City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor

Transcription

1 City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor December 13, 2005 Honorable City Council Attn: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California AUDIT OF PARKS MAINTENANCE The Parks Division of the Community Services Department maintains approximately 262 acres of parks, athletic fields, landscaping of City facilities, medians, parking lots and garages, utility substations and well sites. The purpose of our review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of parks maintenance. Palo Alto parks overall are in very good condition. There are high levels of satisfaction, and condition ratings are high. To address ongoing challenges in maintaining parks, we recommend: implementing a complaint tracking and resolution system; earmarking dollars for minor, unanticipated repairs; adopting several additional playground equipment inspection program best practices; and notifying the public when herbicides or pesticides are used in parks. Opportunities exist to reduce the cost of parks maintenance services. The Parks Division spends about $3.8 million per year maintaining parks and other sites. Palo Alto has successfully contracted for routine landscape maintenance at some parks. We estimate the City could save about $200,000 to $280,000 annually by additionally contracting for routine landscape maintenance at the three largest parks (Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer). We estimate another $100,000 could potentially be saved by contracting for routine landscape maintenance at the Baylands Athletic Center, the Bowling Green, and El Camino Parks. Contracting for mowing of the neighborhood parks may be another opportunity for cost savings. Athletic field maintenance is a significant component of parks maintenance costs, but contracting for that maintenance would need to be discussed with PAUSD. Finally, there may be opportunities to reduce irrigation staffing as more systems are renovated. Fragmented accountability for parks hinders customer service and potentially increases costs. There are difficulties coordinating work across departments, and some responsibilities fall through the cracks. There is potential to improve efficiency in lighting maintenance. And there is potential to improve both efficiency and effectiveness in tree maintenance. The City needs to improve the monitoring of water usage in parks. The City has not complied with Water Efficiency Standards with regard to estimation of irrigation water requirements and the performance of water audits for new irrigation systems in City parks and athletic fields. Some aspects of the standards could be clarified, and should clearly assign responsibility for required tasks. Finally, the Parks Division needs user-friendly data on water usage. 1

2 Our report includes a total of 22 recommendations to improve parks maintenance operations. I will present this report to the Finance Committee on December 13 th. Staff has reviewed the information in this report and the City Manager s response is attached. We thank the staff in the Community Services, Public Works, and Utilities Departments for their cooperation and assistance during our review. Respectfully submitted, Sharon W. Erickson City Auditor Audit staff: Renata Falk, Senior Auditor 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Letter 1 Introduction 6 Background 6 Organization and Staffing 7 Parks Division Operating Expenditures 9 Audit Scope and Methodology 9 Palo Alto parks overall are in very good condition 11 High levels of satisfaction with parks condition 11 Capital improvements in parks 11 Condition ratings for City parks 11 Need for complaint tracking and resolution system 13 The Parks Division needs money earmarked in its operating budget to fund 13 unanticipated, minor park repairs Adoption of additional playground inspection best practices would further enhance 14 the City s playground inspection program CPRS Best Practice: Adopt a Comprehensive Playground Safety Policy Statement 14 CPRS Best Practice: Training 15 CPRS Best Practice: Documentation Practices 15 CPRS Best Practice: Corrective Action Practices 16 CPRS Best Practice: Performance Measurement 16 The City should notify the public when herbicides or pesticides are used in parks 16 Opportunities exist to reduce the cost of parks maintenance services 18 What does it cost to maintain your neighborhood park? 18 Palo Alto has successfully contracted for maintenance of some parks 19 The City could save an estimated $200,000 to $280,000 annually by contracting for 20 routine landscape maintenance of the three largest parks (Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer) Another estimated $100,000 could potentially be saved by contracting for routine 22 landscape maintenance at the Baylands Athletic Center, the Bowling Green and El Camino Parks Mowing of contracted neighborhood parks may be another opportunity for cost 22 savings Athletic field maintenance is a significant component of parks maintenance costs 23 There may be opportunities to reduce irrigation staffing as more systems are 24 renovated Fragmented accountability for parks hinders customer service and potentially 25 increases costs Who takes care of your neighborhood park? 25 Difficulties coordinating work across departments 26 Some responsibilities fall through the cracks 27 There is potential to improve efficiency in lighting maintenance 27 3

4 There is potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness in tree trimming 29 The City needs to improve monitoring of water usage in parks 30 The City has not complied with Water Efficiency Standards for irrigation systems 31 installed or renovated at parks or athletic fields The Water Efficiency Standards should clearly assign responsibility for required 32 tasks related to City sites Parks Division needs user-friendly data on water usage 33 Conclusion 34 Recommendations 34 CITY MANAGER S RESPONSE 37 APPENDICES Appendix A: Analysis of In-House Maintenance Versus Contracting Out 45 Appendix B: Detailed list of costs by site 50 Appendix C: City of Palo Alto Playground Inspections Checklist 58 Appendix D: Joint Powers Insurance Authority Periodic Playground Maintenance 60 Checklist LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Sites Maintained by Parks Division 7 Exhibit 2: Community Services Parks Division Organization Chart 8 Exhibit 3: Staffing Comparison of Area Cities 9 Exhibit 4: Parks Division Operating Expenditures FY through Exhibit 5: Palo Alto Residents Ratings of Parks 11 Exhibit 6: Observed conditions at parks and renovation dates 12 Exhibit 7: Summary of Surrounding Cities Policies Regarding Posting the Use of 17 Roundup Exhibit 8: Estimated Full Cost to Maintain Parks 18 Exhibit 9: Acreage of In-House and Contracted Services as a Percentage of Total 20 Acreage Exhibit 10: Summary of Potential Savings by Contracting for Maintenance of 21 Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer Parks Exhibit 11: Summary of Potential Savings by Contracting for Maintenance of 22 Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, and the Bowling Green Exhibit 12: FY Athletic Field Cost Recovery 23 Exhibit 13: Responsibility for Maintaining Parks 25 Exhibit 14: Division of Responsibility at Rinconada Park 26 Exhibit 15: Overview of Lighting Responsibilities 28 4

5 Exhibit 16: Summary of City of Palo Alto Landscape Water Efficiency Standards and How They Apply 30 5

6 Introduction In accordance with the Annual Audit Plan, the City Auditor s Office has completed an audit of parks maintenance in the City of Palo Alto. The purpose of our review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of parks maintenance services. Our audit was conducted between March and November 2005 in accordance with government auditing standards. The City Auditor s Office would like to thank the staff of the Community Services Departments, the Public Works Department, the Utilities Department, the Administrative Services Department, and other participating departments for their cooperation and assistance during our review. Background The Golf and Parks Division of the Community Services Department (CSD) includes the Parks Division, which is responsible for the maintenance of approximately 262 acres of parks, athletic fields including Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) athletic fields, landscaping of City facilities, medians, parking lots, garages, utility substations and well sites. 1 Budgetary authority for the Parks Division rests with the nine-member City Council, which approves an annual budget for the Division as part of the larger Community Services Department budget. The seven-member Parks and Recreation Commission, appointed by the City Council, consists of Palo Alto residents who serve three-year terms. The purpose of the commission is to advise the city council on matters relating to the activities of the parks and golf division and the recreation, open space and sciences division of the community services department, excluding daily administrative operations. Approximately 136 of the 262 acres are maintained by in-house (i.e. City) staff. The remaining approximate 126 acres are maintained by two landscape maintenance companies (Loral Landscaping Inc. and Gachina Landscape Management) which are overseen by the Parks Division. A summary of the acreage that the Parks Division maintains is shown in Exhibit 1: 1 The Parks Division does not maintain Cubberley and its associated fields, Foothills Park, the Baylands, or any other open space acreage; and maintenance of those sites was not included within the scope of this audit. 6

7 Exhibit 1: Sites Maintained by Parks Division Type of Landscape Maintained Acreage Maintained by a contractor or in-house? Parks Maintained In-House 84 In-house Parks Primarily maintained by a contractor 67 Contractor Athletic Fields 43 In-house City Facilities Maintained by a Contractor 18 Contractor City Facilities Maintained In-House 8 In-house Medians 26 Contractor Parking Lots and Garages 5 Contractor Utility Substations and Well sites 11 Contractor TOTAL 262 The Parks Division (or relevant contractor) provides general landscape maintenance for these sites including mowing, planting flowers and shrubbery, weeding, and general pruning of shrubbery. City staff maintains and repairs irrigation equipment on all sites, whether maintained by contract or in-house. Similarly, City staff mows some of the contracted sites. The Parks Division oversees small capital improvement projects and PAUSD athletic field renovations and irrigation. The Division also maintains tennis courts in the parks as well as in several PAUSD sites. A number of maintenance tasks in City parks are not performed by the Parks Division but instead are performed by the Public Works Department or the Utilities Department. Examples include maintenance and pruning of trees, which is performed by the Public Works Operations division. Maintenance of some park lighting is handled by the Public Works Facilities division while other lighting is handled by Utilities. Public Works Facilities also maintains Rinconada pool and other buildings located within parks. Other examples include: signs and maintenance of buildings and restrooms by the Public Works sign shop and Facilities Division, respectively. The Open Space Division of CSD contracts for weekend trash disposal at parks such as Rinconada and Mitchell. Organization and Staffing The Parks Division consists of 25 FTE that provide direct service, and a portion of the time of the Golf and Parks Division Manager, a Staff Secretary, and the CSD Director. The organizational chart in Exhibit 2 below provides an overview of the Parks Division. 7

8 Exhibit 2 Community Services Parks Division Recommended staffing levels for parks maintenance There are no industry-wide recommended staffing levels for parks maintenance. Instead, we compared Palo Alto s staffing with that of nearby cities. As shown below, Palo Alto staffing levels are generally mid-range in comparison to surrounding cities. 2 2 We attempted to make our city-to-city comparisons as comparable as possible by identifying the sites maintained by Palo Alto Parks Division staff and then identifying how many staff perform maintenance of counterpart sites in each of the other cities. It is important to note, however, that differences still remain. For example, in the City of Santa Clara, Parks staff has more extensive responsibilities for sites maintained than do Palo Alto Parks staff. The Santa Clara Parks employees perform tasks that are performed by Public Works in Palo Alto. 8

9 Exhibit 3: Staffing comparison of area cities FTE to maintain those acres Acres per FTE Acres City maintained Mountain View Sunnyvale Palo Alto (City staff only) Redwood City Santa Clara Parks Division Operating Expenditures As shown in Exhibit 4, Fiscal Year (FY) Parks Division operating expenditures were about $3.8 million, or about 37% higher than in FY When adjusted for inflation, operating expenditures were up about 6% over the 10-year period. During that same 10-year period, CSD added about 43 acres of school athletic fields to its areas of responsibility, bringing the total acreage to 262 acres. Exhibit 4: Parks Division Operating Expenditures FY through $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Parks Division expenditures Inflation-adjusted expenditures Audit Scope and Methodology Our audit objectives included: assessing the efficiency of the workload distribution; determining the cost and cost-effectiveness of park maintenance; and assessing whether the City s maintenance program is effective. 9

10 To address the audit objectives, we worked with the Community Services Department to understand the roles and objectives of the Parks Division. We reviewed and obtained an understanding of the Parks Division organizational chart. We interviewed various Parks staff to better understand the work of the division. We visited parks to observe conditions and also went out in the field with Parks Division employees. Our audit work focused on the approximately 262 acres of parks, athletic fields, medians, City facilities landscaping, and utility substations/wellsites that the Parks Division of CSD is responsible for maintaining. The Parks Division does not maintain Cubberley and its associated fields, Foothills Park, the Baylands or any other open space acreage; maintenance of those sites was not included in the scope of this audit. We reviewed relevant landscape maintenance contracts and corresponded with the contractors. We obtained an understanding of the various departments, divisions, and contractors that have a role in maintaining parks. We sought to understand how the City s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards apply to parks and other City sites. Working with CSD, we built detailed data on the hours of work performed by Parks staff at each site maintained as well as the associated cost. We also compiled data on the costs of contracting at the sites where contractors are used. We culled data from SAP to allocate indirect costs to each site maintained. We used this data to build a detailed spreadsheet that summarizes the costs incurred at each site the Parks Division maintains. These costs are our best estimates based on reasonable assumptions. They are designed to provide a sense of how much it costs to maintain the sites for which the Parks Division is responsible. Actual costs going forward may differ and may be impacted by potential operational changes such as the installation of artificial turf at some sites. We then used this data to analyze the current cost of maintaining three of the City s largest parks using in-house staff versus the cost of contracting for that work. In response to a City Council member s question, we reviewed revenue and expenditure data on athletic fields to determine the percentage of athletic field costs are recovered through revenues collected. We interviewed staff from nearby cities to gain an understanding of their staffing levels and to assess how they compare to Palo Alto. We also reviewed the national data we could identify regarding park maintenance staffing levels in general. We also interviewed staff of nearby cities regarding their cities policies related to herbicide and pesticide use in their parks. We reviewed information regarding Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIPs) that have been completed and those that are slated for coming years. We reviewed the Parks Division s procedures for inspecting playground equipment. We also reviewed best practices materials by professional organizations regarding playground equipment. 10

