decreased by Four Hundred
Ten Thousand Dollars ($410,000) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 21. The Public Art Fund is hereby decreased by Four Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty One Dollars ($4,661) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 20. The Law Enforcement Services Fund is hereby decreased by Two
Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ten Dollars ($227,710) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 21. The Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund is hereby decreased by
Eight Hundred Twelve Dollars ($812) as described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 22. The Technology Fund is hereby decreased by Eight Hundred
Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Eight Dollars ($819,378) as described in
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 23. The Capital Projects Fund Reserve is hereby decreased by Three
Million, Eight Hundred Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,841,400) as
described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION 24. Upon completion of the independent audit, detailed financial
statements reflecting the changes made by the Sections 7 through 18 of this ordinance
shall be published as part of the annual financial report of the City as required by Article
ATTACHMENT A
Page of 4
4
III, Section 16, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
SECTION 25. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 26. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that the enactment
of this ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and,
therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
SECTION 27. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Service
Category Amount Description
GENERAL FUND
Transfer to the
Technology Fund
63,000 Increase the Transfer to the Technology Fund by $63,000 to adjust for the
actual amount of the Technology Fee collected in the General Fund in Fiscal
Year 2014 ($1,163,000).
Transfer to IR
4,000,000
Transfer an additional $4 million to the Infrastructure Reserve in accordance
with the City Council approved Infrastructure Plan (June 9, 2014)
Salary and Benefits (1,106,000) Allocate funding for salary increases to General Fund Departments
Salary and Benefits 1,000,000 Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
Direct Charges 148,682 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
4,105,682
(4,105,682)
Salary and Benefits (149,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(149,000)
149,000
Salary and Benefits (52,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(52,000)
52,000
CITY MANAGER
Salary and Benefits 60,000 Allocate funding for salary increases from Non-Departmental
60,000
(60,000)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Rents and Leases 84,000 To recognize revenue for the Byrant Street rent
84,000
Salary and Benefits (408,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(408,000)
492,000
FIRE
Salary and Benefits 453,000 Allocate funding for salary increases from Non-Departmental
453,000
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
CITY AUDITOR
Source Changes
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Use Changes
Use Changes
Exhibit 1
Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
(453,000)
LIBRARY
Salary and Benefits (155,000) Allocate salary and benefits savings to the Police Department
Salary and Benefits (166,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(321,000)
166,000
Salary and Benefits 593,000 Allocate funding for salary increases from Non-Departmental
Salary and Benefits 155,000 Allocate salary and benefit savings from the Library Department
748,000
(593,000)
Salary and Benefits (225,000) Allocate Departmental Salary Savings to Non-Departmental
(225,000)
225,000
Total General Fund Changes to BSR (4,127,682)
Reimbursements 4,000,000 Increase transfer from the General Fund in accordance with the City Council
approved Infrastructure Plan (June 9, 2014)
Source Changes Changes 4,000,000
CIP 158,600 Combined impact from adjustments to projects as outlined in Attachment A,
Exhibit 3
Use Changes 158,600
3,841,400 Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
POLICE
PUBLIC WORKS
Use Changes
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
GENERAL FUND CIP (CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Use Changes
Attachment B, Exhibit 1
Cost Center Cost
Element Category Amount Description
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ELECTRIC FUND
Direct Charges (494) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
CIP (1,817,000) Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Use Changes (1,817,494)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves 1,817,494
Fund Balancing Entries
20000020 38040 1,817,494 Change in Electric Operating Fund Balance
Total Electric Fund 1,817,494
FIBER OPTICS FUND
CIP 23,000 Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Use Changes 23,000
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (23,000)
Fund Balancing Entries
20000020 38040 (23,000)Change in Fund Balance
Total Fiber Optics Fund (23,000)
GAS FUND
Salary and Benefits 54,000 Increase costs to cover additional labor expenses related to
pension and medical
CIP 80,000 Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Utility Purchases 120,000
Increase costs to cover additional gas commodity purchases
Direct Charges 196 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 254,196
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (254,196)
Fund Balancing Entries
20000050 38170 (174,000)Change in Gas Supply Fund Balance
20000040 38040 (80,196)Change in Gas Operating Fund Balance
Total Gas Fund (254,196)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
Attachment B, Exhibit 1
Cost Center Cost
Element Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
WATER FUND 7
Reimbursements 200,508 Increase revenue for the sale of water to the City.
Source Changes Changes 200,508
CIP 81,000 Changes in CIP Projects (See Atttachment A, Exhibit 3 for
more detail)
Direct Charges 6,205 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 87,205
Net Changes To (From) Reserves 113,303
Fund Balancing Entries
20000060 38040 113,303 Change in Fund Balance
Total Water Fund 113,303
20021103 30010 Direct Charges (4,660) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes (4,660)
Net Changes To (From) Reserves 4,660
Fund Balancing Entries
20000070 38040 4,660 Change in Fund Balance
Total Wastewater Treatment Fund 4,660
REFUSE FUND
Direct Charges 977 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 977
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (977)
Fund Balancing Entries
50050001 38040 (977)Change in Fund Balance
Total Refuse Fund (977)
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
Direct Charges 1,534 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 1,534
Net Changes To (From) Reserves (1,534)
Fund Balancing Entries
50050001 38040 (1,534)Change in Fund Balance
Total Storm Drainage Fund (1,534)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND
Attachment B, Exhibit 1
Category Amount Description
Direct Charges (2,010) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes (2,010)
2,010
Direct Charges (300) Decrease costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes (300)
300
Non-Capital 2,960 Increase to cover additional non-capital p-card expenses for FY 2014
Use Changes 2,960
(2,960)
Operating Transfer 2,198 Transfer to General Fund
Use Changes 2,198
(2,198)
Interagency 410,000 Cost sharing expense between City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara for service
level improvements on Oregon Expressway
Use Changes 410,000
(410,000)
Salaries & Benefits 4,661 Increase costs to cover additional labor expenses
Use Changes 4,661
(4,661)
Facilities & Equipment 227,710 Citizen Options for Public Safety (COPS) Grant funding from the State of California
used to purchase front line law enforcement equipment
Use Changes 227,710
(227,710)
STANFORD/EL CAMINO FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
STATE DEFERRED REVENUE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
FED EQUITABLE SHARING
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
PUBLIC ART FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
Attachment B, Exhibit 1
Category Amount Description
CITY OF PALO ALTO
YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ADOPTED BUDGET
Facilities & Equipment 812 Increase costs to cover additional non-capital p-card expenses
Use Changes 812
(812)
Transfer from the
General Fund
63,000 Increase the Transfer from the General Fund by $63,000 to adjust for the actual
amount of the Technology Fee collected in the General Fund in Fiscal Year 2014
($1,163,000).
Source Changes 63,000
Contract Services 710,000 Increase costs to cover technology related contractual services
Facilities & Equipment 172,000 Increase costs to cover radio and communication equipment purchasesDirect Charges 378 Increase costs for the sale of water to the City.
Use Changes 882,378
(819,378)
TECHNOLOGY FUND
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
INTERNAL SERVICE
Net Changes To (From) Reserves
LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT
Attachment B, Exhibit 1
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
General Fund
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
City Manager's Office General
Fund
35,000 Business Registry Certificate Program: At the April 29, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council
approved a recommendation to fund a Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance and Fee
Program as a full cost-recovery replacement/enhancement of the existing Use Certificate Process,
with funds from the City Council Contingency. Staff has not been able to work on this project due
to other competing priorities and the funding becoming available late in the fiscal year. Staff
committed to return to Council before December 30, 2014 for approval of the BRC ordinance and
program implementation and launch. CMR #4619
31070
City Manager's Office General
Fund
25,000 Electric Vehicle Consultant: At the May 13, 2014 Policy and Services Committee Meeting, an
ordinance was approved requiring all new multi-family residential and non-residential construction
to provide for current or future installation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers at the recommendation
of the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Task Force. Funding was appropriated from the City
Manager's Contingency to hire a consultant to implement this direction and guide developers in
technical equipment decision making as well as provide training to staff during the review process;
however, since this was not approved until the end of Fiscal Year 2014, staff could not complete
the contract before the end of the fiscal year. CMR #4719
31070
City Manager's Office General
Fund
25,000 Ecological Footprint Analysis: A study is needed to assess the demand and consumption of
resources by the City as a whole compared to the availability of resources in the ecosystem
surrounding and supporting the City. The results will provide a Palo Alto Consumption Land Use
Matrix (CLUM) and the data from the CLUM will be used for the subsequent Climate Action Plan,
that is scheduled to be presented to the Council in fall 2014. Funding was appropriated from the
City Manager's Contingency to conduct this study; however, the project was not able to be done in
Fiscal Year 2014.
31070
Community Services General
Fund
297,834 Teen Programs: At the June 2, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council approved a
recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee to use the net revenue collected from
455 Bryant Street in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013 ($213,834) to fund Teen Programs for Fiscal
Year 2015. Per Council action, the fund balance of $213,834 is to be reappropriated in addition to
the $84,000 in Fiscal Year 2014 proceeds for a total of $297,834. A long-term expenditure plan will
be brought to Council in fall 2014, including use the estimated revenue for Fiscal Year 2015 of
$84,000. CMR #4776
33000
Development
Services/Fire
General
Fund
50,000 Digitize Fire Prevention Records: This funding will be used to digitize historical records in the
Fire Prevention Bureau (FPB), and implement an electronic records management system for
historical and future documents with collaboration from the Information Technology (IT)
Department. This funding was appropriated in the Fire Department as part of the Fiscal Year 2014
Operating Budget; however, the IT Department is still developing a citywide electronic records
management strategy. As part of the Fiscal Year 2015 Operating Budget, FPB was moved from
the Fire Department to the Development Services Department. Reappropriation of these funds will
allow FPB to digitize and move their records into an electronic records management system once
IT implements a citywide solution.
31990
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 1 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Attachment C, Exhibit 2xExhibit 2
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
Library General
Fund
600,000 Library Publications: In Fiscal Year 2012, the library received a donation of $1.9 million from the
Palo Alto Library Foundation of which $1.4 million was appropriated to the CIP and the balance of
$500,000 was appropriated to the General Fund for the purchase of library collection materials
(CMR #2258). The remaining General Fund balance of $100,000 has been reappropriated through
Fiscal Year 2014 in anticipation of completion of the new Mitchell Park library. In addition, a second
donation of $1.2 million was received from the Palo Alto Library Foundation in Fiscal Year 2014
(CMR #4092) of which $500,000 is requested for reappropriation in anticipation of completion of the
new Rinconada library in Fiscal Year 2015. The balance of $100,000 from #2258 and $500,000
from #4092, for a total of $600,000, will be used for the purchase of collection materials in Fiscal
Year 2015 in order to provide library patrons with the most current publications and productions.
32230
People Strategy and
Operations
General
Fund
50,000 Temporary Salaries: Two employees, one working as a Human Resources Assistant and one
working as a Labor Relations Manager will be out on maternity leave for approximately six months
in Fiscal Year 2015. The PSO Department will have no vacant positions to start Fiscal Year 2015
to generate savings to hire temporary positions. Reappropriating Fiscal Year 2014 vacancy
savings will allow PSO to hire temporary staff to backfill for the vacancies in Fiscal Year 2015.
30030
People Strategy and
Operations
General
Fund
165,000 Management Development: Savings from Fiscal Year 2013 was carried forward to Fiscal Year
2014 to develop a citywide management training program; however, staffing resources were not
available in Fiscal Year 2014 in PSO to implement the program. PSO is fully staffed going into
Fiscal Year 2015, so this funding will be used for training programs in the following areas: Civics
and Citizen Engagement, Leadership and Talent Exchange, Budget, Finance and Procurement,
Interpersonal communication, Ethics and legal awareness, Presentation Skills, Business Writing,
Time Management, Project management, Change Management, SkillSoft for Computer skills,
Safety & Security and Personal and Professional Development.
33140
People Strategy and
Operations
General
Fund
25,000 Wellness Program: Funding will be used to create a holistic, accessible and fun employee
wellness program that encourages and supports healthy eating, work life balance, and an active
lifestyle. The City launched an RFP several months ago, and the Department has received several
responses and is in the process of reviewing the proposals; however, a vendor was unable to be
selected in Fiscal Year 2014.
Planning & Community
Environment
General
Fund
256,596 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan update is a large project involving significant
community engagement. The Plan is scheduled for completion at the end of 2015. Funds were
budgeted in FY 2014 and $56,596 is available for reappropriation in addition to the Council
approved a BAO on March 17, 2014 for an additional $200,000. These expenses include meetings,
advertising, supplies, note taking, and additional professional services to address unanticipated
events CMR #4554
31020
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 2 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Attachment C, Exhibit 2
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
Police General
Fund
78,000 Police Utilization Study: In Fiscal Year 2013, funding was allocated for the department to hire a
consultant to conduct a utilization study of overall police operations; however the study was not
completed due to competing workload demands. The funds were reappropriated to Fiscal Year
2014 to conduct the study; however, the Technical Services Division had many other projects that
took precedence (Tri-City Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management System, Patrol Vehicle
Mobile Audio Video, etc.) and were again unable to conduct the utilization study. Reappropriation
of these funds will allow Technical Services staff to determine the scope of the study, integrate it
into their workload, and hire a consultant to conduct the study in Fiscal Year 2015.
31990
1,607,430$ Total General Fund Reappropriations
Other Funds
Fund Fund Rec. Amount Reappropriation Justification
Airport 530 50,000 Airport Legal Outside Counsel: Council has directed staff to take over the Palo Alto Airport prior
to the end of the lease (2017) with the County of Santa Clara. The 2015 Adopted Operating
Budget has assumed a Fiscal Year 2015 takeover. There are numerous documents that need to
be written, negotiated, and approved by the City Council prior to the City taking back ownership of
the operations. This reappropriation will allow for outside legal counsel that is anticipated due to
the workload of the City Attorney's Office and specific expertise needed in this transaction.
31010
Capital Improvement
Fund
471 65,000 Long Range CCTV Cameras: Reappropriating these funds will allow the Fire Department to
purchase a fire weather camera to replace the current outdated camera that is mounted by Fire
Station 8 in Foothill Park. This funding was originally appropriated as part of the FD-13000 CIP to
replace the existing fire weather camera and add a second camera with thermal detection
capabilities to act as an early warning system for fires in the foothills south of Palo Alto. The
technology needs for the project were reevaluated in Fiscal Year 2014, and it was determined that
the current funding will only be able fund the replacement of the fire weather camera.
Reappropriation of these funds will allow for the purchase of the replacement camera in Fiscal Year
2015. The second thermal detection camera will be brought back for Council consideration in the
future as a separate CIP.
38790
Storm Drainage Fund 528 45,000 Storm Drainage Pump Station: This reappropriation will allow for a repair to one of the 24'
pumps at the Storm Pump Station located at the Airport. During a routine inspection, it was
recently discovered that water was leading from one of the pumps, which could lead to larger
damages. The repair was not completed in Fiscal Year 2014 as a portion of the funding was used
for design and configuration of storm software, a maintenance contract for storm software, and
debris disposal. Funding will be used, in conjunction with Fiscal Year 2015 approved funding, to
repair the pump in Fiscal Year 2015.
31990
Technology Fund 682 35,000 Council Chambers Voting System Replacement: Reappropriating these funds will allow for the
replacement of the existing analog voting system in the Council Chambers, which is over 20 years
old and no longer supported by the manufacturer. This project was unable to be completed in
Fiscal Year 2014 due to other infrastructure and technology related projects that took precedence.
This project needs to be done separately from the other technology upgrades to the Council
Chambers, scheduled for Fiscal Year 2016, because there will be no way to electronically record
the votes if the system fails.
31230
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 3 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Attachment C, Exhibit 2
Fiscal Year 2014 Preliminarily Approved Reappropriations (October 20, 2014)
Department Fund
Amount
Preliminarily
Approved Reappropriation Justification Commitment Item
Technology Fund 682 50,000 Virtual Private Network Upgrade: Reappropriating these funds will allow the IT Department to
complete upgrades to the Virtual Private Network (VPN) in order to enhance the security and
scalability of the computing network, create additional functionality and access of mobile devices to
the network, and ensure the City can upgrade to the most current operating system. This project
was approved as part of the application replacement funding in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget;
however, it was unable to be completed due to other infrastructure and technology related projects
that took precedence.
31290
Technology Fund 682 275,000 Virtual Private Cloud: Reappropriating these funds will allow the IT Department to implement a
primary and redundant storage area network through the Virtual Private Cloud. This project was
approved as part of the infrastructure replacement funding in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, and the
Department was going to award the project prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2014; however, a vendor
could not be selected to meet that deadline. This funding will allow the project to be awarded at
one of the first Council Meetings of Fiscal Year 2015, and allow the Department time to select the
best vendor.
35600
Technology Fund 682 -Application Maintenance: Reappropriating these funds will allow the Information Technology (IT)
Department to fund maintenance and support costs, that are unbudgeted elsewhere in the City, for
various technology applications that are used by other City departments and need to be upgraded
to maintain functionality.
31290
520,000$ Total Other Funds Reappropriations
2,127,430$ Total- All Reappropriations
Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Reappropriations.xlsx 4 11/18/2014,4:28 PM
Attachment C, Exhibit 2
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Art Center Electrical and Mechanical Upgrades PF-07000 $13,000 Reduction to PF-93009 To transfer funds from PF-93009 (Americans
with Disabilities Act Compliance) to cover
expenditures at year end.
Transportation and Parking Improvements PL-12000 $46,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Children's Theater Replacement & Expansion AC-09001 $7,600 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Temporary Main Library PE-11012 $ 123,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
To transfer funds from PE-11000 (Main Library
Construction) to cover expenditures at year
end.
Dimmer Replacement and Lighting System CC-09001 $6,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Safe Routes to Schools PL-00026 $38,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Curb and Gutter Repair PO-12001 $61,000 Reduction to
Infrastructure Reserve
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $- $ 294,600
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
Americans With Disabilities Act Compliance PF-93009 $(13,000) Increase to PF-07000 To transfer funds to PF-07000 (Art Center
Electrical and Mechanical Upgrades) to cover
expenditures at year end.
Main Library Construction PE-11000 $ (123,000) Increase to PE-11012 To transfer funds to PE-11000 (Temporary
Main Library) to cover expenditures at year
end.
Total $ (136,000)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
$- $ 158,600
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
EL-89044 $ 18,000 Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 18,000
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
EL-10008 $ (130,000) Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-10009 $ (300,000) Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-11014 $ (400,000) Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-89028 $ (700,000) Reduction as project being placed on hold.
EL-89038 $ (305,000) Reduction as project being placed on hold.
Total $ - $ (1,835,000)
TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND CIP MID-YEAR
ADJUSTMENTS
0 $ (1,817,000)
ELECTRIC FUND
Attachment D, Exhibit 3
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Directional Boring Machine GS-02013 $ 18,000 Gas Fund Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Directional Boring Equipment GS-03007 $ 2,000 Gas Fund Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Gas System, Customer Connections GS-80017 $ 60,000 Gas Fund Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 80,000
TOTAL GAS FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ 80,000
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Fiber Optics Customer Connections FO-10000 $ 23,000 Fiber Optics Fund
Reserves
Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total $ - $ 23,000
TOTAL FIBER OPTICS FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ 23,000
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Wastewater Collection
Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 22
WC-09001 $ 140,000 Reduction to WC-10002 To transfer funds from WC-10002 (Wastewater
Collection Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project
23) to cover expenditures at year end.
Total -$ 140,000$
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
Wastewater Collection
Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project 23
WC-10002 $ (140,000) Increase to WC-09001 To transfer funds to WC-09001 (Wastewater
Collection Rehabilitation/Augmentation Project
22) to cover expenditures at year end.
Total $ (140,000)
TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND CIP
YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS
$ - $ -
FIBER OPTICS FUND
WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND
GAS FUND
Attachment D, Exhibit 3
Project Funding
Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments
FY 2014 CIP Year-end Adjustments
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
Turnouts Regulator WS-07000 $ 74,000 Decrease to WS-08001 To transfer funds from WS-08001 (Wastewater
Reservoir Coating) to cover expenditures at
year end.
Emergency Water Supply WS-08002 $ 157,000 Decrease to WS-09000 To transfer funds from WS-09000 (Seismic
Water Tank) to cover expenditures at year end.
Water System, Customer Connections WS-80013 $ 81,000 Water Reserves Increase to project due to higher than
anticipated expenditures.
Total -$ 312,000$
REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS
Water Reservoir Coating WS-08001 (74,000)$ Increase to WS-07000 To transfer funds to WS-07000 (Turnouts
Regulator) to cover expenditures at year end.
Seismic Water Tank WS-09000 (157,000)$ Increase to WS-08002 To transfer funds to WS-08002 (Emergency
Water Supply) to cover expenditures at year
end.
Total -$ (231,000)$
TOTAL WATER FUND CIP YEAR-END
ADJUSTMENTS
-$ 81,000$
WATER FUND
Attachment D, Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
11/18/14
FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014
Adopted Adjusted CAFR Basis Allocated Encum+ Budgetary Variance
Budget Budget Rev/Exp Charges Reapprop Rev/Exp Adj Budget
Revenues
Sales Tax 23,846 27,352 29,424 n/a 29,424 2,072
Property Tax 29,613 30,251 30,587 n/a 30,587 336
Transient Occupancy Tax 11,545 12,318 12,255 n/a 12,255 (63)
Documentary Transfer Tax 5,699 7,395 7,811 n/a 7,811 416
Utility Users Tax 11,013 11,386 11,008 n/a 11,008 (378)
Other Taxes and Fines 2,107 2,107 2,136 n/a 2,136 29
Charges for Services 24,379 22,741 23,366 n/a 23,366 625
Permits and Licenses 8,346 7,952 7,546 n/a 7,546 (406)
Return on Investment 769 769 1,042 n/a 1,042 273
Rental Income 12,891 14,004 14,215 n/a 14,215 211
From Other Agencies 252 345 768 n/a 768 423
Charges to Other Funds 10,574 10,574 -10,947 n/a 10,947 373
Other Revenues 2,010 2,000 1,240 -n/a 1,240 (760)
Total Revenues 143,044 149,194 141,398 10,947 n/a 152,345 3,151
Add: Operating Transfers In 17,529 17,910 17,912 n/a 17,912 2
Prior Year Encum & Reapprop 5,571 5,585 n/a 5,585 14
Total Source of Funds 160,573 172,675 159,310 16,532 n/a 175,842 3,167
Expenditures
City Attorney 2,453 3,137 2,459 101 551 3,111 26
City Auditor 1,088 1,058 965 51 11 1,027 31
City Clerk 1,258 1,282 980 132 10 1,122 159
City Council 497 709 493 1 86 580 129
City Manager 2,499 3,092 2,754 108 216 3,078 13
Administrative Services 7,280 7,363 6,699 394 151 7,244 119
Community Services 22,700 23,888 17,868 4,699 835 23,402 487
Public Safety 60,962 63,628 57,111 5,350 942 63,403 225
People Strategy & Operations 3,265 3,761 2,962 167 493 3,622 139
Library 7,793 8,254 6,675 665 732 8,072 182
Planning & Community Environment 13,608 15,150 12,199 1,065 1,373 14,637 513
Public Works 13,751 14,380 10,557 2,626 955 14,138 242
Non-Departmental 1,228 639 1,142 -- 1,142 (503)
Cubberley Lease 7,268 7,268 7,271 --7,271 (3)
Total Expenditures 145,650 153,609 130,135 15,359 6,355 151,849 1,760
Add: Operating Trans Out 843 1,905 1,581 -1,581 324
Transfer to Infrastructure 13,226 17,234 17,234 -17,234 0
Total Use of Funds 159,719 172,748 148,950 15,359 6,355 170,664 2,085
Net Surplus/(Deficit)854 (73) 10,360 1,173 (6,355) 5,178 5,251
CAFR Reconciliation:Unrealized gain/loss on investments 285
Current year encumbrance/reappropriations 6,355
Prior Year encumbrances/reappropriations (5,585)
CAFR Net Income 6,233
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY ($000s)
2013-2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
City of Palo Alto, California
FISCAL YEAR ENDEDJune 30, 2014
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2014
2013-2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Prepared by:
Administrative Services Department
City of Palo Alto, California
CITY OF PALO ALTO
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION:
Transmittal Letter .................................................................................................................................... i
City Officials ........................................................................................................................................... vi
Organizational Structure ....................................................................................................................... vii
Administrative Services Organization .................................................................................................. viii
GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ............................................... ix
FINANCIAL SECTION:
Independent Auditor’s Report .............................................................................................................. 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
(Required Supplementary Information – Unaudited) ...................................................................... 5
Basic Financial Statements
Government‐wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ....................................................................................................... 29
Statement of Activities ............................................................................................................ 31
Governmental Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet .......................................................................................................................... 33
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to
the Statement of Net Position ‐ Governmental Activities ................................................. 34
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .................................. 35
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities –
Governmental Activities ................................................................................................... 36
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance –
Budget and Actual – General Fund ................................................................................... 37
Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ....................................................................................................... 38
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position ................................... 40
Statement of Cash Flows ......................................................................................................... 42
Fiduciary Fund Financial Statement:
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ....................................................................................... 44
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ................................................................. 45
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ...................................................................................... 47
CITY OF PALO ALTO
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Supplementary Information:
Non‐Major Governmental Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................... 101
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................... 102
Non‐Major Special Revenue Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................... 104
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................... 106
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................. 108
Non‐Major Debt Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ...................................................................................................... 114
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................... 115
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................. 116
Non‐Major Permanent Fund:
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................. 118
Internal Service Funds:
Combining Statement of Fund Net Position .......................................................................... 120
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and
Changes in Fund Net Position ......................................................................................... 121
Combining Statement of Cash Flows ..................................................................................... 122
Fiduciary Funds:
Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities – All Agency Funds ...................................... 124
STATISTICAL SECTION:
Financial Trends:
Net Position by Component ......................................................................................................... 127
Changes in Net Position ............................................................................................................... 128
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ....................................................................................... 130
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ..................................................................... 132
CITY OF PALO ALTO
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Revenue Capacity:
Electric Operating Revenue by Source ......................................................................................... 133
Supplemental Disclosure for Water Utilities ............................................................................... 134
Assessed Value of Taxable Property ............................................................................................ 135
Property Tax Rates, All Overlapping Governments ..................................................................... 136
Property Tax Levies and Collections ............................................................................................ 137
Principal Property Taxpayers ....................................................................................................... 138
Assessed Valuation and Parcels by Land Use .............................................................................. 139
Per Parcel Assessed Valuation of Single Family Residential ........................................................ 140
Debt Capacity:
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type .............................................................................................. 141
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt ............................................................................. 142
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin ................................................................................ 143
Revenue Bond Coverage .............................................................................................................. 144
Demographic and Economic Information:
Taxable Transactions by Type of Business ................................................................................... 145
Demographic and Economic Statistics ......................................................................................... 146
Principal Employers...................................................................................................................... 147
Operating Information:
Operating Indicators by Function/Program ................................................................................. 148
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program .............................................................................. 150
Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function .................................................. 152
SINGLE AUDIT SECTION:
Index to the Single Audit Report .................................................................................................. 153
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and
on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ........................................ 155
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A‐133 .................. 157
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .............................................................................. 159
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ......................................................... 160
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ................................................................................ 161
Schedule of Prior Years Findings and Questioned Costs ............................................................. 162
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto i
Transmittal Letter…………………………………………………...…
November 17, 2014
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Attention: Finance Committee
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
Members of the Council and Citizens of Palo Alto:
I am pleased to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014 in accordance with Article III, Section 16 and Article IV, Section 13 of the City of Palo
Alto Charter. The format and content of this CAFR comply with the principles and standards of
accounting and financial reporting adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
and contains all information needed for readers to gain a reasonable understanding of City of Palo
Alto financial affairs. Management takes sole responsibility for the completeness and reliability of
the information contained in this report based upon a comprehensive framework of internal control
that it has established for this purpose. The objective of internal controls is to provide reasonable,
rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of any material misstatements.
The City of Palo Alto’s financial statements have been audited by Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP,
Certified Public Accountants. The goal of the audit is to obtain reasonable assurance that the
financial statements are free of material misstatements and are fairly presented in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Macias Gini & O’Connell issued an unmodified
opinion for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. Their report is presented as the first component of
the financial section of this report.
In addition, Macias Gini & O’Connell conducted the federally mandated “Single Audit” designed to
meet the special needs of federal grantor agencies. The standards governing the Single Audit require
the independent auditor to report on the fair presentation of the financial statements, government’s
internal controls and compliance with legal requirements. These reports are included in the Single
Audit section of the CAFR.
An overview of the City’s financial activities for the fiscal year is discussed in detail in the
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the CAFR. MD&A complements this
transmittal letter and should be read in conjunction with it.
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Manager
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
ii City of Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO PROFILE
Palo Alto was incorporated in 1894 and named after a majestic coastal redwood tree which lives
along the San Francisquito Creek where early Spanish explorers settled. Located between the cities
of San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is a largely built‐out community of approximately 67,000
residents. Palo Alto delivers a full range of municipal services and public utilities under the council‐
manager form of government and offers an outstanding quality of life for its residents. It covers an
area of twenty‐six square miles and has dedicated almost one‐third of the area to open spaces of
parks and wildlife preserves. Public facilities include five libraries, four community centers, a cultural
arts center, an adult and children’s theater, a junior museum and zoo, and a golf course. The City
provides a diverse array of human services for seniors and youth, an extensive continuing education
program, concerts, exhibits, team sports and special events. The independent Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) has achieved state and national recognition for the excellence of its
programs.
City Council: The Council consists of nine members elected at‐large for four year staggered terms. At
the first meeting of each calendar year, the Council elects a Mayor and Vice‐Mayor from its
membership, with the Mayor having the duty of presiding over Council meetings. Council is the
appointing authority for the positions of City Manager and three other officials, the City Attorney,
City Clerk, and City Auditor, all of whom report to the Council.
Finance Committee: While retaining the authority to approve all actions, the City Council has
established a subcommittee to consider and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the
Council relating to finance, budget, audits, capital planning and debt. Staff provides the Finance
Committee and Council with reports such as the CAFR, quarterly budget‐versus‐actual results, and
investment and performance measure reports, which are utilized in their review of the City’s
financial position.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK
Employment Trends: The City of Palo Alto is located in the heart of Silicon Valley and is adjacent to
Stanford University, one of the premier institutions of higher education in the nation which has
produced much of the talent that founded many successful high‐tech companies in Palo Alto and
Silicon Valley. With varied and relatively stable employers such as Stanford University, Stanford
Medical Center, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford Shopping
Center and businesses such as Hewlett‐Packard, VMware, Tesla, Palantir and Space Systems Loral,
Palo Alto has enjoyed diverse employment and revenue bases. At the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014,
the City’s unemployment rate had dropped to 2.8 percent from 3.6 percent the prior year, as
compared to Santa Clara County’s unemployment rate of 5.4 percent, and the state’s unemployment
rate of 7.4 percent.
Real Estate Market: In its most recent annual report, the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office noted
that Santa Clara County’s 2014/2015 assessment roll increased 6.8 percent, from $335 billion to $357
billion ‐ “the third highest roll growth in County history.” The assessment roll growth was balanced
throughout the County, with the highest growth rate in Milpitas at 9.7 percent and the lowest in
Monte Sereno at 5.3 percent. Palo Alto’s assessment roll growth rate was 6.5 percent. Property
sales and new construction were the primary factors contributing to the robust growth. With its
highly regarded school district, well‐educated and high‐income population, cultural amenities, and
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto iii
the presence of Stanford University, the City’s real estate values have typically been shielded from
major price swings.
Local Trends: The solid recovery from the Great Recession is anticipated to continue, as the majority
of national, state, regional and local economic indicators point toward continuously improving
economic growth. In the past two years, we have witnessed a continuing gradual increase in
economically sensitive revenue sources such as sales and documentary transfer taxes. The robust
local economy and job growth are also driving increases in other revenues, particularly transient
occupancy tax and permit and license revenues.
Overall, funding sources are expected to be sufficient to cover projected FY 2015 expenses, as
forecasted in the City’s Adopted Budget. The City Council adopted a General Fund budget with
expenses of $171.1 million for FY 2015, an increase of 7.1 percent from the prior year Adopted
Budget. Citywide, full‐time equivalent (FTE) benefited positions are increasing by 14.45 positions, or
1.4 percent, however the total budgeted position count for FY 2015 is still well below the number of
FTEs employed a decade ago. Pension and health care costs continue to rise. Employer pension
rates will increase substantially beginning in FY 2016 as a result of changes in the actuarial method
for calculating pension rates that were adopted by the CalPERS Board of Administration. The most
recent CalPERS valuations show unfunded liabilities for pension and retiree health benefits in the
range of $439 million, a significant increase from the prior valuation as a result of CalPERS changing
amortization and smoothing policies to use market value of assets instead of actuarial value. The
City has proactively taken steps over the past several years to mitigate increased costs by negotiating
increased employee contributions to the CalPERS retirement plan. Also, implementation of a second
tier retirement plan in 2011 and adoption of the state‐mandated third tier pension benefit plan in
2013 will help mitigate future pension cost increases. Similarly, the City is negotiating provisions
such as capping the City’s health care contributions as an additional measure to decrease the rate of
health care cost growth.
Economic growth has increased the demand for housing, parking, and other City services. These
issues were reflected in the setting of City Council priorities for 2014:
Comprehensive Planning and action on land use and transportation: the Built Environment,
Transportation, Mobility, Parking, and Livability
Infrastructure Strategy and Funding
Technology and the Connected City
In keeping with these priorities, City Council has approved funding for enhanced shuttle services and
establishment of a Transportation Management Authority. A newly formed Office of Sustainability
will oversee various sustainability initiatives, and the Public Art Program has been expanded to
facilitate oversight of the public art component of construction projects and manage the City’s
portable art collection. Major initiatives on the horizon include assuming management and control
of the Palo Alto Airport in August 2014 and a significant reconfiguration of the Palo Alto Municipal
Golf Course which will enhance playing conditions, improve wetland areas and achieve flood control.
The City’s infrastructure needs have been quantified as a result of a major effort by the Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC), and the recently formed Council Infrastructure Committee. The
Committee has proposed a five year plan to spend $126 million on infrastructure, which includes
projects such as a new Public Safety Building, a Bike and Pedestrian plan, and a downtown parking
garage. These projects will be funded partially by debt to be repaid with a proposed increase in the
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
iv City of Palo Alto
transient occupancy tax (TOT) rate and the TOT from newly opened hotels, and from other sources
such as impact fees and Stanford University Medical Center development agreement monies. The
City has taken steps to fund its infrastructure needs by increasing General Fund transfers by $2.2
million annually since 2013 for “keep up” costs. In addition, as a result of sound fiscal management
and reserve policies, General Fund surpluses of $7.6 million in FY 2012, $8.9 million in FY 2013, and
$4.0 million in FY 2014 were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve.
The City’s Enterprise Funds implemented minimal rate changes in FY 2014. There were no changes in
electric, gas, wastewater and refuse rates. Water rates increased by 7 percent effective July 1, 2013.
The Fiber Optics and Storm Drainage Funds both implemented a 2.2 percent rate increase effective
July 1, 2013 for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index.
Long Range Financial Forecast: The City of Palo Alto produces a 10 year General Fund Long Range
Financial Forecast (LRFF) annually. This comprehensive report analyzes local, state, and federal
economic conditions, short and long‐term revenue and expense trends, and addresses challenges
such as funding retiree medical benefits and infrastructure needs. The forecast is designed to
highlight finance issues which the City can address proactively. Moreover, it is a tool that allows
policymakers an opportunity to prioritize funding needs over time. Delivered to Council in December
or January, this forecast sets the tone and themes for the annual budget process that begins in
January. The forecast is one of the many tools and reports the City uses for financial planning.
The City Council is conscientious and proactive in its financial planning. While the LRFF projects
General Fund surplus positions over the next ten years, the Council remains fiscally prudent in
approving new ongoing costs that will increase the City’s budget. Further, the City maintains a
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) level of 15 to 20 percent of the General Fund
operating budget, with a targeted goal of 18.5 percent. City Council approval is required to set this
reserve balance lower than 15 percent. For FY 2014, after transferring $4.0 million to the
Infrastructure Reserve, the remaining BSR balance is $35.1 million, or 20.5 percent. $1.7 million was
set aside to balance the FY 2015 Operating Budget due to one‐time costs for expanded shuttle
service, establishing a Transportation Management Authority and the Our Palo Alto program, and
providing an additional loan to the Airport Fund. The remaining BSR balance of $33.4 million is
within reserve guidelines at 19.5 percent. Both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s (S&P) awarded
their highest credit rating of Triple A to the City’s general obligation debt. This rating has been
awarded to only a few cities in California.
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The City of Palo Alto is a community dedicated to meeting the social, cultural, recreational,
educational, commercial and retail needs of its citizens and businesses. As such, open space,
education, recreational facilities, cultural events and safe streets and neighborhoods are important
aspects of the community, and the City has been recognized for its accomplishments with a variety of
awards and recognitions over the past year:
Named as #5 on the Top 100 Best Places to Live and #8 on the Top 10 Best Cities for Kids by
Livability.com, a website that ranks quality of life amenities of America’s small and mid‐sized
cities;
Awarded the Beacon Award for efforts and leadership in addressing climate change and
achieving greenhouse gas reductions and energy savings;
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto v
Named as a 2014 Top Innovator by the Urban Libraries Council for the Library’s makeX: Teen
Mobile Makerspace, a teen‐designed “third space” for middle and high school aged teens;
Named as the 2014 Most Electric Vehicle Ready Community;
Awarded the 2014 Best Solar Collaboration Award for streamlining the solar approval
process;
Awarded the MetLife Foundation Community‐Police Partnership Award for crafting an
extraordinary partnership with Downtown Streets Team, Business and Professional
Association, Parking Committee and the Police Department to improve community safety;
Named as the #1 digital city in America in its population size for its adoption of innovative
technologies such as Open Data, PaloAlto311, Nextdoor and Police ride‐a‐longs via Twitter,
all of which advance and facilitate interaction between City staff, the community, businesses
and visitors; and
Awarded the 2013 Dr. Teng‐chung Wu Pollution Prevention Award to the City’s Regional
Water Quality Control Plant for being a leader in emerging pollutants research, education
and programming.
Awards: During the past year, the City received an award for the prior fiscal year CAFR from the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for “excellence in financial reporting.” The 2014
CAFR will be submitted to the GFOA award program to be considered for this distinguished financial
reporting award.
Acknowledgments: This CAFR reflects the hard work, talent and commitment of the staff members
of the Administrative Services Department. This document could not have been accomplished
without their efforts and each contributor deserves sincere appreciation. Management wishes to
acknowledge the support of Laura Kuryk, Accounting Manager, and the Senior Accountants, Staff
Accountants, Payroll Analysts and Accounting Specialists for the high level of professionalism and
dedication they bring to the City of Palo Alto. Management would also like to express its
appreciation to Macias Gini & O’Connell, the City’s independent external auditors, who assisted and
contributed to the preparation of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Special acknowledgment must be given to the City Council and Finance Committee for their
dedication to directing the financial affairs of the City in a responsible, professional and progressive
manner.
Respectfully submitted,
LALO PEREZ, JAMES KEENE,
Chief Financial Officer City Manager
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
vi City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto City Officials ………………………….…………
Finance Committee
Marc Berman, Chair
Patrick Burt
Karen Holman
Liz Kniss
Policy and Services Committee
Gail A. Price, Chair
Larry Klein
Gregory Scharff
Greg Schmid
Council‐Appointed Officers
City Manager
James Keene
City Attorney
Molly Stump
City Clerk
Donna Grider
City Auditor
Harriet Richardson
City Council
Nancy Shepherd, Mayor
Liz Kniss, Vice‐Mayor
Marc Berman
Patrick Burt
Karen Holman
Larry Klein
Gail A. Price
Gregory Scharff
Greg Schmid
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto vii
Assistant City Manager
(2) Vacant
City Attorney
Molly Stump
City Manager
James Keene
City Auditor
Harriet Richardson
City Clerk
Donna Grider
City of Palo Alto Organization ……………………………………
Palo Alto Residents
City Council
Community Services
Greg Betts, Director
Administrative Services
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer
Fire
Eric Nickel, Chief
People Strategy and Operations
Kathryn Shen, Director
Police
Dennis Burns, Chief Planning & Community Environment
Hillary Gitelman, Director
Utilities
Valerie Fong, Director
Public Works
Mike Sartor, Director
Library
Monique le Conge‐Ziesenhenne,
Director
Development Services
Peter Pirnejad, Director
Chief Communications Officer
Claudia Keith
Office of Emergency Services
Kenneth Dueker, Director
Office of Sustainability
Gil Friend, Chief Sustainability Officer
Information Technology
Jonathan Reichental,
Chief Information Officer
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
viii City of Palo Alto
Administrative Services Organization …………………………
Administrative Division Treasury Division
Accounting Division Budget Division
Purchasing Division Real Estate Division
Mission Statement
To provide proactive administrative and technical support to
City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and
facilitate the optimal use of City resources.
Administrative Services Department
Introduction
……….…………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto ix
Government Finance Officers Association of
the United States and Canada – Award …...…
1
Independent Auditor’s Report
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of
City of Palo Alto, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Palo Alto,
California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial
statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of
contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes
the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted
our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and
the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation
and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s
internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinions.
2
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund,
and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2014, and the respective changes
in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and the respective budgetary comparison
for the General Fund for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
Change in Accounting Principles
As discussed in Note 1(m) to the basic financial statements, effective July 1, 2013, the City adopted the
provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 65, Items Previously
Reported as Assets and Liabilities. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s
discussion and analysis, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial
statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the
GASB who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial
statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited
procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods
of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s
responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our
audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the
information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an
opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual
nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, statistical section and the schedule of expenditures of
federal awards, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not
a required part of the basic financial statements.
The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules and the schedule of
expenditures of federal awards are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.
Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to
the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and
individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules and the schedule of expenditures of federal
awards are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the
audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on them.
3
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
November 17, 2014 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our
tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and
other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over
financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on
internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit
performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control
over financial reporting and compliance.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
4
This page is left intentionally blank.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 5
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) provides an overview of the City of Palo Alto’s financial
performance for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. To obtain a complete understanding of the City’s financial
condition, this document should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Transmittal Letter and Basic
Financial Statements.
Financial Highlights
The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City of Palo Alto (City) exceeded its liabilities at
the close of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 by $1,387.1 million. Of this amount, $454.2 million represents
unrestricted net position, which may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to
citizens and creditors.
At the close of FY 2014, the City’s governmental funds reported combined fund balances of $214.0
million, an increase of $3.1 million from prior year. Approximately 17.1 percent of this amount, or
$36.7 million, is unassigned fund balance and available for spending at the government’s discretion.
At the end of the current fiscal year, unrestricted fund balance (the total of the committed, assigned
and unassigned components of fund balance) for the General Fund was $42.1 million, or 27.5 percent
of total general fund expenditures, including transfers.
The City’s total outstanding long‐term debt decreased by $5.5 million during the current fiscal year
due primarily to scheduled debt retirement.
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 65, Items Previously Reported as Assets
and Liabilities. FY 2013 balances were restated to reflect the impact, as detailed in Note 1(m).
OVERVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR)
The CAFR is presented in six sections:
An introductory section that includes the Transmittal Letter and general information
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
The Basic Financial Statements that include the Government‐wide and Fund Financial
Statements, along with the Notes to these statements
Supplemental Information
Statistical Information
Single Audit
Basic Financial Statements
The Basic Financial Statements contain the Government‐wide Financial Statements, the Fund Financial
Statements and the Notes to these financial statements. This report also includes supplementary information
intended to furnish additional detail to support the Basic Financial Statements.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 6
For certain entities and funds, the City acts solely as a depository agent. For example, the City has several
Assessment Districts for which it produces fiduciary statements detailing the cash balances and activities of
these districts. These entities are independent, and their balances are excluded from the City’s government‐
wide financial statements.
Government‐wide Financial Statements
The Government‐wide Financial Statements provide a longer‐term view of the City’s activities as a whole.
They include the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities.
The Statement of Net Position includes the City’s capital assets and long‐term liabilities on a full accrual basis
of accounting similar to that used by private sector companies. Over time, increases or decreases in net
position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or
deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities provides information about the City’s revenues and expenses on a full accrual
basis, with an emphasis on measuring net revenues or expenses for each of the City’s programs. The
Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in net position for the year. All changes in net position
are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of
related cash flows.
The amounts in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities are separated into
Governmental and Business‐type Activities in order to provide a summary of each type of activity.
Governmental Activities ‐ All of the City’s basic services are considered to be governmental activities. Included
in basic services are the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative
Services, People Strategy and Operations, Public Works, Planning and Community Environment, Public Safety,
Community Services, and Library. These services are supported by general City revenues such as taxes, and by
specific program revenues such as fees and grants.
The City’s governmental activities also include the activities of the Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation,
which is a separate legal entity financially accountable to the City.
Business‐type Activities ‐ All of the City’s enterprise activities are reported as business‐type activities,
including Water, Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm
Drainage and Airport. Unlike governmental services, these services are intended to recover all or a significant
portion of their costs through user fees and charges, except for the Airport which is currently supported by a
long‐term advance from the General Fund, as discussed in Note 4.
The Government‐wide Financial Statements can be found on pages 29‐31 of this report.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 7
Fund Financial Statements
The Fund Financial Statements provide detailed information about each of the City’s most significant funds
called major funds. The concept of major funds and the determination of which are major funds, was
established by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 and replaced the concept
of combining like funds and presenting them in total. Therefore, each major fund is presented individually,
with all non‐major funds combined in a single column on each fund statement. Subordinate schedules display
these non‐major funds in more detail. Major funds present the major activities of the City for the year. The
General Fund is always considered a major fund, but other funds may change from year to year as a result of
changes in the pattern of City activities.
The Fund Financial Statements display the City’s operations in more detail than the Government‐wide
Financial Statements. Their focus is primarily on the short‐term activities of the City’s General Fund and other
major funds such as Capital Projects, Water Services, Electric Services, Fiber Optics, Gas Services, Wastewater
Collection Services, Wastewater Treatment Services, Refuse Services, Storm Drainage Services and Airport.
Budget and actual financial comparison information is presented only for the General Fund.
Fund Financial Statements include Governmental, Enterprise, Internal Service and Agency Funds.
Governmental Funds
Governmental Fund Financial Statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting, which
means they measure only current financial resources and uses. Capital assets and other long‐lived assets,
along with long‐term liabilities, are presented only in the Government‐wide Financial Statements. In FY 2014,
the City had two major governmental funds, the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund. Data from the
other governmental funds are combined into a single aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each
of these non‐major governmental funds is provided in the Supplemental section of this report.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the Government‐wide Financial Statements,
it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented
for governmental activities in the Government‐wide Financial Statements. By doing so, readers may better
understand the long‐term impact of the government’s near‐term financing decisions. Both the Governmental
Fund Balance Sheet and the Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental
activities.
The Governmental Fund Financial Statements can be found on pages 33‐37 of this report.
Proprietary Funds
Enterprise and Internal Service Fund Financial Statements are prepared on the full accrual basis of accounting,
similar to that used by private sector companies. These statements include all of their assets, deferred
outflows of resources and liabilities, both current and long‐term.
Since the City’s Internal Service Funds provide goods and services exclusively to the City’s governmental and
business‐type activities, their activities are only reported in total at the fund level. Internal Service Funds,
such as Technology and General Benefits, cannot be considered major funds because their revenues are
derived from other City funds. Revenues between funds are eliminated in the Government‐wide Financial
Statements, and any related profits or losses in Internal Service Funds are returned to the activities in which
they were created, along with any residual net assets of the Internal Service Funds.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 8
The Proprietary Fund Financial Statements can be found on pages 38‐43 of this report.
Fiduciary Funds
The City is the fiduciary agent for certain assessment districts such as the University Avenue Area Off‐Street
Parking Assessment District. In this role, the City holds money collected from property owners and awaiting
transfer to the districts’ bond trustees. The City’s fiduciary activities are reported in the separate Statement
of Fiduciary Net Position and the supplemental Agency Funds Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities.
These activities are excluded from the City’s other financial statements because the City cannot utilize these
assets to finance its own operations.
The Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements can be found on page 44 of this report.
Notes to the Financial Statements
The Notes provide additional information that is necessary to acquire a full understanding of the data provided
in the Government‐wide and Fund Financial Statements. The Notes to the financial statements can be found
on pages 47‐99 of this report.
Other Information
The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non‐major Governmental Funds and Internal
Service Funds, are presented immediately following the Notes to the financial statements. Combining
statements and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on pages 101‐124 of this report.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 9
Financial Analysis of Government‐wide Financial Statements
This section focuses on the City’s net position and changes in net position of its governmental and business‐
type activities for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. As noted earlier, the City’s total assets exceed total
liabilities by $1,387.1 million at the end of the fiscal year, an improvement in net position of $52.8 million.
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
As of June 30, 2014
(in millions)
2014 2013 * 2014 2013 * 2014 2013 *
Cash and investments 271.8$ 261.9$ 269.5$ 266.0$ 541.3$ 527.9$
Other assets 55.8 58.4 34.3 42.3 90.1 100.7
Capital assets 452.6 428.9 545.5 522.2 998.1 951.1
Total Assets 780.2 749.2 849.3 830.5 1,629.5 1,579.7
Unamortized loss from refunding ‐ ‐ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources ‐ ‐ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
Long‐term debt 80.9 82.6 76.2 80.0 157.1 162.6
Other liabilities 56.9 52.1 28.8 31.2 85.7 83.3
Total Liabilities 137.8 134.7 105.0 111.2 242.8 245.9
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 386.7 378.1 473.8 446.1 860.5 824.2
Restricted 68.3 71.7 4.1 4.1 72.4 75.8
Unrestricted 187.4 164.7 266.8 269.6 454.2 434.3
Total Net Position 642.4$ 614.5$ 744.7$ 719.8$ 1,387.1$ 1,334.3$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
Governmental
Activities
Business‐type
Activities
Government‐wide
Totals
The largest portion of the City’s net position (62.0 percent) is its investment in capital assets such as land,
buildings, infrastructure and vehicles, less any related outstanding debt that was used to acquire those assets.
The City uses these capital assets to provide a variety of services to its citizens. Accordingly, these assets are
not available for future spending. Although the City’s investment in capital assets is reported net of related
debt, it should be noted that the resources used to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since
the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
The restricted portion of the City’s net position (5.2 percent) represents resources that are subject to external
restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of $454.2 million, representing 32.8 percent of
the City’s net position, is unrestricted and may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to its
citizens and creditors.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 10
At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all reported categories of
net position, both for the government as a whole, and for its separate governmental and business‐type
activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year.
Components of the $52.8 million increase in total net position are discussed in the following sections for
governmental activities and business‐type activities.
Governmental Activities – Net Position
The following analysis focuses on the net position and changes in net position of the City’s Governmental
Activities, presented in the Government‐wide Statement of Net Position and Statement of Activities.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Net Position at June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
2014 2013 *(Decrease)
Cash and investments 271.8$ 261.9$ 9.9$
Other assets 55.8 58.4 (2.6)
Capital assets 452.6 428.9 23.7
Total Assets 780.2 749.2 31.0
Long‐term debt 80.9 82.6 (1.7)
Other liabilities 56.9 52.1 4.8
Total Liabilities 137.8 134.7 3.1
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 386.7 378.1 8.6
Restricted 68.3 71.7 (3.4)
Unrestricted 187.4 164.7 22.7
Total Net Position 642.4$ 614.5$ 27.9$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
The City’s Governmental Activities total net position increased $27.9 million to $642.4 million as of June 30,
2014. Changes in assets and liabilities were a result of the following:
Cash balance increased $9.9 million primarily due to collection of the $3.2 million Maybell loan and
an increase in accounts payable of $5.0 million for Library capital expenditures.
Other assets decreased $2.6 million primarily due to collection of the Maybell loan.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 11
Capital assets net of depreciation increased $23.7 million due to continued construction of the
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center ($4.2 million) and the Main Library ($11.7 million), and
net additions to the City’s network of roadways and sidewalks ($2.3 million).
Investment in capital assets increased $8.6 million to $386.7 million. Restricted net position
decreased $3.4 million to $68.3 million. Unrestricted net position increased $22.7 million to $187.4
million. Unrestricted net position represents current net assets available to finance subsequent year
operations and other expenditures approved by City Council.
Governmental Activities – Revenues
The table below shows that Governmental Activities revenues totaled $166.4 million in FY 2014, a decrease
of $3.9 million from prior year revenues of $170.3 million.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Revenues by Source 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Program Revenues:
Charges for services 54.0$ 75.8$ (21.8)$
Operating grants and contributions 5.4 5.0 0.4
Capital grants and contributions 0.9 0.5 0.4
Total Program Revenues 60.3 81.3 (21.0)
General Revenues:
Property tax 35.3 31.9 3.4
Sales tax 29.4 25.6 3.8
Utility user tax 11.0 10.9 0.1
Transient occupancy tax 12.3 10.8 1.5
Documentary transfer tax 7.8 6.8 1.0
Other tax 1.8 3.7 (1.9)
Investment earnings 5.9 (1.2) 7.1
Rents and miscellaneous 2.6 0.5 2.1
Total General Revenues 106.1 89.0 17.1
Total Revenues 166.4$ 170.3$ (3.9)$
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 12
Total Program Revenues decreased $21.0 million from the prior year due to the following:
$8.6 million decrease in developer impact, housing in‐lieu, and transportation mitigation fees, all of
which vary depending on volume and magnitude of development projects.
$11.7 million decrease in receipts from a Development Agreement with Stanford Hospital Clinics,
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University (SUMC Parties). This was a one‐time payment received from SUMC in the prior fiscal
year.
Program Revenues such as charges for services, operating grants and contributions, and capital grants and
contributions are generated from or restricted to each activity.
General Revenues increased $17.1 million, or 19.2 percent, from the prior year, $7.1 million of which was due
to an increase in fair value of the investment portfolio at June 30. Further analysis of general revenues can
be found in the Financial Analysis of Governmental Funds section of the MD&A.
Governmental Activities – Revenues by Source
The chart below presents revenues by source for Governmental Activities. General Revenues are composed
of taxes and other revenues not specifically generated by, or restricted to, individual activities. All tax revenues
and investment earnings are included in General Revenues.
Program Revenues
36%
Property Tax
21%
Sales Tax
18%
Utility User Tax
7%
Transient Occupancy
Tax
7%
Documentary
Transfer Tax
5%
Other
6%
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 13
Governmental Activities – Expenses
The table below presents a comparison of FY 2014 and FY 2013 expenses by function, and interest and other
expense. Total Governmental Activities functional expense was $155.5 million in FY 2014, an increase of $15.8
million, or 11.3 percent. Of this increase, $7.3 million was a result of General Fund expenditures and the
variance drivers are explained in more detail in the Fund Financial Statements section of the MD&A. The
remaining $8.5 million variance is due primarily to fixed asset related activities such as depreciation and asset
retirements.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Expenses and Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Activities 2014 2013 *(Decrease)
City Council 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.3$
City Manager 2.2 1.2 1.0
City Attorney 1.8 1.6 0.2
City Clerk 0.6 0.3 0.3
City Auditor 0.5 0.5 0.0
Administrative Services 11.3 7.6 3.7
People Strategy and Operations 1.3 1.4 (0.1)
Public Works 24.6 20.8 3.8
Planning and Community Environment 14.9 13.6 1.3
Public Safety 62.9 59.5 3.4
Community Services 23.8 22.7 1.1
Library 7.8 7.3 0.5
Interest and Other Expense 3.4 3.1 0.3
Total Functional Expense 155.5 139.7 15.8
Increase in Net Position
before Transfers 10.8 30.7 (19.9)
Transfers in 17.1 19.3 (2.2)
Change in Net Position 27.9 50.0 (22.1)
Net Position, Beginning,614.5 565.1 49.4
Restatement due to GASB 65 ‐ (0.6) 0.6
Net Position, Ending 642.4$ 614.5$ 27.9$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 14
Governmental Activities – Functional Expenses
The functional expenses chart below includes only current year expenses. It does not include capital outlays,
as those are added to the City’s capital assets. Functions which comprise 1 percent or less of total expenses
are combined into the All Other category in the chart below. All Other includes City Council, City Manager,
City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor and People Strategy and Operations.
Administrative Services
7%
Public Works
16%
Interest and Other
Expense
2%
Planning and Community
Environment
10%
Public Safety
41%
Community Services
16%
Library
5%
All Other
3%
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 15
Business‐type Activities – Net Position
The following analysis focuses on the net position and changes in net position of the City’s Business‐type
Activities presented in the Government‐wide Statement of Net Position and Statement of Activities.
Increase/
2014 2013 *(Decrease)
Cash and investments 269.5$ 266.0$ 3.5$
Other assets 34.3 42.3 (8.0)
Capital assets 545.5 522.2 23.3
Total Assets 849.3 830.5 18.8
Unamortized loss from refunding 0.4 0.5 (0.1)
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 0.4 0.5 (0.1)
Long‐term debt 76.2 80.0 (3.8)
Other liabilities 28.8 31.2 (2.4)
Total Liabilities 105.0 111.2 (6.2)
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 473.8 446.1 27.7
Restricted 4.1 4.1 0.0
Unrestricted 266.8 269.6 (2.8)
Total Net Position 744.7$ 719.8$ 24.9$
* FY2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
BUSINESS‐TYPE ACTIVITIES
Net Position at June 30
(in millions)
The City’s Business‐type Activities total net position increased $24.9 million to $744.7 million as of
June 30, 2014.
Other assets decreased $8.0 million primarily as a result of lower accounts receivable balances of $5.7 million.
The lower accounts receivable balances are due primarily to:
$2.6 million in Electric Fund due to $0.9 million adjustment for a meter malfunction, with the
remainder due to a timing difference in billing of routes.
$2.1 million in Wastewater Treatment Fund due to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)
discontinuing its practice of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
Capital assets increased $23.3 million to $545.5 million in FY 2014 as a result of Water, Electric and Gas
infrastructure improvements. Additions include $9.9 million of capital improvements in Water, $7.7 million of
capital improvements in Electric, and $5.7 million of capital improvements in Gas.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 16
Net investment in capital assets increased $27.7 million to $473.8 million.
Unrestricted net position of $266.8 million, a decrease of $2.8 million from the prior year, represents liquid
assets available to finance day‐to‐day operations and other expenditures approved by the City Council. This
amount includes Council‐designated reserves such as the rate stabilization reserves (RSR) of $136.3 million,
the Electric special projects (Calaveras) reserve for stranded costs of $51.8 million, and the emergency plant
replacement reserve of $7.0 million.
Business‐type Activities – Revenues
The table below presents the revenues for each of the City’s Business‐type Activities or Enterprise Funds. The
City operates the Water, Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse,
Storm Drainage and Airport Funds, which are major funds and are presented in the Basic Financial Statements.
BUSINESS‐TYPE ACTIVITIES
Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Revenues by Source 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Program Revenues:
Charges for services 273.0$ 272.8$ 0.2$
Operating grants and contributions 0.5 0.6 (0.1)
Capital grants and contributions 2.0 2.2 (0.2)
Total Program Revenues 275.5 275.6 (0.1)
General Revenues:
Investment earnings (loss)6.4 (2.8) 9.2
Total General Revenues 6.4 (2.8) 9.2
Total Revenues 281.9$ 272.8$ 9.1$
Business‐type Activities revenues totaled $281.9 million, an increase of $9.1 million from the prior year.
Program revenues were flat year over year. Investment earnings increased $9.2 million from the prior year
due to an increase in fair value of the investment portfolio at June 30.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 17
Business‐type Activities – Expenses
The table below presents a comparison of the FY 2014 and FY 2013 expenses for the City’s Business‐type
Activities. Encumbrances and reappropriations are not included.
BUSINESS‐TYPE ACTIVITIES
Expenses and Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Business‐type Activities 2014 2013 *(Decrease)
Water 31.6$ 30.7$ 0.9$
Electric 113.0 106.5 6.5
Fiber Optics 1.7 1.4 0.3
Gas 26.9 26.8 0.1
Wastewater Collection 13.2 14.3 (1.1)
Wastewater Treatment 21.0 20.6 0.4
Refuse 28.4 28.6 (0.2)
Storm Drainage 3.6 3.7 (0.1)
Airport 0.5 0.2 0.3
Total Functional Expense 239.9 232.8 7.1
Increase in Net Position
before Transfers 42.0 40.0 2.0
Transfers out (17.1) (19.2) 2.1
Change in Net Position 24.9 20.8 4.1
Net Position, Beginning 719.8 699.8 20.0
Restatement due to GASB 65 ‐ (0.8) 0.8
Net Position, Ending 744.7$ 719.8$ 24.9$
* FY 2013 balances have been restated for GASB Statement No. 65 implementation.
Business‐type Activities expenses increased $7.1 million for a total of $239.9 million. Year over year expenses
were significantly affected by the following events:
Electric Fund expenses increased $6.5 million primarily due to increased energy purchase costs.
Wastewater Collection expenses decreased $1.1 million due to the RWQCP discontinuing its practice
of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 18
FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Analysis of Governmental Funds
As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance‐related
legal requirements.
Governmental Funds
The focus of the City’s Governmental Funds is to provide information on near‐term inflows, outflows, and
balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s financing requirements. In
particular, the unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources
available for discretionary use as it represents the portion of fund balance not yet limited to use for a particular
purpose by either an external party, the City itself, or an entity that has been delegated authority by the City
Council to assign resources for use.
As of June 30, 2014, the City’s Governmental Funds reported combined fund balances of $214.0 million, an
increase of $3.1 million from the prior year. Approximately 17.1 percent, or $36.7 million, constitutes
unassigned fund balance, which is available for spending at the government’s discretion. The remainder of
the fund balance is either non‐spendable, restricted, committed, or assigned to indicate that it is: 1) not in
spendable form ($21.1 million); 2) restricted for particular purposes ($68.5 million); 3) committed for
particular purposes ($27.1 million); or 4) assigned for particular purposes ($60.6 million).
Governmental Fund revenues decreased $6.1 million, or 3.6 percent, from prior year to $164.7 million.
Revenues in the General Fund increased $9.1 million and Capital Projects Fund revenue increased $1.4 million.
Other Governmental Funds revenue decreased by $16.5 million primarily due to $11.7 million less in receipts
from SUMC Parties Development Agreement, and a decrease in developer impact and other fees.
Governmental Fund expenditures were $179.1 million, an increase of $18.9 million from the prior year.
General Fund expenditures increased $7.3 million, Capital Projects Fund expenditures increased by $7.0
million, and Non‐major Fund expenditures increased by $4.6 million. Details of significant changes are
discussed in the following sections.
General Fund
Balance Sheet
The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City. At the end of the current fiscal year, fund balance
of the General Fund was $48.3 million, compared to $42.1 million in the prior year. The fund balance has
been classified as $6.2 million non‐spendable, $5.4 million assigned, and $36.7 million unassigned. Of the
unassigned amount, $35.1 million is designated by the Council for budget stabilization. $1.7 million will be
used to fund one‐time expenses in the FY 2015 Operating Budget. The remaining balance of $33.4 million
represents 19.5 percent of FY 2015 expenditures and operating transfers which is within the reserve guidelines
set by City Council. Excess funds totaling $4.0 million were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve in the
Capital Projects Fund, as allowed by the General Fund Reserve Policy.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 19
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Revenues
The City’s General Fund revenues totaled $141.7 million in FY 2014. This represents an increase of $9.1 million,
or 6.9 percent, compared to the prior year. The year over year change in significant revenue sources is noted
in the following table.
GENERAL FUND
Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Revenues by Source 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Property tax 30.6$ 28.7$ 1.9$
Sales tax 29.4 25.6 3.8
Utility user tax 11.0 10.9 0.1
Transient occupancy tax 12.2 10.8 1.4
Documentary transfer tax 7.8 6.8 1.0
Charges for services 24.0 26.7 (2.7)
Permits and licenses 7.0 7.6 (0.6)
Rental income 14.2 12.9 1.3
All other 5.5 2.6 2.9
Total Revenues 141.7$ 132.6$ 9.1$
Property tax revenue increased by $1.9 million, or 6.6 percent, over FY 2013 for a total of $30.6 million. The
City’s property assessment roll growth of 6.5 percent was supplemented by better than expected receipts
from secured property taxes.
Sales tax revenue increased by $3.8 million, or 14.8 percent, over FY 2013 levels for a total of $29.4 million.
The increase was driven by strong retail activity in auto, electronic equipment, apparel store, restaurant, and
service station sales.
Transient occupancy tax continued to increase, and ended the year $1.4 million, or 13.0 percent, higher than
prior year due to strong business activity and increasing occupancy and room rates.
Documentary transfer tax increased $1.0 million to $7.8 million primarily due to a small number of high dollar
commercial property transactions.
Charges for services totaled $24.0 million in FY 2014, a decrease of $2.7 million from the prior year. The
decrease was primarily due to reduced golf course revenues of $0.8 million resulting from the course
reconfiguration project, reduced other fees of $0.6 million due to a one‐time adjustment to deposit accounts
in the prior year, and reduced net cable franchise fees of $0.7 million due to prior year under accrual of
expense.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 20
Rental income increased from prior year by $1.3 million due to increased revenue from Enterprise and Internal
Service Funds for renting space at City facilities.
All other revenue increased from prior year by $2.9 million to $5.5 million. The increase is due to an increase
in fair value of the investment portfolio at June 30.
Expenditures
General Fund expenditures totaled $134.5 million for FY 2014 compared to $127.2 in the prior year. This
amount excludes encumbrances and reappropriations. The year over year change for major functions is noted
in the following table:
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Expenditures by Function 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Administrative Services 3.0$ 3.1$ (0.1)$
Public Works 11.5 11.5 ‐
Planning and Community Environment 13.2 11.8 1.4
Public Safety 61.7 59.5 2.2
Community Services 22.5 21.5 1.0
Library 7.3 6.9 0.4
Non‐Departmental 8.0 7.4 0.6
All other 7.3 5.5 1.8
Total Expenditures 134.5$ 127.2$ 7.3$
The increase from prior year of $7.3 million, or 5.7 percent, is comprised mainly of the following items:
Police salary expenditure has increased $0.7 million primarily due to fewer vacancies in the current
year.
Police disability expenditure has increased $0.6 million due to several significant long‐term cases.
Fire overtime expense has increased $0.7 million due to coverage for vacancies and long‐term injuries,
and support for succession planning and career development.
All other category has increased $1.8 million due to reduced cost plan revenue from other funds, and
increased Library expenditures for books of $0.4 million.
Planning and Community Environment expenditures have increased as a result of contract services
that were necessary due to increased development activity and the complexity of development
projects.
Transfers out for FY 2014 were $18.8 million compared to $25.1 million in the prior year. Of the $6.3 million
decrease, $4.9 million was a decrease in the amount of year‐end surplus funds transferred from the General
Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 21
General Fund – Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ‐ Budget and Actual
Original budget compared to final budget
Revenues were originally budgeted at $143.0 million and were revised upward by $11.7 million. Of this
increase, $5.6 million was to adjust for encumbrances. Revenue categories that were adjusted are shown in
the table below.
GENERAL FUND
Budgeted Revenues for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Original Final Increase/
Budgeted Revenues Budget Budget (Decrease)
Sales tax 23.8$ 27.3$ 3.5$
Transient occupancy tax 11.5 12.3 0.8
Documentary transfer tax 5.7 7.4 1.7
Charges for services 24.3 22.7 (1.6)
Rental income 12.9 14.0 1.1
All other 54.3 54.9 0.6
132.5 138.6 6.1
Charges to other funds 10.5 10.5 ‐
Prior year encumbrances and appropriations 5.6 5.6
Total Budgeted Revenues 143.0$ 154.7$ 11.7$
Adjustments to the original budget were based on the following:
Sales tax was increased by $3.5 million primarily due to unexpected receipts from a single vendor in
the first two quarters of the year.
Transient occupancy tax was increased by $0.8 million due to higher occupancy rates, increased
average daily room rates, and increased business and visitor activity.
Documentary transfer tax was increased by $1.7 million based on increased real estate transactions
and higher transaction values.
Charges for services revenue was decreased by $1.6 million primarily due to reduced Stanford Fire
Services revenue of $0.8 million, reduced Development Services revenue of $0.4 million to provide
for unearned revenue at June 30, and reduced Golf Course revenue of $0.2 million due to the course
reconfiguration project.
Rental income was increased by $1.1 million due to additional rent from various Enterprise and
Internal Service Funds for space used at City facilities.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 22
Actual revenues of $141.4 million were $2.8 million higher than final budgeted revenues of $138.6 million due
primarily to sales tax revenue which was $2.1 million higher due to stronger than anticipated retail sales.
Expenditures were originally budgeted at $145.6 million and were revised upward by $8.0 million for a final
budgeted amount of $153.6 million, as shown in the table below.
GENERAL FUND
Budgeted Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Original Final Increase/ Actuals, plus
Budgeted Expenditures Budget Budget (Decrease) Encumbrances
City Attorney 2.5$ 3.1$ 0.6$ 3.1$
City Manager 2.5 3.1 0.6 3.1
Community Services 22.7 23.9 1.2 23.4
Public Safety 61.0 63.6 2.6 63.4
Planning and Community Enviornment 13.6 15.1 1.5 14.6
Public Works 13.8 14.4 0.6 14.1
All other 29.5 30.4 0.9 30.1
Total Budgeted Expenditures 145.6$ 153.6$ 8.0$ 151.8
Less: Charges to Other Funds (10.9)
Less: Encumbrances (6.4)
Net General Fund Expenditures 134.5$
Adjustments of $8.0 million to the original budget were primarily due to the following:
$5.6 million for carry‐forward of encumbrances from prior year.
$0.5 million adjustment for Measure D Ballot Measure in November 2014.
$0.2 million for Community Services park maintenance.
The final budgeted expenditure amount of $153.6 million compares to the actual expenditures plus
encumbrances of $151.8 million, a difference of $1.8 million. The lower than budgeted expenditures were
primarily due to non‐salary budget savings across General Fund departments.
Transfers out were originally budgeted at $14.1 million, with the final budget number at $19.1 million, an
increase of $5.0 million. The increase was due to an additional $4.0 million transfer to the Infrastructure
Reserve and $1.0 million transfer of collected Technology Enhancement Fees to the Information Technology
Fund. The actual transfers out for the year were $18.8 million, a difference of $0.3 million from final budget.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 23
Capital Projects Fund
Capital Projects Fund expenditures and other uses were $37.4 million in FY 2014, an increase of $6.8 million
from the prior year driven by construction and renovation of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and
Main Library. This level of expenditure is consistent with the City’s effort to rehabilitate and maintain its
existing infrastructure.
Non‐major Funds
These funds are not presented separately in the Basic Financial Statements, but are individually presented as
Supplemental Information.
Financial Analysis of Enterprise Funds
At June 30, 2014, the City’s Enterprise Funds reported total net position of $742.4 million, an increase of $24.4
million or 3.4 percent over the prior year. The increase was primarily from the Water, Fiber Optics, Gas and
Wastewater Collection Funds for $11.0 million, $3.1 million, $3.3 million and $3.5 million, respectively.
Further analysis is noted in the following section. Unrestricted net position for the Enterprise Funds totaled
$264.4 million, a 1.1 percent decrease from FY 2013.
Following is a table which compares the year over year change in net position for each of the Enterprise Funds:
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Change in Net Position for the Year Ended June 30
(in millions)
Increase/
Fund Name 2014 2013 (Decrease)
Water 11.0$ 6.8$ 4.2$
Electric 1.7 1.9 (0.2)
Fiber Optics 3.1 2.8 0.3
Gas 3.3 1.3 2.0
Wastewater Collection 3.5 2.5 1.0
Wastewater Treatment (1.9) 0.8 (2.7)
Refuse 2.2 2.3 (0.1)
Storm Drainage 2.7 2.3 0.4
Airport (0.5) (0.2) (0.3)
Total Change in Net Position 25.1$ 20.5$ 4.6$
The most significant factors in the year over year change in net position for Enterprise Funds are as follows:
Water change in net position for the year was $11.0 million, an increase of $4.2 million from the prior
year. The increase is primarily due to a $2.5 million increase in operating revenues resulting from a 7
percent rate increase effective July 2013 and a $1.2 million increase in investment earnings. The
ending RSR balance is $20.1 million, an increase of $2.9 million from prior year.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 24
Gas ended the year with change in net position of $3.3 million, compared to $1.3 million in the prior
year, an increase of $2.0 million. The increase is due to a $0.8 million decrease in operating expenses
for the cross‐bore project and increased investment earnings of $1.1 million. The ending RSR balance
is $16.0 million, an increase of $4.7 million from prior year.
Wastewater Collection ended the year with change in net position of $3.5 million compared to $2.5
million in the prior year. The increased change in net position is primarily due to decreased operating
costs resulting from the RWQCP discontinuing its practice of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
The ending RSR balance is $7.3 million, an increase of $3.2 million from prior year.
Wastewater Treatment ended the year with a change in net position of negative $1.9 million,
compared to $0.8 million change in net position in FY 2013. The decrease of $2.7 million is due to the
RWQCP discontinuing its practice of invoicing partners for encumbrances.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 25
CAPITAL ASSETS
GASB 34 requires that the City record all its capital assets, including infrastructure and intangible assets.
Infrastructure includes roads, bridges, signals and similar assets used by the entire population. The table
below shows capital assets and the amount of accumulated depreciation for these assets for Governmental
and Business‐type Activities. Further detail can be found in Note 6 to the financial statements.
Increase/
2014 2013 (Decrease)
Governmental Activities
Capital Assets
Land and improvements 79.0$ 79.0$ ‐$
Street trees 15.2 15.4 (0.2)
Construction in progress 89.9 69.2 20.7
Buildings and improvements 134.6 133.7 0.9
Intangible assets 3.8 3.8 ‐
Equipment 11.9 10.9 1.0
Roadway network 291.3 282.3 9.0
Recreation and open space network 27.6 24.9 2.7
Less accumulated depreciation (215.1) (203.8) (11.3)
Internal Service Fund Assets
Construction in progress 3.1 1.4 1.7
Equipment 51.1 50.9 0.2
Less accumulated depreciation (39.8) (38.8) (1.0)
Total Governmental Activities 452.6$ 428.9$ 23.7$
Business‐type Activities
Land 5.0$ 5.0$ ‐$
Construction in progress 122.2 118.2 4.0
Buildings and improvements 34.1 33.3 0.8
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems 675.8 642.1 33.7
Less accumulated depreciation (291.6) (276.4) (15.2)
Total Business‐type Activities 545.5$ 522.2$ 23.3$
CAPITAL ASSETS AT JUNE 30
(in millions)
Governmental Activities’ capital assets net of depreciation increased by $23.7 million from the prior year. The
increase was primarily due to construction of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, improvements to
the Main Library such as upgrades of structural, electrical and mechanical systems, and street and sidewalk
improvements throughout the City.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 26
In early 2010, the Palo Alto City Council established an Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to review
the City’s General Fund infrastructure needs and to recommend funding mechanisms. The Commission issued
a report in December 2011 in which they identified “keep up” needs and capital expenditure “new and
replacement” needs. Subsequently, a Council Infrastructure Committee was formed, and they proposed a
five year spending plan of $126.0 million for infrastructure projects. In June 2014 City Council approved the
Committee’s project list and their funding plan which consists of projected increases in transient occupancy
tax revenues from opening of new hotels, a two percent increase in the tax, and other sources such as the
SUMC Development Agreement and the Infrastructure Reserve portion of the Capital Projects Fund. The City
is funding “keep up” costs from the General Fund at the rate of $2.2 million per year and, as a result of sound
fiscal management and reserve policies, General Fund surpluses totaling $20.5 million over the past three
years were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve.
Major Governmental Activities’ capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital
commitment of each, are as follows:
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center ‐ $5.6 million
Main Library ‐ $6.8 million
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor ‐ $0.8 million
Business‐type Activities’ capital assets net of depreciation increased by $23.3 million over FY 2013. The
increase is due to Water, Electric and Gas infrastructure improvements.
Major Business‐type Activities’ capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital
commitment of each, are as follows:
Seismic water system upgrade for Water Fund ‐ $2.4 million
Gas main replacement project for Gas Fund ‐ $6.3 million
Plant equipment replacement for Wastewater Treatment Fund ‐ $3.5 million
Wastewater Collection Fund rehabilitation/augmentation project ‐ $1.1 million
The City depreciates its capital assets over their estimated useful lives, as required by GASB 34. The purpose
of depreciation is to spread the cost of a capital asset over the years of its useful life so that an allocable
portion of the cost of the asset is borne by all users. Additional information on capital assets and depreciable
lives are in Note 6.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 27
DEBT ADMINISTRATION
Each of the City’s debt issues is discussed in detail in Note 7 to the financial statements. At June 30, 2014, the
City’s debt was comprised of the following:
LONG‐TERM DEBT AT JUNE 30
(in millions)
Increase/
2014 2013 (Decrease)
Governmental Activities
General Long‐Term Obligations
Certificates of Participation
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements 1.5$ 1.6$ (0.1)$
General Obligation Bonds
2010 52.5 53.5 (1.0)
2013A 20.7 20.7 0.0
2011 Lease Purchase Agreement 2.0 2.4 (0.4)
Add: unamortized premium 4.2 4.4 (0.2)
Total Governmental 80.9$ 82.6$ (1.7)$
Business‐type Activities
Enterprise Long‐Term Obligations
Utility Revenue Bonds
1995 Series A3.3$ 3.8$ (0.5)
1999 Refunding 11.0 11.6 (0.6)
2009 Series A31.6 32.5 (0.9)
2011 Refunding 14.3 15.2 (0.9)
Add: unamortized premium 0.9 1.0 (0.1)
Energy Tax Credit Bonds
2007 Series A0.8 0.9 (0.1)
Less: unamortized discount (0.1) (0.1)‐
State Water Resources Loan
2007 6.8 7.2 (0.4)
2009 7.6 7.9 (0.3)
Total Business‐type 76.2$ 80.0$ (3.8)$
Long‐term debt decreased $5.5 million, $5.1 million of which was due to debt retirements in accordance with
repayment schedules. The remaining $0.4 million was due to reclassification of unamortized loss on refunding
of debt to deferred outflow of resources.
As noted in the Statistical Section of the CAFR, the combined direct debt ratio to assessed valuation for the
General Fund is 0.32 percent compared to the allowable legal debt margin of 15 percent.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
……….……………………………………………………………………
City of Palo Alto 28
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT
Special assessment districts throughout different parts of the City have also issued debt to finance
infrastructure and facilities construction exclusively in their districts. As of June 30, 2014, the City had no
special assessment district debt with City commitment outstanding.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The economy of the City is discussed in the accompanying Transmittal Letter.
