EXHIBIT B-2
ATTACHMENT A
FEDERALLY REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS
Instructions for Certification:
1. By signing and submitting this bid or proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the signed certification set out below.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, MTC may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to MTC if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
4. The terms “covered transaction,” “debarred,” “suspended,” “ineligible,” “lower tier covered transaction,” “participant,” “persons,” “lower tier covered transaction,” “principal,” “proposal,” and “voluntarily excluded,” as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549 [49 CFR Part 29]. You may contact MTC for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized in writing by MTC.
6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion – Lower Tier Covered Transaction”, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List issued by U.S. General Service Administration.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 131
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
9. Except for transactions authorized under Paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to all remedies available to the Federal Government, MTC may pursue available remedies including suspension and/or debarment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 132
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION,
INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION
LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTION
(1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this bid or proposal, that neither it nor its “principals” [as defined at 49 C.F.R. Section 29.105(p)] is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
(2) When the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Date (signature of authorized official)
(type/print name and title)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 133
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
CERTIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING
I, hereby certify on behalf of CITY OF PALO
ALTO
that:
(name and title of grantee
official)
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Executed this day of , 20__
By:
(signature of authorized official)
(title of authorized official)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 134
EXHIBIT B-3
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(STATE-REQUIRED CLAUSES)
1) Attachment A – Fair Employment Practices Addendum
2) Attachment B – Nondiscrimination Assurances
a. Appendix A – Clauses to be inserted in every agreement subject to the ACT, as defined in Attachment B of this Exhibit and REGULATIONS, also as defined in Attachment B. b. Appendix B – To be included as covenant running with the land, in any deed affecting a transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or interest therein c. Appendix C – To be included for subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under federal-aid Program
d. Appendix D – To be included for the construction or use of or access to space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the federal-aid Program 3) Attachment C – State Department of Transportation Requirements
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 135
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-3
ATTACHMENT A
FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ADDENDUM
1. In the performance of the applicable Supplement, AGENCY shall not discriminate against any employee for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (e.g. cancer), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care leave . AGENCY shall take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, sex, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, physical disability, medical condition, marital status, political affiliation, family and medical care leave, pregnancy leave, or disability leave. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment; upgrading; demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. AGENCY shall post in conspicuous places, available to employees for employment, notices to be provided by STATE setting forth the provisions of this Fair Employment section.
2. AGENCY, its contractor(s) and all subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et seq.), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Section 12900(a-f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations are incorporated into the applicable Supplement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full.
Each of the AGENCY’S contractors and all subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreements as appropriate.
3. AGENCY shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts to perform work under the applicable Supplement.
4. AGENCY shall permit access to the records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, and other pertinent data and records by STATE, the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or any other agency of the State of California designated by STATE, for the purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Fair Employment section of the applicable Supplement.
5. Remedies for Willful Violation:
(a) STATE may determine a willful violation of the Fair Employment provision to have occurred upon receipt of a final judgment to that effect from a court in an action to which AGENCY was a party, or upon receipt of a written notice from the Fair Employment and Housing Commission that it has investigated and determined that AGENCY has violated the Fair Employment Practices Act and had issued an order under Labor Code Section 1426 which has become final or has obtained an injunction under Labor Code Section 1429.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 136
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
(b) For willful violation of this Fair Employment Provision, STATE shall have the right to terminate the applicable Supplement either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by STATE in securing the goods or services thereunder shall be borne and paid for by AGENCY and by the surety under the performance bond, if any, and STATE may deduct from any moneys due or thereafter may become due to AGENCY, the difference between the price named in the Agreement and the actual cost thereof to STATE to cure AGENCY’s breach of the applicable Supplement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 137
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-3
ATTACHMENT B
NONDISCRIMINATION ASSURANCES
AGENCY HEREBY AGREES THAT, as a condition to receiving any federal financial assistance from the STATE, acting for the U.S. Department of Transportation, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-42 U.S.C. 2000d-4 (hereinafter referred to as the ACT), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, “Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973, and other pertinent directives, to the end that in accordance with the ACT, REGULATIONS, and other pertinent directives, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which AGENCY receives federal financial assistance from the Federal Department of Transportation. AGENCY HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT AGENCY shall promptly take any measures necessary to effectuate the applicable Supplement. This assurance is required by subsection 21.7(a) (1) of the REGULATIONS.
More specifically, and without limiting the above general assurance, AGENCY hereby gives the following specific assurances with respect to its federal-aid Program:
1. That AGENCY agrees that each “program” and each “facility” as defined in subsections 21.23 (e) and
21.23 (b) of the REGULATIONS, will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted, or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, the REGULATIONS.
2. That AGENCY shall insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids for work or material subject to the REGULATIONS made in connection with the federal-aid Program and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements: AGENCY hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively insure that in any agreement entered into pursuant to this advertisement, minority business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in consideration for an award.
3. That AGENCY shall insert the clauses of Appendix A of this assurance in every agreement subject to the ACT and the REGULATIONS.
4. That the clauses of Appendix B of this Assurance shall be included as a covenant running with the land, in any deed affecting a transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or interest therein.
5. That where AGENCY receives federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance shall extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 138
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
6. That where AGENCY receives federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition, of real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance shall extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.
7. That AGENCY shall include the appropriate clauses set forth in Appendix C and D of this Assurance, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, permits, licenses, and similar agreements entered into by the AGENCY with other parties:
Appendix C;
(a) for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the federal-aid Program; and
Appendix D;
(b) for the construction or use of or access to space on, over, or under real property acquired, or improved under the federal-aid Program.
8. That this assurance obligates AGENCY for the period during which federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property or real property or interest therein, or structures, or improvements thereon, in which case the assurance obligates AGENCY or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
(a) the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or
(b) the period during which AGENCY retains ownership or possession of the property.
9. That AGENCY shall provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, or the official to whom he delegates specific authority, to give reasonable guarantee that AGENCY, other recipients, sub-grantees, applicants, sub-applicants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, the ACT, the REGULATIONS, this Assurance and the Agreement.
10. That AGENCY agrees that the United States and the State of California have a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the ACT, the REGULATIONS, and this Assurance.
11. AGENCY shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, disability, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of any STATE assisted contract or in the administration on its DBE Program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. AGENCY shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of STATE assisted contracts. The California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Implementation Agreement for Local Agencies is incorporated by reference in the applicable Supplement.
Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of the applicable Supplement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out the Implementation Agreement, STATE may impose sanctions as provided for under 49 CFR Part 26 and DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 139
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 USC 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1985 (31 USC 3801 et seq.)
THESE ASSURANCES are given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all federal grants, loans, agreements, property, discounts or other federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to AGENCY by STATE, acting for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and is binding on AGENCY, other recipients, subgrantees, applicants, sub-applicants, transferees, successors in interest and other participants in the federal-aid Highway Program.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 140
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
APPENDIX A TO ATTACHMENT B
(Clauses to be inserted in every agreement subject to ACT and REGULATIONS)
During the performance of the applicable Supplement, AGENCY, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as AGENCY) agrees as follows:
(1) Compliance with Regulations: AGENCY shall comply with the regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of the applicable Supplement.
(2) Nondiscrimination: AGENCY, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in the selection and retention of sub-applicants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment.
AGENCY shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the REGULATIONS, including employment practices when the agreement covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the REGULATIONS.
(3) Solicitations for Sub-agreements, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by AGENCY for work to be performed under a Sub-agreement, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub- applicant or supplier shall be notified by AGENCY of the AGENCY’s obligations under the applicable Supplement and the REGULATIONS relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
(4) Information and Reports: AGENCY shall provide all information and reports required by the REGULATIONS, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to AGENCY’s books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by STATE or FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such REGULATIONS or directives. Where any information required of AGENCY is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, AGENCY shall so certify to STATE or the FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts AGENCY has made to obtain the information.
(5) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of AGENCY’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the applicable Supplement, STATE shall impose such agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
(a) withholding of payments to AGENCY under the Agreement within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 90 days; and/or
(b) cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part.
(6) Incorporation of Provisions: AGENCY shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every sub-agreement, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the REGULATIONS, or directives issued pursuant thereto.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 141
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
AGENCY shall take such action with respect to any sub-agreement or procurement as STATE or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance, provided, however, that, in the event AGENCY becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub- applicant or supplier as a result of such direction, AGENCY may request STATE enter into such litigation to protect the interests of STATE, and, in addition, AGENCY may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 142
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
APPENDIX B TO ATTACHMENT B
To be included as covenant running with the land, in any deed affecting a transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or interest therein)
The following clauses shall be included in any and all deeds effecting or recording the transfer of PROJECT real property, structures or improvements thereon, or interest therein from the United States.
(GRANTING CLAUSE)
NOW, THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation, as authorized by law, and upon the condition that AGENCY shall accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon, in accordance with Title 23, United States Code, the Regulations for the Administration of federal-aid for Highways and the policies and procedures prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation and, also in accordance with and in compliance with the Regulations pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto AGENCY all the right, title, and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in, and to, said lands described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(HABENDUM CLAUSE)
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto AGENCY and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenant, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and shall be binding on AGENCY, its successors arid assigns.
AGENCY, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interests in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns,
(1) that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed (;) (and) *
(2) that AGENCY shall use the lands and interests in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended (;) and
(3) that in the event of breach of any of the above-mentioned nondiscrimination conditions, the U.S.
Department of Transportation shall have a right to re-enter said lands and facilities on said land, and the above-described land and facilities shall thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S. Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this deed.*
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 143
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 144
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
APPENDIX C TO ATTACHMENT B
(To be included for subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under federal-aid Program)
The following clauses shall be included in any and all deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by AGENCY, pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a) of Attachment I-2.
The grantee (licensee, lessee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself, his heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add ‘as covenant running with the land”) that in the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the said property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation program or activity is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.), shall maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all other requirements imposed pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in federally- assisted programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended.
(Include in licenses, leases, permits, etc.)*
That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, AGENCY shall have the right to terminate the (license, lease, permit etc.) and to re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, lease, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.
(Include in deeds)*
That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, AGENCY shall have the right to re-enter said land and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities shall thereupon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of AGENCY and its assigns.
*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 145
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
APPENDIX D TO ATTACHMENT B
(To be included for the construction or use of or access to space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the federal-aid Program)
The following shall be included in all deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar agreements entered into by AGENCY, pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7 (b) of Attachment I-2.
The grantee (licensee, lessee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself, his personal representatives, successors in interest and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds, and leases add “as a covenant running with the land”) that:
(1) no person on the ground of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability, shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities;
(2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination; and
(3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.,) shall use the premises in compliance with the Regulations.
(Include in licenses, leases, permits, etc.)*
That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, AGENCY shall have the right to terminate the (license, lease, permit, etc.) and to re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, lease, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.
(Include in deeds)*
That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, AGENCY shall have the right to re-enter said land and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities shall thereupon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of AGENCY, and its assigns.
*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 146
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-3
ATTACHMENT C
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS
Caltrans Non – Discrimination
A. In the performance of work undertaken pursuant to the applicable Supplement, AGENCY shall not, and shall affirmatively require that its contractors shall not, unlawfully discriminate, harass or allow harassment, against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), medical condition (cancer), age, marital status, denial of family and medical care leave, and denial of pregnancy disability leave.
B. AGENCY shall ensure, and shall require that its contractors and all subcontractors and/or subrecipients shall ensure, that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. AGENCY shall comply, and ensure that its contractors and subcontractors and/or subrecipients shall comply, with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Section 12990 (af), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporated into the applicable Supplement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full.
C. Each of AGENCY’s contractors, subcontractors, and/or subrecipients shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have collective bargaining or other labor agreements. AGENCY shall include the non-discrimination and compliance provisions hereof in all contracts and subcontracts to perform work under the applicable Supplement.
D. AGENCY shall comply with the nondiscrimination program requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, 49 CFR Part 21, and 23 CFR Part 200 are made applicable to the applicable Supplement by this reference. Wherever the term “Contractor” appears therein, it shall mean AGENCY.
E. AGENCY shall permit, and shall require that its contractors, subcontractors, and subrecipients will permit, access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices and Housing Commission or any other agency of the State of California designated by STATE to investigate compliance with these non- discrimination provisions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 147
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-4
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(PREVAILING WAGE RATES, APPRENTICESHIPS, AND PAYROLL RECORDS
NON-FEDERALLY FUNDED AGREEMENTS)
AGENCY’s contractor(s) and all subcontractors shall comply with applicable sections of the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder (including without limitation, Sections 1720 et seq. and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Sections 16000 et seq.) governing the payment of prevailing wages, as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, in regards to work performed and/or funded under this Agreement. In particular, AGENCY’s attention is drawn to Labor Code Sections 1771 (payment of prevailing wage rate), 1775 (penalty for non-payment), 1776 (payroll records), and 1777.5 (use of apprentices). AGENCY’s contractor(s) and all subcontractors, to the extent the work of such contractor(s) and subcontractors under this Agreement are subject to California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 and shall furnish electronic certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner through the internet portal of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Per Master Funding Agreement Article 12.0, Records and 13.0 Audits, MTC reserves the right to request copies of the certified payroll records.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 148
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-5
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(PREVAILING WAGE RATES, APPRENTICESHIPS, AND PAYROLL RECORDS
FEDERALLY FUNDED AGREEMENTS)
The Additional Federal Clauses Applicable to Public Works included in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the Davis-Bacon prevailing wages apply to work performed and/or funded under the applicable Supplement. AGENCY agrees that AGENCY will require its contractor(s) and all subcontractors will pay the higher of (i) the applicable wage set forth in Federal Wage Determinations, and (ii) the applicable California prevailing rate. Certified payroll records in the form set forth in the Public Works Payroll Reporting Form, as found at https://www.dol.gov/whd/forms/wh347.pdf, shall be prepared or collected from its contractor(s) and all subconsultant(s) on a weekly basis by the AGENCY. Per Master Funding Agreement Article 12.0, Records and 13.0 Audits, MTC reserves the right to request copies of the certified payroll records. MTC may withhold payment if the certified payrolls to be submitted by AGENCY pursuant to this Exhibit B- 5, Prevailing Wage Rates, Apprenticeships, and Payroll Records, are not current.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 149
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-5
ATTACHMENT A
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL CLAUSES APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC WORKS
1. Buy America
2. Davis-Bacon Act
3. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
4. Copeland Anti-Kickback Act
5. Prompt Payment of Funds Withheld to Subcontractors
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 150
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
1. Buy America Requirements
Buy America – Attention is directed to the “Buy America” requirements of the surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Section 165) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Sections 1041(a) and 1048(a), and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. In conformance with the law and regulations, all manufacturing processes for steel and iron materials furnished for incorporation into the work on this project shall occur in the United States; with the exception that pig iron and processed, pelletized and reduced iron ore manufactured outside of the United States may be used in the domestic manufacturing process for such steel and iron materials. The application of coatings, such as epoxy coating, galvanizing, painting, and other coating that protects or enhances the value of steel or iron materials shall be considered a manufacturing process subject to the “Buy America” requirements. A Certificate of Compliance shall be furnished for steel and iron materials.
The certificates shall specifically certify that all manufacturing processes for the materials occurred in the United States, except for the above exceptions.
The requirements imposed on AGENCY by the law and regulations do not prevent a minimal use of foreign steel and iron materials if the total combined cost of the materials used does not exceed one- tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of the total contract cost or $2,500, whichever is greater. The AGENCY or its contractor(s) shall furnish the Engineer acceptable documentation of the quantity and value of the foreign steel and iron prior to incorporation the materials into the work.
Certification requirement for procurement of steel, iron, or manufactured products.
The AGENCY hereby certifies that all manufacturing process for steel and iron materials occurred in the United States, except for the above exceptions.
Signature:
Name and Title:
Company Name:
Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 151
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
2. DAVIS-BACON ACT
For all prime construction, alteration or repair contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by FTA, the Contractor shall comply with the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act. Under 49 U.S.C. § 5333(a), prevailing wage protections apply to laborers and mechanics employed on FTA assisted construction, alteration, or repair projects. The Contractor will comply with the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3144, and 3146-3148 as supplemented by DOL regulations at 29 C.F.R. part 5, “Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction.” In accordance with the statute, the Contractor shall pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the Contractor agrees to pay wages not less than once a week. The Contractor shall also comply with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145), as supplemented by DOL regulations at 29 C.F.R. part 3, “Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in part by Loans or Grants from the United States.” The Contractor is prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled.
3. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act - (i) The AGENCY’s contractor agrees to comply with section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. section 333, and applicable DOL regulations, "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction" 29 C.F.R. Part 1926.
Among other things, the AGENCY’s contractor agrees that it will not require any laborer or mechanic to work in unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous surroundings or working conditions. (ii) Subcontracts - The AGENCY’s contractor also agrees to include the requirements of this section in each subcontract. The term "subcontract" under this section is considered to refer to a person who agrees to perform any part of the labor or material requirements of a contract for construction, alteration or repair. A person who undertakes to perform a portion of a contract involving the furnishing of supplies or materials will be considered a "subcontractor" under this section if the work in question involves the performance of construction work and is to be performed: (1) directly on or near the construction site, or (2) by the employer for the specific project on a customized basis. Thus, a supplier of materials which will become an integral part of the construction is a "subcontractor" if the supplier fabricates or assembles the goods or materials in question specifically for the construction project and the work involved may be said to be construction activity. If the goods or materials in question are ordinarily sold to other customers from regular inventory, the supplier is not a "subcontractor." The requirements of this section do not apply to contracts or subcontracts for the purchase of supplies or materials or articles normally available on the open market.
4. COPELAND ANTI-KICKBACK ACT
Compliance with Copeland Act requirements - The AGENCY’s contractor shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR part 3, which are incorporated by reference in this contract.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 152
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
5. PROMPT PAYMENT OF FUNDS WITHHELD TO SUBCONTRACTORS
The AGENCY shall hold retainage from the prime contractor and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the agency of the contract work and pay retainage to the prime contractor based on these acceptances. The AGENCY’s prime contractor or subcontractor shall return all monies withheld in retention from a subcontractor within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the agency. Federal regulation (49 CFR 26.29) requires that any delay or postponement of payment over 30 days may take place only for good cause and with the agency’s prior written approval. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating AGENCY’s prime contractor or subcontractor to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. These requirements shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise, available to the prime contractor or subcontractor in the event of a dispute involving late payment, or nonpayment by the prime contractor, deficient subcontract performance, or noncompliance by a subcontractor. This provision applies to both DBE and non-DBE prime contractors and subcontractors.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 153
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-6
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(REGIONAL TOLL FUNDS INCLUDING RM1, RM2, AND AB 1171)
Recitals
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Sections 30950 et seq. created the Bay Area Toll Authority (“BATA”) which is a public instrumentality governed by the same board as that governing MTC; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SHC Section 31010(b), funds generated in excess of those needed to meet the toll commitments as specified by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 188.5 of the SHC shall be available to BATA for funding projects consistent with SHC Sections 30913 and 30914; and
WHEREAS, MTC adopted Resolution No. 3434, Revised, which establishes commitments of bridge toll funds, including such AB 1171 funds, to specific projects and corridors; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1988, voters approved Regional Measure 1 (“RM1”), which authorized a standard auto toll of $1 on the seven state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area to fund various transportation projects within the region; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2004, voters approved Regional Measure 2 (“RM2”), increasing the toll for all vehicles on the seven state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area by $1.00 to fund various transportation projects within the region that have been determined to reduce congestion or to improve travel in the toll bridge corridors; and
WHEREAS, RM2 established the Regional Traffic Relief Plan and listed specific capital projects and programs and transit operating assistance as eligible to receive RM2 funding as identified in SHC Section 30914(c) and (d). The funding amounts assigned to certain of the programs and projects were subsequently revised by MTC Resolution No. 3801; and
WHEREAS, to the extent the Project is receiving RM2 funding hereunder, SHC Section 30914(c) lists the Project to which this Exhibit B-6 and the applicable Supplement apply as one such eligible transportation project and designates AGENCY as project sponsor; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to MTC Resolution No. 3636, MTC established procedures whereby eligible transportation project sponsors may submit allocation requests for Regional Measure 2 Bridge Toll funding. A copy of MTC Resolution No. 3636 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment D, MTC Resolution No. 3636; and
WHEREAS, AGENCY submitted one or more allocation requests for RM2, AB 1171, and/or RM1 funding for the Project to which this Exhibit B-6 applies. A copy of the applicable allocation request(s) as well as AGENCY’s resolution(s) approving the allocation request(s) are attached to the applicable Supplement and incorporated herein as Attachment A, Updated Initial Project Report, and Attachment B, AGENCY Resolution(s), respectively; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 154
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
WHEREAS, by the resolution(s) attached to the applicable Supplement and incorporated herein as Attachment A as Attachment C, MTC Resolution(s) Approving Project Request, MTC approved AGENCY’s request(s) for the applicable funds for the applicable Project.
I. AGENCY AGREES
A. AGENCY agrees to perform or caused to be performed the activities described in Attachment A, Updated Initial Project Report. AGENCY will provide all necessary staffing and support resources to complete the Project as described in Attachment A, AGENCY agrees to meet all conditions listed in Attachment C, MTC Resolution(s) Approving Project Request.
