League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Santa Clara County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues Council Member; City of Palo Alto

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Report Recommendations, Budget, Regional Planning Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest. 1. What are the most important recommendations of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission Report: Catch-up, Keep-up and Moving Ahead? Why? Answer from Mark Weiss: Is this a question or a statement. (see below for a continuation of my answer)? Answer from Marc Berman: Build a new, seismically safe public safety building and rebuild the Mitchell Park and Rinconada Park fire stations to guarantee that the community will be able to rely on a full set of emergency and public safety services when they are needed most. Create an infrastructure management system so city departments can communicate more effectively and government works more accurately and efficiently. Increase annual infrastructure spending by $2.2 million to fully fund ongoing maintenance needs (keep-up). This recommendation was immediately adopted by the council. It's important that the council not divert this funding in the future. Mandate periodic infrastructure audits to ensure that the city doesn't fall behind on maintenance to streets, sidewalks and parks in the future. Answer from Pat Burt: As a city council we have already implemented a $2 million per year infrastructure funding increase to accomplish "Keep-up". The Blue Ribbon Task force recommended that the funding for Keep-up should come from new revenues, instead we cut our operating budget to achieve this additional infrastructure funding. I believe that our next highest priority is "Catch-up". We have already doubled our annual street paving budget. Answer from Greg Schmid: --Creation of a constantly update Infrastructure Management System that will provide an up to date inventory of our infrastructure, current and future needs and available funding. --Assuring that each budget contains annual funding for both 'catch-up' and 'keep-up' --Go to the public to approve funds for major facilities update/upgrade Answer from Timothy W. Gray: Our roads and sidewalks are a clear priority, as they impact our immediate safety. Finding a solution to the unsafe condition of our public safety building is essential. In our rush to find a solution to correct these needs, we must not forget to take a sincere look at regional cooperation for some of the Public Safe needs. Also, we must be sure that we don't just locate a facility because of a developer's offer of a Public Benefit. Also the City must demonstrate a little more fiscal responsibility before it asks the voters for a bailout that is the direct result from accumulated excess spending. The Palo Alto political machinery is gearing up to "Sell" the community on the idea of a bond measure to fund the infrastructure deficit. I certainly understand the need to fix our roads and sidewalks, to underground the utility lines, and to replace the Public Safety Building before a potential disaster comes our way. The big deception headed our way is that if you don't support a big bond measure, you are not supporting public safety. We do have more than a $300 million infrastructure deficit, and that happened one year at a time by spending all our revenue on operations by letting repairs fall behind or not setting aside an appropriate reserve for known future needs. That is like a family that uses their "available" cash to take an extra Hawaii vacation each year. Then, when faced with not having enough money to keep their roof from falling in, they raid their children's piggy banks and college education funds. Before we go to the voters and ask for a bailout, we need to show a little financial discipline to at least provide a standard and prudent "down payment" by reducing our operating expenses to fund future infrastructure needs by more than the token $2 million that was offered in the current budget. The formula is clear + prioritize spending on services and then reduce from the bottom. It will be uncomfortable, but not nearly as painful if we don't do something different than the past. To borrow a commonly known question, "If you keep doing the Same Old Stuff, what makes you think you are going to have a different result?" We can do better, and it starts with finding at least another $5 million in operating expense to reduce, and use it as a "down payment" on our future. We don't have to look too far to see what happens when we adopt a "zero down, figure out how to pay for it later" approach. A shared community vision on spending priorities is the only cure. We cannot accept anything less. By borrowing from our future, we will surely strangle the creativity that has made this place great, because we will be in a position of paying for our historical excesses, vs. building a brighter future. Financial discipline does not strangle, but rather preserves the opportunity to create. We can do better. The City Infrastructure report categorized the "Infrastructure Deficit" as in several categories like "Catch up", "Keep Up", "Special Projects" or replacement needs, and then there are prudent reserves for future needs. We all know that things don't "wear out" all at once, but we do know with some precision the "useful lives" of those assets and setting up prudent reserves for the day they do break is a common business practice. Whether the "Deficit" is $300 million or $400 million does not change the need for fundamental change in the City's budgeting and spending. Last year the budget did make room for setting aside $2 million for future reserves, but we need to do more. Perhaps $6 million would be a start. We need to roll out the data that compares Palo Alto with other cities, and trim to those levels. There are assertions that Palo Alto has management costs greater than cities twice its size. The size of our unfunded Healthcare benefits and Pension cost may offer greater surprises as we dig deeper. Like him or not, Bill Clinton said it best: "It's arithmetic!" Collectively we need to say: "Show me the numbers." Sure, belt-tightening is painful, and it does not make friends, but it is essential that we make financial balance our number one priority. Pushing the problem off to the future with a bond measure only creates greater deficits. Let's get the job done. The sooner the better. Timothy Gray The Web Link to the City Report is: http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2... 