HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13571
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13571)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 4/18/2022 Report Type: Action Items
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Revenue-Generating Ballot Measures for Fall 2022: Discuss 2nd-Round
Polling Results and Feedback from Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Activities; Review and Provide Staff Direction on Finance Committee
Recommended Refined Parameters for a Business License Tax and an
Affirmation of the Gas General Fund Transfer; and Provide Direction to Staff
on Next Steps Including Launch of Third Poll, and Council's Non-Binding
Intentions for Allocation of Potential Proceeds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council receive a progress report on the
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and consider the following ballot measures for
voter review November 2022:
1. Affirmation of current Gas Utility Transfer at 18% of the gas utility’s gross receipts for
general government purposes.
2. A Business License Tax with the following characteristics:
a. Tax is determined based on a business’s occupied square footage in Palo Alto
b. Exemption for hotels (businesses that collect and remit Temporary Occupancy
Tax)
c. Exemption for groceries (requires a given % of sq ft. of food sales to qualify as a
grocery)
d. Exemption for seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days
e. Exemption for first 5,000 sq ft
f. Tax rate of $0.20/sq ft per year
g. Tax to be due beginning January 1, 2024
h. Three-year phase-in provision: reduced monthly rate of $0.12/sq ft for calendar
year 2024; rate of $0.15/sq ft for calendar year 2025; and full rate of $0.20/sq ft
beginning calendar year 2026
i. Beginning in 2027 and each year thereafter, tax rate to increase by the CPI,
capped at 6% per annum with excess CPI carrying over to future years
City of Palo Alto Page 2
j. Confirm that the City’s Business Registry program will continue to operate and
be required for all businesses except as exempted by the BRC ordinance.
3. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with:
a. A third round of polling based on the attached outline (Attachment A) and
Finance Committee and Council feedback;
b. Drafting of ballot question and full ballot measure text (ordinances) in
accordance with tables 1 and 2 in this report for a potential Business License Tax
and the Affirmation of the current Gas Utility Transfer.
Optionally, drafting a potential non-binding resolution to inform the public of Council’s
intentions regarding use of the Business Tax proceeds. Staff anticipate providing a draft
template of this as supplemental information subsequent to the release of this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a continuation of the City Council’s discussions exploring revenue generating 2022
ballot measures. The City Council began these community conversations in the spring of 2021
and deliberations continue to evolve based on stakeholder (resident and business) feedback is
received. The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council receive a progress report
on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and consider ballot measures for voter
review November 2022, including affirming the current Gas Utility Transfer for general
government purposes, considering several business license tax characteristics, furthering a third
round of polling and drafting ballot questions and full ballot measure text related to the
Business License Tax and affirmation of the current Gas Utility Transfer.
The report also captures community and business input gained to date. Extensive
communications and community outreach continues. As of April 7, 2022, there were 394
responses (181 online responses and 213 mailed feedback forms, Attachment C). The City’s
consultant executed a second round of polling of the voter population testing various
characteristics and areas the Council identified for feedback from the voters. To date, over
1,200 residents have responded to two phases of survey research online and by phone.
To summarize the community feedback received so far, a few highlights of the 2nd round of poll
responses include:
• Respondents identified the following community priorities in priority order:
▪ Public safety priorities as important or extremely important: “Improving police
response to violent crime,” “Improving the speed or reliability of ambulance
services,” and “Improving police response to property crimes”
▪ Affordable housing and homeless services were also priorities, with respondents
identifying as important or extremely important: “Expanding outreach to people
experiencing homelessness,” and “Funding affordable housing”
▪ Climate action and grade separations were also priorities.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The online and mailed feedback forms asked residents to prioritize some of the unfunded
community investment needs and City service gaps previously discussed by Council and the
Finance Committee. The highest priorities for the respondents are consistent with the results of
the second poll:
• “Maintaining basic services” was one of the top three priorities
• “Repairing streets/roads” and “Investing in community-owned assets like roads and
community centers” were each one of the top three for about 55 percent of
respondents
• “Adding public safety services such as police, fire, and emergency medical” was a top
three priority for 46 percent of respondents
• This was followed by “Funding affordable housing and homeless services” (34 percent)
BACKGROUND
Staff presented updated analysis and other information for a potential utility on-bill tax at the
Finance Committee’s December 7, 2021 meeting (Agenda Item #2, begins on p. 55, CMR
13728). For continuity of work by the 2021 Finance Committee, the 2021 Committee met on
January 18, 2022 to review the third round of analysis of a potential business license tax ballot
measure (Agenda Item #1, p. 3, CMR 13875), along with a report of Initial Polling Results
(Agenda Item #1, p. 31, CMR 13875) and staff’s draft Community Engagement and Outreach
Plan.
Following the two meetings with the Finance Committee, discussion on January 24, 2022 with
the City Council (CMR 13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462) considered the Finance
Committee’s recommendation to further explore a business license tax, develop a proposal for
a utility tax, and amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to include three polls, and proceed with
staff’s proposed Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
On Monday, March 28, 2022, the Finance Committee Meeting reviewed the CMR 13981
(Attachment B), Revenue Generating 2022 Ballot Measures: Review Feedback from the Ballot
Measure Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the Second Round of Polling;
Review Draft Ballot Measure Language; and Recommend to Council Further Refinement of
Potential Measures Adopting a Business License Tax and Confirming the Gas Utility General
Fund Transfer.
DISCUSSION
The following sections in this report cover the status of the Council work on the continued
evaluation of potential ballot measures for voter consideration as part of the November 2022
election. It is organized by section as follows:
• Finance Committee report contents, deliberations, and resulting recommendation to
the City Council
• Outline of recommended structure of potential ballot measures for Council review,
adjustments, and direction
• Council’s intentions (non-binding) for allocation of funding should potential measures
City of Palo Alto Page 4
be placed on the ballot and supported by voters, including a draft resolution for
consideration
• Outline of the third poll to evaluate public opinion
Finance Committee Deliberations (March 28, 2022)
The Finance Committee spent extensive time reviewing the updated information regarding
potential ballot measures for the November 2022 election. Since the City Council’s review and
direction on January 24, 2022, less than three months ago, staff have continued to work on the
workplan approved by the City Council related to ballot measure evaluation. The staff report
(Attachment B) includes significant information pertaining to the progress on:
- Implementation of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
o Results of the second public opinion poll,
o Results of the online and mailed feedback survey,
o Report on the business and community focus groups conducted by the City’s
consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium;
- Additional analysis of components of a potential Business Tax Measure,
o Calculations to model impacts of the policy exemptions such as hotels and
grocery stores,
o Refined structure of a potential tax including concurrent management of the
Business Registry Certificate Program and CPI calculation options
- Overview of the components of a ballot measure(s)
o Draft ballot language and ordinance language for affirmation of the Gas Funds
Transfer
Staff and its consultants solicited community feedback in February and March on the fiscal
sustainability work plan, service priorities and improvements, and potential ballot measures.
This was reviewed in detail by the Committee with the results used to assist in informing their
deliberations and recommendations to the Council. Staff used several communications
channels, including: a utility bill insert, a page in the spring Enjoy! Catalog, a citywide mailer,
the Uplift Local electronic newsletter, other electronic newsletters and community e-mail lists,
a public landing page on the City’s webpage to access all information
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability), the City Manager’s blog and public comments;
and social media outreach. Community members were invited to fill out an online feedback
form or an identical paper version. As of April 7, 2022, there were 394 responses (181 online
responses and 213 mailed feedback forms, Attachment C). The City’s consultant executed a
second round of polling of the voter population testing various characteristics and areas the
Council identified for feedback from the voters. To date, over 1,200 residents have responded
to two phases of survey research online and by phone.
For the business license tax, three in five voters support the business license tax concept that
was tested (a deference for the first 5,000 square feet occupied plus a $0.10 per square foot
City of Palo Alto Page 5
monthly rate1). For the affirmation of the Gas Fund transfer, support remains high when voters
hear a more detailed explanation of the measure. As noted above, the highest priorities for the
respondents of the community feedback survey, both online and mailer, were consistent with
the results of the second poll regarding priorities for investments.
The Finance Committee moved the following action for City Council review:
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kou for the Finance
Committee to recommend that the City Council consider:
A. Gas ballot language to include 18% and current uses
B. Business tax ballot language to include
i. Exempt hotels
ii. Exempt groceries, require amount of use for food sales
iii. Exempt seasonal businesses less than 90 days
iv. Require BRC and exempt first 5000 sq ft
v. Proposed escalating rate over 3 years starting in 2024 at $0.12 a sq ft per
month, at $0.15, $0.20 then CPI capped at 6% per annum with excess CPI
carrying over to future years
C. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with a third round of polling
based on Finance Committee and Council’s feedback
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
Outline of the recommended structure of potential ballot measures for Council review,
adjustments, and direction
The Finance Committee report begins to more formally provide an overview of the components
associated with a ballot measure that staff has or will begin working on and are bringing
forward for Council consideration as appropriate over the coming months. The two areas of
focus for City Council review, deliberation, and direction will be focused on the ballot question
(via the third round of polling) and the full text of the measure. Based on the recommended
direction from the Finance Committee, the tables below outline the recommended structure
for the two potential ballot measures. Staff is seeking City Council review, adjustments, and
ultimately direction on the desired structure. This direction will be used for the third round of
polling, discussed later in this report, to test the potential ballot questions as well as drafting of
the full measure text/ordinance.
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax
Tax Imposed Business License Tax assessed based on square footage, levied on
individual businesses who maintain a physical presence within the
City
1 Various rates were tested to determine public perspective ranging from $0.05 per square foot per month to
$0.20 per square foot per month. The Main ballot question tested $0.12 per square foot per month.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax
Disposition of
Revenue
Proceeds allocated to the General Fund for general government
purposes of the City (‘general tax’ requires majority voter support);
Council may adopt a non-binding resolution stating intentions for
using proceeds
Exemptions The following would be exempt from payment of the tax
• Any organization exempt under federal or California state laws
• Grocery or Supermarket stores (businesses that are typically
identified as “full-service markets” that combine a full range of
grocery sales; the measure will specify a minimum percent of
occupied space that must be used for the sale of grocery/food
items in order to qualify for the grocery exemption)
• Any hotel operator as defined in PAMC 2.33 (ie, businesses that
are required to collect and remit transient occupancy tax)
• First 5,000 square feet of all businesses
• Seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days
Method of
Calculation
Tax would be measured by square feet (staff is exploring a
potential calculation definition such as the total gross square feet
as defined in zoning codes)
Rate of Tax and
Phase-In
• Three-year phase in of the tax with the following rates
(estimated to begin no later than January 2024):
• Year 1: $0.12/sq ft per month ($1.44/sq ft per yr)
• Year 2: $0.15/sq ft per month ($1.80/sq ft per yr)
• Year 3 and thereafter: $0.20/sq ft per month ($2.40/sq
ft per yr)
• Beginning in year 4, annual increase based on Bay Area CPI
growth, with a 6% cap per annum and any excess CPI above 6%
carrying over to future years
• Penalties and interest to be assessed for non-compliance
Council Authority • Designate authority for the City Council to adjust rates or other
provisions in any manner that does not increase the tax. For
example:
• Pause in the annual escalation of the tax rate
• Pause in collection of the tax
• Reduction in tax rate
• One-time or ongoing addition of exemptions
Audit Provision • Provision of audit authority
City of Palo Alto Page 7
This structure reflects the Finance Committee recommendation including exemptions as well as
an intent to administer the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the
potential business license tax, requiring all businesses, including those that occupy less than
5,000 square feet, to register with the BRC and pay a cost-recovery fee of $50 per year.
The proposed exemption for grocery stores and hotels will reduce the estimated annual
generated revenue from a range of $12 to $47 million, to $11 to $43 million, or approximately 8
percent. As discussed in Attachment A of CMR 13875, p. 17, there are eight grocery stores in
the City that were identifiable in the CoStar real estate database, totaling 139,580 square feet.
In addition, 1,410,260 square feet comprise addresses in the hospitality category, totaling 30
properties.
Based on the results of the second poll, voters are comfortable with a measure that would
increase average monthly rent for a business by up to $0.10 per square foot (1.5% of rent),2
when they are presented with a range of possible monthly rents. As shown in the Finance
Committee report, the estimated revenue generated by a monthly $0.10 per square foot rate is
up to $21.7 million. These estimates continue to reflect gross revenues estimates. There will be
administrative costs as well as some likely leakage (revenue lost as the result of system
limitations, process control gaps, and/or human errors) that will ultimately reduce these
figures.
Business license tax exemptions were tested in the second round of polling with the results
supporting an exemption for businesses less than 5,000 square feet will more likely gain
support, followed by grocery stores, with retail and hotels being less likely to gain support by
voters.
Table 2: Summary of Gas Utility Transfer Affirmation
Purpose of
Measure
Voters to affirm the City’s past practice of annually transferring
from the gas utility an amount up to 18% of gas utility gross
revenues to the general fund for general government use.
Disposition of
Revenue
Proceeds allocated to the General Fund for general government
purposes of the City (‘general tax’ requires majority voter support)
Method of
Calculation
• Tax would be measured by gross revenues of the gas utility
received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the fiscal
year of the transfer
• The projected cost of the transfer would be included in the
City’s retail gas rates as part of the cost of providing gas service.
2 Based on an assumed rental rate of $6.96 per square foot per month
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Rate • An amount equal to 18% of the gross revenues of the gas utility.
This measure would confirm the City’s past and current practice
and would not increase utility rates from current levels.
Council Authority • City Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount from voter
approved levels
The primary decision points for this measure that the Committee discussed were 1) the
percentage of gross revenues to transfer, and 2) whether the ballot question should include
specific examples of services funded by the transfer, in addition to “general government uses,”
which is required language. Transferring 18 percent of gross revenues is consistent with the
current transfer. The Committee and staff recommend keeping the measure simple and
consistent with measures recently approved in other cities.
Council’s intentions (non-binding), Consideration of Allocation of funding should potential
measures be placed on the ballot and supported by voters - What will the City do with the tax
proceeds?
By law, the proceeds of both potential measures will be placed in the City’s general fund, where
they can be spent on any general government purposes. Spending decisions will be made each
year by the sitting Council. But while today’s intentions are not binding on future Councils, the
current Council and staff have been actively discussing the fiscal sustainability of the
organization and desired and planned uses of the potential revenues and wish to share that
thinking with the public. This can be done in many ways, including staff reports, community
engagement, and possible adoption of a non-binding Resolution stating Council intentions.
• Most recently in 2019 the City Council priority of Fiscal Sustainability restarted
deliberation over establishment of a Business License Tax. The goal of this priority was
to continue to make proactive progress towards fiscal sustainability to maintain the
quality of life that the City of Palo Alto supports through its services. A tenet of this was
a goal of achieving a sound equilibrium balancing our resources, services, and costs, that
fiscal sustainability can be achieved. In addition, rail grade separations and affordable
housing were identified as significant funding needs.
• The economic impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and efforts to contain
and mitigate the spread of the virus resulted in a $40 million gap between revenues and
expenses in the FY 2021 Adopted Operating Budget. Efforts for a potential tax were
halted considering this unprecedented time. Financial ramification of the pandemic
resulted in significant reductions in services to the community, capital investment
including catch-up and keep-up costs as well as new projects, and concessions from
some of the City’s bargaining units.
• Adding to revenue challenges, in FY 2021 a local court held that a portion of the City’s
City of Palo Alto Page 9
longstanding annual transfer of funds from the gas and electric utilities – which has
funded general City services such as police, fire, parks and libraries for many decades –
could not lawfully continue absent voter approval. While the court ruling is not final and
may be appealed, beginning in FY 2022 and future years, the City has prudently adjusted
the annual budget to set aside the disputed funds pending resolution of the issue.
• The significant reductions taken in FY 2020 and 2021 will persist on an ongoing basis
unless revenues can be brought into alignment with expenses as outlined in the City’s FY
2023-2032 Long Range Financial Forecast; specifically, alternative scenario A which
modeled if the City restored all services to pre-covid service levels, reflecting an $11
million deficit in FY 2023 and deficits until FY 2030.
With this context and the deliberation by the Council and Finance Committee, below describes
a framework for considering allocation of funds should the respective ballot measures be
placed before voters for consideration.
