HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13983
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13983)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 6/13/2022 Report Type: Action Items
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Revenue-Generating Ballot Measures (Affirmation of the Natural Gas
Utility Transfer and New Business Tax): Direction to Staff on Key Policy
Questions and Measure Characteristics, and Direction to Return with Final
Documents for Placement of Ballot Measure(s) on the November 2022
Election and a Non-Binding Resolution for Intended Use of Business Tax
Proceeds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review and discuss additional information provided to inform decision-making on two
potential ballot measures for voter consideration as part of the November 2022 election
a) affirmation of the natural gas utility transfer and b) new business tax:
a. Analysis of comparison agencies and impact of potential tax offsets
b. Summary polling results of the third and final round of polling.
2) Direct staff to return to the City Council on June 20 with completed documents for
placement of a ballot measure on the November 2022 election for affirmation of the
natural gas utility transfer as outlined in Attachment D and summarized in Table 2.
3) Direct staff to return to the City Council with completed documents for placement of a
ballot measure on the November 2022 election for a new business tax with the
following refinements:
a. Recommended “Key Policy Questions” as summarized in this report to be
reflected in the ordinance;
b. Recommended final tax rate not to exceed $0.10/sq ft per month
c. Characteristics as outlined in summary Table 3 or as amended per Council
determination.
4) Review the draft non-binding Resolution to inform the public of Council’s intentions
regarding the use of Business Tax proceeds if passed by voters (Attachment C) and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
affirm content or direct staff to make revisions. Staff will return to the City Council with
a final Resolution for Council adoption on June 20.
Please note staff expect to release a supplemental memorandum on June 9 that will transmit
the summary results of the 3rd round of polling, the draft ordinance for a new Business Tax, and
a draft resolution to inform the public of Council’s intentions regarding use of Business Tax
proceeds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The information provided in the following staff report represents several months of work
exploring potential ballot measure options for voter consideration during the November 2022
election to maintain high quality City services at fiscally sustainable levels. The two ballot
measure proposals under review seek to address the City’s long-term structural budget issues
through new revenue, in order to enhance priority services to the community, prepare for the
future, and help build on Palo Alto’s services as community needs evolve and grow.
Over the last six months, staff and consultants organized a series of conversations about the
City’s budget and fiscal sustainability efforts, holding several focus groups, informational
sessions, online surveys, mailed surveys and polls to hear from residents and businesses about
these potential ballot measures. As this has been an iterative process with the City Council, the
steps taken to date respond to feedback received in many ways (Table 1 below). Adjustments
based on feedback seek to provide balanced revenue measures that continue to further the
City’s interest in investing for the future while also recognizing the importance of business to
the community.
TABLE 1: Community and Stakeholder Business Tax Structure Feedback
Feedback Recommended Adjustments
Implementation /
Timing
• Retrospective or prospective
• Staff recommends that any tax and offsets/credits be assessed
retrospectively
• Not the right time – that businesses need to recover from the
economic impacts of the pandemic.
• Tax and offsets/credits for calendar 2023 would be due in early
2024
• Two-year phase in is included in Council’s 4/25 direction
Square Footage
Calculation
• Multiple locations and/or facilities
• See staff’s recommendation to calculate multiple locations
and/or facilities in the aggregate
• Residential property
• See staff’s recommendation to exclude living areas (apartments
and bedrooms) but to include all common areas where
commercial services are provided
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Feedback Recommended Adjustments
Exemptions /
Offsets
• Vacant property
• See staff’s recommendation to consider an offset for vacant
property
• Hotel exemption or offset
• See staff’s financial impact for an offset for TOT Remittal
Annual CPI • Without a cap, the CPI would continually increase.
• 5% cap on CPI is included Council’s 4/25 direction
Sunset
• Lack of specified end date, coupled with no CPI cap, is viewed as
problematic.
• Not included in Council direction
Spending Plan
• A plan should be developed that specifies how business tax revenue
will be spent
• See CMR 13571 on 4/18 for draft spending plan; non-binding
resolution regarding use of potential Business Tax Proceeds will
be released on June 9th in a supplemental memo
Through this staff report, staff is seeking direction on key policy questions and the final tax
structure. Policy questions for Council consideration and direction for the ordinance are:
effective date and timing of tax assessment; treatment of vacant property for tax assessment;
calculation of square feet for a business with multiple locations and/or facilities; inclusion of
residential property/use in calculation of square feet; calculation of square feet for a property
management type business; and, offset/credit allocation. The report outlines staff
recommendations and alternatives on these policy questions for City Council decision-making.
In addition, based on Council direction, a draft resolution outlines spending priorities for the
use of business tax proceeds if passed by voters and include:
- New/enhanced services, specifically investment in public safety services
- Investment in train crossing safety, and transportation
- Investment in affordable housing and unhoused services
- Investment in economic development support through support of University Avenue
and California Avenue streetscapes and placemaking work.
The schedule anticipates Council discussion on June 13 and June 20 with a series of proposed
actions related to the two proposed revenue measures. These actions allow the City to meet
requirements set forth by the Registrar of Voters to place items on the ballot for November
2022. Actions include:
June 13 City Council Meeting:
- Receive and review results of third and final round of polling
City of Palo Alto Page 4
- Review and provide direction on draft full ballot language and ballot questions for
potential ballot measure(s)
- Review and provide updates on additional analysis, comparisons, policy questions and
calculations for additional offsets/credits
- Provide final refining direction to staff for official action at the June 20 meeting
June 20 City Council Meeting:
- Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measure(s) for voter consideration
There has been tremendous value in the input and feedback gained to date, provided by both
residents and businesses. The staff report outlines engagement activities completed since April.
The feedback has been critical to this process. Notably, in May, staff held another facilitated
focus group with businesses, and feedback was considered in preparing the draft ordinance and
key policy questions for Council consideration.
BACKGROUND
On April 18 and 25, 2022, the City Council continued discussions exploring revenue generating
ballot measures for the November 2022 election (CMR 13571, packet p. 162). This meeting
followed the March 28, 2022 Finance Committee meeting (CMR 13981, packet p. 3), where the
Committee recommended affirmation of the current Gas Utility Transfer; business tax
characteristics, including exemptions, rates, an adjustment based on CPI, and phase-in; and
recommendation to Council to proceed with the third round of polling.
The April 25th report to Council summarized the tax framework for the proposed business tax
and measure to affirm the gas funds transfer. The report also included results of the outreach
efforts of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and results of the second round of
polling. The following is Council’s direction to staff on April 25th:
Direct staff to continue work regarding potential ballot measures for voter consideration
during the November 2022 election, including execution of the third round of polling,
drafting of ballot questions and the full ballot measure text in accordance with the following
characteristics:
1) Continue to pursue a ballot measure seeking to affirm the natural gas utility transfer, at
the current rate of up to 18% of natural gas utility gross receipts as outlined in Table 2 in
the staff report;
2) Continue to pursue a ballot measure seeking to establish a new Business Tax based on
square footage with the following characteristics:
a) Tax is determined based on a business’s square footage in Palo Alto,
b) Tax rate of $0.10/sq. ft. per month or $0.12/sq. ft. per month,
c) Tax rate to increase by the CPI, capped at 5% per annum with excess CPI carrying
over to future years,
d) Two-year phase-in provision: reduced rate of 50% in the year of initiation of the tax,
and the full rate to be charged in the second year (initiation date to be refined later),
City of Palo Alto Page 5
e) No sunset
f) Exemptions for the following:
i) Grocery stores (requires a given % of sq ft of food sales to qualify as a grocery)
ii) Seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days
iii) First 5,000 square feet
g) Direct staff to evaluate the impacts of allowing an offset for hotels based on
remittance of TOT
h) Direct staff to research offsets for businesses based on remittance of sales & use tax
where the point of sales has discretion and is designated in Palo Alto.
i) Confirm that the City’s Business Registry program will continue to operate and be
required for all businesses except as exempted by the program ordinance.
j) Direct staff to draft a non-binding resolution to inform the public of Council’s
intentions regarding the use of Business Tax proceeds,
i) Explore through polling regarding the use of Business Tax Proceeds: funds would
be used for grade separation and rail safety, affordable housing and homeless
programs, public safety, and improvements to University and California Avenue
business districts
The Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures can be found in
Attachment F.
DISCUSSION
The City Council has been systematically evaluating and refining two potential ballot measures
since June 2021, and previously since 2016. Specifically, because of rising costs and needs for
affordable housing and the expected significant investment in transportation infrastructure for
safe train crossings, the Council was reviewing a potential tax measure for the November 2020
election. In recognition of the onset of a worldwide pandemic, this work was placed on pause
until June 2021 when the discussions were resumed. Below and attached are continued
information to assist the Council in its decision making as it considers two potential ballot
measures to place before the voters. As part of this action, staff has outlined remaining
information as requested by the City Council on April 25, 2022, or as included in the original
Ballot Measure workplan.
Staff is seeking the following actions from the Council:
1) Approval of a ballot question and ordinance language for a potential measure that
would affirm the current practice of transferring proceeds from the natural gas utility to
the General Fund. Staff will return to Council on June 20, 2022, with final documents for
approval.
2) Approval of a ballot question and direction on initial draft ordinance language for a
potential measure that would implement a new Business Tax, including direction on:
City of Palo Alto Page 6
o “Key Policy Questions” summarized below and as drafted in the attached
ordinance
o A final tax rate
o Revisions to characteristics as outlined in summary Table 3, and
o The draft resolution for intended use of tax proceeds if passed by voters.
Staff will return to Council on June 20, 2022 with final documents for approval.
In order to assist the Council in these decisions, the outline below identifies the additional
information in this report and intended to be provided in a supplemental report that will be
published on June 9th. Following this outline is a high-level summary of the timeline between
now and the November 2022 election.
1) Measure to Affirm Natural Gas Funds Transfer
• Draft Ballot Question and Ordinance (Attachment D)
2) New Business Tax
• Summary of Additional Analysis (Attachment A): Financial impacts of tax
offsets/credits for hotel tax and sales & use tax, & Analysis of tax impacts compared
to neighboring jurisdictions
• Draft Ballot Question, Initial Draft Ordinance & Key Policy Questions (Attachment B)
• Draft Resolution Identifying Intended Spend of Tax Proceeds (Attachment C)
3) Stakeholder Engagement
• Updates to fiscal sustainability community engagement (Polling results will be
brought forward on June 9th in a late packet memorandum once this work is
complete)
• Community Feedback Survey (Attachment E)
• Ongoing community feedback and focus groups (Attachment F)
4) Resource Impacts
• Summary of costs to date
• Estimated election costs
5) Timeline
The following documents will be provided in a supplemental late packet memorandum to be
issued no later than Thursday, June 9, 2022:
• Third and final round of polling results from FM3
• Attachment B, Initial Draft Ordinance for a New Business Tax
• Attachment C, Draft resolution identifying intended spend of business tax proceeds
Summary Timeline
Below is a summary timeline of the remaining components for consideration of and potentially
placement of a ballot measure(s) for voter consideration on the November 2022 election. Most
significantly, the Council must ensure their consideration and vote for placement of a
measure(s) is completed in time for submittal to the County Registrar of Voters (ROV) by the
due date of August 12, 2022. Key components of information to be sent to the ROV is below,
City of Palo Alto Page 7
specific due date for each component can be found in the “TIMELINE” section later in this
report.
The City Council will adopt a resolution (which does not become a part of the ballot) calling a
local election and sending the measure or measures to the County Registrar of Voters. Lastly, if
chosen, the Council may adopt a resolution communicating intentions for use of proceeds for a
successful Business Tax measure.
Measure to Affirm Natural Gas Funds Transfer
Natural Gas Funds Transfer: Ballot Question and Ordinance (Attachment D)
For decades, Palo Alto gas ratepayers have funded contributions to the City’s General Fund to
support a variety of City programs and services, including police protection, fire and emergency
medical services, local parks, community centers and libraries. Most municipal utilities in
California make similar transfers to help fund government services. Investor-owned utilities also
collect ratepayer funds that are paid to the cities where they operate, typically in the form of
franchise fees or taxes.
