HomeMy WebLinkAbout0283.092,
-
~.
. . . , . .
''''''' ,', '. :,'
June 21 1992
HONORAPI,E CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, C~lirornia
BUDGET 9:-94
rpOJUO.TIOH RESPONDING TO 'INANC! COMMITTE2 QUESTIONS OP KAY l' AND
21. 1,'2 -COXXUNITY SERVICES. CrrBBERLE~ PLANNIMy DBPARTHEN7
AHD lQLLO"-trl ON HE APP~Ol'_IHA11 LBVEjLS OJ" SERVICB IMPLEMENTATION
Attention: Finance committee
Mambers of tbe council:
Report i» Brief
Attached is information responding to qusstions asked at the ~ay 19
Finance Committee hearing on the Community services Department and
at the May 21 hearing on the Planning ~epartment/6 1992-94 budget.
In additicn l follow-up from the May 12 hearing concerning implemen
tation of the appropriate levels of service study is included.
xay 19. 1992 Quastions;
l~ Provide an analysis of the city's agreement with the Senior
Coordinating Council since the 1910's.
ATTACHMENT 1
:. Wnat are the Assigned vehicles in Community Services Depart
ment?
CMR:283:92
L
-
~, --
Response: T~r list of a_~signed vehicles is pr..-;vided belo",,;
Coordinator of Projects
Parks Crew Leads
Parks Maintenance Persons
Sprinkler System Repairers
Park Maintenance '~slstants
Gelf Course Superintendent
Type Qf Vehic~
Pickup Truck.
• • • • •
Total Ass iqned
N'u:rr:ber
gf vehicles
1
2
8
2
2
1
16
In addition. there are three exclusive use vehicles in
community Servjces assigned to the Director of Pdrks a~d Colf#
the Superintendent of parks, and the Parks Crew Lead for
Irrigat.ion Systems. This updates information which was
supplied in otR.:265:92, dated May 14, 1?92, on vehicles
exclusively assi~eG.
3. What is the cost breakdo~ for the F~thil1s Park operation?
Foothills Park expenses are estimated to be approximately 50
percent of the total open Space budget (which also includes
expenses for the Baylands, I.rastradero Preserve, and the
Downtown parks). The Open Space budget in 1992-93 is $986,803
and in 1993-94 is $1.089,127~ of which Foothills Park expendi
tures are estimated at $512,000 and $:·65; 500 respectively.
May 21, 19'2 Questiona:
1. What would be the incrementa! or extra fees paid due to the
new fee structure for development monitoring projects and what
effect will the increased fees have on applicants?
The Finance committee J!lembers requested to knot.' 'What the
impact of this higher fee schedule would be on an applicant
such as the YMCA. The YM.CA 'Would be :billed an additional
$075.00 for the conditional use permit (i.e., the fee 'Would
increase from $1,125 to $1,80D), and an additional $5,500
(i .e., $11,000 versus $5,500) for the environmental impact
report under the proposed fee schedule. Additional informa
tion is provided in Attachment 2.
CMR:283 :92
.~ :::' ...
,-""',
-
."-.
2 ~ Clarify t.."'le added staffing for the Community Developme'nt 8lock
Crant (CDBG) program. The CKR to Council on staffing did not
tie to tht! budget docUl:!ent, "hich lists an increase il'.
Planning of 2.5 {L 5 from Hu.m.3.n services + L 0 new position) •
Tne .2~ Senior Planner, shown as existing staff in !able 1 of
CMR: 170~92, ~as intended to indicate that recent federal
requirements have necessitated that the Planning 01visiorl
commit additional staff to meet CnBG and federal requirements
r.elated to housing. A Senior Planner "\Jas assigned to assist
in rulfilling the City's obligations, including the prepara
tion of the fEde~ally re~~ir&d Comprehensive Housing Afford
ability strategy (CHAS).
The requested l~C senior Planner, in the proposed column of
the Table, would do these housing functions, as ~ell as help
bring the CODe program into -compliance. The existing ~ 25
person would return to other Planninq Division functions, such
as the comprehensive Plan~ 'l'otal required staffing for the
CDBG/federal housing programs area is 2.5 persons (1.0 Senior
Planner, 1.0 CDSG coordinatQ~ and .5 Office Specialist). In
the proposed 1992-9) budget document~ the correct net increase
i~ staffing (2.5) is shown for the Planninq Division for CDSG
responsibilities.
3. What is tne ability of the General ~~nd reserves to acco~mo
date the one-time cost of the Comprehensive Plan update?
