Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-12 City Council (20)TO: FROM-: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE CMR:162:01 13 DATE:MARCH 12, 2001 SUBJECT:CITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT JOINT FACILITIES AND SERVICES MASTER PLAN UPDATE REPORT IN BRIEF In May 2000, the City Council and School District agreed to develop a joint master plan for services and facilities to "explore creative land use and design solutions, as well as investigate a variety of long-range funding sources for school/community facilities." Phase 1 of the master planning effort has been primarily information gathering. Phase 2 will include: 1)development of a City policy for non-profit use of City facilities; 2) creation and evaluation of alternatives for joint use and joint provision of services; and 3) creation of a model cooperative process for future joint use initiatives. A separate but parallel study is being completed of the facilities and program needs of non-profits in Palo Alto. As part of Phase 1, the City/School Liaison Committee worked with the consultant and staff to develop evaluation criteria for potential joint City/School District facilities and services proposals, as well as a preliminary listing of potential options for joint use or joint provision of services that could be analyzed in Phase 2 of the Joint Master Plan Study. A facilities and services needs assessment was-conducted for City, District and non-profit facilities. The results of the needs assessments are summarized in this report and its attachments. Both the City and District representatives to the City/School Liaison Committee felt it would be important to review the Phase 1 results prior to proceeding with scoping the Phase 2 facilities and services options to concentrate on, since it is anticipated that there will not be sufficient resources to fully explore all possible options for joint cooperation. CMR:162:01 Page 1 of 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: ¯Review the proposed evaluation criteria for potential joint City/School District facilities and services proposals; ¯Review the list of potential options for joint use or joint provision of services that could be analyzed in Phase 2 of the Joint Master Plan Study; and ¯Provide feedback to the Council representatives on the City/School Liaison Committee. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2000, the Palo Alto City Manager and Palo Alto Unified School District (District) Superintendent released a joint recommendation to the City Council and Board of Education that each be authorized to: 1."Conduct a Joint Master Plan of School/Community Facilities and Services; allocate sufficient resources for the joint study; and retum with a draft for community input and Board and Council discussion within six months; and, 2.As part of the Joint Master Plan, explore creative land use and design solutions, as well as investigate a variety of long-range funding sources for school/community facilities, including but not limited to development impact fees, certificates of participation, tax increment financing and general obligation bonds." On May 30, at a joint meeting of the City Council and School Board, approval to proceed with the Joint Master Plan effort was given by both bodies. The City issued a request for proposals for consultant services to undertake the master, planning work on June 29, 2000. Parsons Brinckerhoffwas selected and began work in October 2000. At the May 30 Council/School Board meeting, concern was expressed about the perceived facilities crisis for non-profits in the community, with the hope that it might be alleviated by joint use of City/District facilities. Although this was beyond the scope of the master planning effort, Jstaff recognized the desirability of developing further information on the facilities needs of non-profits and undertook .a separate information gathering effort to assess these needs. An advisory committee of chief executives from major non-profits in Palo Alto that serve a broad range of community services was formed and a separate consultant was retained to perform a needs assessment for non- profits. The master planning effort was divided into two phases. Phase 1 was primarily information gathering in order todevelop a scope of services for the actual planning effort, including the identification of the facilities and services for which joint-use proposals would be developed in Phase 2. Phase 1 involves the following: CMR: 162:01 Page 2 of 11 Establishment of a staffproject management team and Advisory committee Interviews with key City and School District staff Site tours and information review Stakeholder interviews Development and administration of needs assessment surveys for City and District facilities and services Development of evaluation criteria to be applied to potential joint use proposals Preparation of a comprehensive inventory of existing facilities Preparation of a refined scope of services for Phase 2 of the master planning effort The needs assessment for .non-profits was scheduled to coincide with the Phase 1 data gathering efforts. Phase 2 of the Joint Master Plan project will include: Development of a City policy for non-profit use of City facilities Creation and evaluation of alternatives, including: Development of a method/approach for creating alternatives for facility use and service provision ¯Community charrettes to create alternatives ¯Evaluation of alternatives ¯Stakeholder outreach (e.g., non-profits, facilities and fields organized sports organizations, neighborhood groups, etc.) Creation of a model, cooperative process for future joint use initiatives users, PTA’s, On October 16, the City Council approved a temporary expansion of the City’s representation on the City/School Liaison Committee from two to four Council members, in ordei" to ensure that "both the School