In 1950, Palo Alto voters approved the use of some rate revenues for City services via an
amendment to the City’s Charter. Since then, California law has evolved through a series of
statewide initiatives and court decisions governing how cities set and impose charges for the
services they provide. In FY 2021 the Santa Clara Superior court held that a portion of Palo
Alto’s annual transfer of funds from the gas utility was a tax that required voter approval to
continue. Both sides have appealed, and City leaders believe it is prudent to seek voter
affirmation that the City may continue its current and longstanding general fund transfer.
The draft ballot question and ordinance are attached in Attachment D.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
TABLE 2: Summary of Affirmation of Natural Gas Transfer
Purpose • Affirm the City’s past practice of annually transferring from the
natural gas utility (established in City charter in the 1950’s)
Disposition
of Revenue • Allocated to the General Fund for general government purposes
Calculation
• Measured by gross revenue of the natural gas utility
• Projected cost of the transfer included in the City’s retail natural gas utility
rates as a cost of providing gas services
Rate
• Transfer up to 18% of the gross revenues of the natural gas utility
• No change in natural gas utility rates, confirmation of the City’s past and
current practice
Council
Authority • Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount from voter approved levels
After the court decision in 2021, the City began setting aside the disputed funds pending
resolution of the legal challenge. As a result of this action and revenues shortfalls resulting from
the pandemic-related economic contraction, service reductions were made across the
organization – including fire and emergency services, police protection, library hours, and
community center programs. One-time federal relief funds mitigated some of these cuts.
As part of the FY 2023 Proposed Operating Budget, staff included a recommended allocation of
projected one-time excess funds to restore services previously eliminated. These include areas
such as police officers, fire services, support for the City’s community centers, children’s theater
productions, library hours, and support for the City’s current and long-range planning efforts.
Voter approval through this ballot measure can help sustain ongoing funding of these services,
should future Councils so direct.
New Business Tax
Business Tax Summary of Analysis (Attachment A)
The City Council directed staff in their April 25, 2022 meeting to research and evaluate the
impacts of business tax offsets for hotels and designated sales and use tax point of sale. Staff’s
research and analysis includes:
• Sales and use tax revenues where the reporting business designates the place where the
principal negotiations are carried on resulting in the City of Palo Alto as the point of sale.
• Transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues.
To provide the Council with additional context for consideration and evaluation of the proposed
business tax rates and offsets, staff reviewed the City’s possible top five business tax payors to
determine the range of annual business tax to be paid as currently constructed.
Detailed discussion and financial impact analysis for the two business tax offsets and the
possible top five business tax payors can be found in Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Potential Top Five Business Tax Payors
Using the CoStar real estate database and a variety of other online real estate resources, staff
researched and analyzed the potential top five business tax payors in the City and also surveyed
surrounding cities for their top five business tax payors to calculate the range of tax these
businesses would possibly pay if they were to operate in the City of Palo Alto.
In comparing Palo Alto’s range of annual square footage tax for the top five business payors
with other agencies, the low end of the tax range, $0.3 million, aligns with the cities of
Mountain View and East Palo Alto, using Palo Alto’s proposed rates. In contrast, on the high
end of Palo Alto’s range, the top business tax payor is estimated to pay $1.7 million in annual
business tax. If Mountain View’s top business tax payor were to operate in Palo Alto, this
business would pay approximately $7.3 million in business tax, assuming the monthly $0.12 per
square foot rate.
Financial Impact of Business Tax Offset for Sales & Use Tax
Council directed staff to research a potential offset for businesses that designate Palo Alto as
the point of sale for remittal of sales and use tax. Based on this review, the potential annual
business tax offset ranges between $1.3 million and $3.0 million across all businesses. When
fully implemented, the monthly $0.10 per square foot rate is estimated to generate gross
receipts of $22 million; this offset would reduce estimated gross receipts to range between
$20.7 million and $19.0 million. Similarly, the monthly $0.12 per square foot rate is estimated
to generate gross revenues of $26 million; this offset would reduce estimated gross receipts to
a range of $24.7 million to $23 million.
Financial Impact of a Business Tax Offset for TOT or “Hotel Tax” Remittal
Council directed staff to evaluate the impacts of an offset for hotels based on TOT remittals.
Previously, staff had modeled a full exemption for business tax remittance for hotels. TOT is
imposed by the City and is paid by individuals staying at hotels within the City. Attachment A
details staff’s calculation of the financial impact of this offset, assuming a two-year phase in
beginning January 1, 2024, through FY 2028. After the two-year implementation, the potential
TOT Business Tax offset ranges from $1.4 million to $1.8 million through FY 2028. Based on
these calculations and compared to projected TOT revenue, hotels operating in the City will
effectively offset their Business Tax obligation if every $1 in TOT receipts offsets every $1 in
Business Tax liability; one hotel would only be able to offset approximately 50 percent of their
Business Tax obligation with this credit and would be responsible for the remaining tax liability.
Estimated business tax revenues totaling $22 million (monthly $0.10/sf) and $26 million
(monthly $0.12/sf) included the hotel exemption. This offset would not change these estimated
totals since remittance of TOT is higher than the estimated business tax to be paid.
Business Tax: Ballot Question, Initial Draft Ordinance, & Key Policy Questions (Attachment B)
As directed by Council in April, staff has prepared an initial draft of a potential ordinance
creating a new Business Tax (Attachment B). This ordinance, in outline form, was posted to the
City of Palo Alto Page 10
City’s webpage along with a blog post and discussed as part of a recent focus group to solicit
feedback from stakeholders. Although substantially complete there remain some policy
questions for the Council’s consideration which are highlighted below. Otherwise, the draft
was prepared based on the most recent direction and outline of terms in the table below as
directed by the Council and informed by feedback from stakeholder engagement.
TABLE 3: Summary of Business Tax Characteristics
Purpose Allocated to the General Fund for general government purposes, without a
sunset
Calculation Measured by square feet
Rate
• $0.10/sq ft/mo or $0.12/sq. ft. per month
• 2-year phase in
• 5% CPI cap, excess carrying over to future years
• Penalties and interest to be assessed for non-compliance
• Continue current Business Registry Certificate Program for all eligible
businesses
Exemptions
The following would be exempt from payment of the tax
• First 5,000 square feet of all businesses
• Grocery or Supermarket stores
• Seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days
Offset/
Credit
Qualifying businesses may apply annually to the Tax Administrator to offset up
____% of the business’s Business Tax obligation as follows
• Remittance of hotel tax receipts, aka Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
• Remittance of sales & use tax designated by a point or place of sale that has
discretion
• Vacant space
Council
Authority
Designate authority for the City Council to adjust rates or other provisions in
any manner that does not increase the tax.
Policy questions for Council consideration and direction that are stipulated in the draft
ordinance are highlighted below. Direction from Council either affirming staff’s
recommendation or amending is an important part of the Council’s decision making as part of
this item. This direction will be included in a final revised full text ordinance for the Council’s
final vote and direction if the Council desires to place this on the ballot for voters’
consideration.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
A) Effective date and timing of tax assessment
• Recommendation: Staff recommends that the tax and any offset/credits be assessed in a
retrospective manner, no less frequently than once a quarter. For example, the tax
assessment including any offsets for the January-March period would be due within 30
days of the close, or April 1-April 30. Tax remittance would be determined delinquent if
received on or after May 1. Council may choose the effective date of the tax itself; staff
recommends a date no earlier than January 2023 and as stated before, does not expect
to be able to administer the tax until January 2024 should voters affirm this measure in
November 2022. This means that taxes incurred during calendar year 2023 would be
due in a lump sum in early 2024.
• Alternatives: Annual prospective assessment: the tax would be assessed and due within
the first 30 days of the tax year and would cover the tax for the coming 12 months. For
example, the tax assessed in January 2021, would be for the period of January 2021
through December 2021. Offsets could either 1) be estimated for the same 12-month
period and reconciled based on actuals, or 2) reflect actual receipts from the prior 12
month period. A prospective assessment alleviates the risk that a business could leave
Palo Alto part way through the year without paying the appropriate tax for the partial
year of operations. However, the stable data that a retrospective assessment affords
coupled with a quarterly billing to mitigate the risk of tax leakage during a final year of
operation balances the options.
B) Treatment of vacant property for tax assessment
• Recommendation: Staff recommends that the tax be established to address vacant
property in the following ways:
o Vacant property shall not be assessed as part of the tax. Businesses that own or
control (lease) square footage that they are not using would report that vacant
square footage and apply for an offset/credit.
“Vacant” is to mean a severable portion of the physical location that a business is
operating, such as an entire floor, a building, or a portion of a floor with independent
entrance/exits, that is free from any use, fixtures, furniture, and equipment, and is
available for immediate use by a new tenant.
• Alternatives: Staff explored whether the tax ordinance could be applied to all square
feet that are currently owned or controlled by a business, regardless of whether in
active use. Staff does not recommend this approach because the proposed Business Tax
uses square footage as a measure of taxable business activity in Palo Alto. Vacant and
unused square footage does not correspond to business activity.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
C) Calculation of square feet for a business with multiple locations and/or facilities
• Recommendation: Staff recommends that should a business operate at multiple
locations, the calculation of square feet be the aggregate of all locations in Palo Alto.
This situation may apply to various types of activity, including large corporate campuses
with multiple buildings and addresses of operation, as well as smaller operations that
may operate locations in various shopping centers. In any of these instances, the total
square footage of all locations of the business would be aggregated, the aggregate of
any offsets would be applicable, as well as the first 5,000 square feet of the aggregate
total would be applied once to the aggregate total as opposed to each individual
location.
• Alternatives: Square feet could be calculated by each individual facility. In this instance,
if a business has three locations of 7,000 square feet each, the business would be taxed
on 6,000 square feet instead of 16,000 square feet. Staff will develop definitions and
standards for determining businesses with common ownership that are truly separate.
D) Shall residential property/use be included in the calculation of square feet?
• Recommendation: Staff considered businesses that are engaged in the activity of
providing residential property for rent and businesses that provide housing in
conjunction with services (such as assisted living and other congregate housing
facilities). Staff recommends that the calculation of square footage exclude actual living
areas (such as apartments and bedrooms) but include all common areas and areas
where commercial services are provided, or administration occurs. Therefore,
businesses such as apartments or congregate living facilities would be taxed on the
square feet of common areas, administrative offices, and areas where services are
provided; areas solely for individual or family sleeping/living/cooking/hygiene would be
excluded.
• Alternatives: All square feet of a residential property business, including those facilities
with square footage solely used for individual or family sleeping/living/cooking/hygiene
could be included in the calculation of square feet for assessment of the tax. This action
would likely increase the estimated gross receipts from levels provided to the Council
thus far, as staff has been excluding any residential property in calculations based on
prior direction for assessment on commercial activities. Another alternative could be to
simply exempt all residential property including common areas which would result in
the near exemption of all apartment operations as well as likely assisted living facilities
businesses. Other cities do include businesses such as apartments or property
owners/managers in their tax calculations, however, it is typically based on number of
units, total lease revenues, or headcount of staff employed by the business.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
E) Calculation of square feet for a property management type business: commercial
developer, property manager, etc.
• Recommendation: Staff recommend that a property manager’s tax obligations relating
to unleased developments or multitenant buildings partially occupied by property
management functions be limited to the space occupied by administrative offices and
operations.
• Alternative: Alternatively, the property management business’ tax obligation could
include the “common” areas or “services areas” that are unlikely to be assigned to a
specific lessee. The draft ordinance currently requires proportioning common space
among tenants, unless assigned to a specific business. In either case, only one business
would be responsible for tax associated with a given building space.
F) Offset/Credit Allocations
• Recommendation: Staff recommend that any offset/credit be able to adjust the business
tax assessment within the following parameters:
o Sales & Use Tax receipts 2:1 ratio: every $2 of eligible sales & use tax received
would offset $1 of business tax liability up to 75% of the tax liability.
o All other, such as TOT receipts or vacant space 1:1 ratio: for every $1 of hotel tax
remitted, $1 of business tax liability would be offset
• Alternative: For the Sales & Use or TOT offsets, Council could choose a different ratio or
cap than the staff recommendation above.
