September 15, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Could a wet winter help city?

by Bill D'Agostino

Puddles are about to become a hot topic.

Toward the end of this winter, Palo Alto property owners will vote on whether to substantially increase their monthly storm drain fees. Such a hike would allow the city to repair the system of pipes and pumps that catches Palo Alto's rainwater and brings it to the creeks.

On Monday night, the Palo Alto City Council enthusiastically, unanimously and conceptually endorsed an election to ask property owners to raise the fees on a typically-sized lot from $4.25 a month to $10 a month. The actual amount of the increase would depend on the size of the property owner's land.

The council will vote in December to officially authorize the election. At that time, the council might raise the proposed fee to $11 or $12, depending on the results of an upcoming Internet survey and other factors.

Under the proposed timeline unveiled Monday night, the city will mail the ballots to property owners on Feb. 28, who must then cast their votes by March 21.

The City of Palo Alto has long known -- both anecdotally and through studies -- that improvements to the 108 miles of underground pipes, 800 manholes, six pump stations and 2,750 drains were badly needed. One woman who lives on San Antonio Road told the council on Monday that every time it rains heavily, she can't use her garage due to the large ponds that fill her driveway.

The election will be scheduled to coincide with the end of the rainy season, so such tales will be on the forefront of voters' minds.

If property owners approve the fee hike as currently proposed, it would raise $17 million over 12 years, allowing the city to construct seven projects around town. The fee would also slightly increase every year, either at the rate of inflation or at 6 percent, whichever is lower.

Former mayor Larry Klein argued there is a substantial cost -- both financially and psychologically -- to not raising the rates, since the poorly performing storm-drain system currently fails to prevent damage to roads and homes.

"People have been suffering for many, many years," said Klein, who headed a citizens group that recommended the election. That group will likely morph into a political committee that will push voters to approve the fee.

A 1993 city study found the system -- much of which is nearly 100 years old - in need of $55 million in repairs.

Public Works Director Glenn Roberts noted the $17 million "does not represent a comprehensive solution to all the storm drain needs." But city officials are hoping the "first phase," as Roberts described it, would bring about enough goodwill for voters to reauthorize the increase after the $10 fee expires in 12 years.

The proposed projects from the "first phase" would repair and upgrade the storm drains along Alma Street, Gailen Avenue, and Bibbits, Channing, Lincoln and Clara drives. It would also add new storm drains to the Southgate neighborhood, improve the pump station near Matadero Creek, and build a new pump station near San Francisquito Creek.

The seven projects are spread throughout the city, but council watcher Herb Borock estimated that 65 percent seem to benefit the northern half of town. He guessed that many who would not benefit from the fee would not vote for the increase. However, another council watcher, Bob Moss, said he planned to vote for the hike even though his neighborhood -- Barron Park -- already had adequate storm drains.

"This is supposed to be a community," Moss said. "We're supposed to be in this together."

Because of state Proposition 218, property owners -- not registered voters -- will cast ballots in this upcoming election. The ballots will also be weighed depending on how big voters' properties are, and how many they own. Also, some of the voters -- around a third in 2002 -- do not live in town, setting up an unusual political situation.

It will be the second attempt for the city to raise the storm drain fees to pay for the projects. In 2000, Palo Alto property owners soundly rejected an increase of $9 a month for the typical residential home.

Freshman Councilwoman LaDoris Cordell asked what would be different about this upcoming election. The list given by city administrators and her fellow council members was extensive. They said that unlike in 1999: the new fee will have a "sunset clause," meaning it will revert to $4.25 after 12 years; there will be an oversight committee to ensure the money is spent as promised; City Council members will strongly advocate for the fee hike during the election season; and there will be clarity in what specific projects the increased fee would fund.

Opposition for the fee increase will still likely come from attorney Richard Alexander, who has long argued that projects should be paid by the city's general fund. Alexander contends the city is bloated financially, and that officials should trim the fat before asking voters to pay for something. However, others point out that Alexander has never identified which programs or personnel should be cut.

If the voters approve the fee increase, it would save the city's general fund $800,000 a year. That's the amount the city currently spends -- above what is received from the typical $4.25 monthly fee -- to maintain the system.

At the meeting, the council also agreed to hold an Internet survey prior to December to gauge property owners' interest in the proposed fee hike, and possibly a larger increase. Councilwoman Hillary Freeman wants the city to ask for the typical fee to be increased to $11 a month, to create a reserve fund to maintain the improvements. Otherwise, Freeman argued, a future council will also be forced to contend with an old and ailing system.

Three council members -- Dena Mossar, Jim Burch and Bern Beecham -- voted against the proposed survey, and were cautious of any possible future changes to the committee's original recommendation.

"Historically, the public has been unimpressed by our wiggling around," Mossar said.

Beecham said the survey would be difficult to conduct, especially given the unique nature of the storm-drain election. Burch also worried that any new small increase could reduce support for the measure, causing it to fail.

"If you put too many ornaments on the tree," he warned, "it could go down."

Staff Writer Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.