If you're looking to park in a downtown garage for a day, use the new 3-D printer at the library or pump out groundwater to build a basement, be prepared to spend more money for the privilege.
More than a hundred fees in Palo Alto are set to go up in July as part of the city's effort to recover costs and support rising City Hall salaries. The increases, which are laid out in City Manager James Keene's proposed municipal fee schedule for 2018, are set to be reviewed by the City Council's Finance Committee on May 18 and approved by the full council in June.
As part of Keene's proposal, most of the fees assessed by the city would go up by 6 percent, the average increase of salaries and benefits for fiscal year 2018, which begins on July 1. In addition, there are about 120 fees that would see a different adjustment -- in most cases far greater than 6 percent. About half of these are in the Community Services Department and relate to playing on the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (which is now undergoing a major renovation), renting recreational facilities or enrolling in swim classes at Rinconada Pool. Those increases hover around 30 percent or more.
Keene's proposal also calls for increasing 14 fees in Development Services, 12 in the Fire Department, 17 in Planning and Community Environment and 12 in Public Works, according to Keene's report. Some Public Works fees would go up by more than 40 percent.
In the Planning Department, the lion's share of the increases pertain to employee parking, both on the streets and in city-owned lots and garages. Downtown employees who participate in the Residential Preferential Parking program will see the price of their permits go up from the current level of $466 per year to $280 for six months, a 20 percent hike. A daily pass for parking on residential streets -- both in the downtown and in the Evergreen Park neighborhood -- would go up from $5 to $25, a change that staff says will "bring uniformity and move toward revenues covering program costs."
Garages would also become significantly pricier in the city's two main commercial neighborhoods. A permit for a California Avenue garage is set to go up from $149 to $280 per year, an 84.6 percent jump. In downtown, the permit cost would go up by 20 percent, from $466 to $560 per year.
A more significant change will hit employees around California Avenue who currently buy permits to park on the streets of Mayfield and Evergreen Park. The cost of a six-month permit is set to rise by 276 percent, from the current level of $149 per year to $280 for a six-month period. Low-income workers, meanwhile, will see their rate go up from $50 per year to $50 for a six-month period.
The price of a daily parking permit would also go up to $25 in both downtown, where the current rate is $17.50, and on California Avenue, where the rate is $8 today. The shift means that the rate for a daily parking pass in a California Avenue garage will jump up by 212.5 percent.
The decision to ratchet up the parking rates was driven in large part by a recently completed Downtown Parking Management Study, which recommended a broader switch away from the current system of color zones that offers free parking with a two-hour limit, to a system of paid parking, whether through parking meters or pay stations.
The study also compared the parking rates in surrounding cities and concluded that Palo Alto's current prices per permit are comparatively low.
"The current cost for an All-Day Permit is $17.50 and this rate is not consistent with the surrounding markets and the current demand for parking in Palo Alto," the study stated.
While the city is proceeding slowly on redesigning downtown's parking ecosystem, officials are preparing to move swiftly with the rate change. Last week, the city's Budget Director Kiely Nose told the Finance Committee during an overview of the 2018 budget that the city will be seeing "significant revenue increases in the California Avenue and University Avenue areas, as well as RPP districts." The funds, she said, would be used to make "significant investments" in parking infrastructure.
"We're moving up in terms of permit prices so that we can start to fund some of the critical projects like access controls, paid parking and the parking guidance system (at local garages)," Nose said, referring to technology that will use red and green lights to identify open spaces.
Another significant change concerns the fee for groundwater pumping, an activity that has been the subject of growing community concern over the past year. With residents calling for tighter regulations, if not an outright moratorium, on what's known as "dewatering," the council has recently instituted new requirements on groundwater pumping, including regulations calling for property owners to create "fill stations" that allow neighbors to use the pumped out water for irrigation or construction cleanup.
The council is also considering adopting even more stringent regulations next year, which may include a requirement that contractors avoid "broad-area" dewatering techniques in favor of a more localized approach that requires less pumping. But while these rules are not set to arrive until next year, the city isn't waiting that long to establish the higher fee for groundwater discharge. The proposal in Keene's municipal fee schedule calls for raising the fee from the current level of $2,903 to $14,093, a 385.5 percent hike.