The most appropriate place to obtain funding for this proposal
would be the Reserve for Capital projects, currently estimated
to be $8~3 million by June 30 1994.
Appr()pria_~. Levels of service ___ Zmp1 emantatio!l:
Summarize hov depart~ents included Finance Committee recommenda
tions .from the Appr-opriate Levels of Sen"ice study into their 1992-
94 proposed budgets.
Human Services:
o Revised the Human Services Resource Allocation Process
Guidelines to streamline agency compliance.
o Will develop collabo~ative network of human service providers
for the purpose cf sharing information, reoource development,
and public awareness~
CMR:2a3:92 3
L
i ,
l
."
-
Arts' culture:
o Developed Mew rev~nues and raised class/workshop fees.
o Will be more aggressive in obtaining facility rentals;
especially daytime rencal of the Community Theatre~
o Will look at the possibility of adding an espresso bar at the
CUltural Center~
o Working with visual and performinq arts: and the cotl'J'!\unity, to
hold a fundraisinq event December 31, 1992.
Library:
o Looked at all user fees. Added three new fees for services
currently provided without a fee: test monitoring, printed
lists of library holdings, and extended loan fee. Increased
fees for juvenile interlibrary loans and juvenile fines,
juvenile reserves, and juvenile library cards.
o Established resident and non-resident fees for Test Monitor
ing. (This service is not a typical library service and so is
not restricted by state law and the Joint Exercise of Powers
agreement with other jurisdictions in the county as a basic
library services non-discriminately open to all users.)
o Will assist Friends of the Library in implementing new
fundraising/donation program to augment library collections4
o Sold advertising spacE in the Library's information brochure
to offset the cost of producing th~ brochure.
Ra-creation.:
o Reviewed all fees. Determined most fees were as high as the
market would bear, though are propoSing increasing class fees
and athletic field rental fees. In lie~ of raising more fees,
reduced ongoing exp~nditures.
o Will explore implementing new fees for services currently free
of charge, including entrance fees for Junior Muse~, Zoo and
Palo Altc Baylandsa
o Will pu~sue partnerships ~ith private groups to raise reve~ue
and share costs.
CHR:28J:92 4
L
-
Parks and Golf:
o Will establiEh an "Adopt A Park" pilot program for litter
pickup at selected park sites.
o Explore selling advertising spa-::-e at ball fields to raise
revenues.
o Increased green fees to maintain cost reco~ery.
Planning;
o Addressed the appropriate levels of service report by raising
fees to increase cost recovery level. which included increas
inq fees to 100 percent recovery in several areas: zone
~~~nge5, major site review, comprehensive plan amendments, and
development agreements.
Human Resources:
o By implementing a changeover from the self-funded employee
health benefit plan to the Public ~ployee Medical and Health
Care Act (PEMHCA) health plans, it will be possible to reduce
the potential increase in health costs by up to $500,000 for
the projected six months of the switchover in 1992-93, and
more in 1993-94.
Respectfully submitted,
/r' . V' J~ __ ~"l.,
EMILY HARRISON
D~rec~t~~ance
WILLI ZANiiP
City anager
J
Related staff Reports:
CKR: 283: 92
CHR:302:5
CMR.:601:5
CHR:279:7
Qffi:170;92
CHR:265:32
5
···L
.~~!~·~r
. ,
._,
•
A TT ACIlMR!IT 1
ANAl/iSIS (')F AGREEMENT WII'H :r~rQR COORDINATING CQL~CIL
stat! has researched the actions ~hich led up to developing the
oriqinal Scope of Services Contract Agreement with the Senior
Coordinating Council (Sec), and later the lease for the ~ld city
Hall building ~hich vas negotiated with the sec. In addition to
the Human Services grant of $314,000 provided to the sec, the fair
market r-ental ;'alue of the Senior" Center in 1991-92 ($525,504) I
plus utilities paid by the City ($20,044) and parking spaces net
charged a permit fee ($5:000), provided an additional $550,548 non
cash sub~idy to the sec. TWo points are consistently made in the
historic~l record: the City wanted the sec, not the City, to be
the ~ain provider of Senior services in the community, and funding
for the programs ... ould have to come from many sources beyond the
City.
