HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3913
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3913)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/24/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Infrastructure Baseline Survey
Title: From Infrastructure Committee: Preliminary Survey Findings
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
This report provides background material for the study session.
Background
On June 6, 2013, the City’s Infrastructure Committee reviewed the preliminary findings of a
baseline survey assessing the community’s opinions about a potential finance measure to fund
infrastructure needs. Attachment A provides the staff report for the meeting. The staff report
presents the preliminary findings of the baseline survey. Supplemental information is also
provided on the status of infrastructure project costs, currently available revenue sources,
grant applications, potential revenue sources, and debt financing alternatives that is intended
to support the Committee’s discussion and recommendations to the City Council about next
steps. In addition, the staff report provides information on potential ballot measure packages
that combine multiple projects, and a potential general tax measure used to fund infrastructure
projects.
No formal action was taken at the June 6 Infrastructure Committee meeting regarding
recommendations to the City Council on next steps. Given the volume and complexity of the
information, the Committee decided to continue its discussion after the Council recess, in early
August. At the meeting, the Committee underscored the importance of Council determining in
the near term whether to dedicate currently available and potential new revenue sources to
infrastructure to making decisions about whether to pursue a finance measure. Examples of
currently available revenue sources include Stanford Development Agreement Funds and the
Infrastructure Reserve. Potential future revenue sources include new hotels, a potential digital
message center along Highway 101, and repurposing a portion of the Municipal Services Center
for an auto dealer or other revenue generating user.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In addition, the Committee provided some direction to staff on repackaging information for the
next meeting in August 2013. Committee members were also asked to give further thought
over the July recess to projects and funding mechanisms that the Committee may recommend
eliminating for further study and projects that may be bundled into ballot measure packages for
further study, based on the survey results. The minutes from the June 6, 2013 Infrastructure
Committee meeting are included as Attachment B.
Discussion
This study session is being held to share the survey findings with the full Council prior to the
July recess. The City’s public opinion research firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and
Associates (FM3) will provide an overview of the baseline survey results at the study session.
Attachment A of the Infrastructure Committee’s June 6 staff report provides the slides for this
presentation. A color copy of the presentation will be provided to Council by email and at
places prior to the study session.
Discussion
The Infrastructure Committee will reconvene in early August 2013 to continue discussions and
formulate recommendations about next steps to the Council. It is anticipated that the
Committee will bring forward their recommendations to the Council in late August, 2013.
Attachments:
: Attachment A. 6-6-2013 Infrastructure Committee Staff Report (PDF)
: Attachment B. 6-06-2013 Infrastructure Committee Meeting Minutes (DOC)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3875)
Committee for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure
Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 6/6/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Infrastructure Finance Measure
Title: Review Baseline Survey Results and Make Recommendations to the
City Council on Next Steps in Considering an Infrastructure Finance Measure
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Infrastructure Committee review the preliminary public opinion
survey results and make recommendations to the City Council on next steps in considering a
potential infrastructure revenue measure.
Background
On September 18, 2012, the Council adopted a high level plan and timeline for consideration of
an infrastructure revenue measure in the November 2014 election to fund infrastructure needs.
Since last September, the City retained assistance of outside experts in two areas: 1) public
opinion research and 2) public communications and educational outreach. In December 2012,
the City hired the public opinion research firm, Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz and Associates
(FM3) to assist the City with its opinion research. In February 2013, the City retained the
communications firm, TBWB Strategies (TBWB) to help evaluate the feasibility of a finance
measure and develop communications, messaging, and community engagement strategies.
FM3 recommended a series of research efforts to assess public attitudes towards funding the
City’s infrastructure needs, including: 1) initial baseline survey in the spring of 2013, 2) series of
follow-up focus groups in the summer of 2013 if the initial baseline survey points to voter
support for revenue increases to support infrastructure investments, 3) a potential tracking
survey in the Fall of 2013, and; 4) a final feasibility survey in the Spring of 2014. The culmination
of the research will be a series of recommendations to the City Council about whether and how
to proceed with an infrastructure finance measure or measures.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In the first of a series of research efforts to access public attitudes, a baseline public opinion
survey was conducted in late April and early May 2013 of approximately 600 residents in Palo
Alto. The objectives of the survey were to:
1. Track public attitudes (compared to prior years’ surveys) on core measures like feelings
about the City’s quality of life; the City Council’s management of civic affairs and finances;
the condition of the local economy; and the need for additional revenue to fund various
local services;
2. Gauge overall perceptions of the condition of the City’s infrastructure, and the specific
areas that may be in greatest need of approval;
3. Test public support for the following 14 potential infrastructure improvement projects as
directed by Council, given basic information about their substance and cost.
Public Safety Building Parks Catch-up
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Animal Services Center
Bike Bridge Playing Fields (golf course)
Fire Stations Ventura Community Center
Accelerate Street Resurfacing Downtown Parking Garage
Charleston/Arastradero Improvements California Avenue Parking Garage
Sidewalks (surface catch-up) History Museum
4. Evaluate public support for several potential ballot measure packages that might combine
several of the improvement projects in cohesive packages;
5. Evaluate types of funding mechanisms and levels of tax threshold the community is willing
to support;
6. Determine the demographic profile of the respondents to provide the necessary categories
for cross-tabulation of the data, and to ensure that the respondents are representative of
the pool of likely November 2014 voters in Palo Alto.
Discussion
This staff report presents the preliminary findings of the baseline survey. Supplemental
information is provided on the status of infrastructure project costs, currently available funding
sources, grant applications, potential revenue sources, and debt financing alternatives to
support the Committee’s discussion and recommendations to the City Council about next steps.
In addition, the staff report provides information on two areas that drew public support as
measured in the survey, potential ballot measure packages that combine multiple projects, and
a potential general tax measure used to fund infrastructure projects.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The following provides some key policy questions and considerations that the Committee may
want to consider in reviewing the survey findings and supplemental material and making its
recommendations to the Council.
1. Removing projects that do not have strong support?
2. Focusing continued efforts around specific projects such as public safety and transportation
(including bike and pedestrian) improvements?
3. Proceeding with further study on a bundled measure that combines multiple projects?
4. Proceeding with further study on funding for a public safety building individually or bundled
with other projects?
5. Proceeding with further study on specific finance mechanisms that received more than
simple majority support including a General Obligation Bond, Transient Occupancy Tax,
business license tax, or real estate transfer tax and considering multiple measures?
6. Evaluating further the issuance of Certificates of Participation to fund infrastructure needs?
7. Designating current funding to infrastructure projects (that did not have strong support)
that could be allocated at the Council’s discretion such as the Stanford Mitigation Funds?
Preliminary Survey Findings and Conclusions
FM3 conducted the initial baseline public opinion survey from April 28 – May 5, 2013. A
telephone survey was conducted of 603 randomly-selected Palo Alto voters likely to cast a
ballot in the November 2014 election. The margin of sampling error is +/-4.0 percent at the 95
percent confidence level; margins of error for population subgroups will be higher. For
example, the split sampled questions (sampling 300) have margins of error of +/- 5.7%.
Selected findings were compared to the results of prior City voter surveys in 2007 and 2008.
FM3’s preliminary conclusions of the baseline survey are:
1. Voters express striking confidence in City government and its financial management.
2. The central challenge is that voters do not attach much urgency to infrastructure issues;
they believe the City is handling them well and not much additional funding is required.
3. At the same time, 66% of voters are supportive of a ballot measure to finance infrastructure
improvements – though most only tentatively.
4. A ballot measure to fully fund a public safety building is unlikely to receive two-thirds
support; however, the public share of a public-private partnership could likely win approval
as part of a broader package.
5. Chances for a measure’s success will likely be maximized by:
Focusing ballot measures around public safety and transportation (including bike and
pedestrian) improvements, subject areas which consistently draw the most support.
Placing projects together in packages, which pair projects that draw enthusiastic public
reaction with others that are more lukewarm.
Using general obligation bonds as the financing mechanism to the extent possible at the
two-thirds level; several other taxes could be feasible with a simple majority vote.
Keeping costs close to the level of voters’ expressed willingness to pay, which seems to
peak at $125 per year (for two-thirds support) and $200 per year (for majority support).
City of Palo Alto Page 4
A full report of the survey findings and conclusions is included in Attachment A. Attachment B
provides the survey questionnaire and the topline results.
Status of Infrastructure Project Costs
Attachment C provides an updated list of infrastructure projects and cost estimates, committed
funding, potential funding, and the net cost that requires funding for each project. Committed
funding includes awarded grants and project funding already appropriated through the capital
budget, while potential funding consists of outstanding grant applications and the Jay Paul
proposal for construction of a public safety building. The list of projects differs from past
project cost summaries provided to the Infrastructure Committee and Council as follows:
The Cubberley Replace/Expand and Municipal Services Center projects are not included
since they are dependent on future studies and Council decisions
The following projects will be funded from a variety of sources such as rates, user fees,
lease revenues, expense reductions, and partner contributions and are not included. These
include: Energy/Compost Facility, Golf Course, Airport, Post Office and Regional Water
Quality Control Plant Master Plan
The Los Altos Treatment Plant project is not included because it is proposed to be funded in
the FY 2014 capital budget
The cost estimates for the Streets and the Sidewalks projects have been increased to allow
for accelerated work intended to significantly improve sidewalks and to achieve a citywide
average Pavement Condition Index of 85 in 2016 (five years earlier than the initial goal of
2021).
The History Museum at the Roth Building, Downtown and California Avenue parking garage
projects have been added to the project list for public opinion feasibility polling and are
included with the initial cost estimates that have been used in the polling.
The current estimate of total project costs is $231.5 million. The net cost after committed
funding is $219.3 million and the final net cost if outstanding grant applications are successful
and if the Jay Paul proposal moves forward, is $171 million. If projects are excluded that were
added to the list for polling purposes (History Museum at the Roth Building, Downtown and
California Avenue parking garages, Ventura) the total project cost is $192.5 million. The net cost
after committed funding is $180.3 million and the final net cost if outstanding grant
applications are successful and if the Jay Paul proposal moves forward, is $132 million.
Attachment C also provides the public opinion survey results for each specific project tested in
the survey, presented as the percentage of the survey respondents that strongly support or
somewhat support the projects. More than 2/3 of the survey respondents supported Fire
Stations, Streets, Sidewalks, and Parks Catch-up Projects, while the Bike/Pedestrian Plan, Bike
Bridge, Ventura Community Center, Public Safety Building, and Charleston/Arastradero Projects
have support levels at or above a majority. The remaining projects received less than majority
support.
Bundling Infrastructure Projects
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The survey also tested the level of public support for five different potential bond or tax
measures that represent combinations of individual projects, with the wording of each
potential measure structured as it might appear in an actual ballot measure – minus a funding
mechanism and dollar figure. The survey results for these potential measures are useful for
understanding the public response to a combination of projects that surround a given theme.
Four measures were found to have support levels greater than two-thirds:
1. Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe Streets, Sidewalks and Trails Measure (74%)
2. Palo Alto Vital Facilities and Services Protection Measure (72%)
3. Palo Alto Children and Families First Measure (71%)
4. Fire, Paramedic, Police, Seismic Safety and Emergency Response Measure (68%)
Attachment D presents the language tested for each measure and identifies the projects and
project costs that might coincide with the language of each measure. The language of the Palo
Alto Vital Facilities and Services Protection Measure, which received 72% support in the survey,
was structured as a general tax measure that could be passed by simple majority vote and
therefore does not specify projects and project costs that it may fund.
The City may express its intent to use a general tax to fund a specific list of projects, though it
would not be obliged by law to do so. To accomplish this, the City could put a general tax
before the voters together with a Council-approved expenditure plan – which could either be
approved legislatively or referred to the ballot for an advisory public vote accompanying the tax
measure. It is a common practice for cities to adopt an expenditure plan associated with
general tax measures when outlays are known.
As described above, the survey found that the community has a high level of trust in the City
government. Sixty-eight percent of residents surveyed stated that the City does an excellent or
good job in providing services, 75 percent approved of the City’s work in maintaining city
infrastructure, and 63 percent approved of the City’s efficiency in utilizing local tax dollars. The
combination of the voters’ positive response to the language of a potential general
infrastructure measure and overall approval for the City’s management of infrastructure and
local tax revenues suggests that a general tax measure requiring only majority support may be a
viable means of funding a portion of the City’s infrastructure needs. If the City decides to
proceed with a general tax, a determination on the type of tax will need to be made, e.g. hotel
stays (TOT), sales, real estate transfers, business licenses (BLT), utility use (UUT).
As noted above, the survey findings indicated a ballot measure to fully fund a public safety
building is unlikely to receive two-thirds support; however, according to FM3, the public share
of a public-private partnership could likely win approval as part of a broader package.
Currently, Jay Paul Company is proposing a Planned Community (PC) zone change at 395 Page
Mill and 3045 Park Blvd. that, if approved, would allow construction of office buildings at 395
Page Mill Road, and a three-story approximately 44,500 square foot public safety building (as
the primary proposed public benefit), along with associated parking. The applicant has
estimated the value of the construction of the public safety building (including land) and
City of Palo Alto Page 6
associated parking at $49.3 million. (There are additional costs—approximately $8 million-- to
provide turn- key occupation of the completed building).
Attachment E provides an update on the Public Safety Building associated with Jay Paul
Company’s proposed development at 395 Page Mill Road. If Council proceeds with planning for
a potential measure that combines multiple infrastructure projects, it is anticipated that Council
will have the information needed to inform Council’s final decisions about placing an
infrastructure finance measure on the ballot in the spring of 2014. The design review schedule
assumes Council will consider Jay Paul Company’s development proposal and the feasibility of
the EIR in March 2014. The City will be conducting its final feasibility poll in the spring of 2014
to inform Council’s final decisions about an infrastructure measure or measures. If the
development proceeds it is anticipated that the City will need up to $8 million to complete the
build out. If the development does not proceed and an alternate new location is needed for
the public safety building, the City will not be prepared to proceed with a finance measure that
addresses funding for a public safety building until 2016 to allow time for the acquisition of the
property, and the plan/design/EIR review process.