11 Palo Alto parks overall are in very good condition Palo Alto residents give good marks to their parks. Many Palo Alto parks have been renovated in recent years, and the conditions we observed were good. To address ongoing challenges in maintaining parks, we recommend the Division implement a complaint tracking and resolution system, earmark dollars for minor repairs, adopt several playground equipment inspection program best practices, and notify the public when herbicides or pesticides are used in parks. High levels of satisfaction with parks condition Palo Alto residents give their parks high ratings. In 2004, 91% of residents rated City parks good or excellent, 90% rated their neighborhood park as good or excellent, and 87% rated the appearance/maintenance of parks as good or excellent in In comparison to the same survey in other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 89 th percentile in ratings for the quality of its City parks, and in the 80 th percentile in ratings for the appearance/maintenance of parks. Exhibit 5 shows the survey results. Exhibit 5: Palo Alto Residents Ratings of Parks Percent rating City parks as good or excellent 90% 91% Percent rating their neighborhood park as good or excellent 85% 90% Percent who had visited a Palo Alto park in the prior 12 months 92% 91% Percent who rated the appearance/maintenance of parks as good or excellent N/A 3 87% Source: National Citizen Survey (Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY ) Capital Improvements in parks Palo Alto parks, athletic fields and tennis courts have undergone significant improvements and renovations during the last 10 years, with more planned in the next several years. Since 1995, the City has renovated playground equipment in 15 of 29 parks. At 45 park, school, and athletic field sites combined, 13 irrigation systems have been renovated in the last 10 years, with 14 more slated to be upgraded in the next few years. Of 11 tennis court sites maintained by the City, nine have been resurfaced within the last six years, with the remaining two scheduled in the next several years. Planned and past renovation dates are shown in Exhibit 6. Condition ratings for City parks In visiting Palo Alto parks, we observed that parks overall are in very good 3 Question was not asked in 2003 survey. 11

12 condition. Many Palo Alto parks have been renovated in recent years. Exhibit 6: Observed conditions at parks and renovation dates 4 Site Acres Date renovated 5 Date of planned renovation 6 Condition of turf 7 Condition of equipment and Amenities 8 Condition of paved areas 9 Baylands Athletic Center N N N N Bol Park N N N N Boulware Park L L L N Bowden Park N N N N Bowling Green N N N N Briones Park N N N N Cameron Park L N N/A N Cogswell Plaza 0.6 None 2007 N W N N El Camino Park N N N N El Palo Alto N N N N Eleanor Park L N N N Greer Park L N N N Heritage Park W N N N Hoover Park N N N N Johnson Park L N L N Mayfield Park 1.7 None N N N/A N Mitchell Park L L N N Monroe Park N N L N Peers Park N L N N Ramos Park N N L N Rinconada Park L L L N Condition of landscaping 10 N = No problem; L = Limited problem; W = Widespread problem 4 Conditions observed by auditors visiting the parks. 5 Date renovated indicates the date when some kind of renovation took place; some renovations were more comprehensive than others. Renovated items can include irrigation systems, playground equipment, picnic areas, pathways, fences, benches and turf. 6 Date of planned renovation is the date of next CIP at this park 7 Condition of turf is condition of all grassy areas, playing fields and otherwise 8 Condition of equipment/amenities is condition of playground equipment, benches, tables, fences, signs, fountains 9 Condition of paved areas includes condition of pathways (paved or decomposed granite), tennis and basketball courts 10 Condition of landscaping includes condition of plants, trees, shrubs, ground cover, flowers, weeds. 11 Heritage Park was added as a new park in Mitchell Park has been renovated in three phases, beginning in FY , continuing in FY and FY

13 Robles Park N N N N Sarah Wallis Park 0.3 None N N N N Scott Park N N N N Seale Park L N N N T. Hopkins Creekside Parks 12.4 None 2007 N N N L Terman Park L N/A N N Weisshar Park N N N N Werry Park N N N N Need for complaint tracking and resolution system Because of the overall good condition of the parks, Parks staff report they receive very few complaints. Although they maintain a work order process, the Parks Division does not systematically log and track complaints or service requests. During our audit, we noted a few unresolved complaints regarding watering, sprinklers, and timely repair of broken playground equipment. In our opinion, tracking and documenting complaints is an important component of good customer service. A complaint tracking and resolution system would ensure timely follow-up on issues noted and would provide documentation of the history of potential problems at a site. RECOMMENDATION #1: The Parks Division should implement a simple complaint tracking and resolution system. The Parks Division needs money earmarked in its operating budget to fund unanticipated, minor park repairs As a City capital budgeting policy, repairs and improvements that cost more than $25,000 are funded through the City s annual Capital Improvement Program. Repairs and maintenance less than $25,000 are funded from a Department s operating budget. During our audit, damaged playground equipment at two parks (Mitchell and Peers) was not promptly repaired. The repairs at each site were estimated to cost less than $25,000. The City Manager authorized urgent funding for the repairs in August In another park, we noted that tree roots along pathways were displacing the pathway asphalt. According to staff, only when the park is fully renovated will it be repaired. In the meantime, as a condition like this deteriorates, it could potentially cause a tripping or injury hazard. (Major repairs and renovations are addressed as part of the Capital Improvement Program budget but ongoing maintenance is not.) In our opinion, the Parks Division needs the budget flexibility to be able to make unanticipated repairs promptly. Delays have the potential to cause both customer service and safety problems. 13

14 RECOMMENDATION #2: To ensure the Division is able to make prompt repairs, $25,000 to $50,000 should be earmarked in the Parks Division operating budget for unanticipated park repairs and minor improvements. Adoption of additional playground inspection best practices would further enhance the City s playground inspection program The Parks Division plays an important role in ensuring public safety through its routine inspections of playground equipment. California is one of the few states with regulations governing the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of all playgrounds operated by public agencies. By amending its state Health and Safety Code, California adopted the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission s Handbook for Public Playground Safety and standards of the American Society for Testing Materials. Over the last 10 years the Parks Division has had in place a successful program of playground safety inspections. During that time (according to the City Attorney s Office), there were only three claims against the City regarding playground equipment in disrepair. In the last five years, there have not been any claims against the City alleging that playground equipment was in disrepair. The Parks Division has three employees who are certified playground inspectors based on a course by the National Playground Safety Institute, a program of the National Recreation and Park Association. It is to the City s credit to have certified inspectors on staff. The City s field inspectors (who are certified playground inspectors) perform weekly inspections of playground equipment in parks. Once a year, in the spring, the field inspectors do a more in-depth inspection. In 2001, the California Park and Recreation Society (CPRS) published the Creating Community with Best Practices, Playground Safety Inspection to identify best practices in playground safety. The report identified best practices in five broad areas: Safety policies Training Documentation practices Corrective action practices Performance measures Incorporating elements of these best practices would further enhance Palo Alto s playground inspection program. CPRS Best Practice: Adopt a Comprehensive Playground Safety Policy Statement CPRS recommends developing and formally adopting a comprehensive Playground Safety Policy Statement. The policy statement should provide a framework for developing safety inspection program elements including: training and training documentation, corrections and follow-up, performance measures 14

15 and program evaluation. The policy should be communicated to all involved with playground safety inspection. Palo Alto does not have a policy statement regarding playground safety. RECOMMENDATION #3: The Parks Division should establish a written policy regarding the importance of playground safety and communicate it to all who are involved in playground inspections. CPRS Best Practice: Training Effective training programs include training conducted by a NPSI Certified Inspector, training that reflects relevant standards under state law and consumer product safety specifications, training that covers all types of playground equipment and surfaces and is given to all who do inspections, training at two levels: cursory inspections for basic repair and obvious safety conditions and more in-depth inspections for less than obvious safety conditions. The Parks Division has three staff who are NPSI Certified Inspectors and they are the ones who conduct the weekly as well as the annual playground inspections. In our opinion, the Parks Division should formalize its training with a brief program description identifying their trained personnel and explaining how they stay current with their certifications. Related supporting documentation should be maintained with training records and the training program description. RECOMMENDATION #4: The Parks Division should document its existing and ongoing playground safety inspection training practices and maintain this documentation in a master file. CPRS Best Practices: Documentation practices The inspection of playground equipment by trained personnel, utilizing checklists for documentation is a best practice. According to CPRS, the checklist should include: Specifics identification of the site and each piece of equipment, its condition and corrective action needed Responsibility identify the person performing the inspection Date and time of the inspection should be clearly indicated on the form Standards by which the equipment is being evaluated Site specific checklists facilitate inspections and are useful for subsequent review or litigation The City has a general Playground Inspections checklist that is used for both the weekly inspections and also for the annual inspection (see Appendix C). The California Joint Powers Insurance Authority has published a sample checklist that is more detailed and prompts inspectors to look for certain types of deficiencies (see Appendix D). We believe the use of this checklist or a similar one would enhance inspections and documentation. 15

16 RECOMMENDATION #5: The Parks Division should provide its inspectors with a more descriptive and detailed checklist for weekly playground safety inspections, and should clarify what additional work is to be performed during the annual inspections. CPRS Best Practices: Corrective Action Practices When a hazard presents an immediate risk, action is required. Best practices include: (1) immediate correction by repair or replacement ideally within 24-hours and/or (2) restriction of access by barricading and/or signs if repair cannot be completed immediately, and (3) documentation of corrective actions taken. Funding for minor repairs is not currently earmarked in the Park Division s operating budget. RECOMMENDATION #6: The Parks Division should set a goal for turnaround time of playground equipment repairs after a clear system for funding ongoing maintenance and repairs has been established. CPRS Best Practices: Performance Measurement Developing and tracking performance measures that demonstrate the effectiveness of the inspection program is a best practice. CPRS recommends performance measures that are meaningful, and easy to collect, monitor, and evaluate. They include: Turnaround time on repair/service/complaint requests Dollar value of claim losses directly attributable to failure of the inspection/correction system Number of injuries directly attributable to failure of the inspection/correction system Customer/user satisfaction While customer satisfaction data collected by the Office of the City Auditor as part of an annual city survey indicates a very high level of satisfaction with parks overall, the Parks Division does not have any performance measures specific to playground equipment. RECOMMENDATION #7: The Parks Division should track playground performance including: Turnaround time on repair/service/complaint requests Dollar value of claim losses and number of reported injuries on playgrounds Customer/user satisfaction The City should notify the public when herbicides or pesticides are used in parks Palo Alto City staff and contractors track the use of herbicides and pesticides in Parks and other sites maintained. We reviewed five months of 2004 usage reports by the contractor that maintains the neighborhood parks. The only 16