Belov is a summary of the historical findin9s~
City'. Role Defin8~
C1GU302:5., dated May 7, 19/5 and entitled "Staff Review of TasK
Forca on Aging Report~ states, ·Staff feels strongly that the
City's pr-imary role. should continue to be that of facilita
tor ..• Direct services can, and should, b~ provided by the City only
after determination has been made that no other aqency is p~epared
to do so.-
Following the final report of the Task Force on Aging in May of
1975, a contractual relationship was entered into with the Senior
Coordinating Council. In CMR.: 601: 5, (December 10, 1975) titled
"contract with Senior Coordinating Council-, a statem~nt is made
that the contract ~as written with p3rticular attention given to
provisions to encourage independence. The report states, -In order
tQ encourage independence on the part of the organization, both the
basic document and scope of services commit the sec to maJce a
significant effort to obtain funding from sources other than the
City· ~ Furthermore, the original contract, dated December 11,
1975, directs the see to: -C) seek out and apply for other
sources of revenue in support of its operation of services from
county, state, federal or private sources." The Scope of Services,
Goals and Objectives (October 1, iSIS-June. 3D, 1976) for the
contract incorporates Council direction; "TO make a significant
effort to obtain funding for the cQrporation :from sources other
than the City in order to curtail financial dependence on the City
by implementing a fund-raising campaign involving contracts to
individuals, foundations, and public and private agencies.-
CKR:283:92 6
------... --_._. ---,-,.
L
-
-"-. •
.-:(
.--1
. '. :i~:t:~~, ..
--:~:;: "~~~~t~":;,
--.. ~~:.&,:~.
~&,;
-
Lea •• Aqree.ment for the 014 City' Ball an~ Pol ie_ flts.t.ion
The minut~s of the April 11/ 1977 Council meeting, concerning the
negotiations between the City and sec ~hen the city proviQe~ the
old City Hall and Police stat.ion to the Senior Coordinatin9 Council
in 1977 again emphasize that, as the laase agreement states, "It is
the intent of t::-oth the sec and the city that the sec will be
primary pr-ovider and consultant for the rendering of services to
senior citizens in the community ~nd that in order to do sc, the
sec will operate a m!.lltipurp<:lse senior center en the leased
premises. It is the !u::::ther intent of the parties that the SCC will
be primarily responsible for the identification of sources and for
the securing of commitments for the funds necessary to carry ou.t
the programs contemplated by the sec."
Councilman Comstock said he had specifically asked Sidney Mitchell
(SeC President) about operating costs. and he had receive~
assurance that sec had no intention of asking the City to undertake
any of the operating costs. Councilman Sher raised a question
about whether it was clear that no amount of City funds were
.assumed., but that City participation in senior progra-ms might vary
from year to year, conting~nt on prio~ities and resou~ce5 avail
ab1e~ Councilman Berwald said that Councilman's Sher words summed
up the understanding. The credit from city-owned parkin~ anQ some
percantage of the utilities (75 percent) \lere the sole City
commitments~ Councilman Sher affirmed that it was now clear that
the city had no particular commitment beyond the lease and the sec
had no expectations beyond that.
Subsequently, a CMR was prepared (April 28~ 1977 CHR:279:7) titled
"Lease -with sec for the Old Police/Fir-e-Building.· The City
e-ntered into an agreement with the sec during this time frame in
which the city agreed to renovate the sec building with Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to bring up to certain
standards around 1977. The amount spent bet-"een 1977 and 1979 from
CDBG totalleq $217,951~
CMR:283:92 7
L
•
i~ ,-' ...
,,.; :;
"
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING DEPARTNEf\o~ FEt; SCHEDtJLE CRANGES A.,J-JD EFFECT O~ Jo..PPI~n
In response to city Council direction, staff has adjusted the fee
schedule for all plal'Jling applications ... ith the cV2rClll goal of 70
percent cost rec>;)very. Priol: to the 1990-92 bUdqet cycle, the
Planning Division had recov£Ted fe~s at approximately 40 percent
cost recovery, and increased to approximately 49 percent for 1991-
92~ ,Many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area, since the adoption
o~ Proposition 13., collect fees on a 100 percent cost recovery
basis for most I and in so~e cases all, planning entitlements.
The stratEgy used. in developinq the fee schedule 'Was, rather than
using an -across the board" adjustme~t, to do so with sensitivity
to applications with the least to qain from the entitlement.
Therefore, sinql~ family variances, ho~e i~provement exceptions,
minor Architactw:al Review Boa.rd (ARB) applications and sign
a.pprovals were adjusted clooer to 50 to ~o percent cost recovery~
These applications are usually for remodeling of single family
residences and small busine$ses and staff believed that they could
least afford the full cost of city processes~ Also, substantially
higher fees fo~ these types of applications vould encourage efforts
to do work without City review and permits. Projects where the
applicant has relatively more to gain from the entitlement (i~e.,
s~bdivi5ions, commercial variances, conditional use per.mits, major
ARB) 'Were adjusted at or near 70 to 90 percent recovery. For these
types of projects, the Planning fees represent a relatively smal19r
proportion o.f the project c-:::.sts, and in these instances, it was
fe.lt tha.t the applicants are in need of le.ss $ubsidy.. In all
cases, tJ."'e majority of Planning fees are in-line .. ith those. of
other jurisdictions (Santa Clara, San Jose, Mountain View zond
Fremont) .