Affirmation of Gas Utility Transfer
For many decades, Palo Alto gas ratepayers have funded contributions to the City’s general
fund to support a variety of City programs and services, including police protection, fire and
emergency medical services, local parks, community centers and libraries. The great majority of
municipal utilities in California make similar transfers to help fund government services. Indeed,
investor-owned utilities also collect funds from ratepayers that are transferred outside the
utility; in the case of investor-owned utilities, these funds are paid to investors as profit. In Palo
Alto, voters approved the use of some rate revenues for City services in Charter language
adopted in the 1950’s. Since then, however, California law has evolved through a series of
statewide initiatives and court decisions interpreting those laws. Cities now are required to
follow strict procedures on how they set rates and use rate proceeds. In recent years, a group
of lawyers launched a series of legal challenges all around the state alleging that the common
practice of using utility rate revenues to support general services violates the law as it has
evolved. In FY 2021 a local court held that a portion of Palo Alto’s longstanding annual transfer
of funds from the gas utility could not lawfully continue absent voter approval. While the court
ruling is not final and has been appealed, City leaders believe it is prudent to seek voter
affirmation that the City may continue its current and longstanding past practices.
After the court decision in 2021, the City began setting aside the disputed funds pending
resolution of the legal challenge. Service reductions were made across the organization –
including fire and emergency services, police protection, library hours, and community center
programs – fortunately, some of the cuts were slightly mitigated by one-time funding.
As reported in FY 2022 financial status reports and updated FY 2023-2032 Financial Forecasts,
staff projects the City will have excess funds beyond required reserve levels in FY 2022. This
availability of one-time funds is a result of a quicker than planned recovery pace when
City of Palo Alto Page 10
compared to the conservative financial planning Council directed for the FY 2021 and FY 2022
budget processes. Therefore, as reported in financial status updates, it is expected that major
tax revenues will be collected above budgeted estimates in FY 2022. It should be noted that
this does not reflect a robust recovery; the City continues to show some lag in the pace of
recovery compared to neighbors, especially in revenues such as Sales Tax. As discussed in this
report, staff have updated the Long-Range Financial Forecast for the FY 2023 financial planning
and long-term fiscal sustainability remains constrained.
As part of the FY 2023 Proposed Operating Budget, staff anticipates recommending allocation
of the projected one-time excess funds limited-term restoration of services previously
eliminated. Services to be reinvested in include areas previously reduced such as police
officers, fire services, support for the City’s community centers, children’s theater productions,
library hours, and support for the City’s current and long-range planning efforts. However, since
these are recommended to be restored with one-time funding, affirmation by the voters
through this potential ballot measure is necessary to sustain the ongoing reinvestment of these
services, otherwise they will sunset once the one-time funding is fully spent.
Business License Tax Revenues
As outlined above, even prior to the pandemic the City has been evaluating the potential for
raising additional revenues to address unfunded needs as identified by the community and
Council. Consistently in various public opinion polls, there has been community interest in
some form of tax on business activities within Palo Alto.
The business license tax measure is proposed to be a general tax, which means that the
proceeds will be placed in the City’s general fund for expenditure on any lawful governmental
purpose, as determined each year through the City’s budget process. If the Council wishes,
however, it could inform the public of Council’s plans and intentions for uses of the tax
proceeds by adopting a Resolution containing this information. A Resolution of this sort could
be adopted at any time before or after the November election. It would not be part of the
measure placed before the voters, although Arguments For and Against that appear in the
Voter Information Pamphlet, could refer to it. Note that a Council Resolution of intention
regarding expenditures would not legally bind this Council or future Councils. This is because
policies and legislation cannot override the Charter-based authority of the elected Council to
determine uses of general funds each year, in whatever way that year’s Council determines
best serves the public interest. If the Council is interested in such a Resolution, direction is
requested regarding the intentions for uses that should be stated in the Resolution.
Based on current feedback, it is recommended that Council consider planning to spend
proceeds from a business license tax on enhancing current services or add new services. As the
City continues to grow, likely in population as it strives to meet housing development goals,
expansion of service capacity will be critical to ensure high quality services to the community.
Below are areas identified for investment illustrated as scenarios for Council. If the Council
were interested in any of the scenarios or some alternative allocation, while not binding, the
City of Palo Alto Page 11
City would take steps in planning to use funds in that manner post affirmation of election and
could inform the public of Council’s plans and intentions for uses of the tax proceeds by
adopting a Resolution containing this information. Major investments:
• New/enhanced services: investing in new services such as but not limited to special
police teams to support traffic and downtown core safety, robust economic
development activities as outlined in the City Council’s current Economic Recovery and
Transition major projects3, additional emergency medical services including supporting
new service delivery models for supporting mental health crisis
• Investment in transportation: improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety and
mobility by building separate crossings under train tracks to prevent collisions and
improve circulation
• Investment in affordable housing and services for unhoused3: supporting community
members experiencing homelessness including resources for housing programs as well
as renter protection support projects
• Investment in unfunded Capital Improvements: investing in projects such as the parks
master plan, Palo Alto animal shelter, Cubberley Community Center rehabilitation
• Investment in the Council’s sustainability and climate action3: investing in protection and
adaptation plans reducing carbon emissions
3 City Council approved workplans reviewed on April 4, 2022, agenda item 15, packet page 195.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-
agendas-minutes/2022/20220404/20220404pccsmamendedlinked1.pdf
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Table 3: Scenarios Illustrating Potential Uses of Business License Tax Proceeds
Tax Rate: $0.10/SF
Estimated Gross Revenue:
$21M annually
Tax Rate: $0.20/SF
Estimated Gross Revenue:
$43M annually
New/Enhanced Services $4M $8M
Railroad/Train Crossing Safety $7.7M
(~$100M in financed proceeds4)
$15.4M
(~$100M in financed proceeds4)
Affordable Housing/
Unhoused Services
$5M
financeable &/or pay go
$10M
financeable &/or pay go
Unfunded Capital Improvements $2M
financeable &/or pay go
$6.6M
financeable &/or pay go
Sustainability & Climate Action:
Protection & Adaptation $1M $2M
Administrative Expenses $0.5M-$1M $0.5M-$1M
These scenarios are not binding. By law, the proceeds of this potential measure will be placed
in the City’s general fund, where they can be spent on any general government purposes.
That decision will be made each year by the sitting Council.
Outline of the Third Poll to Evaluate Public Opinion
As approved by the City Council, the workplan stipulates a third and final poll for completion in
May 2022. This poll is intended to test ballot question language. Attachment A provides an
outline of the third poll for Council review and direction to complete. Upon that direction, the
City’s consultant will take the direction, modifications, and inputs from the City Council to
finalize the full poll text and expect to launch the poll in early May 2022. Results will be
brought back to the City Council in early June for consideration and feedback on further refining
of potential ballot measures.
TIMELINE
The City is moving into a new phase of the workplan associated with the potential ballot
measures. With the City Council’s deliberations and direction in this report, staff will move to a
more refined stage with the goal for the Council to consider placement of a ballot measure(s)
for voters’ consideration at the last Council meeting in June 2022. The calendar outlines the
next steps following this item and has been expanded to outline some of the staff and
consultant work occurring in between public meetings as the City continues to seek
engagement and feedback from stakeholders.
4 Staff have used a broad ratio to illustrate the approximate capacity to finance proceeds. This illustration assumes
that every $1 in revenues can lead to financed proceeds of $13-$14 assuming a 30-year debt service. This ratio is
extremely uncertain and will vary due to economic factors, status of the market, and structure of the debt (e.g. GO
Bond, versus lease backed bond, versus revenue bonds) to make a few. It should be used for understanding orders
of magnitude for future planning only.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
BALLOT MEASURE(S) WORKPLAN TIMELINE
April 2022
TONIGHT
City Council:
- Discussion of funding resource/spending allocation
- Review Finance Committee work and recommendations based on
o Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, including results of: Second round polling, Community wide
survey, focus groups, Community Listening Session
- Review outlines of ordinance language for the business license tax and
the measure to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer
- Direction to staff and polling consultant to execute third and final poll:
- Third poll focus on testing ballot question(s)
May 2022 Staff and consultant work:
- Third Round of Polling launched (early May)
- Information presentations to local organizations regarding budget and
ballots
- Drafting of full language for ballot question and ordinances (full
measure text)
- Continued Community Engagement through
o Additional focus groups specifically reviewing draft language and
administration
o Citywide Newsletter and blog posts
June 2022
City Council:
- Receive and review results of third round polling
- Review and provide direction on draft full ballot language and ballot
questions for potential ballot measure(s)
Last Council Mtg in June:
- Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measures for voter
consideration
August 2022
Staff work:
- Language submitted to Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters including
o Ballot question(s) (a clear, accurate statement that describes what
the measure will do, not to exceed 75 words)
o Impartial analysis of the measure prepared by the City Attorney
o Full text of the measure(s)
o Arguments for and against
November 2022
Election
City of Palo Alto Page 14
RESOURCE IMPACT, POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff and Consultant Resource Impacts
Implementation of this workplan to develop a revenue generating local ballot measure has and
continues to require significant resources that include internal staff, consultant expertise, as
well as stakeholder engagement. Resource needs scale proportionately based on the ballot
measure option and the complexity of the measure and analysis that staff are directed to
pursue. It is important that the scope of the potential ballot measure(s) be clearly defined and
effectively narrowed for staff to successfully progress through the workplan.
This initiative has required an equivalent of approximately two full time dedicated staff
positions, however, a significant increase in staffing resources including additional focused
executive support from the Executive Leadership Team is now required. This has an impact on
other projects as this project is prioritized over others and will likely result in delays.
In addition, support is required from outside consultants and engagement with internal
stakeholders in key departments. The City Council appropriated funding for this activity as part
of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1st Quarter and subsequent actions. Through Council approved
budget amendments of $270,400, additional resources supporting this major project include:
- Community & Stakeholder Engagement: Lew Edwards Group, $101,695
Council approved on 11/15/2021, CMR 13626,
- Public Opinion Polling: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), $113,500
Council approved on 4/4/2022, CMR 14078
- Outside Counsel
- Miscellaneous printing and mailing
Ballot Measure Placement Resource Impact
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates that placing two measures on the
November 2022 election ballot will cost approximately $160,000, or $80,000 each.
Appropriation for these funds will be brought forward in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget
depending on Council direction.
Ballot Measure Revenue Generation Resource Impact
The revenue generated by a potential ballot measure will be directly impacted by the structure
and rates approved by the City Council. As currently recommended by the Finance Committee,
the revenue estimates are summarized below:
• Affirmation of the Gas Utility Transfer: approximately $7 million, annually
This would affirm the current practice of inclusion of this expense in the development of
gas utility rates and would not increase gas rates beyond existing forecasted changes.
Current gas utility rates for residential customers remain below comparators such as
PG&E. Additional information on gas rate comparisons can be found in the FY 2023 Gas
Utility Financial Plan.
• Business License Tax: approximately $11 to $43 million, annually
City of Palo Alto Page 15
This would establish a new tax and revenue to the City’s General Fund where they can
be spent on any general government purposes. That decision will be made each year by
the sitting Council, however, examples of investments are outlined in the discussion
earlier in this report.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Ballot Measure Workplan integrates stakeholder engagement through constituent polling
and extensive direct stakeholder outreach. Staff has gained valuable input and feedback to
date from the City Council, Finance Committee, community members, and the business
community.
Per City Council direction, the City has engaged with FM3 to perform polling, Lew Edwards
Group for stakeholder engagement planning, and the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) for
stakeholder engagement. Over the last several months, more than 1,200 residents have
responded to two phases of survey research online and by phone, and another 400 have shared
their feedback through the mail or on the City’s dedicated website at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability. The City has also conducted a number of
community and business focus groups and listening sessions to engage the public and business
stakeholders in this important conversation about the City’s budget challenges, focus on fiscal
sustainability and future service priorities and investments.
In addition to receiving direct feedback on service improvements, City service priorities, the
community has expressed strong interest in voter-approved, locally controlled revenue options
to maintain services and support residents and businesses alike. Staff will continue to engage
stakeholders to gain additional input on this evolving conversation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in
CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment A - Palo Alto Feasibility Survey Outline, 3rd Poll
• Attachment B - Ballot Measure Engagement, Draft Measure Language, Refined
Analysis_Staff Report 13981
• Attachment C - Summary of Online Survey Responses
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
TO City of Palo Alto Staff and Council
FROM Dave Metz, Miranda Everitt and Denny Han
FM3 Research
RE: Final Ballot Measure Feasibility Survey Outline
DATE April 4, 2022
This memo outlines our recommended approach for the Palo Alto ballot measure structure survey, anticipating
two potential local ballot measures in November 2022. This survey is structured to assess the feasibility of a
potential business license tax measure as well as the feasibility of a utility related measure; it will give us
information about the interactions in support between the two. Voters will also hear an exchange of pros and
cons, modeling in brief the impact of "yes" and "no" campaigns.
1. Survey introduction
2. Cell or landline, safety check
3. Right direction/wrong track (tracking to prior years)
4. Initial vote for a business license tax measure, using 75-word ballot label (rotated)
5. Initial vote for a utility fund transfer measure, using 75-word ballot label (rotated)
6. Willingness to support both measures
7. Test of key potential provisions (e.g. rates, project priorities) – focusing narrowly on those not previously
tested
8. Arguments in support of a business license tax measure (will be rotated with opposition messaging)
a. Comparison to nearby city rates
b. Accountability e.g. audits, public disclosure, local spending
c. Investments in public safety through police and emergency services
d. Fair share for large businesses vs. local mom-and-pops
e. Tax base: Not a tax on homeowners or shoppers and benefit of diversifying the tax base
f. Uses of funds other than public safety
9. Re-vote for a business license tax measure after support or opposition messaging alone
10. Arguments in opposition to a business license tax measure (will be rotated with support messaging)
a. Inflation
b. Loopholes: small and medium businesses will end up paying the most
c. Government waste and mismanagement
d. Businesses are still struggling to recover from COVID
11. Final vote for a business license tax measure
Page 2
12. Final vote for a utility fund transfer measure
13. Demographics
a. Own a business in Palo Alto
b. Own/rent place of residence
c. Education
d. Ethnicity
e. Gender
14. Voter file information (will not need to ask this)
a. Party
b. Age
c. Past election participation
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Copy of Report Originally Considered by Finance Committee 3/28/22
Attachment C Removed for Updates
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13981)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 3/28/2022
Title: Revenue Generating 2022 Ballot Measures: Review Feedback from the
Ballot Measure Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the
Second Round of Polling; Review Draft Ballot Measure Language; and
Recommend to Council Further Refinement of Potential Measures Adopting a
Business License Tax and Confirming the Gas Utility General Fund Transfer
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee:
A.Receive a progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and
consider the results as the Committee continues to evaluate potential revenue
generating ballot measures;
B.Review, provide feedback, and forward to the City Council: (i) initial draft of the ballot
question, and (ii) initial draft ordinance language ratifying the Gas General Fund
Transfer;
C.Review refined calculations of a potential square footage-based business license tax:
i.Consider staff’s revised proposal to modify “option 3”, (a flat fee of $50 for the
first 5,000 square footage occupied and apply a monthly tax rate per square foot
beyond the 5,000 threshold with exemptions for grocery stores and businesses
subject to the transient occupancy tax) to include an exemption for the first
5,000 square feet of space occupied by a business and administer the Business
Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the Business License Tax,
ii.Recommend to Council a monthly rate per square footage,
iii.Review and consider staff’s additional refinement for the annual CPI adjustment
Council directed previously; and
D.Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with a third round of polling based
on the draft ballot language and refined business license tax calculations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 24, 2022, the City Council directed staff to continue preparation of a potential
Business License Tax Measure and a Gas Funds Transfer Measure for the November 2022
City of Palo Alto Page 2
election ballot. Council direction in January also included development and execution of an
additional poll by the City’s polling consultant, FM3, and for staff to launch the Community and
Stakeholder Engagement Plan. This staff report presents progress of these efforts with the goal
of providing the Finance Committee information needed to recommend a Business Tax rate,
solidify desired tax characteristics, and to provide guidance to staff on next steps. The following
items are discussed in this staff report for discussion and recommendation to the Council:
1. Summary and progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan,
which includes:
a. A summary of the results of the second poll (Attachments A and B),
b. Results of the online and mailed feedback survey (Attachment C),
c. A progress report on the business and community focus groups conducted by
the City’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium (Attachment D);
2. Components of a ballot measure(s):
a. Business license tax, discussion on ordinance status,
b. Measure to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer draft ballot question and ordinance
(Attachment E); and
3. Business license tax additional analysis
For reference, Attachment F of this staff report includes a summary of work done to date on
the potential revenue generating ballot measure(s).