17 herbicide or pesticide reported was Roundup. It was used often and at various sites around the City. 13 The Parks Division landscape maintenance contracts include provisions with which contractors must comply when using pesticides or herbicides, including: prohibiting their use within 250 feet of a playground; not allowing their use during heavy traffic periods or strong winds; all treated areas must be monitored during and after pesticide application until material has settled and treatment area is completely dry; and no unprotected person, pet or wildlife may enter a treatment area until all re-entry intervals have been satisfied. Applications of herbicides or pesticides must be approved by the project manager or supervisor prior to application. The Parks Division advises that these provisions apply to in-house staff as well as contractors. The Division also advises that it has nine statecertified pesticide and herbicide applicators on staff who receive annual education and training to stay current in the field. Since Roundup was the only herbicide or pesticide used based on the report by the contractor that we reviewed, we surveyed four nearby cities about whether they use Roundup and, if so, whether they post notices to indicate spraying of Roundup. As shown in Exhibit 7, the cities of Santa Clara and Mountain View post notices to indicate areas that will be or have been sprayed. Exhibit 7: Summary of Surrounding Cities Policies Regarding Posting the Use of Roundup Santa Clara Redwood City Sunnyvale Mountain View Does City use Roundup and if so, does City post a notice to inform Park users? Yes, City uses Roundup and posts about 24 hours prior to spraying to indicate date and time that spraying will occur. Posting remains up for at least three hours after spraying. Yes, City uses Roundup or other glyphosate products. The only thing they generally post for is the use of other products for control of broadleaf weeds in the turf. Yes. City uses Roundup. They notify the school districts when they re spraying so that the school district can post notices at the school sites. They do not post notices in parks. Yes, City uses Roundup. For school sites, the City provides advance notice that spraying will occur and then also flags areas after spraying. For parks, advance notice is not provided but areas that have been sprayed are flagged after the fact. While the Parks Division takes the precautions mentioned above to help assure safe use of herbicides or pesticides, and is not required to notify the public, we believe it would be helpful to the public if the Parks Division posted a notice after a site is sprayed. RECOMMENDATION #8: The Parks Division should post temporary notices after herbicides or pesticides have been sprayed in City parks. 13 CSD advised us that they no longer use pesticides or herbicides on school sites. 17

18 Opportunities exist to reduce the cost of parks maintenance services The Parks Division spends about $3.8 per year to maintain parks, athletic fields, landscaping at City facilities, medians, parking lots and garages, and Utility substations and well sites. We identified several opportunities to reduce the cost of parks maintenance. Specifically, there should be opportunities to reduce irrigation staffing as more irrigation systems are renovated, and there may be additional opportunities to contract for parks maintenance. What does it cost to maintain your neighborhood park? Exhibit 8 below shows the City s full estimated cost of about $4.5 million to maintain parks and other sites. This includes City department costs (including benefits, overhead, CSD and Public Works) and contract costs. 14 Exhibit 8: Estimated Full Cost to Maintain Parks 15 Site Acres City Contract Total Baylands Athletic Center 6.0 $188,620 $0 $188,620 Bol Park 3.0 $33,656 $16,720 $50,376 Boulware Park 1.5 $26,141 $11,120 $37,261 Bowden Park 2.0 $27,935 $10,047 $37,982 Bowling Green 1.9 $103,559 $0 $103,559 Briones Park 3.7 $41,422 $6,781 $48,203 Cameron Park 1.1 $24,649 $10,971 $35,620 Cogswell Plaza 0.6 $17,680 $10,853 $28,534 El Camino Park 6.8 $180,601 $0 $180,601 El Palo Alto 0.5 $15,101 $3,547 $18,648 Eleanor Park 9.6 $67,153 $15,404 $82,557 Greer Park 21.7 $422,353 $0 $422,353 Heritage Park 2.0 $23,575 $747 $24,322 Hoover Park 4.2 $49,029 $11,944 $60,973 Johnson Park 2.5 $58,762 $8,853 $67,615 Lytton Plaza 0.2 $79,627 $73 $79,700 Mayfield Park 1.7 $20,895 $4,535 $25,429 Mitchell Park 21.4 $390,051 $0 $390,051 Monroe Park 0.55 $19,001 $5,605 $24,607 Peers Park 4.7 $52,367 $7,076 $59,443 Ramos Park 4.4 $36,903 $8,303 $45,205 Rinconada Park 19.0 $405,024 $0 $405,024 Robles Park 4.7 $45,849 $8,475 $54,324 Sarah Wallis Park 0.3 $15,054 $6,697 $21, Does not include $133,608 in field renovation costs shown in Appendix B. 15 The current annual costs include salaries and benefits, supplies and materials, utilities, certain Public Works Facilities costs, Public Works Operations tree costs, general administration, CSD Administration, and cost plan charges. 18

19 Scott Park 0.3 $15,427 $5,632 $21,059 Seale Park 3.6 $41,604 $9,076 $50,681 T. Hopkins Creekside Parks 12.4 $63,850 $9,909 $73,760 Terman Park 7.7 $100,232 $8,460 $108,692 Ventura School Grounds 1.3 $25,391 $10,805 $36,196 Weisshar Park 1.1 $19,313 $10,011 $29,324 Werry Park 1.1 $24,821 $11,571 $36,391 SUBTOTAL (PARKS) 151 $2,635,647 $213,214 $2,848,861 Athletic fields 43 $671,017 $0 $671,017 City facilities 26 $344,998 $76,461 $421,459 Medians 26 $253,179 $141,873 $395,052 Tennis courts N/A $1,698 $0 $1,698 Parking lots and garages 5 $31,053 $17,559 $48,612 Utility substations and well sites 11 $76,305 $29,549 $105,854 TOTAL 262 $4,013,897 $478,656 $4,492,553 More detail on these costs is shown in Appendix B. Palo Alto has successfully contracted for maintenance of some parks In 1993 Hughes, Heiss & Associates ( Hughes/Heiss ) conducted an organizational review of the City. That report recommended that in-house parks maintenance staff be focused on the maintenance of the larger, higher priority, higher use parks, and that the City expand private contracting to cover the smaller, more scattered and lower priority facilities. In accordance with those recommendations, CSD has contracted for maintenance of the smaller, more scattered sites, while continuing to maintain the larger, more highly used parks with in house staff. Hughes/Heiss recommended that in-house maintenance of those larger facilities provides better control over service levels, more timely response to special recreation events and program support, and responsiveness to the public using park facilities. Additionally, staff has indicated that there is a greater sense of ownership when parks are maintained by City employees. Some employees have been assigned to the same parks long-term and know residents in the neighborhood. Staff has also stated that the City can respond more quickly to problems when a site is maintained by City employees as opposed to contractors. While we agree that the qualitative considerations raised by the Hughes/Heiss report and by staff are valid and should be considered as part of a decision about how to best maintain some of the City s larger parks, we also believe there are compelling reasons for contracting for such maintenance. The primary reason is budgetary. The City has struggled over the last several years to identify cost reductions. As shown in Exhibit 9, we estimate the annual savings could be significant. 19

20 Second, although the City has not always had a good experience with contracting, the City s recent experience with regard to parks maintained by contractors has been positive. At the time of the Hughes/Heiss report, the City had used a private contractor to maintain about 15 park acres and a total of 45 acres. Thus, the City did not have a lot of experience with contractors maintaining its parks. Today, the Parks Division has 67 park acres maintained by a private contractor and about 126 total acres maintained on a contractual basis, and has a great deal of experience in contracting for parks maintenance. In visiting parks, we did not see differences in the maintenance levels of parks maintained in-house versus those maintained by contractors. Prior to the current maintenance contract, CSD staff indicate they had a less positive experience with a contractor. The City s purchasing ordinance now allows CSD the option of selecting a contractor through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process rather than strictly by the lowest bid, thereby potentially reducing the risk of a negative contracting experience. The City could save an estimated $200,000 to $280,000 annually by contracting for landscape maintenance of the three largest parks (Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer) City employees maintain 136 acres (or 52% of the total 262 acres maintained by Parks) while contractors maintain the other 126 acres (or 48% of the total). The staffing and benefit costs for City employees to maintain the 136 acres is 70% of the total costs while the cost of the contract employees is about 30% of the total costs. Exhibit 9 shows the breakdown. (We noted that City employees remain responsible for irrigation on both in-house and contracted acres; they also mow certain of the contractor-maintained parks.) Exhibit 9: Acreage of In-House and Contracted Services as a Percentage of Total Acreage 16 Annual Staffing Costs 17 Acreage As % of Total Costs As % of Total Acreage Maintained by City $1,559,459 52% 70% Maintained by Contractors (Loral and Gachina) $665,745 48% 30% TOTAL $2,225, % 100% City staff currently maintain Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer Parks, the City's largest parks at approximately 21, 19, and 21 acres, respectively. The annual cost to maintain each park is about $400,000. When the current landscape maintenance work was put out to bid, the City requested bids for the maintenance of Mitchell and Rinconada Parks. Using the 16 The City mows certain contracted sites. (However, contractor performs other maintenance at those sites.) City also handles irrigation at all sites. 17 City costs include only annual salary and benefits of Parks Division employees. Contractor costs include City field inspectors who monitor contractors work. 20

21 bid data submitted, we compared the cost of contracting for maintenance of those parks to the current cost of performing the work in-house. We estimated that the annual net savings from contracting for the maintenance of these two parks would range from about $150,000 to $200, The City had not requested a bid for Greer Park as it had for Mitchell and Rinconada. Drawing from other information and bids that are available, we estimate the potential annual net savings from contracting for maintenance of Greer would range from about $53,000 to $78,000. Exhibit 10: Summary of Potential Savings by Contracting for Maintenance of Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer Parks Current Annual Cost to Maintain Using In-House Staff 19 Estimated Range of Net Annual Savings If Contracted Out (Cost Savings Less New Costs Incurred) 20 Mitchell Park $390,052 $62,425 to $88,526 Rinconada Park $405,024 $88,007 to $114,112 Greer Park $422,354 $53,485 to $78,874 TOTAL $1,217,430 $203,917 to $281,512 See Appendix A for data on current cost of maintenance, potential costs avoided by contracting, new costs incurred because of contracting and overall net savings. Given the City s experience to date with contracting for maintenance, we believe service levels could be maintained while significantly reducing costs. The City s agreement with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) requires the City to provide written notice of potential contracting out and then to meet and confer with the Union. RECOMMENDATION #9: The Parks Division should obtain bids for landscape maintenance work including mowing at Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer Parks and should consider contracting for such work, if it proves more cost beneficial. 18 In calculating net savings, we identified current costs that could be avoided if Parks contracted for maintenance instead of providing it in-house; we offset those savings with new costs that would be incurred as a result of the contracting. We worked with the Parks Division to identify potential new costs as a result of contracting. We assumed that the only costs that would be saved by contracting would be salaries, benefits, supplies and materials needed for routine landscape maintenance. If other costs could also be avoided, the savings would be greater. All numbers are estimates and actual savings would depend on the bids received. However, we believe these savings estimates are conservative. 19 The current annual costs include salaries and benefits, supplies and materials, utilities, certain Public Works Facilities costs, Public Works Operations tree costs, general administration, CSD Administration, and cost plan charges. 20 The estimated range of annual savings is based on an analysis of bids from two different contractors. We assumed that the only current costs that could be avoided by contracting for maintenance are salaries/benefits and supplies/materials. 21

22 Another estimated $100,000 could potentially be saved by contracting for landscape maintenance at the Baylands Athletic Center, the Bowling Green, and El Camino Park Similarly, operating cost savings may be possible by contracting for routine landscape maintenance at the other parks that are exclusively maintained by City staff. Exhibit 11: Summary of Potential Savings by Contracting for Maintenance of Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, and the Bowling Green Current Annual Cost to Maintain Using In-House Staff 21 Estimated Net Annual Savings If Contracted Out (Cost Savings Less New Costs Incurred) 22 Baylands Athletic Center $188,620 $36,789 El Camino Park 180,601 $43,428 Bowling Green 103,559 $20,811 TOTAL $472,780 $101,028 RECOMMENDATION #10: The Parks Division should obtain bids for landscape maintenance work including mowing at Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, and the Bowling Green, and should consider contracting for such work. Mowing of contracted neighborhood parks may be another opportunity for cost savings Mowing may be another potential opportunity for savings. A contractor maintains the neighborhood parks; however, the City continues to mow some of these parks. Contracting for this mowing may reduce costs. As noted previously, the Parks division has contracted for the maintenance on 126 acres that it maintains, including 67 park acres. These are neighborhood parks. The rationale for contracting the maintenance of these parks was based on the 1993 Hughes/Heiss organizational review of the City. That report recommended contracting for these types of parks to reduce inefficiencies inherent in maintaining smaller, scattered facilities While the City increased the park acreage contracted out from about 15 in 1993 to 67 today, the City continues to mow nearly 35 acres of the 67 acres. The Parks division states that it is more efficient for the City to do the mowing 21 The current annual costs include salaries and benefits, supplies and materials, utilities, certain Public Works Facilities costs, Public Works Operations costs, general administration, CSD Administration, and cost plan charges. 22 We assumed that the only current costs that could be avoided by contracting for maintenance are salaries/benefits and supplies/materials. See Appendix A for more detail. 22

