Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3625City of Palo Alto (ID # 3625) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/18/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Infrastructure Projects For Public Opinion Research Title: Infrastructure Committee Recommendation to Modify List of Projects Approved by Council for Public Opinion Research for a Potential Infrastructure Revenue Ballot Measure From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Infrastructure Committee and staff recommend that Council approve one of the following motions: Draft Motion: I move that the Council: Accept the list of projects approved by the Infrastructure Committee on March 7, 2013 for the public opinion research firm to use in development of polling questions on a potential ballot measure to fund infrastructure needs. or Accept the list of projects approved by the Infrastructure Committee on March 7, 2013 for the public opinion research firm to use in development of polling questions on a potential ballot measure to fund infrastructure needs, amended as follows. Executive Summary Staff is working with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates (FM3) to conduct opinion research that will assess the level of public support for various infrastructure projects for a potential ballot measure to fund infrastructure needs. Council approved a list of fourteen projects for polling on September 18, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Infrastructure Committee recommended some modifications to the list including removal of four projects and the addition of City of Palo Alto Page 2 three projects. This report recommends that the Council approve the project list as modified by the Infrastructure Committee. Background On September 18, 2012, the Council adopted a high level plan and timeline for consideration of an infrastructure revenue measure to fund infrastructure needs. The staff report provided information on each project that the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC)had previously identified, and for project needs identified since the publication of the IBRC’s Final Report in December 2011. Staff recommended eleven projects for public opinion research polling. Council added three additional projects and directed staff to implement the plan and timeline. The project list approved for polling by Council in September 2012 is as follows: ·Public Safety Building ·Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan ·Bike Bridge ·Byxbee Park ·Fire Stations ·Streets (accelerate resurfacing and Charleston/Arastradero) ·Sidewalks (surface catch-up) ·Cubberley (replace/expand) ·Parks catch-up ·Animal Services Center ·Playing Fields ·Post Office ·Ventura Community Center ·School Childcare Sites Discussion At the Infrastructure Committee meeting on March 7, 2013,staff reviewed the changes to the projects and funding sources that have occurred since the projects were last reviewed by Council on September 18, 2012. The staff report is provided as Attachment A. The Infrastructure Committee voted to recommend City of Palo Alto Page 3 removal of four projects from the list. The Committee also recommended adding three other projects for polling. It should be noted that these additions will require additional policy discussions before any final decision to include the projects in an infrastructure revenue measure. The rationale for removing and adding the projects is provided below. In two cases, the removal of Byxbee Park and the addition of the History Museum, the Committee approved the changes by a vote of 3-1. The remaining changes were approved unanimously. Byxbee Park: Remove The Byxbee Park project is recommended to be removed from the project list primarily due to the uncertainty regarding a potential Energy/Compost Facility on the ten acres that was set aside for a potential facility by the passage of Measure E in November 2011. Most recently, Council has directed staff to seek regulatory approval for postponing capping of the remaining uncapped portion of the landfill until the 2014 construction season. Staff recommends that Council determine whether an Energy/Compost Facility will be pursued on the ten acre site before preparing the final plan for completing Byxbee Park. The Infrastructure Committee voted 3-1 to remove Byxbee Park from the project list, with Vice Mayor Shepherd dissenting. Cubberley Replace/Expand: Remove The Cubberley Replace/Expand project is recommended to be removed from the project list because the ultimate decisions about uses and funding mechanisms for the Cubberley site have not been made. The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee’s Final Report recommends against funding improvements to Cubberley through a ballot measure in the near future, citing time constraints and general uncertainty about the project. Post Office: Remove The Post Office project is recommended to be removed from the project list because staff analysis indicates that if given the opportunity to purchase the Post Office, the purchase and improvement costs for the site could be satisfied by savings on lease payments for other spaces leased by the City and revenue from renting back a portion of the building to the Postal Service. Depending on factors such as the ultimate cost to purchase and renovate the Post Office, simple payback periods ranged from ten to fifteen years and the internal rate of return (IRR) ranged from 4.15% to 8.9%. Additionally, the Postal Service is expected to place the Post Office on the market for sale through a competitive bid process as City of Palo Alto Page 4 early as May 2013, a timeframe which