Business Tax: Resolution Identifying Intended Use of Tax Proceeds (Attachment C)
As outlined in April 2022 and directed by the Council on April 25, 2022, is preparing a draft
Resolution that the Council may choose to adopt in parallel with the placement of a potential
Business Tax on the November 2022 ballot. The Resolution will be published late-packet on
June 9. Currently proposed as a general tax, the priority uses of funds is not legally binding,
however, is a form of communication clearly identifying the intended uses of any tax proceeds
generated. The City Council has successfully honored its representations to voters with respect
to the change in the Transient Occupancy Tax rate (hotel tax), with all proceeds from a rate
change approved in 2014 and another in 2018 being dedicated to investment and completion
of the City Council 2014 approved Infrastructure Plan. TOT receipts have funded major projects
such as the new Public Safety Building, Bike & Pedestrian Plan, and the new parking garage in
the California Avenue district. Based on the Council direction, this draft Resolution will include
the following spending priorities:
- New/enhanced services, specifically investment in public safety services
- Investment in train crossing safety, and transportation
- Investment in affordable housing and unhoused services
- Investment in economic development support through support of University Avenue
and California Avenue streetscapes and placemaking work.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
STAKEHOLDER ENEGAGEMENT
The Ballot Measure Workplan integrates stakeholder engagement through constituent polling
and extensive direct stakeholder outreach. Staff as gained valuable input and feedback to date
from the City Council, Finance Committee, community members, and the business community.
Per City Council direction, the City has engaged with FM3 to perform polling, Lew Edwards
Group for stakeholder engagement planning, and the Public Dialog Consortium (PDC) for
stakeholder engagement.
Updates to fiscal sustainability community engagement
Since April, staff continue to implement the various tenants of the community and stakeholder
engagement plan. In the last two months, staff have updated the Fiscal Sustainability
Webpage, engaged in Community group information presentations, and hosted a focus group
for feedback on the draft ordinance. In addition, staff have published blog posts, provided
online information and continued to make the survey responses available. Lastly the City did
complete a third round of polling. Polling results will be brought forward in a late packet
memorandum on June 9.
The Fiscal Sustainability: A Community Conversation webpage was updated for the most
current actions by the City Council as well as the documents that have been released to date.
Most notable, a blog post issued May 19, 2022 here as well as the posting of a community
information presentation here and the draft ordinance for the public’s review here were
provided. Staff have been reaching out to large community groups offering to provide an
informational presentation on the Fiscal Sustainability Plan including its nexus with the FY 2023
Budget process, with the presentation linked above.
Ongoing community feedback and focus groups (Attachment F)
On May 19, 2022, staff held another facilitated focus group with businesses, specifically to
receive feedback on the draft ordinance that was provided in advance of the meeting.
Attachment F is a memo from the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) summarizing this
conversation. Feedback from this group was considered in preparing the draft ordinance. There
was significant discussion in this focus group on how various types of space would be taxed,
including commercial leased space, unused space, vacant space listed for lease, and residential
leased space. There was discussion of offsets, the measurement of square footage, the
treatment of businesses with multiple locations, and the treatment of buildings with multiple
businesses. Staff have worked to incorporate feedback in the draft ordinance and in the key
policy questions for Council direction above.
Community Feedback Survey (Attachment E)
The fiscal sustainability survey has remained open and the updated results are included in
Attachment E. As of June 1, 2022, over 433 respondents had engaged with this feedback tool
assisting staff in crafting both the priorities in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget as well as the
priority areas for investment should a tax measure pass. The community feedback is
City of Palo Alto Page 15
summarized in Attachment E and remains in line with feedback provided prior to April 7, 2022.
Only 39 new responses were received between April 7th and June 1st.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff and Consultant Resource Impacts
Implementation of this workplan to develop a revenue generating local ballot measure has and
continues to require significant resources that include internal staff, consultant expertise, and
stakeholder engagement. This initiative has required an average of the equivalent of
approximately two full time dedicated staff positions, however, in recent months and at
present have presented a significant increase in staffing resources including significant focused
executive support from multiple members of the Executive Leadership Team. This has impacted
progress on other projects as this work has been prioritized over others.
The City Council appropriated funding for this activity as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1st
Quarter and subsequent actions. Through Council approved budget amendments of $270,400,
additional resources supporting this major project include:
▪ Community & Stakeholder Engagement: Lew Edwards Group, $101,695 Council
approved on 11/15/2021, CMR 13626
▪ Public Opinion Polling: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), $113,500
Council approved on 4/4/2022, CMR 14078
▪ Outside Legal Counsel: Javis Fay LLP, $25,000
▪ Miscellaneous printing and mailing
Ballot Measure Placement Resource Impact
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) estimates that placing two measures on the
November 2022 election ballot will cost approximately $172,000, or $86,000 each; this is
revised from the initial estimate of $80,000 per six page measure based on new fees as
published by the ROV. When combined with the planned Councilmember elections and
assuming two ballot measures, the total estimated cost is $333,000 for the November 2022
election. Appropriation for these funds was brought forward in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget
at the prior estimate of $320,000, depending on the final direction, staff may need to
appropriate additional funds.
Ballot Measure Revenue Generation Resource Impact
The revenue generated by a potential ballot measure will be directly impacted by the structure
and rates approved by the City Council. The revenue estimates are summarized below:
▪ Affirmation of the Gas Utility Transfer: $4 million
This would affirm the current practice of inclusion of this expense in the development of
gas utility rates and would not increase gas rates beyond existing forecasted changes.
Current gas utility rates for residential customers remain below comparators such as
PG&E. Additional information on gas rate comparisons can be found in the FY 2023 Gas
Utility Financial Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
▪ Business Tax: approximately $19 to $26 million gross revenues, annually
The total gross revenue will depend on the rate of taxation as well as the offsets/credits
and exemptions the Council decides to include. This overall would establish a new tax
and revenue to the City’s General Fund where they can be spent on any general
government purposes. That decision will be made each year by the sitting Council,
however, examples of priority investments are outlined in the draft resolution in
Attachment C as directed by the City Council. Administrative costs to collect and
implement the tax will impact available funds for spend and administrative expenses are
estimated to range between $500,000 and $1 million depending on the tax.
TIMELINE
Ballot Measure(s) Workplan Timeline
June 2022
Council:
- Receive and review results of third and final round of polling
- Review and provide direction on draft full ballot language and ballot
questions for potential ballot measure(s)
- Review and provide updates on additional analysis, comparisons, policy
questions and calculations for additional offsets/credits
- Provide final refining direction to staff for official action at the end of June
Staff Work:
- Finalize documents for Council approval
- Continue to provide and support community group information sessions
Council June 20, 2022:
- Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measure(s) for voter consideration
August 2022
Staff work:
- Language submitted to Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters including:
o Ballot question(s) (a clear, accurate statement that describes what the
measure will do, not to exceed 75 words) (Due August 12, 2022)
o Full text of the measure(s) (Due August 12, 2022)
o Impartial analysis of the measure prepared by the City Attorney (Due
August 23, 2022)
o Arguments for & against (Due August 16, 2022, rebuttal due August 23,
2022)
November
2022 Election
City of Palo Alto Page 17
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in the
CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
.
Attachments:
• Attachment A - Business Tax Research and Analysis
• Attachment B - [placeholder]
• Attachment C - [placeholder]
• Attachment D - Ballot Measure Affirming Gas General Fund Transfer
• Attachment E - Summary of Online Survey Responses
• Attachment F - Report from PDC re Addtl Focus Groups
• Attachment G - Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures
• Attachment H - [placeholder]
ATTACHMENT A
Square Footage Business Tax Additional Research and Analysis
Through the City of Palo Alto’s exploration of a potential business tax, on April 25, 2022 (CMR 14316),
the City Council directed staff to continue pursuit of a ballot measure to establish a square footage
business tax and to research and evaluate the impacts of allowing the following business tax offsets:
1) Transient occupancy tax (TOT), and
2) Sales and use tax revenues where the reporting business designates the City of Palo Alto as the
point of sale.
Using the CoStar database (referenced and presented in detail on November 8, 2021, CMR 13687, p.
115), this attachment presents research and analysis for the City’s possible top five business tax payors
that includes the dollar range of revenue, percent of total revenue these businesses may potentially pay
in business tax, and comparisons with the top five business tax payors in surrounding agencies. This
attachment includes:
1) Top Five Business Tax payors
• Comparison to surrounding agencies
2) Business Tax revenue impact, including scenarios/options for:
• Potential offset TOT remittal
• Potential offset for designated point of sale for sales and use tax offset
Potential Top Five Business Tax Payors
To provide the City Council with additional context for consideration of a potential business tax
measure, staff researched and analyzed the potential top five business tax payors in the City and
surveyed surrounding agencies to order of magnitude for the proposed Business tax. This research and
analysis is presented in Table A1: Possible Top Five Business Tax Payors – Palo Alto and Other Agencies.
Using the CoStar database and internet searches, staff calculated the City’s possible top five business tax
payors, should this proposed measure be passed by voters. In Palo Alto, the Business tax assessment for
each of the five businesses is estimated to range between $320,000 and $1.4 million based on the
monthly $0.10 per square foot, and between $380,000 to $1.7 million based on the $0.12 per square
foot monthly rate. Additionally, the proposed Business tax assessed on the top five businesses account
for 20 percent of total estimated Business tax revenues. In Palo Alto, the square footage for these
businesses ranges from 270,000 to 1.2 million square feet in size.
To provide additional context, staff surveyed surrounding cities that shared local or economic
similarities such as types of businesses that operate within that city, basis for tax and how the tax is
calculated, and/or whether the tax was modernized via recent tax measure. The Tax Range, shown in
the second column of Table A1 calculates the tax range for the top five businesses, based on Palo Alto’s
current proposed Business tax rate structure. This table includes the following information:
• Square Footage Tax Range: the range of tax each of the top five business tax payors in Palo Alto
other surveyed cities would pay, under the current business tax proposal.
ATTACHMENT A
• Other Agency Tax Range / Estimated Rate per Square Foot: the range of tax each of the top five
business tax payors in other cities pay; the estimated rate per square foot, based on the range
of tax each of the top five businesses pay and estimated building size.
• Percent of Total Business Tax Revenue / Total Top Five: percent of total business tax revenue
remitted by top five payors and total amount remitted.
• Estimated Building Size: based on real estate data base searches
• Total Annual Business Tax: FY 2021 business tax revenue reported by the surveyed city. FY 2021
is Mountain View’s second year of a three-year implementation of the 2018 business tax
measure. Table A1 assumes the amounts for a full year.
Calculations in Table A1 assume:
• Full monthly tax rate of $0.10/sf and $0.12/sf after two-year phase in
• Exemptions that are currently proposed by Council (5,000 square feet, grocery stores)
• Calculated tax before possible offsets for transient occupancy tax and/or remittance of sales and
use tax point of sale
Table A1: Possible Top Five Business Tax Payors – Palo Alto and Other Agencies
Square Footage
Tax Range
(Palo Alto Rates)
Other Agency
Tax Range / Est.
Rate per SF
% of Total BT
Revenue /
Total Top 5 Est. Bldg. Size
Total Annual
Business Tax
Palo Alto
Square Footage $0.3M-$1.7M n/a 20% / $4.3M-
$5.2M 270K-1.2M sf $22M - $26M
Mountain View (a)
Employee Headcount $0.2M-$7.3M $0.2M-$4.0M
$0.55-$4.40/sf 77% / $4.8M 170K-5.1M sf $6.3M
East Palo Alto
Business Tax
Gross Receipts $137K-$2.0M $13K-$0.4M
$0.26-$0.50/sf 49% / $0.6M 119K-1.4M sf $1.2M
Parcel Tax (b) $0.2M-$0.3M $0.4M-$0.5M
$2.50/sf 100% / $1.7M 165K-213K sf $1.7M
San Jose (c) n/p $0.2M (cap) %n/p / $0.8M n/p $70M
Notes:
(a) 2018 measure included a three-year implementation. FY 2021 is the second year of implementation; amount presented
assumes fully implemented tax.
(b) Top four parcel tax payors were provided.
(c) San Jose uses Employee Headcount as tax basis, Number of Rental Units (housing) and Square Footage (commercial
landlords). The general business tax has a $166,311.35 cap; six businesses pay this cap amount.
n/p = Not Provided
To compare the proposed business tax structure to other agencies, staff researched real estate
databases for the estimated square footage for the possible top five square footage business tax payors
for the City’s and other agencies. The estimated business tax to be paid by each of the top five
businesses was calculated using the business tax structure detailed in Council’s April 25th motion,
excluding possible hotel and/or sales and use tax offsets. If passed by the voters in November 2022, Palo
Alto’s top five businesses would pay a range between $0.3 million to $1.7 million, which would
represent approximately 20 percent of total business tax revenue.
