Publication Date: Friday Sep 29, 2000

PALO ALTO: Storm-drain fee washed up

Palo Alto officials are seeking ways to keep future storm-drain improvements afloat this week, after the city's property owners overwhelmingly voted down a measure that would have doubled their monthly storm-drain bills.

The measure to pay for future drain maintenance and new projects officially sunk early Wednesday morning, when city employees finished tallying up the results of the three-week, mail-in ballot election. Of the 9,673 votes counted, 63 percent of voters--6,105 ballots--voted against the measure, while 3,568 supported it. That is about half of the ballots the city had sent out to Palo Alto's 19,000-plus property owners.

The city received even more ballots, but tossed out an undisclosed number that were filled in improperly, though apparently not enough to affect the outcome.

After the results came in, several City Council members said they had expected the proposal--which had received plenty of negative feedback from the public in recent weeks--would be voted down. But some said the results were still unsettling.

"I was surprised by the extent of how much it failed," said Councilman Bern Beecham. "I had believed, based on conversations I had had with many people, that the issue was going to fail. I didn't think it would fail by that much."

The proposed measure, which would have increased property owners' bills permanently, was meant to raise about $230 million over 30 years to pay for new pipes, two pump stations and basic maintenance. In the short term, the election results mean the city has no extra money for these projects--forcing it either to bring back another proposal before voters or rearrange the city's spending priorities.

In the long term, the results suggest that the city might have a harder time selling the public on other big infrastructure projects, such as library improvements and a new police building. After the results came in, the city announced it will hold a town hall meeting on Monday, Oct. 30 to hear what projects residents want to pay for and to educate the public about what money the city has and how those funds will be spent.

If there's one lesson the city should learn from this, said Mayor Liz Kniss, it's that the city needs to give the public more detailed information about projects before asking voters for more taxes or fees.

"No, no--no surprises there," Kniss said of the outcome. "We had several different opportunities to hear from the public, and what we heard is that we have not done a good job of getting the right information out, in the right format, into people's hands."

Critics had blasted the proposed fee increase for several reasons, in particular because the increase had no ending point, or "sunset" provision. The city also came under attack for not providing more specific information about how it would spend the money. One resident sent thousands of fliers out to residents, urging them to vote against the fee increase.

"I was a little surprised by the number of 'yes' votes," said Wayne Martin, one of the residents who actively lobbied against the increase. "I hadn't come across any people who said they were going to vote for it."

City officials said they were navigating the murky legal waters of Proposition 218, a relatively new state law that requires property-related taxes to go to voters. The law also makes it illegal for local governments to appear as though they're coercing voters into supporting measures. Some officials said they may have been so cautious about observing the law that they didn't give voters enough details to make informed decisions.

Council members said this election hasn't just affected the way they will promote future spending needs, but it is also prompting them to look at other ways of funding major city projects.

In addition, several council members said they would consider bringing back a modified storm-drain proposal to voters--with a definite ending point for the fee increase. Councilman Gary Fazzino said he would also want to require that, in addition to the sunset clause, the council would have to renew the increase each year before it expires.

"The city is responsible for flood management," Fazzino said. "And we have to get right back at this issue and come up with a proposal which is satisfactory to the public."



Back up to the Table of Contents Page