Grants, Currently Available Funding Sources, Other Potential Revenue Sources, and Financing
Alternatives
The following section provides an update on grants, currently available funding sources that
Council could earmark for infrastructure, other potential/projected revenue sources, and
revenue that could be generated from various finance mechanisms.
Status of Grant Applications
The City has applied for grant funding for the Bike Bridge and Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
projects. The status of these grant requests is provided in Table 1. The Vehicle Emissions
Reduction Based at Schools Grant request of $1 million to support the Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Project has been approved by the VTA Board of Directors. The VTA Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) recommended that the $4 million OBAG grant request for the Bike Bridge
Project be approved, but did not recommend approval of the $5.5 million request for the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. The TAC’s recommendations are scheduled to be
considered by the VTA Board of Directors on June 4, 2013. Staff continues to monitor
opportunities to leverage grant funding toward the cost of infrastructure projects.
Table 1: Status of Infrastructure Project Grant Requests
Bike Bridge Project
Grant Request
Request
Amount
Expected
Timeline for
Award
Other
Project
Funding
Total Project
Cost
City of Palo Alto Page 7
One Bay Area Grant
for Bike Bridge
$4 million1 June 2013 $5.35
million
$10 million
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
Grant Request
Request
Amount
Expected
Timeline for
Award
Other
Project
Funding
Total Project
Cost
Environmental
Enhancement and
Mitigation Grant
$0.35 million September 2013
$1.27
million $9.75 million
One Bay Area Grant $5.5 million not
recommended
for award
Vehicle Emissions
Reduction Based at
Schools Grant
$1 million awarded
1 Recommended for approval by VTA Board of Directors
Other Potential Funding Sources
To further evaluate resource needs to fund infrastructure improvements, staff identified
currently available funding sources that could be allocated to infrastructure projects at
Council’s discretion. These funding sources are described below and include the Stanford
Medical Center Development Agreement Funds, the Infrastructure Reserve, Impact Fees and
Parking In-Lieu Fee Funds. Attachment F provides a summary of the funds that are available
under “Currently Available Revenue Sources.” It is estimated that $44-$48 million could be
available from current funding sources should the Council choose to allocate the revenue to
infrastructure.
Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Funds $34.4M
On May 6, 2013, staff provided Council a review of the status and balances of the six distinct
Stanford University Medical Center Mitigation Funds. The two funds most applicable to the
City’s infrastructure projects are the Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Affordable
Housing Fund and the Sustainability Programs Fund. The former could be allocated to any of
the City’s infrastructure projects. The latter could be allocated to projects addressing climate
change and sustainability such as the Bike/Pedestrian Plan and the Bike Bridge, and potentially
to other projects as well.
It is estimated that upon receipt of the third payment from Stanford University anticipated in
2016-2017; repayment of short-term loans for affordable housing; and no use of funds to
City of Palo Alto Page 8
provide local matches for successful grant requests through the One Bay Area Grant program,
the following, future balances will be available:
Stanford Infrastructure/Housing $22.1 million
Stanford Sustainability 12.3 million
Total $34.4 million
The above represent one-time funding sources and Council decisions will be necessary for any
drawdowns from these funds. For example, if the City uses Stanford funds for grant matches or
forgives housing loans, fund availability will be reduced. The Finance Committee will be making
a recommendation on using Stanford Funds for the Bike Bridge Project in May 2013.
Infrastructure Reserve (IR) $6-10 Million
The IR is drawn upon annually to fund infrastructure projects in the five-year Capital
Improvement Program. It is replenished when the General Fund has an operating surplus and
monies in the Budget Stabilization Reserve exceed 18.5 percent of budgeted operating
expenses. Based on an expected surplus at the end of FY 2013 and funding for the proposed
Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 through FY 2018, the IR is estimated to have available $6 to
$10 million to fund infrastructure projects. This availability is subject to use of the IR to
purchase the Post Office and for higher than anticipated costs for library and community center
projects. Use of IR monies for the Post Office is temporary in that debt will be issued eventually
to replenish the IR.
Impact Fees
Other sources of funding, which have been and can be used for capital work include Impact and
Parking In-Lieu fees. Impact fee revenue must be used for new projects or expanded facilities
to accommodate new growth. They are dependent upon the number and timing of projects so
it is difficult to estimate available resources. Staff expects to have more information available
on impact fee balances at the Committee’s meeting. The current estimated balances less
expected drawdowns for upcoming projects are as follows:
Parks $1.0 million
Community Centers $1.4 million
Citywide Transportation $TBD
Charleston-Arastradero $TBD
Total $2.4 million
Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fees $1.2M
Downtown Parking In-Lieu fees are targeted for the construction of new or expanded parking
garage spaces. They are one-time resources that would be used to offset the principal required
for construction. Currently, a developer has proposed building a garage on Lot P. The
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Developer’s proposal includes a City contribution from the In-Lieu fund of $1.0 million for
construction. In addition, $0.5 million in in-lieu funds will be used to cover estimated permit
and other fees. Between the $2.1 million available from the Lytton project and a current
balance of $0.6 million, staff estimates that $1.2 million will be available for constructing a
downtown garage.
It is important to note that the City is currently conducting an Impact Fee study to determine
the appropriate level for current fees and the potential for new fees. In June, staff will present
to the Finance Committee a list of potential projects and infrastructure needs that can be
funded via Impact Fees. As with the Stanford Development funds, it will be important to
determine the level of drawdown on fee balances and commitments made in the CIP.
Potential New Revenue Sources
There are also a number of new sources that could provide revenue to fund infrastructure
needs. The use of these potential funding sources for infrastructure projects is at the Council’s
discretion and many of the sources are dependent on future policy and land use decisions. The
potential sources are described below and include new hotel revenue, digital readerboard
revenue, sales tax from an auto dealership at MSC, lease revenue from renting the current
police building (after expenses associated with renovating the facility), and lease of the Los
Altos Treatment Plant site. Attachment F also provides a summary of the potential and
projected revenue increases discussed below. It is estimated that these new potential revenue
sources collectively could yield $117.6 million to fund infrastructure needs.
New Hotel Revenue $2.4M Annually
In the near future, a number of new hotels are expected to open in the City. These include, for
example, the Hilton Garden Inn, the Hilton Homewood Suites, and Casa Olga. The idea of
earmarking revenues from these hotels for infrastructure work has emerged in Council
discussions. This annual income stream could be allocated to debt service for large projects
and/or for pay-as-you-go work. The IBRC, for example, identified $42 million in “catch-up”
needs. The Commission recommended that the City spend $4.2 million per year over a ten year
period to eliminate this backlog. At this time, it appears three new hotels will open sometime
in 2014. Two other hotels have either not filed an application or indicated a construction date.
An estimate of potential annual revenues is provided although opening dates are not known.
Annual revenue from hotels expected to open in 2014 $1.7 million
Annual revenue from hotels expected to open post 2014 $0.7 million
Total expected revenue $2.4 million
Other Potential New Sources of Revenue
Over the past few years, staff has been exploring the potential for placing a digital message
center along highway 101 and re-tooling a portion of the Municipal Services Center for lease to
an auto dealer or other revenue generating user. These options have not been discussed with
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Council. Staff roughly estimates that revenue streams of between $0.7 and $1.0 million could
be generated annually from these two initiatives.
In addition, should the Police Department (PD) be completely relocated to a new public safety
building, the current building could be leased to an office tenant and create an estimated
revenue stream of $1.4 million annually. If the costs for preparing the current PD space for
office occupancy are financed with debt, part of the eventual rental income will be used for
debt service. At this time, staff does not have an estimate for renovation expenses, but it is
reasonable to assume costs of $1-$3 million to provide a space suitable for lessee tenant
improvements to proceed.
A cost of service study is being conducted and a preview of the methodology was presented to
the Finance Committee. A capital component will be included in the proposed fees and, if
approved by Council, could be used to fund future renovation and replacement costs. At this
time, staff does not have an estimate of potential funding that could be available should
updated fees based on the study be approved. The study is expected to be presented to the
Finance Committee this summer.
Finance Measure Results, Revenue Potential and Election Timing and Considerations
The survey also tested a variety of financing mechanisms and levels of funding support for
infrastructure related improvements. When respondents were asked about their willingness to
pay additional taxes to fund infrastructure projects, the level of support peaked at $125 per
year (for two-thirds support) and $200 per year (for majority support).
Support for Household Additional Taxes for Infrastructure
Annual Amount
Polling Support
(strongly and somewhat support)
$100 75%
$150 64%
$200 53%
$250 48%
Attachment F also provides a summary of the funding mechanisms tested, level of support,
potential revenue that could be generated by each type, and voter support needed for
successful passage. The four financing mechanisms that received more than a majority support
include the following. Other proposals such as increasing the sales or utilities users’ tax rate or
creating a parcel tax received low approval ratings.
1. Issuing Bonds 64%
2. Transient Occupancy Tax 62%
3. Business License Tax 51%
City of Palo Alto Page 11
4. Real Estate Transfer Tax 51%
Based on the survey results it appears Palo Altans are willing to support the idea of issuing debt
to finance infrastructure improvements. It also appears there is willingness to increase a tax
that does not bear directly on Palo Altans themselves and to a lesser extent a tax on businesses
and real estate transactions.
For sizeable projects such as a public safety building, fire station replacements, and parking
garages, it is more than likely that the City will need to issue debt. To support new, annual debt
service payments, the City will need to increase, create, or earmark a revenue source. There
are a variety of options for Council to consider. Increased or new taxes would be subject to
approval by voters. Attachment F summarizes the potential funding available from these
sources. Attachment G identifies potential funding mechanisms and their election
requirements. The four funding mechanisms that received more than a majority support are
discussed further below. Certificates of Participation (COPs), a financing vehicle that does not
require voter approval, are also discussed.
General Obligation Bonds
General Obligation Bonds can be viewed as a new source of revenue to the City since a self-
imposed assessment is approved by voters. These bonds require two-thirds approval by the
voters and were used for Measure N library and community center improvements. Attachment
F also displays the impact of varying levels of General Obligation bonds on the median assessed
value of single family residences. In alignment with the survey results on willingness to pay, it is
estimated that a 30 year general obligation bond at an annual tax of $125 would yield $72
million and a $200 a year assessment would yield $114 million.
Transient Occupancy Tax
A Transient Occupancy Tax, commonly known as the "hotel tax," is charged by the City to
guests at hotels located in Palo Alto. The tax is computed by multiplying the rent charged by the
hotel operator by the tax rate percentage. Hotel tax revenue accounts for 11.5 percent of the
City's total general fund revenue.
Based on current revenue levels, a one percent increase in the City’s transient occupancy tax
can be expected to result in ongoing, annual revenues of $0.9 million which could be available
to the City for any general capital improvements. Palo Alto’s transient occupancy tax rate was
raised from 10% to 12% percent by the voters in the 2007 November General Election. Eighty-
one percent of the electorate voted for the increase. Hotel tax rates vary from city to city.
Across California, tax rates range from a low of 9.5% to a high of 15%. Attachment F provides a
list of the TOT for surrounding communities. This type of tax can be structured either as a
general tax requiring a simple majority vote or a special tax (for a special purpose) requiring 2/3
approval. TOT can also be part general tax and part special tax.
Business License Tax
City of Palo Alto Page 12
The City could consider new taxes to support debt or pay as you go financing. Palo Alto does
not have a Business License Tax (BLT) which most municipalities levy. A Business License is an
annual tax businesses pay each year for doing business in the City of Palo Alto. In the last
analysis performed and taken to the voters in 2009, it was projected that a BLT would raise $3.3
million annually. The BLT, however, can be constructed to generate less or more than this
amount. Like TOT, this type of tax can be structured as a general tax requiring a simple majority
vote, a special tax requiring 2/3rds approval, or both. Staff would recommend beginning work
immediately with the business community if Council proceeds with further study on a potential
business license tax.
Real Estate Transfer Tax
A real estate transfer tax, commonly known as a “document transfer tax,” is a tax imposed on
each recorded document in which real property is sold. The tax is paid at the time of recording
a document transferring real property. Either the buyer or the seller pays the tax upon mutual
agreement. In the City of Palo Alto it is traditional for the buyer and seller to equally share this
tax.
If a house is sold in Palo Alto for $1.5 million the current tax would equal $4,950. By increasing
the tax by $1.10 per thousand dollars or by 33.3 percent, the incremental tax on this
transaction would equal $1,650 for a total tax of $6,600. If the City were to increase its real
estate transfer tax by $1.10, it would yield approximately $1.8 million annually. This tax is
sensitive to the volume and mix (residential and commercial) of property transactions and can
vary significantly from year-to-year. This type of tax can be a general tax requiring a simple
majority vote, a special tax requiring 2/3rd approval, or both.
Leveraging Revenues for Debt Financing: Certificates of Participation
Existing, increased or new revenue sources can be used to fund infrastructure on a pay-as-you-
go basis or by using debt financing. The primary financing vehicle that does not require voter
approval is Certificates of Participation (COPs). The City has used this instrument previously for
Golf Course and Civic Center improvements. Attachment F shows the estimated amount of
principal that could be generated by issuing COPs for infrastructure work. Based on a number
of assumptions (e.g. 4.5% to 5.5% interest rate and 30 amortization period), it is estimated that
for each $1 million of annual debt service through Certificates of Participation, $13-$15 million
of principal can be generated.
Ballot Measure Costs and Voting
The cost of placing a measure on the ballot is dependent on the type of election that is being
held. The Registrar of Voters estimates that the cost to place a measure on the November 2013
ballot would be approximately $350,000. The cost for November 2014, a general municipal
election, is estimated at $175,000. The cost for a special election held at any time other than
the annual November election, is estimated at $500,000. The election year in which a measure
is included on the ballot also influences the use of the revenue and the proportion of the vote
needed for passage of the measure. If the revenue from the measure is to be available for use
City of Palo Alto Page 13
for any purpose, it must be on the ballot for a general municipal election (even years) and
requires a majority vote of the electorate. If the revenue is to be restricted to a specific use
such as infrastructure, the measure may be on any ballot, but requires a two-thirds vote of the
electorate.