BACKGROUND
The Finance Committee serves as the public body to review periodic progress reports and allow
for structured public discussion for feedback and recommendations on potential revenue
generating ballot measures. The Summary of Prior Work on Potential Ballot Measures can be
found in Attachment F.
Staff presented updated analysis and other information for a potential utility on-bill tax at the
Finance Committee’s December 7, 2021 meeting (Agenda Item #2, begins on p. 55, CMR
13728). For continuity of work by the 2021 Finance Committee, the 2021 Committee met on
January 18, 2022 to review the third round of analysis of a potential business license tax ballot
measure (Agenda Item #1, p. 3, CMR 13875), along with a report of Initial Polling Results
(Agenda Item #1, p. 31, CMR 13875) and staff’s draft Community Engagement and Outreach
Plan.
Following the two meetings with the Finance Committee, discussion on January 24, 2022 with
the City Council (CMR 13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462) considered the Finance
Committee’s recommendation to further explore a business license tax, develop a proposal for
a utility tax, and amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to include three polls, and proceed with
staff’s proposed Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan. The following is Council’s
direction to staff and the Finance Committee on January 24th:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
A. Pursue preparation of a square footage business license tax with the following
characteristics, as recommended by the Finance Committee:
i. Continue to review the rates, adding option 3 (flat fee of $50 for first 5,000
square footage occupied and apply a monthly tax rate per square foot beyond
the 5,000 threshold) as a starting point;
ii. Exemptions for businesses subject to the Transient Occupancy Tax and grocery
stores;
iii. Annual escalator uses CPI as a basis;
A. Develop a proposal for voter ratification of the existing gas General Fund Equity Transfer
and eliminate the UUT option, with exploration of whether to cap growth of the transfer
to be explored via polling;
B. Amend the workplan to three polls, with the second poll developed and executed by the
City’s polling consultant, and the third to test potential ballot language; and
C. Launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, as outlined in the staff
report.
MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Tanaka no)
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Second Poll Status and Update
Staff and its consultants engaged the community in February and March to obtain feedback on
the fiscal sustainability work plan and potential ballot measures. Staff used over nine (9)
communications channels, including: a utility bill insert, a page in the spring Enjoy! Catalog, a
citywide mailer, the Uplift Local electronic newsletter, other electronic newsletters and
community e-mail lists, a public landing page on the City’s webpage to access all information
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability), and the City Manager’s blog and public
comments. Community members were invited to fill out an online feedback form1 or an
identical paper version. As of March 22, 2022, there were 358 responses (174 online responses
and 184 mailed feedback forms). In addition, staff executed a second round of polling of the
voter population testing various characteristics and areas the Council identified for additional
feedback from the voters. Below is a summary of these projects.
Results of Second Round of Polling
In their January 24th meeting, Council directed staff to amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to
include an additional poll. The City’s consultant, FM3, completed the second poll in mid-March
2022. Over 427 residents responded, an intentional smaller sample than the initial poll, to the
survey using emailed online surveys and phone outreach. The survey included questions to test
tax concepts in more specificity than the initial poll, clarify spending priorities of the voter
population, and test support of multiple measures on the November 2022 ballot. FM3’s
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33-8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
City of Palo Alto Page 4
presentation of the poll results is in Attachment A, and the detailed poll results are in
Attachment B. FM3 will present Attachment A at the committee meeting.
A few highlights of the responses:
• Respondents identified the following community priorities in priority order:
o Public safety priorities as important or extremely important: “Improving police
response to violent crime,” “Improving the speed or reliability of ambulance
services,” and “Improving police response to property crimes
o Affordable housing and homeless services were also priorities, with respondents
identifying as important or extremely important: “Expanding outreach to people
experiencing homelessness,” and “Funding affordable housing”
o Climate action and grade separations were also priorities.
• For the business license tax, three in five voters support the business license tax concept
that was tested (a deference for the first 5,000 square feet occupied plus a $0.10 per
square foot monthly rate).
o Voters were comfortable with the concept of increasing the tax representing up to a
$0.10 per square foot monthly rate
o Likely to support a measure that exempts small-square footage businesses while less
likely to support a measure that exempts hotels.
o Voters are more likely to support the business license tax to fund new investments.
• For the affirmation of the Gas Fund transfer, support remains high when voters hear a
more detailed explanation of the measure.
o Voters are divided on whether they would prefer a measure for new revenue dedicated to new investments or to improving existing services.
Community Feedback Survey (Online and Mailed)
The feedback forms asked residents to prioritize some of the unfunded community investment
needs and City service gaps previously discussed by Council and the Finance Committee. The
highest priorities for the respondents are consistent with the results of the second poll:
• “Maintaining basic services” was one of the top three priorities
• “Repairing streets/roads” and “Investing in community-owned assets like roads and
community centers” were each one of the top three for about 55 percent of respondents
• “Adding public safety services such as police, fire, and emergency medical” was a top
three priority for 46 percent of respondents
• This was followed by “Funding affordable housing and homeless services” (34 percent)
The complete results from the online survey, including all written comments, are summarized
in Attachment C.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Community and Business Focus Groups
Staff and the City’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC), kicked off a series of
community focus groups in February and continued through March. The focus groups provided
information about the City’s fiscal sustainability efforts and the two potential ballot measures,
allow attendees to ask clarifying questions of staff, and elicit feedback on City service priorities
and various aspects of the ballot measures. Staff and PDC conducted five focus groups, four
with the business community and one with the community at large. There were 27 attendees in
total at the business focus groups representing a range of business perspectives, including the
Chamber of Commerce, small retail and restaurants, hotels, major employers in the Stanford
Research Park, Stanford University, the Stanford Shopping Center, real estate companies, law
firms, and senior housing. The community focus group had six attendees, primarily local
nonprofits focused on housing and youth services. A memo from PDC regarding the focus group
process and results is included in Attachment D.
Some of the key takeaways from the business focus groups included:
• Several attendees expressed concern that the CPI escalator could cause the tax to grow
significantly in coming years unimpeded leaving forecasting to be difficult for them and
the potential for exponential financial ramifications, especially given current levels of
inflation.
• Many attendees expressed a preference for having some certainty about the way the
funds would be spent.
• Attendees asked that funds be spent on purposes that benefitted the business
community. Police services, economic development, affordable housing, and planning
and development services were all listed as priorities.
• There was also feedback that the timing was bad for a new tax. Businesses were still
recovering from the pandemic-related economic downturn. The new tax could impact
business decisions about their long-term operations as they adjusted to new post-
pandemic economic conditions.
• There was minimal feedback on affirming the gas utility transfer, with some attendees
saying it sounded reasonable and others saying they did not know enough to have a
position.
Feedback from the community focus group emphasized the challenges for the employees of
local nonprofits in finding affordable housing and parking, and support for the use of funds for
affordable housing.
Components of a Ballot Measure
As the workplan outlining a path for Council evaluation of potential ballot measures for the
voter population consideration in November 2022 continues, the below section begins to more
formally provide an overview of the components associated with a ballot measure that staff has
or will begin working on and are bringing forward for Council consideration as appropriate over
the coming months.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
For each local measure, the official ballot includes the following:
• a letter designation generated by the County Registrar of Voters;
• the ballot question (a clear, accurate statement that describes what the measure will
do, not to exceed 75 words); and
• space for voters to mark their vote for or against.
In advance of the election, registered voters receive a Voter Information Guide that includes
additional information, including:
• an impartial analysis of the measure prepared by the City Attorney;
• the full text of the measure; and
• arguments for and against.
The City Council approves the key components of each local measure: the ballot question and
the text of the measure. The City Council also will adopt a resolution (which does not become a
part of the ballot) calling a local election and sending the measure or measures to the County
Registrar of Voters. The current workplan includes Council formal and final action on these
items in June 2022. This report includes initial draft of a ballot question and an initial draft of
the full text of the measure ratifying the Gas Utility Transfer. A draft of the text for the potential
Business License Tax measure as ballot question is being prepared and will be presented at a
future meeting. Key concepts that require additional definition are listed here for Committee
discussion and direction.
Measure to Affirm the Gas Funds Transfer Draft Ordinance
Staff has prepared the following initial draft ballot question:
Shall the measure affirming the City of Palo Alto’s past practice of annually
transferring from the City’s gas utility an amount up to % of the gross
revenues of the gas utility to the City’s general fund for general government use,
to be paid for by the retail gas rates and providing approximately $
annually until ended by voters, be adopted?
This draft is 58 words long, allowing up to 17 additional words. As noted above, many local
revenue measures include additional detail on projects and services that may be funded by the
measure, such as public safety, emergency response, parks, etc. Committee input on the ballot
question is appropriate, though final decisions on this language will not be needed for several
months.
The primary decision points for this measure include 1) the percentage of gross revenues to
transfer, and 2) the uses to note in the ballot measure question. Transferring 18 percent of
gross revenues would be consistent with the current transfer, but as gas rates rise in coming
years would exceed the current transfer. In consultation with our legal counsel, this rate must
either be based on a flat rate or a percentage and cannot be a blend. Therefore, staff
recommend keeping the measure simple and consistent with similar agencies and provide the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
voters consideration of a percentage, current practice would reflect an 18 percent of gross
revenues. For the Finance Committee’s feedback and consideration, the draft ordinance for the
measure can be found in Attachment E.
Business License Tax Status of Ordinance
Staff is actively working on a ballot question and full text of the measure for a Business License
Tax. Key policy choices regarding the details of the business license tax design were introduced
in the January 18, 2022 Finance Committee staff report (CMR 13875, p. 11 and 28). A summary
of the key elements identified and being worked on by staff include:
1. Definition of “business” and various considerations.
2. Definition of square footage occupied.
3. Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets.
Below is a brief status update on these definitions and areas where further definition will be
necessary
Definition of Business. Staff expects to align the definition of business with the definition
already identified in the Business Registry Certificate Program terms. For seasonal or transitory
businesses that occupy square footage and conduct business activity over a short duration
(such as seasonal sale lots, special events, concerts, performances, circuses, filming, and party
rentals). Staff recommends exempting businesses that occupy space in the City for less than an
identified period of time such as 90 days.
Definition of square footage. Staff expects to align with existing examples of other jurisdictions
as well as documents already in existence such as lease documents. Some variability and
definition will be necessary for ownership versus leased, as well as common space versus
shared space usage as well.
Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets. There are multiple ways and varying levels of
details in defining a grocery store and this has proved the likely be one of the more complex
exemptions under consideration. The Edible Food Recovery Requirements includes a definition
of grocery stores as
“a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods; fresh fruits and
vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned
within the store where the food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and
meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section
18982(a)(30).”
Staff is also evaluating a definition that may include a numeric threshold for food products,
such as “a retail business where at least three-quarters of the floor area open to the public is
occupied by food products sold for consumption off-site.”
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Participants of the focus groups conducted in March, sought to clarify the definition of grocery
stores. Their questions demonstrated that the measure should indicate whether retail stores,
including drug stores or convenience marts that sell grocery items, or bakeries that sell baked
good onsite, will fall into the grocery store exemption.
Revised Square Footage Business License Tax Modeling
Staff modeled a baseline scenario for a square footage business license tax and three options
for the Council’s consideration. Council directed the Finance Committee and staff to continue
to review rates for a square footage business license tax using Option 3 as a starting point:
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax Baseline Model and Options
Baseline Scenario: No Exemptions
• Excludes properties likely to be
exempt per CA law (banks, healthcare,
religious, education property types)
• Est. revenues: $15M to $59M
Option 1: Exemption for Retail (less
than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all
grocery stores
• Est. revenues: $14M to $57M
Option 2: Tiered Rates
• Flat fee for businesses less than or
equal to 5,000 sf ($50/year)
• For all others, assume monthly rate
per square foot
• Est. revenues: $14M to $56M
Option 3: Tiered Rates After Square
Footage Threshold, exempting grocery
stores and hotels
• Flat fee for first 5,000 sf
($50/year) and apply monthly
rate/sf beyond threshold
• Est. revenues $11M to $43M
Staff has updated the model for this option to assume exemptions for businesses subject to the
City’s Transient Occupancy Tax and grocery stores. On further review, staff recommends that
the intent of Option 3 be implemented as follows:
1. Exempt the first 5,000 square feet of space occupied by a business
2. Apply the monthly tax rate per square foot (to be determined, between $0.05 and $0.20
per square foot) to footage beyond 5,000 square feet (on square foot 5,001, the rate
would be applied), and
3. Administer the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the
potential business license tax, requiring all businesses, including those that occupy less
than 5,000 square feet, to register with the BRC at its current rate of $50 per year.
This refined structure decreases estimated business license tax revenue by $21,000 (see Table 2
below).
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The proposed exemption for grocery stores and hotels reduces the estimated generated
revenue from a range of $12 to $47 million, to $11 to $43 million, approximately 8 percent.
Below is a summary table outlining details for the Baseline Scenario and the three options.
Option 3 has been revised to exclude grocery stores and properties in the hospitality category.
Based on the results of the second poll, voters are comfortable with a measure that would
increase average monthly rent for a business by up to $0.10 per square foot. As shown in Table
2, the estimated revenue generated by a monthly $0.10 per square foot rate is up to $21.7
million. These estimates continue to reflect gross revenues estimates. There will be
administrative costs as well as some likely leakage that will ultimately reduce these figures.
Table 2: Business License Tax Baseline Scenario and Options
Estimated Annual Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
Property RBA (tax rate shown as rate per square foot per month)
Count w/ Vacancy $0.05/sf $0.10/sf $0.15/sf $0.20/sf
Option 3: Flat Fee for a Defined Threshold (assumes $50 for first 5,000 sf) and Apply Monthly Rate
Beyond Threshold
100-5,000 sf 411 1,137,822 $20,550 $20,550 $20,550 $20,550
5,001-20,000 sf 450 4,171,323 $1,179,684 $2,336,604 $3,493,668 $4,650,816
20,001-100,000 sf 270 10,675,292 $5,608,638 $11,203,848 $16,799,094 $22,394,256
100,001+ sf 41 7,007,785 $4,083,742 $8,165,374 $12,247,090 $16,328,746
Total 1,172 22,992,222 $10,892,614 $21,726,376 $32,560,402 $43,394,368
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
30,000 sf business $1,250 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000
100,000 sf business $4,750 $9,500 $14,250 $19,000
As discussed in Attachment A of CMR 13875, p. 17, there are eight grocery stores in the City
that were identifiable in the CoStar real estate database, totaling 139,580 square feet (see
Table A5 in above mentioned staff report). In addition, Table A8 of this staff report lists
1,410,260 square feet for addresses in the hospitality category, totaling 30 properties. The
property count for the hospitality properties corroborates the City’s transient occupancy tax
records.
Business license exemptions were tested in the second round of polling (see Attachment A) and
summarized in Chart 1 below. Based on these results, an exemption for businesses less than
5,000 square feet will more likely gain support, followed by grocery stores, with retail and
hotels being less likely to gain support by voters.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chart 1: Second Round Polling - Exemptions
Options for an Annual Escalator
To assist in further refining the direction for consideration of a CPI escalator, staff researched
the annual CPI for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward for all urban consumers for the past 20
years. The 20-year average shown in Chart 1 below is 2.6 percent, the highest being 5.4 percent
in 2001 (dot.com boom) and the lowest being 0.7 percent in 2009 (Great Recession). The 2021
average CPI was 3.2 percent.
Chart 2:
Staff would recommend consideration of a structure similar to recent measures approved by
the voters such as the Storm Water fee, which identifies a CPI escalator with a 6% annual cap
City of Palo Alto Page 11
on the growth. It should also be noted an alternative found in research done by Matrix
Consulting in 2019 (CMR 10655) would be to cap units of measure for a business license tax,
rather than capping CPI as some other agencies have done.