CONTACTING THE CITY’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The CAFR is intended to provide citizens, taxpayers, investors, and creditors with a general overview of the
City’s finances. Questions about this report should be directed to the Administrative Services Department, at
250 Hamilton Avenue, 4th Floor, Palo Alto, California. The Department can also be contacted by email at:
adminsvcs@cityofpaloalto.org. This report and other financial reports can be viewed on the City of Palo Alto
website at: www.cityofpaloalto.org. On the home page, select Departments, select Administrative Services,
and select Financial Reporting. Within Financial Reporting, there are links to reports by title and reporting
date.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Governmental Business‐Type
Activities Activities Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)252,280$ 259,286$ 511,566$
Receivables, net:
Accounts and intergovernmental 9,985 26,640 36,625
Interest receivable 1,355 1,352 2,707
Notes and loans receivable (Note 5)18,520 ‐ 18,520
Internal balances (Note 4)(1,429) 1,429 ‐
Net OPEB asset (Note 12)22,610 ‐ 22,610
Due from other government agencies ‐ 4,500 4,500
Inventory of materials and supplies, prepaids and deposits 4,741 488 5,229
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)19,606 4,166 23,772
Restricted cash for post‐closure landfill (Note 3)‐ 5,907 5,907
Capital assets (Note 6):
Nondepreciable 190,691 127,152 317,843
Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 261,912 418,343 680,255
Total assets 780,271 849,263 1,629,534
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Unamortized loss from refunding ‐ 412 412
LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable and accruals 14,456 15,540 29,996
Accrued salaries and benefits 3,154 1,465 4,619
Unearned revenue 2,384 352 2,736
Accrued compensated absences (Note 1):
Due in one year 3,912 ‐ 3,912
Due in more than one year 6,286 ‐ 6,286
Claims payable (Note 14):
Due in one year 5,665 ‐ 5,665
Due in more than one year 21,088 ‐ 21,088
Accrued landfill closure liability and post‐closure care (Note 9):
Due in more than one year ‐ 11,363 11,363
Long‐term debt (Note 7):
Due in one year 2,106 3,909 6,015
Due in more than one year 78,807 72,291 151,098
Total liabilities 137,858 104,920 242,778
NET POSITION (Note 10):
Net Investment in capital assets 386,696 473,795 860,491
Restricted for:
Special revenue programs 59,946 ‐ 59,946
Debt service 6,940 4,166 11,106
Nonexpendable ‐ Eyerly Family 1,445 ‐ 1,445
Total restricted net position 68,331 4,166 72,497
Unrestricted 187,386 266,794 454,180
Total net position $ 642,413 $ 744,755 $ 1,387,168
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
29
30
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Statement of Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Net (Expense) Revenue and
Program Revenues Changes in Net Position
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and Governmental Business‐Type
Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total
Governmental Activities:
City Council 387$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ (387)$ ‐$ (387)$
City Manager 2,180 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2,180) ‐ (2,180)
City Attorney 1,797 ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,797) ‐ (1,797)
City Clerk 641 ‐ ‐ ‐ (641) ‐ (641)
City Auditor 489 ‐ ‐ ‐ (489) ‐ (489)
Administrative Services 11,388 4,055 ‐ 917 (6,416) ‐ (6,416)
People Strategy and Operations 1,346 ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,346) ‐ (1,346)
Public Works 24,577 1,093 3,628 ‐ (19,856) ‐ (19,856)
Planning and Community Environment 14,926 12,896 1,289 ‐ (741) ‐ (741)
Public Safety 62,883 14,902 366 ‐ (47,615) ‐ (47,615)
Community Services 23,822 20,882 ‐ ‐ (2,940) ‐ (2,940)
Library 7,758 166 77 ‐ (7,515) ‐ (7,515)
Interest on long‐term debt 3,367 ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,367) ‐ (3,367)
Total Governmental Activities 155,561 53,994 5,360 917 (95,290) ‐ (95,290)
Business‐Type Activities:
Water 31,593 40,291 549 995 ‐ 10,242 10,242
Electric 113,004 121,916 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,912 8,912
Fiber Optics 1,661 4,485 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,824 2,824
Gas 26,869 35,737 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,868 8,868
Wastewater Collection 13,235 15,599 ‐ 1,010 ‐ 3,374 3,374
Wastewater Treatment 21,018 18,460 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2,558) (2,558)
Refuse 28,413 30,297 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,884 1,884
Storm Drainage 3,644 6,183 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,539 2,539
Airport 466 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (466) (466)
Total Business‐Type Activities 239,903 272,968 549 2,005 ‐ 35,619 35,619
Total 395,464$ 326,962$ 5,909$ 2,922$ (95,290) 35,619 (59,671)
General Revenues:
Taxes:
Property tax 35,299 ‐ 35,299
Sales tax 29,424 ‐ 29,424
Utility user tax 11,008 ‐ 11,008
Transient occupancy tax 12,255 ‐ 12,255
Documentary transfer tax 7,811 ‐ 7,811
Other taxes 1,849 ‐ 1,849
Investment earnings 5,859 6,379 12,238
Miscellaneous 2,575 ‐ 2,575
Transfers (Note 4)17,103 (17,103) ‐
Total general revenues and transfers 123,183 (10,724) 112,459
Change in net position 27,893 24,895 52,788
Net position, beginning of year, as previously reported 615,574 720,583 1,336,157
Restatement (Note 1(m))(1,054) (723) (1,777)
Net position, beginning of year, as restated 614,520 719,860 1,334,380
Net position, end of year 642,413$ 744,755$ 1,387,168$
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
31
32
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Governmental Funds
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Capital Other Total
General Projects Governmental Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Funds
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)42,013$ 57,841$ 77,434$ 177,288$
Receivables, net:
Accounts and intergovernmental 8,761 177 412 9,350
Interest receivable 642 8 341 991
Notes and loans receivable (Note 5)900 ‐ 17,620 18,520
Prepaid items 352 ‐ ‐ 352
Advance to other fund (Note 4)935 ‐ ‐ 935
Inventory of materials and supplies 4,001 ‐ ‐ 4,001
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)‐ 19,368 238 19,606
Total assets 57,604$ 77,394$ 96,045$ 231,043$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES:
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 4,094$ 7,459$ 122$ 11,675$
Accrued salaries and benefits 2,852 112 17 2,981
Unearned revenue 2,348 36 ‐ 2,384
Total liabilities 9,294 7,607 139 17,040
Fund balances (Note 10):
Nonspendable:
Notes and loans receivable 900 ‐ 13,424 14,324
Prepaid items 352 ‐ ‐ 352
Inventories 4,001 ‐ ‐ 4,001
Advance to other fund 935 ‐ ‐ 935
Eyerly family ‐ ‐ 1,445 1,445
Restricted for:
Transportation mitigation ‐ ‐ 10,616 10,616
Federal revenue ‐ ‐ 4,457 4,457
Street improvement ‐ ‐ 758 758
Local law enforcement ‐ ‐ 113 113
Library bond project ‐ 15,006 ‐ 15,006
Public benefit ‐ ‐ 30,578 30,578
Debt service ‐ ‐ 6,940 6,940
Committed for:
Developer impact fees ‐ ‐ 11,085 11,085
Housing in‐lieu ‐ ‐ 14,491 14,491
Special districts ‐ ‐ 1,457 1,457
Downtown business ‐ ‐ 112 112
Assigned for:
Unrealized gains on investments 672 ‐ 430 1,102
Infrastructure ‐ 3,383 ‐ 3,383
Capital projects ‐ 51,398 ‐ 51,398
Other general government purposes 4,760 ‐ ‐ 4,760
Unassigned for:
Budget Stabilization 35,083 ‐ ‐ 35,083
Reappropriations 1,607 ‐ ‐ 1,607
Total fund balances 48,310 69,787 95,906 214,003
Total liabilities and fund balances 57,604$ 77,394$ 96,045$ 231,043$
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
33
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to
the Statement of Net Position ‐ Governmental Activities
June 30, 2014
Total fund balances reported on the governmental funds balance sheet 214,003$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net position
are different from those reported in the governmental funds balance sheet because
of the following:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current assets or financial
resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds (Note 6)452,603
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of activities
such as insurance, equipment acquisition and maintenance, and certain
employee benefits to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the
internal service funds are therefore included in governmental activities in
the statement of net position (excludes capital assets reported above)58,134
Some liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the
current period and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds:
Interest payable (1,414)
Long‐term debt (Note 7)(80,913)
Net position of governmental activities 642,413$
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
34
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Governmental Funds
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Capital Other
General Projects Governmental
Fund Fund Funds Total
REVENUES:
Property tax 30,587$ ‐$ 4,712$ 35,299$
Special assessments ‐ ‐ 94 94
Sales tax 29,424 ‐ ‐ 29,424
Utility user tax 11,008 ‐ ‐ 11,008
Transient occupancy tax 12,255 ‐ ‐ 12,255
Documentary transfer tax 7,811 ‐ ‐ 7,811
Other taxes and fines 2,136 ‐ 2,095 4,231
Charges for services 23,962 ‐ ‐ 23,962
From other agencies 768 4,324 608 5,700
Permits and licenses 6,950 ‐ 2,040 8,990
Investment earnings 1,327 1,059 1,839 4,225
Rental income 14,215 ‐ 5 14,220
Other revenue 1,240 741 5,490 7,471
Total revenues 141,683 6,124 16,883 164,690
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
City Council 382 ‐ ‐ 382
City Manager 2,125 ‐ ‐ 2,125
City Attorney 1,793 ‐ ‐ 1,793
City Clerk 635 ‐ ‐ 635
City Auditor 487 ‐ ‐ 487
Administrative Services 3,033 ‐ 177 3,210
People Strategy and Operations 1,329 ‐ ‐ 1,329
Public Works 11,548 ‐ 891 12,439
Planning and Community Environment 13,209 ‐ 1,552 14,761
Public Safety 61,742 ‐ 286 62,028
Community Services 22,511 ‐ 133 22,644
Library 7,340 ‐ ‐ 7,340
Non‐Departmental 7,984 ‐ 151 8,135
Capital outlay ‐ 37,035 ‐ 37,035
Debt service:
Principal 374 ‐ 1,150 1,524
Interest and fiscal charges 55 82 3,059 3,196
Total expenditures 134,547 37,117 7,399 179,063
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 7,136 (30,993) 9,484 (14,373)
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in (Note 4)17,912 23,086 685 41,683
Transfers out (Note 4)(18,815) (260) (5,100) (24,175)
Total other financing sources (uses)(903) 22,826 (4,415) 17,508
Change in fund balances 6,233 (8,167) 5,069 3,135
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 42,077 77,954 90,837 210,868
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 48,310$ 69,787$ 95,906$ 214,003$
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
35
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities ‐ Governmental Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Net change in fund balances ‐ total governmental funds 3,135$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different
from those reported in the governmental funds because of the following:
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of
activities, the costs of these assets are capitalized and allocated over their estimated useful
lives and reported as depreciation expense. Therefore, the activities associated with
capital assets are as follows:
Capital outlay added back to fund balance for current year additions 37,589
Depreciation expense is deducted from fund balance (depreciation expense is net of
internal service fund depreciation of $2,544 (Note 6), which has already been allocated
through the internal service fund activities below (11,229)
Disposal of capital assets (3,502)
Principal payments on long‐term liabilities are reported as expenditures in governmental
funds when paid. The governmental activities, however, report principal payments as
a reduction of long‐term debt on the statement of net position. Interest accrued on
long‐term debt and amortization of bond issuance costs and premiums do not require
the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures
in governmental funds. Therefore, the activities associated with long‐term debt are
as follows:
Principal paid during the year 1,524
Change in interest payable (329)
Amortization of bond premium 158
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of activities, such
as insurance, equipment acquisition and maintenance, and employees benefits to
individual funds. The portion of the net revenue of these internal service
funds arising out of their transactions with governmental funds is reported with
governmental activities.547
Change in net position of governmental activities 27,893$
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
36
Variance with
Budgeted Amounts Final Budget
Actual, plus Positive
Original Final Encumbrances (Negative)
23,846$ 27,352$ 29,424$ 2,072$
29,613 30,251 30,587 336
11,545 12,318 12,255 (63)
Documentary transfer tax 5,699 7,395 7,811 416
11,013 11,386 11,008 (378)
2,107 2,107 2,136 29
24,379 22,741 23,962 1,221
8,346 7,952 6,950 (1,002)
769 769 1,042 273
12,891 14,004 14,215 211
252 345 768 423
2,010 2,000 1,240 (760)
132,470 138,620 141,398 2,778
10,574 10,574 10,947 373
‐ 5,571 5,584 13
143,044 154,765 157,929 3,164
2,453 3,137 3,111 26
1,088 1,058 1,027 31
1,258 1,282 1,122 160
497 709 580 129
2,499 3,092 3,078 14
7,280 7,363 7,244 119
22,700 23,888 23,402 486
60,962 63,628 63,403 225
3,265 3,761 3,622 139
7,793 8,254 8,072 182
13,608 15,150 14,637 513
13,751 14,380 14,138 242
8,496 7,907 8,413 (506)
145,650 153,609 151,849 1,760
(2,606) 1,156 6,080 4,924
17,529 17,910 17,912 2
(14,069) (19,139) (18,815) 324
3,460 (1,229) (903) 326
854$ (73)$ 5,177 5,250$
Unrealized gain/loss on investments 285
Current year encumbrances/reappropriations 6,355
Prior year encumbrances/reappropriations (5,584)
6,233
42,077
48,310$
REVENUES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ‐ Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Charges to other funds
Sales tax
Property tax
Transient occupancy tax
Utility user tax
Other taxes, fines and penalties
Charges for services
Permits and licenses
Investment earnings
Rental income
From other agencies
Other revenues
Public Safety
Prior year encumbrances and reappropriations
Total revenues
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
City Attorney
City Auditor
City Clerk
City Council
City Manager
Administrative Services
Community Services
Total other financing sources (uses)
People Strategy and Operations
Library
Planning and Community Environment
Public Works
Non‐Departmental
Total expenditures
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in
Transfers out
FUND BALANCE AT BEGINNING OF YEAR, GAAP BASIS
FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR, GAAP BASIS
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES, BUDGETARY BASIS
Adjustment to Budgetary Basis:
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE, GAAP BASIS
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
37
Fiber
Water Electric Optics Gas
ASSETS:
Current assets:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)35,770$ 133,501$ 19,616$ 28,113$
Accounts receivable, net 5,012 11,225 443 2,386
Interest receivable 180 677 91 158
Due from other government agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Inventory of materials and supplies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)3,331 ‐ ‐ 835
Restricted cash for landfill closure (Note 3)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total current assets 44,293 145,403 20,150 31,492
Noncurrent assets:
Due from other government agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Deposit ‐ 113 ‐ ‐
Prepaid expense 125 ‐ ‐ ‐
Capital assets (Note 6):
Nondepreciable 51,100 18,562 1,256 13,523
Depreciable, net 61,826 158,603 6,259 83,902
Net OPEB asset (Note 12)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total noncurrent assets 113,051 177,278 7,515 97,425
Total assets 157,344 322,681 27,665 128,917
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Unamortized loss from refunding 155 ‐ ‐ 202
LIABILITIES:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 3,911 4,575 185 2,349
Accrued salaries and benefits 204 476 32 224
Unearned revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accrued compensated absences (Note 1)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Current portion of revenue bonds (Note 7)1,404 100 ‐ 536
Accrued claims payable (Note 14)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total current liabilities 5,519 5,151 217 3,109
Noncurrent liabilities:
Accrued compensated absences (Note 1)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accrued claims payable (Note 14)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Advance from other fund (Note 4)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Landfill closure and post‐closure care (Note 9)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Utility revenue bonds, net of
unamortized discounts/premiums (Note 7)37,822 657 ‐ 7,906
Total noncurrent liabilities 37,822 657 ‐ 7,906
Total liabilities 43,341 5,808 217 11,015
NET POSITION (Note 10):
Net Investment in capital assets 73,700 176,408 7,515 88,983
Restricted for debt service 3,331 ‐ ‐ 835
Unrestricted (deficit)37,127 140,465 19,933 28,286
Total net position 114,158$ 316,873$ 27,448$ 118,104$
Some amounts reported for Business‐type Activities in the statement of net position are different because certain
Internal Service Fund net positions are included with Business‐type Activities
Net position reported in Business‐type Activities
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
38
Governmental
Activities ‐
Wastewater Wastewater Storm Internal Service
Collection Treatment Refuse Drainage Airport Totals Funds
15,465$ 13,760$ 5,148$ 7,802$ 111$ 259,286$ 74,992$
1,798 2,100 3,035 641 ‐ 26,640 635
74 81 53 37 1 1,352 364
‐ 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 388
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,166 ‐
‐ ‐ 5,907 ‐ ‐ 5,907 ‐
17,337 16,241 14,143 8,480 112 297,651 76,379
‐ 4,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,200 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 113 ‐
‐ 250 ‐ ‐ ‐ 375 ‐
20,563 7,925 5,875 8,348 ‐ 127,152 3,094
54,278 31,449 244 21,782 ‐ 418,343 11,259
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,610
74,841 43,824 6,119 30,130 ‐ 550,183 36,963
92,178 60,065 20,262 38,610 112 847,834 113,342
‐ ‐ ‐ 55 ‐ 412 ‐
605 1,200 2,330 336 49 15,540 1,367
135 273 76 39 6 1,465 173
‐ ‐ ‐ 352 ‐ 352 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,912
77 1,252 ‐ 540 ‐ 3,909 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,665
817 2,725 2,406 1,267 55 21,266 11,117
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,088
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 935 935 ‐
‐ ‐ 11,363 ‐ ‐ 11,363 ‐
901 18,490 ‐ 6,515 ‐ 72,291 ‐
901 18,490 11,363 6,515 935 84,589 27,374
1,718 21,215 13,769 7,782 990 105,855 38,491
73,863 24,132 6,119 23,075 ‐ 473,795 14,353
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,166 ‐
16,597 14,718 374 7,808 (878) 264,430 60,498
90,460$ 38,850$ 6,493$ 30,883$ (878)$ 742,391 74,851$
2,364
744,755$
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
39
Fiber
Water Electric Optics Gas
OPERATING REVENUES:
Sales of utilities:
Customers 36,387$ 106,056$ 3,598$ 33,990$
City departments 2,061 3,225 749 852
Surplus energy ‐ 336 ‐ ‐
Service connection charges and miscellaneous 982 2,327 131 654
Charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other 861 9,972 7 241
Total operating revenues 40,291 121,916 4,485 35,737
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Purchase of utilities:
Retail 15,705 68,089 ‐ 14,325
Surplus energy ‐ 697 ‐ ‐
Administrative and general 4,044 6,172 399 4,041
Engineering (operating)381 1,280 ‐ 352
Resource management and energy efficiency 570 6,726 ‐ 1,012
Operations and maintenance 4,986 9,489 909 4,119
Rent 2,192 3,860 51 429
Depreciation and amortization 1,734 7,504 303 2,282
Claims payments and changes in
estimated self‐insurance liability ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Refund of charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Compensated absences and other benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total operating expenses 29,612 103,817 1,662 26,560
Operating income (loss)10,679 18,099 2,823 9,177
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
Investment earnings 975 3,122 433 706
Interest expense (1,915) (8,924) ‐ (282)
Loss on disposal of capital assets (66) (271) ‐ (27)
Other nonoperating revenues 549 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(457) (6,073) 433 397
Income (loss) before transfers and capital contributions 10,222 12,026 3,256 9,574
Capital contributions 995 ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in (Note 4)271 1,089 ‐ 151
Transfers out (Note 4)(530) (11,460) (134) (6,417)
Change in net position 10,958 1,655 3,122 3,308
NET POSITION (DEFICIT), BEGINNING OF YEAR, AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED 103,595 315,262 24,326 114,901
RESTATEMENT (Note 1(m))(395) (44) ‐ (105)
NET POSITION (DEFICIT), BEGINNING OF YEAR, AS RESTATED 103,200 315,218 24,326 114,796
NET POSITION (DEFICIT), END OF YEAR 114,158$ 316,873$ 27,448$ 118,104$
Some amounts reported for Business‐type Activities in the statement of activities are different because certain
Internal Service Fund activities are included with Business‐type Activities
Change in net position reported in Business‐type Activities
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
40
Governmental
Activities‐
Wastewater Wastewater Storm Internal Service
Collection Treatment Refuse Drainage Airport Totals Funds
14,518$ 11,292$ 26,045$ 5,717$ ‐$ 237,603$ ‐$
69 6,915 790 346 ‐ 15,007 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 336 ‐
693 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,787 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 77,167
319 253 3,462 120 ‐ 15,235 472
15,599 18,460 30,297 6,183 ‐ 272,968 77,639
6,863 ‐ 13,943 ‐ ‐ 118,925 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 697 ‐
1,322 ‐ 1,889 559 417 18,843 10,766
310 1,801 225 410 ‐ 4,759 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 305 ‐ 8,613 ‐
2,570 15,589 9,103 955 ‐ 47,720 21,481
217 ‐ 2,629 33 ‐ 9,411 ‐
1,907 2,858 13 897 ‐ 17,498 2,544
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,232
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,337
13,189 20,248 27,802 3,159 417 226,466 78,431
2,410 (1,788) 2,495 3,024 (417) 46,502 (792)
339 364 257 178 5 6,379 1,634
(54) (573) (617) (436) (49) (12,850) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (364) (155)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 549 42
285 (209) (360) (258) (44) (6,286) 1,521
2,695 (1,997) 2,135 2,766 (461) 40,216 729
1,010 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,005 ‐
42 59 124 14 ‐ 1,750 1,413
(241) ‐ (29) (42) ‐ (18,853) (1,818)
3,506 (1,938) 2,230 2,738 (461) 25,118 324
86,972 40,906 4,263 28,188 (417) 74,527
(18) (118) ‐ (43) ‐ ‐
86,954 40,788 4,263 28,145 (417) 74,527
90,460$ 38,850$ 6,493$ 30,883$ (878)$ 74,851$
(223)
24,895$
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
41
Fiber
Water Electric Optics Gas
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 37,939$ 111,361$ 4,639$ 34,689$
Cash refunds to customers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (25,910) (87,661) (1,015) (21,911)
Cash payments to employees (4,011) (6,097) (398) (4,018)
Internal activity‐ receipts (payment) from (to) other funds 2,061 3,225 749 852
Other receipts 861 9,972 7 241
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities 10,940 30,800 3,982 9,853
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Receipt of loans from other funds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Interest subsidy received from Build America Bond 549 ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers in 271 1,089 ‐ 151
Transfers out (530) (11,460) (134) (6,417)
Cash flows provided by (used in) noncapital financing activities 290 (10,371) (134) (6,266)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (8,149) (12,175) (507) (8,879)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets ‐ 24 ‐ ‐
Capital grants and contributions 995 ‐ ‐ ‐
Principal paid on long‐term debt (1,360) (100) ‐ (520)
Interest paid on long‐term debt (1,905) (8,923) ‐ (282)
Cash flows used in capital and related
financing activities (10,419) (21,174) (507) (9,681)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest received 982 3,228 428 758
Cash flows from investing activities 982 3,228 428 758
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 1,793 2,483 3,769 (5,336)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 37,308 131,018 15,847 34,284
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 39,101 $ 133,501 $ 19,616 $ 28,948
Financial statement presentation:
Cash and investments available for operations 35,770$ 133,501$ 19,616$ 28,113$
Cash and investments with fiscal agent 3,331 ‐ ‐ 835
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year 39,101$ 133,501$ 19,616$ 28,948$
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Operating income (loss)10,679$ 18,099$ 2,823$ 9,177$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization 1,734 7,504 303 2,282
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Change in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable 570 2,642 910 45
Inventory of materials and supplies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Deposit ‐ (45) ‐ ‐
Net OPEB asset ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accounts payable and accruals (2,076) 2,525 (55) (1,674)
Accrued salaries and benefits 33 75 1 23
Accrued compensated absences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Unearned revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Landfill closure and post‐closure care ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Accrued claims payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities $ 10,940 $ 30,800 $ 3,982 $ 9,853
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
42
Governmental
Activities‐
Wastewater Wastewater Storm Internal Service
Collection Treatment Refuse Drainage Airport Totals Funds
15,434$ 13,480$ 26,423$ 5,445$ ‐$ 249,410$ 77,945$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (71)
(9,961) (18,789) (25,589) (1,823) ‐ (192,659) (21,697)
(1,295) ‐ (1,885) (554) (395) (18,653) (52,575)
69 6,915 790 346 ‐ 15,007 (4,224)
319 253 3,630 120 ‐ 15,403 42
4,566 1,859 3,369 3,534 (395) 68,508 (580)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 325 325 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 549 ‐
42 59 124 14 ‐ 1,750 1,413
(241) ‐ (29) (42) ‐ (18,853) (1,818)
(199) 59 95 (28) 325 (16,229) (405)
(5,075) (3,253) (1,661) (1,451) ‐ (41,150) (3,652)
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24 150
1,010 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,305 ‐
(74) (1,216) ‐ (510) ‐ (3,780) ‐
(53) (556) (618) (435) (49) (12,821) ‐
(4,192) (4,725) (2,279) (2,396) (49) (55,422) (3,502)
354 381 256 180 5 6,572 1,657
354 381 256 180 5 6,572 1,657
529 (2,426) 1,441 1,290 (114) 3,429 (2,830)
14,936 16,186 9,614 6,512 225 265,930 77,822
$ 15,465 $ 13,760 $ 11,055 $ 7,802 $ 111 $ 269,359 $ 74,992
15,465$ 13,760$ 5,148$ 7,802$ 111$ 259,286$ 74,992$
‐ ‐ 5,907 ‐ ‐ 10,073 ‐
15,465$ 13,760$ 11,055$ 7,802$ 111$ 269,359$ 74,992$
2,410$ (1,788)$ 2,495$ 3,024$ (417)$ 46,502$ (792)$
1,907 2,858 13 897 ‐ 17,498 2,544
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
223 2,188 378 21 ‐ 6,977 306
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 204
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (45) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (759)
(1) (1,440) 311 (120) 21 (2,509) (918)
27 41 4 5 1 210 18
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (233)
‐ ‐ ‐ (293) ‐ (293) ‐
‐ ‐ 168 ‐ ‐ 168 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (992)
$ 4,566 $ 1,859 $ 3,369 $ 3,534 $ (395) $ 68,508 $ (580)
Business‐Type Activities‐Enterprise Funds
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
43
Agency
Funds
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations (Note 3)2,919$
Restricted cash and investments with fiscal agents (Note 3)2,541
Account receivable 9
Interest receivable 14
Total assets 5,483$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 4,724$
Due to other governments 759
Total liabilities 5,483$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
44
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
45
Page
1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ........................................................................... 47
2. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting ........................................................................................ 56
3. Cash and Investments ............................................................................................................. 57
4. Interfund Transactions ............................................................................................................ 61
5. Notes and Loans Receivable .................................................................................................... 63
6. Capital Assets .......................................................................................................................... 69
7. General Long‐Term Obligations .............................................................................................. 73
8. Special Assessment Debt ......................................................................................................... 80
9. Landfill Closure and Post‐Closure Care ................................................................................... 81
10. Net Position and Fund Balances .............................................................................................. 82
11. Pension Plans ........................................................................................................................... 84
12. Retiree Health Benefits ........................................................................................................... 88
13. Deferred Compensation Plan .................................................................................................. 91
14. Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 92
15. Joint Ventures .......................................................................................................................... 93
16. Commitments and Contingencies ........................................................................................... 96
17. Subsequent Event .................................................................................................................... 99
Notes are essential to present fairly the information contained in the overview level of the basic financial
statements. Narrative explanations are intended to communicate information that is not readily apparent
or cannot be included in the statements themselves, and to provide additional disclosures as required by
the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
46
This page is left intentionally blank.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
47
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The City of Palo Alto (the City) was incorporated in 1894 and operates as a charter city, having had its first
charter granted by the State of California in 1909. The City operates under the Council‐Manager form of
government and provides the following services: public safety (police and fire), public works, electric, fiber
optics, water, gas, wastewater, storm drain, refuse, golf course, planning and zoning, general
administration services, library, open space and science, recreational and human services.
(a) Reporting Entity
The City is governed by a nine‐member council, elected by City residents. The City is legally
separate and fiscally independent, which means it can issue debt, set and modify budgets and
fees, and sue or be sued. The accompanying basic financial statements present the financial
activities of the City, which is the primary government presented, along with the financial
activities of its component unit, which is an entity for which the City is financially accountable.
Although a separate legal entity, a blended component unit is, in substance, part of the City’s
operations and is reported as an integral part of the City’s financial statements. The City’s
component unit described below is blended.
The Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation (the Corporation) provides financing of public
capital improvements for the City through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs), a
form of debt that allows investors to participate in a stream of future lease payments. Proceeds
from the COPs are used to construct projects that are leased to the City. The lease payments are
sufficient in timing and amount to meet the debt service requirements of the COPs. The Board of
Directors of the Corporation is composed of the same members as the City Council. The
Corporation is controlled by the City, which performs all accounting and administrative functions
for the Corporation. The financial activities of the Corporation are included in the Downtown
Parking Improvement Debt Service Fund.
Financial statements for the Corporation may be obtained from the City of Palo Alto,
Administrative Services Department, 4th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
(b) Basis of Presentation
The City’s basic financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. The Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) is the acknowledged standard setting body for establishing accounting and financial
reporting standards followed by governmental entities in the United States.
These standards require that the financial statements described below be presented:
Government‐wide Statements: The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities
display information about the primary government and its component unit. These statements
include the financial activities of the overall City government, except for fiduciary activities.
Eliminations have been made to minimize the double counting of internal activities. However,
interfund goods and services transactions have not been eliminated in the consolidation process.
These statements distinguish between the governmental and business‐type activities of the City.
Governmental activities generally are financed through taxes, intergovernmental revenues, and
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
48
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(b) Basis of Presentation (Continued)
other non‐exchange transactions. Business‐type activities are financed in whole or in part by fees
charged to external parties.
The Statement of Activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program
revenues for each segment of the business‐type activities of the City and for each function of the
City’s governmental activities. Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a
program or function and, therefore, are clearly identifiable to a particular function. Program
revenues include: (a) charges paid by the recipients for goods and services offered by the
programs, (b) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational needs of a
particular program, and (c) fees, grants and contributions that are restricted to financing the
acquisition or construction of capital assets. Revenues that are not classified as program
revenues, including all taxes, are presented as general revenues.
Fund Financial Statements: The fund financial statements provide information about the City’s
funds, including fiduciary funds and its blended component unit. Separate statements for each
fund category – governmental, proprietary and fiduciary – are presented. The emphasis of fund
financial statements is on major individual governmental and enterprise funds, each of which is
displayed in a separate column. All remaining governmental and internal service funds are
aggregated and reported as non‐major funds.
Proprietary fund operating revenues, such as utilities sales and charges for services, result from
exchange transactions associated with the principal activity of the fund. Exchange transactions
are those in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal values. Nonoperating
revenues, such as subsidies and investment earnings, result from non‐exchange transactions or
ancillary activities.
Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and
services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All expenses not meeting
this definition are reported as nonoperating expenses.
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds
The City’s major governmental and enterprise funds need to be identified and presented
separately in the fund financial statements. All other funds, called non‐major funds, are combined
and reported in a single column, regardless of their fund type.
Major funds are defined as funds that have either assets and deferred outflows of resources,
liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, revenues or expenditures/expenses equal to at least
10 percent of their fund type total and at least 5 percent of the grand total. The General Fund is
always a major fund. The City may also select other funds it believes should be presented as major
funds on a qualitative basis.
The City reported the following major governmental funds in the accompanying financial
statements:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
49
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds (Continued)
General Fund – This is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of
the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Capital Projects Fund – This fund accounts for resources used for the acquisition and construction
of capital facilities by the City, with the exception of those assets financed by proprietary funds.
The City reported all of its enterprise funds as major funds in the accompanying financial
statements. These funds are:
Water Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s water
service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.
Electric Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s
electric service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in
the City.
Fiber Optics Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s fiber
optics service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to licensees located in the City.
Gas Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s gas
service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.
Wastewater Collection Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating
to the City’s wastewater collection service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and
business owners located in the City.
Wastewater Treatment Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating
to the City’s wastewater treatment. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business
owners located in the City.
Refuse Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the City’s refuse
service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business owners located in the City.
Storm Drainage Services Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the
City’s storm drainage service. Services are on a user‐charge basis to residents and business
owners located in the City.
Airport Fund – This fund accounts for all financial transactions relating to the Palo Alto Airport
(PAO). The City assumed control over operation of PAO from the County of Santa Clara, effective
August 11, 2014.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
50
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds (Continued)
The City also reports the following funds:
Internal Service Funds – These funds account for fleet replacement and maintenance, technology,
central duplicating, printing and mailing services, administration of compensated absences and
health benefits, and the City’s self‐insured workers’ compensation and general liability programs,
all of which are provided to other departments on a cost‐reimbursement basis. Also included is
the Retiree Health Benefits Internal Service Fund, which accounts for benefits to retirees.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance – This fund accounts for the maintenance and
replacement of vehicles and equipment used by all City departments. The source of revenue is
from reimbursement of fleet replacement and maintenance costs allocated to each department
by usage of vehicle.
Technology – This fund accounts for replacement and upgrade of technology, and covers four
primary areas used by all City departments: desktop, infrastructure, applications, and technology
research and development. The source of revenue is from reimbursement of costs for support
provided to other departments.
Printing and Mailing Services – This fund accounts for central duplicating, printing and mailing
services provided to all City departments. The source of revenue for this fund is from
reimbursement of costs for services and supplies purchased by other departments.
General Benefits – This fund accounts for the administration of compensated absences and health
benefits.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program – This fund accounts for the administration of the
City’s self‐insured workers’ compensation program.
General Liability Insurance Program – This fund accounts for the administration of the City’s self‐
insured general liability program.
Retiree Health Benefits – This fund accounts for retiree health benefits.
Fiduciary Funds – These funds account for assets held by the City, an agent for assessment
districts, and members of the Cable Joint Powers Authority. These funds are custodial in nature
and do not involve measurement of results of operations. The City maintains three agency funds.
The financial activities of these funds are excluded from the government‐wide financial
statements, but are presented in separate fiduciary fund financial statements. Agency funds
apply the accrual basis of accounting but do not have a measurement focus.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
51
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Major Funds and Other Funds (Continued)
California Avenue Parking Assessment District – This fund accounts for the receipts and
disbursements associated with the 1993 Parking District No. 92‐13 Assessment Bonds.
Cable Joint Powers Authority – This fund accounts for the activities of the cable television system
on behalf of the members.
University Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District – This fund accounts for the
receipts and disbursements associated with the 2012 Limited Obligation Refunding Improvement
Bonds.
(d) Basis of Accounting
The government‐wide and proprietary fund financial statements are reported using the economic
resources measurement focus and the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded
when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when
the related cash flows take place.
Governmental funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and
the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when
measurable and available. The City considers revenues susceptible to accrual reported in the
governmental funds to be available if the revenues are collected within ninety days after year‐
end, except for property taxes, which are available if collected within sixty days after year‐end.
Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, except for principal and
interest on general long‐term debt, claims and judgments, and compensated absences, which are
recognized as expenditures to the extent they have matured. General capital asset acquisitions
are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of general long‐term debt and
acquisitions under capital leases are reported as other financing sources.
Revenues susceptible to accrual include taxes, intergovernmental revenues, interest and charges
for services.
Grant revenues are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements are met.
Under the terms of grant agreements, the City may fund certain programs with a combination of
cost‐reimbursement grants, categorical block grants, and general revenues. Thus, both restricted
and unrestricted net position may be available to finance program expenditures. The City’s policy
is to first apply restricted grant resources to such programs, followed by general revenues if
necessary.
Certain indirect costs are included in program expenses reported for individual functions and
activities. Transactions representing the exchange of interfund goods and services have also been
included.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
52
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(e) Cash and Cash Equivalents
Restricted and unrestricted pooled cash and investments held in the City Treasury, and other
unrestricted investments invested by the City Treasurer, are considered cash equivalents for
purposes of the statement of cash flows because the City’s cash management pool and funds
invested by the City Treasurer possess the characteristics of demand deposit accounts. Other
restricted and unrestricted investments with maturities of less than three months at the time of
purchase are considered cash equivalents for purposes of the statement of cash flows.
(f) Investments
The City’s investments are carried at fair value, as required by GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting
and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investment Pools. The City
adjusts the carrying value of its investments to reflect their fair value at each fiscal year‐end, and
reports the effects of these adjustments in investment earnings for that fiscal year.
(g) Inventory of Materials and Supplies
Materials and supplies are held for consumption and are valued at average cost. The consumption
method is used to account for inventories. Under the consumption method, inventories are
recorded as expenditures at the time inventory items are used, rather than purchased.
(h) Prepaid items
Prepaid items are recorded at cost. Using the consumption method, prepaid items are recorded
as expenditures over the period that service is provided.
(i) Compensated Absences
The liability for compensated absences includes the vested portion of vacation, sick leave, and
overtime compensation pay. The City’s liability for accrued compensated absences is recorded in
the General Benefits Internal Service Fund. The fund is reimbursed through payroll charges to all
other funds. Earned but unpaid vacation and overtime compensation pay are recognized as an
expense or expenditure in the proprietary and governmental fund types when earned because
the City has provided financial resources for the full amount through its budgetary process.
Vested accumulated sick pay is paid in the event of termination due to disability and, under certain
conditions, is specified in employment agreements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
53
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(i) Compensated Absences (Continued)
During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, changes to the compensated absences were as follows
(in thousands):
Beginning balance 10,431$
Additions 6,484
Payments (6,717)
Ending balance 10,198$
Current portion 3,912$
(j) Property Tax
Santa Clara County (the County) assesses properties and bills, collects, and distributes property
taxes to the City. The County remits the entire amount levied and handles all delinquencies,
retaining interest and penalties.
The County assesses property values, levies bills and collects taxes as follows:
Secured Unsecured
Lien Dates January 01 January 01
Levy Dates October 01 July 01
Due Dates 50% on November 01 Upon receipt of billing
50% on February 01
Delinquent after December 10 (for November)August 31
April 10 (for February)
The term “unsecured” refers to taxes on personal property other than real estate, land and
buildings. These taxes are secured by liens on the property being taxed. Property tax revenues
are recognized by the City in the fiscal year they are assessed, provided they become available as
defined previously within sixty days after year‐end.
(k) Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
A deferred outflow of resources is the consumption of net position that is applicable to a future
reporting period. A deferred inflow of resources is defined as an acquisition of net position
applicable to a future reporting period. Furthermore, GASB No. 65 reclassified certain items that
were previously reported as assets and liabilities to deferred outflows of resources and deferred
inflows of resources. Refer to Note 1(m) for the impact of this statement on the City’s financial
statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
54
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(l) Rounding
All amounts included in the basic financial statements and footnotes are presented to the nearest
thousand.
(m) Effects of New Pronouncements
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented the following GASB Statements:
GASB Statement No. 65 issued March 2012, Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities
amends the financial statement element classification of certain items previously reported as
assets and liabilities to be consistent with the definitions in Concepts Statements No. 4, Elements
of Financial Statements. It also provides other financial reporting guidance related to deferred
outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, such as changes in the determination of
the major fund calculations and limiting the use of the term deferred in financial statement
presentations. Gains or losses between the net book value of debt and funds placed in escrow to
defease that debt are considered as deferred inflows or outflows of resources, respectively, and
are amortized over the remaining life of either the refunded debt or the refunding debt,
whichever is shorter.
As of July 1, 2013, the City implemented this Statement and restated beginning net position by
$1.1 million and $0.7 million to write off unamortized bond issuance costs that were previously
reported as assets in governmental activities and business‐type activities, respectively. Further,
unamortized loss on refunding of debts of $0.4 million was reclassified from contra liabilities to
deferred outflows of resources in three major enterprise funds – Water, Gas and Storm Drainage.
GASB Statement No. 66 was issued in March 2012, Technical Corrections – 2012 – an amendment
of GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 62, to resolve conflicting accounting and financial reporting
guidance that could diminish the consistency of financial reporting. As of July 1, 2013, the City
adopted this Statement, which does not have a significant impact on the City’s financial
statements.
GASB issued Statement No. 70 in April 2013, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange
Financial Guarantees. Nonexchange financial guarantees are financial guarantees from a
government for obligations of another entity. Statement No. 70 requires a government that
extends a nonexchange financial guarantee to recognize a liability when qualitative factors and
historical data indicate that it is more likely than not that the government will be required to make
a payment on the guarantee. Statement No. 70 also specifies the information required to be
disclosed by governments that extend nonexchange financial guarantees and also new disclosure
requirements. As of July 1, 2013, the City adopted this Statement, which does not have a
significant impact on the City’s financial statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
55
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(m) Effects of New Pronouncements (Continued)
The City is currently analyzing its accounting practices to determine the potential impact on the
financial statements for the following GASB Statements:
GASB Statement No. 68 issued June 2012, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions – an
amendment of GASB Statement No. 27, establishes accounting and financial reporting
requirements for pension plans that are administered through trusts. Statement No. 68 requires
governments participating in single and agent multiple employer defined benefit plans to
recognize a liability equal to net pension liability. Net pension liability is required to be measured
as of a date no later than the end of the employer’s prior fiscal year (the measurement date),
consistently applied from period to period. Pension expense and deferred outflows of resources
and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions that are required to be recognized by an
employer primarily result from changes in the components of net pension liability—that is,
changes in the total pension liability and in the pension plan’s fiduciary net position. It requires
that most changes in net pension liability be included in pension expense in the period of change.
The effects of certain other changes in the net pension liability are required to be included in
pension expense over current and future periods. It also requires that notes to financial
statements of single and agent employers include descriptive information, such as types of
benefits provided and number and classes of employees covered by the benefit terms, sources of
changes in net pension liability for the current year, significant assumptions and other inputs used
in valuations and the valuation date. The Statement also requires the government to present
required supplementary information for each of the ten most recent fiscal years. Requirements
of this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.
During January 2014, GASB issued Statement No. 69, Government Combinations and Disposals of
Government Operations. It establishes accounting related to government combinations and
disposals of government operations. Government combinations include mergers, acquisitions,
and transfers of operations. Statement No. 69 also establishes the required financial statement
disclosure for government combinations and disposals of government operations. The
requirements of this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.
During November 2013, GASB issued Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made
Subsequent to the Measurement Date – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68. This Statement
improves the accounting and financial reporting by addressing an issue in Statement No. 68. The
issue relates to amounts associated with contributions, if any, made by a state or local
government employer or nonemployer contributing entity to a defined benefit pension plan after
the measurement date of the government’s beginning net pension liability. The requirements of
this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
56
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(n) Use of Estimates
The accompanying basic financial statements have been prepared on the modified accrual and
accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in
the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
NOTE 2 – BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
1. The City Manager submits proposed operating and capital budgets to the City Council for the fiscal
year commencing the following July 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the
means of financing them.
2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain comments on the proposed budgets.
3. The Budget is approved with the adoption of a budget ordinance for all funds except Agency Funds.
4. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, only the City Manager is authorized to reallocate funds from
contingency accounts maintained in the General Fund. Additional appropriations to departments in
the General Fund, or to total appropriations for all other budgeted funds, or transfers of
appropriations between funds, require approval by the City Council. Amendments to budgeted
revenue and expenditures are added to or subtracted from the Adopted Budget and the resulting
totals are reflected as Adjusted Budget amounts.
5. As defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, expenditures may not exceed budgeted appropriations at
the department level for the General Fund, and at the fund level for Enterprise, Special Revenue and
Debt Service Funds.
6. Budgets for governmental funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP), except that unrealized gains or losses are not recognized as investment earnings
on a budgetary basis and encumbrances are treated as budgetary expenditures when incurred.
7. Expenditures for the Capital Projects Fund are budgeted and maintained at a project level for the life
of the project. Budget to actual comparisons for these expenditures have been excluded from the
accompanying financial statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
57
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The City pools cash from all sources and all funds, except restricted bond proceeds with fiscal agents, and
invests its pooled idle cash according to State of California law and the City’s Investment Policy. The basic
principles underlying the City’s investment philosophy are to ensure the safety of public funds, ensure
that sufficient funds are available to meet current expenditures, and achieve a reasonable rate of return
on investments.
Policies
The City invests in individual investments and in investment pools. Individual investments are evidenced
by specific identifiable securities instruments, or by an electronic entry registering the owner in the
records of the institution issuing the security, called the book entry system. In order to increase security,
the City employs the trust department of a bank as the custodian of certain City managed investments.
Classification
Cash and investments are classified in the financial statements as shown below, based on whether or not
their use is restricted under the terms of City debt instruments or agency agreements (in thousands):
Governmental Business‐Type Fiduciary
Activities Activities Funds Total
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 252,280$ 259,286$ 2,919$ 514,485$
Restricted for post‐closure landfill ‐ 5,907 ‐ 5,907
Held with fiscal agents 19,606 4,166 2,541 26,313
Total cash and investments 271,886$ 269,359$ 5,460$ 546,705$
Investments Authorized by the City’s Investment Policy and Debt Agreements
The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized by the City’s Investment Policy. The
table also identifies certain provisions of the City’s Investment Policy that address interest rate risk, credit
risk and concentration of credit risk. The table addresses investments of debt proceeds held by bond
trustees that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City, rather than the general
provisions of the City’s Investment Policy.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
58
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
The City must maintain required amounts of cash and investments with trustees under the terms of
certain debt issues. These funds are unexpended bond proceeds or are pledged as reserves to be used if
the City fails to meet its obligations under these debt issues. The California Government Code requires
these funds to be invested in accordance with City ordinance, bond indentures or state statute. All of
these funds have been invested as permitted under the Code and the investment policy approved by the
City Council.
Maximum
Maturity
Minimum
Credit Quality
Maximum
Percentage
of Portfolio
Maximum
Investment in
One Issuer
U.S. Government Securities 10 years (*) N/A No Limit No Limit
U.S. Federal Agency Securities (C) 10 years (*) N/A No Limit (A) No Limit
Certificates of Deposit 10 years (*) N/A 20%
10% of the par
value of
portfolio
Bankers Acceptances 180 days (D) N/A (D) 30% $5 million
Commercial Paper 270 days A‐1 15% $3 million (B)
Local Agency Investment Fund N/A N/A No Limit
$50 million per
account
Short‐Term Repurchase Agreements 1 year N/A No Limit No Limit
City of Palo Alto Bonds N/A N/A No Limit No Limit
Money Market Mutual Funds N/A N/A (E) No Limit No Limit
Mutual Funds (F)N/A N/A 20%10%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 10 years (*) N/A 10% $5 million
Medium‐Term Corporate Notes 5 years AA 10% $5 million
10 years (*) AA/AA2 10% No Limit
(A)
(B) The lesser of $3 million or 10% of outstanding commercial paper of any one institution.
Debt Agreements:
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(*)The maximum maturity is based on the Investment Policy that is approved by the City Council and is less
restrictive than the California Government Code.
Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and University Avenue Parking Bond 2012 are allowed to invest in the
California Asset Management Program.
Authorized Investment Type
Bonds of State of California
Municipal Agencies
Callable and multi‐step securities are limited to no more than 25% of the par value of the portfolio, provided that:
1) the potential call dates are known at the time of purchase, 2) the interest rates at which they "step‐up" are
known at the time of purchase, 3) the entire face value of the security is redeemable at the call date.
Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and 1999 Refunding allow general obligations of states with a minimum
credit quality rating of A2/A by Moody's and Standard & Poor's.
Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and 1999 Refunding require a minimum credit quality rating of A‐1/P‐1 by
Moody's and Standard & Poor's and maturing after no more than 360 days. Utility Revenue Bonds 1995 Series A
limit the maximum maturity to 365 days.
Water Revenue Bonds 2009 Series A, Utility Revenue Bonds 2011 Refunding and 1999 Refunding require a
minimum credit quality rating of AAAm or AAAm‐G by Standard & Poor's.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
59
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates may adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Normally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity its fair value
is to changes in market interest rates.
Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the City’s investments (including investments held
by bond trustees) to market rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the distribution
of the City’s investments by maturity or earliest call date (in thousands):
Type of Investment
Less Than
One Year
One to
Three Years
Three to
Five Years
Over
Five Years Total
U.S. Federal Agency Securities 55,445$ 113,015$ 142,698$ 138,181$ 449,339$
U.S. Treasury Notes ‐ ‐ 6,891 4,345 11,236
Local Government Bonds ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,711 5,711
Money Market Mutual Funds 7,336 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,336
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit ‐ 245 9,364 1,465 11,074
California Asset Management Program 21,885 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,885
Local Agency Investment Fund 38,043 ‐ ‐ ‐ 38,043
Total Investments 122,709$ 113,260$ 158,953$ 149,702$ 544,624
Cash in bank and on hand 2,081
Total Cash and Investments 546,705$
Maturities
Local Agency Investment Fund
The City is a participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California
Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. LAIF
management calculates the fair value and cost of the entire LAIF pool. The City adjusts its cost basis
invested in LAIF to fair value based on this ratio. The fair value of the City’s position in the pool is the
same as the value of the pool share. The balance available for withdrawal on demand is based on
accounting records maintained by LAIF, which are recorded on an amortized cost basis. At June 30, 2014,
LAIF had a weighted average maturity of 232 days.
California Asset Management Program
The City is a voluntary participant in the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). CAMP is an
investment pool offered by the California Asset Management Trust (the Trust). The Trust is a joint powers
authority and public agency created by the Declaration of Trust and established under the provisions of
the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act (California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq., or the
“Act”) for the purpose of exercising the common power of its participants to invest certain proceeds of
debt issues and surplus funds. The Pool’s investments are limited to investments permitted by
subdivisions (a) to (n), inclusive, of Section 53601 of the California Government Code. The City reports its
investments in CAMP at the fair value amounts provided by CAMP, which is the same as the value of the
pool share. At June 30, 2014, the fair value approximated the City’s cost. CAMP had a weighted average
maturity of 41 days.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
60
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Money market mutual funds are available for withdrawal on demand and at June 30, 2014, had a weighted
average maturity of 34 days.
Investment with Fair Values Highly Sensitive to Interest Rate Fluctuations
At June 30, 2014, the City’s investments (including investments held by bond trustees) include U.S. Federal
Agency Callable Securities in the amount of $121.1 million that are highly sensitive to interest rate
fluctuations (to a greater degree than already indicated in the information provided in the previous page).
These securities are subject to early redemption at par in a period of declining interest rates.
Credit Risk
Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the
investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating
organization. Presented below is the actual rating as provided by Standard & Poor’s investment rating
system as of June 30, 2014, for each investment type (in thousands):
Type of Investment Rating Total
U.S. Federal Agency Securities AA+ 449,339$
Local Government Bonds AAA 5,711
Money Market Mutual Funds AAAm 7,336
Total Investments 462,386
Not Applicable:
U.S. Treasury Notes 11,236
Not Rated:
California Asset Management Program 21,885
Local Agency Investment Fund 38,043
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 11,074
Cash in bank and on hand 2,081
Total Cash and Investments 546,705$
Concentration of Credit Risk
Investments in any one issuer, other than U.S. Treasury securities, mutual funds, and external investment
pools, that represent 5 percent or more of total City portfolio investments are as follows at June 30, 2014
(in thousands):
Investments Reporting Type Fair Value at Year‐End
Federal Home Loan Bank U.S. Federal Agency Securities 156,621$
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation U.S. Federal Agency Securities 85,624
Federal National Mortgage Corporation U.S. Federal Agency Securities 73,129
Federal Farm Credit Bank U.S. Federal Agency Securities 54,575
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation U.S. Federal Agency Securities 47,270
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
61
NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Custodial Credit Risk
California law requires banks and savings and loan institutions to pledge government securities with a
market value of 110 percent of the City’s cash on deposit or first trust deed mortgage notes with a value
of 150 percent of the deposit as collateral for these deposits. Under California Law, this collateral is
considered held in the City’s name and places the City ahead of general creditors of the institution. The
City has waived collateral requirements for the portion of deposits covered by federal deposit insurance.
The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to
a transaction, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that
are in the possession of another party. The City’s Investment Policy limits its exposure to custodial credit
risk by requiring that all security transactions entered into by the City be conducted on a delivery‐versus‐
payment basis. Securities are to be held by a third‐party custodian.
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
Transfers Between Funds
With Council approval, resources may be transferred from one City fund to another. The purpose of the
majority of transfers is to subsidize a fund. Less often, a transfer may be made to open or close a fund.
Transfers between City funds during FY 2014 were as follows (in thousands):
Fund Making Transfer
Amount
Transferred
General Fund Nonmajor Governmental Funds 424$ A
Electric Services Fund 11,203 A
Gas Services Fund 5,811 A
Internal Service Funds 474 A
Capital Projects Fund General Fund 17,235 B
Nonmajor Governmental Funds 4,676 B
Water Services Fund 142 B
Electric Services Fund 134 B
Fiber Optics Fund 133 B
Gas Services Fund 134 B
Wastewater Collection Fund 133 B
Internal Service Funds 499 B
Nonmajor Governmental Funds General Fund 384 A
Capital Projects Fund 260 B
Water Services Fund 27 A
Internal Service Funds 14 A
Subtotal 41,683
Fund Receiving Transfer
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
62
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (Continued)
Fund Making Transfer
Amount
Transferred
Water Services Fund Gas Services Fund 92 B
Wastewater Collection Fund 92 B
Internal Service Funds 87 C
Electric Services Fund General Fund 33 D
Water Services Fund 333 B
Gas Services Fund 333 B
Internal Service Funds 390 C
Gas Services Fund Internal Service Funds 151 C
Refuse Services Fund Storm Drainage Services Fund 36 D
Internal Service Funds 88 C
Wastewater Collection Fund Internal Service Funds 42 C
Wastewater Treatment Fund Internal Service Funds 59 C
Storm Drainage Services Fund Internal Service Funds 14 C
Internal Service Funds General Fund 1,163 E
Water Services Fund 28 B
Electric Services Fund 123 B
Gas Services Fund 47 B
Wastewater Collection Fund 16 B
Refuse Services Fund 29 B
Storm Drainage Services Fund 6 B
Fiber Optics Fund 1 B
Subtotal 3,163
Total 44,846$
The reasons for these transfers are set forth below:
(A) Transfer to reimburse governmental funds for costs incurred for the benefit of funds making the transfer.
(B) Allocation of funds to construct capital assets.
(C) Transfer to refund replacement charges.
(D) Transfer to reimburse the Utility Funds for costs incurred for the benefit of funds making the transfer.
(E) Transfer to reimburse Internal Service Funds for costs incurred for the benefit of the fund making the
transfer.
Fund Receiving Transfer
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
63
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (Continued)
Long‐Term Interfund Advance
On December 6, 2010, the City Council accepted an Airport Business Plan of the Palo Alto Airport (PAO)
and approved creation of the Airport Enterprise Fund to facilitate the transition of PAO control from
County of Santa Clara to the City. The Council approved a General Fund loan of $300,000 to the Airport
Enterprise Fund for environmental analysis, and legal and personnel costs related to the transition.
According to the agreement, the Airport Fund will repay the $300,000, with interest equal to the average
return yield on the City’s investment portfolio, after six years. On July 1, 2012, the City Council approved
an additional $310,000 short‐term loan from the General Fund with the same interest and repayment
terms for transition costs. A further $325,000 was loaned on July 1, 2013 with the same interest terms
and repayment terms of ten years. As of June 30, 2014, the total outstanding principal amount is
$935,000.
Internal Balances
Internal balances represent the net interfund receivables and payables remaining after the elimination of
all such balances within governmental and business‐type activities.
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE
At June 30, 2014, the City’s notes and loans receivable totaled (in thousands):
Palo Alto Housing Corporation:
Oak Manor Townhouse 334$
Tree House Apartments 5,343
Emerson Street Project 375
Alma Single Room Occupancy Development 2,222
Barker Hotel 2,111
Sheridan Apartments 2,248
Oak Court Apartments, L.P.7,835
Mid‐Peninsula Housing Coalition:
Palo Alto Gardens Apartments 100
Community Working Group, Inc.1,280
Opportunity Center Associates, L.P.750
Home Rehabilitation Loans 66
Executive Relocation Assistance Loans 900
Below Market Rate Assessment Loans 53
Stevenson Housing Fire Alarm 48
Oak Manor Townhouse Water System 114
Lytton Gardens Assisted Living 101
Emergency Housing Consortium 75
Alma Gardens Apartments 1,150
2811‐2825 Alma Street Acquisition 1,290
Palo Alto Family Housing, 801 Alma Street 6,810
Total Notes and Loans 33,205
Less: Valuation Allowance (14,685)
Total Notes and Loans, Net 18,520$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
64
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Housing Loans
The City engages in programs designed to encourage construction or improvement in low‐to‐moderate
income housing or other projects. Under these programs, grants or loans are provided under favorable
terms to homeowners or developers who agree to spend these funds in accordance with the City’s terms.
These loans have been offset by nonspendable, restricted or committed fund balances, as they are not
expected to be repaid immediately.
Some of these loans contain forgiveness clauses that provide for the amount loaned to be forgiven if the
third party maintains compliance with the terms of the loan and associated regulatory agreements. Since
some of these loans are secured by trust deeds that are subordinated to other debt on the associated
projects or are only repayable from residual cash receipts on the projects, collectability of some of the
outstanding balances may not be realized. As a result of the forgiveness clauses and nature of these
housing projects and associated cash flows, a portion of the outstanding balances of the loans has been
offset by a valuation allowance.
Oak Manor Townhouse
On January 7, 1991, the City loaned $2.1 million to Palo Alto Housing Corporation Apartments, Inc.
(PAHCA, Inc.) to assist in the acquisition of an apartment complex to be used to provide rental housing for
low and very low income households. This loan bears interest at 3 percent, is due in annual installments
until 2017 and is collateralized by a subordinated deed of trust. Under the terms of the loan agreement,
annual loan payments are forgiven if the Corporation meets the objective of this project. During the year
ended June 30, 2014, the objective was met. The annual loan payment was forgiven for the calendar year
ended December 31, 2013.
Tree House Apartments
In March 2009, the City agreed to loan $2.8 million to Tree House Apartments, L.P. for the purchase of the
real property located at 488 West Charleston Road. The loan shall accrue simple interest at the rate of
three percent per annum. The loan consists of $1.8 million funded by Community Development Block
Grant funds and $1 million funded by residential funds. An additional development loan in the amount of
$2.5 million was approved by the City on October 18, 2010. As of June 30, 2014, the outstanding balance
for Tree House Apartments in aggregate is $5.3 million. Principal and interest payments will be deferred
for 55 years. However, if the borrower has earned extra income, and if it is acceptable to the other entities
providing final permanent sources of funds, payment of interest and principal based on the City’s
proportionate share of the project’s residual receipts from net operating income shall be made by the
borrower. In no event shall full payment be made by the borrower later than concurrently with the
expiration or earlier termination of the loan agreement, which is March 23, 2064.
Emerson Street Project
On November 8, 1994, the City loaned $375,000 for expenses necessary to acquire an apartment complex
for the preservation of rental housing for low and very low income households in the City. This loan is
collateralized by a second deed of trust. The loan bears interest at 3 percent after 2010.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
65
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Alma Single Room Occupancy Development
On December 13, 1996, the City loaned $2.2 million to Alma Place Associates, L.P. for development of a
107‐unit single room occupancy development. This loan bears interest at 3 percent and is collateralized
by a subordinated deed of trust. Loan payments were deferred until May 2014. The principal balance is
due in 2041.
Barker Hotel
On April 12, 1994, the City loaned a total of $2.1 million for the preservation, rehabilitation and expansion
of a low‐income, single occupancy hotel. This loan was funded by three sources: $400,000 from the
Housing In‐Lieu Fund, $1 million from HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds, and $670,000 from
Community Development Block Grant funds. All three notes bear no interest and are collateralized by a
deed of trust, which is subordinated to private financing. Loan repayments are deferred until 2035.
In July 2004, the City agreed to loan up to $41,000 to Palo Alto Housing Corporation to rehabilitate the
interior of the Barker Hotel. The loan is funded entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds
and is collateralized by a deed of trust on the property. Annual loan payments are deferred until certain
criteria defined in the loan agreement are reached. The loan will be forgiven if the borrower satisfactorily
complies with all terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
Sheridan Apartments
On December 8, 1998, the City loaned $2.5 million to Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the purchase and
rehabilitation of a 57‐unit apartment complex to be used for senior and low‐income housing. The loan is
funded by $1.6 million in Community Development Block Grant funds, and $825,000 in Housing In‐Lieu
funds. The note bears interest at 9 percent when available surplus cash from the project equals or exceeds
25 percent of interest calculated using 9 percent. When available surplus cash falls below this level, the
note bears interest at 3 percent. The note is collateralized by a second deed of trust and an affordability
reserve account held by Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Annual loan payments were deferred until Palo
Alto Housing Corporation accumulated $1 million in the affordability reserve account. Two principal
payments totaling $202,438 have been made, and interest has also been paid. The remaining principal
balance is due in 2033.
Oak Court Apartments, L.P.
On August 18, 2003, in connection with the loan to Oak Court Apartments, L.P. discussed in the next
section, the City loaned $5.9 million to Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the purchase of land on which
Oak Court Apartments, L.P. constructed a 53‐unit rental apartment complex for low and very low income
households with children. The note bears interest of 5 percent and is secured by a deed of trust. Note
payments are due annually after 55 years, or beginning in 2058, unless Palo Alto Housing Corporation
elects to extend the note until 2102, as defined in the regulatory agreement.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
66
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
On August 18, 2003, the City loaned $1.9 million to Oak Court Apartments, L.P. for the construction of a
53‐unit rental apartment complex for low and very low‐income households with children, which was
completed in April 2005. The note bears no interest until certain criteria defined in the note are satisfied,
at which time the note will bear an interest rate not to exceed 3 percent. The note is secured by a
subordinate deed of trust. The principal balance is due in 2060.
Maybell Apartments
On November 28, 2012, the City agreed to loan Palo Alto Housing Corporation $3.2 million for the purpose
of acquisition and development of an affordable rental housing project at 567‐595 Maybell Ave. The loan
bears simple interest at the rate of 3 percent per annum commencing with the date of the permanent
closing. On April 28, 2014, the City collected the outstanding amount of $3.2 million for the Maybell loan.
Palo Alto Gardens Apartments
On April 22, 1999, the City loaned $1 million to Mid‐Peninsula Housing Coalition (the Coalition) for the
purchase and rehabilitation of a 155‐unit complex for the continuation of low‐income housing. This loan
is funded by $659,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds and $341,000 in Housing In‐Lieu
funds. The two notes bear interest at 3 percent and are secured by second deeds of trust and a City
Affordability Reserve Account held by the Coalition. Annual loan payments are deferred until certain
criteria defined in the notes are reached. Principal and interest payments began in FY 2008. The principal
balance of $100,000 is due in 2039.
Community Working Group, Inc.
On May 13, 2002, the City loaned $1.3 million to Community Working Group, Inc. for predevelopment,
relocation and acquisition of land for development of an 89‐unit complex and homeless service center for
very low income households. The loan is funded by $1.3 million of Community Development Block Grant
funds. The note bears no interest and is secured by a first deed of trust. No repayment of the $1.3 million
will be required, provided that compliance with the City’s agreement is maintained. After 89 years of
compliance with the regulatory agreement, the City’s loan would convert to a grant and its deed of trust
would be re‐conveyed.
Opportunity Center Associates, L.P.
On July 19, 2004, the City loaned $750,000 for a 55‐year term to Opportunity Center Associates, L.P. for
construction of 89 units of rental housing for extremely low‐income and very low‐income households.
The loan is funded by $750,000 of residential housing funds. The note bears 3 percent interest and is
secured by a deed of trust. The loan remains outstanding and becomes due at the end of the 55‐year
term.
Home Rehabilitation Loans
The City administers a closed housing rehabilitation loan program initially funded with Community
Development Block Grant funds. Under this program, individuals with incomes below a certain level are
eligible to receive low interest loans for rehabilitation work on their homes. These loans are secured by
deeds of trust, which may be subordinated to subsequent encumbrances upon said real property with the
prior written consent of the City. The loan repayments may be amortized over the life of the loans,
deferred, or a combination of both.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
67
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Executive Relocation Assistance Loans
The City Council may authorize a mortgage loan as part of a relocation assistance package to executive
staff. The loans are secured by first deeds of trust, and interest is adjusted annually based on the rate of
return of invested funds of the City for the year ended June 30 plus one‐quarter of 1 percent. Principal
and interest payments are due bi‐weekly. Employees must pay any outstanding balance on their loans
within a certain period after ending employment with the City. As of June 30, 2014, the City had two
outstanding home loans, one from the previous City Manager and one from the current City Manager.
The original purchase cost for the previous City Manager’s home was $1.4 million and the City holds a 60
percent equity share. The loan balance owed as of June 30, 2014 was approximately $356,000. The home
suffered substantial fire damage on May 3, 2014. The loss is covered by insurance and an assessment is
being made as to whether the home will be rebuilt.
The original purchase cost for the current City Manager’s home was $1.9 million and the City holds a 75
percent equity share. The loan balance owed as of June 30, 2014 is approximately $427,000. During FY
2011, the Council authorized a capital improvement loan of $125,000. Loans for capital improvements
are made on a dollar for dollar matching basis, with an equal equity contribution made by the City
Manager. The loan balance owed as of June 30, 2014 was approximately $117,000.
Below Market Rate Assessment Loans
In December 2002, the City loaned $53,000 to below market rate homeowners with low incomes and/or
very limited assets for capital repairs, special assessments and improvements of their properties. The
loans bear interest at 3 percent and are secured by a deed of trust on each property. Loan payments are
deferred until 2032. In 2014, the City did not receive interest payments.
Stevenson Housing Fire Alarm
In December 2006, the City agreed to loan up to $48,000 to Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. to repair
and upgrade the existing fire alarm system at Stevenson House Senior Housing facility. The loan is funded
entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds and bears simple interest of 6 percent. Principal
and interest payments are deferred until July 1, 2014, as long as the borrower continues to comply with
all terms and conditions of the agreement.
Oak Manor Townhouse Water System
On May 12, 2003, the City Council approved an allocation of $113,672 to Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Apartments, Inc (PAHCA, Inc) to replace the water pipes. Repayment of the loan will not be required unless
the property is sold, the program is terminated or purpose of the program is changed without City’s
approval prior to July 1, 2033. The loan for this project is subordinated to the existing City loan with
PAHCA, Inc dated January 7, 1991 for the acquisition of the project site, which is discussed earlier in this
section.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
68
NOTE 5 – NOTES AND LOANS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Lytton Gardens Assisted Living
In June 2005, the City loaned $101,000 to Community Housing, Inc. to upgrade and modernize the existing
kitchens at the senior residential facility known as Lytton Gardens Assisted Living. The loan is funded
entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds, and bears simple interest of 3 percent. Principal
and interest payments are deferred until July 1, 2035, as long as the borrower continues to comply with
all terms and conditions of the agreement.
Emergency Housing Consortium
In November 2005, the City agreed to loan up to $75,000 to Emergency Housing Consortium to cover
architectural expenses that will be incurred in rehabilitating and expanding the property. The loan is
funded entirely by Community Development Block Grant funds, and bears simple interest of 3 percent.
Principal and interest payments are deferred until July 1, 2035, as long as the borrower continues to
comply with all terms and conditions of the agreement.
Alma Garden Apartments
In March 2006, the City agreed to loan up to $1.2 million to Community Working Group, Inc. to acquire a
10‐unit multi‐family housing complex known as Alma Garden Apartments. The loan is funded entirely by
Community Development Block Grant funds. Principal and interest payments are deferred until July 1,
2061, as long as the borrower complies with all terms and conditions of the agreement.
2811‐2825 Alma Street Acquisition
On October 9, 2011, the City agreed to loan $1.3 million to PAHC Properties Corporation (PAHC) to acquire
properties on Alma Street for the purpose of developing an affordable rental housing project. The loan
bears simple interest of 3 percent, with an option to forgive the loan at maturity as long as PAHC maintains
the affordability restrictions. Provided PAHC is not in default of the agreement, no principal payments
shall be due and interest shall not begin to accrue until the closing of the project’s permanent funding.
Principal and interest payments are payable during the term of the agreement on a “residual receipt”
basis as described in the agreement.
Palo Alto Family Housing, 801 Alma Street
On February 14, 2011, the City agreed to loan Palo Alto Family, LP up to $9.3 million for the purposes of
predevelopment expenses and acquiring certain real property for the Alma Street Affordable Multi‐Family
Rental Housing Project. The loan bears simple interest of 3 percent. Principal and interest are due and
payable during the term of the agreement on a “residual receipt” basis as described in the agreement.
Except in the case of default, all remaining principal and interest shall be payable on the Restriction
Termination Date as defined in the agreement. As of June 30, 2014, the outstanding amount is $6.8
million.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
69
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS
Valuation
Capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is not
available. Contributed capital assets are valued at their estimated fair value on the date contributed. The
City’s policy is to capitalize all assets when costs are equal to or exceed $5,000 and the useful life exceeds
one year. Infrastructure assets are capitalized when costs are equal to or exceed $100,000.
Proprietary fund capital assets are recorded at cost including significant interest costs incurred under
restricted tax‐exempt borrowings, which finance the construction of capital assets. These interest costs,
net of interest earned on investment of proceeds of such borrowings, are capitalized and added to the
cost of capital assets during the construction period. Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred.
The City has recorded all its public domain capital assets, consisting of roadway and recreation and open
space, in its government‐wide financial statements. GASB Statement No. 34 requires that all capital assets
with limited useful lives be depreciated over their estimated useful lives. Alternatively, the “modified
approach” may be used for certain capital assets. Depreciation is not provided under this approach, but
all expenditures on these assets are expensed unless they are additions or improvements. The City has
elected to use the depreciation method for its capital assets. The purpose of depreciation is to spread the
cost of capital assets equitably among all users over the life of those assets. The amount charged to
depreciation expense each year represents that year’s pro rata share of the cost of capital assets.
Depreciation of capital assets is charged as an expense against operations each year and the total amount
of depreciation taken over the years, called accumulated depreciation, is reported on the statement of
net position as a reduction in the book value of capital assets.
Depreciation is calculated using the straight line method, which means the cost of the asset is divided by
its expected useful life in years, and the result is charged to expense each year until the asset is fully
depreciated. The City has assigned the useful lives listed below to capital assets.
Governmental Activities Years
Buildings and structures 20 ‐ 30
Equipment:
Computer equipment 3 ‐ 5
Office machinery and equipment 5
Machinery and equipment 5 ‐ 30
Intangible assets ‐ software 5‐20
Roadway network:
5 ‐ 40
Recreation and open space network:
25 ‐ 40
Business‐type Activities
Buildings and structures 25 ‐ 60
Vehicles and heavy equipment 3 ‐ 10
Machinery and equipment 10 ‐ 50
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems 10 ‐ 100
Includes pavement, striping and legends, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, parking lots,
traffic signage, and bridges
Includes major park facilities, park trails, bike paths and medians
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
70
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
General Capital Assets
Changes in the City’s general capital assets during the year ended June 30, 2014 were (in thousands):
Balance Balance
July 1, 2013 Additions Retirements Transfers June 30, 2014
Governmental activities
Nondepreciable capital assets:
Land and improvements 79,047$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 79,047$
Street trees 15,319 102 (244) ‐ 15,177
Intangible assets ‐ Easement 3,567 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,567
Construction in progress 69,218 37,035 (3,258) (13,189) 89,806
Total nondepreciable capital assets 167,151 37,137 (3,502) (13,189) 187,597
Depreciable capital assets:
Buildings and structures 133,711 95 ‐ 794 134,600
Intangible assets ‐ Software 279 ‐ ‐ ‐ 279
Equipment 10,912 357 ‐ 649 11,918
Roadway network 282,298 ‐ ‐ 9,002 291,300
Recreation and open space network 24,888 ‐ ‐ 2,744 27,632
Total depreciable capital assets 452,088 452 ‐ 13,189 465,729
Less accumulated depreciation:
Buildings and structures (68,191) (3,171) ‐ ‐ (71,362)
Intangible assets ‐ Software (76) (65) ‐ ‐ (141)
Equipment (7,108) (386) ‐ ‐ (7,494)
Roadway network (120,383) (6,734) ‐ ‐ (127,117)
Recreation and open space network (8,089) (873) ‐ ‐ (8,962)
Total accumulated depreciation (203,847) (11,229) ‐ ‐ (215,076)
Depreciable capital assets, net 248,241 (10,777) ‐ 13,189 250,653
Internal service fund capital assets
Construction in progress 1,413 1,683 (2) ‐ 3,094
Equipment 50,919 1,975 (1,764) ‐ 51,130
Less accumulated depreciation (38,782) (2,544) 1,455 ‐ (39,871)
Net internal service fund capital assets 13,550 1,114 (311) ‐ 14,353
Governmental activities capital assets, net 428,942$ 27,474$ (3,813)$ ‐$ 452,603$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
71
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Business‐type Capital Assets
Changes in the City’s enterprise fund capital assets during the year ended June 30, 2014 were
(in thousands):
Balance Balance
July 1, 2013 Additions Retirements Transfers June 30, 2014
Business‐type activities
Nondepreciable capital assets:
Land and improvements 4,971$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 4,971$
Construction in progress 118,176 41,058 ‐ (37,053) 122,181
Total nondepreciable capital assets 123,147 41,058 ‐ (37,053) 127,152
Depreciable capital assets:
Buildings and structures 33,380 ‐ ‐ 731 34,111
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems 642,149 63 (2,676) 36,322 675,858
Total depreciable capital assets 675,529 63 (2,676) 37,053 709,969
Less accumulated depreciation:
Buildings and structures (9,199) (649) ‐ ‐ (9,848)
Transmission, distribution and treatment systems (267,224) (16,869) 2,315 ‐ (281,778)
Total accumulated depreciation (276,423) (17,518) 2,315 ‐ (291,626)
Depreciable capital assets, net 399,106 (17,455) (361) 37,053 418,343
Business‐type activities capital assets, net 522,253$ 23,603$ (361)$ ‐$ 545,495$
Capital Asset Contributions
Some capital assets may be acquired using federal and state grant funds, or they may be contributed by
developers or other governments. Generally accepted accounting principles require that these
contributions be accounted for as revenues at the time the capital assets are contributed.
Depreciation Allocation
Depreciation expense was charged to functions and programs based on their usage of the related assets.
The amount allocated to each function or program is as follows (in thousands):
Governmental Activities Business‐type Activities
City Manager 42$ Water 1,759$
City Attorney 2 Electric 7,498
Administrative Services 1 Fiber Optics 303
Community Services 1,117 Gas 2,313
Public Safety 331 Wastewater Collection 1,907
Public Works 9,225 Wastewater Treatment 2,855
Planning and Community Environment 135 Refuse 13
Library 376 Storm Drainage 870
Internal Service Funds 2,544
13,773$ 17,518$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
72
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Construction In Progress
Construction in progress as of June 30, 2014 is comprised of the following (in thousands):
Governmental Activities
Expended to
June 30, 2014
Mitchell Park Library & Community Center 40,218$
Main Library Construction & Improvements 18,366
Art Center Electrical & Mech Upgrades 8,015
Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements 6,528
Telephone Infrastructure and Network 1,698
California Avenue‐Transit Hub Corridor 1,471
VRF 1,396
Transportation and Parking Improvements 996
Furniture/Technology for Library Bond Prj 969
Street Maintenance 969
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass 961
Eleanor Pardee Park Improvement 738
Golf Reconfig and Baylands Athletic Center 737
Curb & Gutter Improvement 662
Library & Comm Center Temp Facilities 630
Magical Bridge Playground 613
Park Restroom Installation 569
City Hall First Floor Renovation 524
Other Construction In Progress 6,840
Total Governmental Activiites Construction In Progress 92,900$
Business‐type Activites
Expended to
June 30, 2014
Water system extension replacements and improvements 40,590$
Gas system extension replacements and improvements 7,306
Sewer system rehabilitation and extensions 5,256
Electric distribution system improvements 4,503
Water quality control plant equipment replacement and lab facilities 3,713
Storm drainage structural and water quality improvements 2,239
Other electrical improvements projects 821
Other construction in progress 57,753
Total Business‐type Activities Construction In Progress 122,181$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
73
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Construction In Progress
Allocations of business‐type activity administration and general expenses of $11.4 million have been
capitalized and included in amounts expended to June 30, 2014.
Major governmental capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital commitment
of each, are as follows:
California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor ‐ $0.8 million
Main Library ‐ $6.8 million
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center ‐ $5.6 million
Major business‐type capital projects that are currently in progress, and the remaining capital commitment
of each, are as follows:
Seismic water system upgrade for Water Fund ‐ $2.4 million
Gas main replacement project for Gas Fund ‐ $6.3 million
Plant equipment replacement for Wastewater Treatment Fund ‐ $3.5 million
Wastewater Collection Fund rehabilitation/augmentation project ‐ $1.1 million
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS
Long‐Term Obligations
Bond premiums and discounts of long‐term debt issues are amortized over the life of the related debt.
The City’s long‐term debt issues and transactions, other than special assessment debt discussed in Note 8,
are as follows (in thousands):
Original Balance Balance Current
Issue Amount July 1, 2013 Additions Retirements June 30, 2014 Portion
Governmental Activities Debt:
General Long‐Term Obligations:
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements,
Certificates of Participation,
2 ‐ 4%, due 03/01/2022
3,555$ 1,560$ ‐$ 130$ 1,430$ 145$
General Obligation Bonds 2010,
2 ‐ 5%, due 08/01/2040
55,305 53,540 ‐ 1,020 52,520 1,050
2011 Lease‐Purchase Agreement 3,222 2,400 ‐ 374 2,026 383
General Obligation Bonds 2013A,
2 ‐ 5%, due 08/01/2043
20,695 20,695 ‐ ‐ 20,695 370
Add: Unamortized Premium ‐ 4,400 ‐ 158 4,242 158
Total Governmental Activities Debt 82,777$ 82,595$ ‐$ 1,682$ 80,913$ 2,106$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
74
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
Original Issue
Amount
Balanace
July 1, 2013, as
reclassed Additions Retirements
Balance,
June 30, 2014
Current
'Portion
Business‐type Activities Debt:
Enterprise Long‐Term Obligations:
Utility Revenue Bonds
1995 Series A,
5.00‐6.25%, due 06/01/2020
8,640$ 3,779$ ‐$ 445$ 3,334$ 475$
1999 Refunding,
3.25‐5.25%, due 06/01/2024
17,735 11,585 ‐ 605 10,980 635
2009 Series A,
1.80‐5.95%, due 06/01/2035
35,015 32,500 ‐ 885 31,615 915
2011 Refunding,
1.80‐5.95%, due 06/01/2035
17,225 15,240 ‐ 945 14,295 975
Add: Unamortized Premium ‐ 980 ‐ 70 910 ‐
Energy Tax Credit Bonds
2007 Series A, 0%, Due 12/15/2021 1,500 900 ‐ 100 800 100
Less: Unamortized Discount (49) ‐ (6) (43) ‐
State Water Resources Loans
2007, 0%, due 06/30/2029 9,000 7,200 ‐ 450 6,750 450
2009, 2.6%, due 11/30/2030 8,500 7,909 ‐ 350 7,559 359
Total Business‐type Activities Debt 97,615$ 80,044$ ‐$ 3,844$ 76,200$ 3,909$
Description of Long‐Term Debt Issues
2002B Downtown Parking Improvements Project Certificates of Participation (COPs) – On January 16,
2002, the City issued $3.6 million of COPs to finance the construction of certain improvements to the non‐
parking area contained in the City’s Bryant/Florence Garage complex. Principal payments are due
annually on March 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on March 1 and September 1, and are payable
from lease revenues received by the Corporation from the City’s available funds.
2010 General Obligation Bonds (GO bonds) – On June 30, 2010, the City issued $55.3 million of GO bonds
to finance costs for constructing a new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, as well as making
substantial improvements to the Main Library and the Downtown Library. Principal payments are due
annually on August 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on February 1 and August 1 from 2 percent to
5 percent, and are payable from property tax revenues.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $52.5 million
principal and $40.6 million interest as the remaining debt service on the GO bonds, which is scheduled to
occur in FY 2041.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
75
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
2013A General Obligation Bonds – On June 30, 2013, the City issued $20.7 million of GO bonds to finance
costs for constructing a new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, as well as making substantial
improvements to the Main Library and the Downtown Library. Principal payments are due annually on
August 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on February 1 and August 1 from 2 percent to 5 percent,
and are payable from property tax revenues.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $20.7 million
principal and $15.2 million interest as the remaining debt service on the GO bonds, which is scheduled to
occur in FY 2044.
2011 Lease‐Purchase Agreement – On August 2, 2011, the City entered into a master lease‐purchase
agreement with JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. to finance redemption of the 1998 Golf Course COPs. The
lease is secured by a first priority security interest in twenty‐one Fire Department emergency vehicles.
Lease proceeds were $3.2 million. Principal payments are due annually on September 1 and interest
payments are due semi‐annually on September 1 and March 1 at a rate of 2.49 percent, payable from
General Fund revenues.
1995 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A – The City issued $8.6 million of Utility Revenue Bonds on February
1, 1995 to finance certain extensions and improvements to the City’s Storm Drainage and Surface Water
System. The Bonds are special obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of and
lien upon the revenues derived by the City from the funds, services and facilities of all Enterprise Funds
except the Refuse Services Fund, Fiber Optics Fund and Airport Fund. Principal payments are payable
annually on June 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1. A $2.9 million 6.3
percent term bond is due June 1, 2020.
As required by the Indenture, the City established a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds (the “Reserve
Account”), with a minimum funding level requirement in the Reserve Account (the “Reserve
Requirement”). At the time it issued the Bonds, the City satisfied the Reserve Requirement with a deposit
into the Reserve Account of a surety bond (the “Surety Bond”) in the amount of $685,340 issued by Ambac
Indemnity Corporation (renamed to Ambac Assurance Corporation in 1997).
On May 1, 2013, Ambac Financial emerged from bankruptcy protection, which had been filed under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in November 2010. Ambac Assurance remains subject to rehabilitation
proceedings undertaken by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. No assurance can be
made regarding the claims paying ability of Ambac Assurance on the surety bonds described above.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $3.3 million principal
and $0.8 million interest as the remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in FY
2020. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings,
amounted to $243.9 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation
or amortization, amounted to $179.4 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $64.5
million, which represented coverage of 94.7 times over the $0.7 million in debt service.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
76
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
1999 Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds – The City issued $17.7 million of Utility Revenue Bonds on
June 1, 1999, to refund the 1990 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and the 1992 Utility Revenue
Bonds, Series A, and to finance rehabilitation of the two Wastewater Treatment sludge incinerators. The
1990 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series A and the 1992 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A, were
subsequently retired.
The 1999 Bonds are special obligations of the City payable solely from and secured by a pledge of and lien
upon certain net revenues derived by the City’s sewer system and its storm and surface water system (the
“Storm Drain System”). As of June 30, 2001, the 1999 Bonds had been allocated to and were repayable
from net revenues of the following enterprise funds: Wastewater Collection (10.2 percent), Wastewater
Treatment (64.6 percent) and Storm Drainage (25.2 percent). Principal payments are payable annually on
June 1 and interest payments semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1. A $3.1 million 5.3 percent term
bond, and a $5.1 million 5.3 percent term bond are due June 1, 2021 and 2024, respectively.
As required by the Indenture, the City established a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds (the “Reserve
Account”), with a minimum funding level requirement in the Reserve Account (the “Reserve
Requirement”). At the time it issued the Bonds, the City satisfied the Reserve Requirement with a deposit
into the Reserve Account of a surety bond (the “Surety Bond”) in the amount of $1,647,300 issued by
Ambac Indemnity Corporation (renamed to Ambac Assurance Corporation in 1997).
On May 1, 2013, Ambac Financial emerged from bankruptcy protection, which had been filed under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in November 2010. Ambac Assurance remains subject to rehabilitation
proceedings undertaken by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. No assurance can be
made regarding the claims paying ability of Ambac Assurance on the surety bonds described above.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $11.0 million
principal and $3.8 million interest as the remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur
in FY 2024. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings,
amounted to $41.1 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation
or amortization, amounted to $30.9 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $10.2
million, which represents coverage of 8.44 times over the $1.2 million in debt service.
2007 Electric System Clean Renewable Energy Tax Credit Bonds, Series A – In October 2007, the City
issued $1.5 million of Electric Utility Clean Renewable Energy Tax Credit Bonds (CREBs), 2007 Series A, to
finance the City’s photovoltaic solar panel project. The CREBs do not bear interest. In lieu of receiving
periodic interest payments, bondholders are allowed annual federal income tax credits in an amount
equal to a credit rate for such CREBs multiplied by the outstanding principal amount of the CREBs owned
by the bondholders. The CERBs are payable solely from and secured solely by a pledge of the Net Revenues
of the Electric system and the other funds pledged under the Indenture.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
77
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
The pledge of future Electric Fund Net Revenues ends upon repayment of the $0.8 million remaining debt
service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in FY 2022. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including
operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings, amounted to $125.0 million; operating costs,
including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or amortization, amounted to $96.3 million.
Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $28.7 million, which represented coverage of
287 times over the $0.1 million in debt service.
2009 Water Revenue Bonds, Series A – On October 6, 2009, the City issued $35.0 million of Water
Revenue Bonds to finance certain improvements to the City’s water utility system. Principal payments are
due annually on June 1, and interest payments are due semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1 from
1.80 percent to 5.95 percent. The 2009 Revenue Bonds are secured by net revenues generated by the
Water Services Fund. The 2009 Bonds were issued as bonds designated as “Direct Payment Build America
Bonds” under the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Build America
Bonds”). The City expects to receive a cash subsidy payment from the United States Treasury equal to 35
percent of the interest payable on the 2009 Bonds. The lien of the 1995 Bonds on the Net Revenues is
senior to the lien on Net Revenues securing the 2009 Bonds and the 2011 Bonds. The City received subsidy
payments amounting to $549 thousand, which represents 33.5 percent of the interest payments due on
December 1 and June 1.
The pledge of future Net Revenues for the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $31.6 million
principal and $22.2 million interest as the remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to
occur in FY 2035. For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest
earnings, amounted to $41.3 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest,
depreciation or amortization, amounted to $27.9 million. Net Revenues available for debt service
amounted to $13.4 million, which represented coverage of 5.22 times over the $2.6 million in debt service.
2011 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds – On September 8, 2011, the City issued $17.2 million in Lease
Revenue Bonds (2011 Bonds) to refund the outstanding 2002 Series A Utility Revenue Bonds (2002 Bonds)
on a current basis. The 2002 Bonds were issued to finance improvement to the City’s municipal water
utility system and the natural gas utility system. Principal of the 2011 Bonds is payable annually on June
1, and interest on the 2011 Bonds is payable semi‐annually on June 1 and December 1. The 2011 Bonds
are secured by net revenues generated by the Water Services and Gas Services Funds.
The pledge of future Net Revenues of the above bonds ends upon repayment of the $14.3 million principal
and $3.2 million interest as remaining debt service on the bonds, which is scheduled to occur in FY 2035.
For FY 2014, Net Revenues, including operating revenues and non‐operating interest earnings, amounted
to $77.7 million; operating costs, including operating expenses but not interest, depreciation or
amortization, amounted to $52.2 million. Net Revenues available for debt service amounted to $25.5
million, which represented coverage of 17.6 times over the $1.5 million in debt service.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
78
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
2007 State Water Resources Loan – In October 2007, the City approved a $9 million loan agreement with
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to finance the City’s Mountain View/Moffett Area
reclaimed water pipeline project. Under the terms of the contract, the City has agreed to repay $9 million
to the State in exchange for receiving $7.5 million in proceeds to be used to fund the Project. The
difference between the repayment obligation and proceeds amounts to $1.5 million and represents in‐
substance interest on the outstanding balance. Principal payments are payable annually on June 30.
Concurrently with the loan, the City entered into various other agreements including a cost sharing
arrangement with the City of Mountain View. Pursuant to that agreement, City of Mountain View agreed
to finance a portion of the project with a $6 million loan repayable to the City. This loan has been recorded
as “Due from other government agencies” in the accompanying financial statements.
2009 State Water Resources Loan – In October 2009, the City approved an $8.5 million loan agreement
with SWRCB to finance the City’s Ultraviolet Disinfection project. Principal and interest payments are
payable annually on November 30.
Debt Service Requirements (in thousands):
Debt service requirements are shown below for all long‐term debt.
For the Year Ending
June 30 Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total
2015 1,948$ 3,402$ 5,350$ 3,909$ 3,109$ 7,018$
2016 1,995 3,337 5,332 4,049 2,972 7,021
2017 2,066 3,260 5,326 4,198 2,818 7,016
2018 2,156 3,170 5,326 4,363 2,656 7,019
2019 2,251 3,073 5,324 4,533 2,445 6,978
2020‐2024 9,940 14,055 23,995 25,285 9,602 34,887
2025‐2029 11,620 11,616 23,236 15,291 5,471 20,762
2030‐2034 14,625 8,571 23,196 11,285 2,649 13,934
2035‐2039 18,160 4,938 23,098 2,420 144 2,564
2040‐2044 11,910 887 12,797 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 76,671$ 56,309$ 132,980$ 75,333$ 31,866$ 107,199$
Governmental Activities Business‐Type Activities
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
79
NOTE 7 – GENERAL LONG‐TERM OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
Debt Call Provisions
Long‐term debt as of June 30, 2014 is callable on the following terms and conditions:
Initial Call Date
Governmental Activities Long‐Term Debt
2002B Certificates of Participation 03/01/11 (2)
2010 General Obligation Bonds
$6.595 million due 08/01/2032 08/01/31 (3)
$4.890 million due 08/01/2034 08/01/33 (3)
$17.725 million due 08/01/2040 08/01/35 (3)
Business‐Type Activities Long‐Term Debt
Utility Revenue Bonds
1999 Refunding 06/01/09 (1)
2011 Refunding 06/01/21 (1)
(1) Callable in inverse numerical order of maturity at par plus a premium of 2 percent beginning on the
initial call date. The call price declines subsequent to the initial date.
(2) Callable in any order specified by the City at par plus a premium of 1 percent beginning on the initial
call date. The call price declines subsequent to the initial date.
(3) Callable in any order specified by the City at par value plus any accrued interest beginning on the
initial call date.
Leasing Arrangements
COPs and Capital Leases are issued for the purpose of financing the construction or acquisition of projects
defined in each leasing arrangement. Projects are leased to the City for lease payments which, together
with unspent proceeds of the leasing arrangement, will be sufficient to meet the debt service obligations
of the leasing arrangement. At the termination of the leasing arrangement, title to the project will pass to
the City.
Leasing arrangements are similar to debt in that they allow investors to participate in a share of
guaranteed payments made by the City. Because they are similar to debt, the present value of the total
payments to be made by the City is recorded as long‐term debt. The City’s leasing arrangements are
included in long‐term obligations discussed above.
Conduit Financing
On December 15, 1996, the City acted as a financial intermediary in order to assist Lytton Gardens Health
Care Center in issuing Insured Revenue Refunding Bonds. The Bonds are payable solely from revenues
collected by Lytton Gardens Health Care Center. The City has not included these bonds in its basic financial
statements since it is not legally or morally obligated for the repayment of the bonds. At June 30, 2014,
the amount of bonds outstanding was $3.2 million.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
80
NOTE 8 – SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT
Special Assessment Debt with no City Commitment
The California Avenue Parking Assessment District No. 92‐13 issued Assessment Bonds of 1993, but the
City has no legal or moral liability with respect to the payment of this debt, which is secured only by
assessments on the properties in this District. Therefore, this debt is not included in Governmental
Activities long‐term debt of the City. At June 30, 2014, the District’s outstanding debt amounted to
$330 thousand.
On February 29, 2012, the University Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District issued Limited
Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds (2012 Bonds), but the City has no legal or moral liability with
respect to the payment of this debt, which is secured only by assessments on properties in this District.
Therefore, this debt is not included in Governmental Activities long‐term debt of the City. At
June 30, 2014, the District’s outstanding debt amounted to $29.4 million. The proceeds from the 2012
Bonds, combined with available Assessment Funds, were used to redeem the outstanding University
Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District Series 2001‐A and Series 2002‐A Bonds.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
81
NOTE 9 – LANDFILL CLOSURE AND POST‐CLOSURE CARE
State and federal laws and regulations require the City to close the Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Site (Palo
Alto Landfill) after it stops accepting waste by constructing a final cover on top of the approximately 126
acre landfill to cap the wastes, and by performing certain maintenance and monitoring activities at the
site for a minimum of thirty years after closure. The first section of the landfill closed in 1991 was a 29‐
acre section designated “Phase I” costing $1.6 million. Phase I was subsequently converted to a pastoral
park (Byxbee Park) and opened to the public. The remaining sections of the landfill are designated as
Phase IIA (22.5 acres closed in 1992 at a cost of $0.9 million), Phase IIB (23.2 acres closed in 2000 at a cost
of $1.2 million) and Phase IIC, a 51.2 acre active area that is currently filled to capacity and ceased
accepting waste after July 28, 2011. Phase IIC closure is under way and is expected to be completed by
late summer 2015. The 30 years of post‐closure maintenance costs will be paid after the state certifies
the Phase IIC closure.
In accordance with state regulations, a final closure and post‐closure maintenance plan was approved by
state and local regulatory agencies in 2014. As part of this plan, the City’s consultant updated cost
forecasts for both the remaining Phase IIC closure and for the 30 year post‐closure maintenance activities.
Landfill closure and post‐closure liabilities for FY 2014 and FY 2013 were $11.4 and $11.2 million,
respectively. Changes in the liability for landfill closure and post‐closure costs are the result of an annual
inflation factor that is applied to the estimated costs.
The City is required by state and federal laws and regulations to make annual funding contributions to
finance closure and post‐closure care. The City’s financial assurance for the $5.5 million post‐closure
maintenance is a pledge of revenue agreement with California Integrated Waste Management Board. The
$5.9 million closure liability is under the enterprise fund mechanism. The City is in compliance with these
requirements for the year ended June 30, 2014.
The landfill closure balance as of June 30, 2014 comprised the following (in thousands):
Funding Mechanism
Closure 5,907$ Cash on hand
Post‐closure care 5,456 Future revenues
Balance 11,363$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
82
NOTE 10 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES
Net Position
Net Position is the excess of the City’s assets and deferred outflows of resources over its liabilities. Net
position is divided into three categories that are described below:
Net Investment in Capital Assets describes the portion of net position, which is represented by current net
book value of the City’s capital assets, less the outstanding balance of any debt issued to finance these
assets.
Restricted describes the portion of net position that is reduced by liabilities related to restricted assets.
Generally a liability relates to restricted assets if the asset results from a resource flow that also results in
the recognition of a liability or if the liability will be liquidated with the restricted assets reported.
Unrestricted describes the portion of net position which is not restricted as to use.
Fund Balances
As prescribed by GASB Statement No. 54, governmental funds report fund balances in classifications based
primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which
amounts in the funds can be spent. Fund balances for governmental funds are made up of the following:
Nonspendable – This category is comprised of amounts that are: (a) not in spendable form, or (b) legally
or contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items
that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example: prepaid items, and long‐term notes
receivable. The corpus of the permanent fund is contractually required to be maintained intact.
Restricted – This category is comprised of amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes
stipulated by external resource providers, constitutionally or through enabling legislation. Restrictions
may effectively be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers.
Committed – This category is comprised of amounts that can only be used for the specific purposes
determined by the action that constitutes the most binding constraint (i.e. ordinance) of the City’s highest
level of decision‐making authority, the City Council. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the
City taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally.
Assigned – This category is comprised of amounts intended to be used by the City for specific purposes
that are neither restricted nor committed. Intent is expressed by the City Council or the City Manager, to
whom the City Council has delegated the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes.
Unassigned –This category is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all amounts not
contained in the other classifications. Unassigned amounts are technically available for any purpose.
Other governmental funds may report negative unassigned fund balance, which occurs when a fund has
a residual deficit after allocation of fund balance to the nonspendable, restricted or committed categories.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
83
NOTE 10 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)
The fund balances of all governmental funds are presented by the above mentioned categories on the
face of the financial statements. In circumstances when an expenditure is made for a purpose for which
amounts are available in multiple fund balance categories, fund balance is depleted in the order of
restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned.
The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) is established by authority of the General Fund
Reserve Policy, which is approved by the City Council and included in the City’s annual adopted budget.
The BSR is maintained in the range of 15 to 20 percent of General Fund expenditures and operating
transfers, with a target of 18.5 percent. Any reserve level below 15 percent requires City Council approval.
At the discretion of the City Manager, a reserve balance above 18.5 percent may be transferred to the
Infrastructure Reserve within the Capital Projects Fund. The purpose of the General Fund BSR is to fund
unbudgeted, unanticipated one‐time costs. The BSR is not meant to fund ongoing, recurring General Fund
expenditures.
The Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve (IR) is the portion of capital projects assigned fund
balance not yet adopted for a specific project. It does not include potential outside funding for adopted
projects.
As of June 30, 2014 total outstanding encumbrances related to governmental activities were $6.4 million
for the General Fund, $28.1 million for the Capital Projects Fund, and $0.7 million for the Special Revenue
Funds. General Fund encumbrances are reserved for the following governmental activities: Planning &
Community Environment $1.8 million, Public Works $1.1 million, Community Services $1.2 million, Public
Safety $1.0 million, Library $0.7 million, and administrative departments $1.7 million.