According to a report from the Administrative Services Department, the increase was made to "adjust for actual costs, including department specific overhead, and meet Council cost-recovery directive." It also includes the cost for paying consultants to evaluate the impacts of dewatering.
Comments
Crescent Park
on May 10, 2017 at 10:37 am
on May 10, 2017 at 10:37 am
"More than a hundred fees in Palo Alto are set to go up in July, in some cases by more than 30 percent, as part of the city's effort to recover costs and support rising City Hall salaries."
How much goes to "recover costs", and how much to "support rising City Hall salaries"?
Greendell/Walnut Grove
on May 10, 2017 at 10:46 am
on May 10, 2017 at 10:46 am
The increases for everything paid by residents just keep on coming. Mr. Tanaka is getting his wish to double the city's revenues.
Isn't it special that we're not taxing businesses, just soaking residents.
Evergreen Park
on May 10, 2017 at 10:50 am
on May 10, 2017 at 10:50 am
"A more significant change will hit employees around California Avenue who currently buy permits to park on the streets of Mayfield and Evergreen Park. The cost of a six-month permit is set to rise by 276 percent, from the current level of $149 per year to $280 for a six-month period."
Aren't you glad we spent $7,000,000 to "revitalize" Cal Ave and chase away long-time employees who were tired of getting ticketed even when they had permits?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 10, 2017 at 11:11 am
on May 10, 2017 at 11:11 am
$25 per day parking in Palo Alto???? It would be cheaper to park in a Caltrain lot and buy the cheapest Caltrain ticket and not use it than park in a garage for $25.
No wonder we can't find a space in the Caltrain lots after 9.00 am.
Adobe-Meadow
on May 10, 2017 at 11:19 am
on May 10, 2017 at 11:19 am
Actually, none of those fee increases affect me because once Avenidas moves to Cubberley I'll just hunker down here in my village with no need or desire to go downtown and have to deal with the traffic and parking. Those fees will affect a lot of people,
and some will be severely hurt by them.
At some point the pain threshold level will be tested and our citizens might decide to do with less services, resulting in staff reductions, rather than the constant and pervasive tax and fee increases.
Evergreen Park
on May 10, 2017 at 11:35 am
on May 10, 2017 at 11:35 am
They just put the Evergreen Park permit plan in place - not sure they've even finished putting up the signs - and already are proposing huge increases in the permit costs; according to the above, 276% for employees and 212.5% for daily parking (employees/residents/visitors?). The plan already seemed primarily to make it hard for all of us to park and to let the city make money. The increases seem too big for a plan that has just been approved - did they leave them artificially low just to get it approved? - in fact, why are there increases at all, so soon?
Evergreen Park
on May 10, 2017 at 2:03 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Fees for community services such as Rinconada pool and the children's zoo affect the children in our lower income families. I would like to see costs involved in family activities that are open to all and make Palo Alto a family friendly city be a benefit that all families can afford, and not be expected to pay their way.
Costs associated with expanding commercial development, including traffic, parking and other infrastructure costs, should be paid for by those who profit. Since the number of services to residents has not increased nearly as fast (if at all) as commercial development, it seems likely that many of the increasing number of city hall employees as well as the increasing infrastructure costs are associated with commercial development.
University South
on May 10, 2017 at 2:18 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Steep parking fees are needed to curb the growth in solo commuters and put them on shuttles, buses, trains and other alternatives. The people who drive should pay more until supply and demand are in equilibrium.
Old Palo Alto
on May 10, 2017 at 4:20 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 4:20 pm
@ mj.....increasing the number of city employees is part of the progressive liberal playbook. Spend, spend and spend some more. Then tax, tax and tax some more, while the streets are in disrepair, the underground utilities that we were promised decades ago haven't happened and some essential services are cut back. The city of Palo Alto is just following the policies of Jerry Brown and the Sacramento legislators. Case in point...the new gas tax that is supposed to pay for road repairs that the previous gas tax was supposed to pay for, and when you read the fine print as to where the newly collected money is going to go....guess what....a lot of it will go to pet projects and the roads won't get fixed as promised.
Keep electing liberals and this is what you get.