Conclusion & Next Steps
The Finance Committee’s further refinement of tax characteristics and policy guidance, taking
into consideration results from the second round of polling, the community survey, and focus
groups, is critical so that staff can continue advancing the Ballot Measure Workplan, as
approved by the Council in August 2021. As discussed in this staff report, the Committee’s
feedback and recommendation to Council of tax characteristics (monthly rate and CPI) and
guidance on policy decisions for the ordinance that will be adopted by Council in June are
critical at this stage of the process. These further refinements will assist staff in continued
planned engagement with stakeholders including more specific feedback both on the measures
as well as the administrability of them.
TIMELINE
The below table recaps future items for the Ballot Measure Workplan, as approved by the City
Council in August, based on the process and discussion so far, and amended to include a second
round of polling.
Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
March 2022
TONIGHT
Finance Committee:
- Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, including review of the results for
o Second round poll
o Community wide survey
o Focus groups
- Review draft ballot questions and ordinance language for the
business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Fund
transfer
- Consideration of additional refinements for the potential business
license tax proposal
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
April 2022 City Council:
- Formalized discussion of funding resource/spending allocation
- Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, including results of
o Second round poll
o Community wide survey
o Focus groups
o Community Listening Session
- Review of draft ballot questions and ordinance language for the
business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Funds
Transfer
- Direction to staff and polling consultant to execute final poll:
o Review of outline for final poll, with a focus to test ballot
question(s)
May 2022 Second Round of Polling launched (early May)
June 2022 Council:
- Results of second round polling reported
- Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measures, including ballot
measure language
August 2022 Language submitted to Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters
November 2022 Election
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Implementation of this workplan to develop a revenue generating local ballot measure will
require significant resources that include internal staff, consultant expertise, as well as
stakeholder engagement. Resource needs will scale proportionately based on the ballot
measure option and the complexity of the measure that the Finance Committee and City
Council direct staff to pursue. It is important that the scope of the potential ballot measure(s)
be clearly defined and effectively narrowed for staff to successfully progress through the
workplan.
This initiative has required an equivalent of approximately two full time dedicated staff
positions, however, as work continues to progress a significant increase in staffing resources
including additional focused executive support from the Executive Leadership Team has begun
to ramp up. This will have an impact on other projects. In addition, support is required from
outside consultants and engagement with internal stakeholders in key departments. The City
Council appropriated funding for this activity as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1st Quarter.
Additional contracts and/or proposed budget amendments will be brought forward for
approval as appropriate.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates that placing two measures on the
November 2022 election ballot will cost approximately $160,000, or $80,000 each.
Appropriation for these funds will be brought forward in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget.
Staff plans to bring forward an amendment to the professional services agreement with
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) in a separate staff report this spring to
include the second round of polling, which requires approval by the City Council, based on
contract authority set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition to this, additional
outreach for print and mailing would be needed as well.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Ballot Measure Workplan integrates stakeholder engagement through constituent polling
and stakeholder outreach. Staff, throughout the process and from previous conversations, has
solicited input and feedback with the Finance Committee, the City Council, residents, and the
business community. The City has engaged with FM3 to perform polling, Lew Edwards Group
for stakeholder engagement planning, and the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) for
stakeholder engagement. Staff received direction to proceed with initial polling at the
November 8, 2021 Council meeting and reviewed results with the Finance Committee on
January 18 2021 (CMR 13875). In addition, staff received direction from the City Council at its
January 24, 2022 meeting to launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, which is
currently underway, and received direction for the City’s polling consultant, FM3, to develop
and execute a second round of polling. This staff report summarizes staff’s progress to date of
this component of the workplan.
A landing page on the City’s website has been created to provide the community and
stakeholders information and a variety of ways to engage in this conversation. Please visit
www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability for more information.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in
CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
•Attachment A: Palo Alto Ballot Measure Survey Analysis
•Attachment B: Palo Alto Ballot Measure Refinement Survey (Tracking)
•REMOVED FOR UPDATED VERSION 4/7/22 Attachment C: Summary of Online Survey
Responses
•Attachment D: Public Dialogue Consortium Focus Groups Progress to Date
•Attachment E: Draft Ordinance for Measure to Affirm Gas Fund Transfer
•Attachment F: Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
ATTACHMENT A
Key Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters
Conducted March 8‐14, 2022
220-6319
Updating Palo Alto Voter Views of Potential Ballot Measures
ATTACHMENT A
1
Survey Methodology
Dates March 8-14, 2022
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2022 Voters in Palo Alto
Total Interviews 427
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
(Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Telephone Email Text
Calls Invitations Invitations
Data Collection Modes
Telephone Online Interviews Interviews
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding)
ATTACHMENT A
2
Survey Goals and Approach
Assess voter reactions to two
potential ballot measure
concepts: a business license tax
and a measure to ratify utility
fund transfers.
Voters randomly heard either
the BLT or utility measure
first.
Evaluate voters’ priorities for
uses of funds.
Check the impact of campaigns
for and against the BLT measure
specifically. These were also
rotated to give us a look at the
measure’s “floor” and “ceiling.”
Message Blocks Rotated
Pro-BLT Messages and Re-Vote
Anti-BLT Messages and Re-Vote
BLT and Utility Fund Measures Rotated
Utility Fund Transfer Ratification
Business License Tax
Uses of Funds
Vote on One, Both, Neither?
Demographics
BLT Amounts and Exemptions
Utility Funf Measure Explanation
ATTACHMENT A
Context
3
ATTACHMENT A
Q1. 4
Voters continue to be pessimistic
about the direction of the city.
Would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction,
or do you feel that things are headed in the wrong direction?
61%
Right Direction Wrong Track Don’t Know
25%
14%
37%
20%
34%
27%
35%
24%
2016 2018 2021 2022
43% 40% 41%
ATTACHMENT A
Q2. 5
A majority rates City services as
“excellent” or “good” – a slight erosion
compared with prior years.
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 …?
Excellent/
10% 42% 33% 10% 7%
8% 46% 31% 9% 6%
10% 50% 27% 10%
18% 56% 19% 5%
15% 53% 23% 6%
16% 56% 22%
Exc llent Good Only Fair Poor Job Don't Know Good
2022 51%
2021 54%
2018 60%
2016 74%
2013 68%
2008 72%
ATTACHMENT A
Voter Views of Ballot
Measure Concepts
6
ATTACHMENT A
7
The measure would deal with a business license tax. This measure would create a business license tax on commercial property in the city of $50 per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation. The funds would pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
Asked First Asked Second
About three in five support a business
license tax conceptually.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
4%
3%
5%
20%
8%
29%
31%
Total No 28%
Total Yes 63%
5%
4%
10%
7%
20%
21%
33%
Total No 35%
Total Yes 59%
Q3a & b. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
ATTACHMENT A
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 8
Nearly seven in ten Democrats support this
measure, as does a majority of independents.
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Party
Total Yes Total No Undecided
69%
56%
72%
0%
(% of Democrats Independents Republicans
Sample) (60%) (30%) (10%)
22%
9%
37%
8%
28%
ATTACHMENT A
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 9
41%
6%
Women are stronger supporters than men, though
the measure has majorities across gender lines.
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Gender
Total Yes Total No Undecided
69%
53%
(% of Men Women
Sample) (48%) (52%)
22%
9%
ATTACHMENT A
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 10
Two-thirds of voters under 50 back the
measure, as do nearly three in five over 50.
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Age
Total Yes Total No Undecided
66%
57% 59%
(% of 18-49 50-64 65+
Sample) (41%) (29%) (30%)
35%
7%
31%
12%
30%
5%
ATTACHMENT A
11
The utility fund measure has support
from at least seven in ten voters.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
4%
3%
3%
10%
35%
35%
Total No 16%
Total Yes 74%
19%
8%
3% Total
7% No
7% 18%
42%
Total Yes 69%
Undecided 11% 13%
Q4a & b. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Asked First Asked Second
The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with utilities. As you may know, the City of Palo Alto provides natural gas service to residents and businesses. As part of its routine budget practices, the city annually transfers some money from the utility fund to the general City budget which maintains core services. This measure would confirm the existing practice of transferring not more than 18% of City of Palo Alto Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, providing over $7 million annually to needed investments like police, fire and emergency medical services; affordable housing and support for the unhoused; parks and recreation; transportation; the City’s climate action plan; and other public services. This measure would not increase utility rates.
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 12
13%
Nearly four in five Democrats and more than
two-thirds of independents support it.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Party
Total Yes Total No Undecided
78%
68%
42% 45%
(% of Democrats Independents Republicans
Sample) (60%) (30%) (10%)
10% 12%
21%
11%
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 13
26%
10%
Women support the measure
by a 70-point margin.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Gender
Total Yes Total No Undecided
78%
65%
(% of Men Women
Sample) (48%) (52%)
8% 14%
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 14
Support is very broad
across age categories.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Age
Total Yes Total No Undecided
75% 70% 68%
(% of 18-49 50-64 65+
Sample) (41%) (14%) (30%)
19% 13% 19% 11% 14% 12%
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 15
35%
11%
43%
4%
A majority of those voting “no” on the business
license tax support the utility measure.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Initial Business License Tax Vote
Total Yes Total No Undecided
82%
54% 54%
(% of
Among Business License Tax
Yes Voters
Among Business License Tax
No Voters
Among
Undecideds
Sample) (61%) (31%) (7%)
9% 8%
ATTACHMENT A
Q6. Having heard this, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 16
Next, voters were provided more
context on the utility fund measure.
Investor-owned utilities like PG&E that provide natural gas
service transfer some funds from their utility to
shareholders. Cities like Palo Alto that own their own
utilities do not have shareholders, so many cities instead
transfer some funds from the utility to pay for City services
like police, fire, transportation, parks and other public
services. Palo Alto received voter approval for these kinds of
transfers in its municipal Charter in 1950; however, this
practice has been challenged legally, and voter approval may
be required for it to continue. As a result, the City may place
this measure to reconfirm this practice on the November
ballot.
ATTACHMENT A
Q4 (Total) & Q6. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 17
Initial Utility
Measure Vote
Utility Measure
Vote After Info
This did not shift patterns of support.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
6%
3%
5%
9%
12%
27%
Total No 17%
38%
Total Yes 71%
4%
2%
7%
9%
12%
30%
35%
Total No 18%
Total Yes 69%
ATTACHMENT A
Q5. 18
In a head-to-head test, two in five said they
would vote “yes” on both measures.
If both of these measures were on the same ballot, would you vote
“yes” on both, for just one, or for neither?
Yes on business license tax only
Yes on both
Yes on utility fund transfer measure only
No on both
Don't know
10%
11%
18%
21%
40%
Total Yes, Business License Tax 50%
Total Yes, Utility Fund Measure Vote 58%
ATTACHMENT A
Structuring a
Business License Tax
19
ATTACHMENT A
Q7. 20
The structure of this measure has not been finalized. Currently, average monthly rents for
businesses range from $4.10 to $6.40 per square foot per month for retail and industrial space
and $7.10 to $8.50 per square foot per month for office space. Would a measure that increased
monthly business rent by roughly per square foot be an acceptable or unacceptable amount?
Majorities are comfortable with a rate that
would increase rent by 10 cents per square foot.
Total Total
15 Cents
20 Cents
42% 44%
33% 51% 13%
16% 26% 14% 12% 32%
19% 16% 14% 38%
Very Acc. Smwt. Acc. Don't Know Smwt. Unacc. Very Unacc. Acc. Unacc.
5 Cents 33% 25% 12% 10% 20% 58% 30%
10 Cents 26% 28% 12% 10% 24% 54% 34%
ATTACHMENT A
Q8. 21
Exemptions for small-square-footage
businesses are a plus; an exemption for hotels
is more of a minus.
If it were written to exempt from the tax, would you be more likely to support it
or less likely to support it? If it makes no difference, you can tell me that instead.
All
Much More Lkly. Smwt. More Lkly. Makes No Diff. Don't know Smwt. Less Lkly. Much Less Lkly. Total More Lkly.
Total Less Lkly.
24% 22% 30% 9% 7% 8%
14% 19% 31% 9% 12% 15%
5% 10% 37% 9% 16% 23%
23% 31% 24% 8% 7% 7% businesses under 5,000 square feet 54% 14%
Grocery stores 46% 16%
Retail stores 33% 26%
Hotels 15% 39%
ATTACHMENT A
22
Q10. If a ballot measure to provide additional funding were approved by voters, would you prefer that the money be dedicated to:
61% 29%
Voters are split on their desired focus for new
revenue, with a strong preference for major
new investments among Democrats.
Offering major new City services, such as affordable housing, climate change reduction efforts, improving the safety of rail crossings, transportation services such as shuttles, or support for the unhoused
OR
Improving the quality and reliability of core City services such as fire and emergency services, and parks and recreation
All Voters
Democrats Independents Republicans
Men Women
18-49 50-64 41% 48% 65+ 41% 45%
Among Business License Tax Yes Voters Among Business License Tax No Voters Among Undecideds
49% 39%
31% 50% 66% 24% 26% 62%
29% 59% 50% 38%
76% 10%
50% 38% 28% 61%
ATTACHMENT A
23
Improvements to public safety, homelessness and
housing services are seen as most important.
I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent.
Please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important,
somewhat important, or not too important.
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know
Improving police response to violent crime
Expanding outreach to people experiencing homelessness
Funding affordable housing
Improving the speed and reliability of ambulance service
Improving police response to property crimes
Improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety by building separate crossings under train tracks to prevent collisions Advancing the City's Climate Action Plan to help the community reduce its carbon emissions
Ext./Very Impt.
62%
60%
52%
Q9.
22% 30% 20% 25%
14% 24% 30% 30%
32% 30% 22% 13%
19% 38% 26% 13%
21% 35% 27% 14%
35% 23% 22% 19% 58%
58%
55%
20% 34% 25% 20% 54%
ATTACHMENT A
24
Voters value library services, animal sheltering,
and transportation with less intensity.
Ext./Very Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know
Improving parks, recreation, and arts services
Improving the safety, health, and cleanliness of downtown and commercial cores
Expanding transportation services, such as shuttles
Programs to reduce traffic from incoming commuters
Improving animal sheltering and care
Improving library services
Impt.
47%
46%
43%
41%
37%
37%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent. Please tell me how important each item is to you
personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
13% 34% 37% 15%
16% 30% 36% 16%
16% 27% 32% 22%
14% 27% 32% 24%
12% 25% 34% 26%
10% 27% 41% 21%
ATTACHMENT A
Messaging and Movement
25
ATTACHMENT A
Q11. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing,
or not convincing as a reason to support the measure. 26
Support Messages Tested
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
(FAIR SHARE) Palo Alto currently registers businesses of all sizes for $50. That means a
mom-and-pop coffee shop pays the same as a tech company with thousands of employees.
This measure is a sensible way to ensure large businesses pay their fair share for the services the City provides and that their employees enjoy, like road repairs and police and fire protection.
(COMPARISON) Palo Alto does not have a business license tax, unlike most communities in
California. Several nearby communities have significant taxes on business, such as
East Palo Alto's tax of $2.50 per square foot annually on commercial office space over
25,000 square feet and San Francisco's business tax of $2.85 to $5.60 per $1,000 of gross
receipts annually. This tax would align Palo Alto's tax system with those of other cities in the
area.
(TAX BASE) This measure is not a tax on homeowners or shoppers, but on the city's largest
businesses. Sales taxes continue to decline in Palo Alto, and by diversifying the City's tax
base with a thoughtfully designed business license tax, we will be better able to weather future financial crises without having to raise taxes on everyday residents.
(ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will be subject to strict accountability provisions like
annual financial audits; full public disclosure of all spending; and a requirement that all
funds be spent locally in Palo Alto. This will ensure funds are used efficiently, effectively, and as promised.
(SAFETY) The recent economic downturn had significant impacts to funding for police and
emergency services. Recently the community has seen increases in property crimes impacts
to fire and emergency medical services. This measure would provide funding for police and emergency services to address these issues.
ATTACHMENT A
Q11. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing,
or not convincing as a reason to support the measure. 27
The most compelling message in favor of the
measure explains how this would be fairer to
small businesses than the status quo.
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Fair Share
Comparison
Tax Base
Accountability
Safety
65%
63%
64%
63%
76%
41% 23%
36% 27%
33% 30%
34% 31%
30% 46%
ATTACHMENT A
Q13. I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing,
somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. 28
Opposition Messages Tested
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
(LOOPHOLES) Just like any tax, this will fall hardest on small and medium
businesses already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and high
commercial rent. Meanwhile, the largest companies will find creative loopholes
to get out of paying their fair share.