B. AGENCY shall provide MTC with annual progress reports on or before each July 31 throughout the term of this Agreement in accordance with the monitoring and reporting requirements specified in MTC Resolution No. 3636.
C. AGENCY shall submit invoices to MTC no less than annually, but may submit invoices as frequently as monthly. In either case, AGENCY shall submit an invoice to MTC within thirty (30) days after the end of each period for which payment is sought covering costs for the Project activities accomplished through the end of such period, not covered by previously submitted invoices. Each invoice shall be supported by the following information: (i.) A brief narrative progress report of the activities accomplished during the invoice period, including the percentage of the contract complete and the percentage of funding expended; (ii.) the costs requested for reimbursement with RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable; (iii.) the total costs expended for the invoice period broken down by type and source of funding; (iv.) the total RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable received as reimbursement to date; (v.) the total costs expended for project name to date broken down by type and source of funding; and (vi.) any additional supporting data in a form and detail required by MTC.
D. AGENCY agrees to spend RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, at a rate not exceeding the schedule attached to the applicable Supplement and incorporated herein as Attachment E, Reimbursement Schedule.
E. AGENCY shall comply with and shall assure that any AGENCY contractor performing Project work with RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, received under this Agreement complies with MTC Resolution No. 3636, Revised, as well as the provisions of MTC’s RM2 Policy Guidance contained in Attachment D, MTC Resolution No. 3636, relative to constructing, operating, and maintaining the Project. MTC may update Resolution No. 3636 from time to time. The AGENCY agrees to comply with the most current Resolution that is approved at any given time.
F. AGENCY is responsible for completing the Project within cost, scope and schedule as described in Attachment A, Updated Initial Project Report, as it may be updated from time to time. Any updates must be approved by AGENCY and MTC in writing before being incorporated into this Agreement.
G. AGENCY certifies that:
The Project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”).
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 155
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
All environmental permits or clearances necessary for the Project have been or will be obtained, and the year of Project funding for the construction phase of the Project has taken into consideration the time necessary to obtain permitting approval for the Project as an operable and useable segment.
The Project or portion thereof to be funded under this Agreement will be fully funded upon the execution of the applicable Supplement.
AGENCY has reviewed the Project needs and has adequate internal staffing and support resources to deliver and complete the Project within the cost, scope, and schedule set forth in the Initial Project Report, as updated, attached to the applicable Supplement as Attachment A. If applicable to the Project, AGENCY is an eligible sponsor of projects in MTC Resolution No. 3434, Revised.
If applicable, AGENCY is authorized to submit an application for RM2 funds for the Project in accordance with SHC Section 30914(c).
If applicable, AGENCY is authorized to submit an application for AB 1171 funds for the Project in accordance with SHC Section 31010(b).
The Project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 2l000 et seq.), and with the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines (l4 California Code of Regulations Sections l5000 et seq.), and if relevant, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and the applicable regulations thereunder.
There is no legal impediment to AGENCY making allocation requests for RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable.
There is no pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the Project or the ability of AGENCY to deliver such Project.
H. In addition to AGENCY’s commitment under Article 10, INDEMNIFICATION, of the Master Funding Agreement, AGENCY agrees at its own cost, expense, and risk to defend any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought or instituted against MTC, its Commissioners, representatives, agents, and employees, or any of them, arising out of such act or omission, and to pay and satisfy any resulting judgments. In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, so much of the funding due under this allocation of RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, as shall reasonably be considered necessary by MTC may be retained until disposition has been made of any claim for damages.
I. If any revenues or profits from any non-governmental use of the Project are collected by AGENCY, those revenues or profits shall be used exclusively for the public transportation services for which the Project was initially approved, either for capital improvements or maintenance and operational costs, otherwise MTC is entitled to a proportionate share equal to MTC’s percentage participation in the Project. MTC’s percentage participation shall equal the amount of funds allocated to Project, divided by the total Project budget as shown in Attachment E, Reimbursement Schedule, as updated from time to time, as such amount may be adjusted to reflect total project costs.
J. Project assets purchased by AGENCY with RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, including facilities and equipment, shall be used for the intended public transportation uses and should said facilities and equipment cease to be operated or maintained for their intended public transportation purposes for their useful life, MTC shall be entitled to a present day value refund or credit (at MTC’s DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 156
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
option) based on MTC’s share of the fair market value of the facilities and equipment at the time the public transportation uses ceased, which sum shall be paid back to MTC in the same proportion that RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, were originally used.
K. AGENCY shall post on both ends of the Project construction site(s), unless prohibited by the site owner if such owner is not the AGENCY, at least two signs visible to the public stating that the Project is funded with RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable.
L. AGENCY’s City Manager, General Manager, Executive Director, Chief Executive Officer, or equivalent officer, or designee, is delegated the authority to make non-substantive changes or minor amendments to the initial project report as he/she deems appropriate; otherwise, Article 7, AMENDMENTS, of this Agreement applies.
M. AGENCY agrees to comply with the provisions of MTC Resolution No. 3636, Revised, and the MTC Resolutions set forth in Attachment C, MTC Resolution(s) Approving Project Request.
II. MTC AGREES
A. MTC agrees to provide AGENCY with RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, within the allocation amounts in Attachment C, MTC Resolution(s) Approving Project Request and as restated in the relevant Supplement for the purpose of funding the Project as described in Attachment A.
The entire funding amount is available for reimbursement based on the schedule included in Attachment E, Reimbursement Schedule, to the applicable Supplement. In addition, if applicable, MTC agrees to support AGENCY’s allocation request from the State according to the Allocation Request Schedule provided in Attachment F to the applicable Supplement.
In the event AGENCY does not use all RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, made available in a given fiscal year, those unused amounts will be available for reimbursement in subsequent year(s) for the duration of this Agreement.
III. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED
A. MTC may terminate the applicable Supplement, in its sole discretion, for any force majeure event, including but not limited to any earthquake, flood or other natural disaster, any epidemic, blockade, rebellion, war, act of sabotage or civil commotion, fire, explosion or strike, or prolonged economic conditions affecting the ability of the Bay Area Toll Authority to make payments to bond holders who shall in all circumstances have priority to payment of funds, if such event (i) irrecoverably disrupts or renders impossible AGENCY’s performance hereunder; or (ii) disrupts MTC’s ability to make payments hereunder. If MTC so terminates the applicable Supplement, AGENCY will be entitled to payment for non-recoverable Project costs incurred prior to the date of such termination, including but not limited to any amounts AGENCY owes to the owner of the Project construction sites, if such owner is not AGENCY, up to the maximum amount payable under this Agreement.
B. If AGENCY fails to perform as specified in this Agreement and the applicable Supplement, MTC may terminate the applicable Supplement or this Agreement for cause. Termination shall be effected by DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 157
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
serving a sixty (60) day advance written notice of termination on AGENCY, setting forth the manner in which AGENCY is in default. If AGENCY does not cure the breach or describe to MTC’s satisfaction a plan for curing the breach within the sixty (60) day period, MTC may terminate this Agreement or the applicable Supplement for cause. In the event of such termination for cause, AGENCY will be entitled only to those costs incurred for already completed Project work, not to exceed the maximum amount payable under this Agreement for such Project work, however, in no event shall MTC be required to reimburse AGENCY for any costs incurred for work causing or contributing to the default.
C. If the Project is cancelled, suspended indefinitely, or otherwise not completed for any reason, AGENCY shall repay MTC any RM1, RM2 and/or AB 1171 funds, as applicable, expended that exceed MTC’s proportionate share of eligible costs for the Project.
D. Upon completion of the Project, AGENCY will properly account for all Project costs incurred.
E. The applicable Supplement shall terminate upon closeout of the PROJECT in accordance with Policies and Procedures in MTC Resolution No. 3636, Revised, or on the termination date, if any, set forth in the Supplement, whichever is sooner.
F. The terms and conditions of this Agreement include the following and each is incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein.
Attachment A – Updated Initial Project Report (Allocation Request) Attachment B – AGENCY Resolution(s) (and opinion of counsel, if applicable) Attachment C – MTC Resolution(s) Approving Project Request(s) Attachment D – MTC Resolution No. 3636, Revised
Attachment E – Reimbursement Schedule
Attachment F – Allocation Request Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 158
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
EXHIBIT B-7
ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FEDERAL FUNDS INCLUDING STP AND CMAQ)
1. TERMINATION
Notwithstanding Article 8.0, TERMINATION in the Master Funding Agreement, MTC may terminate this Agreement without cause upon ten (10) days prior written notice. If MTC terminates this Agreement without cause, AGENCY shall be entitled to payment for costs incurred for incomplete deliverables, up to the maximum amount payable for each deliverable. If AGENCY fails to perform as specified in this Agreement, MTC may terminate this Agreement for cause by written notice and AGENCY shall be entitled only to costs incurred for work product acceptable to MTC, not to exceed the maximum amount payable under this Agreement for such work product.
2. RETENTION OF RECORDS
AGENCY agrees to establish and maintain an accounting system confirming to GAAP that is adequate to accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable, and allocable project costs.
AGENCY further agrees to keep all records pertaining to the project being funded for audit purposes for a minimum of three (3) years following final payment to AGENCY or four (4) years following the fiscal year of the last expenditure under this Agreement, whichever is longer, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Copies of AGENCY audits, if any, performed during the course of Project development and at Project completion shall be forwarded to MTC no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after fiscal year end close.
3. AUDITS
Notwithstanding Article 13.0, AUDITS in the Master Funding Agreement, AGENCY agrees to grant MTC, or any agency that provides MTC with funds for the Project, including but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, the Comptroller General of the United States, the State, and their authorized representatives access to AGENCY’s books and records for the purpose of verifying that funds are properly accounted for and proceeds are expended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. All documents shall be available for inspection during normal business hours at any time while the Project is underway and for the retention period specified in Article 4.
AGENCY further agrees to include in all its third-party contracts hereunder a provision to the effect that the contractor agrees that MTC, the U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, the Comptroller General of the United States, the State, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of such subcontractor, during normal business hours, for the term specified above. The term “contract” as used in this clause excludes agreements not exceeding $25,000.
4. LICENSE TO WORK PRODUCTS
AGENCY hereby grants to MTC an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use without restriction and share with any person or entity all drawings, designs, specifications, manuals, reports, studies, surveys, models, software, source code and source code documentation, documentation or system architecture, and any other documents, materials, data, and products (“Work Products”) developed, prepared, or assembled by AGENCY or AGENCY’s consultant(s) or its subconsultants pursuant to this Agreement. MTC may exercise their licenses to Work Products through sublicenses to a DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 159
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
third party, without the approval of AGENCY or AGENCY’s consultant(s) or subconsultants. FHWA reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for federal government purposes: (a) the copyright in any work developed under this Agreement; and (b) any rights of copyright to which AGENCY or AGENCY’s consultant(s) or subconsultants purchase ownership under this Agreement.
5. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000d); Section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 6102); Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132); and 49 U.S.C. § 5332 for FTA-funded projects, AGENCY agrees that it shall not, on the grounds of race, religious creed, color, national origin, age, physical disability or sex, discriminate or permit discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment.
6. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE)
It is the policy of MTC and the U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts and to create a level playing field on which disadvantaged business enterprises, as defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, can compete fairly for contracts and subcontracts relating to MTC’s procurement and professional services activities.
AGENCY shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of this Agreement. AGENCY shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by AGENCY to carry out these requirements is a material breach of contract, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as MTC deems appropriate.
7. TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
AGENCY agrees to comply with all the requirements imposed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (47 U.S.C. § 2000(d)) and the regulations of the Department of Transportation issued thereunder (49 CFR Part 21).
8. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES AGENCY agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794; Section 16 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 5310(f); and their implementing regulations.
9. STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN
AGENCY shall comply with all mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency that are contained in the State energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. § 6321).
10. DEBARMENT
AGENCY certifies that neither it, nor any of its participants, principals or subcontractors is or has been debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions, as they are defined in 49 CFR Part 29, by any Federal agency or department.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 160
MTC/CITY OF PALO ALTO
Master Funding Agreement
11. CLEAN AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ACTS
AGENCY agrees to comply with the applicable requirements of all standards, orders, or requirements issued under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7501 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR Part 15).
12. LOBBYING
AGENCY agrees to comply with the restrictions on the use of federal funds for lobbying activities set forth in 31 United States Code §1352 and 49 C.F.R. Part 20.
13. INDEMNIFICATION
Notwithstanding Article 10.0, INDEMNIFICATION, in the Master Funding Agreement AGENCY shall indemnify and hold harmless MTC, Caltrans, their Commissioners, Directors, officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, damages, injury and/or liability (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), incurred by reason of any act or failure to act of AGENCY, its officers, directors, employees, agents and contractors, or any of them, under or in connection with this Agreement; and AGENCY agrees at its own cost, expense and risk to defend any and all claims, actions, suits, or other legal proceedings brought or instituted against MTC, Caltrans, their Commissioners, Directors, officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, arising out of such act or omission, and to pay and satisfy any resulting judgments.
14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
AGENCY shall comply with any and all laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations or requirements of the federal, state, or local government, and any agency thereof, including, but not limited to MTC, the U.S. DOT, FHWA, the State, and Caltrans, which relate to or in any manner affect the performance of this Agreement. Those laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and procedural requirements that are imposed on MTC as an AGENCY of federal or state funds are hereby in turn imposed on AGENCY (including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 18, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments”), and are herein incorporated by this reference and made a part hereof.
AGENCY contractors shall agree to comply with all 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures. In addition, AGENCY certifies that the AGENCY and its contractors shall comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Section 21,000 et seq. and with the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulators Section 15000 et seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq. and the applicable regulations thereunder.
15. IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
AGENCY shall ensure that all reports and other documents completed as part of this Agreement shall carry the following notation on the front cover or title page:
“The preparation of this report has been financed in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: A8AFC163-0DDC-45F8-95F4-D06FB5358831
7.c
Packet Pg. 161
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13571)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 4/18/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Revenue -Generating Ballot Measures for Fall 2022: Discuss 2nd -Round Polling Results and Feedback from Community and Stakeholder Engagement Activities; Review and Provide Staff Direction on Finance Committee Recommended Refined Parameters for a Busin ess License Tax and an Affirmation of the Gas General Fund Transfer; and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps Including Launch of Third Poll, and Council's Non -Binding Intentions for Allocation of Potential Proceeds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council receive a progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and consider the following ballot measures for voter review November 2022:
1. Affirmation of current Gas Utility Transfer at 18% of the gas utility’s gross receipts for general government purposes.
2. A Business License Tax with the following characteristics:
a. Tax is determined based on a business’s occupied square footage in Palo Alto b. Exemption for hotels (businesses that collect and remit Temporary Occupancy Tax)
c. Exemption for groceries (requires a given % of sq ft. of food sales to qualify as a grocery)
d. Exemption for seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days e. Exemption for first 5,000 sq ft
f. Tax rate of $0.20/sq ft per year
g. Tax to be due beginning January 1, 2024
h. Three-year phase-in provision: reduced monthly rate of $0.12/sq ft for calendar year 2024; rate of $0.15/sq ft for calendar year 2025; and full rate of $0.20/sq ft beginning calendar year 2026
i. Beginning in 2027 and each year thereafter, tax rate to increase by the CPI, capped at 6% per annum with excess CPI carrying over to future years 8 Packet Pg. 162
City of Palo Alto Page 2
j. Confirm that the City’s Business Registry program will continue to operate and be required for all businesses except as exempted by the BRC ordinance.
3. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with:
a. A third round of polling based on the attached outline (Attachment A) and Finance Committee and Council feedback;
b. Drafting of ballot question and full ballot measure text (ordinances) in accordance with tables 1 and 2 in this report for a potential Business License Tax and the Affirmation of the current Gas Utility Transfer.
Optionally, drafting a potential non -binding resolution to inform the p ublic of Council’s intentions regarding use of the Business Tax proceeds. Staff anticipate providing a draft template of this as supplemental information subsequent to the release of this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a continuation of the City Council’s discussions exploring revenue generating 2022 ballot measures. The City Council began these community conversations in the spring of 2021 and deliberations continue to evolve based on stakeholder (resident and business) feedback is received. The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council receive a progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and consider ballot measures for voter review November 2022, including affirming the current Gas Utility Transfer for general government purposes, considering several business license tax characteristics, furthering a third round of polling and drafting ballot questions and full ballot measure text related to the Business License Tax and affirmation of the current Gas Utility Transfer.
The report also captures community and business input gained to date. Extensive communications and community outreach continues. As of April 7, 2022, there were 394 responses (181 online responses and 213 mailed feedback forms, Attachment C). The Cit y’s consultant executed a second round of polling of the voter population testing various characteristics and areas the Council identified for feedback from the voters. To date, over 1,200 residents have responded to two phases of survey research online and by phone.
To summarize the community feedback received so far, a few highlights of the 2 nd round of poll responses include:
• Respondents identified the following community priorities in priority order:
▪ Public safety priorities as important or extremely important: “Improving police response to violent crime,” “Improving the speed or reliability of ambulance services,” and “Improving police response to property crimes” ▪ Affordable housing and homeless services were also priorities, with respondents identifying as important or extremely important: “Expanding outreach to people experiencing homelessness,” and “Funding affordable housing” ▪ Climate action and grade separations were also priorities. 8 Packet Pg. 163
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The online and mailed feedback forms asked residents to priori tize some of the unfunded community investment needs and City service gaps previously discussed by Council and the Finance Committee. The highest priorities for the respondents are consistent with the results of the second poll:
• “Maintaining basic services” was one of the top three priorities • “Repairing streets/roads” and “Investing in community -owned assets like roads and community centers” were each one of the top three for about 55 percent of respondents
• “Adding public safety services such as police, f ire, and emergency medical” was a top three priority for 46 percent of respondents
• This was followed by “Funding affordable housing and homeless services” (34 percent)
BACKGROUND
Staff presented updated analysis and other information for a potential uti lity on-bill tax at the Finance Committee’s December 7, 2021 meeting ( Agenda Item #2, begins on p. 55, CMR 13728). For continuity of work by the 2021 Finance Committee, the 2021 Committee met on January 18, 2022 to review the third round of analysis of a potential business license tax ballot measure ( Agenda Item #1, p. 3, CMR 13875 ), along with a report of Initial Polling Results (Agenda Item #1, p. 31, CMR 13875 ) and staff’s draft Community Engagement and Outreach Plan.
Following the two meetings with the Finance Committee, discussion on January 24, 2022 w ith the City Council ( CMR 13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462 ) c onsidered the Finance Committee’s recommendation to further explore a business license tax, develop a proposal for a utility tax, and amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to include three polls, and proceed with staff’s proposed Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
On Monday, March 28, 2022, the Finance Committee Meeting reviewed the CMR 13981 (Attachment B), Revenue Generating 2022 Ballot Measures: Review Feedback from the Ballot Measure Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the Second Round of Polling; Review Draft Ballot Measure Language; and Recommend to Council Further Refi nement of Potential Measures Adopting a Business License Tax and Confirming the Gas Utility General Fund Transfer.
DISCUSSION
The following sections in this report cover the status of the Council work on the continued evaluation of potential ballot meas ures for voter consideration as part of the November 2022 election. It is organized by section as follows:
• Finance Committee report contents, deliberations, and resulting recommendation to the City Council
• Outline of recommended structure of potential bal lot measures for Council review, adjustments, and direction
• Council’s intentions (non -binding) for allocation of funding should potential measures 8 Packet Pg. 164
City of Palo Alto Page 4
be placed on the ballot and supported by voters, including a draft resolution for consideration
• Outline of the third poll to evaluate public opinion
Finance Committee Deliberations (March 28, 2022)
The Finance Committee spent extensive time reviewing the updated information regarding potential ballot measures for the November 2022 election. Since the City Counc il’s review and direction on January 24, 2022, less than three months ago, staff have continued to work on the workplan approved by the City Council related to ballot measure evaluation. The staff report (Attachment B) includes significant information pertaining to the progress on:
- Implementation of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan o Results of the second public opinion poll,
o Results of the online and mailed feedback survey,
o Report on the business and community focus groups conducted by the Ci ty’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium;
- Additional analysis of components of a potential Business Tax Measure, o Calculations to model impacts of the policy exemptions such as hotels and grocery stores,
o Refined structure of a potential tax including co ncurrent management of the Business Registry Certificate Program and CPI calculation options - Overview of the components of a ballot measure(s)
o Draft ballot language and ordinance language for affirmation of the Gas Funds Transfer
Staff and its consultants solicited community feedback in February and March on the fiscal sustainability work plan, service priorities and improvements, and potential ballot measures.
This was reviewed in detail by the Committee with the results used to assist in informing their deliberations and recommendations to the Council. Staff used several communications channels, including: a utility bill insert, a page in the spring Enjoy! Catalog, a citywide mailer, the Uplift Local electronic newsletter, other electronic newsletters an d community e-mail lists, a public landing page on the City’s webpage to access all information (www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability), the City Manager’s blog and public comments ; and social media outreach. Community members were invited to fill out an online feedback form or an identical paper version. As of April 7, 2022, there were 394 responses (181 online responses and 213 mailed feedback forms, Attachment C). The City’s cons ultant executed a second round of polling of the voter population testing various characteristics and areas the Council identified for feedback from the voters. To date, over 1,200 residents have responded to two phases of survey research online and by phone.