ATTACHMENT A
In comparison, the top five business tax payors of Mountain View pay between $0.2 million to $4.0
million, which comprise approximately 77 percent of total business tax revenue. If Mountain View’s top
five business tax payors were to operate in Palo Alto under the current proposed square footage tax
structure, these businesses would pay a range between $0.2 million and $7.3 million. While the low end
of the range is consistent with Mountain View’s business tax, based on Palo Alto’s rates, the high end of
the range ($1.7 million) is 75 percent lower than Mountain View’s top payor would be taxed using Palo
Alto’s rates ($7.3 million). As a percentage of total business tax revenue, 20 percent of Palo Alto’s
estimated annual business tax revenue is from the top five payors, while 77 percent of Mountain View’s
annual business tax revenue is from their top five payors.
Staff also compared the proposed business tax with East Palo Alto’s business tax and parcel tax. Using
Palo Alto’s proposed business tax structure, the ranges the top five business tax payors and four parcel
tax payors in East Palo Alto would pay are similar, between $0.3 million and $2 million. As a percentage
of total business tax revenue, close to 50 percent of East Palo Alto’s business tax revenue is derived
from their top five payors; this is 30 percentage points higher than Palo Alto’s estimate.
Financial Impact of Business Tax Offset for Sales & Use Tax
The City Council directed staff to research a potential offset for businesses based on remittance of sales
and use tax where the point of sale is designated in Palo Alto. The California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA) highlights key sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code that discusses sales
and use tax law. In addition to typical “brick and mortar” sales tax imposed on goods sold directly to
consumers, equipment and products sold to businesses, regardless of whether the business purchasing
the good is located within the boundaries of the City, are also subject to sales tax. The business to
business segment includes categories such as office and electronic equipment, business services, and
leasing activities. According to the Sales Tax Digest Summary for Calendar 2021 Q4 (CMR 14262), close
to 30 percent of the City’s total sales tax revenue is attributed to business to business activity. In
comparing this to the statewide and San Francisco Bay Area percent of total sales tax, the City’s business
to business segment is approximately 13 percentage points higher than the state and 7 percentage
points higher than the San Francisco Bay Area (see Attachment A, Chart 1). Chart 7 and Chart 8 in this
report provides a break down and analysis of the percent change for the business to business section by
comparing to other cities in Santa Clara County and by geographic area in the City.
Staff and the City’s sales tax consultant reviewed data for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2021 by
reviewing estimated business to business sales and use tax for all businesses with a sales tax permit.
Based on this review and as summarized in Table A2, the potential annual business tax offset ranges
between $1.3 million to $3.0 million across all businesses. When fully implemented, the monthly $0.10
per square foot rate is estimated to generate gross revenues of $22 million; this offset would reduce
estimated gross receipts to range between $20.7 million and $19 million. Similarly, the monthly $0.12
per square foot rate is estimated to generate gross revenues of $26 million; this offset would reduce
estimated gross receipts to a range of $24.7 million to $23 million.
ATTACHMENT A
Table A2: Business Tax Offset for Designated Point of Sale Sales and Use Tax
Estimated Annual
Business Tax Range of Offset
Net Annual Business Tax
Revenue
Monthly $0.10/sf $22M $1.3M-$3.0M $19M-$20.7M
Monthly $0.12/sf $26M $1.3M-$3.0M $23M-$24.7M
Based on staff’s calculation of the possible top five business tax payors and compared to this sales tax
data analysis, should the City Council elect to include a business tax offset that is based on a business
operator that has the discretion on where the reporting business designates the place where the
principal negotiations are carried on resulting in the City of Palo Alto as the point of sale, the top five
business may be eligible to offset in part or in full their business tax liability. As noted in the policy
questions in the staff report, the Council may choose to adjust the level of offset/credit by establishing
an overall cap (e.g. a business may offset business tax up to 75 percent of the business tax liability),
and/or a ratio of sales and use tax remittance to offset Business Tax (e.g. $2 of sales & use tax offsets $1
of business tax). If instituted, a threshold or ratio may lessen the impact of the offsets on gross business
tax receipts.
Financial Impact of Business Tax Offset for Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) or “Hotel Tax” Remittal
During the April 25th meeting, Council directed staff to evaluate the impacts of an offset for hotels based
on TOT remittance (Council meeting minutes). Previously, staff had modeled a full exemption for
business tax remittance for hotels. An individual staying at hotels within the City, referred to as a
transient, is subject to a 15.5 percent TOT that is imposed by the City and based on the hotel rate paid
by the transient (PAMC 2.33.020). Within the past decade, voters have approved two ballot measures
(2014, 2018) to increase the TOT rate to support the 2014 Infrastructure Plan.
Staff presented the Finance Committee with analysis and the potential financial impact regarding an
exemption for hotels and grocery stores (CMR 13981). The aggregate estimated business tax revenue
from hotels, based on CoStar data previously presented to Council is presented below. This calculation
assumes the first 5,000 square feet is exempt and applies a monthly rate of $0.10 and $0.12 per square
foot.
Table A3 below calculates the financial impact of the TOT remittance offset assuming a two-year phase
in beginning January 1, 2024, should the business tax be approved by voters in November 2022. Also
assumed in the below calculation is the exemption for the first 5,000 square feet, calculations for both
monthly rates of $0.10 and $0.12 per square foot, and an annual 3 percent CPI beginning July 1, 2026.
ATTACHMENT A
Table A3: Business Tax Offset for Transient Occupancy Tax Remittance
Assumes Business Tax is imposed beginning January 1, 2024, over a two-year phase in, and assumes an
annual 3% CPI beginning January 1, 2026.
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027* FY 2028
Est. Annual Business Tax
Monthly $0.10/sf $360 $1,080 $1,440 $1,480 $1,520
Monthly $0.12/sf $430 $1,290 $1,720 $1,770 $1,830
TOT Revenue** $23,580 $27,900 $28,820 $29,700 $30,830
*3% CPI begins July 1, 2026 to align CPI calculation with fiscal year
**Source: LRFF Base Case (January 10, 2022, CMR 13800)
Based on CoStar data previously presented to Council (CMR 13875, Attachment A) and after the two-
year implementation, the potential TOT Business Tax offset ranges from $1.4 million to $1.8 million
through FY 2028. Based on these calculations and compared to projected TOT revenue, while the
majority of the hotels operating in the City will effectively offset their Business tax obligation, there is
one hotel that will only be able to offset their Business tax obligation by half.
Based on the City’s Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) that was transmitted to the Council on January
10, 2022 (CMR 13800), business and other leisure/non-leisure travel has experienced significant
reductions in recent years due to public health orders, travel restrictions, and diminishing business and
personal travel plans resulting from the pandemic. TOT revenues sharply declined from pre-pandemic
levels of $25.6 million in FY 2019 to a low of $4.9 million in FY 2021. The FY 2023 Proposed Budget
estimates TOT revenues to be $18.2 million. As public health conditions improve and travel resumes and
with the opening of two Marriott hotels in FY 2021, TOT revenue is anticipated to recover and grow,
however the FY 2023 estimate remains to be approximately 30 percent lower than pre-pandemic
revenue levels of FY 2019. Based on the LRFF base case scenario, TOT revenue is expected to return to
pre-pandemic levels within two or three fiscal years (FY 2024 and FY 2025).
PLACEHOLDER
Attachment B: Draft Business Tax Ordinance and Ballot Question
This attachment is expected to be released on June 9th in a supplemental report.
PLACEHOLDER
Attachment C: Draft Non-Binding Resolution Regarding
the use of Potential Business Tax Proceeds
This attachment is expected to be released on June 9th in a supplemental report.
Attachment D
Draft – Not Yet Approved
Ballot Measure Affirming Gas General Fund Transfer
Ballot Question
Shall the measure affirming the City of Palo Alto’s existing and
decades-old practice of annually transferring no more than 18%
of the gross revenues from the City’s natural gas utility
(generated by the City’s retail natural gas rates) to its general
fund to support general city services such as libraries; climate
change reduction; transportation; police, fire, emergency
medical, and 9-1-1 response; providing approximately $7 million
annually in existing revenues until ended by voters, be adopted?
YES
NO
Ordinance
Chapter 2.28 “Fiscal Procedures” of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section
2.28.185 as follows:
Section 2.28.185 Gas Utility Transfer
Each fiscal year the City Council may transfer from the gas utility to the general fund an amount equal to
18% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the
fiscal year of the transfer. At its discretion, the City Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount. The
projected cost of the transfer shall be included in the City’s retail gas rates as part of the cost of
providing gas service.
ATTACHMENT E
Summary of Responses to Online Community Feedback Survey
Status update, June 1, 2022
Starting February 15, 2022, the City provided an online feedback form regarding the City’s Fiscal
Sustainability efforts. Community members could rank their priorities for community services, provide
suggestions for additional service priorities, and pose questions about the City’s fiscal sustainability
efforts and revenue measures.
As of June 1, 2022, the Fiscal Sustainability Community Conversation survey may still be accessed.1
Survey Contents
Community members were asked the following questions:
The City of Palo Alto is engaging the community around long-term fiscal sustainability and community
priorities. Below are some of the key priorities Palo Alto residents have historically identified as key to
their quality of life. Please give us your feedback by ranking the following priorities from 1 to 8, with “1”
being the most important. We will review all comments to ensure that the City continues to address the
community’s priorities in its long-range planning.
1. Priorities to be ranked:
• Expanding City Services
• Maintaining basic services
• Improving services such as longer library hours
• Adding public safety services such as police, fire and emergency medical
• Investing in community-owned assets like roads and community centers
• Funding affordable housing and homeless services
• Repairing streets/roads
• Maintaining after school/summer youth programs
2. Suggestions for additional service priorities:
3. I have the following questions:
Survey Responses
There were 433 responses as of June 1, 2022 (242 online survey responses and 191 mailed survey
responses). The most highly ranked priorities for the survey respondents were “Maintaining basic
services,” “Repairing streets / roads,” “Investing in community-owned assets,” “Adding public safety
services such as police, fire, and emergency medical,” and “Funding affordable housing and homeless
services,” as shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents who ranked each priority
first, second, or third.
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33-8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
ATTACHMENT E
Table 1: Percentage of Survey Respondents Ranking Each Priority First, Second, or Third
There were 142 respondents who submitted suggestions for additional service priorities or additional
comments and questions via the online survey. The complete comments are included at the end of this
attachment, but in summary:
ATTACHMENT E
• 44 respondents wrote comments supporting funding for Lucie Stern Theatre facilities and
staffing. Of these, 3-5 appeared to be duplicate submittals.
• 20 comments related to investments in various other types of City infrastructure
• 15 comments related to increasing policing, including code enforcement and traffic
enforcement
• 14 comments related to climate action, with a couple of comments opposing City action.
• 6 comments related to affordable housing or homeless services, with a couple of comments
expressing concern about setting affordable housing goals or homeless services.
• Other respondents wrote comments related to traffic safety, traffic congestion, road
maintenance, parking, expanding bicycle infrastructure and other alternative transportation
options, climate change (both in favor of and opposing action), electric grid reliability, fiber
internet, zoning, affordable housing, employee pension costs, community and human services,
and other topics.
There were 105 respondents to the mailed version of the survey who submitted additional comments or
questions. The complete comments are included at the end of this attachment, but to summarize:
• 21 comments related to infrastructure, with an emphasis on roads
• 14 comments focused on increased traffic enforcement, code enforcement, or policing in
general.
• 8 comments related to sustainability (climate change, tree canopy, alternative transportation)
• Other respondents wrote comments related to airplane noise, affordable housing, the animal
shelter, recreation services, fiber to the home, library hours, utility services, zoning, and service
levels in general.
ATTACHMENT E
Comments from Online Survey
The following comments were submitted in response to the two open-ended survey questions for the online version of the survey.
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
1
Reducing pension and retirement benefit expenses
Switching to a 24/7 mental health crisis team approach like cahoots
using mental health and social workers. Police are only needed if there
is a threat of violence which is rarely the case. We could save so much
money with this approach.