Enterprise Funds
At June 30, 2014, Enterprise Fund unrestricted net position (in thousands) were as follows:
Water Electric Fiber Optics Gas
Wastewater
Collection
Wastewater
Treatment Refuse
Storm
Drainage Airport Total
Unrestricted
Rate stabilization
Supply ‐$ 61,679$ ‐$ 5,924$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 67,603$
Distribution ‐ 8,369 ‐ 10,057 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18,426
Operations 20,132 ‐ 18,415 ‐ 7,285 5,483 (1,640) 1,601 (1,039) 50,237
20,132 70,048 18,415 15,981 7,285 5,483 (1,640) 1,601 (1,039) 136,266
Emergency plant replacement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,980 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,980
Electric special projects ‐ 51,838 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51,838
Reappropriations 10,847 8,715 301 1,488 6,858 2,118 61 4,493 50 34,931
Commitments 5,148 5,737 217 9,817 1,454 4,578 985 1,714 111 29,761
Underground loan ‐ 734 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 734
Notes and loans ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 559 ‐ ‐ ‐ 559
Landfill corrective action ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 701 ‐ ‐ 701
Public benefit program ‐ 2,064 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,064
Central Valley Project 329 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 329
Geng Road Reserve ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 267 ‐ ‐ 267
Total 37,127$ 140,465$ 19,933$ 28,286$ 16,597$ 14,718$ 374$ 7,808$ (878)$ 264,430$
The City Council has set aside unrestricted net position for general contingencies, and future capital and
debt service expenditures including operating and capital contingencies for unusual or emergency
expenditures.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
84
NOTE 10 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)
Internal Service Funds
At June 30, 2014, Internal Service Funds unrestricted net position (in thousands) were as follows:
Vehicle
Replacement
and
Maintenance Technology
Printing and
Mailing
Services
General
Benefits
Workers'
Compensation
Insurance
Program
General
Liabilities
Insurance
Program
Retiree Health
Benefits Total
Unrestricted net position:
Commitments 1,689$ 1,990$ 87$ 47$ 77$ 25$ ‐$ 3,915$
Future catastrophic losses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 124 1,560 ‐ 1,684
Retiree health care ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 26,837 26,837
Capital projects 3,458 6,651 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,109
Available 6,358 10,281 (83) 1,397 ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,953
Total 11,505$ 18,922$ 4$ 1,444$ 201$ 1,585$ 26,837$ 60,498$
Commitments represent the portion of net position set aside for open purchase orders.
Future catastrophic losses represent the portion of net position to be used for unforeseen future losses.
Retiree health care represents the portion of net position set aside to defer future costs of retiree health
care coverage.
Capital projects represent the portion of net position set aside for adopted capital projects.
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS
CalPERS Safety and Miscellaneous Employees’ Plans
Substantially all permanent City employees are eligible to participate in pension plans offered by California
Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), an agent for multiple employer defined benefit pension
plans which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member
employers. CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and
death benefits to Plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. The City’s employees
participate in the Safety (police and fire) and Miscellaneous (all other) Employee Plans. Benefit provisions
under both Plans are established by State statute and City resolution. Benefits are based on years of
credited service equal to one year of full‐time employment, age at retirement and final compensation
salary. Funding contributions for both Plans are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30
by CalPERS.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
85
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (Continued)
The Plans’ provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2014, as determined by the valuation dated June 30,
2011, are summarized as follows:
Safety Plan Safety Plan Safety Plan
Fire Fighters, Fire Chiefs Association, Fire Fighters,Police Officers,
Police Officers, Police Management Fire Chiefs Association Police Management
Hire Date Before 6/8/12 Hire Date on or After 6/8/12 Hire Date on or After 12/8/12
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life
Full retirement age 50 551 551
Monthly benefits, as a % of annual salary 3%3%3%
Required employee contribution rates 9% 9% 9%
Required employer contribution rates 34.716% 34.716% 34.716%
1 Employees can retire at age 50 with reduced benefits of 2.4% ‐ 2.88%.
Miscellaneous Plan Miscellaneous Plan
Hire Date Before 7/17/10 Hire Date on or After 7/17/10
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service
Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life
Full retirement age2 55 60
Monthly benefits, as a % of annual salary2 2.7%2.0% ‐ 2.418%
Required employee contribution rates 8%7%
Required employer contribution rates 25.536%25.536%
2 Employees can retire at age 50 with reduced benefits of 2.0% ‐ 2.56% if hired before 7/17/10, or 1.092% ‐ 1.874% if hired on or after 7/17/10.
Contributions are collected through payroll deductions and the City remits those contributions to CalPERS.
CalPERS determines contribution requirements using a modification of the Entry Age Normal Method.
Under this method, the City’s total normal benefit cost for each employee from date of hire to date of
retirement is expressed as a level percentage of the related total payroll cost. Normal benefit cost under
this method is the level amount the employer must pay annually to fund an employee’s projected
retirement benefit. This level percentage of payroll method is used to amortize any unfunded actuarial
liabilities. The actuarial assumptions used to compute contribution requirements are also used to
compute the actuarial accrued liability. The City does not have a net pension obligation since it pays these
actuarially required contributions monthly.
Actuarially determined employer and employee contributions for all plans for fiscal years 2014, 2013 and
2012 were $31.9, $28.6 and $27.7 million, respectively. The City made these contributions as required,
together with certain immaterial amounts required as the result of the payment of overtime and other
additional employee compensation.
The City uses the actuarially determined percentages of payroll to calculate and pay contributions to
CalPERS. This results in no net pension obligations or unpaid contributions.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
86
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (Continued)
Annual Pension Costs representing the payment of annual required contributions determined by CalPERS
for the last three fiscal years were as follows (in thousands):
Fiscal Year Ended
Annual
Pension Cost
(APC)
Percent of
APC
Contributed
Net Pension
Obligation
Safety Plan
June 30, 2012 7,324$ 100%‐$
June 30, 2013 7,871 100%‐
June 30, 2014 8,323 100%‐
Miscellaneous Plan
June 30, 2012 15,687$ 100%‐$
June 30, 2013 15,801 100%‐
June 30, 2014 16,209 100%‐
CalPERS uses the 15 year smoothed market method of valuing the Plan assets. An investment rate of
return of 7.50 percent is assumed, including inflation at 2.75 percent. Annual salary increases are assumed
to vary by duration of service. Changes in liability due to plan amendments, changes in actuarial
assumptions, or changes in actuarial methods are amortized as a level percentage of payroll on a closed
basis over twenty years. Investment gains and losses are tracked and amortized over a 30 year rolling
period, except for special gains and losses in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 which are being amortized
over fixed and declining 30 year periods.
The Schedule of Funding Progress presents multi‐year trend information about whether the actuarial
value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for
benefits. The actuarial value (which differs from market value) and funding progress of the Plans over the
most recently available three years is set forth below at their actuarial valuation date of June 30 (in
thousands):
Safety Plan:
Valuation Date
June 30,
Entry Age
Accrued
Liability
Value of
Assets
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
Unfunded
Liability as a
% of Payroll
2011 313,184$ 254,305$ 58,879$ 81.2% 22,774$ 258.5%
2012 327,608 258,661 68,947 79.0% 20,920 329.6%
2013 338,666 233,417 105,249 68.9% 21,258 495.1%
Miscellaneous Plan:
Valuation Date
June 30,
Entry Age
Accrued
Liability
Value of
Assets
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
Unfunded
Liability as a
% of Payroll
2011 552,716$ 434,985$ 117,731$ 78.7% 60,298$ 195.2%
2012 576,182 447,819 128,363 77.7% 62,910 204.0%
2013 602,540 412,228 190,312 68.4% 64,440 295.3%
Actuarial
Actuarial
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
87
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (Continued)
The significant actuarial assumptions adopted by CalPERS’ Board of Administration that were used to
prepare the City’s actuarial valuations for both the Safety and Miscellaneous Plans are as follows:
Safety Plan
Valuation Date 6/30/2013* 6/30/2011**
Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method
Amortization Method Level percent of payroll Level percent of payroll
Average Remaining Period Not available 30 Years as of the Valuation Date
Asset Valuation Method Market Value 15 Year Smoothed Market
Actuarial Assumptions:
Investment Rate of Return 7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
Projected Salary Increases 3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
Inflation 2.75%2.75%
Payroll Growth 3.00%3.00%
Individual Salary Growth A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
Miscellaneous Plan
Valuation Date 6/30/2013* 6/30/2011**
Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method Entry Age Normal Cost Method
Amortization Method Level percent of payroll Level percent of payroll
Average Remaining Period Not available 21 Years as of the Valuation Date
Asset Valuation Method Market Value 15 Year Smoothed Market
Actuarial Assumptions:
Investment Rate of Return 7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
7.50% (net of administrative
expenses)
Projected Salary Increases 3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
3.30% to 14.20% depending on age,
service, and type of employment
Inflation 2.75% 2.75%
Payroll Growth 3.00% 3.00%
Individual Salary Growth A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
A merit scale varying by duration of
employment coupled with an
assumed annual inflation growth of
2.75% and an annual production
growth of 0.25%.
* The June 30, 2013 valuations, which are the most recent valuations, were used to disclose the funded status.
** The June 30, 2011 valuations were used to determine the contribution requirements for FY 2014.
Audited annual financial statements and six‐year trend information are available from CalPERS at P.O. Box
942703, Sacramento, CA 94229‐2709.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
88
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS
In addition to providing pension benefits, the City participates in the California Public Employees’ Medical
and Health Care Act program to provide certain health care benefits for retired employees. Employees
who retire directly from the City are eligible for retiree health benefits if they retire on or after age 50
with 5 years of service and are receiving a monthly pension from CalPERS. Details of benefits provided to
retirees are noted in the following tables:
Unit
Hired
Before
Retiree
Coverage1
Dependent
Coverage
Retired on
or After
Retiree
Contribution
Management & Professional2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 5/1/2011 10%
Police Management2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 5/1/2011 10%
Fire Fighters2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 12/1/2011 10%
Fire Chiefs Association2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 1/1/2013 10%
SEIU 1/1/2005 100% 100% 5/1/2011 Flat rate4
Police Officers3 1/1/2006 100% 100% N/A 0%
Utilities Managers & Professional2 1/1/2004 100% 100% 5/1/2011 10%
2 Effective 1/1/2007 plan capped at the second highest CalPERS Bay Area Basic plan premium.
3 Effective 3/1/2009 plan capped at the second highest CalPERS Bay Area Basic plan premium.
4 Effective 4/1/2014 City pays $688 for employee, $1,375 for employee +1, $1,788 for family.
Unit
Hired on or
After
Retiree
Coverage1
Dependent
Coverage2
Management & Professional 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Police Management 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Fire Fighters 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Fire Chiefs Association 1/1/2004 50%‐100% Max. 90%
SEIU 1/1/2005 50%‐100% Max. 90%
Police Officers 1/1/2006 50%‐100% Max. 90%
specified employer contribution, with the City portion increasing by 5% for each additional year of service credit.
2 Maximun of 90% once employee completes 20 years of service.
1 100% of benefits if the employee has five years CalPERS service credit and the employee retired from the City.
1 Employees with ten years of CalPERS service, at least five of which are at the City of Palo Alto, receive 50% of the
Retiree contributions for units with the following hire dates are determined by Government Code
Section 22893, 20 year graduated schedule:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
89
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Continued)
During FY 2008, the City elected to participate in an irrevocable trust to provide a funding mechanism for
retiree health benefits. The Trust, California Employers’ Retirees Benefit Trust (CERBT), is administrated
by CalPERS and managed by a separately appointed board, which is not under control of the City Council.
This Trust is not considered a component unit of the City.
Funding Policy and Actuarial Assumptions
The City’s policy is to prefund these benefits by accumulating assets in the Trust Fund discussed above
pursuant to City Council Resolution. The annual required contribution (ARC) was determined as part of a
June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. This is a projected
benefit cost method, which takes into account those benefits that are expected to be earned in the future
as well as those already accrued. The actuarial assumptions include: (a) 7.61 percent investment rate of
return, (b) 3.25 percent projected annual salary increase, (c) actuarial value of assets, (d) inflation rate of
3 percent, and (e) health care cost trend data as noted in the following table:
Year Non‐Medicare Medicare
2013 9.0% 9.4%
2014 8.5% 8.9%
2015 8.0% 8.0%
2016 7.5% 7.8%
2017 7.0% 7.2%
2018 6.5% 6.7%
2019 6.0% 6.1%
2020 5.5% 5.6%
2021+ 5.0% 5.0%
The most current funded status of the plan was determined as part of the June 30, 2013 actuarial
valuation. Actuarial assumptions used for the June 30, 2013 actuarial valuation were the same as those
used for the June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation.
The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that smooth the effects of short‐term
volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets. Actuarial calculations reflect a
long‐term perspective and actuarial valuations involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and
assumptions about the probability of events far into the future. The calculations are based on the types
of benefits provided under the terms of the substantive plan at the time of each valuation and on the
pattern of sharing costs between the City and Plan members to that point. Actuarially determined
amounts are subject to revision at least biannually as results are compared to past expectations and new
estimates are made about the future. The City’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability for retiree health
benefits is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll using a 30 year closed amortization
period.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
90
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Continued)
Generally accepted accounting principles permit assets to be treated as other post employment benefit
(OPEB) assets and deducted from the Actuarial Accrued Liability when such assets are placed in an
irrevocable trust or equivalent arrangement. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City made
contributions and amortized the Net OPEB asset to fund the current year ARC. As a result, the City has
calculated and recorded the Net OPEB Asset, representing the difference between the ARC, amortization
and contributions, as presented below (in thousands):
Annual required contribution 13,035$
Amortization on the Net OPEB Asset 1,989
Interest on the Net OPEB Asset (1,769)
Annual OPEB Cost 13,255
Contributions made:
Contributions to OPEB Trust 6,697
Contributions to Retirees 4,056
City portion of current year premiums paid*3,261
Total contributions made 14,014
Change in Net OPEB Asset 759
Net OPEB Asset, beginning of year 21,851
Net OPEB Asset, end of year 22,610$
* FY 2014 premiums for 905 retirees.
Shortly after year‐end, the City contributed an additional $2.8 million to the Trust.
The Plan’s annual OPEB cost and actual contributions for the past three years ended June 30 are set forth
below (in thousands):
Fiscal Year
Annual OPEB
Cost
Actual
Contribution
Percentage
of OPEB
Cost
Net OPEB
Obligation
(Asset)
June 30, 2012 13,058$ 11,323$ 87% (21,271)$
June 30, 2013 13,194 13,774 104% (21,851)
June 30, 2014 13,255 14,014 106% (22,610)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
91
NOTE 12 – RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS (Continued)
The Schedule of Funding Progress presents multi‐year trend information about whether the actuarial
value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for
benefits. Trend data from the actuarial studies is presented below (in thousands):
Valuation Date
Entry Age
Accrued
Liability
Value of
Assets
Unfunded
Liability
Funded
Ratio
Annual
Covered
Payroll
Unfunded
Liability as a
% of Payroll
January 1, 2011 165,660$ 40,213$ 125,447$ 24.3% 80,664$ 155.5%
June 30, 2011 * 168,053 44,774 123,279 26.6% 81,785 150.7%
June 30, 2013 203,642 60,070 143,572 29.5% 81,785 175.5%
* In accordance with GASB Statement No. 57, the CERBT required all trust participants to use a common valuation date.
Therefore, the City is required to conduct its biennial valuation on June 30, rather than January 1, effective for 2011.
Retiree activities in the City’s Retiree Health Benefit Internal Service Fund consist of the following for the
year ended June 30 (in thousands):
Retiree Health Benefits 2014 2013
Net Position, beginning of year 27,233$ 26,265$
Interest earnings 51 78
Unrealized gain/(loss) on investments 12 (142)
Interdepartmental charges 11,635 12,986
Retiree health benefits (12,094) (11,954)
Net Position, end of year 26,837$ 27,233$
NOTE 13 – DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
City employees may defer a portion of their compensation under City sponsored Deferred Compensation
Plans created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. Under these Plans, participants are
not taxed on the deferred portion of their compensation until distributed to them. Distributions may be
made only at termination, retirement, death or in an emergency as defined by the Plans.
The laws governing deferred compensation plan assets require plan assets to be held by a Trust for the
exclusive benefit of plan participants and their beneficiaries. Since the assets held under these plans are
not the City’s property and are not subject to City control, they have been excluded from these financial
statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
92
NOTE 14 – RISK MANAGEMENT
Coverage
The City provides dental coverage to employees through a City plan, which is administered by a third party
service agent. The City is self‐insured for the dental claims.
The City has a workers’ compensation insurance policy with coverage up to the statutory limit set by the
State of California. The City retains the risk for the first $500,000 in losses for each accident and employee
under this policy.
The City also has public employee dishonesty insurance with a $5,000 deductible and coverage up to
$1.0 million per loss.
The City’s property, boiler, and machinery insurance policy has various deductibles and various coverage
based on the type of property.
The City is a member of the Authority for California Cities Excess Liability (ACCEL), which provides excess
general liability, including auto liability, insurance coverage up to $100 million per occurrence. The City
retains the risk for the first $1.0 million in losses for each occurrence under this policy.
ACCEL was established for the purpose of creating a risk management pool for central California
municipalities. ACCEL is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives of its member
cities. The board controls the operations of ACCEL, including selection of claims management, general
administration and approval of the annual budget.
The City’s deposits with ACCEL equal the ratio of the City’s payroll to the total payrolls of all entities. Actual
surpluses or losses are shared according to a formula developed from overall loss costs and spread to
member entities on a percentage basis after a retrospective rating.
During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City paid $0.8 million to ACCEL for current year coverage.
Audited financial statements are available from ACCEL at 100 Pine Street, 11th Floor, San Francisco,
California 94110.
Claims Liability
The City provides for the uninsured portion of claims and judgments in the General Benefits and Insurance
Internal Service Funds. Claims and judgments, including a provision for claims incurred but not reported,
and claim adjustment expenses are recorded when a loss is deemed probable of assertion and the amount
of the loss is reasonably determinable. As discussed above, the City has coverage for such claims, but it
has retained the risk for the deductible or uninsured portion of these claims.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
93
NOTE 14 – RISK MANAGEMENT (Continued)
The City’s liability for uninsured claims is limited to dental, general liability, and workers’ compensation
claims, as discussed above. Dental liability is based on a percentage of current year actual expense.
General and workers’ compensation liabilities are based on the results of actuarial studies, and include
amounts for claims incurred but not reported as follows as of June 30 (in thousands):
2014 2013
Beginning balance 27,745$ 27,466$
Liability for current and prior fiscal years claims and
claims incurred but not reported (IBNR)3,232 3,531
Claims paid (4,224) (3,252)
Ending balance 26,753$ 27,745$
Current portion 5,665$ 6,663$
Year Ended June 30
The City has not incurred a claim that has exceeded its insurance coverage limits in any of the last three
years, nor have there been any significant reductions in insurance coverage.
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES
General
The City participates in joint ventures through Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) established under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California. As separate legal entities, these JPAs exercise full powers
and authorities within the scope of the related Joint Powers Agreement, including the preparation of
annual budgets, accountability for all funds, the power to make and execute contracts and the right to
sue and be sued. Obligations and liabilities of the JPAs are not those of the City.
Each JPA is governed by a board consisting of representatives from each member agency. Each board
controls the operations of its respective JPA, including selection of management and approval of operating
budgets, independent of any influence by member agencies beyond their representation on the Board.
Northern California Power Agency
The City is a member of Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint powers agency which operates
under a joint powers agreement among fifteen public agencies. The purpose of NCPA is to use the
combined strength of its members to purchase, generate, sell and interchange electric energy and
capacity through the acquisition and use of electrical generation and transmission facilities. Each agency
member has agreed to fund a pro rata share of certain assessments by NCPA and enter into take‐or‐pay
power supply contracts with NCPA. While NCPA is governed by its members, none of its obligations are
those of its members unless expressly assumed by them.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
94
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES (Continued)
During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City incurred expenses totaling $71.7 million for purchased
power and assessments earned by NCPA.
The City’s interest in NCPA projects and reserves, as computed by NCPA, was $7.5 million at June 30, 2014.
This amount represents the City’s portion of funds, which resulted from the settlement with third parties
of issues with financial consequences and reconciliations of several prior years’ budgets for programs. It
is recognized that all the funds credited to the City are linked to the collection of revenue from the City’s
ratepayers, or to the settlement of disputes relating to electric power supply and that the money was
collected from the City’s ratepayers to pay power bills. Additionally, the NCPA Commission identified and
approved the funding of specific reserves for working capital, accumulated employees’ post‐retirement
medical benefits, and billed property taxes for the geothermal project. The Commission also identified a
number of contingent liabilities that may or may not be realized, the cost of which in most cases is difficult
to estimate at this time. One such contingent liability is the steam field depletion, which will require
funding to cover debt service and operational costs in excess of the expected value of the electric power.
The General Operating Reserve (GOR) is intended to minimize the number and amount of individual
reserves needed for each project, protect NCPA’s financial condition and maintain its credit worthiness.
The GOR funds of $1.5 million are left on deposit with NCPA as a reserve against these contingencies
identified by NCPA.
Members of NCPA may participate in an individual project of NCPA without obligation for any other
project. Member assessments collected for one project may not be used to finance other projects of NCPA
without the member’s permission.
Geothermal Projects
A purchased power agreement with NCPA obligated the City for 6.2 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively,
of the operating costs and debt service of the two NCPA 110‐megawatt geothermal steampowered
generating plants, Project Number 2 and Project Number 3.
The City’s participation in the Geothermal Project was sold to Turlock Irrigation District in October 1984.
Accordingly, the City is liable for payment of outstanding geothermal related debt only in the event that
Turlock fails to make specified payments. Total outstanding debt of the NCPA Geothermal Project at June
30, 2014 is $85.6 million. The City’s participation in this project was 6.2 percent, or $5.3million.
Calaveras Hydroelectric Project
In July 1981, NCPA agreed with Calaveras County Water District to purchase the output of the North Fork
Stanislaus River Hydroelectric Development Project and to finance its construction. Debt service payments
to NCPA began in February 1990 when the project was declared substantially complete and power was
delivered to the participants. Under its power purchase agreement with NCPA, the City is obligated to pay
22.9 percent of this Project’s debt service and operating costs. At June 30, 2014, the book value of this
Project’s plant, equipment and other assets was $465 million, while its long‐term debt totaled $398.6
million and other liabilities totaled $60.9 million. The City’s share of the Project’s long‐term debt
amounted to $91.2 million at that date.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
95
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES (Continued)
Geothermal Public Power Line
In 1983, NCPA, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of Santa Clara and the Modesto Irrigation
District (Joint Owners) initiated studies for a Geothermal Public Power Line (GPPL), which would carry
power generated at several existing and planned geothermal plants in The Geysers area to a location
where the Joint Owners could receive it for transmission to their load centers. NCPA has an 18.5 percent
share of this Project and the City has an 11.1 percent participation in NCPA’s share. In 1989, the
development of the proposed Geothermal Public Power Line was discontinued because NCPA was able to
contract for sufficient transmission capacity to meet its needs in The Geysers.
However, because the project financing provided funding for an ownership interest in a Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E) transmission line, a central dispatch facility and a performance bond pursuant to the
Interconnection Agreement with PG&E, as well as an ownership interest in the proposed GPPL, NCPA
issued $16 million in long‐term, fixed‐rate revenue bonds in November 1989 to defease the remaining
variable rate refunding bonds used to refinance this project. The City is obligated to pay its 11.1 percent
share of the related debt service, but debt service costs are covered through NCPA billing mechanisms
that allocate the costs to members based on use of the facilities and services.
At June 30, 2014, the book value of this Project’s plant, equipment and other assets was zero, and its long‐
term debt totaled zero.
NCPA’s financial statements can be obtained from NCPA, 180 Cirby Way, Roseville, CA 95678.
Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC)
The City is a member of a joint powers agreement with 14 other entities in Transmission Agency of
Northern California (TANC). TANC’s purpose is to provide electrical transmission or other facilities for the
use of its members. While governed by its members, none of TANC’s obligations are those of its members
unless expressly assumed by them. The City was obligated to pay 4 percent of TANC’s debt‐service and
operating costs. However, a Resolution was approved authorizing the execution of a Long‐Term Layoff
Agreement (LTLA) between the Cities of Palo Alto and Roseville. These two agencies desired to “layoff”
their entitlement rights to the California‐Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) (and Roseville’s South of
Tesla entitlement rights) for a period of 15 years to those acquiring Members (Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, Turlock Irrigation District, and Modesto Irrigation District). The effective date of this
Agreement was February 1, 2009. As a result, the City is not obligated to pay TANC’s debt‐service and
operating costs starting February 1, 2009, for a period of fifteen years.
TANC has issued four series of Revenue Bonds and Commercial Paper Notes totaling $421.4 million as of
June 30, 2014 and $93.8 million of Commercial Paper debt backed by a Letter of Credit. The City’s share
of these debts is zero due to the LTLA mentioned above.
TANC’s financial statements can be obtained from TANC, P.O. Box 15129, Sacramento, CA 95851.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
96
NOTE 15 – JOINT VENTURES (Continued)
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)
The City is a member of a regional water district with 26 other entities, the Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA was created on May 27, 2003 to represent the interests of 24
cities and water districts and two private utilities in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that
purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San Francisco regional water system. It has the power to
issue debt and plan, finance, construct, and operate water supply, transmission, reclamation, and
conservation projects on behalf of its members.
In 2013 the City participated in a debt issuance by BAWSCA. The debt was issued to repay certain long‐
term costs associated with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) water supply contract.
The City’s share of the annual debt service is approximately $1.9 million per year, but will vary based on
annual water purchases of the City compared to other BAWSCA agencies.
BAWSCA’s financial statements can be obtained from BAWSCA, 155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, San Mateo,
California 94402.
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Palo Alto Unified School District – The City leases a portion of the former Cubberley School site and twelve
extended day care sites from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The lease is part of a larger
agreement, which includes a covenant not to develop certain properties owned by PAUSD. The lease term
expired on December 31, 2004, upon which the City exercised its first option to extend for 10 years, for a
new expiration date of 12/31/2014. The lease provides for two more five‐year options to extend,
1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019, and 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2024. The City’s rent for the facilities is $7.1 million per
year plus insurance, repairs and maintenance. The rent may vary from year to year depending on the
actual number of days used. Should any new law or regulation require the expenditure of work in excess
of $250,000, per the terms of the lease, the City and PAUSD may renegotiate the lease. This lease is
cancelable upon 90 days’ written notice in the event funds are not appropriated by the City. In addition,
the lease is contingent upon authorization by the Palo Alto electorate if it exceeds the City’s Proposition
4 (GANN) appropriations limitation in any fiscal year. Lease expenditures for the year ended June 30, 2014,
amounted to $7.3 million. Future minimum annual lease and covenant payments for the year ending
June 30, 2015 is $3.6 million.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
97
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
GreenWaste of Palo Alto – GreenWaste of Palo Alto continues as the City’s contractor for waste
collection, transportation, and processing services. The agreement has a term of eight years, expiring June
30, 2017, with an option to extend the contract to 2021. The base compensation for GreenWaste is
adjusted annually based on CPI indicators stipulated in the contract. In FY 2014 payments to GreenWaste
were $10.9 million.
City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant – The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los
Altos (the Partners) participate jointly in the cost of maintaining and operating the City of Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant and related system (the Plant). The City is the owner and
administrator of the Plant, which provides the transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage for the
Partners. The cities of Mountain View and Los Altos are entitled to use a portion of the capacity of the
Plant for a specified period of time. Each partner has the right to rent unused capacity from/to the other
partners. The expenses of operations and maintenance are paid quarterly by each partner based on its
pro rata share of treatment costs. Additionally, joint system revenues are shared by the partners in the
same ratio as expenses are paid. The amended agreement has a term of fifty years beginning from the
original signing in October 1968, but may be terminated by any partner upon ten years’ notice to the other
partners. All sewage treatment property, plant and equipment are included in the Wastewater Treatment
Enterprise Fund’s capital assets balance at June 30, 2014. If the City initiates the termination of the
contracts, it is required to pay the other partners their unamortized contribution towards the capital
assets.
Solid Waste Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT Station) – On June 9, 1992, the City, along
with the City of Mountain View, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of
Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale) to participate in the construction and operation of the SMaRT station, which
recovers recyclable materials from the municipal solid waste delivered from participating cities. Per the
MOU, the City has a capacity share of 21.3 percent of this facility and reimburses its proportionate capacity
share of design, construction and operation costs to Sunnyvale.
On December 1, 1992, the Sunnyvale Financing Authority issued $24.6 million in revenue bonds to finance
the design and construction costs of the SMaRT Station. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, the
1992 bonds were refunded by issuing the 2003 Solid Waste Revenue Bonds in the amount of $20.6 million.
Even though these bonds are payable from and secured by the net revenues of Sunnyvale’s Utilities
Enterprise, the City is obligated to reimburse Sunnyvale 21.3 percent of total debt service payments
related to these bonds. The City’s portion of remaining principal balance for SMaRT revenue bonds as of
June 30, 2014, is $1.5 million. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City paid $0.4 million as its portion
of current debt service.
In FY 2008, the members agreed to finance an Equipment Replacement Project from existing reserves and
proceeds from the Solid Waste Revenue Bond, Series 2007. The City has committed to repay 27.8 percent
of the remaining debt service on the Bonds. The City’s portion of the Bonds amounts to $1.4 million as of
June 30, 2014. During the year ended June 30, 2014, the City paid $0.2 million as its portion of current
debt service.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
98
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
UTILITIES ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Electric Power Supply Purchase Agreements – The City has numerous power purchase agreements with
power producers to purchase capacity and energy to supply a portion of its load requirements. As of
June 30, 2014, the approximate minimum obligations for the contracts, assuming the energy or gas is
delivered over the next five years, are as follows:
Year Projected Obligation
2015 $71.3 million
2016 $61.3 million
2017 $62.1 million
2018 $62.5 million
2019 $62.9 million
Contractual Commitments beyond 2019 (Electricity) – Several of the City’s purchase power and
transmission contracts extend beyond the five‐year summary presented above. These contracts expire
between 2021 and 2046 and provide for power under various terms and conditions. The City estimates
that its annual minimum commitments under the contracts, assuming the energy is delivered, ranges
between $63.4 million in 2020 and $3.1 million in 2046. The City’s largest purchase power source is the
Western Base Resource contract, whereby the City receives 12.31 percent of the amount of energy made
available by Western, after meeting Central Valley Project use requirements. The Western contract
expires on December 31, 2024.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – The City purchases water for delivery to its customers from
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) under a contract terminating in 2034. The City’s
wholesale water rate under this contract is determined by a ratemaking process under the authority of
SFPUC. The City is prohibited from purchasing from other water suppliers under this contract, though it
is not prohibited from using ground water. The City’s cost of water under this contract is projected to
increase from $2.93 per hundred cubic feet (CCF) in FY 2015 to $4.31 per CCF in FY 2021 as SFPUC
completes an upgrade to its regional water system facilities under its Water System Improvement
Program (WSIP).
Contingent Liabilities
Many of the uncertainties faced by the Utilities Department as an aftermath of the 2000‐2001 energy
crisis have been resolved. The Ninth Circuit Court determined that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) lacked authority under the Federal Power Act to grant refund relief against governmental agencies,
and the United States Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Nonetheless a number of entities
(“the California Parties”) filed suit against the NCPA and other municipal utilities seeking refunds for sales
made to the CAISO and Power Exchange during the energy crisis. The suit was filed in Superior Court in
Los Angeles in April 2007. In March 2010, the issue was resolved in a settlement agreement and the City
made a payment to the California Parties and no further claims are expected.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
99
NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
On April 29, 2010, FERC issued an order approving the settlement between NCPA and the California
Parties. Another dispute between the Western Area Power Administration and PG&E regarding PG&E’s
claim to recover certain CAISO related costs has not been resolved.
Litigation
The City is subject to litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of the City Attorney,
there is no pending litigation, claims or assessments that are likely to have a materially adverse effect on
the City’s financial condition.
Grant Programs
The City participates in Federal and State grant programs. These programs have been audited by the City’s
independent auditors in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Single Audit Act amendments of
1996 and applicable State requirements. No costs were questioned as a result of these audits; however,
these programs are still subject to further examination by the grantors and the amount, if any, of
expenditures which may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The
City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.
NOTE 17 – SUBSEQUENT EVENT
Assumption of Control of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport
On August 11, 2014, sponsorship, operation and management of the Palo Alto Airport was transferred to
the City from the County of Santa Clara. The Airport is situated on City land and the City is taking over
various agreements with airport tenants, licensees, permit holders and users, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the State Lands Commission.
100
This page is left intentionally blank.
Special Debt
Revenue Service Permanent
Funds Funds Fund Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 69,320$ 6,675$ 1,439$ 77,434$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents ‐ 238 ‐ 238
Receivables, net:
Accounts 385 27 ‐ 412
Interest 334 ‐ 7 341
Notes 17,620 ‐ ‐ 17,620
Total assets 87,659$ 6,940$ 1,446$ 96,045$
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 121$ ‐$ 1$ 122$
Accrued salaries and benefits 17 ‐ ‐ 17
Total liabilities 138 ‐ 1 139
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Notes and loans receivable 13,424 ‐ ‐ 13,424
Eyerly family ‐ ‐ 1,445 1,445
Restricted
Transportation mitigation 10,616 ‐ ‐ 10,616
Federal revenue 4,457 ‐ ‐ 4,457
Street improvement 758 ‐ ‐ 758
Local law enforcement 113 ‐ ‐ 113
Debt service ‐ 6,940 ‐ 6,940
Public benefit 30,578 ‐ ‐ 30,578
Committed
Developer impact fee 11,085 ‐ ‐ 11,085
Housing In‐Lieu 14,491 ‐ ‐ 14,491
Special districts 1,457 ‐ ‐ 1,457
Downtown business 112 ‐ ‐ 112
Assigned
Unrealized gain on investment 430 ‐ ‐ 430
Total fund balances 87,521 6,940 1,445 95,906
Total liabilities and fund balances 87,659$ 6,940$ 1,446$ 96,045$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Governmental Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
101
Special Debt
Revenue Service Permanent
Funds Funds Fund Total
REVENUES:
Property tax ‐$ 4,712$ ‐$ 4,712$
Special assessments 94 ‐ ‐ 94
Other taxes and fines 2,095 ‐ ‐ 2,095
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants 468 ‐ ‐ 468
State of California 140 ‐ ‐ 140
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking 1,762 ‐ ‐ 1,762
California Avenue Parking 206 ‐ ‐ 206
Other permits and licenses 72 ‐ ‐ 72
Investment earnings 1,806 ‐ 33 1,839
Rental income 5 ‐ ‐ 5
Other:
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential 1,640 ‐ ‐ 1,640
Other fees 3,850 ‐ ‐ 3,850
Total revenues 12,138 4,712 33 16,883
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services 177 ‐ ‐ 177
Public Works 891 ‐ ‐ 891
Planning and Community Environment 1,552 ‐ ‐ 1,552
Public safety 286 ‐ ‐ 286
Community Services 133 ‐ ‐ 133
Non‐Departmental 145 ‐ 6 151
Debt service:
Principal retirement ‐ 1,150 ‐ 1,150
Interest and fiscal charges ‐ 3,059 ‐ 3,059
Total expenditures 3,184 4,209 6 7,399
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 8,954 503 27 9,484
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 454 231 ‐ 685
Transfers out (5,100) ‐ ‐ (5,100)
Total other financing sources (uses)(4,646) 231 ‐ (4,415)
Change in fund balances 4,308 734 27 5,069
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 83,213 6,206 1,418 90,837
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 87,521$ 6,940$ 1,445$ 95,906$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Governmental Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
102
103
NON‐MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street Improvement
This fund accounts for revenues received from state gas tax. Allocations must be spent on the construction
and maintenance of the road network system of the City.
Federal Revenue
This fund accounts for grant funds received under the Community Development Act of 1974 and HOME
Investment Grant Programs, for activities approved and subject to federal regulations.
Housing In‐Lieu
This fund accounts for revenues from commercial and residential developers to provide housing under
the City’s Below Market Rate program.
Special Districts
This fund accounts for revenues from parking permits and for maintenance of various parking lots within
the City’s parking districts.
Transportation Mitigation
This fund accounts for revenues from fees or contributions required for transportation mitigation issues
encountered as a result of City development.
Local Law Enforcement
This fund accounts for revenues received in support of City’s law enforcement program.
Asset Seizure
This fund accounts for seized property and funds associated with drug trafficking. Under California
Assembly Bill No. 4162, the monies are released to the City for specific expenditures related to law
enforcement activities.
Developer Impact Fee
This fund accounts for fees imposed on new developments to be used for parks, community centers and
libraries.
Downtown Business Development District
The Downtown Business Development District Fund was established to account for the activities of the
Palo Alto Downtown Business Development District, which was established to enhance the viability of the
downtown business district.
Public Benefit
This fund accounts for the activities of the SUMC Parties Development Agreement (DA) whereby SUMC
will enhance and expand their facilities and the City will grant SUMC the right to develop the facilities in
accordance with the DA.
Street Federal Housing Special
Improvement Revenue In‐Lieu Districts
ASSETS:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 559$ 162$ 14,561$ 1,478$
Receivables:
Accounts 199 158 ‐ ‐
Interest 3 ‐ 63 6
Notes ‐ 4,196 13,424 ‐
Total assets 761$ 4,516$ 28,048$ 1,484$
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals ‐$ 59$ 47$ 10$
Accrued salaries and benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ 17
Total liabilities ‐ 59 47 27
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Notes and loans receivables ‐ ‐ 13,424 ‐
Restricted
Transportation mitigation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Federal revenue ‐ 4,457 ‐ ‐
Street improvement 758 ‐ ‐ ‐
Local law enforcement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public benefit ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Committed
Developer impact fee ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ ‐ 14,491 ‐
Special districts ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,457
Downtown business ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Assigned
Unrealized gain on investment 3 ‐ 86 ‐
Total fund balances 761 4,457 28,001 1,457
Total liabilities and fund balances 761$ 4,516$ 28,048$ 1,484$
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
104
Downtown
Business
Transportation Local Law Asset Developer Development Public
Mitigation Enforcement Seizure Impact Fee District Benefit Total
10,631$ 83$ 2$ 11,101$ 112$ 30,631$ 69,320$
‐ 28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 385
49 1 ‐ 53 1 158 334
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,620
10,680$ 112$ 2$ 11,154$ 113$ 30,789$ 87,659$
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 5$ 121$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 138
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13,424
10,616 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,616
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4,457
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 758
‐ 111 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 113
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30,578 30,578
‐ ‐ ‐ 11,085 ‐ ‐ 11,085
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14,491
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,457
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 112 ‐ 112
64 1 ‐ 69 1 206 430
10,680 112 2 11,154 113 30,784 87,521
10,680$ 112$ 2$ 11,154$ 113$ 30,789$ 87,659$
105
Street Federal Housing Special
Improvement Revenue In‐Lieu Districts
REVENUES:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Other taxes and fines 2,083 ‐ ‐ 12
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants ‐ 468 ‐ ‐
State of California ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,762
California Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ 206
Other permits and licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ 72
Investment earnings 11 (5) 496 29
Rental income ‐ ‐ 5 ‐
Other
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential ‐ ‐ 1,640 ‐
Other fees ‐ 205 ‐ ‐
Total revenues 2,094 668 2,141 2,081
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services ‐ ‐ ‐ 177
Public Works ‐ ‐ ‐ 891
Planning and Community Environment ‐ 667 374 101
Public safety ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Community Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Non‐Departmental ‐ 22 31 7
Total expenditures ‐ 689 405 1,176
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,094 (21) 1,736 905
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ 194
Transfers out (1,917) (2) ‐ (764)
Total other financing sources (uses)(1,917) (2) ‐ (570)
Change in fund balances 177 (23) 1,736 335
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 584 4,480 26,265 1,122
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 761$ 4,457$ 28,001$ 1,457$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
106
Downtown
Business
Transportation Local Law Asset Developer Development Public
Mitigation Enforcement Seizure Impact Fee District Benefit Total
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 94$ ‐$ 94$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,095
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 468
‐ 140 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 140
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,762
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 206
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72
222 5 ‐ 284 3 761 1,806
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,640
2,008 ‐ ‐ 1,637 ‐ ‐ 3,850
2,230 145 ‐ 1,921 97 761 12,138
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 177
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 891
410 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,552
‐ 286 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 286
‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ 128 133
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 85 ‐ 145
410 286 ‐ 5 85 128 3,184
1,820 (141) ‐ 1,916 12 633 8,954
‐ ‐ ‐ 260 ‐ ‐ 454
(435) ‐ ‐ (782) ‐ (1,200) (5,100)
(435) ‐ ‐ (522) ‐ (1,200) (4,646)
1,385 (141) ‐ 1,394 12 (567) 4,308
9,295 253 2 9,760 101 31,351 83,213
10,680$ 112$ 2$ 11,154$ 113$ 30,784$ 87,521$
107
Street Improvement Federal Revenue
Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
REVENUES:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Other taxes and fines 1,905 2,083 178 ‐ ‐ ‐
Charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants ‐ ‐ ‐ 455 468 13
State of California ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other revenue from other agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ 112 ‐ (112)
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
California Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other permits and licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Investment earnings 23 11 (12) ‐ (5) (5)
Rental income ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other:
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 205 205
Total revenues 1,928 2,094 166 567 668 101
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public Works ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Planning and Community Environment ‐ ‐ ‐ 847 667 180
Public safety ‐ Police ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Community Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Non‐Departmental ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22 (22)
Total expenditures ‐ ‐ ‐ 847 689 158
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 1,928 2,094 166 (280) (21) 259
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out (1,917) (1,917) ‐ (2) (2) ‐
Total other financing sources (uses)(1,917) (1,917) ‐ (2) (2) ‐
Change in fund balances 11$ 177 166$ (282)$ (23) 259$
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 584 4,480
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 761$ 4,457$
(Amounts in thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
108
Housing In‐Lieu Special Districts Transportation Mitigation
Variance Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
‐ ‐ ‐ 43 12 (31) ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 1,518 1,762 244 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 195 206 11 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 37 72 35 ‐ ‐ ‐
161 496 335 23 29 6 174 222 48
‐ 5 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
4,120 1,640 (2,480) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 625 2,008 1,383
4,281 2,141 (2,140) 1,816 2,081 265 799 2,230 1,431
‐ ‐ ‐ 204 177 27 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 1,138 891 247 ‐ ‐ ‐
725 374 351 175 101 74 410 410 ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ 26 ‐ 26 ‐ ‐ ‐
178 31 147 143 7 136 ‐ ‐ ‐
903 405 498 1,686 1,176 510 410 410 ‐
3,378 1,736 (1,642) 130 905 775 389 1,820 1,431
‐ ‐ ‐ 194 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ (763) (764) (1) (435) (435) ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ (569) (570) (1) (435) (435) ‐
3,378$ 1,736 (1,642)$ (439)$ 335 774$ (46)$ 1,385 1,431$
26,265 1,122 9,295
28,001$ 1,457$ 10,680$
109
Local Law Enforcement Asset Seizure
Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
Revenues:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Other taxes and fines ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Charges for services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
From other agencies:
Community Development Block Grants ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
State of California ‐ 140 140 ‐ ‐ ‐
Other revenue from other agencies ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Permits and licenses
University Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
California Avenue Parking ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other permits and licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Return on investments 6 5 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐
Rental income ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other:
Housing In‐Lieu ‐ residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Other fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total revenues 6 145 139 ‐ ‐ ‐
Expenditures:
Current:
Administrative Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public Works ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Planning and Community Environment ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public safety ‐ Police 319 286 33 ‐ ‐ ‐
Community Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Non‐Departmental 3 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐
Total expenditures 322 286 36 ‐ ‐ ‐
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (316) (141) 175 ‐ ‐ ‐
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers out ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total other financing sources (uses)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Change in fund balances (316)$ (141) 175$ ‐$ ‐ ‐$
Fund balances, beginning of year 253 2
Fund balances, end of year 112$ 2$
(Amounts in Thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Special Revenue Funds
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
110
Developer Impact Fee Downtown Business Improvement District Public Benefit
Variance Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 154$ 94$ (60)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
137 284 147 2 3 1 679 761 82
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
947 1,637 690 6 ‐ (6) ‐ ‐ ‐
1,084 1,921 837 162 97 (65) 679 761 82
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
5 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 289 128 161
‐ ‐ ‐ 230 85 145 ‐ ‐ ‐
5 5 ‐ 230 85 145 289 128 161
1,079 1,916 837 (68) 12 80 390 633 243
260 260 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
(782) (782) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,200) (1,200) ‐
(522) (522) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,200) (1,200) ‐
557$ 1,394 837$ (68)$ 12 80$ (810)$ (567) 243$
9,760 101 31,351
11,154$ 113$ 30,784$
111
112
This page is left intentionally blank.
113
NON‐MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Downtown Parking Improvement
This fund accounts for revenues received from the General Fund to provide payment of principal and
interest associated with the 2002B Downtown Parking Improvement Certificate of Participation as they
become due.
Library Projects
This fund accounts for revenues received from property taxes to provide payment of principal and interest
associated with the 2010 and 2013A General Obligation Bonds as they become due.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Debt Service Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Downtown
Parking Library
Improvement Projects Total
ASSETS:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 13$ 6,662$ 6,675$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 238 ‐ 238
Receivables:
Accounts ‐ 27 27
Total assets 251$ 6,689$ 6,940$
FUND BALANCES:
Debt service 251$ 6,689$ 6,940$
114
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Debt Service Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
Downtown
Parking Library
Improvement Projects Total
REVENUES:
Property tax ‐$ 4,712$ 4,712$
EXPENDITURES:
Debt service:
Principal retirement 130 1,020 1,150
Interest and fiscal charges 101 2,958 3,059
Total expenditures 231 3,978 4,209
(DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (231) 734 503
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 231 ‐ 231
Change in fund balances ‐ 734 734
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 251 5,955 6,206
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 251$ 6,689$ 6,940$
115
Downtown Parking Improvement Library Projects
Variance Variance
Actual, plus Positive Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative) Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
REVENUES:
Special assessments ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 3,938$ 4,712$ 774$
Total revenues ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,938 4,712 774
EXPENDITURES:
Debt service:
Principal retirement 130 130 ‐ 1,020 1,020 ‐
Interest and fiscal charges 101 101 ‐ 3,023 2,958 65
Total expenditures 231 231 ‐ 4,043 3,978 65
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (231) (231) ‐ (105) 734 839
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 231 231 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total other financing sources (uses)231 231 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Change in fund balances ‐$ ‐ ‐$ (105)$ 734 839$
FUND BALANCES, BEGINNING OF YEAR 251 5,955
FUND BALANCES, END OF YEAR 251$ 6,689$
(Amounts in thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Debt Service Funds
Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
116
117
NON‐MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
PERMANENT FUND
Eyerly Family
This fund accounts for the revenues received from assets donated by Mr. and Mrs. Fred Eyerly for the City
and or its citizenry.
Eyerly Family Permanent Fund
Variance
Actual, plus Positive
Budget Encumbrances (Negative)
REVENUES:
Investment earnings 34$ 33$ (1)$
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Non‐Departmental ‐ 6 (6)
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 34 27 (7)
Change in fund balance 34$ 27 (7)$
FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR 1,418
FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR 1,445$
(Amounts in thousands)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Non‐major Permanent Fund
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ‐
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
118
119
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
INTRODUCTION
Internal Service Funds are used to finance and account for special activities and services performed by a
designated department for other departments in the City on a cost reimbursement basis.
Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
This fund accounts for the maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment used by all City
departments. The source of revenue is on reimbursement of fleet replacement and maintenance costs
allocated to each department by usage of vehicle.
Technology
This fund accounts for replacement and upgrade of technology, and covers four primary areas used by all
City departments: desktop, infrastructure, applications, and technology research and development. The
source of revenue is on reimbursement of costs for support provided to other departments.
Printing and Mailing Services
This fund accounts for central duplicating, printing and mailing services provided to all City departments.
Source of revenue for this fund is on reimbursement of costs for services and supplies purchased by other
departments.
General Benefits
This fund accounts for the administration of compensated absences and health benefits.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Program
This fund accounts for the administration of the City’s self‐insured workers’ compensation programs.
General Liabilities Insurance Program
This fund accounts for the administration of the City’s self‐insured general liability programs.
Retiree Health Benefits
This fund accounts for the retiree health benefits.
Vehicle Printing Workers' General
Replacement and Compensation Liabilities Retiree
and Mailing General Insurance Insurance Health
Maintenance Technology Services Benefits Program Program Benefits Total
ASSETS:
Current Assets:
Cash and investments:
Available for operations 11,078$ 19,229$ 12$ 12,665$ 20,964$ 6,899$ 4,145$ 74,992$
Accounts receivable, net 31 ‐ ‐ 35 ‐ 473 96 635
Interest receivable 55 102 ‐ 57 95 30 25 364
Inventory of materials and supplies 388 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 388
Total current assets 11,552 19,331 12 12,757 21,059 7,402 4,266 76,379
Noncurrent Assets:
Capital assets:
Nondepreciable 1,396 1,698 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,094
Depreciable, net 10,977 279 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,259
Net OPEB asset ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,610 22,610
Total noncurrent assets 12,373 1,977 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 22,610 36,963
Total assets 23,925 21,308 15 12,757 21,059 7,402 26,876 113,342
LIABILITIES:
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals ‐ 263 8 989 68 ‐ 39 1,367
Accrued salaries and benefits 39 133 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 173
Accrued compensated absences 8 13 ‐ 3,891 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,912
Accrued claims payable ‐ current ‐ ‐ ‐ 146 3,230 2,289 ‐ 5,665
Total current liabilities 47 409 8 5,027 3,298 2,289 39 11,117
Noncurrent liabilities:
Accrued compensated absences ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286
Accrued claims payable ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,560 3,528 ‐ 21,088
Total noncurrent liabilities ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,286 17,560 3,528 ‐ 27,374
Total liabilities 47 409 8 11,313 20,858 5,817 39 38,491
NET POSITION:
Net Investment in capital assets 12,373 1,977 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14,353
Unrestricted 11,505 18,922 4 1,444 201 1,585 26,837 60,498
Total net position 23,878$ 20,899$ 7$ 1,444$ 201$ 1,585$ 26,837$ 74,851$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Fund Net Position
June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
120
Vehicle Printing Workers' General
Replacement and Compensation Liabilities Retiree
and Mailing General Insurance Insurance Health
Maintenance Technology Services Benefits Program Program Benefits Total
OPERATING REVENUES:
Charges for services 7,335$ 11,300$ 1,328$ 41,870$ 3,239$ 460$ 11,635$ 77,167$
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 472 ‐ 472
Total operating revenues 7,335 11,300 1,328 41,870 3,239 932 11,635 77,639
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Administrative and general 1,157 6,207 848 249 737 1,051 517 10,766
Operations and maintenance 3,582 5,234 477 126 485 ‐ 11,577 21,481
Depreciation and amortization 2,116 425 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,544
Claim payments and change in estimated
self‐insured liability ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,491 2,451 (710) ‐ 3,232
Refund of charges for services 62 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 71
Compensated absences and other benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,337 ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,337
Total operating expenses 6,917 11,875 1,328 42,203 3,673 341 12,094 78,431
Operating income (loss)418 (575) ‐ (333) (434) 591 (459) (792)
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
Investment earnings 262 485 1 266 434 123 63 1,634
Loss on disposal of capital assets (110) (45) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (155)
Other nonoperating revenues 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)194 440 1 266 434 123 63 1,521
Income (loss) before transfers 612 (135) 1 (67) ‐ 714 (396) 729
Transfers in ‐ 1,413 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,413
Transfers out ‐ (1,818) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,818)
Change in net position 612 (540) 1 (67) ‐ 714 (396) 324
NET POSITION, BEGINNING OF YEAR 23,266 21,439 6 1,511 201 871 27,233 74,527
NET POSITION, END OF YEAR 23,878$ 20,899$ 7$ 1,444$ 201$ 1,585$ 26,837$ 74,851$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
121
Vehicle Printing Workers' General
Replacement and Compensation Liabilities Retiree
and Mailing General Insurance Insurance Health
Maintenance Technology Services Benefits Program Program Benefits Total
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 7,489$ 11,300$ 1,328$ 41,861$ 3,239$ 959$ 11,769$ 77,945$
Cash refunds to customers (62) (9) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (71)
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (3,330) (5,771) (492) (42) (485) ‐ (11,577) (21,697)
Cash payments to employees (1,147) (6,196) (852) (40,818) (706) (1,051) (1,805) (52,575)
Cash payments for judgments and claims ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,488) (1,964) (772) ‐ (4,224)
Other cash receipts 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
Cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities 2,992 (676) (16) (487) 84 (864) (1,613) (580)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfers in ‐ 1,413 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,413
Transfers out ‐ (1,818) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,818)
Cash flows provided by
noncapital financing activities ‐ (405) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (405)
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition of capital assets (2,734) (918) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,652)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets 150 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 150
Cash flows (used in)
capital and related financing activities (2,584) (918) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,502)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest received 263 492 1 268 442 126 65 1,657
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 671 (1,507) (15) (219) 526 (738) (1,548) (2,830)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 10,407 20,736 27 12,884 20,438 7,637 5,693 77,822
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 11,078 $ 19,229 $ 12 $ 12,665 $ 20,964 $ 6,899 $ 4,145 $ 74,992
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash
flows provided by (used in) operating activities:
Operating income (loss)418$ (575)$ ‐$ (333)$ (434)$ 591$ (459)$ (792)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss)
to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation 2,116 425 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,544
Other 42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42
Change in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable 154 ‐ ‐ (9) ‐ 27 134 306
Inventory of materials and supplies 281 (77) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 204
Net OPEB asset ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (759) (759)
Accounts payable and accruals (29) (460) (15) 84 31 ‐ (529) (918)
Accrued salaries and benefits 5 16 (4) 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 18
Accrued compensated absences 5 (5) ‐ (233) ‐ ‐ ‐ (233)
Accrued claims payable ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 487 (1,482) ‐ (992)
Cash flows provided by (used in)
operating activities 2,992$ (676)$ (16)$ (487)$ 84$ (864)$ (1,613)$ (580)$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
122
123
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
INTRODUCTION
Fiduciary Funds are used to account for assets held by the City acting in a fiduciary capacity for other
entities and individuals. The funds are operated to carry out the specific actions required by the trust
agreements, ordinances and other governing regulations.
Fiduciary Funds are presented separately from the Citywide and Fund financial statements.
Agency Funds are custodial in nature and do not involve measurement of results of operations. The City
maintains three agency funds, as follows:
California Avenue Parking Assessment District
This fund accounts for receipts and disbursements associated with the 1993 Parking District No. 92‐13
Assessment Bonds.
Cable Joint Powers Authority
The fund was established to account for the activities of the cable television system on behalf of the
members.
University Avenue Area Off‐Street Parking Assessment District
The fund accounts for the receipts and disbursements associated with the Series 2012 Limited Obligation
Refunding Improvement Bonds.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
All Agency Funds
Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Balance Balance
California Avenue Parking Assessment District June 30, 2013 Additions Deletions June 30, 2014
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 189$ ‐$ 9$ 180$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 189$ ‐$ 9$ 180$
Cable Joint Powers Authority
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 869$ ‐$ 114$ 755$
Interest receivable 5 ‐ 1 4
Total assets 874$ ‐$ 115$ 759$
LIABILITIES:
Due to other governments 874$ ‐$ 115$ 759$
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 2,015$ ‐$ 31$ 1,984$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 2,542 ‐ 1 2,541
Accounts receivable 30 ‐ 21 9
Interest receivable 11 ‐ 1 10
Total assets 4,598$ ‐$ 54$ 4,544$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 4,598$ ‐$ 54$ 4,544$
Total Agency Funds
ASSETS:
Cash and investments available for operations 3,073$ ‐$ 154$ 2,919$
Cash and investments with fiscal agents 2,542 ‐ 1 2,541
Accounts receivable 30 ‐ 21 9
Interest receivable 16 ‐ 2 14
Total assets 5,661$ ‐$ 178$ 5,483$
LIABILITIES:
Due to bondholders 4,787$ ‐$ 63$ 4,724$
Due to other governments 874 ‐ 115 759
Total liabilities 5,661$ ‐$ 178$ 5,483$
(Amounts in thousands)
University Avenue Area
Off‐Street Parking Assessment District
124
125
STATISTICAL SECTION
The statistical section contains comprehensive statistical data, which relates to physical, economic, social
and political characteristics of the City. It is intended to provide users with a broader and more complete
understanding of the City and its financial affairs than is possible from the financial statements and
supporting schedules included in the financial section.
In this section, readers will find comparative information related to the City’s revenue sources,
expenditures, property tax valuations, levies and collections, general obligation bonded debt, utility
revenue debt service, and demographics. Where available, the comparative information is presented for
the last ten fiscal years.
In addition, this section presents information related to the City’s legal debt margin computation, principal
taxpayers, notary and security bond coverages, and other miscellaneous statistics pertaining to services
provided by the City.
In contrast to the financial section, the statistical section information is not usually subject to independent
audit.
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial
performance and well‐being have changed over time:
Net Position by Component
Changes in Net Position
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant local revenue
sources, property tax and electric charges:
Electric Operating Revenue by Source
Supplemental Disclosure for Water Utilities
Assessed Value of Taxable Property
Property Tax Rates, All Overlapping Governments
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Principal Property Taxpayers
Assessed Valuation and Parcels by Land Use
Per Parcel Assessed Valuation of Single Family Residential
Debt Capacity
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels
of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future:
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin
Revenue Bond Coverage
126
STATISTICAL SECTION
Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the
environment within which the City’s financial activities take place:
Taxable Transactions by Type of Business
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Principal Employers
Operating Information
These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the
information in the City’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it
performs:
Operating Indicators by Function/Program
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function
Sources
Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Reports for the relevant year.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Governmental Activities
Investment in capital assets 305,225$ 311,335$ 326,411$ 343,537$ 356,657$ 369,499$ 364,747$ 370,111$ 378,047$ 386,696$
Restricted 27,273 29,885 32,576 27,428 36,632 34,323 16,437 52,934 71,717 68,331
Unrestricted 117,301 123,823 127,190 130,460 118,133 102,199 134,722 142,102 165,810 187,386
Total Governmental Activities Net Position 449,799$ 465,043$ 486,177$ 501,425$ 511,422$ 506,021$ 515,906$ 565,147$ 615,574$ 642,413$
Business‐type Activities
Investment in capital assets 303,473$ 318,738$ 342,922$ 370,303$ 384,313$ 399,317$ 416,418$ 437,151$ 446,597$ 473,795$
Restricted 1,750 1,732 1,732 1,732 1,732 4,300 ‐ ‐ 4,060 4,166
Unrestricted 215,128 228,032 230,912 226,539 208,025 232,420 253,740 262,602 269,926 266,794
Total Business‐type Activities Net Position 520,351$ 548,502$ 575,566$ 598,574$ 594,070$ 636,037$ 670,158$ 699,753$ 720,583$ 744,755$
Primary Government
Investment in capital assets 608,698$ 630,073$ 669,333$ 713,840$ 740,970$ 768,816$ 781,165$ 807,262$ 824,644$ 860,491$
Restricted 29,023 31,617 34,308 29,160 38,364 38,623 16,437 52,934 75,777 72,497
Unrestricted 332,429 351,855 358,102 356,999 326,158 334,619 388,462 404,704 435,736 454,180
Total Primary Government Net Position 970,150$ 1,013,545$ 1,061,743$ 1,099,999$ 1,105,492$ 1,142,058$ 1,186,064$ 1,264,900$ 1,336,157$ 1,387,168$
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Statement of Net Position
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
(Accrual basis of accounting)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Primary Government
Investment in capital assets Restricted Unrestricted
127
PROGRAM REVENUES 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Governmental Activities
Charges for services
City Attorney 22$ 22$ 13$ 16$ 12$ 53$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
City Clerk ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Administrative Services 480 627 835 870 726 984 2,889 1,647 15,629 4,055
People Strategy and Operations ‐ ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Public Works 573 805 968 1,310 1,169 1,258 2,419 1,008 1,314 1,093
Planning & Community Environment 4,090 5,509 6,267 5,498 4,704 4,813 7,237 31,491 28,768 12,896
Public Safety 12,356 13,256 13,789 13,692 14,670 14,337 15,274 15,658 16,139 14,902
Community Services 7,592 10,803 9,128 10,314 8,522 8,729 7,724 11,365 13,808 20,882
Library 133 129 146 176 177 199 480 1,600 187 166
Operating grants and contributions 3,677 3,976 5,642 4,029 3,599 4,829 2,884 3,441 5,038 5,360
Capital grants and contributions 804 3,156 1,756 1,930 3,810 1,280 1,903 1,064 515 917
Total Governmental Activities
Program Revenues 29,727 38,285 38,555 37,835 37,389 36,482 40,810 67,274 81,398 60,271
Business‐type Activities
Charges for services
Water 21,041 21,108 23,495 26,510 27,120 26,259 26,624 31,467 37,746 40,291
Electric 88,737 119,418 102,549 103,833 119,320 121,900 122,109 118,886 121,805 121,916
Fiber Optics1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,336 3,105 3,322 3,662 4,382 4,485
Gas 31,206 36,977 42,221 49,021 47,838 44,450 43,584 41,774 34,633 35,737
Wastewater Collection 12,041 13,801 14,848 15,102 14,486 15,136 15,094 14,942 16,077 15,599
Wastewater Treatment 15,982 18,778 16,957 22,889 28,425 16,915 18,830 22,200 21,528 18,460
Refuse 23,387 24,795 25,532 28,805 29,101 28,568 30,469 30,645 30,583 30,297
Storm Drainage 2,484 5,174 5,181 5,450 5,505 5,647 5,796 5,892 6,053 6,183
External Services 766 854 789 112 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Operating grants and contributions ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 361 610 605 572 549
Capital grants and contributions ‐ ‐ 756 1,594 639 475 3,004 1,526 2,224 2,005
Total Business‐type Activities
Program Revenues 195,644 240,905 232,328 253,316 275,770 262,816 269,442 271,599 275,603 275,522
Total Primary Government
Program Revenues 225,371$ 279,190$ 270,883$ 291,151$ 313,159$ 299,298$ 310,252$ 338,873$ 357,001$ 335,793$
EXPENSES
Governmental Activities
City Council 130$ 141$ 180$ 323$ 394$ 455$ 15$ 345$ 94$ 387$
City Manager 1,725 1,563 1,760 2,273 2,085 2,399 1,842 1,960 1,237 2,180
City Attorney 2,653 2,598 2,390 2,653 2,575 2,621 953 1,656 1,642 1,797
City Clerk 770 945 900 1,241 1,098 1,369 803 908 330 641
City Auditor 764 843 838 1,379 2,053 2,601 138 235 464 489
Administrative Services2 6,982 6,972 6,419 15,477 17,784 17,893 9,888 10,100 7,614 11,388
People Strategy and Operations 2,410 2,546 2,472 2,806 3,448 3,707 1,346 1,071 1,420 1,346
Public Works 16,400 17,596 16,645 18,565 21,270 18,658 19,357 14,568 20,816 24,577
Planning & Community Environment 10,162 9,931 12,929 16,388 12,940 12,114 15,031 12,074 13,549 14,926
Public Safety 40,543 42,158 43,391 50,126 52,487 55,799 58,996 62,817 59,452 62,883
Community Services 17,240 17,296 15,729 17,736 19,862 17,171 22,845 21,915 22,705 23,822
Library 4,835 5,323 5,347 6,321 6,244 6,143 6,920 7,323 7,319 7,758
Non‐departmental2 12,474 10,400 12,133 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Interest on long term debt 693 512 477 438 404 370 2,742 2,575 2,562 3,367
Total Governmental
Activities Expenses 117,781 118,824 121,610 135,726 142,644 141,300 140,876 137,547 139,204 155,561
Business‐type Activities
Water 14,969 15,881 16,794 18,842 20,271 21,037 24,268 29,093 30,707 31,593
Electric 73,051 91,570 99,294 108,032 122,268 107,910 100,130 102,030 106,438 113,004
Fiber Optics1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,284 1,407 1,561 1,489 1,437 1,661
Gas 26,656 29,107 30,690 37,211 34,603 32,498 32,051 28,878 26,749 26,869
Wastewater Collection 8,907 11,005 10,085 12,023 14,875 10,696 12,275 14,825 14,313 13,235
Wastewater Treatment 17,457 16,747 15,901 18,902 36,896 13,466 19,731 20,712 20,635 21,018
Refuse 24,959 26,989 25,372 28,827 37,217 28,119 30,684 31,900 28,542 28,413
Storm Drainage 3,336 2,673 2,517 3,202 2,943 2,491 3,229 3,103 3,703 3,644
Airport ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 31 153 246 466
External Services 760 868 767 984 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Business‐type
Activities Expenses 170,095 194,840 201,420 228,023 270,357 217,624 223,960 232,183 232,770 239,903
Total Primary
Government Expenses 287,876$ 313,664$ 323,030$ 363,749$ 413,001$ 358,924$ 364,836$ 369,730$ 371,974$ 395,464$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
128
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
NET (EXPENSE)/REVENUE
Governmental Activities (88,054)$ (80,539)$ (83,055)$ (97,891)$ (105,255)$ (104,818)$ (100,066)$ (70,273)$ (57,806)$ (95,290)$
Business‐type Activities 25,549 46,065 30,908 25,293 5,413 45,192 45,482 39,416 42,833 35,619
Total Primary Government
Net (Expense)/Revenue (62,505)$ (34,474)$ (52,147)$ (72,598)$ (99,842)$ (59,626)$ (54,584)$ (30,857)$ (14,973)$ (59,671)$
GENERAL REVENUES AND OTHER CHANGES IN NET POSITION
Governmental Activities
Taxes
Property tax 16,657$ 18,731$ 21,466$ 23,084$ 25,432$ 25,981$ 29,156$ 30,104$ 31,929$ 35,299$
Sales tax 19,308 20,315 22,194 22,623 20,089 17,991 20,746 22,132 25,606 29,424
Utility user tax 7,269 8,759 9,356 10,285 11,030 11,295 10,851 10,834 10,861 11,008
Transient occupancy tax 5,686 6,393 6,709 7,976 7,111 6,858 8,082 9,664 10,794 12,255
Other taxes 5,580 7,033 6,293 6,261 3,364 4,055 8,156 8,173 10,504 9,660
Investment earnings 4,988 2,567 8,747 12,313 8,525 6,514 3,500 6,238 (1,228) 5,859
Rents and miscellaneous 12,997 10,440 13,670 11,896 15,682 12,729 12,377 14,943 518 2,575
Transfers 14,064 21,545 15,754 18,701 24,020 13,994 17,083 17,426 19,249 17,103
Total Governmental Activities 86,549 95,783 104,189 113,139 115,253 99,417 109,951 119,514 108,233 123,183
Business‐type Activities
Investment earnings 8,093 3,631 11,910 16,416 14,103 10,769 5,722 7,605 (2,754) 6,379
Special item (21,500) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfers (14,064) (21,545) (15,754) (18,701) (24,020) (13,994) (17,083) (17,426) (19,249) (17,103)
Total Business‐type Activities (27,471) (17,914) (3,844) (2,285) (9,917) (3,225) (11,361) (9,821) (22,003) (10,724)
Total Primary Government 59,078$ 77,869$ 100,345$ 110,854$ 105,336$ 96,192$ 98,590$ 109,693$ 86,230$ 112,459$
CHANGE IN NET POSITION
Governmental Activities (1,505)$ 15,244$ 21,134$ 15,248$ 9,998$ (5,401)$ 9,885$ 49,241$ 50,427$ 27,893$
Business‐type Activities (1,922) 28,151 27,064 23,008 (4,504) 41,967 34,121 29,595 20,830 24,895
Total Primary Government
Change in Net Position (3,427)$ 43,395$ 48,198$ 38,256$ 5,494$ 36,566$ 44,006$ 78,836$ 71,257$ 52,788$
Notes:1Prior to 2009, Fiber Optics was included in Electric.
2Beginning in 2008, includes Non‐departmental expenses.
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Statement of Activities
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
129
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
General Fund
Nonspendable 3,931$ 4,052$ 5,002$ 7,286$ 6,476$ 6,581$ 6,085$ 6,007$ 5,749$ 6,188$
Assigned 3,401 3,914 6,855 4,851 6,100 7,295 6,235 6,400 5,415 5,432
Unassigned 24,498 26,251 27,551 30,278 30,648 27,581 31,859 29,616 30,913 36,690
Total General Fund 31,830$ 34,217$ 39,408$ 42,415$ 43,224$ 41,457$ 44,179$ 42,023$ 42,077$ 48,310$
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Balance Sheet
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (General Fund)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Nonspendable Assigned Unassigned
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
All Other Governmental Funds
Nonspendable ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 731$ 1,308$ 1,402$ 1,422$ 11,112$ 18,189$ 14,869$
Restricted 1,522 1,822 1,540 1,406 1,412 55,400 50,646 61,324 84,688 68,468
Committed 7,521 18,430 22,883 15,207 22,043 16,962 24,775 14,284 20,400 27,145
Assigned 57,336 46,723 41,684 44,116 36,629 38,538 20,114 33,264 45,514 55,211
Total All Other
Governmental Funds 66,379$ 66,975$ 66,107$ 61,460$ 61,392$ 112,302$ 96,957$ 119,984$ 168,791$ 165,693$
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Balance Sheet
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (All Other Governmental Funds)
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Nonspendable Restricted Committed Assigned
131
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenues
Property tax 16,657$ 18,731$ 21,466$ 23,084$ 25,432$ 25,981$ 29,248$ 30,216$ 32,040$ 35,393$
Sales tax 19,308 20,315 22,194 22,623 20,089 17,991 20,746 22,132 25,606 29,424
Other taxes and fines 22,037 25,840 26,215 27,385 24,843 25,063 27,890 29,231 32,141 35,305
Charges for services 17,159 18,672 19,929 19,610 19,837 19,775 22,311 46,273 38,976 23,962
From other agencies 2,757 5,931 3,448 4,300 5,984 3,035 1,614 1,116 4,109 5,700
Permits and licenses 3,183 4,305 4,711 4,761 4,033 4,408 5,433 7,136 8,218 8,990
Interest and rentals 14,968 13,776 17,750 20,507 19,183 19,045 16,553 18,583 12,136 18,445
Other revenue 4,269 4,058 7,503 4,713 6,223 4,724 8,624 12,739 17,570 7,471
Total Revenues 100,338 111,628 123,216 126,983 125,624 120,022 132,419 167,426 170,796 164,690
Expenditures
Administration1 14,509 14,299 14,399 16,250 16,002 17,353 8,351 9,412 8,291 9,961
Public Works 9,060 9,036 9,256 10,072 10,064 9,787 11,317 11,304 11,489 12,439
Planning and Community Environment 9,692 9,292 11,874 9,861 10,462 9,480 10,309 11,966 13,474 14,761
Public Safety 38,732 40,393 42,451 48,650 48,957 51,022 58,874 62,418 59,537 62,028
Community Services 16,298 19,740 16,533 17,138 17,451 16,451 20,029 20,860 21,661 22,644
Library 4,800 5,170 5,260 6,219 5,985 5,900 6,509 7,072 6,902 7,340
Non‐departmental 9,028 10,389 12,122 14,089 10,765 10,149 7,352 6,819 4,567 8,135
Special revenue and capital projects 21,317 13,243 17,478 21,626 21,485 22,006 35,486 29,154 29,542 37,035
Debt service ‐ principal payments 785 810 850 885 800 840 870 1,743 1,489 1,524
Debt service ‐interest and fiscal fees 583 523 489 451 416 382 1,815 2,757 2,659 3,196
Payment to bond refunding escrow ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 586 540 ‐
Total Expenditures 124,804 122,895 130,712 145,241 142,387 143,370 160,912 164,091 160,151 179,063
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
Over (Under) Expenditures (24,466) (11,267) (7,496) (18,258) (16,763) (23,348) (28,493) 3,335 10,645 (14,373)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in 60,429 26,640 27,701 33,437 39,903 34,835 30,323 47,200 50,343 41,683
Transfers out (46,622) (12,390) (15,882) (16,819) (22,399) (21,415) (14,352) (29,782) (33,833) (24,175)
Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (101) ‐ ‐ ‐
Proceeds from long term debt ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 59,071 ‐ 3,222 21,706 ‐
Payments to refund bond escrow (1,038) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (3,104) ‐ ‐
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)12,769 14,250 11,819 16,618 17,504 72,491 15,870 17,536 38,216 17,508
Net Change in Fund Balances (11,697)$ 2,983$ 4,323$ (1,640)$ 741$ 49,143$ (12,623)$ 20,871$ 48,861$ 3,135$
Debt Service as a Percentage of
Non‐Capital Expenditures 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 2.2% 3.5% 3.2% 3.3%
Notes:
Source: Annual Financial Statements, Governmental Funds, Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
1Comprised of the following departments: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, Administrative Services and PS&O.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified accrual basis of accounting)
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
132
Commercial and
Fiscal Year Residential Industrial City of Palo Alto Total
2005 13,009$ 56,683$ 2,289$ 71,981$
2006 14,973 67,389 2,492 84,854
2007 15,150 68,214 2,466 85,830
2008 16,109 72,632 2,571 91,312
2009 17,939 83,710 2,823 104,472
2010 19,898 89,315 2,890 112,103
2011 19,848 88,076 2,991 110,915
2012 20,328 85,895 3,352 109,575
2013 19,951 86,998 3,265 110,214
2014 18,744 88,419 3,225 110,388
529 Bryant Street LLC Technology
City of Palo Alto Municipal
Communications & Power Industries (CPI)Research
Hewlett‐Packard Company Computer
Space Systems/Loral Satellite & Satellite Systems
Stanford University Property Management
Stanford Hospital & Clinics Hospital
Varian Medical Systems, Inc.Manufacturing
Veterans Admin Hospital Hospital
VMware, Inc.Computer
Number Kilowatt‐hour
of Customers Sales (kWh)Revenue
Residential 26,439 182,227,583 18,744$
Commercial 2,556 470,229,174 65,244
Industrial 120 213,768,135 23,175
CPA/Other 224 84,559,258 3,225
Total 29,339 950,784,150 110,388$
City of Palo Alto Power Purchase
Western Area Power Administration 27%
Forward Market Purchases 43%
Wind Energy 11%
Landfill Gas Energy 8%
Northern California Power Agency Hydroelectric 5%
Short‐Term Market 6%
Note:
Source: City of Palo Alto, Utilities and Accounting Departments
*The top ten customers accounted for approximately 39.5% of total kWh consumption (375,172,708 kWh) and
35.7% of revenue ($40,928,901). The largest customer accounted for 8.3% of total kWh consumption and 7.4% of
revenue. The smallest customer accounted for 1.4% of total kWh consumption and 1.3% of revenue.
Revenue includes all utilities (metered and non‐metered), revenue adjustments, and Primary Voltage discount.
Revenue does not include CEC surcharge, UUT, Solar and Rap discounts and deposits. Parts of this schedule are
provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the City's Utility Revenue Bond and are not
required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Electric Operating Revenue by Source
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Top Ten Electric Customers by Revenue*
Customer (alphabetical order)Type of Business
133
The top ten customers total consumption is 846,932 CCF with revenue of $6,628,575.
This amount accounts for approximately 16.8% of total consumption and 16.3% of
revenue. The largest customer (other than the City of Palo Alto) accounted for 2.1% of
consumption and 2.1% of revenue. The smallest customer accounted for 0.8% of
consumption and 0.7% of revenue.
Note:
Source:City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Supplemental Disclosure for Water Utilities
Fiscal Year 2014
Top Ten Largest Water Utility Customers (alphabetical order)
City of Palo Alto
Hewlett‐Packard Company
VMware Inc.
This schedule is provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for
the City's Utility Revenue Bond and is not required by Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB).
Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club
Palo Alto Unified School District
Oak Creek Apartments
Stanford Hospital & Clinics
Stanford West Management
Veterans Admin Hospital
Space Systems/Loral, Inc.
134
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Net Local Secured Roll
Land 7,075,300$ 7,941,482$ 8,725,485$ 9,497,746$ 10,420,139$ 11,007,650$ 11,011,160$ 11,352,993$ 12,255,515$ 13,357,851$
Improvements 7,722,660 8,364,668 8,915,623 9,453,436 10,527,617 10,752,671 10,962,928 11,703,597 12,381,306 12,984,735
Personal property 220,585 174,666 213,154 228,875 303,688 288,148 241,280 257,436 287,296 307,499
15,018,545 16,480,816 17,854,262 19,180,057 21,251,444 22,048,469 22,215,368 23,314,026 24,924,117 26,650,085
Less:
Exemptions net of state aid (1,402,039) (1,595,871) (1,639,856) (1,797,327) (1,871,292) (1,809,119) (1,757,241) (2,346,728) (2,589,653) (2,610,521)
Total Net Local Secured Roll 13,616,506 14,884,945 16,214,406 17,382,730 19,380,152 20,239,350 20,458,127 20,967,298 22,334,464 24,039,564
Public utilities 4,150 4,084 3,923 3,174 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573
Unsecured property 1,354,310 1,361,117 1,391,284 1,536,584 1,702,884 1,638,436 1,495,574 1,516,837 1,355,970 1,493,922
Total Assessed Value 14,974,966$ 16,250,146$ 17,609,613$ 18,922,488$ 21,085,609$ 21,880,359$ 21,956,274$ 22,486,708$ 23,693,007$ 25,536,059$
Total Direct Tax Rate 1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Note: The State Constitution requires property to be assessed at 100% of the most recent purchase price, plus an increment of no more than 2% annually, plus any local over‐rides.
These values are considered to be full market values.
Source: County of Santa Clara Assessor's Office
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Assessed Value of Taxable Property
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
$13,000,000
$15,000,000
$17,000,000
$19,000,000
$21,000,000
$23,000,000
$25,000,000
$27,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Total Assessed Value
135
Basic County Total
County County Hospital City Library Santa Clara Direct and
Fiscal Wide Retirement G.O. Bond G.O. Bond Valley Water School Community Overlapping
Year Levy Levy (Measure A)1 (Measure N)2 District District College Rates
2005 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0092 0.0680 0.0129 1.13
2006 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0078 0.0526 0.0119 1.11
2007 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0072 0.0720 0.0346 1.15
2008 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0071 0.0702 0.0113 1.13
2009 1.00 0.0388 ‐ ‐ 0.0061 0.0674 0.0123 1.12
2010 1.00 0.0388 0.0122 ‐ 0.0074 0.0686 0.0322 1.16
2011 1.00 0.0388 0.0095 0.0171 0.0072 0.0751 0.0326 1.18
2012 1.00 0.0388 0.0047 0.0155 0.0064 0.0742 0.0297 1.17
2013 1.00 0.0388 0.0051 0.0129 0.0069 0.0718 0.0287 1.16
2014 1.00 0.0388 0.0035 0.0177 0.0070 0.0655 0.0290 1.16
Notes:1The County General Obligation Bond (Measure A) was passed in 2008 to fund the seismic upgrade of the
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. Rates were first levied for the 2009‐10 fiscal year.
2The City of Palo Alto General Obligation Bond (Measure N) was passed in 2008 to fund the construction and
renovation of three of the City's libraries. Rates were first levied for the 2010‐11 fiscal year.
Source: County of Santa Clara, Tax Rates and Information
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Property Tax Rates
All Overlapping Governments
Last Ten Fiscal Years
$1.10
$1.12
$1.14
$1.16
$1.18
$1.20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Rate per $100 of Assessed Value
136
Fiscal Year Total Tax Percentage Collections in Percentage of
Ended June 30 Levy1 for FY Amount of Levy Subsequent Years2 Amount Levy
2005 16,657$ 16,657$ 100%‐$ 16,657$ 100%
2006 18,731 18,731 100%‐ 18,731 100%
2007 21,466 21,466 100%‐ 21,466 100%
2008 23,084 23,084 100%‐ 23,084 100%
2009 25,432 25,432 100%‐ 25,432 100%
2010 25,981 25,981 100%‐ 25,981 100%
2011 25,688 25,688 100%‐ 25,688 100%
2012 26,494 26,494 100%‐ 26,494 100%
2013 28,742 28,742 100%‐ 28,742 100%
2014 30,587 30,587 100%‐ 30,587 100%
Notes:
Source:Annual Financial Statements, Government Funds, Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances.
1During fiscal year 1995, the County of Santa Clara began providing the City 100% of its tax levy
under an agreement which allows the county to keep all interest and delinquency charges
collected.
2Effective fiscal year 1994, the City is on the Teeter Plan, under which the County of Santa Clara
pays the full tax levy due. All prior delinquent taxes were also received in that fiscal year.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Collected within the
Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date
137
Taxable
Assessed
Value Rank
Percentage of
Total Taxable
Assessed Value
Taxable
Assessed
Value Rank
Percentage of
Total Taxable
Assessed Value
Leland Stanford Jr. University 3,689,653$ 1 14.4%2,508,150$ 1 16.7%
Loral Space & Communications 252,085 2 1.0%196,954 2 1.3%
EOSII Palo Alto Technology Center LLC 118,769 3 0.5%
Whisman Ventures, LLC 109,311 4 0.4%
Pacific Hotel Development Venture LP 81,729 5 0.3%
Ronald & Ann Williams Charitable Foundation 61,179 6 0.2%
PPC Forest Towers LLC 55,323 7 0.2%
Blackhawk Parent, LLC 52,224 8 0.2%
529 Bryant St. LLC 44,358 9 0.2%
Park Village Peninsula LLC 39,008 10 0.2%
Agilent Technologies 70,688 3 0.5%
Harbor Investment Partners 61,997 4 0.4%
Hamilton Associates 37,335 5 0.2%
505 Hamilton Avenue Partners 36,358 6 0.2%
California Pacific Commercial Corp.34,492 7 0.2%
Thoits Bros Inc.28,596 8 0.2%
Hyatt Equities LLC 25,944 9 0.2%
Inspire Real Estate Holdings 22,500 10 0.2%
Total 4,503,639$ 17.6%3,023,014$ 20.2%
Total City Taxable Assessed Value:
FY 2014 25,536,059$
FY 2005 14,974,966$
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2005
Taxpayer
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Principal Property Taxpayers
Current Year and Nine Years Ago
(Amounts in thousands)
138
2013‐2014 No. of
Assessed % of No. of % of Taxable % of
Valuation1 Total Parcels Total Parcels Total
Non‐Residential:
Agricultural/forest 34,972,534$ 0.15 % 48 0.23 % 32 0.16 %
Commercial 1,217,725,581 5.07 459 2.23 454 2.25
Professional/office 2,963,762,320 12.33 520 2.53 503 2.49
Industrial/research & development 1,759,861,882 7.32 189 0.92 182 0.90
Recreational 41,605,067 0.17 14 0.07 12 0.06
Government/social/institutional 35,141,795 0.15 113 0.55 45 0.22
Miscellaneous 6,840,061 0.03 18 0.09 17 0.08
Subtotal Non‐Residential 6,059,909,240$ 25.21 % 1,361 6.62 % 1,245 6.17 %
Residential:
Single family residence 14,208,622,113$ 59.11 % 14,926 72.60 % 14,879 73.72 %
Condominium/townhouse 1,911,246,785 7.95 3,006 14.62 3,000 14.86
Mobile Home 56,727 0.00 7 0.03 7 0.03
2‐4 Residential units 375,813,638 1.56 512 2.49 512 2.54
5+ Residential units 1,316,514,149 5.48 335 1.63 310 1.54
Subtotal Residential 17,812,253,412$ 74.10 % 18,786 91.38 % 18,708 92.70 %
Vacant Parcels 167,401,061$ 0.70 % 412 2.00 % 229 1.13 %
Total 24,039,563,713$ 100 % 20,559 100 % 20,182 100 %
Notes: This schedule is provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the City's General Obligation
2010 and 2013A Bonds and is not required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Therefore,
ten years of comparison data is not presented.
1Local secured assessed valuation, excluding tax‐exempt property.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Assessed Valuation and Parcels by Land Use
As of June 30, 2014
139
No. of
Taxable Average
Parcels1 Assessed Valuation
Single Family Residential 14,879 $954,945
No. of % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Taxable Total % of Total Total Total % of Total
Parcels1 Parcels Parcels Valuation Valuation Valuation
1,563 10.50 10.50 122,339,273$ 0.86 0.86
1,890 12.70 23.21 259,842,687 1.83 2.69
918 6.17 29.38 228,694,427 1.61 4.30
760 5.11 34.48 264,491,238 1.86 6.16
749 5.03 39.52 337,588,409 2.38 8.54
796 5.35 44.87 437,697,563 3.08 11.62
683 4.59 49.46 443,390,894 3.12 14.74
608 4.09 53.55 454,451,425 3.20 17.94
688 4.62 58.17 585,819,332 4.12 22.06
682 4.58 62.75 647,931,889 4.56 26.62
615 4.13 66.89 644,701,712 4.54 31.16
529 3.56 70.44 606,657,478 4.27 35.43
506 3.40 73.84 632,593,803 4.45 39.88
503 3.38 77.22 678,992,569 4.78 44.66
431 2.90 80.12 624,094,603 4.39 49.05
390 2.62 82.74 604,251,717 4.25 53.30
311 2.09 84.83 512,381,113 3.61 56.91
277 1.86 86.69 484,873,179 3.41 60.32
202 1.36 88.05 372,949,891 2.62 62.95
225 1.51 89.56 438,425,123 3.09 66.03
1,553 10.44 100.00 4,826,453,788 33.97 100.00
14,879 100.00 14,208,622,113$ 100.00
Notes:
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
This schedule is provided as required by the Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the City's General
Obligation 2010 and 2013A Bonds and is not required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB). Therefore, ten years of comparison data is not presented.
1Improved single family residential parcels. Excludes condominiums and parcels with multiple family
units.
$1,900,000‐1,999,999
$2,000,000 and greater
Total
$1,800,000‐1,899,999
$700,000‐799,999
$800,000‐899,999
$900,000‐999,999
$1,000,000‐1,099,999
$1,100,000‐1,199,999
$1,200,000‐1,299,999
$1,300,000‐1,399,999
$1,400,000‐1,499,999
$1,500,000‐1,599,999
$1,600,000‐1,699,999
$1,700,000‐1,799,999
$600,000‐699,999
$14,208,622,113 $710,650
2013‐2014
Assessed Valuation
$0‐99,999
$100,000‐199,999
$200,000‐299,999
$300,000‐399,999
$400,000‐499,999
$500,000‐599,999
Assessed Valuation Assessed Valuation
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Per Parcel Assessed Valuation of Single Family Residential
As of June 30, 2014
2013‐2014 Median
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
10,625$ 9,915$ 9,175$ 8,405$ 7,605$ 6,765$ 5,895$ 1,685$ 1,560$ 1,430$
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 55,305 55,305 54,540 74,235 73,215
325 225 115 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2011 Lease‐Purchase Agreement ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,764 2,400 2,026
Add: unamortized premium ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,766 3,640 3,514 4,400 4,242
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (571) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10,950 10,140 9,290 8,405 7,605 65,265 64,840 62,503 82,595 80,913
44,735 43,325 41,859 40,334 38,744 72,104 69,551 65,879 63,104 60,224
Energy Tax Credits ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800
State Water Resources Loan ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,629 9,000 13,080 16,696 15,900 15,109 14,309
(1,137) (1,037) (972) (1,053) (2,479) (2,737) (229) 580 543 867
43,598 42,288 40,887 46,310 46,565 83,647 87,118 83,359 79,656 76,200
Outstanding Debt 54,548$ 52,428$ 50,177$ 54,715$ 54,170$ 148,912$ 151,958$ 145,862$ 162,251$ 157,113$
1.89% 1.69% 1.51% 1.53% 1.50% 4.48% 4.10% 3.61% 3.80% 3.39%
Population (actual)61,674 62,148 62,615 63,367 64,484 65,408 64,417 65,544 66,368 66,861
0.88$ 0.84$ 0.80$ 0.86$ 0.84$ 2.28$ 2.36$ 2.23$ 2.44$ 2.35$
Notes:
Sources:
State of California, Department of Finance (population)
California Department of Transportation Long‐Term Socio‐Economic Forecasts (personal income)
Annual Financial Statements, Note 7 General Long‐Term Obligations and Note 8 Special Assessment Debt
Debt Per Capita
1See the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income data. Per capita personal income is only available for Santa Clara
County, therefore personal income is the product of the countywide per capita amount and the City's population.
County of Santa Clara (assessed valuation)
2The City adopted GASB Statement No. 65 in FY 2014 and wrote off accumulated bond issuance costs. Prior years have not been restated.