For the business license tax, three in five voters support the business license tax concept that was tested (a deference for the first 5,000 square feet occupied plus a $0.10 per square foot 8 Packet Pg. 165
City of Palo Alto Page 5
monthly rate1). For the affirmation of the Gas Fund transfe r, support remains high when voters hear a more detailed explanation of the measure. As noted above, the highest priorities for the respondents of the community feedback survey, both online and mailer, were consistent with the results of the second poll regarding priorities for investments.
The Finance Committee moved the following action for City Council review:
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kou for the Finance Committee to recommend that the City Council consider:
A. Gas ballot language to include 18% and current uses
B. Business tax ballot language to include
i. Exempt hotels
ii. Exempt groceries, require amount of use for food sales iii. Exempt seasonal businesses less than 90 days
iv. Require BRC and exempt first 5000 sq ft
v. Proposed escalating rate over 3 years starting in 2024 at $0.12 a sq ft per month, at $0.15, $0.20 then CPI capped at 6% per annum with excess CPI carrying over to future years
C. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with a third round of polling based on Finance Committee and Council’s feedback
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
Outline of the recommended structure of potential ballot measures for Council review, adjustments, and direction
The Finance Committee report begins to more formally provide an overview of the components associated with a ballot measure that staff has or will begin working on and are bringing forward for Council consideration as appropriate over the coming months. The two areas of focus for City Council review, delib eration, and direction will be focused on the ballot question (via the third round of polling) and the full text of the measure. Based on the recommended direction from the Finance Committee, the tables below outline the recommended structure for the two potential ballot measures. Staff is seeking City Council review, adjustments, and ultimately direction on the desired structure. This direction will be used for the third round of polling, discussed later in this report, to test the potential ballot ques tions as well as drafting of the full measure text/ordinance.
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax
Tax Imposed Business License Tax assessed based on square footage, levied on individual businesses who maintain a physical presence within the City
1 Various rates were tested to determine public perspective ranging from $0.05 per square foot per month to $0.20 per square foot per month. The Main ballot question tested $0.12 per square foot per month. 8 Packet Pg. 166
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax
Disposition of
Revenue
Proceeds allocated to the General Fund for general government purposes of the City (‘general tax’ requires majority voter support); Council may adopt a non-binding resolution stating intentions for using proceeds
Exemptions The following would be exempt from payment of the tax • Any organization exempt under federal or California state laws • Grocery or Supermarket stores (businesses that are typically identified as “full-service markets” that combine a full range of grocery sales; the measure will specify a minimum percent of occupied space that must be used for the sale of grocery/food items in order to qualify for the grocery exemption)
• Any hotel operator as defined in PAMC 2.33 (ie, businesses that are required to collect and remit transient occupancy tax) • First 5,000 square feet of all businesses
• Seasonal businesses operating less than 90 days
Method of
Calculation
Tax would be measured by square feet (staff is exploring a potential calculation definition such as the total gross square feet as defined in zoning codes)
Rate of Tax and
Phase-In
• Three-year phase in of the tax with the following rates (estimated to begin no later than January 2024):
• Year 1: $0.12/sq ft per month ($1.44/sq ft per yr)
• Year 2: $0.15/sq ft per month ($1.80/sq ft per yr)
• Year 3 and thereafter: $0.20/sq ft per month ($2.40/sq ft per yr)
• Beginning in year 4, annual increase based on Bay Area CPI growth, with a 6% cap per annum and any excess CPI above 6% carrying over to future years
• Penalties and interest to be assessed for non-compliance Council Authority • Designate authority for the City Council to adjust rates or other provisions in any manner that does not increase the tax. For example:
• Pause in the annual escalation of the tax rate
• Pause in collection of the tax
• Reduction in tax rate
• One-time or ongoing addition of exemptions
Audit Provision • Provision of audit authority
8 Packet Pg. 167
City of Palo Alto Page 7
This structure reflects the Finance Committee recommendation including exemptions as well as an intent to administer the Busines s Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the potential business license tax, requiring all businesses, including those that occupy less than 5,000 square feet, to register with the BRC and pay a cost-recovery fee of $50 per year.
The propose d exemption for grocery stores and hotels will reduce the estimated annual generated revenue from a range of $12 to $47 million, to $11 to $43 million, or approximately 8 percent. As discussed in Attachment A of CMR 13875, p. 17 , there are eight grocery stores in the City that were identifiable in the CoStar real estate database, totaling 139,580 squ are feet.
In addition , 1,410,260 square feet comprise addresses in the hospitality category, totaling 30 properties.
Based on the results of the second poll, voters are comfortable with a measure that would increase average monthly rent for a business by up to $0.10 per square foot (1.5% of rent), 2 when they are presented with a range of possible monthly rents. As shown in the Finance Committee report, the estimated revenue generated by a monthly $0.10 per square foot rate is up to $21.7 million. These estimates continue to reflect gross revenues estimates. There will be administrative costs as well as some likely leakage (revenue lost as the result of system limitations, process control gaps, and/or human errors) that will ultimately reduce these figures.
Business license tax exemptions were tested in the second round of polling with the results supporting an exemption for businesses less than 5,000 square feet will more likely gain support, followed by grocery stores, with retail and hotels being less likely to gain support by voters.
Table 2: Summary of Gas Utility Transfer Affirmation
Purpose of
Measure
Voters to affirm the City’s past practice of annually transferring from the gas utility an amount up to 18% of gas utility gross revenues to the general fund for general government use.
Disposition of
Revenue
Proceeds allocated to the General Fund for general government purposes of the City (‘general tax’ requires majority voter support) Method of
Calculation
• Tax would be measured by gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the fiscal year of the transfer
• The projected cost of the transfer would be included in the City’s retail gas rates as part of the cost of providing gas service.
2 Based on an assumed rental rate of $6.96 per square foot per month 8 Packet Pg. 168
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Rate • An amount equal to 18% of the gross revenues of the gas utility.
This measure would confirm the City’s past and current practice and would not increase utility rates from current levels.
Council Authority • City Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount from voter approved levels
The primary decision points for this measure that the Committee discussed were 1) the percentage of gross revenues to transfer, and 2) whether the ballot question should include specific examples of services funded by the transfer, i n addition to “general government uses,” which is required language. Transferring 18 percent of gross revenues is consistent with the current transfer. The Committee and staff recommend keeping the measure simple and consistent with measures recently approved in other cities.
Council’s intentions (non -binding), Consideration of Allocation of funding should potential measures be placed on the ballot and supported by voters - What will the City do with the tax proceeds?
By law, the proceeds of both potential measures will be placed in the City’s general fund, where they can be spent on any general government purposes. Spending decisions will be made each year by the sitting Council. But while today’s intentions are not binding on future Councils, the current Council and staff have been actively discussing the fiscal sustainability of the organization and desired and planned uses of the potential revenues and wish to share that thinking with the public. This can be done in many ways, including staff reports , community engagement, and possible adoption of a non-binding Resolution stating Council intentions.
• Most recently in 2019 the City Council priority of Fiscal Sustainability resta rted deliberation over establishment of a Business License Tax. The goal of this priority was to continue to make proactive progress towards fiscal sustainability to maintain the quality of life that the City of Palo Alto supports through its services. A ten et of this was a goal of achieving a sound equilibrium balancing our resources, services, and costs, that fiscal sustainability can be achieved. In addition, rail grade separations and affordable housing were identified as significant funding needs.
• The economic impacts associated with the COVID -19 pandemic, and efforts to c ontain and mitigate the spread of the virus resulted in a $40 million gap between revenues and expenses in the FY 2021 Adopted Operating Budget. Efforts for a potential tax were halted considering this unprecedented time. Financial ramification of the pa ndemic resulted in significant reductions in services to the community, capital investment including catch -up and keep -up costs as well as new projects, and concessions from some of the City’s bargaining units.
• Adding to revenue challenges, in FY 2021 a l ocal court held that a portion of the City’s 8 Packet Pg. 169
City of Palo Alto Page 9
longstanding annual transfer of funds from the gas and electric utilities – which has funded general City services such as police, fire, parks and libraries for many decades – could not lawfully continue absent voter approval. While the court ruling is not final and may be appealed, beginning in FY 2022 and future years, the City has prudently adjusted the annual budget to set aside the disputed funds pending resolution of the issue.
• The significant reductions taken in FY 2020 and 2021 will persist on an ongoing basis unless revenues can be brought into alignment with expenses as outlined in the City’s FY 2023-2032 Long Range Financial Forecast; specifically , alternative scenario A which modeled if the City rest ored all services to pre -covid service levels, reflecting an $11 million deficit in FY 2023 and deficits until FY 2030.
With this context and the deliberation by the Council and Finance Committee , below describes a framework for considering allocation of funds should the respective ballot measures be placed before voters for consideration.
Affirmation of Gas Utility Transfer
For many decades, Palo Alto gas ratepayers have funded contributions to the City’s general fund to support a variety of City progr ams and services, including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, local parks, community centers and libraries. The great majority of municipal utilities in California make similar transfers to help fund government services. Indeed, investor-owned utilities also collect funds from ratepayers that are transferred outside the utility; in the case of investor-owned utilities, these funds are paid to investors as profit. In Palo Alto, voters approved the use of some rate revenues for City serv ices in Charter language adopted in the 1950’s. Since then, however, California law has evolved through a series of statewide initiatives and court decisions interpreting those laws. Cities now are required to follow strict procedures on how they set rates and use rate proceeds. In recent years, a group of lawyers launched a series of legal challenges all around the state alleging that the common practice of using utility rate revenues to support general services violates the law as it has evolved. In FY 20 21 a local court held that a portion of Palo Alto’s longstanding annual transfer of funds from the gas utility could not lawfully continue absent voter approval. While the court ruling is not final and has been appealed, City leaders believe it is prudent to seek voter affirmation that the City may continue its current and longstanding past practices.
After the court decision in 2021, the City began setting aside the disputed funds pending resolution of the legal challenge. Service reductions were made acr oss the organization – including fire and emergency services, police protection, library hours, and community center programs – fortunately, some of the cuts were slightly mitigated by one-time funding.
As reported in FY 2022 financial status reports an d updated FY 2023 -2032 Financial Forecasts, staff projects the City will have excess funds beyond required reserve levels in FY 2022. This availability of one -time funds is a result of a quicker than planned recovery pace when 8 Packet Pg. 170
City of Palo Alto Page 10
compared to the conservative financial planning Council directed for the FY 2021 and FY 2022 budget processes. Therefore, as reported in financial status updates, it is expected that major tax revenues will be collected above budgeted estimates in FY 2022. It should be noted that this does not reflect a robust recovery; the City continues to show some lag in the pace of recovery compared to neighbors, especially in revenues such as Sales Tax. As discussed in this report, staff have updated the Long -Range Financial Forecast for the F Y 2023 financial planning and long-term fiscal sustainability remains constrained.
As part of the FY 2023 Proposed Operating Budget, staff anticipates recommending allocation of the projected one -time excess funds limited -term restoration of services pre viously eliminated. Services to be reinvested in include areas previously reduced such as police officers, fire services, support for the City’s community centers, children’s theater productions, library hours, and support for the City’s current and long-range planning efforts. However, since these are recommended to be restored with one -time funding, affirmation by the voters through this potential ballot measure is necessary to sustain the ongoing reinvestment of these services, otherwise they will sunset once the one-time funding is fully spent.
Business License Tax Revenues
As outlined above, even prior to the pandemic the City has been evaluating the potential for raising additional revenues to address unfunded needs as identified by the community and Council. Consistently in various public opinion polls, there has been community interest in some form of tax on business activities within Palo Alto.
The business license tax measure is proposed to be a general tax, which means that the proceeds will be placed in the City’s general fund for expenditure on any lawful governmental purpose, as determined each year through the City’s budget process. If the Council wishes, however, it could inform the public of Council’s plans and intentions for uses of the tax proceeds by adopting a Resolution containing this information. A Resolution of this sort could be adopted at any time before or after the November election. It would not be part of the measure placed before the voters, although Arguments For and Again st that appear in the Voter Information Pamphlet, could refer to it. Note that a Council Resolution of intention regarding expenditures would not legally bind this Council or future Councils. This is because policies and legislation cannot override the Cha rter-based authority of the elected Council to determine uses of general funds each year, in whatever way that year’s Council determines best serves the public interest. If the Council is interested in such a Resolution, direction is requested regarding the intentions for uses that should be stated in the Resolution.
Based on current feedback, it is recommended that Council consider planning to spend proceeds from a business license tax on enhancing current services or add new services. As the City continu es to grow, likely in population as it strives to meet housing development goals, expansion of service capacity will be critical to ensure high quality services to the community.
Below are areas identified for investment illustrated as scenarios for Counc il. If the Council were interested in any of the scenarios or some alternative allocation, while not binding, the 8 Packet Pg. 171
City of Palo Alto Page 11
City would take steps in planning to use funds in that manner post affirmation of election and could inform the public of Council’s plans and intentions for uses of the tax proceeds by adopting a Resolution containing this information. Major investments:
• New/enhanced services : investing in new services such as but not limited to special police teams to support traffic and downtown core safety , robust economic development activities as outlined in the City Council’s current Economic Recovery and Transition major projects 3, additional emergency medical services including supporting new service delivery models for supporting mental health crisis • Investment in transportation: improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety and mobility by building separate crossings under train tracks to prevent collisions and improve circulation
• Investment in affordable housing and services for unhoused 3: supporting community members experiencing homelessness including resources for housing programs as well as renter protection support projects
• Investment in unfunded Capital Improvements: investing in projects such as the parks master plan, Palo Alto animal shelter, Cubberley Community Center rehabilitation • Investment in the Council’s sustainability and climate action3: investing in protection and adaptation plans reducing carbon emissions
3 City Council approved workplans reviewed on April 4, 2022, agenda item 15, packet page 195. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2022/20220404/20220404pccsmamendedlinked1.pdf 8 Packet Pg. 172
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Table 3: Scenarios Illustrating Potential Uses of Business License Tax Proceeds Tax Rate: $0.10/SF
Estimated Gross Revenue:
$21M annually
Tax Rate: $0.20/SF
Estimated Gross Revenue:
$43M annually
New/Enhanced Services $4M $8M
Railroad/Train Crossing Safety $7.7M
(~$100M in financed proceeds4)
$15.4M
(~$100M in financed proceeds4)
Affordable Housing/
Unhoused Services
$5M
financeable &/or pay go
$10M
financeable &/or pay go
Unfunded Capital Improvements $2M
financeable &/or pay go
$6.6M
financeable &/or pay go
Sustainability & Climate Action:
Protection & Adaptation $1M $2M
Administrative Expenses $0.5M-$1M $0.5M-$1M
These scenarios are not binding. By law, the proceeds of this potential measure will be placed in the City’s general fund, where they can be spent on any general government purposes.
That decision will be made each year by the sitting Council.
Outline of the Third Poll to Evaluate Public Opinion
As approved by the City Council, the workplan stipulates a third and final poll for completion in May 2022. This poll is intended to test ballot question l anguage. Attachment A provides an outline of the third poll for Council review and direction to complete. Upon that direction, the City’s consultant will take the direction, modifications, and inputs from the City Council to finalize the full poll text a nd expect to launch the poll in early May 2022. Results will be brought back to the City Council in early June for consideration and feedback on further refining of potential ballot measures.
TIMELINE
The City is moving into a new phase of the workplan associated with the potential ballot measures. With the City Council’s deliberations and direction in this report, staff will move to a more refined stage with the goal for the Council to consider placement of a ballot measure(s) for voters’ consideration at the last Council meeting in June 2022. The calendar outlines the next steps following this item and has been expanded to outline some of the staff and consultant work occurring in between public meetings as the City continues to seek engagement and feedback from stakeholders.
4 Staff have used a broad ratio to illustrate the approximate capacity to finance proceeds. Th is illustration assumes that every $1 in revenues can lead to financed proceeds of $13-$14 assuming a 30-year debt service. This ratio is extremely uncertain and will vary due to economic factors, status of the market, and structure of the debt (e.g. GO Bond, versus lease backed bond, versus revenue bonds) to make a few. It should be used for understanding orders of magnitude for future planning only.
8 Packet Pg. 173
City of Palo Alto Page 13
BALLOT MEASURE(S) WORKPLAN TIMELINE
April 2022
TONIGHT
City Council:
- Discussion of funding resource/spending allocation
- Review Finance Committee work and recommendations based on o Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, including results of: Second round polling, Community wide survey, focus groups, Community Listening Session
- Review outlines of ordinance language for the business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer
- Direction to staff and polling consultant to execute third and final poll:
- Third poll focus on testing ballot question(s)
May 2022 Staff and consultant work:
- Third Round of Polling launched (early May)
- Information presentations to local organizations regarding budget and ballots
- Drafting of full language for ballot question and ordinances (full measure text)
- Continued Community Engagement through
o Additional focus groups specifically reviewing draft language and administration
o Citywide Newsletter and blog posts
June 2022
City Council:
- Receive and review results of third round polling
- Review and provide direction on draft full ballot language and ballot questions for potential ballot measure(s)
Last Council Mtg in June:
- Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measures for voter consideration
August 2022
Staff work:
- Language submitted to Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters including o Ballot question(s) (a clear, accurate statement that describes what the measure will do, not to exceed 75 words)
o Impartial analysis of the measure prepared by the City Attorney o Full text of the measure(s)
o Arguments for and against
November 2022
Election
8 Packet Pg. 174
City of Palo Alto Page 14
RESOURCE IMPACT, POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff and Consultant Resource Impacts
Implementation of this workplan to develop a reve nue generating local ballot measure has and continues to require significant resources that include internal staff, consultant expertise, as well as stakeholder engagement. Resource needs scale proportionately based on the ballot measure option and the com plexity of the measure and analysis that staff are directed to pursue. It is important that the scope of the potential ballot measure(s) be clearly defined and effectively narrowed for staff to successfully progress through the workplan.
This initiative has required an equivalent of approximately two full time dedicated staff positions, however, a significant increase in staffing resources including additional focused executive support from the Executive Leadership Team is now required. This has an impact on other projects as this project is prioritized over others and will likely result in delays.
In addition, support is required from outside consultants and engagement with internal stakeholders in key departments. The City Council appropriated funding for this activity as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1 st Quarter and subsequent actions. Through Council approved budget amendments of $270,400, additional resources supporting this major project include:
- Community & Stakeholder Engagement: Lew Edwards Group, $101,695 Council approved on 11/15/2021, CMR 13626,
- Public Opinion Polling: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), $113,500 Council approved on 4/4/2022, CMR 14078
- Outside Counsel
- Miscellaneous printing and mailing
Ballot Measure Placement Resource Impact
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates that placing two measures on the November 2022 election ballot will cost approximately $160,000, or $80,000 each.
Appropriation for these funds will be brought forward in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget depending on Council direction.
Ballot Measure Revenue Generation Resource Impact
The revenue generated by a potential ballot measure will be directly impacted by the structure and rates approved by the City Council. As currently recommended by the Finance Committee, the revenue estimates are summarized below:
• Affirmation of the Gas Utility Transfer: approximately $7 million, annually This would affirm the current practice of inclusion of this expense in the development of gas utility rates and would not increase gas rates beyond existing forecasted changes.
Current gas utility rates for residential customers remain below comparators such as PG&E. Additional information on gas rate comparisons can be found in the FY 2023 Gas Utility Financial Plan.
• Business License Tax: approximately $11 to $43 million, annually 8 Packet Pg. 175
City of Palo Alto Page 15
This would establish a new tax and revenue to the City’s Gen eral Fund where they can be spent on any general government purposes. That decision will be made each year by the sitting Council, however, examples of investments are outlined in the discussion earlier in this report.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Ballot Me asure Workplan integrates stakeholder engagement through constituent polling and extensive direct stakeholder outreach. Staff has gained valuable input and feedback to date from the City Council, Finance Committee, community members, and the business community.
Per City Council direction, the City has engaged with FM3 to perform polling, Lew Edwards Group for stakeholder engagement planning, and the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) for stakeholder engagement. Over the last several months, more than 1,200 residents have responded to two phases of survey research online and by phone, and another 400 have shared their feedback through the mail or on the City’s dedicated website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability. The City has also conducted a number of community and business focus groups and listening sessions to engage the public and business stakeholders in this important conversation about the City’s budget challenges, focus on fiscal sustainability and future service priorities and investments.
In addition to receiving direct feedback on service improvements, City service priorities, the community has expressed strong interest in voter -approved, locally controlled revenue opti ons to maintain services and support residents and businesses alike. Staff will continue to engage stakeholders to gain additional input on this evolving conversation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment8.a: Attachment A - Palo Alto Feasibility Survey Outline, 3rd Poll • Attachment8.b: Attachment B - Ballot Measure Engagement, Draft Measure Language, Refined Analysis_Staff Report 13981
• Attachment8.c: Attachment C - Summary of Online Survey Responses 8 Packet Pg. 176
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
TO City of Palo Alto Staff and Council
FROM Dave Metz, Miranda Everitt and Denny Han
FM3 Research
RE: Final Ballot Measure Feasibility Survey Outline
DATE April 4, 2022
This memo outlines our recommended approach for the Palo Alto ballot measure structure survey, anticipating two potential local ballot measures in November 202 2. This survey is structured to assess the feasibility of a potential business license tax measur e as well as the feasibility of a utility related measure; it will give us information about the interactions in support between the two. Voters will also hear an exchange of pros and cons, modeling in brief the impact of "yes" and "no" campaigns.
