|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto residents may soon find themselves paying higher fees for everything from fire inspections and Children’s Theatre tickets to park visits and trips to Animal Services to get their pets neutered.
City Manager James Keene has proposed dozens of changes to the city’s municipal fees — changes that city officials hope will help them recoup the cost of providing services. The new fees are expected to bring in about $668,000 in new revenues and help the city narrow a projected $7.3 million budget gap in fiscal year 2011, which begins July 1.
The proposed Municipal Fees schedule, which the City Council Finance Committee is scheduled to discuss Monday afternoon, also includes fee increases for reviews of development applications, fire inspections, rental of Cubberley Community Center facilities and building permits.
Among the two most controversial items in the proposed fee schedule are the new “vehicle fees” for Palo Alto’s open-space preserves and “participation fees” for Children’s Theatre. Both have already won the backing of the Finance Committee but have yet to be adopted by the full council.
The proposed park fee would require residents to pay $5 to park their vehicles at the Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park and Arastradero Preserve. Park lovers will also have the option of buying a $40 pass that would gain them access to the three open-space areas for a year.
The Finance Committee voted 3 to 1 on May 11 to approve the new park fees, with Councilman Larry Klein dissenting.
At the Children’s Theatre, adult tickets for theater performances would cost from $10 to $20, depending on the show. Tickets currently cost $5 to $10. Tickets for children, which currently range from $1 to $5, would cost $5 to $10.
The theater would also start charging children between $50 and $300 (depending on the production) for participating in the shows. Children who are not Palo Alto residents would be asked to pay an additional fee, which according to the proposed schedule would be up to 50 percent of the regular fee.
At the May 25 meeting of the Finance Committee, Children’s Theatre actors and members of the support group Friends of Children’s Theatre criticized the proposed participation fees and argued that the new fees would create an entry barrier for low-income residents.
The committee concluded that the theater should be treated like any other sports or youth-theater organization and voted to institute the new fees for participants.
The city also plans to institute a new fee for birthday parties at the Children’s Theatre. The fee would be between $275 and $500, with non-residents paying extra.
The cost of renting a room at the Palo Alto Art Center would also increase for both residents and non-residents. Renting the auditorium would cost $94 per hour for residents and $141 per hour for non residents (compared to the current rates of $85 and $127.50, respectively).
Athletes would also feel the sting of the fee increases. The fees to use the city’s synthetic turf fields (Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields and Cubberley Football Field), which currently range from $45 to $90 per hour for city residents, would be raised to $55 to $150 per hour. These fees would be lower for local nonprofit groups ($40 to $100 per hour) and youth sports organizations ($30 to $50 per hour).
The city would also implement a new fee for use of grass fields. The fees would range from $42 to $75 per hour for residents and from $75 to $150 per hour for non-residents. Local nonprofit and youth-sports groups would be charged discount rates.
Residents looking to adopt a dog or cat from the city’s Animal Services division would also be required to pay adoption fees starting in July. The fees range from $135 to $150 depending on the animal and its age.
Among the more unusual new fees is the proposed $80 fee for spaying a rat — a fee that would also take effect in July. Meanwhile, the costs of spaying and neutering some of the more conventional domestic pets would go up by $5 to $45, depending on the size and type of animal. The Animal Services division would also charge new fees for wound treatment relating to the spaying and neutering surgeries.
In most cases, the fees are designed to “recover the full cost of providing services after increases in expenditures,” according to a report accompanying the proposed fee schedule. But the report also notes that in some cases, increased fees may not result in greater revenues.
“Even with some fee increases, revenue associated may not necessarily increase if the volume drops,” Senior Financial Analyst Mimi Nguyen wrote in the report. “And similarly, as some revenues increase, resulting from fee increases, other increases are the result of higher volume, not increased fees.”
The Finance Committee is scheduled to discuss the proposed fees at 4 p.m. Monday at the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. The full council is scheduled to adopt the 2011 budget and the fee increases on June 28.
