The City Council has had several study sessions in the past few months to discuss it’s intergovernmental policies and priorities related to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex. Based on feedback from those study sessions, this report recommends final policy positions and priorities. Due to the need to further explore options for consulting services, this report does not cover the resources necessary to carry out the desired level of effort for the Council’s priority issues. Staff recommends:

• Council approve the Legislative Action Policy statements relating to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex in Attachment A.
• Approve the level of effort for the NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex priority issues as noted in the study session minutes (Attachment B).

Every January, the City Council adopts its intergovernmental relations (IGR) priorities for the year. For 1998, Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Moffett Federal Complex were set as the two top priorities. The City Council had a study session on June 11 to discuss IGR in general and study sessions on July 7, 1998 and July 28, 1998 specifically to discuss policies and priorities related to intergovernmental efforts on NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex. Summary minutes of that study session are Attachment B.

Goal 7.3c: Participate in intergovernmental activities, including national, state and regional groups, in order to represent the city's interest, influence policy and regulations, and enhance awareness.

Policy 7.3C.1: Represent adopted City policy in intergovernmental activities.

7.3C.1b: Adopt City policy on intergovernmental matters.

At the July 28 study session, Council raised several questions about the proposed policy statements, had a dialogue on them, and asked staff to come back with a final set of policy statements for approval. Attachment A is the revised Legislative Action Policy statements related to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex. The changes made since the study session include:

• Adding the word "aviation" after "commercial" in 1.i.15.
• "Remain a player" in 1.1.15 was changed to "actively participate in."
• Proposed statements 7.3.58 and 7.3.61 were combined, with language from #61 regarding NASA being the lead tenant and steward of the federal airfield added to #58.
• #63 (it was 64 in the draft) was changed to clarify that the use of the government airfield by tenants of the facility would be acceptable if it is ancillary or limited use only.

The recommended revisions to the "1998 Legislative Action Policies" (LAPs) are provided as Attachment A to this report. If approved by the Council, the LAPs will be inserted into the Council's Legislative Policy Manual as the current Council policy (7.3.14). This information is used to guide Council and staff in determining City positions on legislation and other external policy matters, thereby eliminating the need for Council to act on each and every issue as it comes up during the year. These policies are also utilized as tools to assist Councilmembers in carrying out intergovernmental assignments. Once finalized, Council will be provided a clean copy of the entire LAP as well as General Plan policies related to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex.

At the July 28 study session, Council reviewed the three priorities for NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex that were identified at the July 7 study session:

• California Air Guard Hanger
• Western Disaster Center
• NASA MOU Partnership Issues

For each of these issues (the MOU issues were broken down into the five areas of partnership), staff summarized the issue, identified what a low, medium and high level of effort would be, and made a recommendation. It is important to note that these are all high priority issues; the question at hand is what level of work effort is desirable for each priority. The issue papers presented to Council are included as Attachment C.

After discussing the issues, Council was asked to vote on the level of effort desired. The results of the vote were as follows:

Council is reminded that NASA has not yet prepared the workplans for the MOU partnership issues. If, after reviewing the workplans, a different level of effort is warranted, staff will come back to Council with that recommendation.

At the July 28 study session, staff set general parameters to define low, medium and high levels of effort. It was estimated that "low" would mean less than 50 hours of effort, which would be done with in-house resources. "Medium" would take between 50-200 hours and would primarily be done in-house, but might require some technical or on-site support at critical junctures. A medium effort is not an all out push by the City and may impact the chances of a successful outcome. "High" would be over 200 hours of effort and would likely require outside assistance to increase the chances of a successful outcome.

Based on Council’s desired level of effort for the priority issues, staff estimates it will take approximately 1100 staff hours per year to work on these efforts. This work will be done primarily by staff in the Office of the City Manager, but the Community Development Department and Public Safety Department will also have a role in some of the issues.

In addition to in-house resources, staff believes consulting assistance will be needed on the Air Guard Hanger issue to be effective at a "high" level of effort. The key milestones in this project will be trying to get funding for the Air Guard Hanger included in the President’s recommended budget for FY 1999/00; whether or not that is successful, an effort will be needed to get Congressional approval of funding for the hanger. Because of the high cost of the proposed hanger, it is likely that a phased, multi-year approach to funding might be necessary.

It is not anticipated at this time that consultants would be used for any other issue. If, however, one of the other priority issues is at a "make or break" point and staff feels outside assistance could push it over the edge, staff will come back to Council to request approval of a consulting contract for that specific effort.

For the past several years, the City has had a contract with the firm of Black, Kelly, Scruggs and Healey to provide assistance on Moffett related issues. John Scruggs has recently informed the City that his firm in not interested in continuing the contract, which will expire on August 31 (Attachment D). The firm of Hyjek and Fix, Inc. has been the lead consultant in Washington on the issue of the Air Guard Hanger (as a sub-contractor to Black, Kelly). Don Fix has indicated his firm is interested in continuing to work for the City on the Air Guard Hanger issue and he has presented a preliminary proposal. However, before presenting Council with a recommended contract, staff feels more time is needed to assess all options. The question is whether another firm has the same expertise and could do the same work, and if so, what the cost would be. Changing consultants in the middle of the process could have a negative impact, but staff wants to consider a range of options before making a recommendation to Council. In addition, there is a question of consulting support in Sacramento to ensure continued state support for the Air Guard Hanger. Under the current contract with Black, Kelly, Sacramento assistance on both the Air Guard Hanger and the Western Disaster Center was sub-contracted to the firm of Sloat, Higgins and Associates.

Staff will come back to Council in the next month with a report specifically on the issue of consulting assistance.

At the July 28 study session, Council requested information on the use of corporate jets at San Jose and San Francisco international airports. Staff has looked into this and found that 74 spaces at San Jose International Airport are rented for corporate jets. The number of take-offs and landings specifically for corporate jets at San Jose is not known. In San Francisco, there are 2,556 corporate jet take-offs and landings. Information on this issue can be found in Attachment E.

At the July 28 study session, Council asked for information on the impact of the VP-91 leaving the Moffett Complex. Copies of previous information on this issue are provided as Attachment F.

Staff hours are already budgeted to support IGR priorities, so no additional resources are needed to provide the in-house staffing needed to support the Council desired levels of effort.

Publication in the San Jose Mercury News and posting of the Council Agenda. All reports are available on the City of Sunnyvale Internet home page. A copy of this report was sent to the City of Mountain View and the director of NASA Ames.

1. a. Approve the update of the 1998 Legislative Action Policies relating to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex as written in Attachment A.

1. Modify and approve the update of the 1998 Legislative Action Policies relating to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex as written in Attachment A.
2. Take no action on the 1998 Legislative Action Policies relating to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex.

2. a. Approve the level of effort for the NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex priority issues as noted in Attachment B.

1. Modify the level of effort for the NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex priority issues as noted in Attachment B.
2. Change the priorities for NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex.

Staff recommends alternatives 1a and 2a:

Approve the update of the 1998 Legislative Action Policies relating to NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex as written in Attachment A and approve the level of effort for the NASA Ames/Moffett Federal Complex priority issues as noted in Attachment B.

Approved by:

Robert S. LaSala
City Manager