Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-01-30 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RETREAT January 30, 2016 Special Meeting Mitchell Park Community Center El Palo Alto Room 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto 9:00 AM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 February 8, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. 8:30 AM Welcome: Coffee, Breakfast and Gathering 9:00 AM Call to Order 9:00 AM Mayor’s Welcome and Overview of the Day 9:10 AM Oral Communications 9:25 AM 1.FY 2016 Performance Report and National Citizen Survey (Continued From January 25, 2016) 10:10 AM Break 10:20 AM 2.Council Annual Priorities Settings A. Process Foundation B. Public Comment C. Individual Nominees (Council Member Explanations) Public Comment Public Comment on Council Priorities 2 February 8, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. D. Action: Final Grouping into Priorities, Vote and Approval 11:30 AM Working Lunch 3.Priorities and Staff Work Plan: Getting the Work Done A. Council’s Priorities Projects B. Discussion of Topics for Special Committee of the Whole and Council Study Sessions It is hoped that Priorities Setting and Work Plan review will inform a productive discussion about changes that could enhance Council decisions and Staff work. Follow-up action at a subsequent Council Meeting may be necessary. 1:45 PM 4.Adoption of a Resolution Setting the Council’s Summer Break and Winter Closure 1:50 PM 5.Wrap-Up and Next Steps Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 11:45 AM CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR January 25, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California FY 2015 Performance Report, The National Citizen Survey™, and Citizen Centric Report NOTE: This item may be moved to the Council retreat agenda on January 30, 2016. The Office of the City Auditor presents the 14th annual performance report for the City of Palo Alto, The National Citizen Survey™, and the Citizen Centric Report covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 (FY 2015). The performance report is designed to provide information to the City Council, management, and the public to increase accountability and the transparency of City government. It contains summary information on spending, staffing, workload, and performance results for fiscal years 2006 through 2015. Chapter 1 provides citywide spending and staffing information, Chapter 2 provides citywide information based on themes and subthemes, and Chapter 3 provides information on a department‐by‐department basis. The departments provided us with data specific to their departments, and we collected financial and staffing data from various city documents and the Office of Management and Budget in the Department of Administrative Services and benchmarking data from various external sources. The National Citizen Survey™ is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc., (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association. The NRC uses a statistically valid survey methodology to gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and services provided by the local government. The report includes trends over time, comparisons by geographic subgroups, benchmarks to other communities, responses 10 custom questions and one open-ended question, and details about the survey methodology. The Citizen Centric Report is a four-page summary of highlights in the performance report, financial data, and an overview of our City's economic outlook. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: FY 2015 Performance Report (PDF) Attachment B: FY 2015 National Citizen Survey (PDF) Attachment C: FY 2015 Citizen Centric Report (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 3 OUR MISSION: The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our community, our goal is to deliver cost‐effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. Attachment A 1 Attachment A 2 Chapter 2 Themes and Subthemes Stewardship Financial Responsibility Environmental Sustainability Neighborhood Preservation Public Service Emergency Services Utility Services Internal City Services Community Safety, Health, and Well Being Mobility Density and Development Community Involvement Attachment A 3 Performance Measure Title Graphic Benchmark or Performance Measure Title Graphic Performance Measure Title Graphic By the Numbers Workload Indicator Workload Indicator Workload Indicator Workload Indicator Attachment A CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND Citywide Spending and Staffing ……………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………… 5 CHAPTER 2: THEMES AND SUBTHEMES Stewardship Financial Responsibility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 8 Neighborhood Preservation ………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Environmental Sustainability ……..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Public Service Public Safety Service Responsiveness ……………..……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 Utility Service Responsiveness …………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 Internal City Service Responsiveness …………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 Community Community Involvement and Enrichment ………….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 19 Safety, Health, and Well‐Being …….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Density and Development ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 Mobility ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 CHAPTER 3: DEPARTMENT DATA TABLES Citywide …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Community Services ……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Development Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Information Technology ………...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Library Department ………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35 Planning and Community Environment ………………………………………………………………….………………………………………… 37 Public Safety – Fire Department ……………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… 39 Public Safety – Office of Emergency Services …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42 Public Safety – Police Department …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43 Public Works Department ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46 Utilities Department ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 Strategic and Support Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 Office of Council‐Appointed Officers ………….………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 Administrative Services Department ………..………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57 People Strategy and Operations Department ………...……………………………………………………………………………………… 58 Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s 4 Attachment A Authorized Staffing Source: Administrative Services Department Organizational Chart Palo Alto residents elect nine members to the City Council. Council Members serve staggered four‐year terms. The Council appoints a number of boards and commissions, and each January, the Council elects a new Mayor and Vice‐Mayor. Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. 5Ch a p t e r 1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing General Fund Employee Costs (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department 1,160 1,168 1,150 1,150 1,114 1,115 1,129 1,147 1,153 0 500 1,000 1,500 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Regular Temporary 53 . 9 57 . 3 59 . 6 56 . 6 55 . 8 54 . 4 53 . 5 55 . 5 57 . 7 4. 0 4. 2 3. 7 4. 5 4. 1 5. 4 3. 7 4. 7 4. 6 26 . 1 29 . 8 28 . 3 30 . 9 34 . 2 36 . 9 37 . 7 38 . 8 40 . 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Salaries/Wages Overtime Benefits Attachment A Source of FY 2015 General Fund Revenues Source: Administrative Services Department 6Ch a p t e r 1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing Use of FY 2015 General Fund Dollars (shown on a budgetary basis) Source: Administrative Services Department $102,530,61 7 60% $19,678,146 11% $15,451,997 9% $14,918,997 9% $10,314,291 6% $8,611,445 5% Salary & Benefits Transfer to Infrastructure Allocated Charges Contract Services General Expense All Other Expenses $34,116,747 18% $29,675,408 16% $25,408,852 14%$17,796,222 10% $14,910,801 8% $16,699,331 9% $10,861,304 6% $10,416,496 6% $10,050,841 5% $7,621,113 4% 7,667,295 4% Property Taxes Sales Taxes Charges for Services Operating Transfers‐In Rental Income Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Charges to Other Funds Documentary Transfer Tax Permits and Licenses All Other Revenues Attachment A Capital Outlay – Governmental Funds (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department 7Ch a p t e r 1 Ba c k g r o u n d Citywide Spending and Staffing Capital Expenditures –Enterprise Funds (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department $2 1 . 6 $2 1 . 5 $2 2 . 0 $3 5 . 5 $2 9 . 2 $2 9 . 5 $3 7 . 6 $4 5 . 4 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 $3 6 . 1 $3 6 . 2 $2 9 . 7 $2 4 . 4 $2 7 . 6 $4 0 . 7 $3 7 . 1 $2 9 . 5 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 5 General Fund Projects With Highest Actual Costs in FY 2015 Main Library New Construction Street Maintenance Mitchell Park Library California Avenue Transit Hub Magical Bridge Playground 5 Enterprise Fund Projects With Highest Actual Costs in FY 2015 Gas Main Replacements Projects Electric System Improvement Electric Customer Connections Refuse Landfill Closure Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment Replacement Attachment A Cash and Investments and Rate of Return Source: Administrative Services Department Citywide Operating Expenditures Budget to Actual by Department Source: Office of Management and Budget 8Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Financial Responsibility Utility Average Purchase Costs (per unit) Source: Utilities Department 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Cash and investments Rate of return United States Treasury's 5‐year Average Yields $‐ $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 Budget Actual Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s De v e l o p m e n t Se r v i c e s Fi r e Li b r a r y No n d e p a r t m e n t a l OE S PC E Po l i c e Pu b l i c Wo r k s Op e r a t i n g Tr a n s f e r s ‐Ou t Tr a n s f e r s to In f r a s t r u c t r e St r a t e g i c & Su p p o r t Se r v i c e s Attachment A History of Average Monthly Residential Bills Source: Utilities Department 9Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Financial Responsibility Utility Fund Reserves (in millions) Source: Administrative Services Department $158 $174 $193 $206 $211 $213 $230 $232 $240 $237 $0 $100 $200 $300 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Refuse Storm Drainage Wasterwater Collection Water Gas Electric User Tax $216 $217 $217 $199 $210 $224 $228 $232 $231 $153 ‐$100 $0 $100 $200 $300 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Refuse Storm Drainage Waterwater Collection Water Gas Electric Attachment A Street Lane Miles Resurfaced Source: Public Works Department Number of Potholes Repaired and Percentage Repaired Within 15 Days of Notification Source: Public Works Department 10Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 7% Percent of the City’s total 471 lane miles resurfaced in FY 2015, which decreased by 1% point from FY 2014 3,294 Number of signs repaired or replaced, which increased 26% from FY 2014 and increased 88% from FY 2006 51% Citizen Survey: Street repair rated as “excellent” or “good” in FY 2015, compared to 55% in FY 2013 and benchmarked as similar to other jurisdictions 79 2015 Pavement Condition Index score rated as “good” in maintaining local street and road networks, based on a scale of 0 to 100 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) CY 2014 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: MTC – Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions CY 2014 1, 0 4 9 1, 1 8 8 1, 9 7 7 3, 7 2 7 3, 1 4 9 2, 9 8 6 3, 0 4 7 2, 7 2 6 3, 4 1 8 2, 4 8 7 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Number repaired Percent repaired within 15 days 59 67 70 73 74 76 76 79 79 *East Palo Alto Cupertino Mountain View Santa Clara Milpitas *Menlo Park Sunnyvale *Redwood City Palo Alto 20 32 27 23 32 29 40 36 36 31 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Street lane miles resurfaced % of street lane miles resurfaced PCI Rating Scale:0‐24 25‐49 50‐59 Failed Poor At Risk 60‐69 70‐79 80‐100 Fair Good Very Good ‐Excellent •San Mateo County cities Attachment A Sidewalk Replaced or Permanently Repaired and Percentage of Temporary Sidewalk Repairs Completed Within 15 Days of Initial Inspection Source: Public Works Department Trees Maintained and Serviced Source: Public Works Department 11Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 305 Number of trees planted, which include trees planted by Canopy volunteers, achieving the 250 target 28% Percent of trees trimmed to clear power lines, achieving the 25% target 75% Citizen Survey: Street cleaning rated as “excellent” or “good” in FY 2015, compared to 80% in FY 2014; benchmarked as similar to other jurisdictions 62% Citizen Survey: Sidewalk maintenance rated as “excellent” or “good” in FY 2015, same as FY 2014; benchmarked as similar to other jurisdictions Percent of All Sweeping Routes Completed (Residential and Commercial) Source: Public Works Department 34 , 8 4 1 34 , 5 5 6 35 , 3 2 2 35 , 2 5 5 35 , 4 7 2 33 , 1 4 6 35 , 3 2 4 35 , 3 8 3 35 , 3 8 6 35 , 2 8 1 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Total number of City‐maintained trees Number of all tree‐related services completed 93 % 90 % 92 % 88 % 92 % 90 % 93 % 95 % 10 0 % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 87 % 98 % 88 % 86 % 78 % 83 % 82 % 95 % 79 % 68 % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Percent of temporary sidewalk repairs completed Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired Attachment A Library Visits and Checkouts Source: Library Department Map of Library Branch Locations 12Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 51,792 Number of cardholders, which increased 10% from FY 2014 and decreased 7% from FY 2006 11,334 Total library hours open annually, which ranged from 8,855 to 11,822 from FY 2006 to FY 2015, and increased 8% from FY 2006 64% Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders, which increased 6% from FY 2014 and increased 2% from FY 2006 4,339 Meeting room reservations, which increased 322% from FY 2014 and increased 413% from FY 2012 Comparison of Library Checkouts Per Capita Source: California State Library Public Library Statistics 2013‐2014 22.0 20.9 20.5 20.4 20.3 18.7 18.4 16.8 Mountain View Redwood City Menlo Park Palo Alto Burlingame Santa Clara Sunnyvale Berkeley 0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Checkouts Visits Attachment A Urban Forest: Percent Pruned and Tree Line Cleared Source: Public Works Department Community Services: Parks/Land Maintained (Acres) Source: Community Services Department 13Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Neighborhood Preservation By the Numbers 169,653 Visitors at Foothills Park, which decreased 15% from FY 2014 and increased 33% from FY 2006 310 Participants in community garden program, which increased 6% from FY 2014 and increased 39% from FY 2006 94% Citizen Survey: Visited a neighborhood park or City park at least once in the last 12 months 118,390 Number of native plants in restoration projects, which increased 87% from FY 2014 and increased 663% from FY 2006 Citizen Survey: Visited a Neighborhood Park or City Park Source: 2015 National Citizen SurveyTM 48% 46% 49% 41% 42% 46% 62% 62% 45% 48% 45% 50% 53% 47% 29% 32% 7% 6% 6% 9% 5% 6% 9% 6% FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 More than once a month Once a month or less Not at all 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of tree line cleared 181 165 31 43 11 26 5 0 100 200 Go l f Co u r s e Ur b a n / N e i g h b o r h o o d Pa r k s Ci t y Fa c i l i t i e s Sc h o o l At h l e t i c Fi e l d s Ut i l i t y Si t e s Me d i a n St r i p s Bu s i n e s s Di s t r i c t s an d Pa r k i n g Lo t s Attachment A Green Building with Mandatory Regulations Source: Development Services Department Tons of Waste Landfilled and Tons of Materials Recycled or Composted (excluding self‐hauled) Sources: Public Works Department, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 14Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Environmental Sustainability By the Numbers 50,546 Tons of materials recycled or composted (i.e., do not end up in a landfill), increased 2% from FY 2014 and decreased 10% from FY 2006 3,958,713 Green Building energy savings per year in Kilo British Thermal Units, which increased 26% from FY 2014 4,767 Number of households participating in the Household Hazardous Waste program, which decreased 2% from FY 2014 and increased 8% from FY 2006 28% Percent of commercial accounts with compostable service, which increased 8% from FY 2014 Total Water Processed and Recycled Source: Public Works Department 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Tons of materials recycled or composted Tons of waste landfilled 8, 9 7 2 8, 8 5 3 8, 5 1 0 7, 9 5 8 8, 1 8 4 8, 6 5 2 8, 1 3 0 7, 5 4 6 7, 1 8 6 6, 5 1 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Mi l l i o n s of ga l l o n s of re c y c l e d wa t e r de l i v e r e d Mi l l i o n s of ga l l o n s pr o c e s s e d Millions of gallons processed Millions of gallons of recycled water delivered 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Valuation Square feet Sq u a r e fe e t in th o u s a n d s Do l l a r s in mi l l i o n s Attachment A Water Conservation Expenditures and Savings Source: Utilities Department Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures and Savings Source: Utilities Department 15Ch a p t e r 2 St e w a r d s h i p Environmental Sustainability By the Numbers 22% Percent of qualifying renewable electricity, including biomass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities, solar, and wind, which increased 14% from FY 2006 0 Metric tons of electric supply carbon dioxide emissions in FY 2015; the carbon neutral plan effectively eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions from the City’s electric supply 31 Average residential water usage in hundred cubic feet per capita, which decreased 19% from FY 2014 and decreased 27% from FY 2006 Gas Energy Efficiency Program Expenditures Savings Source: Utilities Department 0. 5 % 0. 6 % 0. 7 % 1. 5 % 0. 9 % 0. 9 % 0. 6 % 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Sa v i n g s (% of to t a l sa l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s (i n mi l l i o n s ) First‐year energy savings achieved through electric efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 0. 2 8 % 0. 4 0 % 0. 5 5 % 0. 7 3 % 1. 3 9 % 1. 3 4 % 0. 9 0 % $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% Ex p e n d i t u r e s (i n mi l l i o n s ) Sa v i n g s (% of to t a l sa l e s ) First‐year gas savings achieved through gas efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Gas energy conservation/efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 1. 0 % 1. 4 % 0. 5 % 1. 1 % 0. 5 % 0. 6 % 1. 1 % 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Sa v i n g s (% of to t a l sa l e s ) Ex p e n d i t u r e s (i n mi l l i o n s ) First‐year water savings achieved through efficiency programs as a percentage of total sales Water efficiency program expenditures (in millions) 127 Average residential gas usage in therms per capita, which decreased by 18% from FY 2014 and decreased 32% from FY 2006 Attachment A Animal Services: Number of Palo Alto Live Calls Responded to Within 45 Minutes Source: Police Department Fire: Number of Medical/Rescue Incidents to Response Time Source: Police Department 16Ch a p t e r 2 Pu b l i c Se r v i c e Responsiveness – Public Safety Services By the Numbers 81 Number of hazardous materials incidents, which increased 11% from FY 2014 and increased 80% from FY 2006 89% Police Department nonemergency calls responded to within 45 minutes, which decreased 1% from FY 2014 and decreased 6% from FY 2006 73% Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds, which decreased 4% from FY 2014 91% Percent of code enforcement cases resolved within 120 days, which increased 2% from FY 2014 and decreased 3% from FY 2006 Police: Calls for Service and Response Time Source: Police Department 3, 7 8 0 3, 9 5 1 4, 5 5 2 4, 5 0 9 4, 4 3 2 4, 5 2 1 4, 5 8 4 4, 7 1 2 4, 7 5 7 5, 2 7 0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Re s p o n s e ti m e in mi n u t e s In c i d e n t s Number of medical/rescue incidents Average response time for medical/rescue calls 2, 8 6 1 2, 9 9 0 3, 0 5 9 2, 8 7 3 2, 6 9 2 2, 8 0 4 3, 0 5 1 2, 9 0 9 2, 3 9 8 20 1 3 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Number of Palo Alto animal services calls Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service responded to within 45 minutes 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00 20:00 25:00 Po l i c e Re s p o n s e s Mi n u t e s Total nonemergency calls Total emergency calls Total urgent calls Avg emergency response (minutes) Avg urgent response (minutes)Avg nonemergency response (minutes) Attachment A Water Service Disruptions Source: Utilities Department Electric Service Interruptions Source: Utilities Department 17Ch a p t e r 2 Pu b l i c Se r v i c e Responsiveness – Utility Services By the Numbers 72,587 Total number of electric, gas, and water customer accounts Electric – 29,065 Gas – 23,461 Water – 20,061 380 fewer accounts than FY 2014 39 Average power outage duration in minutes per customer affected, same as FY 2014 249 Number of gas leaks found, 61 ground leaks and 188 meter leaks, a decrease of 40% and 37%, respectively, from FY 2014 241 Unplanned water service outages, which is a decrease of 74% from FY 2014 Gas Service Disruptions Source: Utilities Department 39 48 41 28 20 33 25 25 16 17 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Av g mi n u t e s pe r cu s t o m e r af f e c t e d Se r v i c e in t e r r u p t i o n s ov e r on e mi n u t e Service interruptions over 1 minute Avg minutes per customer affected 21 1 30 7 10 5 76 6 93 9 11 4 11 1 26 5 28 5 19 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Nu m b e r of un p l a n n e d se r v i c e di s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r of cu s t o m e r s af f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions 16 0 78 3 37 4 23 0 29 1 92 70 95 0 94 2 24 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Nu m b e r of un p l a n n e d se r v i c e di s r u p t i o n s Nu m b e r of cu s t o m e r s af f e c t e d Total customers affected Number of unplanned service disruptions Attachment A Information Technology: Percent of Service Desk Requests Resolved Source: Information Technology Department City Attorney: Percent of Claims Resolved Within 45 Days of Filing Source: Office of the City Attorney 18Ch a p t e r 2 Pu b l i c Se r v i c e Responsiveness –Internal City Services By the Numbers 99 Number of claims handled by the Office of the City Attorney in FY 2014, which increased 27% from FY 2014 1,707 Number of purchasing documents processed; $129.3 million in goods and services purchased 1,366 Workers’ Compensation days lost to work‐related illness or injury in FY 2015, which decreased 23% from FY 2014 52% Percent of information technology security incidents remediated within one day in FY 2015, which increased 24% from FY 2014 City Auditor: Percent of Open Recommendations Implemented Over the Last 5 Years Source: Office of the City Auditor 92% 95% 92% 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 40% 42% 39% 49% 42% 43% 42% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Over 5 days Within 5 days Within 8 hours Within 4 hours At time of call 9,460 9,734 9,348 9,855 Attachment A Number of Participants in Teen Programs Source: Library Department Community Services and Library Volunteer Hours Sources: Community Services and Library Departments 19Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Community Involvement and Enrichment By the Numbers 180,074 Number of titles in library collection, which increased 4% from FY 2014 and increased 10% from FY 2006 2 Average business days for new library materials to be available for customer use, which remained constant from FY 2014 and improved 78% from FY 2010 1,048 Number of library programs offered, which increased 31% from FY 2014 and increased 86% from FY 2006 44,892 Library program attendance, which increased 18% from FY 2014 and increased 46% from FY 2006 Community Services: Total Enrollment in Classes/Camps Source: Community Services Department 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Restorative/resource management projects Neighborhood parks Library Community Theatre Art Center 1,549 1,573 1,906 2,211 1,188 2,746 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Attachment A Animal Services: Percent of Cats and Dogs Recovered and Returned to Owner Source: Police Department Fire: Safety Presentations, Including Demonstrations and Fire Station Tours Source: Fire Department 20Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Community Involvement and Enrichment By the Numbers 2,143 Police Department number of animals handled, which decreased 14% from FY 2014 and decreased 44% from FY 2006 47 Emergency Operations Center activations/deployments, which increased 81% from FY 2014 8 Police Department average number of officers on patrol, which has remained constant from FY 2006 47 Office of Emergency Services emergency operations center activations/deployments, which increased 81% from FY 2014 Police: Citizen Commendations Received Source: Police Department 115 126 95 88 218 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Percent of dogs received by shelter and returned to owner Percent of cats received by shelter and returned to owner 14 4 12 1 14 1 12 4 15 6 14 9 13 7 14 7 15 3 13 5 0 50 100 150 200 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 15 Target: >150 Attachment A Code Enforcement: Number of New Cases Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Police: Number and Types of Cases Source: Police Department 21Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Safety, Health, and Well‐Being By the Numbers 28,714 Fire public demo and station tour participants, which increased 473% from FY 2014 89% Fire Department percent of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected, which increased 55% from FY 2014 and increased 40% from FY 2006 69 Reported crimes per 1,000 residents, which increased 11% from FY 2014 and decreased 18% from FY 2006 1,964 Number of fire inspections completed, which increased 13% from FY 2014 and increased 118% from FY 2006 Net Per Capita Expenditures: Fire, Emergency Medical Services, and Police Source: California State Controller’s Office, U.S. Census Bureau 1,131 1,207 1,464 1,249 1,108 916 1,181 1,191 1,237 0 400 800 1200 1600 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Theft cases closed Homicide cases closed Robbery cases closed Rape cases closed Open cases (all types) $369 $392 $449 $479 $591 $605 $614 $757 Fremont Sunnyvale San Mateo Milpitas Santa Clara Redwood City Mountain View Palo Alto Fire & EMS Police 42 1 36 9 68 4 54 5 68 0 65 2 61 8 68 4 60 9 58 6 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Nu m b e r of ne w ca s e s Note: Palo Alto provides ambulance services as compared to all other jurisdictions listed which receive ambulance services through a county contractor. Attachment A Office of Emergency Services: Presentations, Training Sessions, and Exercises Source: Office of Emergency Services Fire: Number of Licensed Paramedics & Certified Emergency Medical Technicians Source: Fire Department 22Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Safety, Health, and Well‐Being By the Numbers 382 Traffic collisions with injury, which decreased 10% from FY 2014 and decreased 4% from FY 2006 346 Fire Department average training hours per firefighter, which increased 10% from FY 2014 and increased 20% from FY 2006 92% Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin, which increased 29% from FY 2014 and increased 29% from FY 2006 5,270 Number of medical/rescue incidents, which increased 11% from FY 2014 and increased 39% from FY 2006 Police Benchmark: Expenditures Per Capita and Violent and Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents in Calendar Year Source: California State Controller & FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program 36 34 34 49 50 50 5011 3 10 9 10 9 70 61 50 48 0 30 60 90 120 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Number of licensed paramedics Number of certified EMTs $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 0 10 20 30 40 50 Pa l o Al t o Me n l o Pa r k Re d w o o d Ci t y Mo u n t a i n Vi e w Sa n t a Cl a r a Mi l p i t a s Sa n Ma t e o Fr e m o n t Su n n y v a l e Ne t ex p e n d i t u r e s Cr i m e s Property crimes Violent crimes Net expenditures 38 51 184 193 0 50 100 150 200 250 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Attachment A Number of Code Enforcement Cases Closed and Resolved Within 120 Days Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Inspections, Building Permits Issued and Valuation Source: Development Services Department 23Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Completed Planning Applications in FY 2015 Source: Planning & Community Environment Department Density and Development By the Numbers 25 Average number of days to issue 3,844 building permits, which decreased 7% from FY 2014 and 74% from FY 2006 30 1 26 3 66 7 53 5 61 8 60 3 0 0 54 1 51 9 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Resolved within 120 days Resolved within 121+ days Architectural Review Board 51% Individual Review 26% Other 13%Conditional Use 4% Home Improvement Exception 2% Temporary Use & Variances 4% 567 Number of permits routed to all departments with on‐time reviews, which increased 3% from FY 2014 628 Number of permits approved over the counter, which increased 13% from FY 2014 31,000 Number of inspections completed, which remained the same as in FY 2013 and increased 168% from FY 2006 0 300 600 900 1200 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Inspections completed Building permits issued Building permit valuation Nu m b e r of in s p e c t i o n s co m p l e t e d or bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s is s u e d Bu i l d i n g pe r m i t va l u a t i o n (i n mi l l i o n s ) Da t a no t av a i l a b l e Da t a no t av a i l a b l e Attachment A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ratings Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, reported June 2015 Shuttle and Caltrain Boardings Source: Planning & Community Environment Department and Caltrain 24Ch a p t e r 2 Co m m u n i t y Mobility By the Numbers 152,571 Number of shuttle boardings, which increased 14% from FY 2014 and decreased 13% from FY 2006 $1.95 City’s cost per shuttle boarding, which increased 31% from FY 2014 and 2% from FY 2006 8,750 Caltrain average weekday boardings, which increased 16% from FY 2014 and 126% from FY 2006 113 Average number of employees in the City commute program, which was similar to FY 2014 and increased 9% from FY 2006 Citizen Survey: Percent Rating Ease of Transportation “Excellent” or “Good” Source: 2015 National Citizen SurveyTM 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 City Shuttle boardings Caltrain average weekday boardings Ci t y Sh u t t l e Bo a r d i n g s Ca l t r a i n av e r a g e we e k d a y bo a r d i n g s 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Walking Bicycle travel Car travel 72 74 74 78 77 79 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 CY 09 CY 10 CY 11 CY 12 CY 13 CY 14 70‐79 = “Good” 80‐100 = “Very Good‐Excellent”PC I Ra t i n g Note: Reporting changed from 3 year annual average rating to annual rating. Attachment A 25 OVERALL OPERATING EXPENDITURES General Fund (in millions) Community Services Development Services <NEW> Fire 1 Office of Emergency Services1 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Strategic and Support Services2 Non‐ departmental3 Operating transfers out4 Total Enterprise funds (in millions) FY 07 $20.1 ‐$21.6 ‐$5.9 $9.5 $25.9 $12.4 $15.8 $8.5 $12.7 $132.4 $190.3 FY 08 $21.2 ‐$24.0 ‐$6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $17.4 $7.4 $12.9 $141.8 $215.8 FY 09 $21.1 ‐$23.4 ‐$6.2 $9.9 $28.2 $12.9 $16.4 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0 FY 10 $20.5 ‐$27.7 ‐$6.4 $9.4 $28.8 $12.5 $18.1 $8.7 $14.6 $146.9 $218.6 FY 11 $20.1 ‐$28.7 ‐$6.5 $9.6 $31.0 $13.1 $15.9 $7.9 $11.0 $143.7 $214.0 FY 12 $20.9 ‐$28.8 $0.6 $7.1 $10.3 $33.6 $13.2 $17.8 $7.7 $22.1 $162.1 $219.6 FY 13 $21.5 ‐$27.3 $0.8 $6.9 $12.0 $32.2 $13.1 $17.4 $7.8 $25.1 $164.1 $220.5 FY 14 $22.6 ‐$28.2 $0.9 $7.3 $13.3 $33.3 $13.2 $18.3 $8.4 $18.8 $164.3 $226.5 FY 15 $23.0 $9.9 5 $26.2 $1.2 $8.0 $7.4 $34.6 $13.3 $18.4 $7.3 $22.3 $171.5 $236.7 Change from: Last year +2% ‐‐7% +26% +9%‐44% +4% +1% +1%‐13% +18% +4% +5% FY 07 +14% ‐+21%‐+36%‐22% +33% +7% +16%‐14% +75% +30% +24% 1 Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data for the Fire Department was restated to remove OES figures. 2 Includes Offices of Council‐Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, People Strategy and Operations Department, and City Council. 3 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function that typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g., Cubberley lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District). May also include estimated provisions or placeholders for certain revenues and expenditures that can be one time or ongoing. 4 Funds transferred to the Capital Projects, Debt Service, and Technology Internal Service Funds annually. 5 In FY 2015, Development Services fully transitioned to its own department. Expenditures were formerly classified under the Fire, Planning and Community Environment, and Public Works departments. Ci t y w i d e OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA General Fund (in millions) Community Services Development Services <NEW> Fire 1 Office of Emergency Services1 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Strategic and Support Services2 Non‐ departmental3 Operating transfers out4 Total Enterprise funds (in millions) FY 07 $328 ‐$287 ‐$95 $155 $422 $203 $257 $138 $208 $2,092 $3,100 FY 08 $342 ‐$316 ‐$110 $155 $473 $208 $279 $119 $208 $2,210 $3,471 FY 09 $333 ‐$303 ‐$98 $156 $445 $203 $258 $108 $249 $2,152 $3,607 FY 10 $318 ‐$355 ‐$99 $145 $448 $195 $282 $136 $227 $2,206 $3,397 FY 11 $309 ‐$365 ‐$100 $147 $478 $202 $244 $122 $170 $2,138 $3,300 FY 12 $319 ‐$364 $8 $108 $158 $514 $202 $271 $118 $338 $2,399 $3,355 FY 13 $324 ‐$340 $9 $104 $181 $485 $198 $263 $117 $378 $2,400 $3,322 FY 14 $342 ‐$353 $12 $111 $201 $505 $200 $277 $127 $285 $2,412 $3,430 FY 15 $344 $148 $325 $15 $119 $111 $516 $198 $274 $109 $333 $2,492 $3,535 Change from: Last year +1%‐‐8% +25% +7%‐45% +2%‐1%‐1%‐14% +17% +3% +3% FY 07 +5%‐+14%‐+25%‐28% +22%‐2% +7%‐21% +60% +19% +14% 1 Adjusted for the expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data for the Fire Department was restated to remove OES figures. 2 Includes Offices of Council‐Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, People Strategy and Operations Department, and City Council. 3 Includes revenue and expenditure appropriations not related to a specific department or function that typically benefit the City as a whole (e.g., Cubberley lease payments to Palo Alto Unified School District). May also include estimated provisions or placeholders for certain revenues and expenditures that can be one time or ongoing. 4 Funds transferred annually to the Capital Projects, Debt Service, and Technology Internal Service Funds. Mission:The government of the City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our community, our goal is to deliver cost‐effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 26 AUTHORIZED STAFFING Authorized Staffing (FTE1) – General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE1) –Other Funds Community Services Development Services <NEW> Fire Office of Emergency Services Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Strategic and Support Services2 Subtotal Refuse Storm Drainage Wastewater Treatment Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, and Fiber Optics Other 3 Subtotal Total FY 07 148 ‐128 ‐57 55 168 68 100 724 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160 FY 08 147 ‐128 ‐56 54 169 71 108 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 FY 09 146 ‐128 ‐57 54 170 71 102 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150 FY 10 146 ‐127 ‐55 50 167 65 95 705 38 10 70 252 77 446 1,151 FY 11 124 ‐125 ‐52 47 161 60 89 657 38 10 70 263 76 457 1,114 FY 12 123 ‐125 2 54 46 161 57 87 655 38 9 71 263 78 459 1,114 FY 13 126 ‐120 3 58 53 157 59 90 667 26 10 71 269 85 462 1,129 FY 14 134 ‐121 3 57 54 158 60 87 674 22 11 70 272 99 473 1,147 FY 15 138 42 4 108 3 59 29 158 56 91 684 16 10 71 272 100 469 1,153 Change from: Last year +4%‐‐11% 0% +5%‐47% 0%‐7% +4% +2%‐26%‐4% +1%0% +1%‐1% +1% FY 07 ‐7%‐‐15%‐+5%‐48%‐6%‐19%‐10%‐6%‐53% +7% +2%+12% +27% +8%‐1% 1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. 2 Includes Offices of Council‐Appointed Officers, Administrative Services Department, and People Strategy and Operations Department. 3 Includes the Technology and other Internal Service Funds, Airport Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Special Revenue Funds. 4 In FY 2015, the City fully established the Development Services Department by transferring development activity related positions, salaries and benefits costs, and non‐salary expenditures from the Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Fire departments to the Development Services Department. Authorized Staffing (FTE) ‐Citywide General Fund Employee Costs Regular Temporary TOTAL Per 1,000 residents Salaries and wages1 (in millions) Overtime (in millions) Employee benefits (in millions) TOTAL (in millions) Employee benefits rate2 As a percent of total General Fund expenditures FY 07 1,080 80 1,160 18.9 $53.9 $4.0 $26.1 $84.0 48% 63% FY 08 1,077 91 1,168 18.8 $57.3 $4.2 $29.8 $91.3 52% 64% FY 09 1,076 74 1,150 18.1 $59.6 $3.7 $28.3 $91.6 48% 65% FY 10 1,055 95 1,150 17.9 $56.6 $4.5 $30.9 $92.1 55% 63% FY 11 1,019 95 1,114 17.2 $55.8 $4.1 $34.2 $94.2 61% 66% FY 12 1,017 98 1,115 17.0 $54.4 $5.4 $36.9 $96.7 68% 60% FY 13 1,015 114 1,129 17.0 $53.5 $3.7 $37.7 $94.9 71% 58% FY 14 1,020 126 1,147 17.4 $55.5 $4.7 $38.8 $98.9 70% 60% FY 15 1,028 125 1,153 17.2 $57.7 $4.6 $40.2 $102.5 70% 60% Change from: Last year +1%‐1% +1%‐1%+4%‐1%+4%+4%0%0% FY 07 ‐5% +56%‐1%‐9%+7%+14% +54% +22% +21%‐3% 1 Does not include overtime. 2 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund employee benefits as a percent of General Fund salaries and wages, excluding overtime. Ch a p t e r 3 Ci t y w i d e Attachment A 27 CAPITAL SPENDING Governmental Funds (in millions) Enterprise Funds (in millions) Infrastructure reserves Net general capital assets Capital outlay Depreciation Net capital assets Capital expenditures Depreciation FY 07 $15.8 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7 FY 08 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 FY 09 $7.0 $364.3 $21.5 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6 FY 10 $8.6 $376.0 $22.0 $14.4 $450.3 $29.7 $15.3 FY 11 $3.2 $393.4 $35.5 $14.4 $465.7 $24.4 $15.9 FY 12 $12.1 $413.2 $29.2 $16.4 $490.0 $27.6 $16.7 FY 13 $17.5 $428.9 $29.5 $15.9 $522.3 $40.7 $17.6 FY 14 $3.4 $452.6 $37.6 $13.8 $545.5 $37.1 $17.5 FY 15 $9.5 $485.2 $45.4 $15.6 $558.5 $29.5 $18.4 Change from: Last year +180% +7% +21% +13% +2% +2% +5% FY 07 ‐40% +45% +160% +42% +46%‐21% +45% Ch a p t e r 3 Ci t y w i d e Attachment A 28 Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions)1 Authorized Staffing (FTE) Administration and Human Services Arts and Sciences Open Space, Parks, and Golf Recreation Services Total 2 CSD expenditures per capita Total revenues3 (in millions) Total Temporary Temporary as a percent of total Per 1,000 residents FY 06 ‐$4.0 ‐‐$19.5 $318 $6.9 146.2 47.9 33% 2.4 FY 07 ‐$3.9 ‐‐$20.1 $328 $7.1 148.2 48.9 33% 2.4 FY 08 ‐$4.1 ‐ ‐$21.2 $342 $7.4 146.7 49.4 34% 2.4 FY 09 $3.9 $4.6 $6.5 $6.3 $21.2 $333 $7.1 145.9 49.4 34% 2.3 FY 10 $4.2 $4.6 $5.8 $5.8 $20.5 $319 $7.3 146.4 52.1 36% 2.3 FY 11 $4.2 $4.5 $5.7 $5.7 $20.1 $310 $7.2 123.8 49.3 40% 1.9 FY 12 $2.9 $4.6 $8.2 $5.2 $20.9 $319 $6.8 123.5 48.7 39% 1.9 FY 13 $3.1 $4.5 $8.7 $5.1 $21.6 $325 $7.3 125.5 51.8 41% 1.9 FY 14 $3.5 $4.9 $9.0 $5.1 $22.5 $341 $6.9 133.5 59.2 44% 2.0 FY 15 $3.8 $5.0 $8.9 $5.3 $23.0 $344 $6.8 138.3 62.5 45% 2.1 Change from: Last year +8% +3%‐1% +4% +2% +1%‐2% +4% +6% +1% +2% FY 06 ‐+27%‐‐+18%+8%‐1%‐5% +30% +12%‐13% 1 Comparable numbers for some years were not available in the City’s Operating Budgets due to reorganizations. 2 The amount reflects total operating expenditures for the department, including the expenditures of all operating divisions. 3 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district. DEPARTMENTWIDE CLASSES Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment 1 Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool Total Summer Camps and Aquatics Kids (excluding camps) Adults Preschool Total (Target: 16,400) Percent of class registrations online (Target: 57%) Percent of class registrants who are nonresidents FY 06 153 235 294 160 842 5,906 4,604 5,485 3,628 19,623 41%15% FY 07 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42%13% FY 08 151 253 327 143 874 5,883 4,824 4,974 3,337 19,018 43%15% FY 09 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45%13% FY 10 162 308 325 153 948 5,974 4,373 4,190 2,829 17,366 55%14% FY 11 163 290 283 142 878 5,730 4,052 3,618 2,435 15,835 52%14% FY 12 155 279 203 148 785 5,259 4,136 2,688 2,667 14,750 51%12% FY 13 152 235 258 139 784 5,670 3,962 2,461 2,155 14,248 54%12% FY 14 170 301 202 143 816 6,210 4,028 2,274 2,135 14,647 55%14% FY 15 169 275 197 115 756 6,169 3,837 2,676 2,140 14,822 64%17% Change from: Last year ‐1%‐9%‐2%‐20%‐7%‐1%‐5% +18% 0% +1% +9%+3% FY 06 +10% +17%‐33%‐28%‐10% +4%‐17%‐51%‐41%‐24% +23%+2% 1 Types of classes offered include arts, sports, swim lessons, nature and outdoors, and recreation. Mission:To engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts, and sciences. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 29 ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION –PERFORMING ARTS Children's Theatre Community Theatre Total (Children's and Community Theatres) Number of performances1 <NEW> Attendance at performances Participants in performances and programs Enrollment in music and dance classes2 Enrollment in theatre classes, camps, and workshops3 Outside funding <NEW> Number of performances Attendance at performances Number of performances <NEW> Attendance at performances <NEW> FY 06 135 22,788 1,670 1,416 597 ‐183 55,204 318 77,992 FY 07 139 23,117 1,845 1,195 472 ‐171 45,571 310 68,688 FY 08 147 19,811 1,107 982 407 ‐166 45,676 313 65,487 FY 09 134 14,786 534 964 334 ‐159 46,609 293 61,395 FY 10 153 24,983 555 980 1,436 ‐174 44,221 327 69,204 FY 11 165 27,345 1,334 847 1,475 ‐175 44,014 340 71,359 FY 12 160 27,907 1,087 941 1,987 $99,310 175 45,635 335 73,542 FY 13 173 25,675 1,220 1,131 1,824 $54,390 184 45,966 357 71,641 FY 14 150 31,337 1,360 2,037 2,148 $113,950 108 41,858 258 73,195 FY 15 222 33,926 1,401 3,323 3,092 $153,973 172 42,126 394 76,052 Change from: Last year +48% +8%+3% +63%+44% +35% +59% +1% +53% +4% FY 06 +64% +49%‐16% +135%+418%‐‐6%‐24% +24%‐2% 1 The increase in FY 2015 is due to expanded education programs, Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre partnering presentations, Teen Arts Council performances, and additional student matinees. 2 One program started offering classes on a drop‐in basis in FY 2013. The enrollment for this program was calculated by dividing the number of drop‐in participants by eight, which is a typical number of classes offered per registration. The department attributes the increase to an expansion of classes taught at schools. 3 The department attributes the increase to a shift in emphasis from performance to education to promote a philosophy of life‐long skills. ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION ‐MUSEUMS Art Center1 Public Art Junior Museum & Zoo Science Interpretation Exhibition visitors2 Total attendance (users) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children) Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! and outreach Number of new public art installations Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps Estimated number of children participating in school outreach programs Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach classes for school‐age children Enrollment in open space interpretive classes FY 06 19,448 73,305 4,137 $284,838 6,191 4 1,832 2,414 48 1,280 FY 07 16,191 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 1 1,805 2,532 63 1,226 FY 08 17,198 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 2 2,089 2,722 85 2,689 FY 09 15,830 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 2 2,054 3,300 178 2,615 FY 10 17,244 60,375 3,304 $219,000 8,618 0 2,433 6,971 208 3,978 FY 11 13,471 51,373 2,334 $164,624 6,773 2 1,889 6,614 156 3,857 FY 12 29,717 62,055 905 $193,000 14,238 4 2,575 9,701 131 3,970 FY 13 9,865 72,148 2,222 $206,998 10,472 2 2,363 10,689 136 3,575 FY 14 9,463 82,799 2,802 $156,079 8,873 6 1,935 10,696 112 3,044 FY 15 21,798 91,099 3,220 $200,912 7,386 6 2,670 13,280 122 3,178 Change from: Last year +130% +10% +15% +29%‐17% 0% +38%+24%+9%+4% FY 06 +12% +24%‐22%‐29% +19% +50% +46%+450%+154%+148% 1 The Art Center closed to the public for renovation from May 2011 through October 2012, which accounts for some of the decreases in FY 2011 and FY 2012. Some of the increases in FY 2012 are due to “On the Road” installations and outreach programs in the community. 2 Exhibition visitors include estimated On the Road art installation visitors. Ch a p t e r 3 Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s Attachment A 30 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – OPEN SPACE AND GOLF Open Space Golf Visitors at Foothills Park Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects1 Number of native plants in restoration projects2 Number of rounds of golf Golf Course revenue (in millions) Golf Course operating expenditures (in millions) Golf course debt service (in millions) Net revenue/ (cost) FY 06 127,457 10,738 15,516 76,000 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $148,154 FY 07 140,437 11,380 14,023 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $43,015 FY 08 135,001 13,572 13,893 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 ($23,487) FY 09 135,110 16,169 11,934 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.7 ($326,010) FY 10 149,298 16,655 11,303 69,791 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $76,146 FY 11 181,911 16,235 27,655 67,381 $2.8 $2.0 $0.7 $166,017 FY 12 171,413 16,142 23,737 65,653 $2.7 $1.9 $0.6 $271,503 FY 13 205,507 15,551 46,933 60,153 $2.5 $2.1 $0.4 ($18,179) FY 14 198,814 17,196 63,206 46,527 $1.8 $1.9 $0.4 ($579,000) FY 15 169,653 13,445 118,390 42,048 $1.6 $1.8 $0.4 ($638,000) Change from: Last year ‐15%‐22% +87%‐10%‐11%‐7%0%‐ FY 06 +33% +25% +663%‐45%‐48%‐23%‐29%‐ 1 Includes activities through collaborative partnerships with nonprofit groups such as Save the Bay, and community service hours by court‐referred volunteers. 2 The increase is due to the completion of raised planting beds for the propagation of grasses to be used in the Oro Loma Sanitary District’s horizontal levee construction project. OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DIVISION – PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Maintenance Expenditures Parks and landscape maintenance (in millions) Athletic fields in City parks (in millions) Athletic fields on school district sites1 (in millions) Total (in millions) Per acre Total hours of athletic field usage Number of permits issued for special events Volunteer hours for neighborhood parks Participants in community gardening program FY 06 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $3.7 $14,302 65,791 16 150 223 FY 07 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $3.9 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231 FY 08 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $4.2 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 FY 09 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $4.4 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238 FY 10 $3.0 $0.5 $0.6 $4.1 $15,413 41,705 12 260 238 FY 11 $3.2 $0.4 $0.5 $4.1 $15,286 42,687 25 927 260 FY 12 $3.5 $0.4 $0.6 $4.5 $16,425 44,226 27 1,120 292 FY 13 $3.8 $0.4 $0.6 $4.8 $17,563 N/A 2 47 637 292 FY 14 $4.0 $0.4 $0.6 $5.0 $18,244 N/A 2 36 638 292 FY 15 $3.9 $0.5 $0.7 $5.1 $18,593 47,504 37 551 310 Change from: Last year 0%+13%+7%+2% +2%‐+3%‐14%+6% FY 06 +59%‐24%+1% +35% +30%‐28% +131%+267%+39% 1 Palo Alto Unified School District partially reimburses the City for maintenance costs for the school district sites. 2 According to the department, this measure was not accurately tracked during FY 2013 or FY 2014. Ch a p t e r 3 Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s Attachment A 31 RECREATION SERVICES DIVISION Enrollment in Recreational Classes Cubberley Community Center Dance Recreation Middle school sports Therapeutics Private tennis lessons Total Aquatics Lap and Recreational Pool Visits <NEW> Hours rented Hourly rental revenue (in millions) Number of lease holders Lease revenue (in millions) FY 06 1,326 5,681 1,247 175 234 8,862 ‐38,407 $0.9 38 $1.3 FY 07 1,195 5,304 1,391 228 274 8,617 ‐36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4 FY 08 1,129 4,712 1,396 203 346 7,968 ‐32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5 FY 09 1,075 3,750 1,393 153 444 7,081 ‐34,874 $1.0 37 $1.4 FY 10 972 3,726 1,309 180 460 6,906 ‐35,268 $0.9 41 $1.6 FY 11 889 3,613 1,310 178 362 6,580 ‐30,878 $0.9 48 $1.6 FY 12 886 3,532 1,455 135 240 6,444 ‐29,282 $0.8 33 $1.6 FY 13 1,000 2,776 1,479 167 339 5,928 ‐29,207 $0.9 33 $1.6 FY 14 1,130 2,449 1,443 112 457 5,787 ‐28,086 $0.8 32 $1.7 FY 15 1,120 2,977 1,427 159 661 6,417 34,431 29,209 $0.8 36 $1.7 Change from: Last year ‐1%+22%‐1% +42% +45% +11%‐+4% 0% +13%0% FY 06 ‐16%‐48% +14%‐9% +182%‐28%‐‐24%‐5%‐5% +33% Ch a p t e r 3 Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s Attachment A 32 De v e l o p m e n t Se r v i c e s BUILDING Average days Number of permits routed to all departments with on‐ time reviews Number of permits approved over the counter Number of building permits issued First response to plan checks Issuance of building permits (Target: 30) Permit issuance to final inspection for projects up to $500,000 (Target: 135) Number of inspections completed Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) FY 06 ‐‐3,081 28 98 ‐11,585 $277.0 $4.4 FY 07 ‐‐3,136 27 102 ‐14,822 $298.7 $4.6 FY 08 292 ‐3,046 23 80 ‐22,820 $358.9 $4.2 FY 09 230 394 2,543 31 63 123 17,945 $172.1 $3.6 FY 10 218 326 2,847 30 44 162 15,194 $191.2 $4.0 FY 11 371 532 3,559 35 47 109 16,858 $251.1 $5.6 FY 12 345 644 3,320 22 38 127 18,778 $467.9 $6.8 FY 13 470 602 3,682 24 391 121 24,548 $574.7 $10.1 FY 14 550 557 3,624 23 27 139 31,002 $336.1 $9.3 FY 15 567 628 3,844 23 25 156 31,000 $479.8 $9.4 Change from: Last year +3%+13% +6%0%‐7%+12%0% +43%0% FY 06 ‐‐+25%‐18%‐74%‐168% +73% +111% 1 Prior year correction by the Department. Mission:To provide citizens, business owners, developers, and applicants reliable and predictable expectations in the review, permitting, and inspection of development projects that meet the municipal and building code requirements to safeguard the health, safety, property, and public welfare while working collaboratively with other departments in the City. Ch a p t e r 3 DEPARTMENTWIDE1 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Building Fire GIS Green Building Planning Public Works Total Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 15 $2.0 $4.3 $1.7 $0.1 $0.2 $0.7 $1.0 $9.9 $148 $12.1 42 Change from: Last year ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FY 06 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 In FY 2014, Development Services transitioned to its own department. The FY 2015 Operating Budget document fully established the Development Services Department by transferring development activity related positions, salaries and benefits costs, and non‐salary expenditures from the Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Fire departments to the Development Services Department. Attachment A 33 De v e l o p m e n t Se r v i c e s GREEN BUILDING1 Green Building with mandatory regulations Construction debris for completed projects2 (in tons) Green Building permit applications processed Valuation Square feet Salvaged Recycled Disposed to landfill Energy savings per year3 (in kBtu) FY 09 341 $80,412,694 666,500 67 3,503 575 ‐ FY 10 556 $81,238,249 774,482 69 9,050 1,393 ‐ FY 11 961 $187,725,366 1,249,748 13,004 34,590 4,020 ‐ FY 12 887 $543,237,137 1,342,448 23,617 45,478 5,015 ‐ FY 13 1,037 $569,451,035 2,441,575 9,408 44,221 3,955 1,922,532 FY 14 04 $349,128,085 3,432,025 7,186 38,381 5,421 3,141,510 FY 15 04 $537,328,177 3,982,320 656 93,392 9,067 3,958,713 Change from: Last year ‐4 +54%+16%‐91% +143%+67%+26% FY 09 ‐4 +568%+497%+879% +2,566% +1,477%‐ 1 The Green Building Program was established in FY 2009, and prior year data is not available. 2 For projects requiring either a demolition permit or a building permit with a valuation over $25,000. The Department reports that due to staffing turnover and reorganization, the data may not be complete. Variances may also be due, in part, to a few large projects and a lower minimum reporting requirement for green building projects. 3 Reported in Kilo British Thermal Units. According to the Department, data prior to FY 2013 is either unavailable or inaccurate due to insufficient tracking resulting from staffing changes. 4 Green Building permit applications were no longer processed separately; they became part of the regular plan check process in FY 2014. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 34 In f o r m a t i o n Te c h n o l o g y DEPARTMENTWIDE1 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Information Technology Project Services IT Operations Enterprise Systems Office of the Chief Information Officer Capital Improvement Program2 Total Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of workstations IT expenditures per workstation FY 12 $2.5 $3.0 $1.8 $1.5 $0.8 $9.6 $13.4 34.2 1,100 $4,658 FY 13 $1.7 $3.8 $1.9 $2.5 $3.4 3 $13.3 $17.5 36.7 1,118 $4,548 FY 14 $1.1 $4.6 $2.6 $4.0 $2.0 $14.3 $13.1 34.2 1,286 $4,491 FY 15 $0.6 $6.7 $2.3 $2.8 $1.3 $13.8 $14.5 33.7 1,454 $4,9414 Change from: Last year ‐43% +46%‐9%‐31%‐34%‐4% +10%‐1% +13% +10% FY 12 ‐76% +124% +31% +83% +68% +43% +8%‐1% +32% +6% 1 The Information Technology (IT) Department was established in 2012. Data prior to FY 2012 is generally not available or applicable for comparison. 2 Consistent with the City’s operating budget, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 3 The increase in FY 2013 is due to an increased number of projects, including the upgrade of the City’s telephone system and the replacement of desktop computers with laptops. 4 Increase in workstation costs due to Office 365 licensing, additional City technology contracts and the increased use of temporary staffing. Percent of service desk requests resolved:1 City Staff Survey Number of service desk requests At time of call (Target: 34%) Within 4 hours (Target: 26%) Within 8hours (Target 9%) Within 5 days (Target: 26%) Over 5 days (Target: 5%) Percent of security incidents remediated within 1 day Percent rating IT services as “excellent” (Target: 90%) FY 12 9,460 33% 26% 5% 24% 12%‐95% FY 13 9,734 31% 22% 5% 25% 16% 50% 87% FY 14 9,348 31% 21% 5% 26% 17% 28% 2 94% FY 15 9,855 31%23%5%29%12%52%89% Change from: Last year +5%0%+2%0%+3%‐5%+24%‐5% FY 12 +4%‐2%‐3%0%+5%0%‐‐6% 1 Percentages reported in each category do not include service desk requests resolved in any other category. 2 The Department implemented more security incident detection solutions, which resulted in an increase in recorded security incidents and complexity of issues. Mission:To provide innovative technology solutions that support City departments in delivering quality services to the community. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 35 DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Administration Collections and Technical Services Public Services Total Library expenditures per capita Regular Temporary/ hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually1 FTE per 1,000 hours open FY 06 $0.6 $1.5 $3.6 $5.7 $92 44.0 12.8 56.8 1,079 5,838 10,488 5.4 FY 07 $0.5 $1.5 $3.9 $5.9 $95 44.3 12.6 56.9 1,079 5,865 9,386 6.1 FY 08 $0.5 $1.8 $4.5 $6.8 $110 43.8 12.7 56.5 1,101 5,988 11,281 5.0 FY 09 $0.4 $1.8 $4.0 $6.2 $98 43.8 13.4 57.2 1,110 5,953 11,822 4.8 FY 10 $0.6 $1.8 $4.0 $6.4 $99 42.2 12.8 55.0 1,169 5,564 9,904 5.6 FY 11 $1.0 $1.6 $3.9 $6.5 $100 41.3 10.4 51.7 1,255 5,209 8,855 5.8 FY 12 $1.2 $1.7 $4.2 $7.1 $108 41.3 14.8 56.1 1,166 6,552 11,142 5.0 FY 13 $1.0 $1.8 $4.1 $6.9 $104 41.8 16.7 58.5 1,135 5,514 11,327 5.2 FY 14 $0.9 $2.3 $4.1 $7.3 $111 41.8 14.7 56.5 1,168 3,607 11,277 5.0 FY 15 $1.0 $2.5 $4.5 $8.0 $119 44.7 14.8 59.5 1,126 3,447 11,334 5.2 Change from: Last year +10% +8% +9% +9% +7% +7% 0% +5%‐4%‐4% +1% +5% FY 06 +59% +68% +26% +41% +29% +2% +16% +5% +4%‐41% +8%‐3% 1 The department attributes the fluctuation to facility closures for renovation and reopening.Li b r a r y De p a r t m e n t COLLECTIONS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES Number of items in collection Checkouts Book volumes Media items eBook & eMusic items Other formats1 TOTAL Per capita Total number of titles in collection Total (Target: 1,480,000) Per capita Average per item (Target: 4.23) Percent of first time checkouts completed on self‐ check machines Number of items on hold Average number of business days for new materials to be available for customer use (Target: 2.0) FY 06 232,602 27,866 ‐260,468 4.25 163,045 1,280,547 20.9 4.92 ‐181,765 ‐ FY 07 240,098 30,657 ‐270,755 4.41 167,008 1,414,509 23.0 5.22 88% 208,719 ‐ FY 08 241,323 33,087 4,993 279,403 4.49 174,683 1,542,116 24.8 5.52 89% 200,470 ‐ FY 09 246,554 35,506 11,675 293,735 4.63 185,718 1,633,955 25.7 5.56 90% 218,073 ‐ FY 10 247,273 37,567 13,827 298,667 4.64 189,828 1,624,785 25.2 5.44 90% 216,719 9.0 FY 11 254,392 40,461 19,248 314,101 4.84 193,070 1,476,648 22.8 4.70 91% 198,574 8.0 FY 12 251,476 41,017 13,667 306,1602 4.68 187,359 1,559,932 23.8 5.10 2 88% 211,270 9.53 FY 13 215,416 41,440 20,893 277,749 4.19 157,594 1,512,975 22.8 5.45 87% 204,581 4.0 FY 14 235,372 47,080 58,968 4 19,683 361,103 2 5.472 173,905 1,364,872 20.4 3.78 2 88% 197,444 2.0 FY 15 247,088 51,178 73,793 57,401 429,460 6.41 180,074 1,499,406 22.4 3.49 92% 186,834 2.0 Change from: Last year +5% +9% +25% +192% +19% +17% +4% +10% +10%‐8%‐‐5%0% FY 06 +6% +84%‐‐+65% +51% +10% +17% +7%‐29% +4%+3%‐ 1 Other formats include digital items such as emagazines, streaming movies, and Discover & Go museum passes. 2 Prior year correction. 3 Estimate. According to the Department, this metric was not consistently monitored in FY 2012 due to staff transitions, including a new division head. 4 The department attributes the increase to the addition of a new ebook resource. Mission:To connect and strengthen our diverse community through knowledge, resources, and opportunities. We inspire and nurture innovation, discovery, and delight. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 36 PUBLIC SERVICES Programs1 Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders Library visits Meeting room reservations (Target: 3,400) Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions Number of internet sessions Number of laptop checkouts Total offered Total attendance Number of participants in teen library programs (Target: 2,500) FY 06 55,909 62% 885,565 ‐69,880 42,094 155,558 9,693 564 30,739 1,549 FY 07 53,099 58% 862,081 ‐57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 1,900 FY 08 53,740 63% 881,520 ‐48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 1,573 FY 09 54,878 63% 875,847 ‐46,419 111,228 2 145,143 12,290 558 36,582 1,588 FY 10 51,969 61% 851,037 ‐55,322 150,895 2 134,053 9,720 485 35,455 1,906 FY 11 53,246 64% 776,994 ‐53,538 51,111 111,076 5,279 425 24,092 1,795 FY 12 60,283 69% 843,981 846 43,269 42,179 112,910 4,829 598 30,916 2,211 FY 13 51,007 61% 827,171 1,223 43,476 31,041 70,195 3,662 745 40,405 2,144 FY 14 46,950 58% 678,181 1,027 34,060 35,872 114,520 1,672 801 37,971 1,188 FY 15 51,792 64% 810,962 4,339 73,580 31,953 104,878 1,147 1,048 44,892 2,746 Change from: Last year +10% +6% +20% +322% 3 +116%4 ‐11%‐8%‐31% +31% +18% +131% FY 06 ‐7% +2%‐8%‐+5%‐24%‐33%‐88% +86% +46% +77% 1 Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage life‐long learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. New buildings, program spaces and additional service hours allow more programming opportunities for all ages; teens are a special target audience emphasized based on City Council annual goals and the library strategic plan. 2 The department attributes the increase to enhanced outreach activities targeting teachers and students to promote databases to schools. 3 The department attributes the increase to meeting rooms now being available. 4 The department attributes the increase to new buildings and additional service hours inviting new customers needing assistance with collections and technology. Ch a p t e r 3 Li b r a r y De p a r t m e n t Attachment A 37 Pl a n n i n g & Co m m u n i t y En v i r o n m e n t DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Planning & Transportation Building 1 Economic Development2 Total Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 06 $0.5 $5.6 $3.1 $0.2 $9.4 $153 $5.6 53 FY 07 $0.7 $5.2 $3.4 $0.2 $9.5 $155 $6.6 55 FY 08 $0.6 $5.2 $3.6 $0.2 $9.7 $155 $5.8 54 FY 09 $0.2 $5.7 $3.5 $0.4 $9.9 $156 $5.1 54 FY 10 $0.6 $5.5 $2.9 $0.4 $9.4 $146 $5.5 50 FY 11 $0.9 $5.1 $3.3 $0.3 $9.6 $147 $7.5 47 FY 12 $0.9 $5.2 $4.2 ‐$10.3 $158 $9.3 47 FY 13 $1.1 $5.8 $5.2 ‐$12.0 $182 $12.6 53 FY 14 $1.1 $6.4 $5.8 ‐$13.3 $201 $11.4 54 FY 15 $1.2 $6.2 $0.1 ‐$7.4 $111 $1.8 29 Change from: Last year +9%‐3%‐‐‐44%‐45%‐84%‐47% FY 06 +151%+10%‐‐‐21%‐28%‐68%‐46% 1 Prior to FY 2015, Building was part of the Development Services division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. Effective FY 2015, Development Services became its own department. During the transition, some Building expenses were erroneously associated with Planning and Community Environment. FY 2015 information is shown here for consistency with the City’s financial records. 2 In FY 2012, Economic Development was moved to the City Manager’s Office. CURRENT PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT Code Enforcement Planning applications received Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff‐level applications Number of new cases Number of reinspections Percent of cases resolved within 120 days FY 06 414 408 117 13.6 421 667 94% FY 07 386 299 100 13.4 369 639 76% FY 08 397 257 107 12.7 684 981 93% FY 09 312 273 130 10.7 545 1,065 94% FY 10 329 226 130 12.5 680 1,156 88% FY 11 359 238 121 10.4 652 1,228 94% FY 12 325 204 101 12.5 618 1,120 91% FY 13 490 307 148 12.5 684 1,240 90% FY 14 487 310 170 14.9 609 1,398 93% FY 15 425 335 174 15.4 586 1,242 91% Change from: Last year ‐13%+8%+2%+3%‐4%‐11%‐2% FY 06 +3%‐18%+49%+13%+39%+86%‐3% Mission:To provide the Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing, and environmental policies, and plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital, and attractive community. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A ADVANCE PLANNING Number of residential units Median price of a single family home in Palo Alto (in millions) Estimated new jobs (job losses) resulting from projects approved during the year1 Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units FY 06 27,767 $1.54 (345) 371 322 FY 07 27,763 $1.52 0 517 381 FY 08 27,938 $1.55 193 103 395 FY 09 28,291 $1.40 (58) 36 395 FY 10 28,445 $1.37 662 86 434 FY 11 28,257 $1.52 2,144 47 434 FY 12 28,380 $1.74 760 93 434 FY 13 28,457 $1.99 142 2 434 FY 14 28,546 $2.04 (580) 311 449 FY 15 28,674 $2.47 399 12 449 Change from: Last year 0%+21%‐‐96%0% FY 06 +3%+60%‐‐97%+39% 1 Job losses are assumed when commercial uses are replaced with residential units. TRANSPORTATION City shuttle boardings1 City’s cost per shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boardings Average number of employees participating in the City commute program2 FY 06 175,471 $1.91 3,876 104 FY 07 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105 FY 08 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 FY 09 136,511 $2.61 4,407 124 FY 10 137,825 $2.65 4,359 113 FY 11 118,455 $1.82 4,923 92 FY 12 140,321 $1.46 5,730 93 FY 13 133,703 $1.50 6,763 99 FY 14 134,362 $1.49 7,564 114 FY 15 152,571 3 $1.95 8,750 113 Change from: Last year +14%+31%+16%0% FY 06 ‐13%+2%+126%+9% 1 Starting FY 15, a new East Palo Alto route is included. 2 Includes participants in the Caltrain Go Pass pilot program, which began in April 2014. 3 Reflects a disruption in Caltrain shuttle service (on the Embarcadero route) for two months in 2015. 38Ch a p t e r 3 Pl a n n i n g & Co m m u n i t y En v i r o n m e n t Attachment A DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (millions) Authorized Staffing Administration Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information Total Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served Revenue (in millions) Resident population served per fire station1,4 Total (FTE) Per 1,000 residents served Overtime as a percent of regular salaries FY 06 $1.3 $14.1 $2.0 $1.9 $0.9 $20.2 75,069 $269 $9.4 12,569 126.5 1.68 18% FY 07 $1.6 $15.0 $2.0 $2.0 $0.9 $21.6 75,194 $287 $9.9 12,532 127.5 1.70 21% FY 08 $1.6 $16.7 $2.4 $2.3 $1.0 $24.0 75,982 $316 $9.7 12,664 128.1 1.69 18% FY 09 $0.4 $17.4 $2.3 $2.3 $1.0 $23.4 77,305 $303 $11.0 12,884 127.7 1.65 16% FY 10 $2.3 $19.3 $2.5 $2.6 $1.0 $27.7 78,161 $355 $10.6 13,027 126.5 1.62 26% FY 11 $1.6 $20.8 $2.6 $2.7 $1.0 $28.7 78,662 $365 $12.0 13,110 125.1 1.59 21% FY 122 $1.7 $20.9 $2.4 $2.8 $1.0 $28.8 79,252 $364 $13.7 13,209 125.2 1.58 37% FY 13 $1.9 $22.5 $1.7 $0.8 $0.3 $27.3 80,127 $340 $12.4 3 13,355 120.3 1.50 19% FY 14 $1.9 $23.3 $1.7 $0.9 $0.3 $28.2 79,838 $353 $12.0 3 13,306 120.8 1.51 27% FY 15 $2.0 $22.9 $0.1 $0.9 $0.3 $26.2 80,474 $325 $12.3 13,412 108.0 1.34 24% Change from: Last year +2%‐2%‐93%‐5% +2%‐7% +1%‐8% +3% +1%‐11%‐11%‐3% FY 06 +53% +62%‐94%‐55%‐65% +30% +7% +21% +31% +7%‐15%‐20% +6% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). The decrease in FY 2014 is due to a change in data source from the California Department of Finance to the City Manager’s Official City Data Set based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. 2 Office of Emergency Services (OES) was established as a separate department in FY 2012. FY 2012 data was restated to remove OES figures. 3 The department attributes the decline to lower contract revenues from Stanford University. 4 Calculation is based on six fire stations, and does not include Station 8 (Foothills Park, operated during the summer months when fire danger is high). 39 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ‐ Fi r e Mission:To serve and safeguard the community from the impacts of fires, medical emergencies, environmental emergencies, and natural disasters by providing the highest level of service through action, innovation, and investing in education, training, and prevention. We will actively participate in our community, serving as role models who preserve and enhance the quality of life. We will effectively and efficiently utilize all of the necessary resources at our command to provide a product deemed outstanding by our citizens. Pride, the pursuit of excellence, and commitment to public service is of paramount importance. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A SUPPRESSION, FIRE SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Suppression and Fire Safety Emergency Medical Services Fire incidents Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin1 (Target: 90%) Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire response vehicles2 Fire safety presentations, including demonstrations and fire station tours Average training hours per firefighter Medical/rescue incidents Number of ambulance transports Ambulance revenue (in millions) FY 06 211 63%62 1 25 ‐288 3,780 2,296 $1.7 FY 07 221 70%68 2 25 ‐235 3,951 2,527 $1.9 FY 08 192 79%43 0 25 ‐246 4,552 3,236 $2.0 FY 09 239 63%20 0 25 ‐223 4,509 3,331 $2.1 FY 10 182 56%11 0 29 ‐213 4,432 2,991 $2.2 FY 11 165 38%14 0 30 115 287 4,521 3,005 $2.3 FY 12 186 50%16 0 29 126 313 4,584 3,220 $2.8 FY 13 150 44%18 0 27 95 315 4,712 3,523 $3.0 FY 14 150 63%15 2 27 88 315 4,757 3,648 $2.9 FY 15 135 92%15 0 27 218 346 5,270 3,862 $3.0 Change from: Last year ‐10%+29%0%‐100% 0%+148%+10%+11% +6% +4% FY 06 ‐36%+29%‐76%‐100% +8%‐+20%+39% +68% +80% 1 Includes fires in other jurisdictions responded to as part of the City’s aid agreements. The department indicated that these figures will be restated in the future to exclude fires in other communities to more accurately measure progress toward its target of 90%, which is for Palo Alto fires only. The department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival. 2 Includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazardous materials, and mutual‐aid vehicles. 40 CALLS FOR SERVICE Calls for service Average response time2 (minutes) Percent of calls responded promptly2 Fire Medical/ rescue False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition Other 1 TOTAL Average number of calls per day Fire calls (Target: 6:00) Medical/rescue calls (Target: 6:00) Fire emergencies within 8 minutes (Target: 90%) Emergency medical requests within 8 minutes (Target: 90%) Paramedic calls within 12 minutes3 (Target: 90%) FY 06 211 3,780 1,184 399 203 1,120 6,897 19 5:28 5:13 91%94%99% FY 07 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 5:48 5:17 87%92%97% FY 08 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 6:48 5:24 79%93%99% FY 09 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 6:39 5:37 78%91%99% FY 10 182 4,432 1,013 444 151 1,246 7,468 20 7:05 5:29 90%93%99% FY 11 165 4,521 1,005 406 182 1,276 7,555 21 6:23 5:35 83%91%99% FY 12 186 4,584 1,095 466 216 1,249 7,796 21 7:00 5:36 81%91%99% FY 13 150 4,712 1,091 440 194 1,317 7,904 22 6:31 5:35 82%91%99% FY 14 150 4,757 1,044 396 207 1,275 7,829 21 6:01 5:42 86%90%98% FY 15 135 5,270 1,078 448 145 1,472 8,548 23 4:57 5:11 92%82%89% Change from: Last year ‐10% +11% +3% +13%‐30% +15% +9% +10%‐18%‐9%+6%‐8%‐9% FY 06 ‐36% +39%‐9% +12%‐29% +31% +24% +21%‐9%‐1%+1%‐12%‐10% 1 “Other” calls include alarm testing, station tours, training incidents, cancelled calls, and good intent calls (i.e., a person genuinely believes there is an actual emergency when it is not an emergency). 2 Response time is from receipt of 911 call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled enroute, not‐completed incidents, or mutual‐aid calls. 3 Includes non‐City ambulance responses. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ‐ Fi r e Attachment A 41 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND INSPECTIONS Hazardous Materials Incidents1 Permitted facilities Permitted facilities inspected2 Percent of permitted hazardous materials facilities inspected 2 Number of fire inspections (Target: 850) Number of plan reviews3 FY 06 45 497 243 49% 899 983 FY 07 39 501 268 53% 1,021 928 FY 08 45 503 406 81% 1,277 906 FY 09 40 509 286 56% 1,028 841 FY 10 26 510 126 25% 1,526 851 FY 11 66 484 237 49% 1,807 1,169 FY 12 82 485 40 8% 1,654 1,336 FY 13 79 455 133 29% 2,069 1,396 FY 14 73 393 132 34% 1,741 1,319 FY 15 81 425 377 89% 1,964 1,227 Change from: Last year +11%+8%+186%+55%+13%‐7% FY 06 +80%‐14%+55%+40%+118%+25% 1 Involve flammable gas or liquid, chemical release or spill, or chemical release reaction or toxic condition. Also known as CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives). 2 The method for calculating the number of inspections was changed in FY 2010 to avoid over counting. Prior‐year numbers are higher than they would be under the revised method. The department attributes the FY 2012 decrease to temporary staffing shortages. 3 Does not include over‐the‐counter building permit reviews. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ‐ Fi r e Attachment A 42 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y – Of f i c e of Em e r g e n c y Se r v i c e s DEPARTMENTWIDE1 Operating expenditures (in millions) Revenues (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Presentations, training sessions, and exercises (Target: 50) Emergency Operations Center activations/ deployments2 Grant contributions received FY 12 $0.60 $0.16 4.0 38 27 $139,300 FY 13 $0.75 $0.14 3.5 51 48 $24,530 FY 14 $0.93 $0.09 3.5 184 26 $13,986 FY 15 $1.17 $0.09 3.5 193 47 $24,500 Change from: Last year +26%0%0%+5%+81%+75% FY 12 +97%‐41%‐13%+408%+74%‐82% 1 The Office of Emergency Services (OES) was expanded and reorganized in 2011. Data prior to FY 2012 is generally not available or applicable.In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the City classified OES under the Fire Department for budget purposes. 2Includes unplanned (emergency) and planned events involving the Emergency Operations Center, Mobile Emergency Operations Center, and Incident Command Post activations and deployments (e.g., December 2012 flood, Stanford football games, VIP/dignitary visits). Mission:To prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 43 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ‐ Po l i c e DEPARTMENTWIDE Operating Expenditures (in millions) Administration Field Services Technical Services Investigations and Crime Prevention Traffic Services Parking Services Police Personnel Services Animal Services Total Expenditures per resident Revenue (in millions) FY 06 $0.8 $10.5 $5.2 $3.0 $1.4 $1.1 $0.9 $1.4 $24.4 $398 $4.8 FY 07 $0.6 $11.1 $6.1 $3.1 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $422 $5.0 FY 08 $0.5 $13.7 $6.6 $3.3 $1.7 $0.8 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $473 $5.0 FY 09 $0.4 $13.6 $5.0 $3.7 $1.8 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.2 $445 $4.6 FY 10 $0.1 $13.1 $6.6 $3.4 $2.0 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.8 $448 $4.9 FY 11 $0.2 $14.4 $6.8 $3.5 $2.2 $1.1 $1.1 $1.7 $31.0 $478 $4.4 FY 12 $0.8 $14.9 $7.7 $3.7 $2.5 $1.2 $1.1 $1.8 $33.6 $514 $4.3 FY 13 $0.6 $15.0 $7.5 $3.5 $1.5 $1.2 $1.2 $1.7 $32.2 $485 $4.8 FY 14 $0.6 $16.0 $7.1 $3.3 $2.5 $1.1 $1.4 $1.3 $33.3 $505 $3.7 FY 15 $0.7 $15.6 $7.4 $4.2 $2.4 $1.2 $1.5 $1.6 $34.6 $516 $4.5 Change from: Last year +4%‐3% +5% +28%‐4% +9% +12% +17% +4% +2% +23% FY 06 ‐18% +49% +41% +38% +69% +10% +74% +9% +42% +30%‐7% STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Authorized Staffing (FTE) Total Per 1,000 residents Number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motorcycles Training hours per officer2 (Target: 145) Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Citizen commendations received (Target: >150) Citizen complaints filed (sustained) FY 06 168.8 2.8 93 1.52 8 30 9 153 13% 144 7 (0) FY 07 168.1 2.7 93 1.52 8 30 9 142 16% 121 11 (1) FY 08 168.5 2.7 93 1.50 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1) FY 09 169.5 2.7 93 1.46 8 30 9 141 14% 124 14 (3) FY 10 166.8 2.6 92 1.43 8 30 9 168 12% 156 11 (3) FY 11 161.1 2.5 91 1.40 8 30 9 123 12% 149 7 (0) FY 12 160.8 2.5 91 1.39 8 30 9 178 13% 137 1 (0) FY 13 157.2 2.4 91 1.37 8 30 9 134 14% 147 3 (2) FY 14 158.1 2.4 92 1.39 8 30 9 177 14% 153 4 (2) FY 15 157.6 2.4 92 1.37 8 30 6 139 15% 135 7 (1) Change from: Last year 0% 0% 0%‐1% 0% 0%‐33%‐21%‐1%‐12% +75% FY 06 ‐7%‐14%‐1%‐10% 0% 0%‐33%‐9%+2%‐6%0% 1Does not include traffic motor officers. 2Does not include the academy. Mission:To proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 44 CALLS FOR SERVICE Average response time (minutes) Percent of calls responded promptly Police Department Total1 (Target: 55,000) False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds Emergency calls (Target: 5:00) Urgent calls (Target: 8:00) Nonemergency calls (Target: 45:00) Emergency calls within 6 minutes (Target: 90%) Urgent calls within 10 minutes (Target: 90%) Nonemergency calls within 45 minutes FY 06 56,211 2,419 88%4:41 7:39 20:36 78%78%95% FY 07 60,079 2,610 96%5:08 7:24 19:16 73%79%91% FY 08 58,742 2,539 96%4:32 7:02 19:09 81%80%92% FY 09 53,275 2,501 94%4:43 7:05 18:35 81%82%92% FY 10 55,860 2,491 95%4:44 6:53 18:32 78%83%92% FY 11 52,159 2,254 93%4:28 6:51 18:26 78%83%92% FY 12 51,086 2,263 92%4:28 6:56 19:29 78%83%91% FY 13 54,628 2,601 91%4:57 6:57 18:55 75%83%92% FY 14 58,559 2,450 77%5:341 7:571 20:552 72%77%90% FY 15 59,795 2,595 73%5:40 8:38 21:07 75%74%89% Change from: Last year +2% +6%‐4%+2%+9%+1%+3%‐3%‐1% FY 06 +6% +7%‐15%+21% +13% +3%‐3%‐4%‐6% 1 Includes self‐initiated calls. 2 The department attributes the increase to a methodology change from a call being “received” after the information was entered in the old Computer‐Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to when a dispatcher begins entering the information into the new system. CRIME Reported crimes Arrests Number of cases/percent of cases cleared or closed for part I crimes1,5 Part I1 (Target: <2,000) Part II2 Per 1,000 residents Per officer3 Total4 Juvenile Homicide Rape Robbery Theft FY 06 2,520 2,643 84 56 2,530 241 ‐‐‐‐ FY 07 1,855 2,815 76 50 3,059 244 0/(N/A) 2/(50%) 37/(51%) 1,092/(18%) FY 08 1,843 2,750 74 49 3,253 257 2/(100%) 3/(67%) 41/(66%) 1,161/(21%) FY 09 1,880 2,235 65 44 2,612 230 1/(100%) 7/(29%) 42/(31%) 1,414/(20%) FY 10 1,595 2,257 60 42 2,451 222 1/(100%) 9/(33%) 30/(53%) 1,209/(22%) FY 11 1,424 2,208 56 40 2,288 197 0/(N/A) 3/(0%) 42/(36%) 1,063/(20%) FY 12 1,277 2,295 55 39 2,212 170 0/(N/A) 4/(50%) 19/(68%) 893/(19%) FY 13 1,592 2,399 60 44 2,274 115 0/(N/A) 3/(67%) 35/(66%) 1,143/(10%) FY 14 1,540 2,557 62 45 2,589 116 0/(N/A) 4/(75%) 27/(63%) 1,160/(11%) FY 15 1,595 3,050 69 50 3,273 119 2/(100%) 12/(67%) 21/(67%) 1,202/(11%) Change from: Last year +4% +19% +11% +11% +26% +3%‐‐‐‐ FY 06 ‐37% +15%‐18%‐11% +29%‐51%‐‐‐‐ 1 Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part II crimes include simple assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur. 3 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 4 Total arrests do not include being drunk in public where suspects are taken to a sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Clearance rates (percentages) include cases resolved with or without arrests as of June 2014, but may not reconcile with Department of Justice figures due to differing definitions and timing differences.Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ‐ Po l i c e Attachment A 45 TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL Traffic collisions Citations issued Total Per 1,000 residents With injury (Target: <375) (percent of total) Bicycle/pedestrian Alcohol related DUI Arrests Traffic stops Traffic Parking FY 06 1,287 21 396 (31%) 113 43 247 11,827 7,687 56,502 FY 07 1,257 20 291 (23%)103 31 257 15,563 6,232 57,222 FY 08 1,122 18 324 (29%)84 42 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 FY 09 1,040 16 371 (36%)108 37 192 14,152 5,766 49,996 FY 10 1,006 16 368 (37%)81 29 181 13,344 7,520 42,591 FY 11 1,061 16 429 (40%)127 38 140 12,534 7,077 40,426 FY 12 1,032 16 379 (37%)123 42 164 10,651 7,505 41,875 FY 13 1,126 17 411 (37%)127 43 144 12,306 8,842 43,877 FY 14 1,129 17 424 (38%)139 47 206 16,006 12,244 36,551 FY 15 1,035 15 382 (37%)125 48 239 15,659 10,039 41,412 Change from: Last year ‐8%‐12%‐10%‐10%+2%+16%‐2%‐18%+13% FY 06 ‐20%‐29%‐4%+11%+12%‐3%+32% +31%‐27% ANIMAL SERVICES Animal service calls Revenue (in millions) Palo Alto Regional 1 Percent of Palo Alto live calls responded to within 45 minutes (Target: 93%) Number of animals handled Percent of dogs received by shelter and returned to owner Percent of cats received by shelter and returned to owner FY 06 $0.9 2,861 1,944 89% 3,839 78% 9% FY 07 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18% FY 08 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% FY 09 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11% FY 10 $1.4 2,692 1,602 90% 3,147 75% 10% FY 11 $1.0 2,804 1,814 88% 3,323 68% 20% FY 12 $1.0 3,051 1,793 91% 3,379 69% 14% FY 13 $1.3 2,909 1,0572 90%2,675 65%17% FY 14 $0.4 2,398 695 91%2,480 68%10% FY 15 $0.6 2,013 566 88%2,143 70%18% Change from: Last year +55%‐16%‐19%‐3%‐14%+2%+8% FY 06 ‐29%‐30%‐71%‐1%‐44%‐8%+9% 1Includes calls from the City of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. 2The decline beginning in FY 2013 is due to the City of Mountain View terminating its contract with Palo Alto Animal Services in November 2012. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Sa f e t y ‐ Po l i c e Attachment A 46 PUBLIC SERVICES – STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND FACILITIES Operating Expenditures (in millions) Streets Sidewalks Facilities Streets City facilities Number of potholes repaired Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification Number of signs repaired or replaced Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Total square feet of facilities maintained Maintenance cost per square foot Custodial cost per square foot FY 06 $1.9 $4.6 1,049 95% 1,754 87% 1,402,225 $1.52 $1.18 FY 07 $2.2 $4.8 1,188 82% 1,475 98% 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04 FY 08 $2.2 $5.1 1,977 78% 1,289 88% 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 FY 09 $2.3 $5.7 3,727 80% 1,292 86% 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19 FY 10 $2.3 $5.5 3,149 86%2,250 78% 1,617,101 $1.75 $1.18 FY 11 $2.4 $5.6 2,986 81%1,780 83% 1,617,101 $1.70 $1.16 FY 12 $2.5 $5.5 3,047 81%2,439 82% 1,608,137 $1.74 $1.14 FY 13 $2.7 $5.4 2,726 83%2,450 95% 1,608,119 $1.88 $1.08 FY 14 $2.6 $5.1 3,418 75%2,613 79% 1,611,432 $1.89 $1.08 FY 15 $2.8 $4.5 2,487 90%3,294 68%1,656,280 $1.85 $1.06 Change from: Last year +6%‐11%‐27% +15%+26%‐11%+3%‐2%‐2% FY 06 +43%‐1% +137%‐5%+88%‐19%+18% +22%‐10% 1 Estimated. Pu b l i c Wo r k s PUBLIC SERVICES –TREES Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing1 (FTE) Total number of City‐maintained trees2 Number of trees planted3 (Target: 250) Number of all tree‐related services completed4 (Target: 6,000) Percent of urban forest pruned Percent of total tree line cleared (Target: 25%) Number of tree‐ related electrical service disruptions FY 06 $2.0 14.0 34,841 263 3,422 10%23%13 FY 07 $2.2 14.0 34,556 164 3,409 10%30%15 FY 08 $2.3 14.0 35,322 188 6,579 18%27%9 FY 09 $2.1 14.0 35,255 250 6,618 18%33%5 FY 10 $2.3 14.0 35,472 201 6,094 18%27%4 FY 11 $2.6 14.0 33,146 150 5,045 15%26%8 FY 12 $2.4 12.9 35,324 143 5,527 16%28%4 FY 13 $2.3 13.3 35,383 245 6,931 17%41%3 FY 14 $2.6 13.3 35,386 148 5,055 12%37%7 FY 15 $2.7 12.9 35,281 305 8,639 20%28%3 Change from: Last year +5%‐3%0%+106%+71%+8%‐9%‐57% FY 06 +35%‐8%+1%+16%+152%+10%+5%‐77% 1 For the General Fund only. 2 FY 2011 was the first year since 1989 that the trees were officially counted; numbers prior to FY 2011 were estimated. 3 Includes trees planted by Canopy volunteers. 4 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. Mission:To provide efficient, cost effective, and environmentally sensitive operations for construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, facilities, and parks; ensure continuous operation of our Regional Water Quality Control Plant, City fleet, and storm drain system; provide maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing services for the City’s urban forest; provide efficient and cost effective garbage collection; to promote reuse and recycling to minimize waste; and to ensure timely support to other City departments and the private development community in the area of engineering services. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 47 ENGINEERING SERVICES Number of private development permits issued1 Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Total (Target: 250) Per FTE (Target: 77) Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired2 Number of ADA3 ramps installed FY 06 $1.9 15.0 284 95 20.0 4% 126,574 66 FY 07 $2.0 14.0 215 83 32.0 7% 94,620 70 FY 08 $2.1 14.6 338 112 27.0 6% 83,827 27 FY 09 $2.2 14.6 304 101 23.0 5% 56,909 21 FY 10 $1.6 10.0 321 107 32.4 7% 54,602 22 FY 11 $1.5 9.2 375 125 28.9 6%71,174 23 FY 12 $1.6 9.2 411 103 40.0 9%72,787 45 FY 13 $1.4 9.7 454 114 36.3 8%82,118 56 FY 14 $1.7 10.4 412 103 35.6 8%74,051 42 FY 15 $1.4 5.8 406 102 30.7 7%120,776 80 Change from: Last year ‐17%‐45%‐1%‐1%‐14%‐2%+63%+90% FY 06 ‐28%‐62%+43%+7%+54% +3%‐5%+21% 1 Includes permits for street work, encroachment, and excavation and grading. 