Percentage of Personal Income1
Certificates of Participation
General Obligation Bonds
Special Assessment Debt
Less: unamortized discount/
issuance costs2
Total Governmental Activities
Business‐type Activities
Utility Revenue Bonds
Less: unamortized discount/
issuance costs2
Total Business‐type Activities
Total Primary Government
Governmental Activities
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Total Governmental Activities Total Business‐type Activities
141
2013‐2014 Assessed Valuation 25,536,058,396$
Percentage Amount
Applicable Applicable
Total Debt to City of to City of
Outstanding Palo Alto1 Palo Alto
Santa Clara County 804,700,000$ 7.64%61,438,845$
Foothill‐DeAnza Community College District 613,179,288 22.53% 138,124,766
Palo Alto Unified School District 319,849,249 89.48% 286,197,910
Fremont Union High School District 290,570,108 0.02%63,925
Los Gatos Joint Union High School District 41,805,000 0.01%5,853
Mountain View‐Los Altos Union High School District 65,436,599 0.91%596,127
Cupertino Union School District 261,223,462 0.04%94,040
Los Altos School District 76,158,560 0.99%753,208
Mountain View‐Whisman School District 46,000,000 0.84%384,100
Saratoga Union School District 40,224,483 0.03%12,470
Whisman School District 23,045,269 2.14%493,399
City of Palo Alto 77,457,000 100%77,457,000
El Camino Hospital District 140,010,000 0.09% 126,009
City of Palo Alto Special Assessment Bonds 29,745,000 100% 29,745,000
Santa Clara Valley Water District Benefit Assessment District 115,045,000 7.64% 8,783,686
Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 604,276,338
757,814,320 7.63% 57,859,123
375,419,144 7.64% 28,663,252
9,730,000 7.64% 742,886
13,468,694 22.53% 3,033,958
7,925,000 0.01% 1,110
4,170,000 0.91% 37,989
5,240,000 0.03% 1,624
City of Palo Alto Certificates of Participation 1,430,000 100% 1,430,000
City of Palo Alto 2011 Lease Purchase Agreement 2,026,000 100% 2,026,000
3,275,000 7.63% 250,046
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Park District General Fund Obligations 133,209,717 13.19% 17,574,358
$ 111,620,346
40,732,468
$ 70,887,878
$ 675,164,216
Ratio to
Assessed Valuation
Total Direct Debt 0.32%80,913,000$
Total Overlapping Debt 2.33%594,251,216
Total Direct and Overlapping Debt 2.64%675,164,216$
Notes:
1Percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the city
2Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and
non‐bonded capital lease obligations.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Santa Clara County Pension Obligations
Santa Clara County Board of Education Certificates of Participation
Foothill‐DeAnza Community College District Certificates of Participation
Los Gatos‐Saratoga Joint Union High School District Certificates of Participation
Santa Clara County General Fund Obligations
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt
As of June 30, 2014
Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt
Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Mountain View‐Los Altos Union High School District Certificates of Participation
Saratoga Union High School District Certificates of Participation
Less: Santa Clara County supported obligations
Total Net Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Overlapping debt is the financial obligations of one political jurisdiction that also falls partly on a nearby jurisdiction. The amount of debt of each
unit applicable to the reporting unit is arrived at by 1) determining what percentage of the total assessed value of the overlapping jurisdiction
lies within the limits of the reporting unit, and 2) applying this percentage to the total debt of the overlapping jurisdiction.
Santa Clara County Vector Control District Certificates of Participation
Total Gross Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Total Combined Debt
142
Assessed Valuation:
Secured property assessed value,
net of exempt real property 25,536,059$
Bonded Debt Limit (3.75% of Assessed Value) 1 957,602
Direct Debt:
Certificates of Participation 1,430
Lease Purchase Agreement 2,026
General Obligation bonds 73,215
Total Direct Debt 76,671
Less: Amount of Debt Not Subject to Limit 2 3,456
Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit 73,215
Legal Bonded Debt Margin 884,387$
Total Bonded Total Net Debt Legal Total Net Debt Ratio of Net General
Fiscal Assessed Debt Limit Applicable to Bonded Debt Applicable to the Debt to Bonded Debt
Year Value (AV)(3.75% of AV)Limit Margin Population Debt as a %Assessed Value Per Capita
2005 14,974,966$ 561,561$ ‐$ 561,561$ 61,674 0.00%‐ 0.00
2006 16,250,144 609,380 ‐ 609,380 62,148 0.00%‐ 0.00
2007 17,609,613 660,360 ‐ 660,360 62,615 0.00%‐ 0.00
2008 18,922,488 709,593 ‐ 709,593 63,367 0.00%‐ 0.00
2009 21,085,609 790,710 ‐ 790,710 64,484 0.00%‐ 0.00
2010 21,880,359 820,513 55,305 765,208 65,408 6.74%0.0025 0.85
2011 21,956,274 823,360 55,305 768,055 64,417 6.72%0.0025 0.86
2012 22,486,708 843,252 54,540 788,712 65,544 6.47%0.0024 0.83
2013 23,693,007 888,488 74,235 814,253 66,368 8.36%0.0031 1.12
2014 25,536,059 957,602 73,215 884,387 66,861 7.65%0.0029 1.10
Notes:
Source:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin
As of June 30, 2014
(Amounts in thousands)
1California Government Code, Section 43605 sets the debt limit at 15% of the assessed value of all real and personal property of the City. Because
this Code section was enacted when assessed value was 25% of market value, the limit is calculated at one‐fourth, or 3.75%. This legal debt margin
applies to General Obligation debt. Prior year limits have been adjusted to conform to the current year methodology.
2In accordance with California Government Code Section 43605, only the City's General Obligation bonds are subject to the legal debt limit of 15%.
Enterprise Fund debt is not subject to legal debt margin.
Annual Financial Statements, Assessed Value of Taxable Property and Note 7 General Long‐Term Obligations
Total Assessed Value for FY 2005 was restated due to correction of data.
143
Less: Net Revenue
Fiscal Gross Direct Operating Available for
Year Revenue Expenses2 Debt Service Principal Interest3 Total Coverage Ratio
2005 171,493$ 147,123$ 24,370$ 1,365$ 2,257$ 3,622$ 6.73
2006 213,337 143,703 69,634 1,410 2,203 3,613 19.27
2007 203,146 151,196 51,950 1,465 2,147 3,612 14.38
2008 219,801 173,620 46,181 1,525 2,088 3,613 12.78
2009 242,693 180,880 61,813 1,590 2,024 3,614 17.10
2010 230,308 171,320 58,988 1,755 1,954 3,709 15.90
2011 234,278 151,641 82,637 2,655 3,261 5,916 13.97
2012 235,160 169,777 65,383 2,945 2,959 5,904 11.07
2013 237,842 173,510 64,332 2,875 3,167 6,042 10.65
2014 239,948 176,718 63,230 2,980 3,073 6,053 10.45
Notes:1Airport, Refuse and Fiber Optics funds have no debt and are therefore excluded from this schedule.
2Excludes depreciation and amortization expense.
3Excludes federal interest subsidy.
Source: City of Palo Alto, Accounting Department
Debt Service
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Revenue Bond Coverage
Business‐type Activities1
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
$ Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Net Revenue Available for Debt Service Total Debt Service
144
Fiscal
Year
2005 2,621 2,206 1,176 1,310 356 533 317 3,590 7,105 19,214
2006 2,664 2,306 1,168 1,346 370 595 392 4,244 7,104 20,189
2007 2,751 2,486 1,109 1,485 374 602 203 5,075 7,139 21,224
2008 2,685 2,566 1,685 1,497 349 622 405 4,682 6,797 21,288
2009 2,251 2,443 1,431 1,258 315 493 214 4,284 6,635 19,324
2010 2,215 2,418 1,402 1,254 343 549 219 4,458 5,556 18,414
2011 2,374 2,621 1,564 1,292 381 630 242 4,873 6,322 20,299
2012 2,445 2,937 1,590 1,492 387 722 257 5,049 7,034 21,913
2013 2,478 3,160 1,465 1,656 424 765 259 4,056 13,729 27,992
2014 2,097 3,541 1,555 2,041 392 772 444 4,845 9,890 25,577
Source: California State Board of Equalization, compiled by MuniServices LLC
Sales Tax Rates for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2014
State Rate:6.00%
Local (County/City) Rates:
Palo Alto (State‐City or County Operations) 0.75%
State/Palo Alto (Fiscal Recovery Fund to pay off Economic Recovery Bonds 2004)0.25%
Sate (Local Public Safety Fund to support local criminal justice activities 1993)0.50%
Special District Tax Rates:
Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCT)0.50%
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (SCVT)0.50%
Santa Clara VTA BART Operating and Maintenance Transactions and Use Tax (SVTB)0.125%
Santa Clara Retail Transactions and Use Tax (SCCR)0.125%
Total Sales and Use Tax Rate:8.750%
Source: California State Board of Equalization
Food
Markets
Service
Stations
Drug
Stores
Other
Retail All Other
Apparel
Stores
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Taxable Transactions by Type of Business
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Amounts in thousands)
Total
ECONOMIC SEGMENT
Department
Stores Restaurants
Furniture/
Appliance
Department Stores
8%
Restaurants
14%
Furniture/ Appliance
6%
Apparel Stores
8%
Food Markets
1%
Service Stations
3%
Drug Stores
2%
Other Retail
19%
All Other
39%
Fiscal Year 2014
145
Santa Clara Santa Clara
City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Santa Clara City Population County Total County Per Capita
Fiscal City of Palo Alto Unemployment School County as a Percentage of Personal Income Personal Income
Year Population Rate Enrollment Population County Population (in thousands)(in thousands)
2005 61,674 2.8%10,527 1,759,585 3.51% 82,300,000$ 46,772$
2006 62,148 2.5%10,607 1,773,258 3.50% 88,300,000 49,795
2007 62,615 2.6%11,056 1,808,056 3.46% 96,100,000 53,151
2008 63,367 3.5%11,329 1,837,075 3.45% 103,500,000 56,340
2009 64,484 6.5%11,329 1,857,621 3.47% 104,300,000 *56,147 *
2010 65,408 6.2%11,565 1,880,876 3.48% 95,500,000 *50,774 *
2011 64,417 5.3%12,024 1,781,427 3.62% 102,600,000 *57,594 *
2012 65,544 4.7%12,286 1,816,486 3.61% 111,900,000 *61,602 *
2013 66,368 3.6%12,396 1,842,254 3.60% 118,600,000 *64,378 *
2014 66,861 2.8%12,483 1,868,558 3.58%129,600,000 *69,358 *
Note: Data on personal income and per capita personal income is only available for Santa Clara County.
Source: California State Department of Finance (population)
State Employment Development Office (unemployment rate)
Palo Alto Unified School District (school enrollment)
* California Department of Transportation Long‐Term Socio‐Economic Forecasts (personal income). Forecasts from prior years are updated annually.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
60,000
61,000
62,000
63,000
64,000
65,000
66,000
67,000
68,000 City Population
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000 School Enrollment
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%City Unemployment Rate
146
Number of
Employees Rank
Percentage of
Total City
Employment
Number of
Employees Rank
Percentage of
Total City
Employment
Stanford University 11,128 1 8.9%9,821 1 7.0%
Stanford University Medical Center/Hospital 5,886 2 4.7%5,025 2 3.6%
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital 4,215 3 3.4%3,326 4 2.4%
VMware Inc.3,509 4 2.8%
SAP 3,500 5 2.8%
Veteran's Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System 3,000 6 2.4%3,500 3 2.5%
Space Systems/Loral 2,720 7 2.2%1,700 7 1.2%
Hewlett‐Packard Company 2,500 8 2.0%2,001 5 1.4%
Colubris Networks, Inc.2,201 9 1.8%
Palo Alto Medical Foundation 2,200 10 1.8%2,000 6 1.4%
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1,500 8 1.1%
Palo Alto Unified School District 1,304 9 0.9%
City of Palo Alto 1,074 10 0.8%
Total 40,859 32.8%31,251 22.3%
Estimated Total City Day Population:
FY 2014 125,000
FY 2008 140,000
Notes:
Source:
1Comparable data was not available until FY 2008.
AtoZdatabases, http://facts.stanford.edu/governance.html, http://facts.stanford.edu/hospital.html, www.lpch.org/aboutus/, The City
of Palo Alto, A Report to Our Citizens.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Principal Employers
Current Year and Six Years Ago
FY 2014 FY 20081
Employer
Available data sources have been shown to be unreliable in the past. These numbers will be refined with the creation of a City business
registry.
147
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Governmental activities
Community Services
Number of theater performances 175 172 183 171 166
Total hours of athletic field usage2 ‐ 65,748 65,791 70,769 63,212
Number of rounds of golf 83,728 78,410 76,000 76,241 74,630
Enrollment in recreation classes (includes summer camps 16,435 15,127 14,768 14,460 13,851
Planning and Community Environment
Planning applications completed 409 327 390 299 257
Building permits issued 3,236 3,081 3,081 3,136 3,046
Green Building permit applications processed3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Caltrain average weekday boarding 2,825 3,264 3,882 4,132 4,589
Police
Calls for service 52,489 52,233 57,017 60,079 58,742
Total arrests 2,577 2,134 2,530 3,059 3,253
Parking citations issued 47,860 52,235 56,502 57,222 50,706
Animal Services
Number of service calls 3,575 4,994 2,861 2,990 3,059
Number of sheltered animals 3,780 3,514 3,839 3,578 3,532
Fire
Calls for service 6,675 6,414 6,897 7,236 7,723
Number of fire incidents 248 224 211 221 192
Number of fire inspections 793 1,488 899 1,021 1,277
Library
Total number of cardholders 50,171 52,001 55,909 53,099 53,740
Total number of items in collection 267,693 264,511 260,468 270,755 279,403
Total checkouts 1,314,790 1,282,888 1,280,547 1,414,509 1,542,116
Public Works
Street resurfacing (lane miles)17 20 20 32 27
Number of potholes repaired 2,907 3,221 2,311 1,188 1,977
Sq. ft. of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired 115,352 132,430 126,574 94,620 83,827
Number of trees planted 242 164 263 164 188
Total tons of waste landfilled 61,266 60,777 59,276 59,938 61,866
Tons of materials recycled 49,268 50,311 56,013 56,837 52,196
Business‐type activities
Electric
Number of customer accounts 28,482 28,556 28,653 28,684 29,024
Residential MWH consumed 158,099 161,440 161,202 162,405 162,680
Gas
Number of customer accounts 23,216 23,301 23,353 23,357 23,502
Residential therms consumed 11,700,335 12,299,158 11,745,883 11,759,842 11,969,151
Water
Number of customer accounts 19,557 19,605 19,645 19,726 19,942
Residential water consumption (CCF)3,000,645 2,686,507 2,647,758 2,807,477 2,746,980
Wastewater collection
Number of customer accounts 21,830 21,763 21,784 21,789 21,970
Millions of gallons processed 8,238 8,497 8,972 8,853 8,510
Notes:
2Some data not available.
Source: City of Palo Alto Performance Report (formerly the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report)
1Ten most recent years available.
3In FY 2009, a new Green Building Program was established under the City's Green Building Ordinance to build a new
generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto that are environmentally responsible and healthy places in which to live and work.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Operating Indicators by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years1
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
FUNCTIONS/PROGRAMS
148
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
159 174 175 175 184
45,762 41,705 42,687 44,226 ‐
72,170 69,791 67,381 65,653 60,153
13,091 12,880 12,310 11,703 11,598
273 226 238 204 307
2,543 2,847 3,559 3,320 3,682
341 556 961 887 1,037
4,863 4,796 5,501 5,730 5,469
53,275 55,860 52,159 51,086 54,628
2,612 2,451 2,288 2,212 2,274
49,996 42,591 40,426 41,875 43,877
2,873 2,692 2,804 3,051 2,909
3,422 3,147 3,323 3,379 2,675
7,549 7,468 7,555 7,796 7,904
239 182 165 186 150
1,028 1,526 1,807 1,654 2,069
54,878 51,969 53,246 60,283 51,007
293,735 298,667 314,154 306,361 277,749
1,633,955 1,624,785 1,476,648 1,559,932 1,512,975
23 32 29 40 36
3,727 3,149 2,986 3,047 2,726
56,909 54,602 71,174 72,787 82,118
250 201 150 143 245
68,228 48,955 38,524 43,947 45,411
49,911 48,811 56,586 51,725 47,941
28,527 29,430 29,708 29,545 29,299
159,899 163,098 160,318 160,604 156,411
23,090 23,724 23,816 23,915 23,659
11,003,088 11,394,712 11,476,609 11,522,999 10,834,793
19,442 20,134 20,248 20,317 20,043
2,566,962 2,415,467 2,442,415 2,513,595 2,521,930
21,210 22,231 22,320 22,421 22,152
7,958 8,184 8,652 8,130 7,546
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
149
2005 2006 2007 2008
FUNCTION/PROGRAM
Public Safety
Fire:
Fire Stations 8 8 8 8
Fire Apparatus 25 25 25 23
Police:
Police Stations 1 1 1 1
Police Patrol Vehicles 30 30 30 30
Community Services
Acres ‐ Downtown/Urban Parks 170 170 157 157
Acres ‐ Open Space 3,731 3,731 3,744 3,744
Parks and Preserves 35 35 36 36
Golf Course 1 1 1 1
Tennis Courts 52 52 51 51
Athletic Center 1 1 4 4
Community Centers 4 4 4 4
Theaters 3 3 3 3
Cultural Center/Art Center 1 1 1 1
Junior Museum and Zoo 1 1 1 1
Swimming Pools 1 1 1 1
Nature Center 2 2 3 3
Libraries
Libraries 5 5 5 5
Public Works:
Number of Trees Maintained 35,096 34,841 34,556 35,058
Electric Utility1
Miles of Overhead Lines 225 217 194 193
Miles of Underground Lines 188 210 252 253
Water Utility
Miles of Water Mains 226 217 217 217
Gas Utility
Miles of Gas Mains 207 207 207 207
Waste Water
Miles of Sanitary Sewer Lines 202 202 202 202
Note:
Source: City of Palo Alto
1The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department recently completed the conversion of its electric system maps
to a GIS mapping system database. Therefore, the distances reported for FY 11/12 and forward are more
accurate than the distances reported in previous years.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
150
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
8 8 8 7 77
28 28 27 29 28 28
1 1 1 1 11
30 30 30 30 30 30
157 157 157 157 157 157
3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3744 3744
36 36 36 36 36 36
1 1 1 1 11
51 51 51 51 51 51
4 4 4 4 44
4 4 4 4 44
3 3 3 3 33
1 1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 11
3 3 3 3 33
5 5 5 5 55
34,991 35,025 34,977 34,874 34,907 34,741
193 193 193 223 222 223
253 253 253 245 246 249
214 214 214 234 233 236
207 205 205 210 210 214
207 207 207 217 217 217
Fiscal Year Ended June 30
151
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Governmental Funds
General Fund:
Administrative 96 97 99 98 98 89 83 83 85 83
Community Services 98 99 97 96 97 94 74 74 74 74
Office of Emergency Services5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3
Fire 126 127 127 127 127 123 121 122 119 116
Library 44 44 44 44 44 42 41 41 41 42
Planning and Community Environment 53 53 53 53 53 49 44 43 48 49
Police 165 164 163 163 164 161 157 157 154 155
Public Works1 68 68 68 68 69 64 59 56 57 56
Subtotal General Fund 650 652 651 649 652 622 579 576 578 578
All Other Funds:
Capital Projects Fund 20 20 20 20 21 24 24 24 26 27
Special Revenue Fund 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 9
Total Governmental Funds 671 673 672 670 674 647 605 602 606 614
Enterprise Funds
Public Works2 113 113 113 113 113 115 115 115 104 99
Utilities3 234 236 235 235 238 242 251 251 254 255
External Services4 6 6 6 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Enterprise Funds 353 355 354 354 351 357 366 366 358 354
Internal Service Funds
Printing and Mailing 4 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2
Technology 30 30 30 30 31 31 30 30 31 32
Vehicle Replacement 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17
Total Internal Service Funds 50 51 50 50 51 51 48 48 50 51
Total 1,074 1,079 1,076 1,074 1,076 1,055 1,019 1,016 1,014 1,019
1Fleet and Facilities Management
2Refuse, Storm Drainage, Wastewater Treatment
Numbers adjusted for rounding purposes.
Source: City of Palo Alto ‐ Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget
5Effective in 2014, emergency services and disaster preparation activities have been removed from the Fire Department and
are now shown in newly created Office of Emergency Services.
4Effective in 2009, External Services was dissolved. 5 FTEs were eliminated and 1 FTE was transferred to the Technology
Fund.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Full Time Equivalent Employees as of June 30
3Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, Water
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fu
l
l
Ti
m
e
Eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
Governmental Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds
152
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Index to the Single Audit Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
153
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ..................................... 155
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program and
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A‐133 ................................... 157
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ........................................................................................... 159
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ...................................................................... 160
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ............................................................................................. 161
Schedule of Prior Years Findings and Questioned Costs ........................................................................... 162
154
This page is intentionally left blank.
155
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of
the City of Palo Alto, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes
to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have
issued our report thereon dated November 17, 2014.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control
over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses
may exist that have not been identified.
156
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal
control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
157
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and Report on
Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A-133
Honorable Mayor and the Members
of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Palo Alto’s, California (City) compliance with the types of compliance
requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and
material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2014. The City’s
major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying
schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grants applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City’s major federal programs
based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of
compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the
standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of
compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal
program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance
with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major
federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Program
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements
referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the
year ended June 30, 2014.
158
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our
audit of compliance, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the types of
requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the
auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in
accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a
federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal
program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in
internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material
weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over
compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However,
material weaknesses may exist that were not identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our
testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of
OMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Walnut Creek, California
November 17, 2014
Grantor Federal
Identifying CFDA Subrecipients
Grantor/Pass‐Through Grantor/Program Title Number Number Expenditures Expenditures
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Pass‐through from California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA)
CA Fire Assitance Agreement 6022‐9 10.09‐FI‐11052012‐150 50,542$ ‐$
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development
Direct
CDBG ‐ Entitlement Grants Cluster
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants B‐10‐MC‐06‐0020 14.218 672,923 574,221
U.S. Department of Interior
Direct
ARRA ‐ Water Reclamation and Reuse Program R10AP20003 15.504 5,599 ‐
U.S. Department of Justice
Direct
Equitable Sharing Program CA0431200 16.CA0431200 2,315 ‐
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pass‐through from State of California Department of Transportation
Highway Planning and Construction HSIPL‐5100(014)20.205 898,474 ‐
Highway Planning and Construction STPL‐5100(019)20.205 544,927 ‐
Highway Planning and Construction BRLS‐5100(017)20.205 117,770 ‐
Subtotal 1,561,171 ‐
Pass‐through from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Highway Planning and Construction CML‐5100(018)20.205 69,548 ‐
Total Highway Planning and Construction 1,630,719 ‐
National Endowment for the Arts
Direct
NEA Research: Art Works 197662 45.024 11,300 ‐
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Pass‐through from California State Library
Grants to States LS‐00‐11‐0005‐11 45.310 65,710 ‐
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Direct
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System EMW‐2011‐CA‐K00047 97.025 16,705 ‐
Pass‐through from Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services
Homeland Security Grant Program 13‐31307 97.067 14,900 ‐
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security 31,605 ‐
TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS 2,470,713$ 574,221$
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
See Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
159
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
160
NOTE 1 – REPORTING ENTITY
The schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes expenditures of federal awards
for the City of Palo Alto, California (City), and its component unit as disclosed in the notes to the basic
financial statements.
NOTE 2 – BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the
accounts and reported in the financial statements, regardless of measurement focus applied. All
governmental funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting. All proprietary
funds are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting. Expenditures of federal awards reported
in the Schedule are recognized when incurred and all eligibility requirements have been met.
NOTE 3 – DIRECT AND INDIRECT (PASS‐THROUGH) FEDERAL AWARDS
Federal awards may be granted directly to the City by a federal granting agency or may be granted to
other government agencies which pass‐through federal awards to the City. The Schedule includes both
of these types of federal award programs when they occur.
NOTE 4 – RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
Amounts reported in the Schedule agree to or can be reconciled with the amounts reported in the
related federal financial reports.
NOTE 5 – RELATIONSHIP TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Federal awards and expenditures agree to or can be reconciled with the amounts reported in the City’s
basic financial statements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
161
Section I ‐ Summary of Auditor’s Results
Financial Statements
Type of auditor’s report issued on the
basic financial statements of the City:
Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es) identified? No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified?
None reported
Noncompliance material to the financial statements
noted?
No
Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified? No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified?
None reported
Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for
major programs:
Unmodified
Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with section 510(a) of OMB
Circular A‐133?
No
Identification of Major Programs: 14.218 CDBG – Entitlement Grants Cluster
20.205 Highway Planning and Construction
Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A
and type B programs:
$300,000
Auditee qualified as a low‐risk auditee? Yes
Section II – Financial Statements Findings
No findings reported.
Section III ‐ Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs
No findings reported.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Schedule of Prior Years Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
162
Schedule of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Finding #SA 2013‐01 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment
Federal Program Title: Highway Planning and Construction
Federal Catalog Number: 20.205
Condition: The City did not contain a certification within the contract
showing that the contractor was not suspended or debarred,
nor was there any evidence that the City verified that the
contractor was not suspended or debarred by checking the
Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General
Services Administration. The amount reimbursed by the federal
grant for this contract was $144,081.
Status of Corrective Action Plan: In progress. Due to an unexpected staffing change, the City will
hire a new management analyst to draft the policy and
procedures to document the proper verification.
...……………………………………………………………………….
City of Palo Alto 163
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT
In compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
this document may be provided in other accessible formats.
For information contact:
ADA Coordinator
250 Hamilton Avenue
(650) 329-2550
ADA@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 P 650.329.2100 W cityofpaloalto.org
The City of Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County, approximately
35 miles south of the City of San Francisco and 12 miles north of the City of San Jose.
Spanish explorers named the area for the tall, twin-trunked redwood tree they camped
beneath in 1769. Palo Alto incorporated in 1894 and the State of California
granted its first charter in 1909.
30% post-consumer recycled
Excerpt
Page 1 of 5
Attachment D
Special Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Chairperson Berman called the meeting to order at 6:08 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman (Chair), Burt, Holman, Kniss
Absent:
3. Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, Including Reappropriation Requests, Closing
Completed Capital Projects and Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR).
David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, reported
major tax revenues had grown while expenses were under Budget. A clean
audit pointed to sound financial management.
Laura Kuryk, Accounting Manager, advised that tax revenue sources
outperformed expectations in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. There was double digit
year-over-year growth in Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and
Documentary Transfer Tax. Sales Tax grew from 16 percent in FY 2012 and
15 percent in FY 2014 over 2013. Total FY 2014 revenue exceeded the
Adjusted Budget by $2.8 million, or 2 percent. FY 2014 actual expenses of
$151.8 million were $1.8 million, 1.1 percent, less than the Adjusted
Budget. Savings were due to non-salary budget savings across General
Fund departments. The City proactively contained expenses, notably
through negotiations with labor groups. Pension and retiree medical costs
would continue to rise in future years as a result of increasing plan costs and
changes to actuarial assumptions and methods. The City proactively
implemented a second pension tier and increased employee contributions to
mitigate increasing costs. Public Safety Department overtime exceeded
Budget for FY 2014 by $1 million. The shortfall was absorbed through
vacancy savings and other means. The Public Safety Department Budget
would be reexamined as the FY 2016 Budget was developed. In the first
quarter of FY 2015, Police Department overtime had decreased by 14
percent and Fire Department overtime increased by 9 percent. The Budget
Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Fund opened the year with a balance of $30.3
million. The BSR surplus for FY 2014 was $8.726 million before transferring
any excess to the Infrastructure Reserve Fund. Staff recommended $4
Page 2 of 5
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 12/2/2014
million be transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve Fund, leaving a BSR
Fund balance of $35.1 million. $1.7 million would be carried forward to FY
2015 and used for one-time expenditures, leaving an accounting basis
balance of $33.4 million, 19.5 percent of the FY 2015 Adopted Budget
expenditures and operating transfers. The 19.5 percent fell within the City's
established reserve guidelines.
Chair Berman inquired about the established range for reserves.
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services,
responded 15 percent to 20 percent with a target of 18.5 percent.
Ms. Kuryk continued that $7.6 million in FY 2013 and $8.9 million in FY 2012
were transferred to the Infrastructure Reserve for a total of $20.5 million,
including the $4 million transfer proposed for FY 2014. As of June 30, 2014,
the Infrastructure Reserve balance was $3.4 million. If all existing adopted
projects were completed as budgeted and without further funding, there
would be $3.4 million in cash and in the Infrastructure Reserve. All
Enterprise Funds had surpluses from operations in FY 2014 with the
exception of the Airport Fund and the Wastewater Treatment Fund. The
Wastewater Treatment Fund totaled a negative $1.9 million due to a one-
time change in the Water Quality Control Plant's process for invoicing
partners. All Enterprise Funds were in a positive Rate Stabilization Reserve
(RSR) position as of June 30, 2014, with the exception of the Refuse Fund
and the Airport Fund. The Refuse Fund had a negative RSR created by
virtue of the reserve for landfill closure. FY 2014 results improved from
negative $2.8 million to negative $1.6 million. The Airport Fund continued
to show a negative RSR. The Airport Fund would begin generating a
revenue stream in the first quarter FY 2015; however, net deficits could
continue for some time.
Mr. Perez remarked that changes in compensation and increases in revenue
were some factors that resulted in surpluses. Over the past four years, the
City had dedicated the vast majority of excess revenue to infrastructure for
a total of $20.5 million. Policies implemented by the Council had assisted
with the infrastructure deficit.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired about the next steps for a new Public Safety
Building and Fire Station remodeling.
James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff was in the second stage of
reviewing site options for the Public Safety Building. After the new year,
Staff would meet with the Council and discuss site options. Mr. Sartor could
speak to the scheduling and staging of projects included in the infrastructure
plan.
Page 3 of 5
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 12/2/2014
Vice Mayor Kniss felt the community wanted to know the status of projects.
She understood the TOT increase was the last step in being prepared to
begin projects.
Mike Sartor, Director of Public Works, advised that the FY 2015 Budget
contained funds to start the design for replacement of Fire Station Number
3. Staff identified a project team and were putting together a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for consultant support for design work. Staff reviewed
potential sites for the Public Safety Building and planned to return to the
Council with options for sites and costs of land. Following that, Staff would
identify a project team and develop a contract for design work.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked if sites with merit were available.
Mr. Sartor answered yes. Staff identified four sites that were usable for a
Public Safety Building.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired about a timeframe for discussion with the Council.
Mr. Sartor indicated Staff would provide a review of sites in January or
February 2015.
Vice Mayor Kniss hoped to have a report by February.
Mr. Sartor would do his best to return by February.
Mr. Keene requested the Finance Committee (Committee) provide a
recommendation as to whether Staff should interface with the Finance
Committee or the Policy and Services Committee. Much of the discussion
and work would concern prioritizing a schedule. Staff could provide ongoing
reports to a Council Committee and periodic reports to the Council.
Chair Berman recommended Staff check-in with the full Council and request
direction regarding the best process for proceeding with capital items.
Vice Mayor Kniss commented that the paragraph in the middle of Packet
Page 211 was misleading regarding the backlog of projects.
Mr. Perez would provide a status report on projects not funded.
Council Member Burt questioned whether next steps for the Infrastructure
Plan should be addressed through the Committee or some other method.
That question should be posed to the Council shortly after the first of the
year. It could be included in the Council Retreat. He was interested in a
discussion of potentially implementing a reserve fund to cover unfunded
pension liabilities for retiree medical. That too could be included at the
Council Retreat. A few years ago, the City reduced the number of its
Page 4 of 5
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 12/2/2014
employees to assist with balancing the Budget. The number of employees
was returning to previous levels; therefore, the Council should discuss
appropriate staffing levels and impacts on long-term financial planning.
Council Member Holman noted department Budgets had increased from
2009 to 2014 and suggested Staff provide an explanation for those
increases. The information did not note that the Council approved Budget
Amendment Ordinances (BAO). She did not recall seeing the percentage of
the Budget that resulted from BAOs or how Staff accounted for them. She
inquired whether Staff could better anticipate BAOs.
Mr. Perez reported Staff was aware of some BAOs but not the amount. Staff
could look at trends. Sometimes BAOs resulted from Council directions.
Council Member Holman suggested Staff track BAOs and provide a list of
anticipated items with a range of costs during the Budget process.
Mr. Keene advised that the majority of BAOs occurred within the existing
Budget; funds were moved from one source to another. A BAO did not
necessarily add to costs. Explanations of what drives changes were typically
identified within the Budget document.
Mr. Perez added that Staff provided the status of BAOs to date during the
quarterly report.
Chair Berman inquired whether the BSR ending balance on June 30, 2014
included the $1.7 million earmarked for FY 2014 one-time expenditures.
Ms. Kuryk replied that it did not include the $1.7 million.
Chair Berman asked if the BSR 19.5 percent was based on $35 million or
$35 million less $1.7 million.
Ms. Kuryk explained that the $35.1 million amount represented 20.5
percent. After transferring $1.7 million, the BSR would be at 19.5 percent.
Chair Berman inquired about the City Manager's actions when BSR reached
18.5 percent.
Mr. Perez reported the City Manager had the discretion to recommend
transferring funds to the Infrastructure Reserve. The Council directed Staff
to make the transfer for FY 2014.
Chair Berman inquired about the percentage of the beginning balance on
July 1, 2013, $30.3 million.
Mr. Perez calculated 18.5 to 19 percent.
Page 5 of 5
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 12/2/2014
Chair Berman recalled the decision to request a 2 percent TOT increase
resulted in a funding gap of $10 million.
Mr. Perez clarified that the final amount was $7 million.
Chari Berman stated that the $1.7 million would represent about 25 percent
of the $7 million. If the BSR were decreased to 18.5 percent, another $1.7
million would be available to help close that gap. He was not recommending
the City do that, but everyone should be aware of the long-term gap in the
Infrastructure Funding Plan.
Mr. Perez recommended the hold a discussion on the topic, because several
factors affected funding. Projected costs could have changed.
Chair Berman asked if Mr. Perez meant costs for infrastructure items.
Mr. Perez replied yes. Revenues could be higher or lower than expected.
Staff needed to analyze whether lowering the BSR target would affect the
City's credit rating in light of the City issuing several million dollars of debt.
Decision should be made in light of the bigger context.
Chair Berman had received public comments regarding Staff's workload.
Staff's workload increased because of fewer employees and the many
ongoing projects. The community expected high quality services as well as
more programs and projects.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to recommend to the City Council adoption of an Ordinance
authorizing the closing of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, including
Reappropriation Requests, closing completed Capital Projects and
authorizing transfers to reserves, and approval of the fiscal year 2014
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Council Member Burt remarked that the City had a trend of increasing
strength and had been investing additional funding in infrastructure projects.
He looked forward to the implementation of investments.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5464)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Amendment for Dyett & Bhatia
Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $63,000 to
Contract No. C14149978 With Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners
for Additional Data Collection and Analysis Related to Downtown Retail and
Residential Uses
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to amend
the existing contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners to add $63,000 for a total
contract amount not to exceed $263,000 for further data and analysis related to the Downtown
Cap Study and its integration into the pending Comprehensive Plan Update process.
Executive Summary
In October 2013, the City Council awarded a contract for the Downtown Development Cap
Study (Phase 1) to Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners. As part of that study, Dyett &
Bhatia performed detailed data collection and analysis of non-residential developments in the
Downtown area. Phase I has been completed and the Council received the resulting reports in
June 2014 and January 2015.
Now, additional Downtown data is needed focusing on retail and residential uses. At the
December 8, 2014 meeting on the Comprehensive Plan, Council directed staff to explore retail
preservation issues by gathering data and stakeholder input, and return to Council for direction
on preparation of a related ordinance(s). In addition, the City’s adopted Housing Element
commits the City to exploring elimination of housing sites identified on south El Camino and San
Antonio Avenue in exchange for new sites or higher densities in the California Avenue and
Downtown areas. The contract amendment will task the consultant with an analysis of
downtown retail as well as downtown’s residential capacity.
Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners, as prime consultant, with Economic Planning
Systems, Inc. (EPS), as sub consultant, have familiarity and understanding of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Downtown land use issues, real estate market trends, and parking and traffic conditions from
preparing the Downtown Cap Study Phase One studies.
Background
City Council awarded the contract for the Downtown Development Cap Study Phase 1 to Dyett
and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, in October 2013, and the study was completed over
the course of 2014. The study included background research and analysis of existing land use
and development trends, parking and traffic conditions and the theoretical and realistic
capacity of Downtown Palo Alto for non-residential development. The Council specifically
deferred a discussion of policy implications (Phase 2 of the study) until a later date and the
Comprehensive Plan Update has become the forum for discussions related to the relative
merits of growth management programs like the “cap” instituted in Comprehensive Plan
Program L-8.
In the course of discussions regarding the Comprehensive Plan process this summer, the City
Council requested that staff concurrently consider ordinance changes to preserve ground floor
retail, necessitating data collection and stakeholder discussions in the City’s retail districts. The
City Council also adopted an updated Housing Element which commits the City to assess the
potential for removing housing sites in the San Antonio/South El Camino Real areas, requiring
an analysis of the potential for residential development in Downtown.
Discussion
Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners (as prime consultant) recently completed Phase 1 of
the Downtown Development Cap Study for the City of Palo Alto. They have familiarity with
economic conditions and land use issues of Downtown Palo Alto and understand the
community context through their experience working on the Development Cap project. Their
team of sub consultants also has knowledge and experience evaluating local as well as regional
real estate market conditions.
Deliverables under this proposed contract modification will include two memoranda: a
residential build out and market assessment memorandum and a retail analysis memorandum
with findings from detailed zoning based retail capacity analysis and retail market assessment.
A detail of the work scope is provided in Attachment B.
Timeline
Immediately upon execution of a contract amendment, staff will meet with the consultants to
initiate the scope of work described in Attachment B. Staff expects the retail market
assessment and capacity analysis to be completed within one or two months after
commencement followed by residential market analysis to be completed by April/May of 2015.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Sufficient funding is available in the Planning and Community Environment Department FY 2015
budget for the retail and residential market assessment and capacity study.
Policy Implications
The culture of Palo Alto demands ample data and analysis to inform decision making.
Undertaking the proposed assessment of retail trends and residential capacity would continue
to address Comprehensive Plan Program L-8 (re-evaluate the Downtown cap) and L-9 (monitor
the effectiveness of ground floor retail requirements), and would inform implementation of
Housing Element Program H2.2.5 (identify more transit-rich sites including the downtown and
consider exchanging for sites along San Antonio and South El Camino Real).
Environmental Review
The recommended action in this report is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, this action would authorize the city to conduct a
land use study that will help inform future decisions. No action, change or impact to the
environment will occur as a direct result of this decision. Accordingly, the project is exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) and Section
15061(b)(3) (the “Common Sense exception”).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Dyett & Bhatia Contract Amendment (PDF)
Attachment B: Scope of Work (PDF)
1 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C14149978
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C14149978 (“Contract”) is entered into February 2, 2015,
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”),
and DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, a California corporation,
located at 755 Samsome Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California, Telephone (415) 956-4300
("CONSULTANT").
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of
evaluation of existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the downtown Palo
Alto.
B. CITY intends to increase compensation of $200,000.00 by $63,000.00 to
$263,000.00 for additional studies as specified and incorporated into EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF
SERVICES.
C. The parties wish to amend the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Three
Thousand Dollars ($253,000.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total
compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two
Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Dollars ($263,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment
are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and
made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
ATTACHMENT A
2 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
SECTION 2. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”.
c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”.
d. Exhibit “C1” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”.
SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND
REGIONAL PLANNERS
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT "B": RATE SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “C1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
President
3 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Per Amendment No. 1, EXHIBIT “A” is hereby modified to incorporate the following additional scope of
services.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
CONSULTANT and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.(SUB-CONSULTANT) recently completed Phase
1 of the Downtown Development Cap Study for CITY, which consisted of background research and
analysis of land use and development trends, parking, and economic conditions in Downtown Palo Alto
following implementation of the non-residential development cap policy established in 1986. The final
deliverable included an assessment of current and potential future non-residential development in Downtown
Palo Alto, based on an analysis of remaining development capacity under current zoning, physical and
regulatory constraints to development, and the market potential for and financial feasibility of new
development.
CITY now wishes to see additional analysis of this nature completed for two additional land use types:
residential and retail. For residential, CITY seeks to understand the potential of the Downtown area to
accommodate more residential development, both in general over the long term to support a mixed use,
vibrant urban core, as well as in the short/medium term (the upcoming Housing Element cycle) to
support housing units in the Housing Element currently allocated to the San Antonio/South El Camino Real
area. Residential uses were excluded from the original downtown development cap, and consequently, largely
excluded from the study recently completed. This effort would supplement the work previously completed
with a similar type of analysis.
CITY is also concerned about the trend in conversions of retail space to non-retail uses, particularly
office uses, in the Downtown area off University Avenue. In particular, small-scale “mom and pop” stores
appear to be most affected. Retail, as a non-residential use, was included in the overall analysis of supply and
demand for non-residential space in Downtown; this effort would parse out buildout potential for retail as a
subset of commercial uses overall. CITY is beginning the process of considering a Retail Preservation
Ordinance; the work completed under this project would help inform that effort.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Project Kickoff
A. Kickoff meeting with staff to review objectives and data (CONSULTANT & SUB-
CONSULTANT).
At the kickoff meeting with staff, the team will finalize the scope, budget, deliverables, and schedule. Data
sources—and potential gaps in data—will also be identified and discussed.
Task 2: Residential Analysis
A. Zoning-based Residential Buildout Analysis (CONSULTANT)
CONSULTANT will review current zoning regulations pertaining to residential uses (mixed use;
high density, etc.) that apply to the Downtown, including parking requirements and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
4 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
development standards.
Using the parcel-based existing land use database developed as part of Phase I of the Downtown
Cap Study, CONSULTANT will calculate existing residential units (both in single-use and mixed-
use developments) and density and map their distribution.
CONSULTANT will calculate the potential additional residential units allowed under the current
zoning, both the theoretical maximum and reasonable range, accounting for physical and regulatory
constraints and likely sites for redevelopment. Where applicable, potential bonus density will
also be taken into account. The parking required for additional residential units will also be
calculated based on current standards. CONSULTANT will provide an assessment of likely
development constraints, including parking potentially provided on- site.
CONSULTANT will evaluate the housing unit potential in the Downtown relative to the sites
inventory prepared for the Draft Housing Element and assess whether Downtown sites can
accommodate units (at the appropriate density) previously allocated to the San Antonio/South
El Camino Real area, understanding that the unit capacities on Housing Element sites is less than
the maximum number of units that the zoning would permit. The remaining capacity for
residential units beyond allocation of these sites will then be calculated. This analysis will also
consider what residential density increases, if any, would be necessary to support additional
housing sites currently located in the San Antonio/South El Camino Real area, as well as the
impact of State density bonus laws on the total number of units if affordable housing were to be
provided.
B. Residential Market Assessment (SUB-CONSULTANT)
SUB-CONSULTANT will provide a review of recently developed and pipeline residential and
residential mixed-use projects, including for-sale and rental products, within the Downtown, local,
and broader regional housing markets. The purpose of the review is to characterize the range of
housing projects that are being pursued by the development community. SUB-CONSULTANT
will consider the scale and intensity of these projects and their market performance (e.g., values,
occupancy rates). These data will provide examples of the types of residential development that
might be market supported in Downtown Palo Alto in the future. Potential constraints to
housing development Downtown, such as project value relative to other uses, parcel size, and the
presence of existing residential uses also will be considered. Further, this task will supply data that
inform the financial analysis of project feasibility described below.
SUB-CONSULTANT will prepare a high-level financial analysis that illustrates the feasibility of
developing new housing projects in Downtown Palo Alto. The analysis will rely on “static” pro forma
financial analysis that considers the value of new development projects relative to the cost of
development. As part of this analysis, SUB-CONSULTANT will explore the potential for zoning
that allows for higher density development to incentivize new housing projects.
SUB-CONSULTANT will provide guidance to CONSULTANT regarding economic and financial
factors that will influence the potential of Downtown sites that may be well-positioned for
residential or residential mixed-use development.
SUB-CONSULTANT will provide findings to CONSULTANT in a memorandum to be
incorporated into the final combined memorandum (see sub-task 2C).
C. Draft and Final Residential Buildout Memorandum (CONSULTANT, with SUB-CONSULTANT
contribution)
CONSULTANT will provide a draft memorandum of findings (combined CONSULTANT and
SUB-CONSULTANT analyses) that will arrive at a reasonable buildout range for residential
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
5 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
development based on the two lines of analysis: zoning/development capacity, and market
demand. The memorandum will also provide recommendations regarding potential zoning
changes (such as allowable density, FAR, or mix of FAR within mixed use buildings; or potential
incentive structures) that would foster additional residential development and increase its desirability
relative to other uses Downtown. The draft will be provided for CITY review and comment (up to
two rounds of review).
Based on consolidated comments, the team will prepare the final residential analysis
memorandum (CONSULTANT).
Task 3: Retail Analysis
A. Zoning-Based Retail Capacity Analysis (CONSULTANT)
CONSULTANT will review zoning regulations pertaining to retail use (ground floor combining
district and others) and review CITY progress towards establishing a retail preservation ordinance
with staff.
Using the parcel-based existing land use database developed as part of Phase I of the Downtown
Cap Study, CONSULTANT will calculate existing retail floor area and map distribution. In
particular, the mapping will identify which retail areas are “protected” (i.e., where current
zoning requires the presence of ground-floor retail) versus “unprotected” (i.e. where retail is
allowed but not required).
CONSULTANT will calculate potential additional retail development potential based on zoning, site
capacity, and other development constraints, focusing on the “unprotected” retail areas, as these
are most sensitive to development/redevelopment pressures. Parking that is required to support
additional retail development will also be calculated. Stronger and relatively weaker retail sites
will be identified, based on a combination of factors such as location and parcel size, in order to
help develop a site-based understanding of greatest retail vulnerability.
B. Retail Market Assessment (SUB-CONSULTANT)
SUB-CONSULTANT will characterize the mix of retail uses in the Downtown. This retail overview
will rely on well-accepted third party data sources (e.g., Nielsen Claritas) as well a data made
available by CITY, existing land use parcel data assembled during Phase I of the Development Cap
study, and other sources as available. It is anticipated that the retail mix will be reported based
on estimated sales volumes by retail store format. Information on the retail distribution by store size
and type also will be provided to the extent possible.
SUB-CONSULTANT will coordinate with CONSULTANT and CITY, as well as contact local real
estate brokers, to identify examples of use conversions that have occurred within the Downtown,
including retail-to-office, retail-to-business service/other non-retail) conversions, and basement
storage-to-active use conversions. While not exhaustive, these examples should identify subareas of
the Downtown where retail and basement uses are vulnerable to conversion pressure.
SUB-CONSULTANT will study, to the degree that available data from CoStar Group allow,
retail lease rates in subareas of the Downtown. These lease rates will be compared to lease rates
for office uses, as a means of illustrating the economic incentive that landlords have to re-
tenant with office users when existing leases expire.
SUB-CONSULTANT will assist with the design and execution of a Downtown stakeholder focus
group intended to elucidate community opinion concerning retail supply and diversity, as well as
opportunities and constraints.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
6 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
SUB-CONSULTANT will make findings and recommendations, including strategies that CITY
might employ to sustain and evolve the retail marketplace Downtown.
SUB-CONSULTANT will provide findings to CONSULTANT in a memorandum to be
incorporated into the final combined memorandum (see sub-task 3C)
C. Draft and Final Retail Analysis Memorandum (CONSULTANT, with SUB-CONSULTANT
contribution)
CONSULTANT will provide a draft memorandum of findings (combined CONSULTANT and
SUB-CONSULTANT analyses) that will arrive at projections and findings pertaining to retail
development and conversion based on the two lines of analysis – zoning/development capacity, and
market demand. The draft will be provided for CITY review and comment (up to two rounds of
review). The memorandum will also provide potential strategies and recommendations that CITY
might employ to sustain and evolve the retail marketplace Downtown, and inform its development
of a Retail Preservation Ordinance.
Based on consolidated comments, the team will prepare the final retail analysis memorandum.
D. Additional Tasks (CONSULTANT, SUB-CONSULTANT).
Given the nature of the project, additional tasks may arise that will be performed only at written
directive from CITY.
Meetings
CONSULTANT budget covers CONSULTANT and SUB-CONSULTANT attendance at a total of up to
three meetings. These could consist of a combination of staff, Focus Group, and Planning &
Transportation Commission meetings, as outlined below, for a total of no more than three:
Kickoff with staff (1 meeting)
Downtown development cap Focus Group, or retail-specific focus group (1 meeting)
Planning & Transportation Commission (1 meeting)
We are available to participate in additional meetings with staff via conference call at no
additional charge.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
7 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
Per Amendment No. 1, EXHIBIT “B” is hereby modified to incorporate the following Schedule of
Performance.
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of
days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by
mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work
is completed within the term of the Agreement
Task Start/End Time Total Weeks from NTP
Task 1: Project Kickoff Start week 0, end week 1 1 week
Task 2: Residential Market
Assessment
Start week 1, end week 6 6 weeks
Task 3: Retail Analysis Start week 5, end week 10 10 weeks
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
8 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$263,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall
be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $263,000.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $8,978.00
(Start Up, Review &
Community Engagement Plan)
Task 2
(Existing Condition & Trends
Evaluations) $41,672.00
Task 3
(Growth Projections) $80,895.00
Task 4
(Surveys on Parking Habits &
Employment Density) $33,130.00
Task 5
(Stakeholders Task Meetings) $8,430.00
Task 6
(Focus Groups Meetings) $7,740.00
Task 7
(Planning & transportation Commission,
City Council Meetings) $7,570.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
9 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
Task 7
(Community Workshop Open House $9,690.00
Meetings)
Task 8
(Amendment No. 1, Additional Studies) $52,530.00
Sub-total Basic Services $250,635.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $2,365.00
Additional Services $10,000.00
Maximum Total Compensation $263,000.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense anticipated to be more than $2,365.00 shall be approved in advance by the
CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from
the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed
written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and
CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such
services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and
maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional
services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
10 of 10 Revision April 28, 2014
Hours Fee Hours Fee Hours Fee Hours Fee Total Hours Total Fee
D&B
$1,050
20
$3,500
20
$3,500
18
$3,150
64
$11,200 Principal $175 6
Senior Associate $140 0 $0 20 $2,800 20 $2,800 0 $0 40 $5,600
Assistant Planner $75 0 $0 48 $3,600 48 $3,600 0 $0 96 $7,200
GIS $115 0 $0 8 $920 8 $920 0 $0 16 $1,840
Admin $70 0 $0 8 $560 8 $560 0 $0 16 $1,120
Reimbursables $50 $200 $250
Subtotal 6 $1,100 104 $11,380 104 $11,380 18 $3,350 232 $27,210
EPS
Managing Principal $250 0 $0 4 $1,000 4 $1,000 0 $0 8 $2,000
Executive VP $215 4 $860 20 $4,300 26 $5,590 16 $3,440 66 $14,190
Research Analyst $120 0 $0 35 $4,200 40 $4,800 0 $0 75 $9,000
Production Staff $85 0 $0 2 $170 2 $170 0 $0 4 $340
Reimbursables $50 $110 $100 $260
Subtotal 4 $910 61 $9,670 72 $11,670 16 $3,540 153 $25,790
Grand Total
Additional Services
Total with Additional
Services
10 $2,010 165 $21,050 176 $23,050 34 $6,890 385 $53,000
$10,000
$63,000
Per Amendment No. 1, EXHIBIT “C1” is hereby modified to incorporate the following Hourly Rate Schedule.
Task 1 Kickoff Task 2 Residential Task 3 Retail Meetings (Focus Group,PTC)
Notes:
Reimbursable Costs includes mileage, meals and other travel expenses; printing; data purchase. Direct costs are billed at no markup. Mileage is billed at the IRS-
permitted maximum.
CONSULTANT reserves the right to reallocate budget between tasks and/or personnel provided the overall budget does not change.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6ADAEA73-7F71-4581-AEA2-CD1864D617A1
Certificate of Completion
Envelope Number: 6ADAEA737F714581AEA2CD1864D617A1 Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C14149978 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO 1.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 10 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 Chris Anastole
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
1/15/2015 4:21:09 PM PT
Holder: Chris Anastole
chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Rajeev Bhatia
rajeev@dyettandbhatia.com
President
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Using IP Address: 50.193.44.189
Sent: 1/15/2015 4:25:55 PM PT
Viewed: 1/15/2015 4:48:07 PM PT
Signed: 1/15/2015 4:48:53 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 1/15/2015 4:48:07 PM PT
ID: 93f815af-6ef0-400c-9592-8bdffbeb8056
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Robin Ellner
robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 1/15/2015 4:48:54 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered
ID:
Notary Events Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 1/15/2015 4:48:54 PM PT
Certified Delivered Security Checked 1/15/2015 4:48:54 PM PT
Signing Complete Security Checked 1/15/2015 4:48:54 PM PT
Completed Security Checked 1/15/2015 4:48:54 PM PT
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of
any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may
request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM
Parties agreed to: Rajeev Bhatia
How to contact City of Palo Alto:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org
To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at
david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous
e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to
change your email address..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and
in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request
you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The
consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions
may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0,
NetScape 7.2 (or above)
Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
•Allow per session cookies
•Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy
Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via
proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will
provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time
providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you.
Proposed Scope of Work and Budget for Additional
Services – Downtown Cap Study
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Dyett & Bhatia (D&B) and Economic &
Planning Systems (EPS)
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
D&B (as prime consultant) and EPS (as subconsultant) recently completed Phase 1 of the
Downtown Development Cap Study for the City of Palo Alto, which consisted of background
research and analysis of land use and development trends, parking, and economic conditions in
Downtown Palo Alto following implementation of the non-residential development cap policy
established in 1986. The final deliverable included an assessment of current and potential future
non-residential development in Downtown Palo Alto, based on an analysis of remaining
development capacity under current zoning, physical and regulatory constraints to development,
and the market potential for and financial feasibility of new development.
The City now wishes to see additional analysis of this nature completed for two additional land
use types: residential and retail. For residential, the City seeks to understand the potential of the
Downtown area to accommodate more residential development, both in general over the long
term to support a mixed use, vibrant urban core, as well as in the short/medium term (the
upcoming Housing Element cycle) to support housing units in the Housing Element currently
allocated to the San Antonio/South El Camino Real area. Residential uses were excluded from the
original downtown development cap, and consequently, largely excluded from the study recently
completed. This effort would supplement the work previously completed with a similar type of
analysis.
The City is also concerned about the trend in conversions of retail space to non-retail uses,
particularly office uses, in the Downtown area off University Avenue. In particular, small-scale
“mom and pop” stores appear to be most affected. Retail, as a non-residential use, was included in
the overall analysis of supply and demand for non-residential space in Downtown; this effort
would parse out buildout potential for retail as a subset of commercial uses overall. The City is
beginning the process of considering a Retail Preservation Ordinance; the work completed under
this project would help inform that effort.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Project Kickoff
A. Kickoff meeting with staff to review objectives and data (D&B, EPS). At the kickoff
meeting with staff, the team will finalize the scope, budget, deliverables, and schedule. Data
sources—and potential gaps in data—will also be identified and discussed.
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto
2
Task 2: Residential Analysis
A. Zoning-based Residential Buildout Analysis (D&B)
• D&B will review current zoning regulations pertaining to residential uses (mixed use;
high density, etc.) that apply to the Downtown, including parking requirements and
development standards.
• Using the parcel-based existing land use database developed as part of Phase I of the
Downtown Cap Study, D&B will calculate existing residential units (both in single-use
and mixed-use developments) and density and map their distribution.
• D&B will calculate the potential additional residential units allowed under the current
zoning, both the theoretical maximum and reasonable range, accounting for physical and
regulatory constraints and likely sites for redevelopment. Where applicable, potential
bonus density will also be taken into account. The parking required for additional
residential units will also be calculated based on current standards. D&B will provide an
assessment of likely development constraints, including parking potentially provided on-
site.
• D&B will evaluate the housing unit potential in the Downtown relative to the sites
inventory prepared for the Draft Housing Element and assess whether Downtown sites
can accommodate units (at the appropriate density) previously allocated to the San
Antonio/South El Camino Real area, understanding that the unit capacities on Housing
Element sites is less than the maximum number of units that the zoning would permit.
The remaining capacity for residential units beyond allocation of these sites will then be
calculated. This analysis will also consider what residential density increases, if any,
would be necessary to support additional housing sites currently located in the San
Antonio/South El Camino Real area, as well as the impact of State density bonus laws on
the total number of units if affordable housing were to be provided.
B. Residential Market Assessment (EPS)
• EPS will provide a review of recently developed and pipeline residential and residential
mixed-use projects, including for-sale and rental products, within the Downtown, local,
and broader regional housing markets. The purpose of the review is to characterize the
range of housing projects that are being pursued by the development community. EPS
will consider the scale and intensity of these projects and their market performance (e.g.,
values, occupancy rates). These data will provide examples of the types of residential
development that might be market supported in Downtown Palo Alto in the future.
Potential constraints to housing development Downtown, such as project value relative to
other uses, parcel size, and the presence of existing residential uses also will be
considered. Further, this task will supply data that inform the financial analysis of project
feasibility described below.
• EPS will prepare a high-level financial analysis that illustrates the feasibility of developing
new housing projects in Downtown Palo Alto. The analysis will rely on “static” pro forma
financial analysis that considers the value of new development projects relative to the cost
of development. As part of this analysis, EPS will explore the potential for zoning that
allows for higher density development to incentivize new housing projects.
Downtown Cap Study: Proposal for Additional Services
3
• EPS will provide guidance to D&B regarding economic and financial factors that will
influence the potential of Downtown sites that may be well-positioned for residential or
residential mixed-use development.
• EPS will provide findings to D&B in a memorandum to be incorporated into the final
combined memorandum (see sub-task 2C).
C. Draft and Final Residential Buildout Memorandum (D&B, with EPS contribution)
• D&B will provide a draft memorandum of findings (combined D&B and EPS analyses)
that will arrive at a reasonable buildout range for residential development based on the
two lines of analysis: zoning/development capacity, and market demand. The
memorandum will also provide recommendations regarding potential zoning changes
(such as allowable density, FAR, or mix of FAR within mixed use buildings; or potential
incentive structures) that would foster additional residential development and increase its
desirability relative to other uses Downtown. The draft will be provided for City review
and comment (up to two rounds of review).
• Based on consolidated comments, the team will prepare the final residential analysis
memorandum (D&B).
Task 3: Retail Analysis
A. Zoning-Based Retail Capacity Analysis (D&B)
• D&B will review zoning regulations pertaining to retail use (ground floor combining
district and others) and review City progress towards establishing a retail preservation
ordinance with staff.
• Using the parcel-based existing land use database developed as part of Phase I of the
Downtown Cap Study, D&B will calculate existing retail floor area and map distribution.
In particular, the mapping will identify which retail areas are “protected” (i.e., where
current zoning requires the presence of ground-floor retail) versus “unprotected” (i.e.
where retail is allowed but not required).
• D&B will calculate potential additional retail development potential based on zoning, site
capacity, and other development constraints, focusing on the “unprotected” retail areas,
as these are most sensitive to development/redevelopment pressures. Parking that is
required to support additional retail development will also be calculated. Stronger and
relatively weaker retail sites will be identified, based on a combination of factors such as
location and parcel size, in order to help develop a site-based understanding of greatest
retail vulnerability.
B. Retail Market Assessment (EPS)
• EPS will characterize the mix of retail uses in the Downtown. This retail overview will rely
on well-accepted third party data sources (e.g., Nielsen Claritas) as well a data made
available by the City, existing land use parcel data assembled during Phase I of the
Development Cap study, and other sources as available. It is anticipated that the retail
mix will be reported based on estimated sales volumes by retail store format. Information
on the retail distribution by store size and type also will be provided to the extent
possible.
City of Palo Alto
4
• EPS will coordinate with D&B and the City, as well as contact local real estate brokers, to
identify examples of use conversions that have occurred within the Downtown, including
retail-to-office, retail-to-business service/other non-retail) conversions, and basement
storage-to-active use conversions. While not exhaustive, these examples should identify
subareas of the Downtown where retail and basement uses are vulnerable to conversion
pressure.
• EPS will study, to the degree that available data from CoStar Group allow, retail lease
rates in subareas of the Downtown. These lease rates will be compared to lease rates for
office uses, as a means of illustrating the economic incentive that landlords have to re-
tenant with office users when existing leases expire.
• EPS will assist with the design and execution of a Downtown stakeholder focus group
intended to elucidate community opinion concerning retail supply and diversity, as well
as opportunities and constraints.
• EPS will make findings and recommendations, including strategies that the City might
employ to sustain and evolve the retail marketplace Downtown.
• EPS will provide findings to D&B in a memorandum to be incorporated into the final
combined memorandum (see sub-task 3C)
C. Draft and Final Retail Analysis Memorandum (D&B, with EPS contribution)
• D&B will provide a draft memorandum of findings (combined D&B and EPS analyses)
that will arrive at projections and findings pertaining to retail development and
conversion based on the two lines of analysis – zoning/development capacity, and market
demand. The draft will be provided for City review and comment (up to two rounds of
review). The memorandum will also provide potential strategies and recommendations
that the City might employ to sustain and evolve the retail marketplace Downtown, and
inform its development of a Retail Preservation Ordinance.
• Based on consolidated comments, the team will prepare the final retail analysis
memorandum.
D. Additional Tasks (D&B, EPS).
• Given the nature of the project, additional tasks may arise that will be performed only at
written directive from the City.
Meetings
Our budget covers D&B and EPS attendance at a total of up to three meetings. These could
consist of a combination of staff, Focus Group, and Planning & Transportation Commission
meetings, as outlined below, for a total of no more than three:
• Kickoff with staff (1 meeting)
• Downtown development cap Focus Group, or retail-specific focus group (1 meeting)
• Planning & Transportation Commission (1 meeting)
We are available to participate in additional meetings with staff via conference call at no
additional charge.
Downtown Cap Study: Proposal for Additional Services
5
SCHEDULE
Following receipt of a signed contract and Notice to Proceed (NTP), we anticipate that the above
scope of work can be completed in 10 weeks. So long as all tasks in the scope of work are
completed, the time to complete each task or milestone may be increased or decreased, and/or the
order in which technical tasks are performed may be changed (i.e. Task 3 may precede Task 2),
per mutual written agreement between D&B’s project manager and the City’s project manager.
Our proposed schedule is the following:
Task Start/End Time Total Weeks from NTP
Task 1: Project Kickoff Start week 0, end week 1 1 week
Task 2: Residential Market
Assessment
Start week 1, end week 6 6 weeks
Task 3: Retail Analysis Start week 5, end week 10 10 weeks
BUDGET
Our proposed budget for the above scope of work is $63,000, including additional services that
will be completed only at written directive from the City. Total hours and fees for D&B and EPS
are on the table that follows. The budget covers all personnel labor and overhead costs, direct
costs, and delivery of products identified in the Scope of Work. The fee will not be exceeded
provided there are no changes to the Scope of Work. Direct costs and subconsultant fees are billed
with no administrative markup or handling fee.
We have budgeted for all of the tasks with a level of effort that we believe is necessary to meet the
project objectives. If desired, we are happy to work with you to reallocate our budget/efforts,
and/or negotiate fees for additional tasks, to arrive at a scope and budget that better meets the
City’s needs.
Palo Alto Development Cap: Additional Studies
Proposed Budget, January 9, 2015
Rate Hours Fee Hours Fee Hours Fee Hours Fee Total Hours Total Fee
D&B
Principal $175 6 $1,050 20 $3,500 20 $3,500 18 $3,150 64 $11,200
Senior Associate $140 0 $0 20 $2,800 20 $2,800 0 $0 40 $5,600
Assistant Planner $75 0 $0 48 $3,600 48 $3,600 0 $0 96 $7,200
GIS $115 0 $0 8 $920 8 $920 0 $0 16 $1,840
Admin $70 0 $0 8 $560 8 $560 0 $0 16 $1,120
Direct Costs $50 $200 $250
Subtotal 6 $1,100 104 $11,380 104 $11,380 18 $3,350 232 $27,210
EPS
Managing Principal $250 0 $0 4 $1,000 4 $1,000 0 $0 8 $2,000
Executive VP $215 4 $860 20 $4,300 26 $5,590 16 $3,440 66 $14,190
Research Analyst $120 0 $0 35 $4,200 40 $4,800 0 $0 75 $9,000
Production Staff $85 0 $0 2 $170 2 $170 0 $0 4 $340
Direct Costs $50 $110 $100 $260
Subtotal 4 $910 61 $9,670 72 $11,670 16 $3,540 153 $25,790
Grand Total 10 $2,010 165 $21,050 176 $23,050 34 $6,890 385 $53,000
Additional Services $10,000
Total with Additional Services $63,000
Notes:
D&B reserves the right to reallocate budget between tasks and/or personnel provided the overall budget does not change.
Meetings (Focus Group,
PTC)Task 2: ResidentialTask 1: Kickoff Task 3: Retail
Direct Costs includes mileage, meals and other travel expenses; printing; data purchase. Direct costs are billed at no markup. Mileage is billed at the IRS-permitted
maximum.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5431)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Golf Course Budget Amendment Ordinance
Title: Authorization to Operate the Golf Course from March 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Increase Golf
Course Revenues Estimate in the Amount of $106,000, Provide Additional
Appropriation of $289,424 in Budget for Expenses, and Reduce the Operating
loss Reserve by $183,424
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to keep the Golf Course open from
March 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 and adopt the attached Budget Amendment
Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment A) to fund Golf Course operation by amending the
Community Services Department operating budget in the amount of $106,000 in
revenues and $289,424 in expenses, offset with a reduction of the FY 2016 Golf
Course Operating Loss Reserve in the amount of $183,424.
Executive Summary
On September 22, 2014, the City Council rejected all bids received on April 15,
2014 for construction of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project (Project), Capital Improvement Program Project PG-13003 due to delays in
securing required regulatory permits from state and federal resource agencies. In
addition, Council adopted a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment B)
amending the Community Services Department operating budget in the amount
of $708,495 in revenues and $168,036 in expenses to fund operation of the Golf
Course from September 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015 and establishing a FY 2016
Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve in the General Fund in the amount of
$540,459. The FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve was set up to offset
anticipated revenue loss during the closure of the Golf Course anticipated for
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Fiscal Year 2016.
Since September 2014, staff has continued to work with the state and federal
resource agencies in an effort to obtain the permits required for construction of
the Project. While progress has been made with respect to permitting for the
related San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s (JPA) flood protection
project adjacent to the Golf Course, we have not been successful to-date in
securing permits for the Project. Resource agency staff continue to focus their
limited resources on permitting the JPA project and other high-priority
emergency/life-safety projects. Due to staffing and workload constraints
impacting the resource agencies, it is difficult to predict exactly when the permits
for the Project will be issued, but staff anticipates receiving the permits in
calendar year 2015.
This report recommends that Council approve a BAO to fund operation of the Golf
Course from March 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015. Once regulatory permits are
approved, staff will return to Council to initiate Project construction as soon as
possible.
Background
The Golf Course design, environmental impact report (EIR), and construction bid
documents are all complete and ready for re-bidding of the Project as soon as
regulatory permits are approved. Implementation of the Project requires the
acquisition of regulatory permits from state and federal resource agencies.
Specifically, the Project requires a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) (which also involves consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service with respect to potential impacts to federally-listed endangered species)
and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Water Board). Permit applications for the Project were
submitted to the agencies on December 23, 2013. As described to Council in the
September 22, 2014 staff report, it has proven to be extremely challenging to
secure the required permits for the Project. Staff has made a concerted effort to
work cooperatively with resource agency staff over the past year, responding
promptly to their comments and requests for information and making frequent
overtures offering assistance to expedite the permitting process. Staff (including
the city manager and city attorney) has also worked directly with resource agency
executive managers, local state legislators, JPA staff, and outside counsel in an
City of Palo Alto Page 3
effort to speed up the issuance of permits. A summary of the key
communications between City staff and resource agency staff regarding the
Project permit applications is provided for information as Attachment C.
The primary issue that has delayed issuance of the Project permits has been the
resource agency staff’s insistence on withholding the permits until they have
permitted the JPA’s Bay-to-Highway 101 Flood Protection Project. In particular,
Water Board staff have until recently insisted that the JPA consider taking more of
the City-owned Golf Course land for the creek widening project, because they
believed that further widening of the creek might reduce the volume of creek
overflow into the environmentally-sensitive Faber Tract marsh and thereby lessen
impacts to endangered species that inhabit the marsh. At an October 31, 2014
special meeting of the Water Board, Executive Officer Bruce Wolfe stated that the
Water Board would no longer request that more City-owned Golf Course land be
used for creek widening, agreeing that the JPA had provided an abundance of
evidence that using more Golf Course land would not improve the flood
protection project. Mr. Wolfe also announced that his staff would begin drafting
the certification of the JPA flood protection project immediately. He further
clarified, however, that the Water Board could not issue the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification until the Corps posted the JPA’s Corps permit application for
public comment. He estimated that the certification for the flood protection
project would be issued within two weeks following the Corps’ public posting of
the application. The Corps posted the JPA’s permit application for public
comment on December 18, 2014, with the comment period running through
January 16, 2015. While the Section 401 Water Quality Certification has not yet
been issued by the Water Board, Water Board staff have been in contact with the
JPA and it appears that issuance of the Certification is imminent.
The Corps will also need to post the permit application for the Project for public
comment before the Water Board will issue the Section 401 Certification.
Unfortunately, staff at the Corps has repeatedly advised City staff that they are
short-staffed and are unable to advance the posting of the Project application;
moreover they are unable or unwilling to provide a timeline for when we can
expect to have our application posted. City staff has prepared a draft posting for
the Project for the Corps with the hope that this might help Corps staff overcome
their workload constraints. Staff has also had discussions with management staff
at the Corps requesting that they expedite the posting of the public notice. To
City of Palo Alto Page 4
date the Corps has not posted the Project for public comment.
Discussion
In this section of the report, staff discusses the regulatory permit process and
status, construction timeline and cost impacts relative to various potential
scenarios for permit issuance, Golf Course operational finances during pre-
construction, and revised Golf Course pro-formas.
Regulatory permit process and status
The regulatory permit process is the critical path milestone controlling our ability
to commence construction of the Project. As stated earlier, the Golf Course
design, EIR, and construction bid documents are all completed and ready for re-
bidding of the Project pending acquisition of regulatory permits. Consequently,
pursuing permit approval is staff’s highest priority. The City must secure two
regulatory permits (Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Board
and a Section 404 Permit from the Corps) prior to re-advertising the Project for
construction bids. Below is a summary of the remaining steps in the permitting
process:
1. Corps posts a Public Notice seeking public comment on the Section 404
permit application during a 30-day comment period.
2. Water Board issues Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
3. Corps consults with US Fish & Wildlife Service regarding potential Project
impacts to endangered species.
4. Corps issues Section 404 permit.
Construction timeline and cost
At this time it remains infeasible to identify a definitive schedule for the re-
bidding of the Project given that the ability to proceed with the Project is tied
directly to the permitting process, which is beyond the City’s direct control.
Based on the difficulties caused by initially bidding the Project prematurely, staff
recommends that the Project not be re-advertised for construction bids until the
required regulatory permits have been secured. Staff provides two potential
schedule scenarios below. The first scenario assumes permit approval by March 1,
2015. This is the latest date that would allow Project construction to start in
summer 2015. Any further delays in permit acquisition would cause the Project
to be postponed until the end of the year (as outlined in Scenario B below) due to
City of Palo Alto Page 5
seasonal constraints on grading and turf installation. At this time, staff believes
that it is unrealistic to assume that permits will be secured in time to achieve the
Scenario A schedule. It is presented here, nevertheless, as the ideal schedule to
be compared with the more realistic Scenario B schedule.
Scenario A
Timeline Weeks Milestones
2/2/15 0 Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
3/3/15 4 Due date for contractor pre-qualification
submittals
3/9/15 1 Advertise project for construction bids
4/21/15 6 Bid opening date
5/11/15 3 City Council award of construction contract
6/1/15 3 Issue Notice to Proceed to contractor
7/1/15 4 Close Golf Course, begin construction activity
Fall /Winter
2016 18 months Open new Golf Course to the public
The second scenario assumes permit approval by August 1, 2015:
Scenario B
Timeline Weeks Milestones
7/1/15 0 Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
7/28/15 4 Due date for contractor pre-qualification
submittals
8/3/15 1 Advertise project for construction bids
9/15/15 6 Bid opening date
10/12/15 4 City Council award of construction contract
11/2/15 3 Issue Notice to Proceed to contractor
11/30/15 4 Close Golf Course, begin construction activity
Fall 2017 21 months Open new Golf Course to the public
The cost of construction is subject to many economic factors. Staff has observed
price increases for irrigation equipment over the past year, and the improved
City of Palo Alto Page 6
economy has increased the number of golf course projects in construction, which
has in turn driven up bid prices. Although it is difficult to predict the prices that
contractors will bid when the Project is advertised again for competitive bids, golf
course architect Forrest Richardson estimates that the delay in starting
construction may increase costs by between $575,000 and $1.58 million (7 to
18%) from the lowest responsible bid received in April 2014, depending upon
which schedule scenario actually occurs. He estimates that the Project cost under
Scenario B would be approximately 3.5% higher than Scenario A. Staff will
endeavor to keep bid prices as low as possible by conducting a new round of
bidder pre-qualification in hopes of attracting new qualified golf course builders
to the bidders pool. Attachment D shows the estimated construction cost for
scenarios A and B.
Budget Amendment Ordinance for Extended Golf Course Operation in FY 2015
The Golf Course was modified and shortened in August 2013 to accommodate the
stockpiling of imported soil for the Project and the JPA’s flood protection project.
To accommodate the soil stockpile area, several holes on the Golf Course were
shortened, reducing the par score of the course from 72 to 67. The course
remains open for public play. While the pre-construction Golf Course is a shorter
course, it remains playable and allows golfers to complete a round of golf in less
time than in the past. The golf course is still an 18-hole golf course with two par 5,
nine par 4 and seven par 3 holes. To date, approximately 300,000 cubic yards of
imported soil have been delivered to the Golf Course. It is anticipated that we will
receive all the imported soil needed for the JPA flood protection project and the
Golf Course Project by April 30, 2015, generating revenue in excess of $1 million
to be applied towards the cost of the Project
In September, the Council approved that the Golf Course will be open until March
2015. As part of this approval, Council adjusted the budget for the Golf Course,
which increased estimated revenues and related expenditures. Net revenues in
the amount of $540,459 were set aside in the FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss
Reserve to offset future revenue loss when the Golf Course will be closed for
construction. However, as acquisition of permits from the Water Board and the
Corps remains unresolved, staff recommends that the Council approve another
Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment A) to provide funding for the
Golf Course to potentially remain open to the public in its interim state for the
remainder of the FY 2015. The BAO would amend the Community Services
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Department operating budget in the amount of $106,000 in revenues and
$289,424 in expenses to fund Golf Course operations from March 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015. Primarily due to the inclement weather, less golf course rounds were
played than anticipated in December 2014. Based on six months’ golf course
activity for the current fiscal year, staff anticipates that less revenue will be
generated for FY 2015 than anticipated in the September Budget Amendment
Ordinance. Therefore, the net increase in costs of $183,424 is recommended to
be offset with a reduction in the FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve.
In an effort to promote the Golf Course during this pre-construction period and
help create excitement and enthusiasm for the future Baylands-themed course,
the Golf Course Management Team is continuing to creatively market the Golf
Course. The Golf Course Management Team is made up of City staff, contracted
Golf Professional Brad Lozares, Valley Crest golf course maintenance staff, Bay
Café staff, Golf Course Architect Forrest Richardson, and members of the Golf
Course Advisory Committee. Marketing of the Golf Course uses social media, print
advertising and other promotional strategies to tell a compelling story about the
rich history of Palo Alto’s Golf Course and the innovative plans for the future. The
marketing efforts have included the following discounts and special offers among
others:
Loyalty Cards – Play 5 rounds and get 1 free
Two-for-one green fee offers
Saturday and Sunday – Kids play free with one paid adult
Good Deed Gift Certificates
Distribution of Bridge to the Future bookmarks for special pricing on par 67
layout
Golf Now third party booking engine utilization
Weekly email blasts to club members
Nine and Dine offers for 9 hole only players
Driving Range loyalty card - Buy 10 buckets and get 1 free
Banners installed on range netting to promote that we are fully open for
business
Special sales for senior discount cards
Special sales for unior monthly play card to be used on weekends
New simplified fee signage
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Contact all local golf clubs and former tournament directors to notify that
course remains open
In spite of efforts to encourage and promote golf play at the Golf Course, the
temporary conditions render it compromised in the market. There are many
golfing options on the Peninsula to choose from, and the shorter temporary
conditions of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course make it very difficult to attract
customers and to price golf rounds in a way that will result in full cost recovery of
the Golf Course’s operational expenses. In FY 2015, assuming Council approval of
the attached BAO, the Golf Course will be subsidized by $1,070,330.
Revised Golf Course Pro-Forma
The delay in Project implementation also impacts financial projections beyond the
current fiscal year. Staff has prepared revised projections for the performance of
the Golf Course in the five years following completion of construction Based upon
the Project implementation Scenario A, of the Project (Attachment E). As stated
earlier in the report, Scenario A is unfortunately increasingly unlikely. If the
regulatory permits are not certified by March 9th staff will include a revised Golf
Course Pro Forma as part of the FY 2016 budget submittal that assumes a January
2016 construction start date (Scenario B). Staff’s projections of the performance
of the Golf Course after construction remain more conservative than those
provided in the National Golf Foundation’s (NGF) 2012 financial analysis. While
the Golf Course may perform as well or better than the NGF projections, staff has
provided a more conservative projection as a cautionary measure. Staff believes
that a more conservative pro forma is prudent as the more time that elapses since
the 2012 NGF projections were prepared, the less reliable the projections are
likely to be. The reconfigured Golf Course is still anticipated to fully recover
operating costs by the second year after reopening, but by less optimistic margins
than those projected by NGF. Below is a summary the pro-forma for Scenario A
Scenario A Pro forma – Close by July 1, 2015, re-open by September 1 2016. Revised to include project
delay, BAO to operate the Golf Course through FY 2015, increased project costs and subsequent
increased debt. In thousands of dollars.
Scenarios FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Revenue 1.8 1.3 0.17 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3
Expenses 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9
Net Loss/
Income
(0.6) (1.1) (1.5) (0.6) 0.02 0.05 0.3 0.40
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Rounds of Golf 47,000 31,000 0 49,000 67000 69000 71000 73000
Resource Impact
The resource impact to FY 2015 is estimated to be an increase of revenue by
$106,000 and an increase in expected expenses by $289,424. The net increase in
expenses in the amount of $183,424 is recommended to be offset with a
reduction to the FY 2016 Golf Operating Loss Reserve.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to evaluate the potential
impacts of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project and to
identify the appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Council, acting on behalf of the
City of Palo Alto in its role as lead agency for purposes of CEQA, adopted a
resolution on February 3, 2014, certifying the final EIR for the project.
Attachments:
Att A - BAO XXXX - Golf Course (PDF)
Att B - BAO Sept 22 2014 (DOC)
Att C - Key Milestone Dates for the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project Permitting
Process (PDF)
Att D - Memo Forrest Richardson (PDF)
Att E - Golf Course Pro Forma 2-2015 (PDF)
1
5478/mb Revised September 20, 2013
Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 TO INCREASE GOLF
COURSE REVENUE ESTIMATES BY $106,000, PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATION OF $289,424 IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, AND REDUCE
THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 GOLF COURSE OPERATING LOSS RESERVE BY
$183,424.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B. As part of the approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Capital Budget, the City
Council approved the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project; and
C. The Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Operating Budget assumed the closure of the Golf
Course effective July 1, 2014; and
D. In anticipation of the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project, the City applied for
permits from the State Water Board; and
E. Due to delays in receiving permit approval which has delayed construction as
well as contractual obligations with the City’s concessionaires at the Golf Course, in June
2014 the City Council authorized an additional appropriation of $324,800 offset by
commensurate revenues to keep the Golf Course open for a two-month period to allow the
State Water Board to issue regulatory permits; and
F. In September 2014, due to continued delays in receiving permit approval, the City
rejected all bids for the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. At that time, the City Council
approved interim funding for Golf Course operations through February 2015 and
established the Fiscal Year 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve; and
G. Therefore, staff is requesting an additional appropriation to keep the Golf Course
open through June 2015 offset with a reduction of the FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss
Revenue in the amount of $156,792 to fund Golf Couse operations through the end of Fiscal
Year 2015.
SECTION 2. The revenue estimate for Charges for Services in the Community Services
Department for Golf Course operations is hereby increased by One Hundred Six Thousand
Dollars ($106,000).
ATTACHMENT A
2
5478/mb Revised September 20, 2013
SECTION 3. The Community Services Department expenditure budget for Golf Course
operations is hereby increased by Two Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty
Four Dollars ($289,424).
SECTION 4. The Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve is hereby reduced in the amount of
One Hundred Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Four Dollars ($183,424).
SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-
thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 7. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO. xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015 TO INCREASE GOLF COURSE REVENUE ESTIMATES BY
$708,495, PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF
$168,036 IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUDGET FOR GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, AND ESTABLISH AN
FY 2016 GOLF COURSE OPERATING LOSS RESERVE FOR
FUTURE GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS FROM THE NET REVENUE
OF GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$540,459.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B. As part of the approval of the Fiscal Year 2014
Adopted Capital Budget, the City Council approved the Golf
Course Reconfiguration Project; and
C. The Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Operating Budget assumed
the closure of the Golf Course effective July 1, 2014; and
D. In anticipation of the Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project, the City applied for permits from the State Water
Board; and
E. Due to delays in receiving permit approval which has
delayed construction as well as contractual obligations with
the City’s concessionaires at the Golf Course, in June 2014
the City Council authorized an additional appropriation of
$324,800 offset by commensurate revenues to keep the Golf
Course open for a two-month period to allow the State Water
Board to issue regulatory permits; and
F. Due to continued delays in receiving permit approval,
staff has rejected all bids for the Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project and will reissue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) in the fall of 2014, for a projected
construction start date of March 1, 2015; and
G. Therefore, staff is requesting an additional
appropriation to keep the Golf Course open through February
2015; and
H. In anticipation of future needs due to the closure of
the Golf Course, establish an FY 2016 Golf Course Operating
Loss Reserve in the General Fund from the net revenue from
Golf Course Operations.
SECTION 2. The revenue estimate for Charges for Services in
the Community Services Department for Golf Course operations is
hereby increased by Seven Hundred Eight Thousand Four Hundred
Ninety Five ($708,495).
SECTION 3. The Community Services Department expenditure
budget for Golf Course operations is hereby increased by One
Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Thirty Six ($168,036).
SECTION 4. A Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve is hereby
established in the General Fund in the amount of Five Hundred Forty
Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Nine ($540,459).
SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 7. The actions taken in this ordinance do not
constitute a project requiring environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney Director of Community Services
Director of Administrative
Services
Attachment C
Key Milestone dates for Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project permitting
process
06/3/2013 Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Golf
Course Reconfiguration Project was submitted to the State Clearinghouse. Start
of public comment period.
08/01/2014 Close of public comment period for the Draft EIR. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff did not provide comment on the Draft EIR.
10/30/2013 E‐mail and voice mail request to Water Board staff for a site meeting to review
the proposed design and mitigation measures for the Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project in preparation for a permit submittal.
10/31/2013 Water Board staff declines meeting invitation and states that it is premature for
us to submit a permit application because of the uncertainty surrounding the
JPA’s permit application for their flood control project.
12/23/2013 Submittal of application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification to the Water
Board
01/16/2014 First Letter of Incomplete Application received from Water Board
01/31/2014 City issues response to 1st Letter of Incomplete Application
02/28/2014 Second Letter of Incomplete Application received from Water Board
03/03/2014 Palo Alto City Council certifies Final Environmental Impact Report for the Golf
Course Reconfiguration Project
04/07/2014 City issues response to 2nd Letter of Incomplete Application
04/15/2014 Construction bids received for Golf Course Reconfiguration Project
04/30/2014 Letter from US Army Corps of Engineers accepting the City’s delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
05/01/2014 Third Letter of Incomplete Application received from Water Board
05/16/2014 City issues response to 3rd Letter of Incomplete Application
05/28/2014 Voice mail from Brian Wines indicating that there will be a fourth Letter of
Incomplete Application coming from the Water Board (no such letter was ever
received)
06/02/2014‐ Series of e‐mails between Joe Teresi and Brian Wines clarifying permit
06/11/2014 application and responding to questions from Brian Wines
06/11/2014 Last correspondence from Water Board – Email from Brian Wines noting that
there was a fire at his personal residence and that he would be out of the office
for an undisclosed period
07/10/2014 City of Palo Alto’s application for Section 401 Water Quality Certification posted
to the Water Board web site for public comment
07/29/2014 Duininck Golf notified that its low construction bid was being rejected due to
lack of project permits
07/31/2014 Close of public comment period for City of Palo Alto’s application for Section 401
Water Quality Certification
09/22/2014 Official rejection of Golf Course Reconfiguration Project construction bids by Palo
Alto City Council
12/04/2014 Letter from Jim Keene to Water Board Executive Officer Bruce Wolfe requesting
action on the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
12/12/2014 E‐mail from Bruce Wolfe to Jim Keene advising that the Water Board is
committed to issuing the Section 401 Certification once the Corps posts its public
notice for the Golf Course Project
01/12/2015 Mike Sartor discussion with Corps supervisor Katerina Galacatos requesting
action on the Corps Section 404 permit
01/20/2015 City provides draft copy of a Public Notice to the Corps for posting to the web
and starting the public comment period
M E M O
Date: January 9th, 2015
To: Rob De Geus, Joe Teresi
From: Forrest Richardson, Dale Siemens
Re: Palo Alto Golf Course / Schedule Scenarios and Associated Impacts
We have reviewed the proposed schedule scenarios “A” and “B” for implementing the golf course
improvement work. Below are comments on each scenario along with associated probable cost impacts.
Scenario “A”
Scenario “A” shows a construction start date of July 1st, 2015 following five (5) months of qualification,
bidding, contractor selection and issuance of a Notice to Proceed.
We recommend finding a way to lessen this period by as much as 30 days in order to accelerate the start of
construction work. There are associated positive impacts that an earlier construction start will have. These
include:
• Better ability to get grading work completed before seasonal rains (grading work
is now greater in scope because the stockpile is larger in volume)
• Less costly SWPPP measures to winterize the construction site following
grading
• Assurances of sod and sprig production in 2015 to be ready for 2016 planting
• Potentially better bid responses (lower potential costs to the City) with bidding
earlier in 2015 as opposed to later
There are likely cost impacts associated with a start date in mid-2015. Below we have summarized these
cost impacts using probable cost ranges derived from (a) the Probable Cost Estimate that was updated in
anticipation of a mid-2014 construction start date, (b) bids received by the City in 2014, (c) changes to the
earth moving scope based on the volume of material likely to placed in the stockpile, and (d) market
influences that we foresee in 2015:
SCENARIO “A” COST IMPACTS (Base Construction Costs)
Base Bid (incorporating cost-savings as previously
approved)
$8,700,000 to $8,900,000
Additional Items
(incorporating previously approved “add” items)
200,000 to 240,000
Additional Grading Costs
(260,000 c.y. @ ±$2.00/c.y.)
390,000 to 650,000
Market Cost Impacts
(labor and materials @± 5%)
348,000 to 522,000
Cost Savings
(incorporating previously approved “deduct” items
plus value engineering to restroom structure)*
- (340,000) to - (360,000)
Projected Base Construction Costs (range) $ 9,298,000 to $ 9,952,000
Summary: Scenario “A” is likely to have a base construction cost impact to the City of approximately 7 to
14% higher than the lowest bid received following bidding in April 2014. This translates to a potential
project increase (base construction costs) of approximately 25% of the Probable Cost Estimate as updated
in November 2013. The project construction cost is offset by revenue to the City of approximately
$1,100,000 generated from soil importation to the site.
Note: Project management costs, professional services, contingency and loss of revenue are not included in
the above estimates.
* The restroom structure is now planned to be fabricated off-site to meet City requirements, and then
delivered to the site by a specialty contractor.
Scenario “B”
Scenario “B” shows a construction start date of December 15th, 2015 following five (5) months of
qualification, bidding, contractor selection and issuance of a Notice to Proceed.
An earlier start date in 2015 is not necessarily beneficial as any start date from October through the
following Spring is not likely to produce efficient earthwork progress due to rains and associated site
conditions. A start date during this time will, however, enable the Contractor to get some work completed
and may allow completion in 2016 given extremely favorable weather conditions.
There are likely cost impacts associated with a start date in late-2015. Below we have summarized these
cost impacts using probable cost ranges derived from (a) the Probable Cost Estimate that was updated in
anticipation of a mid-2014 construction start date, (b) bids received by the City in 2014, (c) changes to the
earth moving scope based on the volume of material likely to placed in the stockpile, (d) market influences
that we foresee in 2015, and (e) impacts due to a longer project duration (21 months):
SCENARIO “B” COST IMPACTS (Base Construction Costs)
Base Bid
(incorporating cost-savings as previously
approved)
$8,700,000 to $8,900,000
Additional Items (incorporating
previously approved “add” items)
200,000 to 240,000
Additional Grading Costs
(260,000 c.y. @ ±$2.00/c.y.)
