Palo Alto's bid to raise stormwater fees to fund 13 projects cruised to victory Wednesday, with nearly two-thirds of the voters in the city's mail-only election supporting the change.
Of the 8,092 ballots that were submitted by local property owners, 5,161 (or 64 percent) were cast in support of the increase while 2,931 were cast in opposition. The City Clerk's office, which had been hand-counting ballots throughout the day Wednesday concluded its count at about 3:45 p.m.
Phil Bobel, assistant director of Public Works, called the wide margin of victory "very reassuring."
"It shows that Palo Alto residents and businesses understand the need to continue to work on our storm drain system to prevent street flooding; and to prevent pollution; and for all the other reasons we do these storm drain programs," Bobel said.
The fee increase, which needed more than 50 percent approval to pass, will raise monthly fees for each residential unit from the current level of about $13.03 per month for the typical residential unit to $13.65. Had it failed, fees would have dropped to $4.25, the rate that was in effect before voters approved an increase in 2005. That fee is scheduled to sunset in June, a deadline that prompted the council to once again go to the property owners for help.
The Wednesday results mean that the city will now create a two-tiered structure for its stormwater program, with one component ($6.17) used to pay for 13 infrastructure projects and another ($7.48) devoted to ongoing maintenance of the storm water system, rehabilitation projects and permit compliance.
Bobel said the city will probably begin with the areas that have the greatest amount of ponding -- specifically, the areas near U.S. Highway 101 along East Bayshore and West Bayshore roads.
"They both need attention and they need pump stations to get the water back in the creeks or back in the storm drains," Bobel said.
The city's list of projects also includes -- among others -- capacity upgrades on Loma Verde Avenue in Midtown, East Charleston Road in Charleston Meadows, Center Drive in Crescent Park and East Meadow Drive. The plan is to implement these projects -- which have a total cost of about $23.8 million -- over the next 15 years.
Just as importantly, the city will not have to stop any of its existing maintenance and pollution-prevention activities, Bobel said. And residents should also expect to see "percolation basins" and other forms of green infrastructure that cleanse the water and keep the stormwater system from getting overwhelmed.
"We'll be trying harder and harder to find ways to percolate the water," he said.
Bobel said that while the result of the election wasn't a shock, he was pleased by the solid margin of victory.
"I wasn't really surprised that it passed because we've had such a great support from the committee and from most people, and there was no organized opposition," Bobel said.
The recent period of rain didn't hurt either.
"We had a year that demonstrated the need," he said.
Bob Wenzlau, one of the leaders of the campaign committee, agreed. He said his group had a sense that a victory was in the works "when the winter rains were heavy and the stormwater system worked efficiently."
"We still knew a few areas that flooded, but those areas are the work for the next round of funding," Wenzlau said.
The measure, he said, will make the city's stormwater system more sustainable, "where we evolve to capture rainfall "as a resource, not as a problem."
Wenzlau said the committee "had some confidence of a victory."
"Still, in the fiscal climate that exists, one never knows until the ballots are counted," Wenzlau said.
The victory became evident fairly early in the day, with the first 3,000 ballots showing the "yes" camp with an overwhelming advantage. Staff from the Office of the City Clerk and deputized assistants from other departments spent the day sorting, stamping, organizing, counting and re-counting ballots before finalizing the numbers late in the afternoon. While there were a few oddities -- a voter who tried vote on Wednesday (when the deadline to cast a ballot was Tuesday) and another one who said a dog ate his ballot -- on the whole, "everything went smoothly," City Clerk Beth Minor said.
Related content:
Comments
Registered user
Midtown
on Apr 12, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Registered user
on Apr 12, 2017 at 5:06 pm
I was a "yes" voter, but a slightly grumpy one.