23 because the City has a larger mower than the contractors have and therefore can do it faster. However, this is inconsistent with the original rationale of contracting for the park maintenance which was to prevent City employees from having to maintain scattered sites and incur the travel time. Based on data provided by the Department, we estimate that the staff cost of mowing these sites is at least $23,000 annually. This is solely the cost of the time reported for mowing. It does not include the cost of travel time nor does it include the cost to maintain, repair, transport, and store the large mower. We believe it would be more efficient if the City were to include the mowing in its future bids for contract maintenance work at these sites. RECOMMENDATION #11: The Parks Division should obtain bids for mowing work as part of future landscape maintenance contracts at the contracted neighborhood parks, and contract for mowing at those sites if it proves costbeneficial. Athletic field maintenance is a significant component of parks maintenance costs The Parks Division maintains athletic fields in City parks and at 15 school district sites. PAUSD reimburses the City for 50% of the direct operating and capital costs on school district sites. Exhibit 12 shows a summary of the athletic field data. Exhibit 12: FY Athletic Field Cost Recovery Annual Maintenance costs 23 Revenue from individuals and teams PAUSD reimbursements Net cost City Athletic Fields (in parks) $1,327,495 $55,000 $0 ($1,272,495) PAUSD Athletic Fields $671,017 $30,000 $241,315 ($399,702) TOTAL $1,998,512 $85,000 $241,315 ($1,672,197) Based on our overall analysis of potential savings from contracting, we believe there could be additional potential savings by contracting for PAUSD athletic field maintenance. 23 Includes cost plan charges. 23

24 RECOMMENDATION #12: The City should discuss with the PAUSD the possible cost savings and issues related to contracting for routine athletic field maintenance at school sites. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, the City should obtain bids and contract for routine maintenance at those sites if it proves cost-beneficial. There may be opportunities to reduce irrigation staffing as more systems are renovated The Parks Division has four full-time irrigation employees who repair and maintain irrigation systems on the 262 acres for which the Division is responsible (including PAUSD athletic fields and sites otherwise maintained by a contractor). Palo Alto appears to have a higher level of staffing for irrigation work than two other nearby cities. Palo Alto, which maintains a total of 262 acres, has four sprinkler system repair positions. Mountain View, which maintains 333 acres (compared to about 262 in Palo Alto) has 1 FTE dedicated to irrigation repairs. When needed, this employee is assisted by other trained personnel for administering major repairs. Redwood City, which maintains 227 acres, has two positions (Senior Craft Specialists) who provide most of the more technical irrigation system maintenance. Gardeners replace and/or repair sprinkler heads and adjust irrigation programming. Since 1999, Palo Alto has renovated irrigation systems at 13 sites (eight parks and five Palo Alto Unified School District athletic fields). Future renovations are slated for 14 sites. Staff has indicated that one of the benefits of the renovated systems is the ability to significantly reduce the staff time spent programming and monitoring the system because the new systems allow this to occur remotely. While we recognize that repairs and maintenance will still be needed, we believe that the renovation of a total of 27 systems should provide some opportunity to reduce or redirect staff time previously spent on monitoring and adjusting outdated sprinkler systems. RECOMMENDATION #13: The Parks Division should reduce or redirect irrigation staffing after systems are renovated and efficiencies are realized. 24

25 Fragmented accountability for parks hinders customer service and potentially increases costs We found that the responsibility for maintaining parks is fragmented and this results in a lack of clear accountability. Fragmented accountability hinders customer service to residents. Responsibility for various functions is spread among City departments, divisions, and contractors. Individual parks are maintained by at least four different City divisions/departments, and in three cases by as many as seven entities. Who takes care of your neighborhood park? As shown in Exhibit 13, responsibility for maintaining parks is spread across a number of divisions and departments. Exhibit 13: Responsibility for Maintaining Parks CSD Parks Division CSD Parks Contractor - Loral Public Works Operations Division Public Works Operations Utility Line Clearing Contractor Public Works Facilities Division PW Facilities Contractor (Lights) PW Facilities Contractor (Custodial) Site Acres Baylands Athletic Center 6.0 X X X X X X Bol Park 3.0 X X X X X X Boulware Park 1.5 X X X X X Bowden Park 2.0 X X X X X Bowling Green 1.9 X X X X Briones Park 3.7 X X X X X X Cameron Park 1.1 X X X X Cogswell Plaza 0.6 X X X X X X El Camino Park 6.8 X X X X X X X El Palo Alto 0.5 X X X X X Eleanor Park 9.6 X X X X X Greer Park 21.7 X X X X X Heritage Park 2.0 X X X X Hoover Park 4.2 X X X X X X X Johnson Park 2.5 X X X X X Lytton Plaza 0.2 X X X X X X Mayfield Park 1.7 X X X X X X Mitchell Park 21.4 X X X X X X X Monroe Park 0.55 X X X X X Peers Park 4.7 X X X X X X Ramos Park 4.4 X X X X X PW Refuse Contractor Utilities Lighting 25

26 Rinconada Park 19.0 X X X X X X X Robles Park 4.7 X X X X X Sarah Wallis Park 0.3 X X X X Scott Park 0.3 X X X X X Seale Park 3.6 X X X X T. Hopkins Creekside Parks 12.4 X X X X Terman Park 7.7 X X X X X Ventura School Grounds 1.3 X X X X X Weisshar Park 1.1 X X X X Werry Park 1.1 X X X X Difficulties coordinating work across departments Exhibit 14 shows more detail about the division of responsibilities for maintaining just one park Rinconada. Exhibit 14: Division of Responsibility at Rinconada Park Function Irrigation and mowing; morning opening restroom facilities; planning for all Parks capital projects; planning and construction (oversight of contractors) for smaller capital projects; landscape maintenance; park equipment repair Tree Trimming and Maintenance Tree Utility Line Clearing Maintenance of decorative lights on pathways. All repair maintenance for park restroom building, and all of the pool buildings. Maintain and repair lap and children's pools and all of the equipment used for their operation. Construction of park capital projects except for smaller capital projects (turf, irrigation, benches, fences, and signs) that are handled by CSD Daily servicing and locking of restrooms at the end of the day. Daily servicing of pool locker rooms. Maintenance of streetlight-style lights on pathways. Weekend trash pickup and general monitoring. Who does it? Community Services Parks Division Public Works Operations Division Public Works Operations Contractor Public Works - Facilities Division Public Works Engineering Public Works - Facilities Division Contractor Utilities Community Services Open Space Division contract 26

27 This fragmentation impacts customer service. For example, if a resident calls the Parks Division to complain about a tree in a park, Parks Division staff has to explain that while they are responsible for parks, they are not responsible for trees in parks and therefore lack the authority to immediately resolve the problem. The likelihood of things falling through the cracks is greater, the greater the number of departments, divisions, and contractors involved. The Departments responsible for parks currently use an interdepartmental work order system to track work but there is not a process in place for following up on those work orders and ensuring they are completed timely. RECOMMENDATION #14: The Parks Division should track and follow up on all interdepartmental work orders to ensure that they are completed timely. Some responsibilities fall through the cracks We also identified at least two functions in parks for which no one is clearly responsible: (1) flushing storm drains in parks (though surface cleaning is performed by the Parks Division), and (2) routine maintenance of pathways in parks. RECOMMENDATION #15: The City Manager should assign responsibility for flushing storm drains in parks and for the routine maintenance of pathways. RECOMMENDATION #16: The City Manager s Office should convene a shortterm task force to identify ways to improve efficiencies in park maintenance by assigning as much responsibility as possible to the Parks Division in CSD, along with the necessary transfer of resources. There is potential to improve efficiency in lighting maintenance Responsibility for lighting in parks is split among four different entities: Utilities, Public Works Facilities, a contractor for Community Services, and a contractor for Public Works Facilities as shown in Exhibit

28 Exhibit 15: Overview of Lighting Responsibilities Entity Community Services Contractor (bid on an as-needed basis) Utilities Public Works Facilities Public Works Facilities Contractor (bid on an as-needed basis) Responsibility Tennis court lighting at Palo Alto High School Maintenance of certain park parking lot lights and also certain park pathway lights. In general, parks include both streetlight-style lights and decorative lights. The streetlight-style lights are maintained by Utilities and the decorative lights are maintained by Public Works Facilities. Maintenance of decorative pathway lights in Parks that have them. Lighting at Mitchell and Rinconada Park tennis courts. Ball field electrical lighting repair at the Baylands Athletic Center and El Camino Park. Community Services uses a contractor on an as-needed basis to replace tennis court lights at Palo Alto High School. To maximize efficiency of having the contractor on-site, they wait for six or seven lights to burn out before replacing them. Similarly, Public Works Facilities uses a contractor (not the same contractor) on an as-needed basis to replace ball field lighting at the Baylands Athletic Center and El Camino Park. Meanwhile, Utilities is responsible for maintenance of cobra style street lights located in parks, and has the equipment to reach higher spots, but it is not used at the Athletic Center or El Camino Park. Why not? These split responsibilities are inefficient and increase costs. It means that the City s administrative and support staff has to prepare the documentation related to these contracts; payments are issued to each contractor, and other related administrative work. Furthermore, customer service is impacted as CSD waits for several tennis court lights to burn out before hiring the contractor to replace the bulbs. RECOMMENDATION #17: One department or division should be solely responsible for all lighting in parks. The Parks Division, Public Works Department, and Utilities Department should work together to decide who should be responsible, and consider transferring the necessary resources to the responsible department. 28

29 There is potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness in tree trimming As shown in Exhibit 14, Public Works Operations is responsible for tree trimming and maintenance in parks. Public Works Operations also hires a contractor to trim trees in parks that interfere with power lines (paid for by the Utilities Department). As noted previously, Parks Division staff lacks the authority to immediately resolve problems with trees in parks. According to the Public Works Department, the parks are on a six-year tree trimming cycle. In fiscal year , the Department estimates its staff spent about 1,293 hours on tree maintenance in parks. We estimate the cost of these hours (staff salaries and benefits) was about $49,000. The Department also advises that it spent about $9,063 on contract crews in parks, for a total of about $58,000. However, in fiscal year , the only major park included in the rotation was Johnson Park. Parks in other areas of the city receive maintenance only on an as needed basis. Parks staff is interested in obtaining more frequent pruning. RECOMMENDATION #18: The Parks Division and Public Works should consider how to increase the frequency of tree trimming in parks and consider contracting for this work. 29

30 The City needs to improve monitoring of water usage in parks A drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the passage by the State Legislature of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act; it became law in January This Act required all water agencies to develop a landscape water efficiency plan or certify a finding that no plan was necessary. A state Model Ordinance was developed as part of the new state law. The City of Palo Alto developed a landscape efficiency plan specifically adapted to local practices and the municipal organization, the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto ( Water Efficiency Standards ). The City first adopted the Water Efficiency Standards in 1992 and then revised them in The standards were developed by the City s Utility Marketing Services (in the Utilities Department) in cooperation with the Planning and Community Environment Department. In general, the Water Efficiency Standards require private and public installations and renovations of landscaping and irrigation systems to meet certain requirements with regard to enhancing water conservation. These include, for certain types of sites, the establishment of a water budget and a maximum water allowance. They also include a requirement that water irrigation audits be performed after the installation of a new system. Exhibit 16 provides a summary of how the Water Efficiency Standards apply to City and school sites. Exhibit 16: Summary of City of Palo Alto Landscape Water Efficiency Standards and How They Apply (City applications shown in bold and italics) Landscape Water Efficiency Standards state: (1) New and rehabilitated industrial, commercial, institutional and City facility landscaping over 1,500 square feet in size 24 and all new or rehabilitated multi-family common areas over 1,500 square feet in size. (2) School yards, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, and golf courses are exempt from a maximum water allowance. Every other requirement of these standards is applicable, including estimation of irrigation water requirements. In addition, turf areas of these sites will have a landscape irrigation audit performed after the installation or renovation of the irrigation system. Comments These areas subject to all provisions of the Standards including the Maximum Water Allowance While the maximum water allowance does not apply to these sites, all other provisions do apply, including the irrigation audit requirement. In addition to the Water Efficiency Standards, the City adopted the Green Government Pledge in 1999, which stated that the City would lead by example and commit to supporting the conservation of energy, water, materials, and other natural resources. 24 Nearly all City sites maintained by Parks exceed 1,500 square feet (0.03 acres). 30