The only applications for which staff recommends 100 percent cost
l"eCcvery at this tiO'lle are:
a) environmental impact reports
b) zone changes, both planned community and regular
c) comprehensive plan amendments
d) major site and design applications
These applications are qenerally the type where the property owner
has the most to gain from the entitlement~ The reason for this
recommendation is twofold:
1) To keep customer service levels high by allolliing division
responsiveness to permit activity, si~ilar to that
currently provided by the Building Division.
CMR:28J:92 8
L
-
2) To eliminate the internal conflict tor staf'f resources
that now exists bet",een the t .. o sides of the Planning
Division, Development Monitoring and Special Studies.
First, in order to keep customer service levels very high and to
continue to meet current time lines for all applications~ there is
a need for flexibility in the number of Development Monitoring
staff, to respond to the application \lIcrkload. currently as: a
result of low permit acti .... ity, Oeveloprr,ent Monitoring staff are
compr-ised of five and one-half planners: i. e~. one counter
technician, one-halt-time single family plan checker, one ARB
planner, one planner, one senior planner, and the Zoning Adminis
trator. The Senior ARB planner is currently assigned to large
Planned Community applications, including the pending s-canford
housing project at 600-600 Sand Hill Road. This staff is responsl
ole for processing all planning entitlements through either the
Zoning Administrator, ARB, Pld.hning Commissian and city Council, or
over the counter. Heretofore, when several large applications have
been received at on~e, staff have been internally reassigned from
Special studies to Developmant Monitoring l enlarging the Develop
ment Monitoring staff to as high as eight and one-half planl'lers
intermittently over the past four years, at the expense of projects
like the Urban Design Plan and other special studies. With the
upcoming commitment to the Comprehensive Plan, it ... ill not be
possible to borro .. staff ..... ithout impacting the time frame for
completing that major ~ork program.
The other option for completing special assignno.ents, utilized
during the R-l O:t'dinance Amendment process, is to let the time
lines lengthen for application processing and/or to require
overtime among staff members. This generally leads to di~satisfac
tion from the development community and general public because the
carrying costs for development projects increase ~ith the amount of
time necessary to process the planning enti~lements~ This
statement is true for both the si>1g1e-family r-e:IIlodeler and the
major commercial tJeveloper. HOwever, the state of California
requires only that ilpplic~tions be acted on ... itrdn six months i
considerably longer than our local co~~itments to customer service
have allowed. It is worth n~ting that the Planning Division has
learned the hard ~ay that substantial overtime is not productive
for staff in the long run and results in lower mOI"ale, poorer
quality custom~r contact, and higher staff turn-over.
The Building Division utilizes an "outside" plan check firm to
assist in expedi tinq plan cheCKS when our internal plan check
process queues up. This allows the applicant to pay a~ additional
expediting charge to "get around the queue~. Planning approvals
cannot be achieved through an outside plan check firm because they
involve public process,; however there are outside firms 'Who provide
supplementary staff services to public agencies. These agencies
retain planners who can be hired on a temporary basis, for the
duration of a planninq application. Con~ract planners are
CMR:283:92 9
L
\
-
effective only 'With internal management and over.sight., but it is
worth nctinq tl1at t ... o cur-rent City lStaff members were formerly
employees of a fi.rm whicll performed similar ancillary staft
f~ctions for the Cities of Half Moon Bay, Foster city, Los Altos
Hills, Belmont, San Mateo, San Carles, and many others. The
Planning Division also utilized outside assistance to clear-up
backloqged single-family applic~tions d~ring the Urgency Ordinance
deadline period in 1989-90~
with 100 percent cost recovery for the largest and most controver
sial applications, it can be assured that, should the City receive
o.pplications for several large projects beyond current estimates,
outstripping our Development Monitoring staff resources, ~e cou~d
use fee revenue to allow the City to ccntract with an outside firm
to assist in application processing and keep our customer service
commitment while not affecting the Comp~ehensive Plan time lines~
The 100 percent recovery scheme is inherently "fair" because staff
keep track of their time and only bill for wh~~ is dedicated to a
specific application. In this ~ay, ~simple· applications pay less
while ·complex" projects pay .nore.
CMR: 283:92 10
•