Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-13 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO: FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 CMR: 393:04 ENDORSEMENT OF THE BLUE RIBBON STORM DRAIN COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORM DRAIN FUNDING AND DIRECTION TO PURSUE A STORM DRAINAGE FEE ELECTION IN FEBRUARY/MARCH 2005 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Endorse the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Storm Drain Committee. 2. Direct staff to pursue a property owner election in February/March 2005 for approval of an increase in the monthly Storm Drainage Fee to $10.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) to fund the proposed enhanced storm drain program. BACKGROUND The City’s storm drain capital improvement, maintenance and water quality protection programs are funded through the Storm Drainage Fund, an enterprise fund established by Council in 1989. Revenue is generated by a Storm Drainage Fee, which is collected through monthly City utility bills. The fee, $4.25 per month for a single-family residential parcel, has not been increased since 1994 and is insufficient to cover the program’s operating costs. For the current year, the General Fund is providing $800,000 in supplemental funding to maintain a baseline level of service for storm drain maintenance and storm water quality protection. There is no fimding provided for storm drain capital improvements, despite a backlog of capital needs. The Storm Drainage Fee is a property-related fee subject to the provisions of Proposition 218. A majority of property owners must approve a fee increase. The City conducted a property owner election in September 2000, seeking approval to increase the Storm Drainage Fee from its current level of $4.25 per month up to $9.00 per month to cover needed storm drain improvements. The ballot measure was unsuccessful, with an approval rate of only 37 percent. CMR:393:04 Page 1 of 7 On March 18, 2002, Council approved staff’s recommended conceptual strategy for identifying a funding mechanism for future storm drain improvements, including the appointment by the City Manager of a Blue Ribbon Storm Drain Committee to review storm drain funding needs (CMR:175:02). The Committee, composed of fifteen residents, business representatives and community leaders, had its first meeting on May 3, 2002 and met 15 times for a total of 37 hours. The Committee presented its findings to Council at a study session on November 12, 2002 (CMR:443:02). The Committee formulated recommendations addressing future storm drain program elements and funding. The recommended storm drain program included augmented maintenance practices, a specific set of prioritized capital improvements, and expanded storm water quality protection activities. The Committee recommended funding the storm drain program on a pay-as-you-go basis by increasing the Storm Drainage Fee to $13.90 per month. The Committee also addressed fee sunset provisions, the creation of an oversight committee, and other policy issues related to the City’s storm drain program. In light of the state of the City budget, the City Manager decided to suspend active discussion of storm drain funding in February 2003. Future consideration of the issue was deferred to the Finance Committee budget deliberations during Spring 2003 in order that storm drain needs could be reviewed in the larger context of the City budget and the multiple financial challenges facing the City. During the public hearings for the FY 2003-05 budget, Finance Committee members directed staff to reexamine the alternatives for funding of the City’s storm drain program and to return to Council with an update. On February 17, 2004, staff made a presentation to Council entitled "Storm Drains 101," which provided an overview of the workings of the City’s storm drain system and a description of the specific conditions in Palo Alto that make effective drainage more difficult. Staff explained the relationship between storm drains, creeks and watersheds and described how Palo Alto’s flat, low-lying topography necessitates the pumping of a significant portion of storm runoff into the creeks, particularly in the eastern portion of the city. At the March 23, 2004 Finance Committee meeting, staff submitted a report outlining a set of alternative storm drainage levels of service and fimding schemes for the Committee’s review (CMR: 193:04). In response to direction from Council, staff devised alternatives comprised of a downsized list of capital projects and operational upgrades that could be funded with a reasonably-sized increase in the Storm Drainage Fee. Staff also presented options for permanently supplementing the Storm Drainage Fund’s user fee revenue with General Fund dollars. The Finance Committee provided preliminary comments on staff’s proposals and directed staff to reconvene the Storm Drain Committee to solicit its input and suggestions for future storm drain funding. CMR:393:04 Page 2 of 7 DISCUSSION Storm Drain Committee’s 2004 Recolnmendations The :Blue Ribbon Storm Drain Committee, chaired by former mayor Larry Klein, was reconvened for a short series of .meetings. Nine of the original