is incongruous with planning for a future infrastructure revenue measure. School Childcare Sites: Remove Upgrades or renovations to the School Childcare Sites are recommended to be removed from the project list. The twelve School Childcare Sites are provided by Palo Alto Unified School District (District) in accordance with the Cubberley Lease and Covenant Not To Develop, which provides for annual payments by the City to the District, currently totaling approximately $0.6 million, to provide the sites. Those payments will continue if the Cubberley agreement is extended. Downtown Parking Garage and California Avenue Parking Garage: Add Recognizing the Council priority of “Future of Downtown and California Avenue”, the Infrastructure Committee recommends adding consideration of a new Downtown Parking Garage and a new California Avenue Parking Garage to the polling list. The Committee recognized that public funding of new parking garages would be a departure from the current policy of funding garages through parking assessment districts, and discussed the need for a broader policy discussion to determine whether parking garage projects are appropriate for an infrastructure revenue measure. Estimated costs for new parking garages have not yet been developed. The current estimated cost for parking garages is $60,750 per incremental space, consistent with the In-Lieu Fee Parking Program for Downtown. Incremental spaces are used because future parking garages are likely to be built on existing surface parking lot sites and the size and amount of parking spaces that can be realized at each site varies. While potential garage locations and sizes have not yet been identified, these figures suggest rough costs for garages of different sizes, i.e. $12 million for 200 incremental spaces, $24 million for 400 incremental spaces. History Museum: Add The Palo Alto History Museum (History Museum) is a nonprofit organization working to raise funds to restore the historic Roth building and to open the Palo Alto History Museum there. Development plans for the proposed project were approved in March 2011 for Architectural Review, Minor Exceptions, and a Conditional Use Permit. The project has secured approximately $3.5 million in donations and pledges, and plans to raise approximately $0.8 million through the sale of Transferable Development Rights. The estimated cost for the project is approximately $7 million. Staff has not reviewed detailed cost estimates for the City of Palo Alto Page 5 project and has not confirmed whether the estimate contains appropriate construction contingencies and has been escalated to reflect current construction cost conditions. The Infrastructure Committee recommended adding the History Museum to the project list for public opinion polling, where the project would consist of providing the remaining funding to allow the History Museum to proceed. The Infrastructure Committee voted 3-1 to add the History Museum to the project list, with Vice Mayor Shepherd dissenting. With the changes to the project list recommended by the Infrastructure Committee, the updated recommended project list for public opinion polling is as follows: ·Public Safety Building ·Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan ·Bike Bridge ·Fire Stations ·Streets (accelerate resurfacing and Charleston/Arastradero) ·Sidewalks (surface catch-up) ·Parks catch-up ·Animal Services Center ·Playing Fields ·Ventura Community Center ·Downtown Parking Garage ·California Avenue Parking Garage ·History Museum Timeline Upon approval by Council of the project list for public opinion polling, staff will work with FM3 to develop the survey objectives and questions. Survey objectives will be presented to the Infrastructure Committee prior to finalization of the questions. Public opinion polling is tentatively planned for April 2013. Staff anticipates returning to Council in early June to present the results of the survey. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 6 Contracts with FM3 for public opinion research and with TBWB strategies for educational outreach services have been approved by Council. Use of other resources is not proposed at this time. Policy Implications Funding of Downtown and California Avenue parking garages through an infrastructure revenue ballot measure would be a change from the past practice of using assessment districts to fund parking projects. Conducting polling on these projects would gauge the level of public support, but a discussion on the potential change in policy would be warranted prior to any decision to place these projects on a ballot measure. Attachments: ·A -Staff Report 3589 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3589) Committee for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/7/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Infrastructure Projects Update Title: Update on the Infrastructure Projects to be Evaluated in the City’s Baseline Public Opinion Survey and Consideration of any Committee Recommendations to the City Council on the Project List From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation and Draft Motion: Draft Motion: I move that the Committee: Accept the list of projects approved by Council on September 18, 2012 for the public opinion research firm to use in development of polling questions on a potential ballot measure to fund infrastructure needs. or Accept the list of projects approved by Council on September 18, 2012 for the public opinion research firm to use in development of polling questions on a potential ballot measure to fund infrastructure needs, amended as follows, and forward to the full Council for consideration: Background On September 18, 2012, staff presented to the Council a summary of infrastructure project status and potential funding sources. Staff also presented a subset of the full list of infrastructure projects, with a recommendation that these projects be the basis for the public opinion research firm to use in development of polling questions on a potential ballot measure to fund infrastructure. The Council approved the list, with the addition of three projects: acquisition of the Post Office, improvements to Ventura Community Center, and improvements to the twelve childcare centers located at Palo Alto elementary schools. City of Palo Alto Page 2 As approved by Council on September 18, 2012, the project list for public opinion research is as follows: 1.Public Safety Building 2.Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan 3.Bike Bridge 4.Byxbee Park 5.Fire Stations 6.Streets (accelerate resurfacing and Charleston/Arastradero) 7.Sidewalks (surface catch-up) 8.Cubberley (replace/expand) 9.Parks catch-up 10.Animal Services Center 11.Playing Fields 12.Post Office 13.Ventura Community Center 14.School Childcare Sites Discussion There are a number of variables and factors at play that may offset the costs of the projects and the need for a finance measure. Staff is providing an update on the projects and potential funding sources to facilitate the Committee discussion on the final list of projects to be evaluated in the City’s baseline public opinion survey. Project Summary Sheets An updated set of project sheets is provided as Attachment A. The document is provided in same format as the information provided to Council at its September 18th meeting. Each project sheet includes a project description; estimated cost and basis for the cost estimate; identified and potential funding sources to offset the project cost; and other variables or consideration that may impact timing, cost, or viability. Note that the Ventura Community Center and School Childcare Sites projects, which were added by Council, do not yet have sheets as staff is working to develop project scopes and costs. A one-page summary of the projects and costs is also provided (Attachment B) in the format requested by Council on September 18, 2012. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Project Cost Estimate Refinement Staff has contracted with Siegfried Engineering, Inc. to assist staff in reviewing and refining the project cost estimates for the projects that have been identified for public opinion polling. The scope of this work includes the following: ·Standardize the methodology used for each estimate. ·Create a base unit cost based in 2014 dollars. ·Create a set of assumptions for cost escalation over time specifically to the midpoint of construction or designated point in time. ·Set a consistent design contingency percentage as a factor of construction costs. ·Set a consistent construction contingency percentage as a factor of construction costs. ·Set a consistent construction management, inspection, testing, and construction administration percentage as a factor of construction costs. ·Set a consistent set of guidelines and a percentage for the involvement of public art elements as a factor of construction costs. Siegfried is also working with staff to develop new project cost estimates for the Ventura Community Center and School Childcare Sites. This work is expected to be completed by the end of March 2013 and the Project Summary Sheets will be updated accordingly at that time. Potential Funding Sources Table 1 provides an updated list of potential funding sources that could be used for infrastructure projects that are in addition to the funding sources listed on the project summary sheets. Table 1. Potential Funding Sources Funding Source Description Amount Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement: Infrastructure The Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement provides payment of $23.2M for use in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing.Two payments of $7.7M have been received, and the third is estimated to be received in January 2018. $23.2M City of Palo Alto Page 4 Funding Source Description Amount Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement: Sustainability The Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement provides payment of $12M for use in projects and programs for a sustainable community.Two payments of $4M have been received, and the third is estimated to be received in January 2018. $12.0M Infrastructure Reserve The Infrastructure Reserve was created as a mechanism to accumulate funding for infrastructure projects, and is funded each year by a transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund.The Infrastructure Reserve balance at the end of FY2013 is projected to be $14.0M. Staff recommends that $1.5M to $2M be kept in reserves for unanticipated capital expenses. $14.0M Community Centers Development Impact Fee These fees are intended to fund development and improvements to community centers, art centers, nature centers, civic theatres or other facilities that can host classes, studios and educational exhibits for public enjoyment, recreation and education.The fund currently contains $1.7M that is not committed to specific projects. $1.7M Parks Development Impact Fee These fees are intended to be used to fund acquisition of land for new or expanded parks and for improvements for neighborhood and district parks in order to expand the recreational capacity of the park or provide new sports and recreation facilities.The intent of the fee is to mitigate for the expansion of the