"Christine Paras, assistant director of the city's Administrative Services Department, noted at an Aug. 8 meeting that various positions, including those in 911 dispatch, library services, the Junior Museum and Zoo and open space preserves, are only funded for the next two years.

"Should the gas transfer be not affirmed, these services would likely be cut in 2025 based on the two-year budget balancing strategy," Paras said."

These threats are getting old while the city continue wastes money and gives higher priority to a new gym and a risky $144,000,000 fiber network above than restoring library hours, a decent 9/11 dispatch service, reliable electrical power outage reporting system or upgrading the electrical grid.

Budget-balancing strategies for the Junior Museum and Zoo are challenging due to shortfalls in attendance and projected revenue from the new $18 entrance fee. The expected school buses from nearby schools never materialized, even with group discounts. Who knew all the kids and their caretakers playing at the newly rebuilt Rinconada Playground wouldn't spend $18 for each bathroom visit. Certainly not the outside consultant or the staff with budget responsibility,

"For public utilities, the residents are effectively the shareholders and there's nothing inappropriate about using proceeds to fund services they care about, proponents argue."

The city is effectively the shareholder here, not the residents being treated as cash cows. This taxpayer wants the dividends and services WE care about."

We care about our libraries and a reliable 911 dispatch service and police services due to increased crime and traffic accidents. We care about decent electrical power and timely reports on power outrages and service restoration times.

But that's not what we're getting.

If there's a surplus (and basically I don't see why there should be) shouldn't it go towards utilities improvements? We are told that undergrounding powerlines is expensive and is taking 50 years. How about using the surplus to get our power lines underground to improve our inefficient supply.

"Investor-owned utilities like PG&E provide profits to their shareholders. For public utilities, the residents are effectively the shareholders and there's nothing inappropriate about using proceeds to fund services they care about, proponents argue."

If I was a shareholder of PG&E I could SELL my shares.

And run as fast as possible from the *completely inappropriate* contortions about how proceeds are spent - by an unaccountable Council and City Manager. Do I want to spend proceeds to subsidize heat pumps for mansions? No. Do I want proceeds to purchase carbon offsets (charity to far away lands) which even Greenpeace calls a scam and are the subject of investigation?

I almost fell for the threats about the Junior Museum, libraries, and all the services I don't use but am happy to support, but this goes too far. No thanks, I prefer to do my own charity and not become a captive to things that can get way out of control.

Overcharging residents for gas, an essential commodity, to pay for services makes no sense.
It also results in iniquities since anyone who is 100% electric will not be paying for certain services.

If the City needs revenues to support services, it should impose those as taxes, rather than hiding them as a surcharge on utilities. And it should be able to justify those taxes to voters.

There is so much pork in City Hall. Let's focus on efficiency, cutting costs and outsourcing work to the private sector via competitive bids.

Residents enjoy lots of things like Parks, Libraries, Community Services but they have to be paid for somehow. Voting for this keeps those services. Why would we subsidize gas when we want folks to switch to clean electricity?

Absolutely agree with Bystander. Any surpluses from utilities should go to upgrading utilities, especially undergrounding of electricity. Overhead lines are expensive to maintain (think of all the tree trimming), unsightly, and will be increasing unreliable with the inevitable increase in storm intensity.

There are two issues being commented on here: What should the city spend money on, and how does the city raise revenues? The first issue is important, but this is only about he second one.

My take: It's simple. The city wants to phase out fossil fuels, so if it is successful that source of revenue will vanish. So if you want to keep spending at the current rate, a replacement source of revenue will have to be found over time. Seems straightforward to me.

"There is so much pork in City Hall. Let's focus on efficiency, cutting costs and outsourcing work to the private sector via competitive bids."

When I hear the city start talking about the above I'll consider voting to let them continue to over-charge me.

In all the city's mission statements and UpLift newsletters, I have never once heard them talk about the above and there are more examples of waste and failure to do their homework than this space allows. Instead we get blather about mindfulness, meditation and new recipes each week.

Nor have I ever heard our past and present "leaders" take responsibility for our budget woes being so much worse than surrounding communities because they short-sightedly put all their eggs in the business basket and hotel tax revenues.

How much money was wasted on 6+ years of Casti hearings before they even got to asking the tough questions like who pays to monitor traffic? How much money was wasted on hearings about converting Town & Country Shopping Center to "medical/retail" without bothering to define what medical/retail even was, to calculate the lost sales tax revenue and/or to realize that we were mere weeks away from ending the pandemic lockdown?

Sure, let's evict 85 low/moderate income long-time residents from The President Hotel so a developer can put in another high-end hotel and then ask us for $$$$$ to build downtown housing for the same low-moderate income people.