31 The City has not complied with Water Efficiency Standards for irrigation systems installed or renovated at parks or athletic fields In the last 10 years, the City has renovated or installed 13 irrigation systems in parks and school athletic fields. Fourteen additional irrigation renovations are planned as capital improvement projects in parks, athletic fields and medians over the next several years. The City did not comply with the requirements of the Water Efficiency Standards with regard to estimation of irrigation water requirements and the performance of water audits for these systems. Part of the reason for this oversight is likely due to the fact that while private development projects go through a permit-issuance process, public projects do not. The permit-issuance process tends to serve as a trigger for review under the Water Efficiency Standards. Utilities Marketing Services, through a consultant, reviews private sector landscaping plans. As a result, while staff cited estimated water consumption reductions of 15 to 20 percent as justification for the installation of new systems, there is no specific data to support this estimate. Given that the City requires private landowners to comply with the Water Efficiency Standards and also that the City has committed to the principles of the Green Government Pledge, the City should act to ensure future compliance. We believe the need to act is made more urgent by the fact that the Utilities Department advises that the City consumes more water than any single commercial or industrial customer. Water costs are a growing share of the Parks Division budget. In FY , the Parks Division spent $132,542 on water; in and in FY , the Division spent $348,740 exceeding the budgeted amount by $59,296. Even after adjusting for the water rate increases since FY , it appears that the Parks Division used more water in FY than in FY While some new acreage was added during this time, we could not find supporting evidence for assertions that water use had decreased. 25 It should be noted that during our audit, the Parks Division and Utilities staff met and identified several renovated irrigation sites where they have begun performing irrigation audits. This is a positive first step and we believe it is important that it continue. 25 Sites added included elementary schools, El Camino Real medians from University Avenue to Park Boulevard, Embarcadero from Highway 101 to Town and Country, and Heritage Park. In addition, the Department advises that a new meter was added to at least one site that was previously not metered. 31

32 RECOMMENDATION #19: The City should follow the requirements of the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards in the same way that private landowners are required to do. Utilities should make City Departments aware of the requirements of the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards and the related services that Utilities provides. RECOMMENDATION #20: Utilities should conduct irrigation audits of significant systems that have been installed or renovated on Park Division-maintained sites during the last 10 years to establish baseline data on the efficiency and effectiveness of those systems. The Water Efficiency Standards should clearly assign responsibility for required tasks related to City sites The Water Efficiency Standards do not clearly assign responsibility for required tasks. For school yards, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, and golf courses and related turf areas of these sites, the Water Efficiency Standards require that a landscape irrigation audit be performed on the City sites after the installation or renovation of the irrigation system. The Water Efficiency Standards do not, however, specify who is responsible for performing those audits or what the purpose of the audits should be. For sites subject to the maximum water allowance, the Water Efficiency Standards, irrigation audits are a tool for monitoring water use. Irrigation accounts that have been established as a result of an approved landscape plan will be subject to an annual review by the Utilities Department. The Water Efficiency Standards also exempt school yards, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, golf courses and related turf areas from the maximum water allowance with which private entities are required to comply. From inception of the Water Efficiency Standards, these sites have been exempted. Given the City s commitment to conservation of resources, we think the City should reconsider whether these projects should be subject to a maximum water allowance. While the Utilities Department advised us that the Water Efficiency Standards apply to medians, this was not clear to us from the wording of the Water Efficiency Standards. A statewide Landscape Task Force is expected to submit a report to the Governor in December with recommendations that will improve landscape water use efficiency. The City anticipates updating the Water Efficiency Standards, if necessary, based on those recommendations. It may also be an ideal opportunity to incorporate other changes addressed in this audit. 32

33 RECOMMENDATION #21: Utilities should update the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards to: (1) clearly assign responsibility for required tasks for City sites (e.g. who is responsible for performing irrigation audits); (2) clearly explain the purpose of the irrigation audits (e.g., to compare water usage before and after new system is installed) with regard to City sites; (3) clarify that medians are covered; and (4) make City sites subject to the maximum water allowance, if deemed appropriate. Parks Division needs user-friendly data on water usage The Parks Division historically has not received user-friendly data from Utilities on water usage in parks and other sites maintained. Such data is key to the ability to manage and conserve water. Utilities provides user-friendly graphs to residential and commercial customers each month in their bills. A similar format would improve the Park Division s ability to monitor and manage water use. During this audit, the Utilities Department provided a first draft of such data to the Parks Division and this is a positive first step. Utilities and CSD should continue to work together to identify the information that would be most useful for the Parks Division. RECOMMENDATION #22: Utilities should provide the Parks Division with userfriendly data (e.g. graphs similar to those provided to residential and commercial) that shows water consumption by park (or site maintained). 33

34 CONCLUSION The Parks Division of the Community Services Department maintains approximately 262 acres of parks, athletic fields, landscaping of City facilities, medians, parking lots and garages, and utility substations and well sites. We found that: Palo Alto parks overall are in very good condition; opportunities exist to reduce the cost of parks maintenance services; fragmented accountability for parks hinders customer service and potentially increases costs; and the City needs to improve the monitoring of water usage in parks. Recommendations RECOMMENDATION #1: The Parks Division should implement a simple complaint tracking and resolution system. RECOMMENDATION #2: To ensure the Division is able to make prompt repairs, $25,000 to $50,000 should be earmarked in the Parks Division operating budget for unanticipated park repairs and minor improvements. RECOMMENDATION #3: The Parks Division should establish a written policy regarding the importance of playground safety and communicate it to all who are involved in playground inspections. RECOMMENDATION #4: The Parks Division should document its existing and ongoing playground safety inspection training practices and maintain this documentation in a master file. RECOMMENDATION #5: The Parks Division should provide its inspectors with a more descriptive and detailed checklist for weekly playground safety inspections, and should clarify what additional work is to be performed during the annual inspections. RECOMMENDATION #6: The Parks Division should set a goal for turnaround time of playground equipment repairs after a clear system for funding ongoing maintenance and repairs has been established. RECOMMENDATION #7: The Parks Division should track playground performance including: Turnaround time on repair/service/complaint requests Dollar value of claim losses and number of reported injuries on playgrounds Customer/user satisfaction RECOMMENDATION #8: The Parks Division should post temporary notices after herbicides or pesticides have been sprayed in City parks. 34

35 RECOMMENDATION #9: The Parks Division should obtain bids for landscape maintenance work including mowing at Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer Parks and should consider contracting for such work if it proves more cost beneficial. RECOMMENDATION #10: The Parks Division should obtain bids for landscape maintenance work including mowing at Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, and the Bowling Green, and should consider contracting for such work. RECOMMENDATION #11: The Parks Division should obtain bids for mowing work as part of future landscape maintenance contracts at the contracted neighborhood parks, and contract for mowing at those sites if it proves costbeneficial. RECOMMENDATION #12: The City should discuss with the PAUSD the possible cost savings and issues related to contracting for routine athletic field maintenance at school sites. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, the City should obtain bids and contract for routine maintenance at those sites if it proves cost-beneficial. RECOMMENDATION #13: The Parks Division should reduce or redirect irrigation staffing after systems are renovated and efficiencies are realized. RECOMMENDATION #14: The Parks Division should track and follow up on all interdepartmental work orders to ensure that they are completed timely. RECOMMENDATION #15: The City Manager should assign responsibility for flushing storm drains in parks and for the routine maintenance of pathways. RECOMMENDATION #16: The City Manager s Office should convene a shortterm task force to identify ways to improve efficiencies in park maintenance by assigning as much responsibility as possible to the Parks Division in CSD, along with the necessary transfer of resources. RECOMMENDATION #17: One department or division should be solely responsible for all lighting in parks. The Parks Division, Public Works Department, and Utilities Department should work together to decide who should be responsible, and consider transferring the necessary resources to the responsible department. RECOMMENDATION #18: The Parks Division and Public Works should consider how to increase the frequency of tree trimming in parks, and consider contracting for this work RECOMMENDATION #19: The City should follow the requirements of the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards in the same way that private landowners are required to do. Utilities should make City Departments aware of the requirements of the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards and the related services that Utilities provides. RECOMMENDATION #20: Utilities should conduct irrigation audits of significant systems that have been installed or renovated on Park Division-maintained sites 35

36 during the last 10 years to establish baseline data on the efficiency and effectiveness of those systems. RECOMMENDATION #21: Utilities should update the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards to: (1) clearly assign responsibility for required tasks for City sites (e.g. who is responsible for performing irrigation audits); (2) clearly explain the purpose of the irrigation audits (e.g., to compare water usage before and after new system is installed) with regard to City sites; (3) clarify that medians are covered; and (4) make City sites subject to the maximum water allowance, if deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDATION #22: Utilities should provide the Parks Division with userfriendly data (e.g. graphs similar to those provided to residential and commercial) that shows water consumption by park (or site maintained). 36

37 Community Services Department MEMORANDUM From: Frank Benest, City Manager By: Richard James, Director, Community Services Department Date: December 13, 2005 Subject: Response to Parks Maintenance Operations audit The Community Services Department (CSD), with input from the Public Works and Utilities Departments, is pleased to respond to the City Auditor s Audit of Park Maintenance Operations. Generally, staff finds many of the audit s recommendations to be beneficial to the continued success of parks maintenance operations and will begin a program to implement specific recommendations. The City s urban park system is continually rated at the highest customer service levels. Our Parks Division has always been in the forefront of parks maintenance practices. It was one of the first parks operations to train and employ certified playground inspectors. One of the first to use computerized, climate controlled irrigation systems. Its safety record in its playgrounds, parks and athletic fields is incontrovertible. The operation has won awards for water conservation and environmental programs and wins praise for park design and planning efforts. Additionally, the cooperative maintenance agreement with the Palo Alto Unified School District for maintenance of its playing fields reaps praise from school district officials. Given this excellent reputation, there is still always room for improvement. Below are staff s responses to each of the audit s 22 recommendations: RECOMMENDATION #1: The Parks Division should implement a simple complaint tracking and resolution system. Staff concurs. Presently there are two tracking procedures, work orders and complaints received through the City Managers office. These two procedures 37

38 will be combined into a system that will track complaints and repairs. Estimated timeline for implementation is September RECOMMENDATION #2: To ensure the Division is able to make prompt repairs, $25,000 to $50,000 should be earmarked in the Parks Division operating budget for unanticipated park repairs and minor improvements. Staff concurs. This recommendation will be implemented as a request through the 2006/07 budget process. RECOMMENDATION #3: The Parks Division should establish a written policy regarding the importance of playground safety and communicate it to all who are involved in playground inspections. Staff concurs, although this is currently the practice, little written documentation exists. The Parks Division playground risk management program has been noted as excellent in that over the last decade only three claims were filed for playground injuries, with no claims within the last five years. The City Attorney s office credits the Parks Division with outstanding vigilance in updating, inspecting and repairing equipment in City Parks. Implementation of this recommendation is expected in September RECOMMENDATION #4: The Parks Division should document its existing and ongoing playground safety inspection training practices and maintain this documentation in a master file. Staff concurs. The Parks Division has developed a successful training program but it is not fully documented. Implementation is expected by September RECOMMENDATION #5: The Parks Division should provide its inspectors with a more descriptive and detailed checklist for weekly playground safety inspections, and should clarify what additional work is to be performed during the annual inspections. Staff concurs. Parks staff is presently using the checklist from the California Parks and Recreation Society playground inspector certification training, which has proved to be an excellent instrument. Additionally, the Parks Division is currently adopting an automated database application to better identify and track playground repairs in addition to reducing staff time for manual data entry. Implementation by June RECOMMENDATION #6: The Parks Division should set a goal for turnaround time of playground equipment repairs after a clear system for funding ongoing maintenance and repairs has been established. 38