Timeline
It is anticipated that the Infrastructure Committee will review the preliminary survey findings
and supplemental information contained in this staff report and make recommendations to the
City Council on the next steps in planning for an infrastructure measure. Based on Council’s
direction and refinement of infrastructure priorities, staff anticipates conducting focus groups
over the summer, developing and implementing a communications plan, and conducting a
tracking survey in the fall of 2013.
Resource Impact
There is no immediate resource impact from this report. Future impacts are dependent upon
Council action and election results.
Attachments:
Attachment A. Preliminary Survey Results (PDF)
Attachment B. Questionnaire_Topline Results (PDF)
Attachment C. Infrastructure Project Costs (PDF)
Attachment D. Potential Bundled Infrastructure Measures (PDF)
Attachment E. Public Safety Building Update (PDF)
Attachment F. Potential New Revenue Sources (PDF)
Attachment G. Funding Mechanisms and Election Requirements (PDF)
220-3577
Key Findings From a Citywide Survey Conducted
April 28 – May 5, 2013
Infrastructure Finance Survey
DRAFTAttachment A
1
DRAFT
Methodology
Telephone survey of 603 randomly-selected Palo Alto
voters likely to cast a ballot in the November 2014
election
Interviews were conducted via landline and cell
phones
Survey was conducted April 28 – May 5, 2013
The margin of sampling error is +/-4.0 percent at the
95 percent confidence level; margins of error for
population subgroups willbe higher
Some percentages do not sum to 100% due to
rounding
2
DRAFT
Palo Alto voters are very pleased with the performance of City
government,bothgenerally and in specificpolicy areas.
Only about half of voters see even “some need” for additional
infrastructurefunding.
At the same time, about two-thirds of voters support hypothetical ballot
measures to provide funding for public safety and transportation
infrastructure.
Just over half of voters support investing in the construction of a new
public safety building; using a public-private partnership to reduce costs
yields only slightly higher support.
In the abstract, two-thirds of voters say they would vote for a ballot
measure tofinance infrastructureimprovements.
More than three in five voters back the use of bond measures or a
transient occupancy tax increase to finance infrastructure improvements;
othermechanisms receiveless support.
Key Findings
3
4
DRAFT
Q3.
Residents have generally favorable
impressions of Palo Alto’s City government.
15%
53%
23%
6%
3%
0%20%40%60%
Excellent
Good
Only fair
Poor job
Don't know
Total
Only Fair/
Poor Job
29%
Total
Excellent/
Good
68%
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto city government in
providing services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an…?
5
DRAFT
Q3.
Perceptions of the City’s performance
have remained consistently positive.
16%
56%
22%
4%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Excellent
Good
Only fair
Poor job
Don't know
Total
Only Fair/
Poor Job
26%
Total
Excellent/
Good
72%
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto city government in
providing services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an…?
15%
53%
23%
6%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Total
Only Fair/
Poor Job
29%
Total
Excellent/
Good
68%
2008 2013
6
DRAFT
28%
16%
14%
47%
46%
49%
14%
15%
19%
8%
8%
6%
14%
12%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Maintaining the City’s
infrastructure
Managing the City’s
budget and finances
Efficiently utilizing local
tax dollars
Strng. App.Smwt. App.Smwt. Disapp.Strng. Disapp.DK/NA
Total
Approve
Total
Disapprove
75%23%
62%23%
63%26%
4. I am going to read you a list of specific aspects of the City of Palo Alto’s work in managing City government. Please tell me whether you
generally approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing in that area.
Residents are particularly supportive of the
City’s performance maintaining infrastructure.
7
DRAFT
Q5.
A slim majority of residents say the City has
“little” or “no need” for additional funding; only
five percent say there is a “great need.”
5%
35%
19%
31%
11%
0%20%40%60%
Great need
Some need
Little need
No need
Don't know
Total
Little/No
Need
50%
Total
Great/Some
Need
40%
How would you rate the City of Palo Alto’s need for additional funding?
Is there a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or
no real need for additional funding?
8
DRAFT
Q6/7.
Being specific about infrastructure projects
only slightly enhances perceptions of need.
10%
36%
22%
23%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Great need
Some need
Little need
No need
Don't know
11%
43%
19%
22%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
More specifically, how would you rate the
City of Palo Alto’s need for additional
funding to maintain and improve
infrastructure: is there a great need for
additional funding, some need, a little need
or no real need for additional funding?
Total
Little/No
Need
45%
Total
Great/Some
Need
46%
More specifically, how would you rate the
City of Palo Alto’s need for additional funding
to maintain and improve public parks, streets,
sidewalks and vital facilities like police and
fire stations: is there a great need for
additional funding, some need, a little need
or no real need for additional funding?
Total
Little/No
Need
41%
Total
Great/Some
Need
54%
9
10
DRAFT
34%
31%
19%
27%
25%
22%
24%
47%
44%
55%
44%
42%
44%
40%
18%
20%
24%
25%
28%
30%
31%
5%
6%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ext. Imp.Very Imp.Smwt. Imp.Not Imp./DK/NA
Total
Ext./Very
Important
81%
75%
74%
70%
67%
66%
63%
8. I’m going to read you some of the objectives of the infrastructure projects identified through this process. Please tell me how important
each objective is to you as a resident of Palo Alto: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. ^Not part of
Split Sample
Residents’ top infrastructure priorities relate to
public safety and road maintenance.
Ensuring a modern and stable 911 emergency
communications network
Providing safe routes to school for students
Maintaining City streets and roads
Ensuring vital City facilities like fire and police
stations and the emergency command center are earthquake safe
Providing safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians
Fixing potholes and paving City streets
Ensuring all City facilities are earthquake safe
11
DRAFT
18%
20%
17%
18%
14%
20%
14%
13%
45%
40%
42%
39%
43%
37%
38%
37%
32%
33%
36%
39%
30%
29%
44%
42%
5%
7%
5%
12%
14%
5%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ext. Imp.Very Imp.Smwt. Imp.Not Imp./DK/NA
Total
Ext./Very
Important
63%
60%
59%
58%
58%
56%
51%
50%
8. I’m going to read you some of the objectives of the infrastructure projects identified through this process. Please tell me how important
each objective is to you as a resident of Palo Alto: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. ^Not part of
Split Sample
Majorities also prioritize maintenance of parks
and community centers.
Providing safe sidewalks, paths and bridges for pedestrians
Providing police officers with the facilities and resources needed to investigate and prosecute crimes commited in our community
Maintaining community centers that serve Palo Alto children, families and seniors
Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities
^Maintaining the City’s core infrastructure
Reducing traffic congestion
Repairing and maintaining City sidewalks
Upgrading pipes, irrigation and landscaping to conserve water and save money
12
DRAFT
15%
15%
15%
13%
10%
10%
8%
33%
33%
33%
30%
28%
28%
21%
15%
39%
41%
42%
41%
44%
49%
50%
61%
12%
11%
10%
17%
17%
13%
21%
23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ext. Imp.Very Imp.Smwt. Imp.Not Imp./DK/NA
Total
Ext./Very
Important
49%
48%
48%
42%
38%
37%
29%
17%
8. I’m going to read you some of the objectives of the infrastructure projects identified through this process. Please tell me how important
each objective is to you as a resident of Palo Alto: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. ^Not part of
Split Sample
Voters are less enthusiastic about support for community
service organizations or historic restoration.
Improving the energy efficiency and environmental sustainability of City buildings and land
Making sidewalks, city buildings and parks accessible for people with disabilities
Improving heating, ventilation, lighting and electrical systems to conserve energy and save money
Providing adequate parking
Investing in facilities that encourage economic growth and generate revenue for City programs and services
Improving parks, playgrounds and playfields for youth and adult recreation
Providing facilities to support Palo Alto’s community service organizations and non-profits
Restoring Palo Alto’s historic buildings
13
DRAFT
The survey tested several ballot measure concepts –
without price tags or funding mechanisms.
10. I am going to read you a list of different types of bond or tax measures that might be placed on the Palo Alto ballot to fund improvements
to different aspects of the City’s infrastructure. Please tell me if you would support or oppose increasing taxes to fund that particular set of
improvements. ^Not part of Split Sample
A Palo Alto Vital Facilities and Services Protection Measure that would provide a stable source of locally-
controlled funding to address local needs. These funds could not be taken away by the State and would
be used to support general City services and facilities, including fire, paramedics, police, streets,
sidewalks, parks, recreation, libraries and community centers.
A Fire, Paramedic, Police, Seismic Safety and Emergency Response Measure to fund improvements to
keep Palo Alto safe, including construction of a new earthquake-safe public safety building and
emergency response command center, replacing two obsolete fire stations with modern earthquake-safe
buildings, and improving communication systems to ensure rapid 9-1-1 response to fires, accidents and
other emergencies.
A Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe Streets, Sidewalks and Trails Measure to fund repair and
improvements to streets, sidewalks, and nine miles of off-road trails. This measure would provide safe
routes to school for children, improve accessibility for people with disabilities, provide a network of safe
bike paths and pedestrian walkways, increase the availability of parking, and upgrade traffic signals and
intersections to reduce congestion and improve safety.
A Parks, Open Space and Sustainability Measure that would fund improvements and investments to Palo
Alto’s parks and open space, including repairing unsafe playground equipment, creating new playfields,
improving walking and biking paths and trails, and improving irrigation systems to conserve water. It
would also include funds to the restore the historic Roth Building and repair the Ventura Community
Center
A Palo Alto Children and Families First Measure that would fund improved facilities for preschool and
childcare programs, safe routes to school, pedestrian and bike safety improvements, park and
playground improvements and neighborhood traffic calming measures.
14
DRAFT
39%
33%
32%
39%
24%
34%
39%
38%
29%
41%
16%
13%
17%
17%
17%
8%
11%
10%
12%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Streets, Sidewalk Trails Measure
^Vital Facilities Measure
Children & Families Measure
Public Safety Measure
Parks Open Space Measure
Strng. Sup.Smwt. Sup.Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.DK/NA Total
Support
Total
Oppose
74%24%
72%24%
71%27%
68%30%
65%32%
10. I am going to read you a list of different types of bond or tax measures that might be placed on the Palo Alto ballot to fund improvements
to different aspects of the City’s infrastructure. Please tell me if you would support or oppose increasing taxes to fund that particular set of
improvements. ^Not part of Split Sample
Support for each of these ballot measure concepts
hovers between two-thirds and three-quarters.
15
DRAFT
13. Out of all of the potential improvements to buildings, facilities, and other infrastructure that we have discussed, which do you think should
be the highest priority for City government?
When forced to choose, a plurality of residents list
street repair and related issues as their top priority.
32%
22%
12%
11%
8%
8%
6%
18%
0%10%20%30%40%
Street repair/Sidewalk repair/Infrastructure/
Pedestrian safety
Police and fire/Public safety
Bike lanes
Emergency services-earthquakes
Parking
Parks and playgrounds/Recreation/Children
Schools/Childcare
Other/DK/Nothing/Refused
(Grouped responses shown; 6% and above)
16
DRAFT
33%
23%
25%
23%
31%
40%
45%
42%
43%
34%
15%
19%
20%
20%
16%
10%
9%
11%
11%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
$14 million for Fire Department
modernization
$8 million for street improvement
and repair
$6 million for sidewalk
improvement and repair
$10 million for park improvement
and repair
$25 million for bike lanes and
pedestrian paths
Strng. Sup.Smwt. Sup.Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.Undecided Total
Support
Total
Oppose
72%25%
69%28%
67%31%
67%31%
65%31%
12. I am going to read you a list of specific infrastructure improvements projects that might be placed before Palo Alto voters, along with their
estimated costs. Keep in mind that these costs are just rough estimates, and would be carefully refined before any measure was placed
before local voters. Please tell me whether you think you would vote to support or oppose that project. *Split Sample
When presented with specifics, voters’
priorities remain public safety and streets.
17
DRAFT
27%
19%
20%
21%
19%
34%
39%
35%
32%
33%
17%
23%
21%
21%
23%
20%
13%
19%
24%
22%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
$6 million for Highway 101
pedestrian/bike bridge
$3 million to renovate and upgrade
the Ventura Community Center
*$8 million for a new public safety
and emergency response
command center
$8 million for improving the
Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
*$57 million to buy land and build a
new public safety and emergency
response command center
Strng. Sup.Smwt. Sup.Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.Undecided Total
Support
Total
Oppose
61%37%
57%35%
55%40%
52%45%
52%45%
12. I am going to read you a list of specific infrastructure improvements projects that might be placed before Palo Alto voters, along with their
estimated costs. Keep in mind that these costs are just rough estimates, and would be carefully refined before any measure was placed
before local voters. Please tell me whether you think you would vote to support or oppose that project. *Split Sample
The public safety building is middle-tier.
18
DRAFT
Total
Support
Total
Oppose
47%48%
46%52%
46%50%
44%53%
38%57%
15%
17%
15%
17%
9%
32%
29%
31%
27%
30%
29%
28%
29%
27%
34%
19%
24%
21%
26%
23%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
$7 million for a new Animal
Services Center
$12 million for a new California
Avenue parking garage
$6 million for new playing fields
and recreational facilities
$21 million for a new downtown
parking garage
$3 million to restore the Roth
building and house the Palo Alto
History Museum there
Strng. Sup.Smwt. Sup.Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.Undecided
12. I am going to read you a list of specific infrastructure improvements projects that might be placed before Palo Alto voters, along with their
estimated costs. Keep in mind that these costs are just rough estimates, and would be carefully refined before any measure was placed
before local voters. Please tell me whether you think you would vote to support or oppose that project. *Split Sample
Parking and historic restoration get less support.
19
DRAFT
12. I am going to read you a list of specific infrastructure improvements projects that might be placed before Palo Alto voters, along with their
estimated costs. Keep in mind that these costs are just rough estimates, and would be carefully refined before any measure was placed
before local voters. Please tell me whether you think you would vote to support or oppose that project. *Split Sample
Streets, parks, and public safety reach two-
thirds support.