2. In balancing the budget, what are the critical decisions when deciding which services and which infrastructure projects should be funded? Answer from Marc Berman: We need to identify new solutions to improve Palo Alto's short and long-term fiscal stability. Benefits have increased dramatically as a percentage of total compensation, causing more money to be spent on retirees and less on current employees and city programs. Palo Alto must shift to a system that focuses more on take-home pay while reducing our future pension and benefit obligations. Three ways to do this would be to institute a cap on pensions and gradually increase the employee contribution to pensions and healthcare. We also need to find ways to both raise revenue and cut costs. For instance there's no reason we should be spending $400,000 a year in rent for the Development Center, which is located in the most expensive market for office space in the entire country. In addition, once a new public safety building is built in a new location, the city could rent the 22,000 sq/ft of space in the current public safety building at approximately $5 per sq/ft per month, bringing in an additional $1,320,000 a year. We need to come up with new solutions that allow us to cut costs and increase revenue so that we can continue to provide important public services while also meeting our infrastructure obligations. Answer from Greg Schmid: Pensions and benefits are taking an increasing share of our annual budget. We must utilize the recent state reforms in benefit options to make sure that our longer-term commitments are in line with the longer term growth in revenues. This would give us the opportunity to maintain our infrastructure and a reasonable balance of important public services. Answer from Timothy W. Gray: As noted in the previous answer, safety is a priority. After that, it will take a vigorous community conversation with a broad spectrum of the residents (not just the typical insiders) to develop a shared community priority list. We have debates about one item at a time, but we really need to have a more comprehensive (with a small c) plan on where we want to go. Then everybody can stop debating and start getting the work done. Answer from Mark Weiss: Let's keep in mind the macroeconomic issues and national and international trends, such as the disinclination of the very wealth to pay fair share of taxes, that corporations often pay their CEO more than they pay the U.S Treasury in taxes, that some people value "capitalism" over "democracy", that wars are costly and arguably immoral and definitely obscure in terms of their benefit, that the Supreme Court thinks corporations are "people", before we get too irate at our civil servants and honoring our commitment to them. That being said second tier hiring seems appropriate and there may be room for some pension take-backs, but I would invest in human capital before infrastructure. Government is a "we" not a "them". I am concerned that our democracy is being turned into a plutocracy. I am so far unconvinced about need for new public safety building and value of the IBRIC report. Answer from Pat Burt: Our top priority is to provide strong public safety and to be prepared for emergencies, followed by good basic services such as streets and sidewalks. Beyond that, Palo Alto provides an exceptional set of services to our community which are a large part of our community values and why people value living here. The city council will receive a "Cost of Services" report this year which will an important part of our community discussion around what services we can afford and at what level. 3. Bay Area regional planning agencies are planning for growth along transportation corridors and for infill development over the next 25 to 30 years.  What are the advantages and disadvantages for Palo Alto in participating in this planning process?  Answer from Greg Schmid: State and regional agencies are moving in the right direction to create incentives to target growth into infill developments along transportation corridors. But ABAG has been consistently allocating regional housing mandates that are far higher than the actual growth of population in California and the Bay Area. We must include in our planning process acknowledgement that population growth in California is slowing. Answer from Mark Weiss: I recommend a global perspective that incorporates our membership in a 6 billion person community yet also feel we have the right to protect our local self-interest and dissent from regional initiatives such as Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) mandate on housing which may have some biases that are too growth-oriented. Answer from Timothy W. Gray: We can participate in the planning, and promote solutions to the regional jobs and housing imbalance without abandoning the character of our City that many have sacrificed to preserve. It is non-sense that an outside agency like ABAG can dictate our future. At the same time, we must recognize that the problems they are trying to solve are real, and solutions reached on a regional basis. We must preserve the values of our Comprehensive Plan, and honor the rules of the road that we have sacrificed much to defend. City political boundaries are are artificial when it comes to the ebb and flow of work and life in the Peninsula. We can cooperate without caving in, and becoming a place that doesn't even resemble the Palo Alto we know and love. The advantages of cooperation is that the problem gets solved and we retain a say in what our greater region looks like. The disadvantage is that we get pulled into a growth agenda that is driven by developers, and leaves the resident in the dust of a skyscraper's foundation. My vision for Palo Alto is one of balance... environmental, fiscal and for the quality of life. Palo Alto has a rich history, and a reputation as a city of innovation. When I walk out my door each morning I say, "I love this place." When my children's grandchildren walk out their doors in the Palo Alto of the future, I want them to have the same sentiment. Our City may look significantly different then, while it can still be a wonderful place to live. While we can't dictate the future, we can set examples and establish traditions and programs that will serve to bring forth the greatest good for our community. This is my vision. Balance is a pathway of discovery. It may seem almost impossible to maintain balance in our world when we consider the challenges of protecting the environment, preserving the quality of life, and at the same time making room for more people. Yet I strongly believe that we can be true to our heritage and find the way. By respecting the different points of view of our diverse community, we can find a balance as we honor and strengthen the points of agreement. And then, from a unified vision, forward progress will be assured. Answer from Marc Berman: Encouraging mixed use development along transportation corridors is a good idea from a land use and an environmental standpoint. Palo Alto is built out to near-capacity, so it's important to provide incentives for smart growth that creates better use out of currently obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites. Answer from Pat Burt: Palo Alto is participating in this planning process and we should continue to do so for two reasons. First, to the extent that we grow, it's sound planning for that growth to be at locations with public transportation and with easy pedestrian access to services. Second, we need to participate in the process so that we have a meaningful voice about our future. Regional agencies have been granted increasing authority over cities' growth. We need to continue to influence those outcomes to assure that regional mandates are not excessive. Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. Direct references to opponents are not permitted. The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.