39 Staff concurs, but this recommendation is very challenging to implement. Current practice, as specified by the Consumer Product Safety Standards, is to remove public access to equipment needing repair within 24 hours of the report, or immediately if there are safety implications. However, depending on the extent of the damage, the parts required, and where the parts must be ordered from, the length of turnaround time could be from days to a month or more. Given these complications, the Parks Division will endeavor to develop playground repair goals by June RECOMMENDATION #7: The Parks Division should track playground performance including: - Turnaround time on repair/service/complaint requests - Dollar value of claim losses and number of reported injuries on playgrounds - Customer/user satisfaction Staff agrees with this recommendation. Turnaround time on repairs, service and complaints should be rectified through implementation of Recommendation 1, instituting a repair and complaint tracking system. Setting up a system that tracks the number and value of park injuries is not within the purview of the Park Division. These are handled through the City Attorney s office. It should be noted that in the past decade there have only been three reported claim losses from playground accidents. Customer satisfaction is also challenging to obtain. Most use of playground equipment is by children who are problematic to survey. Parents can be surveyed, but staff will only get their perspective, not that of the true users. Staff believes the existing customer service questions used in the Auditor s annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report qualify as user satisfaction for all elements of our urban park system, including playgrounds, and as such should continue to be relied on for user input. Other methods of input will be evaluated. RECOMMENDATION #8: The Parks Division should post temporary notices after herbicides or pesticides have been sprayed in City parks. Staff agrees that this recommendation should be evaluated. Presently, Parks staff and contractors conform to all state and local regulations regarding chemical use. Parks staff do not use any chemicals on school grounds and the only chemical used in City parks is Roundup, an herbicide. When Roundup is applied staff or contractors remain on the site until the chemical is fully dried. Staff will evaluate whether posting or other notification methods are beneficial. Implementation will be in September RECOMMENDATION #9: The Parks Division should obtain bids for landscape maintenance work including mowing at Mitchell, Rinconada, and Greer Parks and should consider contracting for such work if it proves more cost beneficial. 39

40 Staff concurs and will conduct a comparative analysis of contracting vs. inhouse crews, but that analysis must consider the service level provided by current staffing levels. Given existing contract obligations, implementation would be expected in July RECOMMENDATION #10: The Parks Division should obtain bids for landscape maintenance work including mowing at Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, and the Bowling Green, and should consider contracting for such work. Staff will collect and evaluate bid information as stated above. RECOMMENDATION #11: The Parks Division should obtain bids for mowing work as part of future landscape maintenance contracts at the contracted neighborhood parks, and contract for mowing at those sites if it proves costbeneficial. Staff agrees that bids information would be useful to evaluate. RECOMMENDATION #12: The City should discuss with the PAUSD the possible cost savings and issues related to contracting for routine athletic field maintenance at school sites. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, the City should obtain bids and contract for routine maintenance at those sites if it proves cost-beneficial. Staff agrees and will implement discussions in September There is a question as to the ability of an outside contractor to do this type of work at school sites within limitations of not working during recess, lunch and PE periods. RECOMMENDATION #13: The Parks Division should reduce or redirect irrigation staffing after systems are renovated and efficiencies are realized. Staff will evaluate this alternative in conjunction with the contracting analysis as state above. RECOMMENDATION #14: The Parks Division should track and follow up on all interdepartmental work orders to ensure that they are completed timely. Staff concurs. This recommendation will be accomplished as part of the implementation of Recommendation 1 in June RECOMMENDATION #15: The City Manager should assign responsibility for flushing storm drains in parks and for the routine maintenance of pathways. 40

41 Staff concurs. Staff will determine responsibilities by June It is important to note that there are no resources assigned to Parks or Public Works for the maintenance of pathways. (Note that pathways have been improved through CIP projects.) Staff will request maintenance resources as part of next year s budget process. RECOMMENDATION #16: The City Manager s Office should convene a shortterm task force to identify ways to improve efficiencies in park maintenance by assigning as much responsibility as possible to the Parks Division in CSD, along with the necessary transfer of resources. Staff concurs that a task force should be assigned, but their goal should be slightly modified to identifying the most effective way to coordinate crossdepartmental park maintenance given organizational restructuring and resources. Implementation expected in December RECOMMENDATION #17: One department or division should be solely responsible for all lighting in parks. The Parks Division, Public Works Department, and Utilities Department should work together to decide who should be responsible, and consider transferring the necessary resources to the responsible department. Staff concurs that a more efficient way of coordinating lighting could be achieved, although the existing distribution of responsibilities has never caused major issues. Utilities maintains utility standard fixtures throughout the City, not only in parks. Facilities Management generally maintains all other park fixtures. The standard fixtures are tied in to the street light circuit, and Utilities crews use specialized equipment to maintain and replace them. CSD maintains tennis court lighting at the Palo Alto High school site. It might be feasible for Facilities Management to take on the tennis court lighting if adequate resources were provided. Solutions will be evaluated by July RECOMMENDATION #18: The Parks Division and Public Works should consider how to increase frequency of tree trimming in parks, and consider contracting for this work Staff concurs, and will evaluate whether including parks in the Public Work s Area Tree Trimming program is an effective approach for parks tree maintenance. Public Works Operations Tree Maintenance Section annually obtains bids for tree maintenance in parks. The annual Area Tree Trimming contract provides for trimming of trees in Parks that are within the area scheduled for street tree trimming. Having the Parks staff obtain bids for tree trimming would potentially increase cost per tree for trimming, since the Area Tree Trimming contract involves a larger quantity of trees which usually means contractors bid lower prices. Staff will evaluate and implement a solution by December

42 RECOMMENDATION #19: The City should follow the requirements of the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards in the same way that private landowners are required to do. Utilities should make City Departments aware of the requirements of the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards and the related services that Utilities provides. Utilities Marketing Services will continue to market water conservation programs to all customers, with an emphasis on City Facilities. RECOMMENDATION #20: Utilities should conduct irrigation audits of significant systems that have been installed or renovated on Park Division-maintained sites during the last 10 years to establish baseline data on the efficiency and effectiveness of those systems. The Utilities Department agrees that audits are a good method to measure irrigation system efficiencies before and after renovations. Utilities will work with the Parks department to identify sites for the Large Landscape Audits and perform audits, as funding is available. RECOMMENDATION #21: Utilities should update the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards to: (1) clearly assign responsibility for required tasks for City sites (e.g. who is responsible for performing irrigation audits); (2) clearly explain the purpose of the irrigation audits (e.g., to compare water usage before and after new system is installed) with regard to City sites; (3) clarify that medians are covered; and (4) make City sites subject to the maximum water allowance, if deemed appropriate. Utilities will be reviewing and making appropriate changes to Landscape Standards, once the new State AB2717 is approved by the Governor. (1) Each City project should have a project manager; this would be the person responsible for ensuring compliance of the Landscape Standards. (2) These audits will ensure the irrigation system was installed as planned by providing information on the systems distribution uniformity, sprinkler performance, system pressure, and irrigation scheduling. (3) As noted in the Auditors report, the City is overseeing 26 acres of medians. Redesigning of individual medians would not trigger the Landscape Standards. Therefore, Parks staff should ensure water efficient practices are within the Contractors scope of work or taken on by Parks staff for these small island projects. 42

43 These changes will be addressed in the revision process of the Landscape Standards. RECOMMENDATION #22: Utilities should provide the Parks Division with userfriendly data (e.g. graphs similar to those provided to residential and commercial) that shows water consumption by park (or site maintained). Utilities worked with Parks and the Utility billing department to create a monthly percent of change in water use report, to be ed directly to Parks. UMS will continue to work with Park staff to produce user-friendly reports for staff. Conclusion Community Services, Public Works and the Utilities Departments are committed to addressing the Auditors recommendations in a timely manner given an environment of downsizing, restructuring and union contract negotiations. The Departments acknowledge the extensive work by the Auditors Office and are appreciative of the ideas and benefits that have emerged from this study. 43

44 44

45 Appendix A Analysis of In-House Maintenance Versus Contracting Out Mitchell Park (Contractor #1) Salaries and Benefits - General Current Costs 2 Which current costs could be avoided by contracting out? What new costs would be added by contracting out? $141,651 $141,651 Bid Amount $39,701 Contract Contingency $4,000 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $15,409 Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $22,488 Supplies and Materials $42,065 $11,530 Field Inspection $24,567 Utilities $44,616 PW - Facilities $25,352 General Administration $33,453 CSD Administration $12,679 Cost Plan Charges $74,827 What would be the net savings in contracting out? Total $390,052 $153,181 $90,756 $62,425 Mitchell Park (Contractor #2) Salaries and Benefits - General $141,651 $141,651 Bid Amount $15,600 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $15,409 Contract Contingency $2,000 Supplies and Materials $42,065 $11,530 Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $22,488 Utilities $44,616 Field Inspection $24,567 PW - Facilities $25,352 General Administration $33,453 CSD Administration $12,679 Cost Plan Charges $74,827 Total $390,052 $153,181 $64,655 $88, Includes mowing, turf leaf sweeping, preparation for special events, and extra weekend trash pickup. Does not include potential impact of leaf blower ordinance or disposal of equipment no longer needed. 2 - Due to rounding, totals in the Appendices and other exhibits within the report may differ. 45

46 Current Costs 2 Which current costs could be avoided by contracting out? What new costs would be added by contracting out? Rinconada Park (Contractor #1) Salaries and Benefits - General $153,555 $153,555 Bid Amount $34,225 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $2,465 Contract Contingency $3,400 Supplies and Materials $37,347 $10,233 Field Inspection $21,812 What would be the net savings in contracting out? Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $16,344 Utilities $39,612 PW - Facilities $22,692 PW - Trees $29,196 General Administration $33,231 CSD Administration $12,595 Cost Plan Charges $74,331 Total $405,024 $163,788 $75,781 $88,007 Rinconada Park (Contractor #2) Salaries and Benefits - General $153,555 $153,555 Bid Amount $10,020 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $2,465 Contract Contingency $1,500 Supplies and Materials $37,347 $10,233 Field Inspection $21,812 Utilities $39,612 Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $16,344 PW - Facilities $22,692 PW - Trees $29,196 General Administration $33,231 CSD Administration $12,595 Cost Plan Charges $74,331 Total $405,024 $163,788 $49,676 $114, Includes mowing, turf leaf sweeping, preparation for special events, and extra weekend trash pickup. Does not include potential impact of leaf blower ordinance or disposal of equipment no longer needed. 2 - Due to rounding, totals in the Appendices and other exhibits within the report may differ. 46

47 Current Costs 2 Which current costs could be avoided by contracting out? What new costs would be added by contracting out? What would be the net savings in contracting out? Greer Park (Contractor #1) Salaries and Benefits - General $171,186 $171,186 Bid Amount $39,089 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $14,446 Contract Contingency $3,900 Supplies and Materials $42,655 $11,685 Field Inspection $24,911 Utilities $45,242 Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $61,486 PW - Facilities $5,863 General Administration $39,538 CSD Administration $14,985 Cost Plan Charges $88,439 Total $422,354 $182,871 $129,386 $53,485 Greer Park (Contractor #2) Salaries and Benefits - General $171,186 $171,186 Bid Amount $15,600 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $14,446 Contract Contingency $2,000 Supplies and Materials $42,655 $11,685 Field Inspection $24,911 Utilities $45,242 Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $61,486 PW - Facilities $5,863 General Administration $39,538 CSD Administration $14,985 Cost Plan Charges $88,439 Total $422,354 $182,871 $103,997 $78, Includes mowing, turf leaf sweeping, preparation for special events, and extra weekend trash pickup. Does not include potential impact of leaf blower ordinance or disposal of equipment no longer needed. 2 - Due to rounding, totals in the Appendices and other exhibits within the report may differ. 47