72%
69%
67%
67%
65%
61%
57%
55%
52%
52%
47%
46%
46%
44%
38%
25%
28%
31%
31%
31%
37%
35%
40%
45%
45%
48%
52%
50%
53%
57%
60%45%30%15%0%15%30%45%60%75%
Total Support Total Oppose Difference
+47%
+41%
+36%
+36%
+34%
+24%
+22%
+15%
+7%
+7%
-1%
-6%
-4%
-9%
-19%
$14 million for Fire Department modernization
$8 million for street improvement and repair
$6 million for sidewalk improvement and repair
$6 million for park improvement and repair
$25 million for bike lanes and pedestrian paths
$6 million for Highway 101 pedestrian/bike bridge
$3 million to renovate and upgrade the Ventura Community Center
*$8 million for a new public safety and emergency response command center
$8 million for improving the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
*$57 million to buy land and build a new public safety and emergency response command center
$7 million for a new Animal Services Center
$12 million for a new California Avenue parking garage
$6 million for new playing fields and recreational facilities
$21 million for a new downtown parking garage
$3 million to restore the Roth building and house the Palo Alto History Museum there
20
21
DRAFT
Two versions of the public safety building
concept were tested.
City-Funded Public-Private Partnership
A $57 million project to purchase
land and construct a new
earthquake-safe public safety and
emergency response command
center, with upgraded dispatch
technology for police, fire and
paramedic service as well as more
safe and secure space for
interviewing crime victims and
storing and analyzing crime
evidence.
$8 million of city investment to
construct a new earthquake-safe
public safety and emergency
response command center, with
upgraded dispatch technology for
police, fire and paramedic service
as well as more safe and secure
space for interviewing crime
victims and storing and analyzing
crime evidence. $49million in
additional funding for the project
would come from a private
developer in exchange for rights to
build new commercial offices near
Page Mill Road and El Camino.
22
DRAFT
12n/o. I am going to read you a list of specific infrastructure improvements projects that might be placed before Palo Alto voters, along with
their estimated costs. Keep in mind that these costs are just rough estimates, and would be carefully refined before any measure was placed
before local voters. Please tell me whether you think you would vote to support or oppose that project. Split Sample
A public-private partnership draws
only slightly higher support.
19%
33%
23%
22%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Strong support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strong oppose
Undecided
Total
Oppose
45%
Total
Support
52%
20%
35%
21%
19%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Total
Oppose
40%
Total
Support
55%
$57 million to buy landand build a
new public safety and emergency
response command center
$8 millionfor a new public
safety and emergency
response command center
23
DRAFT
27%
20%
10%
5%
11%
16%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
12n/o combined. I am going to read you a list of specific infrastructure improvements projects that might be placed before Palo Alto voters,
along with their estimated costs. Keep in mind that these costs are just rough estimates, and would be carefully refined before any measure
was placed before local voters. Please tell me whether you think you would vote to support or oppose that project. Split Sample
Taken together, support for either approach to the
public safety building is no higher than in 2008.
20%
34%
22%
20%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Strong support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strong oppose
Undecided
Total
Oppose
43%
Total
Support
53%
Conceptual Support for a $50M+ Public Safety Bond by Year
2008 2013
Total
No
32%
Total
Yes
57%
24
25
DRAFT
Q9.
Close to 2/3 of residents say they would support a bond
or tax measure to fund infrastructure maintenance and
improvement after hearing a list of needed projects.
21%
44%
13%
14%
8%
0%20%40%60%
Strong support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strong oppose
Undecided
Total
Oppose
27%
Total
Support
65%
Many of these projects and improvements are beyond the scope of the City’s
existing budget and may require additional funding through a local voter-
approved bond or tax measure. Based on what you’ve heard, do you think you
would support or oppose a bond or tax measure to fund some group of these
projects to maintain and improve Palo Alto’s infrastructure?
26
DRAFT
45%
35%
25%
20%
30%
30%
28%
29%
8%
14%
19%
19%
13%
18%
24%
29%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
$100 per year
$150 per year
$200 per year
$250 per year
Very Will.Smwt. Will.Smwt. Unwill.Very Unwill.DK/NA Total
Willing
Total
Unwilling
75%21%
64%33%
53%43%
48%48%
11. Regardless of how the measure was structured, would your household be willing to pay ______ in additional taxes if it were dedicated to
the types of Palo Alto infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing?
Predictably, voters are more willing to pay
smaller amounts for an infrastructure measure.
27
DRAFT
25%
24%
18%
39%
38%
33%
16%
21%
22%
18%
12%
24%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strng. Sup.Smwt. Sup.Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.Undecided Total
Support
Total
Oppose
64%35%
62%33%
51%46%
14. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and
improvements we have been discussing. Please tell me if you would support or oppose using that particular way of raising new revenue for
these purposes.
Voters are more supportive of issuing
bonds or increasing the transient occupancy
tax than of other funding mechanisms.
Issuing bonds, allowing the City to
borrow money to complete the
projects and pay it back over time
with money from local property
taxes
Increasing the transient occupancy
tax, charged to hotel and motel
guests
Increasing the real estate transfer
tax rate – paid when a property is
bought or sold
28
DRAFT
17%
8%
10%
6%
34%
33%
28%
24%
23%
20%
27%
28%
23%
34%
34%
41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strng. Sup.Smwt. Sup.Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.Undecided Total
Support
Total
Oppose
51%46%
41%54%
38%61%
29%69%
14. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and
improvements we have been discussing. Please tell me if you would support or oppose using that particular way of raising new revenue for
these purposes.
A parcel tax, sales tax, and UUT get less support.
Establishing a business license tax
to be paid by any business
operating in Palo Alto
Establishing a flat tax on every
parcel of property in Palo Alto
Increasing the local sales tax rate
paid by anyone who shops in
Palo Alto
Increasing the utility users tax,
which is added to electricity, gas,
water and phone bills
29
DRAFT
14. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and
improvements we have been discussing. Please tell me if you would support or oppose using that particular way of raising new revenue for
these purposes.
None of the funding concepts reaches a two-
thirds super-majority.
64%
62%
51%
51%
41%
38%
29%
35%
33%
46%
46%
54%
61%
69%
75%60%45%30%15%0%15%30%45%60%75%
Total Support Total Oppose Difference
+29%
+29%
+5%
+5%
-13%
-23%
-40%
Issuing bonds, allowing the City to borrow money to
complete the projects and pay it back over time
with money from local property taxes
Increasing the transient occupancy tax, charged to hotel
and motel guests
Increasing the real estate transfer tax rate –
paid when a property is bought or sold
Establishing a business license tax to be paid by any
business operating in Palo Alto
Establishing a flat tax on every parcel of property in
Palo Alto
Increasing the local sales tax rate paid by anyone who
shops in Palo Alto
Increasing the utility users tax, which is added to
electricity, gas, water and phone bills
30
31
DRAFT
Voters express striking confidence in City government and its financial
management.
The central challenge is that voters do not attach much urgency to infrastructure
issues; they believe the City is handling them well and not much additional
fundingisrequired.
At the same time, 66% of voters are supportive of a ballot measure to finance
infrastructureimprovements–thoughmostonlytentatively.
A ballot measure to fully fund a public safety building is unlikely to receive two-
thirds support; however, the public share of a public-private partnership could
likelywinapprovalaspartofabroaderpackage.
Chancesforameasure’ssuccesswilllikelybemaximizedby:
–Focusing ballot measures around public safety and transportation (including bike and
pedestrian) improvements, subjectareas whichconsistentlydraw the most support.
–Placing projects together in packages, which pair projects that draw enthusiastic public
reaction withothers that are more lukewarm.
–Using general obligation bonds as the financing mechanism to the extent possible at
the two-thirds level;severalother taxes couldbefeasiblewitha simplemajority vote.
–Keeping costs close to the level of voters’expressed willingness to pay, which seems to
peak at $125 per year (for two-thirds support) and $200 per year (for majority support.)
Conclusions
For more information, contact:
1999 Harrison St., Suite 1290
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Dave@FM3research.com
APRIL28,30,MAY1-5,2013
CITYOFPALOALTOINFRASTRUCTUREISSUES SURVEY
220-3577-WT
N=603
MARGINOF SAMPLINGERROR±4.0%(95%CONFIDENCEINTERVAL)
DRAFTTOPLINERESULTS
Hello, I'm ___________ from F-M-Three, a public opinion research company. We are conducting an
opinion survey about some important issues that concern residents of Palo Alto. I am definitely not trying to
sell you anything, we are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to______________? (YOU MUST
SPEAK TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS
LISTED, OTHERWISETERMINATE).
1. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in place
whereyoucantalksafelywithoutendangeringyourselforothers?
Yes,cellandinsafeplace----------------------------------33%
Yes,cellnotinsafeplace---------------------TERMINATE
No,notoncell-----------------------------------------------67%
(DON’T READ)DK/NA/REFUSED ------TERMINATE
2. First,Iamgoingtodescribeseveraldifferenttypesofelections. After I describeeachone, pleasetell
meif youvoteinevery electionofthattype,mostofthem,some,a few orifyounevervoteinthat
typeofelection. Here isthefirstone…(READLIST;DONOTROTATE)
EVERY MOST SOME FEW NONE (DK/NA)
[]a. StatewideNovembergeneral
electionsforGovernor,
Congressandthestate
legislature---------------------------------------------77%-----16%------7% --TERM.--TERM.-TERM.
[]b. StatewideJuneprimary elections
forGovernor,Congressandthe
statelegislature--------------------------------------57%-----20%-----12%-----3%--------9%-------0%
[]c. Specialelectionsforlocalballot
measures----------------------------------------------47%-----20%-----18%-----6%--------7%-------1%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE2
3. (T) And how would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto city government in providing
services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an…?(READ RESPONSES AND
RECORD)
EXCELLENT/GOOD-------------------68%
Excellent------------------------------------15%
Good-----------------------------------------53%
FAIR/POOR-------------------------------29%
Onlyfair,or--------------------------------23%
Poorjob---------------------------------------6%
(DON'T READ)Don'tknow-------------3%
4. Next,Iamgoingtoread youalistofspecificaspectsoftheCityof Palo Alto’sworkinmanaging
Citygovernment. After Iread eachone, pleasetellmewhetheryougenerallyapproveordisapprove
ofthejobtheCityisdoinginthatarea.(IFAPPROVE/DISAPPROVE,ASK:Isthatstrongly
APPROVE/DISAPPROVE orjustsomewhat?) (RANDOMIZE)
(DON’T
STR. SW SW STR. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
APP. APP. DISAPP. DISAPP. DK/NA APP. DISAPP.
[]a. Maintainingthe
City’sinfrastructure-------------------------28%-----47%-----14%-----8%-------3%75% 23%
[]b. ManagingtheCity’sbudgetand
finances----------------------------------------16%-----46%-----15%-----8%------14%62% 23%
[]c. Efficientlyutilizinglocaltaxdollars------14%-----49%-----19%-----6%------12%63% 26%
(RESUME ASKINGALLRESPONDENTS)
5. How would you rate the City of Palo Alto’s need for additional funding? Is there a great need for
additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional funding?(READ
RESPONSESAND RECORD)
GREAT/SOMENEED------------------40%
Greatneed------------------------------------5%
Someneed----------------------------------35%
LITTLE/NO NEED----------------------50%
Littleneed,or------------------------------19%
Noneed -------------------------------------31%
(DON'T READ)Don'tknow-----------11%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE3
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
6. More specifically, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto’s need for additional funding to maintain
and improve infrastructure: is there a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no
realneedfor additionalfunding?(READRESPONSES ANDRECORD)
GREAT/SOMENEED------------------46%
Greatneed----------------------------------10%
Someneed----------------------------------36%
LITTLE/NO NEED----------------------45%
Littleneed,or------------------------------22%
Noneed -------------------------------------23%
(DON'T READ)Don'tknow-------------9%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
7. More specifically, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto’s need for additional funding to maintain
and improve public parks, streets, sidewalks and vital facilities like police and fire stations: is there a
great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional funding?
(READRESPONSES ANDRECORD)
GREAT/SOMENEED------------------54%
Greatneed----------------------------------11%
Someneed----------------------------------43%
LITTLE/NO NEED----------------------41%
Littleneed,or------------------------------19%
Noneed -------------------------------------22%
(DON'T READ)Don'tknow-------------5%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE4
(RESUME ASKINGALLRESPONDENTS)
NEXT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ISSUES RELATED TO
IMPROVING AND MAINTAINING PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, AS WELL AS
STREETS, SIDEWALKS,PARKSAND OTHERINFRASTRUCTUREINPALOALTO.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, IN 2010, THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED A BLUE RIBBON CITIZENS’
ADVISORY COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THE CONDITION OF THE CITY’S STREETS,
SIDEWALKS, PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND OTHER BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE. AS A
RESULT THE COMMISSION IDENTIFIED APPROXIMATELY 300 MILLION DOLLARS IN
NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS.
8. Now I’m going to read you some of the objectives of the infrastructure projects identified through this
process. Please tell me how important each objective is to you as a resident of Palo Alto: extremely
important,veryimportant,somewhatimportant,ornotimportant.(RANDOMIZE)
(DON’T TOTAL
EXT. VERY SMWT NOT READ)EXT/
IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. DK/NA VERY
[]a. MaintainingtheCity’scoreinfrastructure-----------14%-----43%---- 30%------4%------8%58%
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[]b. MaintainingCitystreetsandroads--------------------19%-----55%---- 24%------3%------0%74%
[]c. Reducingtrafficcongestion----------------------------20%-----37%---- 29%-----13% -----1%56%
[]d. Providingsafesidewalks,pathsandbridgesfor
pedestrians-------------------------------------------------18%-----45%---- 32%------5%------0%63%
[]e. Providingadequateparking----------------------------13%-----30%---- 41%-----16% -----1%42%
[]f. Improvingtheenergyefficiencyand
environmentalsustainabilityofCitybuildings
andland----------------------------------------------------15%-----33%---- 39%-----11% -----1%49%
[]g. Improvingparks,playgroundsandplayfields
foryouthandadultrecreation--------------------------10%-----28%---- 49%-----13% -----0%37%
[]h. EnsuringvitalCityfacilitieslikefireandpolice
stationsandtheemergencycommandcenter
areearthquakesafe---------------------------------------27%-----44%---- 25%------4%------0%70%
[]i. ProvidingfacilitiestosupportPaloAlto’s
communityserviceorganizationsandnon-
profits-------------------------------------------------------8%-----21%---- 50%-----20% -----1%29%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE5
(DON’T TOTAL
EXT. VERY SMWT NOT READ)EXT/
IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. DK/NA VERY
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLYCONT.)