1. Survey introduction
2. Cell or landline, safety check
3. Right direction/wrong track (tracking to prior years)
4. Initial vote for a business license tax measure, using 75-word ballot label (rotated)
5. Initial vote for a utility fund transfer measure, using 75-word ballot label (rotated)
6. Willingness to support both measures
7. Test of key potential provisions (e.g. rates, project priorities) – focusing narrowly on those not previously tested
8. Arguments in support of a business license tax measure (will be rotated with opposition messaging) a. Comparison to nearby city rates
b. Accountability e.g. audits, public disclosure, local spending c. Investments in public safety through police and emergency services d. Fair share for large businesses vs. local mom-and-pops e. Tax base: Not a tax on homeowners or shoppers and benefit of diversifying the tax base f. Uses of funds other than public safety
9. Re-vote for a business license tax measure after support or opposition messaging alone
10. Arguments in opposition to a business license tax measure (will be rotated with support messaging) a. Inflation
b. Loopholes: small and medium businesses will end up paying the most c. Government waste and mismanagement
d. Businesses are still struggling to recover from COVID
11. Final vote for a business license tax measure
8.a
Packet Pg. 177
12. Final vote for a utility fund transfer measure
13. Demographics
a. Own a business in Palo Alto
b. Own/rent place of residence
c. Education
d. Ethnicity
e. Gender
14. Voter file information (will not need to ask this)
a. Party
b. Age
c. Past election participation
8.a
Packet Pg. 178
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Copy of Report Originally Considered by Finance Committee 3/28/22 Attachment C Removed for Updates
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13981)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 3/28/2022
Title: Revenue Generating 2022 Ballot Measures: Review Feedback from the Ballot Measure Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the Second Round of Polling; Review Draft Ballot Measure Language; and Recommend to Council Further Refinement of Potential Measures Adopting a Business License Tax and Confirming the Gas Utility General Fund Transfer From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
REC
OMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee:
A. Receive a progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and consider the results as the Committee continues to evaluate potential revenue generating ballot measures;
B. Review, provide feedback, and forward to the City Council: (i) initial draft of the ballot question, and (ii) initial draft ordinance language ratifying the Gas General Fund Transfer;
C. Review refined calculations of a potential square footage-based business license tax:
i. Consider staff’s revised proposal to modify “option 3”, (a flat fee of $50 for the first 5,000 square footage occupied and apply a monthly tax rate per square foot beyond the 5,000 threshold with exemptions for grocery stores and businesses subject to the transient occupancy tax) to include an exemption for the first 5,000 square feet of space occupied by a business and administer the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the Business License Tax, ii. Recommend to Council a monthly rate per square footage, iii. Review and consider staff’s additional refinement for the annual CPI adjustment Council directed previously; and
D. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with a third round of polling based on the draft ballot language and refined business license tax calculations.
EXECU
TIVE SUMMARY
On January 24, 2022, the City Council directed staff to continue preparation of a potential Business License Tax Measure and a Gas Funds Transfer Measure for the November 2022
8.b
Packet Pg. 179
City of Palo Alto Page 2
election ballot. Council direction in January also included development and execution of an additional poll by the City’s polling consultant, FM3, and for staff to launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan. This staff report presents progress of these efforts with the goal of providing the Finance Committee information needed to recommend a Business Tax rate, solidify desired tax characteristics, and to provide guidance to staff on next steps. The following items are discussed in this staff report for discussion and recommendation to the Council:
1. Summary and progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, which includes:
a. A summary of the results of the second poll (Attachments A and B), b. Results of the online and mailed feedback survey (Attachment C), c. A progress report on the business and community focus groups conducted by the City’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium (Attachment D);
2. Components of a ballot measure(s):
a. Business license tax, discussion on ordinance status, b. Measure to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer draft ballot question and ordinance (Attachment E); and
3. Business license tax additional analysis
For reference, Attachment F of this staff report includes a summary of work done to date on the potential revenue generating ballot measure(s).
BACKGROUND
The Finance Committee serves as the public body to review periodic progress reports and allow for structured public discussion for feedback and recommendations on potential revenue generating ballot measures. The Summary of Prior Work on Potential Ballot Measures can be found in Attachment F.
Staff presented updated analysis and other information for a potential utility on-bill tax at the Finance Committee’s December 7, 2021 meeting (Agenda Item #2, begins on p. 55, CMR
13728). For continuity of work by the 2021 Finance Committee, the 2021 Committee met on January 18, 2022 to review the third round of analysis of a potential business license tax ballot measure (Agenda Item #1, p. 3, CMR 13875), along with a report of Initial Polling Results (Agenda Item #1, p. 31, CMR 13875) and staff’s draft Community Engagement and Outreach Plan.
Following the two meetings with the Finance Committee, discussion on January 24, 2022 with the City Council (CMR 13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462) considered the Finance Committee’s recommendation to further explore a business license tax, develop a proposal for a utility tax, and amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to include three polls, and proceed with staff’s proposed Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan. The following is Council’s direction to staff and the Finance Committee on January 24 th:
8.b
Packet Pg. 180
City of Palo Alto Page 3
A. Pursue preparation of a square footage business license tax with the following characteristics, as recommended by the Finance Committee:
i. Continue to review the rates, adding option 3 (flat fee of $50 for first 5,000 square footage occupied and apply a monthly tax rate per square foot beyond the 5,000 threshold) as a starting point;
ii. Exemptions for businesses subject to the Transient Occupancy Tax and grocery stores;
iii. Annual escalator uses CPI as a basis;
A. Develop a proposal for voter ratification of the existing gas General Fund Equity Transfer and eliminate the UUT option, with exploration of whether to cap growth of the transfer to be explored via polling;
B. Amend the workplan to three polls, with the second poll developed and executed by the City’s polling consultant, and the third to test potential ballot language; and C. Launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, as outlined in the staff report.
MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Tanaka no)
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Second Poll Status and Update Staff and its consultants engaged the community in February and March to obtain feedback on the fiscal sustainability work plan and potential ballot measures. Staff used over nine (9) communications channels, including: a utility bill insert, a page in the spring Enjoy! Catalog, a citywide mailer, the Uplift Local electronic newsletter, other electronic newsletters and community e-mail lists, a public landing page on the City’s webpage to access all information (www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability
), and the City Manager’s blog and public
comments. Community members were invited to fill out an online feedback form1 or an identical paper version. As of March 22, 2022, there were 358 responses (174 online responses and 184 mailed feedback forms). In addition, staff executed a second round of polling of the voter population testing various characteristics and areas the Council identified for additional feedback from the voters. Below is a summary of these projects.
Results of Second Round of Polling
In their January 24th meeting, Council directed staff to amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to include an additional poll. The City’s consultant, FM3, completed the second poll in mid-March 2022. Over 427 residents responded, an intentional smaller sample than the initial poll, to the survey using emailed online surveys and phone outreach. The survey included questions to test tax concepts in more specificity than the initial poll, clarify spending priorities of the voter population, and test support of multiple measures on the November 2022 ballot. FM3’s
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33 -8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
8.b
Packet Pg. 181
City of Palo Alto Page 4
presentation of the poll results is in Attachment A, and the detailed poll results are in Attachment B. FM3 will present Attachment A at the committee meeting.
A few highlights of the responses:
• Respondents identified the following community priorities in priority order:
o Public safety priorities as important or extremely important: “Improving police response to violent crime,” “Improving the speed or reliability of ambulance services,” and “Improving police response to property crimes o Affordable housing and homeless services were also priorities, with respondents identifying as important or extremely important: “Expanding outreach to people experiencing homelessness,” and “Funding affordable housing” o Climate action and grade separations were also priorities.
• For the business license tax, three in five voters support the business license tax concept that was tested (a deference for the first 5,000 square feet occupied plus a $0.10 per square foot monthly rate).
o Voters were comfortable with the concept of increasing the tax representing up to a $0.10 per square foot monthly rate
o Likely to support a measure that exempts small-square footage businesses while less likely to support a measure that exempts hotels.
o Voters are more likely to support the business license tax to fund new investments.
• For the affirmation of the Gas Fund transfer, support remains high when voters hear a more detailed explanation of the measure.
o Voters are divided on whether they would prefer a measure for new revenue dedicated to new investments or to improving existing services.
Community Feedback Survey (Online and Mailed)
The feedback forms asked residents to prioritize some of the unfunded community investment needs and City service gaps previously discussed by Council and the Finance Committee. The highest priorities for the respondents are consistent with the results of the second poll:
• “Maintaining basic services” was one of the top three priorities • “Repairing streets/roads” and “Investing in community-owned assets like roads and community centers” were each one of the top three for about 55 percent of respondents • “Adding public safety services such as police, fire, and emergency medical” was a top three priority for 46 percent of respondents
• This was followed by “Funding affordable housing and homeless services” (34 percent)
The complete results from the online survey, including all written comments, are summarized in Attachment C.
8.b
Packet Pg. 182
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Community and Business Focus Groups
Staff and the City’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC), kicked off a series of community focus groups in February and continued through March. The focus groups provided information about the City’s fiscal sustainability efforts and the two potential ballot measures, allow attendees to ask clarifying questions of staff, and elicit feedback on City service priorities and various aspects of the ballot measures. Staff and PDC conducted five focus groups, four with the business community and one with the community at large. There were 27 attendees in total at the business focus groups representing a range of business perspectives, including the Chamber of Commerce, small retail and restaurants, hotels, major employers in the Stanford Research Park, Stanford University, the Stanford Shopping Center, real estate companies, law firms, and senior housing. The community focus group had six attendees, primarily local nonprofits focused on housing and youth services. A memo from PDC regarding the focus group process and results is included in Attachment D.
Some of the key takeaways from the business focus groups included:
• Several attendees expressed concern that the CPI escalator could cause the tax to grow significantly in coming years unimpeded leaving forecasting to be difficult for them and the potential for exponential financial ramifications, especially given current levels of inflation.
• Many attendees expressed a preference for having some certainty about the way the funds would be spent.
• Attendees asked that funds be spent on purposes that benefitted the business community. Police services, economic development, affordable housing, and planning and development services were all listed as priorities. • There was also feedback that the timing was bad for a new tax. Businesses were still recovering from the pandemic-related economic downturn. The new tax could impact business decisions about their long-term operations as they adjusted to new post- pandemic economic conditions.
• There was minimal feedback on affirming the gas utility transfer, with some attendees saying it sounded reasonable and others saying they did not know enough to have a position.
Feedback from the community focus group emphasized the challenges for the employees of local nonprofits in finding affordable housing and parking, and support for the use of funds for affordable housing.
Components of a Ballot Measure
As the workplan outlining a path for Council evaluation of potential ballot measures for the voter population consideration in November 2022 continues, the below section begins to more formally provide an overview of the components associated with a ballot measure that staff has or will begin working on and are bringing forward for Council consideration as appropriate over the coming months.
8.b
Packet Pg. 183
City of Palo Alto Page 6
For each local measure, the official ballot includes the following:
• a letter designation generated by the County Registrar of Voters; • the ballot question (a clear, accurate statement that describes what the measure will do, not to exceed 75 words); and
• space for voters to mark their vote for or against.
In advance of the election, registered voters receive a Voter Information Guide that includes additional information, including:
• an impartial analysis of the measure prepared by the City Attorney; • the full text of the measure; and
• arguments for and against.
The City Council approves the key components of each local measure: the ballot question and the text of the measure. The City Council also will adopt a resolution (which does not become a part of the ballot) calling a local election and sending the measure or measures to the County Registrar of Voters. The current workplan includes Council formal and final action on these items in June 2022. This report includes initial draft of a ballot question and an initial draft of the full text of the measure ratifying the Gas Utility Transfer. A draft of the text for the potential Business License Tax measure as ballot question is being prepared and will be presented at a future meeting. Key concepts that require additional definition are listed here for Committee discussion and direction.
Measure to Affirm the Gas Funds Transfer Draft Ordinance Staff has prepared the following initial draft ballot question:
Shall the measure affirming the City of Palo Alto’s past practice of annually transferring from the City’s gas utility an amount up to % of the gross revenues of the gas utility to the City’s general fund for general government use, to be paid for by the retail gas rates and providing approximately $ annually until ended by voters, be adopted?
This draft is 58 words long, allowing up to 17 additional words. As noted above, many local revenue measures include additional detail on projects and services that may be funded by the measure, such as public safety, emergency response, parks, etc. Committee input on the ballot question is appropriate, though final decisions on this language will not be needed for several months.
The primary decision points for this measure include 1) the percentage of gross revenues to transfer, and 2) the uses to note in the ballot measure question. Transferring 18 percent of gross revenues would be consistent with the current transfer, but as gas rates rise in coming years would exceed the current transfer. In consultation with our legal counsel, this rate must either be based on a flat rate or a percentage and cannot be a blend. Therefore, staff recommend keeping the measure simple and consistent with similar agencies and provide the
8.b
Packet Pg. 184
City of Palo Alto Page 7
voters consideration of a percentage, current practice would reflect an 18 percent of gross revenues. For the Finance Committee’s feedback and consideration, the draft ordinance for the measure can be found in Attachment E.
Business License Tax Status of Ordinance
Staff is actively working on a ballot question and full text of the measure for a Business License Tax. Key policy choices regarding the details of the business license tax design were introduced in the January 18, 2022 Finance Committee staff report (CMR 13875, p. 11 and 28). A summary of the key elements identified and being worked on by staff include:
1. Definition of “business” and various considerations.
2. Definition of square footage occupied.
3. Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets.
Below is a brief status update on these definitions and areas where further definition will be necessary
Definition of Business. Staff expects to align the definition of business with the definition already identified in the Business Registry Certificate Program terms. For seasonal or transitory businesses that occupy square footage and conduct business activity over a short duration (such as seasonal sale lots, special events, concerts, performances, circuses, filming, and party rentals). Staff recommends exempting businesses that occupy space in the City for less than an identified period of time such as 90 days.
Definition of square footage. Staff expects to align with existing examples of other jurisdictions as well as documents already in existence such as lease documents. Some variability and definition will be necessary for ownership versus leased, as well as common space versus shared space usage as well.
Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets. There are multiple ways and varying levels of details in defining a grocery store and this has proved the likely be one of the more complex exemptions under consideration. The Edible Food Recovery Requirements includes a definition of grocery stores as
“a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods; fresh fruits and vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned within the store where the food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(30).”
Staff is also evaluating a definition that may include a numeric threshold for food products, such as “a retail business where at least three-quarters of the floor area open to the public is occupied by food products sold for consumption off-site.”
8.b
Packet Pg. 185
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Participants of the focus groups conducted in March, sought to clarify the definition of grocery stores. Their questions demonstrated that the measure should indicate whether retail stores, including drug stores or convenience marts that sell grocery items, or bakeries that sell baked good onsite, will fall into the grocery store exemption.
Revised Square Footage Business License Tax Modeling
Staff modeled a baseline scenario for a square footage business license tax and three options for the Council’s consideration. Council directed the Finance Committee and staff to continue to review rates for a square footage business license tax using Option 3 as a starting point:
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax Baseline Model and Options Baseline Scenario: No Exemptions
• Excludes properties likely to be
exempt per CA law (banks, healthcare,
religious, education property types)
• Est. revenues: $15M to $59M
Option 1: Exemption for Retail (less
than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all
grocery stores
• Est. revenues: $14M to $57M
Option 2: Tiered Rates
• Flat fee for businesses less than or
equal to 5,000 sf ($50/year)
• For all others, assume monthly rate
per square foot
• Est. revenues: $14M to $56M
Option 3: Tiered Rates After Square
Footage Threshold, exempting grocery
stores and hotels
• Flat fee for first 5,000 sf
($50/year) and apply monthly
rate/sf beyond threshold
• Est. revenues $11M to $43M
Staff has updated the model for this option to assume exemptions for businesses subject to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax and grocery stores. On further review, staff recommends that the intent of Option 3 be implemented as follows:
1. Exempt the first 5,000 square feet of space occupied by a business
2. Apply the monthly tax rate per square foot (to be determined, between $0.05 and $0.20 per square foot) to footage beyond 5,000 square feet (on square foot 5,001, the rate would be applied), and
3. Administer the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the potential business license tax, requiring all businesses, including those that occupy less than 5,000 square feet, to register with the BRC at its current rate of $50 per year.
This refined structure decreases estimated business license tax revenue by $21,000 (see Table 2 below).
8.b
Packet Pg. 186
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The proposed exemption for grocery stores and hotels reduces the estimated generated revenue from a range of $12 to $47 million, to $11 to $43 million, approximately 8 percent.
Below is a summary table outlining details for the Baseline Scenario and the three options.
Option 3 has been revised to exclude grocery stores and properties in the hospitality category.
Based on the results of the second poll, voters are comfortable with a measure that would increase average monthly rent for a business by up to $0.10 per square foot. As shown in Table 2, the estimated revenue generated by a monthly $0.10 per square foot rate is up to $21.7 million. These estimates continue to reflect gross revenues estimates. There will be administrative costs as well as some likely leakage that will ultimately reduce these figures.
Table 2: Business License Tax Baseline Scenario and Options Estimated Annual Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
Property RBA (tax rate shown as rate per square foot per month) Count w/ Vacancy $0.05/sf $0.10/sf $0.15/sf $0.20/sf
Option 3: Flat Fee for a Defined Threshold (assumes $50 for first 5,000 sf) and Apply Monthly Rate Beyond Threshold
100-5,000 sf 411 1,137,822 $20,550 $20,550 $20,550 $20,550 5,001-20,000 sf 450 4,171,323 $1,179,684 $2,336,604 $3,493,668 $4,650,816 20,001-100,000 sf 270 10,675,292 $5,608,638 $11,203,848 $16,799,094 $22,394,256 100,001+ sf 41 7,007,785 $4,083,742 $8,165,374 $12,247,090 $16,328,746 Total 1,172 22,992,222 $10,892,614 $21,726,376 $32,560,402 $43,394,368 Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
30,000 sf business $1,250 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000
100,000 sf business $4,750 $9,500 $14,250 $19,000
As discussed in Attachment A of CMR 13875, p. 17, there are eight grocery stores in the City that were identifiable in the CoStar real estate database, totaling 139,580 square feet (see Table A5 in above mentioned staff report). In addition, Table A8 of this staff report lists 1,410,260 square feet for addresses in the hospitality category, totaling 30 properties. The property count for the hospitality properties corroborates the City’s transient occupancy tax records.
Business license exemptions were tested in the second round of polling (see Attachment A) and summarized in Chart 1 below. Based on these results, an exemption for businesses less than 5,000 square feet will more likely gain support, followed by grocery stores, with retail and hotels being less likely to gain support by voters.
8.b
Packet Pg. 187
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chart 1: Second Round Polling - Exemptions
Options for an Annual Escalator
To assist in further refining the direction for consideration of a CPI escalator, staff researched the annual CPI for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward for all urban consumers for the past 20 years. The 20-year average shown in Chart 1 below is 2.6 percent, the highest being 5.4 percent in 2001 (dot.com boom) and the lowest being 0.7 percent in 2009 (Great Recession). The 2021 average CPI was 3.2 percent.
Chart 2:
Staff would recommend consideration of a structure similar to recent measures approved by the voters such as the Storm Water fee, which identifies a CPI escalator with a 6% annual cap
8.b
Packet Pg. 188
City of Palo Alto Page 11
on the growth. It should also be noted an alternative found in research done by Matrix Consulting in 2019 (CMR 10655) would be to cap units of measure for a business license tax, rather than capping CPI as some other agencies have done.
Conclusion & Next Steps
The Finance Committee’s further refinement of tax characteristics and policy guidance, taking into consideration results from the second round of polling, the community survey, and focus groups, is critical so that staff can continue advancing the Ballot Measure Workplan, as approved by the Council in August 2021. As discussed in this staff report, the Committee’s feedback and recommendation to Council of tax characteristics (monthly rate and CPI) and guidance on policy decisions for the ordinance that will be adopted by Council in June are critical at this stage of the process. These further refinements will assist staff in continued planned engagement with stakeholders including more specific feedback both on the measures as well as the administrability of them.
TIMELINE
The below table recaps future items for the Ballot Measure Workplan, as approved by the City Council in August, based on the process and discussion so far, and amended to include a second round of polling.
Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
March 2022
TONIGHT
Finance Committee:
- Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, including review of the results for
o Second round poll
o Community wide survey
o Focus groups
- Review draft ballot questions and ordinance language for the business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Fund transfer
- Consideration of additional refinements for the potential business license tax proposal
8.b
Packet Pg. 189
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
April 2022 City Council:
- Formalized discussion of funding resource/spending allocation - Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, including results of
o Second round poll
o Community wide survey
o Focus groups
o Community Listening Session
- Review of draft ballot questions and ordinance language for the business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer
- Direction to staff and polling consultant to execute final poll:
o Review of outline for final poll, with a focus to test ballot question(s)
May 2022 Second Round of Polling launched (early May)
June 2022 Council:
- Results of second round polling reported
- Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measures, including ballot measure language
August 2022 Language submitted to Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters November 2022 Election
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Implementation of this workplan to develop a revenue generating local ballot measure will require significant resources that include internal staff, consultant expertise, as well as stakeholder engagement. Resource needs will scale proportionately based on the ballot measure option and the complexity of the measure that the Finance Committee and City Council direct staff to pursue. It is important that the scope of the potential ballot measure(s) be clearly defined and effectively narrowed for staff to successfully progress through the workplan.
This initiative has required an equivalent of approximately two full time dedicated staff positions, however, as work continues to progress a significant increase in staffing resources including additional focused executive support from the Executive Leadership Team has begun to ramp up. This will have an impact on other projects. In addition, support is required from outside consultants and engagement with internal stakeholders in key departments. The City Council appropriated funding for this activity as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1st Quarter.
Additional contracts and/or proposed budget amendments will be brought forward for approval as appropriate.
8.b
Packet Pg. 190
City of Palo Alto Page 13
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates that placing two measures on the November 2022 election ballot will cost approximately $160,000, or $80,000 each.
Appropriation for these funds will be brought forward in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget.
Staf
f plans to bring forward an amendment to the professional services agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) in a separate staff report this spring to include the second round of polling, which requires approval by the City Council, based on contract authority set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition to this, additional outreach for print and mailing would be needed as well.
STA
KEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Ballot Measure Workplan integrates stakeholder engagement through constituent polling and stakeholder outreach. Staff, throughout the process and from previous conversations, has solicited input and feedback with the Finance Committee, the City Council, residents, and the business community. The City has engaged with FM3 to perform polling, Lew Edwards Group for stakeholder engagement planning, and the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) for stakeholder engagement. Staff received direction to proceed with initial polling at the November 8, 2021 Council meeting and reviewed results with the Finance Committee on January 18 2021 (CMR 13875). In addition, staff received direction from the City Council at its January 24, 2022 meeting to launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, which is currently underway, and received direction for the City’s polling consultant, FM3, to develop and execute a second round of polling. This staff report summarizes staff’s progress to date of this component of the workplan.
A l
anding page on the City’s website has been created to provide the community and stakeholders information and a variety of ways to engage in this conversation. Please visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability for more information.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Palo Alto Ballot Measure Survey Analysis • Attachment B: Palo Alto Ballot Measure Refinement Survey (Tracking) • REMOVED FOR UPDATED VERSION 4/7/22 Attachment C: Summary of Online Survey Responses
• Attachment D: Public Dialogue Consortium Focus Groups Progress to Date • Attachment E: Draft Ordinance for Measure to Affirm Gas Fund Transfer • Attachment F: Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
8.b
Packet Pg. 191
ATTACHMENT A
Key Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters
Conducted March 8‐14, 2022
220-6319
Updating Palo Alto Voter Views
of Potential Ballot Measures
8.b
Packet Pg. 192
ATTACHMENT A
1 Survey Methodology
Dates March 8 -14, 2 022
Survey Type Dual- mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2022 Voters in Palo Alto Total Interviews 427
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level (Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Telephone Email Text
Calls Invitations Invitations
Data Collection Modes
Telephone Online
Interviews Interviews
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding)
8.b
Packet Pg. 193
ATTACHMENT A
2 Survey Goals and Approach
Assess voter reactions to two
potential ballot measure
concepts: a business license tax
and a measure to ratify utility
fund transfers.
Voters randomly heard either
the BLT or utility measure
first.
Evaluate voters’ priorities for
uses of funds.
Check the impact of campaigns
for and against the BLT measure
specifically. These were also
rotated to give us a look at the
measure’s “floor” and “ceiling.”
Message Blocks Rotated
Pro-BLT Messages and Re-Vote
Anti-BLT Messages and Re-Vote
BLT and Utility Fund Measures Rotated
Utility Fund Transfer Ratification
Business License Tax
Uses of Funds
Vote on One, Both, Neither?
Demographics
BLT Amounts and Exemptions
Utility Funf Measure Explanation
8.b
Packet Pg. 194
ATTACHMENT A
Context
3 8.b
Packet Pg. 195
ATTACHMENT A
Q1.
4 Voters continue to be pessimistic
about the direction of the city.
Would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are headed in the wrong direction?
61%
Right Direction Wrong Track Don’t Know
25%
14%
37%
20%
34%
27%
35%
24%
2016 2018 2021 2022
43% 40% 41%
8.b
Packet Pg. 196
ATTACHMENT A
Q2.
5 A majority rates City services as
“excellent” or “good” – a slight erosion
compared with prior years.
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto City government in providing services to the city’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an …? Excellent/
10% 42% 33% 10% 7%
8% 46% 31% 9% 6%
10% 50% 27% 10%
18% 56% 19% 5%
15% 53% 23% 6%
16% 56% 22%
Exc llent Good Only Fair Poor Job Don't Know Good 2022 51%
2021 54%
2018 60%
2016 74%
2013 68%
2008 72%
8.b
Packet Pg. 197
ATTACHMENT A
Voter Views of Ballot
Measure Concepts
6 8.b
Packet Pg. 198
ATTACHMENT A
7 The measure would deal with a business license tax. This measure would create a business license tax on commercial property in the city of $50 per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation. The funds would pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable hous ing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
Asked First Asked Second
About three in five support a business
license tax conceptually.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
4%
3%
5%
20%
8%
29%
31%
Total
No
28%
Total
Yes
63%
5%
4%
10%
7%
20%
21%
33%
Total
No
35%
Total
Yes
59%
Q3a & b. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
8.b
Packet Pg. 199
ATTACHMENT A
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 8 Nearly seven in ten Democrats support this
measure, as does a majority of independents.
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Party
Total Yes Total No Undecided
69%
56%
72%
0%
(% of
Democrats Independents Republicans
Sample) (60%) (30%) (10%)
22%
9%
37%
8%
28%
8.b
Packet Pg. 200
ATTACHMENT A
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 9 41%
6%
Women are stronger supporters than men, though
the measure has majorities across gender lines.
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Gender
Total Yes Total No Undecided
69%
53%
(% of
Men Women
Sample) (48%) (52%)
22%
9%
8.b
Packet Pg. 201
ATTACHMENT A
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 10 Two-thirds of voters under 50 back the
measure, as do nearly three in five over 50.
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Age
Total Yes Total No Undecided
66%
57% 59%
(% of
18-49 50-64 65+
Sample) (41%) (29%) (30%)
35%
7%
31%
12%
30%
5%
8.b
Packet Pg. 202
ATTACHMENT A
11 The utility fund measure has support
from at least seven in ten voters.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
4%
3%
3%
10%
35%
35%
Total
No
16%
Total
Yes
74%
19%
8%
3% Total
7% No
7% 18%
42%
Total
Yes
69%
Undecided 11% 13%
Q4a & b. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? Asked First Asked Second
The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with utilities. As you may know, the City of Palo Alto provides natural gas service to residents and businesses. As part of its routine budget practices, the city annually transfers some money from the utility fund to the general City budget which maintains core services.
This measure would confirm the existing practice of transferring not more than 18% of City of Palo Alto Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, providing over $7 million annually to needed investments like p olice, fire and emergency medical services; affordable housing and support for the unhoused; parks and recreation; transportation; the City’s climate action plan; and other public services. This measure would not increase utility rates.
8.b
Packet Pg. 203
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 12 13%
Nearly four in five Democrats and more than
two-thirds of independents support it.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Party
Total Yes Total No Undecided
78%
68%
42% 45%
(% of
Democrats Independents Republicans
Sample) (60%) (30%) (10%)
10% 12%
21%
11%
8.b
Packet Pg. 204
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 13 26%
10%
Women support the measure
by a 70-point margin.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Gender
Total Yes Total No Undecided
78%
65%
(% of
Men Women
Sample) (48%) (52%)
8%
14%
8.b
Packet Pg. 205
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 14 Support is very broad
across age categories.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Age
Total Yes Total No Undecided
75% 70% 68%
(% of
18-49 50-64 65+
Sample) (41%) (14%) (30%)
19%
13%
19%
11% 14% 12%
8.b
Packet Pg. 206
ATTACHMENT A
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 15 35%
11%
43%
4%
A majority of those voting “no” on the business
license tax support the utility measure.
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Initial Business License Tax Vote
Total Yes Total No Undecided
82%
54% 54%
(% of
Among Business License Tax
Yes Voters
Among Business License Tax
No Voters
Among
Undecideds
Sample) (61%) (31%) (7%)
9% 8%
8.b
Packet Pg. 207
ATTACHMENT A
Q6. Having heard this, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 16 Next, voters were provided more
context on the utility fund measure.
Investor-owned utilities like PG&E that provide natural gas service transfer some funds from their utility to
shareholders. Cities like Palo Alto that own their own
utilities do not have shareholders, so many cities instead transfer some funds from the utility to pay for City services like police, fire, transportation, parks and other public services. Palo Alto received voter approval for these kinds of transfers in its municipal Charter in 1950; however, this practice has been challenged legally, and voter approval may be required for it to continue. As a result, the City may place this measure to reconfirm this practice on the November ballot.
8.b
Packet Pg. 208
ATTACHMENT A
Q4 (Total) & Q6. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 17 Initial Utility
Measure Vote
Utility Measure
Vote After Info
This did not shift patterns of support.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
6%
3%
5%
9%
12%
27%
Total
No
17%
38%
Total
Yes
71%
4%
2%
7%
9%
12%
30%
35%
Total
No
18%
Total
Yes
69%
8.b
Packet Pg. 209
ATTACHMENT A
Q5.
18 In a head-to-head test, two in five said they
would vote “yes” on both measures.
If both of these measures were on the same ballot, would you vote “yes” on both, for just one, or for neither?
Yes on business license tax only
Yes on both
Yes on utility fund transfer measure only
No on both
Don't know
10%
11%
18%
21%
40%
Total Yes,
Business
License Tax
50%
Total Yes,
Utility Fund
Measure
Vote
58%
8.b
Packet Pg. 210
ATTACHMENT A
Structuring a
Business License Tax
19 8.b
Packet Pg. 211
ATTACHMENT A
Q7.
20 The structure of this measure has not been finalized. Currently, average monthly rents for businesses range from $4.10 to $6.40 per square foot per month for retail and industrial space and $7.10 to $8.50 per square foot per month for office space. Would a measure that increased monthly business rent by roughly per square foot be an acceptable or unacceptable amount? Majorities are comfortable with a rate that
would increase rent by 10 cents per square foot.
Total Total
15 Cents
20 Cents
42% 44%
33% 51% 13%
16% 26% 14% 12% 32%
19% 16% 14% 38%
Very Acc. Smwt. Acc. Don't Know Smwt. Unacc. Very Unacc. Acc. Unacc. 5 Cents 33% 25% 12% 10% 20% 58% 30%
10 Cents 26% 28% 12% 10% 24% 54% 34%
8.b
Packet Pg. 212
ATTACHMENT A
Q8.
21 Exemptions for small-square-footage
businesses are a plus; an exemption for hotels
is more of a minus.
If it were written to exempt from the tax, would you be more likely to support it or less likely to support it? If it makes no difference, you can tell me that instead.
All
Much More Lkly. Smwt. More Lkly. Makes No Diff. Don't know Smwt. Less Lkly. Much Less Lkly. Total More
Lkly.
Total
Less
Lkly.
24% 22% 30% 9% 7% 8%
14% 19% 31% 9% 12% 15%
5% 10% 37% 9% 16% 23%
23% 31% 24% 8% 7% 7% businesses under
5,000 square feet
54% 14%
Grocery stores 46% 16%
Retail stores 33% 26%
Hotels 15% 39%
8.b
Packet Pg. 213
ATTACHMENT A
22 Q10. If a ballot measure to provide additional funding were approved by voters, would you prefer that the money be dedicated to:
61% 29%
Voters are split on their desired focus for new
revenue, with a strong preference for major
new investments among Democrats.
Offering major new City services, such as
affordable housing, climate change reduction
efforts, improving the safety of rail crossings,
transportation services such as shuttles, or
support for the unhoused
OR
Improving the quality and reliability of core
City services such as fire and emergency
services, and parks and recreation
All Voters
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
Men
Women
18 -49
50-64 41% 48%
65+ 41% 45%
Among Business License Tax Yes Voters
Among Business License Tax No Voters
Among Undecideds
49% 39%
31% 50%
66% 24%
26% 62%
29% 59%
50% 38%
76% 10%
50% 38%
28% 61%
8.b
Packet Pg. 214
ATTACHMENT A
23 Improvements to public safety, homelessness and
housing services are seen as most important.
I am going to read you a list of more-s pecific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent.
Please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Improving police response to
violent crime
Expanding outreach to people
experiencing homelessness
Funding affordable housing
Improving the speed and reliability of
ambulance service
Improving police response to
property crimes
Improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and
driver safety by building separate crossings
under train tracks to prevent collisions
Advancing the City's Climate Action Plan
to help the community reduce its
carbon emissions
Ext./Very
Impt.
62%
60%
52%
Q9.
22% 30% 20% 25%
14% 24% 30% 30%
32% 30% 22% 13%
19% 38% 26% 13%
21% 35% 27% 14%
35% 23% 22% 19% 58%
58%
55%
20% 34% 25% 20% 54%
8.b
Packet Pg. 215
ATTACHMENT A
24 Voters value library services, animal sheltering,
and transportation with less intensity.
Ext./Very
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know
Improving parks, recreation,
and arts services
Improving the safety, health, and
cleanliness of downtown and
commercial cores
Expanding transportation services,
such as shuttles
Programs to reduce traffic from
incoming commuters
Improving animal sheltering and care
Improving library services
Impt.
47%
46%
43%
41%
37%
37%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of more -s pecific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent. Please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. 13% 34% 37% 15%
16% 30% 36% 16%
16% 27% 32% 22%
14% 27% 32% 24%
12% 25% 34% 26%
10% 27% 41% 21%
8.b
Packet Pg. 216
ATTACHMENT A
Messaging and Movement
25 8.b
Packet Pg. 217
ATTACHMENT A
Q11. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support the measure.
26 Support Messages Tested
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
(FAIR SHARE) Palo Alto currently registers businesses of all sizes for $50. That means a mom-and-pop coffee shop pays the same as a tech company with thousands of employees.
This measure is a sensible way to ensure large businesses pay their fair share for the services the City provides and that their employees enjoy, like road repairs and police and fire protection.
(COMPARISON) Palo Alto does not have a business license tax, unlike most communities in California. Several nearby communities have significant taxes on business, such as East Palo Alto's tax of $2.50 per square foot annually on commercial office space over 25,000 square feet and San Francisco's business tax of $2.85 to $5.60 per $1,000 of gross receipts annually. This tax would align Palo Alto's tax system with those of other cities in the area.
(TAX BASE) This measure is not a tax on homeowners or shoppers, but on the city's largest businesses. Sales taxes continue to decline in Palo Alto, and by diversifying the City's tax base with a thoughtfully designed business license tax, we will be better able to weather future financial crises without having to raise taxes on everyday residents.
(ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will be subject to strict accountability provisions like annual financial audits; full public disclosure of all spending; and a requirement that all funds be spent locally in Palo Alto. This will ensure funds are used efficiently, effectively, and as promised.
(SAFETY) The recent economic downturn had significant impacts to funding for police and emergency services. Recently the community has seen increases in property crimes impacts to fire and emergency medical services. This measure would provide funding for police and emergency services to address these issues.
8.b
Packet Pg. 218
ATTACHMENT A
Q11. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support the measure.
27 The most compelling message in favor of the
measure explains how this would be fairer to
small businesses than the status quo.
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Fair Share
Comparison
Tax Base
Accountability
Safety
65%
63%
64%
63%
76%
41% 23%
36% 27%
33% 30%
34% 31%
30% 46%
8.b
Packet Pg. 219
ATTACHMENT A
Q13. I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. 28 Opposition Messages Tested
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
(LOOPHOLES) Just like any tax, this will fall hardest on small and medium businesses already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and high commercial rent. Meanwhile, the largest companies will find creative loopholes to get out of paying their fair share.
(INFLATION) The cost of living is out of control and inflation is on the rise.
With the price of groceries and gasoline increasing and an interest -rate hike on the way, now is simply not the time to be raising taxes.
(RECOVERY) COVID-1 9 restrictions have already pushed many local businesses to slash hours or even close. The last thing we need to do is drive up prices w ith a tax that hurts local businesses just as we start to recover.
(WASTE) Given the amount of money we already pay in city, county, and state taxes, and the amount we pay for expensive employee pensions, salaries, and healthcare benefits, City government simply needs to tighten its belt, work together, and do a better job with the dollars they already have.
8.b
Packet Pg. 220
ATTACHMENT A
Q13. I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. 29 A variety of negative messages
resonate broadly.
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
Loopholes
Inflation
Recovery
Waste
58%
55%
67%
67%
24%
31%
35%
32%
25%
33%
33%
34%
8.b
Packet Pg. 221
ATTACHMENT A
30 A majority supports the measure throughout
exposure to pro and con messages.
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Undecided Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Total Yes
Total
No
Initial Business License Tax Vote
Vote After Positives Only
Vote After Negatives Only
Final Business License Tax Vote
Q4 (Total), Q12 Split C, Q12 Split D & Q14 (Total). Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? 61% 31%
69% 22%
54% 38%
60% 31%
25% 32%
5% 8% 7% 21%
31% 33%
5% 9%
5% 15%
15% 31% 8% 8% 11% 23%
24% 32%
5% 9% 12% 18%
8.b
Packet Pg. 222
ATTACHMENT A
Conclusions
31 8.b
Packet Pg. 223
ATTACHMENT A
32 Conclusions
• The mood of the city continues to be mixed, as it is in many cities around region. A slim majority rates City government’s performance as “exc ellent” or “good” (51%).
• Three in five back the business license tax concept we tested, which – pending a more detailed exploration of a more specific concept and associated ballot language – has consistent majority support.
• Voters are comfortable with a m easure that would increase average monthly rent for businesses by up to 10 cents per square foot. They are more likely to support a measure that exempts small -square footage businesses, and are less likely to support one that exempts hotels.
• A measure ratifying utility fund transfers polls at 71%; support remains high when voters hear a more detailed explanation.
• Voters are divided on whether they would prefer new revenue be dedicated to major new investments or to improving existing services – however, those who support the BLT are more likely to favor new investments. • Voters are most enthusiastic about allocating funding toward public safety, affordable housing, and outreach to the unhoused.
8.b
Packet Pg. 224
ATTACHMENT A
For more information, contact:
Dave Metz
[email protected]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Miranda Everitt
[email protected]
8.b
Packet Pg. 225
ATTACHMENT B
MARCH 8-14, 2022
Hello, I'm from , a public opinion research company. I am definitely not trying to sell you anything. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people living in the City of Palo Alto and we are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to ? (YOU MUST SPEAK TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE).
A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE, ASK: Do you own a cell phone?)
Yes, cell and can talk safely 90%
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------------------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell 10%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED --------------------------- TERMINATE
1. (T*) First, would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are headed in the wrong direction?
2016 2018 2021 2022
Right direction
Wrong track
61%
25%
43%
37%
40%
34%
41%
35%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------- 14% ------------20%------------ 27% ---------- 24%
2. (T) And how would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto City government in providing services to the city’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an …? (READ RESPONSES AND
RECORD)
2016 2018 2021 2022
EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------ 74% ------------ 60%------------ 54% --------- 51% Excellent
Good
18%
56%
10%
50%
8%
46%
10%
42%
FAIR/POOR ------------------------ 24% ------------37%------------ 40% --------- 42% Only fair
Poor job
19%
5%
27%
10%
31%
9%
33%
10%
(DON'T READ) Don't know ----- 2%------------- 3% -------------6% ------------ 7%
CITY OF PALO ALTO BALLOT MEASURE SURVEY
220-6319 WT
N=427
MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±4.9% (95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL)
A/B & C/D SPLITS
8.b
Packet Pg. 226
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 2
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY: Q3 THEN Q4)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY: Q4 THEN Q3)
3. The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with a business license tax. This measure would create a business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation. The funds would pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT A SPLIT B
Q3 Q3
FIRST LAST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 63%------- 59% -------- 61% Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
29%
31%
4%
20%
33%
5%
25%
32%
5%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 28%------- 35% -------- 31% Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
3%
5%
20%
4%
10%
21%
3%
7%
21%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 8%--------- 7% ---------- 8%
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO MEASURES THAT MAY APPEAR ON THE PALO ALTO BALLOT IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
8.b
Packet Pg. 227
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 3
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY: Q3 THEN Q4)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY: Q4 THEN Q3)
4. The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with utilities. As you may know, the City of Palo Alto provides natural gas service to residents and businesses. As part of its routine budget practices, the city annually transfers some money from the utility fund to the general City budget which maintains core services. This measure would confirm the existing practice of transferring not more than 18 percent of City of Palo Alto Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, providing over 7 million dollars annually to needed investments like police, fire and emergency medical services; affordable housing and support for the unhoused; parks and recreation; transportation; the City’s climate action plan; and other public services.