48 Current Costs 2 Which current costs could be avoided by contracting out? What new costs would be added by contracting out? What would be the net savings in contracting out? Baylands Athletic Salaries and Benefits - General $76,064 $76,064 Estimated bid $13,787 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $11,556 Mowing $5,148 Supplies and Materials $11,794 $3,228 Utilities $12,509 PW - Facilities $9,217 General Administration $18,662 CSD Administration $7,073 Cost Plan Charges $41,744 Additional maintenance estimated by Department 1 $23,568 Total $188,619 $79,292 $42,503 $36, Includes mowing, turf leaf sweeping, preparation for special events, and extra weekend trash pickup. Does not include potential impact of leaf blower ordinance or disposal of equipment no longer needed. 2 - Due to rounding, totals in the Appendices and other exhibits within the report may differ. 48

49 El Camino Current Costs 1 Which current costs could be avoided by contracting out? What new costs would be added by contracting out? What would be the net savings in contracting out? Salaries and Benefits $72,101 $83,657 Estimated bid $43,866 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $11,556 Supplies and Materials $13,288 $3,637 Utilities $14,094 PW - Facilities $5,136 General Administration $17,818 CSD Administration $6,753 Cost Plan Charges $39,856 Total $180,602 $87,294 $43,866 $43,428 Bowling Green Salaries and Benefits $48,319 $49,282 Mowing $25,000 Salaries and Benefits - Sprinkler $963 Contract Contingency $2,500 Supplies and Materials $3,735 $1,029 Field Inspection $2,000 Utilities $3,961 PW - Facilities $8,626 General Administration $10,497 CSD Administration $3,978 Cost Plan Charges $23,479 Total $103,558 $50,311 $29,500 $20, Due to rounding, totals in the Appendices and other exhibits within the report may differ. 49

50 Appendix B Detailed list of costs by site (FY costs for sites maintained by Park Services) General Expenses (Supplies, Materials, Etc.) 3 Parks Division Support and Administrative Costs 4 CSD Administrative Costs 5 Utilities 6 Public Works Facilities Costs 9 Acreagtor City Field Direct City Citywide Contrac- Inspector Staff Costs Overhead Total Site Cost 1 Costs Cost 11 Parks (Maintained In- House) Baylands Athletic Center 6.0 $0 $0 $11,794 $18,662 $7,073 $12,509 $87,620 $41,744 $9,217 $188,620 Bowling Green 1.9 $0 $0 $3,735 $10,497 $3,978 $3,961 $49,282 $23,479 $8,626 $103,559 El Camino Park 6.8 $0 $0 $13,288 $17,818 $6,753 $14,094 $83,657 $39,856 $5,136 $180,601 Greer Park 21.7 $0 $0 $42,655 $39,538 $14,985 $45,242 $185,632 $88,439 $5,863 $422,353 Mitchell Park 21.4 $0 $0 $42,065 $33,453 $12,679 $44,616 $157,060 $74,827 $25,352 $390,051 Rinconada Park 19.0 $0 $0 $37,347 $33,231 $12,595 $39,612 $156,020 $74,331 $22,692 $29,196 $405,024 Terman Park 7.7 $8,460 $0 $15,057 $8,327 $3,156 $15,970 $39,096 $18,626 $108,692 Sub-Total - In-House Parks 84.4 Public Works Tree Costs 10 $8,460 $0 $165,940 $161,527 $61,220 $176,004 $758,366 $361,301 $76,886 $29,196 $1,798,900 Parks (Maintained by Contractor) Bol Park 3.0 $16,720 $5,399 $5,897 $4,455 $604 $6,255 $7,483 $3,565 $50,376 Boulware Park 1.5 $11,120 $5,399 $2,948 $3,015 $604 $3,127 $7,483 $3,565 $37,261 Bowden Park 2.0 $10,047 $5,399 $3,931 $2,656 $611 $4,170 $7,565 $3,604 $37,982 Briones Park 3.7 $6,781 $5,399 $7,273 $1,542 $1,011 $7,714 $12,519 $5,965 $48,203 Cameron Park 1.1 $10,971 $5,399 $2,162 $3,015 $611 $2,293 $7,565 $3,604 $35,620 Cogswell Plaza 0.6 $10,853 $720 $1,229 $3,032 $591 $1,303 $7,319 $3,487 $28,534 Eleanor Park 9.6 $15,404 $5,399 $18,870 $3,375 $1,011 $20,015 $12,519 $5,965 $82,557 El Palo Alto 0.5 $3,547 $720 $983 $959 $591 $1,042 $7,319 $3,487 $18,648 Heritage Park/Roth 2.0 $747 $1,440 $3,931 $0 $728 $4,170 $9,013 $4,294 $24,322 Hoover Park 4.2 $11,944 $5,399 $8,236 $2,964 $1,011 $8,736 $12,519 $5,965 $4,200 $60,973 T. Hopkins Creekside Parks 12.4 $9,909 $720 $24,374 $1,508 $591 $25,852 $7,319 $3,487 $73,760 Johnson Park 2.5 $8,853 $5,399 $4,914 $2,262 $611 $5,212 $7,565 $3,604 $29,196 $67,615 Lytton Plaza 0.2 $73 $0 $383 $0 $588 $407 $7,281 $3,469 $67,500 $79,700 Mayfield Park/College Terrace Library 1.7 $4,535 $1,440 $3,342 $1,114 $594 $3,544 $7,357 $3,505 $25,429 Monroe Park 0.55 $5,605 $3,599 $1,081 $1,542 $603 $1,147 $7,470 $3,559 $24,607 50

51 Parks Division General Expenses Support and CSD Public Public Acreagtor Contrac- City Field Inspector (Supplies, Materials, Administrative Administrative Direct City Staff Costs Citywide Overhead Works Facilities Works Tree Total Site Cost 1 Costs 2 Etc.) 3 Costs 4 Costs 5 Utilities Costs 9 Costs 10 Cost 11 Peers Park 4.7 $7,076 $5,399 $9,140 $1,525 $1,011 $9,695 $12,519 $5,965 $7,114 $59,443 Ramos Park 4.4 $8,303 $5,399 $8,649 $1,902 $611 $9,173 $7,565 $3,604 $45,205 Robles Park 4.7 $8,475 $5,399 $9,239 $1,919 $1,011 $9,799 $12,519 $5,965 $54,324 Sarah Wallis Park 0.3 $6,697 $720 $511 $1,885 $591 $542 $7,319 $3,487 $21,751 Scott Park 0.3 $5,632 $1,200 $590 $1,576 $593 $625 $7,344 $3,499 $21,059 Seale Park 3.6 $9,076 $5,399 $7,037 $2,210 $1,011 $7,464 $12,519 $5,965 $50,681 Ventura School Grounds 1.3 $10,805 $5,399 $2,555 $2,947 $611 $2,710 $7,565 $3,604 $36,196 Weisshar Park 1.1 $10,011 $720 $2,162 $2,741 $591 $2,293 $7,319 $3,487 $29,324 Werry Park 1.1 $11,571 $5,399 $2,162 $3,187 $611 $2,293 $7,565 $3,604 $36,391 * Stanford PA Playing Fields $0 $0 $0 Sub-Total - Contract Parks 67.0 $204,754 $86,857 $131,600 $51,330 $16,995 $139,582 $210,532 $100,302 $78,814 $29,196 $1,049,961 Sub-Total - Parks $213,214 $86,857 $297,540 $212,856 $78,215 $315,586 $968,898 $461,603 $155,700 $58,391 $2,848,861 Athletic Fields - PAUSD JLS 10.5 $0 $0 $20,541 $5,881 $2,229 $21,787 $27,613 $13,156 $91,208 Jordan 6.7 $0 $0 $13,131 $5,670 $2,149 $13,927 $26,623 $12,684 $74,183 Barron 2.3 $0 $0 $4,600 $3,719 $1,409 $4,879 $17,459 $8,318 $40,383 Walter Hays 2.7 $0 $0 $5,327 $3,719 $1,409 $5,650 $17,459 $8,318 $41,881 Palo Verde 0.6 $0 $0 $1,219 $3,719 $1,409 $1,293 $17,459 $8,318 $33,416 Hoover 2.3 $0 $0 $4,600 $3,719 $1,409 $4,879 $17,459 $8,318 $40,383 Ohlone 1.5 $0 $0 $3,007 $3,719 $1,409 $3,190 $17,459 $8,318 $37,102 Duveneck 1.8 $0 $0 $3,538 $3,719 $1,409 $3,753 $17,459 $8,318 $38,195 Addison 1.6 $0 $0 $3,106 $3,719 $1,409 $3,294 $17,459 $8,318 $37,304 Fairmeadow 2.1 $0 $0 $4,049 $3,390 $1,285 $4,295 $15,918 $7,584 $36,521 El Carmelo 1.8 $0 $0 $3,558 $3,719 $1,409 $3,774 $17,459 $8,318 $38,236 Briones 1.3 $0 $0 $2,457 $3,719 $1,409 $2,606 $17,459 $8,318 $35,968 Nixon 3.7 $0 $0 $7,293 $3,883 $1,472 $7,735 $18,229 $8,685 $47,296 Escondido 2.4 $0 $0 $4,796 $3,719 $1,409 $5,087 $17,459 $8,318 $40,788 Greendell 1.8 $0 $0 $3,519 $3,719 $1,409 $3,732 $17,459 $8,318 $38,155 $0 $0 $0 Total - Athletic Fields 43.1 $0 $0 $84,739 $59,730 $22,638 $89,879 $280,430 $133,602 $0 $0 $671,017 Tennis Courts Rinconada Park (9 Courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $40 $15 $0 $189 $90 $320 51

52 General Expenses (Supplies, Materials, Etc.) 3 Parks Division Support and Administrative Costs 4 CSD Administrative Costs 5 Utilities 6 Public Works Facilities Costs 9 Acreagtor City Field Direct City Citywide Contrac- Inspector Staff Costs Overhead Total Site Cost 1 Costs Cost 11 Palo Alto High School (7 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $27 $10 $0 $126 $60 $213 Peers Park (2 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $18 $7 $0 $83 $40 $141 Hoover Park (2 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $18 $7 $0 $83 $40 $141 Weisshaar Park (2 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $18 $7 $0 $83 $40 $141 Mitchell Park (7 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $40 $15 $0 $189 $90 $320 Stanford Middle School (6 courts) JLS N/A $0 $0 $0 $4 $2 $0 $20 $10 $34 Terman Park (4 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $18 $7 $0 $83 $40 $141 Gunn High School (6 courts) N/A $0 $0 $0 $27 $10 $0 $126 $60 $213 Jordan $0 $0 $0 $4 $2 $0 $20 $10 $34 Sub-Total - Tennis Courts $0 $0 $0 $214 $81 $0 $1,005 $479 $0 $0 $1,698 Medians Alma Street 1.0 $8,113 $2,399 $1,966 $2,210 $262 $2,085 $3,244 $1,545 $21,824 Alma Street West (PW's right of way) $7,120 $0 $0 $2,033 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,153 Charleston Road 0.2 $3,945 $384 $393 $1,105 $109 $417 $1,344 $640 $8,337 California Avenue 1.7 $7,203 $2,399 $3,263 $1,880 $262 $3,461 $3,244 $1,545 $23,257 California Ave. Bus. Dist. Tree Wells $1,548 $0 $0 $442 $79 $0 $982 $468 $3,520 Birch Street Medians $2,322 $2,399 $0 $663 $262 $0 $3,244 $1,545 $10,435 Embarcadero Road Islands/Underpass 1.5 $5,204 $2,399 $2,948 $1,326 $262 $3,127 $3,244 $1,545 $20,056 Oregon Expressway 8.9 $24,976 $5,998 $17,396 $6,188 $536 $18,451 $6,636 $3,161 $83,343 San Antonio Road 2.7 $8,361 $792 $5,307 $2,100 $140 $5,629 $1,729 $824 $24,880 University Avenue 3.3 $25,257 $3,599 $6,408 $6,865 $353 $6,797 $4,374 $2,084 $55,737 Downtown Tree Wells 0.2 $3,171 $0 $393 $884 $79 $417 $982 $468 $6,394 Page Mill Road 2.5 $8,662 $0 $4,855 $2,210 $107 $5,150 $1,324 $631 $22,939 El Camino Real 1.0 $11,209 $3,599 $1,966 $3,094 $353 $2,085 $4,374 $2,084 $28,765 Forest Avenue 0.2 $3,171 $720 $393 $884 $134 $417 $1,661 $791 $8,171 N. California Avenue 0.5 $1,735 $384 $983 $442 $109 $1,042 $1,344 $640 $6,679 Arastradero Road 0.1 $3,133 $1,200 $197 $884 $171 $208 $2,113 $1,007 $8,912 Evergreen Park/Park Blvd. Medians 0.5 $4,831 $384 $983 $1,326 $109 $1,042 $1,344 $640 $10,659 Public Works Tree Costs 10 52