population by new development with the creation of new recreational facilities.The fund currently contains $0.8M that is not committed to specific projects. $0.8M City of Palo Alto Page 5 Funding Source Description Amount One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Nondiscretionary Funds OBAG is a new program administered by VTA that will fund local road reconstruction and rehabilitation, bicycle, pedestrian, streetscape, and Safe-Routes-to-School projects that are eligible for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) or Transportation.Palo Alto’s automatic allocation share of the funds is expected to be a total of $1.0M to be used over the next four years and other funds will be available on a competitive basis. $1.0M Vehicle Registration Fee Guarantee Fund The new $10 addition to vehicle license fees passed by voters will be used to fund local road improvements and repairs.Palo Alto is expected to receive $0.36M per year (with no sunset date)resulting in funding of $1.8M over the course of the FY13-17 Capital Improvement Program Project (CIP)Plan. $1.8M These potential funding sources total $54.5 million. Staff has not proposed allocating the funds to specific projects at this time pending the results of the public opinion polling to be conducted in Spring 2013. Administrative Services Department is scheduled to bring a staff report to Council in April detailing the status of the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Mitigation Funds and the recommended policies and process for considering allocation of those funds. In summary, the staff report will note that one idea for use of the SUMC funds is for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) project matching funds pending decisions on the OBAG applications submitted by the City. Those decisions are expected in April or May 2013. It is envisioned that the Infrastructure Committee and the City’s new Sustainability Board will provide input to Council on potential allocation of funds for infrastructure projects. Development impact fees are another potential funding mechanism for certain infrastructure projects. As shown in Table 1, there are currently uncommitted Parks and Community Center development impact fees totaling $2.5 million. City of Palo Alto Page 6 However, these funds may be needed for completion of the El Camino Park project and for Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FFE) for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Main Library Renovation projects. Staff is working on an update to the City’s development impact fees that will focus future fees to meet unfunded infrastructure project needs. It is also noteworthy that the projected Infrastructure Reserve balance for the end of FY 2013 is $14.0 million, as compared to the projected $5.9 million that was reported on September 18, 2012. The increase is primarily the result of the transfer of $7.6 million from the General Fund at the close of FY 2012. Timeline Public opinion polling is tentatively planned for April 2013. In the event that the Infrastructure Committee recommends any changes to the list of projects for public opinion polling, staff would take the recommendation to Council for its approval. Such action is not anticiated to delay opinion polling. Attachments: ·A -Infrastructure Project Sheets (PDF) ·B -Project Summary Sheet (PDF) The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Public Safety Building (revised 2/26/2013) Construction of a new public safety building approximately 44,420 SF with 147 secured parking spaces and 44 unsecured parking spaces. The building and parking area is comparable to the program verification study prepared by Ross Druilis Cusenberry Architecture in May 2012 which includes Fire Administration. The IBRC 2011 Report found that the current facility failed to meet essential building codes and OSHA requirements, had insufficient space, inadequate and difficult to use EOC. Funding Source: This worksheet displays the project costs included in the Jay Paul public/private partnership proposal that was presented to Council on 9/10/12 and would only be applicable if a public/private partnership is pursued. If pursued, City costs for the project may change based on negotiation of public benefits for the proposed project. The City cost could go down. At the same time, if this approaches is unsuccessful, the City could be faced with funding the $47 million cost through a Finance measure. The greater cost and size of the project will limit the flexibility of options the City may be able to choose from. *Developer estimate, does not include contingency Other Considerations  City staff estimate the project cost for a typical design-bid-build project implementation for a building of approximately the same size, including land acquisition, to be $57M. Although staff have not conducted a detailed review of the public/private partnership project cost estimate of $47M, it $27M $20M Public Safety Building Total Estimate: $47M* Public/Private Partnership Total Additional Need The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. appears that the $10M difference may be due to lack of contingencies and estimated soft costs, such as design, environmental assessment, and construction management, that are lower than those the City uses in its cost estimates. Additionally, the developer’s cost estimate for the project incorporates their stated ability to build the project more cheaply and efficiently.  