This measure would not increase utility rates.
Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT A SPLIT B
Q4 Q4
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 74%------- 69% -------- 71% Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
35%
35%
4%
19%
42%
8%
27%
38%
6%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 16%------- 18% -------- 17% Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
3% 3% 3%
3% 7% 5%
10% 7% 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 11%------- 13% -------- 12% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
5. If both of these measures were on the same ballot, would you vote “yes” on both, for just one, or for neither? (IF YES ON ONE, ASK: Which one would you vote “yes” on: the business license tax or the utility fund transfer measure?)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------------------------ 69% Yes on both 40%
Yes on business license tax only -------------------------- 10% Yes on utility fund transfer measure only --------------- 18% No on both 11%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA---------------------------------- 21%
8.b
Packet Pg. 228
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 4
THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX MEASURE.
6. Now I will provide you some additional background information on this measure. Investor -owned utilities like P -G-and-E that provide natural gas service transfer some funds from their utility to shareholders. Cities like Palo Alto that own their own utilities do not have shareholders, so many cities instead transfer some funds from the utility to pay for City services like police, fire, transportation, parks and other public services. Palo Alto received voter approval for these kinds of transfers in its municipal Charter in 1950; however, this practice has been challenged legally, and voter approval may be required for it to continue. As a result, the City may place this measure to reconfirm this practice on the November ballot. Having heard this, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) ( IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 69%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
30%
35%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------- 4%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 18%
Undecided, lean no -------------------------- 2%
Probably no 7%
Definitely no 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 12%
7. First, the structure of this measure has not been finalized. Currently, average monthly rents for businesses range from $4.10 to $6.40 per square foot per month for retail and industrial space and $7.10 to $8.50 per square foot per month for office space. Would a measure that increased monthly business rent by roughly (READ EACH ITEM) per square foot be an acceptable or unacceptable amount? (IF ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE?”) (READ IN ORDER) (ROTATE TOP -TO-BOTTOM AND BOTTOM-TO- TOP)
VERY SMWT SMWT VERY
ACC ACC UNACC UNACC (DK/NA)
TOTAL TOTAL
ACC UNACC
[ ]a. 5 cents----------------------------------------33% ----- 25% ---- 10% -----20% ------ 12% 58% 30% [ ]b. 10 cents --------------------------------------26% ----- 28% ---- 10% -----24% ------ 12% 54% 34% [ ]c. 15 cents --------------------------------------16% ----- 26% ---- 12% -----32% ------ 14% 42% 44% [ ]d. 20 cents --------------------------------------13% ----- 19% ---- 14% -----38% ------ 16% 33% 51%
8.b
Packet Pg. 229
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 5
8. If it were written to exempt from the tax, would you be more likely to support it or less likely to support it? If it makes no difference, you can tell me that instead. ( IF MORE/LESS, ASK: Is that much MORE/LESS LIKELY, or only somewhat?) (RANDOMIZE)
MUCH
MORE
LKLY
SMWT
MORE
LKLY
SMWT
LESS
LKLY
MUCH
LESS
LKLY
MAKES
NO
DIFF
(DON’T
READ)
DK/NA
TOTAL
MORE
LKLY
TOTAL
LESS
LKLY
[ ]a. Retail stores --------------------- 14% -----19% ----- 12% ---- 15% -----31% --------9% 33% 26% [ ]b.
[ ]c.
(T) Grocery stores ------------- 24% -----22% ------ 7% ------ 8% -----30% --------9% All businesses under five
thousand square feet ----------- 23% -----31% ------ 7% ------ 7% -----24% --------8% 46%
54%
16%
14%
[ ]d. Hotels ------------------------------5% -----10% ----- 16% ---- 23% -----37% --------9% 15% 39%
9. Next, I am going to read you a list of more -specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent. After I read each one, please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE)
NOT (DON’T
EXT VERY SMWT TOO READ)
IMP IMP IMP IMP DK/NA
[ ]a. Improving police response to property
crimes 21% 35% 27% 14% 3%
[ ]b. Improving police response to violent crime ------ 32% ---- 30% -----22%----- 13% -------- 3% [ ]c. Improving the speed and reliability of
ambulance service------------------------------------- 19% ---- 38% -----26%----- 13% -------- 4% [ ]d. Improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver
safety by building separate crossings under
train tracks to prevent collisions-------------------- 20% ---- 34% -----25%----- 20% -------- 2% [ ]e. Expanding transportation services, such as
shuttles
[ ]f. Advancing the City’s Climate Action Plan
to help the community reduce its carbon
emissions
[ ]g. Programs to reduce traffic from incoming
commuters
[ ]h. Expanding outreach to people experiencing
homelessness
[ ]i. Improving the safety, health, and
cleanliness of downtown and commercial
cores
16%
22%
14%
30%
16%
27%
30%
27%
30%
30%
32%
20%
32%
24%
36%
22% 2%
25% 2%
24% 3%
14% 2%
16% 2%
[ ]j. Funding affordable housing ------------------------- 35% ---- 23% -----22%----- 19% -------- 2% [ ]k. Improving parks, recreation, and arts
services 13% 34% 37% 15% 1%
[ ]l. Improving animal sheltering and care ------------- 12% ---- 25% -----34%----- 26% -------- 2% [ ]m. Improving library services--------------------------- 10% ---- 27% -----41%----- 21% -------- 2%
EXT/
VERY
55%
62%
58%
54%
43%
52%
41%
60%
46%
58%
47%
37%
37%
8.b
Packet Pg. 230
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 6
VERY/
SMWT
65%
64%
NEXT, HERE ARE SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE POTENTIAL BUSINESS TAX WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.
10. Next, if a ballot measure to provide additional funding were approved by voters, would you prefer that the money be dedicated to: (ROTATE)
[ ] Offering major new City services, such as affordable housing, climate change reduction efforts, improving the safety of rail crossings, transportation services such as shuttles, or support for the unhoused-------------------- 49%
OR
[ ] Improving the quality and reliability of core City services such as fire and emergency services, and parks and recreation ------------------------------------------ 39%
(DON’T READ) Both 2%
(DON’T READ) Neither 2%
(DON’T READ) Don’t Know/NA 8%
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
11. First, I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support the measure. If you do not be lieve the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (COMPARISON) Palo Alto does not have
a business license tax, unlike most
communities in California. Several nearby
communities have significant taxes on
business, such as East Palo Alto’s tax of
$2.50 per square foot annually on
commercial office space over 25,000
square feet and San Francisco’s business
tax of $2.85 to $5.60 per 1000 dollars of
gross receipts annually. This tax would
align Palo Alto’s tax system with those of
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
other cities in the area. ------------------------------- 31% ---- 34% -----23%-------6% -------- 6% [ ]b. (ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will
be subject to strict accountability provisions
like annual financial audits; full public
disclosure of all spending; and a
requirement that all funds be spent locally
in Palo Alto. This will ensure funds are
used efficiently, effectively, and as
promised. 27% 36% 22% 10% 4%
8.b
Packet Pg. 231
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 7
[ ]c. (SAFETY) The recent economic downturn
had significant impacts to funding for
police and emergency services. Recently
the community has seen increases in
property crimes impacts to fire and
emergency medical services. This measure
would provide funding for police and
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
emergency services to address these issues. ------ 23% ---- 41% -----24%-------9% -------- 4% [ ]d. (FAIR SHARE) Palo Alto currently
registers businesses of all sizes for 50
dollars. That means a mom-and-pop coffee
shop pays the same as a tech company with
thousands of employees. This measure is a
sensible way to ensure large businesses pay
their fair share for the services the City
provides and that their employees enjoy,
like road repairs and police and fire
protection.
[ ]e. (TAX BASE) This measure is not a tax on
homeowners or shoppers, but on the city’s
largest businesses. Sales taxes continue to
decline in Palo Alto, and by diversifying
the City’s tax base with a thoughtfully
designed business license tax, we will be
better able to weather future financial crises
without having to raise taxes on everyday
residents.
46%
30%
30%
33%
14%
20%
5% 4%
13% 4%
VERY/
SMWT
63%
76%
63%
8.b
Packet Pg. 232
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 8
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
12. Now that you’ve learned more about it, would you support or oppose a measure that would create a business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation, to pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services? Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
AFTER AFTER
SUPPORT OPPOSE
ONLY ONLY
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 69% ------------------ 54% Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
31%
33%
5%
15%
31%
8%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 22% ------------------ 38% Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
2%
5%
15%
4%
11%
23%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 9% ------------------- 8%
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
13. Next, I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure.
After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (INFLATION) The cost of living is out of
control and inflation is on the rise. With the
price of groceries and gasoline increasing
and an interest-rate hike on the way, now is
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
simply not the time to be raising taxes. ----------- 33% ---- 25% -----31%-------7% -------- 4% [ ]b. (LOOPHOLES) Just like any tax, this will
fall hardest on small and medium
businesses already struggling with labor
shortages, inflation, and high commercial
rent. Meanwhile, the largest companies will
find creative loopholes to get out of paying
their fair share. 34% 33% 21% 7% 5%
VERY/
SMWT
58%
67%
8.b
Packet Pg. 233
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 9
[ ]c. (WASTE) Given the amount of money we
already pay in city, county, and state taxes,
and the amount we pay for expensive
employee pensions, salaries, and healthcare
benefits, City government simply needs to
tighten its belt, work together, and do a
better job with the dollars they already
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
have.
[ ]d. (RECOVERY) COVID restrictions have
already pushed many local businesses to
slash hours or even close. The last thing we
need to do is drive up prices with a tax that
hurts local businesses just as we start to
recover.
31%
32%
24%
35%
32% 8% 5%
23% 6% 4%
14. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this, people change their minds, and sometimes they do not.
Let me ask you one more time about the measure to create a business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation, to pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
OPPOSE OPPOSE
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 60%------- 60% -------- 60% Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
23%
33%
5%
24%
31%
5%
24%
32%
5%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 30%------- 33% -------- 31% Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
3%
11%
15%
1%
12%
20%
2%
12%
18%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 10%--------- 8% ---------- 9% VERY/
SMWT
55%
67%
8.b
Packet Pg. 234
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 10
15. Do you own a business in Palo Alto?
Yes
No
6%
91%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 3%
16. Do you own or rent your place of residence?
Own
Rent
58%
32%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 11%
17. What was the last level of school you completed?
High school graduate or less ------------------------ 3% Some college/vocational school ------------------- 10%
College graduate (4 years) ------------------------- 41% Post graduate work/Professional school --------- 44%
((DON’T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 2%
18. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Latino or Hispanic, African American or Black, White or Caucasian, Asian or Pacific Islander, multiracial, or some other ethnic or racial background? (IF ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER, ASK: “ Are you Vietnamese, Chinese, South Asian or East Indian, or of some other Asian background?”)
Latino/Hispanic 4%
African American/Black -------------------- 1%
Caucasian/White --------------------------- 60%
Vietnamese 1%
Chinese 9%
South Asian/East Indian -------------------- 7%
Other Non-Asian/Pacific Islander --------- 1%
Other Asian/Pacific Islander --------------- 3%
Multiracial 6%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 8%
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.
8.b
Packet Pg. 235
ATTACHMENT B
220-6319-WT FM3 RESEARCH PAGE 11
GENDER (BY OBSERVATION): Male ------------------------------------------ 48% Female 52%
PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------ 60% Republican 10%
No Party Preference ----------------------- 28%
Other 2%
FLAGS
P16
G16
P18
54%
72%
58%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes
No
90%
10%
G18 ------------------------------------------ 74% HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE P20
G20
BLANK
70%
95%
3%
Dem 1
Dem 2+
Rep 1
Rep 2+
33%
17%
5%
1%
AGE Ind 1+ --------------------------------------- 20%
18-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-74
75+
10%
6%
7%
4%
6%
8%
9%
11%
10%
14%
16%
Mix
MODE
Phone
Online
23%
51%
49%
THANK AND TERMINATE
8.b
Packet Pg. 236
ATTACHMENT C
REMOVED FOR UPDATED VERSION 4/7/22
Summary of Responses to Online Community Feedback Survey Status update, March 28, 2022
Starting February 15, 2022, the City provided an online feedback form regarding the City’s Fiscal Sustainability efforts. Community members could rank their priorities for community services, provide suggestions for additional service priorities, and pose questions about the City’s fiscal sustainability efforts and revenue measures.
8.b
Packet Pg. 237
ATTACHMENT D
March 18, 2022
To: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Fr: Public Dialogue Consortium
Re: Update on Business and Community Stakeholder Focus Groups
On November 15, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with The Lew Edwards Group for community engagement and ballot measure strategy and preparation services related to the potential revenue generating November 2022 ballot measures. As part of this process, the Lew Edwards Group enlisted the services of the Public Dialogue Consortium to conduct focus groups with members of the business community and community at-large, and to facilitate a public listening session with the Palo Alto community.
Focus Groups
Staff compiled a comprehensive list of Palo Alto stakeholders consisting of business groups, employers, and community groups and organizations, and conducted extensive outreach utilizing multiple platforms to invite participants to the focus groups. Focus group invites were sent via e-mail and mail to business and community organizations throughout Palo Alto, with efforts to be as inclusive as possible. Sample business and community invites are attached. At first five focus groups were scheduled for the business community, and two groups were scheduled for community groups and organizations, but PDC and the City were ultimately able to accommodate all participants in five focus groups.
The five focus groups were conducted between February 22 and March 17, 2022. Four of the focus groups involved business community stakeholders, which consisted of 27 participants total. One community stakeholder group was conducted with six participants. The list of participants in each focus group is attached.
Attendance at the focus groups was underwhelming. Despite the extensive outreach, invitations, and follow-up reminders, we could have accommodated many more focus group participants based on the number of groups offered and the way they were structured. In fact, three focus groups were cancelled and two had to be rescheduled due to low attendance.
All focus group were conducted to achieve the same three outcomes:
• Educate stakeholders about Palo Alto’s Fiscal Sustainability Strategy for 2022 and the funding options currently under consideration.
• Elicit feedback on City service priorities that are important to the business community and community at-large.
8.b
Packet Pg. 238
ATTACHMENT D
• Elicit feedback on the two ballot measures that the City Council is considering for voters in November 2022: (1) Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer and (2) Adopt a new Business License Tax.
The focus group format was the same for the business and community at-large stakeholders. Part one established the context for the focus group, including introductions, the agenda, and outcomes and purposes. Part two consisted of a staff presentation on the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Strategy, including revenue trends and services, and the two ballot measures under consideration. The third part was a facilitated discussion to elicit participant feedback. The following questions were used to focus the discussion:
• What clarifying questions about the presentation do you have for staff? • What City services and priorities are important to you and your organization, business, or group?
• What do you and your organization, business, or group think about placing these two measures on the ballot? First, Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer? Next, the business license tax?
• What are your thoughts about how the business license tax should be structured?
o Should any types of businesses be exempted if this idea is pursued (e.g., based on size, or type)?
o What about basing the tax on a square footage percentage? o Are there are any other factors in how the tax should be structured that you want to share?
• Under what circumstances, if any, could you support the Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer? Under what circumstances could you support the business license tax?
• Is there anything else you would like to say about the Fiscal Sustainability Strategy, City services, or the two potential ballot measures before we close?
Results and Summary Themes
An analysis of the focus group results reveals mixed support for the Business License Tax. Specifically, opinions fell mostly into two categories. One was “conditional approval.” Many focus group participants said that they could support the measure as long as particular elements are included or conditions are met (see the four themes below). The second category was “no support,” with several group participants saying that they do not favor placing the measure on the November ballot under any circumstances.
By comparison, there was majority support to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer, with focus group participants saying that they favor placing the measure on the ballot, or were
8.b
Packet Pg. 239
ATTACHMENT D
neutral about the measure due to lack of familiarity with it. There was no direct opposition to the Gas Funds Transfer.
Looking deeper into the views expressed about the Business License Tax, four dominant themes emerged from an analysis of the focus group discussions.
1. No cap on the CPI. Concerns were expressed that without a cap on the CPI the tax would continually increase, as some group participants said, “to millions of dollars for some companies.” In addition to wanting a cap on the CPI, a related suggestion is to put a cap on the total amount of the tax that a business would pay.
2. No sunset. The lack of a specified end date for the tax is viewed as problematic, particularly when coupled with the concern that the tax does not have a CPI cap. The prospect of the tax continually increasing indefinitely was the most significant concern expressed by group participants.
3. Not the right time. Another major concern was the timing of the tax. Group participants noted that many businesses are in recovery mode from COVID, and that there are commercial vacancies from businesses that did not survive the downturn from the pandemic. Given the uncertainties surrounding the current economic climate, the tax is seen as an impediment to business recovery and a disincentive to attract new businesses to Palo Alto.
4. Need a funding plan. Group participants voiced concerns about how the revenue from the tax will be allocated, specifically with the revenue going into the General Fund and spent on services that do not benefit the business community or the community at-large. The recommendation is to develop a plan that specifies how the revenue will be spent, which for group participants will ensure transparency and accountability.
Next steps
Two follow-up engagements will be conducted. One is a public Listening Session to be held on Tuesday, March 29 at 6:00pm, available to all members of the Palo Alto community. This session will include the staff presentation on the 2022 Fiscal Sustainability Strategy and the two ballot measures currently under consideration, followed by comments and input from the participants.
A second round of focus groups will be conducted with business community stakeholders in April and May to elicit input on the specific factors that will be used to structure the Business License Tax. Results from the listening session and second round of focus groups will be incorporated into the results from the initial five focus groups, and complied in a summary and presented to the Finance Committee and City Council.
8.b
Packet Pg. 240
ATTACHMENT D
8.b
Packet Pg. 241
ATTACHMENT D
8.b
Packet Pg. 242
ATTACHMENT D
8.b
Packet Pg. 243
ATTACHMENT D
Palo Alto Focus Group Participants
*list does not include 3/29 listening session
Tuesday, 2-22-22, 12pm (Business)
1 Participant
1. John Shenk, Thoits Brothers
Thursday, 3-3-22 9am (Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center) 19 Participants
1. Yvonne Mills, Morrison & Foerster
2. Angie Pyszczynski, Simon Properties
3. Georgie Gleim, Gleim Jewelers
4. Thomas Lawson, Ford Motor Company
5. Peter Arbour, Ford Motor Company
6. Charlie Weidanz, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
7. Kent Leacock, VMware
8. Jennifer Cohen, Tesla
9. Barry Barnes, CleanSweep Campaigns
10. Don Cecil, MC2 Bay Area Public & Government Affairs Consulting
11. Allison Koo, Sand Hill Property Company
12. Pam Decharo, Owner, Hair International
13. John Koselak, Vi Living
14. Jessy Borges, Lockheed Martin
15. Nicholas Karrelas, SAP
16. Shweta Bhatnagar, Stanford University
17. Lucy Wicks, Stanford University
18. Tiffany Griego, Stanford University
19. Michael Bordoni, Stanford University
Tuesday, 3-8-22 12pm (Community)
6 Participants
1. Mary Gloner, Project Safetynet
2. Karla Henriquez, Project Safetynet
3. Rhonda Bekkedahl, Channing House retirement community
4. Kate Blesssing-Kawamura, Eden Housing
5. Matt Bryant, resident & pharmacist
6. Edesa Bitbadal, representative for NAIOP Silicon Valley on public policy matters
Tuesday, 3-15-22 6pm (Business)
4 Participants
1. Dan Kostenbauder - VP for tax policy, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
2. Howard Schneck - tax director at Varian Medical Systems
3. Valerie Sinden - global overview systems at Varian Medical Systems
4. Kris Quigley - representing CA Life Sciences
8.b
Packet Pg. 244
ATTACHMENT D
Thursday, 3-17-22 12pm (Chamber of Commerce)
5 Participants
1. Elizabeth Santana, Palo Alto Players
2. Karen Law, Palo Alto Players
3. Nancy Coupal - Coupal Cafe
4. Shweta Bhatnagar - Stanford University
5. Charlie Weidanz - Chamber of Commerce
8.b
Packet Pg. 245
ATTACHMENT E
Gas Utility Transfer to the General Fund
Each fiscal year the City Council may transfer from the gas utility to the general fund an amount equal to [ % of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the fiscal year of the transfer] or [ % of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the transfer]. At its discretion, the City Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount. The projected cost of the transfer shall be included in the City’s retail gas rates included in the City’s retail gas rates as a cost of providing services.
Note: The description of the fiscal year used to measure the transfer can be either:
% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal years before the fiscal year of the transfer
or
% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the transfer
8.b
Packet Pg. 246
ATTACHMENT F
Attachment F - 1
Summary of Prior Work on
Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
The City of Palo Alto has been discussing its options for potential revenue-generating ballot measures through 2019 and 2020. This work was suspended at City Council direction in March 2020 in order to marshal available resources to manage through the COVID-19 pandemic. A timeline of the CMRs and discussions with the Finance Committee and the City Council since April of 2019, when staff was formally directed to begin working on this project by the City Council, is included below for additional context. The date, the forum of the meeting (Finance Committee or City Council), the summary title, and the CMR number are included for ease of reference.
