Original post made
on Sep 20, 2013
This story contains 1016 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
Recovering the cost of many of the City's services is a wonderful idea. Programs and services which are used by only a small (but usually very vocal and enthusiastic) number of residents should be the first to be pushed towards self-sufficiency.
Using a combination of realistic fees and fundraising, more of the cost could be born by the participants rather than all the City residents. Raise the price of all programs for non-residents vs. residents. Provide scholarships for low-income residents.
The fact that our Junior Museum, which is a wonderful place, recovers only 2% of its costs is ridiculous.
The Council is on the right track. There can be rational levels of cost recovery. I vote for low recovery for the Junior Museum; however, if it were remodeled and used for an adult event (like many musuems)then full cost recovery can be levied.
Recently I asked about using the community meeting room at Miki's Market. At first I was staggered by the city's hourly charges for the room (a public benefit from the developer), but on second thought the city should recover its costs for administration and cleanup. Doesn't really matter..I was able to negotiate less cost from local hotel for using a nice meeting room all day vs a few hours at Miki's. Another example of irrational public benefits granted to a developer???
Cost recovery is good but cost reduction should be considered. I switched from city sponsored exercise classes to the Y because the classes are as good or better and I am paying a bit over half of what I was paying for the city classes.
Link below to study, on City's web-site--
I find it curious that there is little to no discussion of Palo Alto living within its means (sales tax receipts, property tax receipts, utility related net revenues, etc.). But looking for places to squeeze out another $100 to $1,000 seems to have its own unintended consequences. One such consequence could be the morale risk of having an attempt to go to the Junior Museum result in a parent and child being turned away for the inability to pay.
Would Palo Alto set up a scholarship fund for those who cannot afford the fee (would the administrative needs only increase city staffing).
Since we live in a community by definition there will be instances where the city funds items that I might not agree with but there is a greater good in my not imposing my will.
Perhaps we can have a thoughtful discussion on the topic.
So does the majority of city funds now go to pay for staff salaries and that of retirees that are not really retired, but that collect a hefty package from Palo Alto and take full, or part time, jobs in near-by cities?
Infrastructure work in Palo Alto is paid for by the county programs, such as VTA. Maybe the county will pick up the tab for these community services programs too. The county transportation agencies are very generous with their money.
With more and more stack and pack projects going up, there will be a lot more people for whom to provide community services.
Ambulance rides seem to offer excellent returns. A recent trip to the ER (2 blocks) was billed at $1500. B
I take all my senior art and exercise classes at either Mountain View or Los Altos since the classes cost so much less! My utilities are going up and up and services are getting cut,
it's not what I moved to Palo Alto for.
Interesting that the article mentions that the Junior Museum recovers 2% of its costs. It is something that my family used on many occasions for a short time when they were young.
Even more interesting is to talk about the Childrens Theatre but no mention of what percentage of its costs are recoved. I think this should have been included. The Childrens Theatre is beloved by some families and the rest of us don't get involved because it is something that takes a bigger time commitment than say the Junior Museum.
What is ludicruous is that families who get involved in Childrens Theatre have their after school activity for free. Those who would rather play sport, do music or art, or other activities, don't get it for free. All these programs are just as good for the wellbeing of the children involved. It would be unfair to say that one was superior to the wellbeing of children over another. However the continued situation remains.
I hope that the Childrens Theatre is being looked at when it comes to recovering some of its costs.
@Bloat - yes! reduce costs, not recoup costs. They are just talking about passing on the inefficiency of the city government instead of dealing with it.
The report says that the direct & indirect costs of the Children's Theater is around $1.75 million, and that 25% of the costs are recovered.
Agree totally with Bloat, cost recovery is great, but consider cost reduction first and last.T
I was told by another Palo Alto resident that schools in other cities send bus loads of kids on excursions to Palo Alto's Junior Museum and Zoo. Do they pay for this use of the Junior Museum and Zoo? They should be charged fees because why should Palo Alto taxpayers pay for providing these services to other cities? Not to mention the added congestion.
I believe that non-Palo Alto residents follow a separate fee schedule for reserving picnic tables at Palo Alto Parks, and it makes sense to me that non-residents should be charged extra for using City services.
Palo Alto Weekly, could you provide information as to what services are utilized by non-residents and whether they pay more than a Palo Alto resident for those services.
If one takes the time to review the City budgets for a decade, or so, it’s clear that many of the so-called “programs” offered by the City are for non-residents. The golf course, the airport, and the art center, for instance, all claim to have constituencies/customers/patrons in the range of 70+% that are non-residents. Other programs, like the library, claim that about 20% of its circulation is for non-residents. Even the police point out that about 2/3rds of its traffic stops are for non-residents. The soccer fields are routinely dominated by non-residents. And then there is the Cubberley Center, which caters heavily to non-residents, although its not clear if anyone knows exactly what percentage of the Center’s users are not Palo Alto residents.
It’s pretty clear that Palo Alto can not afford all of the “amenities” that it has created for itself--so these services/programs need to attract/service non-residents in order to exist. The City has not really done a good job tracking the costs of these programs (in my opinion). If it has, they haven’t shared that information with the public on a yearly basis.
Over the years, there has been a sentiment expressed that: “Palo Alto is a rich town—so it must share its wealth with its less fortunate neighbors”. So, that brings us to today—when its clear that the cost of “sharing the wealth” is quite large, and probably more out-of-control, than in-control.
Many requests to the City to create a matrix of services/programs, which would identify the users, costs and revenues for these programs has not resulted in anything particularly meaningful. Having such data would help the Administration to put these programs on a Profit&Loss footing. Too many people have come to believe that if the City makes something available, it’s free. Since nothing is really free, it’s time to start publishing the costs, so we all can understand where our money is going, and who are the primary beneficiaries of these City-provided services.
Of course the airport is brought up again.
Of course the airport is not a city service since all cities are not going to have their own airport. It is however a county service and should be judged accordingly.
The airport should be serving Santa Clara County because it is situated in Santa Clara County. It is not like a park, a library, or a soccer field.
> Of course the airport is not a city service since all cities
> are not going to have their own airport. It is however a
> county service and should be judged accordingly.
You are aware that the City of Palo Alto is planning to operate this airport as a City-provided service in the not-too-distant future?
@ senior: CPAU rates (including fees collected for the city general fund) are still far lower than PG&E, CA water, etc. No offense, but that is a convenient but ill-targeted rant that just doesn't add up when compared to the utility costs in other cities.
My 82 year old mother still lives our house in Menlo (on her own) and her utility costs are almost twice of what we pay for our full house here in PA.
> mother’s home in Menlo Park
Utilities bills are a function of cost per commodity billing unit, and actual use. Without comparing the rates, and actual uses, floor sizes and heat retention, of two different dwelling units in two different service areas, a casual observation that one bill is higher than another doesn’t really mean much.
Palo Alto’s electricity rates are lower than PG&E’s, but its natural gas rates are somewhat higher, on average. Water, trash pickup, and sewage charges seem to be mid-range of other local cities.
One must either compare specific utilities on a per-unit-consumed basis, or do a basket-of-services comparison, in order to make any meaningful comparison. Palo Alto has increasingly been moving services that have historically been funded by the City’s General Fund on the Utility bill, in both direct, and indirect, ways. Street lighting is not hidden in our electrical bill. Street sweeping now is a direct charge on our utility bills, as is storm drain maintenance. Additionally, there is a roughly 7% tax on the bill.