District and City Council are able to provide effective oversight to the staff working to develop the master plan." Council Members Lytle and Burch joined Vice Mayor Ojakian and Council Member Kleinberg on the Committee for the purposes of the master planning effort. DISCUSSION The City/School Liaison Committee felt it would be important to review the proposed evaluation criteria for joint City/School initiatives, the preliminary list of potential projects to be analyzed in Phase 2 of the Joint Master Plan and the results of the needs " assessment surveys with their respective Council or School Board colleagues prior to making a decision on scoping Phase 2 of the masterplan process. Funding is not anticipated to be sufficient to pursue all of the opportunities, so prioritizing will bc critical to ensuring that the most promising opportunities are included. CMR: 162:01 Page 3 of 11 Evaluation Criteria for Joint Facilities and Services Proposals Over the course of several meetings, the City/School Committee worked with staff and the consultant to develop criteria to evaluate the merits of various ideas for cooperative service delivery or facilities operation. The draftevaluation criteria are: ~ ¯Recognize that the City has a diverse array of service responsibilities which serve the entire community; ¯Recognize that the District has the responsibility of providing fine educational services for both K-12 and the adult education program which serves the broader Palo Alto community; ¯Recognize that raising healthy and educated children is a core value for both the City and District ¯Recognize the different types of financial and non-monetary resources available to both parties and explore ways to equitably leverage the capabilities of each; ¯Spend or utilize public resources effectively; ¯.Be responsive to current and future demographic trends (e.g. aging population, increase in single parent households, increase in school age population); ¯Make efficient, innovative and collaborative use of existing facilities and land; ¯Ensure no net loss of City park land; ¯Design facilities that are flexible and can change or modify functions/programs and/or users if necessary to meet changing needs; ¯Be responsive to current program realities; ¯Be consistent with current policies of City and School District, and if policy changes are contemplated, be sure to involve affected policy-makers and stakeholders early in the process ; ¯If possible, increase the range and quality of community services provided to citizens; ¯Ensure that, when looking at the master planning process as a whole, both parties have an equal exchange of value; ¯Ensure sensitivity to quality of life impacts of intensifying use on all public sites (e.g. traffic); ¯Provide clear guidelines for facilities use by the parties; and ¯Provide clear lines of responsibility for the parties. Preliminary_ List of Opportunities for Joint Use of Facilities or Provision of Services The Committee worked with staff to identify as many possible opportunities for joint use of facilities or joint provision of services. The identified opportunities are: CMR: 162:01 Page 4 of 11 Facilities: Terman/Gunn Joint Library Greendell Garland 25 Churchill Palo Alto High Sohool Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Cubberley Community Center Lucie Stem Community Center Junior Museum Arts Center Ventura Center Proposed Performing Arts Center (El Camino Park) Proposed Mayfield Community Center Museum of American Heritage (leased) Municipal Services Center Former Los Altos Treatment Plant site City Parks (programmed) Services: Library Services Facilities Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance Fields and Grounds. Maintenance Arts/Museum/Sciences Programs . Recreational Child Care Child-Centered Non-School Hours Programs Continuing Post-Secondary Education Programs Opportunities for Housing for City/District Staff (as a Component of a joint use plan) Shuttle/Transportation of Students Enhancements to Police Services Joint Financing Draft Needs Assessment for City and School District Facilities and Programs The City/School Liaison Committee reviewed the instruments developed ,for the needs assessment surveys and provided input about the need for extended community outreach to stakeholders as the master planning effort progressed. CMR:162:01 Page 5 of 11 Surveys were distributed to City facility and services managers, City staff, and City facility users, as well as District staff and facilities users. Results of the City/District surveys ~were received, tabulated and analyzed, and presented to the City/School Liaison Committee on February 22, 2001. Attachment 1 summarizes the results of the Phase 1 needs assessment for City and District facilities and programs.. Results of the non-profits survey were discussed qualitatively at the February 22 City/School Liaison Committee meeting; a full report is anticipated to be completed by mid-April. City and School District facility and program administrators and staff, and users of City facilities were asked to provide their judgements in response to a range of questions on the adequacy of facilities to meet current and future needs. Like all survey methods, this approach has strengths and weaknesses. Its major strength is that it provides an efficient way to gather information from a small but fairly universal sampling of highly knowledgeable people. One weakness is the potential for bias from people with an actual or perceived direct interest in the conclusions. Another weakness stems from focusing on the opinions of current users rather than those not currently involved with these facilities and programs for one reason or another. The information that has been gathered represents a rich database, which will be used throughout the process of developing the Joint Facilities Master Plan. General highlights of the findings follow. Most facilities