Given that I pay a largish amount in property taxes, I find it vexing that there has to be an extra charge for what I would regard as a core city service. I'd put storm drainage as a much higher priority than many city funded initiatives.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2017 at 8:54 am
on Apr 13, 2017 at 8:54 am
My big problem with this is that the city is collecting fees from us all the time and we see no better service. The City keeps collecting money and yet we still have the same problems so when will they start making sensible financial decisions that get rid of wastage of our tax dollars and start spending the money on what it is supposed to be spent on and not diverting it to other things?
Barron Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:17 am
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:17 am
I never even received a ballot, so I'm quite angry!
We've paid for this service before ( such as after the floods of 1998), but received no visible or viable service in spite of the expense.
I wanted to vote NO in response to the lack is service improvements, despite continual increases in cost!
I want to know how many other people did not receive a ballot! Personally, I know of two: one in Old Palo Alto and one in Midtown!
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:19 am
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:19 am
When was the election? I don't remember receiving a ballot or notification via email or USPS about the measure.
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:48 am
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:48 am
@ Growling....I never received a ballot either.
Palo Verde
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:54 am
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:54 am
To Growling: I totally agree about the ballots. Neither I nor any of the other 4 voters registered to my address received ballots. I and probably the other 4 would have voted yes, so at least we balance out on the vote. However, I'm upset that I never got a ballot. Only once in nearly 50 years have I missed voting in an election for which I was eligible.
Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:58 am
on Apr 13, 2017 at 11:58 am
I didnt receive a ballot. This is inexcusable to have so many not recieve one. There should be a another vote or recount with all participating. This looks a corrupt biased vote to me.
Midtown
on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:27 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Unless you are a property owner, you would not have received a ballot for the stormwater management measure.
From page 4 of Staff Report (Web Link
“Proposition 218 requires public agencies to secure approval for increases in property-related fees through either 1) a mail ballot election requiring approval by a simple majority of property owners returning ballots, or 2) a general election requiring approval by a two-thirds majority of registered voters casting ballots.”
Please do follow up if you are a property owner who did not receive a ballot.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 pm
We have owned/lived in our home since 1970, so home ownership is not a requirement to receive a ballot.
Where should I "follow up" re. non-receipt of a ballot?
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm
When this was discussed here before the election some renters posted that they'd gotten ballots when they shouldn't have gotten any. One renter said he/she got 3 ballots!
And remember that the non-taxpaying city awarded itself 85 votes for all of its properties so it seemed worried about getting the results it wanted
Where there's smoke screens, there may be fire. How sad that our trust/ confidence in PA has eroded to this point.
Palo Verde
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:12 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:12 pm
We are not registered voters in Palo Alto. We did however receive a ballot addressed to the person whose name appears on the utilities account which came by regular mail. This person is not a registered voter but we did have our say (voted no) in this "election". It looked very like junk mail and could easily have been dismissed as such. This was not a ballot for all voters, but one per household regardless of electoral status, as far as we could see.
It seems to me that if they wanted a low response and to hide the "election", they did everything to make this happen.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:22 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:22 pm
I open all mail, even if it appears to be junk. Too many pieces of mail include blank checks, credit card applications, etc. I shred all the offending ones. So, I did not receive any ballot.
Barron Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:29 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:29 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2017 at 1:45 pm
The ballot was sent to the same address held by the County for the property tax roll. The County maintains the tax roll data. There is a property address and an "owner" address - some owners do not live at the property. The ballot is sent to the owner. The recipient is the same person who pays the property tax. As such the City gets and creates the voter roll from the tax roll. Therefore, those saying they did not get their ballot would equally not get the property tax. Given that the property tax system has a high level of integrity, I hold doubts to all the commenters that claim they did not receive their ballot. The election had integrity and played by the rules.
Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:01 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I am a property owner and along with many other property owners did not recieve a ballot. Some people who are not property owners received ballots. There is a serious problem with this election, and it needs to be redone.
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:16 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Paid the property tax in November and again in February!
NEVER got a ballot for this election..... this all sounds very suspicious-- and INTENTIONAL!
This may have been a fraudulent election, which must by law be conducted s second time!