Fiber to the Home; Undergrounding utilities as promised so many years
ago. Increasing police response to gangs stealing from stores - there
doesn't seem to be much effort here at all.
New Animal Shelter
This survey is poorly written. Most people want all of the above. But I
also want. to see ways to save money. We seem to be adding more
and more administrators and fewer people who actually perform the
work of caring for the city. Do we really need another assistant to the
City Manager? We need a new animal shelter which we could have
had for a fraction of the cost of the bike bridge. Increasing library
hours is so cheap - why isn't this a given? Let's get the police up to fill
strength - 79 officers and then decide to get more. The poor showing
of the police with only 59 officers does not mean that 79 is not
enough, esp. if we outsource mental health calls.
2
Support our downtown retail and business operations. They provide
the revenues needed to provide all services. They also provide the
vibrancy we all value.
Why does the Council not support businesses? We need them to
support our hotels, frequent our retailers, and provide quality jobs.
Why is the Council wanting to tax businesses now with a business tax
AND with a district tax?
Why doesn't the Council incentivize housing development by a
reduction its fees and an offer to expedite the permitting processes
instead of keeping those as the worst in the area and adding more
taxes to try and add housing itself?
4 Law enforcement to reduce property crime
5
Please focus on managing the City and prioritize its citizens.
Thanks for the survey.
6
Providing actionable resources to Eichlers to help with green related
retrofitting - for instance, I can’t find a non-gas powered boiler for my
radiant heating!
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
7
I would also encourage the City to scrub the budget and eliminate some
unnecessary items that cost too much. In my neighborhood, I can
mention the Ross Road street "improvement" that cost a lot, did not do
anything and created a lot of controversy.
Also we should aim to make projects less expansive, the pedestrian
overpass for 101 at the Baylands should not have costed more than
$10M, also the Mitchell Park community center should not have costed
as much and taken so long. The city needs to learn how to manage
these projects better.
8 Finish work at Shoreline Park
9 Close Churchill Ave Caltrain intersection. It is too dangerous for
pedestrians and bikes and cars!!!
10 providing access to Foothills park to mountain bikes through
Arastradero and create one bike trail (single track) in Foothill park
11
Stop forcing green energy initiatives on the residents, making it more
and more expensive to live in PA. These should be put to a vote by
residents, not forced by city council members who think more of
themselves in how they can get national publicity than supporting the
residents.
12
This should be at the top of the list:
Funding city's future obligations in terms of pensions, etc. I have heard
that we haven't funded these obligations anywhere near sufficiently.
What is the city doing to fund the future generous pensions that we
owe?
13
Delete the commercial zoning requirement, density, and height
requirements on most parcels along El Camino. Especially near
transportation.
Especially for affordable housing.
Increase zoning and density along Alma. Especially for affordable
housing .
14 As a subset re public safety, consider installation of additional speed
limit signage in our residential neighborhoods.
15
Please improve bicycle infrastructure! I see many others biking as I do
for transportation, but I often don’t feel safe next to cars on the main
road.
16 Preparing for flooding risk.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
17
Dealing with the City has become onerous. 10 years ago, staff were
responsive with fewer regulations to navigate. 10 years later, and
everything has become complicated - you need high-cost permits for a
generator or to get solar. You have fill out forms which are returned for
minor issues. Just cut out the red tape - please. And enforce city
regulations on leaving trash cans out, safety in walking downtown
(arrest people).
18 Affordable housing is a huge problem and we need better solutions.
19 It was a waste of taxpayer’s money for so-called improvement of Ross
Road.
20 Addressing climate change Is each city department maximizing each budgeted dollar?
21
A. The item, Maintaining basic services, should include preparing for
climate change, especially sea level rise, more frequent droughts and
global warming.
B. The item, Investing in community-owned assets ... , should include
providing broadband, i.e. fiber optic, internet service to the premises.
C. The item, Expanding City Services, should include providing better
intra-city commuter options to reduce the need for individually owned
cars.
D. The item, Repairing streets/roads, should include adding new bike
lanes and upgrading existing lanes to provide safe use.
22 Law enforcement
23 Free shuttle system
24 Increased policing and enforcement of traffic laws such as parking and
speed laws
25
Improved street signage and efficient street lighting.
Encourage CalTrans to improve El Camino road surface !
Consider levy of small city tax on all residents -- sliding scale based on
income, not to exceed $100 / year.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
26
I recommend increasing police services to contain burglaries from
homes and businesses. Such crime must be addressed.
I emphatically do not recommend increasing fire services. They are
more than adequately funded and should be reduced to provide any
needed emergency medical services.
I would have given public safety services a higher ranking, but since fire
services was included it was given a lower priority.
27
Don’t just fix the potholes on El Camino redo the street material with a
mix of tires and asphalt to make them more resilient to the wear and
tear. Also can you please pay attention to Barron Park Streets they are
looking like very undeveloped countries
The Barron park section of el Camino is a disaster
28 City-funded housing and transportation services for seniors.
29
Putting electrical wires underground.
Replacing large lawn areas with native shrubs (but leaving areas for kids
to play).
30 Reduction of city management salaries. Find a hungry person to do it for
a fair price.
31
Why is Lucie Stern Community Center so underinvested compared to
Cubberley Community Center? It's a beautiful indoor + outdoor space
(and home to three award-winning performing arts companies that
Palo Alto should be proud to claim as its own!) that can benefit many
more community members, especially during COVID-19, if repairs and
upgrades are made to the facilities.
32
Make it more difficult for developers/speculators to demolish livable
housing to replace it with huge homes that are often not occupied. This
is why housing has become unaffordable. Increase incentives to
remodel/rehab existing housing stock. Build affordable/low income
housing in Palo Alto Square (not sure who owns that). Stop billionaires
from buying up multiple neighborhood houses and taking them out of
the housing market. Decrease the number of ghost houses.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
33
Do not spend any money on public art until all the potholes in the city
are fixed.
How much money is CPA spending on the fiber-optic project? Why is it
building this service when fiber optic is already being provided by
AT&T and Comcast?
Why is a fire engine dispatched along with an ambulance for every
emergency call?
34 Grade Separation on the SP tracks. You can't keep all the people happy
all the time. Subsidized Solar Roof plan for residents.
35 Ease traffic congestion and provide more parking.
36
First category above (expanding...) is too vague to be useful.
Cubberley should get sustained attention and investment, leading to
purchase from the school district and total renovation, funded by long
term bonds. It is a huge opportunity for the future and a pretty ugly
testimonial to our confused process and thinking in the present.
How do we compare to MV, RWC, Sunnyvale in per capita spending on
various categories. Can we find places where we are overspending
this way?
37 Nothing about utilities here. Improving the utility function is a very high
priority.
38
Missing from the list: RESTORE cut funding for multi-modal transportation projects, including foot-powered transportation safety, especially at
identified safety trouble spots on school commute routes. Before you "Add" public safety services, you need to restore what the city cut. The
item should read, "RESTORE public safety services." The survey language is not an honest representation of where we are and what adding funds
will really do. Restoration of cut services is not "adding" or "expanding" them. These are misleading options. What are "basic services", if not
police, fire, road repair, etc. Utilities? Waste collection? Street cleaning? Arborist? What? The average citizen won't know this. This second item
is vague and, in context of the rest of this list especially, requires explanation. This is a poor beginning to a listening exercise. I filled out the
priorities so the survey would let me go beyond this page. My prioritization is meaningless because the options you offer are inaccurate and
vague. My top priority, mentioned above, is not even on the list. How does one prioritize without understanding current budget constraints and
the cost of these items? Too little background information to understand trade-offs and make informed choices. So...what do you really mean?
Are we talking about restoration of cut services or adding services above the levels we previously had? Be more clear.
Additional Feedback: See above.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
39
The City of Palo Alto has been doing mayor improvements in certain
areas, Loma Verde and Ferne, Charleston from Middlefield to El Camino
and beyond but nothing has been done in the Circles, I had asked for a
(ONE) STOP sign at the corner of Carlson Rd (coming from Charleston)
and Redwood Circle, a very dangerous outlet from my Carlson Circle
because of lack of view and speed on Redwood Circles and nothing has
been done, while there are bumps on streets that don't really need
them and gardens in crossroads that make them more dangerous for
pedestrians and children on bikes.
There is no police patrol near schools, example Fairmeadow. Very little
patrol on Alma and around the dangerous railroad crossing on Churchill.
Cars drive at 60 plus miles per hour on Alma.
Also Alma is a shame with trash cans all week long. I have to remove my
trash cans after they are serviced or somebody complains (I am 80 years
old, by myself) and Alma has trash cans always by the street that looks
terrible.
Why every neighborhood in Palo Alto does not get the same service?
Louise, Ferne, Amarillo ( the road finish on Louise and Amarillo is a
shame, already dirty, inadequate and I bet very expensive, it is
confusing a total waste of money), Loma Verde and Professor Ville get
all the improvements while the Circles get nothing, only high speed
cars and even School Busses cut from Alma at full speed on Lindero
and Redwood Circle. Why are there so much road construction on
Charleston and Alma (almost daily) and Alma in South Palo Alto. This is
just the beginning of my questions, I have gone to city meetings and I
was never chosen to talk.
I have to also say that the police department was great during my
husband long illness, for about three years, they came to our house to
lift him from the floor, they took him to the hospital, they were always
helpful, and correct. Thanks to them.
40
I am concerned about the conflict between cars and bikes on the
Bryant Street Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero and downtown.
We have been promised a traffic circle and or other measures for
slowing cars. What is the status of the traffic circle at Kingsley and
Bryant Street?
41 Add more police budget to make the residents feel safe.
42 Decide what to do with Cubberley
43
Public safety is by far the highest priority. Besides "police, fire and
emergency medical", additional measures for improving public safety
will also be important, e.g., community watch, using technology to
improve automated surveillance...
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
44
Properly funding the trust funds for retiree pensions and medical
benefits should be higher than all the priorities you've listed above.
That's the most critical element in achieving fiscal sustainability. The
fact that you left this off your list really worries me.
We're seeing a big uptick in crime, and many minor crimes are not
followed up on by the police, leading citizens to stop reporting all of
these incidents. Thus, I believe that the current crime statistics
undercount the true problem. Job #1 for our local government should
be maintaining order and taking actions that discourage crime.
As I mentioned in suggestions above, I still can't believe cities like Palo
Alto have made promises to retirees (pensions and medical benefits)
that are not fully funded. This is a time bomb that will come back to
bite us later on, causing a big decrease in non-essential services. I
recommend we tackle this problem responsibly.
45 More funding for adult community classes
46 Traffic enforcement.
Improve tree program - natives
47 Get a nighttime curfew for planes out/into SFO, like San Jose.
48
You'll never be able to build enough new housing in our built-out city to
even make a dent in housing costs, let alone make it 'affordable.' Don't
further bankrupt the town in this futile endeavor. Every additional
housing unit does not bring in the revenue to cover the cost of its
increased services.
49
Stop digging up the Charleston/Arastradero corridor every year! You
keep working on it, wasting money, causing traffic jams - and make it
harder to drive and bike (yes, I do both).
50
Funding for task force to identify and eliminate local zoning regulations
blocking dense housing development.
Increasing mass transit options.
What percentage of emergency services are for police vs other
emergency departments?
51
I believe that all City of Palo Alto efforts related to climate change
should be terminated. The existing programs will have no measurable
impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but will have measurable and
adverse impact on the city's fiscal health. Those people who work in
the programs can be re-directed to higher priorities, which I rank above.
52 We also need to find funds to work on climate change
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
53
I would like to understand how the city is measuring current program
effectiveness and estimating cost effectiveness of new programs. For
example, it's hard to know if we need to spend more on
police/fire/medical unless we know how well those services are
currently performing now and how much it would cost to make them
better buy some increment.
Also, many of these questions seem to assume the conclusion. For
example, "Funding affordable housing and homeless services" is a
solution, while, "increase housing affordability and reduce
homelessness" is the goal. You can increase housing affordability by
reducing building restrictions, no additional funding required. And are
there any proven cost effective programs for reducing homelessness?
What is the formal measurement process the city is using in evaluating
service levels and cost effectiveness of potential improvements?
54
For the Lucie Stern Community Theater:
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
55
City-owned facilities such as Lucie Stern Center are important assets and
need to be maintained as much as libraries or fire stations. This is more
valuable in my view than building a new police building.