I think this is a necessary step, and hope the council has the fortitude to go through with it. If we refuse to pay more taxes, we must initiate more fee-for-services. We cannot continue to demand more services for less money. It doesn’t work in my household budget and it won’t work for government.
>… the fees are designed to “recover the full cost of providing services after increases in expenditures,” …
I’m not against charging for services, but $668K is not a huge amount to offset ongoing structural budget deficits.
The Community Services department staff comprised 161 FTEs and 296 hourly employees in 2009. Total pay for hourly workers was $1.28M and for FTEs was $7.6M. It will take a lot of fees to pay those salaries.
How much will it cost the city to process all these fees? Is $668K gross or net?
I think these services are well worth it, and I’ll gladly pay them and add on a 10% donation to help. It would speak well for the Friends of the Children’s Theatre to assist low-income participants with scholarship funds, and maybe a special city fund could be set aside for low income patrons of Animal Services neuter and vet fees.
Some of these charges make a lot of sense, like the Children’s Theater.
However, I am not sure about paying per vehicle at the three parks. This would in effect reduce the number of visitors as there are many free parks available, and my personal feeling is that it will end up costing more in collecting the fees than it may take in. Additionally, does this mean that non-residents and residents would pay the same fee or how would this work?
it simply amazes me that residents seem to think that paying fees above and beyond what their taxes are already more than paying for will somehow compensate for government stupidity. maybe we should ask why the city has promised Keene a $2,000,000 house loan. maybe we should ask why the city is still paying a former city managers house payment and property taxes even though he is no longer employed by the city. what happened to $4.8 million in city funds that city officials were unable to account for in the 2009-2010 budget. who approved a $100,000+ study on another recent police station upgrade review even though numerous studies have already been completed and reviewed. asking residents to pay fees above and beyond what their taxes are already supporting to maintain an out of control spending frenzy is the final insult.
Increasing animal adoption and spay/neuter fees could result in fewer adoptions and fewer dogs and cats fixed. Not good. The animals have suffered greatly with the recession, many ending up in bursting shelters through no fault of their own. These are innocent lives–not parks or theatres, and should be a top priority. More fees for the cash strapped could very well mean more suffering for already traumatized pets.
There were high hopes for Jim Keene who seems to be clueless as to what Palo Alto is all about. He is part of the problem and a thorn in the solution. All of these fees are just bandaids for the real problems at City Hall, and this city council is once again clueless to the underlying problems. Just look at the fritter money the council has approved in just the last six months. These fees are ‘window dressing’. Maybe time to start a recall.
These fees are punitive. The Children’s Theater just may not survive this assault after almost sixty years of existence. Families just can’t afford this. And paying through the nose to use parks, etc. for AYSO and other sports?? This is NOT what Palo Alto is all about, but then most of the employees don’t even live here so what do they care. The deal that Benest and Keene get for their homes is more than the governor of California gets!! Seniors can’t afford to fix the city’s sidewalk and many of those dangerous sections of concere are a lawsuit waiting to happen. PEople are paying huge amounts to live here. There should be something for their moeny. There seems to be no common sense at city hall and civic engagement is a big joke. The Public Works Department wastes money like a leaking faucet. Enough already. When do we take back control???
To “Bob”/Community Center –
Do you even have a clue how much you pay to the City or how it is used? Let’s say that your home has an appraised value on the property tax roles of $1 million -which is above the Palo Alto median value. At that level, and with the Prop 13 limit of 1% in property taxes, plus some extras for special districts and tax over rides – most of which goes to the school district – you’d be paying about 1.2% of your appraised value in property taxes every year, or about $12,000 per year. Sounds like – and is – a lot.
But – about 80% of that, or $9600 goes to the schools. The remaining 20% is split roughly 1/3 each – say 7% of the %12,000 total each – to the State, City, and County. So, you’re paying about $840 per year to the City general fund. That pays for police, fire, libraries, streets, parks, and a lot more.
Still think the City gets too much of your money? Ever take a look at where the other 93% goes? I guess it’s just easier to complain about the easy targets.