53 General Expenses (Supplies, Materials, Parks Division Support and Administrative Costs 4 City Field Direct City Citywide Acreagtor Cost 1 Costs 2 Etc.) 3 Costs 5 Utilities Contrac- Inspector Staff Costs Overhead Total Site Costs 9 Costs 10 Cost 11 Quarry Road/Islands 0.5 $2,509 $384 $983 $663 $136 $1,042 $1,686 $803 $8,206 Miranda Avenue/Islands 0.1 $1,585 $384 $197 $442 $109 $208 $1,344 $640 $4, /West Bayshore Soundwalls 0.6 $4,868 $792 $1,179 $1,326 $140 $1,251 $1,729 $824 $12,108 Bryant/Addison Circle 0.01 $391 $384 $20 $111 $109 $21 $1,344 $640 $3,019 Fulton/Guinda Circe 0.01 $391 $384 $20 $111 $109 $21 $1,344 $640 $3,019 E.&W. Greenwich St. cul de sacs 0.02 $781 $384 $39 $221 $109 $42 $1,344 $640 $3,560 Eleanor Park area cul de sacs 0.1 $1,198 $384 $197 $332 $109 $208 $1,344 $640 $4,412 CSD Administrative Public Works Facilities Melville Island 0.01 $189 $384 $20 $53 $109 $21 $1,344 $640 $2,760 Sub-Total - Medians 25.5 $141,873 $30,136 $50,104 $37,794 $4,251 $53,143 $52,662 $25,089 $0 $0 $395,052 Public Works Tree Parking Lots and Parking Garages California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 California Ave. Business Dist.- Lot $397 $400 $854 $67 $2 $906 $21 $10 $2,657 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot A 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $6 $1,605 53

54 Acreage Site University Ave. Business Dist. Lot C 0.04 Contractor Cost 1 City Field Inspector Costs 2 General Expenses (Supplies, Materials, Etc.) 3 Parks Division Support and Administrative Costs 4 CSD Administrative Costs 5 Utilities 6 Direct City Staff Costs 7 Citywide Overhead 8 Public Works Facilities Costs 9 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot D 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot E 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot F 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot G 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot H 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot K 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot N 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot O 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot P 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot R 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot S/L 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 University Ave. Business Dist. Lot T 0.04 $921 $257 $72 $259 $1 $76 $14 $7 $1,606 Midtown Shopping District 0.1 $1,095 $384 $197 $302 $2 $208 $20 $10 $2,218 Public Works Tree Costs 10 Total Cost 11 Sub-Total Parking Lots and Garages 4.5 $17,559 $7,582 $8,885 $4,532 $33 $9,424 $405 $193 $0 $0 $48,612 City Facilities $0 Lucie Stern Community Center 3.0 $0 $0 $5,897 $7,317 $2,773 $6,255 $34,355 $16,367 $0 $0 $72,964 Mitchell Community Center 2.7 $0 $0 $5,307 $4,785 $1,813 $5,629 $22,464 $10,703 $0 $0 $50,702 Mitchell Library 3.0 $0 $0 $5,897 $3,941 $1,494 $6,255 $18,501 $8,814 $0 $0 $44,901 54

55 General Expenses (Supplies, Materials, Parks Division Support and Administrative Acreagtor City Field Direct City Citywide Contrac- Inspector Staff Costs Overhead Total Site Cost 1 Costs 2 Etc.) 3 Costs 4 Costs 5 Utilities Costs 9 Costs 10 Cost 11 Alma Fire Station 0.2 $2,475 $384 $393 $685 $135 $417 $1,677 $799 $0 $0 $6,965 Animal Shelter 0.5 $2,035 $1,584 $924 $531 $140 $980 $1,740 $829 $0 $0 $8,763 Arastradero Fire Station 0.5 $2,587 $384 $983 $685 $135 $1,042 $1,677 $799 $0 $0 $8,292 Art Center 4.4 $7,763 $2,399 $8,649 $1,748 $544 $9,173 $6,737 $3,210 $0 $0 $40,222 Bike Paths 1.0 $3,253 $3,119 $1,966 $822 $147 $2,085 $1,821 $867 $0 $0 $14,080 Bowling Green Spraying $840 $0 $0 $240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,080 Children's Library 1.1 $4,095 $1,440 $2,162 $1,052 $140 $2,293 $1,732 $825 $0 $0 $13,739 Children's Theatre 0.2 $4,875 $0 $393 $1,371 $134 $417 $1,656 $789 $0 $0 $9,635 City Hall 2.3 $12,859 $2,399 $4,521 $3,427 $144 $4,795 $1,783 $849 $0 $0 $30,777 Downtown Library 0.2 $4,155 $720 $393 $1,165 $137 $417 $1,694 $807 $0 $0 $9,488 Embarcadero Fire Station 0.7 $1,581 $384 $1,376 $377 $135 $1,459 $1,677 $799 $0 $0 $7,788 Flood Basin 0.8 $3,899 $1,584 $1,573 $1,028 $140 $1,668 $1,740 $829 $0 $0 $12,460 Hanover Fire Station 0.8 $3,899 $384 $1,573 $1,028 $135 $1,668 $1,677 $799 $0 $0 $11,162 Junior Museum 0.6 $1,844 $720 $1,179 $463 $137 $1,251 $1,694 $807 $0 $0 $8,095 Main Library 1.9 $6,049 $2,399 $3,735 $1,525 $544 $3,961 $6,737 $3,210 $0 $0 $28,160 Mitchell Fire Station 1.3 $3,365 $384 $2,555 $822 $135 $2,710 $1,677 $799 $0 $0 $12,448 Municipal Service Center 0.5 $7,147 $1,584 $983 $1,987 $140 $1,042 $1,740 $829 $0 $0 $15,452 Hale Well Park Area 0.5 $1,987 $720 $983 $514 $137 $1,042 $1,694 $807 $0 $0 $7,884 CSD Administrative Public Works Facilities Tower Well Site 0.2 $1,755 $720 $393 $480 $137 $417 $1,694 $807 $0 $0 $6,403 Sub-Total City Facilities 26.4 $76,461 $21,306 $51,834 $35,992 $9,378 $54,978 $116,166 $55,344 $0 $0 $421,459 Utility Substations and Wellsites Adobe Creek Substation/Pumpstation 0.4 $3,461 $384 $845 $942 $35 $896 $432 $206 $7,202 Colorado Substation 2.0 $4,323 $1,440 $3,931 $1,021 $39 $4,170 $488 $233 $15,644 Gas Recovery Station No $1,113 $384 $491 $291 $35 $521 $432 $206 $3,475 Hale Well Site 0.5 $1,068 $1,584 $885 $257 $40 $938 $496 $236 $5,503 Hanover Substation 0.4 $1,049 $384 $786 $257 $35 $834 $432 $206 $3,984 Hansen Substation 0.2 $907 $720 $354 $240 $36 $375 $450 $214 $3,297 Mitchell Substation 0.2 $915 $720 $393 $240 $36 $417 $450 $214 $3,385 Middlefield Substation 0.5 $1,267 $384 $983 $308 $35 $1,042 $432 $206 $4,658 Page Mill Substation 0.9 $1,131 $384 $1,848 $223 $35 $1,960 $432 $206 $6,218 Park Blvd. Substation 0.1 $859 $384 $98 $240 $35 $104 $432 $206 $2,358 PG&E Substation 0.9 $1,791 $384 $1,848 $411 $35 $1,960 $432 $206 $7,067 Quarry Electric Station 0.7 $1,116 $384 $1,455 $240 $35 $1,543 $432 $206 $5,411 Public Works Tree 55

56 City Field Inspector Costs 2 General Expenses (Supplies, Materials, Etc.) 3 Parks Division Support and Administrative Costs 4 CSD Administrative Costs 5 Utilities 6 Direct City Staff Costs 7 Citywide Overhead 8 Public Works Facilities Costs 9 Site Acreage Contractor Cost 1 Total Cost 11 SCAADA Building Grounds 0.1 $877 $384 $197 $240 $35 $208 $432 $206 $2,580 Water Quality Control Plant 2.6 $3,971 $1,440 $5,111 $857 $39 $5,421 $488 $233 $17,558 Geng Road Substation 0.3 $1,413 $792 $491 $377 $37 $521 $454 $216 $4,302 Matadero Well Site 0.4 $1,121 $384 $845 $274 $35 $896 $432 $206 $4,194 Alma Electric Substation 0.2 $1,095 $384 $393 $291 $35 $417 $432 $206 $3,253 Maybell Substation 0.3 $1,053 $384 $491 $274 $35 $521 $432 $206 $3,397 Arastradero Road Flouride Station $1,020 $384 $0 $291 $35 $0 $432 $206 $2,369 Sub-Total Utility Substations and Wellsites 10.9 $29,549 $11,685 $21,445 $7,275 $682 $22,746 $8,448 $4,025 $0 $0 $105,854 Neighborhood Park Soccer/Sport Field Renovations Rinconada Park 0.9 $6,216 $886 $0 $2,636 $326 $0 $4,041 $14,105 Robles Park 0.9 $6,400 $886 $0 $2,688 $326 $0 $4,041 $14,341 Seale Park 1.3 $8,732 $886 $0 $3,354 $326 $0 $4,041 $17,339 Ventura School Grounds 0.5 $3,341 $886 $0 $1,815 $326 $0 $4,041 $10,409 Hoover Park 1.7 $11,800 $886 $0 $4,230 $326 $0 $4,041 $21,283 Eleanor Pardee Park 1.5 $10,804 $886 $0 $3,946 $326 $0 $4,041 $20,003 Mitchell Park 0.8 $5,500 $886 $0 $2,431 $326 $0 $4,041 $13,184 Peers Park 0.9 $6,636 $886 $0 $2,756 $326 $0 $4,041 $14,645 Ramos Park 0.2 $1,700 $886 $0 $1,346 $326 $0 $4,041 $8,299 Sub-Total Soccer Renovations 8.7 $61,129 $7,973 $0 $25,201 $2,936 $0 $36,368 $0 $0 $0 $133,608 Total $539,784 $165,539 $514,548 $376,319 $118,213 $545,755 $1,464,381 $679,856 $155,700 $58,391 $4,626,160 Public Works Tree Costs 10 * Stanford Palo Alto Fields to be added 12/05. [1] Contractor bid plus contingency [2] City field inspectors inspect sites maintained by contractors. [3] Allocation of supplies, materials, general expenses, allocated based on acreage. [4] Parks Division administrative and support costs for in-house sites and also for contract administration of contracted sites. Allocated to contract sites based on site bid amount as a percentage of bid amount for all contract sites; allocated to City sites based on parks staff costs for site as a percentage of parks staff costs for all sites maintained in-house. 56

57 [5] Parks Division share of departmental administrative costs. Allocated based on parks staff costs for site as a percentage of total parks staff costs for all sites. [6] Utilities allocated based on acreage; not allocated to tennis courts because no acreage data. [7] City staff costs for direct park maintenance employees (park maintenance persons, etc.). This number does not include staff costs for Public Works or Utilities. [8] Includes cost plan charges for citywide services like Human Resources and Attorney s Office. Allocated based on City park maintenance staff costs. [9] Includes janitorial maintenance contract, maintenance of restroom at Lytton Plaza [10] Includes staff and contract costs for FY for areas within Public Works zone addressed during the year; does not include other as-needed maintenance, if any. [11] Due to rounding, totals in the Appendices and other exhibits within the report may differ. 57

58 Appendix C - City of Palo Alto Playground Inspections Checklist 58

59 59

60 Appendix D - Joint Powers Insurance Authority Periodic Playground Maintenance Checklist 60