Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7343 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7343) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/24/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Stakeholder Formation Process Title: Review and Direction on Formation of a Stakeholder Committee to Advise the Council Regarding a Potential Local Tax to Raise Funds for Transportation Programs and Projects From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide direction regarding the structure, process and potential membership of a stakeholder advisory committee to advise the Council regarding a potential future ballot measure seeking voter approval of a general tax on businesses that would raise funds that the City could use to fund transportation programs and projects. Once appointed, the stakeholder advisory committee would explore transportation needs, identify funding requirements and assist staff with development of a timeline for a potential future ballot measure. Executive Summary: Last spring, the City Council considered the options and timelines of placing a potential local business tax measure on the ballot to raise funds that the City could use to fund needed transportation projects with a special emphasis on TDM measures (Transportation Demand Management). At their last meeting before the summer break on June 27, 2016 Council voted to direct staff to bring back at a future meeting a timeline with activities to plan for a potential ballot measure in either 2017 or 2018. This also included options to structure a stakeholder committee to explore priority transportation needs, identify funding, requirements and develop a funding plan. The formation of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission followed a similar charter, and the Council identified the IBRC as a potential model to follow for a future transportation tax stakeholder committee. In addition to the IBRC, there have been a number of other stakeholder groups assembled recently including the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee, Storm Drain, and the Library Bond Stakeholders Committee. The formation process, membership and structure of all of these are summarized in this staff report. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background: At its meeting on June 27, 2016, the City Council reviewed the results from a second round of polling conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) to inform Council’s decision about whether to place a local business tax on the ballot for November 2016 or an alternate election timeframe. Based on the second polling results and feedback from outreach efforts, outreach consultant TBWB outlined three paths forward for Council to consider in terms of timing for a potential tax measure that included (1) placing a general tax measure on the November 2016 ballot; (2) consideration of a special tax requiring two-thirds approval in 2017 or (3) placing a general tax measure requiring a simple majority on the November 2018 ballot. The Council’s Local Transportation Ad Hoc Committee had directed staff to bring these options, as well as a series of framing issues, for the full Council to consider at its June 27th meeting. The framework of major points for discussion included:  Formation of an oversight committee  Sunset of tax or not  Estimated revenue generated by measure  Structure and form of tax  Relationship among timeframe for election, implementation and collection of revenues  Potential projects that could be funded by tax proceeds  Enforcement and other administrative elements and costs  Impact on traffic congestion of no action/putting measure in place Regardless of the type and timing of a potential local tax to fund transportation projects, the Ad Hoc Committee was unanimous in its recommendation to the full Council on both the need for a stakeholder committee, as well as having representation from both the business and residential communities. As part of the motion passed by Council on June 27th, they directed staff to: A) Consider placing a special tax measure requiring a two-thirds vote on a special election ballot in 2017 and utilize the additional time to refine the proposal, build consensus and address potential concerns about a tax; and B) If necessary, consider placing a general tax measure requiring a simple majority vote on the November 2018 ballot and utilize the additional time to refine the proposal and build consensus and address potential concerns about a tax; and C) Create a stakeholder committee to explore priority transportation needs, identify funding requirements and explore various funding options and develop a funding plan. Committee members would include a balance of business and resident interests, ideally include but not be limited to Stanford, the Transportation Management Association, Palo Alto Unified School District, residents, Stanford Research Park, Transportation Demand Management Working Group; and D) Direct staff to return with a timeline with activities to plan for a ballot measure and options for structure of the stakeholder committee. City of Palo Alto Page 3 In their discussion, Council highlighted the work of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) as a model process for forming a stakeholder committee to consider a local transportation funding tax measure. This report is focused on the process used to form the IBRC, as well as other stakeholder groups, how members were selected, and the purpose and charter of such groups in order to outline for Council the options to structure a stakeholder committee. A determination of activities and timeline for any potential tax measure will need to be addressed subsequent to deciding on the makeup and charter of the stakeholder group. Discussion: As part of the City Council’s discussion about the timing, structure and options for placing a tax to raise funds that can be used for transportation projects on the ballot, the City Council directed staff to return with potential options to from a stakeholder advisory committee. Recent advisory committees have ranged in size from 11 to 28 members with membership criteria including neighborhood representation, subject matter expertise, members of existing Boards and Commissions, school district reps, businesses, and community partner affiliation. There have been a mixture of City Manager and Council-appointed committees, and with the exception of the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee, most have completed their work within about a year. In addition, if the November 8, 2016 County-wide transportation sales tax passes, the City’s local process will come at the same time as the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is developing guidelines for the use of the sales tax revenues. City staff understands that VTA will prepare draft guidelines for each program area covered by the sales tax measure, including complete streets, transit operations, grade separations, expressways, etc. In each case, the VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of staff, will review and make a recommendation to the VTA Board, which will adopt the guidelines. Palo Alto has representatives on the TAC and the PAC. Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) In 2010, the City was faced with a backlog of approximately $500 million of infrastructure projects (based on an estimate from an earlier study). The back log summary showed a five- year backlog of approximately $153 million and a longer horizon 20-year backlog of approximately $302 million. The backlog included all existing infrastructure maintained using General Fund resources. The future needs were major infrastructure projects that were currently unfunded. In March 2010, the City Council considered a Colleagues Memo from then Vice Mayor Sid Espinosa and Councilmembers Larry Klein, Greg Scharff and Greg Schmid that referred the issue of formation of an Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to the Policy & Services Committee for review and recommendation. In addition, the City engaged the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to analyze and recommend community engagement strategies around the City’s infrastructure City of Palo Alto Page 4 challenge. The recommendations were provided to the Commission as a way to help the design of an outreach process around the City’s infrastructure needs. In September 2010, the Council appointed IBRC members that included four Board and Commission members and 15 other members of the community (no alternates). One third of the applicants had been interviewed by each of three separate three-member Council subcommittees during the summer break. The 15 community members chosen were those who received the most Council votes. Ultimately two of the 15 did not participate on the IBRC, resulting in the total 17-member committee. The formation of the IBRC required a significant allocation of staff resources and support, routinely requiring 3-6 staff members at every IBRC meeting, in addition to others involved in follow-up work and research outside of the Commission meetings. Past experiences with similar task forces showed that the time to complete their work varied widely, and initially, the Council felt the IBRC would need 9 to 10 months to complete its work. In addition, staff resources identified to support the IBRC were also involved in preparing the operating budget, working on the Library Bond Program, and other priorities. To meet the timeframe set forth by the Council, staff reprioritized some existing workloads, and put together a cross-departmental team with staff from the City Manager’s Office, Public Works and Administrative Services leading the effort. The Commission began its work in November 2010, charged “to provide a recommendation to the City Council on infrastructure needs, priorities, projects and associated funding mechanisms to address the infrastructure backlog and future needs.” Seven guiding questions accompanied this charge. The IBRC process included 31 public Commission meetings, two study sessions with the Council, a session with the Planning and Transportation Commission and another with the Council Finance Committee, and well over 200 other meetings of the IBRC sub-committees and working groups, as well as meetings with other cities, between commissioners and staff, and with individuals who provided assistance. To address the sprawling challenges of Palo Alto’s infrastructure problems, IBRC initially created three sub-committees: Finance, Surface (streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.), and Buildings. These committees did basic research and analysis into the scope and detail of these three domains. Subsequently, the Commission redeployed into five working groups to study specific aspects of the City’s infrastructure that merited deeper analysis. These working groups (1) confirmed the need for and studied the development of an Infrastructure Management System, (2) analyzed current City data to determine Palo Alto’s existing catch-up and keep-up needs; (3) researched the needs of the City’s public safety facilities, (4) explored the opportunity represented by the Municipal Services Center and the Embarcadero East corridor, (5) worked out the financial considerations, and (6) considered opportunities for the future. Members of the City staff offered significant support throughout its efforts, responding to commissioners’ questions and City of Palo Alto Page 5 providing the basic information on which its understanding and consideration of options depended. The IBRC completed its work with a final report and recommendations that went to the City Council in December 2011. Cubberley Community Advisory Committee A process of discussing the Cubberley site began in November 2011. The process involved the formation of several groups. The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consisted of two Palo Alto Unified School District members appointed by the School Board President and three City Council members appointed by the Mayor. The PAC was the primary advisor to the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re-use or joint use of the Cubberley campus. The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was jointly appointed by the City Manager and School Superintendent and consisted of seven neighborhood representatives, one commercial retail representative, four Parent Teacher Association (PTA) representatives, four Cubberley tenant representatives, one community arts & services representative, one Parks & Recreation Commission representative, one Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) representative, one Acterra representative, one Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) representative, one City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) representative, one recreation and sports league representative, and five at-large and other community member representative. The CAC reviewed Cubberley background and history and provided the PAC with community input including the possible re-use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and compatible standards. Members of the public were invited to all of the meetings, and the CAC was tasked with developing a final report. The PAC and CAC meetings were audio-recorded with minutes completed for the PAC with the cost shared by the City and PAUSD. A set of Guiding Principles was developed for use by both the PAC and the CAC that were intended to reflect community values of transparency and public collaboration. The CAC produced a comprehensive four-volume report in March 2013 with a series of recommendations for Cubberley. Significant staff support across several