2 Includes both in‐house and contracted work. 3 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that accessibility to sidewalks of buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities. Capital Expenditures1 – General Fund (in millions) Capital Expenditures 1 – Enterprise Funds (in millions) Capital Authorized Staffing (FTE)2 Streets (Target: $3.8) Sidewalks Parks Facilities (Target: $16.9) Storm Drainage Wastewater Treatment Refuse Streets Sidewalks Parks Structures FY 06 $2.4 $2.5 $1.5 $6.1 $0.3 $2.2 $0.1 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4 FY 07 $5.2 $2.5 $0.9 $7.2 $1.5 $1.8 $0.0 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4 FY 08 $3.5 $2.2 $2.7 $8.3 $3.7 $10.9 $0.0 1.4 7.4 2.0 8.4 FY 09 $4.5 $2.1 $1.9 $10.8 $5.4 $9.2 $0.7 1.4 7.1 2.0 9.2 FY 10 $4.0 $1.9 $3.3 $10.1 $1.1 $6.0 $0.2 2.9 7.1 2.7 11.4 FY 11 $5.5 $1.9 $1.4 $25.5 $1.1 $3.1 $0.2 3.0 6.9 1.6 10.0 FY 12 $4.0 $2.0 $1.2 $21.5 $1.9 $1.5 $0.7 3.0 7.0 1.6 10.4 FY 13 $8.4 $2.2 $1.7 $15.2 $2.6 $2.9 $0.5 3.0 7.4 1.6 12.0 FY 14 $7.5 $2.6 $2.2 $21.7 $1.4 $2.7 $1.7 3.2 7.1 3.7 11.3 FY 15 $6.7 $2.9 $6.6 $16.9 $1.8 $4.2 $2.2 3.4 7.3 3.7% 9.1 Change from: Last year ‐11% +8% +196%‐22%+28%+56%+30% +9% +3% 0%‐19% FY 06 +178% +15% +342% +176% +457%+89% +1864% +144%‐1% +85% +8% 1 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; overhead is not included. 2 Budgeted number; actual FTEs at year‐end may differ. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Wo r k s Attachment A 48 STORM DRAINAGE Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Reserves (in millions) Average monthly residential bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned (Target: 100,000) Calls for assistance with storm drains2 Percent of industrial/ commercial sites in compliance with storm water regulations (Target: 80%) FY 06 $5.7 $2.9 $3.1 $10.00 9.5 128,643 24 83% FY 07 $5.3 $4.3 $4.5 $10.20 9.5 287,957 4 71% FY 08 $5.9 $7.1 $3.3 $10.55 9.5 157,337 80 65% FY 09 $5.8 $7.5 $1.2 $10.95 9.5 107,223 44 70% FY 10 $5.8 $3.9 $2.7 $10.95 9.5 86,174 119 81% FY 11 $6.3 $3.5 $5.0 $11.23 9.5 129,590 45 81% FY 12 $6.1 $4.3 $6.5 $11.40 9.5 157,398 18 89% FY 13 $6.2 $5.9 $6.2 $11.73 9.6 159,202 32 87% FY 14 $6.4 $4.2 $7.83 $11.99 10.6 173,185 35 79% FY 15 $6.4 $4.9 $5.6 $12.30 10.2 161,895 129 83% Change from: Last year +1%+18%‐28%+3%‐3%‐7%+269%+4% FY 06 +12% +72%+82% +23% +8%+26%+438%0% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Estimated. 3 Includes $1.6 million of rate stabilization reserve. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Watershed Protection Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Percent of operating expenditures reimbursed by other jurisdictions Reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed2 (Target: 8,200) Fish toxicity test –percent survival (Target: 100%) Authorized staffing (FTE) Inspections of industrial/ commercial sites3 Percent of wastewater treatment discharge tests in compliance (Target: 99%) Percent of customers using reusable bags at grocery stores FY 06 $19.5 $18.1 63% $13.6 54.8 8,972 100% 13.7 192 99.40%‐ FY 07 $17.7 $20.4 64% $13.8 54.8 8,853 100% 13.9 114 99.40%‐ FY 08 $23.9 $31.3 64% $11.1 54.8 8,510 100% 13.9 111 99.25%9% FY 09 $29.1 $39.3 63% $12.9 54.3 7,958 100% 13.7 250 98.90% 19% FY 10 $17.6 $22.4 62% $11.8 54.3 8,184 100% 13.7 300 98.82% 21% FY 11 $20.9 $20.5 61% $15.8 55.5 8,652 100% 13.7 295 99.00% 22% FY 12 $22.8 $19.8 60% $18.0 55.0 8,130 100% 14.6 300 99.27% 21% FY 13 $21.9 $20.8 63% $18.9 55.5 7,546 100% 14.6 362 99.80% 24% FY 14 $18.8 $21.2 61% $14.7 4 55.6 7,186 100% 13.8 443 99.70% 40% FY 15 $24.4 $22.8 64%($2.8)59.7 6,512 100%13.5 450 99.40% 39% Change from: Last year +29% +7% +5%‐119% +7%‐9% 0%‐2% +2% 0% 0% FY 06 +25% +26% +2%‐120% +9%‐27% 0%‐2% +134% 0%‐ 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. 3 Prior to 2009, only automotive sites were reported. Beginning in 2009, inspections reported include industrial, automotive, and food service facilities. 4 Includes $5.5 million of rate stabilization reserve.Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Wo r k s Attachment A 49 Tons of materials recycled or composted1 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) participation – number of households (Target: 4,430) Percent of households with mini‐can garbage service (20 gallon cart) (Target: 33%) Commercial accounts with compostable service2 (Target: 36%) FY 06 56,013 4,425 ‐‐ FY 07 56,837 4,789 ‐‐ FY 08 52,196 4,714 ‐‐ FY 09 49,911 4,817 ‐‐ FY 10 48,811 4,710 21% 21% FY 11 56,586 4,876 25% 14% FY 12 51,725 4,355 29% 13% FY 13 47,941 4,409 32% 15% FY 14 49,594 4,878 33% 26% FY 15 50,546 4,767 35%28% Change from: Last year +2%‐2%+2%+8% FY 06 ‐10%+8%‐‐ 1 Tons of materials recycled or composted do not include self‐hauled materials by residents or businesses. 2The new compostable service began in July 2009. The Department reports that the FY 2011 decrease was due to customers stopping their service after too much garbage was found in compostable containers and the FY 2014 increase is mainly due to more outreach by GreenWaste and more accounts enrolling in the program. REFUSE/ZERO WASTE Operating Revenues (in millions) Operating Expenditures1 (in millions) Reserves Monthly Residential Bill (32 gallon container) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled2 Percent of all sweeping routes completed (residential and commercial) FY 06 $25.2 $27.7 $4.7 $21.38 35.0 59,276 88% FY 07 $26.3 $25.1 $5.9 $21.38 34.7 59,938 93% FY 08 $29.8 $29.4 $6.3 $24.16 34.9 61,866 90% FY 09 $30.0 $35.5 $0.8 $26.58 35.3 68,228 92% FY 10 $29.2 $31.4 ($1.4) $31.00 38.0 48,955 88% FY 11 $31.6 $31.0 ($0.7) $32.40 38.0 38,524 92% FY 12 $31.6 $32.4 ($1.6) $36.33 37.6 43,947 90% FY 13 $31.5 $29.7 ($0.2) $41.54 26.5 45,411 93% FY 14 $30.8 $30.1 $0.4 3 $41.54 22.0 47,088 95% FY 15 $32.9 $30.3 $1.4 $40.14 18.9 43,730 100% Change from: Last year +7%+1% +281%‐3%‐14%‐7%+5% FY 06 +31%+9%‐70%+88%‐46%‐26%+12% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Reflects all waste landfilled in the previous calendar year, as reported by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 3 Includes ‐$1.6 million of rate stabilization reserve. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Wo r k s Attachment A 50 CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Expenditures Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures (in millions) Replacements and additions (in millions) Operations and maintenance (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of vehicle and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehicles (Target: 67) Percent of nonemergency vehicles using alternative fuels or technologies (Target: 26%) FY 06 $5.8 $6.6 $2.9 $3.2 16.0 $11.9 74 19% FY 07 $6.4 $7.0 $1.4 $3.3 16.0 $11.9 79 20% FY 08 $6.8 $6.9 $1.1 $3.8 16.3 $10.8 80 25% FY 09 $8.8 $14.8 $8.7 $4.3 16.2 $10.0 75 25% FY 10 $7.8 $7.5 $0.8 $4.0 16.0 $11.2 74 24% FY 11 $8.1 $6.8 $1.5 $3.1 16.6 $10.8 63 24% FY 12 $8.1 $8.7 $1.6 $3.5 17.0 $10.0 60 25% FY 13 $8.0 $8.0 $1.6 $4.2 18.2 $9.0 57 23% FY 14 $7.8 $7.5 $2.8 $4.7 18.2 $8.5 61 25% FY 15 $8.0 $8.5 $2.9 $5.6 19.9 $10.0 51 26% Change from: Last year +3% +13% +2%+20% +9%+18%‐16%+1% FY 06 +38% +30% +1%+76% +24%‐16%‐31%7% Light‐duty vehicles Total miles traveled Median mileage Median age Maintenance cost per vehicle1 Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 06 1,674,427 41,153 6.8 $1,781 95% FY 07 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86% FY 08 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% FY 09 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94% FY 10 1,474,747 47,040 8.7 $1,836 93% FY 11 1,447,816 47,252 8.8 $2,279 98% FY 12 1,503,063 50,345 9.7 $2,168 98% FY 13 1,382,375 52,488 9.7 $2,177 97% FY 14 1,409,342 57,721 10.7 $2,733 92% FY 15 1,406,980 54,630 10.3 $3,083 90% Change from: Last year 0%‐5%‐4%+13%‐2% FY 06 ‐16%+33%+51%+73%‐5% 1 Does not include fuel or accident repairs; includes maintenance costs for 30 police patrol cars. Ch a p t e r 3 Pu b l i c Wo r k s Attachment A 51 Ut i l i t i e s ELECTRIC Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) General Fund transfers (in millions) Electric Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Electricity purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per megawatt hour) Energy Conservation/ Efficiency Program expenditures (in millions) Average monthly residential bill3 FY 06 $122.4 $109.1 $7.2 $8.7 $161.3 118.8 $55.6 $48.62 $1.5 $32.73 FY 07 $108.7 $118.0 $10.5 $8.8 $156.4 114.0 $62.5 $64.97 $1.5 $32.73 FY 08 $112.6 $130.6 $10.2 $9.4 $145.3 111.0 $71.1 $76.84 $1.9 $34.38 FY 09 $129.9 $139.7 $5.5 $9.7 $129.4 107.0 $82.3 $83.34 $2.1 $38.87 FY 10 $130.7 $126.4 $7.5 $11.5 $133.4 109.0 $68.7 $74.11 $2.7 $42.76 FY 11 $125.9 $116.5 $7.3 $11.2 $142.7 107.0 $61.2 $64.01 $2.7 $42.76 FY 12 $123.1 $118.3 $6.4 $11.6 $147.3 108.9 $58.7 $65.00 $3.2 $42.76 FY 13 $125.3 $124.5 $10.4 $11.8 $143.3 109.6 $61.3 $69.15 $2.6 $42.76 FY 14 $126.1 $128.8 $7.7 $11.2 $140.5 112.9 $68.8 $77.84 $2.6 $42.76 FY 15 $123.7 $138.9 $7.2 $11.4 $96.54 119.0 $78.4 $88.77 $1.8 $42.76 Change from: Last year ‐2% +8%‐7% +2%‐31% +5% +14% +14%‐31% 0% FY 06 +1% +27%‐1% +32%‐40% 0% +41% +83% +20% +31% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Electric comparisons based on recent residential median data: 365 kilowatt‐hour (kWh)/month in summer (May‐October), 453 kWh/month in winter (November‐April). Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax. 4 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. Electric consumption (in MWH1)Percent power content Number of customer accounts Residential Commercial and other Average residential usage per capita Renewable large hydro facilities Qualifying renewables2 Electric savings achieved annually through efficiency programs (% of total sales) Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average outage duration per customer affected (Target: <60 minutes) Circuit miles under‐ grounded during the year Electric Supply CO23 emissions (in metric tons) FY 06 28,653 161,202 804,908 2.58 61% 8%‐39 63 1.0 ‐ FY 07 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.65 84% 10%‐48 48 1.0 156,000 FY 08 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.62 53% 14% 0.56% 41 87 1.2 177,000 FY 09 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.52 47% 19% 0.47% 28 118 0.0 173,000 FY 10 29,430 163,098 801,990 2.53 34% 17% 0.55% 20 132 0.0 150,000 FY 11 29,708 160,318 786,201 2.47 45% 20% 0.70% 33 141 1.2 71,000 FY 12 29,545 160,604 781,960 2.45 65% 20% 1.52% 25 67 1.2 80,000 FY 13 29,299 156,411 790,430 2.36 42% 21% 0.88% 25 139 1.2 57,000 FY 14 29,338 153,190 797,594 2.32 40% 21% 0.87% 16 39 0.0 0 3 FY 15 29,065 145,284 791,559 2.17 27% 22% 0.60% 17 39 1.2 ‐ Change from: Last year ‐1%‐5%‐1%‐6%‐13% +1%‐0.27% +6% 0% +100%‐ FY 06 +1%‐10%‐2%‐16%‐34% +14%‐‐56%‐38% +20%‐ 1 Megawatt hours. 2 Includes biomass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. The City Council established a target of 33% renewable power by 2015. 3 In FY 2014, the carbon neutral plan effectively eliminated all greenhouse gas emissions from the City’s electric supply. Mission:To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable, and cost‐effective services. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 52 GAS Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) General Fund transfers (in millions) Gas Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Gas purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per therm) Average monthly residential bill3 FY 06 $37.2 $36.3 $3.3 $2.9 $13.2 47.3 $21.4 0.66 $33.43 FY 07 $42.9 $40.0 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 47.9 $22.3 0.69 $44.00 FY 08 $50.4 $46.2 $4.4 $3.2 $21.8 46.4 $27.2 0.82 $52.20 FY 09 $49.5 $44.4 $4.5 $3.3 $26.4 48.4 $25.1 0.80 $56.60 FY 10 $46.8 $43.0 $5.1 $5.4 $29.6 49.0 $22.5 0.71 $51.03 FY 11 $50.4 $45.7 $2.0 $5.3 $34.4 54.3 $21.5 0.65 $51.03 FY 12 $50.9 $48.7 $5.1 $6.0 $36.2 52.3 $16.2 0.53 $51.03 FY 13 $35.6 $38.1 $5.0 $6.0 $32.0 53.3 $13.5 0.45 $37.50 FY 14 $36.6 $39.9 $9.4 $5.8 $28.3 53.4 $14.3 0.49 $39.89 FY 15 $31.2 $34.4 $7.5 $5.7 $11.5 4 55.4 $10.5 0.41 $37.39 Change from: Last year ‐15%‐14%‐21%‐1%‐59% +4%‐27%‐16%‐6% FY 06 ‐16%‐5% +130% +95%‐13% +17%‐51%‐38%+12% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Gas comparisons based on recent residential median data: 18 therms/month in summer (April‐October), 54 therms/month in winter (November‐March). Commodity prices switched to market rate in FY 2013. Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax. 4 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. Gas consumption (in therms)Unplanned service outages Number of leaks found Number of customer accounts Residential Commercial and other Average residential usage per capita Natural gas savings achieved annually through efficiency programs (% of total sales) Number Total customers affected Ground leaks Meter leaks FY 06 23,353 11,745,883 19,766,876 188 ‐19 211 119 88 FY 07 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 192 ‐18 307 56 85 FY 08 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 193 0.11%18 105 239 108 FY 09 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 173 0.28%46 766 210 265 FY 10 23,724 11,394,712 19,350,424 177 0.40%58 939 196 355 FY 11 23,816 11,476,609 19,436,897 177 0.55%22 114 124 166 FY 12 23,915 11,522,999 18,460,195 176 0.73%35 111 95 257 FY 13 23,659 10,834,793 18,066,040 163 1.40%65 265 91 279 FY 14 23,592 10,253,776 17,862,866 155 1.34%49 285 102 300 FY 15 23,461 8,537,754 16,522,430 127 0.90%14 195 61 188 Change from: Last year ‐1%‐17%‐8%‐18%‐0.44%‐71%‐32%‐40%‐37% FY 06 0%‐27%‐16%‐32%‐‐26%‐8%‐49% +114% Ch a p t e r 3 Ut i l i t i e s Attachment A 53 WATER Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) General Fund transfers (in millions) Water Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Water purchases (in millions) Average purchase costs (per 100 CCF 3) Average monthly residential bill4 Total water in CCF sold (in millions) FY 06 $21.6 $24.1 $4.7 $2.4 $19.2 40.8 $6.5 $1.13 $34.00 5.2 FY 07 $26.3 $24.1 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 44.7 $7.8 $1.32 $36.82 5.5 FY 08 $29.3 $24.9 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 46.2 $8.4 $1.41 $41.66 5.5 FY 09 $29.5 $28.9 $4.9 $2.7 $26.6 47.7 $8.4 $1.46 $42.97 5.4 FY 10 $28.8 $30.5 $7.1 $0.1 $28.7 46.8 $9.1 $1.70 $43.89 5.0 FY 11 $28.4 $31.8 $7.6 $0.0 $25.5 46.9 $10.7 $1.99 $43.89 5.0 FY 12 $33.8 $41.6 $9.7 $0.0 $23.1 46.4 $14.9 $2.74 $53.62 5.1 FY 13 $40.5 $47.7 $15.3 $0.0 $34.2 49.0 $16.6 $3.03 $62.16 5.1 FY 14 $42.8 $38.4 $9.8 $0.0 $37.1 48.2 $15.7 $3.33 $67.35 5.0 FY 15 $38.6 $34.5 $4.2 $0.0 $27.5 5 51.1 $15.7 $3.77 $67.35 4.4 Change from: Last year ‐10%‐10%‐57%‐‐26% +6% 0% +13%0%‐13% FY 06 +79% +43%‐11%‐+43% +25% +142% +234% +98%‐16% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 CCF = hundred cubic feet. 4 Water comparisons based on recent residential median data: 9 CCF/month. Prior years were restated to more accurately reflect a monthly utility bill. Does not include 5 percent utility users tax. 5 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. Water consumption (in CCF1)Unplanned service outages Number of customer accounts Residential Commercial and other2 Average residential usage per capita Water savings achieved through efficiency programs (% of total sales) Number Total customers affected Percent of miles of water mains replaced Water quality compliance with all required CA Department of Health and Environmental Protection Agency testing FY 06 19,645 2,647,758 2,561,145 42 ‐11 160 0%100% FY 07 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 46 ‐27 783 1%100% FY 08 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 44 0.72%17 374 1%100% FY 09 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 0.98%19 230 1%100% FY 10 20,134 2,415,467 2,539,818 38 1.35%25 291 2%100% FY 11 20,248 2,442,415 2,550,043 38 0.47%11 92 3%100% FY 12 20,317 2,513,595 2,549,409 38 1.09%10 70 0%100% FY 13 20,043 2,521,930 2,575,499 38 0.53%61 950 2%100% FY 14 20,037 2,496,549 2,549,766 38 0.64%50 942 0%100% FY 15 20,061 2,052,176 2,380,584 31 1.05%17 241 0%100% Change from: Last year 0%‐18%‐7%‐19% 0.41%‐66%‐74%0%0% FY 06 +2%‐22%‐7%‐27%‐+55% +51% 0%0% 1 CCF = hundred cubic feet. 2 Includes commercial, industrial research, and City facilities. Ch a p t e r 3 Ut i l i t i e s Attachment A 54 WASTEWATER COLLECTION Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) Wastewater Collection Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Average monthly residential bill3 Number of customer accounts Percent miles of mains cleaned/ treated Percent miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours FY 06 $14.1 $13.2 $2.4 $14.5 23.1 $21.85 21,784 44% 0% 310 99% FY 07 $15.7 $19.1 $7.7 $12.4 25.4 $23.48 21,789 69% 3% 152 99% FY 08 $16.6 $15.7 $3.6 $13.8 28.0 $23.48 21,970 40% 1% 164 99% FY 09 $15.5 $15.0 $2.9 $14.1 25.5 $23.48 22,210 44% 1% 277 100% FY 10 $15.9 $13.4 $2.8 $16.6 26.1 $24.65 22,231 66% 2% 348 100% FY 11 $16.1 $15.5 $2.6 $17.1 28.5 $24.65 22,320 75% 2% 332 100% FY 12 $15.8 $16.8 $1.7 $16.8 29.7 $27.91 22,421 63% 0% 131 96.18% FY 13 $17.6 $17.4 $3.6 $16.4 30.0 $29.31 22,152 65% 2% 129 99.22% FY 14 $17.0 $16.7 $3.9 $16.6 30.2 $29.31 22,105 54% 3% 105 98.09% FY 15 $17.1 $16.0 $1.7 $10.5 4 31.0 $29.31 21,990 61% 0% 96 96.85% Change from: Last year +1%‐4%‐57%‐37% +3% 0%‐1% +7%‐3%‐9%‐1.24% FY 06 +21% +21%‐29%‐28% +34% +34% +1% +17% 0%‐69%‐2.15% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. 3 Wastewater comparisons are for a residential dwelling unit. Rates are not metered. 4 Reduction of reserves resulted from the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, as described in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report period ended June 30, 2014. FIBER OPTICS Operating revenues (in millions) Operating expenditures1 (in millions) Capital expenditures2 (in millions) Fiber Optics Fund reserves (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Number of customer accounts Number of service connections Backbone fiber miles FY 06 ‐‐$0.0 ‐4.9 42 139 40.6 FY 07 $2.3 $1.3 $0.0 ‐3.1 49 161 40.6 FY 08 $3.4 $1.1 $0.0 $5.0 0.7 41 173 40.6 FY 09 $3.8 $1.5 $0.0 $6.4 6.0 47 178 40.6 FY 10 $3.6 $1.4 $0.1 $10.2 5.5 47 196 40.6 FY 11 $3.7 $1.9 $0.4 $11.9 7.7 59 189 40.6 FY 12 $4.1 $1.8 $0.6 $14.3 7.4 59 199 40.6 FY 13 $4.7 $1.5 $0.4 $17.0 7.3 72 205 40.6 FY 14 $4.9 $2.0 $0.5 $19.9 7.2 75 230 40.6 FY 15 $5.0 $2.0 $0.4 $21.2 8.4 64 228 42.08 Change from: Last year +4% +1%‐24% +7% +17%‐15%‐1% +4% FY 06 ‐‐0%‐98% +72% +52% +64% +4% 1 Consistent with the City’s operating budgets, capital improvement program (CIP) expenditures are included as operating expenditures for this department. 2 Capital expenditures include direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Ch a p t e r 3 Ut i l i t i e s Attachment A 55 OFFICES OF COUNCIL‐APPOINTED OFFICERS General Fund Operating Expenditures (in millions)General Fund Authorized Staffing (FTE) City Manager’s Office1 City Attorney’s Office City Clerk’s Office City Auditor’s Office City Manager’s Office1 City Attorney’s Office City Clerk’s Office City Auditor’s Office FY 06 $1.3 $2.6 $1.0 $0.9 8.8 12.3 6.1 4.1 FY 07 $1.7 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 8.9 11.6 7.3 4.1 FY 08 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 12.9 11.6 8.3 4.3 FY 09 $2.0 $2.5 $1.1 $0.8 11.8 11.6 7.4 4.3 FY 10 $2.3 $2.6 $1.5 $1.0 11.0 11.6 7.2 4.3 FY 11 $2.3 $2.3 $1.2 $1.0 9.9 10.1 7.2 4.8 FY 12 $2.5 $2.8 $1.5 $0.9 11.1 9.0 7.2 4.3 FY 13 $2.5 $2.4 $1.3 $1.0 10.1 9.0 7.2 4.5 FY 14 $2.9 $2.6 $1.1 $1.0 9.6 9.0 6.2 4.5 FY 15 $2.9 $2.6 $1.1 $1.1 10.1 11.0 6.2 4.5 Change from: Last year 0%+1%‐3%+8%+5%+22%0%0% FY 06 +113%+1%+13%+25%+15%‐11%+2%+9% 1Includes figures for the Office of Sustainability, which was established as a separate office in FY 2014 and is no longer classified under the City Manager’s Office for budget purposes. St r a t e g i c & Su p p o r t Se r v i c e s Missions: City Manager: Provides leadership and professional management to the City government in service to City Council policies, priorities and the community’s civic values. City Attorney: To serve Palo Alto and its policymakers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. City Auditor: To promote an honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City government. City Clerk: To provide excellent service to the public, City staff, and the City Council through personal assistance and the use of information technologies; to provide timely and accessible service in response to all inquiries and requests for public information and records; to provide resources through web pages to enable the public to research public information independently. Administration of elections, records management, and the legislative process are all key processes handled by the department. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 56 St r a t e g i c & Su p p o r t Se r v i c e s City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Number of claims handled Percent of claims resolved within 45 days of filing (Target: 90%) Percent of Action Minutes that are released within one week of the City Council meeting (Target: 90%) <NEW> Percentage of Public Records Requests responded to within the required ten days (Target: 100%) <NEW> Number of major work products issued1 Number of major work products issued2 per audit staff Percent of open audit recommendations implemented over the last five years (Target: 75%) Sales and use tax revenue recoveries2 FY 06 107 ‐‐ ‐52.5 ‐$917,597 FY 07 149 ‐‐ ‐42.0 ‐$78,770 FY 08 160 ‐‐ ‐73.5 ‐$149,810 FY 09 126 ‐‐ ‐3 1.5 40% $84,762 FY 10 144 ‐‐ ‐5 2.5 42% $259,560 FY 11 130 ‐‐ ‐3 1.0 39% $95,625 FY 12 112 92%‐‐5 1.7 49% $160,488 FY 13 99 95%‐‐5 1.4 42% $151,153 FY 14 78 92% 95% 90% 4 1.3 43% $168,916 FY 15 99 93%90%95%4 1.0 42% $116,973 Change from: Last year +27%+1%‐5%+5%0%‐25%‐1%‐31% FY 06 ‐7%‐‐ ‐‐20%‐60%‐‐87% 1Includes audits, the annual Performance Report, and the annual National Citizen Survey™. 2Includes other nonrecurring revenues from transient occupancy tax, alternative fuel tax credit, and/or unclaimed property in fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and fiscal years 2010 through 2013. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 57 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Fund Procurement Card2 Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Budget stabilization reserve (in millions) Cash and investments (in millions) Rate of return on investments (Target: 2.10%) Number of accounts payable checks issued Average days purchase requisitions are in queue1 Value of goods and services purchased (in millions) Number of purchasing documents processed Number of transactions Total value (in millions) Total lease payments received (in millions) FY 06 $6.6 51.1 $26.3 $376.2 4.21%15,069 ‐$61.3 2,847 10,517 ‐‐ FY 07 $7.0 52.9 $27.5 $402.6 4.35%14,802 ‐$107.5 2,692 10,310 ‐‐ FY 08 $7.3 53.5 $26.1 $375.7 4.45%14,480 ‐$117.2 2,549 11,350 ‐‐ FY 09 $7.0 50.6 $24.7 $353.4 4.42%14,436 ‐$132.0 2,577 12,665 ‐‐ FY 10 $7.9 44.2 $27.4 $462.4 3.96%12,609 ‐$112.5 2,314 12,089 ‐‐ FY 11 $6.3 40.2 $31.4 $471.6 3.34%13,680 ‐$149.8 2,322 13,547 ‐‐ FY 12 $7.0 41.3 $28.1 $502.3 2.59%10,966 ‐$137.0 2,232 15,256 ‐‐ FY 13 $7.0 42.5 $30.4 $527.9 2.46%10,466 38 $152.5 1,945 18,985 ‐$3.4 FY 14 $7.1 41.5 $35.1 $541.2 2.21%10,270 30 $136.6 2,047 17,885 $6.2 $3.4 FY 15 $7.1 42.2 $48.2 $534.6 1.95%10,158 40 $129.3 1,707 17,799 $6.8 $4.0 Change from: Last year +1% +2% +37%‐1% 0%‐1% +33%‐5%‐17% 0% +10% +18% FY 06 +8%‐17% +84% +42%‐2%‐33%‐+111%‐40% +69%‐‐ 1 The estimated average number of days purchase requisitions remain in queue after the initiating department releases them. The Administrative Services Department started tracking this measure in May 2013. The time to convert purchase requisitions to purchase orders may very significantly depending on procurement requirements and complexity. 2 The department’s goal is to increase procurement card expenditures to $7 million per year to take advantage of the revenue the City receives through rebate. St r a t e g i c & Su p p o r t Se r v i c e s Mission:To provide proactive financial and analytical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of City resources. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A 58 St r a t e g i c & Su p p o r t Se r v i c e s PEOPLE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT General Fund Workers’ Compensation Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Turnover of employees within first year1 (Target: 1%) Estimated cost incurred2 (in thousands) Claims Paid2 (in thousands) Estimated costs outstanding2 (in thousands) Number of claims filed with days away from work3 Days lost to work‐ related illness or injury4 FY 06 $2.5 15.4 3% $2,858 $2,601 $258 80 ‐ FY 07 $2.6 15.6 7% $2,114 $1,937 $177 76 2,242 FY 08 $2.7 17.2 9% $2,684 $2,460 $224 75 1,561 FY 09 $2.7 16.0 8% $2,628 $2,145 $483 73 1,407 FY 10 $2.7 16.3 6% $2,521 $2,165 $356 71 1,506 FY 11 $2.6 16.3 8% $1,918 $1,402 $516 45 1,372 FY 12 $2.7 16.5 10% $2,843 $1,963 $880 56 1,236 FY 13 $2.9 16.6 8% $3,182 $1,713 $1,469 42 1,815 FY 14 $3.1 16.7 9% $2,088 $1,217 $871 59 1,783 FY 15 $3.3 16.7 16% $1,121 $518 $602 36 1,366 Change from: Last year +4% 0% +7%‐46%‐57%‐31%‐39%‐ FY 06 +29% +9% +13%‐61%‐80%+134%‐55%‐23% 1In FY 2013, the City’s probation period was extended from six months to one year. 2 Estimates of claim costs incurred during each fiscal year, and associated costs paid and outstanding as of June 30, 2015. Costs are expected to increase as claims develop. Prior‐year costs were updated to reflect current costs as of June 30, 2015. 3 Restated to reflect the number of claims filed during each fiscal year that resulted in days away from work as of June 30, 2015. Numbers may increase as claims develop. 4 Based on calendar days. Federal requirements limit each claim to 180 days. Mission:To recruit, develop, and retain a diverse, well‐qualified and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we serve, and to lead City departments in positive employee relations, talent management, succession planning, and employee engagement. Ch a p t e r 3 Attachment A The National Citizen SurveyTM January 2016 Office of the City Auditor Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Lisa Wehara, Performance Auditor II Attachment B Page intentionally left blank Attachment B Office of the City Auditor ● 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor ● Palo Alto, CA 94301 ● 650.329.2667 Copies of the full report are available on the Office of the City Auditor website at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments/default.asp Office of the City Auditor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The National Citizen Survey™ The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California This report presents the results of the 13th annual National Citizen Survey™ (NCS™) for the City of Palo Alto. We contract with the National Research Center to conduct the statistically valid NCS™ to gather resident opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and related services, as well as residents’ engagement level within the community. BACKGROUND Beginning in 2014, we increased the number of surveys distributed to City of Palo Alto residents from 1,200 to 3,000, and we distributed the surveys within six geographic areas of the City. The larger sample size allowed us to maintain statistical reliability within each of the six geographic areas, as well as in the north and south areas of the City, and report survey results for these geographic areas (see the maps on report pages 4 and 5 for a breakdown of the north and south and the six geographic areas). The margins of error for the survey results are: Overall – plus or minus 4 percentage points North/South – plus or minus 5 percentage points 6 areas – plus or minus 10 percentage points The survey response rate has declined gradually since we conducted the first survey in 2003, from a high of 51 percent in 2004, to a low of 25 percent in this year’s survey. However, increasing the number of surveys mailed from 1,200 to 3,000 has captured responses from more residents, despite the lower response rate. Survey Response Rate: 2006 through 2015 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Response Rate1 48% 51% 43% 42% 38% 36% 37% 36% 37% 27% 29% 27% 25% Number of Responses 557 582 508 495 437 415 424 6242 427 316 337 796 721 1 The response rate is based on the number of surveys mailed minus the number of surveys returned by the post office as undeliverable e.g., the housing unit was vacant. 2 1,800 surveys were mailed in 2010, which resulted in a higher number of respondents despite a slight decline in the response rate. RESULT HIGHLIGHTS Overall Results Residents generally like living in Palo Alto: 88 percent of respondents rated the overall quality of life in Palo Alto as excellent or good, and 80 percent of respondents said it is very or somewhat likely that they would remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. However, this is the first time since we began conducting the survey in Palo Alto that fewer than 90 percent of respondents rated the overall quality of life as excellent or good. The average rating of all the quality of life questions is 81 percent, primarily because only 52 percent of respondents rated Palo Alto as a place to retire as excellent or good. Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ ii The average of the quality of life questions was lowest, at 76 percent, for residents living in geographic area 4,1 although 78 percent of those residents said they are very or somewhat likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years. The average of the quality of life questions ranged from 81 percent to 84 percent for the other five geographic areas, but the likelihood of those residents remaining in Palo Alto for the next five years ranged from 69 percent to 87 percent. There is only a correlation coefficient2 of 0.13 between the average responses to the quality of life questions and the likelihood of residents remaining in Palo Alto for the next five years. This means that whether residents remain in Palo Alto during the next five years is more likely to be determined other than by factors such as how happy they are with Palo Alto and their neighborhoods as a place to live and raise children. However, because the quality of life questions about Palo Alto as a place to retire rated much lower than the other quality of life questions, residents may be more likely to move out of Palo Alto as they approach retirement. The following tables show the results of key quality of life questions asked in the survey. Overall Quality of Life in Palo Alto - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 88% 91% 91% 94% 92% 94% 93% 91% 94% 92% 1 Area 4 includes the neighborhoods of Ventura, Charleston Meadows, Monroe Park, Palo Alto Orchards, Barron Park, Green Acres, Greater Miranda, and Esther Clark Park. 2 Correlation analysis shows the strength of a linear relationship between pairs of variables, and is measured in terms of a correlation coefficient. A correlation coefficient of +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, meaning that as variable A increases, variable B will increase similarly; and a correlation coefficient of -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, meaning that as variable A decreases, variable B will decrease similarly. The relationship weakens as the correlation coefficient moves closer to 0, meaning that it is less likely that there is a linear relationship between the variables. 88%90%85%86%85%91% 81% 90%94% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ iii Palo Alto as a Place to Live - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 92% 95% 92% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 96% 94% Your Neighborhood as a Place to Live - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 90% 92% 91% 90% 90% 91% 90% 91% 91% 91% Palo Alto as a Place to Raise Children - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 87% 93% 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 94% 92% 92% 92%92%91%92%92%95% 86%92%93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 90%93%88%91%91%92% 82% 97%92% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 87%87%87%87%90%94% 79% 89%87% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ iv Palo Alto as a Place to Work - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 87% 86% 89% 88% 89% 87% 87% 90% 90% 84% Palo Alto as a Place to Retire - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 52% 60% 56% 68% 68% 65% 64% 67% 61% 68% Quality of Services Provided by the City of Palo Alto - Percent Rating Excellent or Good 10-year trend: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 85% 83% 84% 88% 83% 80% 80% 85% 86% 87% 87%86%87%82% 91% 81%87%91%87% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 52%58% 47% 59% 50%46%45% 52%60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 85%85%86%84%88%83%85%86%86% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ v Results by Facet In addition to the general quality of life questions, The NCS™ collects residents’ opinions across eight facets. Residents’ attitudes toward these facets of life in Palo Alto are less favorable than their attitudes toward the overall quality of life: Survey Results by Facet Area Average Percent Rating Excellent or Good Range of Percent Rating Excellent or Good Percent Rating Essential or Very Important Safety 86% 74% to 97% 82% Natural environment 83% 73% to 88% 81% Education and enrichment 82% 49% to 92% 67% Recreation and wellness 78% 53% to 93% 61% Economy 69% 8% to 87% 78% Community engagement 66% 48% to 82% 71% Built environment 63% 8% to 91% 80% Mobility 57% 26% to 83% 82% Most residents were pleased with the areas of safety, natural environment, and education and enrichment, as shown by 82 percent to 86 percent of respondents rating those areas as excellent or good, but the average rating of less than 70 percent for questions related to the economy, community engagement, the built environment, and mobility indicate that residents do not view those facets as favorably. The lowest-rated questions were those related to housing (built environment) and the cost of living in Palo Alto (economy), which also rated low across all of the geographic areas: Only 8 percent of respondents rated the availability of affordable quality housing as excellent or good, while 80 percent rated it as poor and 12 percent rated it as fair. Only 20 percent of respondents rated the variety of housing options as excellent or good, while 48 percent rated it as poor and 33 percent rated it as fair. Only 8 percent of respondents rated the cost of living in Palo Alto as excellent or good, while 64 percent rated it as poor and 29 percent rated it as fair. The mobility facet had the most questions that respondents rated low. Questions that fewer than 50 percent of respondents rated as excellent or good were: Quality of bus or transit services - 49 percent Traffic signal timing - 47 percent Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto - 44 percent Ease of public parking - 36 percent Traffic flow on major streets - 31 percent East of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto - 26 percent Several questions in the community engagement facet also rated low. Residents’ lack of participation in certain activities means that most residents do not provide input on issues that could affect the direction of City policies. For example, fewer than 25 percent of respondents reported that, in the last 12 months, they: Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause, or candidate - 24 percent Attended a local public meeting - 22 percent participation Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting - 18 percent participation Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express their opinion - 15 percent Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ vi Some responses seem to contradict others. For example, only 48 percent of respondents rated the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking as excellent or good, but gave higher ratings to several factors that are related to the direction that Palo Alto is taking. For example, 69 percent of respondents rated economic development as excellent or good, 76 percent rated vibrant downtown/commercial area as excellent or good, and 65 percent rated the value of services for the taxes paid to Palo as excellent or good. Asking more targeted questions about specific issues could provide more insight regarding why residents provided seemingly contradictory responses. Changes From Last Year and Over Time Overall, ratings in the City were generally stable, with 114 areas rated similarly in 2014 and 2015. Results are generally considered similar if the ratings from one year to the next do not differ by more than five percentage points, which is statistically meaningful. Residents rated seven areas more favorably and 15 areas less favorably in 2015 than in 2014: Survey Question 2014 2015 Change from 2014 Public library services (excellent or good) 81% 91% 10% Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services (at least once in last 12 months) 68% 76% 8% Participated in a club (at least once in last 12 months) 27% 34% 7% Attended a City-sponsored event (at least once in last 12 months) 50% 57% 7% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement (excellent or good) 54% 61% 7% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto (at least once in last 12 months) 40% 46% 6% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone (at least once in last 12 months) 53% 58% 5% Street cleaning (excellent or good) 80% 75% -5% Palo Alto as a place to raise children (excellent or good) 93% 87% -6% Adult educational opportunities (excellent or good) 89% 83% -6% Traffic signal timing (excellent or good) 53% 47% -6% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit (excellent or good) 71% 65% -6% Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks (very likely or somewhat likely) 86% 80% -6% Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (excellent or good) 81% 74% -7% Variety of housing options (excellent or good) 27% 20% -7% Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto (excellent or good) 52% 44% -8% Palo Alto as a place to retire (excellent or good) 60% 52% -8% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds (excellent or good) 76% 68% -8% Bus or transit services (excellent or good) 57% 49% -8% Storm drainage (excellent or good) 80% 71% -9% Availability of affordable quality mental health care (excellent or good) 63% 53% -10% Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto (excellent or good) 36% 26% -10% Although not showing a statistically meaningful change from the prior year, residents’ opinions of several areas have improved or declined over time, which may represent shifts in residents’ perspective. During the past 10 years, 13 areas have had a statistically meaningful change: Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ vii Areas That Improved Over Time Percent Rating Excellent or Good 2006 Rating 2015 Rating Change Since 2006 Trend Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool (excellent/good) 35% 49% +14% ↑ Quality of public information services (excellent/good) 72% 82% +10% ↑ Sidewalk maintenance (excellent/good) 53% 62% +9% ↑ Quality of drinking water (excellent/good) 80% 88% +8% ↑ Economic development (excellent/good) 61% 69% +8% ↑ Employment opportunities (excellent/good) 59% 66% +7% ↑ Quality of sewer services (excellent/good) 83% 88% +5% ↑ Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years (very likely/somewhat likely)* 85% 80% -5% ↓ Attended a local public meeting within the last 12 months 27% 22% -5% ↓ Sense of community (excellent/good) 66% 60% -6% ↓ Traffic flow on major streets (excellent/good) 39% 31% -8% ↓ Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 62% 49% -13% ↓ Watched (online or television) a local public meeting within the last 12 months 31% 18% -13% ↓ *Data compares 2008 and 2015 because this question was not asked in 2006 or 2007. Comparative Results for Geographic Areas The statistically significant variances in the combined excellent and good responses between the North and South subgroups, as well as for the six area subgroups are shaded in grey in the report. The following table shows the statistically significant variances for the North and South subgroups (variances over 10 percent are shown at the top and bottom of the table). Percent Rating Excellent or Good (if not excellent or good, other rating indicated in parentheses) North South Overall Difference North less South Palo Alto as a place to retire 58% 47% 52% 11% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 65% 54% 59% 11% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 54% 44% 49% 10% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving (in last 12 months) 58% 48% 53% 10% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 68% 59% 63% 9% Did NOT observe a code violation (in last 12 months) 71% 63% 67% 8% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) (essential or very important) 84% 77% 80% 7% Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 88% 90% 5% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 90% 85% 88% 5% Availability of affordable quality housing 5% 10% 8% -5% Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 88% 93% 91% -5% Public places where people want to spend time 78% 84% 81% -6% Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient (in last 12 months) 70% 78% 74% -8% Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 56% 65% 61% -9% Street repair 46% 55% 51% -9% Storm drainage 64% 76% 71% -12% Sidewalk maintenance 55% 68% 62% -13% Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ viii The survey does not ask why respondents answered the way they did. Further in-depth questioning, such as through targeted focus groups, could explain why differing opinions exist among the various subgroups. National Benchmark Comparisons When available, benchmark