Many of the above priorities are overlapping!
56
I specifically think Palo Alto should invest in our grid. It's a durable
community asset, and it supports our sustainability goals through
electrification.
57
It's difficult for me to rank these needs, one over the other......however I
would put funding improvements to the Lucy Stern Theater near the top
since it adds immeasurably to the quality of life in Palo Alto
Is it possible to sponsor a volunteer position for theater maintenance
with cooperation from Avenidas who has a rooster of engaged,
talented seniors?
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
58
Abilities United used to have a therapy pool that people with disabilities
and seniors could use. They no longer have that and Palo Alto could
really use a good hot therapy pool. It could be open to the public, and
not just disabled and senior people. There is such a big senior
population in this town and I don’t understand why there’s not more
facilities for seniors. Why don’t we have a functioning animal shelter?
Why doesn’t the city take better care of the streets and roads? Why
doesn’t the city take better care of the existing parks and facilities? We
don’t need another gym.
Why don’t we have a functioning animal shelter? Why doesn’t the city
take better care of the streets and roads? Why doesn’t the city take
better care of the existing parks and facilities?
59
I am particularly concerned about Lucie Stern Theatre. It is in dire need
of maintenance (e.g. seats, plumbing..), facilities upgrade (better
ventilation), and personnel to oversee its operation.
60 G
61 Lucie Stern Theatre1
62 We have beautiful community areas (Lucie Stern) that desperately need
funding. Please budget for maintaining the resources we have!
63
Addressing traffic congestion and noise pollution. Establishing and
Strictly enforcing noise controls from motorcycles and speeding cars at
night.
Having the Palo Alto police use their already extensive funds in
patrolling at night and break-in prevention tactics.
Maintenance of our public spaces and freeway corridors - our streets
and freeways are embarrassingly broken and dirty
These issues have become a major concern in the safety and quality of
life for us residents.
How are the current taxes and funds being utilized? How much is going
toward paying administrative overhead and city officials salaries vs
actual community services?
What is the effectiveness score of our police and city administrators
enforcing and implementing safety, noise control, community services,
infrastructure maintenance and clean streets?
64
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
65
I am a resident of Stanford, not Palo Alto. But I would like to urge you
to adequately support the Lucie Stern Theater. Brian White, 881
Tolman Dr, Stanford.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
66
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Add more funds to the Children's Theatre to keep a vibrant community
treasure that helps our youth and builds self confidence
67
Lucy Stern Community Center Theatre needs maintenance. Further a
city employee needs to be assigned to oversee the theatre. This facility
is 100 years old and is showing its age and lack of recent maintenance.
68
Restore and repair the Lucie Stern theatre. It provides an important and
necessary cultural center for this university town. It's a legacy that
needs to be maintained and cared for.
69
I suggest that city staff opportunities for training regarding interaction
with citizens be made available. On two occasions, I attempted to get
answers to questions: (1) regarding marking parking spaces so drivers
would take up one instead of two spaces; and (2) repair of sidewalks.
The responses from city staff were inadequate, in my opinion. On
another occasion, when underground power was being installed in the
residential area south of University Avenue, communication from the
individual coordinating the operation was adequate. I think the quality
of communication should be less varied.
When will the overhead power lines be taken down, now that power is
delivered underground?
70 Refurbish Lucie Stern Theater
Move ahead on rebuilding Cubberley Community Center
71
Lucy Stern Theater is a vital resource for our well-respected, top-quality
community opera and theater companies, West Bay Opera and Palo
Alto Players, but it has been sadly neglected for many years, and is in
desperate need of plumbing, heating, and lighting upgrades, as well as
both basic maintenance and ongoing care.
72
Lucie Stern facility is in particular need of upgrade, having been around
for a century.
Seems that #1 and #3 in my choices have some overlap.
Affordable housing needs developer and probably city tax
incentives/subsidies. Might be a different type of investment than
other items
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
73
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project for Lucie
Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre.
74
Palo Alto should invest in either a major remodel of Lucie Stern Theater
or build a new theater. The theater is worn out, its technology is
obsolete making it difficult for our wonderful theater companies to
work there, and it is too small. TheatreWorks won a Tony and many of
their performances are in Mountain View where they built a wonderful
new theater some years ago. We must invest in Palo Alto's wonderful
theater talent!
75
Attend to the need of maintenance of the Lucy Stern Theater and
Community Center. This is a gem and must be preserved. Many people
are affected by the opportunities presented here.
Put it in the budget.
76
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Arts are important to this - any! - community, and the 100 year old Lucie
Stern Theater is a landmark that deserves more respectful treatment
than it's currently getting. Those of us who produce those arts - plays
and operas for example - need your help.
77 Some of these categories appear to overlap. This means that answers
won’t be accurate.
78
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades and restore a theatre
facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater.
79
Upgrading the Palo Alto electrical grid so that Electric cars, Electric
space heating and water heating can be adequately served. Perhaps
even finishing the promise to underground utilities while upgrading
them.
Let’s NOT build a Gym.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
80
Please keep in mind the needs of older citizens who no longer can get
around easily. The Downtown Library, for just one example, is one thing
that needs to be kept available to us.
81 Magical Bridge Playground maintenance, Lucie Stern Theater sets and
infrastructure, summer music concerts
82
Provide funding to maintain and upgrade the Lucy Stern complex.
Wiring and plumbing does age and wear out and no longer comply with
code. That can place its very existence in jeopardy.
83
Lucie Stern Theater and Community Center are most definitely in need
of upgrades. Please put funds toward these very valuable community
assets.
84
The school programs through Explore Online are not convenient for
double working parents from a timing perspective. Can we check how
population mix for parents have changed and adapt to it?
Are there reports on current state of infrastructure, crime rates etc.
which help understand current investment in defensive/maintenance
activities and what’s the right mix?
85
Who is benefitted by the after-school and summer youth programs?
Are lower income families appropriately subsidized for these
programs? Is the city working on solutions to the problem of people
living in RVs around the city? Why do I never see traffic law
enforcement any more - speeding and red light running with impunity,
creating dangerous situations for kids and adults?
86
Community assets such as the Lucie Stern Theatre have been allowed to
atrophy through lack of maintenance & cutting necessary staffing like
the theatre facilities manager. It should be much more of a priority to
preserve the city's heritage and existing facilities and services than to
constantly be on looking for new ways to spend tax revenue on splashy
& politically trendy new programs.
87 Repair & improve Lucie Stern theater & the Children’s Theater.
88 Repairs and improvements to Lucie Steen Community Theater are much
needed
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
89
The city needs to spend money rehabing Lucie Stern, rather than spend
money on street striping and building concrete barriers in middle of
streets.
There are a number of items that I consider VERY VERY low priority.
Hard to make them all a 10. Comments: city services - do not need any
more, think about reducing them. Long library hours - is this needed?
Funding homeless services - look how great the city did with the
Opportunity center. People were to stay there for a max of 2 years.
Residents do not want to/ do not plan to move. Maintaining after
school programs - is this a role for city or for PAUSD
90
3.5 Fiber internet Seeing an increasing number of homeless roaming around our
residential streets. What are we doing about it? Not sure why that’s
happening, but feel like there should be more planning and action
around that on a local, state and national level. More specifically I
worry about the mentally ill roaming my neighborhood where my kids
are. We spend so much $$ (mortgage and taxes) to live here that it
boggles the mind that the homeless can too and I can’t figure out 1.
why this is happening more so in the last few months, 2. There seems
to be no plan and 3. Why should we just accept all homeless people
who come? Does anyone have any good actionable ideas and the
ability to execute on those ideas?
91
Repair/Upgrade existing buildings especially:
Build New Animal Shelter
Maintain and upgrade Lucy Stern Theatre
Why are talking about new initiatives when we haven't taken care of
existing buildings and programs? We have no need of a new gym until
the Animal Shelter is improved and Lucy Stern Theatre Repairs and
Maintenance is insured. Why aren't the bathrooms at Lucy Evans
Interpretive Center open to hikers? Mt. View has bathrooms available
in the Baylands. We have them - we just don't want to maintain them.
92 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should be
made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top
housing requirements for our City?
93
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community
jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
94
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief
for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many
problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats,
insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy
catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a
theatre that serves
thousands?
95
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city is
not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for
families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been
doing.
96
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example,
the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting
systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the
Lucie Stern Community Theater.
97
We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct non
profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell bonsai
to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation of the
ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite
expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to rec
centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large lap
pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had something
like that here and affordable.
98 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
99 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about?
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
100
With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on
its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who
have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work
well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user
feedback;?
Thanks for trying
101 Funding for adaptation to climate change
102 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will
need to focus on maintaining service levels.
103
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they
recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more
concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and
needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize
that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City
residents.
104
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs they
create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more
expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support
population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc.,)
Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford
University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being
here?
105
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to
be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not
responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be more
widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on itself
first and foremost.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
106
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The
toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is
dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to
handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the
lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework
near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but
fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the
wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be
from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need
expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the
other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and
do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's
theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether
there is a wedding or not.
107
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem is
the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When the
theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event there
are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute
intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need
to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access.
108 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
109
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park
and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to
improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being
considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his
gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the
idea should be postponed indefinitely.
110 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should be
made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top
housing requirements for our City?
111
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community
jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
112
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief
for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many
problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats,
insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy
catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a
theatre that serves
thousands?
113
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city is
not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for
families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been
doing.
114
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example,
the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting
systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the
Lucie Stern Community Theater.
115
We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct
non profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell
bonsai to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation
of the ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite
expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to rec
centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large lap
pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had something
like that here and affordable.
116 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
117 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about?
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
118 With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on
its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who
have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work
well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user
feedback;?
Thanks for trying
119 Funding for adaptation to climate change
120 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will
need to focus on maintaining service levels.
121
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they
recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more
concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and
needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize
that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City
residents.
122
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs they
create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more
expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support
population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc,)
Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford
University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being
here?
123
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to
be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not
responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be more
widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on itself
first and foremost.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
124
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The
toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is
dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to
handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the
lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework
near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but
fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the
wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be
from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need
expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the
other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and
do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's
theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether
there is a wedding or not.
125
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem is
the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When
the theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event
there are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute
intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need
to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access.
126 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
127
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park
and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to
improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being
considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his
gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the
idea should be postponed indefinitely.
128 : El Camino Real and certain intersections need to be upgraded.
: It can take a LONG time to get through Palo Alto at times on El
Camnino and lights need to be better coordinated or in sync.
1) When will road repair be done around Palo Alto in 2022/23?
2) Fiber - this is being discussed, but when will it be rolled out? And
have we thought of coordinating with other cities around us? Why go
piecemeal when working with adjoining cities on a larger scale can cut
costs.
129
Expenditures and scope of each of the above priorities as well as
duration of time to achieve goals.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
130
Continuing to reduce our carbon footprint should be a high priority.
Completing (the initiatives we've undertaken to reduce the risk of
flooding along San Francisquito Creek should be a high priority. My
sense is that there's friction between the city's Development office and
homeowners / contractors which I think is unfortunate and should be
addressed; I wonder if we're being "over regulated." Water
conservation will be increasingly important. Balancing growth vs traffic
congestion and citizen quality of life is an ongoing challenge, my sense is
that we over prioritize growth. Ensuring that our recyclables are
actually recycled and not simply shipped to low income locations
around the world is a responsibility we all share; "zero waste" only
works if the outcome of recycling is truly zero on the broadest / global
scale.
131 Fix the building permit issuance process. I am only hearing how awful it
is from everyone
132
Of course the effectiveness of our basic services, street repairs, and public services (especially fire/polce/emergency) are extremely important
and should be supported as needed. Once those are reasonably sound, street repairsI would like to see Palo Alto learn from the Los Altos
downtown model which seems to prioritize a healthier, more balanced, flexible business model that offers its citizens a richer interaction and
connection with the community. I often shop in Los Altos for the fabric store, knitting shop, bakery, bookstore, pet store, skate shop, etc. It is
difficult that PA is larger and has several shopping areas--T&C, Midtown, downtown, and Cal Ave, but looking at these resources from a
comprehensive perspective--which perhaps you have done--would be a useful embedded/ongoing process. Expanding resources for our high
school teens is a rich area to explore--a space where teens can play games, eat, make music, study, take classes, etc. would be a tremendous
addition. The MP teen space might be successful for younger ones but it doesn't capture the needs of our older teens. Perhaps we need to find
someone who is interested in being a benefactor in the vein of Anne Wojcicki (https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/16/anne-
wojcicki-makes-it-official-im-behind-los.html)? I am afraid if we leave the market to dictate the business offerings--especially on California Ave--
we will see a continued decline in utility of, connection with, and income from our downtown businesses.