[]j. Providingpoliceofficerswiththefacilitiesand
resourcesneededtoinvestigateandprosecute
crimescommitedinourcommunity------------------20%-----40%---- 33%------7%------0%60%
[]k. Makingsidewalks,citybuildingsandparks
accessibleforpeoplewithdisabilities----------------15%-----33%---- 41%-----10% -----1%48%
[]l. Upgradingpipes,irrigationandlandscapingto
conservewaterandsave money-----------------------13%-----37%---- 42%------7%------2%50%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[]m. Investinginfacilitiesthatencourageeconomic
growthandgeneraterevenueforCityprograms
andservices-----------------------------------------------10%-----28%---- 44%-----14% -----3%38%
[]n. Ensuringamodernandstable9-1-1emergency
communicationsnetwork -------------------------------34%-----47%---- 18%------0%------1%81%
[]o. Providingsaferoutesforbicyclistsand
pedestrians-------------------------------------------------25%-----42%---- 28%------5%------1%67%
[]p. Providingsaferoutestoschoolfor
students ----------------------------------------------------31%-----44%---- 20%------3%------2%75%
[]q. RestoringPaloAlto’shistoricbuildings---------------2%-----15%---- 61%-----22% -----1%17%
[]r. FixingpotholesandpavingCitystreets--------------22%-----44%---- 30%------4%------0%66%
[]s. RepairingandmaintainingCitysidewalks-----------14%-----38%---- 44%------5%------0%51%
[]t. Improvingheating,ventilation,lightingand
electricalsystemstoconserveenergyandsave
money------------------------------------------------------15%-----33%---- 42%------8%------2%48%
[]u. MaintainingCityparksandrecreationfacilities----18%-----39%---- 39%------3%------0%58%
[]v. EnsuringallCityfacilitiesare earthquakesafe-----24%-----40%---- 31%------5%------1%63%
[]w. MaintainingcommunitycentersthatservePalo
Altochildren,familiesandseniors--------------------17%-----42%---- 36%------4%------1%59%
(RESUME ASKINGALLRESPONDENTS)
9. Next, many of these projects and improvements are beyond the scope of the City’s existing budgetand
may require additional funding through a local voter-approved bond or tax measure. Based on what
you’ve heard, do you think youwouldsupportoroppose abondor tax measure to fundsome group of
these projects to maintain and improve Palo Alto’s infrastructure?(IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE, ASK:
“Isthatstronglyorjustsomewhat?”)
TOTALSUPPORT----------------------65%
Stronglysupport---------------------------21%
Somewhatsupport-------------------------44%
TOTAL OPPOSE------------------------27%
Somewhatoppose--------------------------13%
Stronglyoppose----------------------------14%
(DON'T READ)Don'tknow-------------8%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE6
10. NextIam goingtoread youalistofdifferenttypesofbondortaxmeasuresthatmightbeplacedon
thePaloAltoballottofundimprovementstodifferentaspectsoftheCity’sinfrastructure. Afteryou
heareach one,please tellmeif youwouldsupportoropposeincreasingtaxestofundthatparticular
setofimprovements.Hereisthefirstone…((IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE, ASK:“Isthatstronglyor
justsomewhat?”)RANDOMIZE)
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
(ALWAYSASK a. FIRST)
[]a. APaloAltoVitalFacilitiesand
ServicesProtectionMeasurethat
wouldprovideastablesourceof
locally-controlledfundingtoaddress
localneeds. Thesefundscouldnot
betakenawayby theStateand
wouldbeusedtosupportgeneral
Cityservicesandfacilities,
includingfire,paramedics,police,
streets,sidewalks,parks,recreation,
librariesandcommunitycenters.----------33%-----39%-----13%---- 11%------4%72% 24%
(RANDOMIZE)
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[]b. AFire,Paramedic, Police, Seismic
SafetyandEmergency Response
Measuretofundimprovementsto
keepPaloAltosafe, including
constructionofanewearthquake-
safepublicsafetybuildingand
emergencyresponsecommand
center,replacingtwoobsoletefire
stationswithmodernearthquake-
safebuildings,andimproving
communicationsystemstoensure
rapid9-1-1responsetofires,
accidentsandotheremergencies.----------39%-----29%-----17%---- 12%------3%68% 30%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE7
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[]c. ATrafficCongestionReliefand
Safe Streets, SidewalksandTrails
Measuretofundrepairand
improvementstostreets,sidewalks,
andninemilesofoff-roadtrails.
Thismeasurewouldprovidesafe
routestoschoolforchildren,
improveaccessibilityforpeople
withdisabilities,provideanetwork
ofsafebikepathsandpedestrian
walkways,increasetheavailability
ofparking,andupgrade traffic
signalsandintersectionstoreduce
congestionandimprovesafety.------------39%-----34%-----16%-----8%-------2%74% 24%
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[]d. AParks,Open Space and
SustainabilityMeasurethatwould
fundimprovementsandinvestments
toPaloAlto’sparksandopenspace,
includingrepairingunsafe
playgroundequipment,creatingnew
playfields,improvingwalkingand
bikingpathsandtrails,and
improvingirrigationsystemsto
conservewater.Itwouldalso
includefundstotherestorethe
historicRothBuildingandrepairthe
VenturaCommunityCenter----------------24%-----41%-----17%---- 15%------3%65% 32%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[]e. APaloAltoChildrenandFamilies
FirstMeasurethatwouldfund
improvedfacilitiesforpreschool
and childcareprograms, saferoutes
toschool,pedestrianandbikesafety
improvements,parkand playground
improvementsandneighborhood
trafficcalmingmeasures.-------------------32%-----38%-----17%---- 10%------2%71% 27%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE8
(RESUME ASKINGALLRESPONDENTS)
11. Regardless of how the measure was structured, would your household be willing to pay ______ in
additional taxes if it were dedicated to the types of Palo Alto infrastructure repairs and improvements
wehavebeendiscussing?(IF WILLING/UNWILLING, ASK:)“Would that be very
WILLING/UNWILLING,to pay that amount, or just somewhat? (SPLIT SAMPLE A READ TOP
TO BOTTOM, SPLIT SAMPLE BREADBOTTOM TO TOP)
(DON’T
VERY SMWT SMWT. VERY READ)TOTAL TOTAL
WILL. WILL. UNWL. UNWL. DK/NA WILL. UNWL.
[]a. 250dollarsperyear--------------------------20%-----29%-----19%---- 29%------4%48% 48%
[]b. 200dollarsperyear--------------------------25%-----28%-----19%---- 24%------4%53% 43%
[]c. 150dollarsperyear--------------------------35%-----30%-----14%---- 18%------3%64% 33%
[]d. 100dollarsperyear--------------------------45%-----30%------8%----- 13%------3%75% 21%
NOWIWOULD LIKE TO ASKYOU ABOUTSOME MORE SPECIFICAPPROACHES TO
IMPROVINGTHECITY’SINFRASTRUCTURE.
12. Iam goingtoreadyoua listofspecificinfrastructureimprovementsprojectsthatmightbeplaced
beforePaloAltovoters,alongwiththeirestimatedcosts. Keepin mindthatthesecostsarejustrough
estimates,andwouldbe carefullyrefinedbefore anymeasurewasplaced beforelocalvoters. After
youheareach one,pleasetellme whetheryouthinkyouwouldvotetosupportoropposethatproject.
Hereisthefirstone…(IFSUPPORT/OPPOSE, ASK:“Isthatstronglyorjustsomewhat?”)
(RANDOMIZE)
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
[]a. A14milliondollarprojectto
replaceand modernizetwo
seismically-unsafelocalfire
stations,bringthemuptocode
standardsandincreasetheFire
Department’scapacitytorespondto
firesandotheremergencies----------------33%-----40%-----15%---- 10%------2%72% 25%
[]b. A25milliondollarprojecttocreate
anewnetworkofon andoff-street
bikelanes,pathsandpedestrian
walkwaystohelpensurethat
children,commutersand
recreationalusershavesaferoutes
towork,schoolandother
destinations------------------------------------31%-----34%-----16%---- 15%------3%65% 31%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE9
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
[]c. Asixmilliondollarprojectto
completethefundingforayear-
roundpedestrianandbicyclebridge
overHighway1-0-1atAdobeCreek
toconnectSouthPaloAlto
neighborhoodswiththeBaylands
Naturepreserveandrecreational
andemploymentopportunities-------------27%-----34%-----17%---- 20%------2%61% 37%
[]d. Aneightmilliondollarprojectthat
wouldaugmentexistingfundingto
repairandimprovestreets,
enhancingsafetyandaccelerating
thegoalofensuringthatPaloAlto
hasexcellentstreets
throughouttheCity--------------------------23%-----45%-----19%-----9%-------3%69% 28%
[]e. Asixmilliondollarprojectthat
wouldaugmentexistingfundingto
repairandimprovesidewalks
throughouttheCitytoimprove
pedestriansafety------------------------------25%-----42%-----20%---- 11%------2%67% 31%
[]f. Atenmilliondollarprojecttorepair
andimproveparksandopenspace
facilities,includingreplacingunsafe
playgroundequipment;upgrading
pipesandirrigationsystemsto
conservewater;repairingand
maintainingpathways,ballfields,
andtenniscourts;improving
lighting;andreplacingworn
benches,drinkingfountainsand
otherparkinfrastructure--------------------23%-----43%-----20%---- 11%------2%67% 31%
[]g. Eightmilliondollarstocompletethe
fundingforaprojecttoimprove
landscaping,lighting,trafficsignals
andsignagealongtheCharleston-
ArastraderoCorridor,including
bikelanesonbothsidesofthe
street;reductionfromfourlanesof
traffictothree;crosswalk
improvementstoincreasesafety;
andimprovementstoreducetraffic
speedandcongestion—especially
aroundschoolpickupanddrop-off
pointsforchildren----------------------------21%-----32%-----21%---- 24%------2%52% 45%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE10
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
[]h. Asixmilliondollarprojecttofund
newplayingfieldsandrecreational
facilitiesforlocalresidentsand
youthathleticgroups,locatedonten
acresofland atthegolf course------------15%-----31%-----29%---- 21%------4%46% 50%
[]i. A21milliondollarprojectto
increaseparkingavailabilityby
constructinganewdowntown
parkinggaragewithapproximately
350additionalspaces------------------------17%-----27%-----27%---- 26%------3%44% 53%
[]j. A12milliondollarprojectto
increaseparkingavailabilityby
constructinganewCalifornia
Avenueparkinggarage with
approximately200additionalspaces------17%-----29%-----28%---- 24%------2%46% 52%
[]k. Asevenmilliondollarprojectto
fundtheconstructionofanewand
relocatedAnimalServicesCenter---------15%-----32%-----29%---- 19%------5%47% 48%
[]l. Athreemilliondollarprojectto
helpfundtherestorationofthe
historicRothBuildingandtohouse
thePaloAltoHistoryMuseumthere ------9%------30%-----34%---- 23%------4%38% 57%
[]m. Athreemilliondollarprojectto
renovateandupgradetheVentura
CommunityCentertoimprovethe
qualityofchildcareservicesfor
infants,toddlersandpreschoolers
offeredthere ----------------------------------19%-----39%-----23%---- 13%------7%57% 35%
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[]n. A57milliondollarprojectto
purchaselandandconstructanew
earthquake-safepublicsafetyand
emergencyresponsecommand
center,withupgradeddispatch
technologyforpolice,fireand
paramedicservice aswellasmore
safeandsecure space for
interviewingcrimevictimsand
storingandanalyzingcrime
evidence----------------------------------------19%-----33%-----23%---- 22%------3%52% 45%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE11
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[]o. Eightmilliondollarsofcity
investmenttoconstructanew
earthquake-safepublicsafetyand
emergencyresponsecommand
center,withupgradeddispatch
technologyforpolice,fireand
paramedicservice aswellasmore
safeandsecure space for
interviewingcrimevictimsand
storingandanalyzingcrime
evidence.Forty-ninemilliondollars
inadditionalfundingfortheproject
wouldcomefrom aprivate
developerinexchangeforrightsto
buildnewcommercialofficesnear
PageMillRoad andEl Camino------------20%-----35%-----21%---- 19%------5%55% 40%
(RESUME ASKINGALLRESPONDENTS)
13. Next,outofallofthepotentialimprovementstobuildings,facilities,andotherinfrastructurethatwe
havediscussed,whichdoyouthinkshouldbethehighestpriorityforCitygovernment?(OPEN-END;
RECORDVERBATIM RESPONSE)
Streetrepair/sidewalkrepair/infrastructure/pedestriansafety-------------------32%
Policeandfire/publicsafety-----------------------------------------------------------22%
Bikelanes---------------------------------------------------------------------------------12%
Emergencyservices-earthquakes-----------------------------------------------------11%
Parking--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8%
Parksandplaygrounds/recreation/children-------------------------------------------8%
Schools/childcare--------------------------------------------------------------------------6%
Needtomanage themoneytheyalreadyhave---------------------------------------4%
Animalservices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------3%
Traffic---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3%
Other----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5%
Idon’tknow-------------------------------------------------------------------------------6%
Nothing-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2%
Refused-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE12
14. Finally, I am going to read you a list of severalmethods that might be used to raise money to fund the
types of infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing. After you hear each one,
please tell me if you would support or oppose using that particular way of raising new revenue for
these purposes.FIRST/NEXT, would you support or oppose_____(RANDOMIZE)(IF
SUPPORT/OPPOSE, ASK:)“Isthatstrongly SUPPORT/OPPOSE orjustsomewhat?