CHinCider – about 46% of the property taxes + a flat $587 goes to the Palo Alto school district. 8% goes to the city.
Of the $140 million budget general fund budget, $38 million is transfered from what the utilities charges it’s customers: Utility User’s Tax, “Return on Investment” charge and rental fees that the city charges.
I agree with the general thrust of Bob’s comments. There are positions in the general fund budget that Keene never proposed touching:
– the Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability ($150,000/year) – one of the big accomplishments for this person was setting up a 3rd farmer’s market on Wednesday (which later got shut down),
– look at the budget org chart for the HR department; there are 2 people devoted to “recruiting”; this when the city is supposedly laying off people.
– look at the budget org chart for Administrative Services; there is a graphics artist for producing the budget document
– the staff/city council wants to spend $275,000 to update the council chambers & confernce room, yet wants to charge homeowners the cost of repairing their sidewalks.
– the endless attempts to solve the police building – $500,000 on an option to buy land that they later decide not to buy, $100,000 on another study on alternatives.
– $2 million to buy a home for the city manager, while the previous city manager also has a $2 million home (plus the city is paying part of his property taxes).
But Keene thinks that school safety crossing guards are lower priority that the above, or foisting the cost of sidewalk repairs onto the residents.
>”it simply amazes me that residents seem to think that paying fees above and beyond what their taxes are already more than paying for will somehow compensate for government stupidity.”
Agree. Problem is that our taxes alone don’t cover all the services the city offers.
>”So, you’re paying about $840 per year to the City general fund. That pays for police, fire, libraries, streets, parks, and a lot more.”
Our taxes no longer cover “a lot more.” But nobody wants to cut any non-essential programs. Every program and service requires a staff, and salaries and benefits are breaking the bank. Budgetwatcher lists many unnecessary positions.
City Manager Keene is a nice guy, but maybe that’s the problem. He’s too much in the “let’s-play-nice-because-we’re-Palo-Alto mold. Too much City Hall Kool-Aid. We need a hatchet man (or woman) to come in and get SERIOUS about budget cuts.
Pension Plans Go Broke as Public Payrolls Expand
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=awW.rqJzAad4
Animal Services is one of the best things about living in Palo Alto.
Enlightened practices and easily accessible.
As far as City Hall and our manager and council go, they need to GET A GRIP. We don’t mind paying a modest fee for parking, but this will also require ENFORCEMENT. So do we “gate off” Baylands and Arastradero Preserve like Foothills Park? Erect a kiosk that houses a paid attendant? Why not only charge on weekends? Kick out the non-residents? (that will be sure to raise an outcry from the folks who wanted to open up Foothills park to the public a few years ago)
I hear about the city only hiring temps or part timers at the lower level administrative levels so they don’t have to pay benefits. That seems mean-spirited when pensions, perks, and salaries at the middle and higher levels are so lucrative. (by the way, PAUSD does this, too)
I believe that public servants should get a pension, but some job descriptions pay a far higher pension that others, and the way this is computed bears a stringent review.
Can I apply for the city manager or manager assistant job? I want to live in a $2 mil house, too, with the city subsidizing my loan.
Quit paving over retail for yet more crammed housing units!
Aw. Now all the wealthy mommyzillas will have to pay for their future Broadway stars to start their resume’s. The same for those future World Cup champions.
As for paying a modest $40 for an annual pass for the 2 real parks and one dump site, how else to pay for their staffing and maintenance? Issuance of a bumper or window sticker is the easiest solution. Forget the $5 per use fee; the cost to collect and enforce will probably be net zero, given Palo Alto’s history of over managing and staffing everything.
Now if we had a state mechanism for tacking on our previous year’s fee payments to next fiscal year’s property tax bill, they would be tax deductible.
The city already collects a lot of fees: Service Fee, Permit, and License Revenues in FY2010 Adjusted Budget totals $15,379,387.