fifteen Committee members were available and willing to meet to review the latest storm drain funding proposals (see list of 2004 Committee members, Attachment A). The Committee met on June 11, July 9, and July 23, 2004 for a total of six hours. At the first meeting, staff presented an update on the status of storm drain funding and described the alternatives submitted to the Finance Committee on March 23, 2004. At the following two meetings, the Storm Drain Committee had detailed discussions on potential storm drain capital improvements, each maintenance and operational element of the storm drain program, and various funding options. At its final meeting, the Committee voted on and approved a set of recommendations, The specifics of the recommended funding plan were reviewed by the Committee members by e-mail following the group’s last formal meeting. The Committee’s recommendations for an enhanced storm drain program and funding mechanism are contained in the attached report (Attachment B). To provide a basis for review, staff has prepared a table with side-by-side comparisons of the Storm Drain Committee’s 2002 recommendations, the staff proposal presented to the Finance Committee, on March 23, 2004, and the Storm Drain Committee’s updated recommendations (Attachment C). Members of the Committee will be present at the September 13, 2004 Council meeting to address the Council and respond to questions about the report. The following is a summary of the key elements of the Committee’s recommendations: The Committee identified a set of high-priority storm drain capital projects to be implemented as the initial set of drainage improvements funded through an increased Storm Drainage Fee (see attached list of projects [Attachment D] and map of project locations [Attachment E]). The total cost of these projects is $17 million (Year 2004 dollars). These projects comprise a subset of a larger group of capital improvements identified in the Storm Drain Master Plan and Condition Assessment studies that are needed to provide upgraded drainage service throughout the City: Following completion of the initial projects, the Committee recommends that the City seek property owner approval for funding of the remaining projects. The Committee strongly advocates that the Storm Drainage Fund should be a ¯ fmancially independent, self-sufficient enterprise separate from the General Fund and funded through user fees. The Committee generally endorses a "pay-as-you-go" approach for funding of operational and capital expenses in order to avoid the additional long-term costs of debt financing. CMR:393:04 Page 3 of 7 In order to "front load" the construction of the proposed storm drain capital improvements, the Committee recommends that Council authorize advance payment of the cumulative Storm Drainage Fee assessed to City-owned properties for a period of 12 years (the proposed implementation period for the initial set of capital projects). This would generate approximately $3 million to be used to accelerate construction of drainage improvements during the first three years following the approval of an increased Storm Drainage Fee. The Committee recommends that fmancial support for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and San Francisquito Watershed Council and funding for curb and gutter repairs should be paid from City sources other than the Storm Drainage Fund. The Committee believes that these programs are valuable to the community and are worthy of strong consideration for ongoing annual fimding from an alternative source, presumably the General Fund. Current year funding for the JPA and Watershed Council is approximately $80,000. Although no funding is provided for curb and gutter repairs in this year’s Storm Drainage Fund budget, $200,000 per year was budgeted in past years, and the Committee had recommended in its 2002 report that $200,000 to $800,000 per year be spent on. curb and gutter repairs. In order to increase the likelihood of a successful rate hike election, the Committee recommends that the initial Storm Drainage Fee be set at $10.00 per month for the typical single-family residential property owner. In order to keep the Storm Drainage Fee at a reasonable level and to enable the completion of the highest priority capital improvements within a 12-year period, the Committee recommends deferring the establishment of the sinking funds for pump station equipment replacement, future storm drain system repairs, future storm drain system condition assessments, and additional storm drain system capacity upgrades, as were recommended by the Committee in 2002. The ’ Committee believes, however, that the sinking funds should be retained as an important component of the long-term planning for the City’s storm drain system and advocates the creation of these funds when additional revenue becomes available. Staff Response to the Storm Drain Committee’s Recommendations Staff concurs with the recommendations contained in the Storm Drain Committee’s report to the City Manager. Staff agrees that the $17 million of storm drain capital improvements listed in Attachment D are the projects with the highest priority and the greatest potential to provide tangible improvements