The Jay Paul proposal was prescreened by City Council in September 2012, and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) began the project initiation hearing on February 6, 2013. The PTC initiation hearing was continued to a future date. The current project schedule as prepared by Planning estimates an EIR hearing by the PTC in September 2013, with a potential project approval hearing by City Council in February 2014.  Relocation of the police department to a new public safety building would make approximately 22,600 of the current public safety building available for lease. Leased at $5/SF, this could generate $1.4M/year in revenue that could be used to fund projects or to leverage Certificates of Participation, depending on the size of the funding needed. The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Fire Stations (revised 2/26/2013) Two Fire Stations, numbers 3 and 4, have been identified as needing replacement. Fire Station #3, known as the Rinconada Fire Station and located at 799 Embarcadero Road, was constructed in 1948. Station #4, known as the Middlefield Fire Station, is located at 3600 Middlefield Road and was constructed in 1953. A needs assessment study by RRM Design Group in April 2005 determined that both buildings had structural deficiencies and that the sites had a potential for liquefaction (ground instability) during a seismic event. Neither building meets the current building code for essential services facilities Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include Stanford mitigation funds and public/private partnerships *Fire Station #3 estimated at $6.7M, Station #4 estimated at $7.5M Other Considerations  At the fourth Council Retreat on infrastructure, there was enthusiasm for the idea of using replacement of the fire stations to incorporate community health services that would reflect Palo Alto’s changing demographics. Some potential funding sources include: federal, state, and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds and public/ private partnerships $14.2M Total Cost: $14.2M* The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Byxbee Park (revised 2/26/2013) As envisioned by the original artist and landscape architect, the completion of Byxbee Park would occur following capping of the remainder of the landfill (Phase 2C) and would consist of a network of white oyster shell-lined trails with wooden viewing platforms. The hilltops would also be accented with small soil mounds called “hillocks” to be used for planting wildflowers. Additionally, the parking lot for the park would be expanded Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state, and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds and parks development impact fees * Staff revision of 1991 estimate by Hargreaves Associates. Other Considerations  Final closure (capping) of the landfill was originally scheduled for 2012, but Council has directed staff to seek regulatory approvals to postpone capping until the 2014 construction season to allow consideration of an Energy/Compost Facility following the passage of Measure E in 2011.  CIP PE-13020, Byxbee Park Trails, was budgeted at $250,000 in FY2013 to begin constructing trails on the recently opened former landfill areas (Phase 2A and 2B). This work may reduce the cost of a future Byxbee Park project. Total Cost: $3.6M* $3.6M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Bike/ Pedestrian Plan (revised 2/26/2013) The Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 expands the City’s existing bicycle infrastructure and proposes to implement a network of new on-street and off-street facilities for all user levels. Key components of the plan include 52 miles of new or enhanced multi-use paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle boulevards, and new barrier crossings at a number of locations. Barrier crossings account for about three-fourths of the total estimated cost for implementing the plan. Funding Sources: A $1.5M grant was approved by Santa Clara County in November 2012 to fund the Matadero Creek Trail, a component of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Additional potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, development impact fees, and public/private partnerships. * Planning level estimate from Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan completed in 2012 Other Considerations  The estimated cost of $25M differs from the previous figure of $35M because the $10M Highway 101 at Adobe Creek Bike Bridge project, which is shown as a separate project, is part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and was included in the original $35M estimate. $1.5M $23.5M Total Cost: $25M* Santa Clara County Grant Funding Total Additional Need The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Bike Bridge (revised 2/26/2013) This project would build a year-round, grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Highway 101 at Adobe Creek to connect South Palo Alto neighborhoods with the Baylands Nature Preserve and recreational and employment opportunities. The overcrossing is generally proposed as a 12-18’ wide pedestrian and bicycle bridge which would include a minimum 10’ wide travel way that would allow for a shared facility. Preliminary design and environmental assessment started in July 2012. Funding Sources: A $4M grant was approved by Santa Clara County in November 2012 to fund the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing. The grant proposal included a commitment of $1M from Development Impact Fees to further the design. A $4M One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) application is being submitted in early March 2013. Additional potential funding sources include Stanford mitigation funds, development impact fees, and public/private partnerships. * Feasibility