Mountain View
on May 10, 2017 at 4:30 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Well, you could elect right-wing zealots, and they will make it so that *everything* is in disrepair.
Your choice.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 10, 2017 at 4:52 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 4:52 pm
How about just electing some politicians who believe in common sense and cost-effective governance and personal freedoms? I'm tired of government by sloganeering which is becoming less meaningful or grounded in reality by the day.
How would we describe Palo Alto these days when so many of the committees are dominated by Palantir employees? Are they "progressive liberals" or "right-wing zealots" or simply anti-resident, business-friendly old-school pols serving their "stakeholders" at the expense of residents?
With all the costly off-site meetings PA sponsors to come up with "mission statements" and the like, I've yet to see anyone mention "provide cost-effective services" to citizens.
Greater Miranda
on May 10, 2017 at 5:18 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Palo Alto can hardly consider itself "progressive liberal" when the only time in recent memory it moved quickly was to ban medical marijuana dispensaries and now just plain legal marijuana dispensaries BEFORE the state voted to legalize marijuana.
How much money did they rush to leave on the table? How much in new fees and interest on pension liabilities are we paying for their rush to judgment?
I'll spare you the descriptions of the medical benefits for sufferers from cancer, Parkinson's, etc. which I've seen first-hand.
San Jose and other communities regulalyr report on how many police officers, libraries, etc. they've funded with marijuana tax revenues. A guy from a DRY CONSERVATIVE city in Alabama described how they legalized medical marijuana because the mayor's child needed it and the whole conservative city was impressed with both its medical efficacy AND the tax revenues.
Old Palo Alto
on May 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm
@ Old Palo Alto...extremism on both sides is problematic. One could argue that a progressive liberal is an example of a zealot and that California and many of its cities have suffered as a result because of their zeal for tax and spend policies.
Neither extreme has the solution to *everything*. Too bad for all of us. Common sense went bye bye a long time ago.
Menlo Park
on May 10, 2017 at 8:48 pm
on May 10, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Nice dodge there, sport. But I guess looking at your side of the divide is too hard for you, right?
Professorville
on May 11, 2017 at 9:50 am
on May 11, 2017 at 9:50 am
I used to think that working in private industry was better than working for a municipal or government entity, because private industry was supposed to be paying better salaries and providing better retirement benefits, in lieu of long-term employment security.
In Palo Alto, that no longer appears to be the case, as we see high salaries, early retirements, incredibly high retirement payouts, and free medical insurance for life for employees of the city, all in addition to long-term employment security.
This funding has to come from somewhere.
Old Palo Alto
on May 11, 2017 at 11:49 am
on May 11, 2017 at 11:49 am
@ Old Palo Alto....not dodging anything. Just telling it as I see it from an independent moderate, right of center, fiscally responsible voter.
Mountain View
on May 11, 2017 at 2:15 pm
on May 11, 2017 at 2:15 pm
[Post removed.]
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 11, 2017 at 2:29 pm
on May 11, 2017 at 2:29 pm
This is an outrageous increase in fees! Residents certainly should NOT have to pay that much!
This will be the final nail in the coffin for downtown restaurants and other businesses.
"Stupid is as stupid does"
Old Palo Alto
on May 11, 2017 at 3:15 pm
on May 11, 2017 at 3:15 pm
[Post removed.]
Mountain View
on May 11, 2017 at 3:28 pm
on May 11, 2017 at 3:28 pm
[Post removed.]
Crescent Park
on May 11, 2017 at 10:24 pm
on May 11, 2017 at 10:24 pm
I find it curious that Palo Alto seems to go into "scrounging" mode attempting to generate revenue when the existing base doesn't generate enough to cover expenses. I've been a manual therapist work in Palo Alto for many years and finally got dinged by PAPD for being "unregistered", which they could fix for a bunch of money and my fingerprints. So I paid and finally applied to the State Massage Board so I'd be exempt from Palo Alto's grabby fingers. Plus they want me to pay $25/day to park in downtown so I can work there.
But did Palo Alto come back for a renewal once I'd registered? No. I would have loved to show my State License and claim my state exception.
They continue scrounging in the seat cushions. And so much for going to the local art supply store or stationary store.