in the performance of the storm drain system. Furthermore, staff concurs with the Committee’s position that these projects constitute only a portion of the total drainage needs throughout the City, and that they are merely an interim set of improvements that should be supplemented in the future by the remainder of the drainage projects identified in the Storm Drain Master Plan and Condition Assessment studies. The number and cost of projects slated for initial implementation was intentionally limited in order to craft a funding proposal that could CMR:393:04 Page 4 of 7 be supported with a reasonably sized user fee and could be constructed within a relatively short period of time. Staff is hopeful that the benefits of these initial projects will be evident to the members of the community, leading to support for the funding of additional improvements in the future. Staff supports the approach of accelerating the construction of capital projects in the two to three years immediately following the approval of an increased Storm Drainage Fee in order to produce tangible drainage improvements. Staff examined several options for generating up-front money to fimd these improvements, including inter-fund borrowing, issuance of revenue bonds, and pre-payment of the Storm Drainage Fee for City-owned properties. It was determined that the borrowing of money, between enterprise fimds is prohibited by law. Council does have the ability to transfer funds from the general funds to support other programs. Staff believes the General Fund pre-pay option recommended in this report meets the committee’s goal. Further debt fmancing for storm drain capital work (there is already outstanding debt for storm drain improvements previously funded through revenue bonds) was rejected due to the high costs of bond issuance, reserve requirements, and long-term interest payments. For example, to issue $4.5 million worth of 15-year revenue bonds would reqnire the payment of $675,000 in bond issuance costs and reserve costs and $1.9 million in interest over the life of the bonds. The burden of debt fmancing would also hinder the City’s ability to seek future approval for funding of additional storm drain capital improvements following the completion of the initial set of recommended projects. Pre-payment of Storm Drainage Fees for City-owned properties is the recommended methodology for generating up-front funds for drainage capital improvements. This approach, which would only be implemented following a successful property owner election approving an increase in the Storm Drainage Fee, would allow the Storm Drainage Fund to generate approximately $3 ,million in additional funding for capital work in the first three years following the election. This strategy would avoid bond issuance costs and interest payments. Since the Storm Drainage Fee is a property-related fee, it is subject to the requirements of Proposition 218 and cannot be increased unilaterally by Council. Proposition 218 specifies an approval process for fee increases that includes a formal protest hearing, followed by a property owner ballot measure conducted by mail. In order to have the fee increase approved, a simple majority of those property owners returning ballots must vote in favor of the measure. An outline of the approval process mandated by Proposition 218 is attached for information (Attachment F). Staff and the Storm Drain Committee believe that there will be a higher likelihood of gaining property owner approval of a Storm Drainage Fee increase if the City continues to take steps to address the lessons learned following the unsuccessful 2000 storm drain election. The most important change since 2000 is the appointment of the Storm Drain Committee to work with staff to develop a community-based storm drain funding proposal. Further examples of corrective measures are inclusion of a provision for the CMR:393:04 Page 5 of 7 fee to "sunset" after a specified time period, appointment of an oversight committee to monitor spending of the revenue generated by the fee increase, and inclusion of funding for innovative projects that reduce storm water runoff. Timing of the election will also be a critical factor affecting the likelihood of success. Staff recommends that the election be conducted during the rainy season in February/March 2005 when there is a higher awareness of drainage problems throughout the community. RESOURCE IMPACT The City Clerk would need assistance from a professional election specialist in order to conduct a property owner election by mail. Implementation of staff’s recommendations (following a successful property owner election) would have the following financial impacts: The monthly Storm Drainage Fee for developed properties would increase from $4.25 to $10.