were judged by facilities managers, program managers and users to be barely adequate or somewhat inadequate for meeting current needs.. The metaphors of a suit that has become one or two sizes too small, or a possibly a C or B- on a report card seem to capture the typical opinion of survey respondents. Facility size, conditions and features were rated as neither terrible nor great in most cases. Demand for most facilities and programs is estimated to increase significantly over the next 10 years. Some of the needs that stand out are those for childcare, large community space, gymnasiums and other wooden floor uses and athletic fields during peak demand times. Several respondents identified a need for better facilities maintenance, specific features that should be added at some facilities, and more effective use of current space. CMR:162:01 Page 6 of 11 Several respondents identified opportunities for greater cooperation and coordination between the City, School District and in some cases non-profit and other organizations. ¯Users of City programs rated the quality of the programs and the people who deliver them very highly. City Facilities and Services Managers of City-delivered services utilizing City facilities and the managers of the facilities themselves indicated that there is an inadequate amount of space available. They.perceive this issue will only become worse in the future, as demand for space is increasing. However, the level of perceived need is different for those providing City services and those managing the facilities: the latter group is far more likely to believe there is a significant need for additional space, whereas the service providers are less likely to believe that their space needs are significantly inadequate. The reason for this may be that facility managers have more opportunities for direct contact with groups that are turned away because facilities are not available and thus may have a more acute sense of the magnitude of the current unmet demand. Most program providers and facility managers indicated that general facilities, such as office, storage, meeting rooms, large general purpose gathering spaces with wood floors, playing fields, are in the most demand. The perception of future demand for more specialized facilities, such as tennis courts and science facilities, was dependent on the perceived growth of the popularity of those types of uses. The perceived need and possibilities for. joint use o~" facilities largely depends on the nature of the services. Theatre groups generally were against shared use of facilities because of the need for rehearsal space and the difficulty of moving stage sets, while recreation program providers that could share space or use another entity’s space were more interested in the prospects for increased collaboration. City facility managers all indicated that demand is very high at almost all facilities, and that there is a peak hour demand during the late afternoons and early evenings. To increase capacity, managers indicated that increasing space - whether it is renovating and expanding the footprint of existing facilities, building up, or constructing new buildings - was the most likely solution. To a lesser degree, facility managers proposed using volunteers to keep the facilities open for more hours and days to increase capacity. CMR: 162:01 Page 7 of 11 Facility and Program Users Managers of non-City services and programs that utilize City facilities responded to the survey as well. The groups that responded were generally representative of the user types for these facilities: recreation, arts, education, performance, ethnic/cultural programs, and daycare. Most respondents rent or lease space at the Cubberley facility, and the remainder are scattered among other sites. The vast majority find that they have access to the facilities most or all of the time when they need it. However, as stated above, these respondents do not reflect groups that are unable to gain access to the facilities. It should be noted that facility managers indicate that this group is large. Almost all of the respondents felt the demand for their services will increase in the future, and two-thirds of all respondents felt that demand would increase significantly. Most user groups rated their space as in either good or very good condition. When asked to provide specific recommendations to improve the space, many suggestions had to do with general renovation or expansion of existing facilities. However, most suggestions were for specific improvements such as adding lights, making repairs, adding restrooms, or reconfiguring playing fields. The general sentiment of the comments indicated users were "making do" with the facilities, but specific improvements could greatly help meet their needs. School District Facilities and Services Managers of service programs provided by the Palo Alto Unified School District within its properties also responded to a facilities survey similar to the survey completed by the City. Most of the services represented were for specialized sub-sections of the general student population, such as counseling, childcare, special interest education, and community policing services. All of the respondents indicated that current space allotments are inadequate for providing their services. Also, four-fitths felt that they would very likely need additional space, over the next 10 years, with many stating they will need more than a 50 percent increase. The types of facility characteristics most frequently identified as being in demand were office space, storage, parking, lighting, and safety components. Survey respondents noted that many of these services require confidentiality and maintaining a student friendly environment is important. Many of the responding programs are currently partnering with other school programs and departments, the City, and Santa Clara County. Respondents