Editorial: Will storm drains look better wet? Editorial: Will storm drains look better wet? (September 15, 2004)

City plan to hold new storm-drain-fee election during the rainy season may just do the trick, with strong community support
A hillbilly bluegrass song on a Jerry Garcia album has a cabin owner explaining why he hadn't gotten around to fixing his leaky roof: "It doesn't leak when it's not raining, and it's too wet outside to fix it when it is."

That about nails Palo Alto's approach to fixing its inadequate storm-drain system -- parts of which are nearly a century old.

Now the city is preparing a new try at getting property-owner approval of an increase in a storm-drain fee, from $4.25 per month to $10 -- and city officials are looking at holding the mail-in election in February or March, "when there is a higher awareness of drainage problems throughout the community," according to a new staff report.

Action on storm drains was spurred by a series of significant storms in the winter of 1995 that flooded many intersections and streets. It took more than five years to bring a plan to a vote of property owners, who overwhelmingly rejected a proposed increase from $4.25 a month to $9.

The poorly conceived 2000 plan had fatal flaws, including having no "sunset clause" and no ceiling. Residents felt that if they voted for it, the $9 could swell like a rain-swollen creek over a period of years.

Some, including the Weekly, objected at the time to storm drains being classed as a separate utility rather than being funded through the city's General Fund -- an arrangement set up in 1989 by the city, when the $4.25 fee was instituted. While we continue to prefer the General Fund approach, using the enterprise fund as an excuse to oppose needed improvements is not constructive. Either way, funds are needed to finance the work.

In 2002, the City Council named a Blue Ribbon Committee to look at the storm-drain dilemma, and the 15-member group -- chaired by former Mayor Larry Klein -- held 15 meetings between May and September of that year, putting in 37 hours in a collective examination of needed improvements and financing alternatives.

But their recommendation for a pay-as-you-go fee increase to $13.90 a month ran into hard financial times in the dot-com crash, and City Manager Frank Benest shelved the recommendation until less-stormy financial times.

The committee also identified and "fixed" the most serious flaws in the 2000 plan -- including recommending addition of a sunset clause and growth cap for the fee, plus establishing clear priorities for what work should be done first. Storm drains surfaced again in the spring of 2003 during city budget considerations, and the council directed staff to update the plan and report back early this year.

Prodded by follow-up questions from the Weekly, the staff brought the matter to the council's Finance Committee last February, which suggested reconvening the Blue Ribbon Committee.

Nine of the original 15 members met this summer and presented their findings to the council Monday night, supported by the city staff.

The current plan identifies $17 million in near-term improvements, out of a larger set of improvements that earlier estimates placed a $50 million to $60 million -- likely more in today's dollars.

The committee strongly supported keeping the Storm Drainage Fund as a separate "enterprise fund" financed through user fees, and using pay-as-you-go financing to avoid paying interest on bonds or other forms of debt-financing.

It recommended accelerating construction by the city paying its share of assessments up front, to generate $3 million over the next three years for most-needed repairs, replacement or extension of the existing system. But the committee resoundingly rejected a proposal by staff that the enterprise fund repay the approximately $800,000 a year maintenance funding from the city's General Fund in recent years.

But the major factors in making this plan more acceptable are a 12-year sunset clause, a cap of inflation or 6 percent on any increase in the $10 fee, setting up of an oversight committee and inclusion of "innovative projects that reduce storm-water runoff."

Given those elements -- sadly missing four years ago, when the Weekly was sharply critical and opposed the fee increase -- the Weekly recommends the current plan to the community.

With any luck, it'll be a wet winter.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.