(INFLATION) The cost of living is out of control and inflation is on the rise.
With the price of groceries and gasoline increasing and an interest-rate hike on
the way, now is simply not the time to be raising taxes.
(RECOVERY) COVID-19 restrictions have already pushed many local businesses to
slash hours or even close. The last thing we need to do is drive up prices with a
tax that hurts local businesses just as we start to recover.
(WASTE) Given the amount of money we already pay in city, county, and state
taxes, and the amount we pay for expensive employee pensions, salaries,
and healthcare benefits, City government simply needs to tighten its belt, work
together, and do a better job with the dollars they already have.
ATTACHMENT A
Q13. I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing,
somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. 29
A variety of negative messages
resonate broadly.
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Loopholes
Inflation
Recovery
Waste
58%
55%
67%
67%
24%
31%
35%
32%
25%
33%
33%
34%
ATTACHMENT A
30
A majority supports the measure throughout
exposure to pro and con messages.
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Undecided Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Total Yes Total No
Initial Business License Tax Vote
Vote After Positives Only
Vote After Negatives Only
Final Business License Tax Vote
Q4 (Total), Q12 Split C, Q12 Split D & Q14 (Total). Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
61% 31%
69% 22%
54% 38%
60% 31%
25% 32%
5% 8% 7% 21%
31% 33%
5% 9%
5% 15%
15% 31% 8% 8% 11% 23%
24% 32%
5% 9% 12% 18%
ATTACHMENT A
Conclusions
31
ATTACHMENT A
32
Conclusions
• The mood of the city continues to be mixed, as it is in many cities around
region. A slim majority rates City government’s performance as “excellent” or
“good” (51%).
• Three in five back the business license tax concept we tested, which – pending
a more detailed exploration of a more specific concept and associated ballot
language – has consistent majority support.
• Voters are comfortable with a measure that would increase average monthly
rent for businesses by up to 10 cents per square foot. They are more likely to
support a measure that exempts small-square footage businesses, and are less
likely to support one that exempts hotels.
• A measure ratifying utility fund transfers polls at 71%; support remains high
when voters hear a more detailed explanation.
• Voters are divided on whether they would prefer new revenue be dedicated to
major new investments or to improving existing services – however, those who
support the BLT are more likely to favor new investments.
• Voters are most enthusiastic about allocating funding toward public safety,
affordable housing, and outreach to the unhoused.
ATTACHMENT A
For more information, contact:
Dave Metz
Dave@FM3research.com
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Miranda Everitt
Miranda@FM3research.com
ATTACHMENT B
MARCH 8-14, 2022
Hello, I'm from , a public opinion research company. I am definitely not trying to sell
you anything. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people living in the City of Palo
Alto and 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, OTHERWISE TERMINATE).
A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place
where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE,
ASK: Do you own a cell phone?)
Yes, cell and can talk safely 90%
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------------------------- TERMINATE
No, not on cell 10%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED --------------------------- TERMINATE 1. (T*) First, would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are headed in the wrong direction?
2016 2018 2021 2022 Right direction
Wrong track
61%
25%
43%
37%
40%
34%
41%
35%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------- 14% ------------20%------------ 27% ---------- 24% 2. (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)
2016 2018 2021 2022
EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------ 74% ------------60%------------ 54% --------- 51%
Excellent
Good
18%
56%
10%
50%
8%
46%
10%
42%
FAIR/POOR ------------------------ 24% ------------37%------------ 40% --------- 42%
Only fair
Poor job
19%
5%
27%
10%
31%
9%
33%
10%
(DON'T READ) Don't know ----- 2%------------- 3% -------------6% ------------ 7%
CITY OF PALO ALTO BALLOT MEASURE SURVEY
220-6319 WT
N=427
MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±4.9% (95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL)
A/B & C/D SPLITS
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 2
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY: Q3 THEN Q4) (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY: Q4 THEN Q3)
3. The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with a business license tax. This measure would create a
business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet,
adjusted annually for inflation. The funds would pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency
medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) SPLIT A SPLIT B
Q3 Q3
FIRST LAST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 63%------- 59% -------- 61%
Definitely yes Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
29% 31%
4%
20%
33%
5%
25%
32%
5%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 28%------- 35% -------- 31%
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
3%
5%
20%
4%
10%
21%
3%
7%
21%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 8%--------- 7% ---------- 8%
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO MEASURES THAT MAY APPEAR ON THE PALO ALTO BALLOT IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 3
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY: Q3 THEN Q4)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY: Q4 THEN Q3)
4.The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with utilities. As you may know, the City of Palo Alto
provides natural gas service to residents and businesses. As part of its routine budget practices, the city
annually transfers some money from the utility fund to the general City budget which maintains core
services. This measure would confirm the existing practice of transferring not more than 18 percent of
City of Palo Alto Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, providing over 7 million dollars annually to needed
investments like police, fire and emergency medical services; affordable housing and support for theunhoused; parks and recreation; transportation; the City’s climate action plan; and other public services.
This measure would not increase utility rates.
Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely orjust probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT A SPLIT B
Q4 Q4
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 74%------- 69% -------- 71%
Definitely yes
Probably yes Undecided, lean yes
35%
35%
4%
19%
42%
8%
27%
38%
6%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 16%------- 18% -------- 17%
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
3% 3% 3%
3% 7% 5% 10% 7% 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 11%------- 13% -------- 12%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
5.If both of these measures were on the same ballot, would you vote “yes” on both, for just one, or for
neither? (IF YES ON ONE, ASK: Which one would you vote “yes” on: the business license tax or theutility fund transfer measure?)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------------------------ 69%
Yes on both 40%
Yes on business license tax only -------------------------- 10%
Yes on utility fund transfer measure only --------------- 18%
No on both 11%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA---------------------------------- 21%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 4
THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX MEASURE.
6. Now I will provide you some additional background information on this measure. Investor-owned utilities like P-G-and-E that provide natural gas service transfer some funds from their utility to
shareholders. Cities like Palo Alto that own their own utilities do not have shareholders, so many cities
instead transfer some funds from the utility to pay for City services like police, fire, transportation, parks and other public services. Palo Alto received voter approval for these kinds of transfers in its
municipal Charter in 1950; however, this practice has been challenged legally, and voter approval may
be required for it to continue. As a result, the City may place this measure to reconfirm this practice on the November ballot. Having heard this, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
(IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 69% Definitely yes
Probably yes
30%
35%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------- 4% TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 18%
Undecided, lean no -------------------------- 2%
Probably no 7% Definitely no 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 12%
7. First, the structure of this measure has not been finalized. Currently, average monthly rents for
businesses range from $4.10 to $6.40 per square foot per month for retail and industrial space and $7.10
to $8.50 per square foot per month for office space. Would a measure that increased monthly business
rent by roughly (READ EACH ITEM) per square foot be an acceptable or unacceptable amount? (IF
ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat ACCEPTABLE/
UNACCEPTABLE?”) (READ IN ORDER) (ROTATE TOP-TO-BOTTOM AND BOTTOM-TO- TOP)
VERY SMWT SMWT VERY ACC ACC UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) TOTAL TOTAL
ACC UNACC
[ ]a. 5 cents----------------------------------------33% ----- 25% ---- 10% -----20% ------ 12% 58% 30%
[ ]b. 10 cents --------------------------------------26% ----- 28% ---- 10% -----24% ------ 12% 54% 34% [ ]c. 15 cents --------------------------------------16% ----- 26% ---- 12% -----32% ------ 14% 42% 44%
[ ]d. 20 cents --------------------------------------13% ----- 19% ---- 14% -----38% ------ 16% 33% 51%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 5
8. If it were written to exempt from the tax, would you be more likely to support it or less likely to support it? If it makes no difference, you can tell me that instead. (IF MORE/LESS, ASK: Is
that much MORE/LESS LIKELY, or only somewhat?) (RANDOMIZE)
MUCH
MORE
LKLY
SMWT
MORE
LKLY
SMWT
LESS
LKLY
MUCH
LESS
LKLY
MAKES
NO
DIFF
(DON’T READ) DK/NA
TOTAL
MORE
LKLY
TOTAL
LESS
LKLY
[ ]a. Retail stores --------------------- 14% -----19% ----- 12% ---- 15% -----31% --------9% 33% 26%
[ ]b.
[ ]c.
(T) Grocery stores ------------- 24% -----22% ------ 7% ------ 8% -----30% --------9%
All businesses under five
thousand square feet ----------- 23% -----31% ------ 7% ------ 7% -----24% --------8%
46%
54%
16%
14%
[ ]d. Hotels ------------------------------5% -----10% ----- 16% ---- 23% -----37% --------9% 15% 39%
9. Next, I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent. After I read each one, please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely
important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE)
NOT (DON’T
EXT VERY SMWT TOO READ)
IMP IMP IMP IMP DK/NA [ ]a. Improving police response to property
crimes 21% 35% 27% 14% 3%
[ ]b. Improving police response to violent crime ------ 32% ---- 30% -----22%----- 13% -------- 3%
[ ]c. Improving the speed and reliability of
ambulance service------------------------------------- 19% ---- 38% -----26%----- 13% -------- 4%
[ ]d. Improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver
safety by building separate crossings under
train tracks to prevent collisions-------------------- 20% ---- 34% -----25%----- 20% -------- 2%
[ ]e. Expanding transportation services, such as
shuttles
[ ]f. Advancing the City’s Climate Action Plan
to help the community reduce its carbon
emissions
[ ]g. Programs to reduce traffic from incoming
commuters
[ ]h. Expanding outreach to people experiencing
homelessness
[ ]i. Improving the safety, health, and cleanliness of downtown and commercial
cores
16%
22% 14%
30%
16%
27%
30% 27%
30%
30%
32%
20% 32%
24%
36%
22% 2%
25% 2% 24% 3%
14% 2%
16% 2% [ ]j. Funding affordable housing ------------------------- 35% ---- 23% -----22%----- 19% -------- 2%
[ ]k. Improving parks, recreation, and arts
services 13% 34% 37% 15% 1%
[ ]l. Improving animal sheltering and care ------------- 12% ---- 25% -----34%----- 26% -------- 2%
[ ]m. Improving library services--------------------------- 10% ---- 27% -----41%----- 21% -------- 2%
EXT/
VERY
55%
62%
58%
54%
43%
52%
41%
60%
46%
58%
47%
37%
37%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 6
VERY/ SMWT
65%
64%
NEXT, HERE ARE SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE
POTENTIAL BUSINESS TAX WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.
10. Next, if a ballot measure to provide additional funding were approved by voters, would you prefer that
the money be dedicated to: (ROTATE)
[ ] Offering major new City services, such as affordable housing, climate
change reduction efforts, improving the safety of rail crossings,
transportation services such as shuttles, or support for the unhoused-------------------- 49%
OR
[ ] Improving the quality and reliability of core City services such as fire
and emergency services, and parks and recreation ------------------------------------------ 39%
(DON’T READ) Both 2%
(DON’T READ) Neither 2%
(DON’T READ) Don’t Know/NA 8%
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11) 11. First, I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. After hearing each
statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing
as a reason to support the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (COMPARISON) Palo Alto does not have a business license tax, unlike most
communities in California. Several nearby
communities have significant taxes on business, such as East Palo Alto’s tax of
$2.50 per square foot annually on
commercial office space over 25,000
square feet and San Francisco’s business
tax of $2.85 to $5.60 per 1000 dollars of gross receipts annually. This tax would align Palo Alto’s tax system with those of
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
other cities in the area. ------------------------------- 31% ---- 34% -----23%-------6% -------- 6%
[ ]b. (ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will
be subject to strict accountability provisions
like annual financial audits; full public disclosure of all spending; and a
requirement that all funds be spent locally
in Palo Alto. This will ensure funds are
used efficiently, effectively, and as
promised. 27% 36% 22% 10% 4%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 7
[ ]c. (SAFETY) The recent economic downturn had significant impacts to funding for
police and emergency services. Recently
the community has seen increases in property crimes impacts to fire and
emergency medical services. This measure
would provide funding for police and
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
emergency services to address these issues. ------ 23% ---- 41% -----24%-------9% -------- 4%
[ ]d. (FAIR SHARE) Palo Alto currently registers businesses of all sizes for 50
dollars. That means a mom-and-pop coffee
shop pays the same as a tech company with thousands of employees. This measure is a
sensible way to ensure large businesses pay
their fair share for the services the City provides and that their employees enjoy,
like road repairs and police and fire
protection.
[ ]e. (TAX BASE) This measure is not a tax on homeowners or shoppers, but on the city’s
largest businesses. Sales taxes continue to
decline in Palo Alto, and by diversifying the City’s tax base with a thoughtfully
designed business license tax, we will be
better able to weather future financial crises
without having to raise taxes on everyday
residents.
46%
30%
30%
33%
14%
20%
5% 4%
13% 4%
VERY/
SMWT
63%
76%
63%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 8
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
12. Now that you’ve learned more about it, would you support or oppose a measure that would create a
business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square
feet occupied plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted
annually for inflation, to pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services,
affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate
action plan, and other public services? Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF
YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D AFTER AFTER SUPPORT OPPOSE ONLY ONLY TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 69% ------------------ 54%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
31%
33%
5%
15%
31%
8%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 22% ------------------ 38% Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
2%
5%
15%
4%
11%
23%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 9% ------------------- 8%
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11) 13. Next, I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure.
After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing,
or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (INFLATION) The cost of living is out of
control and inflation is on the rise. With the
price of groceries and gasoline increasing
and an interest-rate hike on the way, now is
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
simply not the time to be raising taxes. ----------- 33% ---- 25% -----31%-------7% -------- 4%
[ ]b. (LOOPHOLES) Just like any tax, this will
fall hardest on small and medium
businesses already struggling with labor
shortages, inflation, and high commercial
rent. Meanwhile, the largest companies will
find creative loopholes to get out of paying
their fair share. 34% 33% 21% 7% 5%
VERY/
SMWT
58%
67%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 9
[ ]c. (WASTE) Given the amount of money we already pay in city, county, and state taxes,
and the amount we pay for expensive
employee pensions, salaries, and healthcare benefits, City government simply needs to
tighten its belt, work together, and do a
better job with the dollars they already
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
have.
[ ]d. (RECOVERY) COVID restrictions have already pushed many local businesses to
slash hours or even close. The last thing we
need to do is drive up prices with a tax that hurts local businesses just as we start to
recover.
31%
32%
24%
35%
32% 8% 5%
23% 6% 4%
14. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this, people change their minds, and sometimes they do not.
Let me ask you one more time about the measure to create a business license tax on commercial property
in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot
per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation, to pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable housing and support for the
unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) SPLIT C SPLIT D
OPPOSE OPPOSE
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 60%------- 60% -------- 60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
23%
33%
5%
24%
31%
5%
24%
32%
5%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 30%------- 33% -------- 31%
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
3%
11%
15%
1%
12%
20%
2%
12%
18%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 10%--------- 8% ---------- 9%
VERY/
SMWT
55%
67%
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 10
15. Do you own a business in Palo Alto?
Yes
No
6%
91%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 3%
16. Do you own or rent your place of residence?
Own
Rent
58%
32% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 11%
17. What was the last level of school you completed? High school graduate or less ------------------------ 3%
Some college/vocational school ------------------- 10%
College graduate (4 years) ------------------------- 41%
Post graduate work/Professional school --------- 44%
((DON’T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 2%
18. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Latino or Hispanic, African American or
Black, White or Caucasian, Asian or Pacific Islander, multiracial, or some other ethnic or racial
background? (IF ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER, ASK: “Are you Vietnamese, Chinese, South
Asian or East Indian, or of some other Asian background?”)