390,000 to 650,000
Market Cost Impacts
(labor and materials @± 6%)
435,000 to 623,000
Cost Savings (incorporating previously
approved “deduct” items plus value
engineering to restroom structure)*
- (340,000) to - (360,000)
Project Duration Impacts 200,000 to 250,000
Projected Base Construction Costs (range) $ 9,585,000 to $ 10,303,000
Summary: Scenario “B” is likely to have a cost impact to the City of approximately 10 to 18% higher than
the lowest bid received following bidding in April 2014. This translates to a potential project increase (base
construction costs) of approximately 30% of the Probable Cost Estimate as updated in November 2013. The
project construction cost is offset by revenue to the City of approximately $1,100,000 generated from soil
importation to the site.
Note: Project management costs, professional services, contingency and loss of revenue are not included in
the above estimates.
* The restroom structure is now planned to be fabricated off-site to meet City requirements, and then
delivered to the site by a specialty contractor.
Scenario “B” Alternative Discussion:
Scenario “B” may be alternatively scheduled to install turf in both 2016 and 2017, thus splitting the growing
season between two seasons. (In Scenario “A” it is assumed that all, or most, grassing will occur in 2016.)
Cost impacts of a split grassing schedule for Scenario “B” would need to be evaluated based on the
additional cost for more sod vs. less winterization (from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017), plus associated benefits
of any earlier opening date that may be realized. As noted, it may be possible to complete work in 2016 if
weather conditions are extremely favorable and additional investment in sod (versus sprigging) is made by
the City. The advantages of this approach may be an earlier opening. All such decisions deserve further
analysis.
Conclusion
The probable costs here are assumptive in nature and are based on what we are seeing in the current golf
construction market. Since bidding the Palo Alto Golf Course work in early 2014 we have been involved in
three competitive bids. The results of these recent bids are evident that the period of “aggressive” bidding
has lapsed. We are now experiencing bids that are higher as a result of qualified golf builders being busier
and a market that is finding ways to finance projects stalled in previous years.
Certified golf course builders (those deemed qualified by the City for this work) are even busier than
smaller contractors. This plays heavily into the assumptive cost increases we forecast for the work.
The largest impact to cost is the unfortunate situation of now having stockpiled the full volume of imported
materials to the site. This impact, at approximately $500,000 in either Scenario “A” or “B”, is unavoidable
given the delay in permits and a project start. The efficiencies of having a predominant volume of the
imported material placed across the existing golf course footprint is now not at play. The benefit has been a
continued golf operation for the public, although it has resulted in losses due to the uncertainty and
temporary layout necessitated by the ever increasing stockpile area. There may be a positive benefit to now
having all the soil material onsite in that it simplifies the Contractor’s scope of work and removes the
potential coordination burden (and associated risks upon the City) that were associated with City’s direct
involvement in the soil import to the golf course builder during the construction process.
During the past several months we have been active in evaluating potential cost-saving measures to help
offset the costs associated with permit delays. We will continue to do so in the coming months before
permits— and approval to proceed — are in place.
PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE
PRO FORMA
ATTACHMENT E
Revised Golf Course Budget - Open July 2014 through June 2015
GOLF COURSE FINANCIAL SUMMARY FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
ACTUALS Actuals
Adopted Budget
Golf Course open
July - Feb, closed
March-June
BAO to keep Golf
Course open
March - June 30,
2015
REVISED Golf
Course Budget
Open July - June
REVISED Golf
Course closed July
- June
REVISED Golf
Course closed July
- Aug, open Sept PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
REVENUES
Tournament fees 1,670 4,037 0 5,000 5,000 0 2,400 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Green fees (Monthly play cards )1,781,405 1,103,410 787,509 0 787,509 0 1,573,650 2,162,760 2,227,320 2,291,880 2,356,440
Driving range 343,883 313,633 208,553 61,000 269,553 80,000 283,050 353,400 364,002 374,922 386,170
Cart/club rentals 279,795 225,310 141,033 40,000 181,033 0 249,225 332,300 342,269 352,537 363,113
Other fees 24,319 20,075 12,000 0 12,000 1,760 12,700 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Proshop lease 27,248 25,051 22,000 0 22,000 21,520 28,500 30,700 30,700 31,300 31,300
Restaurant lease 48,880 53,487 23,400 0 23,400 23,400 49,800 49,800 52,290 52,290 52,290
Restaurant Utilities 21,600 16,260 18,000 0 18,000 18,000 27,000 27,400 27,400 27,900 27,900
Interest Income - Debt Service 25,700 0 25,900 25,900 25,900 25,900 25,900 25,900
Total Revenue 2,554,500 1,761,263 1,212,495 106,000 1,318,495 170,580 2,252,225 3,009,760 3,097,381 3,184,229 3,270,613
EXPENDITURES
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Benefits 134,948 122,634 150,173 (25,000)125,173 169,500 165,700 173,200 181,000 189,100 197,600
Advertising & Publishing 11,307 7,916 7,500 2,500 10,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Supplies and Materials 3,292 6,986 7,500 0 7,500 45,100 45,800 46,500 47,200 47,900 48,600
General Expense 1,014 1,038 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Facilities Repairs & Maintenance 7,259 1,438 5,000 6,438 22,300 22,600 22,900 23,200 23,500 23,900
Water Expense 381,966 319,204 260,000 0 260,000 296,000 184,500 188,000 197,000 206,000 215,500
Other Direct Charges 48,448 46,126 56,034 0 56,034 33,200 42,100 42,700 43,300 43,900 44,600
Indirect Charges 93,702 36,099 45,783 0 45,783 83,280 105,700 107,300 108,900 110,500 113,900
Subtotal 681,936 540,003 529,428 (17,500)511,928 680,380 597,400 611,600 631,600 651,900 675,100
Contract Services
Golf Maintenance 808,801 780,755 657,340 167,660 825,000 419,415 821,135 796,262 820,150 820,150 820,150
Miscellaneous 18,566 8,462 24,030 0 24,030 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Range fees 130,676 119,181 108,606 (6,176)102,430 68,000 56,610 70,680 72,800 74,984 77,234
Cart rentals 112,083 86,034 56,413 16,000 72,413 0 49,845 66,460 68,454 70,507 72,623
Club rentals 5,951 4,666 0 0 5,700 5,800 5,900 6,000 6,100 6,200
Fixed Management Fees 339,045 338,292 240,384 104,940 345,324 30,500 255,084 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Green Fees to Golf Professional (5%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 78,683 108,138 111,366 114,594 117,822
Credit Card Fees 38,000 30,000 17,000 7,000 24,000 0 33,047 45,418 46,774 48,129 49,485
Subtotal 1,453,121 1,367,390 1,103,773 289,424 1,393,197 523,615 1,310,203 1,402,858 1,435,544 1,444,465 1,453,514
Total Operating Expenses 2,135,057 1,907,393 1,633,201 271,924 1,905,125 1,203,995 1,907,603 2,014,458 2,067,144 2,096,365 2,128,614
Net Income From Operations 419,443 (146,130)(420,706)(165,924)(586,630)(1,033,415)344,622 995,302 1,030,237 1,087,864 1,141,999
Debt and Other Charges
1998 Debt Service 428,180 429,020 428,194 0 428,194 430,800 423,200 432,300 431,200 0 0
New 2014 Debt Service 0 0 511,342 511,342 511,342 511,342 511,342
Cost Plan Charges 23,871 26,224 30,485 0 30,485 32,009 33,610 35,290 37,055 38,907 40,853
Capital Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 229,188 235,644
Subtotal - Debt and Other Charges 452,051 455,244 458,679 0 458,679 462,809 968,151 978,932 979,596 779,437 787,838
Net Income (Loss)(32,608)(601,374)(879,385)(165,924)(1,045,309)(1,496,224)(623,529)16,370 50,641 308,427 354,161
Golf Rounds 58,000 46,527 31,000 31,000 0 48,750 67,000 69,000 71,000 73,000
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 9, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Changes to the
Board and Commission Recruitment Program Including Adoption of an
Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and
the Planning and Transportation Commission; Adoption of a
Resolution Re-aligning Terms on the Storm Drain Oversight
Committee; Allowing for Remote Board and Commission Interviews;
Limit Applicants to One Board or Commission Each Recruitment
Recommended Motion:
Policy and Services Committee and Staff recommend that Council approve the
following recommendation for changes to the Board and Commission recruitment
program including;
1. Adopt the Proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) extending terms on the
Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the Planning and Transportation from
expiration dates on October 31 of various years to December 15 of various
years;
2. Adopt the Proposed Resolution (Attachment B) extending terms on the
Storm Drain Oversight Committee from expiration dates on October 31 of
various years to December 15 of various years;
3. Allow Board and Commission applicants, who are out of town on scheduled
interview dates, to participate in the interview process remotely, using
Skype or similar telepresence technology;
4. Limit applicants to apply for one Board or Commission during each
recruitment.
Page 2
Background
Staff proposed the above changes to the Board and Commission Recruitment
Program to the Policy and Services Committee on December 16, 2014
(Attachment C). The above requested changes are the result of situations that
have arisen over the past several years. In order to streamline the process, we
made the proposed changes to the program. Following discussion, the Policy
and Services Committee moved that the above recommendations be forwarded
to the full Council. Attached are the Excerpt minutes from the December 16,
2014 Policy and Services Committee meeting (Attachment D).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment: A: Proposed Ordinance Re-aligning ARB, HRB, PARC, PTC Terms (PDF)
Attachment: B: Proposed Resolusion Re-aligning SDOC Terms (DOCX)
Attachment: C: 12-16-2014 Policy and Services Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment: D: 12-16-2014 Policy and Services Minutes Excerpt (DOC)
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 3
*NOT YET APPROVED*
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Sections 2.16.070, 2.20.020,
2.21.025, 2.25.030, 2.27.020 to Change the Start of Terms on the
Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission
from November 1st to December 16th
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
SECTION 2. Section 2.16.070 (Schedule of Appointments) of Chapter 2.16 (Boards
and Commissions Generally) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“(a) The City Council shall review applications to fill vacancies in the following
boards and commissions in April of each year:
(1) Human Relations Commission (Chapter 2.22)
(2) Library Advisory Commission (Chapter 2.24)
(3) Public Art Commission (Chapter 2.18)
(4) Utilities Advisory Commission (Chapter 2.23)
(b) The City Council shall review applications to fill vacancies in the following boards
and commissions in October December of each year:
(1) Architectural Review Board (Chapter 2.21)
(2) Historic Resources Board (Chapter 2.27)
(3) Parks and Recreation Commission (Chapter 2.25)
(4) Planning and Transportation Commission (Chapter 2.20).
(c) The City Council shall fill vacancies in all other boards and commissions in April
or October December of each year, at its discretion.
(d) The City Council may fill mid-term vacancies during the next regularly scheduled
recruitment for the board or commission or may hold a special recruitment, at its discretion.
Special recruitments shall be subject to the requirements of Section 2.16.060.
SECTION 3. Section 2.20.020 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.20 (Planning and
Transportation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“Terms of office on the Planning and Transportation Commission shall be four
years. Effective January 1, 20146, terms of office due to expire on July October 31 of each year
shall be extended to expire on October 31December 15 of the same year, and thereafter terms
of office shall commence on the first sixteenth day of NovemberDecember. If a successor is
unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.”
150129 sh 0140128 1
*NOT YET APPROVED*
SECTION 4. Section 2.21.025 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review
Board) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Terms of office on the Architectural Review Board shall be three years. Effective
January 1, 20164, the terms of office due to expire on September October 310 of each year
shall be extended to expire on October December 1531 of the same year, and thereafter terms
of office shall commence on the first sixteenth day of NovemberDecember. If a successor is
unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.”
SECTION 5. Section 2.25.030 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation
Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Terms of office on the parks and recreation commission shall be three years.
Commission appointments shall be staggered so that in each three-year cycle three members
are appointed to serve during the first year, four members are appointed to serve during the
second year, and no members are appointed to serve during the third year. Effective January 1,
20164, terms of office due to expire on December October 31 of each year shall be lengthened
to expire on October December 1531 of the following same year, and thereafter terms of office
shall commence on the first sixteenth day of NovemberDecember. If a successor is unavailable,
a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.”
SECTION 6. Section 2.27.020 (Term of Office) of Chapter 2.27 (Historic Resources
Board) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
“Terms of office on the Historic Resources Board shall be three years. Terms shall
be staggered so that three positions are refilled one year, and four positions are refilled two
years later. Effective January 1, 20164, terms of office due to expire on May October 31 of each
year shall be extended to expire on October December 315 of the same year, and thereafter
terms of office shall commence on the first sixteenth day of NovemberDecember. If a successor
is unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or her successor is appointed.”
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
150129 sh 0140128 2
*NOT YET APPROVED*
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
150129 sh 0140128 3
121009
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to
Realign Terms of Office for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee
R E C I T A L S
A. WHEREAS, on April 26, 2005, the property owners approved a storm drainage
fee increase for storm drain capital improvements and program enhancements; and
B. WHEREAS, on November 14, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution No.
8573, establishing a Storm Drain Oversight Committee to monitor and review the use of
increased storm drainage fees; and
C. WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee approved a
recommendation to realign the terms of office of all City boards and commissions to end in
April or October of each year;
C.D. WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee
approved a recommendation to realign the terms of office of City boards and commissions
ending October 31 to end on December 15 of each year;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Effective January 1, 20164, terms of office due to expire on December
October 31 of each year shall be lengthened to expire on October December 1531 of the
following same year, and thereafter terms of office shall commence on the first sixteenth day of
NovemberDecember. If a successor is unavailable, a member may remain in office until his or
her successor is appointed.
SECTION 2. 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:
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets ornumbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.81"
121009
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
December 16, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Discussion of Possible Changes to the Board and Commission
Recruitment Program
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Policy and Services Committee consider changes to
the Board and Commission recruitment process. These changes include,
1. allowing Board and Commission applicants to participate in the
interview process remotely;
2. scheduling Board and Commission appointments after City Council
election during City Council election years and;
3. limiting applicants to apply for one Board or Commission during each
recruitment.
Remote Board and Commission Interviews
Background
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 the City Council was scheduled to
interview seven applicants for two positions on the Planning and
Transportation Commission, see Page One of Staff Report (Attachment A).
Prior to the meeting, one applicant arranged to participate via
teleconference. Due to travel delays, the applicant was not able to
participate in the interview process, see City Council Minutes (Attachment
B).
Page 2
Discussion
Staff is requesting direction regarding future scheduling of remote Board
and Commission applicant interviews. Options for remote participation
include teleconference and/or video conference.
The ability to schedule remote participation for Board and Commission
applicants during the interview process would increase the likelihood that
Council is able to interview all applicants it wishes to consider for
appointments.
City Council Protocols and Procedures allow for remote City Council
participation by City Council Members, “in the event of extraordinary
events such as a medical, family or similar emergency requiring a Council
Member’s absence.”
Scheduling Board and Commission Appointments after Election
Background
In the Fall of 2014, Staff conducted a recruitment to fill two terms on the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), four terms on the Historic Resources
Board (HRB), and two terms on the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC). All eight expiring terms ended Friday October 31,
2014. Appointments were scheduled for Monday, October 20, 2014.
During the period leading up to the November 4, 2014 City Council
election, one Council Candidate submitted an application to serve on the
Architectural Review Board. In order to avoid any real or perceived conflict
of interest during the Board and Commission appointment process,
appointments to the ARB, HRB and PTC were postponed until after the
election on Monday, November 10, 2014.
Two ARB Members continued past the Friday, October 31, 2014 expiration
of their respective terms to attend the Wednesday, October 5, ARB
Page 3
meeting. Four HRB Members continued past the Friday, October 31, 2014
expiration of their respective terms to attend the Thursday, October 6, HRB
meeting. Due to PTC not meeting, their members were not asked to
continue serving past the expiration of their terms.
Boards and Commissions with member terms ending October 31:
Architectural Review Board
Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning and Transportation Commission
Storm Drain Oversight Committee
Utilities Advisory Commission
Discussion
Postponing appointments to Boards and Commissions until after elections
requires Board and Commission members with expired terms to continue
serving beyond their appointed service. This could be a hardship for those
asked to continue serving past the expiration of their term. If Council
desires the ending dates of the above Boards and Commissions could be
changed to November 30. This could then eliminate issues during election
years.
Limiting Applicants to One Board or Commission
Background
During the Fall 2014 Board and Commission recruitment, several
individuals submitted applications to more than one Board or Commission.
Two individuals submitted applications for the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Another
applicant submitted applications to the ARB, Historic Resources Board
(HRB) and the PTC.
On Monday, October 6, 2014 City Council voted to require each applicant
to select one Board or Commission application for consideration by City
Page 4
Council, see City Council Action Minutes (Attachment C). Staff contacted
applicants, who selected which application they wanted considered by City
Council.
Discussion
Limiting individuals to apply for one Board or Commission encourages
applicants to more carefully consider which Board or Commission is most
appropriate for their background and is of most interest to them.
Additional Board and Commission Information
See Attachment D for a table listing membership requirements for each
Board and Commission.
Staff Impact
These potential changes to the Board and Commission recruitment process
will not have an impact on staff resources.
Environmental Review
This is not a project requiring environmental review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 10/22/2014 Special City Council Meeting Agenda Item 1, Staff Report Excerpt
(PDF)
Attachment B: 10/22/2014 City Council Meeting Minutes (PDF)
Attachment C: 10/6/2014 City Council Meeting Action Minutes (PDF)
Attachment D: Board and Commission Membership Requirements (XLSX)
Page 5
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 6
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
October 22, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Interviews of Candidates for the Planning and Transportation
Commission
On Monday, October 6, 2014 City Council selected the following applicants to
interview for the Planning and Transportation Commission. Portions of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code describing requirements for serving on the Planning
and Transportation Commission are included for reference.
Planning and Transportation Commission
2.20.010 Membership.
There is created a planning and transportation commission composed of
seven members who are not council members, officers or employees of the
city, who are residents of the city, and who shall be appointed by the city
council. (Ord. 4606 § 1 (part), 1999)
There are two terms ending October 31, 2018 on the Planning and
Transportation Commission.
The seven* Planning and Transportation Commission applicants to be
interviewed are as follows: 15 minute interviews
Jeff Schneble 6:00 p.m.
Asher Waldfogel 6:15 p.m.
Claude Ezran 6:30 p.m.
Lyn Tillery 6:45 p.m.
Arthur Keller 7:00 p.m.
Adrian Fine 7:15 p.m.
Yekaterina Vershov Downing 7:45 p.m.
*The City Council will interview C James Schmidt on Wednesday, October
15, 2014 for these terms on the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
Valerie Driscoll and Richard Schoelerman withdrew their applications to the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
1
Packet Pg. 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
FINAL MINUTES
Page 1 of 1
Special Meeting
October 22, 2014
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:02 P.M.
Present: Berman arrived at 6:04 P.M., Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price,
Scharff arrived at 6:13 P.M., Schmid, Shepherd
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Interviews of Candidates for the Planning and Transportation Commission.
The City Council interviewed the following applicants:
Lyn Tillery
Asher Waldfogel
Claude Ezran
Arthur Keller (Incumbent)
Adrian Fine
Yekaterina Vershov Downing
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 P.M.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
Action Minutes
Page 1 of 7
Regular Meeting
October 6, 2014
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:00 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Klein
STUDY SESSION
1. City Council Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill.
2. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3. Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 15, 2014 for the
Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board, and
Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 22, 2014 for the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
move Agenda Item Number 3 to the end of the meeting before the Closed
Sessions.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
4. Community Partnership Presentation by Gamble Gardens.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to move Agenda Item Number 18 - Policy Discussion on Whether to
Conduct a Closed Session Prior to an Open Session to Discuss the 2014-
2015 Management & Professional Compensation Plan; Possible Referral to
ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 7
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 10/06/14
Policy & Services Regarding Closed/Open Session Practice for Compensation
Matters, to a date uncertain.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
approve the minutes of August 18, 2014.
Council Member Scharff registered a no vote on these minutes, because he
felt they should be verbatim.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member Holman to continue approval of the minutes, to allow Council
Members to provide corrections, to the October 20, 2014 Council meeting.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-15.
Council Member Schmid registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5.
5. Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City
Council Adopt a Resolution 9454 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto
Energy Risk Management Policy.”
6. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract
with G&E Engineering Systems, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of
$268,400 for the Performance of a Water System Condition
Assessment Master Study and a Seismic Master Study (WS-11003).
7. Approval of Amendment to the Lease with R&T Restaurant Corporation
for Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Restaurant, 1875 Embarcadero
Road and Adoption of Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5273
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto in the General Fund.”
ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 7
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 10/06/14
8. Approval of a Contract with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority in the Amount of $500,000 for the Baylands Levee
Improvements Feasibility Study, Capital Improvement Program Project
PE-15028.
9. Approval of a Purchase Order with Owen Equipment in a Not to Exceed
Amount of $785,469 for the Purchase of Two Vacuum/Flush Trucks
(Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement
Program VR-13000).
10. Resolution 9461 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Extending the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Boundaries and
Program Trial for Additional 12 Months.”
11. Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report for the City of East Palo Alto General Plan Update.
12. Request for Approval of a Three-Year Blanket Purchase Order with
Granite Rock Company in the Total Amount of $1,060,830 to be the
Primary Supplier of Asphalt Concrete Products and Request for
Approval of a Three-Year Blanket Purchase Order with Granite
Construction Company in the Total Amount of $270,000 to be the
Secondary Supplier of Asphalt Concrete Products, with Both Blanket
Purchase Orders Supplying the Public Works and Utilities Departments
From September 22, 2014 through September 21, 2017 (Continued
From September 22, 2014).
13. Ordinance 5274 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 2.28.090 (Lapse of Appropriation) of Chapter
2.28 (Fiscal Procedures), Repealing Section 2.08.145 (Consultation
with City Auditor) and Amending Section 2.08.150 (Department of
Administrative Services) of Section 2.08 (Officers and Departments)
(First Reading: September 22, 2014 PASSED: 9-0).”
14. Approval of Annual Williamson Act Contracts and Acceptance of
Nonrenewal Notice from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for
5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Boulevard.
15. Adoption of an Ordinance Creating a Business Registry in the City of
Palo Alto and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5275
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2015 for Costs Related to the Implementation
ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 7
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 10/06/14
of a Business Registration Program for all Businesses Occupying
Commercial Space Within the City and Amendment to the Municipal
Fee Schedule and Administrative Penalty Schedule.”
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Number 5: 7-1 Schmid no, Klein
absent
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Numbers 6-15: 8-0 Klein absent
ACTION ITEMS
16. Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Underground
Utility District No. 46 (Arastradero Road/ El Camino Real/ W.
Charleston Road) by amending Section 12.16.02 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
Public Hearing opened at 9:36 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 9:37 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Burt
to adopt the Ordinance to create Underground Utility District No. 46 and
thereby amending section 12.16.02 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
17. Council Review and Direction to Staff Regarding the Risk Assessment
for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials at 607-811 Hansen Way
(CPI) and Possible Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
direct Staff to prepare a draft Ordinance for review by the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and consideration by the City Council in
early 2015. The Ordinance should amend the list of uses in the Zoning Code
to explicitly identify plating shops, prohibit plating shop uses within a specific
distance of residential uses and residential zoning districts, and incorporate
an amortization schedule based on updated information on the value of
affected investments.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to: 1) identify uses from similar operations with
similar hazards; 2) identify additional incompatible adjacent uses (schools,
retail, restaurant); 3) identify appropriate volume of hazardous materials
ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 7
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 10/06/14
thresholds and possibly establishing tiers in the Ordinance for facilities
covered; and 4) have AECOM review the ENVIRON analysis of the most
extreme risk scenarios.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return to Council with an
informational report before the end of 2014 on the status.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
18. Policy Discussion on Whether to Conduct a Closed Session Prior to an
Open Session to Discuss the 2014-2015 Management & Professional
Compensation Plan; Possible Referral to Policy & Services Regarding
Closed/Open Session Practice for Compensation Matters.
3. Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 15, 2014 for the
Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board, and
Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 22, 2014 for the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss
to: 1) interview all candidates; and 2) have the candidates who have applied
for multiple boards or commissions to pick one board or commission they
want to be interviewed for.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
19. Cubberley Community Center Lease Status and Update.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman
to have Council move into the Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein absent
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
None
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager, James Keene reported that this week is Fire Prevention Week
and this month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. There is a provocative
ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 7
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 10/06/14
public art project that includes 20 signs placed throughout the downtown
area, that pose different questions regarding the City and living here.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
The City Council went into the Closed Session at 11:43 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION
20. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Properties:
Cubberley Community Center, 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto 94306
(including 8 acres owned by the City of Palo Alto and remaining acres
owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District); and Ventura School
site, 3990 Ventura Court, Palo Alto 94306
Agency Negotiators:
James Keene, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Greg
Betts, Rob De Geus, Thomas Fehrenbach, Molly Stump
Negotiating Parties:
City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District
Under Negotiation:
Lease and/or Purchase/Sale*
*Purchase/sale is listed to comply with Brown Act legal requirements,
and includes other transactions such as easements, options, rights of
first refusal and land exchanges. The City is not considering selling any
of its interests in Cubberley or Ventura.
21. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION Subject:
Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, et al. Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Case No.109-CV-154134 Subject Authority:
Government Code section 54956.9
The City Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:25 A.M. and
Mayor Shepherd announced there was no reportable action.
ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 7
City Council Meeting
Action Minutes: 10/06/14
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 A.M.
Name Members
Palo Alto
Residency
Requirement Membership Requirements Municipal Code
Term
Expiration
Architectural Review Board 5 No
...at least three of whom shall be architects,
landscape architects, building designers or
other design professionals 2.21.010
October 31
Historic Resources Board 7 For 1
Members shall have demonstrated interest in
and knowledge of history, architecture or
historic preservation. One member shall be
an owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2
historic structure, or of a structure in a
historic district; three members shall be
architects, landscape architects, building
designers or other design professionals and
at least one member shall possess academic
education or practical experience in history
or a related field 2.27.010
April 30
Human Relations Commission 7 All 2.22.010 April 30
Library Advisory Commission 5 All Each member of the commission shall have a
demonstrated interest in public library
matters 2.24.010
April 30
Library Bond Oversight Committee 5 No
...a resident of Palo Alto, an employee of a
business located in Palo Alto, or an owner of
real property within the City Resolution 8906
April 30
Parks and Recreation Commission 7 All
Each member of the commission shall have a
demonstrated interest in parks, open space
and recreation matters 2.25.010
October 31
Planning and Transportation Commission 7 All 2.20.010 October 31Public Art Commission 7 No 2.18.010 April 30
Storm Drain Oversight Committee 5 No
...be a resident of Palo Alto, an employee of
a business located in Palo Alto or an owner of
real property within the City Resolution 8573
October 31
Utilities Advisory Commission 7 For 6
Each member of the commission shall be a
utility customer or the authorized
representative of a utility customer 2.23.010
October 31
Board and Commission Membership Requirements
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
MINUTES EXCERPT
1
Special Meeting
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 6:0 P.M. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Klein (arrived at 6:13), Price (Chair), Scharff, Schmid
Absent:
1. Discussion of Possible Changes to the Board and Commission
Recruitment Program.
Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, clarified the recruitment process had
undergone some changes because of Council recommended input. The
recruitment changed to twice a year with applications being accepted all
year long. Staff was seeking the following changes to the process; 1) allow
Board and Commission applicants to participate in their interview remotely,
2) move the selection of appointments to after the election on City Council
election years, and 3) limiting applicants the ability to apply for one Board or
Commission per recruitment. She provided background to explain the
issues; 1) the remote access for City Council Members was set on an
emergency basis, and 2) during the 2014 recruitment an applicant had
applied for City Council and Commission at the same time. Staff was
suggesting changing the selection process of the recruitment on election
years to after the close of the election or change the recruitment for the
October cycle to the end of November. A consistent issue over the years was
applicants applying for multiple seats simultaneously.
Council Member Scharff did not support applicants participating remotely. He
recommended changing the end of term date to December 15th rather than
November 30th. He supported limiting the applicants ability to apply to one
Board or Commission during each recruitment.
Chair Price asked what the December 15th date was in reference to.
Council Member Scharff stated changing the term of the commissioner to
December 15 from October 31st. With the date change they could attend the
final Council meeting of the year as a commissioner.
MINUTES
2
Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 16, 2014
Chair Price confirmed the term would end on December 15th but the
recruitment process would begin earlier.
Council Member Scharff agreed the incoming commissioners could be
appointed but would not take position until after December 15th.
Ms. Minor stated that was part of the current process to avoid overlap of
seated members.
Council Member Schmid agreed with Council Member Scharff on the matter
of remote interviews. He requested to announce the scheduled interview
dates as early as possible to avoid the need for the applicants to remote in.
Ms. Minor said Staff began the recruitment process six weeks in advance of
the term end date. Scheduling the dates of interviews was dependent upon
Council’s schedule. She recommended reviewing the tentative agenda
farther out to project the possible dates for interviews.
Council Member Schmid asked how the recruitment for October 31st was set
when the Historic Resources Board (HRB) just selected four new members
but their recruitment was not until the Fall.
Ms. Minor explained during the transition of biennial recruitments there was
a lagging Commission that needed to be moved to accommodate the change
in cycle.
Council Member Schmid asked if the HRB was in October or had been moved
to April.
Ms. Minor said she would review the dates but believed the full HRB
Commission recruitment was October 31st.
Council Member Schmid had concern with 80 percent of the Commission
being termed out on a single recruitment cycle.
Ms. Minor explained in a normal recruitment the terms were staggered the
same as Council.
Council Member Schmid asked Staff to review the HRB schedule and verify
the staggering of the terms.
Ms. Minor agreed.
Council Member Schmid did not have an issue with moving the term date to
December 15th. He was in favor of limiting applicants to applying for one
position per recruitment.
MINUTES
3
Policy & Services Committee
Final Minutes
December 16, 2014
Ms. Minor stated Staff would reiterate to the applicants Council had
determined one application per seat per recruitment. Staff would change the
recruitment process to be clear.
Chair Price felt there should be an option for remote interviews because
there were individuals in the community with demanding schedules. She
believed if it was a technical issue there were ways to overcome them. She
agreed to changing the term date and limiting the application to one
Commission.
Council Member Klein stated there should be language in the recruitment
protocols to discourage applicants from remotely interviewing. If there was
to be a remote interview there should be verification the applicant is out of
town or has a medical reason.
Ms. Minor agreed to change the language.
Council Member Scharff stated if there was a remote interview it would be
acceptable if there was a Skype or a visual type technology utilized.
Ms. Minor noted the change of remote interviewing to Skype or similar
technology.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein that the Policy & Services Committee approve the following changes to
the Board and Commission recruitment process:
1. allow Board and Commission applicants to participate in the
interview process remotely as long as they were available through
Skype or similar technology and they need to be out of town;
2. change the term expiration date from October 31st to December
15th and;
3. limit applicants to apply for one Board or Commission during each
recruitment.
Council Member Schmid requested Staff review the HRB for term expiration
dates.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Ms. Minor noted Staff would bring the item before Council under the Consent
Calendar later in 2015.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 9, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Policy and Services Recommendation to Adopt an
Ordinance Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to
$1,000/Month, Effective January 1, 2017 (First Reading: January 20,
2015 PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff no)
The attached Ordinance was first heard by the Council on January 20, 2015. No changes were
made during the first reading. It is being brought forward for the second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Council Salary Ordinance (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 2
ATTACHMENT C
NOT YET ADOPTED
1
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Increase the Salary of Council Members Effective January 2017 and to Clarify
Council Expense Allowances
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Article III, Section 17 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto provides that
compensation may be paid to council members in amounts not to exceed those provided by general
law.
B. Council member salaries were last set in 2001 by Ordinance No. 4692 in the
amount of six hundred dollars ($600) per month.
C. General law permits salaries to be increased at a rate not to exceed 5% for each
calendar year from the operative date of the last salary adjustment. The increase permitted under state
law for an effective date of January 1, 2017 is four hundred fifty dollars ($450) per month, for a
maximum permissible compensation of one thousand fifty dollars ($1,050) per month.
D. From time to time, the Council adopts by resolution a travel and expense policy
for council members, including expense reimbursement limits for the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
SECTION 2. Section 2.04.350 (Expense allowance for council members) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 2.04.350 Expense allowance for council members
The council may by resolution adopt a travel and expense policy providing a schedule
for expense allowances for its members and an amount shall be included in the council
budget to reimburse members of the council for expenses incurred in their service as
members of the council. Notwithstanding the above, the mayor shall receive $200.00
per month for expenses and the vice‐mayor shall receive $50.00 per month for expenses
incurred in filling these offices.”
SECTION 3. Section 2.04.360 (Salary of council members) of Chapter 2.04 (Council
Organization and Procedure) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 2.04.360 Salary of council members
The salary of the council members shall be $600.00 per month. Effective January 1,
2017, the salary of the council members shall be $1,000 per month.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason declared invalid, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
ATTACHMENT C
NOT YET ADOPTED
2
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the date of its
adoption.
SECTION 6. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is
necessary.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5504)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approve Amended BMR Agreement
Title: Approval of Technical Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing
Agreement, Exhibit C-3 to the Mayfield Development Agreement Between
the City and Stanford University
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign
a revised Below Market Rate Housing Agreement (Exhibit A) as well as related documents
required for construction of the approved project at 2500 El Camino Real, and find that the
revised agreement is consistent with the Mayfield Development Agreement between the City
and Stanford University.
Executive Summary
The Mayfield Development Agreement between the City and Stanford University provided for
the construction of affordable housing, and consistent with this agreement, the City approved
construction of a 70-unit below market rate project at 2500 El Camino Real in 2014. Now the
Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement included as an exhibit to the Mayfield
Development Agreement must be executed before Stanford University and the developer of
the project, Related California (Related), can conclude their transaction, obtain financing, and
construct the project. The BMR Housing Agreement is the regulatory tool used by the City to
ensure the long term affordability of the units.
As envisioned in the Development Agreement (Paragraph 12 of Exhibit C-2), technical changes
are needed to bring the original BMR agreement into conformance with the tax credit programs
being used to finance the project. (A blacklined version of the BMR Agreement showing the
changes is included as Attachment B.)
Concurrently, the City and Stanford propose to amend the section of the agreement related to
local preferences to expand the preference to include Palo Alto households that have been
displaced or threatened with displacement. Other changes to the preference section reflect
Stanford’s decision not to offer a preference to Stanford employees, and minor edits to the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
preference for those who live or work in Palo Alto.
The City Attorney and the City’s outside counsel for housing matters have reviewed the
proposed changes and believe they are consistent with the intent and substance of the
Mayfield Development Agreement and with the approval granted to the project at 2500 El
Camino Real.
Discussion
In May 2005, the City Council entered into a Development Agreement (Mayfield DA) with
Stanford University (Stanford) which granted rights to Stanford for certain specified
developments in the agreement. One of the developments of the Mayfield DA was Stanford
agreed to lease the Mayfield site on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real to the City
for fifty-one (51) years to be used as a public soccer complex.
In exchange for the lease, the City allowed Stanford to develop 250 units of housing along
California Avenue and El Camino Real with the requirement that a portion of the 250 units be
set aside as Below Market Rate (BMR) housing. Stanford had the option of providing 50 BMR
units interspersed throughout the entire development or develop 70 BMR units in a separate
development as outlined in the DA. The DA included BMR Agreements for both the 50 unit and
70 unit options as exhibits. Stanford opted for the seventy unit option to be developed at their
El Camino site, and this project was approved by the City in 2014.
Related California (Related) is the developer for the affordable development and plans on using
tax credits to help fund the project. City staff has been working with Related staff in finalizing
the necessary documents, including the BMR Agreement, in support of tax credit financing.
While reviewing the draft BMR Agreement, written in 2004, it was apparent that the draft did
not reflect newer requirements of the tax credit programs. The Development Agreement
anticipated this possibility and, in paragraph 12 of Exhibit C-2 (“Paragraph 12,”), provided for
subordination of the BMR Agreement to LIHTC rules, as long as certain basic requirements of the
BMR Agreement were not changed. Staff determined that the revisions needed to reflect
current tax credit requirements, although extensive in terms of the amount of text to be
removed or modified, do not change the basic requirements of the BMR Agreement.
Section 5.2 of the BMR Agreement stipulates a preference/priority provision for persons who
live or work in the City of Palo Alto, and states that Stanford “may give priority” to or work at
Stanford. With the proposed changes, the parties would amend this section of the agreement
to expand the preferences to include Palo Alto households that have been displaced or
threatened with displacement, to reflect Stanford’s decision not to give priority for Stanford
employees, and the City’s clarification that the preference for people who live or work in the
City extends to people who work without compensation or regularly volunteer. All of these
changes are favorable to the City.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Timeline
Execution of the revised BMR Agreement is required as soon as possible to allow for financing
and construction of the approved affordable housing project.
Resource Impact
The proposed action does not materially affect the Mayfield Development Agreement and will
allow the developer to obtain financing for an approved housing project.
Policy Implications
The proposed action would expand the local preference for those who live or work in Palo Alto
to those displaced or threatened with displacement.
Environmental Review
The requested action would not materially alter the adopted Development Agreement, which
was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus no additonal
review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: BMR Agreement Stanford and CPA (DOCX)
Attachment B: BMR Agreement between Stanford and City of Palo Alto Redlined
Version (DOC)
1
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 6103 of the Government Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2450, 2470, and 2500 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California
A.P.N. Nos. 142-20-013, 142-20-014, 142-20-047
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this ____________ day
of February 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "City", and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under
the laws of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as
“Stanford”;
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, City and Stanford have entered into a
Development Agreement that was recorded in the Official Records
of Santa Clara County on June 28, 2005, as document number
18444398 (the “Development Agreement”); and
ATTACHMENT A
2
WHEREAS, Stanford is the owner of certain real property
situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State
of California, which is commonly described by street address and
Assessor's parcel numbers as set forth in the title of this
document, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, (the "El
Camino Sites"); and
WHEREAS, Stanford has chosen, under the terms of the
Development Agreement, to satisfy its obligations under the
Development Agreement and the provisions of the City of Palo
Alto Below Market Rate ("BMR") Program (as then set forth in
Program H-36 of the City of Palo Alto Housing Element) by
providing 70 units of BMR housing on the El Camino Sites;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually covenant and
agree as follows:
1.0 BMR COMMITMENT: Stanford shall provide 70 units of BMR
rental housing (the "BMR Units") on the El Camino Sites in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement (the "project"). The
project shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit C-2 of
the Development Agreement. Stanford shall operate and maintain
the project as approved and constructed and in accordance with
this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, Stanford
shall not subdivide or combine units without the approval of the
City. City accepts the performance of this Agreement in full
satisfaction of Stanford's obligations to provide BMR Units
under the Development Agreement, including section 5.5 thereof,
in connection with the construction of the 250 units of Housing
required under the Development Agreement. All units shall be
rented and occupied as provided herein.
2.0 DURATION OF AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE BMR HOUSING: This agreement
shall be in effect for fifty-five (55) years from the first day
of the calendar month immediately following the date of issuance
of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, and
thereafter this Agreement shall be of no force or effect and the
rents charged shall no longer be regulated or controlled by City
and Stanford shall no longer be required to maintain and operate
the project in accordance with this Agreement, or the City's BMR
Program.
3.0 AGE RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITED: In the rental of BMR Units,
neither Stanford nor its assignees shall discriminate against
3
households with children or on the basis of the age of renters,
or occupants.
4.0 DISTRIBUTION OF BMR UNITS: The Very Low-Income Units shall
be proportionately distributed among the different unit types in
the Project (by number of bedrooms) and by floor and location in
the building(s). For example, if there are 30% one-bedroom
units, 40% two-bedroom units and 30% three bedroom units, then
the 14 required Very Low-Income Units would be distributed by
unit type as follows (results are rounded):
o 4 - One-bedroom units (30% of 14)
o 6 - Two-bedroom units ( 40% of 14)
o 4 - Three-bedroom units (30% of 14)
5.0 HOUSEHOLD QUALIFICATION AND SELECTION; WAITING LIST:
5.1 Qualifications. In order to be eligible to rent a
BMR Unit, the prospective tenant must meet the qualifications
regarding income, assets and minimum household size at the time
of commencing occupancy and annually thereafter. The
qualifications and related procedures are set forth in detail in
Section 7.0 below.
5.2 Priority for Palo Alto Workers and Residents. Priority
for all BMR units shall be given to those eligible households
who have been displaced, or are threatened to be displaced, from
housing within the city limits of the City of Palo Alto and to
those eligible households with at least one household member who
either lives or works , with or without monetary compensation,
within the city limits of the City of Palo Alto.
5.3 Waiting List. Stanford shall maintain a waiting list
or advertise vacancies for the BMR Units and provide information
to prospective BMR applicants. Alternatively subject to the
City's consent, Stanford may contract with a qualified
organization such as the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to
maintain a waiting list. Nevertheless, Stanford shall be solely
responsible for the actual selection of BMR households,
consistent with Section 5.2, and may conduct Stanford's normal
tenant screening process.
5.4 Information. Upon request by an interested person,
Stanford shall provide information about the BMR rental program
and the BMR Units, including the waiting list. Upon submittal of
an application to rent a BMR Unit, Stanford shall provide to the
4
applicant information regarding the conditions and restrictions
applicable to occupancy of the BMR Units in the Project. Such
information shall include: the Base Rents as herein defined
applicable to new households, the rules for calculation of
annual rent increases, minimum occupancy standards for BMR
Units, the qualifying income, asset, and other limitations for
initial and continued occupancy, the process to certify
compliance with those limitations and the annual recertification
process, the requirement to offer a one-year lease, the BMR
waiting list procedures and Stanford's standards for household
screening, and other relevant information. Penalties for a
household's noncompliance with the BMR Program rules and
requirements shall also be explained in the informational
materials provided by Stanford.
6.0 AFFORDABILITY AND OCCUPANCY STANDARDS; QUALIFYING INCOME
LIMITS; RENTS. All units shall be occupied and rented as follows:
6.1. Affordability Standards.
6.1.1 Very Low-Income Units. Fourteen (14) BMR Units
shall be rented to qualified Very Low-Income Households
(annual gross household income that is less than or equal
to the qualifying limits for households earning 50% of
Santa Clara County median income, adjusted for actual
household size, which is set forth by regulation of TCAC)
at rents controlled by this Agreement.
6.1.2. Low-Income Units. The balance of the BMR Units
constructed (except an unit to be occupied by a resident
manager) shall be designated and rented to qualified Low-
Income Households (annual gross household income that is
less than or equal to the qualifying limits for households
earning 60% of Santa Clara County median income, adjusted
for actual household size, which is set forth by regulation
of TCAC) at rents controlled by this Agreement.
6.1.3. Affordability Standards. The income limits
used in this Section 6.1 and in Section 6.4 to establish
maximum rents are summarized in the following table:
AFFORDABILITY STANDARDS FOR BMR HOUSEHOLDS
5
Designation of
the BMR Unit
Affordability
Standards at
Household’s First
Occupancy
Affordability
Standards at
Annual
Recertification
Very Low-Income
Unit
Equal to or less than
50% of Area Median
Income
Equal to or less than
70% of Area Median
Income
Low-Income Unit Equal to or less
than 60% of Area
Median Income
Equal to or less than
84% of Area Median
Income
6.1.4. Reserved.
6.1.5 Alternatives. In-lieu of compliance with the
qualifying income limits established in Section 6.1,
Stanford may elect to comply with income limits,
established pursuant to a formula or method of calculation
adopted by the City after the effective date of the
Development Agreement and in effect at the time of the
application for Architectural Review Approval for the
Project, and generally applicable to 100% BMR rental
housing projects in the City.
6.2 Initial Rents.
6.2.1. Calculation of Initial Rents. All of the
Initial Base Rents for Units in a building shall be
effective on the first day of occupancy of the first BMR
Unit in the building to be occupied. The first day of a
calendar month following said first day of occupancy shall
be the "Start Date”. The Initial Base Rents shall be
calculated in accordance with this Section 6.2 based on the
current maximum rent limits published by the California Tax
Credit Allocation Committee (“TCAC”) for Santa Clara County
as of the date the Project receives an allocation of
federal low income housing tax credits from the TCAC,
unless the project developer elects to set the gross rent
floor as of the date of placement in service of the
Project, in which case the initial rents shall be based on
the current maximum rent limits published by TCAC as of the
date the project is placed in service under Section 42 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Initial
Calculation Date"). The Initial Base Rents shall include
rents for each type of BMR Unit (One- bedroom, Two -
bedroom, etc.) and income classification, as provided in
6
sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2. (Low- Income and Very Low-
Income).
6.2.2 Alternate Standard. If City subsequently
adopts a different method for determining rents, generally
applicable to Low-Income Households or Very Low-Income
Households in other 100% affordable BMR rental housing
projects, that permits a higher rent, Stanford may elect to
use that method to set these rents.
6.2.3 Assumed Household Size for Calculation of
Initial Base Rents. The following household size shall be
assumed or each type of BMR Unit for purposes of
calculating the Initial Base Rent:
Unit Type
One-bedroom units
Two-bedroom units
Three-bedroom units
Four-bedroom units
Assumed Household Size
1.5-persons
3-persons
4.5-persons
6-persons
6.3. Increases in Rents. The Rent for each BMR Unit shall
be re-determined annually, in accordance with the procedure
set forth in section 6.4, and, after Stanford’s delivery of
thirty (30) day written notice to a tenant, the Rent
charged to each household may be increased to the approved
rent effective upon expiration of such thirty (30) day
notice period (the “Rent Adjustment Date”). The results of
these re-determinations are referred to as the "Base
Rents."
6.4. Procedure for Re-determination of Rents. The re-
determined Base Rent effective after each Rent Adjustment
Date shall be the maximum annual rent published by TCAC for
such year for Santa Clara County for the applicable income
limit and bedroom count, and adjusted as necessary to
reflect the assumed household size for that type of unit
pursuant to section 6.2.3, provided that the increase or
adjustment in rent will be no greater than the increase or
adjustment permitted under Section 42(g) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
7
6.5 Rents After Vacancy. When a BMR Unit is vacated and
rented to a new household, the rent to be paid by the new
household shall be the then current Base Rent.
6.6 Charges Included in BMR Rent. Rent calculated in
accordance with this section 6 is the total maximum monthly
charge that may be paid by the household for occupancy of the
BMR unit, including the value of utility services that are not
separately metered to each unit, and of assigned parking and of
storage lockers.
6.7. Rents After Re-certification. Rents also may be
adjusted as a result of an annual recertification as provided in
section 7.0 below.
6.8 Occupancy Standards; Household Size. The minimum
household size for each unit type shall be:
Unit Type
One-bedroom units
Two-bedroom units
Three-bedroom units
Four-bedroom units
Minimum Household Size
One-person
Two-persons
Three-persons
Four-persons
Stanford may establish maximum household sizes for each unit
type, which shall not be less than two persons per bedroom plus
one person; e.g., for a 3-bedroom unit, a maximum of 7 persons.
7.0 REVIEW OF TENANT QUALIFICATIONS & INCOME CERTIFICATIONS.
7.1 Qualifications. Applicants for BMR Units must meet
qualifications regarding income, assets and minimum household
size standards. The applicable residency and / or work location
preferences must also be verified. Each existing BMR household
must be recertified annually to verify that the household
continues to meet the applicable qualifications in order to
continue to be eligible to pay BMR rent and occupy a BMR Unit
7.2 Procedures. The procedures of the HUD Section 8 rental
assistance program, or successor program, shall be followed in
conducting the income certifications, except as modified by the
City to meet the requirements of the BMR program. Stanford shall
obtain the appropriate documentation from applicants and
tenants, make its determinations of annual income and other
8
qualifications and of each household's initial and continued
eligibility for the BMR program prior to the execution (or
renewal) of the rental agreement or lease for the BMR Unit.
Stanford shall not permit a new BMR tenant to occupy a BMR Unit
prior to completion and satisfaction of the qualification and
income certification process and requirements.
7.3. Certified Households. If Stanford determines that a
household remains eligible for the BMR Unit, the tenancy
continues in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement
and the applicable rental agreement or lease.
7.4. Increases in Household Income. In the event the
household income of a Very-Low Income Household or a Low-Income
Household is determined at the time of annual recertification
for a Unit to exceed the qualifying income limits for a Very-Low
Income Household or a Low-Income Household, as applicable, such
household shall remain eligible to continue to rent the BMR Unit
in accordance with Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, the
California Health and Safety Code and the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee Regulations, as such may be amended from
time to time.
7.5 Reserved.
7.6 Failure to Meet Minimum Household Size. If Stanford
determines that an otherwise qualified BMR household no longer
meets the minimum household size standard for the BMR Unit that
it occupies (e.g., because one or more household members have
established permanent residency at another location), the
household will no longer be eligible to occupy a unit of the
type then occupied and the provisions of section 7.6.1 apply.
7.6.1. Notice. In such case, Stanford shall give
the household written notice that:
A) The household is no longer eligible to occupy the
BMR Unit;
B) The household will be required (i) to move to the
next available BMR Unit for which it qualifies under the
household size standards within ten (10) days of receipt of
written notice that the unit is available, or (ii) to vacate the
project within sixty days of receipt of such notice; and
9
7.6.2. Re-renting of BMR Unit. Stanford shall rent
the vacated BMR Unit to a qualified household in accordance with
this Agreement.
8.0 ANNUAL REPORT. Stanford shall prepare and submit to the
City, or the City's designee, an annual report in a form
specified by City on the status of the BMR Units and compliance
with the requirements of the Development Agreement and this
Agreement. This report will recap all activity related to the
provision of BMR Units for the year, identify corrective actions
taken or ongoing to ensure compliance and finally, recap all
rent increases and income limit adjustments implemented during
the preceding calendar year.
9.0 DECENNIAL REVIEW OF BMR REQUIREMENTS. During the calendar
year following the tenth (10) anniversary of the Start Date and
every ten years thereafter, Stanford may request a review and
modification' of the terms, or amendment of this Agreement. City
shall have sole discretion to accept or reject any and all
requested modifications or amendments. The parties may amend
this Agreement only by a writing duly executed by both and
recorded.
10.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS INCLUDING CITY'S ONE-YEAR LEASE
LAW. All applicable State and local laws and ordinances
affecting the operation of rental housing apply to the
operations of the BMR Units. Notwithstanding any language to the
contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, as set forth in the
Modified 2003 Rules, including the requirement to offer each
household a one- year lease, shall apply to the BMR Units.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, all
provisions contained herein shall be subject to compliance with
all laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes relating
to or governing federal low income housing tax credits,
including, but not limited to, Section 42 of the Internal
Revenue Code, the California Health and Safety Code and the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Regulations, as each
may be amended from time to time.
11.0 ENFORCEMENT.
11.1 Responsibility. Stanford shall be solely
responsible for enforcement of the terms of the tenancy, and the
rental agreement or lease.
10
11.2 Enforcement of the BMR Rental Program and Penalties
for Noncompliance. The City reserves the right to monitor and
audit Stanford's compliance with this Agreement at any time. If
non-compliance is evident, City may give Stanford written notice
and an appropriate period of time to remedy any areas of
noncompliance. If compliance, or evidence indicating appropriate
action toward compliance, cannot be provided within six months
to the satisfaction of the City, City reserves the right to
perform, review or monitor any of the activities necessary to
cure the non-compliance and ensure the satisfactory operation of
the BMR rental program. City may contract with a third party to
perform these tasks. Stanford shall reimburse City for the
actual cost of City's (or its contractor's) time and overhead
for as long as City must assume responsibility for these tasks.
12.0 REQUIRED INCORPORATION IN RENTAL AGREEMENT OR LEASE. Each
lease or rental agreement for a ·BMR Unit shall require the
household to cooperate in the annual re-certification and to
provide information necessary to verify the continued
eligibility of the household to reside in the BMR Unit. Each
household shall be given a copy of this Agreement and shall be
required to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of this
information and of their understanding of these requirements.
13.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR. The Department of Planning and
Community Development administers the BMR Program. Currently,
the City's contract program administrator for the Program is the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City may assign any or all of
its administrative duties including review, approval and
monitoring to a program administrator or other designee.
14.0 RECORDS, MONITORING AND REPORTS. Stanford shall maintain
records, in a form satisfactory to the City, to demonstrate
compliance with this BMR Regulatory Agreement.
16. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS. The terms, covenants and conditions
of this shall run with the land and shall apply to, and shall
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns,
contractors, and subcontractors of the parties.
17. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. The prevailing party in any
action or arbitration brought to enforce the terms of this or
arising out of this may recover from the other party its
reasonable costs and attorneys• fees expended in connection with
such an action or arbitration.
11
18. NOTICES. Unless otherwise specified in this, notices
hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid
by certified mail, addressed as follows:
To City: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Copy to: Director of Planning and Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Stanford: Stanford Office of Real Estate
3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Attention: Managing Director,
Real Estate
Copy to: Office of the General Counsel
Building 170, 3rd Floor, Main Quad
P.O. Box 20386
Stanford, CA 94305-2038
The address of a party may be changed from time to time by
written notice given to the other party in the manner set forth
herein. Notices given in the manner set forth herein shall be
deemed received five days after deposit in the mail. Notices
may also be delivered personally and if so, shall be deemed
received upon delivery.
19. INTERPRETATION: This Agreement is intended to implement the
Development Agreement and the Project Approvals, as defined
therein, and it shall be construed accordingly.
(signatures begin on following page)
12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed in duplicate the day and year first
above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Cara Silver, Senior Asst.
City Attorney
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Hillary Gitelman, Director of
Planning and Community
Environment
A.P.N. Nos: 142-20-013
142-20 014
142-20-047
CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________________
James Keene, City Manager
(signatures continue on following page)
13
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
By: _________________________
Title: _______________________
_____________________________
14
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of ______________________________)
On __________________ before me, _______________________________
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ______________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
15
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of ______________________________)
On __________________ before me, _______________________________
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ______________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
16
Exhibit “A”
Legal Description
All that certain real property in the City of Palo Alto, County
of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
Being the lands described in that certain Memorandum of Lease by
and between The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the
State of California, as Lessor, and Santa Clara Commercial
Corporation, a California corporation, as Lessee said Lease was
recorded June 16, 1961 in Book 5201 at Page 32, Official Records
of Santa Clara county; and being also a portion of that certain
Memorandum of Lease, by and between The Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University a body having corporate powers
under the laws of the State of California, as Lessor, and Hamnic
Investment Company, Inc., a California corporation, as Lessee,
said Lease was recorded October 1, 1960 in Book 5025 at Page
363, Official Records of said County; and being also a portion
of that certain Memorandum of Lease, by and between The Board of
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University a body having
corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, as
Lessor, and Alson Investment Company, a California corporation,
as Lessee, said Lease was recorded November 5, 1959 in Book
4598, Page 631, Official Records of said County, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a concrete highway monument set on the
southwesterly line of El Camino Real (State Highway), opposite
Engineer’s Station 144+27.00 as surveyed by the California
Division of Highways, as said southwesterly line was established
by that certain Final Order of Condemnation entered in the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County
of Santa Clara in that certain action entitled “The People of
the State of California acting by and through the Department of
Public Works, Plaintiff, vs. The Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University, et al, Defendant”, Case No. 39384, a
certified copy of which Order was recorded on July 7, 1930 in
Book 520 at Page 571, Official Records of said County, said
monument also marks the point of intersection of said
17
southwesterly line of that certain 1289 acre tract of land
described in the Deed from Evelyn c. Crosby, et al to Leland
Stanford, recorded September 8, 1885 in Book 80 of Deeds at Page
382, Records of Santa Clara County;
Thence leaving said highway monument and along said
southwesterly line of El Camino Real, being 100.00 feet in
width, North 56°39’00” West, 3043.49 feet;
Thence leaving said line of El Camino Real (100.00 feet in
width), South 33°21’00” West, 20.00 feet to the most easterly
corner of said lands of Santa Clara Commercial Corporation (6237
O.R. 33), said corner being also a point on the southwesterly
line of El Camino Real, presently being 120.00 feet width, as
said southwesterly line was established by that certain Final
Order of Condemnation entered in the Superior Court of the State
of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara in that
certain action entitled “The People of the State of California
acting by and through the Department of Public Works, Plaintiff
vs. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University, et al, Defendant”, Case No. 125122, a certified copy
of which Order was recorded on April 25, 1961 in Book 5147 at
Page 464, Official Records of said County, said corner being
also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description;
Thence from said True Point of Beginning, South 33°21’00” West,
280.00 feet to the most southerly corner of said lands of Santa
Clara Commercial Corporation (6237 O.R. 33);
Thence leaving said southerly corner and along the southwesterly
line of said lands of Santa Clara Commercial Corporation, and
along the southwesterly line of said lands of Hamnic Investment
Company, Inc. (5025 O.R. 363), and along the southwesterly line
of said lands of Alson Investment Company (4598 O.R. 631), North
56°39’00” West, 280.00 feet to the most westerly corner of said
lands of Alson Investment Company;
Thence leaving said westerly corner and along the northwesterly
line of said lands of Alson Investment Company (4598 O.R. 631),
North 33°21’00” East, 280.00 feet to said southwesterly line of
El Camino Real (120.00 feet in width), as said southwesterly
18
line was established by said Final Order of Condemnation (5147
O.R. 464);
Thence along said southwesterly line of El Camino Real, South
56°39’00” East, 280.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of
this description.
1
05012 syn 0091544
Exhibit C-3
(For 70 BMR Unit Alternative)
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 6103 of the Government Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2450, 2470, and 2500 El Camino Real [and 505 California Avenue]
Palo Alto, California
A.P.N. Nos. 142-20-013, 142-20-014, 142-20-047 [, and 142-20-012]
[Note: Include bracketed address and APN only if included in
Project. If not used, delete brackets and inapplicable address and
APN. Delete this Note.]
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this ____________ day
of _______________________ 20__,February 2015, by and between
the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "City", and THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having
corporate powers under the laws of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as “Stanford”;
W I T N E S S E T H:
ATTACHMENT B
2
05012 syn 0091544
WHEREAS, City and Stanford have entered into a
Development Agreement that was recorded in the Official Records
of Santa Clara County on__________________200__, June 28, 2005,
as document number _______18444398 (the “Development
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Stanford is the owner of certain real property
situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State
of California, which is commonly described by street address and
Assessor's parcel numbers as set forth in the title of this
document, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, (the "El
Camino Sites"); and
WHEREAS, Stanford has chosen, under the terms of the
Development Agreement, to satisfy its obligations under the
Development Agreement and the provisions of the City of Palo
Alto Below Market Rate ("BMR") Program (as then set forth in
Program H-36 of the City of Palo Alto Housing Element) by
providing 70 units of BMR housing on the El Camino Sites;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually covenant and
agree as follows:
1.0 BMR COMMITMENT: Stanford shall provide 70 units of BMR
rental housing (the "BMR Units") on the El Camino Sites in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement (the "project"). The
project shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit C-2 of
the Development Agreement. Stanford shall operate and maintain
the project as approved and constructed and in accordance with
this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, Stanford
shall not subdivide or combine units without the approval of the
City. City accepts the performance of this Agreement in full
satisfaction of Stanford's obligations to provide BMR Units
under the Development Agreement, including section 5.5 thereof,
in connection with the construction of the 250 units of Housing
required under the Development Agreement. All units shall be
rented and occupied as provided herein.
2.0 DURATION OF AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE BMR HOUSING: This agreement
shall be in effect for [fifty-nine (59) years} [fifty-five (55)
years] from the first day of the calendar month immediately
following the date of issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for the project, and thereafter this Agreement shall
be of no force or effect and the rents charged shall no longer
be regulated or controlled by City and Stanford shall no longer
3
05012 syn 0091544
be required to maintain and operate the project in accordance
with this Agreement, or the City's BMR Program.
[Note: Use 55 year term only if all of the BMR Units are
restricted units under a tax credit regulation agreement with at
least a 55-year term. Delete brackets and inapplicable term.
Delete this Note.]
3.0 AGE RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITED: In the rental of BMR Units,
neither Stanford nor its assignees shall discriminate against
households with children or on the basis of the age of renters,
or occupants.
4.0 DISTRIBUTION OF BMR UNITS: The Very Low-Income Units shall
be proportionately distributed among the different unit types in
the Project (by number of bedrooms) and by floor and location in
the building(s). For example, if there are 30% one-bedroom
units, 40% two-bedroom units and 30% three bedroom units, then
the 14 required Very Low-Income Units would be distributed by
unit type as follows (results are rounded):
o 4 - One-bedroom units (30% of 14)
o 6 - Two-bedroom units ( 40% of 14)
o 4 - Three-bedroom units (30% of 14)
5.0 HOUSEHOLD QUALIFICATION AND SELECTION; WAITING LIST:
5.1 Qualifications. In order to be eligible to rent a
BMR Unit, the prospective tenant must meet the qualifications
regarding income, assets and minimum household size at the time
of commencing occupancy and annually thereafter. The
qualifications and related procedures are set forth in detail in
Section 7.0 below.
5.2 Priority for Palo Alto Workers and Residents; Stanford
Workers Outside of City. To the extent permitted by law,
priority. Priority for all BMR units shall be given to those
eligible households who have been displaced, or are threatened
to be displaced, from housing within the city limits of the City
of Palo Alto and to those eligible households with at least one
household member who either lives or works , with or without
monetary compensation, within the city limits of the City of
Palo Alto, provided, that for no more than 30% of the units,
Stanford may give priority to households whose members neither
work nor live in Palo Alto but which include at least one
4
05012 syn 0091544
individual who is both (1) an employee of Stanford University
and (2) not a student at the University.
Stanford shall inform the City every five years of the
percentage of the units occupied by Stanford households.
"Stanford households" are those with no adult member employed
within the City of Palo Alto and at least one adult member
employed by Stanford outside of the City of Palo Alto. Provided,
households that initially qualified on the basis of a Palo Alto
residential preference shall never be reclassified as Stanford
households.If a unit becomes vacant, Stanford may rent to a
Stanford household if, and only if, by doing so the total number
of Stanford households does not exceed 30% of the BMR Units.
5.3 Waiting List. Stanford shall maintain a waiting list
or advertise vacancies for the BMR Units and provide information
to prospective BMR applicants. Alternatively subject to the
City's consent, Stanford may contract with a qualified
organization such as the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to
maintain a waiting list. Nevertheless, Stanford shall be solely
responsible for the actual selection of BMR households,
consistent with Section 5.2, and may conduct Stanford's normal
tenant screening process.
5.4 Information. Upon request by an interested person,
Stanford shall provide information about the BMR rental program
and the BMR Units, including the waiting list. Upon submittal of
an application to rent a BMR Unit, Stanford shall provide to the
applicant information regarding the conditions and restrictions
applicable to occupancy of the BMR Units in the Project. Such
information shall include: the Base Rents as herein defined
applicable to new households, the rules for calculation of
annual rent increases, minimum occupancy standards for BMR
Units, the qualifying income, asset, and other limitations for
initial and continued occupancy, the process to certify
compliance with those limitations and the annual recertification
process, the requirement to offer a one-year lease, the BMR
waiting list procedures and Stanford's standards for household
screening, and other relevant information. Penalties for a
household's noncompliance with the BMR Program rules and
requirements shall also be explained in the informational
materials provided by Stanford.
6.0 AFFORDABILITY AND OCCUPANCY STANDARDS; QUALIFYING INCOME
LIMITS; RENTS. All units shall be occupied and rented as follows:
5
05012 syn 0091544
6.1. Affordability Standards.
6.1.1 Very Low-Income Units. Fourteen (14) BMR Units
shall be rented to qualified Very Low-Income Households
(annual gross household income at or below 50 percent of
the Area Median Income for Santa Clara County, as
determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development [sometimes the "AMI"])that is less than or
equal to the qualifying limits for households earning 50%
of Santa Clara County median income, adjusted for actual
household size, which is set forth by regulation of TCAC)
at rents controlled by this Agreement.
6.1.2. Low-Income Units. The balance of the BMR Units
constructed (except an unit to be occupied by a resident
manager) shall be designated and rented to qualified Low-
Income Households (annual gross household income at or
below 60 percent of the AMIthat is less than or equal to
the qualifying limits for households earning 60% of Santa
Clara County median income, adjusted for actual household
size, which is set forth by regulation of TCAC) at rents
controlled by this Agreement.
6.1.3. Affordability Standards. The income limits
used in this Section 6.1 and in Section 6.4 to establish
maximum rents are summarized in the following table:
AFFORDABILITY STANDARDS FOR BMR HOUSEHOLDS
Designation of
the BMR Unit
Affordability
Standards at
Household’s First
Occupancy
Affordability
Standards at
Annual
Recertification
Very Low-Income
Unit
Equal to or less than
50% of Area Median
Income
Equal to or less than
70% of Area Median
Income
Low-Income Unit Equal to or less
than 60% of Area
Median Income
Equal to or less than
84% of Area Median
Income
6.1.4. Basic Qualifying Income Limits. The
affordability Standards assume a 4-person household. The
6
05012 syn 0091544
Standard applicable to a particular BMR Unit is adjusted to
reflect the size of the household occupying the BMR Unit;
this adjusted Limit is sometimes referred to below as the
"Basic Qualifying Income Limits." The Basic Qualifying
Income Limits are used to determine the eligibility of a
household for a BMR Unit. The following factors are applied
to adjust the 4-person household Area Median Income to
derive Basic Qualifying Income Limits for smaller and
larger households.Reserved.
1-person household: 70%
2-person household: 80%
3-person household: 90%
4-person household: Base%
5-person household: 108%
6-person household: 116%
7-person household: 124%
8-person household: 132%
For households larger than 8-persons, the factors are
increased by eight percent per additional person. All
income limits are rounded to the nearest $50.
6.1.4.1 Example. For example, assuming an AMI of
$80,000, the Affordability Standard for a Very Low-Income
Unit would be $40,000 [0.50 x $80,000], but the Basic
Qualifying Income Limit for a 2-person household would be
$32,000 [$40,000 x 0.80]. In order to qualify to rent the
Very Low-Income Unit, the income of the household could be
no more than $32,000.
6.1.5 Alternatives. In-lieu of compliance with the
Basic Qualifying Income Limitsqualifying income limits
established in Section 6.1, Stanford may elect to comply
with income limits, established pursuant to a formula or
method of calculation adopted by the City after the
effective date of the Development Agreement and in effect
at the time of the application for Architectural Review
Approval for the Project, and generally applicable to 100%
BMR rental housing projects in the City.
6.2 Initial Rents.
6.2.1. Calculation of Initial Rents. All of the
Initial Base Rents for Units in a building shall be
effective on the first day of occupancy of the first BMR
7
05012 syn 0091544
Unit in the building to be occupied. The first day of a
calendar month following said first day of occupancy shall
be the "Start Date”. The Initial Base Rents shall be
calculated in accordance with this Section 6.2 based on the
most current information reasonably available as of the
first day of a calendar month after the issuance of the
first building permit for the Project and preceding the
Start Date that is chosen by Stanfordcurrent maximum rent
limits published by the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (“TCAC”) for Santa Clara County as of the date
the Project receives an allocation of federal low income
housing tax credits from the TCAC, unless the project
developer elects to set the gross rent floor as of the date
of placement in service of the Project, in which case the
initial rents shall be based on the current maximum rent
limits published by TCAC as of the date the project is
placed in service under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended ("Initial Calculation Date"). The
Initial Base Rents shall include rents for each type of BMR
Unit (One- bedroom, Two - bedroom, etc.) and income
classification, as provided in sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2.
(Low- Income and Very Low- Income). The Initial Base Rents
shall be 30% of the Basic Qualifying Income Limit for each
type of unit, adjusted as necessary to reflect the assumed
household size for that type of unit pursuant to section
6.2.3 below.
6.2.1.2 Example. The Initial Base Rent for a
hypothetical Low-Income 2-bedroom unit would be $1,080,
derived as follows: AMI multiplied by the Low-Income
percentage (§ 6.1.2) multiplied by the factor for assumed
occupancy of 3 persons (§6.1.4 and § 6.2.3) x30% (§ 6.2.1)
divided by 12 months or [$80,000 x 60% x 90% x30% ÷ 12 =
Rent.]
6.2.1.3. Example. The Initial Base Rent for a
one bedroom Very Low-Income Unit using the assumed
household size (1.5 persons) and an AMI of $80,000 would be
$750 per month; i.e., thirty percent of the affordability
standard (§ 6.2.1) multiplied by AMI, multiplied by the
Very Low Income percentage (§ 6.1.1) multiplied by the
factor for assumed occupancy (§6.1.4 and § 6.2.3) divided
by 12 months (30% X [$80,000 X 50% x 75%) ÷ 12).
6.2.2 Alternate Standard. If City subsequently
adopts a different method for determining rents, generally
8
05012 syn 0091544
applicable to Low-Income Households or Very Low-Income
Households in other 100% affordable BMR rental housing
projects, that permits a higher rent, Stanford may elect to
use that method to set these rents.
6.2.3 Assumed Household Size for Calculation of
Initial Base Rents. The following household size shall be
assumed or each type of BMR Unit for purposes of
calculating the Initial Base Rent:
Unit Type
One-bedroom units
Two-bedroom units
Three-bedroom units
Four-bedroom units
Assumed Household Size
1.5-persons
3-persons
4.5-persons
6-persons
6.3. Increases in Rents. The Rent for each BMR Unit shall
be re-determined annually, in accordance with the procedure
set forth in section 6.4 (including the cap on increases in
section 6.4.6),6.4, and, after the requiredStanford’s
delivery of thirty (30) day written notice is givento a
tenant, the Rent charged to each household may be increased
to the approved rent effective on the anniversary of the
Start Date (the "upon expiration of such thirty (30) day
notice period (the “Rent Adjustment Date") or at such later
date as may be provided in the applicable rental agreement
or lease”). The results of these re-determinations are
referred to as the "Base Rents."
6.4. Procedure for Re-determination of Rents. The re-
determined Base Rent effective after each Rent Adjustment
Date shall be the maximum annual rent published by TCAC for
such year for Santa Clara County for the applicable income
limit and bedroom count, and adjusted as necessary to
reflect the assumed household size for that type of unit
pursuant to section 6.2.3, provided that the increase or
adjustment in rent will be no greater than the increase or
adjustment permitted under Section 42(g) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
6.4.1 Annual Increase in Base Rent. The re-determined
Base Rent effective each Rent Adjustment Date shall be the
sum of the previous Base Rent plus an increase equal to the
increase in the CPI (defined below) for the applicable
9
05012 syn 0091544
period (defined below) or the affordable rent re-determined
in accordance with section 6.2, except using the current
Calculation Date (defined below), whichever is less, but in
no event less than the previous Base Rent.
6.4.1.1 CPI Defined. The "CPI" is the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers - Rent Residential for
the San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose area as published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or if that Index is no
longer published by its successor or, if none, by another
generally accepted index subject to approval by the City,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
6.4.1.2 Applicable Period Defined. The
"applicable period" is the period beginning with the
preceding Calculation Date and ending with the current
Calculation Date, which normally will be 12 months. For the
initial year of any tenancy, the annual rent increase
percentage shall be prorated, as necessary to account for
the first applicable period being more or less than 12
months. For example, if the Initial Calculation Date is
eight months before the current Calculation Date, and the
CPI increase over that time period was 6%, the permissible
increase would be 4% [8/12 x 6%].
6.4.2 Proposed Base Rents. No later than 115 days
prior to a Rent Adjustment Date, Stanford may submit to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (the
"Director") a schedule showing proposed Base Rents
calculated in accordance with this section 6.4. using the
most current information reasonably available as of the
first day of the calendar month immediately preceding the
submission of the proposed rents, which shall be the
"Calculation Date" used in the current re-determination of
rents. The submission shall show for each type of BMR Unit
in each affordability category, (a) the current Rent, (b)
the applicable period, (c) the CPI increase during the
applicable period, (d) the rent that would result from an
increase equal to the CPI increase, (e) the maximum
affordable rent calculated as provided in section 6.2 as of
the Calculation Date, and (f) the proposed re-determined
Base Rent, being the lower of (d) and (e). The submission
shall also include work papers showing the derivation and
calculation of (b), (c) and (e).
6.4.3. City Action. If the Director does not approve
or disapprove the proposed Base Rents within 45 days of
10
05012 syn 0091544
receipt by City, the proposed rents shall be deemed
approved. If the proposed rent for any type of BMR Unit is
disapproved, the Director shall inform Stanford .in writing
of the reasons for its disapproval of the proposed rent and
of the rent that City approves for that type of BMR Unit.
Base Rents approved, deemed approved or approved in
connection with a denial of a request for a higher rent are
sometimes referred to below as "Approved Rent."
6.4.4 Appeal. In the event of a disapproval, Stanford
may appeal the decision to the City Manager and also
implement any lesser approved by the Director on the Rent
Adjustment Date and shall become the new Base Rent, which
shall not constitute a waiver of its right to appeal. The
City Manager shall promptly render his decision on the
appeal and Stanford may implement the decision upon thirty
days written notice to the affected households, but in no
event before the Rent Adjustment Date.
6.4.5 Approved Rent. The Approved Rent is the maximum
rent Stanford may charge for the 12-month period following
the Rent Adjustment Date; provided Stanford must give each
affected BMR household 60-day's written notice of increase.
6.4.6 Limit on Rent Increase. Notwithstanding anything
to the contrary in this Agreement, Stanford shall not
increase the rent of an existing qualified very low- or low
income household by a percentage that exceeds the
percentage increase in the certified gross income of the
household in the applicable period, except that the annual
increase shall never be less than one-half of the
percentage increase in the CPI during the applicable
period.
6.4.7 Example of Determination of Permitted Increase
and New Base Rent. The following is a sample, hypothetical
calculation of an annual rent increase for a BMR Unit with
a previous Base Rent of $1,512 per month:
A) The CPI available as of Calculation Date is:
242.5
B) Less the CPI on the preceding Calculation Date (one
year earlier) is: 225.2
C) The difference is: 17.3
11
05012 syn 0091544
D) 17.3 / 225.2 = .00768 = 7.7%, the increase in CPI
E) The new Base Rent will be $1,628 [the previous Base
Rent of $1,512 plus an increase of 7.7%, rounded]
assuming that amount does not exceed the affordable
rent re-determined as provided in section 6.4.2(e).
F) The Actual Rent charged to each household will be
the new Base Rent, but not more than the previous
Base rent increased by the percentage increase in
the certified income of the household over the
applicable period.
G) Assuming a unit occupied by a household the income
of which increased by 5.0% (which is less than the
CPI increase) over the applicable period, the
increase allowed would be 5% or $76.00 [previous
Base Rent of $1,512.00 x 5.0% = $76.00 (rounded).]
and the new Base Rent for that unit would be
$1,588.00 ($1,512 + $76)
6.5 Rents After Vacancy. When a BMR Unit is vacated and
rented to a new household, the rent to be paid by the new
household shall be the then current Base Rent.
6.6 Charges Included in BMR Rent. Rent calculated in
accordance with this section 6 is the total maximum monthly
charge that may be paid by the household for occupancy of the
BMR unit, including the value of utility services that are not
separately metered to each unit, and of assigned parking and of
storage lockers.
6.7. Rents After Re-certification. Rents also may be
adjusted as a result of an annual recertification as provided in
section 7.0 below.
6.8 Occupancy Standards; Household Size. The minimum
household size for each unit type shall be:
Unit Type
One-bedroom units
Two-bedroom units
Three-bedroom units
Four-bedroom units
Minimum Household Size
One-person
Two-persons
Three-persons
Four-persons
12
05012 syn 0091544
Stanford may establish maximum household sizes for each unit
type, which shall not be less than two persons per bedroom plus
one person; e.g., for a 3-bedroom unit, a maximum of 7 persons.
7.0 REVIEW OF TENANT QUALIFICATIONS & INCOME CERTIFICATIONS.
7.1 Qualifications. Applicants for BMR Units must meet
qualifications regarding income, assets and minimum household
size standards. The applicable residency and / or work location
preferences must also be verified. Each existing BMR household
must be recertified annually to verify that the household
continues to meet the applicable qualifications in order to
continue to be eligible to pay BMR rent and occupy a BMR Unit
7.2 Procedures. The procedures of the HUD Section 8 rental
assistance program, or successor program, shall be followed in
conducting the income certifications, except as modified by the
City to meet the requirements of the BMR program. Stanford shall
obtain the appropriate documentation from applicants and
tenants, make its determinations of annual income and other
qualifications and of each household's initial and continued
eligibility for the BMR program prior to the execution (or
renewal) of the rental agreement or lease for the BMR Unit.
Stanford shall not permit a new BMR tenant to occupy a BMR Unit
prior to completion and satisfaction of the qualification and
income certification process and requirements.
7.3. Certified Households. If Stanford determines that a
household remains eligible for the BMR Unit, the tenancy
continues in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement
and the applicable rental agreement or lease.
7.4. Households That Become Ineligible Because of Increased
Household Income. If Stanford determines that a household's
incomeIncreases in Household Income. In the event the
household income of a Very-Low Income Household or a Low-Income
Household is determined at the time of the annual
recertification exceeds the then-current Basic Qualifying Income
Limits for recertification for a Low-Income Unit (calculated as
set forth in sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.4), then the household is no
longerannual recertification for a Unit to exceed the qualifying
income limits for a Very-Low Income Household or a Low-Income
Household, as applicable, such household shall remain eligible
to continue to occupy a BMR Unit in the Project and the
provisions of section 7.4.1 shall apply.rent the BMR Unit in
accordance with Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, the
13
05012 syn 0091544
California Health and Safety Code and the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee Regulations, as such may be amended from
time to time.
7.4.1 Notice. Stanford shall give the household
written notice that the household is no longer eligible to
occupy a BMR Unit in the project and that:
A) The rent will be increased to market rent in
sixty (60) days; and
B) The household must vacate the BMR Unit within
six (6) months of the date of the notice of ineligibility, or at
the end of the term of the household's rental agreement or lease
term, whichever is later.
7.4.2 Re-rent of BMR Unit. When the BMR Unit is
vacated, Stanford shall rent the BMR Unit to a qualified
household in accordance with this Agreement.
7.5 Re-designation of Very Low-Income Household as Low
Income and Household Related Rent Increase. If Stanford
determines that the income of a household that is occupying a
Very Low-Income Unit exceeds the then-current Basic Qualifying
Income Limit for recertification for a Very Low-Income Household
(calculated as set forth in sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.4), the
household is no longer eligible to continue to pay a Very Low
Income rents in the project and the provisions of sections 7.5.1
and 7.5.2 shall apply.Reserved.
7.5.1 Notice. Stanford shall give the household
written notice that the household is no longer eligible to pay a
Very Low-Income rents and that
A) Its tenancy is being reclassified as a Low-
Income Household; and
B) The rent will be increased to the current Base
Rent for a Low-Income BMR Unit in sixty (60) days;
7.5.2. Re-renting of Available Low-Income BMR Unit.
Stanford shall designate and rent the next available vacant BMR
Low-Income Unit of that type as a Very Low-Income Unit in
accordance with this Agreement
7.6 Failure to Meet Minimum Household Size. If Stanford
determines that an otherwise qualified BMR household no longer
14
05012 syn 0091544
meets the minimum household size standard for the BMR Unit that
it occupies (e.g., because one or more household members have
established permanent residency at another location), the
household will no longer be eligible to occupy a unit of the
type then occupied and the provisions of section 7.6.1 apply.
7.6.1. Notice. In such case, Stanford shall give
the household written notice that:
A) The household is no longer eligible to occupy the
BMR Unit;
B) The household will be required (i) to move to the
next available BMR Unit for which it qualifies under the
household size standards within ten (10) days of receipt of
written notice that the unit is available, or (ii) to vacate the
project within sixty days of receipt of such notice; and
7.6.2. Re-renting of BMR Unit. Stanford shall rent
the vacated BMR Unit to a qualified household in accordance with
this Agreement.
8.0 ANNUAL REPORT. Stanford shall prepare and submit to the
City, or the City's designee, an annual report in a form
specified by City on the status of the BMR Units and compliance
with the requirements of the Development Agreement and this
Agreement. This report will recap all activity related to the
provision of BMR Units for the year, identify corrective actions
taken or ongoing to ensure compliance and finally, recap all
rent increases and income limit adjustments implemented during
the preceding calendar year.
9.0 DECENNIAL REVIEW OF BMR REQUIREMENTS. During the calendar
year following the tenth (10) anniversary of the Start Date and
every ten years thereafter, Stanford may request a review and
modification' of the terms, or amendment of this Agreement. City
shall have sole discretion to accept or reject any and all
requested modifications or amendments. The parties may amend
this Agreement only by a writing duly executed by both and
recorded.
10.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS INCLUDING CITY'S ONE-YEAR LEASE
LAW. All applicable State and local laws and ordinances
affecting the operation of rental housing apply to the
operations of the BMR Units. Notwithstanding any language to the
contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, as set forth in the
15
05012 syn 0091544
Modified 2003 Rules, including the requirement to offer each
household a one- year lease, shall apply to the BMR Units.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, all
provisions contained herein shall be subject to compliance with
all laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes relating
to or governing federal low income housing tax credits,
including, but not limited to, Section 42 of the Internal
Revenue Code, the California Health and Safety Code and the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Regulations, as each
may be amended from time to time.
11.0 ENFORCEMENT.
11.1 Responsibility. Stanford shall be solely
responsible for enforcement of the terms of the tenancy, and the
rental agreement or lease.
11.2 Enforcement of the BMR Rental Program and Penalties
for Noncompliance. The City reserves the right to monitor and
audit Stanford's compliance with this Agreement at any time. If
non-compliance is evident, City may give Stanford written notice
and an appropriate period of time to remedy any areas of
noncompliance. If compliance, or evidence indicating appropriate
action toward compliance, cannot be provided within six months
to the satisfaction of the City, City reserves the right to
perform, review or monitor any of the activities necessary to
cure the non-compliance and ensure the satisfactory operation of
the BMR rental program. City may contract with a third party to
perform these tasks. Stanford shall reimburse City for the
actual cost of City's (or its contractor's) time and overhead
for as long as City must assume responsibility for these tasks.
12.0 REQUIRED INCORPORATION IN RENTAL AGREEMENT OR LEASE. Each
lease or rental agreement for a ·BMR Unit shall require the
household to cooperate in the annual re-certification and to
provide information necessary to verify the continued
eligibility of the household to reside in the BMR Unit. Each
household shall be given a copy of this Agreement and shall be
required to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of this
information and of their understanding of these requirements.
13.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR. The Department of Planning and
Community Development administers the BMR Program. Currently,
the City's contract program administrator for the Program is the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City may assign any or all of
its administrative duties including review, approval and
monitoring to a program administrator or other designee.
16
05012 syn 0091544
14.0 RECORDS, MONITORING AND REPORTS. Stanford shall maintain
records, in a form satisfactory to the City, to demonstrate
compliance with this BMR Regulatory Agreement.
16. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS. The terms, covenants and conditions
of this shall run with the land and shall apply to, and shall
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns,
contractors, and subcontractors of the parties.
17. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. The prevailing party in any
action or arbitration brought to enforce the terms of this or
arising out of this may recover from the other party its
reasonable costs and attorneys• fees expended in connection with
such an action or arbitration.
18. NOTICES. Unless otherwise specified in this, notices
hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid
by certified mail, addressed as follows:
To City: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Copy to: Director of Planning and Community
Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Stanford: Stanford Management CompanyOffice of
Real Estate
3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Attention: Managing Director,
Real Estate
2770 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Copy to: Office of the General Counsel
105 Encinal Hall
Building 170, 3rd Floor, Main Quad
P.O. Box 20386
Stanford, CA 94305-2038
17
05012 syn 0091544
The address of a party may be changed from time to time by
written notice given to the other party in the manner set forth
herein. Notices given in the manner set forth herein shall be
deemed received five days after deposit in the mail. Notices
may also be delivered personally and if so, shall be deemed
received upon delivery.
19. INTERPRETATION: This Agreement is intended to implement the
Development Agreement and the Project Approvals, as defined
therein, and it shall be construed accordingly.
(signatures begin on following page)
18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed in duplicate the day and year first
above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Cara Silver, Senior Asst.
City Attorney
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Assistant City Manager
_____________________________
Hillary Gitelman, Director of
Planning and Community
Environment
A.P.N. Nos: 142-20-013
142-20 014
142-20-047
142-20-012
CITY OF PALO ALTO
_____________________________
James Keene, City Manager
(signatures continue on following page)
19
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
By: Stanford Management
Company
By: _________________________
Name: _______________________Title: _______________________
Its _________________________
Taxpayer Identification No.
_____________________________
20
05012 syn 0091544
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of ______________________________)
On __________________ before me, _______________________________
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ______________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
21
05012 syn 0091544
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of ______________________________)
On __________________ before me, _______________________________
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ______________________________
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
22
05012 syn 0091544
Exhibit “A”
Legal Description
All that certain real property in the City of Palo Alto, County
of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
Being the lands described in that certain Memorandum of Lease by
and between The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the
State of California, as Lessor, and Santa Clara Commercial
Corporation, a California corporation, as Lessee said Lease was
recorded June 16, 1961 in Book 5201 at Page 32, Official Records
of Santa Clara county; and being also a portion of that certain
Memorandum of Lease, by and between The Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University a body having corporate powers
under the laws of the State of California, as Lessor, and Hamnic
Investment Company, Inc., a California corporation, as Lessee,
said Lease was recorded October 1, 1960 in Book 5025 at Page
363, Official Records of said County; and being also a portion
of that certain Memorandum of Lease, by and between The Board of
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University a body having
corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, as
Lessor, and Alson Investment Company, a California corporation,
as Lessee, said Lease was recorded November 5, 1959 in Book
4598, Page 631, Official Records of said County, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a concrete highway monument set on the
southwesterly line of El Camino Real (State Highway), opposite
Engineer’s Station 144+27.00 as surveyed by the California
Division of Highways, as said southwesterly line was established
by that certain Final Order of Condemnation entered in the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County
of Santa Clara in that certain action entitled “The People of
the State of California acting by and through the Department of
Public Works, Plaintiff, vs. The Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University, et al, Defendant”, Case No. 39384, a
certified copy of which Order was recorded on July 7, 1930 in
Book 520 at Page 571, Official Records of said County, said
23
05012 syn 0091544
monument also marks the point of intersection of said
southwesterly line of that certain 1289 acre tract of land
described in the Deed from Evelyn c. Crosby, et al to Leland
Stanford, recorded September 8, 1885 in Book 80 of Deeds at Page
382, Records of Santa Clara County;
Thence leaving said highway monument and along said
southwesterly line of El Camino Real, being 100.00 feet in
width, North 56°39’00” West, 3043.49 feet;
Thence leaving said line of El Camino Real (100.00 feet in
width), South 33°21’00” West, 20.00 feet to the most easterly
corner of said lands of Santa Clara Commercial Corporation (6237
O.R. 33), said corner being also a point on the southwesterly
line of El Camino Real, presently being 120.00 feet width, as
said southwesterly line was established by that certain Final
Order of Condemnation entered in the Superior Court of the State
of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara in that
certain action entitled “The People of the State of California
acting by and through the Department of Public Works, Plaintiff
vs. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University, et al, Defendant”, Case No. 125122, a certified copy
of which Order was recorded on April 25, 1961 in Book 5147 at
Page 464, Official Records of said County, said corner being
also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description;
Thence from said True Point of Beginning, South 33°21’00” West,
280.00 feet to the most southerly corner of said lands of Santa
Clara Commercial Corporation (6237 O.R. 33);
Thence leaving said southerly corner and along the southwesterly
line of said lands of Santa Clara Commercial Corporation, and
along the southwesterly line of said lands of Hamnic Investment
Company, Inc. (5025 O.R. 363), and along the southwesterly line
of said lands of Alson Investment Company (4598 O.R. 631), North
56°39’00” West, 280.00 feet to the most westerly corner of said
lands of Alson Investment Company;
Thence leaving said westerly corner and along the northwesterly
line of said lands of Alson Investment Company (4598 O.R. 631),
North 33°21’00” East, 280.00 feet to said southwesterly line of
El Camino Real (120.00 feet in width), as said southwesterly
24
05012 syn 0091544
line was established by said Final Order of Condemnation (5147
O.R. 464);
Thence along said southwesterly line of El Camino Real, South
56°39’00” East, 280.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of
this description.
Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Friday, January 23, 2015
11:06:15 AM
Input:
Document 1 ID interwovenSite://VMLADMSSERVER/LAIDB/50099591/1
Description #50099591v1<LAIDB> - BMR Agreement SU and CPA (2)
Document 2 ID interwovenSite://VMLADMSSERVER/LAIDB/50099591/7
Description #50099591v7<LAIDB> - BMR Agreement SU and CPA (2)
Rendering set Standard
Legend:
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved to
Style change
Format change
Moved deletion
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding cell
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 79
Deletions 89
Moved from 4
Moved to 4
Style change 0
Format changed 0
Total changes 176
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5456)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Amend and correct salaries and salary schedule for
Management, Professional and Confidential (M&P),
Title: Adoption of a Resolution to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for:
Management, Professional and Confidential Employees (M&P), Fire Chief
Association (FCA), and Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional
Association (UMPAPA); Adoption of an Ordinance to Update the Fiscal Year
2015 Table of Organization
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommended Motion
I move that Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) amending the salary
schedules 1) Management, Professional, and Confidential employees; 2) Utilities Managers of
Palo Alto Professional Association (“UMPAPA”); and 3) Fire Chiefs’ Association (“FCA”), to
incorporate full salary ranges to comply with CalPERS regulations: and to correct salaries for
one position in FCA and one position in Management & Professional, and to add one UMPAPA
position previously approved in the 2015 budget. I further move that Council adopt the
attached ordinance (Attachment B) updating the Fiscal Year 2015 Table of Organization to
reflect various previously approved reclassifications and title changes.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve amended salary schedules for 1) Management,
Professional, and Confidential employees (M&P) to correct salary ranges for the Chief
Sustainability Officer and Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal and to add range minimums and
maximums for all positions to comply with recent CalPERS regulations, 2) the Utilities Managers
of Palo Alto Professional Association (UMPAPA) salary schedule to add the new position of
Principal Management Analyst and add range minimums and maximums for all positions to
comply with recent CalPERS regulations, and 3) the Fire Chiefs’ Association to add the Training
Battalion Chief and add range minimums and maximums for all positions to comply with recent
CalPERS regulations. The position changes and salary ranges were previously approved with the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2015 budget and December 2014 adoption of the Management and Professional Compensation
Plan, and this resolution reflects administrative clean-up to ensure that the salary schedules are
accurate and fully up to date.
In addition, staff recommends that the Council approve an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year
2015 Table of Organization to reflect various position reclassifications and title changes
resulting from the Management Compensation Plan approved in December 2014.
Discussion
A. Resolutions Adopting Revised Salary Schedules
Under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), CalPERS has adopted regulations requiring
contracting agencies like the City of Palo Alto to adopt publically available pay schedules. In
particular, CalPERS regulations require that a salary schedule must show “the pay rate for each
identified position, which may be stated as a single amount or as multiple amounts within a
range.” The City’s historical practice for the M&P, UMPAPA, and FCA salary schedules has been
to list the “midpoint” pay rate for each classification in the salary schedule, with the text of the
plans or MOAs providing that the full salary range for those positions was 20% below to 20%
above that midpoint rate. After the City approved the Management Compensation Plan in
December, CalPERS contacted staff to advise that it required salary schedules showing the full
range available, not just the midpoint. The attached resolution includes salary schedules for all
three groups that reflect the minimum and maximum salaries, as well as the midpoint for all
positions.
In addition to the full salary ranges, the salary schedules also include the following group-
specific changes:
1. For Management and Professional, corrections to the salary ranges for the Chief
Sustainability Officer and Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal. The salaries for these two
positions were listed inaccurately in the salary schedule included with the materials
approved on December 8, 2014 for the Compensation Plan for Management and
Professional personnel.
2. For UMPAPA, adding the position of Principal Management Analyst. This position was
approved and added when the 2015 budget was adopted in June 2014, and the revised
salary schedule will reflect this addition.
3. For FCA, adding the position of Training Battalion Chief. This position was approved
and added when the 2015 budget was adopted in June 2014, and the revised salary
schedule will reflect this addition.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Ordinance Amending the Table of Organization Changes
The table of organization is part of the budget and lists each City job title and the full-time
equivalent (“FTE”) positions allocated to each job. When position titles change or FTEs are
reclassified or reallocated, the Table of Organization must be amended to match those changes.
Historically, staff has brought changes to the table of organization only at the midyear and
annual budget adoptions for administrative simplicity. However, given the number of required
changes to the table of organization resulting from the Management Compensation Plan
adopted in December 2014 and the clean-up changes described in this report, staff is
recommending amending the table of organization at this time to reflect those changes.
These changes are only needed to update the Table of Organization; funding was already
appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Budget. The proposed adjustments include the
following:
General Fund
Administrative Services Department
o Reclassify 0.70 Senior Management Analyst to Manager Revenue Collections
City Attorney’ Office
o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Legal Services Administrator to Senior Management Analyst
Community Services Department
o Reclassify 1.00 Manager Community Services Senior Programs to Manager Human
Services
Development Services
o Title Change 0.07 FTE Project Manager Trees to Project Manager
Fire Department
o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Fire Captain to 40 Hour Training Fire Captain
Planning and Community Environment Department
o Title Change 0.20 FTE Senior Project Engineer to Manager Parking
Police Department
o Title Change 2.00 FTE Public Safety Manager I to Public Safety Program Manager
o Title Change 1.00 FTE Public Safety Manager II to Public Safety Communications
Manager
Public Works Department
o Title Change 1.18 FTE Project Manager Trees to Project Manager
Enterprise Funds
Utilities Department
o Title Change 0.75 FTE Project Manager Trees to Project Manager
City of Palo Alto Page 4
o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Senior Project Engineer to Senior Engineer
Other Funds
Capital Improvement Fund
o Title Change 0.70 FTE Senior Project Engineer to Manager Parking
Information Technology Fund
o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Management Analyst to Senior Business Analyst
o Reclassify 1.00 FTE Principle Management Analyst to Principal Business Analyst
Print and Mail Fund
o Reclassify 0.10 Senior Management Analyst to Manager Revenue Collections
Special Revenue Funds
o Title Change 0.10 FTE Senior Project Engineer to Manager Parking
o Reclassify 0.20 Senior Management Analyst to Manager Revenue Collections
Resource Impact
The recommended amendments are administrative in nature and are consistent with the
Adopted FY2015 Budget and Council policy direction.
Environmental Review
Adoption of the attached resolution and ordinance are not projects for the purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act and therefore no environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment: Attachment A Resolution Amending Various Salary Schedules (PDF)
Attachment: Resolution Exhibit 1 (PDF)
Attachment: Resolution Exhibit 2 (PDF)
Attachment: Attachment B Ordinance Amending Table of Organization FY15 (PDF)
Attachment: Resolution Exhibit 3 (PDF)
Attachment: Table_of_Organization_Modified_1-22-15 (PDF)
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Salary
Schedules for the Management, Professional, and Confidential Unit,
the Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional Association, and the
Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The Salary Schedule attached to the 2014‐2016 Compensation
Plan for Management and Professional Personnel, as adopted by Resolution No. 9476, is hereby
amended as set forth in Exhibit “1”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The Salary Schedule for the Utilities Managers of Palo Alto
Professional Association, as imposed by Resolution No. 9359 (CMR 3939) and 9432, is hereby
amended as set forth in Exhibit “2”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The Salary Schedule in the 2012‐2014 Memorandum of
Agreement with the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association, as adopted and amended by Resolution
Nos. 9234 and 9287 (CMR 3147) is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit “3”, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including July 1, 2014.
SECTION 4. 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:
___________________________ ______________________________
City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Chief People Officer
Attachment A
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate Mid Point Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Approx. Mid‐Point Annual Salary FLSA Status
190 Accountant 690P $31.30 $39.12 $46.95 $6,781 $81,370 Non-Exempt
76 Administrative Assistant 750P $27.00 $33.74 $40.49 $5,848 $70,179 Exempt
132 Assistant Chief of Police 100A $71.79 $89.73 $107.68 $15,553 $186,638 Exempt
108 Assistant City Attorney 165A $60.85 $76.06 $91.28 $13,184 $158,205 Exempt
109 Assistant City Clerk 630M $35.41 $44.26 $53.12 $7,672 $92,061 Exempt
107 Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer 20E $74.57 $93.21 $111.86 $16,156 $193,877 Exempt
73 Assistant Director Administrative Services 120A $61.36 $76.69 $92.03 $13,293 $159,515 Exempt
126 Assistant Director Community Services 150A $58.73 $73.41 $88.10 $12,724 $152,693 Exempt
1007 Assistant Director Human Resources 155A $56.77 $70.96 $85.16 $12,300 $147,597 Exempt
2001 Assistant Director Library Services 160A $56.18 $70.22 $84.27 $12,171 $146,058 Exempt
10 Assistant Director Planning & Community Environment 130A $60.17 $75.21 $90.26 $13,036 $156,437 Exempt
143 Assistant Director Public Works 140A $59.48 $74.34 $89.21 $12,886 $154,627 Exempt
168 Assistant Fleet Manager 585M $37.21 $46.51 $55.82 $8,062 $96,741 Exempt
102 Assistant Manager WQCP 240D $48.08 $60.09 $72.11 $10,416 $124,987 Exempt
30 Assistant to the City Manager 390M $46.46 $58.07 $69.69 $10,065 $120,786 Exempt
118 Chief Building Official 290M $57.09 $71.36 $85.64 $12,369 $148,429 Exempt
2008 Chief Communications Officer 135A $59.85 $74.81 $89.78 $12,967 $155,605 Exempt
112 Chief Planning Official 220D $51.02 $63.77 $76.53 $11,053 $132,642 Exempt
95 Chief Procurement Officer 235D $48.27 $60.33 $72.40 $10,457 $125,486 Exempt
2010 Chief Sustainability Officer 435M $52.11 $65.13 $78.16 $11,289 $135,470 Exempt
82 Chief Transportation Official 204M $53.68 $67.10 $80.52 $11,631 $139,568 Exempt
96 Claims Investigator 660P $32.88 $41.10 $49.32 $7,124 $85,488 Exempt
24 Communication Specialist 615M $35.61 $44.51 $53.42 $7,715 $92,581 Exempt
89 Contracts Administrator 585P $37.21 $46.51 $55.82 $8,062 $96,741 Exempt
186 Coordinator Library Circulation 675M $31.36 $39.19 $47.03 $6,793 $81,515 Non-Exempt
191 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 125A $60.63 $75.78 $90.94 $13,135 $157,622 Exempt
City of Palo Alto
Management, Professional and Confidential Salary Schedule
Effective pay period including 07/01/2014
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate Mid Point Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Approx. Mid‐Point Annual Salary FLSA Status
9 Deputy City Attorney 480P $43.15 $53.93 $64.72 $9,348 $112,174 Exempt
71 Deputy City Clerk 720M $28.36 $35.45 $42.54 $6,145 $73,736 Exempt
195 Deputy Director Technical Services Division 200D $60.45 $75.56 $90.68 $13,097 $157,165 Exempt
20 Deputy Fire Chief 110A $63.17 $78.96 $94.76 $13,686 $164,237 Exempt
81 Director Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer 50E $71.48 $89.35 $107.22 $15,487 $185,848 Exempt
72 Director Community Services 45E $72.03 $90.03 $108.04 $15,605 $187,262 Exempt
1012 Director Development Services 145A $63.24 $79.05 $94.86 $13,702 $164,424 Exempt
133 Director Human Resources/Chief People Officer 55E $68.12 $85.15 $102.18 $14,759 $177,112 Exempt
128 Director Information Technology/Chief Information Officer 25E $74.44 $93.04 $111.65 $16,127 $193,523 Exempt
131 Director Libraries 60E $67.42 $84.27 $101.13 $14,607 $175,282 Exempt
2005 Director Office of Emergency Services 215D $52.89 $66.11 $79.34 $11,459 $137,509 Exempt
49 Director Office of Management and Budget 120A $61.36 $76.69 $92.03 $13,293 $159,515 Exempt
134 Director Planning & Community Environment 40E $72.20 $90.24 $108.29 $15,642 $187,699 Exempt
135 Director Public Works/City Engineer 30E $73.12 $91.40 $109.68 $15,843 $190,112 Exempt
121 Director Utilities 10E $93.72 $117.14 $140.57 $20,304 $243,651 Exempt
2002 Division Head Library Services 260D $44.12 $55.15 $66.18 $9,559 $114,712 Exempt
172 Division Manager Open Space, Parks & Golf 245D $47.43 $59.28 $71.14 $10,275 $123,302 Exempt
1005 Executive Assistant to the City Manager 705M $30.54 $38.17 $45.81 $6,616 $79,394 Exempt
139 Fire Chief 35E $72.72 $90.90 $109.08 $15,756 $189,072 Exempt
163 Hearing Officer 480M $43.15 $53.93 $64.72 $9,348 $112,174 Exempt
101 Human Resources Representative 735P $27.67 $34.58 $41.50 $5,994 $71,926 Exempt
90 Landscape Architect Park Planner 510M $41.07 $51.33 $61.60 $8,897 $106,766 Exempt
2015 Legal Fellow 755P $35.31 $44.13 $52.96 $7,649 $91,790 Exempt
171 Management Analyst 585M $37.21 $46.51 $55.82 $8,062 $96,741 Exempt
79 Manager Accounting 235D $48.27 $60.33 $72.40 $10,457 $125,486 Exempt
2007 Manager Airport 210D $52.90 $66.12 $79.35 $11,461 $137,530 Exempt
38 Manager Communications 525M $40.07 $50.08 $60.10 $8,681 $104,166 Exempt
154 Manager Community Services 630M $35.41 $44.26 $53.12 $7,672 $92,061 Exempt
169 Manager Community Services Sr Program 585M $37.21 $46.51 $55.82 $8,062 $96,741 Exempt
1013 Manager Development Center 495M $42.10 $52.62 $63.15 $9,121 $109,450 Exempt
63 Manager Economic Development 220D $51.02 $63.77 $76.53 $11,053 $132,642 Exempt
44 Manager Employee Benefits 450M $43.60 $54.49 $65.39 $9,445 $113,339 Exempt
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate Mid Point Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Approx. Mid‐Point Annual Salary FLSA Status
45 Manager Employee Relations & Training 235D $48.27 $60.33 $72.40 $10,457 $125,486 Exempt
93 Manager Environmental Control Program 419M $44.64 $55.80 $66.96 $9,672 $116,064 Exempt
127 Manager Fleet 255D $44.70 $55.87 $67.05 $9,684 $116,210 Exempt
2018 Manager Human Services 540M $39.09 $48.86 $58.64 $8,469 $101,629 Exempt
32 Manager Information Technology 230D $49.34 $61.67 $74.01 $10,689 $128,274 Exempt
2006 Manager Information Technology Security 420M $44.74 $55.92 $67.11 $9,693 $116,314 Exempt
158 Manager Laboratory Services 495M $42.10 $52.62 $63.15 $9,121 $109,450 Exempt
78 Manager Library Services 565M $36.75 $45.93 $55.12 $7,961 $95,534 Exempt
92 Manager Maintenance Operations 469M $41.24 $51.54 $61.85 $8,934 $107,203 Exempt
26 Manager Parking 345M $48.26 $60.32 $72.39 $10,455 $125,466 Exempt
51 Manager Planning 435M $44.69 $55.86 $67.04 $9,682 $116,189 Exempt
103 Manager Real Property 235D $48.27 $60.33 $72.40 $10,457 $125,486 Exempt
2011 Manager Revenue Collections 250D $45.34 $56.67 $68.01 $9,823 $117,874 Exempt
160 Manager Solid Waste 330M $48.82 $61.02 $73.23 $10,577 $126,922 Exempt
86 Manager Urban Forestry 436M $43.30 $54.12 $64.95 $9,381 $112,570 Exempt
178 Manager Water Quality Control Plant 205D $54.32 $67.90 $81.48 $11,769 $141,232 Exempt
39 Manager Watershed Protection 330M $48.82 $61.02 $73.23 $10,577 $126,922 Exempt
1008 Office of Emergency Services Coordinator 525M $40.07 $50.08 $60.10 $8,681 $104,166 Exempt
100 Performance Auditor 585M $37.21 $46.51 $55.82 $8,062 $96,741 Exempt
148 Police Chief 15E $80.86 $101.07 $121.29 $17,519 $210,226 Exempt
2016 Principal Business Analyst 310M $51.45 $64.31 $77.18 $11,147 $133,765 Exempt
2003 Principal Management Analyst 360M $51.23 $64.03 $76.84 $11,099 $133,182 Exempt
2009 Project Manager 570M $37.46 $46.82 $56.19 $8,115 $97,386 Exempt
166 Public Safety Program Manager 585M $37.21 $46.51 $55.82 $8,062 $96,741 Exempt
2012 Public Safety Communications Manager 540M $39.09 $48.86 $58.64 $8,469 $101,629 Exempt
117 Senior Accountant 555M $38.14 $47.67 $57.21 $8,263 $99,154 Exempt
152 Senior Assistant City Attorney 105A $66.93 $83.66 $100.40 $14,501 $174,013 Exempt
2013 Senior Business Analyst - M 420M $44.74 $55.92 $67.11 $9,693 $116,314 Exempt
11 Senior Deputy City Attorney 375M $47.63 $59.53 $71.44 $10,319 $123,822 Exempt
187 Senior Engineer 300M $51.29 $64.11 $76.94 $11,112 $133,349 Exempt
106 Senior Executive Assistant 450M $43.60 $54.49 $65.39 $9,445 $113,339 Exempt
157 Senior Human Resources Administrator 545M $38.00 $47.50 $57.00 $8,233 $98,800 Exempt
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate Mid Point Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Approx. Mid‐Point Annual Salary FLSA Status
14 Senior Management Analyst 465M $43.56 $54.44 $65.33 $9,436 $113,235 Exempt
130 Senior Performance Auditor 510M $41.07 $51.33 $61.60 $8,897 $106,766 Exempt
53 Senior Project Manager 300M $51.29 $64.11 $76.94 $11,112 $133,349 Exempt
33 Senior Technologist 420M $44.74 $55.92 $67.11 $9,693 $116,314 Exempt
155 Superintendent Animal Services 540M $39.09 $48.86 $58.64 $8,469 $101,629 Exempt
83 Superintendent Community Services 480M $43.15 $53.93 $64.72 $9,348 $112,174 Exempt
161 Supervisor Facilities Management 600M $36.39 $45.48 $54.58 $7,883 $94,598 Exempt
113 Supervisor Inspection and Surveying 540M $39.09 $48.86 $58.64 $8,469 $101,629 Exempt
146 Supervisor Warehouse 660M $32.88 $41.10 $49.32 $7,124 $85,488 Exempt
181 Supervisor Water Quality Control Operations 525M $40.07 $50.08 $60.10 $8,681 $104,166 Exempt
184 Veterinarian 555M $38.14 $47.67 $57.21 $8,263 $99,154 Exempt
Confidential Classifications
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate Mid Point Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Salary Approx. Mid‐Point Annual Salary FLSA Status
905 Human Resource Assistant - Confidential 830C $23.86 $29.82 $35.79 $5,169 $62,026 Non-Exempt
903 Legal Secretary-Confidential 820C $24.45 $30.56 $36.68 $5,297 $63,565 Non-Exempt
67 Secretary to City Attorney 800C $29.07 $36.33 $43.60 $6,297 $75,566 Exempt
1004 Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 810C $27.00 $33.74 $40.49 $5,848 $70,179 Non-Exempt
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code FLSA Status Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Point
Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Salary
Approx. Mid‐Point Annual
Salary
190 Non-Exempt Accountant 690P $32.08 $40.10 $48.12 $6,951 $83,408
76 Exempt Administrative Assistant 750P $27.68 $34.59 $41.51 $5,996 $71,947
132 Exempt Assistant Chief of Police 100A $73.59 $91.98 $110.38 $15,943 $191,318
108 Exempt Assistant City Attorney 165A $62.38 $77.97 $93.57 $13,515 $162,178
109 Exempt Assistant City Clerk 630M $36.30 $45.37 $54.45 $7,864 $94,370
107 Exempt Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer 20E $76.44 $95.55 $114.66 $16,562 $198,744
73 Exempt Assistant Director Administrative Services 120A $62.89 $78.61 $94.34 $13,626 $163,509
126 Exempt Assistant Director Community Services 150A $60.20 $75.25 $90.30 $13,043 $156,520
1007 Exempt Assistant Director Human Resources 155A $58.20 $72.74 $87.29 $12,608 $151,299
2001 Exempt Assistant Director Library Services 160A $57.59 $71.98 $86.38 $12,477 $149,718
10 Exempt Assistant Director Planning & Community Environment 130A $61.68 $77.10 $92.52 $13,364 $160,368
143 Exempt Assistant Director Public Works 140A $60.96 $76.20 $91.44 $13,208 $158,496
168 Exempt Assistant Fleet Manager 585M $38.15 $47.68 $57.22 $8,265 $99,174
102 Exempt Assistant Manager WQCP 240D $49.28 $61.60 $73.92 $10,677 $128,128
30 Exempt Assistant to the City Manager 390M $47.63 $59.53 $71.44 $10,319 $123,822
118 Exempt Chief Building Official 290M $58.52 $73.15 $87.78 $12,679 $152,152
2008 Exempt Chief Communications Officer 135A $61.36 $76.69 $92.03 $13,293 $159,515
112 Exempt Chief Planning Official 220D $52.30 $65.37 $78.45 $11,331 $135,970
95 Exempt Chief Procurement Officer 235D $49.48 $61.84 $74.21 $10,719 $128,627
2010 Exempt Chief Sustainability Officer 435M $53.41 $66.76 $80.12 $11,572 $138,861
82 Exempt Chief Transportation Official 204M $55.03 $68.78 $82.54 $11,922 $143,062
96 Exempt Claims Investigator 660P $33.71 $42.13 $50.56 $7,303 $87,630
24 Exempt Communication Specialist 615M $36.51 $45.63 $54.76 $7,909 $94,910
89 Exempt Contracts Administrator 585P $38.15 $47.68 $57.22 $8,265 $99,174
186 Non-Exempt Coordinator Library Circulation 675M $32.14 $40.17 $48.21 $6,963 $83,554
191 Exempt Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 125A $62.15 $77.68 $93.22 $13,465 $161,574
9 Exempt Deputy City Attorney 480P $44.23 $55.28 $66.34 $9,582 $114,982
City of Palo Alto
Management, Professional and Confidential Salary Schedule
Effective pay period including 07/01/2015
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code FLSA Status Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Point
Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Salary
Approx. Mid‐Point Annual
Salary
71 Exempt Deputy City Clerk 720M $29.08 $36.34 $43.61 $6,299 $75,587
195 Exempt Deputy Director Technical Services Division 200D $61.96 $77.45 $92.94 $13,425 $161,096
20 Exempt Deputy Fire Chief 110A $64.76 $80.94 $97.13 $14,030 $168,355
81 Exempt Director Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer 50E $73.28 $91.59 $109.91 $15,876 $190,507
72 Exempt Director Community Services 45E $73.84 $92.29 $110.75 $15,997 $191,963
1012 Exempt Director Development Services 145A $64.83 $81.03 $97.24 $14,045 $168,542
133 Exempt Director Human Resources/Chief People Officer 55E $69.83 $87.28 $104.74 $15,129 $181,542
128 Exempt Director Information Technology/Chief Information Officer 25E $76.30 $95.37 $114.45 $16,531 $198,370
131 Exempt Director Libraries 60E $69.11 $86.38 $103.66 $14,973 $179,670
2005 Exempt Director Office of Emergency Services 215D $54.22 $67.77 $81.33 $11,747 $140,962
49 Exempt Director Office of Management and Budget 120A $62.89 $78.61 $94.34 $13,626 $163,509
134 Exempt Director Planning & Community Environment 40E $74.00 $92.50 $111.00 $16,033 $192,400
135 Exempt Director Public Works/City Engineer 30E $74.96 $93.69 $112.43 $16,240 $194,875
121 Exempt Director Utilities 10E $96.06 $120.07 $144.09 $20,812 $249,746
2002 Exempt Division Head Library Services 260D $45.23 $56.53 $67.84 $9,799 $117,582
172 Exempt Division Manager Open Space, Parks & Golf 245D $48.62 $60.77 $72.93 $10,533 $126,402
1005 Exempt Executive Assistant to the City Manager 705M $31.31 $39.13 $46.96 $6,783 $81,390
139 Exempt Fire Chief 35E $74.55 $93.18 $111.82 $16,151 $193,814
163 Exempt Hearing Officer 480M $44.23 $55.28 $66.34 $9,582 $114,982
101 Exempt Human Resources Representative 735P $28.36 $35.45 $42.54 $6,145 $73,736
90 Exempt Landscape Architect Park Planner 510M $42.10 $52.62 $63.15 $9,121 $109,450
2015 Exempt Legal Fellow 755P $36.20 $45.24 $54.29 $7,842 $94,099
69 Exempt Legal Services Administrator 555M $39.19 $48.98 $58.78 $8,490 $101,878
171 Exempt Management Analyst 585M $38.15 $47.68 $57.22 $8,265 $99,174
79 Exempt Manager Accounting 235D $49.48 $61.84 $74.21 $10,719 $128,627
2007 Exempt Manager Airport 210D $54.23 $67.78 $81.34 $11,749 $140,982
38 Exempt Manager Communications 525M $41.08 $51.34 $61.61 $8,899 $106,787
154 Exempt Manager Community Services 630M $36.30 $45.37 $54.45 $7,864 $94,370
169 Exempt Manager Community Services Sr Program 585M $38.15 $47.68 $57.22 $8,265 $99,174
1013 Exempt Manager Development Center 495M $43.16 $53.94 $64.73 $9,350 $112,195
63 Exempt Manager Economic Development 220D $52.30 $65.37 $78.45 $11,331 $135,970
44 Exempt Manager Employee Benefits 450M $44.69 $55.86 $67.04 $9,682 $116,189
45 Exempt Manager Employee Relations & Training 235D $49.48 $61.84 $74.21 $10,719 $128,627
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code FLSA Status Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Point
Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Salary
Approx. Mid‐Point Annual
Salary
93 Exempt Manager Environmental Control Program 419M $45.76 $57.20 $68.64 $9,915 $118,976
127 Exempt Manager Fleet 255D $45.82 $57.27 $68.73 $9,927 $119,122
2018 Exempt Manager Human Services 540M $40.08 $50.09 $60.11 $8,682 $104,187
32 Exempt Manager Information Technology 230D $50.58 $63.22 $75.87 $10,958 $131,498
2006 Exempt Manager Information Technology Security 420M $45.86 $57.32 $68.79 $9,935 $119,226
158 Exempt Manager Laboratory Services 495M $43.16 $53.94 $64.73 $9,350 $112,195
78 Exempt Manager Library Services 565M $37.67 $47.08 $56.50 $8,161 $97,926
92 Exempt Manager Maintenance Operations 469M $42.27 $52.83 $63.40 $9,157 $109,886
26 Exempt Manager Parking 345M $49.47 $61.83 $74.20 $10,717 $128,606
51 Exempt Manager Planning 435M $45.81 $57.26 $68.72 $9,925 $119,101
103 Exempt Manager Real Property 235D $49.48 $61.84 $74.21 $10,719 $128,627
2011 Exempt Manager Revenue Collections 250D $46.48 $58.09 $69.71 $10,069 $120,827
160 Exempt Manager Solid Waste 330M $50.04 $62.55 $75.06 $10,842 $130,104
86 Exempt Manager Urban Forestry 436M $44.39 $55.48 $66.58 $9,617 $115,398
178 Exempt Manager Water Quality Control Plant 205D $55.68 $69.60 $83.52 $12,064 $144,768
39 Exempt Manager Watershed Protection 330M $50.04 $62.55 $75.06 $10,842 $130,104
1008 Exempt Office of Emergency Services Coordinator 525M $41.08 $51.34 $61.61 $8,899 $106,787
100 Exempt Performance Auditor 585M $38.15 $47.68 $57.22 $8,265 $99,174
148 Exempt Police Chief 15E $82.88 $103.60 $124.32 $17,957 $215,488
2016 Exempt Principal Business Analyst 310M $52.74 $65.92 $79.11 $11,426 $137,114
2003 Exempt Principal Management Analyst 360M $52.52 $65.64 $78.77 $11,378 $136,531
2009 Exempt Project Manager 570M $38.40 $48.00 $57.60 $8,320 $99,840
166 Exempt Public Safety Program Manager 585M $38.15 $47.68 $57.22 $8,265 $99,174
2012 Exempt Public Safety Communications Manager 540M $40.08 $50.09 $60.11 $8,682 $104,187
117 Exempt Senior Accountant 555M $39.10 $48.87 $58.65 $8,471 $101,650
152 Exempt Senior Assistant City Attorney 105A $68.61 $85.76 $102.92 $14,865 $178,381
2013 Exempt Senior Business Analyst - M 420M $45.86 $57.32 $68.79 $9,935 $119,226
11 Exempt Senior Deputy City Attorney 375M $48.82 $61.02 $73.23 $10,577 $126,922
187 Exempt Senior Engineer 300M $52.58 $65.72 $78.87 $11,391 $136,698
106 Exempt Senior Executive Assistant 450M $44.69 $55.86 $67.04 $9,682 $116,189
157 Exempt Senior Human Resources Administrator 545M $38.96 $48.69 $58.43 $8,440 $101,275
14 Exempt Senior Management Analyst 465M $44.65 $55.81 $66.98 $9,674 $116,085
130 Exempt Senior Performance Auditor 510M $42.10 $52.62 $63.15 $9,121 $109,450
Resolution Exhibit 1
Job Code FLSA Status Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Point
Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Salary
Approx. Mid‐Point Annual
Salary
53 Exempt Senior Project Manager 300M $52.58 $65.72 $78.87 $11,391 $136,698
33 Exempt Senior Technologist 420M $45.86 $57.32 $68.79 $9,935 $119,226
155 Exempt Superintendent Animal Services 540M $40.08 $50.09 $60.11 $8,682 $104,187
83 Exempt Superintendent Community Services 480M $44.23 $55.28 $66.34 $9,582 $114,982
161 Exempt Supervisor Facilities Management 600M $37.30 $46.62 $55.95 $8,081 $96,970
113 Exempt Supervisor Inspection and Surveying 540M $40.08 $50.09 $60.11 $8,682 $104,187
146 Exempt Supervisor Warehouse 660M $33.71 $42.13 $50.56 $7,303 $87,630
181 Exempt Supervisor Water Quality Control Operations 525M $41.08 $51.34 $61.61 $8,899 $106,787
184 Exempt Veterinarian 555M $39.10 $48.87 $58.65 $8,471 $101,650
Confidential Classifications
Job Code FLSA Status Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Point
Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid‐Point
Monthly Salary
Approx. Mid‐Point Annual
Salary
905 Non-Exempt Human Resource Assistant - Confidential 830C $24.46 $30.57 $36.69 $5,299 $63,586
903 Non-Exempt Legal Secretary-Confidential 820C $25.07 $31.33 $37.60 $5,431 $65,166
67 Exempt Secretary to City Attorney 800C $29.80 $37.24 $44.69 $6,455 $77,459
1004 Non-Exempt Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 810C $27.68 $34.59 $41.51 $5,996 $71,947
Resolution Exhibit 1
Effective 11/30/2013
** Updated 12/30/2014**
Job
Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Point
Hourly Rate
Max Hourly
Rate
Approx Mid-
Point Monthly
Salary Annual Salary
2076 Administrative Assistant - U 700 $30.08 $37.59 $45.11 $6,516 $78,187
1002 Assistant Director Utilities - Customer Support 230 $63.42 $79.27 $95.13 $13,740 $164,882
1003 Assistant Director Utilities - Engineering 190 $70.46 $88.07 $105.69 $15,265 $183,186
6 Assistant Director Utilities - Operations 210 $70.46 $88.07 $105.69 $15,265 $183,186
65 Assistant Director Utilities - Resource Management 190 $70.46 $88.07 $105.69 $15,265 $183,186
84 Division Manager/Manager of Communications 380 $45.72 $57.14 $68.57 $9,904 $118,851
129 Engineering Manager, Electric 231 $60.48 $75.59 $90.71 $13,102 $157,227
120 Engineering Manager, Water, Gas & Wastewater 231 $60.48 $75.59 $90.71 $13,102 $157,227
179 Manager, Customer Service and Meter Reading 300 $48.56 $60.70 $72.84 $10,521 $126,256
185 Manager, Electric Operations 270 $59.22 $74.02 $88.83 $12,830 $153,962
1114 Manager, Utilities Credit & Collection 300 $48.56 $60.70 $72.84 $10,521 $126,256
150 Manager, Utilities Marketing Services 300 $48.56 $60.70 $72.84 $10,521 $126,256
156 Manager, Utilities Operations WGW 290 $59.14 $73.92 $88.71 $12,813 $153,754
48 Manager, Utilities Telecommunications 250 $53.47 $66.83 $80.20 $11,584 $139,006
**TBD Principal Management Analyst - U TBD $46.93 $58.66 $70.40 $10,168 $122,013
13 Senior Business Analyst 340 $43.86 $54.82 $65.79 $9,502 $114,026
188 Senior Electrical Engineer 291 $55.33 $69.16 $83.00 $11,988 $143,853
2187 Senior Engineer - U 710 $52.64 $65.79 $78.95 $11,404 $136,843
2014 Senior Management Analyst - U 350 $42.74 $53.42 $64.11 $9,259 $111,114
64 Sr. Resource Planner 271 $54.02 $67.52 $81.03 $11,703 $140,442
27 Supervising Electrical Project Engineer 341 $51.42 $64.27 $77.13 $11,140 $133,682
28 Supervising Project Engineer 360 $47.75 $59.68 $71.62 $10,345 $124,134
1115 Supervisor, Inspection Services 390 $36.72 $45.89 $55.07 $7,955 $95,465
1011 Utilities Compliance Manager 290 $59.14 $73.92 $88.71 $12,813 $153,754
114 Utilities Supervisor 680 $51.32 $64.14 $76.97 $11,118 $133,411
**TBD Utility Safety Officer TBD $34.91 $43.63 $52.36 $7,563 $90,750
UMPAPA Salary Schedule
Resolution Exhibit 2
Effective 11/30/2013
** Updated 12/30/2014**
ATTACHMENT B – NOT YET ADOPTED
ORDINANCE NO. ________
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE TABLE OF ORGANIZATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015 TO INCORPORATE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. As part of its Budget Amendment Ordinance No. 5255 adopting the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget,
Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2015 Table of Organization.
B. As a result of subsequent Council actions, a number of technical corrections to the Fiscal
Year 2015 Table of Organization are necessary. These changes are only needed to update
the Table of Organization; funding has been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted
Budget.
SECTION 2. The Table of Organization shall be amended as provided in Exhibit “1”.
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall
become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Deputy City Attorney
Director of Administrative Services
Palo Alto Fire Chief's Association
2012 Salary Schedule
effective 07/01/2012
**updated 01/26/2015
Non-Shift
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Hourly
Rate
Control
Point
Hourly Rate
Approx Control Point
Monthly
Approx. Control
Point Annual Salary
018 Battalion Chief 40-hour workweek 28 $55.02 $64.19 $73.35 $12,715 $152,577
015 Battalion Chief EMT 40-hour workweek 28E $56.52 $65.94 $75.35 $13,061 $156,730
066 Emergency Medical Svc Chief 28 $55.02 $64.19 $73.35 $12,715 $152,577
017 Emergency Medical Svc Chief-EMT 28E $56.52 $65.94 $75.35 $13,061 $156,730
698 Emergency Medical Services Director 39 $49.41 $57.64 $65.87 $11,417 $137,010
2019 Battalion Chief EMT, Training 40-hour workweek 28E $56.52 $65.94 $75.35 $13,061 $156,730
Shift
Job Code Classifications
Grade
Codes
Min Hourly
Rate
Mid Hourly
Rate
Control
Point
Hourly Rate
Approx Control Point
Monthly
Approx. Control
Point Annual Salary
116 Battalion Chief 56-hour workweek 28 $37.43 $43.67 $49.90 $8,650 $103,797
016 Battalion Chief EMT 56-hour workweek 28E $38.45 $44.86 $51.26 $12,440 $149,278
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 427
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
General Fund
Administrative Services
Account Specialist 7.00 7.00 5.95 5.95 5.95 0.00 0.00%
Account Specialist-Lead 5.00 5.00 4.59 4.59 4.59 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Administrative
Services 1.50 1.80 1.65 1.65 1.65 0.00 0.00%
Buyer 1.95 1.95 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Procurement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Contracts Administrator 1.40 1.40 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 0.00%
Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.50 0.55 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00%
Director Office of Management and
Budget 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Accounting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Real Property 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Revenue Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00%
Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Principal Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 4.81 6.10 5.90 0.00 0.00 -5.90 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.90 5.20 5.20 (11.86)%
Storekeeper-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Warehouse Supervisor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Total Administrative Services 37.69 39.30 37.99 37.99 37.99 0.00 0.00%
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Claims Investigator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Legal Fellow 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Legal Services Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Secretary To City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Legal Secretary - Confidential 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Total City Attorney 9.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 11.11%
428 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
City Auditor
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
City Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Performance Auditor 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Senior Performance Auditor 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Auditor 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00 0.00%
City Clerk
Administrative Associate III 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Hearing Officer 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Total City Clerk 6.75 6.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 0.00 0.00%
City Manager
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 100.00%
Assistant to the City Manager 1.55 1.05 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Chief Communications Officer 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00%
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Executive Assistant to the City
Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Communications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Economic Development 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Manager 10.05 9.55 9.05 9.05 9.05 0.00 0.00%
Community Services
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Community Services 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Recreation Programs 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Community Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Division Manager Open Space, Parks &
Golf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 429
Division Manager, Recreations & Golf 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Junior Museum & Zoo Educator 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.75 2.75 0.50 22.22%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Community Services 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Community Services Sr Prgm 3.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Human Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Park Maintenance - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Park Maintenance Person 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Parks/Golf Crew-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Producer Arts/Science Programs 12.00 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant I 7.50 7.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Sprinkler System Repairer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Superintendent Community Services 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Recreation Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Total Community Services 74.00 73.75 74.32 75.82 75.82 1.50 2.02%
Development Services
Administrative Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 3.02 3.02 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.00%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00%
Associate Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00%
Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00%
Building Inspector Specialist 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00%
Building/Planning Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00%
Chief Building Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Chief Planning Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00%
Code Enforcement Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00%
Development Project Coordinator II 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00%
Development Services Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
430 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Engineer Technician III 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.10 2.10 0.00%
Fire Fighter 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Fire Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.89 1.89 0.00%
Industrial Waste Inspector 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00%
Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00%
Manager Development Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Manager Environmental Control Prgm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Manager Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00%
Manager Urban Forestry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00%
Manager Watershed Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00%
Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00%
Planning Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00%
Plans Check Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00%
Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00%
Project Manager Trees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.00%
Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Planner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00%
Senior Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00%
Supervisor Inspection And Surveying 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.00%
Total Development Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.58 38.58 38.58 0.00%
Library
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Library Programs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Libraries 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Division Head Library Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Librarian 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.70 6.70 1.70 34.00%
Library Assistant 5.50 5.50 5.50 4.50 4.50 -1.00 (18.18)%
Library Associate 4.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 40.00%
Library Specialist 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Library Services 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 431
Senior Librarian 7.75 8.25 8.25 8.50 8.50 0.25 3.03%
Total Library 41.25 41.75 41.75 44.70 44.70 2.95 7.07%
Office of Sustainability
Assistant to the City Manager 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Total Office of Sustainability 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
People Strategy and Operations
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Human Resources 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Human Resources/CPO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Human Resources Assistant -
Confidential 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Human Resources Representative 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Employee Benefits 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Employee Relations 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Human Resources
Administrator 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total People Strategy and Operations 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00%
Planning and Community Environment
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 (50.00)%
Administrative Associate I 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 3.80 3.80 3.80 1.00 1.00 -2.80 (73.68)%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrator Planning & Community
Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Planning &
Community Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Planner 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 -0.90 (90.00)%
Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Inspector Specialist 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00 (100.00)%
Building/Planning Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 -1.80 (90.00)%
Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Chief Planning Official 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 -0.20 (20.00)%
Chief Transportation Official 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.50 -0.40 (44.44)%
Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 -0.50 (25.00)%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
432 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Coordinator Transportation System
Management 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.40 80.00%
Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Development Project Coordinator II 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 -2.00 (100.00)%
Development Project Coordinator III 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 -3.00 (100.00)%
Development Services Director 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Director Planning/Community
Environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Engineer Technician III 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00%
Manager Development Center 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Manager Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00%
Manager Planning 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.20 1.20 -0.80 (40.00)%
Planner 5.75 3.75 3.75 3.15 3.15 -0.60 (16.00)%
Plans Check Engineer 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Plans Examiner 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.65 1.65 0.65 65.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Planner 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.60 7.60 0.60 8.57%
Senior Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Supervisor Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Total Planning and Community
Environment 43.05 49.05 49.35 28.20 28.20 -21.15 (42.86)%
Public Safety
Training Battalion Chief 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
40-Hour Training Captain 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 -1.00 (16.67)%
Animal Control Officer 4.50 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.00 -1.00 (25.00)%
Animal Control Officer - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Animal Services Specialist II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Battalion Chief 56-Hour Workweek 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Communications Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Community Service Officer 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.00 0.00%
Court Liaison Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Crime Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.00 -0.84 (100.00)%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 433
Deputy Director Technical Services
Division 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Fire Chief 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Office of Emergency Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Emergency Medical Services Data
Specialist 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Emergency Medical Services Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Apparatus Operator 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Captain 27.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 21.00 -1.00 (4.45)%
Fire Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Fire Fighter 45.00 41.00 41.00 40.00 40.00 -1.00 (2.44)%
Fire Inspector 3.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 -4.00 (100.00)%
Geographic Information System
Specialist 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 1.90 1.90 1.90 0.01 0.01 -1.89 (99.47)%
Office of Emergency Services
Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Agent 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Captain 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Lieutenant 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Officer 49.00 49.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Records Specialist - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Records Specialist II 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Sergeant 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Property Evidence Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Dispatcher I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Dispatcher II 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Dispatcher-Lead 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Public Safety Communications
Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Public Safety Manager I 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 -3.00 (100.00)%
Public Safety Manager II 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Public Safety Program Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Superintendent Animal Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Animal Services 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Veterinarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Veterinarian Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Safety 278.24 272.24 273.24 264.51 264.51 -8.73 (3.19)%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
434 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Public Works
Account Specialist 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 0.70 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 1.80 2.85 2.65 2.63 2.63 -0.02 (0.75)%
Assistant Director Public Works 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.28 -0.02 (1.54)%
Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Building Serviceperson-Lead 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00%
Director Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 3.30 3.30 3.20 1.20 1.20 -2.00 (62.50)%
Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Maintenance-Lead 2.00 2.00 1.85 1.85 1.85 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 5.55 5.55 5.55 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 2.13 2.13 2.13 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 1.33 0.83 0.83 -0.50 (37.59)%
Management Analyst 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Manager Maintenance Operations 1.72 2.10 1.95 1.95 1.95 0.00 0.00%
Manager Urban Forestry 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 -0.04 (4.00)%
Planning Arborist 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 -0.25 (25.00)%
Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Project Manager 0.75 1.25 1.70 0.45 1.63 -0.07 (4.12)%
Project Manager Trees 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 0.20 1.10 1.20 1.47 1.47 0.27 22.50%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 -0.16 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.95 0.95 1.11 1.11 0.16 16.84%
Senior Project Manager 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Inspection And Surveying 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.53 0.53 -0.27 (33.75)%
Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.31 0.31 -0.47 (60.26)%
Traffic Control Maintainer I 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.00%
Traffic Control Maintainer II 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Traffic Control Maintainer-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 435
Tree Trim/Line Clear 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Trim/Line Clear - Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Works 56.37 57.32 56.35 52.98 52.98 -3.37 (5.98)%
Total General Fund 576.40 579.71 577.80 588.58 588.58 10.78 1.87%
Enterprise Funds
Public Works
Account Specialist 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 3.20 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Assistant Director Environmental
Service 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.75 0.30 0.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 333.33%
Assistant Manager WQCP 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant to the City Manager 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 3.30 3.00 1.50 1.35 1.35 -0.15 (10.00)%
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00%
Buyer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chemist 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Public Works Projects 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Electrician - Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 1.40 1.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 -0.10 (33.33)%
Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 1.90 1.61 1.61 0.61 -1.00 (62.11%)
Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 3.15 2.15 1.86 1.86 0.86 -1.00 (53.76%)
Industrial Waste Inspector 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.99 2.99 -0.01 (0.33)%
Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.79 1.79 -0.21 (10.50)%
Laboratory Technician WQC 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.50 20.00%
Landfill Technician 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
436 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 1.20 1.20 1.30 2.30 2.30 1.00 76.92%
Manager Airport 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Environmental Control
Program 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.90 3.90 0.90 30.00%
Manager Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00%
Manager Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Watershed Protection 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 -0.05 (5.00)%
Program Assistant I 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Program Assistant II 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 1.85 1.81 1.81 -0.04 (2.16)%
Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00%
Refuse Disp Atten 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 2.25 1.90 1.80 1.76 1.76 -0.04 (2.22)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 -0.16 (100.00)%
Senior Industrial Waste Investigator 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 -0.01 (1.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.16 320.00%
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Operator WQC 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Technologist 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.00 0.00%
Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 5.96 5.96 0.96 -5.00 (83.89%)
Supervisor Public Works 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor WQCP Operations 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00%
Technologist 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Traffic Control Maintainer I 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00%
WQC Plant Operator II 17.00 17.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Works 114.51 104.06 99.19 99.98 92.98 -6.21 (6.26%)
Utilities
Account Specialist 2.50 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 0.00 0.00%
Accountant 0.75 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate I 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 437
Administrative Associate II 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Administrative
Services 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Utilities Customer
Support Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Utilities Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant to the City Manager 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Asst Director Utilities/Resource
Management 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 4.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 0.00 0.00%
Cathodic Protection Technician
Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Cathodic Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Cement Finisher 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Sustainability Officer 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00%
Contracts Administrator 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Utility Projects 4.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 16.67%
Coordinator Utility Safety & Security 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Customer Service Representative 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Customer Service Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Customer Service Specialist-Lead 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00%
Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Director Utilities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Underground Inspector 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Underground Inspector-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 14.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 -14.00 (100.00)%
Electrician - Lead 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 -6.00 (100.00)%
Electrician Assistant I 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Manager - Electric 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Manager - WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Engineer Technician III 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 33.33%
Equipment Operator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Gas System Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Gas System Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 9.00 8.00 8.70 8.70 8.70 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
438 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Lineperson/Cable Spl 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00%
Lineperson/Cable Spl-Lead 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Maintenance Mechanic-Welding 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Communications 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Customer Service & Meter
Reading 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 (50.00)%
Manager Electric Operations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Utility Marketing Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Utility Operations WGW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Utility Telecommunication 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager, Utilities Credit & Collection 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Marketing Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Meter Reader 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Meter Reader-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Metering Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00%
Metering Technician - Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Offset Equipment Operator 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00%
Overhead Underground Troubleman 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Planner 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00%
Power Engineer 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Principal Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Program Assistant I 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Manager 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00%
Project Manager Trees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Resource Planner 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Restoration Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
SCADA Technologist 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Senior Accountant 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00%
Senior Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Deputy City Attorney 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Electrical Engineer 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 1.60 1.40 1.40 0.00 0.00 -1.40 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.40 2.40 1.40 140.00%
Senior Marketing Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Performance Auditor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Project Engineer 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 -5.00 (100.00)%
Senior Resource Planner 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Technologist 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 439
Senior Utility Field Service
Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Water System Operator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Storekeeper 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber
Apprentice 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber
Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00%
Street Light, Traffic Signal and Fiber-
Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Substation Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00%
Substation Electrician-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Supervising Electric Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervising Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Water Trans 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor WGW 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor, Inspection Services 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Tree Maintenance Specialist 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utilities Compliance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utilities Supervisor 5.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Account Representative 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Comp Tech 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Comp Tech-Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Credit/Collection Specialist 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Engineer Estimator 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Field Services Representative 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install/Representative 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install/Representative - Lead 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install/Representative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Key Account Representative 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Locator 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Safety Officer 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Utility System Operator 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install Repair Lead-Welding
Cert 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Utility Install Repair-Welding Cert 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Warehouse Supervisor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Water Meter Cross Connection
Technician 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Water System Operator II 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Utilities 251.11 253.76 255.36 258.36 258.36 3.00 1.17%
Total Enterprise Funds 365.62 357.82 354.55 358.34 351.34 -3.21 (0.91%)
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
440 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Other Funds
Capital
Administrative Associate I 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.89 0.89 -0.01 (1.11)%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00%
Associate Engineer 0.60 0.90 2.70 2.69 2.69 -0.01 (0.37)%
Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00%
Cement Finisher Lead 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00%
Contracts Administrator 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00%
Coordinator Transportation System
Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Engineer 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.08 2.08 -0.62 (22.96)%
Engineer Technician III 2.30 2.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Inspector, Field Services 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.47 0.47 -0.20 (29.85)%
Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.49 1.49 -0.01 (0.67)%
Manager Maintenance Operations 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00%
Manager Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00%
Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 4.85 5.09 5.09 0.24 4.95%
Project Manager 0.50 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00%
Senior Engineer 2.55 2.00 2.00 1.09 1.09 -0.91 (45.50)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 -0.60 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00%
Senior Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Project Manager 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00%
Supervisor Inspection And Surveying 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00%
Total Capital 24.37 26.07 27.48 27.26 27.26 -0.22 (0.80)%
Information Technology
Administrative Assistant 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Administrative
Services 0.40 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Business Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00%
Director Administrative Services/CFO 0.35 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00%
Director Information Technology/CIO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET 441
Manager Information Technology 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Information Technology
Security 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Principal Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Principal Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Business Analyst 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Technologist 13.00 12.00 12.00 13.50 13.50 1.50 12.50%
Technologist 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 -2.00 (50.00)%
Total Information Technology 30.41 31.40 32.20 31.70 31.70 -0.50 (1.55)%
Printing and Mailing Fund
Buyer 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Manager Revenue Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Offset Equipment Operator 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Printing and Mailing Fund 1.57 1.67 1.62 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.00%
Special Revenue Funds
Account Specialist 0.50 0.50 1.55 1.55 1.55 0.00 0.00%
Account Specialist-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00%
Administrative Associate II 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.20 -0.20 (50.00)%
Building Serviceperson-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Chief Transportation Official 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 (100.00)%
Community Service Officer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00%
Electrician 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Maintenance-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Mechanic 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00%
Facilities Painter 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00%
Heavy Equipment Operator-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00%
Manager Community Services Senior
Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100.00%
Manager Maintenance Operations 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00%
Manager Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00%
Manager Revenue Collections 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00%
Planner 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.75 0.75 -0.20 (21.05)%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.20 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Senior Project Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
442 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED BUDGET
Street Maintenance Assistant 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Sweeper Operator 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.00%
Total Special Revenue Funds 2.15 2.15 9.17 9.77 9.77 0.60 6.45%
Vehicle Replacement Fund
Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Director Public Works 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00%
Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Equipment Maintenance Service Per 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00%
Management Analyst 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00%
Manager Fleet 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 -1.00 (14.29)%
Motor Equipment Mechanic-Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00%
Project Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00%
Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 -0.08 (100.00)%
Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 (100.00)%
Senior Management Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00%
Total Vehicle Replacement Fund 16.08 16.53 16.53 16.53 16.53 0.00 0.00%
Total Other 74.58 77.82 87.00 86.88 86.88 -0.12 (0.01)%
Total Citywide Positions 1,016.60 1,015.35 1,019.35 1,033.80 1,026.80 7.45 0.73%
Table of Organization
FY 2012
Actuals
FY 2013
Actuals
FY 2014
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Adopted
Budget
FY 2015
Modified
Budget
FY 2015
Change FTE
FY 2015
Change %
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5527)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Confirmation of Appointment of CSD Director
Title: Confirmation of Appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of
Community Services Department
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the appointment of Rob
De Geus as Director of Community Services.
BACKGROUND
Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 requires that the City Council approve the City
Manager’s appointments to certain positions, including the Director of Community
Services Department (CSD).
DISCUSSION
Rob De Geus was selected as a result of a national search conducted by the executive
recruitment firm of Ralph Andersen & Associates. The City received 79 applications for
the CSD Director position. Eight candidates were interviewed by two panels, made up
of staff and community members. The City Manager selected Mr. De Geus based on his
interviews and the recommendations of the interview panels and enthusiastically
offered him the position, which he has accepted. Mr. De Geus is currently the Acting
Director of CSD, and has worked for the City of Palo Alto in Community Services for 14
years in successive recreation, business and management positions. His starting date
will be February 10, 2015.
Please see the attached press release which outlines Mr. De Geus’s extensive
experience. Mr. De Geus will be an outstanding addition to the Community Services
Department at a very important time for the City.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
RESOURCE IMPACT
The annual salary for the Director of Community Services will be $185,000.
Mr. De Geus’ employment as the Director will be at will, and all other benefits and
terms are consistent with the Management & Professional Compensation Plan approved
by Council.
Attachments:
A: Rob de Geus - Press Release (DOC)
NEWS RELEASE
Contact:
Claudia Keith
Chief Communications Officer
650/329-2607
claudia.keith@cityofpaloalto.org
January 29, 2015 For Immediate Release
Rob de Geus Named Palo Alto Director of Community Services
Palo Alto, CA – City Manager James Keene announced today that he has selected Rob de Geus to serve
as the City’s next Director of Community Services, and will bring his appointment to the City Council on
Feb. 9 for confirmation. He is a senior manager within Palo Alto’s Community Services Department and
is currently serving as the Acting Director. The selection was made following a national search and
recruitment process that included extensive input from the community.
“Rob is the right person at the right time to lead Community Services in the City of Palo Alto,” said City
Manager James Keene. “A community panel made up of Parks and Recreation commissioners,
neighborhood representatives, and the executive leadership team of department heads all agreed that
Rob was the top candidate. He is well respected and valued in our community and will continue to build
on the strong relationships and programs that he has developed since he joined Palo Alto.”
Born and raised in Melbourne, Australia, de Geus has always had a passion for parks, recreation and the
arts. He joined the City of Palo Alto in 2000 as a Recreation Coordinator, and over the past 15 years has
held positions of increasing responsibilities within the Community Services Department. He served as an
Assistant Director of the Parks and Recreation division prior to being named as Acting Director following
the retirement of department head Greg Betts. In that time de Geus has managed many functional
areas of the department including Parks and Recreation programs, Special Events, Palo Alto Junior
Museum and Zoo, Municipal Golf Course, Community Centers, Aquatics and Youth and Teen programs,
among other services.
Areas of focus and passion for de Geus include community health and wellbeing, accessibility, innovative
public private partnerships and public service. A valued liaison to numerous Palo Alto boards,
commissions and interest groups including the Parks and Recreation Commission, Palo Alto Recreation
Foundation, and Golf Advisory Board, de Geus has been a key member of the collaborative work of
Project Safety Net, and also serves as a board member of the Palo Alto Family YMCA.
“Palo Alto is an exceptional city and it is an honor and privilege to service the residents and community,”
said de Geus. “I look forward to working with citizens and staff on a wide variety of programs, services
and park projects to continue improving the quality of life in Palo Alto.”
He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business and master’s degree in Public Administration from San Jose
State University. His salary will be $185,000.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5518)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
Summary Title: Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit -
continuation
Title: Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss its objectives and issues associated with
establishment of an annual limit on office/R&D development, and provide direction to staff
regarding next steps which may include:
1. identifying alternative approaches or annual limits on office/R&D development that can
be further defined and evaluated as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, for
example:
a. an annual limit of 35,000 or 50,000 net new square feet of office/R&D per year,
with a competitive process for project approvals each year that applications
exceed the limit; and/or
b. slowing the pace of office/R&D development by imposing a more robust impact
fee program.
2. Identifying zoning changes or requirements that can be considered for adoption on an
interim basis until an annual limit or alternative approach to addressing the pace of
office/R&D development can be adopted concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan
Update. For example:
a. requiring on-site parking, funding for a transportation management association,
or other approaches to address traffic and parking demand associated with
development; or
b. a temporary reduction in allowable office densities (floor area ratio or FAR).
Executive Summary
One of the intriguing policy ideas that came up during the Comprehensive Plan workshops in
the summer of 2014 was the idea that the City should somehow moderate or meter the pace of
City of Palo Alto Page 1
non-residential development. The idea was to manage growth by having an annual limit on
office development, rather than by relying on an overall multi-year cumulative “cap” on non-
residential square footage like the one that the current Comprehensive Plan establishes for the
Downtown (Program L-8) and the City (Policy L-8).
This idea was advanced by staff as a concept worthy of exploration during the Comprehensive
Plan Update. Then on December 8, 2014, the City Council directed staff to schedule a Council
work session to give them an opportunity to consider and discuss the idea further.
Tonight’s work session responds to this directive and this staff report focuses on a couple of
big-picture questions, which could guide the Council’s discussion; Specifically:
What are the objectives of establishing an annual limit program, and are there various
ways those objectives could be met?
What issues would have to be resolved to establish such a program?
In addition, staff expects that the City Council will wish to discuss potential interim measures
that can be pursued until an annual limit (or alternative approach) can be adopted. These
interim measures could include new requirements for office/R&D development proposals (e.g.
on-site parking, transportation management association funding, or a reduction in FAR unless
affordable housing is included as part of a mixed use development.)
Supporting information includes a memo (first prepared for the December 8, 2014 Council
meeting) summarizing annual limit programs in three other jurisdictions, and another memo
describing two datasets that are available to inform the Council’s discussion about the annual
rate of office/R&D development over time. (See Attachments A and B)
Background
Please see Attachment A for background information regarding other jurisdictions with some
form of annual growth limit on non-residential development. Attachment A also discusses the
potential timing for establishment of an annual limit, and outlines some of the issues that
would have to be resolved to put a limit in place.
Please see Attachment B for background information regarding datasets available to
characterize the pace of non-residential development over time in Palo Alto, as well as the sum
total of pending (“pipeline”) development applications;
It’s also important to recognize that increases in employment, which are credited with creating
additional traffic and parking demand, are not directly proportional to new development of
office/R&D. This is because there are other types of non-residential development that
generate jobs (as explained in Attachment B) and, more importantly, the number of employees
per square foot of existing building space fluctuates over time based on the economic climate
and the demand for office space. The true relationship between jobs and square footage in
Palo Alto will not be fully understood until the business registry is in place for one or two
City of Palo Alto Page 2
business cycles.
As noted in Attachment B, the City has approved significant medical uses which will come on
line, related mostly to the Stanford Hospital Project, and have impacts in the coming years,
although this report does not propose or discuss limits on such uses. This report also does not
propose or discuss limits on housing development as such regulations can be legally
problematic and staff was not directed to pursue these.
Discussion
Development and establishment of a growth management program with annual development
restrictions will require careful consideration of program objectives, pros/cons, as well as the
issues and mechanics of the program. Some initial thoughts on these topics are provided below
for the Council’s consideration;
What are the objectives of establishing an annual limit program, and are there various ways
those objectives could be met?
Attendees at the Comprehensive Plan workshops last summer expressed some
frustration that the current Comprehensive Plan’s approach to growth management (i;e;
an overall “cap” on non-residential development) has been ineffective at moderating
the pace of growth and development in the robust economic recovery following the
“great recession;” Based on this frustration and an examination of growth management
strategies in use elsewhere in California, attendees suggested planning scenarios with a
growth management program that moderated or metered the rate of development
rather than the overall amount. This focus on the rate of development had its genesis in
the impacts associated with increased employment in the City as experienced by Palo
Alto residents. Impacts include traffic congestion/delay, parking demand, increased
housing costs, and more. Additionally, an annual limit can be response to the ups and
downs of the business cycle.
Thus, the objective of an annual limit program would be to moderate the rate of non-
residential development so as to reduce the rate of employment growth, reduce related
impacts and allow for effective mitigation of residual impacts. Establishing an annual
limit program could also ensure that the development approved under the program
meets stringent requirements related to “good” planning and design, public benefit,
etc., etc.
Program objectives could be met by establishing an annual limit on square footage such
as the one in San Francisco and Walnut Creek, or by establishing a limit on net new auto
trips such as the one in Santa Monica. (All three examples are cited in Attachment A).
Alternatively, this objective could be met by establishing new, stringent requirements
on development, and/or by increasing the cost of development to better compensate
for its impacts, for example by significantly adjusting housing and transportation impact
City of Palo Alto Page 3
fees. (In theory, once the business registry is in place, the City could also consider ways
to directly regulate new employment, but staff would need to do some additional
research into the legal and implementation issues associated with this approach, as well
as any comparable programs in other jurisdictions.)
What issues would have to be resolved to establish such a program?
As indicated in Attachment A, there are quite a number of issues that would need to be
resolved if the City Council wished to adopt an annual limit on office/R&D development,
not least of which would be to decide what the limit should be, and what procedures
should be used to implement the limit on an annual basis. Staff has provided some
initial thoughts on each below.
What should the annual limit be? The data in Attachment B has been provided to
inform this discussion and show that the rate of non-residential development in Palo
Alto has varied over time. Specifically, if the Congestion Management Program (CMP)
data is used, the annual rate of office/R&D development has been around 34,000
square feet per year if you look at the period from 2001-2015, about 67,000 square feet
per year if you look at the period from 2008-2015, and about -2,800 square feet per
year if you look at the period from 2001 to 2007 (because non-residential space was
removed and replaced with housing in this period). The CMP data set separates
office/R&D from other non-residential uses, including retail and medical office, and thus
may provide a better basis for this discussion than the monitoring data which was
initially presented in the August 29, 2014 Existing Conditions Report. (The August data
set, which has been updated in Attachment B, presents the combined non-residential
square footage within nine planning areas that are a legacy of the 1989 Citywide Study.)
What should be the process and criteria for receiving and considering applications?
Attachment A provides some explanation of the approaches in Walnut Creek, which
uses a first-come-first served staff-implemented approach, and San Francisco, which has
relied on their Planning Commission to decide between competing proposals using
specific criteria in times when pending applications have exceeded the available
allocation of square footage.
Should there be a geographic component to the program? The City has historically
monitored and regulated downtown Palo Alto separately from the rest of the City and
should consider whether this continues to be a valuable practice.
Should some areas of the City or types/sizes of projects be exempt? Walnut Creek
exempts a business park where they would like development to occur from their
program. Palo Alto does not have a comparable area where development is desired and
where that development would not cause the impacts that the annual develop limit is
intended to address. Nonetheless, the idea of exempting areas that are some distance
City of Palo Alto Page 4
from residential areas could be explored further. Also, the idea of exempting small
projects (less than 5,000 square feet?) could be explored as a way to protect the City’s
reputation for supporting innovation and start-up businesses. Further, limited
exemptions for vacant properties or highly under-utilized properties might be necessary
in order to avoid legal challenges.
Should unused allocations roll forward for some period of time? If the allocations were
to roll forward indefinitely (as in San Francisco), there may be concerns as to whether
the program objectives had been addressed. However, if unused allocations roll forward
for at least several years (as in Walnut Creek), it would serve to level-out volatile
economic upswings and downturns.
How would applications already in the “pipeline” be handled? This would depend on
how and when an annual limit is established and will require careful consideration.
How would the City ensure continued conformance with the Permit Streamlining Act?
We can look to San Francisco and Walnut Creek as models. In San Francisco, completed
applications that did not receive an allocation under the annual limit are either
continued to the next allocation period or denied, depending on the wishes of the
applicant.
What changes would be needed to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning? Please
see the Policy Implications section below for a brief overview.
What would the potential impacts and benefits of the program be? As noted in the
Timeline section below, conceptual approach(s) developed by the City Council will be
reviewed to determine their potential fiscal and environmental impacts and benefits to
the extent feasible.
Timeline
Adoption of an annual limit on office/R&D development would require considerable discussion
and deliberations by the City Council and is likely to be controversial, requiring significant
outreach to stakeholders and the community at large. Stanford University has already pointed
out how the annual rate of development in the Research Park has fluctuated dramatically over
time, and that opportunities would have been lost to Stanford and Palo Alto if an annual limit
had constrained development in certain years.
Because of the potential for controversy and the need for ample community input, staff
assumes that the City Council would like to explore a couple of different approaches/annual
limits, and that these would be defined in the first few months of 2015 and evaluated as part of
the Comprehenisve Plan Update process. Next steps in the Comprehensive Plan Update
process include a community “summit” in May 2015, preparation of a program-level
environmental analysis (Draft EIR) and a fiscal study that can be used to inform community
City of Palo Alto Page 5
discussions and decision making. The current schedule calls for completion and adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan Update and concurrent zoning changes in the first part of 2016.
Given this timeline, staff expects that the City Council will wish to discuss potential interim
measures (such as those suggested earlier in this report) that can be pursued until an annual
limit (or alternative approach) can be adopted.
Resource Impact
As noted above, adoption of an annual limit on office/R&D development would require
considerable discussion and deliberations by the City Council. These deliberations in turn
would require considerable staff support and analysis. Also, if a growth management program
with an annual limit on office/R&D development is ultimately adopted, implementation of the
program each year will require considerable staff time and time on the City Council’s agenda;
The City may also wish to contract with a third party to conduct an independent review of
competing proposals that seek an allocation under the annual limit.
Larger fiscal impacts of a growth management program will have to be assessed carefully. At a
minimum, the assessment will have to consider likely reductions in permit revenues and impact
fees, potential longterm impacts to the City’s tax revenues and expenses, and a qualitative
discussion of the impact on the City’s overall economic “climate;” The extent and nature of
fiscal impacts will, of course, depend on the approach(es) that the City Council elects to
consider, and the analysis can potentially be combined with a fiscal study of other policy
choices inherent in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Planning staff is currently working with
staff in the Administrative Services Department to define the scope of this study, which will
have to look at expected revenues from commercial and residential property taxes, sales taxes
and other sources, as well as the cost of services over time.
Preparation of some kind of interim ordinance for the City Council’s consideration and adoption
for the period during which an annual office/R&D limit (or other approach) is being analyzed, is
potentially time consuming and resource intensive. Thus it may affect delivery of other
priorities.
Policy Implications
If the City adopts a growth management program with an annual limit on office/R&D
development, the program would effectively implement Comprensive Plan Policy B-1: “Use a
variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business change
is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods.”
Nonetheless, it is likely that a new growth management program would require an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan as well as the City’s Municipal Code; The Comprehensive Plan
amendment would likely modify or replace policies and programs that establish an overall
“cap” on non-residential development in the Downtown (Program L-8) and the Citywide
planning areas identified on Comprehensive Plan Map L-6 (Policy L-8), and would also have to
City of Palo Alto Page 6
consider compatibility with policies like Policy B-9: “Encourage new businesses that meet the
business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto.”
The Municipal Code amendment would have to establish the procedures and standards
associated with the new growth management program.
Environmental Review
This work session is intended for City Council discussion and direction to staff. No final action
will be taken and thus no review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). If the Council elects to proceed with establishment of an annual limit or another
growth management program at some time in the future, that decision (in the form of
implementing policies and regulations) will require CEQA review. Adoption of an interim
ordinance or other temporary zoning requirement may also require environmental review
depending on the duration and scope of the changes.
The level and complexity of environmental review will depend on the nature of the program(s)
and its potential to directly or indirectly stimulate a particular kind of development or focus
development in a specific area. For example, limiting the development of office/R&D in Palo
Alto could stimulate housing development if property owners see that as a way to increase the
value of their property. Also, the City would have to consider whether limiting the
development of office/R&D development in Palo Alto could focus additonal office/R&D
development in adjacent communities.1
Attachments:
Attachment A: Memorandum Regarding Annual Limit on Office/R&D (PDF)
Attachment B: Comp. Plan Memo on Growth Trends (PDF)
Attachment C: Documents Received "At Places" at the January 26, 2015 City Council
meeting (PDF)
1 While CEQA does not require a lead agency to speculate where specfic impacts cannot be reasonably anticipated,
the City would have to at least consider this question.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER &
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: December 8, 2014 ID#: 5286
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE & ZONING CHANGES: ANNUAL LIMIT ON
OFFICE/R&D DEVELOPMENT
At the November 3, 2014 City Council meeting, a Councilmember asked whether the suggested
Council work session regarding establishment of an annual limit on office/R&D could consider
adoption of an annual limit as an interim ordinance. Subsequently, the same Councilmember
also asked staff to provide information regarding other jurisdictions with annual office limits
immediately, rather than as preparation for the January work session.
This memo responds to both questions/requests and will be supplemented by additional staff
analysis and a staff recommendation in advance of the January work session. Specifically, staff
and the City Council will have to explore a number of issues when considering establishment of
an annual limit on office/R&D development. At a minimum, these include the following:
(1) what the annual limit should be;
(2) what the process and criteria for receiving and considering applications should be (i.e.
should applications be considered in the order received, or based on some criteria
establishing preferences; what should those criteria be?);
(3) whether there should be a geographic component to the program;
(4) whether some areas of the City or types/sizes of projects should be exempt;
(5) whether unused allocations should roll forward for some period of time;
(6) how to handle applications already in the “pipeline-”
(7) how to ensure continued conformance with the Permit Streamlining Act;
(8) necessary changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning; and
(9) potential impacts and benefits.
CAN THE COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ANNUAL OFFICE CAP AS AN INTERIM ORDINANCE?
The short answer is yes, the Council could consider adoption of an annual cap on office/R&D
development under the provision in State law (Government Code Section 65858) which allows
cities to temporarily prohibit any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan,
specific plan, or zoning proposal that the city is studying or intends to study within a reasonable
time. To enact an interim ordinance, a 4/5 vote (8 votes) would be required, and the City
Council would have to make legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to
the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional development would
result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
An interim ordinance is effective for 45 days, after which it may be extended, but in no instance
may it be in effect for over two years. An interim ordinance does not require review by the
Planning and Transportation Commission and many are exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is because interim ordinances are temporary
and many, in practice, perpetuate the status quo. To the extent this is not the case, additional
review may be required.
It should be noted again, however, that there are many complexities that would need to be
resolved to establish an annual office limit, suggesting that considerable time and effort will be
involved.
Whether it’s adopted as an interim ordinance or concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan
Update, an annual limit is also likely to cause concern by property owners in areas zoned for
commercial use, resulting in the need for extended outreach, public hearings, and etc. Stanford
University has already voiced its concerns about the effect that an annual office limit could
have on the Research Park.
WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE AN ANNUAL OFFICE CAP?
Earlier this year, the City’s Comprehensive Plan consultants, Placeworks, gathered information
regarding a number of growth management systems used by California jurisdictions to meter
the amount or pace of non-residential development. They identified communities that, like
Palo Alto, have some kind of cap on non-residential development (for example Cupertino), as
well as communities that have attempted to cap residential development (for example
Pleasanton).
Page 2
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
Placeworks identified Walnut Creek and Santa Monica as two jurisdictions that have
implemented programs to govern the pace of non-residential development, and these
programs are summarized below, along with the program in place in San Francisco.
These three examples are presented for background information only, and are not intended as
a recommendation to adopt one or more of these strategies. As the Placeworks staff observed,
any program adopted in Palo Alto would need a high degree of customization to fit its unique
local conditions. In addition, if a program is developed for Palo Alto, it would require careful
legal analysis to ensure that it can operate effectively in tandem with the State’s Permit
Streamlining Act and withstand legal challenge.
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek has regulated commercial growth since 1985, when voters approved Measure H,
a growth-control initiative that would have limited or prevented non-residential development
until traffic congestion at major intersections improved. Measure H was a reaction to resident
concerns about traffic and the construction in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when a number
of large commercial office buildings in downtown Walnut Creek, primarily around the Walnut
Creek BART station. A major local landowner sued the City, and the case eventually went to the
California Supreme Court.
In 1990, the Court ruled that Measure H was invalid because it functioned as a zoning ordinance
but conflicted with the City’s adopted General Plan, which called for Walnut Creek to be a
regional job and retail center. Although Measure H was invalidated, the City continued to
regulate the amount of commercial and residential development allowed each year,
acknowledging the residents’ desire to meter growth in Walnut Creek. In 1993, the City Council
adopted a Growth Limitation Program that limited new commercial growth to 75,000 square
feet per year, metered in increments of 150,000 square feet every 2 years, and was adopted for
10 years. The program helped the City to limit growth to 620,000 square feet of new
commercial development in the first 10 years (1993-2003), and was extended through 2015 in
the City’s 2005 General Plan Update. The Growth Limitation Program excludes the Shadelands
Business Park.1
1. Does the system include an annual limit on non-residential approvals? If so, how is
that set? Changed? Enforced?
1 City of Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek General Plan 2025, page 4-13. Available online at http://www.walnut-
creek.org/citygov/depts/cd/planning/documents/general plan 2025.asp.
Page 3
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
Yes. The Walnut Creek Growth Management Program includes a cap of 75,000
commercial square feet/year metered in 2-year increments. Therefore allocations for
150,000 square feet of commercial development are available in each two year cycle.
The cap is set in the General Plan (which incorporated an earlier Growth Limitation
Program from the 1990s). It is enforced by the Planning Division. Staff tracks available
allocation and a building permit cannot be issued unless an allocation is available. If the
building permit is allowed to expire prior to construction, the allocation is revoked and
returns to the pool. Unused allocations from one cycle are rolled over to the next
cycle. Project applicants get credit for any existing commercial SF that would be
demolished with construction of their project.
2. Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each
other? Are any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects
under 10k sf)? How much flexibility is there?
There is no “beauty contest” type competition. Allocations are awarded on a first-come,
first-served basis when the project planner deems a project application complete.
Development in the Shadelands Business Park on the eastern edge of the City and
specific types of Community Facilities are exempt from the Growth Management
Program. Additionally, the Planning Manager can grant exemptions to larger, more
complex projects so that their allocation can be reserved for longer than the 12-month
period for which allocations are usually reserved.
The system had a fair degree of flexibility built in – not in the cap, but rather in how it is
calculated and implemented. Calculating the cap in 2-year increments of up to 150,000
sf offers some flexibility; as does carrying forward the unused allocation. In addition,
the system allows project applicants to reserve allocations as soon as their application is
deemed complete, with the possibility of having that reservation extended at the
discretion of the Planning Manager for larger, more complex projects.
Santa Monica
Goal T19 in the Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the Santa Monica
General Plan (adopted in 2010) is to “Create an integrated transportation and land use program
that seeks to limit total peak period vehicle trips with a Santa Monica origin or destination to
2009 levels.” This goal is also known as the “No Net New Evening Peak Period Vehicle Trips”
goal. The LUCE focuses not only on reducing vehicle trips, but also on encourage walking,
bicycling and transit use, creating pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The LUCE foresees the creation of a multi-modal transportation
system and “identifies local strategies to manage trips, treating the entire City as an integrated
Page 4
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
transportation management system with aggressive requirements for trip reduction, transit
enhancements, pedestrian and bike improvements, and shared parking. Transportation
demand management (TDM) programs that reduce automobile travel demand and incentivize
alternative modes such as carpool, vanpools, and shuttles, walking, bicycling, and shared
parking are all encouraged.”2 The LUCE calls for the City to manage new trips from new
development and reduce trips from existing major employers. New trips must be offset through
the development of new transportation infrastructure providing alternatives to automobile
travel, including public transit, bicycling, ridesharing, and walking. The LUCE also contains a list
of transportation policies, projects, and programs that are necessary to accommodate
projected growth with no net increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips through 2030.
The LUCE identifies the establishment of fees as a tool to manage vehicle trips and increase
alternative transportation options. The LUCE states that “New projects will be required to
minimize the trips they generate and contribute fees to mitigate their new trips.” However, the
LUCE also states that “To achieve the No Net New Trips goal, developers cannot be expected to
have every project generate zero trips by itself;” rather, developers will pay mitigation fees that
will fund capital improvement projects citywide, such that the net impact of each development
project ultimately is zero. Fees will be used for improvements that benefit the City’s
transportation system overall, such as additional buses to increase frequency, improved
walking routes and new bike lanes.”3 The provision that the City as a whole will achieve no net
new trips by 2030, but that individual projects will not be required to generate no net new
trips, has created some confusion and concern among Santa Monica residents as the LUCE is
implemented.
1. Does the system include an annual limit on non-residential approvals? If so, how is
that set? Changed? Enforced?
No. Santa Monica’s growth management program resembles a performance measure,
rather than an annual limit, and the City is still developing the zoning ordinance that will
implement the program set forth in its General Plan.
2 City of Santa Monica, Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study (Final), April 2012. Page 1-3. Available online at
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/Developers/Santa-Monica-Nexus-
Study.pdf
3 City of Santa Monica, Land Use and Circulation Element, July 2010. Page 4.0-12. Available online at
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Plans/General-Plan/Land-Use-and-Circulation-
Element.pdf
Page 5
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
2. Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each
other? Are any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry, projects
under 10k sf)? How much flexibility is there?
It does not appear that Santa Monica envisions projects competing against each other
for allocations. Instead, projects that cannot achieve the “No Net New Trips” goal on
their own can pay into a fund for investments that will offset their trips.
San Francisco
San Francisco’s Downtown Plan dates from 1985 and included the City’s first annual cap on
office development, which was intended as a temporary measure. This original office cap was
modified and extended by the voters when Proposition M was adopted in 1986. The annual
growth limit is codified in Section 320-25 of the City’s Zoning Code and from time to time, the
City’s Planning Commission has adopted implementing policies and procedures.
1. Does the system include an annual limit on approvals? If so, how is that set? Changed?
Enforced?
San Francisco has two office caps, one for small projects and one for larger ones. The
“small” cap is 75,000 square feet per year and applies to projects between 25,000 and
50,000 square feet. The “large” cap is 875,000 square feet per year and applies to
projects over 50,000 square feet.
The two annual office limits were set by the voters and cannot be changed except with
voter approval, although the Planning Commission has been able to adopt implementing
policies and procedures as needed.
Unused allocations roll forward indefinitely, and the annual cap has only been a
constraint on development in periods like the dot com boom, when new office
development proposals exceeded the available allocation. In the current tech boom,
San Francisco is once again in this situation and the Planning Department has started
discussions about policies and procedures to implement the annual limit.
2. Does the system include a competitive point system pitting projects against each
other? Are there any categories of project exempted (e.g. certain type of industry,
projects under 10k sf)? How much flexibility is there?
Prop M itself did not include a competitive system, but the City Planning Commission
has had to establish procedures to compare and select among projects when the
number of projects exceed the available allocation. For example, in the 1990s, the City
conducted a “beauty contest” in which large office projects competed with each other
for the annual allocation. Each application was subject to analysis and environmental
Page 6
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
review, and the Planning Commission compared the projects to each other before
approving one or more. Applicants whose projects were not approved had the choice to
either request continuance to the next evaluation period, or to have their projects
denied. The Planning Department has recently begun discussing implementation of a
revised competitive process, which is expected to focus on “good planning” issues such
as proximity to transit and housing displacement rather than aesthetics or public
benefits. In fact, Prop M prohibits the City from considering monetary contributions in
any competition, by stating that “Payments, other than those provided for under
applicable ordinances, which may be made to a transit or housing fund of the City, shall
not be considered.”
Office projects less than 25,000 square feet are exempted from San Francisco’s annual
limit, as are City projects. State, Federal, Port, and Redevelopment Agency projects are
not exempt, and reduce the allocation available for private development projects.
Page 7
December 2, 2014
Memo RE: Annual Limit on Office/R&D
Attachment B -
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HILLARY GITELMAN,
Director, Planning & Community Environment
FROM: ROLAND RIVERA,
Land Use Analyst DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: January 26, 2015 ID#: 5404
SUBJECT: Background information and data sets associated with establishment of an
annual limit on office/R&D development.
Per your request, the following data analysis describes the data sets regarding non-residential
development that are available to inform discussions of an “annual limit” on office/R&D. The analysis
presents two data sets: one grew out of Policy L-8 of our current Comprehensive Plan and the other
derives from Santa Clara County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP).
Key element of the approved work program for the Comprehensive Plan Update involve establishing
baseline conditions utilizing new development data and identifying a realistic growth rate for
development through 2030. Understanding the details and some of the limitations of the Commercial
Growth Limit specified in the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 data set may be useful in both endeavors.
Another, more straightforward, data set is derived from the City’s annual report to the Santa Clara
County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The CMP’s Annual Land Use Monitoring Report requires
that Member Agencies provide the VTA with information on all development projects approved/entitled
during the fiscal year.
Please review the following background information and summaries on the data sets and let me know if
you have any questions.
Thank you.
1989 Citywide Study and the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 Data
A Citywide Study adopted in 1989 was an important summation of the numerous planning studies that
were undertaken by the City in the 1980's. The focus of these studies was to address non-residential
development and ways to improve the provision of housing and the jobs/housing imbalance. At the
time, the City was experiencing commercial growth but residential growth was very limited.
The 1989 Citywide Study divided the City's non-residential areas into nine analysis areas (1989 Citywide
Study Area Map), which were subsequently adopted as Map L-6 in the current Comprehensive Plan. The
development potential for Palo Alto identified in the Citywide Study was 3,257,900 square feet;
however, that development potential did not include some Planned Community zones and public
facilities such as City Offices and the Veteran's Administration Hospital, which were termed “not-
monitored areas.”
In 1996, the City Council asked the Policy and Services Committee to study the issue of Citywide non-
residential development "limit" for the nine analysis areas and determine how to incorporate thelimit
into the Comprehensive Plan. On April 1996, the City Council approved the Policy and Services
Committee's recommendation to include the Citywide Study's overall future development square
footage within Policy L-8 and Program L-7 into the Comprehensive Plan.
POLICY L-8:
Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine planning areas
evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City
Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such
additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum.
PROGRAM L-7:
Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and traffic conditions related to
both residential and non-residential development at key intersections including those identified in the
1989 Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. If the rate of
growth reaches the point where the citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will
reevaluate development policies and regulations.
Policy L-8 aims to "Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development for the
nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study," and Program L-
7 implements Policy L-8 by establishing a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development in
the areas identified in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation study. Importantly, Program L-7
calls for monitoring non-residential development within the nine planning area boundaries but does not
distinguish between the different types of non-residential development within those areas.
Attachment A presents the annual monitoring data for all types of non-residential development
collected pursuant to Program L-7 from 1989 to the present and total square footages are shown below.
In both cases, the non-residential square footage is net floor area and does not include floor area that
replaces demolished floor area.1
Table 1, Non-Residential Development Potential in the Nine Planning Areas per Policy L-8
Development Potential per
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8
Net square feet increase
1989 to December 2014 for the
nine planning areas*
Remaining in Growth Monitoring
Development Potential
3,257,900 1,400,367 1,857,533
*Non-Residential net change in square feet based on Planning Entitlements from 1989 -2014. Data excludes Mayfield Development
Agreement Projects which demolishes approximately 323k of non-residential square feet and replaces 300k of demolished square feet into
Stanford Research Park
Source: Planning and Community Environment, December 22, 2014
As shown in Attachment A, when non-residential development projects currently in the entitlement
process (“pipeline projects”) are included, an additional 139,524 non-residential square feet could be
entitled or approved within the nine planning areas, affecting the totals as shown below.
Table 2, Non-Residential Development Potential in the Nine Planning Areas per Policy L-8 with
“Pipeline Projects”
Development Potential After
Citywide Study
Net square feet increase
1989 to December 2014 for the
nine planning areas including
Pipeline Projects*
Remaining in Growth Monitoring
Development Potential
3,257,900 1,539,891 1,718,009
*Non-Residential net change in square feet based on Planning Entitlements from 1989 -2014 and current pipeline projects. Data excludes
Mayfield Development Agreement Projects which demolishes approximately 323k of non-residential square feet and replaces 300k of
demolished square feet into Stanford Research Park.
Source: Planning and Community Environment, December 22, 2014
As noted before, there are areas within the nine planning areas that are considered “not monitored”
including some Planned Community zones and public facilities. Approvals within the “not monitored”
areas currently amount to approximately 1million square feet which includes expansion of the Veterans
Administration Hospital, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Stanford Cancer Research Center and other
facilities identified as “not monitored” in Map L-6. One of these “not monitored” areas includes the
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) facility. On June 6, 2011, Council amended Policy L-8 to
include language exempting the Medical Center’s expansion from the policy and amended Map L-6 to
expand the “not-monitored” area to be coterminous with the boundaries of the “Hospital District”
zoning district. The 1.3 million square feet entitled SUMC expansion is not reflected in Attachment A or
1 Attachment A is an updated version of the Table 8-3 in the August 29, 2014 Existing Conditions Report. An error
has been corrected in data for years 2001, 2008, 2012, and 2013 and “pipeline” information has been updated as
described further later in this memo.
Table 8-3 of the Existing Conditions Report because build-out and occupancy is expected in the future. If
it had been included, the 1.3 million square feet SUMC expansion would be listed as ‘not-monitored’ in
the year 2011, when the development agreement was approved.
Assuming all pipeline projects are entitled, the net square feet increase within the last 27 years (1989-
2015) could be approximately 1.5 million square feet or an average annual increase of approximately
57,000 square feet per year. The following table details average annual non-residential growth within
the nine planning areas.
Table 3: Annual Average Non-Residential Growth within the Nine Planning Areas per Policy L-8
Years Total Non-Residential net square feet
increase
Average Annual Growth
(total/# of years)
1989 – 2015 1,539,891 57,033
1989 – 2007 721,074 37,951
2008 – 2015 818,817 102,352
Source: Planning and Community Environment, December 22, 2014
Projects converting non-residential to residential uses, such as 901 San Antonio Ave, 901 and 1101 East
Meadow Blvd, Hyatt Rickey’s (4219 El Camino Real), contributed to the significantly lower non-
residential development from 1998-2007.
Policy L-8, Program L-7, and Attachment A can inform discussions regarding the amount and pace of
non-residential development, but there are significant limitations to the data which should be
understood. First, as noted above, Policy L-8 and the monitoring program do not distinguish between
various types of non-residential development, so the square footages presented include retail and
medical offices as well as general office/R&D. Secondly, monitoring is limited to the nine planning areas
as defined by Map L-6, and the City increasingly has seen some development outside of these areas. For
example, the project at 441 Page Mill Road which will be considered by the City Council in January, falls
outside of the nine planning areas and thus is not included in the “pipeline” numbers presented here.
Source: Planning and Community Environment, December 22, 2014
The CMP dataset can inform the discussions regarding non-residential development, and does not have
some of the disadvantages of the Policy L-8 data described above. The CMP dataset contains citywide
development information, and is collected by fiscal year as opposed to calendar year. But it does
provide useful information about different non-residential land use categories.
Table 5, below summarizes the key points of the Policy L-8 and the CMP datasets.
Table 5: Summary of Policy L-8 and CMP Datasets
Policy L-8 Dataset CMP Dataset
Timeline 1989-2014
plus 2015 pipeline projects
FY 2001-FY 2014
plus 2015 pipeline projects
Geography Nine Planning Areas as shown on
Map L-6 Citywide
Non-Residential Land Use
Categories
Total of all Non-Residential
square footage
Contains information on
Different Non-Residential Land
Use Categories (e.g. retail,
office/R&D, Hotel, etc)
Exemptions
Areas within the nine planning
areas that are considered “not
monitored” including some
Planned Community zones and
public facilities.
None
Source: Planning and Community Environment, December 22, 2014
"U
U
B
D
I
N
F
O
U
#
20
1
3
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
4
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
AN
N
U
A
L
L
A
N
D
-
U
S
E
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
Me
m
b
e
r
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
P
e
r
i
o
d
:
07
/
0
1
/
1
2
-
0
6
/
3
0
/
1
3
1
2
3
4
5
TA
Z
*
L-
U
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
U
N
I
T
S
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
/
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
SQ
U
A
R
E
F
E
E
T
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
A
C
R
E
S
(Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e
O
n
l
y
)
3a
3b
3
c
4a
4
b
4
c
5a
5
b
5
c
Nu
m
b
e
r
Cl
a
s
s
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
Re
m
o
v
e
d
Ne
t
A
d
d
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
Re
m
o
v
e
d
Ne
t
A
d
d
e
d
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
Re
m
o
v
e
d
Ne
t
A
d
d
e
d
42
9
C3
12
7
,
0
6
3
22
8
,
9
8
6
-1
0
1
,
9
2
3
43
1
C5
19
,
9
6
0
0
19
,
9
6
0
43
1
R2
2
0
2
43
7
C5
14
,
5
6
7
4,
5
8
8
9,
9
7
9
44
3
P3
31
3
5
3
24
6
7
8
66
7
5
45
8
C5
0
67
,
0
0
0
-6
7
,
0
0
0
45
8
M2
11
6
,
0
0
0
0
11
6
,
0
0
0
46
5
C3
0
1.
5
7
-1
.
5
7
46
5
P2
1.
5
7
0
1.
5
7
46
5
P2
51
,
9
4
8
0
51
,
9
4
8
46
6
R2
3
3
0
49
9
P1
2,
3
1
9
0
2,
3
1
9
51
4
M1
5,
6
7
2
1,
9
4
1
3,
7
3
1
51
7
R1
0
0.
6
2
-0
.
6
2
51
7
C2
3,
2
5
0
2,
5
2
2
72
8
0.
6
2
0
0.