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit. The General Fund’s current $800,000 direct subsidy to the Storm Drainage Fund would be eliminated. Council would need to identify new funding source(s) for City contributions to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the San Francisquito Watershed Council and would need to consider whether or not to fund curb and gutter repairs. Prepayment of fees will reduce the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) and affect the potential surplus contribution to the Infrastructure Reserve (IR). Since BSR policy is to maintain itself at 18.5 percent of operating expenses, a contribution to IR in year of prepayment may not be likely. This should be offset in future years as the General Fund will experience a reduction in costs and a potential surplus due to prepayment of fees. o There is a potential opporttmity cost for the prepayment. Should the City’s return on its portfolio exceed the rate of inflation on the fee increase, the General Fund may forego interest income. This amount depends on the rate of inflation and interest rates. Staff believes the importance of beginning an enhanced storm drain program outweighs this potential opportunity cost. . A portion of City storm drain fees are paid by the Enterprise Funds, and staff is still working to determine if their obligations can be used to support the early, intensive storm drain capital program. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Staff’s recommendations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24 states that the City should "improve storm drainage performance by construc~g new system improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or paralleI lines." Program N-36 further states that the City should "complete improvements to the storm drainage system consistent with the priorities outlined in ~e City’s 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, provided that an appropriate funding mech~sm is identified and approved by the City Council." CMR:393:04 Page 6 of 7 TIMELINE In order to conduct the protest heating and mail ballot process during the 2004-05 rainy season, the Finance Committee will need to make its final recommendation to Council regarding an enhanced storm drain program and funding mechanism by early November 2004 (see proposed timeline, Attachment G). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of financing options for storm drainage program operational enhancements and capital improvements does not require additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Individual storm drain infrastructure improvement projects will be subject to additional environmental review as they are developed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:List of 2004 Storm Drain Committee members Attachment B:Storm Drain Committee Summary Report Attachment C:Comparison of Storm Drain Committee 2002 recommendations, March 2004 staff proposal, and Storm Drain Committee 2004 recommendations Attachment D:Description of proposed storm drain capital improvements Attachment E:Map of proposed storm drain capital improvements Attachment F:Proposition 218 Property Owner Election Process Attachment G:Proposed Proposition 218 Property Owner Election Timeline PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: JOE TERESI Senior Engineer GLt~,NN S. ROBERTS Director of Public CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SON City Manager cc: Storm Drain Committee CMR:393:04 Page 7 of 7 Attachment A 2004 Storm Drain Committee, Name Larry Klein, Chair Richard Alexander Vivian Blomenkamp Walt Hays Leannah Hunt Stepheny McGraw John Melton Trish Mulvey Susan Rosenberg Affiliation Attorney Attorney League of Women Voters of Palo Alto Retired Residential Realtor Retired Retired Retired Canopy & Trees for E1 Camino Project Council Liaison: . Hillary Freeman Attachment B 2004 STORM DRAIN COMMITTEE PORT To The City Manager The Storm Drain Committee is pleased to provide this Report recommending a package of storm drain system capital projects and enhanced storm drain maintenance and storm water quality operating expenditures to be paid for by increases in the Storm Drainage Fee. (Our final recommendations were approved by a vote of 7 to 2, with Richard Alexander and John Melton dissenting. Mr. Alexander dissented because he believes that storm drain system repairs should be entirely funded from the General Fund. Mr. Melton dissented because he wants the initial capital improvements completed within ten years rather than the twelve years set forth in the Committee recommendations.) Background The City’s storm drain capital improvement, maintenance and water quality protection programs are funded through the Storm Drainage Fund, an enterprise fund established by Council in 1989. Revenue is generated by a Storm Drainage Fee, which is collected through monthly City utility bills. The fee, $4.25 per month for a single-family residential parcel, has not been increased since 1994 and is insufficient to cover the program’s operating costs. For the current year, the General Fund is providing $800 thousand in supplemental funding to maintain a baseline level of service for storm drain maintenance and storm water quality protection. There is no funding provided for storm drain capital improvements, despite a backlog of capital needs. The Storm Drainage Fee is a property-related fee subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, requiring a majority of property owners to approve a fee increase. The City conducted a property owner election in September 2000, seeking approval to increase the Storm Drainage Fee from its current