What are the basic services? How does the distribution of our funds compare with other comparable and vibrant cities--eg, what percentage of
the budget goes to youth programs, safety, road repairs, etc.?
133 What is the city's growth plan
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
134 Palo alto and the county, state and country need to disallow foreign
realestate investment. It is not acceptable that non US citizens
determine what gets developed. This leads to homelessness and barren
cities without amentities citizens need.
The entire basis of the cities revenues is built on hotel taxes and no
one uses hotels but AirBnB. We need to restructure the finances so
that sound reliable income streams can fund basic services reliably.
The pandemic taught us that travel and tourism is completely optional.
Something more stable such as sales tax or property tax is required.
Energy taxes may also be required.
135 Stop water fluoridation. It's a toxin and proved to lower baby's IQ.
Please repair the gap of side walks. I tripped and took a fall and injured.
136 gigabit municipal fiber to every house
137 Improve electrical infrastructure
Don’t spend money on fiber services
138
Recognize that the Palo Alto demographic is heavily older toward the
north, younger toward the south. concentrate services accordingly.
Make sure services needed by the older folk are easily accessible to
them in the north (like a downtown library, senior center, retail, etc.
139
The Palo Alto Children's Theatre used to do plays with large casts,
frequently with musicians playing, and no member of the cast or crew
or musicians paid 1 cent to take part. They all worked together to enrich
the community with the entertainment they provided. And our
theaters need some repair, updating.
140 Increase city density, walkability and public transportation,
deprioritizing cars and prioritizing people.
141
Congratulations on adding an employee to deal with gas leaf blower
violators and the people that hire them. This will give us the most bang
for the buck and greatly benefit our community. Next up are all of the
wonderful programs the city provides for youths. Extending library
services is part of this. Kids (and adults too) need a quiet place to go to.
Keep up the good focus on mask-wearing!
142 Investing into sustainability programs. It's going to be all the matters in
a decade or so.
ATTACHMENT E
Comments from Feedback Mailer
The following comments were submitted in response to the comments section of the mailed version of the survey with a
perforated tear-off postcard to mail back to the City.
Written
Comment # Comment
1 Continue working on Airplane noise solutions
2 Traffic safety: Too many drivers ignore stop signs.
3 1 - Dramatically reduce pollution footprint
4 Just tarmacing street doesn't clear bumps under it. Bad for backs! S.P. Alto, Middlefield
5 The one about "community-owned assets" is very confusing.
6 More street lights in neighborhood
7 Finish putting utility wires underground across all Palo Alto
8 Build trash-to-energy converter @ Baylands
9 My granddaughter is a TEACHER and can't afford to live here most important teacher housing is no
the very unacceptable answer
10 What about sustainability. 0.5) What about green initiatives & sustainability
11 The condition of many roads in Palo Alto is terrible
12 What about code enforcement?
13 The rest are so nebulous, it's impossible to make a intelligent choice
14 We need CITY-FUNDED TREE service!
15 We should allow Castilleja to build & grow
16 Top city priorities should be: police/paramedics (emergency response), utilities (public works)
17 Animal shelter/spaying
18 What does our #6 above really mean?
19 More pickleball courts!
20 Sustainability, climate change plans etc.
21 We live in a safe community, housing is a crisis. Allow more housing!
22 On the supply side by greater public ownership, i.e. public banking, ISP etc.
Comment on services: ALL DEMAND SIDE!!!
23
Fix the police! Fire the violent officers who cause the City to be sued!!! No pensions.
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - More mental health services
Adding public safety... - improve training and better screening of the police recruits
24 Foothill Park - take it back!
25 1 - Create more parks & open areas in this crowded city
26 We need to invest in making Palo Alto a more quitable place to live for everyone.
27 I am concerned about the judge who said utilities profits to general fund is a tax!
28 1 - prep for/mitigate/reduce climate change
29 Repair all non-working street intersection cameras
30 Stop leaf blowers (noise pollution
31 Bike friendly improvement and good tree health/canopy
32 Remove overhead utility lines
33 PLEASE SUPPORT THE AIRPORT. THANK YOU.
34
There are far more important city services than fiber-in-the-home!
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - How is this different from all that follow?
Investing in comm..., funding homeless..., improving services...., repairing streets - how are these
different?
35 REAPIRA STREETS – POLICE
36 POLICE LEAF BLOWERS!!!! Bring down sound pollution
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment # Comment
37 Especially, longer hours @ Children's Library. Whose expansion was supported thru PALF!
38 We are very disappointed w/ these questions. They are so vague. For example what does expanding
services mean? What's the difference between #7 and #4 for roads?
39 Issues like crime + roads - which you ignore for libraries. Who uses a library?
40 Lucie Stern Community Center needs attention please.
41 Investing in community owned assets like community centers - particularly Lucie Stern
42 Why to roads appear twice on the list? Please define basic services versus city services.
43
Add speedbumps, reduce speeding cars.
What does expanding City services mean?
Community owned assets are already great.
City has already great work in affordable housing and homeless service area.
Put up speed limit signs.
Reduce residential and personal safety crimes (for police)
44 No to expanding City services and funding affordable housing and homeless services.
Stop police radio encryption (Number 1 - more transparency)
45 Fix Churchill bike lanes at Alma
46 Install smart meters and help with solar installs
If you want to known "improvement needed?" why "maintain?"
47 The City needs to address excessive noise from airplanes. Fun this! Top priority!
48 More active policing. Less value futurism
49 Expanding project safety net to include mental health services for adults + youth
50 1 - Fiber to the home from City Muni Internet
51 Please preserve Cal Ave as a No-Car area
52
#1 Priority: Traffic safety kids/teen bike safety - much more police vigilance needed.
Comments on services:
Cut down semis + tractor trailers off our streets!!!
Road safety standards have decreased appallingly in 3-5 years
53 1 - Fix the railroad level crossings!
54 NOT "defund" but "redesign" w/ social services
55 Maintain tree + flower beds on corners (like the 70's + 80's)
56 These streets are the worse/El Camino need ASAP atten
57 Resolve/improve traffic problem on El Camino & Embarcadero - Alma, etc.
58 Resume shuttle
59 Emergency vehicles are very noisy on Middlefield. Cut back on sirens - only use when absolutely
necessary. Residences are affected by noise level.
60 I value & appreciate services that are currently provided. Thank you.
61 Please less construction! It obstructs traffic
62 WORK ON OPPOSING THE NEW IDEA OF ALLOWING 4 HOUSES ON A 50x100 Sq.ft.std LOT
63 Comments on Services:
Maintaining basic services - roads
64 Stop the stack & pack housing, you only get so many people. Get homeless off the street rehab
programs
65 Lack of P.A. employees & using contractors has lead to lack of a or terrible service. Are the plans to
hire people instead.
66 Stop racism - no firmament action
67 Cubberley
68 How many existing City positions are currently unfilled?
69 Castilleja? Why?
Palo Alto takes too long to make decisions on everything.
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment # Comment
70 Don't add new things, first improve existing services. Reduce costs, simplify.
Programs like Citywide yard sale are excellent.
71 Please maintain service at College Terrace Library.
72 Removing the entrance fee to Foothills Park!
73 Invest in prepaid questionnaire returns
74 Public safety number 1 always; streets and roads number 2
75 Keep libraries open 7 days a week
(down arrow) police support
76 Getting rid of gas powered leaf blowers - priority for climate change, pollution, and public health.
Specifically repair and preservation at Lucy Stern
77 Please please improve the dumping of things in streets/yards, especially El Camino
78 Don't we already have public safety? How about "improve"
Funding - esp homeless services
79 Should not group public safety services together - need more police not fire.
80 The liquid amber trees are dangerous. They need to be trimmed or replaced. Esp. dangerous for
people on the street walking
81 3 - More concerts in the park
82
#1 Priority - Airplane noise needs to go!! Quality of life has suffered!!
Comments on Services
Tree maintenance-city trees
83
Please do what you can to stop the release of feral cats in any community
Comments on Services
Maintaining basic service - unnecessary waste of water for lawns is of great concern. Runoff is
noticeable on a daily basis.
Expanding City services - such as processing permits and timely inspections.
84
The roundabouts and islands built, e.g. along Ross Rd., are incompetently designed and constitute a
danger to the public, cyclists especially.
Comments on Services
Maintaining basic services - sewage, utilities, street sweeping
85 All of the above are important!
86 Pay attention to traffice airplane over the city. Residents should be informed and have input in
projects like Rinconada park that seems to a big budget and not aesthically fitting in the park.
87 El Camino is in terrible condition south of Stanford! Please fix.
88 Enforce codes with fines. Need more housing. Crack down on short-term (<30 day) rental of homes
(400+ AirB+B homes)
89 Skip the BS about airplane noise or close PA Airport
90
When it rains, the sewers/drains get backed up and flood sidewalks, it has been happening for years -
when will this get fixed??
Unclog street drains! Downtown South Forest Ave odd #s side of street
91 Diverse training in case of earthquakes for elders in different languages
92
Midtown trees removed; not replaced
Restore basic services first
improving services - tree services
tree planting and maintenance in midtown
ATTACHMENT E
Written
Comment # Comment
93 Please do not continue to increase utility rates. Do not start charging for electricity based on time of
day usage.
94 Mental health programs. Make a natural swimming place in Foothill Park or Arastradero - instead of
only concrete swimming pools.
95 Please crack down on crime.
96 PAPD and City often unresponsive and inefficient
97 City people need to answer the phones
98 What are basic services and how are these different than city services??
This survey can help you better if you explained "basic" and "city" services, thank you
99 Support Cal Ave & Downtown businesses. Bring them back to life!
100 Please subsidize and make utilities rates lower
101 Maintain the City, beautiful look and keep it clean.
102 As a downtown business owner, I see the homeless
103 I realize this is not under city jurisdiction, but something needs to be done! It seems there is nothing
more dire than repairing El Camino Real!
104 Invest in smart traffic sensors to reduce idling and cut emissions by 20% or more.
105 Ensure drinking water (tap water) quality.
ATTACHMENT F
1
May 27, 2022
To: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Fr: Public Dialogue Consortium
Re: Business and Community Stakeholder Focus Group Report – Update
On March 18, 2022 we submitted a report on the five focus groups that were conducted
to date, noting that two additional community engagement events were in the “next
steps” planning stage. This report provides a summary and analysis of those two events.
Outreach and Recruitment
Similar to the initial focus groups, staff compiled a comprehensive list of Palo Alto
stakeholders consisting of business groups, employers, and community groups and
organizations, and conducted outreach utilizing multiple platforms to invite participants
to the two events. For the Public Listening Session, invitations were sent via email to
community groups and organizations throughout Palo Alto, with efforts to be as
inclusive as possible. For the final Focus Group, invitations were targeted to the business
community, specifically the Chamber of Commerce, Palo Alto Research Park and
Shopping Center, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Note: an additional Focus
Group was scheduled for the business community, but was cancelled due to lack of
attendance.
A list of the participants for these two events is included at the end of this report.
Public Listening Session/Focus Group 6 (March 29, 2022)
Eight people participated in this session. Instead of treating it as a public listening
session, as originally planned, we chose to facilitate it as a focus group discussion,
essentially making this event the sixth focus group in a series of seven. Six of the
participants self-identified as a “resident” or “community member;” two participants
self-identified as representatives of the business community.