(DON’T
STRG. S.W. S.W. STRG. READ)TOTAL TOTAL
SUPP. SUPP. OPP. OPP. DK/NA SUPP. OPP.
[]a. Issuingbonds,allowingtheCityto
borrowmoneytocompletethe
projectsandpayitback overtime
withmoneyfromlocalproperty
taxes--------------------------------------------25%-----39%-----16%---- 18%------2%64% 35%
[]b. Increasingthetransientoccupancy
tax,chargedtohotelandmotel
guests-------------------------------------------24%-----38%-----21%---- 12%------5%62% 33%
[]c. Increasingtheutilityuserstax,
whichisaddedtoelectricity,gas,
waterandphonebills-------------------------6%------24%-----28%---- 41%------2%29% 69%
[]d. Establishingabusinesslicensetaxto
bepaidbyanybusinessoperatingin
PaloAlto---------------------------------------17%-----34%-----23%---- 23%------3%51% 46%
[]e. Increasingtherealestatetransfer
taxrate–paidwhena propertyis
boughtorsold---------------------------------18%-----33%-----22%---- 24%------4%51% 46%
[]f. Increasingthelocalsalestaxrate
paidbyanyonewhoshopsinPalo
Alto---------------------------------------------10%-----28%-----27%---- 34%------2%38% 61%
[]g. Establishingaflattaxonevery
parcelofpropertyinPaloAlto-------------8%------33%-----20%---- 34%------5%41% 54%
HERE ARE MYLAST QUESTIONS,AND THEYAREFOR STATISTICALPURPOSES ONLY.
15. (T)Doyou ...(READ LIST),
Ownasinglefamilyhome---------------59%
Ownacondominium------------------------7%
Rentanapartmentorhome--------------30%
(DON'T READ)Refused------------------5%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE13
(ASK Q16IFCODE1 OR2IN Q15)
16. (T)Didyoubuyyourhomebefore 1978orin1978orafter?
Before1978---------------------------------27%
In1978orafter----------------------------72%
(DON'T READ)Refused------------------1%
(RESUME ASKINGALLRESPONDENTS)
17. (T)What wasthelastlevelofschoolyoucompleted?
Grades1-8------------------------------------0%
Grades9-12-----------------------------------0%
Highschoolgraduate------------------------4%
Some college/vocationalschool---------10%
Collegegraduate(4years)---------------33%
Postgraduatework/professionalschool52%
(DON'T READ)Refused------------------1%
18. (T) Withwhichracialorethnicgroupdoyouidentifyyourself:LatinoorHispanic,African
AmericanorBlack, CaucasianorWhite,South Asian,someotherAsianorPacific Islandergroupor
someotherethnicorracialbackground?(READ CHOICES BELOW)
Hispanic/Latino------------------------------2%
Black/AfricanAmerican--------------------2%
Anglo/White--------------------------------71%
SouthAsian-----------------------------------6%
SomeotherAsian/PacificIslandergroup9%
Other(SPECIFY_____) -------------------0%
(DON’T READ) MIXED -----------------1%
(DON'T KNOW/REFUSED)------------8%
19. (T) Idon’tneedtoknow theexact amount,butI’mgoingtoreadyousomecategoriesforhousehold
income. Wouldyoupleasestopmewhen Ihave readthe categoryindicatingthetotalcombined
incomeforallthepeople inyourhouseholdbeforetaxesin2012?
$50,000orless-------------------------------8%
$50,001-$100,000-----------------------17%
$100,001-$150,000----------------------20%
$150,001–$200,000---------------------12%
Morethan$200,000-----------------------26%
(DON'T KNOW/REFUSED)----------17%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
FAIRBANK, MASLIN,MAULLIN,METZ&ASSOCIATES 220-3577-WT PAGE14
THANK ANDTERMINATE
GENDER (BY OBSERVATION):Male------------------------------------------48%
Female---------------------------------------52%
PARTYREGISTRATION:Democrat------------------------------------53%
Republican----------------------------------16%
NoPartyPreference-----------------------28%
Other-------------------------------------------3%
FLAGS
P08------------------------------------------- 49%
G08------------------------------------------ 75%
P10------------------------------------------- 55%
G10------------------------------------------ 75%
P12------------------------------------------- 56%
G12------------------------------------------ 94%
Blank------------------------------------------2%
VOTE BY MAIL
1---------------------------------------------- 14%
2---------------------------------------------- 11%
3+------------------------------------------- 56%
Blank---------------------------------------- 19%
AGE
18-29---------------------------------------- 15%
30-39---------------------------------------- 12%
40-49---------------------------------------- 18%
50-64---------------------------------------- 28%
65-74---------------------------------------- 13%
75+------------------------------------------ 14%
PERMANENTABSENTEE
Yes-------------------------------------------74%
No--------------------------------------------26%
HOUSEHOLDPARTY TYPE
Dem1---------------------------------------28%
Dem2+-------------------------------------18%
Rep1 ------------------------------------------9%
Rep2+----------------------------------------5%
Ind1+---------------------------------------26%
Mix-------------------------------------------15%
Attachment B. Questionnaire and Topline Results
Attachment C. Infrastructure Project Costs
(all costs/revenues in millions of dollars)
May 29, 2013
Projects costs and project‐specific funding
Polling Support (sum of strongly
& somewhat support) Project
Estimated
Cost
Committed
Funding
Net Cost with
Committed
Potential
Funding
Net Cost with
Committed
and Potential
72%Fire Stations 14.2 0 14.2 0 14.2
69%Streets 8 0 8 0 8
67%Sidewalks 6 0 6 0 6
67%Parks Catch Up 9.8 0 9.8 0 9.8
Subtotal 38 0 38 0 38
65%Bike/Pedestrian Plan 25 1.5 23.5 0 23.5
61%Bike Bridge 10 8.35 1.65 0 1.65
57%Ventura Community Center 3 0 3 0 3
52%Public Safety Building 57 0 57 48 9
52%Charleston/Arastradero 9.75 2.27 7.48 0.35 7.13
Subtotal 104.75 12.12 92.63 48.35 44.28
47%Animal Services Center 6.9 0 6.9 0 6.9
46%Playing Fields (at Golf Course)6 0 6 0 6
46%Cal. Avenue Parking Garage 12 0 12 0 12
44%Downtown Parking Garage 21 0 21 0 21
38%History Museum at Roth Building 3 0 3 0 3
Subtotal 48.9 0 48.9 0 48.9
not polled Byxbee Park 3.6 0 3.6 0 3.6
not polled Surface Catch Up 8.8 0 8.8 0 8.8
not polled Buildings Catch Up 4.5 0 4.5 0 4.5
not polled Cubberley Deferred Maintenance 6.9 0 6.9 0 6.9
not polled Civic Center 16 0 16 0 16
Subtotal 39.8 0 39.8 0 39.8
Total 231.5 12.1 219.3 48.4 171.0
Total (excluding parking garages, History Museum, Ventura) 192.5 12.1 180.3 48.4 132.0
les
s
tha
n
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
tw
o
‐thi
r
d
s
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
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.
Attachment D. Potential Bundled Infrastructure Measures
Potential Bundled Infrastructure Measures
Survey Bundled Project description
Polling Support
(sum of strongly and
somewhat supportive) Potential Projects
Estimated
Cost
Committed
Funding
Net Cost with
Committed
Potential
Funding
Net Cost with
Committed
and Potential
Streets 8 0 8 0 8
Sidewalks 6 0 6 0 6
Bike/Pedestrian Plan 25 1.5 23.5 0 23.5
Bike Bridge 10 8.35 1.65 0 1.65
Charleston/Arastradero 9.75 2.27 7.48 0.35 7.13
Cal. Avenue Parking Garage 12 0 12 0 12
Downtown Parking Garage 21 0 21 0 21
Totals:91.75 12.12 79.63 0.35 79.28
72%
A Palo Alto Vital Facilities and Services Protection Measure that would provide a stable source of locally-controlled funding to address local needs. Th
Ventura Community Center 3 0 3 0 3
Bike/Pedestrian Plan 25 1.5 23.5 0 23.5
Parks Catch Up 9.8 0 9.8 0 9.8
Charleston/Arastradero 9.75 2.27 7.48 0.35 7.13
Streets 8 0 8 0 8
Sidewalks 6 0 6 0 6
Totals:61.55 3.77 57.78 0.35 57.43
Public Safety Building 57 0 57 48 9
Fire Stations 14.2 0 14.2 0 14.2
Totals: 71.2 0.0 71.2 48.0 23.2
74%
71%
A Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe Streets, Sidewalks
and Trails Measure to fund repair and improvements to
streets, sidewalks, and nine miles of off‐road trails. This
measure would provide safe routes to school for
children, improve accessibility for people with
disabilities, provide a network of safe bike paths and
pedestrian walkways, increase the availability of parking,
and upgrade traffic signals and intersections to reduce
congestion and improve safety.
A Palo Alto Children and Families First Measure that
would fund improved facilities for preschool and
childcare programs, safe routes to school, pedestrian and
bike safety improvements, park and playground
improvements and neighborhood traffic calming
measures.
A Fire, Paramedic, Police, Seismic Safety and Emergency
Response Measure to fund improvements to keep Palo
Alto safe, including construction of a new earthquake‐
safe public safety building and emergency response
command center, replacing two obsolete fire stations
with modern earthquake‐safe buildings, and improving
communication systems to ensure rapid 9‐1‐1 response
to fires, accidents and other emergencies.
A Palo Alto Vital Facilities and Services Protection
Measure that would provide a stable source of locally‐
controlled funding to address local needs. These funds
could not be taken away by the State and would be used
to support general City services and facilities, including
fire, paramedics, police, streets, sidewalks, parks,
recreation, libraries and community centers.
68%
Information on potential projects is not provided for this measure, as it is structured as a general
measure whose revenues would not be dedicated to specific uses.
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.
1 5/29/2013
Attachment E: Public Safety Building Update
The Planned Community (PC) zone change at 395 Page Mill and 3045 Park Blvd., if approved,
would allow construction of two four‐story office buildings, totaling 311,000 square feet at 395
Page Mill Road, and a three‐story approximately 44,500 square foot public safety building (as
the primary proposed public benefit), along with associated parking. The applicant has
estimated the value of the construction of the public safety building (including land) and
associated parking at $49.3 million. The project at this value also assumes that the applicant
would build the public safety building and parking garage (at a presumably lower cost than the
City could.)
At the May 7, 2013 meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, staff reported that the City’s
architect, Michael Ross of RossDrulisCusenberry Architecture Inc. (RDC), is working in an
advisory role to the applicant’s architect, DES Architects and Engineers (DES), to address the key
criteria for a successful public safety building. Since the May 7, 2013 meeting, Michael Ross has
continued to work with City staff and DES to refine the building configuration and layout for the
“Operational Basement” approach that is preferred by the Police Department.
The proposed public safety building, along with the proposed office buildings at 395 Page Mill
Road, is scheduled to be considered for initiation by the Planning and Transportation
Commission at its May 29, 2013 meeting. The staff report to the PTC recommends initiation of
the project, and describes the recent improvements to the public safety building proposal as
follows:
Construction of an approximately 44,500 square foot Public Safety Building with 191
dedicated parking spaces. The Public Safety Building would be located on the southern
portion of the site with 191 parking spaces in two below grade levels.
The below grade parking levels will be for the exclusive use of the Public Safety Building.
Office parking of 388 spaces will be accommodated in the above grade portion of the
parking garage.
The PSB will have a 20 foot stand‐off (setback) from all property lines and a 45 foot
stand‐off from the proposed parking garage. The building separation will allow for
parking for a media truck and emergency vehicle.
The additional front setback allows for improved security, and provides space for
mature landscaping and a pedestrian plaza at the front of the building.
The PSB frontage has been modified to provide 100 percent publicly accessible functions
along the ground floor. This will help to enliven the street during the day and create a
“lantern effect” at night along Park Blvd.
The project now proposes a series of landscaped bulb‐outs that will visually narrow the
streetscape while providing sufficient space for bicycle lanes.
The proposed four (4) driveway ramps have been reduced to three (3) ramps, and will
reduce conflicts with pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
The FAR for this site has been reduced from 3.40 to 2.80 with the relocation of 51
parking spaces and further refinement of the parking garage design.
2 5/29/2013
Both Michael Ross and Police Department staff agree that the proposed public safety building
site is workable, and that the proposed building with the recent improvements to the design is
a strong public benefit that would be highly valuable to the community if approved.
As reported to the Infrastructure Committee on May 7, 2013, Staff believes that enough
progress can be made in the project’s review process to effectively inform decisions about the
need for an infrastructure measure in December 2013 and is committed to work to that
schedule. The project review process is currently proceeding according to the schedule that
was provided on April 7, and which is also attached. It is anticipated that Council will be able to
consider the project and the feasibility of the EIR in March 2014.