level of $4.25 per month up to $9.00 per month to cover needed storm drain improvements. The ballot measure was unsuccessful, with an approval rate of only 37 percent. Initial Storm Drain Committee Deliberations and Recommendations On March 18, 2002, Council approved staff’s recommended conceptual strategy for identifying a funding mechanism for future storm drain improvements, including the appointment by the City Manager of a Blue Ribbon Storm Drain Committee to review storm drain funding needs. The Committee consisting of fifteen residents had its first meeting on May 3, 2002 and met 15 times for a total of 37 hours. The Committee made a report to you dated October 22, 2002, and presented its findings to Council at a study session on November 12, 2002. We formulated recommendations addressing future storm drain program elements and funding. The recommended storm drain program included augmented maintenance activities, a specific set ofprioritized capital improvements, and expanded storm water quality protection activities. We recommended funding the storm drain program on a pay-as-you-go basis by increasing the Storm Drainage Fee to $13.90 per month. The Committee also addressed fee sunset provisions, the creation of an oversight committee, and other policy issues related to the City’s storm drain program. In light of the state of the City budget, the City Manager decided to suspend active discussion " of storm drain funding in February 2003. Future consideration of the issue was deferred to the Finance Committee budget deliberations during Spring 2003 in order that storm drain needs could be reviewed in the larger context of the City budget and the multiple financial challenges facing the City. During the hearings for the FY 2003-05 budget, Finance Committee members directed staff to reexamine the alternatives for future funding of the City’s storm drain program and to return to Council with an update. Staff analyzed alternative funding mechanisms and levels of service in an attempt to devise a storm drain program comprised of a downsized list of high priority capital projects and operational upgrades that could be funded with a smaller fee increase than the one recommended by this Committee. Staff presented a set of alternative levels of service and funding schemes for the Finance Committee to review on March 23, 2004. The Finance Committee did not take any formal action to select a storm drain ~ding alternative, but directed staff to reconvene the Storm Drain Committee to solicit input on the matter. Reconvening of the Storm Drain Committee Following the March 23, 2004 Finance Committee meeting, you asked the Storm Drain Committee to review the Staff’s latest funding proposals and to advise you, the City Council, and most importantly, the citizens of Palo Alto on the need for storm draincapital improvements and enhanced maintenance and storm water quality protection programs. The Committee reconvened on June 11, 2004 and met three times for a total of six hours to review the proposal presented to the Finance Committee and to prepare comments and recommendations to you. Nine of the original fifteen Committee members were available to participate in the review process and vote on the recommendations contained in this report. We used our original November 2002 recommendations as the baseline scenario for our discussions. The attached matrix (Attachment C) provides a side-by side comparison of the Committee’s 2002 recommendations, the Staff alternative presented to the Finance Committee in March 2004, and our current recommendations. -2- RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee reached the conclusions and makes the recommendations set forth below. Items 5 through 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are unchanged from our prior recommendations. System Imorovements The storm drain capital improvements listed in Attachment 1 should be implemented as the initial set of drainage improvements to be funded through an increased Storm Drainage Fee. The total cost of such projects is $17 million (Year 2004 dollars). We expect that these improvements will protect previously flooded residences and businesses and "ponded" roadways from further damage from storms up to the 10-year level in the areas they serve. These improvements are also intended to reduce road/sidewalk/curb/gutter repair costs by reducing subsoil water saturation and to increase traffic safety during storms. These projects listed in Attachment 1 comprise a subset of a larger group of capital improvements needed to provide upgraded drainage service throughout the City, which were included in the Committee’s 2002 recommendations. The Committee believes that the remainder of the projects will need to be completed and that the City will probably have to seek property owner approval for funding of those projects approximately ten years from now. The ongoing and enhanced maintenance and storm water quality improvement programs described on Attachment 2 should be funded through the Storm Drainage Fund. These items are reduced from our prior.recommendation. Payment for System Improvements The capital improvements and storm drain programs described above would require an increase