departments was required for this effort. Citizens Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Update City of Palo Alto Page 6 The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was created by the City Council in May of 2015 to provide community input to the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update. The CAC is charged with advising the City Council on suggested changes to the existing Comprehensive Plan’s programs and policies after the Council has set the structure of the goals. The CAC is made up of 22 community members to represent a diversity of interests, as well as three ex officio (non-voting) members representing the Planning & Transportation Commission, the Palo Alto Unified School District, and Stanford University. The initial 17 members were appointed by the City Manager based on stakeholder categories approved by the City Council, who later appointed five additional members to the committee. The charter or purpose of the CAC was developed in similar fashion to prior successful planning efforts such as the 2014 Housing Element Community Panel. The City developed an application submittal process that was broadly distributed. In appointing community members, the City Manager and the City Council sought a mix of members in terms of their familiarity with the City’s planning processes, a mix of ages and cultural backgrounds, and a mix of long-time residents and more recent arrivals. While neighborhood representatives were appointed “at large” to represent the interests of the entire City, residents were sought from a variety of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Renters and the business community were also sought out for representation, as well as interest/expertise in topics related to affordable housing, natural resource conservation, community health, environmental sustainability, real estate development, transportation and mobility, architecture and urban design and business and economics. The Committee is a Brown Act committee with meeting agendas and public notices of meetings. The CAC reviews Comprehensive Plan sections, recommendations of the Planning & Transportation Commission, and public input received during and in advance of the meetings. The CAC is also assisting staff with the evaluation of “open sourced” public input via an online tool and with synthesizing all materials and inputs as they review plan language (policies/programs) and proposed revisions. Members of the CAC are asked to review materials provided in advance of meetings, and are primarily engaged in reviewing and commenting on (rather than writing) draft plan language. The CAC meets on a monthly basis, and has formed a number of smaller subcommittees who work on more detailed recommendations on particular elements that are brought back to the larger group for discussion. In addition, the CAC has met with the City Council, and as the CAC works through each element, their recommendations are brought to City Council for discussion and direction. The CAC process has proven labor intensive for all involved, with CAC members, staff, and consultants devoting significant time to meetings and review/preparation of written materials between meetings. The subcommittee process has been particularly resource-intensive, with multiple subcommittee meetings occurring each month in addition to meetings of the full CAC. Each meeting entails preparation of a staff report, draft materials for (sub)committee review, City of Palo Alto Page 7 and supporting materials. While originally anticipated to extend from July 2015 to December 2016, it now appears the CAC’s work will extend through the spring of 2017. Storm Drain Committee City Manager Keene appointed an 11-member Blue Ribbon Committee in 2016 to advise the City Council on the future of the City’s Storm Drain Program. The Committee consisted of residents from throughout the community with varying interests and areas of expertise who met regularly with staff from February through mid-April to review the current status of the Storm Drain Program, study and prioritize future needs, and recommend a set of storm drain capital projects and programs for the coming years along with a funding plan. The Committee’s recommendations were forwarded to the City Council in late spring 2016 for formal consideration. The City’s Storm Drain Program is funded through user fees collected on monthly utility bills and deposited into the Storm Drainage Fund, an enterprise fund independent of the City’s General Fund. Program elements include ongoing storm drain system maintenance, storm water quality protection, and implementation of storm drain capital improvements. Storm drain fees are subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, which requires that new or increased property-related fees be approved by local property owners. The current storm drain rate structure was established in 2005 through a ballot-by-mail measure approved by a majority of property owners. Under the terms of the ballot measure, the current fees are set to sunset in June 2017 to their pre-2005 level unless a new ballot measure is approved. Enhanced funding for the Storm Drain Program will continue to be needed in future years due to ongoing and new needs. The Storm Drain Blue Ribbon Committee worked cooperatively with staff to review and prioritize current and future needs, develop a strategy for how to fund the highest-priority programs and projects, and make recommendations to the City Council for a funding ballot measure that will be presented to property owners for approval later in 2016. Library Bond Stakeholders Committee The Library Bond Stakeholders Committee was formed in 2009 and included representatives from a variety of boards and commissions with the charter to provide communication and feedback with their parent organization or board, and to provide access to architects, public works, library and community services to hear what was going on and communicate to the community. They initially met monthly, but once all of the library projects were underway, they moved to quarterly meetings. City department heads collaborated and asked existing City boards and commissions, well as the Palo Alto Library Foundation and Friends of Palo Alto Library to assign representatives to the committee. There was also a representative from the YMCA, schools, a City Councilmembers and several others. The City Council assigned the members of Library Bond Oversight Committee, which had the responsibility for ensuring the City of Palo Alto Page 8 bond funds were spent appropriately. They met quarterly under open meeting procedures, and was staffed by the City Manager’s Office. Resource Impact: This transportation initiative will require substantial City staff time and resources to support the work of the stakeholder committee, as well as Council input, time and attention.