The proposed fee increase of roughly $668K represents only about a 4% increase. With this net changed, the Service Fee, Permit, and License Revenues in FY2011 Proposed Budget totals $16,047,294.
I totally agree with Nora Charles–I strongly oppose the proposed fees for adopting animals from Animal services, and the increased fees for spaying female critters. These are punitive fees, and a first-grader could tell Mr. Keene what the results will be, especially with all the extra numbers of animals being dumped by “owners” in this recession.
It will not be humane for the non-adopted animals crammed into the animal shelter. It will not be humane for all the kittens and puppies born to female critters whom people will say they can’t afford to get spayed. It will be an inhumane situation–and a very costly one, sustaining all those extra animals.
Even if the city doesn’t care about blameless animals and impoverished owners, where is its common sense, for goodness sake? Or does it need yet another $5 billion to hire a consultant to agree with its shameful policies and priorities?
Here again the solution appears to raise fees and taxes. I still have not seen reduction in city employees pay or consolidation of jobs to eliminate duplication of work. I am not impressed with the suggestions as it still does not deal with the main problems which are salaries and benefits, especially the fire department.
To read that the sound system needs to be upgraded, now, when we do not have the money shows the lack of foresight of the City Council. You have lived with it this long, why upgrade when the city doesn’t have the money? Money is not being spent wisely. We need more people with business experience, running a for-profit enterprise and less attorneys who don’t seem to have financial expertise.
I support these fee increases, however, I will simply no longer go to the Baylands, Foothill Park or the Arastra Preserve.
Upping the fees for activities at the Children’s Theater is fair. Bear in mind only 5% of PA children actually participate and children living outside PA who participate should definitely pay more
Increasing fees for adopting animals from the animal shelter may be counter productive as it may slow the rates of adoption.
I’m glad my sidewalk has been repaired – thanks PA.
The $257,000 that’s budgeted to upgrade the city council chambers & counference rooms is for more than just the sound system; if it was just the sound system, it would be a $10,000 – $20,000 expense. This budgeted item shows where the city staff/council priorities are – update the council chambers is higher priority than public safety expenses like the school crossing guards.
To increase the cost of spaying and neutering animals will cause more suffering in the form of more unwanted animals and more money spent by the city in euthanizing homeless pets. If the city needs to charge more for these services as well as for low cost vaccines, we need a grass roots effort to raise money to support low cost spaying and neutering. Further, we need to keep adoption fees down. We want to encourage people to adopt from the shelter rather than buy a purebred animal from a breeder. Raising the cost of adoption will also be counter-productive. People are facing the heartbreak of having to give up their pets as they lose their homes. Let’s try to support finding homes for these animals and not make more barriers to getting them adopted by the city charging higher fees to adopt.
thanks to all for clarifying that fees by government agencies are somehow not considered as a tax. somehow when prop 13 was passed, government politicians simply chose to insert the word “fee” where “tax” used to be and hopefully mislead the public. sounds like it worked! whether you call it a tax or a fee it eventually ends up in the same pot.
I agree with all the animal lovers who have stated that increasing pets adoption fees and raising the price for spay and neuter could be counterproductive. More and more financially stressed people are already calling Palo Alto Humane Society for help with vouchers for neutering their pets or for stabilising nearby feral cat colonies.
Do ask for help if needed.
I urge everyone who would consider adopting a pet to do so, go to the PA animal services or adopt from your local rescue groups. If you cannot adopt but want to help, I am sure they would accept your donation if you are inclined to contribute to the cause. Thank you.
The Palo Alto Humane Society would like to express its concern about the proposed adoption and spay/neuter fee increases at Palo Alto Animal Services, the city’s shelter. The city shelter is not a no-kill facility, and high adoption fees could be lethal to the animals waiting in cages for a home. We also find it counterproductive to raise spay-neuter fees in such an economy. More animals will go unspayed, with their offspring ending up in the shelter, or abandoned on the street. We encourage the city council and the city manager to forego the temptation of raising fees at Palo Alto Animal Services. — Carole Hyde, director, Palo Alto Humane Society