comparisons are shown as the last table for each question. The average rating column shows the City’s rating converted to a 100 point scale. The rank column shows the City’s rank among communities that asked a similar question. The comparison to benchmark column shows “similar” if Palo Alto’s average rating within the standard range of 10 points of the benchmark communities, “higher” or “lower” if Palo Alto’s average rating is greater than the standard range, and “much higher” or “much lower” if Palo Alto’s average rating differs by more than twice the standard range. Palo Alto rated much higher than the benchmark communities in 5 areas, higher in 27 areas, lower in 6 areas, and much lower in 3 areas. Palo Alto’s Ratings Compared to Benchmark Communities Much Higher Overall opportunities for education and enrichment Used bus, rail, or other public transportation instead of driving Employment opportunities Vibrant downtown/commercial areas Walked or biked instead of driving Higher Adult educational opportunities Animal control Availability of preventive health services Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone City parks Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Did NOT report a crime to the police Drinking water Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto Ease of walking in Palo Alto Economic development Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto K-12 education Made efforts to conserve water Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Overall appearance of Palo Alto Overall economic health of Palo Alto Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto Palo Alto as a place to work Palo Alto open space Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Recreation centers or facilities Shopping opportunities Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services Utility billing Visited a neighborhood park or City park Yard waste pick-up Lower Ease of public parking Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto Traffic flow on major streets Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Much Lower Availability of affordable quality housing Cost of living in Palo Alto Variety of housing options CUSTOM QUESTIONS In addition to the standard survey questions, we asked 10 custom questions (14 through 23) regarding communication, where residents go to shop and eat, transportation, and Cubberley Community Center. We also Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ ix asked an open-ended question regarding one improvement that the City could make to its parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs to better serve the community. Communication Phone calls are the most preferred method for residents to contact the City regarding maintenance issues or to provide feedback or engage with the City on issues in Palo Alto. If they had to report a maintenance issue, 44 percent of respondents reported that they would be most likely to call the appropriate City department; 21 percent said they would submit a notification electronically on the City’s website, and 19 percent said they would email the appropriate department. Only 3 percent said they would use the Palo Alto 311 phone app to notify the appropriate department (Table 64 on page 32). In the past 12 months, 27 percent of respondents said that they called the City to provide feedback or engage in City issues, and 24 percent said they emailed the City. Despite efforts to provide convenient means of communication through social media, only 11 percent said they used Open City Hall, social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter, or the “Contact the City” link on the City’s website (Table 65 on page 32). Where Residents Go to Shop and Eat A majority of survey respondents shop in their neighborhoods (54 percent) or elsewhere in the City (51 percent) at least one to five times per week. About a third of respondents are eating out in neighborhood restaurants (29 percent) or restaurants elsewhere in the City (28 percent) at least one to five times per week. The City is committed to a diversity of retail and neighborhood services (Tables 66 and 67 on page 33). Transportation Palo Alto residents view walking and biking as the most convenient ways to get around town without a car, with 81 percent of respondents rating biking and 70 percent rating walking as “very convenient” or “somewhat convenient.” Also, 68 percent of respondents rated Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare services as more convenient than conventional transit. Similarly, 56 percent of respondents rated free shuttles as more convenient than the train (46 percent) or bus (39 percent) (Table 71 on page 34). If convenience were not an issue, most Palo Alto residents would prefer or somewhat prefer walking (92 percent of respondents), free shuttles (78 percent), and biking (76 percent) as their mode of travel if they did not have access to a car. Fewer residents would prefer the train (68 percent), conventional buses (53 percent), and rideshare services (52 percent). A key goal of the City’s ongoing planning effort is to make the free shuttles more convenient, which could increase ridership (Table 72 on page 34). Cubberley Community Center We asked residents to rate how much of a priority, if at all, various future uses of the Cubberley Community Center are to them. The City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District are working together on a master plan for the Cubberley Community Center to meet future community and school needs, and the results of this survey question will be considered as they develop that plan. The five priorities receiving the highest percentage of high or medium priority responses were (Table 74 on page 35): Attachment B Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™ x Response Category Percent of High and Medium Priority Responses Indoor sports and health programs 75% Outdoor sports 72% Senior wellness, including stroke and cardiovascular programs 69% Rooms available to rent for other activities 65% Education – private schools and special interest classes 61% Suggested Improvements to Parks, Arts, or Recreation Activities and Programs We asked residents to share one improvement to the City of Palo Alto’s parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs that the City could make to better serve the community. The Community Services Department will consider these responses, along with data it has already collected from other community surveys as it develops a long range parks, recreation, trails, and open space master plan. Half of the respondents (361 of 721) provided ideas, which we categorized into 16 topic areas; the five most common suggestions were (Table 75 on page 37): Response Category Number of Responses Bathrooms/Restrooms 36 Park Spaces (Green Space) 35 Park, Recreation, and Art Facilities and Amenities (other than bathrooms/restrooms) 34 Art/Culture Improvements 28 Programs and Classes - Adult/Senior 22 Attachment B 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Palo Alto, CA Report of Results 2015 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2015 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Detailed Survey Methods .......................................................... 1 National Benchmark Comparisons ............................................. 8 Results Tables ......................................................................... 9 Survey Materials .................................................................... 54 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Detailed Survey Methods The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The National Citizen Survey (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census and American Community Survey estimates as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Palo Alto funded this research. Please contact Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, City of Palo Alto, at Harriet.Richardson@CityofPaloAlto.org if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. Over-sampling multifamily housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. Providing a preaddressed, postage-paid return envelope. Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents’ expectations for service quality play a role, as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion itself that a resident holds about the service. Similarly, a resident’s report of certain Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 2 behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” Survey Sampling “Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Palo Alto were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Palo Alto was purchased based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Palo Alto households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Palo Alto boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being located in North or South Palo Alto, or within one of six areas. To choose the 3,000 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every N th one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multifamily housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15 percent of the housing units might be sampled at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). Figure 1 (page 4) displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 3 An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on September 29, 2015. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the City Auditor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Respondents could opt to take the survey online. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks. About 3 percent of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 2,908 households that received the survey, 721 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 25 percent. Of the 721 completed surveys, 114 (16 percent) were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by location in Palo Alto (north or south) and by six subareas, as shown in the maps below. Response rates by area ranged from 17 percent to 36 percent. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients – North/South Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Figure 2: Location of Survey Recipients – Area Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95 percent. The 95 percent level of confidence can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.1 The margin of error or confidence interval for the City of Palo Alto survey is no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (721 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. For the North and South, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus five percentage points since the sample sizes for the North were 343 and for the South were 378. Further, for each of the six areas within Palo Alto, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus eleven percentage points since sample sizes were 100 for Area 1, 132 for Area 2, 107 for Area 3, 136 for Area 4, 88 for Area 5 and 158 for Area 6. The margin of error for the six areas within Palo Alto is based off the smallest number of returned surveys per area; thus margin of error was calculated using the number of returned surveys from Area 5 (88). Table 1: Survey Response Rates by Area Number mailed Undeliverable Eligible Returned Response rate Overall 3,000 92 2,908 721 25% North 1,488 54 1,434 343 24% South 1,512 38 1,474 378 26% Area 1 293 12 281 100 36% Area 2 519 18 501 132 26% Area 3 380 3 377 107 28% Area 4 596 16 580 136 23% Area 5 537 17 520 88 17% Area 6 675 26 649 158 24% Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Survey Data Weighting The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Palo Alto. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), housing unit type (attached or detached) and sex and age. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in Table 1. 1 A 95 percent level of confidence indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75 percent of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4 percent margin of error (for the 95 percent level of confidence) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71 percent and 79 percent. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the nonresponse of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Table 1: Palo Alto, CA 2015 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 44% 35% 44% Own home 56% 65% 56% Detached unit 58% 58% 58% Attached unit 42% 42% 42% Race and Ethnicity White 68% 71% 67% Not white 32% 29% 33% Not Hispanic 95% 96% 96% Hispanic 5% 4% 4% Sex and Age Female 52% 55% 51% Male 48% 45% 49% 18-34 years of age 22% 12% 22% 35-54 years of age 41% 31% 41% 55+ years of age 37% 57% 38% Females 18-34 10% 6% 10% Females 35-54 21% 16% 21% Females 55+ 20% 33% 20% Males 18-34 12% 6% 12% Males 35-54 20% 15% 20% Males 55+ 17% 24% 17% Areas North 49% 48% 48% South 51% 52% 51% Area 1 13% 14% 13% Area 2 19% 18% 19% Area 3 13% 15% 13% Area 4 18% 19% 19% Area 5 15% 12% 13% Area 6 21% 22% 22% Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. Trends over Time Trend tables display trends over time, comparing the 2015 ratings for the City of Palo Alto to nine previous survey results (going back to 2006; surveying started in 2003). Trend data for Palo Alto represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or “lower” if the differences are greater than approximately five percentage points2 between the 2014 and 2015 surveys; otherwise, the comparisons between 2014 and 2015 are noted as being “similar.” When comparing 2 While the percentages are reported as rounded whole numbers, meaningful differences are identified based on unrounded percentages with decimals in place. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 8 results over time, small differences (those with less than a 5 percent difference compared to 2014) are more likely to be due to random variation (attributable to chance over real change), while larger differences (those greater than 5 percent compared to 2014) may be due to a real shift in resident perspective. However, it is often wise to continue to monitor results over a longer period of time to rule out random variation due to chance in the sampling process. Sometimes small changes in question wording can explain changes in results as well. Overall, ratings in Palo Alto for 2015 generally remained stable. Of the 136 items for which comparisons were available, 114 items were rated similarly in 2014 and 2015, 15 items showed a decrease in ratings and 7 showed an increase in ratings. Geographic Comparisons The geographic comparison tables on the following pages display differences in opinion of survey respondents by North or South location in Palo Alto and by six areas. Responses in these tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of respondents who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5 percent probability that differences observed between areas are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95 percent probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. National Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Citizen Survey™. The surveys gathered for NRC’s database include data from communities that have conducted The NCS as well as citizen surveys unaffiliated with NRC. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant, and the comparisons are to jurisdictions that have conducted a survey within the last five years. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Palo Alto chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared for standard items in questions 1 through 12 when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Palo Alto’s average rating, converted to a 100-point scale. The 3 New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) Middle Atlantic (NJ, NY, PA) East North Central (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) West North Central (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) South Atlantic (DE, FL, GA, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV) East South Central (AL, KY, MS, TN) West South Central (AK, LA, OK, TX) Mountain (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY) Pacific (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA) Table 3: Benchmark Database Characteristics Region3 Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 9 second column is the rank assigned to Palo Alto’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Palo Alto’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Palo Alto’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Palo Alto residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.” A rating is considered “similar” if it is within the standard range of 10 points; “higher” or “lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is greater than the standard range; and “much higher” or “much lower” if the difference between Palo Alto’s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the standard range. Where benchmark ratings were not available, “NA” indicates that this information is not applicable. Results Tables The following pages contain results for each question on the survey, the first set of results includes the “don’t know” responses, followed by results excluding the “don’t know” responses (where “don’t know” was an option), trends over time and geographic comparisons. For the questions in the survey respondents could answer “don’t know” the proportion of respondents giving this reply were not included for the comparisons over time and by geography. In other words, these tables display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For the basic frequencies, the percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”); the number of respondents is specific to each item, based on the actual number of responses received for the question or question item and based on the weighted data (weighted responses are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not exactly add up to the total number of responses; for more information on weighting, please see Survey Data Weighting, page 6). Generally, a small portion of respondents select “don’t know” for most survey items and, inevitably, some items have a larger “don’t know” percentage. Comparing responses to a set of items on the same scale can be misleading when the “don’t know” responses have been included. If two items have disparate “don’t know” percentages (2 percent versus 17 percent, for example), any apparent similarities or differences across the remaining response options may disappear once the “don’t know” responses are removed. Tables displaying trend data appear for standard questions (1 through 13; custom question and custom items are not included). Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or “lower” if the differences are greater than approximately five percentage points between the 2014 and 2015 surveys; otherwise, the comparison between 2014 and 2015 are noted as being “similar.” Geographic comparisons are made for questions 1 through 23 (some questions having multiple, nonscaled responses are not included). ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5 percent probability that differences observed between area are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95 percent probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The shading represents statistical significance for each question individually, which may differ question by question because the number of responses varied, as some residents may have skipped or answered “don’t know.” Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Question 1 Table 4: Question 1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Palo Alto as a place to live 53% N=377 38% N=274 7% N=51 1% N=8 0% N=2 100% N=713 Your neighborhood as a place to live 52% N=373 37% N=267 8% N=58 2% N=11 0% N=3 100% N=713 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 42% N=296 34% N=241 9% N=65 2% N=13 13% N=95 100% N=711 Palo Alto as a place to work 31% N=217 38% N=270 8% N=58 2% N=16 20% N=142 100% N=703 Palo Alto as a place to visit 29% N=206 40% N=283 19% N=131 6% N=39 6% N=45 100% N=705 Palo Alto as a place to retire 21% N=144 20% N=143 21% N=146 17% N=118 21% N=149 100% N=700 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 37% N=261 51% N=360 11% N=77 1% N=10 0% N=2 100% N=711 Table 5: Question 1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Palo Alto as a place to live 53% N=377 39% N=274 7% N=51 1% N=8 100% N=711 Your neighborhood as a place to live 53% N=373 38% N=267 8% N=58 2% N=11 100% N=709 Palo Alto as a place to raise children 48% N=296 39% N=241 11% N=65 2% N=13 100% N=616 Palo Alto as a place to work 39% N=217 48% N=270 10% N=58 3% N=16 100% N=561 Palo Alto as a place to visit 31% N=206 43% N=283 20% N=131 6% N=39 100% N=659 Palo Alto as a place to retire 26% N=144 26% N=143 26% N=146 21% N=118 100% N=552 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 37% N=261 51% N=360 11% N=77 1% N=10 100% N=709 Table 6: Question 1 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Palo Alto as a place to live 94% 96% 95% 94% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95% 92% Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 91% 91% 90% 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 90% Similar Palo Alto as a place to raise children 92% 92% 94% 91% 93% 93% 92% 90% 93% 87% Lower Palo Alto as a place to work 84% 90% 90% 87% 87% 89% 88% 89% 86% 87% Similar Palo Alto as a place to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 74% Similar Palo Alto as a place to retire 68% 61% 67% 64% 65% 68% 68% 56% 60% 52% Lower The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 92% 94% 91% 93% 94% 92% 94% 91% 91% 88% Similar Table 7: Question 1 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Palo Alto as a place to live 92% 91% 92% 92% 95% 86% 92% 93% 92% Your neighborhood as a place to live 93% 88% 91% 91% 92% 82% 97% 92% 90% Palo Alto as a place to raise children 87% 87% 87% 90% 94% 79% 89% 87% 87% Palo Alto as a place to work 86% 87% 82% 91% 81% 87% 91% 87% 87% Palo Alto as a place to visit 75% 74% 71% 71% 81% 71% 74% 78% 74% Palo Alto as a place to retire 58% 47% 59% 50% 46% 45% 52% 60% 52% The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 90% 85% 86% 85% 91% 81% 90% 94% 88% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Table 8: Question 1 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Palo Alto as a place to live 81 97 341 Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 80 41 263 Similar Palo Alto as a place to raise children 78 110 332 Similar Palo Alto as a place to work 74 17 306 Higher Palo Alto as a place to visit 67 43 150 Similar Palo Alto as a place to retire 52 244 315 Similar The overall quality of life in Palo Alto 74 139 398 Similar Question 2 Table 9: Question 2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=313 47% N=333 9% N=61 1% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=713 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 19% N=132 46% N=327 27% N=189 9% N=61 0% N=2 100% N=710 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 36% N=260 50% N=357 12% N=88 1% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=713 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 15% N=106 48% N=338 29% N=208 7% N=53 1% N=7 100% N=712 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 40% N=283 42% N=300 10% N=71 1% N=8 7% N=50 100% N=713 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 55% N=396 31% N=221 7% N=47 1% N=6 6% N=43 100% N=714 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 41% N=289 40% N=285 10% N=71 3% N=20 7% N=49 100% N=714 Sense of community 14% N=103 44% N=313 30% N=214 9% N=64 2% N=16 100% N=709 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 44% N=313 42% N=299 10% N=68 3% N=19 2% N=11 100% N=711 Table 10: Question 2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 44% N=313 47% N=333 9% N=61 1% N=6 100% N=713 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 19% N=132 46% N=327 27% N=189 9% N=61 100% N=708 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 36% N=260 50% N=357 12% N=88 1% N=8 100% N=713 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 15% N=106 48% N=338 29% N=208 7% N=53 100% N=705 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 43% N=283 45% N=300 11% N=71 1% N=8 100% N=663 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 59% N=396 33% N=221 7% N=47 1% N=6 100% N=671 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 44% N=289 43% N=285 11% N=71 3% N=20 100% N=665 Sense of community 15% N=103 45% N=313 31% N=214 9% N=64 100% N=694 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 45% N=313 43% N=299 10% N=68 3% N=19 100% N=700 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Table 11: Question 2 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% 91% Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71% 65% Lower Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto NA NA 85% 84% 84% 84% 88% 83% 88% 86% Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% 63% Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 88% Similar Overall opportunities for education and enrichment NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96% 92% Similar Overall economic health of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% 86% Similar Sense of community 66% 70% 70% 71% 71% 75% 73% 67% 64% 60% Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 91% 93% 92% 92% 90% 92% 92% 90% 92% 88% Similar Table 12: Question 2 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 88% 93% 87% 93% 92% 94% 90% 88% 91% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 63% 67% 60% 69% 64% 65% 59% 67% 65% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 88% 85% 88% 87% 86% 82% 87% 89% 86% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 68% 59% 66% 63% 62% 53% 69% 67% 63% Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 88% 88% 90% 87% 89% 88% 86% 88% 88% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 91% 93% 86% 95% 97% 89% 91% 93% 92% Overall economic health of Palo Alto 87% 85% 86% 87% 81% 87% 92% 86% 86% Sense of community 58% 61% 58% 65% 66% 56% 61% 57% 60% Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 87% 88% 89% 89% 87% 87% 80% 90% 88% Table 13: Question 2 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 78 68 227 Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 58 111 143 Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 74 62 235 Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 57 70 137 Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 76 14 139 Higher Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 83 3 137 Much higher Overall economic health of Palo Alto 76 8 142 Higher Sense of community 55 164 262 Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 77 46 297 Higher Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Question 3 Table 14: Question 3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 42% N=298 37% N=259 14% N=96 7% N=47 1% N=8 100% N=708 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 54% N=383 23% N=160 10% N=68 10% N=72 3% N=25 100% N=708 Table 15: Question 3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 43% N=298 37% N=259 14% N=96 7% N=47 100% N=700 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 56% N=383 23% N=160 10% N=68 10% N=72 100% N=684 Table 16: Question 3 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., very likely/somewhat likely) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks NA NA 91% 90% 90% 91% 92% 89% 86% 80% Lower Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years NA NA 85% 87% 83% 87% 87% 87% 83% 80% Similar Table 17: Question 3 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very likely" or "somewhat likely" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 80% 79% 84% 81% 83% 76% 77% 78% 80% Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 76% 82% 82% 84% 87% 78% 69% 77% 80% Table 18: Question 3 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks 80 173 236 Similar Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years 80 171 231 Similar Question 4 Table 19: Question 4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 81% N=580 16% N=113 2% N=12 1% N=5 0% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=712 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 61% N=432 30% N=211 6% N=41 1% N=7 1% N=6 2% N=16 100% N=713 In your neighborhood after dark 41% N=293 42% N=295 9% N=63 7% N=47 1% N=4 1% N=8 100% N=709 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 23% N=163 39% N=277 17% N=119 12% N=82 2% N=15 8% N=56 100% N=713 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Table 20: Question 4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 81% N=580 16% N=113 2% N=12 1% N=5 0% N=2 100% N=712 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 62% N=432 30% N=211 6% N=41 1% N=7 1% N=6 100% N=697 In your neighborhood after dark 42% N=293 42% N=295 9% N=63 7% N=47 1% N=4 100% N=701 In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 25% N=163 42% N=277 18% N=119 13% N=82 2% N=15 100% N=657 Table 21: Question 4 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., very safe/somewhat safe) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 In your neighborhood during the day 94% 98% 95% 95% 96% 98% 96% 97% 97% 97% Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 91% 94% 96% 91% 94% 91% 92% 93% 92% 92% Similar * Trend data are not included for two custom items in this question (Safety in your neighborhood after dark and in Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark). Table 22: Question 4 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "very safe" or "somewhat safe" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 In your neighborhood during the day 98% 97% 99% 97% 98% 96% 100% 97% 97% In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 93% 91% 91% 90% 89% 94% 92% 95% 92% In your neighborhood after dark 81% 86% 85% 88% 84% 84% 87% 76% 84% In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark 68% 66% 66% 62% 62% 73% 73% 65% 67% Table 23: Question 4 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 94 55 303 Similar In Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas during the day 88 118 257 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for two custom items in this question (Safety in your neighborhood after dark and in Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark). Question 5 Table 24: Question 5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 3% N=22 28% N=197 38% N=267 31% N=218 1% N=7 100% N=710 Ease of public parking 6% N=46 29% N=209 40% N=284 22% N=160 2% N=16 100% N=714 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 8% N=56 36% N=255 38% N=272 17% N=118 1% N=8 100% N=709 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 5% N=37 12% N=87 25% N=176 26% N=182 32% N=225 100% N=707 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 26% N=185 39% N=279 15% N=103 5% N=34 15% N=106 100% N=707 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 39% N=278 43% N=305 14% N=99 3% N=20 1% N=5 100% N=708 Availability of paths and walking trails 25% N=181 43% N=309 20% N=144 5% N=36 6% N=42 100% N=711 Air quality 28% N=198 51% N=359 17% N=119 2% N=16 2% N=14 100% N=706 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 33% N=235 51% N=365 13% N=94 2% N=17 0% N=2 100% N=713 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 33% N=235 56% N=398 10% N=69 1% N=8 0% N=3 100% N=714 Public places where people want to spend time 23% N=165 55% N=391 15% N=108 3% N=24 3% N=22 100% N=709 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Variety of housing options 2% N=17 16% N=111 30% N=213 44% N=311 8% N=58 100% N=709 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=11 6% N=39 11% N=81 73% N=519 9% N=62 100% N=712 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 28% N=197 46% N=330 19% N=133 2% N=17 5% N=36 100% N=714 Recreational opportunities 28% N=195 49% N=347 17% N=124 2% N=15 4% N=27 100% N=709 Availability of affordable quality food 22% N=157 37% N=266 29% N=209 9% N=64 2% N=15 100% N=711 Availability of affordable quality health care 28% N=200 34% N=242 19% N=134 7% N=51 12% N=83 100% N=711 Availability of preventive health services 28% N=196 37% N=259 15% N=108 3% N=23 17% N=124 100% N=710 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 9% N=62 16% N=115 14% N=96 8% N=59 53% N=379 100% N=711 Table 25: Question 5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 3% N=22 28% N=197 38% N=267 31% N=218 100% N=703 Ease of public parking 7% N=46 30% N=209 41% N=284 23% N=160 100% N=698 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 8% N=56 36% N=255 39% N=272 17% N=118 100% N=702 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 8% N=37 18% N=87 37% N=176 38% N=182 100% N=482 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 31% N=185 46% N=279 17% N=103 6% N=34 100% N=601 Ease of walking in Palo Alto 40% N=278 43% N=305 14% N=99 3% N=20 100% N=703 Availability of paths and walking trails 27% N=181 46% N=309 21% N=144 5% N=36 100% N=670 Air quality 29% N=198 52% N=359 17% N=119 2% N=16 100% N=692 Cleanliness of Palo Alto 33% N=235 51% N=365 13% N=94 2% N=17 100% N=712 Overall appearance of Palo Alto 33% N=235 56% N=398 10% N=69 1% N=8 100% N=710 Public places where people want to spend time 24% N=165 57% N=391 16% N=108 3% N=24 100% N=687 Variety of housing options 3% N=17 17% N=111 33% N=213 48% N=311 100% N=652 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=11 6% N=39 12% N=81 80% N=519 100% N=650 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 29% N=197 49% N=330 20% N=133 3% N=17 100% N=678 Recreational opportunities 29% N=195 51% N=347 18% N=124 2% N=15 100% N=681 Availability of affordable quality food 23% N=157 38% N=266 30% N=209 9% N=64 100% N=696 Availability of affordable quality health care 32% N=200 39% N=242 21% N=134 8% N=51 100% N=628 Availability of preventive health services 33% N=196 44% N=259 18% N=108 4% N=23 100% N=586 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 19% N=62 35% N=115 29% N=96 18% N=59 100% N=332 Table 26: Question 5 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Traffic flow on major streets 39% 45% 38% 46% 47% 40% 36% 34% 35% 31% Similar Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38% 36% Similar Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 60% 65% 60% 65% 66% 62% 51% 55% 52% 44% Lower Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 60% 55% 52% 63% 62% 64% 71% 65% 36% 26% Lower Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 78% 84% 78% 79% 81% 77% 81% 78% 78% 77% Similar Ease of walking in Palo Alto 87% 88% 86% 82% 85% 83% 82% 84% 84% 83% Similar Availability of paths and walking trails NA NA 74% 75% 75% 75% 77% 71% 74% 73% Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 16 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Air quality 80% 79% 75% 73% 77% 77% 81% 81% 83% 81% Similar Cleanliness of Palo Alto NA NA 88% 85% 85% 88% 86% 84% 87% 84% Similar Overall appearance of Palo Alto 85% 86% 89% 83% 83% 89% 89% 85% 89% 89% Similar Public places where people want to spend time NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% 81% Similar Variety of housing options NA NA 34% 39% 37% 37% 29% 26% 27% 20% Lower Availability of affordable quality housing 11% 10% 12% 17% 15% 14% 12% 13% 11% 8% Similar Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 78% 78% Similar Recreational opportunities 83% 85% 82% 78% 80% 81% 81% 81% 77% 80% Similar Availability of affordable quality food 62% 71% 64% NA NA 66% 68% 67% 65% 61% Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 57% 56% 57% 63% 62% 59% 68% 62% 73% 70% Similar Availability of preventive health services NA NA 70% 67% 67% 72% 76% 73% 82% 78% Similar Availability of affordable quality mental health care NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% 53% Lower Table 27: Question 5 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Traffic flow on major streets 31% 31% 29% 33% 37% 25% 32% 33% 31% Ease of public parking 36% 37% 34% 35% 40% 35% 48% 32% 36% Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45% 44% 46% 42% 50% 40% 49% 43% 44% Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 26% 25% 14% 23% 32% 22% 24% 36% 26% Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 77% 78% 82% 82% 74% 78% 72% 75% 77% Ease of walking in Palo Alto 86% 81% 94% 80% 84% 80% 76% 85% 83% Availability of paths and walking trails 76% 70% 80% 67% 75% 71% 75% 75% 73% Air quality 81% 80% 81% 77% 81% 82% 84% 80% 81% Cleanliness of Palo Alto 85% 84% 87% 83% 83% 85% 83% 85% 84% Overall appearance of Palo Alto 90% 89% 91% 90% 89% 87% 88% 90% 89% Public places where people want to spend time 78% 84% 89% 90% 86% 77% 73% 74% 81% Variety of housing options 18% 21% 22% 24% 19% 20% 18% 17% 20% Availability of affordable quality housing 5% 10% 5% 8% 7% 14% 2% 7% 8% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 77% 78% 89% 74% 82% 79% 72% 73% 78% Recreational opportunities 79% 80% 86% 80% 82% 78% 72% 79% 80% Availability of affordable quality food 59% 62% 57% 59% 67% 62% 59% 60% 61% Availability of affordable quality health care 72% 69% 75% 71% 71% 65% 66% 74% 70% Availability of preventive health services 79% 77% 83% 76% 78% 77% 73% 80% 78% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 56% 51% 59% 58% 44% 48% 44% 59% 53% Table 28: Question 5 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Traffic flow on major streets 34 267 299 Lower Ease of public parking 40 97 119 Lower Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto 45 226 254 Lower Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto 32 96 126 Lower Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto 67 19 251 Higher Ease of walking in Palo Alto 73 28 247 Higher Availability of paths and walking trails 65 84 266 Similar Air quality 69 80 211 Similar Cleanliness of Palo Alto 72 73 228 Similar Overall appearance of Palo Alto 74 58 310 Higher Public places where people want to spend time 67 31 130 Similar Variety of housing options 25 233 234 Much lower Availability of affordable quality housing 10 254 255 Much lower Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 68 40 134 Similar Recreational opportunities 69 54 259 Similar Availability of affordable quality food 58 114 192 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 65 41 216 Similar Availability of preventive health services 69 18 192 Higher Availability of affordable quality mental health care 51 37 119 Similar Question 6 Table 29: Question 6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 8% N=54 17% N=122 17% N=121 9% N=64 49% N=341 100% N=702 K-12 education 41% N=286 25% N=179 5% N=34 1% N=9 28% N=194 100% N=702 Adult educational opportunities 25% N=176 33% N=236 11% N=75 1% N=9 29% N=207 100% N=703 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 33% N=235 40% N=285 17% N=118 2% N=17 7% N=51 100% N=706 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 23% N=162 30% N=212 8% N=57 1% N=9 37% N=261 100% N=702 Employment opportunities 17% N=118 32% N=221 19% N=134 6% N=39 27% N=188 100% N=700 Shopping opportunities 36% N=255 42% N=297 16% N=116 4% N=29 1% N=8 100% N=705 Cost of living in Palo Alto 1% N=7 7% N=46 28% N=198 63% N=440 1% N=7 100% N=698 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 21% N=144 53% N=374 22% N=152 1% N=7 4% N=25 100% N=701 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 27% N=186 46% N=324 19% N=132 4% N=26 4% N=30 100% N=698 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 9% N=62 32% N=223 27% N=188 16% N=111 16% N=112 100% N=696 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 19% N=132 46% N=320 20% N=141 3% N=21 12% N=87 100% N=702 Opportunities to volunteer 23% N=161 36% N=257 14% N=97 1% N=9 26% N=182 100% N=705 Opportunities to participate in community matters 18% N=124 41% N=289 17% N=121 2% N=13 22% N=154 100% N=700 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 22% N=153 38% N=267 22% N=157 6% N=39 13% N=90 100% N=705 Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 15% N=104 42% N=295 29% N=204 8% N=55 5% N=36 100% N=694 Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people 17% N=120 35% N=244 10% N=73 1% N=9 37% N=261 100% N=706 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 14% N=100 28% N=198 12% N=84 2% N=14 44% N=311 100% N=707 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Table 30: Question 6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 15% N=54 34% N=122 34% N=121 18% N=64 100% N=361 K-12 education 56% N=286 35% N=179 7% N=34 2% N=9 100% N=507 Adult educational opportunities 36% N=176 47% N=236 15% N=75 2% N=9 100% N=496 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 36% N=235 43% N=285 18% N=118 3% N=17 100% N=655 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 37% N=162 48% N=212 13% N=57 2% N=9 100% N=441 Employment opportunities 23% N=118 43% N=221 26% N=134 8% N=39 100% N=512 Shopping opportunities 37% N=255 43% N=297 17% N=116 4% N=29 100% N=697 Cost of living in Palo Alto 1% N=7 7% N=46 29% N=198 64% N=440 100% N=691 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 21% N=144 55% N=374 22% N=152 1% N=7 100% N=676 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 28% N=186 49% N=324 20% N=132 4% N=26 100% N=668 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 11% N=62 38% N=223 32% N=188 19% N=111 100% N=585 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 22% N=132 52% N=320 23% N=141 3% N=21 100% N=615 Opportunities to volunteer 31% N=161 49% N=257 18% N=97 2% N=9 100% N=523 Opportunities to participate in community matters 23% N=124 53% N=289 22% N=121 2% N=13 100% N=547 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 25% N=153 43% N=267 26% N=157 6% N=39 100% N=615 Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 16% N=104 45% N=295 31% N=204 8% N=55 100% N=658 Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people 27% N=120 55% N=244 16% N=73 2% N=9 100% N=446 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 25% N=100 50% N=198 21% N=84 4% N=14 100% N=396 Table 31: Question 6 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 35% 26% 28% 32% 25% 35% 27% 31% 49% 49% Similar K-12 education NA NA NA NA NA 92% 92% 94% 95% 92% Similar Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 89% 83% Lower Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 85% 81% 79% 74% 74% 73% 77% 69% 81% 79% Similar Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities NA NA 82% NA NA NA 84% 75% 86% 85% Similar Employment opportunities 59% 61% 61% 51% 52% 56% 68% 68% 69% 66% Similar Shopping opportunities 80% 79% 71% 70% 70% 71% 69% 73% 82% 79% Similar Cost of living in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11% 8% Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto NA NA 77% 73% 75% 74% 79% 71% 79% 77% Similar Vibrant downtown/commercial area NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 76% Similar Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 62% 57% 57% 55% 53% 57% 56% 44% 51% 49% Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities NA NA 80% 80% 74% 76% 74% 74% 71% 74% Similar Opportunities to volunteer NA NA 86% 83% 81% 80% 80% 82% 83% 80% Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters NA NA 75% 76% 76% 71% NA NA 75% 76% Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 75% 79% 77% 78% 79% 78% 80% 76% 76% 68% Lower Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 64% 61% Similar * Trend data are not included for two custom items in this question (openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Table 32: Question 6 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 45% 51% 44% 57% 49% 44% 33% 53% 49% K-12 education 91% 92% 86% 96% 87% 92% 93% 94% 92% Adult educational opportunities 81% 85% 77% 89% 76% 88% 82% 83% 83% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 77% 82% 78% 86% 84% 75% 76% 77% 79% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 85% 85% 86% 88% 84% 82% 71% 92% 85% Employment opportunities 68% 65% 66% 64% 61% 68% 68% 69% 66% Shopping opportunities 81% 78% 74% 84% 75% 73% 85% 83% 79% Cost of living in Palo Alto 7% 9% 8% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 8% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 76% 77% 72% 80% 83% 70% 81% 75% 77% Vibrant downtown/commercial area 76% 77% 75% 77% 81% 74% 75% 77% 76% Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 54% 44% 41% 41% 48% 44% 56% 60% 49% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 73% 74% 74% 77% 78% 68% 69% 75% 74% Opportunities to volunteer 80% 80% 77% 84% 82% 72% 83% 82% 80% Opportunities to participate in community matters 74% 77% 70% 79% 79% 73% 77% 75% 76% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 68% 69% 75% 63% 79% 67% 69% 63% 68% Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto 56% 65% 61% 63% 72% 60% 49% 57% 61% Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people 83% 81% 87% 84% 82% 76% 83% 80% 82% Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook 77% 73% 85% 80% 75% 65% 75% 76% 75% Table 33: Question 6 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 49 119 214 Similar K-12 education 82 17 225 Higher Adult educational opportunities 72 6 124 Higher Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 71 21 252 Higher Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 73 36 172 Similar Employment opportunities 61 4 267 Much higher Shopping opportunities 71 26 253 Higher Cost of living in Palo Alto 15 134 136 Much lower Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto 66 36 228 Similar Vibrant downtown/commercial area 67 16 127 Much higher Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 47 182 243 Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 64 40 215 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 70 41 222 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 65 33 228 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 62 50 245 Similar Neighborliness of Palo Alto 56 72 132 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for two custom items in this question (openness toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and opportunities to learn about City services through social media). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 20 Question 7 Table 34: Question 7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 5% N=32 95% N=673 100% N=705 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 26% N=179 74% N=524 100% N=703 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 67% N=459 33% N=230 100% N=689 Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto 93% N=653 7% N=50 100% N=703 Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto 87% N=611 13% N=91 100% N=702 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 56% N=392 44% N=311 100% N=703 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 76% N=533 24% N=167 100% N=700 Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 48% N=338 52% N=362 100% N=700 Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 85% N=595 15% N=109 100% N=704 Table 35: Question 7 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., yes) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Made efforts to conserve water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 96% 95% Similar Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 77% 74% Similar Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 70% 67% Similar Household member was NOT the victim of a crime in Palo Alto 88% 91% 90% 89% 91% 91% 91% 94% 92% 93% Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 87% 87% Similar Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 46% 44% Similar Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27% 24% Similar Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 54% 57% 54% 58% 56% 43% 44% 49% 50% 52% Similar Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17% 15% Similar Some questions were reworded in the Historical Results table to reflect the positive rating of “yes.” Table 36: Question 7 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent "yes" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Made efforts to conserve water 95% 95% 98% 99% 96% 92% 97% 93% 95% Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 70% 78% 76% 82% 77% 75% 67% 68% 74% Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 71% 63% 70% 58% 66% 65% 76% 69% 67% Household member was NOT the victim of a crime in Palo Alto 91% 94% 94% 95% 97% 93% 89% 91% 93% Did NOT report a crime to the police in Palo Alto 85% 89% 85% 88% 90% 89% 91% 81% 87% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 43% 46% 42% 49% 53% 37% 44% 44% 44% Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 22% 25% 30% 28% 29% 21% 19% 20% 24% Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 54% 50% 66% 53% 42% 51% 44% 54% 52% Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 15% 16% 19% 18% 18% 13% 13% 13% 15% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 21 Table 37: Question 7 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Made efforts to conserve water 95 12 124 Higher Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 74 90 124 Similar Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto 67 20 125 Higher Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 93 41 228 Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police 87 16 133 Higher Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 44 28 123 Similar Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 24 36 121 Similar Contacted Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 52 74 268 Similar Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 15 77 128 Similar Question 8 Table 38: Question 8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 13% N=90 18% N=126 34% N=239 35% N=241 100% N=696 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 29% N=205 33% N=229 32% N=221 6% N=42 100% N=697 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 14% N=95 32% N=226 30% N=210 24% N=171 100% N=702 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 7% N=46 9% N=62 15% N=104 70% N=490 100% N=703 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=4 7% N=50 49% N=345 43% N=298 100% N=697 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 10% N=67 13% N=92 30% N=210 47% N=331 100% N=700 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 18% N=122 20% N=141 21% N=144 42% N=290 100% N=697 Walked or biked instead of driving 50% N=348 20% N=143 17% N=118 13% N=89 100% N=698 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 12% N=84 14% N=97 20% N=140 54% N=380 100% N=701 Participated in a club 9% N=61 10% N=68 15% N=104 66% N=462 100% N=696 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 34% N=237 32% N=226 23% N=160 11% N=78 100% N=701 Done a favor for a neighbor 14% N=95 22% N=153 41% N=286 24% N=169 100% N=704 Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 3% N=24 10% N=69 38% N=269 49% N=343 100% N=706 Table 39: Question 8 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once in the last 12 months) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 63% 67% 68% 63% 60% 60% 65% 58% 63% 65% Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 92% 93% 94% 94% 91% 95% 94% 91% 94% Similar Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 76% 79% 74% 82% 76% 74% 77% 77% 68% 76% Higher Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto NA NA 40% NA NA NA 40% NA 30% 30% Similar Attended a City-sponsored event NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 57% Higher Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% 53% Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% 58% Higher Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once in the last 12 months) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 85% 87% Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 53% 52% 51% 56% 51% 45% 54% 50% 40% 46% Higher Participated in a club NA NA 34% 33% 31% 31% 38% 29% 27% 34% Higher Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% 89% Similar Done a favor for a neighbor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% 76% Similar * Trend data are not included for one custom item in this question (Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills). Table 40: Question 8 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent who had done the activity at least once North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 63% 68% 78% 75% 71% 61% 41% 65% 65% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 95% 95% 97% 93% 95% 89% 94% 94% Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 73% 78% 78% 82% 84% 70% 60% 77% 76% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 29% 31% 22% 28% 32% 34% 28% 34% 30% Attended a City-sponsored event 57% 57% 61% 63% 55% 53% 43% 63% 57% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 58% 48% 55% 47% 46% 49% 57% 60% 53% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 57% 60% 60% 62% 52% 63% 56% 56% 58% Walked or biked instead of driving 89% 85% 87% 85% 77% 91% 92% 90% 87% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 43% 48% 56% 51% 50% 44% 36% 39% 46% Participated in a club 34% 34% 44% 31% 44% 31% 33% 27% 34% Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 88% 90% 92% 88% 98% 87% 79% 90% 89% Done a favor for a neighbor 75% 77% 87% 75% 84% 73% 60% 77% 76% Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills 52% 51% 59% 52% 40% 58% 48% 49% 51% Table 41: Question 8 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services 65 36 200 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94 13 231 Higher Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services 76 32 201 Higher Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto 30 154 170 Lower Attended City-sponsored event 57 45 130 Similar Used bus, rail, or other public transportation instead of driving 53 16 110 Much higher Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 58 8 129 Higher Walked or biked instead of driving 87 8 133 Much higher Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto 46 77 220 Similar Participated in a club 34 57 198 Similar Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 89 86 129 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 76 105 125 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 23 Question 9 Table 42: Question 9 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 0% N=2 3% N=21 19% N=131 78% N=538 100% N=692 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=3 3% N=19 15% N=102 82% N=568 100% N=693 Table 43: Question 9 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once in the last 12 months) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Attended a local public meeting 27% 26% 26% 28% 27% 27% 25% 28% 22% 22% Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 31% 26% 26% 28% 28% 27% 21% 24% 16% 18% Similar Table 44: Question 9 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent who had done the activity at least once North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Attended a local public meeting 22% 22% 26% 19% 31% 19% 19% 22% 22% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 17% 19% 20% 15% 24% 20% 16% 15% 18% Table 45: Question 9 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Attended a local public meeting 22 96 220 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 18 152 185 Lower Question 10 Table 46: Question 10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 31% N=216 36% N=250 8% N=55 1% N=10 24% N=164 100% N=694 Fire services 33% N=229 26% N=179 2% N=14 0% N=0 39% N=271 100% N=692 Ambulance or emergency medical services 31% N=218 22% N=153 3% N=18 0% N=1 44% N=304 100% N=693 Crime prevention 19% N=132 30% N=207 11% N=75 3% N=18 37% N=254 100% N=686 Fire prevention and education 16% N=110 27% N=182 6% N=44 1% N=6 50% N=343 100% N=685 Traffic enforcement 13% N=92 35% N=240 23% N=156 9% N=62 20% N=137 100% N=687 Street repair 13% N=88 36% N=248 31% N=218 15% N=105 5% N=35 100% N=693 Street cleaning 26% N=180 45% N=312 21% N=142 4% N=26 4% N=31 100% N=691 Street lighting 20% N=138 50% N=346 22% N=150 7% N=45 2% N=15 100% N=694 Sidewalk maintenance 16% N=110 43% N=300 27% N=188 10% N=66 4% N=30 100% N=693 Traffic signal timing 10% N=68 35% N=245 32% N=224 18% N=124 4% N=30 100% N=692 Bus or transit services 7% N=51 20% N=139 18% N=125 11% N=72 44% N=301 100% N=687 Garbage collection 38% N=266 45% N=313 10% N=68 2% N=15 4% N=30 100% N=692 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 24 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Yard waste pick-up 34% N=239 34% N=237 9% N=65 2% N=13 20% N=138 100% N=693 Storm drainage 15% N=106 36% N=250 17% N=115 5% N=31 27% N=188 100% N=689 Drinking water 45% N=314 40% N=276 10% N=71 1% N=7 4% N=25 100% N=692 Sewer services 30% N=208 42% N=290 9% N=62 1% N=8 18% N=124 100% N=692 Utility billing 32% N=223 44% N=301 13% N=91 3% N=23 7% N=49 100% N=687 City parks 45% N=311 45% N=308 6% N=43 1% N=4 4% N=27 100% N=692 Recreation programs or classes 21% N=147 30% N=206 9% N=61 1% N=7 39% N=269 100% N=691 Recreation centers or facilities 22% N=153 35% N=240 8% N=54 2% N=11 33% N=227 100% N=685 Land use, planning and zoning 8% N=56 20% N=134 24% N=168 18% N=120 30% N=207 100% N=685 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 9% N=59 24% N=165 16% N=110 6% N=44 45% N=305 100% N=684 Animal control 16% N=108 27% N=183 8% N=56 2% N=15 47% N=319 100% N=682 Economic development 15% N=105 30% N=201 15% N=99 6% N=37 35% N=235 100% N=677 Public library services 44% N=304 33% N=225 6% N=42 1% N=7 16% N=112 100% N=690 Public information services 18% N=126 35% N=243 10% N=68 2% N=12 34% N=236 100% N=685 Cable television 8% N=57 20% N=141 16% N=108 8% N=53 48% N=329 100% N=688 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 12% N=80 30% N=206 12% N=83 2% N=16 44% N=303 100% N=688 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 26% N=181 39% N=267 17% N=117 2% N=14 16% N=108 100% N=687 Palo Alto open space 33% N=227 40% N=278 13% N=87 1% N=10 12% N=84 100% N=686 City-sponsored special events 13% N=87 32% N=220 13% N=90 2% N=13 40% N=269 100% N=680 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 18% N=127 38% N=260 17% N=117 2% N=16 24% N=167 100% N=686 Neighborhood branch libraries 39% N=263 33% N=226 7% N=49 1% N=9 20% N=137 100% N=683 Your neighborhood park 42% N=288 43% N=296 8% N=54 1% N=7 7% N=45 100% N=690 Variety of library materials 27% N=186 35% N=244 10% N=66 3% N=21 25% N=171 100% N=688 Street tree maintenance 20% N=140 48% N=327 19% N=132 6% N=40 7% N=48 100% N=687 Electric utility 31% N=212 50% N=342 11% N=74 1% N=10 7% N=47 100% N=684 Gas utility 29% N=202 47% N=325 10% N=66 1% N=9 12% N=82 100% N=685 Recycling collection 42% N=285 44% N=304 7% N=46 2% N=12 6% N=39 100% N=686 City's website 14% N=96 37% N=252 17% N=119 6% N=39 26% N=179 100% N=685 Art programs and theatre 22% N=148 33% N=226 12% N=85 1% N=8 32% N=221 100% N=688 Table 47: Question 10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 41% N=216 47% N=250 10% N=55 2% N=10 100% N=530 Fire services 54% N=229 43% N=179 3% N=14 0% N=0 100% N=422 Ambulance or emergency medical services 56% N=218 39% N=153 5% N=18 0% N=1 100% N=389 Crime prevention 31% N=132 48% N=207 17% N=75 4% N=18 100% N=432 Fire prevention and education 32% N=110 53% N=182 13% N=44 2% N=6 100% N=342 Traffic enforcement 17% N=92 44% N=240 28% N=156 11% N=62 100% N=550 Street repair 13% N=88 38% N=248 33% N=218 16% N=105 100% N=657 Street cleaning 27% N=180 47% N=312 22% N=142 4% N=26 100% N=660 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 25 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Street lighting 20% N=138 51% N=346 22% N=150 7% N=45 100% N=679 Sidewalk maintenance 17% N=110 45% N=300 28% N=188 10% N=66 100% N=663 Traffic signal timing 10% N=68 37% N=245 34% N=224 19% N=124 100% N=661 Bus or transit services 13% N=51 36% N=139 32% N=125 19% N=72 100% N=387 Garbage collection 40% N=266 47% N=313 10% N=68 2% N=15 100% N=662 Yard waste pick-up 43% N=239 43% N=237 12% N=65 2% N=13 100% N=555 Storm drainage 21% N=106 50% N=250 23% N=115 6% N=31 100% N=502 Drinking water 47% N=314 41% N=276 11% N=71 1% N=7 100% N=668 Sewer services 37% N=208 51% N=290 11% N=62 1% N=8 100% N=568 Utility billing 35% N=223 47% N=301 14% N=91 4% N=23 100% N=638 City parks 47% N=311 46% N=308 6% N=43 1% N=4 100% N=666 Recreation programs or classes 35% N=147 49% N=206 14% N=61 2% N=7 100% N=422 Recreation centers or facilities 33% N=153 52% N=240 12% N=54 2% N=11 100% N=458 Land use, planning and zoning 12% N=56 28% N=134 35% N=168 25% N=120 100% N=478 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 16% N=59 44% N=165 29% N=110 12% N=44 100% N=378 Animal control 30% N=108 50% N=183 15% N=56 4% N=15 100% N=363 Economic development 24% N=105 45% N=201 22% N=99 8% N=37 100% N=442 Public library services 53% N=304 39% N=225 7% N=42 1% N=7 100% N=578 Public information services 28% N=126 54% N=243 15% N=68 3% N=12 100% N=449 Cable television 16% N=57 39% N=141 30% N=108 15% N=53 100% N=360 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 21% N=80 53% N=206 21% N=83 4% N=16 100% N=386 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 31% N=181 46% N=267 20% N=117 2% N=14 100% N=579 Palo Alto open space 38% N=227 46% N=278 14% N=87 2% N=10 100% N=602 City-sponsored special events 21% N=87 54% N=220 22% N=90 3% N=13 100% N=411 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 24% N=127 50% N=260 22% N=117 3% N=16 100% N=519 Neighborhood branch libraries 48% N=263 41% N=226 9% N=49 2% N=9 100% N=546 Your neighborhood park 45% N=288 46% N=296 8% N=54 1% N=7 100% N=645 Variety of library materials 36% N=186 47% N=244 13% N=66 4% N=21 100% N=517 Street tree maintenance 22% N=140 51% N=327 21% N=132 6% N=40 100% N=639 Electric utility 33% N=212 54% N=342 12% N=74 2% N=10 100% N=637 Gas utility 34% N=202 54% N=325 11% N=66 1% N=9 100% N=603 Recycling collection 44% N=285 47% N=304 7% N=46 2% N=12 100% N=647 City's website 19% N=96 50% N=252 24% N=119 8% N=39 100% N=506 Art programs and theatre 32% N=148 48% N=226 18% N=85 2% N=8 100% N=468 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 26 Table 48: Question 10 - Historical Results* Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Police services 87% 91% 84% 84% 87% 88% 86% 86% 87% 88% Similar Fire services 95% 98% 96% 95% 93% 92% 96% 93% 95% 97% Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 94% 94% 95% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 97% 95% Similar Crime prevention 77% 83% 74% 73% 79% 81% 74% 75% 80% 79% Similar Fire prevention and education 84% 86% 87% 80% 79% 76% 80% 82% 85% 85% Similar Traffic enforcement 63% 72% 64% 61% 64% 61% 66% 64% 62% 60% Similar Street repair 47% 47% 47% 42% 43% 40% 42% 47% 55% 51% Similar Street cleaning 77% 77% 75% 73% 76% 79% 80% 76% 80% 75% Lower Street lighting 66% 61% 64% 64% 68% 65% 68% 66% 74% 71% Similar Sidewalk maintenance 53% 57% 53% 53% 51% 51% 53% 56% 62% 62% Similar Traffic signal timing 55% 60% 56% 56% 56% 52% 47% 53% 53% 47% Lower Bus or transit services 58% 57% 49% 50% 45% 46% 58% 49% 57% 49% Lower Garbage collection 92% 91% 92% 89% 88% 89% 89% 85% 91% 87% Similar Yard waste pick-up 90% 93% 89% NA NA NA NA NA 90% 86% Similar Storm drainage 61% 59% 70% 73% 74% 74% 75% 69% 80% 71% Lower Drinking water 80% 79% 87% 81% 84% 86% 83% 88% 89% 88% Similar Sewer services 83% 83% 81% 81% 82% 84% 82% 84% 89% 88% Similar Utility billing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84% 82% Similar City parks 87% 91% 89% 92% 90% 94% 91% 93% 92% 93% Similar Recreation programs or classes 85% 90% 87% 85% 82% 81% 87% 87% 87% 84% Similar Recreation centers or facilities 81% 82% 77% 80% 81% 75% 85% 80% 84% 86% Similar Land use, planning and zoning 50% 49% 47% 47% 49% 45% 51% 36% 43% 40% Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 61% 59% 59% 50% 53% 56% 61% 57% 62% 59% Similar Animal control 78% 79% 78% 78% 76% 72% 78% 76% 80% 80% Similar Economic development 61% 62% 63% 54% 49% 52% 67% 61% 73% 69% Similar Public library services 78% 81% 75% 78% 82% 83% 88% 85% 81% 91% Higher Public information services 72% 73% 76% 68% 67% 67% 74% 73% 79% 82% Similar Cable television NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60% 55% Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) NA NA 71% 62% 59% 64% 73% 77% 70% 74% Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts NA NA 78% 82% 78% 76% 81% 79% 80% 77% Similar Palo Alto open space NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 84% Similar City-sponsored special events NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 75% 75% Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 79% 79% 73% 79% 77% 76% 81% 79% 81% 74% Lower * Trend data are not included for nine custom items in this question (neighborhood branch libraries, your neighborhood park, variety of library materials, street tree maintenance, electric utility, gas utility, recycling collection, City’s website, and art programs and theatre). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 27 Table 49: Question 10 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Police services 88% 88% 92% 91% 83% 87% 87% 86% 88% Fire services 97% 97% 98% 95% 95% 99% 99% 95% 97% Ambulance or emergency medical services 96% 95% 98% 96% 91% 96% 98% 94% 95% Crime prevention 75% 81% 84% 78% 80% 85% 72% 72% 79% Fire prevention and education 87% 84% 94% 84% 80% 85% 75% 90% 85% Traffic enforcement 61% 60% 61% 62% 69% 54% 61% 60% 60% Street repair 46% 55% 44% 57% 66% 46% 49% 47% 51% Street cleaning 72% 77% 65% 79% 80% 72% 78% 74% 75% Street lighting 70% 72% 71% 76% 72% 67% 74% 69% 71% Sidewalk maintenance 55% 68% 46% 76% 65% 61% 64% 55% 62% Traffic signal timing 46% 49% 44% 49% 62% 40% 49% 46% 47% Bus or transit services 49% 49% 40% 48% 50% 49% 50% 55% 49% Garbage collection 89% 86% 89% 88% 86% 85% 86% 90% 87% Yard waste pick-up 86% 85% 84% 87% 88% 82% 81% 91% 86% Storm drainage 64% 76% 55% 84% 73% 68% 71% 68% 71% Drinking water 87% 90% 87% 91% 94% 87% 88% 85% 88% Sewer services 87% 88% 84% 91% 94% 81% 90% 87% 88% Utility billing 81% 83% 80% 81% 86% 82% 86% 80% 82% City parks 92% 94% 99% 94% 91% 96% 84% 92% 93% Recreation programs or classes 85% 83% 83% 80% 88% 81% 79% 90% 84% Recreation centers or facilities 85% 86% 87% 86% 87% 86% 82% 86% 86% Land use, planning and zoning 39% 41% 34% 43% 49% 33% 33% 45% 40% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 65% 54% 57% 48% 56% 57% 67% 72% 59% Animal control 83% 78% 84% 78% 71% 84% 77% 85% 80% Economic development 73% 66% 66% 66% 65% 66% 74% 76% 69% Public library services 93% 90% 93% 90% 89% 92% 91% 93% 91% Public information services 82% 82% 85% 85% 82% 80% 72% 86% 82% Cable television 54% 56% 58% 51% 58% 59% 58% 50% 55% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 70% 78% 77% 86% 71% 73% 68% 67% 74% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 78% 77% 90% 84% 73% 73% 77% 71% 77% Palo Alto open space 84% 84% 90% 86% 84% 82% 78% 83% 84% City-sponsored special events 76% 74% 78% 77% 71% 72% 69% 77% 75% Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 76% 73% 78% 70% 79% 71% 73% 77% 74% Neighborhood branch libraries 90% 89% 97% 92% 91% 85% 78% 91% 90% Your neighborhood park 91% 90% 95% 93% 92% 86% 84% 92% 91% Variety of library materials 84% 82% 84% 87% 83% 76% 80% 87% 83% Street tree maintenance 71% 75% 62% 71% 80% 73% 75% 76% 73% Electric utility 86% 88% 88% 88% 90% 86% 82% 87% 87% Gas utility 87% 88% 87% 89% 89% 85% 87% 88% 88% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 28 Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Recycling collection 91% 91% 92% 93% 97% 85% 84% 93% 91% City's website 69% 69% 70% 67% 72% 69% 71% 66% 69% Art programs and theatre 80% 81% 86% 83% 85% 74% 77% 77% 80% Table 50: Question 10 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 76 93 383 Similar Fire services 84 60 310 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 84 46 299 Similar Crime prevention 68 82 307 Similar Fire prevention and education 72 77 244 Similar Traffic enforcement 55 215 327 Similar Street repair 49 172 372 Similar Street cleaning 66 49 276 Similar Street lighting 62 57 271 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 56 88 275 Similar Traffic signal timing 46 133 215 Similar Bus or transit services 48 111 183 Similar Garbage collection 75 99 308 Similar Yard waste pick-up 75 32 227 Higher Storm drainage 62 98 315 Similar Drinking water 78 15 292 Higher Sewer services 74 22 276 Similar Utility billing 71 10 122 Higher City parks 80 35 285 Higher Recreation programs or classes 72 47 298 Similar Recreation centers or facilities 72 46 242 Higher Land use, planning and zoning 42 196 255 Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 54 103 315 Similar Animal control 69 14 295 Higher Economic development 62 28 243 Higher Public library services 81 42 300 Similar Public information services 69 29 247 Similar Cable television 52 70 164 Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 64 48 240 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 69 17 218 Higher Palo Alto open space 73 9 129 Higher City-sponsored special events 64 45 146 Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 29 Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 65 182 321 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for nine custom items in this question (neighborhood branch libraries, your neighborhood park, variety of library materials, street tree maintenance, electric utility, gas utility, recycling collection, City’s website, and art programs and theatre). Question 11 Table 51: Question 11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Palo Alto 26% N=181 54% N=376 11% N=77 3% N=17 6% N=41 100% N=693 The Federal Government 5% N=36 33% N=227 33% N=231 11% N=73 18% N=125 100% N=693 State Government 6% N=39 33% N=226 34% N=234 9% N=63 19% N=130 100% N=692 Table 52: Question 11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Palo Alto 28% N=181 58% N=376 12% N=77 3% N=17 100% N=652 The Federal Government 6% N=36 40% N=227 41% N=231 13% N=73 100% N=568 State Government 7% N=39 40% N=226 42% N=234 11% N=63 100% N=562 Table 53: Question 11 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Services provided by Palo Alto 87% 86% 85% 80% 80% 83% 88% 84% 83% 85% Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 33% 33% 33% 41% 43% 41% 50% 37% 48% 46% Similar Services provided by the State Government 38% 44% 34% 23% 27% 26% 41% 33% NA 47% NA Table 54: Question 11 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 The City of Palo Alto 85% 86% 84% 88% 83% 85% 86% 86% 85% The Federal Government 50% 43% 51% 42% 42% 43% 45% 53% 46% State Government 50% 45% 47% 44% 49% 43% 44% 54% 47% Table 55: Question 11 - Benchmark Comparisons* Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Palo Alto 70 81 386 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 47 24 206 Similar * Benchmarks were not calculated for one custom item in this question (State government services). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 30 Question 12 Table 56: Question 12 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 12% N=81 43% N=292 23% N=160 7% N=46 16% N=107 100% N=686 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 7% N=46 36% N=245 30% N=205 15% N=105 12% N=82 100% N=683 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 10% N=68 32% N=220 19% N=133 7% N=49 31% N=215 100% N=685 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 9% N=62 36% N=247 30% N=204 10% N=71 15% N=101 100% N=685 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 10% N=70 34% N=235 28% N=188 12% N=81 16% N=110 100% N=684 Being honest 11% N=79 32% N=218 20% N=139 6% N=42 30% N=206 100% N=684 Treating all residents fairly 11% N=74 27% N=188 23% N=159 11% N=78 27% N=186 100% N=686 Table 57: Question 12 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 14% N=81 51% N=292 28% N=160 8% N=46 100% N=579 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 8% N=46 41% N=245 34% N=205 17% N=105 100% N=601 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 14% N=68 47% N=220 28% N=133 10% N=49 100% N=470 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 11% N=62 42% N=247 35% N=204 12% N=71 100% N=583 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 12% N=70 41% N=235 33% N=188 14% N=81 100% N=574 Being honest 16% N=79 46% N=218 29% N=139 9% N=42 100% N=478 Treating all residents fairly 15% N=74 38% N=188 32% N=159 16% N=78 100% N=499 Table 58: Question 12 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 74% 67% 64% 58% 62% 66% 67% 66% 66% 65% Similar The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 62% 57% 63% 53% 57% 55% 59% 54% 50% 48% Similar The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 73% 68% 57% 56% 57% 57% 58% 55% 54% 61% Higher Overall confidence in Palo Alto government NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 52% 53% Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% 53% Similar Being honest NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 58% 62% Similar Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 57% 53% Similar Table 59: Question 12 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "excellent" or "good" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 65% 64% 61% 68% 69% 57% 68% 65% 65% The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 48% 48% 42% 48% 52% 45% 45% 55% 48% The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 58% 64% 59% 64% 65% 62% 59% 58% 61% Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 51% 54% 43% 56% 52% 53% 54% 57% 53% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 51% 55% 44% 57% 52% 53% 58% 53% 53% Being honest 60% 64% 62% 68% 59% 62% 69% 56% 62% Treating all residents fairly 50% 55% 50% 58% 52% 52% 52% 50% 53% Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 31 Table 60: Question 12 - Benchmark Comparisons Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto 57 89 347 Similar Overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 46 216 278 Similar Job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement 55 74 265 Similar Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 50 69 137 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 50 73 137 Similar Being honest 57 50 133 Similar Treating all residents fairly 51 69 136 Similar Question 13 Table 61: Question 13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Palo Alto community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 48% N=335 34% N=234 14% N=99 4% N=25 100% N=693 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 35% N=240 48% N=330 15% N=105 2% N=16 100% N=691 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 36% N=252 45% N=311 17% N=120 1% N=9 100% N=691 Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 37% N=252 43% N=299 18% N=125 2% N=12 100% N=688 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 23% N=162 37% N=258 32% N=219 7% N=51 100% N=689 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 32% N=221 35% N=241 28% N=197 5% N=31 100% N=690 Overall economic health of Palo Alto 37% N=259 40% N=279 18% N=127 4% N=26 100% N=691 Sense of community 29% N=197 42% N=292 26% N=180 3% N=21 100% N=691 * This question did not have a “don’t know” option; therefore, there is not a table for “Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without “Don’t Know” Responses. Table 62: Question 13 - Historical Results Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) 2015 rating compared to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 84% 82% Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 82% 82% Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% 81% Similar Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 80% 80% Similar Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 65% 61% Similar Overall opportunities for education and enrichment NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 71% 67% Similar Overall economic health of Palo Alto NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 80% 78% Similar Sense of community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 72% 71% Similar Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Table 63: Question 13 - Geographic Subgroup Results Percent rating "essential" or "very important" North/South Area Overall North South Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto 81% 83% 81% 84% 87% 81% 77% 83% 82% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 80% 84% 80% 88% 86% 81% 81% 79% 82% Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto 83% 80% 82% 76% 86% 80% 85% 82% 81% Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 84% 77% 85% 74% 86% 75% 79% 84% 80% Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto 59% 63% 65% 52% 76% 64% 57% 56% 61% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 68% 66% 64% 64% 81% 59% 72% 67% 67% Overall economic health of Palo Alto 78% 77% 74% 75% 86% 74% 81% 80% 78% Sense of community 70% 72% 69% 69% 78% 70% 70% 70% 71% Benchmarks were not calculated for question 13 as it is nonevaluative. Question 14 Questions 14 through 24 are custom questions, therefore trend data, geographic subgroup results, and benchmarks were not calculated. Table 64: Question 14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents If you had a maintenance issue to report to the City of Palo Alto, what method would you be most likely to use? (Please pick one.) Percent Number Contact the City Manager’s office 3% N=18 Contact a City Council member 0% N=1 E-mail the appropriate city department 19% N=128 Call the appropriate city department 44% N=304 Call the main number for the City 8% N=52 Submit a notification electronically on the City’s website through the “Make a Service Request” link on the City’s website 21% N=144 Use Palo Alto 311 phone app to notify the appropriate city department 3% N=24 Visit City Hall 2% N=14 Total 100% N=685 Question 15 Table 65: Question 15 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What method(s), if any, have you used to provide feedback or engage with the City on issues in Palo Alto in the past 12 months? Please check all that apply: Percent Number In-person community meetings 9% N=62 City council meetings 8% N=55 Email 24% N=163 Phone call 27% N=179 Nextdoor (private neighborhood network) 12% N=81 Open City Hall (online civic engagement portal) 2% N=16 Social media channels (Facebook, Twitter) 4% N=29 Use the “Contact the City” link on the City of Palo Alto website 5% N=33 I have not contacted the City about any issues in the last 12 months 52% N=349 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 33 Question 16 Table 66: Question 16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How frequently, if at all, do you shop… Once a day or more 1-5 times a week 1-3 times a month Not at all Total In your neighborhood 9% N=63 54% N=369 27% N=186 10% N=71 100% N=689 In other parts of Palo Alto 5% N=31 51% N=350 39% N=265 6% N=39 100% N=685 In neighboring cities 3% N=23 41% N=285 49% N=341 6% N=41 100% N=690 Online 8% N=52 29% N=200 47% N=321 16% N=106 100% N=680 Question 17 Table 67: Question 17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How frequently, if at all, do you eat out for any meal… Once a day or more 1-5 times a week 1-3 times a month Not at all Total In your neighborhood 3% N=21 29% N=200 44% N=305 24% N=163 100% N=689 In other parts of Palo Alto 2% N=10 28% N=195 59% N=406 12% N=80 100% N=691 In neighboring cities 1% N=9 27% N=186 59% N=412 13% N=88 100% N=694 By ordering take-out/delivery 1% N=4 17% N=113 40% N=274 43% N=293 100% N=684 Question 18 Table 68: Question 18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How often, if at all, do you participate in each of the following waste programs when you have these types of waste to dispose of? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Residential food scraps collection program 46% N=314 8% N=55 7% N=45 9% N=60 30% N=202 100% N=676 Home composting 56% N=382 10% N=68 8% N=53 7% N=46 19% N=131 100% N=680 Palo Alto's weekly household hazardous waste collection program 39% N=267 22% N=148 22% N=147 6% N=44 11% N=77 100% N=682 Question 19 Table 69: Question 19 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents including “Don’t Know” Responses Please rate the quality of Palo Alto’s trees and landscaping for: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Businesses 21% N=142 45% N=311 17% N=118 3% N=22 13% N=91 100% N=684 Residential homes 27% N=182 51% N=351 17% N=116 2% N=14 3% N=22 100% N=685 Walking and biking 26% N=177 53% N=362 16% N=106 1% N=6 4% N=30 100% N=682 Schools 23% N=156 43% N=292 15% N=100 1% N=9 18% N=122 100% N=679 Streets 23% N=158 54% N=368 17% N=118 2% N=13 4% N=25 100% N=682 Parks 33% N=224 55% N=375 9% N=63 0% N=1 3% N=20 100% N=683 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 34 Table 70: Question 19 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Please rate the quality of Palo Alto’s trees and landscaping for: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Businesses 24% N=142 52% N=311 20% N=118 4% N=22 100% N=593 Residential homes 28% N=182 53% N=351 17% N=116 2% N=14 100% N=663 Walking and biking 27% N=177 56% N=362 16% N=106 1% N=6 100% N=651 Schools 28% N=156 52% N=292 18% N=100 2% N=9 100% N=557 Streets 24% N=158 56% N=368 18% N=118 2% N=13 100% N=657 Parks 34% N=224 57% N=375 10% N=63 0% N=1 100% N=663 Question 20 Table 71: Question 20 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents If you did not have access to a car for your usual daily transportation around town, how convenient (based on time and proximity), would you consider each of the following methods of getting around? Very convenient Somewhat convenient Somewhat inconvenient Very inconvenient Total Walking 33% N=224 37% N=252 18% N=120 11% N=77 100% N=674 Biking 48% N=313 33% N=219 8% N=50 11% N=74 100% N=656 Bus 7% N=47 32% N=206 38% N=250 23% N=147 100% N=650 Train 12% N=76 34% N=224 30% N=196 24% N=158 100% N=653 Free shuttle 17% N=111 39% N=248 32% N=205 12% N=78 100% N=642 Taxi 11% N=67 28% N=177 34% N=216 27% N=167 100% N=627 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 33% N=208 35% N=222 19% N=118 14% N=90 100% N=638 Carpooling 10% N=65 33% N=211 28% N=182 28% N=183 100% N=641 Question 21 Table 72: Question 21 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents If you did not have access to a car to get around town and convenience (based on time and proximity) was not an issue, what is your preference for each of the following methods of getting around? Prefer a lot Somewhat prefer Do not prefer Total Walking 65% N=434 27% N=181 7% N=50 100% N=665 Biking 55% N=362 21% N=137 24% N=156 100% N=656 Bus 15% N=100 38% N=247 47% N=311 100% N=658 Train 25% N=163 43% N=282 32% N=207 100% N=652 Free shuttle 33% N=218 45% N=291 22% N=145 100% N=655 Taxi 6% N=38 20% N=127 74% N=476 100% N=641 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service 21% N=140 31% N=201 48% N=310 100% N=651 Carpooling 18% N=116 34% N=218 49% N=315 100% N=649 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 35 Question 22 Table 73: Question 22 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Please rate how important, if at all, it would be to redevelop the Cubberley Community Center for each of the following purposes: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total School(s) 24% N=149 28% N=175 31% N=192 18% N=113 100% N=629 Playing fields 19% N=121 32% N=200 33% N=206 16% N=103 100% N=630 Community center 26% N=165 32% N=205 27% N=171 15% N=98 100% N=640 Question 23 Table 74: Question 23 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District are working together on a master plan for the Cubberley Community Center to meet future community and school needs. Please indicate how much of a priority, if at all, each of the following community programs at Cubberley are to you. High priority Medium priority Not a priority Total Child care 26% N=170 26% N=166 48% N=306 100% N=641 Cubberley Artist Studio Program 13% N=83 38% N=241 49% N=311 100% N=635 Dance studios 16% N=98 40% N=252 45% N=285 100% N=635 Outdoor sports 34% N=214 38% N=239 28% N=179 100% N=632 Indoor sports and health programs 30% N=193 45% N=288 24% N=155 100% N=637 Senior wellness, including stroke and cardiovascular programs 30% N=189 39% N=246 32% N=204 100% N=640 Education – private schools and special interest classes 20% N=126 41% N=260 39% N=251 100% N=636 Rooms available to rent for other activities 19% N=121 46% N=289 35% N=225 100% N=635 Other 26% N=48 10% N=19 64% N=119 100% N=186 For question 23, respondents could also specify an “other” answer than the presented alternatives. Out of a total of 721 completed surveys, 73 respondents wrote in “other” priorities. Respondents’ verbatim responses are in the list below. They are as written or entered on the survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Added public school space. Adult education. Adult school. Affordable rental & childcare! Jobs. After school activities for Palo Alto kids. After school sports. Any. Art-watercolor. Auditorium. Be wonderful if a lecture services on almost any topic. Book sales. Center for disaster care. Community garden. Community meeting rooms / organize. Concert hall. Cultural events. Cultural/community events. Dancing. Don't have children husband paralyzed left side not applicable. Don't know. Exercise [?]