Sep May
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
2012 2014
Sep
Council
Prescreening
Dec-12
Applicant Submits
Revised Plans
Feb
PTC Initiation
1st Hearing May
Infrastructure
Committee
May
Initiate EIR
Jun
Circulate
NOP
Jul
PTC
EIR Scoping
Aug
ARB Preliminary
Hearing
Nov
Circulate
EIR
Dec
PTC
EIR Hearing
Mar
CC
Hearing
Feb
PTC
Hearing
Jan
ARB
Hearing
Jul -Aug
Focus Groups
Sep- Nov
Potential
Tracking
Survey
Apr -Jun
Baseline Survey
395 Page Mill Road and 3045 Park Blvd. Planned Community Zone Change, EIR Schedule,
Evaluation of the Proposed Public Benefit
& Public Opinion Research for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure
May 7, 2013
May
PTC Initiation
2nd Hearing
Public Benefit Evaluation
Public Opinion Research for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure
City Council Considers Infrastructure Committee Recommendations on Opinion Research Findings
Sep
Admin
Draft
EIR
PSB Design
Public Benefit Analysis
Preliminary Traffic Study}
Sep
Council
Update
Feb-Apr
Final
Survey
Attachment F. Potential Revenue Sources
May 29, 2013
Potential Revenue Sources to Fund Infrastructure Projects
Currently Available Revenue Sources (in millions)Potential Revenue Ballot Measure Types
Infrastructure/Housing $22.1
Sustainability 12.3
Parks 1.0
Community Centers 1.4
Citywide Traffic TBD GO Bonds ($100 per year)57
GO Bonds ($150 per year)86
GO Bonds ($200 per year)114
Available 3.6 GO Bonds ($250 per year)143
Projected FY2013 End 6‐10
Total:$44.0 ‐ $48.0 Business License Tax 51%3.3 46.2
Parcel Tax ($200 per parcel) 41%4 56
Sales Tax 1/8 cent increase 38%2.6 36.4
Potential or Projected Revenue Increases
Soure of New Revenue
New Hotels (2014)1.7 23.8
New Hotels (after 2014)0.7 9.8 Cities TOT Rates
Digital Readerboard 0.8 11.2 San Francisco 14.0%
Auto Dealership at MSC 0.8 11.2 San Jose 10.0% Amount
Oakland 14.0%$100 75%
Menlo Park 12.0%$150 64%
Lease LATP site 3 42 East Palo Alto 12.0%$200 53%
Mountain View 10.0%$250 48%
Total:8.4 117.6 Sunnyvale 9.5%
Santa Clara 9.5%
Redwood City 12.0%
Santa Barbara 12.0%
Anaheim 15.0%
Potential Funding from New Tax Measures
New tax measure Annual Revenue
Sales tax increase of 1/8 cent 2.6
Transient Occupancy Tax increase of 1 percent 0.9
Documentary Transfer Tax increase of $1.10 per $100,000 of value 1.8
Utility User's Tax increase of 1 percent 2.2
Business License Tax (2009 analysis)3.3
Parcel Tax of $200 per parcel 4.0
46.2
56
One‐time Funding
36.4
12.6
25.2
30.8
Lease Current Police
Building 1.4 19.6
One‐Time
Revenue (30‐
year COPs)
Support for
Additional Taxes
Estimated Annual
Revenue
1 Note that polling support is with respect to the revenue measure
type, not the amount of the tax or bond
One‐Time
Revenue
(GO Bond, Annual
Revenue
Polling Support1
(sum of strongly
and somewhat
supportive)
Type of Revenue Measure
or Tax Increase
Utility Users Tax 1% Increase 29%2.2 30.8
Transient Occupancy Tax 1%
Increase
1.8 25.2
64%
62%0.9 12.6
Documentary Transfer Tax
$1.1 per $100,000 increase 51%
Stanford Medical
Center Mitigation
Downtown In‐Lieu
Parking 1.2
Development Impact
and In‐Lieu Fees
Infrastructure Reserve
Attachment G. Finance Mechanisms and Election Requirements
Updated May 29, 2013
*General taxes can be coupled with an advisory measure expressing voters’ preference that tax be used for particular purpose. If the ballot
language itself expressly restricts use of tax proceeds to infrastructure or other specific uses, it becomes a Special Tax. Special taxes require a 2/3 vote,
but need not be placed on a General Election ballot.
Funding Type
Description
General Election
Required
(Even years only)
Vote
Requirement
Comments
Taxes
General Obligation (GO)
Bond
Property Tax based on %
of assessed value
No 2/3
Parcel Tax Property tax based on
flat rate per parcel
No 2/3
Sales Tax
Tax on goods Yes, if structured as a
general tax*
Majority Can be increased in 1/8 increments up
to 1% maximum
Utility Users Tax
Tax on utility charges Yes, if structured as a
general tax*
Majority
Documentary Transfer
Tax
Tax on real property
deeds
Yes, if structured as a
general tax*
Majority
Transient Occupancy
Tax (Hotel Tax)
Tax on hotel rates Yes, if structured as a
general tax*
Majority
Business License Tax
Tax on businesses Yes, if structured as a
general tax*
Majority City doesn’t currently have
Other Funding Mechanisms
Certificates of
Participation (COPs)
Financing lease that
allows issuance of tax
exempt debt
N/A N/A Must have identified revenue stream for
repayment.
Utility Revenue Bonds Bonds secured by utility
rates
N/A N/A Must have identified revenue stream for
repayment. Utility bonds cannot be
used to fund General Fund operations.
TRIP COP’s COP’s secured by City
portion of gas tax
N/A N/A California Communities sponsored
program to leverage gas tax revenues.
Can only be used for certain street
improvements.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
WORKING MINUTES
Page 1 of 16
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The Infrastructure Committee met on this date in the Council Conference
Room at 5:04 P.M.
Present: Berman, Klein (Chair), Scharff, Shepherd
Absent:
Oral Communications
None
Chair Klein announced that the meeting would end at 6:30 P.M., and an
additional meeting regarding the baseline survey results would be scheduled
the first week of August 2013.
Action Items
1. Review Baseline Survey Results and Make Recommendations to the
City Council on Next Steps in Considering an Infrastructure Finance
Measure.
Sheila Tucker, Executive Assistant to the City Manager, noted the Staff
Report included supplemental information regarding revenue sources that
could be dedicated to infrastructure projects.
James Keene, City Manager, inquired whether the full meeting time would be
devoted to survey results.
Chair Klein did not believe the survey results would require the full time.
Ms. Tucker reported Staff was prepared to discuss details of the survey
results if the Infrastructure Committee (Committee) wished.
Mr. Keene requested the order of topics be reversed.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 2 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Chair Klein wanted to cover the survey results, and requested Staff present
the information in 15-20 minutes.
Dave Metz, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, and Associates, reported
demographic information for each question would not be covered in the
presentation; however, the information was available. For each survey
question, he separated the responses by demographic, geographic and
attitudinal subgroups of the Palo Alto electorate. The presentation provided
information regarding the essential recommendations. The survey covered a
randomly selected sample of 603 voters in Palo Alto who, based on past
voting behavior, were considered likely to vote in the November 2014
election. The survey was conducted at the end of April and beginning of May
2013. In a number of places in the data, he would draw comparisons with
prior surveys he performed for the City for the Library Bond. Broadly, local
voters remained overwhelming pleased with the performance of City
government. This was different from other communities where many voters
were unhappy with local government performance. One side effect of the
happiness was that the community did not see a critical need for additional
funding for infrastructure. Approximately half of local voters saw some need
for funding for infrastructure projects. When voters were asked about a
series of potential ballot measures that pulled together packages of
infrastructure improvements under various subject headings, many
packages received support from approximately two-thirds of voters. Those
questions did not assign a specific funding mechanism or cost to those
improvements. A majority, but not a super majority, of voters indicated
they would support a Public Safety Building (PSB) fully funded by the City.
Support was slightly higher for a public-private partnership for a PSB. In the
abstract, approximately two-thirds of voters would be willing to vote for a
ballot measure that would provide additional funds for infrastructure
improvements. Specific funding mechanisms that generally received the
strongest support were General Obligation (GO) bond measures or an
increase in the transient occupancy tax (TOT), both of which received
support from more than 3 in 5 voters. A variety of other mechanisms
received less support. One of the first questions in the survey asked
respondents how they would rate the overall job being done by City
government as excellent, good, fair, or poor. More than two-thirds rated the
City's performance as either excellent or good. Relatively few responses
were in the excellent category; however, that was consistent with other
communities. Approximately 1 in 20 voters believed the City was doing a
poor job. Those numbers were comparable to the numbers generated in
2008. Another question asked voters how they felt about the City's
performance in a variety of specific subject areas, with a response of
approve or disapprove. By margins greater than 2 to 1, voters approved the
City's performance. In the area of maintaining infrastructure, 75 percent of
WORKING MINUTES
Page 3 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
respondents felt the City was doing a good job, and 28 percent strongly
approved. This was the first indicator in the data that voters did not see an
infrastructure crisis. More broadly, voters did not see a need for additional
funding for City services in the larger sense. Respondents were asked how
they would rate the City of Palo Alto's need for additional funding broadly.
Only 40 percent of voters perceived some need for additional funding for the
City; 50 percent saw little or no need; and almost one-third saw no need for
additional funding. In most cities, respondents were less satisfied with City
government, did not believe they received the services they wanted, and
perceived a need for more resources.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether satisfaction with City government
typically paired with the low need for additional funding.
Mr. Metz indicated there was a logical connection between the two.
Dissatisfaction with City government usually occurred because of service
reductions, and voters tied service reductions to a lack of revenue.
Additional questions asked more specifically about whether the public saw a
great need or some need for funding to maintain and improve infrastructure.
The sample was divided into groups, each of which was randomly selected.
One half was asked about maintaining and improving infrastructure as a
generic category. The second half was asked about specific categories. In
neither formulation did two-thirds of voters perceive a need for more
infrastructure funding. The more specific the question, the greater the
constituency favored providing additional funding. In either formulation of
the question, only 1 in 10 respondents indicated a great need for
infrastructure funding. Again, the perception was that the City did a good
job of handling these issues. It might seem as though respondents were not
willing to provide funding for infrastructure. As respondents went through
the remaining questions and heard specific ideas it became apparent that
was not the case. The public did see some areas where improvements were
needed and where they would be willing to fund them. He developed a
series of questions moving from general to specific to try to understand how
voters would rank a variety of potential infrastructure priorities. The first
and most general question mentioned the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission (IBRC) process and the City's most pressing infrastructure
needs, and then provided respondents with a list of different categories of
need that had been identified. Respondents were asked whether they
thought each category was an extremely important, very important,
somewhat important, or not important priority. Two-thirds or more of voters
rated a number of items as either extremely important or very important,
which was significant for a finance measure requiring a super majority vote.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 4 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
The two categories with the most support were public safety and
transportation.
Council Member Berman inquired about the difference between fixing
potholes and paving City streets and maintaining streets and roads.
Mr. Metz explained that language was used in a split-sample question
describing the same types of projects in different ways to determine if the
result was meaningfully different. Maintaining City streets and roads
received slightly higher support, but the intensity of support was essentially
the same. Approximately one-third of voters rated the top-ranked items as
extremely important. Lesser ranked items were rated as extremely
important by one-quarter of voters. Voters did not necessarily perceive
many problems with the City's infrastructure; therefore, they were
supportive but not with a lot of strength behind those sentiments. The
second tier was comprised of items that at least half, but less than two-
thirds, of voters said were very important priorities. Generally, park related
issues tended to be in the tier behind public safety and transportation as
public priorities. Less than half of voters rated the items lowest on the list
as very important priorities.
Mr. Keene suggested the Committee would want the data regarding
geographic variances.
Chair Scharff requested copies of the data for the Committee.
Ms. Tucker had the information.
Chair Klein felt asking questions and having Mr. Metz extract the information
would be more productive than reading the data.
Mr. Metz could do that. One question attempted to combine various
infrastructure priorities into five items for ballot measures. One item was
framed as being a general tax to support City services and facilities generally
and requiring a simple majority approval. The other four items were framed
around categories of services: public safety; traffic congestion and
transportation; parks, open space, and sustainability; and services for
children. He did this in order to understand the overall level of public
support for collections of infrastructure projects and to determine any
distinctions between them. He did not assign a cost or specify a funding
mechanism, because those factors could reduce support. Almost all of the
categories were within the range of receiving two-thirds support. Parks and
WORKING MINUTES
Page 5 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
open space did not receive two-thirds support, but was within the margin of
error. The two categories with the most intense support were a Streets,
Sidewalk, and Trails measure and a Public Safety measure. In terms of
aggregate support, they all were close in support.
Council Member Berman asked if the 6 percent increase in strong support
was worth more than the 4 percent increase in total support when
comparing a vital facilities measure to a public safety measure.
Mr. Metz reported strong support was a critical indicator. The intensity of
support for an early question was the most important indicator. At the end
of the survey, respondents were asked to state of all the potential
infrastructure improvements discussed, which ones stood out as the highest
priority. A majority of respondents mentioned something related to streets,
sidewalks, pedestrian safety improvements or police and fire and public
safety improvements. The final survey question provided respondents with
the list of potential improvements specified by the Committee along with a
cost for each project. When asked if they would support or oppose spending
the specific dollar amounts on each of the priorities, respondents answered
within the same set of issues. Two-thirds of voters indicated they would
support fire department modernization; street improvement and repair;
sidewalk improvement and repair; and bike lanes and pedestrian paths.
Interestingly, park improvement and repair was roughly equivalent to the
others in support. The most intense support was for the Fire Department
spending and bike lanes and pedestrian paths, with both exceeding 30
percent. Both PSB questions received a majority but not two-thirds support.
Less than half of voters were willing to support parking, Animal Services,
playing fields and recreational facilities, and the Roth Building; and a
plurality would oppose funding for these projects. A split sample was
utilized to test the response to a PSB fully funded by the City at $57 million;
and to a PSB funded by the City at $8 million and by a private developer
with $49 million in exchange for the right to build new commercial offices
near Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The difference in responses was
within the survey's margin of error. In each case, a majority but less than
two-thirds of respondents expressed support.
Council Member Berman asked if the response was not accurate because of
the lack of detail for the public-private partnership.
Mr. Metz could have performed an entire survey on the PSB subject alone.
Talking through detail would potentially impact people's support. The
question was designed to state only the most salient points. Some voters
could be hesitating to support a PSB project, because they wanted more
WORKING MINUTES
Page 6 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
details. He did not believe the City had public support for a two-thirds vote
on the PSB alone. Survey results were a bit lower but close to the results of
the 2007 survey.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt public support would not reach the two-thirds level
no matter what the Council did.
Mr. Metz agreed it would be difficult. The 2008 survey was not entirely
equivalent to the 2013 survey; however, the general patterns were
consistent over time. Support for a PSB did not appear to be close to the
two-thirds level needed for a ballot measure.
Council Member Berman asked if adding context to the questions would
change support.