Study completed in 2011, estimated at $6-10 Million, including $2M for design Other Considerations  The OBAG grant application is due on March 5, 2013. Staff expects that decisions on award of grants will be made in April or May 2013. $1M $4M $4M $0.35 $0.65 Total Cost $10M* Santa Clara County Grant Funding OBAG Grant Request Impact Fees Existing CIP Funding Total Additional Need The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Surface Catch Up (revised 2/26/2013) IBRC evaluated the maintenance needs of City streets and sidewalks as well as other surface facilities such as parking lots and off-road trails. The Surface Catch-up estimate includes all deferred maintenance that is not currently scheduled in the FY13-17 CIP Plan. The surface needs include $3.7M in sidewalk repairs, resurfacing of over 30 parking lots, approximately 9 miles of off-road trail repairs, traffic signals, intersection improvements and traffic calming improvements. The estimate does not include annual street maintenance. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. * Staff Estimate based on 2011 construction costs. Other Considerations  The surface catch-up estimate includes approximately $1M in costs for maintenance of Downtown and California Avenue parking assessment district lots. These costs may be funded through parking permit revenues. Total Cost: $8.8M* $8.8M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Parks Catch-up (2/26/2013) IBRC evaluated the maintenance needs of City parks and open space facilities. The Parks Catch-up estimate includes all deferred maintenance that is not currently scheduled in the FY13-17 CIP Plan. The parks and open space needs include turf, irrigation and playground replacement, pathway, tennis and basketball court resurfacing, and replacement of miscellaneous amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, lighting, signage, and trash receptacles. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Parks development impact fees are not available for maintenance costs. * Staff Estimate based on 2011 construction costs. Other Considerations  Parks catch-up is reduced from the $14.5M figure used by IBRC due to Parks projects added to the FY13-17 CIP Plan. Total Cost: $9.8M* $9.8M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Buildings Catch-up (revised 2/26/2013) IBRC evaluated the maintenance needs of all City buildings. The Buildings Catch-up estimate includes all deferred maintenance that is not currently scheduled in the FY13-17 CIP Plan, with the exception of deferred maintenance for Cubberley Community Center. Deferred maintenance requirements include roofing, HVAC, electrical and plumbing replacements. Interior and exterior improvements such as painting and carpet replacement are also included. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. * Kitchell Report completed in 2008 with IBRC and staff assessment. Other Considerations  The Catch-up estimate includes about $900,000 for Municipal Services Center (MSC) deferred maintenance. This deferred maintenance would not be needed if a decision is made to move forward with replacement of the MSC. Additionally, staff will evaluate whether MSC deferred maintenance should be funded by the General Fund CIP Program. Total Cost: $4.5M* $4.5M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Post Office (revised 9/13/2012) Acquisition of post office property and renovation of existing building. Funding Sources: Potential annual lease payments of $1.2M/year could be used if Development Center and Elwell Ct. office space uses were to be relocated to a City-acquired Post Office building. * Staff Estimate Other Considerations  Potential for avoided annual lease payments of $1.2M if Development Center and Elwell Court office space were to be relocated to City-acquired Post Office Total Cost: $10M* $10M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Charleston/Arastradero (revised 2/26/2013) Landscaping, lighting and signal and signage improvements along the entire Charleston/Arastradero Corridor will allow for up to 7-8 feet bike lanes on both sides of the street. The landscape median provides a permanent improvement to transition from four travel lanes to three along the entire corridor. Addition of pedestrian crossing refuge islands, enhanced crosswalks, bulb-outs and bike boulevard signage are also included. The project’s goals are to reduce commute speeds and improve school related traffic congestion. Funding Sources: A Safe Routes to School grant was approved in the amount of $0.45M to improve Charleston Road from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. A $0.35M Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) grant application was submitted in January 2013. A $5.5M One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) application and a $0.5M Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) grant application are being submitted in early March 2013. Development impact fees from the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Fund totaling $0.25M have been included in the FY 2013 CIP Plan for design of the Corridor plan, and an addition $0.57M is currently available in the Fund. *Staff prepared cost estimate in 2009 Other Considerations  Project cost increased from $6.1M because scheduled Charleston work was removed from the FY13- 17 CIP Plan.  