. Expand senior programs, perhaps Avenidas can expand in South Palo Alto rather than on Bryant St. Facilities for homeless (showers). Foothill college. Foothill college. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 36 Foothill College. Fopal book sales. Fopal sales. Free of charge drama/dance classes for children. Friends of library. Friends of Palo Alto library. Good dance floor. Theatre. Hall for performing arts. Have live here only 1 year don't know. High school! And grammar school. High school. High school. High school. Homeless assistance. Homeless food bank. Keep ballroom socials in Pavilion. Keep the existing space for Fopal book sales. Less start up please. Library (Fopal space). Live in north PA. Low income housing. Maker space. Meeting spaces. Middle school. N/A. N/A. New high school. None. Not private school, all public accessed. Nurse room. Older teen and young adult activities. P.A. adult ed classes. Place for teams to get together in supervised area. Public high school. Public school. Public school. Public school. Public school/daycare. Public schools. School if needed. School or community services. School. Senior activities. Teen activities & special ed. Teen center. Theater activities. Theatre, large dance floor. Wildlife rescue services. Question 24. Please share one improvement to the City of Palo Alto’s parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs that the City could make to better serve the community. In question 24, respondents were asked to record their opinions about improvements to parks, recreation or arts activities or programming in the above question. The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in Table 75, with the number and percent of responses given in each category. Some comments from residents covered more than a single topic. We separated the copies and put them under their relevant categories and also listed the verbatim comment at the end of this section so that. Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. A total of 721 surveys were completed by Palo Alto residents; of these 361 respondents wrote in responses for the open-ended question. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 37 Table 75: Question 24 – Open-ended Responses Response Category Number of Responses Percentage of Responses Parking/Transportation 17 5% Park Spaces (Green Space) 35 10% Park, Recreation, and Art Facilities and Amenities (other than bathrooms/restrooms) 34 9% Bathrooms/Restrooms 36 10% Off-leash Dog Area 19 5% Programs and Classes - General 16 4% Programs and Classes - Adult/Senior 22 6% Programs and Classes - Youth 11 3% Information/Registration 18 5% Art/Culture Improvements 28 8% Bike/Walking Path Improvements 20 5% Maintenance/Cleanliness 10 3% Pool Access/Swimming 11 3% Nothing/Don't Know 20 5% Other - Related to Community Services Department 29 8% Other - Not Community Services Department 42 11% Parking/Transportation Any activity with less regular outside traffic. Avenidas and parking garage across the street. Better parking. Better public transportation for Palo Alto west of El Camino real to Downtown and Cubberley. Bus or shuttle access. Electric car charging at parks. Free transportation. Improve parking/traffic. Increase parking availability More parking as well as more EV charging stations More parking at Mitchell Park More parking available. More parking. More shuttle bus with more stops. Parking, parking, parking! Seniors have great difficulties parking near Avenidas(senior center). Limits ability to attend classes at Avenidas. Provide a publicized program of bus transportation with stops near to homes to get seniors to activities & programs. Transportation to parks for senior for senior living communities like Moldaw. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 38 Park Spaces (Green Space) Don't limit Foothills park to PA residents only; it's wasteful. Limit use of P.A. parks to P.A citizens only. Open Foothills park to non-residents. Priority for residents, Rinconada park can be over run with east Palo Alto residents on warm weather weekends. More open space. Access to Baylands. Availability to all neighborhoods. It would be great if every neighborhood had a park within easy walking distance. More parks to accommodate recent population growth. Make parks more convenient. Eliminate the new trees planted at Cubberley fields. Keep Palo Alto green-parks, open space interested in outdoor clean-up/beautification efforts. Keep trees that are in danger watered in parks until drought eases. Keep up with dead and dying street trees More and larger trees. More trees in heritage park so there's more continuous field space. More trees in Mitchell park. More trees, more green. Park. Parks could use more trees to provides shade. Parks. Parks. Plant more trees on long streets. Provide shade for children @ Scott park shade sails? Swing area is roasting! Prune trees in community garden at Eleanor Park. Shade in the bridge playgrounds. Take better care of city trees. Use of only drought tolerant and native species of tree/plants. Finish El Camino Park. Build another soccer turf park like Mayfield but with adequate parking. More sports fields. Accelerated renovations/improvements to Palo Alto Baylands Park. Ensure the intense economic boom does not damage air quality & the health of our existing open space, parks & outdoor quality of life. More shade. Water the trees at parks. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 39 Park, Recreation, and Art Facilities and Amenities (other than bathrooms/restrooms) New play equipment. ADA access improvements. Provide access/facility for reach program. Are those community center facilities anywhere other than Cubberley? (Which is almost in mountain views- not near center Palo Alto). Add more picnic areas with modern grills. BBQ grills. Food trucks in the parks. More picnic areas. Parks - Semi-permanent camping facility options at Foothills Park (like permanent 'tents', etc. Place benches facing each other so people could visit & exchange & enjoy their community. Space to grill. Working drinking fountains. Basketball courts Downtown. Batting cages for Baylands athletic center. Finish the golf course. Delay is an expensive scandal! Fix up old par course stations. Gym facilities for city residents Improve the Rinconada tennis courts. Lighted fields. More gyms are better. More lighted fields for night use. Repair tennis courts at Howell park. Tennis courts at Greer park. Tennis courts nets, surface repairs. Track. Better lighting at night. Better lighting. Lighting at neighborhood parks to enable evening use (eg Ventura). Upgrade & update the Foothill park visitor center exhibits. They are very old & musty. This should be a place for vibrant & engaging environmental education/ stimulation. Update the children's playground areas in parks where this has not been done recently. Upgrade playground areas/surfaces at Rinconada Park. More spaces to reserve. We need a new theater like mountain view's. May be for the arts & recreation needs more space. Regarding parks more chairs. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 40 Bathrooms/Restrooms Add a restroom to parks with none except for small parks like we. Add bathroom facilities in bigger parks. All parks should have restrooms. Bathroom at Johnson park. Bathroom availability. Bathrooms & community rooms at parks. Bathrooms & trash collection & pick up at every park. Plus Downtown. Bathrooms (restrooms) in every park! Bathrooms at all parks. Bathrooms in city parks. Bathrooms in neighborhood parks. Bathrooms in some of the parks where there currently are none. Bathrooms. Bathrooms. Clean secure bathrooms. Cleaner bathrooms/drinking water. Cleaner restrooms. Having restrooms available at the park; example: Eleanor Pardee it's difficult to enjoy the park for any extended period with no access to restrooms. Also very inconvenient for soccer practices/games etc; the fact that no restrooms are available excludes using the local park for BBQ'S, picnics, gatherings with family/friends. Make sure they all have nice & clean restrooms available. Map of public restrooms. More bathrooms at parks. More bathrooms. Please clean public bathrooms more often. Restroom at all parks. Restroom facilities. Restrooms at all parks. Restrooms in Eleanor park. Restrooms. Restrooms. Restrooms. Restrooms. Restrooms. Restrooms. Safe, clean, accessible restroom. More playing fields. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 41 Toilet facility at Bol park. Upgrade locker rooms at Rinconada pool. Off-leash Dog Area Better dog runs in parks. Create dog and non-dog parks. Dog free parks. Dog park. Dog parks. Enforce dog on leash in neighborhood parks! Enforce leash laws please. (And I love dogs and often walk one). Enforce off-leash dog laws in the parks. Install additional dog run areas. Larger off leash dog park. More dog parks. More off leash dog park. More off leash dog parks (A Hoover, not like Greer, which is too small.) More off leash dog runs/areas. Need a bigger dog park. Off leash dog park. Require dogs online/leash. Set a place for the dogs when they go to the parks. Give the community a place to walk (i.e. get some exercise) with their dogs-preferably off leash. Programs and Classes - General Closer activities/more convenient to Terman & Gunn. More class hours, all the classes are during weekday which do not work for families with both parents working full time. More weekend classes. Offer programs west of Alma. Free exercise classes. Gymnastics. Health/cardio/blood pressure/stroke athletes exercise longevity. Increase wellness classes. More dance classes - Hip Hop / Zumba after work / evening. More free yoga. More health and wellness classes & activities. More organized activities. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 42 More recreational activities for the community. Park, recreation activities. Programs for the impaired to be included. Add an improve class! Programs and Classes – Adult/Senior Additional adult recreation classes. Broader offer for adult education, Drop an outdoor senior exercise program. Elder conveniences. Evening fitness and art classes for adults. Fitness/exercise classes for working adults. Literacy/programs or ESL programs for adults. Many of us are getting older. More programs to help residents as they don't would be great: (a) Retirement planning. (b)Emphasis on open spaces; quality of outdoors. More adult acting programs. More adult body weight lifting bars and equipment. More art classes for adults. More available for adult without children. We are not all families and so much leaves us out. More evening/weekend classes for working adults. More opportunities for adult (not necessarily seniors) to take dance (ballet, ballroom, Bollywood) classes. More recreational activities for the senior citizens. More senior programs. Senior activities in the evening. Senior activities. Senior programs in SW Palo Alto (possibly at Gunn?). Senior wellness programs. Exercise classes for working people (after 6PM). Social events for singles. Programs and Classes - Youth A center where youths can meet. Accommodate people with developmental disabilities. More dance for children up to 18. Children's theater plays that are not musicals. Improvement in recreation activities for teens. Make children's programs more accessible for families where both parents work. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 43 More after-school activities right at the school. More classes for small children (under 5's). More school field trips to our parks, so our children may be more apt to use them. More special education classes for autism. Teen center/support services for mental health. Information/Registration Better advertising. Better notifications as to what events are impending. Better publicity of events/activities. Better publicity of the activities. I rarely ever hear about programs/activities. Better publicity. Communicate better (insert in utility bills?). Communication about programs available. Easier on-line access. Easier reservation of picnic areas for residents. Get more info out there about are the activities. Give at least 3 wks notice for publicity of events. More information! I don't know what's available. More outreach, I don't even know the options. More vocal about availability. Online booking for book the Outdoor Recreation Programs Palo Alto resident reservation of picnic space made easier. Sign up is difficult online- glitchy. The city website does not seem to be organized to easily access current events. Like if I wanted to see what was happening at the library or art center today, it would be hard to find. The recreation centers could be more well publicized. Weekend soccer field reservation: I don't understand why AYSO (kids soccer organisation) is often kicked out by other groups at the last minute. The reservation system should be fair to all. Art/Culture Improvements Actually be responsive to community opinion when choosing public art (recent new works are horrible). An event that brings all the community together rich and poor. Art & reading. Arts. Classes in film- making. Create gathering places activated by art. Eliminate amplified music at street fairs & the like. Ensure that there are spaces for public music and dance performances. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 44 Festivals like in Europe not like we've had here. Frequent festivals or performances in different parks of the city. It would be nice if Theatreworks had a stable facility and didn't need to alternate between Lucy Stern and Mountain View. Less expensive art and other classes. More arts classes. More affordable art classes. Make the Children's Theater totaling self-supporting. More dance!- Do more during national dance week. Set up a stage or stages outside and invite Bay areas artists to perform. Pay for bigger name like- ODC Janice Garrett Robert Moses kin. May be coordinate w/ Stanford lively arts. More fairs. More games of local musical artists-it is all boring and "safe". More music in the parks. More musical program- on a Sun. More street music. Museum. Sound system in Lucy Stern theatre. Start a public mural program. The people who research and decide on city funded art could be more sensitive and knowledgeable. The "color of PA" was waste of money. Lytton plaza needed a fountain but it could have been a more beautiful one. The "rrun" sculpture on Alma weighs on the spirit of commuters. Palo Alto can do better in public art. Theater in the parks. Theatre. Update Lucie Stern theater. Bike/Walking Path Improvements Add bike racks. Better bike lane coverage. Bike path no cars. Brick walkways around Lucie Stern center need to be recover. The bricks to the parking lot are uneven & dangerous! Create pedestrian only zone on university avenue with park/fountains/cafes redirect all car & bicycle traffic off university. Fix Baylands boardwalk. I spent last summer in Dublin, they have closed many of streets to traffic and turned them into walking/biking streets only. It's a welcome change to everyone. Make sidewalks less hazardous & tree root bumps produce fall & injuries. More bike lanes clearly marked. More bike path. More bike paths. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 45 More bike ways. More bike/walking trails. More safe biking paths. More walking paths. Promote appropriate increased use of biking outdoor (non sports) activities at Foothills & Byxbee Parks. Repave bike paths and side streets. Restaurants are taking over sidewalks no room to walk safely! Sidewalks. Soft surface running, walking, and hiking trails in easily accessible places. Maintenance/Cleanliness Better care for Boulware park enforce decency on homeless must meet commonly [?] in behavior. Better cleaning and pick-up. Entrance to Cubberley, especially left turn is very difficult & dangerous. Keep parks clean and well maintained. Maintain & enhance natural areas in parks. Maintain buildings. Make sure sprinklers are checked often. Have reported issues, and had to call multiple times to get it fixed. Regular attention to empty garbage cans or way for residents to help keep can empty. They're not bad, but could be cleaner. Upkeep of field, ground and building maintenance. Pool Access/Swimming Access to pools. Better times for open swim & reduction in prices. Build an indoor swimming facility. Indoor swimming pool. Less crowded swimming pools. More pool space for aquatic programs. More public swimming pools. Open Rinconada wading pool year- round or open an indoor public pool. Use of school pools during summer. Water play areas. Rinconada pool is not enough access-would be great to have a free, easy to play in water area. Year round pool (indoor). Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 46 Nothing/Don’t Know Can't think of anything. City does an excellent job cannot think of any improvements in this area.Hanging banners over embarcadero looks "tacky" and is dangerous to do. Dont know. Don't know. Don't know. Don't know. Don't know. Don't know. I don't know. I have recently moved (2 1/2 months ago) to Palo Alto and do not know where Cubberley community center is. keep what the city is doing it works fine for me. N/A. N/A. N/A. No idea physically unable to participate. No opinion. Not involved enough to comment. Not sure. Too new to the area to respond. We are new here, all we see here is lots of nice activities and wonderful parks. Still exploring to know more to come up with something that needs improvement. Other – Related to Community Services Department Police browsing for safety. Safe places for kids to be kids, inside and outside. Safety. Add food bank for homeless. Longer hours. Affordable long term recreation availability. Celebrating patriotic days. Eliminate the zoo as zoos are passe and the PA zoo an abomination. Encourage/support neighborhood gatherings to foster community. Finally the park from Stanford shopping look like it might open again. What a long wait? Have a park where children are NOT allowed. I like Palo Alto's parks, art & recreation very much. What I don't like is all the ugly, big, new office buildings. Their approval has ruined Palo Alto. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 47 Let Deep Peninsula Dog Training Club use a local park for lessons, and Let West Bay Opera use the Lucie Stern Theater for free. I am not affiliated with them! Lower their priority. More entry-level youth employment. More funding for high quality staff to educate the community and maintain parks and buildings in a sustainable way. More indoor meeting spaces open on weekends and weeknights. Night sky watching at Foothill Park. Opening of top of land fill which has recently been covered & burrowing wild life cannot be allowed there because of the cap as dog off leash area. With trash cans. Our [?] designs for library- Cal Ave-start protected the land scape of park- potable water for trees. Recreation [?] need to allow a park to be a serene place! Outdoor area quiet; safe for seniors; bikes skate boards, etc.; benches; flowers; singing birds (not crows). Pare back programs to save money! Put the electrical wires underground in Barrow park. This was done in north Palo Alto but not in south Palo Alto. Remove the homeless people. Rinconada park. Sponsor city wide 5k/10k walk run. Stop using water on the parks/other govt properties. Use a drought resistant grass, less watering. Variety/availability/affordability/accessibility. Other – Not Community Services Department Less traffic!!! Downtown parking is a huge problem. Too many city-sponsored "activities" that often close off Downtown P.A.-Affects parking, walking & life as near by residents. Too congested. Deal with vehicle dwellers. Affordable child care/preschool rent is unacceptably high for poor quality housing. We pay over $4k/mo for a 1 bath home w/o air or dishwasher. Please consider tenants rights. Renters are human too. Improve traffic. Add more open days to college terrace library (left out of recent additions). Create a parking garage (free) in Downtown P.A. Eliminate parking on University Ave. Just through traffic and drive to parking places. Better inventory at libraries. Extend library hours-college terrace branch please! Longer hours at libraries. Longer library hours. Trim the city trees that/to protect the property owners!! Fix the damage to drive ways/cement areas as a result of those trees. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 48 Better streets lighting. Neighborhood. More street lighting's. (1) Have some more landscaping workshops/talks to give people ideas about water wise parking strips & front yards, (2) Not really about parks/arts, but I wish there were better transportation options for from Palo Alto homes & airport in SJ & SF, such as more shuttle routes through town to connect with cal train at cal ave & university. Add one more high school. Affordable housing!! I work for a nonprofit & my rent increased 25% this year. I am going to lose my job and Palo Alto will lose the nonprofit. Affordable housing!!! Better organized. Better selection of library books. Cable service/internet services. City desperately needs more medium density housing so transportation works- like condos by California avenue station and senior housing that was rejected in measure d. Do something to mitigate airplane noise. Get rid of dishonest realtors & developers. Get together for business opportunities. Help homeless relocate away from Downtown. I don't give a crap, just give me cheaper housing. Keep noise level down early in the day. Kinder, gentler support staff & more flexible rules. i.e. new water meter installed, broke the pvc pipe at threads, made us pay because it was on our side of meter, shocking, they were rude, had lawyers call us. Dishonest & they knew it, disgusting. Less improvement in arts recreation park especially less arts. Give money to police, fireman, emt. Library book return from car. More housing. Palo alto needs more affordable housing and more socioeconomic diversity! Please limit condo/commercial development of El Camino. I am frustrated that existing business are all being ripped at all around my building. It will be to congested. Prohibit dogs on school grounds. Re-examine Palo Alto's original plan, and ban new housing. Reduce airplane noise. Regulation activities. Rental is too high!!! Tunnel the train tracks. Universal Wi-Fi. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 49 The following are responses that were originally submitted as a single response but were separated into their respective categories above: 1) Less traffic!!! 2) More open space. 1) Parking, parking, parking! Seniors have great difficulties parking near Avenidas(senior center). Limits ability to attend classes at Avenidas. 2) Downtown parking is a huge problem. Too many city-sponsored "activities" that often close off Downtown P.A.-Affects parking, walking & life as near by residents. Too congested. 1) Working drinking fountains 2) exercise classes for working people (after 6PM). 1) More art classes for adults; 2) more dance for children up to 18. 1) New play equipment, 2) ADA access improvements, 3) more shade, 4) more affordable art classes. 1) Give at least 3 wks notice for publicity of events 2) we need a new theater like mountain view's. 1) Online booking for book the Outdoor Recreation Programs 2) add food bank for homeless. 1) Eliminate the zoo as zoos are passe and the PA zoo an abomination and 2) make the Children's Theater totaling self-supporting. Demographic Questions Table 76: Question D1 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 2% N=13 2% N=16 2% N=17 15% N=101 79% N=548 100% N=695 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto 1% N=6 4% N=26 32% N=221 46% N=320 18% N=123 100% N=696 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 2% N=17 9% N=65 26% N=181 38% N=263 24% N=170 100% N=697 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 2% N=12 8% N=56 27% N=188 38% N=266 25% N=170 100% N=693 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=28 15% N=107 23% N=158 30% N=211 28% N=197 100% N=701 Vote in local elections 14% N=99 5% N=34 9% N=61 22% N=155 50% N=349 100% N=699 Table 77: Question D2 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 32% N=220 Very good 40% N=278 Good 24% N=167 Fair 3% N=22 Poor 1% N=8 Total 100% N=695 Table 78: Question D3 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 6% N=40 Somewhat positive 26% N=177 Neutral 56% N=383 Somewhat negative 10% N=69 Very negative 3% N=20 Total 100% N=688 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 50 Table 79: Question D4 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 51% N=353 Working part time for pay 13% N=87 Unemployed, looking for paid work 4% N=28 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=37 Fully retired 24% N=164 College student, unemployed 4% N=26 Total 100% N=695 Table 80: Question D5 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 22% N=146 Yes, from home 14% N=93 No 64% N=423 Total 100% N=662 Table 81: Question D6 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Percent Number Less than 2 years 18% N=124 2 to 5 years 17% N=119 6 to 10 years 15% N=105 11 to 20 years 16% N=114 More than 20 years 34% N=237 Total 100% N=699 Table 82: Question D7 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 58% N=403 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 38% N=267 Mobile home 0% N=2 Other 4% N=25 Total 100% N=697 Table 83 Question D8 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 44% N=304 Owned 56% N=385 Total 100% N=689 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 51 Table 84: Question D9 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $1,000 per month 11% N=73 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 9% N=59 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 10% N=68 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 12% N=82 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 8% N=56 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 9% N=61 $3,500 to 3,999 per month 8% N=52 $4,000 to $4,499 per month 8% N=55 $4,500 to $4,999 per month 5% N=36 $5,000 or more per month 20% N=132 Total 100% N=675 Table 85: Question D10 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 63% N=435 Yes 37% N=260 Total 100% N=695 Table 86: Question D11 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 70% N=485 Yes 30% N=210 Total 100% N=695 Table 87: Question D12 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 6% N=40 $25,000 to $49,999 5% N=36 $50,000 to $99,999 18% N=116 $100,000 to $149,999 17% N=111 $150,000 to $199,999 11% N=72 $200,000 to $249,999 12% N=77 $250,000 to $299,999 7% N=48 $300,000 or more 25% N=162 Total 100% N=662 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 52 Table 88: Question D13 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 96% N=658 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 4% N=30 Total 100% N=688 Table 89: Question D14 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 0% N=2 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 28% N=193 Black or African American 1% N=7 White 70% N=479 Other 4% N=26 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 90: Question D15 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 5% N=31 25 to 34 years 17% N=118 35 to 44 years 16% N=110 45 to 54 years 25% N=171 55 to 64 years 12% N=79 65 to 74 years 12% N=81 75 years or older 14% N=100 Total 100% N=690 Table 91: Question D16 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents What is your sex? Percent Number Female 51% N=352 Male 49% N=336 Total 100% N=688 Table 92 Question D17 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 60% N=414 Land line 22% N=150 Both 19% N=128 Total 100% N=692 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 53 Table 93: Question D18 - Response Percentages and Number of Respondents without "Don't Know" Responses Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the following? (Check all that apply.) Percent Number Heterosexual 96% N=549 Lesbian 1% N=3 Gay 2% N=11 Bisexual 3% N=15 Transgender 1% N=3 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 54 Survey Materials Attachment B Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 55 Attachment B The City of Palo Alto 2015 Citizen Survey Page 1 of 6 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1.Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Palo Alto as a place to live ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to raise children ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to work ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to visit ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto as a place to retire ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Palo Alto ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2.Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of Palo Alto ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 3.Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Palo Alto for the next five years ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 4.Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel:Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas during the day .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Palo Alto’s downtown/commercial areas after dark ............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of public parking .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Palo Alto ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Palo Alto ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Palo Alto ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Palo Alto ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Palo Alto .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality mental health care ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 56 Attachment B Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 5 Na t i o n a l Re s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 2 of 6 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Palo Alto as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities .................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Palo Alto .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto............ 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial areas ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Palo Alto ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Made efforts to conserve water ................................................................................................................. 1 2 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient ............................................................................. 1 2 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Palo Alto (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ..................... 1 2 Household member was a victim of a crime in Palo Alto .......................................................................... 1 2 Reported a crime to the police in Palo Alto ............................................................................................... 1 2 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency..................................................................................... 1 2 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ....................................................................... 1 2 Contacted the City of Palo Alto (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ......................... 1 2 Contacted Palo Alto elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ................ 1 2 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Palo Alto?2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services .................................................. 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or City park ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Used Palo Alto public libraries or their services ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Palo Alto ....................................... 1 2 3 4 Attended a City-sponsored event ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving................................ 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ............................ 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Palo Alto ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in a club .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors ................................................ 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used the City’s website to conduct business or pay bills ......................................... 1 2 3 4 9.Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting?2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ........................................ 1 2 3 4 57 Attachment B The City of Palo Alto 2015 Citizen Survey Page 3 of 6 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Palo Alto: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Police services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto open space ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City-sponsored special events .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborhood branch libraries ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood park .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of library materials ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street tree maintenance ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Electric utility ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Gas utility ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling collection ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 City’s website........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Art programs and theatre .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The City of Palo Alto ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 State Government .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 58 Attachment B Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 5 Na t i o n a l Re s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 4 of 6 12. Please rate the following categories of Palo Alto government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement .... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Palo Alto government ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 13.Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Palo Alto community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years:Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ................................. 1 2 3 4 Quality of overall natural environment in Palo Alto ................................................ 1 2 3 4 Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in Palo Alto ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment ............................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall economic health of Palo Alto ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sense of community ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 14.If you had a maintenance issue to report to the City of Palo Alto, what method would you be most likely to use? (Please pick one.) Contact the City Manager’s office Submit a notification electronically on the City’s website through the Contact a City Council member “Make a Service Request” link on the City’s website E-mail the appropriate city department Use Palo Alto 311 phone app to notify the appropriate city department Call the appropriate city department Visit City Hall Call the main number for the City 15.What method(s), if any, have you used to provide feedback or engage with the City on issues in Palo Alto in the past 12 months? Please check all that apply: In-person community meetings Open City Hall (online civic engagement portal) City council meetings Social media channels (Facebook, Twitter) Email Use the “Contact the City” link on the City of Palo Alto website Phone call I have not contacted the City about any issues in the last 12 Nextdoor (private neighborhood network)months 16.How frequently, if at all, do you shop…Once a 1-5 times 1-3 times Not day or more a week a month at all In your neighborhood ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 In other parts of Palo Alto .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 In neighboring cities .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Online ............................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 17.How frequently, if at all, do you eat out for any meal…Once a 1-5 times 1-3 times Not day or more a week a month at all In your neighborhood ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 In other parts of Palo Alto .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 In neighboring cities .......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 By ordering take-out/delivery ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 18.How often, if at all, do you participate in each of the following waste programs when you have these types of waste to dispose of? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Residential food scraps collection program .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Home composting ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Palo Alto’s weekly household hazardous waste collection program ......... 1 2 3 4 5 59 Attachment B The City of Palo Alto 2015 Citizen Survey Page 5 of 6 19.Please rate the quality of Palo Alto’s trees and landscaping for: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Businesses................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Residential homes .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Walking and biking .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Schools .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Streets ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Parks ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 20.If you did not have access to a car for your usual daily transportation around town, how convenient (based on time and proximity), would you consider each of the following methods of getting around? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very convenient convenient inconvenient inconvenient Walking ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Biking ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Bus .................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Train .................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Free shuttle ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Taxi ................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Carpooling ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 21.If you did not have access to a car to get around town and convenience (based on time and proximity) was not an issue, what is your preference for each of the following methods of getting around? Prefer Somewhat Do not a lot prefer prefer Walking ................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 Biking .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Bus ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 Train ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Free shuttle ............................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 Taxi ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Uber/Lyft or similar rideshare service ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 Carpooling ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 22.Please rate how important, if at all, it would be to redevelop the Cubberley Community Center for each of the following purposes: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important School(s) ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Playing fields ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Community center ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 23.The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District are working together on a master plan for the Cubberley Community Center to meet future community and school needs. Please indicate how much of a priority, if at all, each of the following community programs at Cubberley are to you. High Medium Not a Priority priority priority Child care ................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 Cubberley Artist Studio Program ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 Dance studios ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Outdoor sports .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 Indoor sports and health programs ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 Senior wellness, including stroke and cardiovascular programs ................................................. 1 2 3 Education – private schools and special interest classes ............................................................ 1 2 3 Rooms available to rent for other activities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 Other (please specify) __________________________ ............................................................... 1 2 3 24. Please share one improvement to the City of Palo Alto’s parks, arts, or recreation activities and programs that the City could make to better serve the community. 60 Attachment B Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 5 Na t i o n a l Re s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 6 of 6 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Recycle at home .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Palo Alto ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vote in local elections...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 D2. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative D4. What is your employment status? Working full time for pay Working part time for pay Unemployed, looking for paid work Unemployed, not looking for paid work Fully retired College student, unemployed D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Palo Alto? Yes, outside the home Yes, from home No D6. How many years have you lived in Palo Alto? Less than 2 years 11-20 years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) Mobile home Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Rented Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? Less than $1,000 per month $3,000 to $3,499 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $3,500 to $3,999 per month $1,500 to $1,999 per month $4,000 to $4,499 per month $2,000 to $2,499 per month $4,500 to $4,999 per month $2,500 to $2,999 per month $5,000 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D11. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $25,000 $150,000 to $199,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $200,000 to $249,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $250,000 to $299,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $300,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D15. In which category is your age? 18-24 years 55-64 years 25-34 years 65-74 years 35-44 years 75 years or older 45-54 years D16. What is your sex? Female Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number? Cell Land line Both D18. Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the following? (Check all that apply.) Heterosexual Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 61 Attachment B October 2015 Dear City of Palo Alto Resident: Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto! You have been randomly selected to participate in the 2015 Palo Alto Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. The survey results are compiled each year into a report that is carefully reviewed by City Council members, City management and staff, and the Office of the City Auditor. Your input influences the City’s priorities and the services provided to Palo Alto residents. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/paloalto.htm If you have any questions about the survey please call (650) 329-2667. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Harriet Richardson City Auditor 62 Attachment B October 2015 Dear City of Palo Alto Resident: Here’s a second chance if you haven’t already responded to the 2015 Palo Alto Citizen Survey! (If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice.) Please help us shape the future of Palo Alto! You have been randomly selected to participate in the 2015 Palo Alto Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. The survey results are compiled each year into a report that is carefully reviewed by City Council members, City management and staff, and the Office of the City Auditor. Your input influences the City’s priorities and the services provided to Palo Alto residents. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: www.n-r-c.com/survey/paloalto.htm If you have any questions about the survey please call (650) 329-2667. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Harriet Richardson City Auditor 63 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 64 Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Palo Alto’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Adams County, CO ................................................. 441,603 Airway Heights city, WA .............................................. 6,114 Albany city, OR......................................................... 50,158 Albemarle County, VA ............................................... 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 18,016 Algonquin village, IL ................................................. 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA .................................................... 47,823 Altoona city, IA......................................................... 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 19,454 Ames city, IA ............................................................ 58,965 Andover CDP, MA ....................................................... 8,762 Ankeny city, IA ......................................................... 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI .................................................. 113,934 Annapolis city, MD .................................................... 38,394 Apache Junction city, AZ ........................................... 35,840 Apple Valley town, CA ............................................... 69,135 Arapahoe County, CO ............................................. 572,003 Arkansas City city, AR ....................................................366 Arlington city, TX .................................................... 365,438 Arlington County, VA .............................................. 207,627 Arvada city, CO ...................................................... 106,433 Asheville city, NC ...................................................... 83,393 Ashland city, OR ....................................................... 20,078 Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,225 Aspen city, CO............................................................ 6,658 Auburn city, AL ......................................................... 53,380 Auburn city, WA ....................................................... 70,180 Augusta CCD, GA.................................................... 134,777 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 325,078 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 790,390 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,025 Baltimore city, MD .................................................. 620,961 Bartonville town, TX ................................................... 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 52,347 Bay City city, MI ....................................................... 34,932 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 71,802 Bedford city, TX........................................................ 46,979 Bedford town, MA ..................................................... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 122,363 Bellingham city, WA .................................................. 80,885 Beltrami County, MN ................................................. 44,442 Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234 Bend city, OR ........................................................... 76,639 Benicia city, CA ........................................................ 26,997 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217 Billings city, MT ...................................................... 104,170 Blaine city, MN ......................................................... 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI ............................................... 3,869 Bloomington city, MN ................................................ 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO ................................................ 52,575 Boise City city, ID ................................................... 205,671 Boone County, KY................................................... 118,811 Boulder city, CO ....................................................... 97,385 Bowling Green city, KY .............................................. 58,067 Brentwood city, MO .................................................... 8,055 Brentwood city, TN ................................................... 37,060 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 33,352 Bristol city, TN .......................................................... 26,702 Broken Arrow city, OK............................................... 98,850 Brookfield city, WI .................................................... 37,920 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 58,732 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 21,285 Bryan city, TX .......................................................... 76,201 Burien city, WA ........................................................ 33,313 Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690 Cabarrus County, NC ............................................... 178,011 Cambridge city, MA ................................................. 105,162 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL .................................................. 154,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................... 37,941 Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682 Carlsbad city, CA ..................................................... 105,328 Carroll city, IA .......................................................... 10,103 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731 Cary town, NC ........................................................ 135,234 Casa Grande city, AZ ................................................ 48,571 Casper city, WY ....................................................... 55,316 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366 Castle Pines North city, CO ....................................... 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 48,231 Centennial city, CO.................................................. 100,377 Centralia city, IL....................................................... 13,032 Chambersburg borough, PA ...................................... 20,268 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 236,123 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233 Charlotte city, NC .................................................... 731,424 Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN............................................... 167,674 Chesterfield County, VA ........................................... 316,236 Chippewa Falls city, WI ............................................ 13,661 Citrus Heights city, CA .............................................. 83,301 Clackamas County, OR ............................................ 375,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL ........................................... 8,427 Clayton city, MO....................................................... 15,939 Clearwater city, FL .................................................. 107,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH........................................ 46,121 Clive city, IA ............................................................ 15,447 Clovis city, CA .......................................................... 95,631 College Park city, MD ............................................... 30,413 College Station city, TX............................................. 93,857 Colleyville city, TX .................................................... 22,807 Collinsville city, IL .................................................... 25,579 Columbia city, MO ................................................... 108,500 Columbia city, SC .................................................... 129,272 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 4,688 Columbus city, WI ...................................................... 4,991 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067 Concord town, MA.................................................... 17,668 Cookeville city, TN ................................................... 30,435 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX............................................. 32,032 Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462 Creve Coeur city, MO ............................................... 17,833 Cross Roads town, TX ................................................ 1,563 Crystal Lake city, IL .................................................. 40,743 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 65 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,152 Dade City city, FL ....................................................... 6,437 Dakota County, MN................................................. 398,552 Dallas city, OR .......................................................... 14,583 Dallas city, TX ..................................................... 1,197,816 Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO ......................................... 11,494 Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685 Davidson town, NC ................................................... 10,944 Dayton city, OH ...................................................... 141,527 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335 Del Mar city, CA.......................................................... 4,161 Delray Beach city, FL ................................................ 60,522 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Denton city, TX ...................................................... 113,383 Denver city, CO ...................................................... 600,158 Derby city, KS .......................................................... 22,158 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,373 Destin city, FL .......................................................... 12,305 Dorchester County, MD ............................................. 32,618 Dothan city, AL......................................................... 65,496 Douglas County, CO................................................ 285,465 Dover city, NH .......................................................... 29,987 Dublin city, CA.......................................................... 46,036 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265 Duncanville city, TX .................................................. 38,524 Durham city, NC ..................................................... 228,330 Eagle town, CO .......................................................... 6,508 East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ................................... 440,171 East Grand Forks city, MN ........................................... 8,601 East Lansing city, MI................................................. 48,579 Eau Claire city, WI .................................................... 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797 Edgerton city, KS ........................................................ 1,671 Edgewater city, CO ..................................................... 5,170 Edina city, MN .......................................................... 47,941 Edmond city, OK....................................................... 81,405 Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 39,709 El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 23,549 El Dorado County, CA ............................................. 181,058 El Paso city, TX ...................................................... 649,121 Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 153,015 Elk River city, MN ..................................................... 22,974 Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL ....................................................... 44,121 Encinitas city, CA ...................................................... 59,518 Englewood city, CO................................................... 30,255 Erie town, CO ........................................................... 18,135 Escambia County, FL .............................................. 297,619 Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 5,858 Fairview town, TX ....................................................... 7,248 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740 Fayetteville city, NC ................................................ 200,564 Fishers town, IN ....................................................... 76,794 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR ................................................ 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ................................................ 143,986 Fort Smith city, AR.................................................... 86,209 Fort Worth city, TX ................................................. 741,206 Fountain Hills town, AZ ............................................. 22,489 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487 Fredericksburg city, VA ............................................. 24,286 Fremont city, CA ..................................................... 214,089 Friendswood city, TX ................................................ 35,805 Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 12,646 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 59,933 Galveston city, TX .................................................... 47,743 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 19,123 Geneva city, NY ....................................................... 13,261 Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400 Gilbert town, AZ ...................................................... 208,453 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 29,087 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 44,692 Globe city, AZ ............................................................ 7,532 Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 20,371 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 65,275 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 8,276 Grand Island city, NE ............................................... 48,520 Grass Valley city, CA................................................. 12,860 Greeley city, CO ....................................................... 92,889 Green Valley CDP, AZ ............................................... 21,391 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 13,925 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515 Guilford County, NC ................................................ 488,406 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324 Gurnee village, IL ..................................................... 31,295 Hailey city, ID ............................................................ 7,960 Haines Borough, AK ................................................... 2,508 Hallandale Beach city, FL .......................................... 37,113 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477 Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019 Hayward city, CA .................................................... 144,186 Henderson city, NV ................................................. 257,729 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 23,292 High Point city, NC .................................................. 104,371 Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ........................................ 96,713 Hillsborough town, NC ................................................ 6,087 Holland city, MI........................................................ 33,051 Honolulu County, HI ................................................ 953,207 Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591 Hopkinton town, MA ................................................. 14,925 Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,726 Horry County, SC .................................................... 269,291 Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356 Hudsonville city, MI .................................................... 7,116 Huntersville town, NC ............................................... 46,773 Hurst city, TX........................................................... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698 Hyattsville city, MD .................................................. 17,557 Independence city, MO............................................ 116,830 Indian Trail town, NC ............................................... 33,518 Indianola city, IA...................................................... 14,782 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434 Jackson County, MI ................................................. 160,248 James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009 Jefferson City city, MO.............................................. 43,079 Jefferson County, CO .............................................. 534,543 Jefferson County, NY ............................................... 116,229 Jerome city, ID ........................................................ 10,890 Johnson City city, TN................................................ 63,152 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278 Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 55,156 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 66 Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 74,262 Kansas City city, KS ................................................ 145,786 Kansas City city, MO ............................................... 459,787 Keizer city, OR.......................................................... 36,478 Kenmore city, WA ..................................................... 20,460 Kennedale city, TX ...................................................... 6,763 Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................... 6,072 Kettering city, OH ..................................................... 56,163 Key West city, FL ...................................................... 24,649 King County, WA ................................................. 1,931,249 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,540 Knoxville city, IA ......................................................... 7,313 La Mesa city, CA ....................................................... 57,065 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 La Porte city, TX ....................................................... 33,800 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758 Lafayette city, CO ..................................................... 24,453 Laguna Beach city, CA .............................................. 22,723 Laguna Hills city, CA ................................................. 30,344 Laguna Niguel city, CA .............................................. 62,979 Lake Oswego city, OR ............................................... 36,619 Lake Stevens city, WA............................................... 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL ................................................... 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL ............................................... 19,631 Lakeville city, MN...................................................... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 142,980 Lane County, OR .................................................... 351,715 Larimer County, CO ................................................ 299,630 Las Cruces city, NM .................................................. 97,618 Las Vegas city, NV .................................................. 583,756 Lawrence city, KS ..................................................... 87,643 League City city, TX .................................................. 83,560 Lee's Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364 Lehi city, UT ............................................................. 47,407 Lenexa city, KS ......................................................... 48,190 Lewis County, NY ..................................................... 27,087 Lewisville city, TX ..................................................... 95,290 Libertyville village, IL ................................................ 20,315 Lincoln city, NE....................................................... 258,379 Lindsborg city, KS ....................................................... 3,458 Littleton city, CO....................................................... 41,737 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968 Lombard village, IL ................................................... 43,165 Lone Tree city, CO .................................................... 10,218 Long Grove village, IL ................................................. 8,043 Longmont city, CO .................................................... 86,270 Longview city, TX ..................................................... 80,455 Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 17,950 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Lynchburg city, VA.................................................... 75,568 Lynnwood city, WA ................................................... 35,836 Macomb County, MI................................................ 840,978 Madison city, WI..................................................... 233,209 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,135 Mankato city, MN...................................................... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN ................................................ 61,567 Maple Valley city, WA ............................................... 22,684 Maricopa County, AZ............................................ 3,817,117 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 35,824 Maryland Heights city, MO ........................................ 27,472 Matthews town, NC .................................................. 27,198 McAllen city, TX ...................................................... 129,877 McDonough city, GA ................................................. 22,084 McKinney city, TX ................................................... 131,117 McMinnville city, OR .................................................. 32,187 Medford city, OR ...................................................... 74,907 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 32,026 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 39,688 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092 Merriam city, KS....................................................... 11,003 Mesa County, CO .................................................... 146,723 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779 Miami city, FL ......................................................... 399,457 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 17,442 Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,863 Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559 Milton city, GA ......................................................... 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ............................................... 382,578 Mission Viejo city, CA ............................................... 93,305 Modesto city, CA ..................................................... 201,165 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810 Montgomery County, VA ........................................... 94,392 Monticello city, UT...................................................... 1,972 Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530 Mooresville town, NC ................................................ 32,711 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,137 Morrisville town, NC ................................................. 18,576 Moscow city, ID ....................................................... 23,800 Mountain Village town, CO .......................................... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 19,909 Muscatine city, IA .................................................... 22,886 Naperville city, IL .................................................... 141,853 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456 New Hanover County, NC ........................................ 202,667 New Orleans city, LA ............................................... 343,829 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ...................................... 22,464 Newberg city, OR ..................................................... 22,068 Newport Beach city, CA ............................................ 85,186 Newport News city, VA ............................................ 180,719 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,254 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969 Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837 Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 242,803 North Richland Hills city, TX ...................................... 63,343 Northglenn city, CO .................................................. 35,789 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 51,904 Novi city, MI ............................................................ 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO ...................................................... 79,329 Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 51,878 Oakland city, CA ..................................................... 390,724 Oakland Park city, FL................................................ 41,363 Oakley city, CA ........................................................ 35,432 Ogdensburg city, NY ................................................ 11,128 Oklahoma City city, OK ............................................ 579,999 Olathe city, KS ........................................................ 125,872 Old Town city, ME ...................................................... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ............................................... 144,248 Olympia city, WA ..................................................... 46,478 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI .................................. 21,705 Otsego County, MI ................................................... 24,164 Overland Park city, KS ............................................. 173,372 Oviedo city, FL ......................................................... 33,342 Paducah city, KY ...................................................... 25,024 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 75,180 Papillion city, NE ...................................................... 18,894 Park City city, UT ....................................................... 7,558 Parker town, CO ...................................................... 45,297 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 67 Parkland city, FL ....................................................... 23,962 Pasadena city, CA ................................................... 137,122 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 464,697 Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252 Peoria city, AZ ........................................................ 154,065 Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,007 Peoria County, IL .................................................... 186,494 Petoskey city, MI ........................................................ 5,670 Pflugerville city, TX ................................................... 46,936 Phoenix city, AZ .................................................. 1,445,632 Pinal County, AZ ..................................................... 375,770 Pinehurst village, NC ................................................. 13,124 Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,522 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,148 Plano city, TX ......................................................... 259,841 Platte City city, MO ..................................................... 4,691 Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 70,576 Pocatello city, ID ...................................................... 54,255 Polk County, IA ...................................................... 430,640 Pompano Beach city, FL ............................................ 99,845 Port Huron city, MI ................................................... 30,184 Port Orange city, FL .................................................. 56,048 Portland city, OR .................................................... 583,776 Post Falls city, ID...................................................... 27,574 Prince William County, VA ....................................... 402,002 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 22,796 Provo city, UT ........................................................ 112,488 Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 106,595 Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ .............................................. 26,361 Radnor township, PA ................................................ 31,531 Ramsey city, MN....................................................... 23,668 Rapid City city, SD .................................................... 67,956 Raymore city, MO ..................................................... 19,206 Redmond city, WA .................................................... 54,144 Rehoboth Beach city, DE ............................................. 1,327 Reno city, NV ......................................................... 225,221 Reston CDP, VA ........................................................ 58,404 Richmond city, CA .................................................. 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603 Rifle city, CO .............................................................. 9,172 Rio Rancho city, NM.................................................. 87,521 River Falls city, WI .................................................... 15,000 Riverdale city, UT ....................................................... 8,426 Riverside city, CA.................................................... 303,871 Riverside city, MO ....................................................... 2,937 Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 Rockford city, IL ..................................................... 152,871 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209 Rogers city, MN .......................................................... 8,597 Rolla city, MO ........................................................... 19,559 Roselle village, IL ..................................................... 22,763 Rosemount city, MN.................................................. 21,874 Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 33,660 Roswell city, GA........................................................ 88,346 Round Rock city, TX ................................................. 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI .................................................... 57,236 Saco city, ME ........................................................... 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ ................................................... 25,259 Sammamish city, WA ................................................ 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA .............................................. 12,336 San Antonio city, TX ............................................ 1,327,407 San Carlos city, CA ................................................... 28,406 San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA ............................................. 805,235 San Jose city, CA .................................................... 945,942 San Juan County, NM .............................................. 130,044 San Marcos city, CA.................................................. 83,781 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 44,894 San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713 Sandy Springs city, GA ............................................. 93,853 Sanford city, FL ........................................................ 53,570 Sangamon County, IL .............................................. 197,465 Santa Clarita city, CA ............................................... 176,320 Santa Fe County, NM............................................... 144,170 Santa Monica city, CA ............................................... 89,736 Sarasota County, FL ................................................ 379,448 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 26,911 Scarborough CDP, ME ................................................ 4,403 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,227 Scott County, MN .................................................... 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 217,385 Seaside city, CA ....................................................... 33,025 SeaTac city, WA ....................................................... 26,909 Sevierville city, TN.................................................... 14,807 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209 Sheboygan city, WI .................................................. 49,288 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 25,043 Shorewood city, MN ................................................... 7,307 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 15,615 Shorewood village, WI.............................................. 13,162 Sioux Center city, IA .................................................. 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD .................................................. 153,888 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784 Snellville city, GA ..................................................... 18,242 Snowmass Village town, CO ........................................ 2,826 South Kingstown town, RI ........................................ 30,639 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403 South Portland city, ME ............................................ 25,002 Southborough town, MA ............................................. 9,767 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575 Sparks city, NV ........................................................ 90,264 Spokane Valley city, WA ........................................... 89,755 Spring Hill city, KS ...................................................... 5,437 Springboro city, OH .................................................. 17,409 Springfield city, MO ................................................. 159,498 Springfield city, OR .................................................. 59,403 Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL ...................................................... 35,183 St. Cloud city, MN .................................................... 65,842 St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,780 St. Louis County, MN ............................................... 200,226 St. Louis Park city, MN.............................................. 45,250 Stallings town, NC .................................................... 13,831 State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................................... 12,088 Sterling Heights city, MI .......................................... 129,699 Sugar Grove village, IL ............................................... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817 Summit city, NJ........................................................ 21,457 Summit County, UT .................................................. 36,324 Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 140,081 Surprise city, AZ...................................................... 117,517 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 15,355 Tacoma city, WA ..................................................... 198,397 Takoma Park city, MD .............................................. 16,715 Tamarac city, FL ...................................................... 60,427 Temecula city, CA ................................................... 100,097 Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 161,719 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 66,102 The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847 Attachment B The National Citizen Survey™ 68 Thornton city, CO ................................................... 118,772 Thousand Oaks city, CA .......................................... 126,683 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 48,035 Tracy city, CA ........................................................... 82,922 Tualatin city, OR ....................................................... 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 391,906 Twin Falls city, ID ..................................................... 44,125 Tyler city, TX ............................................................ 96,900 Umatilla city, OR......................................................... 6,906 Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................... 33,771 Urbandale city, IA ..................................................... 39,463 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,305 Vancouver city, WA ................................................ 161,791 Vestavia Hills city, AL ................................................ 34,033 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 7,345 Virginia Beach city, VA ............................................ 437,994 Wake Forest town, NC .............................................. 30,117 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 64,173 Washington County, MN.......................................... 238,136 Washington town, NH ................................................. 1,123 Washoe County, NV ................................................ 421,407 Watauga city, TX ...................................................... 23,497 Wauwatosa city, WI .................................................. 46,396 Waverly city, IA .......................................................... 9,874 Weddington town, NC ................................................. 9,459 Wentzville city, MO ................................................... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH ............................................ 13,143 West Chester borough, PA ........................................ 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA .......................................... 56,609 West Richland city, WA............................................. 11,811 Western Springs village, IL ....................................... 12,975 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 36,120 Westlake town, TX ........................................................ 992 Westminster city, CO ............................................... 106,114 Weston town, MA ..................................................... 11,261 Wheat Ridge city, CO ............................................... 30,166 White House city, TN................................................ 10,255 Wichita city, KS ....................................................... 