in the Storm Drainage Fee from its present $4.25 per month for average single- family residential customers to $10.00 per month (an increase of $69 per year). Proposition 218 requires that this proposed increase be approved by a majority of property owners in a mail ballot election. The storm drain capital improvements projects should be paid for on a pay-as-you-go, front loaded, basis over a period of approximately 12 years. This pay-as-you-go strategy will result in a lower monthly Storm Drainage Fee since there will be no bond financing costs, and the "front loading" will allow 35% of the capital improvements to be completed within three years. The "front loading" is proposed to be achieved by collecting the Storm Drainage Fees attributable to City-owned properties in advance. Specifically, City-owned properties are currently assessed a collective Storm Drainage Fee totaling approximately 2340 Equivalent Residential Units, based on the amount of impervious surface on those properties. By assessing the fees payable throughout the 12-year capital project implementation period up-front, approximately $3.4 million can be generated to fund early implementation of storm drain capital projects. A spreadsheet showing these cash flows in more detail is Attachment 3 to this report. -3- o ° o 10. 11. 12, 13. In order to offset the effects of inflation, the City Council should have the discretion to increase the Storm Drainage Fee beyond the approved initial rate on an annual basis as part of the City budget process, but not to exceed the local rate of inflation or 6%, whichever is less. The City’s existing Rate Assistance Program (RAP), which provides a 20% discount to qualified low-income utility customers, should apply to the Storm Drainage Fee. The Storm Drainage Fee rate structure for single-family residential properties should be modified to create three rate categories, based on parcel size (less than 6,000 square feet; between 6,000 and 11,000 feet; and greater than 11,000 square feet) while keeping the weighted average at $10.00 per month. The Storm Drainage Fee should be levied uniformly throughout the City of Palo Alto. As is currently the case, a fee reduction appeal process to City staff should be in place for those property owners who can demonstrate that the run-off from their properties drains directly to a creek or another city’s storm drain system and that they have complied with all applicable permit and other legal requirements for such drainage. In addition, this appeal process should apply to those property owners who can demonstrate that they have constructed improvements to their properties to retain storm runoff onsite. In keeping with the present policy, the reduction in fees would not apply to that portion of the monthly fee attributable to City’wide programs. Sunset and Oversight Provisions The increase in the Storm Drainage Fee should sunset twelve years from the date of the rate increase election (following completion of the initial set of recommended storm drain capital improvements). An oversight committee should be appointed by the City Council to moniior and review ~ the storm drain capital improvements and to insure that the money raised from the increased Storm Drainage Fee is spent in accordance with the statements made to the public in the property owner election. The Oversight Committee should report at least annually to the City Council. The City COuncil should appoint a storm Rain citizens co~ittee to re’examine storm drain ~ding issues no later than five (5) years prior to the sunset date. Policy Issues Future General Fund subsidies to the Storm Drainage Fund should be discontinued, and the Storm Drainage Fund should operate solely as a fee-funded enterprise fund. Past General Fund subsidies to the Storm Drainage Fund should not be repaid. As noted above~ since 1999 the existing Storm Drainage Fee of $4.25 per month has not been sufficient to pay for the storm drain costs, and the remainder of those costs (equal to about $1.75 per month in the Storm Drainage Fee) have been paid from the City’s General Fund. Similarly, certain expenses advanced by the City’s Wastewater -4- Treatment Fund, which more properly belong in the Storm Drainage Fund, should not be reimbursed. 15. Financial support for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and San Francisquito Watershed Council and funding for curb & gutter repairs should be paid from City sources other than the Storm Drainage Fund. The Committee believes that these programs are valuable to the community and worthy of strong consideration for ongoing annual funding as part of the City’s budget. A portion of the Storm Drainage Fee, not to exceed $125,000 per year, should be used to fund innovative projects that reduce the amount of storm runoff and environmental pollutants entering the storm drain system. The Committee suggests that staff seek grant funding for such innovative projects to supplement the funds allocated from the Storm Drainage Fee. 16.The Storm Drainage Fund election should beheld in the winter of 2004-05 in order to coincide with the rainy season. Administrative Matters 17.The Public Works Department should collect and monitor data on the performance of the storm drain system, noting where the problem areas are and updating the existing performance model in order that upgrades and repairs can then be reprioritized as necessary. 