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:17 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Mr. Wenzlau, I have paid property taxes for my home since 1970. I have lived here full-time since 1970. Our kids, now in their 40s, went to PA public schools. We continue to live here as retirees. Perhaps Santa Clara county/Palo Alto integrity is less of an issue than are competence and record-keeping. Unfortunately, with this amount of oversight, residents will (correctly?) assume that there was an intentional culling of the voter population.
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:00 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Been living here over 40 years as owners and we never got a ballot. Watched every day for it. What did the envelope look like? Was it buried in a utility bill? I pay those and never saw a ballot in there.
Professorville
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:02 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:02 pm
I am a homeowner of 20 years and never knew there was going to be a special election. I certainly never received a ballot.
Who knows how many homeowners missed their chance to vote because they received no ballot or notice!
Regardless of the cause or reason, there needs to be a do-over. This election is invalid!
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:03 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:03 pm
And, I paid the property taxes, too. Same address, same name.
Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:55 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Owned my property for over 20 years. Never got a ballot.
Something smells bad here.
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:09 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:09 pm
The ballot arrived in a 9" x 12" white envelope.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:33 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:33 pm
I'm a property owner and never received a ballot. This is very bizarre.
Barron Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:39 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:39 pm
Well, I got two ballots. But somebody must have really screwed up because I voted "no" twice!
Downtown North
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:41 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:41 pm
Bob Wenzlau said --
"The election had integrity and played by the rules."
I disagree. I received my ballot and I voted, but I feel this election lacked integrity for the following reasons:
1. The election was conducted as a special mail-only vote instead of being included in a regularly scheduled general or primary election.
- It is well-understood that special mail-only elections have lower turnout than regular elections. Furthermore, the people who do vote in such special elections tend to support the issue in question.
It is reasonable to conclude that the planners of this special stormwater fee election intended to bias the vote in their own favor. It would have been more democratic to include this issue in a regular election.
- The costs of holding a special mail-only election far exceed the costs of participating in a regular election. While I am unable to locate the costs of this special stormwater fee election, consider the costs of the 2010 Palo Alto School Parcel tax special mail-only election.
The Palo Alto Unified School District would have paid $2 per voter to place its measure on the June ballot. Its mail-only ballot cost 4½ times as much, or $9 per voter. See Web Link
That difference is taxpayer money that could have been better spent on pressing needs, especially at this time when city leaders struggle to balance the budget.
2. The physical ballot required the voter's name, address, and signature on the same piece of paper that recorded their vote.
This is a clear violation of the "secret ballot" principle and certainly does not meet the standards we expect for elections here in the United States.
This is getting long, so I'll stop now, but hopefully this communicates why I feel the stormwater fee election was indeed lacking in integrity.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:41 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:41 pm
Duveneck,
The discussions in these forums are never representative. If there is a basis concern, it should not be developed in this forum. Many folks that write are nameless [portion removed.] I participate here to be informative, but normally have to pinch my nose. If you have a concern, perhaps send a letter to the City Clerk. Obviously it will be an uphill battle as the City was procedurally incredibly diligent. The City has conducted this process numerous times.
Bob
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:49 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 4:49 pm
Bob, I probably would have voted YES, but neither I, nor a number of my neighbors, all home owners, ever received a ballot. How was this process incredibly diligent when many home owners never got to vote?
Palo Verde
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:41 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:41 pm
Reading these comments I did not realise this was a legitimate election like a Government election. I understood, from what we received, that it was a poll of customers to the utilities.
We are not registered voters but we do pay our utility bills. It seemed like a good idea to us at the time that utility customers should be the ones polled on this rather than registered voters who may have been college students away from home and their parents pay the bills, etc.
Since we are not registered voters then it was probably illegal for us to have a vote. As stated above, we assumed this was a poll of customers.
I expect we may be deported for this! Good job I never put names or addresses on this, although I believe they were requested on the ballot.
Definitely something should be clarified here.