382,368 Williamsburg city, VA................................................ 14,068 Wilmington city, NC................................................. 106,476 Wilsonville city, OR................................................... 19,509 Winchester city, VA .................................................. 26,203 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644 Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL.................................................. 12,187 Winston-Salem city, NC ........................................... 229,617 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 34,568 Woodbury city, MN................................................... 61,961 Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468 Woodland city, WA ..................................................... 5,509 Wrentham town, MA ................................................ 10,955 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067 York County, VA....................................................... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN ..................................................... 9,405 Attachment B Table of Contents Page 1 City Organization and Information Page 2 Progress in Fiscal Year 2015 Page 3 Fiscal Year 2015 Revenues and Expenditures Page 4 What's Next? City’s Economic Outlook and Moving Forward Demographics Information FY 2013 FY 2014 Population* 65,498 66,029 Average travel time to work* 22.0 minutes 22.1 minutes Median household income* $118,396 $122,366 Median price of single family home $1,992,500 $1,880,250 Number of authorized City staff 1,129 1,147 FY 2015 66,968 22.3 minutes $151,370 $2,465,000 1,153 City Organization and Information Incorporated in 1894, the City of Palo Alto covers 26 square miles and is located in the heart of Silicon Valley. Palo Alto has about 67,000 residents and the daytime population is estimated at more than 128,000. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. The total daytime population for Palo Alto and Stanford is about 154,000. The City of Palo Alto provides a full range of municipal services, in addition to owning and operating its own utility system, including electricity, gas, water, wastewater treatment, refuse, storm drain, and fiber optics. The City also offers expanded service delivery, including fire protection service for Palo Alto and Stanford. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. Animal Services provides animal control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, and residents from neighboring cities often use the animal spay and neuter services. City residents elect nine members to the City Council to serve staggered four-year terms. Each January, Council members elect a Mayor and Vice-Mayor. The City of Palo Alto operates under a Council-manager form of government. 1 * Figures reflect American Community Survey data The City of Palo Alto’s Values Quality Superior delivery of services Courtesy Providing service with respect and concern Efficiency Productive, effective use of resources Integrity Straightforward, honest, and fair relations Innovation Excellence in creative thought and implementation Additional information is available at the Office of the City Auditor’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp The City of Palo Alto, California A Report to Our CiƟzens Attachment C Progress in Fiscal Year 2015 Themes for 2015 Differing from prior years’ performance reports, the themes allow users to understand the performance of cross-departmental programs or initiatives, while continuing to present information by individual departments. ► Stewardship: Financial Responsibility Neighborhood Preservation Environmental Sustainability ► Public Service: Public Safety Services Utility Services Internal City Services ► Community: Community Involvement and Enrichment Safety, Health, and Well-Being Density and Development Mobility Key Measures Additional information is available at the City of Palo Alto’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp All percent ratings as “excellent/good” FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Ranking compared to other surveyed jurisdictions GENERAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS Palo Alto as a place to live 92% 95% 92% Similar Overall quality of life in Palo Alto 91% 91% 88% Similar Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto 90% 92% 88% Higher Overall appearance of Palo Alto 85% 89% 89% Higher STEWARDSHIP General Fund Operating Expenditures Per Capita (in millions) $2,400 $2,412 $2,492 Overall natural environment in Palo Alto 83% 88% 86% Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 91% 92% 90% Similar PUBLIC SERVICE Overall confidence in Palo Alto government n/a 52% 53% Similar Overall customer service by Palo Alto employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 79% 81% 74% Similar Police services 86% 87% 88% Similar Fire services 93% 95% 97% Similar COMMUNITY Overall feeling of safety in Palo Alto as “very/somewhat safe” n/a 92% 91% Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit n/a 71% 65% Similar Overall “built environment” of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks, and transportation systems) n/a 67% 63% Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 76% 76% 68% Lower Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands, and greenbelts 79% 80% 77% Higher Opportunity to participate in community matters n/a 75% 76% Similar Opportunities to volunteer 82% 83% 80% Similar Cost of living in Palo Alto n/a 11% 8% Much lower Palo Alto as a place to visit n/a 75% 74% Similar The value of services for taxes paid to Palo Alto 66% 66% 65% Similar Services provided by Palo Alto 84% 83% 85% Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community n/a 54% 53% Similar Economic development 61% 73% 69% Higher 2 How We Have Progressed Attachment C The City’s Finances Revenues and Expenditures Primary Sources of General Fund Revenues Primary General Fund Expenditures Additional information is available at the City of Palo Alto’s website, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/default.asp Revenues by Source FY 2014 Actual Revenues FY 2015 Actual Revenues Property Tax $30.6 million $34.1 million Sales Tax $29.4 million $29.7 million Charges for Services $24.0 million $25.9 million Transient Occupancy Tax $12.2 million $16.7 million Rental Income $14.2 million $14.9 million Utility Users Tax $11.0 million $10.9 million Documentary Transfer Tax $7.8 million $10.4 million All Other Revenues $5.5 million $7.8 Million Permits and Licenses $7.0 million $7.1 million Total Revenues: $141.7 million $157.5 million 3 Source: FY 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Source: FY 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Expenditures by Source FY 2014 Actual Expenditures FY 2015 Actual Expenditures Public Safety $61.7 million $61.2 million Community Services $22.5 million $23.0 million Public Works $11.5 million $11.4 million Development Services n/a* $11.1 million Library $7.3 million $8.0 million Planning and Community Environment $13.2 million $7.4 million All Others $7.3 million $7.4 million Nondepartmental $8.0 million $5.6 million Administrative Services $3.0 million $3.7 million Total Expenditures: $134.5 million $138.8 million * In prior years, the expenditure for Development Services was included in other department figures, primarily Planning and Community Environment. Attachment C What’s Next? City’s Budget and Accomplishments Palo Alto is truly a special place - a community with a rich history of entrepreneurship, with some of the world’s smartest and most creative people. With an unparalleled quality of life, there is no better place than Palo Alto to live, work, raise a family, grow a business or visit. Palo Alto continues to be a driving force in the global economy, a leader in sustainability, and the innovations developed here change the world. City Council 2015 Priorities The City Council held its annual retreat in Jan. 2015 to discuss and adopt its priorities. Each year, the Council sets its priorities giving the community a clear definition of what the City is trying to accomplish. For 2015, the Council adopted four priorities that will receive significant attention throughout the year. The 2015 Council Priorities are: The Built Environment: Multi-modal transportation, parking and livability Infrastructure Strategy and Implementation Healthy City, Healthy Community Completion of the Comprehensive Plan update with increased focus from Council City of Palo Alto Budget The City of Palo Alto exists to promote and sustain a superior quality of life in Palo Alto. In partnership with our community, our goal is to deliver cost-effective services in a personal, responsive and innovative manner. In June 2015, the City Council adopted the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) in the amount of $563.6 million, which includes ongoing funding for the City’s public safety, library, parks and recreation, utility, and internal support department functions as well as improvements to our roads, facilities, and utility infrastructure. Despite the growing economy and increased tax revenues, the City continues to prudently enhance service levels while remaining cognizant of the City’s long-term fiscal sustainability. To enhance the quality of life for residents, City’s budget included increased Library opening hours for the newly renovated and expanded facilities, added funding for special events, and added staff to respond quicker to code enforcement cases. Further, we added staff to support initiatives in response to the City’s parking and transportation issues such as the Residential Preferential Parking program, Downtown and California Avenue parking studies, and commute programs through a Transportation Management Authority. In addition, the City will continue the rehabilitation of streets and sidewalks and make improvements to the existing utility infrastructure. Furthermore, the City’s Utility continues to provide excellent services in the delivery of electricity, gas, and water as well as wastewater treatment and garbage and recycling collection services at competitive rates. The Office of the City Auditor is responsible for independently evaluating the City’s programs, services, and departments. For 14 years our office has issued the City’s annual Performance Report (formerly Service Efforts and Accomplishments) to supplement the City’s financial reports and statements. If you are interested in viewing the City’s complete annual performance report, please visit: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments.asp About Citizen Centric Reporting The Association of Government Accountants (AGA) developed guidance on producing Citizen Centric Reporting as a method to demonstrate accountability to residents and answer the question, “Are we better off today than we were last year?” Additional details can be found at the AGA website: www.agacgfm.org (under Tools & Resources) 4 From the City Manager Attachment C CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Keene, City Manager AGENDA DATE: January 30, 2016 SUBJECT: COUNCIL ANNUAL RETREAT PRIORITY SETTING AND WORKPLAN Council Members: Attached is a pdf version of the Council Priority Project WorkPlan for 2016, with projects and action steps identified under each of the Council’s current 4 priorities. The thought is for you to do some advance review of the projects and use the right hand Council Ranking and Comments section to capture your thoughts and rankings. At the retreat we will be using a “nominal group technique" forced choice voting method (dots) to capture what projects at this point you would rank as most important. In fact, with staff turnover and vacancies, we won’t be able to accomplish all of the anticipated action steps within the 69 Projects identified on this Work Plan. When we add complexity and interruptions over the course of the year --new projects, redirection or redefinition, unanticipated issues, etc.—your rankings could be helpful in beginning to reprioritize and manage our work over the course of the year. This process typically locates 1/3 of the “votes” plus 1 as the means to effect forced choice ranking. As we have 69 projects identified here, each of you will receive 24 votes (dots) to allocate. I recognize this means that you will have to make choices. Maybe difficult. That’s the point. Beginning to define as a Council what you see is most important will be very helpful. We also, as you know, can have Council projects that are outside the Priority Areas (I provided one —Neighborhood Engagement-- as an example. We also have ELT (Dept) Projects that aren’t listed. And the all the Core Services work we do as an organization that is “below the waterline”. I plan to put this is better context at the retreat. But any pre-review and work you do will be helpful. Please be sure to bring your paper copy (or other version) of the workplace, hopefully with your rankings and comments already filled out. This assumes that the Four Priorities carry forward into 2016. I understand you may make some modifications or who knows, add more projects at the retreat. But this let’s us get a head start at a meeting that has a lot of ground to cover. Thanks. And thanks to all our staff and especially Janice for the work necessary to get this to you. 3 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 1 CP CP Update Develop world class policy framework to guide City and community decision making to the year 2030. • CAC review and recommendaƟon for all elements. • City Council review of CAC work and direcƟon on key issues. • DraŌ EIR and responses to comments. (see schedule) PCE 2 CP Downtown CAP Develop and Implement policy and code changes to update the Downtown CAP on Non‐Residential square footage • Complete consultant study and outline policy opƟons. • Council input/direcƟon • Prepare Comp. Plan policy language and code changes. PCE 3 CP Housing Element Implementation Part I • Consider eliminaƟon of sites on San Antonio/S El Camino & replacement with higher densities on existing sites or the addition of new sites (in the Comp Plan process) • Consider code changes to encourage more, smaller units (in the Comp Plan process) • Consider small lot consolidation incentives • Consider TDR program to encourage higher densities in appropriate areas • Encourage/support regional establishment of coordinated shared housing program • Council direcƟon re: sites and programs. • Develop draŌ ordinance(s) for public input and PTC/Council review PCE 4 CP Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations, expansions and improvements • Develop and PrioriƟze Project and Program Opportunities: Preparation of recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5‐year), medium (15‐ year) and long‐term (20‐year) ranges. • Plan Review and AdopƟon: Public, Parks and RecreaƟon Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval process to adopt the plan. CSD/PWD 5 CP Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive plan for effective management of the Baylands by balancing ecosystem conservation with recreation and environmental education opportunities. • Develop conservaƟon goals and strategies • Develop recreaƟon goals and strategies • Create and convene a Baylands conservaƟon advisory committee. • Issue RFP; Award Bid; Create project calendar; Conduct public outreach, involve Parks and Rec Commission and Council. CSD 6 CP Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Develop world class goals and strategy to guide next generation sustainability efforts for City and community. Produce comprehensive plan and implementation roadmaps to achieve basic and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions with measures that are technically, financially, legally and socially feasible. Provide findings and recommendations to Council and community. CMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 7 CP Recycled Water (S/CAP link) Expand recycled water use by imposing recycled water quality by advanced water treatment feasibility study and develop a recycled water strategic planning effort within North Santa Clara County Contract with consultant for RO Feasbility Study ; contract with consultant for Recycled Water Strategic Planning and Groundwater Management Plan; Partner funding agreeements with SCVWD and City of Mountain View; Decide Go/No Go On Recycled Water extension to Research Park PW 8 BE Downtown Parking Garage Finalize location, select design concept, begin preliminary design Return to Council for further policy direction with assistance from Planning PW 9 BE Parking Access/ Revenue Controls Implement garage technologies based on paid parking study recommendations • Stakeholder input on goals and deleƟons • RecommendaƟon to Council PCE 10 BE Next RPP Implementation Implement RPP in the next priority neighborhood • Review applicaƟons received (March) and prioriƟze next RPP district • Work with neighborhood stakeholders to develop program parameters • Prepare a resoluƟon and contract amendments for Council consideration • ImplementaƟon PCE 11 BE Paid Parking Study Analyze parking downtown and consider paid parking alternatives • Establish a stakeholder group • Complete data collecƟon • Analyze issues and opportuniƟes • Present for Council direcƟon • Finalize recommendaƟons PCE 12 BE Parking Guidance Systems Implement technologies that make it easier for drivers to find parking. Including Garages • Complete design of parking guidance systems in tandem with wayfinding • Bid construcƟon and award contract & ImplementaƟon PCE 13 BE Parking Study of Housing Types Prepare a study to ensure adequate parking for housing approved per State Density Bonus law • RFP and Consultant SelecƟon • Data collecƟon • Review draŌ recommendaƟons and prepare Ordinance PCE 14 BE Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation Finalize Concept Plan Line work for 23 ongoing bicycle boulevard projects and initiate final design and construction • Complete final design and iniƟate construcƟon of Churchill Phase I, Maybell, Wilkie, Park, and Bryant Extension • Complete concept plans and secure approvals for Ross, Amarillo‐Moreno, Loma Verde, Bryant Update • Coordinate with PW in advance of resurfacing projects for striping changes PCE 15 BE Quarry Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Design and implement pedestrian and bike improvements connecting the Transit Center to SUMC • Award design contract • Complete Design • Bid and award construcƟon contract PCE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 16 BE Library Bike Outreach 2 bike repair stations installed, outreach bicycle w/trailer purchased & in use (Bike PALS), safe routes to libraries map completed, training/programs as part of Summer Reading Program Received grant, Nov. 2015; Purchase/installation: May 2016; programs: July, 2016 LIB 17 BE Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project Preliminary design and environmental assessment for the corridor project from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue • Community Outreach on Landscaping PaleƩe • Coordinate with Caltrans and JPB/Caltrain • Complete NEPA process • Develop final design to 65% level PW 18 BE Embarcadero Road Phase II Design and construct traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements for Embarcadero between El Camino Real and Alma Street • Contract Award • Public input and Caltrans CoordinaƟon • Conceptual Design Approvals PCE 19 BE Geng Road Circulation & Embarcadero Road Parking Study Examine possible circulation improvements and additional parking east of 101 • Complete circulaƟon and parking Study • Develop recommendaƟons for review by PTC and City Council PCE 20 BE Midtown Connector Project Evaluate the feasibility of East‐West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections through Midtown and design preferred options for construction • Contract amendment • Complete feasibility study • Council direcƟon • Complete concept plan line & final design PCE 21 BE Speed Survey Updates Develop new speed surveys to allow for traffic enforcement • Bid and award contract • Conduct surveys • Recommend adjustments to posted speed limits and concurrent safety improvements as needed • Implement desired changes PCE 22 BE Traffic Signal Timing Update traffic signal timing where needed • Implement adapƟve traffic signal Ɵming along San Antonio Road • Make other adjustments across the City as needed PCE 23 BE Shuttle Expansion Expand shuttle service and implement other strategies to increase ridership Determine strategy and form Develop and implement a coordinated design and marketing program to include schedules, stops, vehicles, and the web/mobile aps Design service changes and expansions to make the shuƩle more convenient for more people Public input City Council review of staff recommendaƟons ImplementaƟon PCE 24 BE Mobility App or "wallet" along the lines of "MAAS" Explore development of an App to make transportation more convenient • RFP • Consultant selecƟon and data collecƟon • Review draŌ with stakeholders • Review with PTC and City Council • Build App if feasible PCE 25 BE Review Office & R/D use categories in zoning Review and update definitions of "Office", "R&D", etc. as needed. • PTC work sessions • Public input • Council direcƟon • Prepare Ordinance to make changes. PCE BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 26 BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Downtown) Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in Downtown. • Data collecƟon and analysis of retail trends • Outreach to stakeholders • Return to City Council for direcƟon • DraŌ one or more ordinances for consideraƟon by the PTC and the City Council PCE 27 BE Retail Preservation Ordinance (Cal Ave) followup Support City Council Consideration of Potential Modifications to Retail Protections in the Cal Ave area • Analyze parking requirements. • Analyze retail feasibility on Cambridge • Council direcƟon • Develop revisions to adopted ordinance for consideraƟon. PCE 28 BE Ground Floor Retail Protection (Other Commercial Districts) Evaluate other protections/changes needed to preserve GF retail outside of Downtown and Cal. Ave. • Outreach to stakeholders and property owners • Analysis of issues and alternaƟves • Council direcƟon • Prepare ordinance for consideraƟon by PTC and CC PCE 29 BE Annual (Land Use) Code Update Undertake an annual review of code interpretations and needed zoning code (clean‐up) changes. • Work with the City AƩorney to idenƟfy needed technical corrections and clarifications • Present an ordinance for consideraƟon by the PTC and the City Council PCE 30 BE Housing Impact Fee Update Adopt and implement updated impact fees to fund affordable housing. • Present Nexus study and fee recommendaƟons to the Finance Committee. • ConsideraƟon of Ordinance by the City Council. PCE 31 BE Housing: Second Dwelling units Consider changes in policy and regulations to incentivize additional dwelling units ("granny units"). • PTC direcƟon and data collecƟon. • Analysis of opƟons for consideraƟon. • City Council direcƟon. • Develop ordinance for consideraƟon. PCE 32 BE Professorville Design Guidelines Complete neighborhood specific design guidelines • Reach out to stakeholders in Professorville regarding the objectives and scope of the work. • Obtain grant funds and retain outside consultant. • Finalize recommendations and agendize for review by the PTC and City Council. PCE 33 BE IR Program review Conduct an impartial review of the IR process and recommend any necessary changes. • Develop report based on input from stakeholders • Suggest updates to the guidelines and implemenƟng ordinance as needed • Review guidelines with the PTC & City Council • Prepare and draŌ ordinance for review with the PTC and City Council PCE BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 34 BE Seismically Vulnerable Building Ordinance Update the inventory of seismically vulnerable buildings and support City Council consideration of an ordinance with priorities and incentives and requirements for addressing hazards. • Update inventory of vulnerable buildings and categorize by construction type and occupancy • Research best pracƟces related to prioriƟzaƟon and model ordinances • City Council check‐in • Outreach to property owners and stakeholders • Begin draŌing ordinance for review by the City Council DSD 35 BE Sidewalk Repairs Project Continue sidewalk repairs to complete 30 year district cycle leveraging budget doubled per IBRC recommendations • Complete sidewalk program assessment to set new program goals and standards. • Complete 30‐year disctrict cycle including sidewalk repairs in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 25, 32 and 36 PW 36 BE Street Resurfacing Program Continue resurfacing streets to meet average citywide pavement condition index (PCI) score of 85 by 2019 • Complete paving of 70 city blocks ‐ includes 18 blocks to finish paving Middlefield and Alma with additional funding over 3 years • Complete prevenƟve maintenance of 80 city blocks • ConƟnue frequent community outreach • Raise citywide PCI score to 82 PW 37 BE Fuel Switching / Electrification Evaluate potential electrification programs and incentives for the community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing the use of natural gas and gasoline with electricity for building appliances and vehicles. • Implement a pilot program for heat pump water heaters in existing homes to determine cost‐effectiveness and identify obstacles to installation. • Provide resources to homeowners to convert exisƟng homes to all‐electric homes. • Evaluate retail electric rate schedule for home electrification. • Explore building code changes for new constucƟon and remodeling projects. • Promote installaƟon of EV supply equipment. UTL/DSD 38 BE Energy Efficency Building Code toward Zero Energy and Carbon Buildings. Develop an Energy Code that focuses on energy efficiency and prepares for the ultimate State goal of developing buildings to be energy neutral • Engage with a multi‐stakeholder engagement event that draws opinions & perspectives from experts in the development industry • Incorporate these & other changing state requirements to ensure our code is able to reflect these requirements in clear & enforceable language • Prepare adequate cost effectiveness study to comply with California Energy Commission • City Council Adoption DSD 39 BE Dewatering Address public concerns regarding basement construction dewatering Develop new requirements for basement construction dewatering PW BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 40 BE Customer Information System / Smart Grid The Utility Billing and Smart Grid systems are highly integrated. Smart grid systems enable many alternatives such as the ability to offer time of use rate schedules and other information that promote energy conservation, reduce carbon emission, improve system reliablity and provide real‐time customer usage information. • Develop billing system specificaƟons in parallel with City's ERP system • Select vendor and implement new billing system • Develop meter data management specificaƟons • Evaluate advanced meter infrastructure for electric, gas and water UTL 41 BE CPI Draft an Ordinance for consideration by the City Council regarding siting and risks associated with plating shops of similar uses. DraŌ an Ordinance for consideraƟon by the PTC and the City Council PCE 42 BE Business Registry Implement phase two of the business registry, deliver key data about businesses in Palo Alto, plan for integration with other permits as phase 3 (subject to Council direction) • Enhance/ Test Upgraded Tool • Launch Renewal Period March 1 • Deliver Upgraded Reports • Plan for integraƟon of other permits to launch in phase 3 CMO 43 IN Public Safety Building Project Create a new facility built to Essential Services standards to house Police, 911 Dispatch, Emergency Services, Fire Admin, and the Emergency Operations Center on parking lot C‐6 • Hire ConstrucƟon Management (CM) firm to assist with project. • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. • Complete pre‐design and schematic design phases. • Begin design development phase. PW 44 IN Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Rebuild Fire Station No.3 at Embarcadero Road and Newell Road • Begin Fire StaƟon and temporary facility design. • Select location for temporary station. • Complete pre‐design, schematic design, and design development • Hire construction management firm & begin contractor pre‐qualification PW 45 IN Fiber‐to‐the‐Premise Master Plan Assessment Arrive at a Council‐directed strategy for Palo Alto's approach to municipal provided fiber‐to‐the‐premise. • Review outside plant build estimates in Master Plan with Citizen Advisory Committee and document discrepancies. • Co‐build discussion with Third Parties (GF and AT&T) • Develop “Dig Once” Ordinance • Develop and issue Request for Information (RFI) to explore municipally‐owned and public‐private partnership models for FTTP • Evaluation of RFI responses • Bring recommendation to City Council on co‐build and City partnership options • Dependent on City Council direction, begin planning City fiber deployment ITS INFRASTRUCTURE BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 46 IN Cubberley Master Plan Begin the Cubberley Master Plan process in collaboration with PAUSD and the community. • Joint statement on commiƩment • Engage the Community in an event at Cubberley begin the public engagement phase of the Master Plan process • Leverage Stanford Design School and other partners in a design thinking challenge for process design • Seek Board of EducaƟon and Council agreement on a vision, and essential elements needed in the Master Plan • Prepare a scope services and release an RFP Cubberley Master Plan design CSD 47 IN California Ave Parking Garage Create a new parking garage with a retail element on existing surface parking lot C‐7 to create at least 150 additional parking stalls and replace parking to be lost by siting the PSB on the adjacent parking lot • Hire ConstrucƟon Management (CM) firm to assist with project. • Hire Architect and begin design development and EIR. • Complete schematic design and select preferred configuration. PW 48 IN Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Improvements to aging Center including Boardwalk repair feasibility study, and replacement of Center railing, decking, siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors • Complete Boardwalk Feasibility Study. • Secure funding for boardwalk design and construction and complete design • Complete design development for the Interpretive Center • Obtain environmental and construction permits for the Interpretive Center • Bid out the Interpretive Center project and begin construction. PW 49 IN Foothills Park 7.7 Acres Evaluate and recommend to Council use of additional 7.7 acres of dedicated park land added to Foothills Park.. • Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study • AŌer the Buckeye Creek hydrology study is completed work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to draft a recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre • Evaluate the impacts of the recommendaƟon to Council on the Acterra Nursery lease CSD 50 BE Construction in the R‐O‐ W Notification Tool Develop a tool that is able to track and prioritize all city related work in the Right of Way. The tool will provide notice to neighbors as well as commuters by showing all related work on a map. The goal is to direct citizens to one map that will track all work in the R‐O‐W (In the interim, contnue to enhance home webpage notifications) • Prepare a SOW that encompases all the needs of the different departments ; • Go through IT Governance; • Solicit bids and select a vendor; • Enter into contract with the vendor of choise; • Implement the soluƟon that is department agnosƟc and displays all City Work on one site; • ConƟnue to monitor and implement the soluƟon. DSD/CMO/ITS BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 51 IN Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Select design concept and begin preliminary design for new, year‐round Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing • Select a design consultant through a Request for Proposal process by February 2016. • Begin design in March 2016. • Complete development of 65% design documents. • Complete environmental studies and documentation. PW 52 IN Golf Course Reconfiguration Complete reconstruction of the Golf Course, including substantial regrading, new irrigation system, and environmental enhancements • Secure regulatory permits. • Award construction contract. • Complete 50% of project construction. PW 53 IN Wireless Network Master Plan Assessment Arrive at a Council‐directed decision to work with a vendor to provide a broadband wireless support infrastructure for Public Safety and Utilities. • Update citywide wireless network scenarios with 20‐year forecasts • Develop cost estimate and fiber backhaul information to expand wireless access in unserved City facilities and retail areas; develop RFP • Issue RFP for dedicated wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities • Evaluate RFP responses • Bring recommendation to City Council on provider for Public Safety and Utilities wireless • Dependent on City Council, engage vendor on Public Safety and Utilities wireless build ITS 54 IN Ventura Building Improvements Replace or upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems and provide accessibility improvements to the Ventura Community Center facility • Complete ADA assessment of the facility • Hire design firm • Complete pre‐design, schemaƟc design, and design development phases • Begin construction documents and apply for permits PW 55 IN Second electric transmission interconnection plan The new 60kV line would improve the City's transmission service reliability with potential cost savings/ Alternatives review • Joint evaluaƟon of feasibility studies with SLAC, Stanford and possibly PG&E, DOE and WAPA • Preliminary design of the interconnecƟon plan • TentaƟve MOA with Stanford and SLAC • ConƟnue to monitor PG&E and CAISO transmission activities UTL 56 IN Organics Facilities Plan Replace incinerators with new biosolids handling system • Obtain approval of Dewatering Building from the ARB and the Planning Commission. • Complete 100% design drawings. • Prepare and issue IFB. • Select Contractor and award Contact. • Begin ConstrucƟon. PW 57 IN Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Replacement of functionally‐obsolete Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek to provide increased creek flow capacity in coordination with the San Francisquto Creek JPA • Circulate draft of project Environmental Impact Report. • Initiate project permitting. • Complete preliminary bridge design. PW BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 58 IN Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements Capacity upgrade to the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station, an essential element of the storm drain system serving a 1,250‐acre watershed area • Complete project design. • Award construction project. • Complete 33% of project construction. PW 59 IN Lucie Stern Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Rehabilitate and improve the existing building systems including fire/life safety components for Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Theater and the Community Theater • Obtain building permits. • Issue invitaƟon for bids to construct the project. • Construct the upgrades while coordinaƟng with exisƟng building users. PW 60 IN Junior Museum & Zoo Project Develop an agreement between the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo and the City of Palo Alto to rebuild the facility • Complete the design of the new center • DraŌ a construcƟon agreement for Council consideration. • Complete CEQA requirements. • Complete a draŌ operaƟng agreement with pro forma reflecting the public private partnership for Council consideration. CSD 61 IN Local Solar Generation Plan Council adopted the Local Solar Plan, which establishes the goal of meeting 4% of the City’s energy needs from local solar by 2023 • Launch community solar program to allow those who wish to access solar energy, but don’t have adequate on‐ site access. • Develop a solar donaƟon program. • ConƟnue Palo Alto CLEAN program. UTL 62 HC Airplane Noise Continue to work with Congresswoman Eshoo's Office, FAA, SFO Roundtable, Neighboring Cities and Sky Posse • Onboard techinical consultant • Work with menƟoned groups through miƟgaƟon process described in FAA Initiative. CMO HEALTHY CITY, HEALTH COMMUNITY BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 63 HC Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution Reconvene the Healthy City Healthy Community working group to advance community health as defined in the Council adopted Healthy City Healthy Community Resolution. • Re‐convene a diverse stakeholder group • Meet through‐out the year to advance the Healthy Cities Healthy Community 2016 work plan: 1. Create a welcome packet for new residents that orients individuals and families to the many health and wellness opportunities available in Palo Alto; 2. Include Healthy City/Healthy Community goals, policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan Update; 3. Advance specific and safe Bike/Pedestrian Plan projects; 4. Implement a City of Palo Alto Employee Health and Wellness Initiative; 5. In partnership with the business community, coordinate a forum for local businesses to share and learn about workplace health and wellness best practices and encourage the adoption of similar employee health and wellness initiatives; 6. In partnership with community partners, coordinate an annual Health Fair that promotes community health and wellbeing; 7. In partnership with community partners, establish specific metrics to measure progress. CSD 64 HC Project Safety Net Transition Project Safety Net Community Collaborative to the Collective Impact framework for increased effectiveness. • Use the CollecƟve Impact model to develop a roadmap (logic model) to accomplish PSN’s specified goals and objectives for promoting youth well‐being and suicide prevention; • Work with the City and school district to establish an executive board to provide leadership, guidance and support for PSN’s mission; • Create an expert team to develop a shared data collecƟon system, build overall capacity, and facilitate communication and collaboration; • Set up a mechanism to elevate, support and measure youth voice within the PSN Community Collaborative leadership and the work of suicide prevention and youth well‐being in the community; • Evaluate and recommend a fiscal agent for PSN, either the creation of a separate 501c(3) tax exempt organization, or through an established nonprofit agency to serve as a “backbone” organization for PSN. • Develop funding plan and parƟcipaƟon CSD 65 HC Homeless Services Strategic alignment and investment in regional efforts to support the unhoused. Formulate options and recommendations on advancing Palo Alto's involvement CSD BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other 2016 Council Priorities ELT MASTER WORK PLAN (January 27, 2016) 2016 Phase 1 COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECT OUTPUT/OUTCOME 2016 ACTION STEPS DEPT. LEAD COUNCIL RANKING & COMMENTS 66 HC Smoking Ban Restrict smoking in mulitfamily areas and expand area restricting e‐cigarettes in area that smoking ban currently exists • Community Outreach • Adopt ordinance • Coordinate with County PW 67 HC New Americans Project newly‐arrived residents will learn library functions, use, and be oriented to community ESL discussion groups began in 2015; outreach to community stakeholders/coordination of activities to be strengthened in 2016 LIB 68 HC Fire & Rescue ‐ Community Risk Reduction Identify opportunities to reduce community risk, especially in high risk populations (over age 65, under age 13) FIRE 69 O Neighborhood Engagement Implement recommendations of Colleagues Memo dated 4/20/15 expanding engagement with neighborhood associations. 1) Update Co‐Sponsorship Agreement; 2) meeting with neighborhood leaders, to further discuss development of the City’s Neighborhood Engagement initiative, including association definition, support models, communication, conflict resolution, ombudsman concept, City’s website and social media for neighborhoods. 3) Schedule 2016 Town Halls CMO OTHER BE: Built Environment HC : Healthy City CP : Comprehensive Plan IN : Infrastructure O : Other CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 30, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation and Winter Closure for 2016 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) scheduling the City Council 2016 Summer Break as determined by Council, and Winter Closure from December 19, 2016 to January 1, 2017. BACKGROUND Under Municipal Code Section 2.04.010(b), the City Council schedules its annual vacation for each calendar year no later than the third meeting in February. During said scheduled vacation, there shall be no regular meetings of the City Council nor of the Council standing committees. The Mayor or a majority of the Council may call a special meeting during the scheduled vacation if necessary (PAMC 2.04.020(b)). Last year Council’s summer break was from July 6, 2015 to August 14, 2015. Please note that Palo Alto Unified School District’s scheduled last day before their summer break is June 2, 2016. They are scheduled to resume classes on August 15, 2016. The Council needs to set the winter closure, with staff proposing December 19, 2016 through January 1, 2017. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation and Winter Closure for Calendar Year 2015 (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk 4 Page 2 NOT YET APPROVED 1 150119 sh 0140150 Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation and Winter Closure for Calendar Year 2016 R E C I T A L S A. Pursuant to Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code, the City Council must schedule its annual vacation for each calendar year no later than the third meeting in February. B. The City Council desires to set its annual vacation for 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council sets its summer vacation for calendar year 2016 from __________, 2016 through __________, 2016 and winter closure from December 19, 2016 through January 1, 2017. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City Manager