also indicated that joint service provision was a possibility with non-profit organizations that provide similar CMR:162:01 Page 8 of 11 services as the School District to the general community, the City and other school programs. Non-Profit Survey Results The non-profit survey was developed by a consultant in collaboration with non-profit leaders and City staff, and distributed during January 2001. The survey was mailed to 192 non-profit organizations and 106 surveys were completed (55 percent return rate). The following is a summary of the key survey findings. Palo Alto is home to a wide range of non-profits serving diverse populations. While 38 percent of respondents report that they serve the general population, the remaining 62 percent are fairly evenly distributed among other populations (preschool aged children, children grades K-12, adults, families, seniors, people with disabilities, low income people, general populatiori, and other). Non-profit agencies are significant economic players. Of those reporting information: =>The total non-profit operating expenses exceed $103 million; =:>Non-profits employ nearly 2,000 people; ~Non-profits engage nearly 20,000 volunteers; ~Non-profits serve over 33,000 unduplicated clients; and ~Non-profits own 30 properties. While occupancy costs and availability appear to be impeding some organizations’ ability to serve the Palo Alto community, labor issues, particularly the ability to provide competitive wages, are an equal or greater challenge. Non-profits have been shrewd in their strategies to secure facilities. ~ 21% operate in space owned by the non-profit organization ~ 16% operate in space that is commercially leased ~ 10% operate in space that is leased from a church or other religious entity => 15% operate in space leased from the City of Palo Alto ~ 5% leased space from another government entity ~ 16% operate in space provided free of charge =:, 17% operate in other kinds of space (includes homes and space leased from other non-profits) The City of Palo Alto’s role in providing space to non-profits is significant. In addition to the 15 percent with lease agreements, another 10 percent of survey respondents have other kinds of facility arrangements with the City of Palo Alto. CMR:162:01 Page 9 of 11 Thus, 25 percent of non-profits that returned surveys benefit directly from City facilities. Twenty-seven non-profit organizations own 30 properties. The average length of ownership is 39 years and many indicated that aging facilities are in need of capital improvements. Of the 22 organizations engaged in commercial lease agreements, the majority .leases at rates below market value. Despite this, the average of most recent rent increases is 25 percent and the average next rent increase projected is 42 percent. Non-profit organizations involved in commercial lease arrangements are vulnerable to market fluctuations in the California Avenue, Downtown and San Antonio areas where they are concentrated. Data on most recent and projected rent increases and written comments convey that approximately 10 organizations have immediate facility needs. The majority of survey respondents estimate that demand for their services will increase over the next 10 years. 25% estimate demand for their services will stay the same. 55% estimate demand will increase (up to 50%) 19% estimate demand will increase significantly (more than50%). No organizations estimate that demand for their services will decrease. While 20 .organizations report having over 23,000 square feet of space that might be available for use by other non-profit organizations, 70 percent of this space is large or small classroom space geared toward episodic use. Thirty-eight percent of non-profit organizations report that during the next decade they will need 25 percent or more space than they currently use in order to meet demands for services that they currently provide. When asked what kinds of space they will need, 51 percent of responses called for dedicated space to use for client services, administrative or program offices, and storage. Fifty-five percent of respondents are "interested" or "very interested" in one or more kinds of cooperative arrangements with other non-profits. Possible cooperative arrangements include: shared use of the same facility, shared staffing, shared administrative functions, and shared funding and fund development. RESOURCE IMPACT Phasel of the Joint Master Plan project will cost approximately $65,000. This cost will be paid in total by the City of Palo Alto, under the assumption that most of the data gathering relates to City facilities. These funds are included in the 2000-01 budget. The City Manager has indicated that, looking at all the priorities for the City’s General Fund budget for 2001-03, he will recommend that the City provide an amount up to a CMR:162:01 Page 10 of 11 maximum of $100,000 for Phase 2 of the master plan, to match an equal amount provided by the District. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies related to joint use of City and School District facilities and services. TIMELINE The final task of Phase 1 of the master planning effort is the narrowing of the scope of the identified potential areas for joint use and cooperation. Once the City/School Committee prioritizes the potential joint use projects, the consultant will prepare a scope of services that will accommodate as many as possible of the projects given the agreed upon resources. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Development of a joint master plan is not a project for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. ATTACHMENTS City of Palo Alto: Development of Joint Facilities Master Plan Draft Needs Assessment (Parsons Brinckerhoff) PREPARED BY: EMIL~i" HARRISON Assistant City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL BENEST City Manager CMR: 162:01 Page 11 of 11