Latino/Hispanic 4%
African American/Black -------------------- 1%
Caucasian/White --------------------------- 60%
Vietnamese 1%
Chinese 9%
South Asian/East Indian -------------------- 7%
Other Non-Asian/Pacific Islander --------- 1%
Other Asian/Pacific Islander --------------- 3%
Multiracial 6%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 8%
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 11
GENDER (BY OBSERVATION): Male ------------------------------------------ 48%
Female 52%
PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------ 60%
Republican 10%
No Party Preference ----------------------- 28%
Other 2%
FLAGS
P16
G16
P18
54%
72%
58%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes
No
90%
10%
G18 ------------------------------------------ 74% HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE
P20
G20 BLANK
70%
95%
3%
Dem 1
Dem 2+
Rep 1
Rep 2+
33%
17%
5%
1%
AGE Ind 1+ --------------------------------------- 20%
18-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64 65-74
75+
10%
6%
7%
4%
6%
8%
9%
11%
10% 14%
16%
Mix
MODE
Phone
Online
23%
51%
49%
THANK AND TERMINATE
ATTACHMENT C
REMOVED FOR UPDATED VERSION 4/7/22
Summary of Responses to Online Community Feedback Survey
Status update, March 28, 2022
Starting February 15, 2022, the City provided an online feedback form regarding the City’s Fiscal
Sustainability efforts. Community members could rank their priorities for community services, provide
suggestions for additional service priorities, and pose questions about the City’s fiscal sustainability
efforts and revenue measures.
ATTACHMENT D
March 18, 2022
To: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Fr: Public Dialogue Consortium
Re: Update on Business and Community Stakeholder Focus Groups
On November 15, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with The Lew Edwards
Group for community engagement and ballot measure strategy and preparation services
related to the potential revenue generating November 2022 ballot measures. As part of
this process, the Lew Edwards Group enlisted the services of the Public Dialogue
Consortium to conduct focus groups with members of the business community and
community at-large, and to facilitate a public listening session with the Palo Alto
community.
Focus Groups
Staff compiled a comprehensive list of Palo Alto stakeholders consisting of business
groups, employers, and community groups and organizations, and conducted extensive
outreach utilizing multiple platforms to invite participants to the focus groups. Focus
group invites were sent via e-mail and mail to business and community organizations
throughout Palo Alto, with efforts to be as inclusive as possible. Sample business and
community invites are attached. At first five focus groups were scheduled for the
business community, and two groups were scheduled for community groups and
organizations, but PDC and the City were ultimately able to accommodate all
participants in five focus groups.
The five focus groups were conducted between February 22 and March 17, 2022. Four
of the focus groups involved business community stakeholders, which consisted of 27
participants total. One community stakeholder group was conducted with six
participants. The list of participants in each focus group is attached.
Attendance at the focus groups was underwhelming. Despite the extensive outreach,
invitations, and follow-up reminders, we could have accommodated many more focus
group participants based on the number of groups offered and the way they were
structured. In fact, three focus groups were cancelled and two had to be rescheduled
due to low attendance.
All focus group were conducted to achieve the same three outcomes:
• Educate stakeholders about Palo Alto’s Fiscal Sustainability Strategy for 2022 and
the funding options currently under consideration.
• Elicit feedback on City service priorities that are important to the business
community and community at-large.
ATTACHMENT D
• Elicit feedback on the two ballot measures that the City Council is considering for
voters in November 2022: (1) Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer and (2)
Adopt a new Business License Tax.
The focus group format was the same for the business and community at-large
stakeholders. Part one established the context for the focus group, including
introductions, the agenda, and outcomes and purposes. Part two consisted of a staff
presentation on the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Strategy, including revenue trends and
services, and the two ballot measures under consideration. The third part was a
facilitated discussion to elicit participant feedback. The following questions were used to
focus the discussion:
• What clarifying questions about the presentation do you have for staff?
• What City services and priorities are important to you and your organization,
business, or group?
• What do you and your organization, business, or group think about placing these
two measures on the ballot? First, Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer? Next,
the business license tax?
• What are your thoughts about how the business license tax should be
structured?
o Should any types of businesses be exempted if this idea is pursued (e.g.,
based on size, or type)?
o What about basing the tax on a square footage percentage?
o Are there are any other factors in how the tax should be structured that you
want to share?
• Under what circumstances, if any, could you support the Measure to affirm Gas
Funds Transfer? Under what circumstances could you support the business
license tax?
• Is there anything else you would like to say about the Fiscal Sustainability
Strategy, City services, or the two potential ballot measures before we close?
Results and Summary Themes
An analysis of the focus group results reveals mixed support for the Business License
Tax. Specifically, opinions fell mostly into two categories. One was “conditional
approval.” Many focus group participants said that they could support the measure as
long as particular elements are included or conditions are met (see the four themes
below). The second category was “no support,” with several group participants saying
that they do not favor placing the measure on the November ballot under any
circumstances.
By comparison, there was majority support to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer, with focus
group participants saying that they favor placing the measure on the ballot, or were
ATTACHMENT D
neutral about the measure due to lack of familiarity with it. There was no direct
opposition to the Gas Funds Transfer.
Looking deeper into the views expressed about the Business License Tax, four dominant
themes emerged from an analysis of the focus group discussions.
1. No cap on the CPI. Concerns were expressed that without a cap on the CPI the tax
would continually increase, as some group participants said, “to millions of dollars
for some companies.” In addition to wanting a cap on the CPI, a related suggestion is
to put a cap on the total amount of the tax that a business would pay.
2. No sunset. The lack of a specified end date for the tax is viewed as problematic,
particularly when coupled with the concern that the tax does not have a CPI cap. The
prospect of the tax continually increasing indefinitely was the most significant
concern expressed by group participants.
3. Not the right time. Another major concern was the timing of the tax. Group
participants noted that many businesses are in recovery mode from COVID, and that
there are commercial vacancies from businesses that did not survive the downturn
from the pandemic. Given the uncertainties surrounding the current economic
climate, the tax is seen as an impediment to business recovery and a disincentive to
attract new businesses to Palo Alto.
4. Need a funding plan. Group participants voiced concerns about how the revenue
from the tax will be allocated, specifically with the revenue going into the General
Fund and spent on services that do not benefit the business community or the
community at-large. The recommendation is to develop a plan that specifies how
the revenue will be spent, which for group participants will ensure transparency and
accountability.
Next steps
Two follow-up engagements will be conducted. One is a public Listening Session to be
held on Tuesday, March 29 at 6:00pm, available to all members of the Palo Alto
community. This session will include the staff presentation on the 2022 Fiscal
Sustainability Strategy and the two ballot measures currently under consideration,
followed by comments and input from the participants.
A second round of focus groups will be conducted with business community
stakeholders in April and May to elicit input on the specific factors that will be used to
structure the Business License Tax. Results from the listening session and second round
of focus groups will be incorporated into the results from the initial five focus groups,
and complied in a summary and presented to the Finance Committee and City Council.
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
Palo Alto Focus Group Participants
*list does not include 3/29 listening session
Tuesday, 2-22-22, 12pm (Business) 1 Participant 1. John Shenk, Thoits Brothers Thursday, 3-3-22 9am (Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center) 19 Participants 1. Yvonne Mills, Morrison & Foerster 2. Angie Pyszczynski, Simon Properties 3. Georgie Gleim, Gleim Jewelers 4. Thomas Lawson, Ford Motor Company 5. Peter Arbour, Ford Motor Company 6. Charlie Weidanz, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 7. Kent Leacock, VMware 8. Jennifer Cohen, Tesla 9. Barry Barnes, CleanSweep Campaigns 10. Don Cecil, MC2 Bay Area Public & Government Affairs Consulting 11. Allison Koo, Sand Hill Property Company 12. Pam Decharo, Owner, Hair International 13. John Koselak, Vi Living 14. Jessy Borges, Lockheed Martin 15. Nicholas Karrelas, SAP 16. Shweta Bhatnagar, Stanford University 17. Lucy Wicks, Stanford University 18. Tiffany Griego, Stanford University 19. Michael Bordoni, Stanford University Tuesday, 3-8-22 12pm (Community) 6 Participants 1. Mary Gloner, Project Safetynet 2. Karla Henriquez, Project Safetynet 3. Rhonda Bekkedahl, Channing House retirement community 4. Kate Blesssing-Kawamura, Eden Housing 5. Matt Bryant, resident & pharmacist 6. Edesa Bitbadal, representative for NAIOP Silicon Valley on public policy matters Tuesday, 3-15-22 6pm (Business) 4 Participants 1. Dan Kostenbauder - VP for tax policy, Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2. Howard Schneck - tax director at Varian Medical Systems 3. Valerie Sinden - global overview systems at Varian Medical Systems 4. Kris Quigley - representing CA Life Sciences
ATTACHMENT D
Thursday, 3-17-22 12pm (Chamber of Commerce) 5 Participants 1. Elizabeth Santana, Palo Alto Players 2. Karen Law, Palo Alto Players 3. Nancy Coupal - Coupal Cafe 4. Shweta Bhatnagar - Stanford University 5. Charlie Weidanz - Chamber of Commerce
ATTACHMENT E
Gas Utility Transfer to the General Fund
Each fiscal year the City Council may transfer from the gas utility to the general fund an amount equal to [ % of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the fiscal year of the transfer] or [ % of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the transfer]. At its discretion, the City Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount. The
projected cost of the transfer shall be included in the City’s retail gas rates included in the City’s retail gas rates as a cost of providing services. Note: The description of the fiscal year used to measure the transfer can be either:
% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the fiscal year of the transfer or
% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the transfer
ATTACHMENT F
Attachment F - 1
Summary of Prior Work on
Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
The City of Palo Alto has been discussing its options for potential revenue-generating ballot
measures through 2019 and 2020. This work was suspended at City Council direction in March
2020 in order to marshal available resources to manage through the COVID-19 pandemic. A
timeline of the CMRs and discussions with the Finance Committee and the City Council since
April of 2019, when staff was formally directed to begin working on this project by the City
Council, is included below for additional context. The date, the forum of the meeting (Finance
Committee or City Council), the summary title, and the CMR number are included for ease of
reference.
Timeline
4/22/2019 City Council, “2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan”, CMR 10267
4/22/2019 City Council, “Approve Workplan for a Potential Revenue Generated Ballot
Measure”, CMR 10261
6/18/2019 Finance Committee, “Review, Comment, and Accept Preliminary Revenue Estimates
for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR 10392
8/20/2019 Finance Committee, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating
Ballot Measures”, CMR 10445
9/16/2019 City Council, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10615
10/1/2019 Finance Committee, “Revised Workplan for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR
10712
10/15/2019 Finance Committee, “Stakeholder Outreach, Initial Polling, and Discussion of a
Potential Ballot Measure”, CMR 10743
11/4/2019 City Council, “Potential Ballot Measure Polling/Outreach, Contract, Solicitation
Exemption and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10792
12/2/2019 City Council, “Structure and Scenarios of Initial Round of Polling for a Potential Local
Tax Measure”, CMR 10891
12/17/2019 Finance Committee, “Consideration, Evaluation, and Discussion of a Revenue
Generating Local Tax Ballot Measure, Review of Refined Modeling, Analysis, Tax Structure and
Recommendation to the City Council”, CMR 10655
ATTACHMENT F
Attachment F - 2
1/27/2020 City Council, “Update, Consideration, and Potential Direction on Possible Local Tax
Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR 11019
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and
Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR
11161
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and
Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, At-Places
Memorandum
6/15/2021, Finance Committee Staff Report, “Recommend the City Council Approve the
Workplan for Pursuit of a Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022
General Election; Review and Potential Guidance to Staff on Affordable Housing Funding as
Referred by the Council”, CMR 12299
8/16/2021 City Council, “Approve the Workplan for Development of a Revenue-Generating
Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022 General Election; Review and Potential Guidance
to Staff on Affordable Housing Funds as Referred by the City Council”, CMR 12381
9/21/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and a Recommended Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures,” CMR 13514
10/19/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”,
CMR 13648
11/8/2021 City Council, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of Potential
Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”, CMR
13687
12/7/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures”, CMR 13728
1/18/2022 Finance Committee, “Discuss Poll Results Regarding Potential 2022 Revenue
Generating Ballot Measures and Recommend Further Refinement of Business License Tax and
Utility Tax Proposals”, CMR 13875
1/24/2022 City Council, “Discuss Polling Results, Analysis, and Community Stakeholder
Engagement Plan; Recommend Further Refined Parameters for a Possible Local Tax Ballot
Measure for November 2022 Election (Business License Tax and Utility Tax Proposals); and
Direct Staff on Related Items such as Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan,” CMR
13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 1
Summary of Responses to Online Community Feedback Survey
Status update, April 7, 2022
Starting February 15, 2022, the City provided an online feedback form regarding the City’s Fiscal
Sustainability efforts. Community members could rank their priorities for community services, provide
suggestions for additional service priorities, and pose questions about the City’s fiscal sustainability
efforts and revenue measures.
As of April 7, 2022, the Fiscal Sustainability Community Conversation survey may still be accessed.1
Survey Contents
Community members were asked the following questions:
The City of Palo Alto is engaging the community around long-term fiscal sustainability and community
priorities. Below are some of the key priorities Palo Alto residents have historically identified as key to
their quality of life. Please give us your feedback by ranking the following priorities from 1 to 8, with “1”
being the most important. We will review all comments to ensure that the City continues to address the
community’s priorities in its long-range planning.
1. Priorities to be ranked:
• Expanding City Services
• Maintaining basic services
• Improving services such as longer library hours
• Adding public safety services such as police, fire and emergency medical
• Investing in community-owned assets like roads and community centers
• Funding affordable housing and homeless services
• Repairing streets/roads
• Maintaining after school/summer youth programs
2. Suggestions for additional service priorities:
3. I have the following questions:
Survey Responses
There were 394 responses as of March 22, 2022 (181 online survey responses and 213 mailed survey
responses). The most highly ranked priorities for the survey respondents were “Maintaining basic
services,” “Repairing streets / roads,” “Investing in community-owned assets,” “Adding public safety
services such as police, fire, and emergency medical,” and “Funding affordable housing and homeless
services,” as shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents who ranked each priority
first, second, or third.
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33-8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 2
Table 1: Percentage of Survey Respondents Ranking Each Priority First, Second, or Third
There were 137 respondents who submitted suggestions for additional service priorities or additional
comments and questions via the online survey. The complete comments are included at the end of this
attachment, but in summary:
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 3
• 43 respondents wrote comments supporting funding for Lucie Stern Theatre facilities and
staffing. Of these, 3-5 appeared to be duplicate submittals.
• 19 comments related to investments in various other types of City infrastructure
• 15 comments related to increasing policing, including code enforcement and traffic
enforcement
• 13 comments related to climate action, with a couple of comments opposing City action.
• 6 comments related to affordable housing or homeless services, with a couple of comments
expressing concern about setting affordable housing goals or homeless services.
• Other respondents wrote comments related to traffic safety, traffic congestion, road
maintenance, parking, expanding bicycle infrastructure and other alternative transportation
options, climate change (both in favor of and opposing action), electric grid reliability, fiber
internet, zoning, affordable housing, employee pension costs, community and human services,
and other topics.
There were 95 respondents to the mailed version of the survey who submitted additional comments or
questions. The complete comments are included at the end of this attachment, but to summarize:
• 19 comments related to infrastructure, with an emphasis on roads
• 13 comments focused on increased traffic enforcement, code enforcement, or policing in
general.
• 8 comments related to sustainability (climate change, tree canopy, alternative transportation)
• Other respondents wrote comments related to airplane noise, affordable housing, the animal
shelter, recreation services, fiber to the home, library hours, utility services, zoning, and service
levels in general.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 4
Comments from Online Survey
The following comments were submitted in response to the two open-ended survey questions for the online version of the survey.
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
1
Reducing pension and retirement benefit expenses
Switching to a 24/7 mental health crisis team approach like cahoots
using mental health and social workers. Police are only needed if there
is a threat of violence which is rarely the case. We could save so much
money with this approach.
Fiber to the Home; Undergrounding utilities as promised so many years
ago. Increasing police response to gangs stealing from stores - there
doesn't seem to be much effort here at all.
New Animal Shelter
This survey is poorly written. Most people want all of the above. But I
also want. to see ways to save money. We seem to be adding more
and more administrators and fewer people who actually perform the
work of caring for the city. Do we really need another assistant to the
City Manager? We need a new animal shelter which we could have had
for a fraction of the cost of the bike bridge. Increasing library hours is
so cheap - why isn't this a given? Let's get the police up to fill strength -
79 officers and then decide to get more. The poor showing of the
police with only 59 officers does not mean that 79 is not enough, esp. if
we outsource mental health calls.
2
Support our downtown retail and business operations. They provide
the revenues needed to provide all services. They also provide the
vibrancy we all value.
Why does the Council not support businesses? We need them to
support our hotels, frequent our retailers, and provide quality jobs.
Why is the Council wanting to tax businesses now with a business tax
AND with a district tax?