18.The City should encourage Santa Clara County to take steps to alleviate the frequent flooding of the Oregon Expressway underpass at Alma. Storm Drain Committee Members participating in 2004 program review Larry Klein, Chair Richard Alexander Vivian Blomenkamp Walt Hays Leannah Hunt Stepheny McGraw John Melton Trish Mulvey Susan Rosenberg September 7, 2004 Palo Alto, Califomia -5- ATTACHMENT 1 STORM DRAIN COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED LIST OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Project Name Construct pump station at 96" outfall to San Francisquito Creek Parallel/Replacement pipelines on Channing & Lincoln Aves. (From Channing/Heather to Lincoln/Alma) Southgate neighborhood drainage Extend Gailen Ave./Bibbits Dr. outfall to Adobe Pump Station Connect Clara Drive drains to Matadero Pump Station Improve Matadero Pump Station and install parallel/ replacement pipelines leading to the pump station Improve drainage along southbound Alma Street Location North Palo Alto Green Gables/ Community Ctr./ Professorville Southgate Charleston Terr. De Anza Midtown Alma Street Cost (20045M) $4.50 $4.60 $2.00 $0.65 $0.90 $3.oo _$1.50 SUBTOTAL =$17.15 ATTACHMENT 2 STORM DRAIN COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED LIST OF STORM DRAIN ENHANCED MAINTENANCE AND WATER QUALITY OPERATING EXPENDITURES Enhanced Maintenance Annual funding of $500,000 should be added to the Storm Drainage Fund budget to fund replacement/rehabilitation of deteriorated components of the City’s storm drain system (e.g. pipelines, manholes, catch basins). This funding is needed to address the existing backlog of known storm drain system defects, as well as future defects that will appear as the system continues to deteriorate with age. Annual funding of $90,000 should be added to the Storm Drainage Fund budget to fund additional storm drain maintenance resources (either staff or contract services). Environmental Programs o Annual funding of $100,000 should be added to the Storm Drainage Fund budget to pay for existing services related to storm water quality protection currently funded through the Wastewater Treatment Fund. The Wastewater Treatment Fund budget should be reduced by $100,000 so that there is no net increase in overall City spending for these existing services. Annual funding of $125,000 should be added to the Storm Drainage Fund for innovative projects that reduce the amount of stoma water runoff and environmental pollutants entering storm drains and creeks. Capital Improvement Related Funding for one additional staff engineer ($115,000 per year) should be added to the Storm Drainage Fund in order to implement the recommended capital improvements. ENHANCED PROGRAMS DEFERRED FROM INITIAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Future System Replacement For prudent financial planning purposes the storm drainage system should have "sinking funds" built in to its rate structure so that funding will be available to replace parts of the system as they wear out. Sinking funds were thus part of our 2002 recommendations. In an attempt to keep the Storm Drainage Fee at a reasonably low amount, these sinking funds have been deleted from our present recommendation. However, we believe that sinking funds do constitute good long-term planning for the City’s storm drain system and hope they can be included in the next round of storm drain financing. -2- Attachment 3 oo~ Attachment C- E oooo 0000 ~Z 0000 ZZZZ o ~,>,o. ~0~,o 0 0mE ~ ~ Attachment D proposed Storm Drain Capital Improvements North 1. Palo Alto Proiects Construct pump station at 96" storm drain outfall to San Francisquito Creek downstream of Highway 101 (Cost: $4.5 million) Current Condition University Avenue, E1 Camino Real, Seale Avenue, and San Francisquito Creek in the northeastern portion of the City roughly bound some of the most severe and chronic ponding problems. This entire 1250-acre area drains through a single 96" outfall pipe into San Francisquito Creek downstream of Highway 101. There are longstanding drainage problems throughout this area (many of the deficiencies were identified in the original 1965 Storm Drain Master Plan). The downstream portion of the drainage system serving this area was upgraded in the early 1970’s, when the 96" outfall pipeline was constructed. Over time the performance of this system has deteriorated due to excessive siltation in San Francisquito Creek. The siltation has reduced the capacity of the creek, resulting in higher water levels in the creek during storm events. The higher creek levels, in turn, prevent the storm drain system from draining freely, causing the pipes to back up and pond into the streets and gutters. Chronic street ponding occurs initially on the 500 block of Greer Road and then spreads to the Hamilton Avenue, Hilbar Lane, Rhodes Drive~ Channing Avenue, Heather Lane, and Walter Hays Drive areas. These areas remain ponded until the water level in the creek drops enough to allow the 96" pipe to drain freely again. Recommended Solution