Timeline
4/22/2019 City Council, “2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan”, CMR 10267
4/22/2019 City Council, “Approve Workplan for a Potential Revenue Generated Ballot Measure”, CMR 10261
6/18/2019 Finance Committee, “Review, Comment, and Accept Preliminary Revenue Estimates for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR 10392
8/20/2019 Finance Committee, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures”, CMR 10445
9/16/2019 City Council, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10615
10/1/2019 Finance Committee, “Revised Workplan for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR 10712
10/15/2019 Finance Committee, “Stakeholder Outreach, Initial Polling, and Discussion of a Potential Ballot Measure”, CMR 10743
11/4/2019 City Council, “Potential Ballot Measure Polling/Outreach, Contract, Solicitation Exemption and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10792
12/2/2019 City Council, “Structure and Scenarios of Initial Round of Polling for a Potential Local Tax Measure”, CMR 10891
12/17/2019 Finance Committee, “Consideration, Evaluation, and Discussion of a Revenue Generating Local Tax Ballot Measure, Review of Refined Modeling, Analysis, Tax Structure and Recommendation to the City Council”, CMR 10655
8.b
Packet Pg. 247
ATTACHMENT F
Attachment F - 2
1/27/2020 City Council, “Update, Consideration, and Potential Direction on Possible Local Tax Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR 11019
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR 11161
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, At-Places Memorandum
6/15/2021, Finance Committee Staff Report, “Recommend the City Council Approve the Workplan for Pursuit of a Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022 General Election; Review and Potential Guidance to Staff on Affordable Housing Funding as Referred by the Council”, CMR 12299
8/16/2021 City Council, “Approve the Workplan for Development of a Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022 General Election; Review and Potential Guidance to Staff on Affordable Housing Funds as Referred by the City Council”, CMR 12381 9/21/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and a Recommended Further Refinement of Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures,” CMR 13514 10/19/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”, CMR 13648
11/8/2021 City Council, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”, CMR 13687
12/7/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures”, CMR 13728 1/18/2022 Finance Committee, “Discuss Poll Results Regarding Potential 2022 Revenue Generating Ballot Measures and Recommend Further Refinement of Business License Tax and Utility Tax Proposals”, CMR 13875
1/24/2022 City Council, “Discuss Polling Results, Analysis, and Community Stakeholder Engagement Plan; Recommend Further Refined Parameters for a Possible Local Tax Ballot Measure for November 2022 Election (Business License Tax and Utility Tax Proposals); and Direct Staff on Related Items such as Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan,” CMR 13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462
8.b
Packet Pg. 248
8.b
Packet Pg. 249
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 1
Summary of Responses to Online Community Feedback Survey Status update, April 7, 2022
Starting February 15, 2022, the City provided an online feedback form regarding the City’s Fiscal Sustainability efforts. Community members could rank their priorities for community services, provide suggestions for additional service priorities, and pose questions about the City’s fiscal sustainability efforts and revenue measures.
As of April 7, 2022, the Fiscal Sustainability Community Conversation survey may still be accessed.1 Survey Contents
Community members were asked the following questions:
The City of Palo Alto is engaging the community around long-term fiscal sustainability and community priorities. Below are some of the key priorities Palo Alto residents have historically identified as key to their quality of life. Please give us your feedback by ranking the following priorities from 1 to 8, with “1” being the most important. We will review all comments to ensure that the City continues to address the community’s priorities in its long-range planning.
1. Priorities to be ranked:
• Expanding City Services
• Maintaining basic services
• Improving services such as longer library hours
• Adding public safety services such as police, fire and emergency medical • Investing in community-owned assets like roads and community centers • Funding affordable housing and homeless services
• Repairing streets/roads
• Maintaining after school/summer youth programs
2. Suggestions for additional service priorities:
3. I have the following questions:
Survey Responses
There were 394 responses as of March 22, 2022 (181 online survey responses and 213 mailed survey responses). The most highly ranked priorities for the survey respondents were “Maintaining basic services,” “Repairing streets / roads,” “Investing in community-owned assets,” “Adding public safety services such as police, fire, and emergency medical,” and “Funding affordable housing and homeless services,” as shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents who ranked each priority first, second, or third.
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33-8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
8.c
Packet Pg. 250
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 2
Table 1: Percentage of Survey Respondents Ranking Each Priority First, Second, or Third
There were 137 respondents who submitted suggestions for additional service priorities or additional comments and questions via the online survey. The complete comments are included at the end of this attachment, but in summary:
8.c
Packet Pg. 251
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 3
• 43 respondents wrote comments supporting funding for Lucie Stern Theatre facilities and staffing. Of these, 3-5 appeared to be duplicate submittals. • 19 comments related to investments in various other types of City infrastructure • 15 comments related to increasing policing, including code enforcement and traffic enforcement
• 13 comments related to climate action, with a couple of comments opposing City action. • 6 comments related to affordable housing or homeless services, with a couple of comments expressing concern about setting affordable housing goals or homeless services. • Other respondents wrote comments related to traffic safety, traffic congestion, road maintenance, parking, expanding bicycle infrastructure and other alternative transportation options, climate change (both in favor of and opposing action), electric grid reliability, fiber internet, zoning, affordable housing, employee pension costs, community and human services, and other topics.
There were 95 respondents to the mailed version of the survey who submitted additional comments or questions. The complete comments are included at the end of this attachment, but to summarize:
• 19 comments related to infrastructure, with an emphasis on roads • 13 comments focused on increased traffic enforcement, code enforcement, or policing in general.
• 8 comments related to sustainability (climate change, tree canopy, alternative transportation) • Other respondents wrote comments related to airplane noise, affordable housing, the animal shelter, recreation services, fiber to the home, library hours, utility services, zoning, and service levels in general.
8.c
Packet Pg. 252
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 4
Comments from Online Survey
The following comments were submitted in response to the two open-ended survey questions for the online version of the survey.
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
1 Reducing pension and retirement benefit expenses
Switching to a 24/7 mental health crisis team approach like cahoots using mental health and social workers. Police are only needed if there is a threat of violence which is rarely the case. We could save so much money with this approach.
Fiber to the Home; Undergrounding utilities as promised so many years ago. Increasing police response to gangs stealing from stores - there doesn't seem to be much effort here at all.
New Animal Shelter
This survey is poorly written. Most people want all of the above. But I also want. to see ways to save money. We seem to be adding more and more administrators and fewer people who actually perform the work of caring for the city. Do we really need another assistant to the City Manager? We need a new animal shelter which we could have had for a fraction of the cost of the bike bridge. Increasing library hours is so cheap - why isn't this a given? Let's get the police up to fill strength - 79 officers and then decide to get more. The poor showing of the police with only 59 officers does not mean that 79 is not enough, esp. if we outsource mental health calls.
2 Support our downtown retail and business operations. They provide the revenues needed to provide all services. They also provide the vibrancy we all value.
Why does the Council not support businesses? We need them to support our hotels, frequent our retailers, and provide quality jobs.
Why is the Council wanting to tax businesses now with a business tax AND with a district tax?
Why doesn't the Council incentivize housing development by a reduction its fees and an offer to expedite the permitting processes instead of keeping those as the worst in the area and adding more taxes to try and add housing itself?
3 n/a n/a
4 Law enforcement to reduce property crime
5 Please focus on managing the City and prioritize its citizens.
Thanks for the survey.
6 Providing actionable resources to Eichlers to help with green related retrofitting - for instance, I can’t find a non-gas powered boiler for my radiant heating!
8.c
Packet Pg. 253
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 5
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
7 I would also encourage the City to scrub the budget and eliminate some unnecessary items that cost too much. In my neighborhood, I can mention the Ross Road street "improvement" that cost a lot, did not do anything and created a lot of controversy.
Also we should aim to make projects less expansive, the pedestrian overpass for 101 at the Baylands should not have costed more than $10M, also the Mitchell Park community center should not have costed as much and taken so long. The city needs to learn how to manage these projects better.
8 Finish work at Shoreline Park
9 Close Churchill Ave Caltrain intersection. It is too dangerous for pedestrians and bikes and cars!!!
10 providing access to Foothills park to mountain bikes through Arastradero and create one bike trail (single track) in Foothill park
11 Stop forcing green energy initiatives on the residents, making it more and more expensive to live in PA. These should be put to a vote by residents, not forced by city council members who think more of themselves in how they can get national publicity than supporting the residents.
12 This should be at the top of the list:
Funding city's future obligations in terms of pensions, etc. I have heard that we haven't funded these obligations anywhere near sufficiently.
What is the city doing to fund the future generous pensions that we owe?
13 Delete the commercial zoning requirement, density, and height requirements on most parcels along El Camino. Especially near transportation.
Especially for affordable housing.
Increase zoning and density along Alma. Especially for affordable housing .
14 As a subset re public safety, consider installation of additional speed limit signage in our residential neighborhoods.
15 Please improve bicycle infrastructure! I see many others biking as I do for transportation, but I often don’t feel safe next to cars on the main road.
16 Preparing for flooding risk.
8.c
Packet Pg. 254
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 6
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
17 Dealing with the City has become onerous. 10 years ago, staff were responsive with fewer regulations to navigate. 10 years later, and everything has become complicated - you need high-cost permits for a generator or to get solar. You have fill out forms which are returned for minor issues. Just cut out the red tape - please. And enforce city regulations on leaving trash cans out, safety in walking downtown (arrest people).
18 Affordable housing is a huge problem and we need better solutions. 19 It was a waste of taxpayer’s money for so-called improvement of Ross Road.
20 Addressing climate change Is each city department maximizing each budgeted dollar? 21 A. The item, Maintaining basic services, should include preparing for climate change, especially sea level rise, more frequent droughts and global warming.
B. The item, Investing in community-owned assets ... , should include providing broadband, i.e. fiber optic, internet service to the premises.
C. The item, Expanding City Services, should include providing better intra-city commuter options to reduce the need for individually owned cars.
D. The item, Repairing streets/roads, should include adding new bike lanes and upgrading existing lanes to provide safe use.
22 Law enforcement
23 Free shuttle system
24 Increased policing and enforcement of traffic laws such as parking and speed laws
25 Improved street signage and efficient street lighting.
Encourage CalTrans to improve El Camino road surface !
Consider levy of small city tax on all residents -- sliding scale based on income, not to exceed $100 / year.
8.c
Packet Pg. 255
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 7
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
26 I recommend increasing police services to contain burglaries from homes and businesses. Such crime must be addressed.
I emphatically do not recommend increasing fire services. They are more than adequately funded and should be reduced to provide any needed emergency medical services.
I would have given public safety services a higher ranking, but since fire services was included it was given a lower priority.
27 Don’t just fix the potholes on El Camino redo the street material with a mix of tires and asphalt to make them more resilient to the wear and tear. Also can you please pay attention to Barron Park Streets they are looking like very undeveloped countries
The Barron park section of el Camino is a disaster
28 City-funded housing and transportation services for seniors. 29 Putting electrical wires underground.
Replacing large lawn areas with native shrubs (but leaving areas for kids to play).
30 Reduction of city management salaries. Find a hungry person to do it for a fair price.
31 Why is Lucie Stern Community Center so underinvested compared to Cubberley Community Center? It's a beautiful indoor + outdoor space (and home to three award-winning performing arts companies that Palo Alto should be proud to claim as its own!) that can benefit many more community members, especially during COVID-19, if repairs and upgrades are made to the facilities.
32 Make it more difficult for developers/speculators to demolish livable housing to replace it with huge homes that are often not occupied. This is why housing has become unaffordable. Increase incentives to remodel/rehab existing housing stock. Build affordable/low income housing in Palo Alto Square (not sure who owns that). Stop billionaires from buying up multiple neighborhood houses and taking them out of the housing market. Decrease the number of ghost houses.
8.c
Packet Pg. 256
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 8
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
33 Do not spend any money on public art until all the potholes in the city are fixed.
How much money is CPA spending on the fiber-optic project? Why is it building this service when fiber optic is already being provided by AT&T and Comcast?
Why is a fire engine dispatched along with an ambulance for every emergency call?
34 Grade Separation on the SP tracks. You can't keep all the people happy all the time. Subsidized Solar Roof plan for residents.
35 Ease traffic congestion and provide more parking.
36 First category above (expanding...) is too vague to be useful.
Cubberley should get sustained attention and investment, leading to purchase from the school district and total renovation, funded by long term bonds. It is a huge opportunity for the future and a pretty ugly testimonial to our confused process and thinking in the present.
How do we compare to MV, RWC, Sunnyvale in per capita spending on various categories. Can we find places where we are overspending this way?
37 Nothing about utilities here. Improving the utility function is a very high priority.
38 Missing from the list: RESTORE cut funding for multi-modal transportation projects, including foot-powered transportation safety, especially at identified safety trouble spots on school commute routes. Before you "Add" public safety services, you need to restore what the city cut. The item should read, "RESTORE public safety services." The survey language is not an honest representation of where we are and what adding funds will really do. Restoration of cut services is not "adding" or "expanding" them. These are misleading options. What are "basic services", if not police, fire, road repair, etc. Utilities? Waste collection? Street cleaning? Arborist? What? The average citizen won't know this. This second item is vague and, in context of the rest of this list especially, requires explanation. This is a poor beginning to a listening exercise. I filled out the priorities so the survey would let me go beyond this page. My prioritization is meaningless because the options you offer are inaccurate and vague. My top priority, mentioned above, is not even on the list. How does one prioritize without understanding current budget constraints and the cost of these items? Too little background information to understand trade-offs and make informed choices. So...what do you really mean? Are we talking about restoration of cut services or adding services above the levels we previously had? Be more clear.
Additional Feedback: See above.
8.c
Packet Pg. 257
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 9
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
39 The City of Palo Alto has been doing mayor improvements in certain areas, Loma Verde and Ferne, Charleston from Middlefield to El Camino and beyond but nothing has been done in the Circles, I had asked for a (ONE) STOP sign at the corner of Carlson Rd (coming from Charleston) and Redwood Circle, a very dangerous outlet from my Carlson Circle because of lack of view and speed on Redwood Circles and nothing has been done, while there are bumps on streets that don't really need them and gardens in crossroads that make them more dangerous for pedestrians and children on bikes.
There is no police patrol near schools, example Fairmeadow. Very little patrol on Alma and around the dangerous railroad crossing on Churchill. Cars drive at 60 plus miles per hour on Alma.
Also Alma is a shame with trash cans all week long. I have to remove my trash cans after they are serviced or somebody complains (I am 80 years old, by myself) and Alma has trash cans always by the street that looks terrible.
Why every neighborhood in Palo Alto does not get the same service? Louise, Ferne, Amarillo ( the road finish on Louise and Amarillo is a shame, already dirty, inadequate and I bet very expensive, it is confusing a total waste of money), Loma Verde and Professor Ville get all the improvements while the Circles get nothing, only high speed cars and even School Busses cut from Alma at full speed on Lindero and Redwood Circle. Why are there so much road construction on Charleston and Alma (almost daily) and Alma in South Palo Alto. This is just the beginning of my questions, I have gone to city meetings and I was never chosen to talk.
I have to also say that the police department was great during my husband long illness, for about three years, they came to our house to lift him from the floor, they took him to the hospital, they were always helpful, and correct. Thanks to them.
40 I am concerned about the conflict between cars and bikes on the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero and downtown.
We have been promised a traffic circle and or other measures for slowing cars. What is the status of the traffic circle at Kingsley and Bryant Street?
41 Add more police budget to make the residents feel safe. 42 Decide what to do with Cubberley
43 Public safety is by far the highest priority. Besides "police, fire and emergency medical", additional measures for improving public safety will also be important, e.g., community watch, using technology to improve automated surveillance...
8.c
Packet Pg. 258
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 10
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
44 Properly funding the trust funds for retiree pensions and medical benefits should be higher than all the priorities you've listed above.
That's the most critical element in achieving fiscal sustainability. The fact that you left this off your list really worries me.
We're seeing a big uptick in crime, and many minor crimes are not followed up on by the police, leading citizens to stop reporting all of these incidents. Thus, I believe that the current crime statistics undercount the true problem. Job #1 for our local government should be maintaining order and taking actions that discourage crime.
As I mentioned in suggestions above, I still can't believe cities like Palo Alto have made promises to retirees (pensions and medical benefits) that are not fully funded. This is a time bomb that will come back to bite us later on, causing a big decrease in non-essential services. I recommend we tackle this problem responsibly.
45 More funding for adult community classes
46 Traffic enforcement.
Improve tree program - natives
47 Get a nighttime curfew for planes out/into SFO, like San Jose. 48 You'll never be able to build enough new housing in our built-out city to even make a dent in housing costs, let alone make it 'affordable.' Don't further bankrupt the town in this futile endeavor. Every additional housing unit does not bring in the revenue to cover the cost of its increased services.
49 Stop digging up the Charleston/Arastradero corridor every year! You keep working on it, wasting money, causing traffic jams - and make it harder to drive and bike (yes, I do both).
50 Funding for task force to identify and eliminate local zoning regulations blocking dense housing development.
Increasing mass transit options.
What percentage of emergency services are for police vs other emergency departments?
51 I believe that all City of Palo Alto efforts related to climate change should be terminated. The existing programs will have no measurable impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but will have measurable and adverse impact on the city's fiscal health. Those people who work in the programs can be re-directed to higher priorities, which I rank above.
52 We also need to find funds to work on climate change
8.c
Packet Pg. 259
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 11
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
53 I would like to understand how the city is measuring current program effectiveness and estimating cost effectiveness of new programs. For example, it's hard to know if we need to spend more on
police/fire/medical unless we know how well those services are currently performing now and how much it would cost to make them better buy some increment.
Also, many of these questions seem to assume the conclusion. For example, "Funding affordable housing and homeless services" is a solution, while, "increase housing affordability and reduce homelessness" is the goal. You can increase housing affordability by reducing building restrictions, no additional funding required. And are there any proven cost effective programs for reducing homelessness?
What is the formal measurement process the city is using in evaluating service levels and cost effectiveness of potential improvements? 54 For the Lucie Stern Community Theater:
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater
55 City-owned facilities such as Lucie Stern Center are important assets and need to be maintained as much as libraries or fire stations. This is more valuable in my view than building a new police building.
Many of the above priorities are overlapping!
56 I specifically think Palo Alto should invest in our grid. It's a durable community asset, and it supports our sustainability goals through electrification.
57 It's difficult for me to rank these needs, one over the other......however I would put funding improvements to the Lucy Stern Theater near the top since it adds immeasurably to the quality of life in Palo Alto Is it possible to sponsor a volunteer position for theater maintenance with cooperation from Avenidas who has a rooster of engaged, talented seniors?
8.c
Packet Pg. 260
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 12
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
58 Abilities United used to have a therapy pool that people with disabilities and seniors could use. They no longer have that and Palo Alto could really use a good hot therapy pool. It could be open to the public, and not just disabled and senior people. There is such a big senior population in this town and I don’t understand why there’s not more facilities for seniors. Why don’t we have a functioning animal shelter? Why doesn’t the city take better care of the streets and roads? Why doesn’t the city take better care of the existing parks and facilities? We don’t need another gym.
Why don’t we have a functioning animal shelter? Why doesn’t the city take better care of the streets and roads? Why doesn’t the city take better care of the existing parks and facilities?
59 I am particularly concerned about Lucie Stern Theatre. It is in dire need of maintenance (e.g. seats, plumbing..), facilities upgrade (better ventilation), and personnel to oversee its operation.
60 G
61 Lucie Stern Theatre1
62 We have beautiful community areas (Lucie Stern) that desperately need funding. Please budget for maintaining the resources we have!
63 Addressing traffic congestion and noise pollution. Establishing and Strictly enforcing noise controls from motorcycles and speeding cars at night.
Having the Palo Alto police use their already extensive funds in patrolling at night and break-in prevention tactics.
Maintenance of our public spaces and freeway corridors - our streets and freeways are embarrassingly broken and dirty
These issues have become a major concern in the safety and quality of life for us residents.
How are the current taxes and funds being utilized? How much is going toward paying administrative overhead and city officials salaries vs actual community services?
What is the effectiveness score of our police and city administrators enforcing and implementing safety, noise control, community services, infrastructure maintenance and clean streets?
64 Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater
65 I am a resident of Stanford, not Palo Alto. But I would like to urge you to adequately support the Lucie Stern Theater. Brian White, 881 Tolman Dr, Stanford.
8.c
Packet Pg. 261
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 13
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
66 Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater
Add more funds to the Children's Theatre to keep a vibrant community treasure that helps our youth and builds self confidence 67 Lucy Stern Community Center Theatre needs maintenance. Further a city employee needs to be assigned to oversee the theatre. This facility is 100 years old and is showing its age and lack of recent maintenance. 68 Restore and repair the Lucie Stern theatre. It provides an important and necessary cultural center for this university town. It's a legacy that needs to be maintained and cared for.
69 I suggest that city staff opportunities for training regarding interaction with citizens be made available. On two occasions, I attempted to get answers to questions: (1) regarding marking parking spaces so drivers would take up one instead of two spaces; and (2) repair of sidewalks.
The responses from city staff were inadequate, in my opinion. On another occasion, when underground power was being installed in the residential area south of University Avenue, communication from the individual coordinating the operation was adequate. I think the quality of communication should be less varied.
When will the overhead power lines be taken down, now that power is delivered underground?