Palo Verde
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:46 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Apologies, my name on the above post should be non registered voter, not non resident voter. We are residents but not registered voters.
Barron Park
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:57 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Bob, your claim that "the City was procedurally incredibly diligent" flies in the face of our other experiences where many residents have complained about city outreach where they/we were never notified about meetings and issues directly effecting us.
Palo Alto Weekly recently wrote an editorial about the city's communications problems.
The same obfuscation is happening right now re the rules or lack thereof for ADUs (accessory dwelling units. Just because it appears buried in some document doesn't mean there's been adequate outreach.
Registered user
Midtown
on Apr 13, 2017 at 6:17 pm
Registered user
on Apr 13, 2017 at 6:17 pm
Re: Non registered vote
Before voting, I specifically checked with the city on whether it was necessary to be a US citizen or a registered voter to vote on this. I was told it was not necessary. I was told that the sole criteria was property ownership (presumably property owners would pay the fee).
Also, it's been noted elsewhere that property owners got one vote for each parcel they owned. So someone who owned three parcels could legitimately vote three times.
I do find this whole process rather weird. I'd definitely prefer that storm drainage was treated as a normal city expense to be decided by the normally elected city council out of our normal taxes!
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:28 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:28 pm
We've owned property for almost 43 years and never received a ballot.. I have no idea how we would have voted since we never read about the issue.
Palo Verde
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:49 pm
on Apr 13, 2017 at 10:49 pm
I wonder what it cost General Electric to collect votes on 8.7 billion shares for their last annual meeting. For most shareholders it is done on-line these days. Same for Sierra Club and most other organizations. The voting is never completely anonymous due to control numbers on the ballot submissions. In regular government elections you sign the envelope for a mail-in ballot. Voting in person, seems to me they always recorded the ballot number that they handed me to fill out in the booth. The key may be a separate piece of paper, but everyone could still be tracked.
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm
on Apr 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm
Something is very wrong and not on the level here. Too many voters were unable to vote. Not just posters, but who knows how many voters out there who never knew there was an election and/or never received a mail-in ballot?!!
This election probably has a false result, needs to be invalidated, since it is not valid in light of the fact that so many were denied the opportunity to vote.
There should be a reorganization of the election with a highly publicized date, so voters will expect a ballot in the mail, and Know to get a replacement if a ballot is not received.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2017 at 12:53 pm
on Apr 14, 2017 at 12:53 pm
This was a Prop.218 election, so only the property owners are authorized to vote for the matter at hand. Property owners do not have to be registered voters, or even California or US citizens.
I posted that a friend of mine received three ballots. One was addressed to him, one was addressed to the property owner, and one to a corporation that probably is owned by the property owner. I know this to be true because he showed them to me before he sent the two addressed to the property owner onto the property owner. Since he was a renter, he did not vote. He said he eventually tore up the ballot materials and sent them off to recycling.
Claims that the addresses of voters in this election came from the SCC Registrar of Voters doesn't make a lot of sense--since only property owners should have been involved. Getting that data from the Assessors Office does sound right.
Given the number of posters claiming they did not get a ballot, it might be interesting to audit the address lists used by the City Clerk. There have only been three of these storm drain elections (if memory serves), and these claims of "no ballots" have emerged after each of these elections in the past.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 14, 2017 at 7:01 pm
on Apr 14, 2017 at 7:01 pm
I was somewhat agnostic on this vote, probably leaning toward a Yes vote. However, being a home owner and a registered voter, but still not receiving a ballot and not being able to vote, just like several other home owners I know, invalidates this vote in my eyes. I believe this process should be repeated, this time making sure that every home owner receives a ballot and is able to vote.
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 14, 2017 at 8:28 pm
on Apr 14, 2017 at 8:28 pm
The address on my ballot was the exact same address that was on my property tax bill.
Below the address were the words "Official Ballot Enclosed" in green ink.
Below that was "APN: xxx-xx-xxx"