Why doesn't the Council incentivize housing development by a
reduction its fees and an offer to expedite the permitting processes
instead of keeping those as the worst in the area and adding more
taxes to try and add housing itself?
3 n/a n/a
4 Law enforcement to reduce property crime
5
Please focus on managing the City and prioritize its citizens.
Thanks for the survey.
6
Providing actionable resources to Eichlers to help with green related
retrofitting - for instance, I can’t find a non-gas powered boiler for my
radiant heating!
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 5
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
7
I would also encourage the City to scrub the budget and eliminate
some unnecessary items that cost too much. In my neighborhood, I can
mention the Ross Road street "improvement" that cost a lot, did not do
anything and created a lot of controversy.
Also we should aim to make projects less expansive, the pedestrian
overpass for 101 at the Baylands should not have costed more than
$10M, also the Mitchell Park community center should not have costed
as much and taken so long. The city needs to learn how to manage
these projects better.
8 Finish work at Shoreline Park
9 Close Churchill Ave Caltrain intersection. It is too dangerous for
pedestrians and bikes and cars!!!
10 providing access to Foothills park to mountain bikes through
Arastradero and create one bike trail (single track) in Foothill park
11
Stop forcing green energy initiatives on the residents, making it more
and more expensive to live in PA. These should be put to a vote by
residents, not forced by city council members who think more of
themselves in how they can get national publicity than supporting the
residents.
12
This should be at the top of the list:
Funding city's future obligations in terms of pensions, etc. I have heard
that we haven't funded these obligations anywhere near sufficiently.
What is the city doing to fund the future generous pensions that we
owe?
13
Delete the commercial zoning requirement, density, and height
requirements on most parcels along El Camino. Especially near
transportation.
Especially for affordable housing.
Increase zoning and density along Alma. Especially for affordable
housing .
14 As a subset re public safety, consider installation of additional speed
limit signage in our residential neighborhoods.
15
Please improve bicycle infrastructure! I see many others biking as I do
for transportation, but I often don’t feel safe next to cars on the main
road.
16 Preparing for flooding risk.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 6
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
17
Dealing with the City has become onerous. 10 years ago, staff were
responsive with fewer regulations to navigate. 10 years later, and
everything has become complicated - you need high-cost permits for a
generator or to get solar. You have fill out forms which are returned
for minor issues. Just cut out the red tape - please. And enforce city
regulations on leaving trash cans out, safety in walking downtown
(arrest people).
18 Affordable housing is a huge problem and we need better solutions.
19 It was a waste of taxpayer’s money for so-called improvement of Ross
Road.
20 Addressing climate change Is each city department maximizing each budgeted dollar?
21
A. The item, Maintaining basic services, should include preparing for
climate change, especially sea level rise, more frequent droughts and
global warming.
B. The item, Investing in community-owned assets ... , should include
providing broadband, i.e. fiber optic, internet service to the premises.
C. The item, Expanding City Services, should include providing better
intra-city commuter options to reduce the need for individually owned
cars.
D. The item, Repairing streets/roads, should include adding new bike
lanes and upgrading existing lanes to provide safe use.
22 Law enforcement
23 Free shuttle system
24 Increased policing and enforcement of traffic laws such as parking and
speed laws
25
Improved street signage and efficient street lighting.
Encourage CalTrans to improve El Camino road surface !
Consider levy of small city tax on all residents -- sliding scale based on
income, not to exceed $100 / year.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 7
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
26
I recommend increasing police services to contain burglaries from
homes and businesses. Such crime must be addressed.
I emphatically do not recommend increasing fire services. They are
more than adequately funded and should be reduced to provide any
needed emergency medical services.
I would have given public safety services a higher ranking, but since fire
services was included it was given a lower priority.
27
Don’t just fix the potholes on El Camino redo the street material with a
mix of tires and asphalt to make them more resilient to the wear and
tear. Also can you please pay attention to Barron Park Streets they are
looking like very undeveloped countries
The Barron park section of el Camino is a disaster
28 City-funded housing and transportation services for seniors.
29
Putting electrical wires underground.
Replacing large lawn areas with native shrubs (but leaving areas for kids
to play).
30 Reduction of city management salaries. Find a hungry person to do it
for a fair price.
31
Why is Lucie Stern Community Center so underinvested compared to
Cubberley Community Center? It's a beautiful indoor + outdoor space
(and home to three award-winning performing arts companies that
Palo Alto should be proud to claim as its own!) that can benefit many
more community members, especially during COVID-19, if repairs and
upgrades are made to the facilities.
32
Make it more difficult for developers/speculators to demolish livable
housing to replace it with huge homes that are often not occupied. This
is why housing has become unaffordable. Increase incentives to
remodel/rehab existing housing stock. Build affordable/low income
housing in Palo Alto Square (not sure who owns that). Stop billionaires
from buying up multiple neighborhood houses and taking them out of
the housing market. Decrease the number of ghost houses.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 8
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
33
Do not spend any money on public art until all the potholes in the city
are fixed.
How much money is CPA spending on the fiber-optic project? Why is it
building this service when fiber optic is already being provided by AT&T
and Comcast?
Why is a fire engine dispatched along with an ambulance for every
emergency call?
34 Grade Separation on the SP tracks. You can't keep all the people
happy all the time. Subsidized Solar Roof plan for residents.
35 Ease traffic congestion and provide more parking.
36
First category above (expanding...) is too vague to be useful.
Cubberley should get sustained attention and investment, leading to
purchase from the school district and total renovation, funded by long
term bonds. It is a huge opportunity for the future and a pretty ugly
testimonial to our confused process and thinking in the present.
How do we compare to MV, RWC, Sunnyvale in per capita spending on
various categories. Can we find places where we are overspending this
way?
37 Nothing about utilities here. Improving the utility function is a very
high priority.
38
Missing from the list: RESTORE cut funding for multi-modal transportation projects, including foot-powered transportation safety, especially at
identified safety trouble spots on school commute routes. Before you "Add" public safety services, you need to restore what the city cut. The
item should read, "RESTORE public safety services." The survey language is not an honest representation of where we are and what adding funds
will really do. Restoration of cut services is not "adding" or "expanding" them. These are misleading options. What are "basic services", if not
police, fire, road repair, etc. Utilities? Waste collection? Street cleaning? Arborist? What? The average citizen won't know this. This second item
is vague and, in context of the rest of this list especially, requires explanation. This is a poor beginning to a listening exercise. I filled out the
priorities so the survey would let me go beyond this page. My prioritization is meaningless because the options you offer are inaccurate and
vague. My top priority, mentioned above, is not even on the list. How does one prioritize without understanding current budget constraints and
the cost of these items? Too little background information to understand trade-offs and make informed choices. So...what do you really mean?
Are we talking about restoration of cut services or adding services above the levels we previously had? Be more clear.
Additional Feedback: See above.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 9
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
39
The City of Palo Alto has been doing mayor improvements in certain
areas, Loma Verde and Ferne, Charleston from Middlefield to El Camino
and beyond but nothing has been done in the Circles, I had asked for a
(ONE) STOP sign at the corner of Carlson Rd (coming from Charleston)
and Redwood Circle, a very dangerous outlet from my Carlson Circle
because of lack of view and speed on Redwood Circles and nothing has
been done, while there are bumps on streets that don't really need
them and gardens in crossroads that make them more dangerous for
pedestrians and children on bikes.
There is no police patrol near schools, example Fairmeadow. Very little
patrol on Alma and around the dangerous railroad crossing on
Churchill. Cars drive at 60 plus miles per hour on Alma.
Also Alma is a shame with trash cans all week long. I have to remove
my trash cans after they are serviced or somebody complains (I am 80
years old, by myself) and Alma has trash cans always by the street that
looks terrible.
Why every neighborhood in Palo Alto does not get the same service?
Louise, Ferne, Amarillo ( the road finish on Louise and Amarillo is a
shame, already dirty, inadequate and I bet very expensive, it is
confusing a total waste of money), Loma Verde and Professor Ville get
all the improvements while the Circles get nothing, only high speed cars
and even School Busses cut from Alma at full speed on Lindero and
Redwood Circle. Why are there so much road construction on
Charleston and Alma (almost daily) and Alma in South Palo Alto. This is
just the beginning of my questions, I have gone to city meetings and I
was never chosen to talk.
I have to also say that the police department was great during my
husband long illness, for about three years, they came to our house to
lift him from the floor, they took him to the hospital, they were always
helpful, and correct. Thanks to them.
40
I am concerned about the conflict between cars and bikes on the
Bryant Street Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero and downtown.
We have been promised a traffic circle and or other measures for
slowing cars. What is the status of the traffic circle at Kingsley and
Bryant Street?
41 Add more police budget to make the residents feel safe.
42 Decide what to do with Cubberley
43
Public safety is by far the highest priority. Besides "police, fire and
emergency medical", additional measures for improving public safety
will also be important, e.g., community watch, using technology to
improve automated surveillance...
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 10
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
44
Properly funding the trust funds for retiree pensions and medical
benefits should be higher than all the priorities you've listed above.
That's the most critical element in achieving fiscal sustainability. The
fact that you left this off your list really worries me.
We're seeing a big uptick in crime, and many minor crimes are not
followed up on by the police, leading citizens to stop reporting all of
these incidents. Thus, I believe that the current crime statistics
undercount the true problem. Job #1 for our local government should
be maintaining order and taking actions that discourage crime.
As I mentioned in suggestions above, I still can't believe cities like Palo
Alto have made promises to retirees (pensions and medical benefits)
that are not fully funded. This is a time bomb that will come back to
bite us later on, causing a big decrease in non-essential services. I
recommend we tackle this problem responsibly.
45 More funding for adult community classes
46 Traffic enforcement.
Improve tree program - natives
47 Get a nighttime curfew for planes out/into SFO, like San Jose.
48
You'll never be able to build enough new housing in our built-out city to
even make a dent in housing costs, let alone make it 'affordable.' Don't
further bankrupt the town in this futile endeavor. Every additional
housing unit does not bring in the revenue to cover the cost of its
increased services.
49
Stop digging up the Charleston/Arastradero corridor every year! You
keep working on it, wasting money, causing traffic jams - and make it
harder to drive and bike (yes, I do both).
50
Funding for task force to identify and eliminate local zoning regulations
blocking dense housing development.
Increasing mass transit options.
What percentage of emergency services are for police vs other
emergency departments?
51
I believe that all City of Palo Alto efforts related to climate change
should be terminated. The existing programs will have no measurable
impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but will have measurable and
adverse impact on the city's fiscal health. Those people who work in
the programs can be re-directed to higher priorities, which I rank
above.
52 We also need to find funds to work on climate change
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 11
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
53
I would like to understand how the city is measuring current program
effectiveness and estimating cost effectiveness of new programs. For
example, it's hard to know if we need to spend more on
police/fire/medical unless we know how well those services are
currently performing now and how much it would cost to make them
better buy some increment.
Also, many of these questions seem to assume the conclusion. For
example, "Funding affordable housing and homeless services" is a
solution, while, "increase housing affordability and reduce
homelessness" is the goal. You can increase housing affordability by
reducing building restrictions, no additional funding required. And are
there any proven cost effective programs for reducing homelessness?
What is the formal measurement process the city is using in evaluating
service levels and cost effectiveness of potential improvements?
54
For the Lucie Stern Community Theater:
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
55
City-owned facilities such as Lucie Stern Center are important assets
and need to be maintained as much as libraries or fire stations. This is
more valuable in my view than building a new police building.
Many of the above priorities are overlapping!
56
I specifically think Palo Alto should invest in our grid. It's a durable
community asset, and it supports our sustainability goals through
electrification.
57
It's difficult for me to rank these needs, one over the other......however
I would put funding improvements to the Lucy Stern Theater near the
top since it adds immeasurably to the quality of life in Palo Alto
Is it possible to sponsor a volunteer position for theater maintenance
with cooperation from Avenidas who has a rooster of engaged,
talented seniors?
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 12
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
58
Abilities United used to have a therapy pool that people with
disabilities and seniors could use. They no longer have that and Palo
Alto could really use a good hot therapy pool. It could be open to the
public, and not just disabled and senior people. There is such a big
senior population in this town and I don’t understand why there’s not
more facilities for seniors. Why don’t we have a functioning animal
shelter? Why doesn’t the city take better care of the streets and roads?
Why doesn’t the city take better care of the existing parks and
facilities? We don’t need another gym.
Why don’t we have a functioning animal shelter? Why doesn’t the city
take better care of the streets and roads? Why doesn’t the city take
better care of the existing parks and facilities?
59
I am particularly concerned about Lucie Stern Theatre. It is in dire need
of maintenance (e.g. seats, plumbing..), facilities upgrade (better
ventilation), and personnel to oversee its operation.
60 G
61 Lucie Stern Theatre1
62 We have beautiful community areas (Lucie Stern) that desperately
need funding. Please budget for maintaining the resources we have!
63
Addressing traffic congestion and noise pollution. Establishing and
Strictly enforcing noise controls from motorcycles and speeding cars at
night.
Having the Palo Alto police use their already extensive funds in
patrolling at night and break-in prevention tactics.
Maintenance of our public spaces and freeway corridors - our streets
and freeways are embarrassingly broken and dirty
These issues have become a major concern in the safety and quality of
life for us residents.
How are the current taxes and funds being utilized? How much is going
toward paying administrative overhead and city officials salaries vs
actual community services?
What is the effectiveness score of our police and city administrators
enforcing and implementing safety, noise control, community services,
infrastructure maintenance and clean streets?
64
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
65
I am a resident of Stanford, not Palo Alto. But I would like to urge you
to adequately support the Lucie Stern Theater. Brian White, 881
Tolman Dr, Stanford.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 13
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
66
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Add more funds to the Children's Theatre to keep a vibrant community
treasure that helps our youth and builds self confidence
67
Lucy Stern Community Center Theatre needs maintenance. Further a
city employee needs to be assigned to oversee the theatre. This facility
is 100 years old and is showing its age and lack of recent maintenance.
68
Restore and repair the Lucie Stern theatre. It provides an important
and necessary cultural center for this university town. It's a legacy that
needs to be maintained and cared for.
69
I suggest that city staff opportunities for training regarding interaction
with citizens be made available. On two occasions, I attempted to get
answers to questions: (1) regarding marking parking spaces so drivers
would take up one instead of two spaces; and (2) repair of sidewalks.
The responses from city staff were inadequate, in my opinion. On
another occasion, when underground power was being installed in the
residential area south of University Avenue, communication from the
individual coordinating the operation was adequate. I think the quality
of communication should be less varied.
When will the overhead power lines be taken down, now that power is
delivered underground?
70 Refurbish Lucie Stern Theater
Move ahead on rebuilding Cubberley Community Center
71
Lucy Stern Theater is a vital resource for our well-respected, top-quality
community opera and theater companies, West Bay Opera and Palo
Alto Players, but it has been sadly neglected for many years, and is in
desperate need of plumbing, heating, and lighting upgrades, as well as
both basic maintenance and ongoing care.
72
Lucie Stern facility is in particular need of upgrade, having been around
for a century.
Seems that #1 and #3 in my choices have some overlap.
Affordable housing needs developer and probably city tax
incentives/subsidies. Might be a different type of investment than
other items
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 14
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
73
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project for Lucie
Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre.
74
Palo Alto should invest in either a major remodel of Lucie Stern Theater
or build a new theater. The theater is worn out, its technology is
obsolete making it difficult for our wonderful theater companies to
work there, and it is too small. TheatreWorks won a Tony and many of
their performances are in Mountain View where they built a wonderful
new theater some years ago. We must invest in Palo Alto's wonderful
theater talent!
75
Attend to the need of maintenance of the Lucy Stern Theater and
Community Center. This is a gem and must be preserved. Many
people are affected by the opportunities presented here.
Put it in the budget.
76
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Arts are important to this - any! - community, and the 100 year old
Lucie Stern Theater is a landmark that deserves more respectful
treatment than it's currently getting. Those of us who produce those
arts - plays and operas for example - need your help.
77 Some of these categories appear to overlap. This means that answers
won’t be accurate.
78
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades and restore a theatre
facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 15
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
79
Upgrading the Palo Alto electrical grid so that Electric cars, Electric
space heating and water heating can be adequately served. Perhaps
even finishing the promise to underground utilities while upgrading
them.
Let’s NOT build a Gym.