The OBAG grant application is due on March 5, 2013. Staff expects that decisions on award of grants will be made in April or May 2013. Award of EEMP grants is expected in September 2013. $450,000 $350,000 $5,500,000 $500,000.00 $250,000.00 $570,000.00 $2,130,000.00 Total Cost $9.75M* Safe Routes to School Grant Funding EEMP Grant Request OBAG Grant Request VERBS Grant Request Existing CIP Funding Charleston/Arastradero Fund Total Additional Need The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Cubberley Replace/Expand (revised 2/26/2013) This project would completely replace the existing Cubberley Community Center with a new community center on the City-owned portion and new middle and high schools on the PAUSD-owned portion. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, development impact fees from the Community Center Fund, and public/private partnerships. The City’s share of the project for the Community Center is $83M of the $200M. * Planning level estimate completed in 2012. Other Considerations  The project would be coordinated in cooperation with PAUSD if the Cubberley process ultimately yields a decision to pursue [up to] complete replacement and expansion of Cubberley Community Center. The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee is expected to make its recommendations to Council in March 2013. $117M $83M Total Cost: $200M* School District Total Additional Need The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Cubberley Deferred Maintenance (revised 2/26/2013) All maintenance required for Cubberley Community Center including HVAC, electrical and plumbing replacements, parking lot resurfacing, tennis courts and field repairs. Cubberley Deferred Maintenance includes both the City and PAUSD-owned portions of the Cubberley property. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. * Kitchell Report completed in 2008, and some staff assessment Other Considerations  Addressing Cubberley deferred maintenance may not be necessary if Council decides to pursue complete replacement and expansion of Cubberley Community Center. Likewise, deferred maintenance on the PAUSD-owned portion of the property may not be necessary if Council decides not to renew the existing lease. The Cubberley Community Advisory Committee is expected to make its recommendations to Council in March 2013. Total Cost: $6.9M* $6.9M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Animal Services Center (revised 2/26/2013) Construction of a new Animal Services Center at the former Los Altos Treatment Plant site. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include federal, state and local grants, Stanford mitigation funds, and public/private partnerships. * Staff prepared cost estimate in 2009 Other Considerations  This project assumes relocation of the Animal Services Center to the Los Altos Treatment Plant site along with relocation of the MSC to allow auto dealer use for the East Bayshore site. No project is needed if relocation of the MSC does not occur.  The estimate of $6.9M is based on an Animal Services Center sized to serve Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. Given the ongoing discussions resulting from Mountain View ending its participation, a smaller facility with a lower cost may be built if the project moves forward. However, it is also possible that the City may enter into contracts with other jurisdictions that would offset the loss of revenue from Mountain View. Total Cost: $6.9M* $6.9M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Civic Center (revised 2/26/2013) The waterproofing membrane that is beneath the Civic Center plaza deck is in need of replacement in order to prevent the current leakage of water into the garage area. The current leakage may eventually degrade the reinforcing steel that holds the deck structure together. The membrane has a lifespan of approximately 30 years and is the original installation from the 1969 Civic Center construction. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. * Ferrari Moe estimate in 2004, adjusted for inflation in 2008 Other Considerations Total Cost: $16M* $16M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Los Altos Treatment Plant (revised 2/26/2013) The Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) property contains a former wastewater treatment facility on a 6.5 acre portion of the site known as Area B. This project will initiate the development permit process to maximize usable land on Area B. The project will produce and execute plans to remediate historical contamination on the site, demolish the remaining treatment plant structures, and fill low areas including the former sludge ponds. Mitigation of wetland impacts will also be coordinated on the site following CEQA analysis. The mitigation is expected to include the creation of additional wetlands in the portion of the LATP site known as Area A. Conceptual design and environmental clearance for the project are included in the scope of work for a contract that will be brought to Council for approval in March 2013. Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. * Staff prepared estimate in 2008 Other Considerations  Following completion of the project, the land would be available for City use, sale, or lease to a third-party, generating undetermined revenues.  