6
2
52
0
C5
0
3,
2
0
0
-3
,
2
0
0
52
0
C6
22
,
9
5
7
0
22
,
9
5
7
52
2
C5
27
7
5
0
27
7
5
52
2
R1
1
0
1
52
7
P1
4,
1
3
2
0
4,
1
3
2
53
5
P2
0
50
,
0
0
0
-5
0
,
0
0
0
53
5
C6
50
,
0
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
CM
P
A
n
n
u
a
l
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ju
n
e
2
0
1
3
Attachment D -
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5461)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution to Implement New Development Impact Fees
Title: Public Hearing: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Resolution Setting New Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility Impact Fee Levels as Approved by Council on December
15 2014
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A), setting new
Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact fees at 75 percent of maximum
levels, as directed by Council on December 15, 2014 when it adopted the implementing
Ordinance. The packet presented to Council on December 15, 2014 is included as Attachment
B.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On December 15, 2014 Council conducted a first reading of the proposed ordinance
implementing the new Public Safety Facilities and General Government Facilities fees
(Attachment C), and then conducted a second reading of the ordinance on January 12, 2015.
Council also directed staff on December 15 to prepare a resolution that sets the fees at the rate
of 75 percent of the maximum amount justified by the Nexus Study and bring it back to Council
shortly. That Resolution is attached (Attachment A), and Staff requests that Council adopt the
Resolution tonight.
The Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact fees are recommended to be
established at 75% of the legally justified maximum. Palo Alto, like most cities, has historically
set its fee levels at a rate below the legal maximum. This practice further immunizes fees from
legal challenges in the event development does not occur at the precise time and rate assumed
in the nexus study. The proposed rate levels are outlined in the table below.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
NEW IMPACT FEE RATES
Impact Fee Residential Fees
(per unit)
Non-Residential Fees
(per 1,000 square feet)
Single
Family
Multi-
Unit
Commercial Office/
Institutional
Industrial
Public Safety Facilities $996 $797 $557 $743 $186
General Govt. Facilities $1,255 $1,004 $702 $937 $234
TOTAL $2,251 $1,801 $1,259 $1,680 $420
Resolutions imposing new (or increased fees) go into effect 61 days after adoption
(Government Code 66017). The new fees would apply to new development that has not
received building permits before the start of the 61-day wait period.
Council has the option to revisit these and any other Development Impact Fees in the coming
years, given any significant new information, and potentially adjust fee levels. For example, if
the City finds a site for the Public Safety Building with funding requirements greater than the
projected $57 million, or if information from the business registry determines that the fee ratio
between business and residents is different from that assumed in this Nexus Study, a new
Nexus Study may be prepared and fee revisions approved.
The staff report and attachments presented to Council on December 15, 2014 are included as
Attachment B.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Projected revenues from the two fees over 25 years are $7.8 million from the Public Safety
Facilities fee and $9.8 million from the General Government Facilities fee, for a total of $17.6
million. That translates to an average of $0.7 million per year.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Rate Setting is not considered a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B: CMR ID #5396 from December 15, 2014 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment C: Ordinance Implementing Public Safety and Government Facility Impact
Fee (PDF)
Not Yet Approved
Resolution No _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the City’s
Fee Schedule to Adopt Rates for the Public Safety Facility Development
Fee and the General Government Facility Development Fee
R E C I T A L S
A. Pursuant to Chapter 16.58 of the Municipal Code, the City levied
development impact fees upon new development in order to fund costs associated with
public facilities needed to provide services to such development.
B. Section 16.58.080 of the Municipal Code authorizes the levy of a Public
Safety Facility Development Fee to fund police and fire facilities (including fire apparatus
and vehicles) and a General Government Facility Development Fee to fund facilities
associated with municipal administration. Collectively, these fees are referred to in this
Resolution as the “Fees.”
C. At the request of the City, David Taussig & Associates has prepared a report
entitled “Development Impact Fee Justification Study, City of Palo Alto”, dated
December 10, 2014 (the “Study”). The Study (i) identifies planned public safety and
general government facilities (the “Facilities”) eligible for funding through the Fees, (ii)
studies facility costs that are allocable to new development; and (iii) recommends rate
schedules for the Fees that will equitably charge such costs to new development. The
Study is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection, adopted by
the City Council, and incorporated herein by reference.
D. On February 9, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the
proposed rates for the Fees.
E. The City Council now desires to set rates for the Fees and to amend the
City’s Fee Schedule to include such rates.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The rates for the Fees shall be as set forth in Attachment “A” to
this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference and adopted as an
amendment to the municipal fee schedule. These rates may be revised by resolution or
ordinance of the City Council
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that (i) there is a reasonable relationship
between the need for the Facilities and the development projects on which the Fees will
be imposed; (ii) there is a reasonable relationship between the Fees’ use and
development projects on which the Fees will be imposed; and (iii) the Fees do not
exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the Facilities. The basis for these
1
141208 jb 0131292
Attachment A
Not Yet Approved
findings are set forth in more detail in the Study, and the City Council adopts such basis
as set forth in the Study.
SECTION 3. The rates set by this Resolution shall be effective on the sixty-first
day following its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
_________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
141208 jb 0131292
Not Yet Approved
NEW IMPACT FEE RATES*
Impact Fee Residential Fees
(per unit)
Non-Residential Fees
(per 1,000 square feet)
Single
Family
Multi-
Unit
Commercial Office/
Institutional
Industrial
Public Safety Facilities $996 $797 $557 $743 $186
General Govt. Facilities $1,255 $1,004 $702 $937 $234
TOTAL $2,251 $1,801 $1,259 $1,680 $420
*These rates shall become effective 61 days after Council adoption of Resolution
3
141208 jb 0131292
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5396)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/15/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees
Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Adoption of
Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.58 Implementing New Public Safety Facility
and General Government Facility Impact Fees And Direction to Draft
Resolution Setting Initial Impact Fee Rates at 75 Percent of Levels Identified
in Nexus Study
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council review the recommended new Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility impact fees, as revised and discussed below. In addition, staff recommends
that Council approve the revised Public Safety Facility Needs List contained in the Nexus Study;
adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 16.58 implementing new Public Safety Facility and
General Government Facility impact fees (Attachment D); and direct staff to prepare a
resolution setting the fee amounts at 75 percent of maximum levels supported by the Nexus
Study.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At its November 3, 2014 discussion of two new Development Impact Fees, Council questioned
the Public Safety Facilities Needs List used in the fee calculations, because after Council
approved that list on March 3, 2014, it subsequently approved an Infrastructure Funding Plan
which included full funding for the Public Safety Building and for Fire Station #3. These items
were still listed on the Needs List as needing funding. Council requested that staff remove those
items from the Needs List.
Council’s second concern was the density assumptions for non-residential categories –
particularly office space, which was assumed to have a density of 2.5 employees per 1,000
square feet. Council requested that the assumption be changed to 4.0 employees per 1,000
square feet to match the Downtown Assessment District’s parking requirement of 1 space per
250 square feet of office space.
Council therefore referred the item back to the Finance Committee. However, due to the need
City of Palo Alto Page 2
for the consultant, David Taussig & Associates (DTA), to update the Nexus Study with the
changes requested by Council, the report was not ready in time for the December 2 Finance
Committee Meeting, and the Finance Committee recommended that staff bring the item
directly back to Council on December 15.
Staff has revised the Nexus Study and fee calculations to include the two requested changes
(Attachment C).
Council has the option to revisit these and any other Development Impact Fees in the next
couple years, given any significant new information, and potentially adjust fee levels. For
example, if the City found a site for the Public Safety Building with funding requirements
greater than the projected $57 million, or if information from the business registry determines
that the fee ratio between business and residents is different from that assumed in this Nexus
Study, a new Nexus Study could be prepared and fee revisions approved.
Change #1: Public Safety Project Funding Needs
The original Public Safety Fee calculations were based on a Project Needs List approved by
Council on March 3, 2014. Since then, Council approved an Infrastructure Project Funding
Proposal (CMR #4889) that funded the Public Safety Building and Fire Station 3. In addition, on
November 4, voters approved a 2 percent increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax which
confirmed the funding model included in the Infrastructure Proposal. This funding model
assumes that the TOT and other revenues will fully fund the Public Safety Building and Fire
Station 3 and that additional impact fees from new development will not be assessed. At
Council’s request, Staff directed DTA to revise the Public Safety Needs List accordingly, as
shown below:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
REVISED PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035 –
USED IN REVISED NEXUS STUDY
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
Facility Name
Total
Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues
Net Cost
to City
1 Public Safety Building $57.00 ($57.00) $0
2 Fire Station 3 $6.70 ($6.70) $0
3 Fire Station 4 $7.50 $0 $7.50
4 BC Van (x2) $0.20 $0 $0.20
5 Fire Trucks (x2) $2.00 $0 $2.00
6 Type III Engine (x2) $0.80 $0 $0.80
7 Training Tower & Related Land Acquis. $8.00 $0 $8.00
8 Type 1 Engine (x8) – 2024 $4.20 $0 $4.20
9 Ambulances (x4) – 2022-2025 $1.30 $0 $1.30
10 Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambul.) $8.50 $0 $8.50
Total Public Safety Facilities $96.20 $63.70 $32.50
Change #2: Employee Density Assumptions
The original Nexus Study presented November 3 2014 assumed the following employee
densities:
Commercial Use - 3 employees per 1,000 square feet
Office/Institutional Use – 2.5 employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial Use – 1.0 employee per 1,000 square feet
These assumptions were derived from the Urban Land Institute as well as DTA’s Public Works
Database, which tracks over a decade of proposed and completed projects throughout the
State. This database has been cross-referenced with data from the Natelson Company and
other economics firms. It is DTA’s standard operating assumption as it pertains to non-
residential use. Also note that each employee is assumed to require 50% of the cost of services
of a resident. So 3 employees translates to 1.5 persons served, etc.
While Nexus Studies typically incorporate more general State data, more specific local data
provides more accuracy. Palo Alto’s downtown zoning ordinance requires 1 parking space per
City of Palo Alto Page 4
250 square feet of new office space, implying a 4-employees-per-1,000 square feet density. The
zoning ordinance also establishes requirements for other commercial uses and zoning districts.
In the ongoing Downtown Cap study, the Department of Planning and Community Environment
(PCE) had hoped to develop an updated employment density for downtown office space via a
business survey. However results of the survey were inconclusive, suggesting that
implementation of the business registry will be required in order to attain more accurate
employment density data. While it is likely that Palo Alto’s downtown office density is more
than 4 employees per 1,000 square feet, staff believes using the current zoning code
requirement, rather than the lower State average, is a more accurate metric.
The Revised Nexus Study (Attachment C) includes the following non-residential density
assumptions:
Commercial Use - 3 employees per 1,000 square feet [unchanged]
Office/Institutional Use – 4.0 employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial Use – 1.0 employee per 1,000 square feet [unchanged]
The revised version of the maximum fee levels and projected revenues is as follows:
REVISED PROPOSED MAXIMUM FEE LEVELS
Proposed Impact Fee
Proposed
Residential Fees Proposed Non-Residential Fees
(per unit) (per 1,000 sq ft)
Single
Family
Multi-
Family Commercial Office/Inst’l Industrial
Public Safety Facility $1,328 $1,062 $743 $991 $248
General Govt. Facilities $1,673 $1,339 $936 $1,249 $312
TOTAL $3,001 $2,401 $1,679 $2,240 $560
Residents per
HH/Employees per
1,000 sq ft*
2.68 2.12 3.0 4.0 1.0
FEE per Person
Served** $1,120 $1,133 $560 $560 $560
*From page 10 of the DTA Development Impact Fee Justification Study - NOTE THAT
NON-RESIDENTIAL PERSONS SERVED are equivalent of 50% of one RESIDENTIAL
person served.
**Multi-Family Fee per Person Served is 1% higher than the rest, due to rounding
error (as per DTA).
City of Palo Alto Page 5
REVISED
PROJECTED NEW MAXIMUM FEE REVENUES THROUGH 2035
(Dollars in Millions)
Proposed Impact Fee
Residential Fee
Revenue Non-Residential Fee Revenue TOTAL
S
Single
Family
Multi-
Family
Commercia
l
Office/Inst’
l
Industria
l
Public Safety Facility $3.39 $1.67 $0.66 $3.61 $1.03 $10.36
General Govt. Facilities $4.27 $2.10 $0.84 $4.56 $1.30 $13.06
TOTAL $7.66 $3.77 $1.50 $8.17 $2.33 $23.42
TOTAL BY RES./NON-RES. $11.43 $11.99
% RES./NON-RES. 48.8% 51.2%
To compare with the original proposed fee maximums and projected revenues, here were
those presented on November 3:
ORIGINAL
PROPOSED MAXIMUM FEE LEVELS
Proposed Impact Fee
Proposed
Residential Fees Proposed Non-Residential Fees
(per unit) (per 1,000 sq ft)
Single
Family
Multi-
Family Commercial Office/Inst’l Industrial
Public Safety Facility $2,893 $2,314 $1,619 $1,349 $540
General Govt. Facilities $1,673 $1,339 $936 $780 $312
TOTAL $4,566 $3,653 $2,556 $2,130 $852
Residents per
HH/Employees per 1,000
sq ft*
2.68 2.12 3.0 2.5 1.0
FEE per Person Served** $1,704 $1,723 $852 $852 $852
*From page 10 of the DTA Development Impact Fee Justification Study - NOTE THAT NON-
RESIDENTIAL PERSONS SERVED are equivalent of 50% of one RESIDENTIAL person served.
**Multi-Family Fee per Person Served is 1% higher than the rest, due to rounding error (as
per DTA).
City of Palo Alto Page 6
ORIGINAL
PROJECTED NEW MAXIMUM FEE REVENUES THROUGH 2035
(Dollars in Millions)
Proposed Impact Fee
Residential Fee
Revenue Non-Residential Fee Revenue TOTALS
Single
Family
Multi-
Family Commercial Office/Inst’l Industrial
Public Safety Facility $7.38 $3.64 $1.45 $7.88 $2.24 $22.58
General Govt. Facilities $4.27 $2.10 $0.84 $4.56 $1.30 $13.06
TOTAL $11.65 $5.74 $2.28 $12.43 $3.54 $35.64
TOTAL BY RES./NON-RES. $17.39 $18.25
% RES./NON-RES. 48.8% 51.2%
CONCLUSION
Staff respectfully requests that Council conduct a first reading of the proposed ordinance
implementing the new Public Safety Facilities and General Government Facilities fees
(Attachment D). Further Council is asked to direct staff to prepare a resolution that sets the
fees at the rate of 75 percent of the maximum amount justified by the Nexus Study and bring it
back to Council shortly. Adoption of new impact fees requires a noticed public hearing and at
that hearing, Council would have the opportunity to ask questions about the revised Nexus
Study and resulting fee calculations. Resolutions imposing new (or increased fees) go into effect
60 days after adoption (Government Code 66017). The new fees would apply to new
development that has not received building permits before the start of the 60-day wait period.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Rate Setting is not considered a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: CMR #5049 from November 3, 2014 Council Meeting with Attachments
(PDF)
Attachment B: City Council Minutes from 11-3-14 (PDF)
Attachment C: FY 2014-15 Impact Fees (PDF)
Attachment C: Revised Nexus Study (PDF)
Attachment D: Ordinance Implementing Public Safety and Government Facility Impact
Fee (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5049)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/3/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees
Title: Finance Committee Recommends Proposed Changes in Development
Impact Fees: Direction to Draft Ordinance Implementing New Public Safety
Facility and General Government Facilities Impact Fees
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee and Staff recommend that the Council review and approve the
recommended new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility impact fees at 75
percent of the maximum allowable level and direct staff to draft an implementing ordinance.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On May 6, 2014 the Finance Committee passed by a vote of 3 to 1 the following motion:
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman that the Finance
Committee recommend the City Council review the Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Justification Study prepared by David Taussig & Associates and approve the
recommended new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility impact fees
at 75 percent of the maximum allowable level.
The information presented to Finance Committee that evening may be found in Attachment A,
and minutes from the Finance Committee’s discussion may be found in Attachment B.
Staff was scheduled to come to the full Council on May 19 following the May 6 Finance
Committee meeting, but the item was postponed when other agenda items ran long. The June
2014 Council schedule was packed, the July recess followed, and then staff vacations and
consultant schedule conflicts impeded an August Council date. This item was then put on the
tentative agenda for September, and then October, but other agenda items were deemed more
pressing.
Since the original May Council date, the impact fees currently in place have been updated for FY
2015. Attachment C shows the FY 2015 fee levels.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Please note the following corrections and additions to CMR #4697 (Attachment A), as
requested by the Finance Committee and discussed by staff.
I. Correction: Page 5, Paragraph 1 of Staff Report #4697 should be replaced with the following
paragraph (changes underlined):
Council members may note that Public Safety Building (PSB) needs are listed at $57
million. Staff acknowledges that there are discussions underway regarding earmarking
new hotel revenues for the PSB, and that the needs list above excludes such funds. Staff
proposes that for now Council consider that need unfunded, and when the City Council
approves the funding for the PSB – if it is finalized before the new fees are
implemented-- the resulting fee can be recalculated and reduced to reflect the
offsetting revenue source.
II. Clarification Regarding Source of Palo Alto Jobs Data: Finance Committee members were
concerned about the recommended fees’ allocation between residential and non-residential
properties. Specifically, there was concern that the jobs data used in the calculations might be
unreliable. For example, the data on page 10 of David Taussig & Associates (DTA) Development
Impact Fee Justification Study assumed 93,295 employees in Palo Alto at present, whereas
there are other estimates as high as 120,000. Finance Committee members wanted greater
detail on how the numbers were derived, given the fact that the City does not have a Business
License Tax or Registry Fee, by which aggregate jobs data could be gathered.
The consultant used demographic data from Planning and Community Environment (PCE) staff
which had taken into account Association of Bay Area Government’s data along with PCE staff’s
knowledge of Palo Alto trends. PCE staff had, in fact, modified the ABAG projections before
forwarding them to DTA.
Staff since received further clarification regarding the specific source of the jobs data used in
the original ABAG projections. According to PCE staff:
Most jurisdictions, including ABAG, rely on a Census product called Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) which is currently the best available information
on where, type and number of jobs for smaller geographic areas such as Palo Alto (as
opposed to Metropolitan Statistical Areas such as San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco).
LEHD is updated annually and the latest data set is for the year 2011. According to the
LEHD web site, the LEHD program “is part of the Center for Economic Studies at the U.S.
Census Bureau. The LEHD program produces new, cost effective, public-use information
combining federal, state and Census Bureau data on employers and employees...”
Staff concluded that these sources are credible and therefore adequate as a basis for DTA’s
calculations, until such time as employment data are gathered via a Business Registry Fee.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
III. Clarification Regarding Fee Split Between Residential and Nonresidential Uses: Finance
Committee members were concerned that the proposed fee levels might be unfairly allocated
between residential and nonresidential uses, and that residential developments would pay
more than their fair share, and nonresidential development would pay less than theirs.
According to DTA, their fee calculations are based on a standard industry assumption that each
employee counts as 50% of a “person served,” since employees tend to demand fewer City
services than residents. This convention determines the fee levels only. DTA looked at the
projected residential growth and the projected job growth, and divided the needed revenue
(based on projected capital needs) over the anticipated number of new units (in terms of new
houses and new commercial square footage) to set the fees.
Given the proposed fee levels, the split in projected revenues from the new fees would be
48.8% from residential development and 51.2% from non-residential development, rather than
“60/40” as had been discussed at the Finance Committee meeting.
IV. Reformulation of Table Comparing Benchmarked City Fees with Palo Alto’s: Based on
Finance Committee members’ feedback, the tables on page 4 of CMR #4697 should be replaced
with the following table:
The table above shows that although Palo Alto’s single-family fees are high compared to the
comparison cities’ fees, when taken as a percentage of single-family home prices, Palo Alto’s
fees are reasonable.
V. Correction in Table Showing Current DIF Fund Balances: The table found on page 5 of CMR
#4697 showing our current Impact Fee Fund Balances (as of fiscal year-end 2013) should read
as follows (correction underlined):
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Fee Net Funds
Available
(Thous. of $$)
Parks 1,616
Community Centers 5,381
Libraries 678
Residential Housing in-Lieu 4,630
Commercial Housing In-Lieu 3,569
Parkland Dedication 2,051
Citywide Transportation 3,141
Water & Wastewater 2,225
Charleston/Arastradero 569
Stanford Research Park/El Camino 3,847
San Antonio/West Bayshore 829
University Ave. Parking Assessment
District
658
VI. Fee Split Among Non-Residential Categories: Another concern of Council Members was that
the proposed non-residential fees are broken out by Commercial, Office/Institutional, and
Industrial categories; while our current fees are broken out by Commercial/Industrial and
Hotel/Motel categories. The question was raised as to why DTA and staff were introducing the
new categories with the new fees.
DTA explained that the new (proposed) categories are standard fee categories among California
cities and reflect the varying demand for City services generated from different non-residential
uses. In fact, DTA was unfamiliar with other cities splitting Hotel/Motel usage from other non-
residential uses.
Staff recommends retaining the new categories for the new fees.
Beyond the above clarifications and corrections, the remaining information in Attachment A is
valid and may be used to inform Council’s discussion.
Attachments:
Attachment A: CMR #4697 from May 6, 2014 Finance Committee with Attachments
(PDF)
Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes from May 6, 2014 Finance Committee Meeting (PDF)
Attachment C: FY 2014-15 Impact Fees (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4697)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/6/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees
Title: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Implementation of
New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Fees
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Finance Committee review and discuss the attached “Development
Impact Fee Justification Study” prepared by David Taussig & Associates (DTA) (see Attachment
A). The report presents proposed maximum fee levels for a new Public Safety Facility Impact
Fee and for a new General Government Facilities Impact Fee.
Through this process, the Committee and the City Council may determine the following: (a)
whether to levy each of the proposed new fees, (b) at what level to set the fee(s), up to and
including the maximum allowable fee, and (c) what if any exemptions should be included.
MOTION
The Finance Committee has reviewed the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Justification Study
prepared by David Taussig & Associates and recommends that the Council review the report
and approve the recommended new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility
impact fees at 75 percent of the maximum allowable level.
BACKGROUND
Staff presented to the Finance Committee on November 5, 2013 a list of anticipated Project
Needs throughout the City between now and 2035. Staff then presented the list along with
additional information requested by the Finance Committee to the City Council on March 3,
2014.
Council approved the Project Needs List that evening, so the consultant was able to proceed
with calculating the recommended maximum fee levels for certain areas.
Process for Developing the Project Needs List:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
For several months before the November 5, 2013 Finance Committee meeting, staff assembled
an extensive list of projected capital needs for the following categories: Transportation, Public
Safety, General Government Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Libraries. The Administrative
Services Department and DTA consulted with City staff of all relevant departments, the IBRC
report and the follow-up discussions with the Council Infrastructure Committee, and the
Proposed and Adopted CIP Budgets for Fiscal Year 2014. Staff also conducted a series of inter-
department meetings to discuss the draft list of projects and any new developments—such as
changes in funding or changed cost estimates-- that may have arisen in the intervening weeks.
It is important to note that the evaluation of the City’s housing impact fees is not included in
DTA’s current contract scope, but is included as a program under the Updated Housing
Element, recently adopted by City Council.
The list was limited by the following criteria: each project must be “non-speculative” – that is,
seriously considered, not just a nice-to-have; have a useful life of over 5 years, and have all
offsetting revenues deducted. In addition, given the built-out nature of the City, only a small
percentage of the cost of the projects could be allocated to new development.
For example, staff’s list of unfunded projected needs for Parks added up to $39 million. Given
the Association of Bay Area Governments’ and Planning and Community Environment staff’s
projected population growth rates, in the next 20 years about 15% of the City’s parks users will
be brought in by new development. The remaining 85% will be “existing users.” Therefore only
15% or about $6 million of those costs could be allocated to the development impact fee. That
$6 million is already largely covered by the Parks fee at its current level. The remaining $33
million would have to be funded by the General Fund or by “existing users.” That raises the bar
quite high for the amount of funding needed to justify a new or increased fee.
In advance of the November meeting with the Finance Committee, DTA determined that the
total project needs for Parks and Recreation (at $39 million) and Libraries (at $0.3 million)
would not merit an increase in current fees. In fact, the current fee levels should be adequate
to fund the new list of needs along with the needs anticipated at the last Impact Fee update.
As a result, staff presented Council with a proposed list of projects in the remaining categories:
Transportation, Public Safety facilities and General Government facilities.
After the Council Meeting on March 3, DTA determined that the Transportation-related project
needs, totaling $91.2 million, also would be adequately met by the fees already in place. That
left General Government facilities and Public Safety Facilities as the two fee opportunities DTA
analyzed in its Fee Justification Study.
The following table shows all the categories of fees currently in place in Palo Alto, which ones
were included in the Benchmarking study, and which ones were included in the fee updates,
and if they were not, when they are expected to be updated.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
DTA completed this draft fee recommendation report on April 15. Staff has had the
opportunity to review the recommendations and consider them in relation to total impact fees
currently in place and the impact to prospective developers.
Note that DTA had completed earlier a benchmarking study of Development Impact Fees (DIFs)
in neighboring communities. (See Attachment F.) The following chart summarizes the
benchmark information with and without the proposed new fees for Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The chart above shows that Palo Alto’s total DIFs are quite a bit higher than the average of the
other benchmarked cities. However, taken as a percentage of home prices within the cities, the
comparison is more reasonable. The following chart shows the total fees – including the
potential new fees - by category as a percentage of average single-family home sale price.
The City of Palo’s current DIFs are outlined in Attachment B. Developments may be exempt
from all or some impact fees, depending upon the intended use. For instance, 100% affordable
housing projects (not a mix of market rate and below market rate) are exempt from current
impact fees, as are home remodels or expansions. (Planning and Community Environment is
considering whether that exemption needs to be tightened.) Attachment C shows the
exempted groups for each of the current fees. Staff recommends that Council maintain the
same general exemptions for the new fees.
Note that an earlier version of the Current Impact Fees provided to Council on March 3, 2014
contained an inaccuracy: for Parkland Dedication Fees, it indicated that the fees applied only to
“Residential Subdivisions of over 50 parcels.” In fact, the statute indicates that the required
parkland per unit applies to all residential development, but the in-lieu fees are available only
to subdivisions of less than 50 parcels. The version in Attachment B includes the corrected text.
The Needs List (see Attachment E), approved by Council on March 3 2014, identifies the City’s
projected capital needs through 2035 within the selected categories. As discussed above, this
list is a pared-down version of a more extensive review conducted by staff of all the DIF
City of Palo Alto Page 5
categories: Transportation, Public Safety, General Government Facilities, Parks and Recreation,
and Libraries.
Council members may note that Public Safety Building (PSB) needs are listed at $57 million.
Staff acknowledges that there are discussions underway regarding earmarking a proposed 2
percent Transient Occupancy Tax increase as a revenue stream for the PSB, and that the needs
list above excludes such funds. Staff proposes that for now Council consider that need
unfunded, and when the City Council approves the funding for the PSB – if it is finalized before
the new fees are implemented-- the resulting fee can be recalculated and reduced to reflect the
offsetting revenue source.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Development Impact Fees provide funding for capital improvements to mitigate the impacts of
new development in the community. The revenues received each year vary based on the
amount of development (both residential and non-residential) occurring in Palo Alto during that
timeframe. Recommended changes to the fees will be presented to Council for approval in
future meetings.
DTA’s analysis projected revenue impacts over the next 20 years, assuming maximum fee
levels, of $22.6 million for Public Safety facilities and $13.1 million for General Government
facilities, for a total of $35.6 million. If Council sets the fees at 75 percent of maximum,
combined revenues would be in the $27 million range. Actual revenues will vary depending on
the specific fee levels approved by Council as well as with year-by-year development activity.
The following table summarizes the fund balances for the City’s existing impact fees as of June
30, 2013:
Fee Bal. June 30, 2013
(Thous. of $$)
Commitments &
Encumbrances
(Thous. of $$)
Net Funds
Available
(Thous. of $$)
Parks 1,626 10 1,616
Community Centers 5,396 15 5,381
Libraries 680 3 678
Residential Housing in-Lieu 14,935 10,306 4,630
Commercial Housing In-Lieu 10,017 6,448 3,569
Parkland Dedication 2,057 6 2,051
Citywide Transportation 3,149 8 3,141
Water & Wastewater 2,225 0 2,225
Charleston/Arastradero 572 3 569
Stanford Research Park/El Camino 3,847 0 3,847
San Antonio/West Bayshore 829 0 829
University Ave. Parking Assessment
District
660,852 2,891 657,961
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Staff recommends that some of the net funds listed above be dedicated to relevant
infrastructure needs. Specific fund allocations will be included in the Proposed FY 2015 Budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Council has the authority to charge new development for its relative share of the cost of
specific public facilities, as calculated based on a Nexus Study. Council also has the authority,
for policy reasons, to restructure fees based on articulated City policies. The information
provided in this report allows Council to take the next step towards re-evaluating and adjusting
the City’s Development Impact Fees.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Development Impact Fee Justification Study by David Taussig &
Assoc. (PDF)
Attachment B: Current Development Impact Fees (PDF)
Attachment C: Current Exemptions from Palo Alto Development Impact Fees (DOCX)
Attachment D: Excerpt Minutes from City Council meeting of March 3, 2014 (PDF)
Attachment E: Public Facilities Needs List (PDF)
Attachment F: Charts from Benchmarking Study (DOCX)
B.
C.
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APRIL 29,2014
Prepared by:
DAVID TAUSSIG &ASSOCIATES,INC.
2250 HYDE STREET,5TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94109
(800)969-4382
ASSOCIATES,INC.
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
TAUSSIG
Newport Beach
San Francisco
Riverside
Fresno
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
DAVID
&
City of Palo Alto TOC
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................1
SECTION I.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................3
SECTION II.LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ..................4
SECTION III.DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................8
SECTION IV.THE NEEDS LIST...............................................................................................12
SECTION V.METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE FEES ...................................................15
A.PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES......................................................................................................17
B.GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES .........................................................................................22
SECTION VI.SUMMARY OF FEES..........................................................................................25
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:FEE DERIVATION WORKSHEETS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs
associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David
Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) to prepare
an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the “Fee Study”) for specific categories of public
improvements not currently covered by the City’s Fee Program. The Fee Study is intended to
comply with Section 66000 et. seq.of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State
of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development
(“Future Facilities”) and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of
the Future Facilities.Fee amounts have been determined that will finance Public Safety and
General Government facilities at levels identified by the various City departments as being
necessary to meet the needs of new development through buildout in 2035.The Future
Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included
in Section IV of the Fee Study.A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is
included in Section V.All new development may be required to pay its “fair share”of the cost
of the new infrastructure through the development fee program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Fee Study including a brief description
of City surroundings, and background information on development fee financing.Section II
provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee
amounts identified in the Fee Study.Section III includes a discussion of projected new
development and demand variables such as future population and employment, assuming
current growth trends in housing, commercial, and industrial development extrapolated
through buildout in 2035.Projections of future development are based on data provided by
the City and the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan.1 Section IV includes a description of the
Needs List, which identifies the facilities needed to serve new development through buildout
in 2035 that are eligible for funding by the impact fees.The Needs List provides the total
estimated facilities costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City,and costs allocated to new
development for all facilities listed in the Needs List.This list is a compilation of projects and
costs identified by various City departments.Section V discusses the findings required under
the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing,
increasing,or imposing a fee as a condition of new development, and satisfies the nexus
requirements for each facility included as part of this study.Section V also contains the
description of the methodology used to determine the fees for all facility types.Finally,Section
VI includes a summary of the proposed fees justified by this Fee Study.Appendix A includes
the calculations used to determine the various fee levels.
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
The total fee amounts required to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities
identified in the Needs List are summarized in Table ES-1 below.Fees within this Fee Study
reflect the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development.
1 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan (1998) and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in progress).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 2Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE ES-1
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
EXEMPTIONS
California Government Code permits fee exemptions for affordable housing and senior
housing at the discretion of local jurisdictions.Such fee exemptions are a policy matter that
should be based on the consideration of the greater public good provided by the use exempted
from the fee.
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area,the City of Palo Alto (“City”or “Palo Alto”)is
located approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco within the County of Santa Clara.
Named after the coastal redwood tree that grows along San Francisquito Creek, the City is
more than 100 years old,encompassing an area roughly the size of 26 square miles and
boasting approximately 30,000 housing units, more than 65,000 residents, and over 90,000
jobs.Yet despite the City’s mature and largely developed nature, the presence of excellent
schools, the world’s finest employment centers and job creators, and high quality of life marks
across the board, make the City incredibly attractive to new residential and non-residential
development and re-development. For instance, the average homes sales price recorded in
the City in February 2014 was nearly $2.0 million.
Thus, in order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and
costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David
Taussig & Associates, Inc.(“DTA”) was retained by the City to prepare an AB 1600 Fee
Justification Study (the “Fee Study”)for specific categories of public improvements not
currently covered by the City’s Fee Program. Impact fees are calculated here using updated
information on development and City facilities. Moreover, the methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et.seq.).Impact fees calculated in this
report are intended to complement the City’s existing impact fees.
More specifically, the Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et.seq.of the
Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying
additional public facilities required by new development (“Future Facilities”) and determining
the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities.Fee amounts
have been determined that will finance facilities at levels identified by the various City
departments as deemed necessary to meet the needs of new development.The Future
Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included
in Section IV of the Fee Study.All new development may be required to pay its “fair share”of
the cost of the new infrastructure through the development fee program.
The fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities needed to meet the needs of new
development.The steps followed in the Fee Study include:
1.Demographic Assumptions:Identify future growth that represents the
increased demand for facilities.
2.Facility Needs and Costs:Identify the amount of public facilities required to
support the new development and the costs of such facilities.Facilities costs
and the Needs List are discussed in Section IV.
3.Cost Allocation:Allocate costs per equivalent dwelling unit.
4.Fee Schedule:Calculate the fee per residential unit or per non-residential
square foot.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 4Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary
to mitigate the impacts of new development.A fee is “a monetary exaction, other than a tax
or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with
approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of
public facilities related to the development project...”(California Government Code, Section
66000).A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new
development, with the payment of the fee typically occurring prior to the beginning of
construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building.Fees are often levied at final map
recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit
issuance.However, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2604 (Torrico) which was signed into law in August
2008, encourages public agencies to defer the collection of fees until close of escrow to an
end user in an attempt to assist California’s troubled building industry.
AB 1600, which created Section 66000 et.seq.of the Government Code was enacted by the
State of California in 1987.
In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot include
costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing
level of service (“LOS”)or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general
plan.
Section 66000 et seq.of the Government Code thus requires that all public agencies satisfy
the following requirements when establishing, increasing,or imposing a fee as a condition of
new development:
1.Identify the purpose of the fee.(Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
2.Identify the use to which the fee will be put.(Government Code Section
66001(a)(2))
3.Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the
type of development on which the fee is to be imposed.(Government Code Section
66001(a)(3))
4.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
5.Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition of the proposed
fees in the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 5Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
A.PURPOSE OF THE FEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(1))
New residential and non-residential development within the City will generate
additional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities.Land
for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities and equipment will have
to be expanded, constructed,or purchased to meet this increased demand.
The Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct and cumulative
effect of future development.Each new development will contribute to the need for
new public facilities.Without future development many of the new public facilities on
the Needs List would not be necessary as the existing facilities are generally adequate
for the City’s present population.In instances where facilities would be built regardless
of new development, the costs of such facilities have been allocated to new and
existing development based on their respective level of benefit.
The proposed impact fee will be charged to all future development, irrespective of
location, within the City.Even future “in-fill”development projects contribute to
impacts on public facilities because they are an interactive component of a much
greater universe of development located throughout the City of Palo Alto.First, the
property owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in the City
can be expected to place additional demands on Palo Alto’s facilities funded by the
fee.Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and, in fact, may
not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail,employment,
and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future
development.Third, the availability of residents, employees, and customers
throughout the City has a growth-inducing impact without which some of the “in-fill”
development would not occur.As a result, all development projects within Palo Alto
contribute to the cumulative impacts of development.
The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public
facilities identified on the Needs Lists to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of
new development within the City.
B.THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2))
The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public
facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the Fee Study and other
appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development
in the City.The fee will provide a source of revenue to Palo Alto to allow for the
acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities, which in turn will both
preserve the quality of life in the City and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
existing and future residents and employees.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 6Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
C.DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEE’S USE AND THE TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP)(GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 66001(A)(3))
As discussed in Section A above, it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of
future development that has prompted the preparation of the Fee Study.Each
development will contribute to the need for new public facilities.Without future
development,the City would have no need to construct many of the public facilities on
the Needs List.For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing
and new development based on their level of benefit.Even future “in-fill”development
projects, which may be adjacent to existing facilities, further burden existing public
facilities.Consequently, all new development within Palo Alto,irrespective of location,
contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities
and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.
The fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the
public facilities identified on the Needs List and other authorized uses, as that is the
purpose for which the fee is collected.As previously stated, all new development
creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributes to the cumulative
impact on public facilities.Moreover, this impact is generally equalized among all
types of development because it is the increased demands for public facilities created
by the future residents and employees that create the impact upon existing facilities.
For the aforementioned reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition,
construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.
D.DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITY
AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP)
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(4))
As previously stated, all new development within the City, irrespective of location,
contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities
and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.Without future
development, many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary.For
certain other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new
development based on their level of benefit.
For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need
for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all new development within Palo
Alto.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 7Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
E.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (“ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY”
RELATIONSHIP)(GOVERNMENT CODE 66001(A)
As set forth above, all new development within the City impacts public facilities.
Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase in population
and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of all development in Palo Alto,
will adversely impact existing facilities.Thus, imposition of the fee to finance the
facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of
permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner.
New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively.In fact, without any
future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation of many of the
facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existing City facilities are
generally adequate.Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will
utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.
The proposed fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new
development based on the analyses contained in Section V.Thus there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well as
establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City provided DTA with projections of future
population and development within Palo Alto.DTA categorized developable residential land
uses as Single Family and Multi-Family.Developable non-residential land uses within the
City’s commercial, office,and industrial zones are categorized as Commercial,
Office/Institutional,and Industrial respectively. Additional details are included in the table
below.Based on these designations, DTA established fees for the following five (5)land use
categories to acknowledge the difference in impacts resulting from various land uses and to
make the resulting fee program implementable.
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION
FOR FEE STUDY
DEFINITION
Single Family Includes single family detached homes
Multi-Family
Includes buildings with attached residential units including apartments, town
homes, condominiums, and all other residential units not classified as Single
Family Detached
Commercial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Retail
Service-oriented business activities
Department stores, discount stores, furniture/appliance outlets, home
improvement centers
Entertainment centers
Sub-regional and regional shopping centers
Office/Institutional
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Business/professional office
Professional medical offices and hospitals
Schools
Industrial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Light manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, wholesaling;
Large-scale warehouse retail
Service commercial activities
Public uses, arterial roadways and freeways providing automobile and public
transit access
Automobile dealerships
Support commercial services
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan1 (the “Comprehensive Plan”)demographics were
used as estimates of the number of housing units and nonresidential building square feet to
be built in the City.In addition, the Comprehensive Plan was used to project the additional
population generated from new development.However, Comprehensive Plan Update data
was also reviewed in light of projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(“ABAG”).
1 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan (1998).See also Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in progress).
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 9Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Notably, DTA attempted to utilize metrics (e.g. average household size) that standardized
existing demographics with the projections found in the Comprehensive Plan.
Future residents and employees will create additional demand for facilities that existing public
facilities cannot accommodate.In order to accommodate new development in an orderly
manner, while maintaining the current quality of life in the City, the facilities on the Needs List
(Section IV), as reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 3, 2014,will need to be
constructed.For those facilities that are needed to mitigate demand from new development,
facility costs have been allocated to new development only.In those instances when it has
been determined that the new facilities will serve both existing and new development, facility
costs have been allocated based on proportionate benefit (see Equivalent Dwelling Unit
discussion in Section V).
The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures that were used
in calculating the impact fees.
1.EXISTING POPULATION FOR LAND USE CATEGORIES
According to information provided by the City of Palo Alto, and generally confirmed by
the California Employment Development Department –Demographic Research Unit,
there are 17,614 existing Single Family units and 10,843 existing Multi-Family units
within the City.
DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City of Palo Alto
and the Comprehensive Plan which assume resident-per-unit factors of 2.68 and 2.12
per Single Family unit and Multi-Family unit, respectively.Therefore, the City
population is generally comprised of 70,193 residents living in 28,457 Single Family
and Multi-Family homes.
Table 1 below summarizes the existing demographics for the residential land uses.
TABLE 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DTA has also utilized the following non-residential demographic information provided
by the City of Palo Alto which assumes existing City non-residential land uses utilize
employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors of 3.00, 2,50 and 1.00 employees per
1,000 building square feet of Commercial, Office/Institutional, and Industrial,
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 10Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
respectively.This results in 11,662 existing Commercial employees,63,534 existing
Office/Institutional employees, and 18,099 existing Industrial City employees,as
shown in Table 2 below.Each of these figures are generally confirmed by data from
the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Importantly,for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study,EDUs are calculated
based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”)generated by each
land use class.“Persons Served”equal Residents plus 50% of Employees,and is a
customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service
demanded by employees.For existing Persons Served estimates, please reference
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESTIMATED EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
2.FUTURE POPULATION FOR NEW LAND USE CATEGORIES (2035)
According to information provided by the City of Palo Alto,and confirmed by ABAG,
there are projected to be an additional 6,839 Single Family units and 3,331 Multi-
Family units within the City-wide area at 2035, the time horizon utilized for this Fee
Study.
DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City of Palo Alto
which assumes future resident-per-unit factors of 2.68 and 2.12 per Single Family unit
and Multi-Family unit, respectively. This results in an additional 10,170 residents living
in 4,123 Single Family and Multi-Family homes within the City.
Table 3 on the following page summarizes the future demographics for the residential
land uses.
TABLE 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 11Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
In terms of non-residential property, Palo Alto expects to generate 21,428 future jobs,
which can be broken down into 2,679 jobs relating to Commercial development,
14,592 jobs for Office/Institutional development, and 4,157 jobs for Industrial
development within the City.
The City of Palo Alto provided the projected employment discussed above, which
results in estimated employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors of 3.00,2,50,and
1.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Commercial, Office/Institutional,
and Industrial, respectively,as shown in Table 4 below.
Again,for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated
based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”)generated by each
land use class.“Persons Served”equal Residents plus 50% of Employees,and is a
customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service
demanded by employees.For future Persons Served estimates, please reference
Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
Importantly, the land use categories that have been discussed above are consistent
with (i) growth projections prepared by the City for the Comprehensive Plan, and (ii)
land uses generally included in other development impact fee programs of the City.
3.EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU)PROJECTIONS
Equivalent Dwelling Units (“EDU”) are a means of quantifying different land uses in
terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is
measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public
facility.Since nearly all of the facilities proposed to be financed by the levy of impact
fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number
of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land
use class.For other facilities, different measures, such as number of trips, more
accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use type.The EDU projections
for each facility are shown in the fee derivation worksheets in Appendix A.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Identification of the facilities to be financed is a critical component of any development impact
fee program.In the broadest sense,the purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities.“Public Facilities”per
Government Code Section 66000 includes “public improvements and community amenities.”
Government Code Section 66000 requires the identification of those facilities for which
impact fees are going to be used as the key financing mechanism.Identification of the
facilities may be made in an applicable general or specific plan, other public documents, or
by reference to a Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”).
DTA has worked closely with City staff to develop the list of facilities to be included in the Fee
Study (“the Needs List”).Additionally, the Needs List was reviewed and approved by the City
Council on March 3, 2014 at a public hearing.For purposes of the City’s fee program, the
Needs List is intended to be the official public document identifying the facilities eligible to be
financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on new
development within Palo Alto.The Needs List is organized by facility element (or type) and
includes a cost section consisting of six (6)columns, which are defined in Table 5 below:
TABLE 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NEEDS LIST
EXPLANATION OF COST SECTION
Column Title Contents Source
Total Cost for Facility
The total estimated facility cost including
engineering, design, construction, land
acquisition, and equipment (as applicable)
City
Offsetting Revenues
to New & Existing
Development
Share of Total Offsetting Revenues
allocated to new and existing development City
Net Cost to City
The difference between the Total Cost and
the Offsetting Revenues (column 1 plus
column 2)
Calculated by DTA
Percent of Cost
Allocated to New
Development
Net Cost Allocated to New Development
based on New Development’s Share of
Facilities
Calculated by DTA
Net Cost Allocated to
New Development
The Net Cost to City Multiplied by the
Percentage Cost Allocated to New
Development
Calculated by DTA
Policy Background or
Objective
Identifies policy source or rationale for
facility need
City Council or
Comprehensive Plan
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 13Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
DTA surveyed City staff on required facilities needed to serve new development as a starting
point for its fee calculations.As part of the survey, DTA conducted extensive research with
City departments such as Planning, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Library, Transportation,
etc.,and then narrowed the focus to those facility needs that were deemed most timely and
prudent to include in the Fee Study.More specifically, the survey included the project
description, justification, public benefit, estimated costs, and project financing for each
proposed facility.Through regular discussions between DTA and City staff, the Needs List has
gone through multiple series of revisions to fine-tune the needs, costs, and methodologies
used in allocating the costs for each facility.For purposes of the fee program, it was
determined that a planning horizon through 2035 would be appropriate.Importantly,
escalations in project construction costs could be included in future fee increases that would
need to be approved by the Palo Alto City Council.
The final Needs List is shown on the following page.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 14Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Pursuant to the nexus requirements of Government Code 66000, a local agency is required
to “determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.”It is impossible to precisely determine the impact that a specific
new residential unit, commercial project, or industrial development will have on existing
facilities.Additionally, predicting future residents’or employees’specific behavioral patterns,
park and transportation, and health and welfare requirements is extremely difficult, and would
involve numerous assumptions that are subject to substantial variation.Recognizing these
limitations, the Legislature drafted AB 1600 to specifically require that a “reasonable”
relationship be determined, not a direct cause and effect relationship.
There are many methods or ways of calculating fees, but they are all based on determining
the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of
development.Each of the fee calculations employs the concept of an Equivalent Dwelling
Unit (“EDU”) or Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”)to allocate benefit among the five (5)land use
classes.EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to
a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure
use or benefit for each type of public facility.For many of the facilities considered in this Fee
Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons
Served”)generated by each land use class.For other facilities, different measures, such as
number of trips, more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use class.Table
6 below shows total existing and projected EDUs or EBUs by facility type.
Notably,“Persons Served”equal Residents plus 50% of Employees,and is a customary
industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
TABLE 6
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
The following sections present the reasonable relationship for benefit, impact,and rough
proportionality tests for each fee element (i.e.,public safety and general government) and the
analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of facility on the Needs List.More
detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included in Appendix A.
Importantly, since the level of service (“LOS”)being requested for new development by City
department heads is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of
the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in
the following manner:
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 16Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
1.New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is
equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2.The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being
requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing
development and new development, based on the relative number of equivalent
dwelling units (“EDUs”) assigned to existing development and new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 17Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
A.PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
The Public Safety element includes those facilities used by the City to protect life and
property. In order to serve new development through buildout in 2035, the City
identified the need for two (2)new fire stations. One (1)of the two (2)fire stations,
and the equipment required to service this fire station, is needed to serve new
development almost exclusively and will be funded 100% by new development, while
the other fire station will serve both new and existing development.Thus, the cost of
the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being requested by the City
and the existing LOS has been allocated between existing development and new
development, based on the relative number of EDUs assigned to existing development
and new development.
Additionally, there is a need for other facilities,public safety specialty vehicles,and
training stations to serve both existing and projected development.Therefore, the
costs of these facilities have been allocated between existing development and new
development based on their percentage of build out EDUs.
TABLE 7
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Public Safety Facilities
Identify Use of Fee Construction,acquisition and/or upgrade
of Police and Fire Facilities and equipment
Demonstrate how there is
a reasonable relationship
between the need for the
public facility, the use of
the fee, and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential
development will generate additional
residents and employees who will require
additional service calls increasing the
need for trained Police and Fire personnel.
Buildings and vehicles used to provide
these services will have to be expanded,
constructed,or purchased to meet this
increased demand.Thus a reasonable
relationship exists between the need for
Public Safety facilities and the impact of
residential and non-residential
development.The Public Safety fees
collected from new development will be
used exclusively for public safety
purposes.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 18Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Table 8 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with
the collection of Public Safety fees.Costs are based on estimates provided by the City.
TABLE 8
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FACILITY COSTS
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential
land uses as detailed in Appendix A.Each land use classification was assigned an EDU
factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined
as the persons per household (for residential units)and 50% of the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential
development.
Public Safety Building Improvements
According to the City,it has been determined that this facility is needed to serve
new development.Currently,this proposed facility is operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81%of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 19Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 9
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING IMPROVEMENT
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fire Station Improvements
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are generally operating at
an appropriate and acceptable level of service, though less so than many of the
other public safety facilities and improvements; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
46.85% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 53.15% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
TABLE 10
FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Public Safety Vehicles
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are generally operating at
an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
69.63% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 30.37% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 20Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 11
PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Public Safety Training Tower Modernization
According to the City,it has been determined that this facility modernization is
needed to serve new development.Currently,this facility is operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
TABLE 12
PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING TOWER MODERNIZATION
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fee Amounts
Table 13 presents a summary of the derivation of EDUs, fee amounts,and the costs
financed by fees for the Public Safety Facilities on the Needs List.The details of the
fee calculation are presented in Appendix A.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 21Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 13
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in
Table 13 will finance 23.47% of the net costs of the Public Safety Facilities identified
on the Needs List.The remaining 76.53% of the net costs of facilities will be funded
through other sources.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 22Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
B.GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
The General Government Facilities Element includes those facilities used by the City
to provide basic governmental services and public facilities maintenance services,
exclusive of public safety.
TABLE 14
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Identify Purpose of Fee General Government Service Facilities
Identify Use of Fee Modernization of City Office and Building Improvements and
Replacement of Municipal Services Center.
Demonstrate how
there is a reasonable
relationship between
the need for the public
facility, the use of the
fee, and the type of
development project
on which the fee is
imposed
New residential and non-residential development in the City
will generate additional residents and employees who will
increase the demand for services,including municipal services
and general government functions.Population and growth has
a direct impact on the need for government services and
facilities, thus a reasonable relationship exists between new
development and government facilities, which will have to be
acquired to meet the increased demand.Fees collected from
new development will be used exclusively for the City
Government Service Facilities on the Needs List.
TABLE 15
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES COST
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 23Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential
land uses as detailed in Appendix A.Each land use classification was assigned an EDU
factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined
as the persons per household (for residential units)and 50% of the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential
development.
CITY OFFICE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development as presented in Table 16 below.
TABLE 16
CITY OFFICE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Municipal Services Center Replacement
According to the City,it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development.Currently, these facilities are operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore,the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out.Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development as presented in Table 17 below.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 24Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
TABLE 17
MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER REPLACEMENT
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fee Amounts
Table 18 presents a summary of the derivation of EDUs, fee amounts and the costs
financed by fees for the general government facilities on the Needs List.The details
of the fee calculation are presented in Appendix A.
TABLE 18
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in
Table 18 will finance 15.19% of the net costs of the General Government Facilities
identified on the Needs List.The remaining 84.81% of the net costs of facilities will be
funded through other sources.
SECTION VI: SUMMARY OF FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Development Impact Fee Justification Study April 29, 2014
The total fee amounts to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities in the
Needs Lists are summarized in Tables 19 & 20 below.
TABLE 19
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
TABLE 20
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
http://localhost/resources/home/Clients/Palo Alto/AB 1600 -2012/AB 1600 Update/DIFReport DRAFT v.8.docx
Appendix A
Fee Derivation Worksheets
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
Public Safety Building (Replacement)0 Square Feet
Fire Stations (Modernized)5 Integrated Facility
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles
Training Tower (Modernized)0 Integrated Facility
Public Safety Facilities NA NA
II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a][d]
Number of [b][c]Total
Units/Persons Served per Unit/EDUs per Unit/Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF 1,000 Non-Res. SF Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 17,614 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 10,843 2.12 0.79 8,577
Commercial 3,887 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 25,414 1.25 0.47 11,853
Industrial 18,099 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 43,597
III. Existing Facility Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
Public Safety Building (Replacement)0 Square Feet 0
Fire Stations (Modernized)5 Integrated Facility 0.11
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles 0.41
Training Tower (Modernized)0 Integrated Facility 0
Public Safety Facilities NA NA NA
IV. Future EDU Calculation
[a][b][d]
Number of Residents per Unit/[c]Total
Units/Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF [1]Non-Res. 1,000 SF [2]Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 2,552 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 1,571 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 893 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 5,837 1.25 0.47 2,722
Industrial 4,157 0.50 0.19 776
Total 7,807
V. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's
Public Safety Building (Replacement)44,850 Square Feet $57,000,000 5,745.17
Fire Stations (Modernized)2 Integrated Facility $14,200,000 0.26
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles $17,000,000 2.31
Training Tower (Modernized)1 Integrated Facility $8,000,000 0.13
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $96,200,000
VI. Allocation of Public Safety Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs)
A.1 Public Safety Building Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 5,745.17 5,745.17 44,850.00 44,850.00
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
A - 1
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
A.2 SF Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%38,038.73 NA 38,038.73
New Development 7,807 15.19%6,811.27 0.00 6,811.27
Total 51,404 100.00%44,850.00 44,850.00
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type SF Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 38,039 84.81%$48,343,543New Development 6,811 15.19%$8,656,457
Total 44,850 100.00%$57,000,000
B.1 Fire Station Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.11 7,806.55 0.90 0.26 0.14 1.10 2.00
B.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%0.94 NA 0.94 New Development 7,807 15.19%0.17 0.90 1.06
Total 51,404 100.00%1.10 2.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 0.94 46.85%$6,652,177New Development 1.06 53.15%$7,547,823
Total 2.00 100.00%$14,200,000
C.1 Public Safety Vehicles
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.41 7,806.55 3.22 2.31 1.89 14.78 18.00
C.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%12.53 NA 12.53
New Development 7,807 15.19%2.24 3.22 5.47
Total 51,404 100.00%14.78 18.00
A - 2
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 12.53 69.63%$11,836,499
New Development 5.47 30.37%$5,163,501
Total 18.00 100.00%$17,000,000
D.1 Public Safety Training Tower (Modernized)
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 0.13 0.13 1.00 1.00
D.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%0.85 NA 0.85
New Development 7,807 15.19%0.15 0.00 0.15
Total 51,404 100.00%1.00 1.00
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 0.85 84.81%$6,785,059
New Development 0.15 15.19%$1,214,941
Total 1.00 100.00%$8,000,000
Section Cost Allocated Total Cost Per
VI Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
E.1 Public Safety Facilities $22,582,723 7,807 $2,892.79
Offsetting Revenues $0 7,807 $0.00
Total $22,582,723 $2,892.79
VIII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
EDUs Per Fees Per Number of Units/Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. 1,000 SF DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $2,893 2,552 $7,382,429
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $2,314 1,571 $3,635,639
Commercial 0.56 $1,619 893 $1,445,601
Office/Institutional 0.47 $1,349 5,837 $7,875,517
Industrial 0.19 $540 4,157 $2,243,537
Total Allocated to New Development $22,582,723
Outside Funding Responsibility $73,617,277
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $96,200,000
Notes:
[1] Expected Housing Units based on data provided by the City of Palo Alto's Planning Department, confirmed by ABAG.
[2] Average Household Size Based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance (2013), City, and U.S. Census Bureau.
[3] Allocates 100% to new development square feet or equipment necessary to fund existing service standard for new residents.
[4] Denotes proposed service standard in excess to that currently provided to existing residents.
VII. Summary Cost Data
A - 3
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)0 Square Feet
Municipal Services Center Replacement 0 Square Feet
City Office & Building Improvements NA NA
II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a][d]
Number of [b][c]Total
Units/Persons Served per Unit/EDUs per Unit/Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF 1,000 Non-Res. SF Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 17,614 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 10,843 2.12 0.79 8,577
Commercial 3,887 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 25,414 1.25 0.47 11,853
Industrial 18,099 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 43,597
III. Existing Facility Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)0 Square Feet 0
Municipal Services Center Replacement 0 Square Feet 0
City Office & Building Improvements NA NA NA
IV. Future EDU Calculation
[a][b][d]
Number of Residents per Unit/[c]Total
Units/Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF [1]Non-Res. 1,000 SF [2]Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 2,552 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 1,571 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 893 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 5,837 1.25 0.47 2,722
Industrial 4,157 0.50 0.19 776
Total 7,807
V. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)21,481 Square Feet $25,556,000 2,751.66
Municipal Services Center Replacement 83,000 Square Feet $60,450,000 10,632.09
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Cost of General Government Facilities $86,006,000
VI. Allocation of General Government Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs)
A.1 City Office & Building Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 2,751.66 2,751.66 21,481.00 21,481.00
A.2 SF Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus SF allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%18,218.73 NA 18,218.73
New Development 7,807 15.19%3,262.27 0.00 3,262.27
Total 51,404 100.00%21,481.00 21,481.00
City of Palo Alto
General Government Fee Calculation
A - 4
City of Palo Alto
General Government Fee Calculation
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type SF Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 18,218.73 84.81%$21,674,870
New Development 3,262.27 15.19%$3,881,130
Total 21,481.00 100.00%$25,556,000
B.1 Municipal Services Center Replacement
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.55 0.00 10,632.09 10,632.09 83,000.00 83,000.00
B.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus SF allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%70,394.98 NA 70,394.98
New Development 7,807 15.19%12,605.02 0.00 12,605.02
Total 51,404 100.00%83,000.00 83,000.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 70,394.98 84.81%$51,269,599
New Development 12,605.02 15.19%$9,180,401
Total 83,000.00 100.00%$60,450,000
Section Cost Allocated Total Cost Per
VI Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
C.1 City Office & Building Improvements $13,061,531 7,807 $1,673.15
Offsetting Revenues $0 7,807 $0.00
Total $13,061,531 $1,673.15
VIII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
EDUs Per Fees Per Number of Units/Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. 1,000 SF DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,673 2,552 $4,269,893
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $1,339 1,571 $2,102,803
Commercial 0.56 $936 893 $836,116
Office/Institutional 0.47 $780 5,837 $4,555,089
Industrial 0.19 $312 4,157 $1,297,630
Total Allocated to New Development $13,061,531
Outside Funding Responsibility $72,944,469
Total Cost of General Government Facilities $86,006,000
Notes:
[1] Expected Housing Units based on data provided by the City of Palo Alto's Planning Department, confirmed by ABAG.
[2] Average Household Size Based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance (2013), City, and U.S. Census Bureau.
[3] Allocates 100% to new development square feet or equipment necessary to fund existing service standard for new residents.
[4] Denotes proposed service standard in excess to that currently provided to existing residents.
VII. Summary Cost Data
A - 5
Existing EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/Total
Land Use Type Persons Served *1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs
Single Family Residential 47,206 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 22,987 2.12 0.80 8,674
Commercial 5,831 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 31,767 1.25 0.47 11,853
Industrial 9,050 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 116,840 43,694
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (American Community Survey).
** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
Future EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/Total
Land Use Type Persons Served *1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs
Single Family Residential 6,839 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 3,331 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 1,339 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 7,296 1.25 0.47 2,722
Industrial 2,079 0.50 0.19 776
Total 20,884 7,807
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (American Community Survey).
** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
City of Palo Alto
EBU & EDU Calculation Year to Build-Out (2035)
A - 6
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
2250 Hyde Street
5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone (800) 969-4382
City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fees
As per FY 2014 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule page 17-3, with revisions
Type of Project Parks Community Centers Libraries Housing
Total Fees (NIC
Transp.)Transportation
Residential - New Homes Only*
Single family < 3,000 sq. feet $10,638/residence $2,758/residence $963/residence EXEMPT $14,359/res.
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Single family >3,000 sq. feet $15,885/residence $4,129/residence $1,434/residence EXEMPT $21,448/res.
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family </= 900 sq. feet $3,521/unit $916/unit $316/unit EXEMPT $4,753/unit
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family >900 sq. feet $6,963/unit $1,815/unit $565/unit EXEMPT $9,343/unit
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Non-residential
Commercial/Industrial
$4,517 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$255 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$243 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$18.89 per sq
ft
$23.89 per net
new sq ft
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Hotel/Motel
$2,043 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$115 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$102 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$18.89 per sq
ft
$21.15 per net
new sq ft
$3,197 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Residential Subdivisions
Single-family
Multi-family
Special Zones Traffic Impact Fee
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS
Zone
$11.08 per net new sq
ft
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area $2.28 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Commercial $0.34 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Residential $1,168 per unit
Parking in-lieu fee for Downtown
Assessment District
$60,750 per parking
space
Notes: "Single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit
**In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee is an option only for projects of < 50 parcels.
Fee Category
Parkland Dedication Fee**
*Square footage refers to living area, not lot size.
531 sq ft of parkland/unit or $58,366/unit in-lieu fee
366 sq ft of parkland/unit or $40,187/unit in-lieu fee
Attachment C
ACTION ITEMS
8. From Finance Committee Review of Development Impact Fees: List of
Public Facilities Capital Needs.
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director and Chief Financial Officer,
indicated Staff was asked to review Development Impact Fees (DIF).
Information was introduced at the Finance Committee a few months prior.
Nathan Perez, Vice President of David Taussig and Associates (DTA),
reported DIF were not taxes, special assessments, or user fees. DIF could
not be used to cover ongoing operations, maintenance costs, and the like.
Per AB 1600, DIF were an attempt to allow municipalities to recover their
fair share from new development. DIF had a nexus requirement and could
not be arbitrary. DIF required a great deal of demographic research and
costing of projected facilities throughout the timeframe of the Nexus Study
update. The current study covered the timeframe through 2035. Previously
the City asked DTA to provide a comparative survey of DIF for peer
communities to Palo Alto. There were not many peer communities to Palo
Alto. Sometimes information was difficult to obtain, because staff in other
cities were not always helpful. Per the Finance Committee's request, DTA
reviewed DIF as a percentage of average home sales price. With the $1.5
million average home price in December 2013, Palo Alto was in line with
other cities on the Peninsula. DTA recommended updating the Citywide
transportation fee, adding a public safety fee for the Public Safety Building,
and adding a general government fee for larger municipal offices and capital
improvements. DTA sought the Council's approval of the needs list.
Following Council approval of the needs list, DTA would calculate fee levels
and then prepare a draft and/or final Nexus Study for review. If the final
study reflected updates to fees, they would be incorporated via City
Ordinance and could be a source for additional revenue in the future.
Mr. Lalo Perez noted the Infrastructure Committee was working on funding
for infrastructure projects. Some of the numbers on the needs list would not
align to the infrastructure item later in the Agenda. Staff requested the
Council focus on the list itself. The cost and funding sources would be
updated as decisions were made. The needs list contained more projects
than the infrastructure project list, because the Infrastructure Committee
was considering projects that were not fundable with existing City funds.
Staff compiled the needs list beginning with projects that were currently in
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The needs list was a snapshot in
time for projects likely to be undertaken. Staff initially had an effective date
of July 1. It became evident in Finance Committee discussions that Staff
needed more time to review the project list. The Finance Committee
questioned why the water, sewer and storm drain fee connections seemed to
Page 9 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
be higher than surrounding benchmarked cities. In 2008, the Council
approved an increase in fees be phased in over three years based upon a fee
analysis. The resetting of that fee was based on a complete analysis of the
total cost including projected needs for infrastructure. The City provided an
exemption for residential remodeling. The Finance Committee also
questioned the possibility of changing the residential remodeling exemption.
Council Member Burt, Chair of the Finance Committee in 2013, reported the
Finance Committee recommended the topic be an action item in order to
provide adequate transparency and additional opportunity for public
participation and Council comment. Three main areas dominated the
Finance Committee's discussion: 1) whether the transportation fee was
adequate; 2) why the wastewater fee was higher than surrounding cities;
and 3) should the City have a public safety or fire fee. The Finance
Committee did not want to limit Council discussion to those three topics.
Vice Mayor Kniss requested the Finance Committee's determination as to
why the City did not have a public safety or fire fee.
Council Member Burt stated the Finance Committee did not make a
determination.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked why the City did not have a public safety or fire fee.
Council Member Burt noted the Finance Committee discussed that.
Vice Mayor Kniss wanted to know what would be required for the City to
develop a public safety or fire fee. The City was always searching for ways
to augment revenue.
Mr. Nathan Perez needed the Council's approval of the needs list in order to
develop fees. DTA would then utilize demographic information and cost to
arrive at estimated fees. To calculate a fee, the costs in any given category
were divided by generally the number of dwelling units projected over the
horizon of the fee update.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt the Council first should determine whether or not the
City needed such a fee. She understood Council Member Burt wanted
Council feedback. She wanted to know what the Council needed to do to get
a policy on the table and then to decide whether or not to implement a fee.
Mr. Lalo Perez referenced Attachment A of DTA's report, Item B Public Safety
facilities. The first item was the Public Safety Building (PSB). At the time
that the listing was compiled, the Council had multiple options for funding a
PSB. Once the Council made decisions regarding a funding source, the $57
million amount in the table could change to $0. A fully funded project could Page 10 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
not be contained in the needs list. As the Council made decisions, Staff
could calculate an amount for a potential fee.
Council Member Scharff asked if DTA would recommend changes to fee
amounts based on the Nexus Study.
Mr. Nathan Perez explained that consultants typically did not recommend
new fees that were less than existing fees. The Council retained the
authority to charge less than the existing fee amount.
Council Member Scharff noted the City's park fee was substantially less than
park fees charged in other cities. He inquired whether the Nexus Study
would suggest the maximum park fee the City could charge.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the Nexus Study would utilize the costs noted in
Attachment A divided by demographic numbers to calculate a projected fee
moving forward. Park fees were omitted from the list because he
understood that park fees would not be increased based upon total costs.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that most of the projects identified for parks was
funded through the CIP. The net cost for identified park projects was very
low. Community Services and Public Works Departments were
approximately one year away from completing a Master Plan for parks;
therefore Staff did not have a full picture of parks needs.
Council Member Scharff did not believe Staff was ready to move forward
with the study. He asked why a purchase of land for parks was not included
in the needs list.
Mr. Nathan Perez surveyed every City department for a list of projects. The
threshold for needs for parks would not result in a higher fee.
Council Member Scharff felt there were many needs for parks over the next
30 years. He was not comfortable moving forward on that basis.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the parks list of projects was inclusive, but the
ultimate cost of the facilities on that list would not be great enough to
increase the fee.
Council Member Scharff asked if the list contained all the facilities, including
additional parks, that could possibly be needed. Staff presented information
before completing the Master Plan for parks.
Mr. Lalo Perez noted the Council in the future could consider any fees that
were not adjusted at the current time and have the Master Plan as a source.
Page 11 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
If the Council delayed its decision, it could lose the opportunity of adjusting
other fees at the current time.
Council Member Scharff asked if the Council could carve out the parks fee
and return to it in the future.
Mr. Nathan Perez answered yes. Parks could be omitted at the current time
and the fee would remain the same. DTA could either add new categories or
increase other categories as applicable.
Council Member Scharff reiterated that the parks fee would remain in place
and the Council could review it at a later time.
Mr. Keene indicated the Council typically reviewed DIF every two to four
years. Staff could perform the review more often if the Council directed
them to do so.
Council Member Scharff asked why Cubberley was not included in the needs
list.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported the needs for Cubberley were not fully known.
Council Member Scharff stated the amount for a PSB was not known, and
asked how that discussion was different from Cubberley.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that the review of DIF had been delayed because of
the number of pending decisions. At the current time, the Council was more
likely to make a decision regarding the PSB than Cubberley. Cubberley
needed a great deal of negotiation and discussion. To include Cubberley in
the needs list, Staff needed a degree of certainty that a project would occur.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the needs list was a vision for the
community through 2035 or simply a list of projects that needed a funding
source. He did not see a consistent methodology.
Mr. Keene commented that the goal was to set a fee that was applied in a
given year to a new construction project. The Council could adjust fees each
year. Nothing precluded the Council from marginally adjusting one area
without reviewing all areas.
Mr. Nathan Perez noted the recommendations considered the total cost per
category. Given the lack of dollars in some categories, DTA determined that
updates could be better discussed at a later time.
Mr. Keene reported the needs list did not contain all definite unfunded
capital needs or community facilities. The Council could set a policy
Page 12 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
direction to add those needs. At the same time, DIF were practically applied
when a building permit was obtained. If the Council delayed adjustments on
recommended categories to obtain information for all categories, then the
City would lose revenue from increased fees for recommended categories.
Moving forward on some categories was in the City's best interests even if
the Council acknowledged it needed additional information for other
categories.
Council Member Scharff understood the City Manager suggested reviewing
DIF more frequently. He asked if more projects should be contained in the
needs list even though they could be removed from the list by November
2014.
Mr. Lalo Perez acknowledged that Staff should have given the Council the
full list of areas considered so the Council could appreciate the extensive
review. The full list for parks and recreation facilities contained 33 items
totaling a net cost of $57 million and included $6 million for athletic fields at
the Golf Course, $11 million for a City gymnasium, Cubberley field
restrooms, Cubberley roof replacement, Cubberley mechanical and electrical
upgrades, and Cubberley tennis courts. Even after including those dollar
figures, the analysis determined that an increased fee was not warranted.
Council Member Scharff stated rates did not necessarily decrease.
Mr. Nathan Perez responded correct. The Council retained authority to
charge less.
Council Member Scharff asked if the City was forced to lower the rate
because cost amounts were insufficient to maintain the current fee amount.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied no.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether legally the Council was required to
reduce an existing fee.
Mr. Nathan Perez indicated the law did not specifically state that. City
departments did an excellent job of reviewing projects. He did not
encourage benchmarking or finding a certain number that would result in
increased DIF. Staff developed a list of needs that did not meet the
threshold to increase rates. It could happen in a few years, at which time
the rates could be updated.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether a decision was made on the three
issued mentioned at the Finance Committee meeting.
Page 13 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Nathan Perez remarked that if the Council chose to eliminate big-ticket
items from the list, then they would be removed from the list prior to
calculating fees.
Council Member Scharff added that some big-ticket items needed to be
added to the list prior to calculating fees. Council Member Burt mentioned a
transportation fee, a wastewater fee, and a public safety fee. The question
was whether they would be included in the study to determine a fee.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported a transportation fee would be studied because the
net cost of many of the projects was relatively stable. Several projects,
especially the PSB, might be eliminated resulting in a low amount of costs
and a smaller fee. The Council should proceed with consideration of a
transportation fee until it made the final decisions on those projects. The
general government facilities fee could proceed, because MSC funding
sources were unclear.
Council Member Scharff asked why the MSC with an approximate cost of
$300 million was not included in the list.
Mr. Lalo Perez Staff explained that the dollar amount was not reliable and
was part of the CIP process.
Council Member Holman noted that parking impact fees were not included on
the list to be increased and had not been updated since 1989. The in-lieu
parking fee for Downtown development was updated in 1995 and
recommended for update. She asked why those were not included on the
list.
Mr. Nathan Perez agreed that those fees may need to be updated. Zonal
fees were outside the scope of DTA's contract.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that Staff was reviewing fees in manageable groups
and would continue the process with all fees.
Council Member Holman stated the definition of home demolition needed to
be changed, because of the exemption from impact fees and the lack of
proper assessment for property taxes. She inquired about the number of
projects that were more than 50 parcels in reference to page 87, Residential
Subdivisions of Over 50 Parcels.
Mr. Lalo Perez did not have an answer but would report back.
Council Member Holman felt the number should be lower, certainly not 50 as
she could not think of a single project over 50 parcels. She asked if a
California Avenue in-lieu fee was outside the scope of the presentation.
Page 14 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Lalo Perez answered yes.
Council Member Holman concurred with Council Member Scharff's comments
regarding parks. She inquired whether Staff presented the impact fee to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration.
Mr. Lalo Perez replied no. That had not been a part of the process.
Council Member Holman suggested Staff not be married to process. The
chart was all based on residential information.
Mr. Keene noted non-residential, commercial and industrial could be found in
the middle of the chart.
Council Member Holman had nothing to compare non-residential information
to as the chart was not provided in the packet. It was important to know
how Palo Alto tracked with other communities.
Mr. Lalo Perez would include that information in future Staff Reports.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff could provide that
information when the item returned to the Council.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied yes.
Council Member Holman noted the Staff Report did not contain the chart
referenced in the Finance Committee Minutes, which made it difficult to
follow the discussion. The chart appeared to be misleading because it
included the sewer hookup fee in the water, sewer, and storm drain fee.
Mr. Nathan Perez could reflect it either way. It was an outlier in otherwise
consistent data.
Council Member Holman felt it should at least have a footnote.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated each agency within Santa Clara County set fees in
different manners.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the comparison was difficult because Palo Alto
suggested a larger water main diameter than other cities. Each city had
different requirements that had to be considered in a comparison.
Council Member Holman was unsure whether commercial and industrial was
lower than residential.
Mr. Nathan Perez would provide that data. Palo Alto was relatively lower
compared to peer communities on the non-residential side. Page 15 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of money collected and the
length of time required to collect sufficient funds to construct a PSB.
Mr. Nathan Perez did not believe the City would collect sufficient funding
over the timeframe of the study. Fees would assist with funding but would
not solely fund a $57 million project. The cost of the project had to be
allocated between existing and new development. Using 25 percent for new
development, the fee would finance a maximum of $15 million.
Council Member Klein inquired about the source of 25 percent.
Mr. Nathan Perez explained that 25 percent was an approximation for
discussion. It generally considered existing versus future demographics.
Council Member Klein assumed that new construction, both commercial and
residential, would result in 1-2 percent of existing stock.
Mr. Nathan Perez concurred. Palo Alto was largely built out. The Nexus
Study could result in a figure closer to 15-20 percent.
Council Member Klein clarified that 15-20 percent was over the 20-year
period. Utilizing gross numbers, the most a fee devoted to the PSB would
generate was 20 percent of the cost over 20 years.
Mr. Nathan Perez agreed.
Council Member Klein calculated the present value to be a quarter of that or
5 percent. That fee would generate only a few million of the needed $57
million.
Mr. Nathan Perez concurred.
Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of funds collected from
DIF.
Mr. Lalo Perez did not have a cumulative total, but the transportation fee
collected $600,000 and the wastewater fee collected $1.3 million.
Council Member Klein asked about the time period over which those
collections spanned.
Mr. Lalo Perez reported funds had to be utilized within a five-year period.
Council Member Klein noted the report was delivered to Staff in May 2012,
and asked why Staff delayed presenting it to the Council for 22 months.
Page 16 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated the lack of a Budget Director prevented the project
from being a high priority for Staff.
Council Member Klein believed the City had cost itself money because the
project was not presented sooner.
Mr. Lalo Perez agreed there could have been a loss of revenue on the
transportation side. He did not know whether Staff would have had a good
inventory of projects if the project was presented sooner.
Council Member Klein inquired whether Staff could have hired a temporary
person with sufficient skills to shepherd the project.
Mr. Lalo Perez explained that such a person would need a certain amount of
internal knowledge to navigate the multitude of departments and personnel
to obtain data.
Council Member Price recalled Mr. Nathan Perez's comments regarding cities
not being forthcoming with information. She inquired whether the various
city categories in the chart of comparative survey results was a true picture
of all fees.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported it was a true picture except for the City of Santa
Clara.
Council Member Price felt the information contained significant gaps, and
asked if Mr. Nathan Perez was comfortable with the information.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied yes.
Council Member Price asked if the information was complete.
Mr. Nathan Perez responded yes. Affordable housing was the one category
that was charged incredibly differently across all cities. The affordable
housing category was sometimes difficult to equalize on a per unit basis.
Council Member Price concurred with other comments regarding adding
Cubberley to the list. This was a phased approach to DIF, because the
Council was attempting to determine a logical and proper methodology. She
inquired whether Mr. Nathan Perez's experience included situations where
DIF contained automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).
Mr. Nathan Perez reported that was quite common.
Mr. Lalo Perez added that COLA was utilized when fees were below 100
percent. The Council policy was not to set some fees at 100 percent. The
Page 17 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council was concerned about total impacts to projects. That was the reason
Staff did not mention use of an inflator.
Council Member Price asked if Staff considered cumulative impacts rather
than built-in adjustments for each category.
Mr. Lalo Perez indicated that was the Finance Committee's focus.
Council Member Price suggested Staff include more clarification points in the
chart. In facility costs or estimated facility costs, Staff should note the
baseline year. She inquired whether Mr. Nathan Perez was aware of the
Council's sensitivity to projected rates of growth promulgated by different
agencies.
Mr. Nathan Perez answered yes.
Council Member Price asked if his assumptions were consistent with Council
policies.
Mr. Nathan Perez replied yes.
Mayor Shepherd indicated the impact fees were for a new unit of housing.
She viewed the project as an effort to capture brand new fire stations and
police stations. There was a parks policy which Staff followed.
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
approve the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Project Needs List prior to
having the City’s consultant prepare the quantitative analyses and narratives
needed to update some categories of the City’s Development Impact Fees.
Mayor Shepherd expected the discussion would evolve and recognized that
the Council would need to make decisions regarding infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Kniss agreed the discussion would continue. Staff asked the
Council to approve a particular recommendation.
Council Member Burt noted the Committee reviewed DIF in early November
2013. Since that time, the Council had moved forward with infrastructure
projects. The Finance Committee was interested in vetting thoroughly a
number of major areas. Because of changes over the last five months,
returning the item to the Finance Committee for an update could be
appropriate.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member Scharff to return this item to the Finance Committee to be re-
evaluated.
Page 18 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Burt reiterated that a number of projects had changed since
the Finance Committee reviewed DIF. Returning the item to the Finance
Committee would not require a great deal of Staff time. He wished to move
the item forward rapidly and integrate the study with changes made in
infrastructure planning.
Council Member Scharff felt a more thorough vetting by the Finance
Committee would be productive and would save time.
Mr. Keene reported returning the item to the Finance Committee would
require some direction to Staff. Staff and DTA could continue with the
rational nexus component. Staff could work more quickly with clear
direction from the Council about specific gaps in the capital facilities needs
plan.
Council Member Klein was aghast that the Finance Committee would require
six months to vet the item. He requested Council Member Burt amend the
Substitute Motion to indicate the Finance Committee would provide a
recommendation to the Council, hopefully on the Consent Calendar, within
60 days.
Council Member Burt felt 90 days would be reasonable.
Council Member Klein wished the Finance Committee would complete its
review prior to beginning Budget hearings. Perhaps the Finance Committee
could provide a recommendation by May 15, 2014.
Council Member Burt requested the City Manager comment.
Council Member Klein suggested the Finance Committee would have more
work than Staff would have in vetting the item.
Council Member Burt noted Staff needed to reflect changes made by the
Infrastructure Committee, input from the Finance Committee, and input
from the Council discussion.
Council Member Klein agreed to the item returning to the Council in three
months, by the Council's first meeting in June.
Council Member Burt concurred. The item might be imperfect at that time,
but it would be more contemporary.
Council Member Scharff preferred to wait for work to be complete than to
have imperfect information. He questioned whether the item should return
on the Consent Calendar.
Page 19 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Klein indicated a return on the Consent Calendar was only a
hope. He wanted to see an item returned to the Council by the first meeting
in June 2014.
Mr. Keene explained that if the Finance Committee identified other capital
facility objectives, then that would require a rigorous analysis by Staff.
Projects should not be driven by a desire to set a new fee. The same Staff
would be working on this item and the Budget.
Council Member Scharff would agree to the Finance Committee hearing the
item in May 2014. The Finance Committee could decide it was not ready for
the Council at that time. He did want the Finance Committee to hear the
item prior to beginning the Budget.
Council Member Klein expressed concern that the item had already been
delayed two years as that cost the City money.
Council Member Scharff felt acting too quickly could also cost the City
money.
Council Member Klein believed if the Finance Committee did not finish the
item prior to beginning Budget hearings, then it would have a good excuse
not to work on it.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to bring this
back to the Council on Consent Calendar, contingent on a unanimous vote
by the Finance Committee, and to return to the Council by the first meeting
in June 2014 with whatever portion is ready.
Council Member Holman requested Staff answer questions such as the
meaning of residential subdivision of over 50 parcels. She inquired about
the basis for Mr. Nathan Perez stating commercial impact fees appeared to
be low compared to other communities. She suggested the Finance
Committee complete as much work as soon as possible and then determine
whether a second phase of work was needed.
Mayor Shepherd indicated the Finance Committee would have to make that
determination.
Council Member Burt agreed with the Finance Committee having the
discretion to bring some or all of the item to the Council at the same time.
The item would return on the Consent Calendar only if there was unanimous
approval by the Finance Committee.
Page 20 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Council Member Schmid agreed with many of Council Member Scharff's
comments. The Council was assessing DIF by utilizing the current CIP.
Using the CIP allowed the Council to determine the real expenditure for the
range of infrastructure needs at a point in time. The Council should not
chase itself by going back to the Finance Committee and removing some
items. The goal was to get a picture at one point time and use that as a
framework.
Council Member Price inquired whether Staff had sufficient information and
guidance to make some progress on this item, to make changes.
Mr. Keene reported if the work at the Finance Committee was anything like
the current discussion, Staff would not return for a long time. The
Amendment to the Substitute Motion was important. Staff did not provide a
meaningful response about the amount of work needed for this item. Staff
work needed to be contained if the Council wanted action at the current time
or in three months. The Council would have to settle for something less
than all the topics mentioned during the Council discussion. To do the work
correctly, Staff would need additional involvement from the Planning
Department, which was involved in many other Council projects.
Council Member Berman indicated Council Member Schmid's comments were
profound in that the Council could be chasing itself in trying to find the
perfect list of projects. He inquired whether the Finance Committee would
remove projects that were on the infrastructure list and maybe add projects
that had not been identified.
Mr. Lalo Perez stated that was his understanding. Staff would focus on the
three areas in their recommendation, rather than everything else.
Council Member Berman asked if the PSB would be removed from the list if
the Council decided to fully fund it regardless of the item returning to the
Finance Committee.
Mr. Lalo Perez answered yes.
Council Member Berman asked when the analysis would be completed if the
item was not returned to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Nathan Perez reported the goal would be to provide estimated fees for
the categories discussed to Staff within a month, and then to review those
fees with the Finance Committee or the Council. He wished to provide fee
levels as soon as possible.
Council Member Berman inquired whether projects contingent upon a
community vote would remain on the list. Page 21 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
Mr. Nathan Perez responded yes.
Council Member Berman would support the Motion, because the information
was sufficient.
Mr. Nathan Perez added that if the PSB were removed in two months, he
would have to redo everything because the PSB was such a large project.
Council Member Klein would not support the Substitute Motion because of
the language regarding the Finance Committee providing whatever portion
was ready.
Mayor Shepherd would not support the Substitute Motion. Council Member
Schmid articulated the situation well. The changes the Council made with
regard to infrastructure would be reflected in the list without returning the
item to the Finance Committee for review.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-6 Burt, Holman, Scharff
yes
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Holman no
Council Member Holman inquired when Staff could provide requested
information regarding fees.
Mayor Shepherd indicated Staff could provide the information outside the
Council meeting due to the lack of time. She inquired whether the Council
would have sufficient time to address Agenda Item Number 10, naming the
Main Library.
Mr. Keene announced naming of the Main Library would be continued to a
date uncertain.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
discuss Agenda Item No. 11 prior to Agenda Item Number 9.
MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Schmid, Shepherd no
Mr. Keene requested a time check-in at 10:00 P.M. to determine whether
Staff could be excused from the meeting.
11. Infrastructure Project and Funding Plan.
Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, recalled that the Infrastructure
Committee met three times since the item was last before the Council on
December 9, 2013. The Infrastructure Committee recommended the Council
Page 22 of 31
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 03/03/14
{1}{2}{3}
Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
A. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
1. Police Facilities
1 Public Safety Building ("PSB") - Replace (44,850 square feet)$57,000,000 $0 $57,000,000
Subtotal $57,000,000 $0 $57,000,000
2. Fire Facilities
2 Fire Station 3 (Rinconada Park - built 1948) - Replace $6,700,000 $0 $6,700,000
3 Fire Station 4 (Meadow/Middlefield - built 1953) - Replace $7,500,000 $0 $7,500,000
5 BC Van (x 2)$200,000 $0 $200,000
6 Fire Trucks (x 2)$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000
7 Type III Engine (x 2)$800,000 $0 $800,000
8 Training Tower & Related Land Acquisition $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000
9 Type I Engine (x 8) - 2024 $4,200,000 $0 $4,200,000
10 Ambulances (x 4) - 2022-2025 $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000
11 Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)$8,500,000 $0 $8,500,000
Subtotal $39,200,000 $0 $39,200,000
12 Pubic Safety Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES $96,200,000 $0 $96,200,000
1 Information Technology Upgrades $750,000 ($75,000)$675,000
2 Buildings Systems Improvements $6,300,000 ($100,000)$6,200,000
3 Civic Center Plaza Deck $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000
4 Municipal Services Center Improvements (through 2020) $ 1,991,000 $0 $1,991,000
5 Municipal Services Center - Replace (after 2020)$93,000,000 ($32,550,000)$60,450,000
6 Ventura Buildings Improvements $690,000 $0 $690,000
7 General Government Revenues not yet Committed $0 $0
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES 118,731,000$ (32,725,000)$ 86,006,000$
GRAND TOTAL $214,931,000 -$32,725,000 $182,206,000
B. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (COMMUNITY CENTER, INFORMATION TECHONOLOGY,
PUBLIC ART, ETC.)
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF PALO ALTO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
1
Attachment F
Attachment F
Attachment F
Finance Committee
Minutes
Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Chair Berman called the meeting to order at 8:17 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Berman (Chair), Burt, Holman, Kniss
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Implementation of
New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Fees.
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, reported Staff began the process of
reviewing Development Impact Fees (DIF) with a benchmark study
conducted by David Taussig & Associates (DTA). The process called for
development of a project needs list. From the net project cost of needs,
only 15 percent could be attributed to new development. The vast majority
of funds were allocated to current residents. Staff suggested the Finance
Committee (Committee) focus on two new fees. In November 2013, the
Committee recommended the project needs list be forwarded to the Council.
The Council accepted the list of projects for the two new DIFs. In April
2014, DTA completed a nexus study and developed two new fees, one for a
Public Safety Facility and one for General Government Facilities. Staff
recommended the Committee review the fees and make a recommendation
to the Council. DTA did not recommend changes to existing DIFs.
Nathan Perez, David Taussig & Associates, developed DIF amounts that
satisfied legal and technical requirements of Government Code
Section 66000, also known as the Fee Mitigation Act and Assembly Bill 1600
(AB 1600). The goal of AB 1600 was to demand that new development only
pay its fair share. Existing deficiencies could not be charged to new
development. The fee calculation employed the concept of an Equivalent
Dwelling Unit (EDU) to equalize or normalize impacts of residential versus
non-residential development. The Planning Department provided
1
Minutes
demographics, and he confirmed them generally against Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and U.S. Census data. The nexus for the
proposed DIFs was that new development demanded public safety and
general government facilities.
Mr. L. Perez recommended the Committee adopt the two DIFs at 75 percent,
consistent with current DIFs. He corrected a statement on Packet Page 7 in
that the revenue for a Public Safety Building would be derived from the
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase on new hotels only.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Berman that the
Finance Committee recommend the City Council review the Development
Impact Fee (DIF) Justification Study prepared by David Taussig & Associates
and approve the recommended new Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facility impact fees at 75 percent of the maximum allowable
level.
Vice Mayor Kniss understood existing homes would not be affected by new
DIFs.
Council Member Holman recalled inquiring about commercial impact fee
rates and learning that commercial rates were low. That was not reflected in
the Staff Report. The chart for Total Fees as an Average of Average Home
Price included office, retail, and industrial fees. Those numbers and
percentages were low. She asked how Staff accounted for those differences.
The descriptions for charts on Packet Pages 6 and 34 were different. The
presentation stated different classifications of non-residential use had
different demand. Daytime demand for emergency services was much
greater than nighttime demand, which indicated that non-residential demand
was greater than residential demand. Fees for non-residential appeared to
be low.
Mr. N. Perez believed the grouping was a product of charging the affordable
housing fee to commercial only and then industrial, research, and
development. Folks were not typically interested in industrial fees.
Council Member Holman inquired whether office was not charged an
affordable housing fee.