Mr. Metz reported that based on survey results in 2007 and 2008, the level
of support could increase; however, he was not confident it would reach a
stable two-thirds percentage. One question generally asked the voters to
indicate whether they supported a voter approved bond or tax measure to
fund some group of infrastructure projects described in the survey. By a 65
to 27 margin, voters responded yes. The strong support was only 21
percent, but the question omitted many details. He was encouraged by this
response, because earlier questions did not indicate a pressing need for
additional infrastructure funds. Voters' willingness to spend money to
support specific projects was relatively high and encouraging.
Chair Klein noted a strong support of 21 percent and a somewhat support of
44 percent, which added up to 65 percent. The undecided group of 8
percent were people who would likely vote. Undecided voters generally split
their vote with one-third supporting and two-thirds opposing. One-third of 8
percent added to 65 percent equaled 67.7 percent, slightly more than a two-
thirds majority. There were other ways to view the numbers to receive a
more positive result.
Mr. Metz did not dispute that. The undecided category would vote one way
or the other. Additional factors were the 4 percent margin of error and the
lack of project details.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the next survey would have a
directed focus.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 7 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Mr. Metz replied yes. The point of this survey was to assess voters'
reactions to all the building blocks that could be assembled into a measure.
Reaction to the buildings blocks in this survey would provide a direction for
the next survey and a more precise analysis. Another question asked
respondents to indicate the amount they would be willing to pay in order to
support infrastructure improvements regardless of the funding mechanism.
Two-thirds of respondents would support paying $100 per year, and a simple
majority would support paying $200 per year.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether that question would apply to a bond
measure or parcel tax.
Mr. Metz explained any finance measure would have some fiscal impact
which could be estimated for individual households. The ballot language for
a parcel tax stated exactly how much each household would pay. Language
for other funding mechanisms did not state a specific amount.
Mayor Scharff asked if the results indicated a parcel tax in the amount of
$100 per year per parcel would likely receive 75 percent support.
Mr. Metz answered roughly yes.
Mayor Scharff felt a bond was more difficult, because it varied by property
value.
Mr. Metz could review the geographic data, determine a rough estimate of
the amount respondents would pay, and then match that amount to the
amount they stated they were willing to pay.
Mayor Scharff noted each homeowner paid a different amount due to
Proposition 13.
Mr. Metz could estimate the amount.
Chair Klein recalled the Library Bond measure provided a great deal of detail
for voters to understand the amount the average household would pay.
Mayor Scharff requested the amount individual homeowners would pay
under the Library Bond.
Chair Klein answered approximately $120.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 8 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Mayor Scharff stated some households paid $600-$800.
Council Member Berman explained the amount depended on the assessed
value of the home.
Mr. Metz added the amount was usually expressed per $100,000 of assessed
value.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether the Committee would receive that
information.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff knew the distribution of the value of houses.
Mayor Scharff asked if support for a bond measure was more nuanced than
for a parcel tax.
Mr. Metz replied yes. In the next round of research, questions would contain
specific proposals, and follow-up questions would allow the respondent to
calculate the amount he would pay and state how that affected his
willingness to support the proposal.
Chair Klein noted the Library Bond measure was in the amount of $76
million, which cost homeowners approximately $125 per year.
Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, could provide some
examples for the median assessed value.
Mr. Metz reported one question asked the respondents whether they would
support or oppose each funding mechanism in the abstract. The question
provided a relative sense of which types of funding mechanisms seemed to
be most palatable to voters. Bonds were at the top of the list. The TOT,
real estate transfer tax and business license tax scored relatively well.
Mayor Scharff inquired whether 52 percent support and a margin of error of
4 percent was really a majority.
Mr. Metz stated the TOT, real estate transfer tax and business license tax
were definitely in a second tier. The lower tier included parcel tax, sales tax,
and utility users tax.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 9 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Council Member Berman asked if a bond received more support because of
the aspect of paying it later.
Mr. Metz felt that was one factor. Another factor was the concept of
borrowing money to invest in a long-lasting resource.
Mayor Scharff noted earlier in the discussion a parcel tax of $100 received
strong support. This question indicated weak support for a parcel tax. He
asked how those two points should be interpreted.
Mr. Metz explained the $100 mentioned earlier was not specifically for a
parcel tax. In this question, the parcel tax was less popular relative to the
other funding mechanisms. If the City decided to have a parcel tax, then
placing the amount at approximately $100 would increase the level of
success. Support for a sales tax was significantly lower than typical, which
may have resulted from the phrasing of the question and not specifying a
rate. He urged the Committee not to discard a sales tax increase based on
this data. A bond measure might be the way to proceed, because most
voters expressed a willingness to support it. Based on the polling data,
voters expressed high confidence in City government and its financial
management paired with a low sense of urgency for infrastructure issues.
That did not deter voters from being willing to support the idea of increasing
their taxes to fund infrastructure improvements; however, the support was
not intense. The burden would be on the City to educate the public
regarding the necessity for improvements and the necessity for a tax
increase. For the PSB, the idea of a public-private partnership packaged
with other public safety improvements might be more likely to reach two-
thirds support. Four things would significantly enhance the potential for
success of a measure: focusing on public safety and transportation;
combining projects in packages to the greatest extent possible; focusing on
GO bonds as a funding mechanism to obtain two-thirds support; and
remembering the levels of rough willingness to pay.
Council Member Berman inquired whether a voter would be likely to support
a package containing improvements the voter did and did not support.
Mr. Metz reported in general packaging improvements with strong support
with improvements not highly opposed would be the best combination.
Future research could empirically test package combinations.
Mayor Scharff stated the more intense the opposition to an improvement,
the less likely it should be included in a package.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 10 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Mr. Metz agreed that intense opposition for an improvement was problematic
for obtaining a two-thirds majority support.
Mayor Scharff indicated a bond measure required a two-thirds vote, while
increasing the TOT required a simple majority vote, Support for a bond
measure was 64 percent, and support for increasing the TOT was 62
percent. Increasing the TOT was more likely to pass than a bond measure.
Mr. Metz reported inclusion of the word tax generally had more impact than
inclusion of the word bond.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt a new PSB was a fiduciary responsibility; yet, the
public seemed ambivalent. She wanted to better understand how to
interpret the public response.
Mr. Metz explained that one question attempted to define implicitly the
deficiencies in the public safety infrastructure and to place the PSB in the
context of a system of public safety facilities. Respondents supported that
with 68 percent total support and 39 percent strong support. However, the
dollar amount and the funding mechanism were missing from the question.
He believed the two-thirds support would remain when respondents received
the full context. This type of concept could be tested in the future research.
The whole could be greater than the sum of the parts.
Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the Committee should communicate better or
focus on more polling to assist the communication process.
Mr. Metz recalled in 2007 and 2008, the public had no idea of the
deficiencies of the PSB. When the public received that type of information in
focus groups, they were concerned. The City should create a communication
program to communicate the need to the public. In terms of obtaining
funding for improvements, the survey provided helpful information in terms
of public safety. The net sum of all results seemed to indicate that a PSB
was possible.
Vice Mayor Shepherd preferred to have community support for full City
funding of a PSB. She liked the idea of implementing a business license tax,
because it could also fund economic needs.
Chair Klein suggested comments were outside of Mr. Metz's area of
expertise.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 11 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Council Member Berman noted the majority of residents supported a PSB;
however, the support did not reach the two-thirds level.
Mr. Keene stated polling on packages and different messaging that could
change support would be performed.
Mayor Scharff agreed there was strong support for a PSB, but it was not at
the two-thirds level.
Mr. Metz noted support for a PSB was consistent from 2008 forward.
Mayor Scharff felt the community wanted a PSB; however, the challenge was
funding a PSB. He asked if more polling should be conducted on the amount
the public was willing to pay.
Mr. Metz suggested the Committee should assess the amount of money
resulting from various funding mechanisms. Even if the public favored one
funding mechanism, it might not yield enough money to fund the number of
projects needed. He could test that information if the Committee wished.
Mayor Scharff felt that was true for a real estate transfer tax.
Chair Klein noted the public supported an increase in the TOT by 81 percent
in a previous election; however, the current survey indicated 62 percent
support for an increase in the TOT. He asked if Mr. Metz could explain that
disparity.
Mr. Metz explained the current survey asked respondents to support a tax
mechanism without indicating how the tax would be used.
Chair Klein understood the City did not state how the funds would be used
when campaigning for an increase in the TOT.
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director, Chief Financial Officer, asked if
the survey question indicated the percentage of tax increase.
Mr. Metz answered no.
Mr. Perez felt the difference may result from the previous measure stating
the percentage of increase.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 12 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Mayor Scharff felt the City stated the uses for the funds generated by the
tax increase.
Mr. Keene reported the campaign and the materials indicated the uses.
Chair Klein indicated a 2 percent increase in the TOT would generate slightly
less than $2 million annually.
Mr. Saccio added that amount did not include the new hotels.
Chair Klein requested Mr. Metz comment on survey results which differed
from other cities' results.
Mr. Metz noted the largest difference was the initial juxtaposition of
favorable attitudes toward City government with less perception of financial
need. A number of other communities had higher support for investments in
public safety, but generally those communities had much higher crime rates.
Lack of support for a sales tax was the most counterintuitive result.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the demographics of the survey
aligned with the demographics of residents likely to vote.
Mr. Metz reported it was exactly in line with likely voters.
Ms. Tucker reported the Staff Report reviewed the costs for the 14
infrastructure projects. Attachment C indicated the level of support for the
14 infrastructure projects in terms of super majority, majority, or less than
majority, and the costs. Staff included the Jay Paul Company proposal and
receipt of outstanding grants when calculating the costs. The total project
costs excluded the two parking garages, the History Museum and Ventura.
Because bundled projects polled well, Staff reviewed packages that received
a super majority vote and which projects could fit into that type of theme
and the total cost. The four categories of revenue were existing revenue
that could be earmarked for infrastructure; potential new revenue sources;
the amount of funding resulting from the four types of funding mechanisms;
and Certificates of Participation (COP). At the beginning of the Staff Report,
Staff provided questions for the Committee to consider in determining which
projects would be placed on a ballot measure.
Chair Klein requested Staff combine Attachments C and F.
Ms. Tucker would do so.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 13 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Chair Klein suggested the Committee begin eliminating projects without
strong support and compiling project bundles.
Mr. Saccio reviewed the potential revenue sources found on Attachment F.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff could isolate revenue from new
hotels and earmark that as a revenue source for repaying a COP.
Mr. Saccio reported Staff had information regarding the amount of tax each
hotel generated.
Vice Mayor Shepherd did not feel hotel revenue was a new revenue source in
the traditional sense.
Council Member Berman asked what would happen if a new hotel filed for
bankruptcy in 2025.
Mr. Saccio indicated the General Fund would be responsible for replacing
that lost revenue.
Chair Klein asked if Staff meant GO bond or COP in the far right column
under Potential Revenue Ballot Measure Types.
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated the types were
shown in the order of the amount of support received in the poll.
Chair Klein did not understand the right-hand column.
Mr. Eggleston indicated the title of the right column should state GO Bond,
COP.
Council Member Berman requested Staff review the table.
Mr. Eggleston reiterated that polling questions related only to the type of tax
or bond measure, not the percent of the increase. A $200 per parcel tax
resulted in one-time funding of $56 million; whereas a $200 per year GO
bond resulted in $114 million.
Mr. Saccio noted the document transfer tax was based on $1.10 per $1,000
of value, not $100,000 of value.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 14 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Chair Klein asked if the State imposed a limit on the amount of increase for
the real estate transfer tax.
Mr. Saccio was not aware of such a limit.
Mr. Perez reported the best method to receive the best rating from the
rating agencies was to pledge full General Fund revenues as alternate
revenues for COPs.
Vice Mayor Scharff inquired about the total infrastructure dollar amount.
Council Member Berman responded $132 million excluding the parking
garages, History Museum and Ventura.
Mr. Eggleston added that amount assumed the Jay Paul Company proposal
was approved.
Mayor Scharff requested the amount if the proposal was not approved.
Mr. Eggleston replied $219 million with the parking garages, History Museum
and Ventura. Without those items and the Jay Paul Company proposal, the
total was $180 million.
Chair Klein indicated the information was contained in Attachment C.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt it was unwise to deduct the cost for the PSB,
because that appeared to indicate the Council would approve the proposal.
Chair Klein stated the amount was not deducted.
Mr. Saccio reported funding all $132 million in projects would result in each
residential property owner paying approximately $226 based on a median
average assessed valuation of $654,000.
Mayor Scharff believed a bond would affect young families
disproportionately.
Mayor Scharff asked if the total infrastructure cost included $35 million for
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Mr. Keene answered yes.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 15 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Mr. Eggleston added the total included $25 million for the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The Bike Bridge was originally a part of the
$25 million.
Chair Klein requested Committee Members consider removing infrastructure
projects and rank ordering the remaining projects. Attachment F indicated
available resources totaled $44-$48 million and new revenue sources not
requiring a vote totaled $70 million, for a grand total of $117 million.
Because all those revenues sources might not occur, Committee Members
should consider projects totaling $100 million.
Mayor Scharff suggested Staff present information on potential revenue
sources to allow the Committee to make recommendations to the Council.
Chair Klein explained that was the reason he suggested projects total $100
million.
Mayor Scharff felt the Committee needed that information in order to make
choices.
Chair Klein noted the Staff Report indicated Staff would present information
regarding the reader board to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff discussed presenting the information directly to
the Council. He requested direction regarding presentation of reader board
information.
Chair Klein suggested Staff present the same information to the Committee
and the Finance Committee.
Mr. Perez added that the Policy and Services Committee was reviewing use
of Stanford funds. Staff made recommendations to fund a portion of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan with Stanford funds.
Chair Klein felt Committee Member's ranking of projects would shape the
final recommendations to the Council.
Vice Mayor Shepherd would apply rankings to new revenue sources as well.
Chair Klein agreed ranking would work for projects and revenue sources.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 16 of 16
Infrastructure Committee Regular/Special Meeting
Working Minutes: June 6, 2013
Mr. Perez read the language in Ballot M for an increase of the TOT.
Chair Klein indicated the next meeting would be in August 2013, and he
preferred to begin the meeting at 3:00 P.M. or 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Scharff preferred 3:00 P.M.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 P.M.