80
Please keep in mind the needs of older citizens who no longer can get
around easily. The Downtown Library, for just one example, is one
thing that needs to be kept available to us.
81 Magical Bridge Playground maintenance, Lucie Stern Theater sets and
infrastructure, summer music concerts
82
Provide funding to maintain and upgrade the Lucy Stern complex.
Wiring and plumbing does age and wear out and no longer comply with
code. That can place its very existence in jeopardy.
83
Lucie Stern Theater and Community Center are most definitely in need
of upgrades. Please put funds toward these very valuable community
assets.
84
The school programs through Explore Online are not convenient for
double working parents from a timing perspective. Can we check how
population mix for parents have changed and adapt to it?
Are there reports on current state of infrastructure, crime rates etc.
which help understand current investment in defensive/maintenance
activities and what’s the right mix?
85
Who is benefitted by the after-school and summer youth programs?
Are lower income families appropriately subsidized for these
programs? Is the city working on solutions to the problem of people
living in RVs around the city? Why do I never see traffic law
enforcement any more - speeding and red light running with impunity,
creating dangerous situations for kids and adults?
86
Community assets such as the Lucie Stern Theatre have been allowed
to atrophy through lack of maintenance & cutting necessary staffing
like the theatre facilities manager. It should be much more of a priority
to preserve the city's heritage and existing facilities and services than to
constantly be on looking for new ways to spend tax revenue on splashy
& politically trendy new programs.
87 Repair & improve Lucie Stern theater & the Children’s Theater.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 16
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
88 Repairs and improvements to Lucie Steen Community Theater are
much needed
89
The city needs to spend money rehabing Lucie Stern, rather than spend
money on street striping and building concrete barriers in middle of
streets.
There are a number of items that I consider VERY VERY low priority.
Hard to make them all a 10. Comments: city services - do not need any
more, think about reducing them. Long library hours - is this needed?
Funding homeless services - look how great the city did with the
Opportunity center. People were to stay there for a max of 2 years.
Residents do not want to/ do not plan to move. Maintaining after
school programs - is this a role for city or for PAUSD
90
3.5 Fiber internet Seeing an increasing number of homeless roaming around our
residential streets. What are we doing about it? Not sure why that’s
happening, but feel like there should be more planning and action
around that on a local, state and national level. More specifically I
worry about the mentally ill roaming my neighborhood where my kids
are. We spend so much $$ (mortgage and taxes) to live here that it
boggles the mind that the homeless can too and I can’t figure out 1.
why this is happening more so in the last few months, 2. There seems
to be no plan and 3. Why should we just accept all homeless people
who come? Does anyone have any good actionable ideas and the
ability to execute on those ideas?
91
Repair/Upgrade existing buildings especially:
Build New Animal Shelter
Maintain and upgrade Lucy Stern Theatre
Why are talking about new initiatives when we haven't taken care of
existing buildings and programs? We have no need of a new gym until
the Animal Shelter is improved and Lucy Stern Theatre Repairs and
Maintenance is insured. Why aren't the bathrooms at Lucy Evans
Interpretive Center open to hikers? Mt. View has bathrooms available
in the Baylands. We have them - we just don't want to maintain them.
92 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should
be made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top housing
requirements for our City?
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 17
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
93
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community
jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
94
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief
for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many
problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats,
insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy
catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a
theatre that serves
thousands?
95
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city
is not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for
families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been
doing.
96
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example,
the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting
systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the
Lucie Stern Community Theater.
97
We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct
non profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell
bonsai to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation
of the ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite
expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to
rec centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large
lap pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had
something like that here and affordable.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 18
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
98 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
99 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about?
100
With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on
its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who
have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work
well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user
feedback;?
Thanks for trying
101 Funding for adaptation to climate change
102 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will
need to focus on maintaining service levels.
103
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they
recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more
concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and
needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize
that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City
residents.
104
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs
they create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more
expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support
population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc.,)
Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford
University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being
here?
105
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to
be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not
responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be
more widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on
itself first and foremost.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 19
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
106
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The
toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is
dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to
handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the
lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework
near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but
fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the
wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be
from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need
expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the
other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and
do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's
theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether
there is a wedding or not.
107
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem
is the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When
the theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event
there are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute
intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need
to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access.
108 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
109
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park
and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to
improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being
considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his
gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the
idea should be postponed indefinitely.
110 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should
be made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top housing
requirements for our City?
111
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community
jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 20
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
112
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief
for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many
problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats,
insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy
catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a
theatre that serves
thousands?
113
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city
is not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for
families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been
doing.
114
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example,
the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting
systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the
Lucie Stern Community Theater.
115
We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct
non profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell
bonsai to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation
of the ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite
expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to
rec centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large
lap pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had
something like that here and affordable.
116 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
117 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about?
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 21
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
118
With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on
its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who
have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work
well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user
feedback;?
Thanks for trying
119 Funding for adaptation to climate change
120 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will
need to focus on maintaining service levels.
121
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they
recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more
concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and
needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize
that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City
residents.
122
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs
they create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more
expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support
population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc,)
Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford
University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being
here?
123
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to
be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not
responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be
more widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on
itself first and foremost.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 22
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
124
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The
toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is
dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to
handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the
lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework
near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but
fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the
wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be
from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need
expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the
other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and
do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's
theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether
there is a wedding or not.
125
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem
is the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When
the theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event
there are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute
intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need
to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access.
126 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
127
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park
and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to
improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being
considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his
gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the
idea should be postponed indefinitely.
128
: El Camino Real and certain intersections need to be upgraded.
: It can take a LONG time to get through Palo Alto at times on El
Camnino and lights need to be better coordinated or in sync.
1) When will road repair be done around Palo Alto in 2022/23?
2) Fiber - this is being discussed, but when will it be rolled out? And
have we thought of coordinating with other cities around us? Why go
piecemeal when working with adjoining cities on a larger scale can cut
costs.
129 Expenditures and scope of each of the above priorities as well as
duration of time to achieve goals.
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 23
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
130
Continuing to reduce our carbon footprint should be a high priority.
Completing (the initiatives we've undertaken to reduce the risk of
flooding along San Francisquito Creek should be a high priority. My
sense is that there's friction between the city's Development office and
homeowners / contractors which I think is unfortunate and should be
addressed; I wonder if we're being "over regulated." Water
conservation will be increasingly important. Balancing growth vs traffic
congestion and citizen quality of life is an ongoing challenge, my sense
is that we over prioritize growth. Ensuring that our recyclables are
actually recycled and not simply shipped to low income locations
around the world is a responsibility we all share; "zero waste" only
works if the outcome of recycling is truly zero on the broadest / global
scale.
131 Fix the building permit issuance process. I am only hearing how awful it
is from everyone
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 24
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
132
Of course the effectiveness of our basic services, street repairs, and
public services (especially fire/polce/emergency) are extremely
important and should be supported as needed. Once those are
reasonably sound, street repairsI would like to see Palo Alto learn from
the Los Altos downtown model which seems to prioritize a healthier,
more balanced, flexible business model that offers its citizens a richer
interaction and connection with the community. I often shop in Los
Altos for the fabric store, knitting shop, bakery, bookstore, pet store,
skate shop, etc. It is difficult that PA is larger and has several shopping
areas--T&C, Midtown, downtown, and Cal Ave, but looking at these
resources from a comprehensive perspective--which perhaps you have
done--would be a useful embedded/ongoing process. Expanding
resources for our high school teens is a rich area to explore--a space
where teens can play games, eat, make music, study, take classes, etc.
would be a tremendous addition. The MP teen space might be
successful for younger ones but it doesn't capture the needs of our
older teens. Perhaps we need to find someone who is interested in
being a benefactor in the vein of Anne Wojcicki
(https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/16/anne-
wojcicki-makes-it-official-im-behind-los.html)? I am afraid if we leave
the market to dictate the business offerings--especially on California
Ave--we will see a continued decline in utility of, connection with, and
income from our downtown businesses.
What are the basic services? How does the distribution of our funds
compare with other comparable and vibrant cities--eg, what
percentage of the budget goes to youth programs, safety, road repairs,
etc.?
133 What is the city's growth plan
134
Palo alto and the county, state and country need to disallow foreign
realestate investment. It is not acceptable that non US citizens
determine what gets developed. This leads to homelessness and
barren cities without amentities citizens need.
The entire basis of the cities revenues is built on hotel taxes and no one
uses hotels but AirBnB. We need to restructure the finances so that
sound reliable income streams can fund basic services reliably. The
pandemic taught us that travel and tourism is completely optional.
Something more stable such as sales tax or property tax is required.
Energy taxes may also be required.
135
Stop water fluoridation. It's a toxin and proved to lower baby's IQ.
Please repair the gap of side walks. I tripped and took a fall and
injured.
136 gigabit municipal fiber to every house
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 25
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
137 Improve electrical infrastructure
Don’t spend money on fiber services
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 26
Comments from Feedback Mailer
The following comments were submitted in response to the comments section of the mailed version of the survey with a
perforated tear-off postcard to mail back to the City.
Written
Comment # Comment
1 Continue working on Airplane noise solutions
2 Traffic safety: Too many drivers ignore stop signs.
3 1 - Dramatically reduce pollution footprint
4 Just tarmacing street doesn't clear bumps under it. Bad for backs! S.P. Alto, Middlefield
5 The one about "community-owned assets" is very confusing.
6 More street lights in neighborhood
7 Finish putting utility wires underground across all Palo Alto
8 Build trash-to-energy converter @ Baylands
9 My granddaughter is a TEACHER and can't afford to live here most important teacher housing is no
the very unacceptable answer
10 What about sustainability. 0.5) What about green initiatives & sustainability
11 The condition of many roads in Palo Alto is terrible
12 What about code enforcement?
13 The rest are so nebulous, it's impossible to make a intelligent choice
14 We need CITY-FUNDED TREE service!
15 We should allow Castilleja to build & grow
16 Top city priorities should be: police/paramedics (emergency response), utilities (public works)
17 Animal shelter/spaying
18 What does our #6 above really mean?
19 More pickleball courts!
20 Sustainability, climate change plans etc.
21 We live in a safe community, housing is a crisis. Allow more housing!
22 On the supply side by greater public ownership, i.e. public banking, ISP etc.
Comment on services: ALL DEMAND SIDE!!!
23
Fix the police! Fire the violent officers who cause the City to be sued!!! No pensions.
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - More mental health services
Adding public safety... - improve training and better screening of the police recruits
24 Foothill Park - take it back!
25 1 - Create more parks & open areas in this crowded city
26 We need to invest in making Palo Alto a more quitable place to live for everyone.
27 I am concerned about the judge who said utilities profits to general fund is a tax!
28 1 - prep for/mitigate/reduce climate change
29 Repair all non-working street intersection cameras
30 Stop leaf blowers (noise pollution
31 Bike friendly improvement and good tree health/canopy
32 Remove overhead utility lines
33 PLEASE SUPPORT THE AIRPORT. THANK YOU.
34
There are far more important city services than fiber-in-the-home!
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - How is this different from all that follow?
Investing in comm..., funding homeless..., improving services...., repairing streets - how are these
different?
35 REAPIRA STREETS – POLICE
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 27
Written
Comment # Comment
36 POLICE LEAF BLOWERS!!!! Bring down sound pollution
37 Especially, longer hours @ Children's Library. Whose expansion was supported thru PALF!
38 We are very disappointed w/ these questions. They are so vague. For example what does expanding
services mean? What's the difference between #7 and #4 for roads?
39 Issues like crime + roads - which you ignore for libraries. Who uses a library?
40 Lucie Stern Community Center needs attention please.
41 Investing in community owned assets like community centers - particularly Lucie Stern
42 Why to roads appear twice on the list? Please define basic services versus city services.
43
Add speedbumps, reduce speeding cars.
What does expanding City services mean?
Community owned assets are already great.
City has already great work in affordable housing and homeless service area.
Put up speed limit signs.
Reduce residential and personal safety crimes (for police)
44 No to expanding City services and funding affordable housing and homeless services.
Stop police radio encryption (Number 1 - more transparency)
45 Fix Churchill bike lanes at Alma
46 Install smart meters and help with solar installs
If you want to known "improvement needed?" why "maintain?"
47 The City needs to address excessive noise from airplanes. Fun this! Top priority!
48 More active policing. Less value futurism
49 Expanding project safety net to include mental health services for adults + youth
50 1 - Fiber to the home from City Muni Internet
51 Please preserve Cal Ave as a No-Car area
52
#1 Priority: Traffic safety kids/teen bike safety - much more police vigilance needed.
Comments on services:
Cut down semis + tractor trailers off our streets!!!
Road safety standards have decreased appallingly in 3-5 years
53 1 - Fix the railroad level crossings!
54 NOT "defund" but "redesign" w/ social services
55 Maintain tree + flower beds on corners (like the 70's + 80's)
56 These streets are the worse/El Camino need ASAP atten
57 Resolve/improve traffic problem on El Camino & Embarcadero - Alma, etc.
58 Resume shuttle
59 Emergency vehicles are very noisy on Middlefield. Cut back on sirens - only use when absolutely
necessary. Residences are affected by noise level.
60 I value & appreciate services that are currently provided. Thank you.
61 Please less construction! It obstructs traffic
62 WORK ON OPPOSING THE NEW IDEA OF ALLOWING 4 HOUSES ON A 50x100 Sq.ft.std LOT
63 Comments on Services:
Maintaining basic services - roads
64 Stop the stack & pack housing, you only get so many people. Get homeless off the street rehab
programs
65 Lack of P.A. employees & using contractors has lead to lack of a or terrible service. Are the plans to
hire people instead.
66 Stop racism - no firmament action
67 Cubberley
68 How many existing City positions are currently unfilled?
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 28
Written
Comment # Comment
69 Castilleja? Why?
Palo Alto takes too long to make decisions on everything.
70 Don't add new things, first improve existing services. Reduce costs, simplify.
Programs like Citywide yard sale are excellent.
71 Please maintain service at College Terrace Library.
72 Removing the entrance fee to Foothills Park!
73 Invest in prepaid questionnaire returns
74 Public safety number 1 always; streets and roads number 2
75 Keep libraries open 7 days a week
(down arrow) police support
76 Getting rid of gas powered leaf blowers - priority for climate change, pollution, and public health.
Specifically repair and preservation at Lucy Stern
77 Please please improve the dumping of things in streets/yards, especially El Camino
78 Don't we already have public safety? How about "improve"
Funding - esp homeless services
79 Should not group public safety services together - need more police not fire.
80 The liquid amber trees are dangerous. They need to be trimmed or replaced. Esp. dangerous for
people on the street walking
81 3 - More concerts in the park
82
#1 Priority - Airplane noise needs to go!! Quality of life has suffered!!
Comments on Services
Tree maintenance-city trees
83
Please do what you can to stop the release of feral cats in any community
Comments on Services
Maintaining basic service - unnecessary waste of water for lawns is of great concern. Runoff is
noticeable on a daily basis.
Expanded City services - such as processing permits and timely inspections.
84
The roundabouts and islands built, e.g. along Ross Rd., are incompetently designed and constitute a
danger to the public, cyclists especially.
Comments on Services
Maintaining basic services - sewage, utilities, street sweeping
85 All of the above are important!
86 Pay attention to traffic airplane over the city. Residents should be informed and have input in projects
like Rinconada park that seems to a big budget and not aesthetically fitting in the park.
87 El Camino is in terrible condition south of Stanford! Please fix.
88 Enforce codes with fines. Need more housing. Crack down on short-term (<30 day) rental of homes
(400+ AirB+B homes)
89 Skip the BS about airplane noise or close PA Airport
90
When it rains, the sewers/drains get backed up and flood sidewalks, it has been happening for years -
when will this get fixed??
Unclog street drains! Downtown South Forest Ave odd #s side of street
91 Diverse training in case of earthquakes for elders in different languages
92 Midtown trees removed; not replaced
Restore basic services first
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 29
Written
Comment # Comment
improving services - tree services
tree planting and maintenance in midtown
93 Please do not continue to increase utility rates. Do not start charging for electricity based on time of
day usage.
94 Mental health programs. Make a natural swimming place in Foothill Park or Arastradero - instead of
only concrete swimming pools.
95 Please crack down on crime.