It took a newspaper expose for them to discover that NO solar permits were being granted until the PAO newspaper expose WHILE they kept wasting money on promoting solar conversion programs!

I am planning to vote NO on Measure L.

It makes little sense to put excess natural gas revenue into the general fund at the same time the City wants us to transition away from gas to all electric to reduce emissions. Any excess gas revenue should go into updating the electrical grid and building charging networks for EVs, not into the general fund.

"All utilities, they note, have the ability to transfer funds for other purposes. Investor-owned utilities like PG&E provide profits to their shareholders. For public utilities, the residents are effectively the shareholders and there's nothing inappropriate about using proceeds to fund services they care about, proponents argue." This is a fundamental truth.

1). Palo Altans still pay less for gas and electric than PG&E customers

2). This use of the Utilities Users Tax (UUT) was previously approved by the voters. It provides a revenue source we need and enjoy in Palo Alto, contributing to our quality of life. The law changed and the city did not adapt quickly enough. The city probably should have brought this measure forward sooner, but that doesn't negate the local community need for the UUT revenues. A YES vote will continue the revenue stream that the city depends on to maintain services. A NO vote will require draconian cuts to services. I have read the budget. It really is that important. The cuts they will have to make if K & L don't pass will be felt by every single community member.

I am supporting Measures K & L.

Vore no on Measure L.

@consider your options,

“This use of the Utilities Users Tax (UUT) was previously approved by the voters. It provides a revenue source we need and enjoy in Palo Alto, contributing to our quality of life.”

You are referring to a vote of trust that happened practically in a different world and time.

This is today’s vote. I don’t trust that we have appropriate city governance or accountability, as any regular “shareholder” would expect to have.

From the Impartial analysis:

“City voters adopted Article VII of the City Charter in 1950 to authorize the transfer of utility revenues to the General Fund after other obligations are paid, such as operating and maintenance expenses, debt payments, capital expenditures and reserve funding. Under this authority, the City Council has for decades approved yearly transfers of natural gas utility revenue to the General Fund. The transfer provides approximately $7 million each year toward City services maintained by the General Fund, such as roads, parks, libraries, climate change reduction, police, fire, emergency medical and 9-1-1 response. About half of the transfer is paid by the gas utility’s commercial customers, and half is paid by residential customers.
The City designs its natural gas rates so the utility will have enough money to cover its expenses as well as the General Fund transfer. “

@interested reader,

"City voters adopted Article VII of the City Charter in 1950 to authorize the transfer of utility revenues to the General Fund after other obligations are paid, such as operating and maintenance expenses, debt payments, capital expenditures and reserve funding."

Debt payments? As in debt payments to borrow for a $150 million plan to "compete" with AT&T, that nobody asked for? Those who asked for fiber years ago are against it. Things change from 1950; those who voted for this surely didn't have the current situation in mind.

So I do not ever want to support a Libertarian, the only opponent of L. Yet all the above justifications for Yes on L are so not in my wheelhouse. My tiny, inefficient 2B, 2017 Palo Alto-Stanford, ALL electric complex , all concrete and vinyl 71 units at Related/ Mayfield Place is falling apart with absolute chiseling on the cheap. Luke warm water, power surges, electrical panel shorts, appliances — like a steam mop — mysteriously burn out, hood vents don’t suck up air to prevent grease fires, just die. You know the essential functions of safe quality rental for living. There are NO, not one EV charging stations — not even for VISTA center or Fambrinis, a “dumb” broken down, all electric car park lift that’s unsafe for children and not ADA accessible. Really only designed for long term, specialty car storage. Tiny 7 washers and dryers for families to squeeze their bedding and clothing into to wash & sanitize. This reeks of oil disguised under a lawn. What am I to do? I am inclined to vote no on L. Yet I am no Libertarian!

Why did it take a lawsuit by a resident to bring out in the open this illegal structure of monies going into the General Fund? If this was approved in the 1950’s , as a native Palo Altan,I only remember how proud my parents were that we owned our own Utilities, and that they were considerably cheaper than all of our neighboring towns. However, for the recent years they are no bargain. I am voting against this illegal tax. If we need to raise taxes for basic services, then do it. Don’t siphon off money from our utility dept. For some wishes by community groups. We are taxed too much. Palo Alto needs to right-size its personnel, benefits and retirement benefits to what neighboring cities do. I do not think Palo Alto is so much better run than Menlo Park or Los Altos.

Even though the article mentions the measure would have no effect on gas rates, ( "Measure L supporters also note that because the transfer policies are already factored into gas rates, it would not cause a rate increase."), nothing constrains future Councils from hiking the gas rates, which is very likely to happen as the use or natural gas declines while the need for revenue by the City increases. And if gas usage does not decline fast enough to satisfy the sustainability targets, future Councils could even raise gas rates to punitive levels.