Palo Alto's quest to repair its aged infrastructure and possibly seek a bond to pay for some of these repairs will kick off in earnest tonight (Tuesday, Jan. 17) when the City Council takes its first stab at a new report focusing on the subject.
The council will devote its entire meeting tonight to the work of the 17-member Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, a panel that had spent 13 months analyzing the city's infrastructure needs and thinking about ways to pay for them (see agenda). The group calculated that the city has about a $41.2 million backlog, which it refers to in its report as "deferred maintenance." It also concluded that the city would have to spend about $32.2 million annually to keep up with existing infrastructure and identified possible funding sources, including a bond and certificates of participation, for funding a new public-safety building and refurbishing two obsolete fire stations.
Related story: City may seek bond for new public-safety facilities (Jan. 13, 2012)
The council's discussion is expected to be the first of many on a subject that Mayor Yiaway Yeh had identified as the city's top priority in 2012. At his election earlier this month, Yeh referred to 2012 as "the year of infrastructure investment and renewal." In a memo that was distributed to the council, Yeh proposed spending most of tonight's meeting and much of the council's annual retreat discussing infrastructure. The retreat is scheduled for Saturday morning (Jan. 21).
Yeh also proposed in his memo holding additional Saturday meetings in the coming months devoted solely to infrastructure. The meetings, he said, could be particularly valuable given the tight deadline the council is facing for a possible ballot measure. The council would have to decide on a measure by July for it to appear on the November 2012 ballot.
"A series of retreat meetings planned for infrastructure through the winter/spring could provide council important planning time," Yeh wrote. "Such meetings also will allow referral of special issues to Council standing committees or other venues as needed, while keeping the public informed and involved."
Tonight's meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.
Comments
Fairmeadow
on Jan 17, 2012 at 9:59 am
on Jan 17, 2012 at 9:59 am
The following letter has been sent to most BayArea elected officials, suggesting that consolidation of public safety operations would have billions of dollars in the coming decades. The idea of consolidation with other public safety operations, nearby, or at the regional level, does not seem to be part of the thinking of those pushing a new public safety building--
--
Elected Bay Area Government Officials:
The City of Palo Alto is currently spending between $60M and $65M a year on its public safety departments (total cost of police and fire operating budgets plus hard-to-find capital expenditures, like new vehicle costs). Assuming a modest 4% yearly increase in the funding for these two departments over the next 30 years, we will be spending $3.65B—without any consideration for capital expenditures .. like big, fancy, police stations and/or fire stations. During this time frame, take-home salaries for most police officers and firemen will rise to between $200,000 and $300,000 yearly (with 90% pensions guaranteed by the taxpayers).
In 2011, Scotland, a county of some 5.2M people (just a little less than the San Francisco Bay Area’s population) has decided to consolidate the country’s police forces into a single, national, force—citing significant cost savings as a result. Locally, it’s not hard to believe that all of the governments in the greater Bay Area will spend between $200B and $400B in the next 30 years on public safety costs. It’s time for the six-county San Francisco Bay Area governments to seriously consider regionalizing the public safety departments in order to realize similar savings. A regional public safety apparatus could easily save taxpayers $50B to $100B in the next 30-odd years, through reorganizations, and applying “economies of scale” that will reduce costs and with new technologies—sustain, or increase, the quality-of-service provided to taxpayers and residents.
Council Members, and Supervisors, don’t let another decade go by without initiating the activities that will provide the cost estimates and organizational structures that will provide for intelligent, cost-effective, regional government. California can no longer spend money like it has in the past. The San Francisco Bay Area has sufficient population, and intellectual resources, to recognize that fact, and to reorganize around the technologies developed in the Silicon Valley , and cost effective organizational structures.
Council Members, and Supervisors—the ball is in your court.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto , CA
On-The-Net:
Scottish police constabularies to be combined into single force:
Web Link
Review of Demographic Traffic Stop Data For Palo Alto , CA , 2009/Q4:
Web Link
PS--Please enter this communication into your jurisdiction's public record.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:13 am
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:13 am
Well, at least they've finally started to see some daylight! Now, they just need to understand that City Hall exists to serve the citizens, not vice versa.
Charleston Gardens
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:20 am
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:20 am
The meeting should be devoted to the needs of College Terrace (Web Link then if there is any money left over, the issues facing the rest of the city can be dealt with.
South of Midtown
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:44 am
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:44 am
Wayne's math appears to be off. A 4% annual increase over 30 years does not turn $65M into $3.65B. If we take raise 1.04 to the thirtieth power (1.04)^30 we get 3.24, or an increase of 324%. Multiplying 65 by 3.24 gives 211, not 3650.
Charleston Meadows
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
It is important for all residents to recognize that the $41,000,000 infrastructure backlog is the direct result of our Council approving a budget without following prudent and standard business practices of setting aside some money in the budget for future repairs and replacement.
Instead, our leaders took this money and spent it on operations. Some even congratulated themselves for achieving a balanced budget -- and hiding the fact that they borrowed from our future to avoid potentially unpopular "right-sizing" of operating expenditures.
Now, we are being set up as a community to bail-out the historical lack of financial discipline with a bond. We simply failed to put six cents of every dollar in the Piggy Bank (reserves) and now the failed leadership is going to ask us to borrow to cover up this historical overspending that was deceptively masked by not setting aside appropriate reserves.
A community mandate for "Infrastructure First" does not mean borrowing, but demands that all future budgets be set with the first six cents of every revenue dollar being put in the "Piggy Bank".
The 94 cents remaining can be spent on operations. Not enough? Then do what business does -- PRIORITIZE services and CUT. Where to cut will be a contentious discussion, but a simple prioritization and cutting from the bottom is a good place to start.
