Publication Date: Wednesday Oct 4, 2000

Regrouping from a 'train wreck'

Palo Alto City Council members say they've learned some valuable political lessons from last week's defeat of the proposed increase in monthly storm-drain bills.

"I was naive," said Councilman Bern Beecham. "I was naive about how strongly people feel about their wallets. I should have known that. I will not make that mistake again."

About 63 percent of the 9,673 property owners who sent in ballots in the storm-drain election gave the city a strong message last week: They wouldn't support an open-ended price hike that would double their monthly drainage bills, even if it meant fixing the city's aging storm drains.

Most of the voters who opposed the increase and gave reasons for their dissent didn't question the need for storm-drain upgrades. Instead, they criticized the city for not placing a time limit on the fee increase and not explaining what specific projects would cost.

Council members said they will remember those complaints as they figure out other ways to pay for storm drains and a whole host of city projects with big price tags--including improved community facilities, traffic-calming programs and a new police building.

On Oct. 30, the city will hold a town hall meeting to ask residents what kind of projects they want to pay for. Officials will also share information about city finances and what funding options are available to Palo Alto.

"I'm very glad this train wreck happened here instead of later on," Beecham said. "We can fix our approach and do a much better job in the future."

According to some officials and residents, the city is facing a time when voters are seeking greater accountability and detail about public spending decisions. Palo Alto is not alone in its need to upgrade old facilities and infrastructure, pay for ongoing maintenance and convince voters it needs more money to accomplish such goals.

In the past year, Atherton voters twice rejected a parcel tax that would have largely paid for police protection and road work. Many residents said police services, good roads and drainage were important, but felt it was more important to tell officials they disliked the way the town was run.

In Palo Alto, several council members said they may consider bringing back the storm-drain proposal in another form, with a clearer list of drainage projects and a time limit on the fee increase.

"The vote is a sign of an undercurrent, a lack of confidence in the way money was spent or not spent in the past," said Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg. "We have to repair public trust in the way we spend money."

Kleinberg said she wants to have an open discussion with the public about money, so everyone understands what the city is spending money on, what it isn't, and why.

"Personally, I would like to see the big picture," Kleinberg said. "I'm a taxpayer too."

In addition to the town hall hearing, the city had already planned to conduct a phone survey of Palo Alto residents to see what big projects should be tackled first. A consulting firm was scheduled to have some sample survey questions ready sometime this month.

Former Councilwoman Jean McCown, who came out to support the city's storm-drain proposal, said she knew it would be a tough sell when she saw the ballot and the brochure for the fee increase and the drain projects. The information wasn't specific or accessible, she said, and most voters wouldn't take the time to uncover arcane engineering details about storm-water flow and drainage.

"People really want to know the direct connection between the money and how those dollars are being spent," McCown said. "It's even more important on projects that are not the emotional ones."

In other words, McCown said, people get more sentimental about paying for libraries and children's programs than they do about storm drains.

Officials said the city can't afford to pay for everything the public wants, and it certainly can't foot the bill solely using the general fund. Councilman Jim Burch said the city and its residents need to take a hard look at the community's priorities.

"I think we tried to be everything to everybody for too long," Burch said. "We've provided a lot of services in the city. Maybe it's catching up with us."

Some of the city's critics take a harsher view of the city's spending priorities. Wayne Martin, a resident who loudly protested the proposed storm-drain increase, said he wants an audit of city spending.

For instance, Martin said, the city recently spent about $10 million to buy the historic Roth building in the South of Forest Area, with plans for renovation and use as a public building. That's $10 million the city could have used toward fixing the storm drains, Martin said.

"Their spending priorities don't resonate with the public," said Martin, who added that Palo Alto should be as fiscally responsible as many of its residents. "The city needs to come up with a financial package that better reflects people's personal and business lives."



Back up to the Table of Contents Page