The purposes of this session mirrored the purposes of the prior focus groups. Part one
established the context for the focus group, including introductions, the agenda, and
outcomes. Part two consisted of a staff presentation on the City’s Fiscal Sustainability
Strategy, including revenue trends and services, and the two ballot measures under
consideration. In addition, staff presented the following recommendations made by the
Finance Committee at their March 28 meeting:
1. Placement of affirmation of current Gas Utility Transfer at 18% of gross receipts
to be used on current uses
2. Placement of a Business License Tax (BLT) with the following characteristics:
a) Exemption for Hotels, groceries (requires % of sq. ft. of food sales),
ATTACHMENT F
2
seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days
b) Exemption for first 5,000 sq. ft., requiring registration for all in the BRC
program
c) Propose escalating rate over 3 years (begin 2024) at $0.12 / sq. ft./mo., at
$0.15, and $0.20, then CPI capped at 6% per annum with excess CPI
carrying over to future years
3. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with a third round of polling
based on Finance Committee and Council feedback
Results
• BLT: Participants expressed mostly support for the BLT, with the consensus being
that the “tax is a good idea” given “the needs of the community” and the fact
that “most other communities have one.” Participants did request a forecast of
the projected revenue from the BLT and the Gas Funds Transfer. Two concerns
were expressed about the BLT: (1) The proposed CPI adjustment and the lack of
a sunset or end date will be an onerous burden on businesses, and (2) This is not
the right time for a new tax given the recovery from COVID and the uncertain
economic environment.
• Gas Funds Transfer: Participants expressed unanimous support for this measure,
noting that passing the measure will not impact rates while failure to pass it
would result in service cuts.
• Essential City Services: Participants identified transportation infrastructure,
affordable housing, and climate change as priority services.
• Finance Committee Recommendations: The only comment made in response to
the recommendations was that basing the BLT on square footage would likely
lead some businesses to seek out “creative” ways to avoid paying it.
Focus Group 7 (May 19, 2022)
This focus group was composed of 16 participants who self identified as members or
representatives of the business community.
The focus of this session was markedly different from the prior focus groups.
Specifically, the purpose was to elicit input and feedback on the administrative design of
the potential BLT measure based on the direction that the City Council provided at their
meetings on April 18 and 25. A key component of the staff presentation was a draft BLT
implementation ordinance, which documented and codified Council’s direction (copy
attached here). The draft was distributed to the participants prior to the meeting and
was the primary focus of the session. Following staff’s presentation of the draft
ordinance, participants were asked to respond to the following questions:
• What clarifying questions, if any, do you have for staff?
• What City aspects of implementation are important to you, your company, or
your organization?
• What feedback do you have on the draft implementation ordinance language for
the business license tax?
ATTACHMENT F
3
Results
Participants and staff had a robust and detailed discussion of the draft ordinance. Based
on our professional judgment, we would characterize the discussion as a healthy give-
and-take of mutual learning and clarification. The focus group was focused on
administration of a potential business tax if it is put on the ballot and passed. As a result,
while participants did not express any of the concerns about the BLT that we heard in
the prior focus groups (i.e. CPI cap, no sunset, not the right time for a new tax, and the
need for a funding plan), it was understood they still held these concerns. The discussion
focused on the following questions and answers.
Participant question: Would square footage not being utilized be included in the
calculation of the business tax?
Staff response: Council is still considering how to tax space that is not leased or
rented.
Participant question: Are there any specifics regarding the use of the funds for "general
government purposes"?
Staff response: Proceeds would go to the general fund. Council plans to adopt a
resolution to identify specific uses of a BLT, although this is nonbinding. Priorities
identified for a resolution include new and enhanced services for public safety,
affordable housing and unhoused services, investment in downtown corridors,
and investment in safe rail crossings.
Participant question: How is commercial real estate property taxed? Would the owner of
buildings and spaces who lease to other businesses be taxed in addition to the
businesses that lease space? This seems like it would lead to double taxation.
Staff response: The intent needs to be clarified when the ordinance is adopted.
Participant question: Some businesses in the research park do not have leases but they
sublease. They have a city permit to build a building, and then sublease to another
entity. When subleased, the sublease tenant would then pay the BLT. But what
happens/who pays during the time the space is available for sublease? Who pays the
BLT? It is unclear who pays if the owner/builder of the building is waiting to find a
tenant.
Staff response: If the owner is defined as a business, the business owner would
be liable for the BLT until it is leased. Council is still considering how to tax space
that is listed for lease.
Participant comment: For those who own a building are reducing the amount of space
they use, and are looking for a tenant to lease the rest this could make a difference on
the acceptability/ viability of the BLT to the business community. We need to know this
ATTACHMENT F
4
right away. We would be in favor of exempting space that is listed for lease and is
vacant.
Participant question: There are multiple ways to measure square footage. Who
determines what measurement type to use?
Staff response: The ordinance will reference a few fundamental guidelines for
measurement and potential standards that could be used. Policies and
procedures will refine this definition as measurement types continue to evolve.
Participant question: Does the taxpayer self-define the standard used to define square
footage?
Staff response: Yes, as long as it meets minimum standards.
Participant: Is underground parking included?
Staff response: I do not think so; we will look into this.
Participant question: How would hotels be treated in the BLT?
Staff response: TOT receipts would offset what they would otherwise owe for
the BLT. The business owner would pay the difference.
Participant comment: Paying prospectively would be more difficult on a new business.
The new business should have at least 90 days before they first need to pay the tax. A
prospective payment approach would also create challenges for calculation of offsets. It
would be easier to pay the tax on a previous period rather than a future period.
Participant question: If taxation is prospective rather than retrospective, is there a
refund if you close business during the year you have already paid for?
Staff response: Yes, you can apply for a refund.
Participant question: What about an apartment owner? The language as it reads seems
like it would include apartment buildings and I do not see a specific exemption.
Staff response: Council has not yet determined how the tax applies to leased
residential space.
Participant question: How are businesses with multiple locations taxed?
Staff response: Suppose there is one corporate entity with one business license
that has multiple locations in the city. When calculating square footage, the
calculation would include the square footage of all locations. Only the first 5000
square feet would be exempted. This is a policy call for council.
Participant question: If I have a 25K square foot building and have five businesses
occupying the space, all would be exempt due to the 5000 square feet exemption?
Staff response: Yes.
ATTACHMENT F
5
Participant question: Would we have to disclose our entire lease to the City? I would
hope the City would accept a redacted lease with the essential information
Staff response: Possibly during an audit the full lease would need to be shared.
We might be able to include a clause in the ordinance that the lease would stay
confidential.
Participant question: Would details about businesses and what BLT is paid be held
confidential?
Staff response: Yes.
Participant question: We need an objective standard for defining "start of occupancy."
Perhaps issuance by the City of the Certificate of Occupancy could be a milestone.
Staff response: This is something for consideration. There are hurdles for those
who may not have been issued this certificate yet but are paying rent during this
time. It may not work in all scenarios.
Participants - Listening Session/Focus Group 6: 3-29-22 (Community)
1. John Petrilla, Palo Alto resident
2. Verdere Philpot, Palo Alto resident
3. Alison Stephens, Palo Alto Community Child Care
4. Penny Ellson, resident of Palo Alto
5. Neilson Buchanan, resident of downtown north
6. Joanne Wetzel, Palo Alto community member
7. Jeremy Hauser, consultant for stakeholders
8. Dan Kostenbauder, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Participants - Focus group 7: 5-19-22 (Business)
1. Shweta Bhatnagar - Stanford University Government Affairs
2. Charlie Weidanz - Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
3. Kari Martinez - GM, Bloomingdales Stanford Shopping Center
4. Luke Nixon - COO, SAP Labs
5. Nicholas Karellas - SAP, Government Relations
6. John Koselak - Executive Director, V. Living
7. Kent Leacock - VMware, Government Relations and Public Policy
8. Dan Kostenbauder - Silicon Valley Leadership Group
9. Tiffany Griego - Senior Managing Director, Stanford Research Park
ATTACHMENT G
Attachment G - 1
Summary of Prior Work on
Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
The City of Palo Alto has been discussing its options for potential revenue-generating ballot
measures through 2019 and 2020. This work was suspended at City Council direction in March
2020 in order to marshal available resources to manage through the COVID-19 pandemic. A
timeline of the CMRs and discussions with the Finance Committee and the City Council since
April of 2019, when staff was formally directed to begin working on this project by the City
Council, is included below for additional context. The date, the forum of the meeting (Finance
Committee or City Council), the summary title, and the CMR number are included for ease of
reference.
Timeline
4/22/2019 City Council, “2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan”, CMR 10267
4/22/2019 City Council, “Approve Workplan for a Potential Revenue Generated Ballot
Measure”, CMR 10261
6/18/2019 Finance Committee, “Review, Comment, and Accept Preliminary Revenue Estimates
for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR 10392
8/20/2019 Finance Committee, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating
Ballot Measures”, CMR 10445
9/16/2019 City Council, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10615
10/1/2019 Finance Committee, “Revised Workplan for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR
10712
10/15/2019 Finance Committee, “Stakeholder Outreach, Initial Polling, and Discussion of a
Potential Ballot Measure”, CMR 10743
11/4/2019 City Council, “Potential Ballot Measure Polling/Outreach, Contract, Solicitation
Exemption and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10792
12/2/2019 City Council, “Structure and Scenarios of Initial Round of Polling for a Potential Local
Tax Measure”, CMR 10891
12/17/2019 Finance Committee, “Consideration, Evaluation, and Discussion of a Revenue
Generating Local Tax Ballot Measure, Review of Refined Modeling, Analysis, Tax Structure and
Recommendation to the City Council”, CMR 10655
ATTACHMENT G
Attachment G - 2
1/27/2020 City Council, “Update, Consideration, and Potential Direction on Possible Local Tax
Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR 11019
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and
Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR
11161
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and
Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, At-Places
Memorandum
6/15/2021, Finance Committee Staff Report, “Recommend the City Council Approve the
Workplan for Pursuit of a Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022
General Election; Review and Potential Guidance to Staff on Affordable Housing Funding as
Referred by the Council”, CMR 12299
8/16/2021 City Council, “Approve the Workplan for Development of a Revenue-Generating
Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022 General Election; Review and Potential Guidance
to Staff on Affordable Housing Funds as Referred by the City Council”, CMR 12381
9/21/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and a Recommended Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures,” CMR 13514
10/19/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”,
CMR 13648
11/8/2021 City Council, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of Potential
Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”, CMR
13687
12/7/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures”, CMR 13728
1/18/2022 Finance Committee, “Discuss Poll Results Regarding Potential 2022 Revenue
Generating Ballot Measures and Recommend Further Refinement of Business License Tax and
Utility Tax Proposals”, CMR 13875
1/24/2022 City Council, “Discuss Polling Results, Analysis, and Community Stakeholder
Engagement Plan; Recommend Further Refined Parameters for a Possible Local Tax Ballot
Measure for November 2022 Election (Business License Tax and Utility Tax Proposals); and
Direct Staff on Related Items such as Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan,” CMR
13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462
ATTACHMENT G
Attachment G - 3
3/28/2022 Finance Committee, "Revenue Generating 2022 Ballot Measures: Review Feedback
from the Ballot Measure Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the Second Round
of Polling; Review Draft Ballot Measure Language; and Recommend to Council Further
Refinement of Potential Measures Adopting a Business License Tax and Confirming the Gas
Utility General Fund Transfer," CMR 13981
4/18/2022 City Council, "Revenue-Generating Ballot Measures for Fall 2022: Discuss 2nd-Round
Polling Results and Feedback from Community and Stakeholder Engagement Activities; Review
and Provide Staff Direction on Finance Committee Recommended Refined Parameters for a
Business License Tax and an Affirmation of the Gas General Fund Transfer; and Provide
Direction to Staff on Next Steps Including Launch of Third Poll, and Council's Non-Binding
Intentions for Allocation of Potential Proceeds", CMR 13571, p. 162
4/25/2022 City Council, " Revenue-Generating Ballot Measures for Fall 2022: Discuss 2nd-
Round Polling Results and Feedback from Community and Stakeholder Engagement Activities;
Review and Provide Staff Direction on Finance Committee Recommended Refined Parameters
for a Business License Tax and an Affirmation of the Gas General Fund Transfer; and Provide
Direction to Staff on Next Steps Including Launch of Third Poll, and Council's Non-Binding
Intentions for Allocation of Potential Proceeds (Continued from April 18, 2022)", CMR 14316 p.
62
PLACEHOLDER
Attachment H:
Summary of Third & Final Round of Polling Results
This attachment is expected to be released on June 9th in a supplemental report.