Mr. N. Perez responded yes, the affordable housing fee was not charged to
office. It was grouped in that manner because the $17.90 charge was not
levied on office. The current proposed fee structure was approximately 60
residential/40 non-residential. That could be modified, but it was within the
range of acceptable. Tilting it toward non-residential posed problems,
because some residents were employees and they were the same people
2 May 6, 2014
Minutes
demanding daytime services. Bi-furcating it would be very difficult. DTA
typically employed a service factor of 50 percent to account for that.
Chair Berman asked if Council Member Holman was questioning whether the
City's office, retail and industrial fee was lower than other communities' fees.
Council Member Holman clarified that she was asking whether the City was
low compared to demand being created and low compared to other
communities.
Mr. N. Perez viewed fees by category and then rolled them into a non-
residential fee. Non-residential fees as a whole could be low compared to
peer cities.
Council Member Holman stated the Committee was considering
implementing two fees, one of which is for public safety. There was a direct
relationship.
James Keene, City Manager, asked if Council Member Holman wanted to
know whether the City's non-resident fees for public facilities and public
safety were low in comparison to other cities.
Mr. N. Perez did not believe non-residential public safety and general
government fees were low.
Chair Berman interpreted the table differently. The City was lower than
other communities on residential and higher than other communities on
office and commercial. For example, the City's retail/industrial was twice the
average of the other eight cities.
Council Member Burt referred to the table heading "total fees as percent of
average home price," and asked why office fees or retail/industrial fees
would be correlated to home price.
Mr. Keene indicated the heading was wrong.
Nancy Nagel, Senior Management Analyst, explained that DTA presented the
residential fees as a percentage of home price. She extrapolated from that
and also looked at non-residential as a way of comparing communities.
Non-residential properties could pay more in Palo Alto possibly for the same
reasons that home prices were elevated in Palo Alto.
Council Member Burt did not understand the impact of average home price
in eight other cities on office and retail/industrial, and inquired about the
comparison.
3 May 6, 2014
Minutes
Ms. Nagel advised it was the average home price of all eight cities.
Mr. Keene clarified that Council Member Burt was inquiring about the office
component.
Ms. Nagel utilized per 1,000 square feet for the percentages.
Mr. Keene reported the fees were 1.2 percent of the cost per 1,000 square
feet.
Ms. Nagel stated that the fees per 1,000 square feet of office were 1.2
percent of the average home price in the other cities.
Council Burt did not see the relevance of that information.
Mr. N. Perez understood the information indicated office space would cost
more generally.
Mr. Keene interpreted the data to mean Palo Alto's fees were significantly
higher than the average fees per square foot in the eight other cities.
Vice Mayor Kniss asked Council Member Holman if she felt fees were too low
and should be altered.
Council Member Holman believed fees were too low. The presentation
discussed residential and non-residential development in a couple of places.
The fourth paragraph on page 4 of the Staff Report stated in part, Staff's list
of unfunded projected needs, given ABAG and Staff's projected population
growth rates ...." Population growth rates spoke to residential. She
questioned the impacts from office increases. She did not understand
whether the City was charging the correct rates for non-residential.
Mr. N. Perez considered the differential between existing and new. The most
important point was like comparisons. Palo Alto had great jobs data, so DTA
reviewed the existing number of jobs versus the bump to 2035.
Council Member Burt stated the City had relatively poor data. The Council
held significant community and Staff discussions regarding the uncertainty of
jobs data from various sources. If Mr. N. Perez had good jobs data, the
Council wanted to hear it.
Mr. N. Perez indicated Staff provided him with jobs data. He meant the data
was good relative to data provided by other communities.
4 May 6, 2014
Minutes
Council Member Burt reported that the City did not have a business registry
or a business license tax.
Mr. Keene reiterated that Mr. N. Perez received data from Staff that was
good relative to the data other jurisdictions gave him. That did not mean
that within Palo Alto the data was viewed as good. In commercial just as in
residential, the number of people determined service levels. The Committee
was interested in more accurate data regarding the business/commercial
side of the employee base. Once the City instituted a business registry and
obtained more specific employee counts, Staff and the Council would
automatically consider changing DIF methodologies.
Council Member Burt explained that Palo Alto was one of a small number of
cities that had neither a business registry nor a business license tax. Those
were fundamental vehicles by which other cities gathered data. He did not
understand how the City had better data when it lacked the most valuable
tool in gathering data. He needed Staff to reconcile Mr. N. Perez's
understanding that he received solid data on jobs and the Council's
understanding that Staff did not have that data.
Mr. N. Perez was utilizing the differential or margin of difference. To the
degree there was a flaw in existing data and it was carried through to future
projections, the flaw would be equalized.
Council Member Burt felt the 60/40 ratio may not apply either, because the
City's jobs to resident ratio was quite different from almost every other city
as well. It was not just the differential moving forward; it was the baseline
as well.
Mr. Keene clarified that the consultant made a qualitative statement about
the data. He would prefer to discuss methodologies.
Council Member Burt could agree to continuing the discussion if the
Committee began with that premise. If the premise was that the City had
good data, he could not agree to continue.
Mr. Keene believed the consultant drew conclusions based on factors other
than Staff indicating the data was good. He inquired whether a lack of good
data would change Mr. N. Perez's recommendations.
Mr. N. Perez responded no.
Council Member Holman was trying to understand the information and the
basis for the recommendation. She inquired about the City's daytime
population.
5 May 6, 2014
Minutes
Mr. Keene asked if she wanted the non-resident population as well.
Council Member Holman requested daytime population compared to
nighttime population.
Mr. Keene reported daytime population included workers who did not live in
Palo Alto, and asked if that was the figure she wanted.
Council Member Holman replied yes. She wanted to know why residential
paid 60 percent and non-residential 40 percent of fees when the City had
99,000 office workers and 65,000 residents.
Mr. Keene did not know the exact number for daytime population. Mr. Steve
Levy reported the City had the highest jobs to resident ratio in the state at
more than 3:1. It would be fair to say that a 60/40 split would not be a
normal distribution for Palo Alto.
Council Member Holman reiterated that 60/40 was the recommendation.
Those were her concerns about the foundation of the recommendations.
Council Member Burt had heard 99,000 and 120,000 for daytime population.
He inquired whether the normal split of fees would be 60 percent residential
and 40 percent commercial.
Mr. N. Perez indicated the fees as calculated were 60/40.
Council Member Burt asked if that was a typical approximation for other
cities.
Mr. N. Perez advised other cities would have a higher residential burden,
perhaps 75/25 or 70/30.
Council Member Burt remarked that the City had a baseline of residents who
remained in the community during the day. The higher service level served
both the baseline of residents during the day and workers. He inquired
about assumptions or base figures utilized for number of workers in
calculating the 60/40 baseline.
Mr. N. Perez utilized 65,000 to 75,000 existing residents and approximately
90,000 existing jobs. For 2035, he assumed an additional 10,000 residents
and an additional 20,000 jobs.
Council Member Burt asked if a jobs figure of 120,000 would change
calculations.
6 May 6, 2014
Minutes
Mr. N. Perez reported it would not change the existing versus new, assuming
projections for the future would be based on the same data. The number of
jobs would change the burden between residential and non-residential.
There were two elements to the calculations, and the Committee was
discussing the second one.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the baseline would change.
Mr. N. Perez replied yes.
Council Member Burt asked if the proportionate increase was the second
consideration.
Mr. N. Perez answered yes. The percentage as the existing incremental
differential would not change it. If the gradient remained roughly the same,
then it would not really change the burden.
Council Member Burt inquired whether a significantly higher number of
existing daytime workers than used in calculating other fees would change
the calculations for the amount the City charged commercial currently.
Mr. N. Perez would need to know the employee count for the target year and
the percentage increase. The important component was the differential.
Council Member Burt understood the issues to be whether the City had been
charging the correct fees and what fees should be charged in the future.
The City had a critical need for data.
Mr. N. Perez had never seen a 50/50 split. A 50/50 split would create
backlash from developers.
Council Member Burt asked if Mr. N. Perez had worked with other
communities that had twice as many workers as residents.
Mr. N. Perez answered of course not.
Council Member Burt felt Palo Alto was an anomaly in terms of the job to
resident ratio. Because Palo Alto was different from other cities, he
struggled with comparing Palo Alto to other communities.
Mr. N. Perez advised that counting an employee as 50 percent of a resident
was an industry standard. He could examine changing that; however he
would have reservations. If there was a different service factor, he could
7 May 6, 2014
Minutes
investigate and rerun the numbers. There was a defensibility to being a
unique community; however, he had never seen a fee study like that.
Council Member Burt asked if Mr. N. Perez stated the rule of thumb was one
worker equaled 50 percent of a resident.
Mr. N. Perez responded yes.
Council Member Burt stated that a 60/40 split would not be correct for
65,000 residents and 120,000 workers.
Mr. N. Perez concurred. Analyzing the workers was very difficult.
Mr. L. Perez understood the Committee's concerns. The Committee could
make decisions based on the current data and direct Staff to return in two
years when new demographics and data sets were available.
Mr. Keene supported that as the City could update and enhance fees at a
later time. If the Committee recommended fees outside the norm, then
Staff would need to perform sophisticated modeling to defend moving
outside the norm. He recommended the Committee adopt improvements
now and direct Staff to return later with updates as better information
became available.
Mr. N. Perez advised Staff was conscientious about the data they gave him.
He did not see that very often.
Council Member Holman noted jobs numbers had been published on the
City's web site and other places. Defensibility was an important criteria.
Fair share was an exceedingly important criteria. Residents recognized that
they subsidized non-residential development in the community. Everybody
should be responsible for their fair share; as best the City could calculate fair
share.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to split the residential and non-residential impact fees to 50/50
from 60/40.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt 50/50 might be more fair, but she did not believe the
City could defend it. The Committee's responsibility was to deliver the data
to the Council along with a recommendation that in the future non-
residential should bear more of the burden.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
8 May 6, 2014
Minutes
Council Member Holman would vote against the Motion. Other Council
Members would share her questions. She did not see the recommendation
as fair share. A great deal of information was available regarding the unique
jobs/housing imbalance.
Council Member Burt did not support the Amendment because the
Committee did not have sufficient data to make a determination. A 50/50
split would be based upon an assumption of slightly more than 120,000
workers. The Committee did not have that data. That would not be a new
industry standard; that would be a new assumption on the data. He
inquired about a timeline for updates regarding data.
Mr. Keene reported that a business registry would be the most direct path to
obtaining good data. He did not recall the timeframe for instituting a
business registry. A year would be a realistic timeframe to collect sufficient
data to conduct a good comparison. Staff would need an additional six
months to determine how to apply data, how to factor it, and other
variables. Not having a clear methodology or not being able to draw a clear
nexus placed the City in an awkward position.
Council Member Burt did not hear a response regarding the 90,000 worker
assumption. That was outside the range of figures he had heard over an
extensive period of time.
Mr. Keene would verify that information.
Council Member Burt suggested using the mean or a conservative number.
Mr. N. Perez did not indicate that was outside the range of his
understanding.
Mr. Keene advised that Staff was working to align all variable data points
generated over time. That could be done in the near term and would go
beyond the impact fee discussion.
Mr. N. Perez reported the 50/50 target was the reason AB 1600 was
enacted. He could not target a specific number. He could work with Staff
about the service factor and run additional numbers. He would not provide
something that was 50/50.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Holman no
9 May 6, 2014
City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fees
As per FY 2015 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule pages 23-1 and 23-2
Type of Project Parks Community Centers Libraries Housing
Total Fees (NIC
Transp.)Transportation
Residential - New Homes Only*
Single family < 3,000 sq. feet $11,180/residence $2,898/residence $1,012/residence EXEMPT $15,090/res.
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Single family >3,000 sq. feet $16,695/residence $4,339/residence $1,507/residence EXEMPT $22,541/res.
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family </= 900 sq. feet $3,700/unit $963/unit $332/unit EXEMPT $4,995/unit
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family >900 sq. feet $7,318/unit $1,907/unit $604/unit EXEMPT $9,829/unit
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Non-residential
Commercial/Industrial
$4,748 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$268 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$255 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$19.31 per sq
ft
$23.89 per net
new sq ft
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Hotel/Motel
$2,147 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$121 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$107 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$19.31 per sq
ft
$21.15 per net
new sq ft
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Residential Subdivisions
Single-family
Multi-family
Public Art Fee***
1% of first $100 mill. const. valuation; 0.9% of valuation above $1 mill.
Special Zones Traffic Impact Fee
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS
Zone
$11.64 per net new sq
ft
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area $2.40 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Commercial $0.36 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Residential $1,225 per unit
Parking in-lieu fee for Downtown
Assessment District
Notes: "Single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit
***Public Art Fee applies to residential projects of 5 units or more and new commercial projects with a floor area of at least 10,000 sq ft
and a construction value of at least $200,000.
**In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee is an option only for projects of < 50 parcels. (Larger projects must dedicate land.)
Certain Residential Projects and New
Commercial Projects***
Fee Category
Parkland Dedication Fee**
*Square footage refers to living area, not lot size.
531 sq ft of parkland/unit or $56,736/unit in-lieu fee
366 sq ft of parkland/unit or $39,106/unit in-lieu fee
$63,848 per parking space
Excerpt City Council Minutes
11/03/2014 116-029
Special Meeting
November 3, 2014
12.Finance Committee Recommends Proposed Changes in Development
Impact Fees: Direction to Draft Ordinance Implementing New Public
Safety Facility and General Government Facilities Impact Fees.
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director, recalled in March 2014 Staff
presented a list of projects that justified implementation of a Public Safety
Facility fee and a General Government Facilities fee. Staff presented a
nexus study to the Finance Committee in May 2014 and recommended
setting fees at 75 percent of the maximum level. At-places was a
memorandum regarding the setting of fees. Because the Finance Committee
voted 3 to 1 in support of the recommendation, the item was placed on the
Agenda as an Action Item. The Finance Committee expressed concerns
regarding the residential fee being unfairly high. Although fees were split
approximately 60/40 between residential and non-residential uses, the fee
based on per person served was closer to a 50/50 split. Table 19
summarized projected income from new fees, which also demonstrated a
more equal distribution of fees between residential and non-residential uses.
One challenge was the lack of data regarding number of employees;
however, Staff hoped the Business Registry would provide better data. The
Finance Committee was also concerned about the category breakdown.
Existing fees included a category that was different from the categories
proposed for the new fees. Categories for existing fees were implemented
more than ten years ago. Since that time, categories were standardized and
Staff proposed use of the standardized categories. Categories for existing
fees could not be changed to standardized categories unless the fee itself
was changed. Should the Council approve the new fees, Staff would return
with an Ordinance authorizing the new fees and a Resolution setting the
fees. Fees would be effective 60 days after adoption of the Ordinance and
would apply to new developments that had not received building permits
prior to the expiration of the 60-day period.
Council Member Berman reported the Finance Committee's discussion
primarily concerned the number of jobs in Palo Alto and the ratio of fees
charged to residential and non-residential uses. He inquired whether Staff
Attachment B
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 30
received new information to determine the ratio was 49 percent for
residential uses and 51 percent for non-residential uses.
Mr. Perez clarified that Staff's presentation to the Finance Committee did not
sufficiently explain the ratio.
Council Member Berman noted the Finance Committee voted 3 to 1 in favor
of the Staff recommendation.
Mayor Shepherd requested additional comment concerning the Finance
Committee's discussion of a 60/40 fee split.
Council Member Berman recommended Members of the Finance Committee
share the concerns they raised at the meeting. He requested Staff explain
changes that resulted in the 60/40 split shifting to a 49/51 split.
Mr. Perez explained that the proposed residential fees and non-residential
fees as stated in Table 20 resulted in the 60/40 split discussed at the
Finance Committee meeting. Calculating the fee per person served resulted
in the 49/51 split. The Finance Committee wanted a 50/50 split; however,
the consultant expressed concerns about that.
Council Member Berman added that the City could not choose a ratio and
make the fee fit that ratio.
Mr. Perez indicated Staff did not have good data regarding the number of
employees. The Finance Committee discussed delaying the new fees until
good data was available.
Council Member Berman remarked that the per person served calculation
provided a different analysis of the ratio.
Mr. Perez advised that the projected revenue from the two new fees would
be split approximately 50/50 between residential and non-residential uses.
Council Member Berman suggested the fees could be adjusted once reliable
data was obtained through the Business Registry.
Mr. Perez indicated an adjustment of the fees would require a new nexus
study utilizing new data. The Finance Committee discussed the multiple
sources of job and employee numbers.
James Keene, City Manager, reported the City had an established body of
work and tried and true methodologies. The recommendation was to impose
the fees and to begin collecting revenue. He wanted to obtain the highest
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 31
accuracy possible; however, that would be achieved in the future. Staff was
committed to a possible adjustment of the fees.
Council Member Klein inquired about the time period for collecting the
$35.64 million dollars stated in Table 19.
Mr. Perez responded through 2035.
Council Member Klein stated Table 19 indicated collections of $22.5 million,
approximately half the estimated cost of a new Public Safety Building. He
asked about the accounting procedure for collecting fees after construction
of the building.
Mr. Perez advised that the Council could adjust the fee downward so that net
expenses matched fees collected or allow the fee to continue at the same
level.
Council Member Klein offered a hypothetical scenario of constructing a Public
Safety Building in the next 12-18 months through other funding sources. He
asked what would happen with the fee for the following 20 years.
Mr. Perez explained that identified revenue must be reduced from the
amount of the expense. The Council would have to reset the fee to the net
amount that was unfunded.
Mr. Keene inquired whether future fees could repay an expense paid from
other sources.
Nathan Perez, Vice President of David Taussig and Associates, clarified that
fees could repay debt service or fund other public safety capital facilities with
a useful life of more than five years.
Council Member Klein requested Mr. Perez assume there were no other
facilities.
Mr. N. Perez reported that the Government Code required the City to credit
fees if there were no other capital needs on which to spend the fee in five
years.
Council Member Klein asked if the City could borrow against the fee.
Mr. N. Perez replied yes.
Mr. Perez clarified that the challenge in borrowing against the fee was
predictability of the fee revenue for a credit rating.
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 32
Council Member Klein believed the City would have to identify other public
safety capital needs in order to utilize the fee. The fee would not have an
impact on the Public Safety Building if it was constructed in the next year or
two.
Mr. Perez commented that only 15 percent of the cost could be allocated to a
development impact fee. Variables of cost and time would require Staff to
revisit the whole process.
Council Member Klein calculated the fee could contribute $7.5 million
towards the $50 million cost of a Public Safety Building.
Nancy Nagel, Senior Management Analyst agreed that $7.5 million would be
the maximum amount projected from collection of the fee over 20 years.
Mr. N. Perez suggested the amount would be $8 million, because collection
was a product of the pace of development in Palo Alto. If the Public Safety
Building was constructed at a lower cost than estimated, then the nexus
study would be incorrect. He vetted the cost of the needs list with Staff who
typically provided conservative cost amounts.
Council Member Schmid was interested in equivalent dwelling units. Table
19 indicated the amount was split roughly 50/50, because non-residential
uses were growing twice as fast as residential uses. Therefore, non-
residential uses were in essence paying half the amount of residential. The
Fire Study and Police Blotter seemed to imply that public safety was
spending roughly half their time on the daytime population.
He questioned the need for residents to pay twice as much as visitors when
visitors consumed more City services.
Mr. Keene clarified that the City was collecting a fee for capital facilities
rather than operating costs. The volume of calls for service did not directly
correlate with the need to invest in facilities. The Council could not utilize
service calls to determine who benefited from City services.
Mr. N. Perez added that there was a tension between relative fee levels and
absolute fee amounts. If the amount collected from fees was approximately
50/50, then the tension became more balanced.
Council Member Schmid was concerned that the resident equivalent paid
twice as much as a business equivalent.
Ms. Nagel explained that the non-residential fee was calculated per 1,000
square feet. Residential fees were calculated per unit or home or multiple
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 33
family unit. Those two calculations were not the same, because 1,000
square feet assumed a certain number of employees. A single family home
was assumed to house 2.7 people. A single family home would pay $4,500
for both fees at the maximum level. A commercial space would pay only
$2,500, but paid for only 1.5 people.
Council Member Schmid noted 1,000 square feet was assumed to hold 4
people for a commercial space.
Mr. N. Perez reported the term equivalent dwelling unit did not necessarily
mean 1,000 residential square feet equaled a dwelling unit. It was a method
to standardize measurements for purposes of allocations within the
residential categories.
Council Member Schmid expressed concern that assumptions utilized in
developing standards did not match the characteristics of Palo Alto. He
asked if the statement on Packet Page 474 regarding the affordable housing
fee not being charged to office was true.
Mr. N. Perez advised that according to Municipal Code Section 16.47 it was
not charged to office.
Council Member Schmid remarked that office would account for twice the
number of people added to the daytime population, yet it did not pay a
housing fee. The report indicated a review of housing fees was not
performed, because it was covered in the Housing Element. The Housing
Element did not currently contain a housing fee. He asked why a nexus
study for housing was not performed.
Mr. Perez indicated a housing study was not performed, because it was a
different fee. Each impact fee was required to have its own nexus and
review. The housing fee would be presented to the Council separately with
its own nexus study.
Mr. N. Perez added that housing nexus studies were under litigation at every
level of California courts.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported a housing nexus study was under way.
The study would review both residential and non-residential fees.
Council Member Schmid felt the Council continued to make decisions
regarding development impact fees without data. A preliminary review of
transportation indicated fees were adequate. He requested the basis for
stating transportation fees were adequate.
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 34
Mayor Shepherd noted the Agenda Item concerned only the Public Safety
Facility fee and the General Government Facilities fee.
Council Member Schmid believed the Council was being asked to approve
the matrix.
Mr. Perez clarified that Staff did not recommend changes or seek action
regarding any fees other than the Public Safety Facility and General
Government Facilities fees.
Council Member Schmid asked if it was appropriate to state other fees did
not need review.
Mayor Shepherd stated that was not a part of the Agenda Item. Other fees
would be presented to the Council in the future.
Council Member Schmid asked why they were mentioned in the Staff Report.
Mayor Shepherd explained that Staff utilized data approved by the Council
earlier in the year.
Mr. Perez clarified that in the past the Council had requested a cumulative
total of impact fees to determine whether a fee of 75 percent of the
maximum amount allowed was appropriate. Staff did not make a
recommendation for those fees.
Council Member Schmid inferred the study made a discretionary decision
when it stated a preliminary review indicated fees were adequate for parks,
housing, and transportation. He inquired whether the study did not make a
discretionary decision.
Mr. Perez reiterated that a housing study would be presented separately.
Council Member Schmid inquired about a transportation study.
Mr. Keene presumed fees were not adequate for transportation, but could
provide a separate update on transportation in the future. Staff wanted to
add two fees to every development project and begin collecting funds. As
Staff obtained refined data, they would revisit the fees and adjust them.
Council Member Schmid asked if a vote supporting the item would endorse
the statement that a preliminary review indicated other fees were adequate.
Mr. Perez was not recommending any changes to those fees.
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 35
Mr. Keene advised that approval of the item would not be an endorsement of
the statement.
Mr. Perez reported the Council in March 2014 reviewed fees in conjunction
with a list of needs. For example, the Council discussed changing the parks
fee; however, the cost of projects on the needs list was not high enough to
justify changing the fee.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the March Council discussion was the
preliminary review.
Council Member Scharff reviewed the Council process for placing Committee
recommendations on the Consent Calendar or as an Action Item. The Staff
recommendation was for Council review and approval of the recommended
new Public Safety Facility fee and the General Government Facilities fee.
That was not the question or the Motion before the Finance Committee.
Staff should be requesting the Council to review the report and provide
input. He inquired whether the Council was to approve the report or the
fees.
Ms. Stump reported Council acceptance or approval of the report was
irrelevant. If the Council wished to implement the fees, then it needed to
direct Staff to return with an Ordinance to establish the fees. The Finance
Committee sought direction to draft an Ordinance.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff or the Finance Committee sought that
direction.
Ms. Stump corrected her statement to Finance Staff rather than Finance
Committee.
Council Member Scharff understood capital projects with identified sources of
revenue could not be considered in a nexus study.
Mr. Perez concurred.
Council Member Scharff stated the Council had identified sources of revenue
for the Public Safety Building, Fire Station Number 3, and Fire Station
Number 4. He did not understand how the nexus study could be accurate if
the City had identified sources of revenue.
Mr. Perez reported the Council could direct Staff to remove any project for
which it believed revenues were guaranteed. Staff did not wish to make that
assumption.
Council Member Scharff asked if the Council discussed that.
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 36
Mr. Perez answered yes, and Staff understood the Council was in the process
of drafting a funding plan. The question was whether that funding plan
would materialize. The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) measure probably
would be approved by the voters; however, a recession could significantly
reduce that funding source. Staff would remove any project as directed by
the Council and return with an Ordinance containing an adjusted fee.
Mr. N. Perez explained that some of the information regarding the Public
Safety Building was less guaranteed or more speculative at the time he
drafted the needs list in 2013.
Council Member Scharff asked if Mr. Perez drafted the needs list prior to the
Council identifying funds for the Public Safety Building.
Mr. N. Perez developed the needs list in 2013. In 2013 he and Staff
collected data regarding facilities and cost estimates.
Mayor Shepherd understood impact fees were utilized to support facilities
that would be used more because of an increase in population. She
expected facilities to be built and a fee collected because additional people
caused more wear and tear on facilities. She asked how that was factored
into a fee. The capital improvement would begin to fail at some point.
Mr. N. Perez indicated impact fees could be utilized to replace and modernize
facilities or to purchase furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE), but not to
operate and maintain facilities.
Mayor Shepherd commented that fees would be used for those types of
things going forward.
Mr. N. Perez advised that impact fees became less and less of a tool as the
City became built out and the allocation to new development dwindled.
Mayor Shepherd remarked that placing restrictions on commercial space
could result in collecting even fewer fees.
Stephanie Munoz felt the presentation assumed some issues not in evidence.
A Public Safety Building would always be a problem, because the
communications center was inadequate with respect to earthquake safety.
Much of that had been taken care of through the mobile unit.
Council Member Holman referred to the two charts on Packet Page 418
regarding office fees and retail/industrial fees and the at-places
memorandum regarding commercial and office/institutional and industrial.
She asked what was commercial and where was retail.
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 37
Mr. N. Perez reported retail was commercial.
Council Member Holman inquired about reasons for retail paying more than
office/institutional when retail had fewer employees per 1,000 square feet
than general office. The City utilized and considered an outdated measure of
4 employees per 1,000 square feet. The report utilized 1.5 persons served
per 1,000 square feet for commercial, 1.25 persons served per 1,000 square
feet for general office, and 0.5 person served per 1,000 square feet for
industrial. She did not believe that could be supported.
Mr. N. Perez indicated multiplying those by 2 would result in 3 employees for
retail, 2.5 employees for office, and 1 employee for industrial.
Council Member Holman asked why retail would have more than office.
Mr. N. Perez explained that typically retail served more people than office.
Council Member Holman believed that was not the case in Palo Alto. She
asked if he used generalized numbers. Utilizing one number to calculate
parking demand and a totally different number to calculate the fees did not
make sense.
Mr. N. Perez had not seen the parking figures.
Council Member Holman stated it was a basic aspect of the City's Municipal
Code. To a skeptical person, the report appeared to manipulate the
numbers of persons served per 1,000 square feet to justify an even number
across the different sectors. She referred to the Minutes found on Packet
Page 464 regarding Palo Alto being relatively lower compared to peer
communities on the non-residential side.
She stated that Council Member Schmid had asked if approving the fees
would also accept the fee rates in the tables. The Council should not accept
the other fees.
Mr. Keene asked if the Council was approving the other fees.
Mr. N. Perez answered no. Staff recommended adding the Public Safety
Facility and General Government Facilities fees to the list of fees.
Council Member Holman wished to ensure the Council was not accepting the
other fees.
Mr. Keene reported a Motion would not have the Council accept or
acknowledge existing fees. When the Council took a specific action on a
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 38
specific Motion, that action did not automatically readopt or acknowledge
every item in the Staff Report.
Council Member Holman asked about a means to arrive at some number that
was logical, defensible, and fair.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff and the consultant were clear that the existing
data and its alignment with the practice of setting fees supported the
recommendation. Staff acknowledged the potential to obtain refined data
that could support different conclusions in a year or two. Council Member
Scharff's point was slightly different and pertained to the amount of yield the
City could achieve over a 20-year period. The total amount of $96 million
included many projects on which fees could be collected for two years. After
two years, Staff could determine the nexus study was incorrect and
recommend adjusting the fee. Staff did not have a confident answer for
providing data methodology to support a significantly different conclusion.
The Council should proceed with the basic methodology for now or not
proceed.
Mayor Shepherd noted the City was not collecting the fee currently, and the
Council was not reviewing the methodology for collecting the fee. The
Council was directing Staff to draft an Ordinance. She asked if Council
Member Holman was concerned about the methodology. The breakdown
between residential and commercial was one element of that. She asked if
Council Member Holman was concerned about the calculation of the fee.
Council Member Holman was concerned about both aspects. She did not
wish to do nothing, but was having difficulty determining what to do.
Mayor Shepherd added that Staff would return with an Ordinance for Council
review.
Council Member Holman stated without some kind of clarity regarding what
the Council expected Staff to provide, the current discussion was pointless.
Council Member Burt concurred with a need for clarification. He inquired
whether fees were calculated based upon facility needs and revenue sources.
Mr. Perez answered yes.
Council Member Burt advised that infrastructure planning and the impact
fees were developed in parallel over the past year and a half. The two were
not reconciled in the late spring or early summer of 2014. When the Finance
Committee discussed the item, the Council had not allocated revenue
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 39
sources for public facility needs. Staff should recalculate the basis in facility
needs after the election.
Mr. N. Perez commented that amounts always changed.
Council Member Burt clarified that amounts did not change to such a great
extent. From the $96 million listed for public safety facilities, $57 million for
the Public Safety Building should be removed.
Mr. N. Perez asked if the amount was 100 percent non-speculative.
Mr. Keene felt Staff should return with the item. The Infrastructure Funding
Plan occurred subsequent to development of the fees. The Public Safety
Building could cost more than estimated. The Council did not fund all items
on the infrastructure projects list; therefore, the fee revenues could be
reallocated to other projects.
Council Member Burt added that the Council could decide to fund 85 percent
of the Public Safety Building with funds previously identified. Based upon
existing policy direction, the Public Safety Building and Fire Station Number
3 did not belong on the list of needs. That alone was sufficient reason to
return the item for redirection. He inquired about the source for 1.25
persons served per 1,000 square feet contained in Table 20.
Mr. N. Perez advised that it was a standard California metric.
Council Member Burt noted the City's Zoning Code used a standard of 4
people per 1,000 square feet. The Council had discussed whether that
number was too low. The difference was not a nominal amount, and
ensuing calculations flowed from that number.
Mr. N. Perez explained that 2.5 was the number of employees per 1,000
square feet. The 1.25 was the number of persons served per 1,000 square
feet.
Council Member Burt inquired whether Mr. Perez was discounting the
number by 50 percent.
Mr. N. Perez responded yes, because an employee was weighted as 50
percent of a resident.
Council Member Burt believed the Council wanted to return both items for
recalculation based upon office density. A second issue was public safety
needs that lacked a revenue source.
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 40
Mr. Keene felt comfortable with reviewing public safety facilities to
determine the amount of funding that could be set aside for collecting a fee.
The distribution of that fee would be affected by other changes. Staff could
review one component of the non-residential office piece in a short period,
but not necessarily the whole range of issues related to residential versus
non-residential. Staff would review the general Infrastructure Funding Plan
in relation to the fee.
Council Member Burt asked if the item would return to the Council or the
Finance Committee.
Mr. Keene indicated that would be the Council's discretion.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member
Berman to return to Finance Committee for review of both the appropriate
non-residential densities and corresponding calculations and review public
safety needs that do not have identified revenue sources.
Council Member Berman believed additional information had created more
questions to which the Council needed answers. The Finance Committee
considered fees on May 6, 2014. The Infrastructure Committee developed
the Infrastructure Funding Plan in early August 2014. A great deal had
changed since then. The Council needed a better understanding of numbers
in Tables 19 and 20.
Council Member Klein chastised Staff and the Finance Committee for their
poor review of the issues. The amount of fees collected over a short period
of time was not significant in comparison to a $57 million Public Safety
Building. Staff's reasons for delaying the item were not defensible. He
requested the City Attorney provide a definition of "without an identified
revenue source." The Council could consider creating a gap that could be
filled by the fee. The Council had not made legal promises regarding funding
of the fire station needs. The City would depend on the consultant's
expertise in a lawsuit; therefore, the Council had to rely on his methodology
or reject the fees.
Council Member Holman inquired about the timing of returning the item to
the Finance Committee and then the Council.
Mr. Perez would attempt to present it at the December 16 meeting.
Mr. Keene could not make a commitment with respect to a timeline.
Vice Mayor Kniss stated the item should not have been presented to the
Council. She wanted the item to return quickly to prevent continued loss of
MINUTES
11/03/2014 116- 41
revenue and requested the item be presented to the Finance Committee at
its next meeting.
Mayor Shepherd noted $22,000 of the fees collected through 2023 could
support public safety needs. She wanted to understand if the Infrastructure
Funding Plan included revenues from the fees.
Mr. Keene would present the item as soon as possible. Staff could respond
to the Infrastructure Funding Plan component of the Motion more easily than
the methodological component. Staff would consider bifurcating the two
components.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
City of Palo Alto Development Impact Fees
As per FY 2015 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule pages 23-1 and 23-2
Type of Project Parks Community Centers Libraries Housing
Total Fees (NIC
Transp.)Transportation
Residential - New Homes Only*
Single family < 3,000 sq. feet $11,180/residence $2,898/residence $1,012/residence EXEMPT $15,090/res.
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Single family >3,000 sq. feet $16,695/residence $4,339/residence $1,507/residence EXEMPT $22,541/res.
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family </= 900 sq. feet $3,700/unit $963/unit $332/unit EXEMPT $4,995/unit
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Multi-family >900 sq. feet $7,318/unit $1,907/unit $604/unit EXEMPT $9,829/unit
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Non-residential
Commercial/Industrial
$4,748 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$268 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$255 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$19.31 per sq
ft
$23.89 per net
new sq ft
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Hotel/Motel
$2,147 per 1,000 sq ft
or fraction thereof
$121 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$107 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
$19.31 per sq
ft
$21.15 per net
new sq ft
$3,354 per net new
PM peak hr trip
Residential Subdivisions
Single-family
Multi-family
Public Art Fee***
1% of first $100 mill. const. valuation; 0.9% of valuation above $1 mill.
Special Zones Traffic Impact Fee
Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS
Zone
$11.64 per net new sq
ft
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area $2.40 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Commercial $0.36 per sq ft
Charleston/Arastradero Residential $1,225 per unit
Parking in-lieu fee for Downtown
Assessment District
Notes: "Single-family" is defined as a single dwelling unit that does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit
***Public Art Fee applies to residential projects of 5 units or more and new commercial projects with a floor area of at least 10,000 sq ft
and a construction value of at least $200,000.
**In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee is an option only for projects of < 50 parcels. (Larger projects must dedicate land.)
Certain Residential Projects and New
Commercial Projects***
Fee Category
Parkland Dedication Fee**
*Square footage refers to living area, not lot size.
531 sq ft of parkland/unit or $56,736/unit in-lieu fee
366 sq ft of parkland/unit or $39,106/unit in-lieu fee
$63,848 per parking space
B.
C.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DECEMBER 10, 2014
Prepared by:
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2250 HYDE STREET, 5TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109
(800) 969-4382
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
TAUSSIG
Newport Beach
San Francisco
Riverside
Fresno
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
DAVID
&
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto TOC
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3
SECTION II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES .................. 4
SECTION III. DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................ 8
SECTION IV. THE NEEDS LIST ............................................................................................... 12
SECTION V. METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE FEES ................................................... 15
A. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ...................................................................................................... 17
B. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 21
SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF FEES .......................................................................................... 24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FEE DERIVATION WORKSHEETS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and costs
associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David
Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) to prepare
an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the “Fee Study”) for specific categories of public
improvements not currently covered by the City’s Fee Program. The Fee Study is intended to
comply with Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State
of California in 1987, by identifying additional public facilities required by new development
(“Future Facilities”) and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of
the Future Facilities. Fee amounts have been determined that will finance Public Safety and
General Government facilities at levels identified by the various City departments as being
necessary to meet the needs of new development through buildout in 2035. The Future
Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included
in Section IV of the Fee Study. A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is
included in Section V. All new development may be required to pay its “fair share” of the cost
of the new infrastructure through the development fee program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Fee Study including a brief description
of City surroundings, and background information on development fee financing. Section II
provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee
amounts identified in the Fee Study. Section III includes a discussion of projected new
development and demand variables such as future population and employment, assuming
current growth trends in housing, commercial, and industrial development extrapolated
through buildout in 2035. Projections of future development are based on data provided by
the City and the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan.1 Section IV includes a description of the
Needs List, which identifies the facilities needed to serve new development through buildout
in 2035 that are eligible for funding by the impact fees. The Needs List provides the total
estimated facilities costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City, and costs allocated to new
development for all facilities listed in the Needs List. This list is a compilation of projects and
costs identified by various City departments. Section V discusses the findings required under
the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing,
increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of new development, and satisfies the nexus
requirements for each facility included as part of this study. Section V also contains the
description of the methodology used to determine the fees for all facility types. Finally, Section
VI includes a summary of the proposed fees justified by this Fee Study. Appendix A includes
the calculations used to determine the various fee levels.
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
The total fee amounts required to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities
identified in the Needs List are summarized in Table ES-1 below. Fees within this Fee Study
reflect the maximum fee levels that may be imposed on new development.
1 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan (1998) and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in progress).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
TABLE ES-1
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
EXEMPTIONS
California Government Code permits fee exemptions for affordable housing and senior
housing at the discretion of local jurisdictions. Such fee exemptions are a policy matter that
should be based on the consideration of the greater public good provided by the use exempted
from the fee.
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office/Institutional Industrial
$1,328 $1,062 $743 $991 $248
$1,673 $1,339 $936 $1,249 $312
$3,001 $2,401 $1,680 $2,239 $560 Total
City Facilities Non-Residential (Per 1,000 BSF)
Public Safety Facilities
General Government Facilities
Residential (Per Unit)
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
Part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, the City of Palo Alto (“City” or “Palo Alto”) is
located approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco within the County of Santa Clara.
Named after the coastal redwood tree that grows along San Francisquito Creek, the City is
more than 100 years old, encompassing an area roughly the size of 26 square miles and
boasting approximately 30,000 housing units, more than 65,000 residents, and over 90,000
jobs. Yet despite the City’s mature and largely developed nature, the presence of excellent
schools, the world’s finest employment centers and job creators, and high quality of life marks
across the board, make the City incredibly attractive to new residential and non-residential
development and re-development. For instance, the average homes sales price recorded in
the City in February 2014 was nearly $2.0 million.
Thus, in order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public facilities and
costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David
Taussig & Associates, Inc. (“DTA”) was retained by the City to prepare an AB 1600 Fee
Justification Study (the “Fee Study”) for specific categories of public improvements not
currently covered by the City’s Fee Program. Impact fees are calculated here using updated
information on development and City facilities. Moreover, the methods used to calculate
impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees,
including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California
Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq.). Impact fees calculated in this
report are intended to complement the City’s existing impact fees.
More specifically, the Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et. seq. of the
Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying
additional public facilities required by new development (“Future Facilities”) and determining
the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities. Fee amounts
have been determined that will finance facilities at levels identified by the various City
departments as deemed necessary to meet the needs of new development. The Future
Facilities and associated construction costs are identified in the Needs List, which is included
in Section IV of the Fee Study. All new development may be required to pay its “fair share” of
the cost of the new infrastructure through the development fee program.
The fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities needed to meet the needs of new
development. The steps followed in the Fee Study include:
1. Demographic Assumptions: Identify future growth that represents the
increased demand for facilities.
2. Facility Needs and Costs: Identify the amount of public facilities required to
support the new development and the costs of such facilities. Facilities costs
and the Needs List are discussed in Section IV.
3. Cost Allocation: Allocate costs per equivalent dwelling unit.
4. Fee Schedule: Calculate the fee per residential unit or per non-residential
square foot.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary
to mitigate the impacts of new development. A fee is “a monetary exaction, other than a tax
or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with
approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of
public facilities related to the development project...” (California Government Code, Section
66000). A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new
development, with the payment of the fee typically occurring prior to the beginning of
construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building. Fees are often levied at final map
recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit
issuance. However, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2604 (Torrico) which was signed into law in August
2008, encourages public agencies to defer the collection of fees until close of escrow to an
end user in an attempt to assist California’s troubled building industry.
AB 1600, which created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code was enacted by the
State of California in 1987.
In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot include
costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing
level of service (“LOS”) or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general
plan.
Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code thus requires that all public agencies satisfy
the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of
new development:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))
2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section
66001(a)(2))
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the
type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section
66001(a)(3))
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed.
(Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))
5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition of the proposed
fees in the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
A. PURPOSE OF THE FEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(1))
New residential and non-residential development within the City will generate
additional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities. Land
for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities and equipment will have
to be expanded, constructed, or purchased to meet this increased demand.
The Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct and cumulative
effect of future development. Each new development will contribute to the need for
new public facilities. Without future development many of the new public facilities on
the Needs List would not be necessary as the existing facilities are generally adequate
for the City’s present population. In instances where facilities would be built regardless
of new development, the costs of such facilities have been allocated to new and
existing development based on their respective level of benefit.
The proposed impact fee will be charged to all future development, irrespective of
location, within the City. Even future “in-fill” development projects contribute to
impacts on public facilities because they are an interactive component of a much
greater universe of development located throughout the City of Palo Alto. First, the
property owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in the City
can be expected to place additional demands on Palo Alto’s facilities funded by the
fee. Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and, in fact, may
not have chosen to utilize their development, except for residential, retail, employment,
and recreational opportunities located nearby on other existing and future
development. Third, the availability of residents, employees, and customers
throughout the City has a growth-inducing impact without which some of the “in-fill”
development would not occur. As a result, all development projects within Palo Alto
contribute to the cumulative impacts of development.
The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public
facilities identified on the Needs Lists to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of
new development within the City.
B. THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2))
The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public
facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the Fee Study and other
appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development
in the City. The fee will provide a source of revenue to Palo Alto to allow for the
acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities, which in turn will both
preserve the quality of life in the City and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
existing and future residents and employees.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
C. DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEE’S USE AND THE TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 66001(A)(3))
As discussed in Section A above, it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of
future development that has prompted the preparation of the Fee Study. Each
development will contribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future
development, the City would have no need to construct many of the public facilities on
the Needs List. For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing
and new development based on their level of benefit. Even future “in-fill” development
projects, which may be adjacent to existing facilities, further burden existing public
facilities. Consequently, all new development within Palo Alto, irrespective of location,
contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities
and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth.
The fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the
public facilities identified on the Needs List and other authorized uses, as that is the
purpose for which the fee is collected. As previously stated, all new development
creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributes to the cumulative
impact on public facilities. Moreover, this impact is generally equalized among all
types of development because it is the increased demands for public facilities created
by the future residents and employees that create the impact upon existing facilities.
For the aforementioned reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition,
construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.
D. DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITY
AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP)
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(4))
As previously stated, all new development within the City, irrespective of location,
contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public facilities
and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Without future
development, many of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary. For
certain other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing and new
development based on their level of benefit.
For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need
for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all new development within Palo
Alto.
SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO
JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
E. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (“ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY”
RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE 66001(A)
As set forth above, all new development within the City impacts public facilities.
Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase in population
and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of all development in Palo Alto,
will adversely impact existing facilities. Thus, imposition of the fee to finance the
facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of
permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner.
New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively. In fact, without any
future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation of many of the
facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existing City facilities are
generally adequate. Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will
utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.
The proposed fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new
development based on the analyses contained in Section V. Thus there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities.
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well as
establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City provided DTA with projections of future
population and development within Palo Alto. DTA categorized developable residential land
uses as Single Family and Multi-Family. Developable non-residential land uses within the
City’s commercial, office, and industrial zones are categorized as Commercial,
Office/Institutional, and Industrial respectively. Additional details are included in the table
below. Based on these designations, DTA established fees for the following five (5) land use
categories to acknowledge the difference in impacts resulting from various land uses and to
make the resulting fee program implementable.
LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION
FOR FEE STUDY
DEFINITION
Single Family Includes single family detached homes
Multi-Family
Includes buildings with attached residential units including apartments, town
homes, condominiums, and all other residential units not classified as Single
Family Detached
Commercial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Retail
Service-oriented business activities
Department stores, discount stores, furniture/appliance outlets, home
improvement centers
Entertainment centers
Sub-regional and regional shopping centers
Office/Institutional
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Business/professional office
Professional medical offices and hospitals
Schools
Industrial
Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:
Light manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, wholesaling;
Large-scale warehouse retail
Service commercial activities
Public uses, arterial roadways and freeways providing automobile and public
transit access
Automobile dealerships
Support commercial services
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan1 (the “Comprehensive Plan”) demographics were
used as estimates of the number of housing units and nonresidential building square feet to
be built in the City. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan was used to project the additional
population generated from new development. However, Comprehensive Plan Update data
was also reviewed in light of projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(“ABAG”).
1 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan (1998). See also Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in progress).
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
Notably, DTA attempted to utilize metrics (e.g. average household size) that standardized
existing demographics with the projections found in the Comprehensive Plan.
Future residents and employees will create additional demand for facilities that existing public
facilities cannot accommodate. In order to accommodate new development in an orderly
manner, while maintaining the current quality of life in the City, the facilities on the Needs List
(Section IV), as reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 3, 2014, and at
subsequent Council and Finance Committee meetings, will need to be constructed. For those
facilities that are needed to mitigate demand from new development, facility costs have been
allocated to new development only. In those instances when it has been determined that the
new facilities will serve both existing and new development, facility costs have been allocated
based on proportionate benefit (see Equivalent Dwelling Unit discussion in Section V).
The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures that were used
in calculating the impact fees.
1. EXISTING POPULATION FOR LAND USE CATEGORIES
According to information provided by the City of Palo Alto, and generally confirmed by
the California Employment Development Department – Demographic Research Unit,
there are 17,614 existing Single Family units and 10,843 existing Multi-Family units
within the City.
DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City of Palo Alto
and the Comprehensive Plan which assume resident-per-unit factors of 2.68 and 2.12
per Single Family unit and Multi-Family unit, respectively. Therefore, the City
population is generally comprised of 70,193 residents living in 28,457 Single Family
and Multi-Family homes.
Table 1 below summarizes the existing demographics for the residential land uses.
TABLE 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DTA has also utilized the following non-residential demographic information provided
by the City of Palo Alto which assumes existing City non-residential land uses utilize
employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors of 4.00, 3.00 and 1.00 employees per
1,000 building square feet of Office/Institutional, Commercial, and Industrial,
Residential Land Use Existing Residents Existing
Housing Units
Average
Household Size
Single Family Residential 47,206 17,614 2.68
Multi-Family Residential 22,987 10,843 2.12
Total/Average 70,193 28,457 NA
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
respectively. This results in 11,662 existing Commercial employees, 63,534 existing
Office/Institutional employees, and 18,099 existing Industrial City employees, as
shown in Table 2 below. Each of these figures are generally confirmed by data from
the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Importantly, for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated
based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”) generated by each
land use class. “Persons Served” equal Residents plus 50% of Employees, and is a
customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service
demanded by employees. For existing Persons Served estimates, please reference
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
ESTIMATED EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
2. FUTURE POPULATION FOR NEW LAND USE CATEGORIES (2035)
According to information provided by the City of Palo Alto, and confirmed by ABAG,
there are projected to be an additional 2,552 Single Family units and 1,571 Multi-
Family units within the City-wide area at 2035, the time horizon utilized for this Fee
Study.
DTA has used the following demographic information provided by the City of Palo Alto
which assumes future resident-per-unit factors of 2.68 and 2.12 per Single Family unit
and Multi-Family unit, respectively. This results in an additional 10,170 residents living
in 4,123 Single Family and Multi-Family homes within the City.
Table 3 on the following page summarizes the future demographics for the residential
land uses.
TABLE 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Commercial 11,662 3.00 1.50 5,831
Office/Institutional 63,534 4.00 2.00 31,767
Industrial 18,099 1.00 0.50 9,050
Total/Average 93,295 NA NA 46,648
Persons
Served per
1,000 BSF
Existing Persons
Served 1Non-Residential Land Use Employees per
1,000 BSF
Existing
Employees
Residential Land Use Projected Residents Projected
Housing Units
Average
Household Size
Single Family Residential 6,839 2,552 2.68
Multi-Family Residential 3,331 1,571 2.12
Total/Average 10,170 4,123 NA
SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
In terms of non-residential property, Palo Alto expects to generate 21,428 future jobs,
which can be broken down into 2,679 jobs relating to Commercial development,
14,592 jobs for Office/Institutional development, and 4,157 jobs for Industrial
development within the City.
The City of Palo Alto provided the projected employment discussed above, which
results in estimated employees-per-thousand-square-foot factors of 4.00, 3,00, and
1.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet of Office/Institutional, Commercial,
and Industrial, respectively, as shown in Table 4 below.
Again, for many of the facilities considered in this Fee Study, EDUs are calculated
based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons Served”) generated by each
land use class. “Persons Served” equal Residents plus 50% of Employees, and is a
customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service
demanded by employees. For future Persons Served estimates, please reference
Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
CITY OF PALO ALTO
FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 Persons served equal Residents plus 50% of employees.
Importantly, the land use categories that have been discussed above are consistent
with (i) growth projections prepared by the City for the Comprehensive Plan, and (ii)
land uses generally included in other development impact fee programs of the City.
3. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU) PROJECTIONS
Equivalent Dwelling Units (“EDU”) are a means of quantifying different land uses in
terms of their equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is
measured in terms of potential infrastructure use or benefit for each type of public
facility. Since nearly all of the facilities proposed to be financed by the levy of impact
fees will serve both residential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number
of future EDUs based on the number of residents or employees generated by each land
use class. For other facilities, different measures, such as number of trips, more
accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use type. The EDU projections
for each facility are shown in the fee derivation worksheets in Appendix A.
Commercial 2,679 3.00 1.50 1,339
Office/Institutional 14,592 4.00 2.00 7,296
Industrial 4,157 1.00 0.50 2,079
Total/Average 21,428 NA NA 10,714
Future Persons
Served 1Non-Residential Land Use Employees per
1,000 BSF
Future
Employees
Persons
Served per
1,000 BSF
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
Identification of the facilities to be financed is a critical component of any development impact
fee program. In the broadest sense, the purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health,
safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. “Public Facilities” per
Government Code Section 66000 includes “public improvements and community amenities.”
Government Code Section 66000 requires the identification of those facilities for which
impact fees are going to be used as the key financing mechanism. Identification of the
facilities may be made in an applicable general or specific plan, other public documents, or
by reference to a Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”).
DTA has worked closely with City staff to develop the list of facilities to be included in the Fee
Study (“the Needs List”). Additionally, the Needs List was reviewed and approved by the City
Council on March 3, 2014 at a public hearing, and further evaluated during several later public
hearings. For purposes of the City’s fee program, the Needs List is intended to be the official
public document identifying the facilities eligible to be financed, in whole or in part, through
the levy of a development impact fee on new development within Palo Alto. The Needs List is
organized by facility element (or type) and includes a cost section consisting of six (6) columns,
which are defined in Table 5 below:
TABLE 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NEEDS LIST
EXPLANATION OF COST SECTION
Column Title Contents Source
Total Cost for Facility
The total estimated facility cost including
engineering, design, construction, land
acquisition, and equipment (as applicable)
City
Offsetting Revenues
to New & Existing
Development
Share of Total Offsetting Revenues
allocated to new and existing development City
Net Cost to City
The difference between the Total Cost and
the Offsetting Revenues (column 1 plus
column 2)
Calculated by DTA
Percent of Cost
Allocated to New
Development
Net Cost Allocated to New Development
based on New Development’s Share of
Facilities
Calculated by DTA
Net Cost Allocated to
New Development
The Net Cost to City Multiplied by the
Percentage Cost Allocated to New
Development
Calculated by DTA
Policy Background or
Objective
Identifies policy source or rationale for
facility need
City Council or
Comprehensive Plan
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
DTA surveyed City staff on required facilities needed to serve new development as a starting
point for its fee calculations. As part of the survey, DTA conducted extensive research with
City departments such as Planning, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Library, Transportation,
etc., and then narrowed the focus to those facility needs that were deemed most timely and
prudent to include in the Fee Study. More specifically, the survey included the project
description, justification, public benefit, estimated costs, and project financing for each
proposed facility. Through regular discussions between DTA and City staff, the Needs List has
gone through multiple series of revisions to fine-tune the needs, costs, and methodologies
used in allocating the costs for each facility. For purposes of the fee program, it was
determined that a planning horizon through 2035 would be appropriate. Importantly,
escalations in project construction costs could be included in future fee increases that would
need to be approved by the Palo Alto City Council.
The final Needs List is shown on the following page.
SECTION IV: THE NEEDS LIST
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
{1}{2}{3}{4}{5}{6}
Facility Name Total Cost for Facility Off-setting Revenues Net Cost to City
Percent of Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost Allocated to
New Development
Policy Background or
Objective
A. PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Police Facilities
1 Public Safety Building ("PSB") - Replace (44,850 square feet)$57,000,000 ($57,000,000)$0 0.00%$0 Comprehensive Plan
Subtotal $57,000,000 $0 $0 0.00%$0
2. Fire Facilities
2 Fire Station 3 (Rinconada Park - built 1948) - Replace $6,700,000 ($6,700,000)$0 0.00%$0 Comprehensive Plan
3 Fire Station 4 (Meadow/Middlefield - built 1953) - Replace $7,500,000 $0 $7,500,000 53.15%$3,986,532 Comprehensive Plan
4 BC Van (x 2)$200,000 $0 $200,000 30.37%$60,747 Comprehensive Plan
5 Fire Trucks (x 2)$2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 30.37%$607,472 Comprehensive Plan
6 Type III Engine (x 2)$800,000 $0 $800,000 30.37%$242,989 Comprehensive Plan
7 Training Tower & Related Land Acquisition $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000 15.19%$1,214,943 Comprehensive Plan
8 Type I Engine (x 8) - 2024 $4,200,000 $0 $4,200,000 30.37%$1,275,690 Comprehensive Plan
9 Ambulances (x 4) - 2022-2025 $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000 30.37%$394,856 Comprehensive Plan
10 Miscellaneous Upgrades (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)$8,500,000 $0 $8,500,000 30.37%$2,581,754 Comprehensive Plan
Subtotal $39,200,000 $0 $32,500,000 31.89%$10,364,983
11 $0 $0 NA $0
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES $96,200,000 ($63,700,000)$32,500,000 31.89%$10,364,983
B. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
#REF!
1 Information Technology Upgrades $750,000 ($75,000)$675,000 15.19%$102,511 Comprehensive Plan
2 Buildings Systems Improvements $6,300,000 ($100,000)$6,200,000 15.19%$941,581 Comprehensive Plan
3 Civic Center Plaza Deck $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000 15.19%$2,429,886 Comprehensive Plan
4 Municipal Service Center Improvements (Immediate)$1,991,000 $0 $1,991,000 15.19%$302,369 Comprehensive Plan
5 Municipal Services Center - Replace $93,000,000 ($32,550,000)$60,450,000 15.19%$9,180,413 Comprehensive Plan
6 Ventura Buildings Improvements $690,000 $0 $690,000 15.19%$104,789 Comprehensive Plan
7 $0 $0 NA $0
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES $118,731,000 ($32,725,000)$86,006,000 15.19%$13,061,548
Total all Facilities $214,931,000 ($96,425,000)$118,506,000 19.77%$23,426,531
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2035
General Government Revenues not yet Committed
Public Safety Revenues not yet Committed
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
Pursuant to the nexus requirements of Government Code 66000, a local agency is required
to “determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed.” It is impossible to precisely determine the impact that a specific
new residential unit, commercial project, or industrial development will have on existing
facilities. Additionally, predicting future residents’ or employees’ specific behavioral patterns,
park and transportation, and health and welfare requirements is extremely difficult, and would
involve numerous assumptions that are subject to substantial variation. Recognizing these
limitations, the Legislature drafted AB 1600 to specifically require that a “reasonable”
relationship be determined, not a direct cause and effect relationship.
There are many methods or ways of calculating fees, but they are all based on determining
the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of
development. Each of the fee calculations employs the concept of an Equivalent Dwelling
Unit (“EDU”) or Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”) to allocate benefit among the five (5) land use
classes. EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to
a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of potential infrastructure
use or benefit for each type of public facility. For many of the facilities considered in this Fee
Study, EDUs are calculated based on the number of residents or employees (“Persons
Served”) generated by each land use class. For other facilities, different measures, such as
number of trips, more accurately represent the benefit provided to each land use class. Table
6 below shows total existing and projected EDUs or EBUs by facility type.
Notably, “Persons Served” equal Residents plus 50% of Employees, and is a customary
industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
TABLE 6
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS
The following sections present the reasonable relationship for benefit, impact, and rough
proportionality tests for each fee element (i.e., public safety and general government) and the
analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of facility on the Needs List. More
detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included in Appendix A.
Importantly, since the level of service (“LOS”) being requested for new development by City
department heads is above the existing service level for certain types of facility, the cost of
the new facilities has been carefully apportioned between existing and new development in
the following manner:
Countywide Facility Type Service Factor Existing
EDUs/EBUs
Projected
EDUs/EBUs Total
Public Safety Facilities Persons Served 43,597 7,807 51,404
General Government Facilities Persons Served 43,597 7,807 51,404
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
1. New development was assigned 100% of the cost for a LOS that is
equivalent to the existing LOS within the City.
2. The cost of the incremental difference between the new, higher LOS being
requested by the City and the existing LOS was then allocated between existing
development and new development, based on the relative number of equivalent
dwelling units (“EDUs”) assigned to existing development and new development.
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
A. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
The Public Safety element includes those facilities used by the City to protect life and
property.
Critically, there is also a need for other facilities, public safety specialty vehicles, and
training stations to serve both existing and projected development. Therefore, the
costs of these facilities have been allocated between existing development and new
development based on their percentage of built-out EDUs.
TABLE 7
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES ELEMENT
Identify Purpose of Fee Public Safety Facilities
Identify Use of Fee Construction, acquisition and/or upgrade
of Police and Fire Facilities and equipment
Demonstrate how there is
a reasonable relationship
between the need for the
public facility, the use of
the fee, and the type of
development project on
which the fee is imposed
New residential and non-residential
development will generate additional
residents and employees who will require
additional service calls increasing the
need for trained Police and Fire personnel.
Buildings and vehicles used to provide
these services will have to be expanded,
constructed, or purchased to meet this
increased demand. Thus a reasonable
relationship exists between the need for
Public Safety facilities and the impact of
residential and non-residential
development. The Public Safety fees
collected from new development will be
used exclusively for public safety
purposes.
Table 8 below identifies the facilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with
the collection of Public Safety fees. Costs are based on estimates provided by the City,
as well as considerations of dedicated, off-setting revenues (as provided for the Public
Safety Building and Fire Station 3 following the Infrastructure Funding Proposal
approved on June 9, 2014 and the hotel tax increase approved in the most recent
election).
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
TABLE 8
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FACILITY COSTS
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non- residential
land uses as detailed in Appendix A. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU
factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined
as the persons per household (for residential units) and 50% of the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential
development.
Fire Station Improvements
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development. Currently, these facilities are generally operating at
an appropriate and acceptable level of service, though less so than many of the
other public safety facilities and improvements; therefore, the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out. Consequently,
46.85% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 53.15% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
Public Safety Facilities Facility Cost
Public Safety Building ("PSB") - Replace (44,850 square feet)$0
Fire Station 3 (Rinconada Park - built 1948) - Replace $0
Fire Station 4 (Meadow/Middlefield - built 1953) - Replace $7,500,000
BC Van (x 2)$200,000
Fire Trucks (x 2)$2,000,000
Type III Engine (x 2)$800,000
Training Tower & Related Land Acquisition $8,000,000
Type I Engine (x 8) - 2024 $4,200,000
Ambulances (x 4) - 2022-2025 $1,300,000
Miscellaneous Upgrades (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)$8,500,000
Public Safety Revenues not yet Committed $0
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES $32,500,000
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
TABLE 9
FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Public Safety Vehicles
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development. Currently, these facilities are generally operating at
an appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out. Consequently,
69.63% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 30.37% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
TABLE 10
PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Public Safety Training Tower Modernization
According to the City, it has been determined that this facility modernization is
needed to serve new development. Currently, this facility is operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out. Consequently,
Fire Station Improvments Percentage Allocated to
New Development
Number of New
Facility Units
Allocated
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 46.85%0.94 $3,513,468
New Development 53.15%1.06 $3,986,532
Total 100%2.00 $7,500,000
Public Safety Vehicles Percentage Allocated to
New Development
Number of New
Facility Units
Allocated
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 69.63%12.53 $11,836,492
New Development 30.37%5.47 $5,163,508
Total 100%18.00 $17,000,000
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development.
TABLE 11
PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING TOWER MODERNIZATION
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fee Amounts
Table 12 presents a summary of the derivation of EDUs, fee amounts, and the costs
financed by fees for the Public Safety Facilities on the Needs List. The details of the
fee calculation are presented in Appendix A.
TABLE 12
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in
Table 12 will finance 31.89% of the net costs of the Public Safety Facilities identified
on the Needs List. The remaining 68.11% of the net costs of facilities will be funded
through other sources.
Public Safety Training
Tower Modernization
Percentage Allocated to
New Development
Number of New
Facility Units
Allocated
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 84.81%0.85 $6,785,057
New Development 15.19%0.15 $1,214,943
Total 100%1.00 $8,000,000
Land Use Type EDUs Per Unit/1,000
Non-Res. SF
Fee per Unit/1,000
Non-Res. SF
Cost Financed
by Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,328 $3,388,371
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $1,062 $1,668,677
Commercial 0.56 $743 $663,499
Office/Institutional 0.75 $991 $3,614,702
Industrial 0.19 $248 $1,029,734
$10,364,983
$22,135,017
$32,500,000
Total Allocation to New Development:
Outside Funding Responsibility:
Total Facilities Costs:
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
B. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
The General Government Facilities Element includes those facilities used by the City
to provide basic governmental services and public facilities maintenance services,
exclusive of public safety.
TABLE 13
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Identify Purpose of Fee General Government Service Facilities
Identify Use of Fee Modernization of City Office and Building Improvements and
Replacement of Municipal Services Center.
Demonstrate how
there is a reasonable
relationship between
the need for the public
facility, the use of the
fee, and the type of
development project
on which the fee is
imposed
New residential and non-residential development in the City
will generate additional residents and employees who will
increase the demand for services, including municipal services
and general government functions. Population and growth has
a direct impact on the need for government services and
facilities, thus a reasonable relationship exists between new
development and government facilities, which will have to be
acquired to meet the increased demand. Fees collected from
new development will be used exclusively for the City
Government Service Facilities on the Needs List.
TABLE 14
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES COST
General Government Facilities Facility Cost
Information Technology Upgrades $675,000
Buildings Systems Improvements $6,200,000
Civic Center Plaza Deck $16,000,000
Municipal Service Center Improvements (Immediate)$1,991,000
Municipal Services Center - Replace $60,450,000
Ventura Buildings Improvements $690,000
General Government Revenues not yet Committed $0
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES $86,006,000
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
Calculation Methodology
Fee amounts for this element were calculated for both residential and non-residential
land uses as detailed in Appendix A. Each land use classification was assigned an EDU
factor which was derived from the number of Persons Served, which again is defined
as the persons per household (for residential units) and 50% of the number of
employees per 1,000 building square feet of each category of non-residential
development.
CITY OFFICE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development. Currently, these facilities are operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out. Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development as presented in Table 15 below.
TABLE 15
CITY OFFICE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Municipal Services Center Replacement
According to the City, it has been determined that these facilities are needed to
serve new development. Currently, these facilities are operating at an
appropriate and acceptable level of service; therefore, the costs of facilities
have been allocated to new development and existing development based on
their percentage of their expected facility usage at build out. Consequently,
84.81% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 15.19% of
the costs will be allocated to new development as presented in Table 16 below.
City Office and Building
Improvements
Percentage Allocated to
New Development
Total Square
Feet Allocated
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 84.81%18,219 $21,674,865
New Development 15.19%3,262 $3,881,135
Total 100%21,481 $25,556,000
SECTION V: METHODOLOGY USED TO
CALCULATE FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
TABLE 16
MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER REPLACEMENT
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Fee Amounts
Table 17 presents a summary of the derivation of EDUs, fee amounts and the costs
financed by fees for the general government facilities on the Needs List. The details
of the fee calculation are presented in Appendix A.
TABLE 17
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
FEE DERIVATION SUMMARY
Based on the development projections in Appendix A, the fee amounts presented in
Table 17 will finance 15.19% of the net costs of the General Government Facilities
identified on the Needs List. The remaining 84.81% of the net costs of facilities will be
funded through other sources.
Municipal Services Center
Replacement
Percentage Allocated to
New Development
Number of New
Facility Units
Allocated
Facility Cost
Allocated
Existing Development 84.81%70,395 $51,269,587
New Development 15.19%12,605 $9,180,413
Total 100%83,000 $60,450,000
Land Use Type EDUs Per Unit/1,000
Non-Res. SF
Fee per Unit/1,000
Non-Res. SF
Cost Financed
by Fees
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,673 $4,269,893
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $1,339 $2,102,803
Commercial 0.56 $936 $836,116
Office/Institutional 0.75 $1,249 $4,555,107
Industrial 0.19 $312 $1,297,630
$13,061,548
$72,944,452
$86,006,000 Total Facilities Costs:
Total Allocation to New Development:
Outside Funding Responsibility:
SECTION VI: SUMMARY OF FEES
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Development Impact Fee Justification Study December 10, 2014
The total fee amounts to finance new development’s share of the costs of facilities in the
Needs Lists are summarized in Tables 18 & 19 below.
TABLE 18
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
TABLE 19
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
http://localhost:9010/resources/Clients/Palo Alto/AB 1600 - 2012/AB 1600 Update/DIFReport DRAFT v.11A.docx
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office/Institutional Industrial
$3,388,371 $1,668,677 $663,499 $3,614,702 $1,029,734
$4,269,893 $2,102,803 $836,116 $4,555,107 $1,297,630
$7,658,264 $3,771,480 $1,499,615 $8,169,808 $2,327,364 Total
Non-Residential
Public Safety Facilities
General Government Facilities
City Facilities
Residential
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office/Institutional Industrial
$1,328 $1,062 $743 $991 $248
$1,673 $1,339 $936 $1,249 $312
$3,001 $2,401 $1,680 $2,239 $560 Total
City Facilities Non-Residential (Per 1,000 BSF)
Public Safety Facilities
General Government Facilities
Residential (Per Unit)
Appendix A
Fee Derivation Worksheets
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
Public Safety Building (Replacement)0 Square Feet
Fire Stations (Modernized)5 Integrated Facility
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles
Training Tower (Modernized)0 Integrated Facility
Public Safety Facilities NA NA
II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a][d]
Number of [b][c]Total
Units/Persons Served per Unit/EDUs per Unit/Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF 1,000 Non-Res. SF Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 17,614 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 10,843 2.12 0.79 8,577
Commercial 3,887 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 15,883 2.00 0.75 11,853
Industrial 18,099 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 43,597
III. Existing Facility Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
Public Safety Building (Replacement)0 Square Feet 0
Fire Stations (Modernized)5 Integrated Facility 0.11
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles 0.41
Training Tower (Modernized)0 Integrated Facility 0
Public Safety Facilities NA NA NA
IV. Future EDU Calculation
[a][b][d]
Number of Residents per Unit/[c]Total
Units/Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF [1]Non-Res. 1,000 SF [2]Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 2,552 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 1,571 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 893 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 3,648 2.00 0.75 2,722
Industrial 4,157 0.50 0.19 776
Total 7,807
V. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's
Public Safety Building (Replacement)44,850 Square Feet $0 5,745.17
Fire Stations (Modernized)2 Integrated Facility $7,500,000 0.26
Vehicles (Van, Trucks, Engines, Ambulances)18 No. of Vehicles $17,000,000 2.31
Training Tower (Modernized)1 Integrated Facility $8,000,000 0.13
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $32,500,000
VI. Allocation of Public Safety Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs)
A.1 Public Safety Building Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.56 0.00 5,745.17 5,745.17 44,850.00 44,850.00
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
A.2 SF Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%38,038.73 NA 38,038.73
New Development 7,807 15.19%6,811.27 0.00 6,811.27
Total 51,404 100.00%44,850.00 44,850.00
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type SF Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 38,039 84.81%$0New Development 6,811 15.19%$0
Total 44,850 100.00%$0
B.1 Fire Station Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.11 7,806.56 0.90 0.26 0.14 1.10 2.00
B.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%0.94 NA 0.94 New Development 7,807 15.19%0.17 0.90 1.06
Total 51,404 100.00%1.10 2.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 0.94 46.85%$3,513,468New Development 1.06 53.15%$3,986,532
Total 2.00 100.00%$7,500,000
C.1 Public Safety Vehicles
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.41 7,806.56 3.22 2.31 1.89 14.78 18.00
C.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%12.53 NA 12.53
New Development 7,807 15.19%2.24 3.22 5.47
Total 51,404 100.00%14.78 18.00
City of Palo Alto
Public Safety Fee Calculation
C.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 12.53 69.63%$11,836,492
New Development 5.47 30.37%$5,163,508
Total 18.00 100.00%$17,000,000
D.1 Public Safety Training Tower (Modernized)
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future Facility Units Allocated 100%Proposed Service Facility Units per EDU Facility Units Beyond Total Proposed
Facility Units Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Existing Service Standard [4]New Facility Units
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.56 0.00 0.13 0.13 1.00 1.00
D.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus Facility Units allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%0.85 NA 0.85
New Development 7,807 15.19%0.15 0.00 0.15
Total 51,404 100.00%1.00 1.00
D.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 0.85 84.81%$6,785,057
New Development 0.15 15.19%$1,214,943
Total 1.00 100.00%$8,000,000
Section Cost Allocated Total Cost Per
VI Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
E.1 Public Safety Facilities $10,364,983 7,807 $1,327.73
Offsetting Revenues $0 7,807 $0.00
Total $10,364,983 $1,327.73
VIII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
EDUs Per Fees Per Number of Units/Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. 1,000 SF DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,328 2,552 $3,388,371
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $1,062 1,571 $1,668,677
Commercial 0.56 $743 893 $663,499
Office/Institutional 0.75 $991 3,648 $3,614,702
Industrial 0.19 $248 4,157 $1,029,734
Total Allocated to New Development $10,364,983
Outside Funding Responsibility $22,135,017
Total Cost of Public Safety Facilities $32,500,000
Notes:
[1] Expected Housing Units based on data provided by the City of Palo Alto's Planning Department, confirmed by ABAG.
[2] Average Household Size Based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance (2013), City, and U.S. Census Bureau.
[3] Allocates 100% to new development square feet or equipment necessary to fund existing service standard for new residents.
[4] Denotes proposed service standard in excess to that currently provided to existing residents.
VII. Summary Cost Data
I. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)0 Square Feet
Municipal Services Center Replacement 0 Square Feet
City Office & Building Improvements NA NA
II. Existing EDU Calculation
[a][d]
Number of [b][c]Total
Units/Persons Served per Unit/EDUs per Unit/Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF 1,000 Non-Res. SF Per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 17,614 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 10,843 2.12 0.79 8,577
Commercial 3,887 1.50 0.56 2,176
Office/Institutional 15,883 2.00 0.75 11,853
Industrial 18,099 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 43,597
III. Existing Facility Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units per 1,000 EDU's
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)0 Square Feet 0
Municipal Services Center Replacement 0 Square Feet 0
City Office & Building Improvements NA NA NA
IV. Future EDU Calculation
[a][b][d]
Number of Residents per Unit/[c]Total
Units/Employees per EDUs per Number of EDUs
Land Use Type Non-Res. 1,000 SF [1]Non-Res. 1,000 SF [2]Unit/per 1,000 Non-Res. SF [a]*[c]
Single Family Residential 2,552 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 1,571 2.12 0.80 1,257
Commercial 893 1.50 0.56 500
Office/Institutional 3,648 2.00 0.75 2,722
Industrial 4,157 0.50 0.19 776
Total 7,807
V. Proposed Inventory, Cost, and Service Standard
Quantity
Facility Type Quantity Facility Units Facility Cost per 1,000 EDU's
City Office & Building Improvements (Modernized)21,481 Square Feet $25,556,000 2,751.66
Municipal Services Center Replacement 83,000 Square Feet $60,450,000 10,632.08
Offsetting Revenues $0
Total Cost of General Government Facilities $86,006,000
VI. Allocation of General Government Facilities to Existing & New Development (based on total EDUs)
A.1 City Office & Building Improvements
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.56 0.00 2,751.66 2,751.66 21,481.00 21,481.00
A.2 SF Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus SF allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%18,218.73 NA 18,218.73
New Development 7,807 15.19%3,262.27 0.00 3,262.27
Total 51,404 100.00%21,481.00 21,481.00
City of Palo Alto
General Government Fee Calculation
City of Palo Alto
General Government Fee Calculation
A.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type SF Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 18,218.73 84.81%$21,674,865
New Development 3,262.27 15.19%$3,881,135
Total 21,481.00 100.00%$25,556,000
B.1 Municipal Services Center Replacement
[a][b][c][d][e][f][g]
Existing Total Future SF Allocated 100%Proposed Service SF per EDU SF Beyond Existing Total Proposed
SF Per EDU's To New Development [3]Standard Per Beyond Existing Service Standard [4] New SF
1,000 EDU's [a]*[b]1,000 EDU's [d]-[a][b]*[e][c]+[f]
0.00 7,806.56 0.00 10,632.08 10,632.08 83,000.00 83,000.00
B.2 Facility Units Beyond Existing Service Standard Split Between New and Existing, plus SF allocated 100% to New Development
Facility Units Split Facility Units
Number of Percentage of Total Between New and Existing Allocated 100% To Total Facility Units
Facility Type EDU's EDU's Development New Development Allocated
Existing 43,597 84.81%70,394.97 NA 70,394.97
New Development 7,807 15.19%12,605.03 0.00 12,605.03
Total 51,404 100.00%83,000.00 83,000.00
B.3 Cost Allocated Between Existing and New Development
Total Number of Percentage of
Facility Type New Facility Units Cost Allocated Facility Cost
Existing 70,394.97 84.81%$51,269,587
New Development 12,605.03 15.19%$9,180,413
Total 83,000.00 100.00%$60,450,000
Section Cost Allocated Total Cost Per
VI Facility Type to New Development Future EDU's EDU
C.1 City Office & Building Improvements $13,061,548 7,807 $1,673.15
Offsetting Revenues $0 7,807 $0.00
Total $13,061,548 $1,673.15
VIII. Development Impact Fee per Unit or per 1,000 Non-Res. SF
EDUs Per Fees Per Number of Units/Cost Financed by
Land Use Type Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Unit/1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. 1,000 SF DIF
Single Family Residential 1.00 $1,673 2,552 $4,269,893
Multi Family Residential 0.80 $1,339 1,571 $2,102,803
Commercial 0.56 $936 893 $836,116
Office/Institutional 0.75 $1,249 3,648 $4,555,107
Industrial 0.19 $312 4,157 $1,297,630
Total Allocated to New Development $13,061,548
Outside Funding Responsibility $72,944,452
Total Cost of General Government Facilities $86,006,000
Notes:
[1] Expected Housing Units based on data provided by the City of Palo Alto's Planning Department, confirmed by ABAG.
[2] Average Household Size Based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance (2013), City, and U.S. Census Bureau.
[3] Allocates 100% to new development square feet or equipment necessary to fund existing service standard for new residents.
[4] Denotes proposed service standard in excess to that currently provided to existing residents.
VII. Summary Cost Data
Existing EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/Total
Land Use Type Persons Served *1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs
Single Family Residential 47,206 2.68 1.00 17,614
Multi Family Residential 22,987 2.12 0.80 8,674
Office/Institutional 31,767 2.00 0.75 11,853
Commercial 5,831 1.50 0.56 2,176
Industrial 9,050 0.50 0.19 3,377
Total 116,840 43,694
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (American Community Survey),
Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.
** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
Future EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit**/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/Total
Land Use Type Persons Served *1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs
Single Family Residential 6,839 2.68 1.00 2,552
Multi Family Residential 3,331 2.12 0.80 1,257
Office/Institutional 7,296 2.00 0.75 2,722
Commercial 1,339 1.50 0.56 500
Industrial 2,079 0.50 0.19 776
Total 20,884 7,807
* Source: David Taussig & Associates; City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (American Community Survey),
Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.
** Persons Served = Residents plus 50% of Employees, customary industry practice designed to capture the reduced levels of service demanded by employees.
City of Palo Alto
EBU & EDU Calculation Year to Build-Out (2035)
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
2250 Hyde Street
5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone (800) 969-4382
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing a Public Safety
Facility Development Fee and a General Government Facility
Development Fee
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code authorizes the City to
levy fees upon development projects to defray all or a portion of the costs of public
improvements and public services related to the development project. Such fees are
commonly known as “development impact fees.”
(b) The City currently imposes development impact fees to fund a portion of the
costs of park, community center, and library facilities that will serve new developments.
(c) New developments also are served by public safety facilities and general
government facilities.
(d) The City Council desires to impose development impact fees to fund a portion of
the costs of such facilities.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.58 of the Municipal Code, which is currently captioned as
“Chapter 16.58 Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers and Libraries” is
recaptioned as “Chapter 16.58 Development Impact Fees”
SECTION 3. Chapter 16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding Section 16.58.080 to read as follows:
“Section 16.58.080 – Public Safety and Government Facility Fees
(a) In addition to the fees established by Section 16.58.020, the following fees are
hereby established and shall be imposed as a condition of the approval of, or permit for, any
new development, whether residential or nonresidential, except as otherwise exempted by this
chapter: (i) a Public Safety Facility Development Fee, to fund police and fire facilities (including
fire apparatus and vehicles) and (ii) a General Government Facility Development Fee, to fund
facilities associated with municipal administration.
(b) The fees imposed by this section shall be charged in in an amount as set forth in
the municipal fee schedule.
1
141208 jb 0131291
ATTACHMENT D
NOT YET APPROVED
(c) A Public Safety Facility Development Fee Fund and a General Government
Facility Development Fee Fund are hereby established. Such funds shall be administered in
connection with the fees imposed by this section in the manner set forth in Section 16.58.050.
(d) Any fee imposed by this section shall be effective on the sixty-first day following
the adoption of an ordinance or resolution amending the municipal fee schedule to include a
rate for that fee.”
SECTION 4. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect any other provision or clause of this ordinance, and to that end, the
provisions and clauses of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
141208 jb 0131291
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing a Public Safety
Facility Development Fee and a General Government Facility
Development Fee
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code authorizes the City to
levy fees upon development projects to defray all or a portion of the costs of public
improvements and public services related to the development project. Such fees are
commonly known as “development impact fees.”
(b) The City currently imposes development impact fees to fund a portion of the
costs of park, community center, and library facilities that will serve new developments.
(c) New developments also are served by public safety facilities and general
government facilities.
(d) The City Council desires to impose development impact fees to fund a portion of
the costs of such facilities.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.58 of the Municipal Code, which is currently captioned as
“Chapter 16.58 Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers and Libraries” is
recaptioned as “Chapter 16.58 Development Impact Fees”
SECTION 3. Chapter 16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding Section 16.58.080 to read as follows:
“Section 16.58.080 – Public Safety and Government Facility Fees
(a) In addition to the fees established by Section 16.58.020, the following fees are
hereby established and shall be imposed as a condition of the approval of, or permit for, any
new development, whether residential or nonresidential, except as otherwise exempted by this
chapter: (i) a Public Safety Facility Development Fee, to fund police and fire facilities (including
fire apparatus and vehicles) and (ii) a General Government Facility Development Fee, to fund
facilities associated with municipal administration.
(b) The fees imposed by this section shall be charged in in an amount as set forth in
the municipal fee schedule.
1
141208 jb 0131291
ATTACHMENT D
NOT YET APPROVED
(c) A Public Safety Facility Development Fee Fund and a General Government
Facility Development Fee Fund are hereby established. Such funds shall be administered in
connection with the fees imposed by this section in the manner set forth in Section 16.58.050.
(d) Any fee imposed by this section shall be effective on the sixty-first day following
the adoption of an ordinance or resolution amending the municipal fee schedule to include a
rate for that fee.”
SECTION 4. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect any other provision or clause of this ordinance, and to that end, the
provisions and clauses of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
141208 jb 0131291
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 9, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and
Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
We ask our Council Colleagues to refer this colleague’s memo to the Policy and Services
Committee, supported by appropriate staff as determined by the City Manager, to analyze and
make recommendations to the City Council on a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
State law currently requires a minimum wage for all industries of not less than $9.00 per hour,
which will increase to $10.00 per hour after January 1, 2016. In response to our higher regional
cost of living and growing gap between minimum wages and the cost of living in Silicon Valley,
the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Jose have recently adopted local minimum
wage ordinances. If minimum wages were adjusted based on local costs of living, they would be
considerably higher in Palo Alto and the peninsula than most elsewhere in the state. Recently,
the Santa Clara County Cities Association made minimum wage issues one of their 2015
priorities. Despite our general affluence, along with high costs of living and working in Palo Alto,
we currently have the same minimum wage as low cost regions of California and lower
minimum wages than some neighboring cities.
PURPOSE
Our lowest wage workers perform valued services in Palo Alto and often have to work multiple
jobs with long commutes to barely make ends meet. A local minimum wage would be a modest
step in supporting these workers who are vital to maintaining the services we value and that
are essential to our local economy. In addition, the strength of our community and society
relies on maintaining a level of economic fairness and opportunity for all. This measure will be a
modest but constructive step towards providing adequate income for all workers.
PROPOSAL
The Council is being asked to:
1) Refer the matter to the Policy and Services Committee. Direct the City Manager and City
Attorney to provide adequate staff support for the analysis and recommendations,
modeled after ordinances in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.
2) Request the Policy and Services Committee to recommend to the City Council terms of a
local minimum wage ordinance that would set a near term base wage, inflationary
adjustments and long term goals.
Page 2
3) Request the Policy and Services Committee to explore with the City Manager and City
Attorney and make recommendations to Council regarding a strategy for
outreach/education, investigation and enforcement of violations.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff impacts to develop an ordinance are anticipated to be low based upon reliance on similar
ordinances in Mountain View and Sunnyvale as models. If Council adopts an ordinance,
resources will be required to educate businesses and workers, investigate complaints and bring
enforcement actions. Resources and strategies should be explored by the Policy and Services
Committee, with recommendations to Council.
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Rock <rockjs@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, January 26, 2015 12:42 PM
Council, City
Minimum Wage Increase
CITY OF PALO ALTO. GA GITY CLERK'S OFJiHjE
15 JAN 26 PM 3: 97
I urge you to vote for a minimum wage in Palo Alto significantly higher than the state minimum wage.
1) The cost of living in Palo Alto is much higher than the state average
2) The state minimum wage has not kept up with inflation.
3) People who work should be able to live on their wages and not need govt. subsidies
4) The increased costs to employers is very small. $1/hr is 1.6 cents/minute. A 6 minutes of service would
thus cost about 10 cents more. This is a trivial amount in Palo Alto. Who would go to a neighboring city,
with all the time and expenses of travel to "save" a few cents?
5) It is the just and moral thing to have more equality in our society.
-Steve
Stephen Rock
3872 Nathan Way
Palo Alto CA 94303
ser84@columbia.edu
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 9, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and
Kniss Recommending Adoption of a Resolution Urging CalPERS
Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies
Goal
We ask our Council Colleagues to adopt the attached resolution urging CalPERS to divest its
holdings in fossil fuel companies from statewide pension investments.
Background
On November 2nd, 2014, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
released “Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.” The Report found that “[w]arming of the
climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are
unprecedented over decades to millennia.” In addition, “recent anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases are the highest in history.” The threat of climate change is real, and
“[c]ontinued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes
in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and
irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”
Palo Alto has been a pioneer in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat
climate change. In 2007, the City drafted a Climate Protection Plan that set ambitious goals to
reduce carbon emissions in Palo Alto and expressed an intention to “share its experiences with
other cities around the world as part of an effort to address the environmental crisis of our
time.” In 2013, Palo Alto was one of the first cities in the country to achieve a carbon neutral
electric supply portfolio. This commitment to best practices and combating climate change is
one that is shared in our community as evidenced by Palo Alto Green, the nation’s top-ranked
voluntary renewable energy program before it became obsolete and was retired in 2013.
Palo Alto is currently considering efforts to become a 100% carbon neutral city.
Recommendation
Palo Alto is a member of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the
largest public pension fund in the United States with approximately $300 billion in assets. In
Page 2
addition, Palo Alto is a member of the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust, which is also
managed by CalPERS, with assets totaling approximately $4 billion. The value of Palo Alto’s
assets managed by CalPERS is in excess of $705 million (as of June 30, 2013, which is the most
recent actuarial report).
The City of Palo Alto has an obligation to invest its assets in a way that will protect and promote
the health, safety, and well being of its residents. Although we have outsourced our retiree
investment portfolio to CalPERS, we have not abrogated our obligation to insist that our assets
are invested responsibly and aligned with the values of our residents and the city’s policy
directions. Just as our policies and actions seek to create a carbon free community, our
investments should promote technologies that counteract human contributions to climate
change.
At the launch of the IPCC report, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon revealed that he has been
urging large companies and pension funds to turn their investments away from fossil fuels and
towards renewable energy. “I’m asking them – please reduce your investments in coal and
fossil fuel based economy to renewable energy.” We agree, which is why we’re requesting that
CalPERS divest from fossil fuel companies and move current energy investments from large
greenhouse gas emitters to clean energy.
While we believe strongly that Palo Alto’s investments should reflect its values, it is important
that we achieve a strong return on our investments as well. We believe these objectives are
complementary. Fossil fuel divestment is sound pension fund investment practice, as the value
of fossil fuel investments will decrease as governments act to limit carbon emissions.
Studies show that fossil free portfolios would have performed better than the benchmark
indices. According to a recent report by the Aperio Group, “[w]hen the idea of fossil fuel
screening gets floated, the first thing an [investment] committee would want to know is the
impact on return, especially whether screening imposes any penalty. The research data on a
wide range of social and environmental screening show no such penalty.”
To date, CalPERS has not acted to divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies and shift its focus
to the renewable energy economy. With this resolution, we request that it do so. We urge our
colleagues to join us and support its adoption.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The staff impact of adopting this resolution can easily be accommodated within existing staff
resources and work plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: CalPERS Divestment Resolution (DOC)
Page 3
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 4
1
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
URGING CALPERS TO DIVEST FROM PUBLICLY TRADED
FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES
WHEREAS, the climate crisis is a serious threat to current and future generations here in
Palo Alto and around the world; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment
Report found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of human and natural
systems throughout the world including the melting of Arctic ice, the ocean’s rise in acidity,
flooding and drought; and
WHEREAS, almost every government in the world has agreed through the 2009
Copenhagen Accord that any warming above a 2°C (3.6°F) rise would be unsafe, and that
humans can only pour about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to
maintain this limit; and
WHEREAS, for the purposes of this ordinance, a “fossil fuel company” shall be defined as
any of the two hundred publicly-traded companies with the largest coal, oil, and gas reserves as
measured by the gigatons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted if those reserves were
extracted and burned, as listed in the Carbon Tracker Initiative’s “Unburnable Carbon” report;
and
WHEREAS, in its “Unburnable Carbon” report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that
fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release approximately 2,795
gigatons of CO2 if they are burned, which is five times the amount that can be released without
exceeding 2°C of warming; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has a responsibility to protect the lives and livelihoods of
its inhabitants from the threat of climate change; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto believes that its investments should support a future where
all citizens can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of a warming environment; and
WHEREAS, studies have shown that fossil free portfolios would have performed better than
benchmark indices.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Palo Alto that the
Council requests CalPERS to join the City in these efforts and:
1. Immediately instruct its asset managers to stop any new investment in companies and
corporations whose operations involve the extraction of fossil fuels; and
2. Ensure that none of its directly held or commingled assets include holdings in fossil fuel
public equities and corporate bonds on or after January 1, 2020; and
3. Publish quarterly updates beginning July 1, 2015, available to the public, detailing
progress made towards full divestment.
2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: FEBRUARY 9, 2015 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney City Manager
3