70 Refurbish Lucie Stern Theater
Move ahead on rebuilding Cubberley Community Center
71 Lucy Stern Theater is a vital resource for our well-respected, top-quality community opera and theater companies, West Bay Opera and Palo Alto Players, but it has been sadly neglected for many years, and is in desperate need of plumbing, heating, and lighting upgrades, as well as both basic maintenance and ongoing care.
72 Lucie Stern facility is in particular need of upgrade, having been around for a century.
Seems that #1 and #3 in my choices have some overlap.
Affordable housing needs developer and probably city tax incentives/subsidies. Might be a different type of investment than other items
8.c
Packet Pg. 262
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 14
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
73 Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theatre.
74 Palo Alto should invest in either a major remodel of Lucie Stern Theater or build a new theater. The theater is worn out, its technology is obsolete making it difficult for our wonderful theater companies to work there, and it is too small. TheatreWorks won a Tony and many of their performances are in Mountain View where they built a wonderful new theater some years ago. We must invest in Palo Alto's wonderful theater talent!
75 Attend to the need of maintenance of the Lucy Stern Theater and Community Center. This is a gem and must be preserved. Many people are affected by the opportunities presented here.
Put it in the budget.
76 Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater
Arts are important to this - any! - community, and the 100 year old Lucie Stern Theater is a landmark that deserves more respectful treatment than it's currently getting. Those of us who produce those arts - plays and operas for example - need your help.
77 Some of these categories appear to overlap. This means that answers won’t be accurate.
78 Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades and restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater.
8.c
Packet Pg. 263
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 15
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
79 Upgrading the Palo Alto electrical grid so that Electric cars, Electric space heating and water heating can be adequately served. Perhaps even finishing the promise to underground utilities while upgrading them.
Let’s NOT build a Gym.
80 Please keep in mind the needs of older citizens who no longer can get around easily. The Downtown Library, for just one example, is one thing that needs to be kept available to us.
81 Magical Bridge Playground maintenance, Lucie Stern Theater sets and infrastructure, summer music concerts
82 Provide funding to maintain and upgrade the Lucy Stern complex.
Wiring and plumbing does age and wear out and no longer comply with code. That can place its very existence in jeopardy.
83 Lucie Stern Theater and Community Center are most definitely in need of upgrades. Please put funds toward these very valuable community assets.
84 The school programs through Explore Online are not convenient for double working parents from a timing perspective. Can we check how population mix for parents have changed and adapt to it? Are there reports on current state of infrastructure, crime rates etc. which help understand current investment in defensive/maintenance activities and what’s the right mix?
85 Who is benefitted by the after-school and summer youth programs? Are lower income families appropriately subsidized for these programs? Is the city working on solutions to the problem of people living in RVs around the city? Why do I never see traffic law enforcement any more - speeding and red light running with impunity, creating dangerous situations for kids and adults?
86 Community assets such as the Lucie Stern Theatre have been allowed to atrophy through lack of maintenance & cutting necessary staffing like the theatre facilities manager. It should be much more of a priority to preserve the city's heritage and existing facilities and services than to constantly be on looking for new ways to spend tax revenue on splashy & politically trendy new programs.
87 Repair & improve Lucie Stern theater & the Children’s Theater.
8.c
Packet Pg. 264
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 16
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
88 Repairs and improvements to Lucie Steen Community Theater are much needed
89 The city needs to spend money rehabing Lucie Stern, rather than spend money on street striping and building concrete barriers in middle of streets.
There are a number of items that I consider VERY VERY low priority.
Hard to make them all a 10. Comments: city services - do not need any more, think about reducing them. Long library hours - is this needed? Funding homeless services - look how great the city did with the Opportunity center. People were to stay there for a max of 2 years.
Residents do not want to/ do not plan to move. Maintaining after school programs - is this a role for city or for PAUSD
90 3.5 Fiber internet Seeing an increasing number of homeless roaming around our residential streets. What are we doing about it? Not sure why that’s happening, but feel like there should be more planning and action around that on a local, state and national level. More specifically I worry about the mentally ill roaming my neighborhood where my kids are. We spend so much $$ (mortgage and taxes) to live here that it boggles the mind that the homeless can too and I can’t figure out 1. why this is happening more so in the last few months, 2. There seems to be no plan and 3. Why should we just accept all homeless people who come? Does anyone have any good actionable ideas and the ability to execute on those ideas?
91 Repair/Upgrade existing buildings especially:
Build New Animal Shelter
Maintain and upgrade Lucy Stern Theatre
Why are talking about new initiatives when we haven't taken care of existing buildings and programs? We have no need of a new gym until the Animal Shelter is improved and Lucy Stern Theatre Repairs and Maintenance is insured. Why aren't the bathrooms at Lucy Evans Interpretive Center open to hikers? Mt. View has bathrooms available in the Baylands. We have them - we just don't want to maintain them. 92 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should be made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top housing requirements for our City?
8.c
Packet Pg. 265
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 17
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
93 Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
94 Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats, insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a theatre that serves
thousands?
95 I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city is not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been doing.
96 The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example, the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater.
97 We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct non profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell bonsai to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation of the ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to rec centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large lap pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had something like that here and affordable.
8.c
Packet Pg. 266
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 18
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
98 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
99 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about? 100
With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user feedback;?
Thanks for trying
101 Funding for adaptation to climate change
102 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will need to focus on maintaining service levels.
103
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City residents.
104
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs they create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc.,) Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being here?
105
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be more widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on itself first and foremost.
8.c
Packet Pg. 267
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 19
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
106
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether there is a wedding or not.
107
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem is the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When the theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event there are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access.
108 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
109
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the idea should be postponed indefinitely.
110 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should be made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top housing requirements for our City?
111
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
8.c
Packet Pg. 268
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 20
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
112
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats, insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a theatre that serves
thousands?
113
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city is not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been doing.
114
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example, the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater.
115
We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct non profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell bonsai to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation of the ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to rec centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large lap pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had something like that here and affordable.
116 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
117 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about?
8.c
Packet Pg. 269
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 21
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
118
With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user feedback;?
Thanks for trying
119 Funding for adaptation to climate change
120 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will need to focus on maintaining service levels.
121
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City residents.
122
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs they create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc,) Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being here?
123
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be more widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on itself first and foremost.
8.c
Packet Pg. 270
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 22
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
124
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether there is a wedding or not.
125
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem is the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When the theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event there are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access. 126 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
127
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the idea should be postponed indefinitely.
128
: El Camino Real and certain intersections need to be upgraded. : It can take a LONG time to get through Palo Alto at times on El Camnino and lights need to be better coordinated or in sync. 1) When will road repair be done around Palo Alto in 2022/23? 2) Fiber - this is being discussed, but when will it be rolled out? And have we thought of coordinating with other cities around us? Why go piecemeal when working with adjoining cities on a larger scale can cut costs.
129 Expenditures and scope of each of the above priorities as well as duration of time to achieve goals.
8.c
Packet Pg. 271
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 23
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
130
Continuing to reduce our carbon footprint should be a high priority.
Completing (the initiatives we've undertaken to reduce the risk of flooding along San Francisquito Creek should be a high priority. My sense is that there's friction between the city's Development office and homeowners / contractors which I think is unfortunate and should be addressed; I wonder if we're being "over regulated." Water conservation will be increasingly important. Balancing growth vs traffic congestion and citizen quality of life is an ongoing challenge, my sense is that we over prioritize growth. Ensuring that our recyclables are actually recycled and not simply shipped to low income locations around the world is a responsibility we all share; "zero waste" only works if the outcome of recycling is truly zero on the broadest / global scale.
131 Fix the building permit issuance process. I am only hearing how awful it is from everyone
8.c
Packet Pg. 272
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 24
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
132
Of course the effectiveness of our basic services, street repairs, and public services (especially fire/polce/emergency) are extremely important and should be supported as needed. Once those are reasonably sound, street repairsI would like to see Palo Alto learn from the Los Altos downtown model which seems to prioritize a healthier, more balanced, flexible business model that offers its citizens a richer interaction and connection with the community. I often shop in Los Altos for the fabric store, knitting shop, bakery, bookstore, pet store, skate shop, etc. It is difficult that PA is larger and has several shopping areas--T&C, Midtown, downtown, and Cal Ave, but looking at these resources from a comprehensive perspective--which perhaps you have done--would be a useful embedded/ongoing process. Expanding resources for our high school teens is a rich area to explore--a space where teens can play games, eat, make music, study, take classes, etc. would be a tremendous addition. The MP teen space might be successful for younger ones but it doesn't capture the needs of our older teens. Perhaps we need to find someone who is interested in being a benefactor in the vein of Anne Wojcicki
(https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/07/16/anne- wojcicki-makes-it-official-im-behind-los.html)? I am afraid if we leave the market to dictate the business offerings--especially on California Ave--we will see a continued decline in utility of, connection with, and income from our downtown businesses.
What are the basic services? How does the distribution of our funds compare with other comparable and vibrant cities--eg, what percentage of the budget goes to youth programs, safety, road repairs, etc.?
133 What is the city's growth plan
134
Palo alto and the county, state and country need to disallow foreign realestate investment. It is not acceptable that non US citizens determine what gets developed. This leads to homelessness and barren cities without amentities citizens need.
The entire basis of the cities revenues is built on hotel taxes and no one uses hotels but AirBnB. We need to restructure the finances so that sound reliable income streams can fund basic services reliably. The pandemic taught us that travel and tourism is completely optional.
Something more stable such as sales tax or property tax is required.
Energy taxes may also be required.
135
Stop water fluoridation. It's a toxin and proved to lower baby's IQ.
Please repair the gap of side walks. I tripped and took a fall and injured.
136 gigabit municipal fiber to every house
8.c
Packet Pg. 273
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 25
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
137 Improve electrical infrastructure
Don’t spend money on fiber services
8.c
Packet Pg. 274
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 26
Comments from Feedback Mailer
The following comments were submitted in response to the comments section of the mailed version of the survey with a perforated tear-off postcard to mail back to the City.
Written
Comment # Comment
1 Continue working on Airplane noise solutions
2 Traffic safety: Too many drivers ignore stop signs.
3 1 - Dramatically reduce pollution footprint
4 Just tarmacing street doesn't clear bumps under it. Bad for backs! S.P. Alto, Middlefield 5 The one about "community-owned assets" is very confusing. 6 More street lights in neighborhood
7 Finish putting utility wires underground across all Palo Alto 8 Build trash-to-energy converter @ Baylands
9 My granddaughter is a TEACHER and can't afford to live here most important teacher housing is no the very unacceptable answer
10 What about sustainability. 0.5) What about green initiatives & sustainability 11 The condition of many roads in Palo Alto is terrible 12 What about code enforcement?
13 The rest are so nebulous, it's impossible to make a intelligent choice 14 We need CITY-FUNDED TREE service!
15 We should allow Castilleja to build & grow
16 Top city priorities should be: police/paramedics (emergency response), utilities (public works) 17 Animal shelter/spaying
18 What does our #6 above really mean?
19 More pickleball courts!
20 Sustainability, climate change plans etc.
21 We live in a safe community, housing is a crisis. Allow more housing! 22 On the supply side by greater public ownership, i.e. public banking, ISP etc.
Comment on services: ALL DEMAND SIDE!!!
23 Fix the police! Fire the violent officers who cause the City to be sued!!! No pensions.
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - More mental health services
Adding public safety... - improve training and better screening of the police recruits 24 Foothill Park - take it back!
25 1 - Create more parks & open areas in this crowded city 26 We need to invest in making Palo Alto a more quitable place to live for everyone. 27 I am concerned about the judge who said utilities profits to general fund is a tax! 28 1 - prep for/mitigate/reduce climate change
29 Repair all non-working street intersection cameras
30 Stop leaf blowers (noise pollution
31 Bike friendly improvement and good tree health/canopy 32 Remove overhead utility lines
33 PLEASE SUPPORT THE AIRPORT. THANK YOU.
34 There are far more important city services than fiber-in-the-home! Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - How is this different from all that follow? Investing in comm..., funding homeless..., improving services...., repairing streets - how are these different?
35 REAPIRA STREETS – POLICE
8.c
Packet Pg. 275
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 27
Written
Comment # Comment
36 POLICE LEAF BLOWERS!!!! Bring down sound pollution
37 Especially, longer hours @ Children's Library. Whose expansion was supported thru PALF! 38 We are very disappointed w/ these questions. They are so vague. For example what does expanding services mean? What's the difference between #7 and #4 for roads? 39 Issues like crime + roads - which you ignore for libraries. Who uses a library? 40 Lucie Stern Community Center needs attention please. 41 Investing in community owned assets like community centers - particularly Lucie Stern 42 Why to roads appear twice on the list? Please define basic services versus city services. 43 Add speedbumps, reduce speeding cars.
What does expanding City services mean?
Community owned assets are already great.
City has already great work in affordable housing and homeless service area.
Put up speed limit signs.
Reduce residential and personal safety crimes (for police) 44 No to expanding City services and funding affordable housing and homeless services.
Stop police radio encryption (Number 1 - more transparency) 45 Fix Churchill bike lanes at Alma
46 Install smart meters and help with solar installs
If you want to known "improvement needed?" why "maintain?" 47 The City needs to address excessive noise from airplanes. Fun this! Top priority! 48 More active policing. Less value futurism
49 Expanding project safety net to include mental health services for adults + youth 50 1 - Fiber to the home from City Muni Internet
51 Please preserve Cal Ave as a No-Car area
52 #1 Priority: Traffic safety kids/teen bike safety - much more police vigilance needed.
Comments on services:
Cut down semis + tractor trailers off our streets!!!
Road safety standards have decreased appallingly in 3-5 years 53 1 - Fix the railroad level crossings!
54 NOT "defund" but "redesign" w/ social services
55 Maintain tree + flower beds on corners (like the 70's + 80's) 56 These streets are the worse/El Camino need ASAP atten 57 Resolve/improve traffic problem on El Camino & Embarcadero - Alma, etc. 58 Resume shuttle
59 Emergency vehicles are very noisy on Middlefield. Cut back on sirens - only use when absolutely necessary. Residences are affected by noise level.
60 I value & appreciate services that are currently provided. Thank you. 61 Please less construction! It obstructs traffic
62 WORK ON OPPOSING THE NEW IDEA OF ALLOWING 4 HOUSES ON A 50x100 Sq.ft.std LOT 63 Comments on Services:
Maintaining basic services - roads
64 Stop the stack & pack housing, you only get so many people. Get homeless off the street rehab programs
65 Lack of P.A. employees & using contractors has lead to lack of a or terrible service. Are the plans to hire people instead.
66 Stop racism - no firmament action
67 Cubberley
68 How many existing City positions are currently unfilled?
8.c
Packet Pg. 276
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 28
Written
Comment # Comment
69 Castilleja? Why?
Palo Alto takes too long to make decisions on everything. 70 Don't add new things, first improve existing services. Reduce costs, simplify.
Programs like Citywide yard sale are excellent.
71 Please maintain service at College Terrace Library.
72 Removing the entrance fee to Foothills Park!
73 Invest in prepaid questionnaire returns
74 Public safety number 1 always; streets and roads number 2 75 Keep libraries open 7 days a week
(down arrow) police support
76 Getting rid of gas powered leaf blowers - priority for climate change, pollution, and public health.
Specifically repair and preservation at Lucy Stern
77 Please please improve the dumping of things in streets/yards, especially El Camino 78 Don't we already have public safety? How about "improve" Funding - esp homeless services
79 Should not group public safety services together - need more police not fire. 80 The liquid amber trees are dangerous. They need to be trimmed or replaced. Esp. dangerous for people on the street walking
81 3 - More concerts in the park
82 #1 Priority - Airplane noise needs to go!! Quality of life has suffered!!
Comments on Services
Tree maintenance-city trees
83 Please do what you can to stop the release of feral cats in any community
Comments on Services
Maintaining basic service - unnecessary waste of water for lawns is of great concern. Runoff is noticeable on a daily basis.
Expanded City services - such as processing permits and timely inspections. 84 The roundabouts and islands built, e.g. along Ross Rd., are incompetently designed and constitute a danger to the public, cyclists especially.
Comments on Services
Maintaining basic services - sewage, utilities, street sweeping 85 All of the above are important!
86 Pay attention to traffic airplane over the city. Residents should be informed and have input in projects like Rinconada park that seems to a big budget and not aesthetically fitting in the park. 87 El Camino is in terrible condition south of Stanford! Please fix. 88 Enforce codes with fines. Need more housing. Crack down on short-term (<30 day) rental of homes (400+ AirB+B homes)
89 Skip the BS about airplane noise or close PA Airport 90 When it rains, the sewers/drains get backed up and flood sidewalks, it has been happening for years - when will this get fixed??
Unclog street drains! Downtown South Forest Ave odd #s side of street 91 Diverse training in case of earthquakes for elders in different languages 92 Midtown trees removed; not replaced
Restore basic services first
8.c
Packet Pg. 277
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 29
Written
Comment # Comment
improving services - tree services
tree planting and maintenance in midtown
93 Please do not continue to increase utility rates. Do not start charging for electricity based on time of day usage.
94 Mental health programs. Make a natural swimming place in Foothill Park or Arastradero - instead of only concrete swimming pools.
95 Please crack down on crime.
8.c
Packet Pg. 278
Schedule of Meetings
Published April 07, 2022
This is a courtesy notice only. Meeting dates, times, and locations are subject to change. Almost all Palo Alto Council and some Standing C ommittee meetings are cablecast live on Channel 26. If there ha ppens to be concurrent meetings, one meeting will be broadcast on Channel 29.
Persons with disabilities who requ ire auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities or programs, or who woul d like inform ation on the City’ s compliance with the America ns with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact: ADA Coo rdinator, City of Palo Alt o, 650-329-2550 (v oice) or 329-1199 (TDD), [email protected]. Listening assistive devices are available in the Counci l Chambers. S ign language interpreters will be provided upon request with 72 hours advance notice. Please advise the City Clerk's Office (650-329-2571) of meetings or changes by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesdays for inclusion in the following week’s schedule. 4/07/2022
Meetings are held in-person and by virtual teleconference.
SATURDAY, April 9
Sp. State of the City, 11:00 a.m. (Mitchell Park Community Center) M
ONDAY, April 11
Sp. City Council Meeting, 5:00 p.m.
T
UESDAY, April 12
Policy & Services Committee Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
WE
DNESDAY, April 13
Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
T
HURSDAY, April 28
Historic Resources Board Meeting, 8:30 a.m.
M
ONDAY, April 18
Sp. City Council Meeting, 5:00 p.m.
TUESD
AY, April 19
Sp. Finance Committee Meeting, 5:30 p.m.
WE
DNESDAY, April 20
Rail Committee Meeting, 1:00 p.m.
T
hursday, April 21
Architectural Review Board Meeting, 8:30 a.m.
T
hursday, April 21
Public Art Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
T
uesday, April 26
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
W
ednesday, April 27
Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
T
hursday, April 28
Human Relations Commission, 5:00 p.m.
a
Packet Pg. 279
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14304)
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 4/18/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT: 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 P arameters for a Business License Tax and an Affirmation of the Gas General Fund Transfer; and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps Including Launch of Third Poll, and Council's Non-Binding Intentions for Allocation of Potential Proceeds From: City Mana ger
Lead Department: City Attorney
Attached is a draft template of a potential non-binding resolution that could be used as a form of communication to inform the public of Council’s intentions regarding use of the Business Tax proceeds.
Attachments:
• Attachment9.a: Draft Resolution: Uses of Business Tax Proceeds 9 Packet Pg. 280
8 Supplemental
NOT YET APPROVED
1 Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Describing the Council’s Intentions Regarding Uses of Proceeds of a Business License Tax to be Submitted to the Voters for Approval in November 2022
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto is a safe, healthy, and vibrant community with a rich array of public services and facilities that enhance the lives and experiences of residents, businesses, workers and visitors to the City . These include a network of neighborhood parks; five libraries; excellent public and private schools and universities; community centers, museums and theater facilities; high-quality local health care services; walkable and bikeable neighborhoods; an extensive urban forest; two lively downtown areas with indoor and outdoor dining , live music and shopping opportunities; world-leading climate protection programs; and more.
B. The City of Palo Alto is also a well-run municipality, with a Triple-A bond rating and a well -deserved reputation for pro-active fiscal management, strong ongoing investments in public infrastructure, and conservative financial planning.
C. As Palo Alto continues to grow and look toward the future, City leaders have been considering asking the City’s voters to approve a tax on businesses that operate in the City, as is common in many neighboring communities. A business tax would ensure that organizations that benefit from doing business in Palo Alto also do their part to support the City’s efforts to meet evolving challenges, provide for new and expanding public needs, and maintain the high-quality environment that residents, workers, and visitors enjoy.
D. If a business tax is approved by voters, its proceeds will be placed in the City’s general fund for use on general government services . Each year, Council Members elected by the voters will determine the uses of those proceeds that best serve the public interest.
E. With this Resolution, t he City Council wishes to inform voters of its intentions and current thinking regarding the public services and programs that could be supported by business tax proceeds.
Accordingly the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1.
SECTION 2.
9a
Packet Pg. 281
8a
Supplemental
NOT YET APPROVED
2 SECTION 3.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
__________________________
City Attorney
8a
Supplemental
Packet Pg. 282