The General Fund and the Refuse Fund each own half of the LATP property. Total Cost: $2M* $2M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Airport (revised 9/13/2012) Resurfacing of runway and taxiways and construction of 12,000 SF terminal building Funding Sources: The project is expected to be funded through Airport revenues upon transfer of the Airport to City operation. * Staff prepared estimate in 2012 Other Considerations Total Cost: $5M* $5M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Playing Fields (at Golf Course) (revised 2/26/2013) 10.5 acres of existing Golf Course land is being set aside as part of the Golf Course reconfiguration project for potential playing fields. The fields will be constructed when/if funding becomes available Funding Sources: No funding sources have been committed. Potential funding sources include Stanford mitigation funds, parks development impact fees, and public/private partnerships. * very preliminary estimate based on artificial turf playing fields Other Considerations  Preliminary estimates range from $2M - $6M, with the $2M estimate representing three turf playing fields and the $6M estimate representing three artificial turf playing fields. These estimates do not include other amenities such as parking and lighting that would be associated with the project. Staff intends to work to develop conceptual plans and more precise cost estimates in the near future. Total Cost: $6M* The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Golf Course (revised 2/26/2013) The Golf Course project will reconfigure the entire Golf Course allowing a more Baylands-oriented golfing experience with significantly more naturalized areas and a smaller turf footprint (less fertilization, pesticide application and water use). The project will also set aside 10.5 acres for possible playing fields or other recreational facilities. The primary purpose of the Golf Course project is to accommodate the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) levee re-alignment project, which will encroach onto the existing Golf Course for critical flood control measures. Funding Sources: Staff estimate $3.2M will be paid by the SFCJPA as mitigation for the levee realignment project. The remaining $4.4M of construction costs will likely be financed through Certificates of Participation or other means over 20 years, with the debt payments to come from Golf Course revenues. Funding for the estimated $0.5M design cost is not yet identified. * Forrest Richardson estimate in 2012. $500,000 is design cost estimates Other Considerations  Does not include conceptual plans for 10.5 acres of land set aside to become potential playing fields if/ when funding becomes available.  Final amount of SFCJPA mitigation is under negotiation. $3.2M $4.4M $0.5M Total Project $8.1M* SFCJPA Mitigation Certificates of Participation Existing CIP Funding The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Municipal Services Center (revised 2/26/2013) Complete replacement of Municipal Services Center based on study completed by Leach Mounce Architects in 2003. Based on IBRC recommendation, CIP PE-12004 was created for a MSC Facilities Study to analyze options for locating City functions, personnel and equipment currently housed at MSC/ASC. Funding Sources: This project is expected to be funded by Enterprise Funds if implemented. * Leach Mounce Architects estimate in 2003 adjusted by staff for inflation Other Considerations  A complex study of the MSC property is currently budgeted for FY 2013. Staff is finalizing the scope and expects to release an RFP in Spring 2013. Total Cost: $93M* $93M The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) (revised 9/13/2012) The recently completed Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facilities Plan projects project needs over the next 50 years, including retiring of the sewage sludge incinerators, addition of nutrient removal treatment processes, reverse osmosis membrane treatment for recycled water, and a number of other projects. Funding Sources: Palo Alto contributes 35% of the flow to the RWQCP, and would therefore be responsible for 35% of the project costs. The RWQCP partner cities would fund the remaining 65%. Palo Alto project costs would likely be funded through Utility Revenue bonds and/or the State Revolving Fund. * Long Range Facilities Plan report in 2012. Other Considerations Total Cost: $250M* $250M Infrastructure Project Summary Sheet (all costs/revenues in millions of dollars) Project Estimated Cost Potential Funding Net Cost Importance Ranking Public Support Ranking Annual Operating Revenue Other One Time Costs Public Safety Building 47 27 20 tbd tbd 1.4 tbd Bike/Pedestrian Plan 25 1.5 23.5 tbd tbd Bike Bridge 10 9.35 0.65 tbd tbd Byxbee Park 3.6 0 3.6 tbd tbd Fire Stations 14.2 0 14.2 tbd tbd Streets 1 9.75 7.62 2.13 tbd tbd Sidewalks (surface catch-up) 2 3.7 0 3.7 tbd tbd Cubberley Replace/Expand 200 117 83 tbd tbd Parks Catch Up 9.8 0 9.8 tbd tbd Animal Services Center 6.9 0 6.9 tbd tbd Playing Fields (at Golf Course)6 0 6 tbd tbd tbd Post Office 10 0 10 tbd tbd 1.2 3 Ventura Community Center tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd School Childcare Centers tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd Surface Catch Up 5.1 0 5.1 Buildings Catch Up 4.5 0 4.5 Cubberley Deferred Maintenance 6.9 0 6.9 Civic Center 16 0 16 Los Altos Treatment Plant 2 0 2 tbd Airport 5 5 0 Golf Course 8.1 8.1 0 Municipal Services Center 93 93 0 Regional Water Quality Control Plant 88 88 0 Energy/Compost Facility 100 100 0 Sum:674.6 456.6 218.0 2.6 3 1 Streets project is defined as completion of the Charleston/Arastradero project with acceleration of the overall street resurfacing program; this placeholder estimate is for the Charleston/Arastradero project and does not yet include additional cost for accelerated resurfacing 2 Sidewalks catch-up is included in the Surface Catch-up project summary sheet, and represents the additional funding needed to complete Pr o j e c t s a p p r o v e d b y C o u n c i l f o r i n i t i a l pu b l i c o p i n i o n r e s e a r c h Ot h e r p r o j e c t s n o t p l a n n e d f o r pu b l i c o p i n i o n r e s e a r c h The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available.