There is widespread agreement that we need to spend less on City Government -- we cannot accept anything less from our Council than to deliver a "right-sized" City Government operation.
I hope that others will share my clarity on this issue. Leaders need to put aside concerns about popularity and get to work implementing this very simple financial formula.
Recent discussions with Council members insisted that this kind of financial stewardship already in place. OK, then I ask:
1. Where were the reserves that were set aside in 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, etc..... Where were the reserves set aside when Larry Klein was Mayor, when Liz Kniss was Mayor... etc. SHOW US THE MONEY!
You see, we now need to stop debating the past, and implement a "right-sized" Government. However, unless we have the self-honesty and candor to be able to admit that we have really failed in the financial Stewardship of the City, then we are bound to have have history repeat itself.
Offered with respect,
Tim Gray (A Palo Alto Father that does not want to hand off today's problems to my three children)
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:44 am
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:44 am
Donald, you may not agree with Wayne's opinions (I, for one, don't), but his math is impeccable. Your math is correct, too, but your statement of the problem is wrong. Rather than calculating the total dollars spent over 30 years, your math calculates the accrued value of $65 million invested at a 4% rate of return for 30 years (actually, 31 years). Wayne's argument is that the annual budget would increase by 4% a year (not unreasonable), meaning the $65 million spent in year one would increase to $67.6 million in year two, $70.3 million in year three, and so on. The sum of those annual budgets would indeed total $3.645 billion over the subsequent 30 years.
South of Midtown
on Jan 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
''first stab''...oh how violence is ingrained in american speech.
Ventura
on Jan 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Donald, Wayne's math is correct. The context is your numbers are year over year and his reflect the cumulative 30 year cost.
Wayne, your comments are well received. If the government's default action is always to issue new bonds or raise taxes, they will never have incentive to address the glaring inefficiencies that waste our tax dollars. Public sector pension reform and the addressing of the inefficiency you cited above are absolutely critical. We can't keep asking our economic growth engine (the private sector) to pay more and more for equal or declining services from the govt. It's simply not sustainable if the country is to remain competitive.
Downtown North
on Jan 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Does anybody know how much do they plan to waste on that needless garbage processor by the bay?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm
I honestly can't see voters agreeing to a bond when the city does nothing to alleviate its spending on frivolous or questionable items.
If the city can stop throwing money at Destination Palo Alto, Senior Games, Bike rides, Art projects, Childrens Theatre, 5 libraries, and whatever next, we may see some approval. But, at present, I can't see how they can justify asking the voters to approve more taxes so they can do with our money what they are supposed to be doing with it.
If the city can approve of retail that I use all the time on necessary items without going out of town to give my tax dollars away, then I may think differently.
My property tax and my sales tax are meant to go to infrastructure maintenance, not frills.
Barron Park
on Jan 17, 2012 at 3:31 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 3:31 pm
The first priority is public safety. The second is maintenance of capital assets, e.g. buildings, parks, roads, utilities. This may mean razing or replacing some inadequate and unsafe facilities. The elected officials should not add wants, e.g. bike bridge, aerobic digester, and anything that will require future general fund investment to maintain.
When reserves are in place and all deferred maintenance is accomplished, the Council can then look to increasing the City's infrastructure, not before.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm
I agree with so many others commenting on this topic. Our city leaders and elected officials have been telling us that we as a city are facing an unprecedented financial crisis and annual budget deficits. They have repeated this mantra for the past several years. This crisis has led to cuts in public safety and put basic infrastructure needs on hold. Yet, at the same time, they allocate funds for so many projects that are desirable, but certainly not essential. I don't get it. It's time for their action to reflect their rhetoric.
Charleston Gardens
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:07 pm
One issue which is hugely important to the residents of Palo Alto is completing the undergrounding of our utilities which didn't even make it onto the list of infrastructure needs.
I want the ugly utility pole removed from my backyard, and the utility wires under-grounded. They can't resurface roads, if they're going to dig them up again to underground the utility wires.
Right now the City is considering building a new Public Safety Building, two fire stations, the Municipal Yard and the Animal shelter; all things for the Administration. Council has to give the residents and taxpayers of Palo Alto something if they want a bond measure passed.
Fairmeadow
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:06 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Our elected offivials are union reps. No one represents the taxpayer.
Charleston Gardens
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm
I listened to the Council meeting tonight in which they discussed only the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission report. Cross your fingers, but there may be hope at last. Attend the Council Retreat this Saturday, Jan. 21, 9 AM at the Downtown Library.
However, send the Council members e-mails every month or so and remind them of their obligations. Something like this has so many aspects, that it may get bogged down in details. Always copy the City Manager. Any city employee e-mail address is
first name,dot,last name@cityofpaloalto.org (no spaces in address)
Crescent Park
on Jan 18, 2012 at 3:47 am
on Jan 18, 2012 at 3:47 am
The city of Palo Alto gets an astounding amount of revenue every year, much more than other cities. especially when you consider our city-owned utilities. Why has the city, with this kind of cash flow, allowed its assets to deteriorate? We need to change the behavior of city employees and the council so that they do a better job maintaining our assets with current revenues. When I see a change, I'll consider a tax to build more assets (such as a public safety building). But right now we need an accounting as to why the city has let its infrastructure fall apart.
Asking for more money isn't the answer. We need to find out what went wrong so that we don't repeat this behavior. I really get the feeling that city employees only care about their paychecks, benefits and pension---and they don't care whether our assets deteriorate or not.
I also wonder if some of this deterioration is deliberate. I recall the PAUSD let its buildings become rundown, especially Gunn. They had plenty of money in reserves, but they pretended as if they were poor to pass a bond measure. I'll bet the city is up to the same old tricks.