Installation of a pump station at the 96" outfall is the initial step in improving drainage in this watershed. The pump station will alleviate the chronic downstream area system backups. This work will have to be carefully coordinated with the Santa Clara Valley Water District as well as the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in order to avoid any negative .flooding impacts on San Francisquito Creek. Construction of the pump station will provide downstream capacity for a series of future pipeline improvement projects designed to address upstream drainage system deficiencies in this watershed area. 9/3/04 Page 1 Attachment D Install Channing/Lincoln Trunk Line from Heather Lane to Town and Country Village (Cost: $4.6 Million) Current Condition The existing Channing Avenue box .culvert between Heather Lane and Newell Road is at a higher elevation than the tributary storm drains that feed into it at Newell Road and from De Soto and Walter Hays Drives. The resulting steps in the drainage profile mean that the upstream pipes need to partially fill with storm runoff before they start draining into the box culvert. Under the current conditions, a large percentage of the upstream drainage network capacity is wasted, since it is filled with standing water. This hydraulically inefficient condition causes the upstream pipes to back up and pond onto the street surface at multiple locations upstream of the Newell Road/Channing Avenue intersection and on De Soto Drive, Stanley Way and Walter Hays Drive. In addition to being filled with standing water (as described above), the existing 24" trunk line on Channing Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and Newell Road is undersized for the tributary area that it collects. Lower areas such as Regent Place and Somerset Place experience chronic ponding because of the inadequate capacity. The South of Forest Area (SOFA), Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and Town and Country Village all drain to the southeast to pipes within Embarcadero Road. The storm drains in Embarcadero cannot handle all of the runoff. This causes flooding on the streets and sidewalks of the three aforementioned areas and Embarcadero Road during typical annual rains. Recommended Solution Installation of a new trunk line consisting of 36", 48", and 60" diameter pipe at the proper grade will provide needed drainage capacity along Channing and Lincoln Avenues. The new trunk line will improve drainage along this corridor. De Soto Drive, Walter Hays Drive, Stanley Way, Newell Road, Regent Place, Somerset Place, Alma Street, Town and Country Village and SOFA will all benefit from this proposed trunk line. The proposed Lincoln Avenue portion also intercepts existing pipes flowing towards Embarcadero Road. Therefore, it will reduce the burden on the existing Embarcadero Road storm drains and alleviate some of the chronic flooding on this major Palo Alto thoroughfare. 9/3/04 Page 2 Attachment D Construct Southgate neighborhood storm drain system (Cost: $2million) Current Condition The Southgate neighborhood, bounded by Churchill Avenue, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board railroad property, Park Boulevard, and E1 Camino Real, drains to a single storm drain inlet at the comer of Mariposa and Sequoia Avenues. There are no underground storm drain pipelines to serve the neighborhood, and there are many sections of uneven curb and gutter that pond water during rain events. Recommended Solution The recommended infrastructure improvements include the construction of additional storm drain inlets, new pipelines, and curb and gutter repairs to .eliminate street ponding in the Southgate neighborhood. This project will also accommodate runoff from the Palo Alto High School property. South 1. Palo Alto pro,iects Extend Gailen Avenue/Bibbits Drive outfall to existing Adobe Pump Station (Cost: $650 thousand) Current Condition The Charleston Terrace, Greendell, Greenhouse, and a portion of Greenmeadow neighborhoods, and San Antonio Avenue between Charleston Road and Alma Street are served by a 36" storm drain that flows by gravity into Adobe Creek behind Bibbits Drive. This 280-acre watershed is roughly bounded by Adobe Creek, Nelson Drive, Feme Avenue, Alma Street, San Antonio Avenue, and East Charleston Road. Once the water level in Adobe Creek rises to a depth of approximately four feet, the 36" pipeline cannot drain by gravity. Subsequently, water begins ponding on Bibbits Drive and Gailen Avenue, and extends upstream in the drainage system. Recommended Solution The recommended infrastructure improvements involve the construction of 1,800 feet of 36" storm drain to connect the existing gravity outfall to the Adobe Pump Station; Connection of this watershed’s drainage system to the pump station will allow the streets to be drained regardless of the creek level. 9/3/04 Page 3 Attachment D Extend Clara Drive storm drains to Matadero Pump Station (Cost: $900 thousand) Current Condition Clara Drive currently drains to Matadero Creek by gravity. Water ponds in the street during even moderate storm events, with the extent of the ponding increasing with the creek level. Recommended Solution Connection to the pump station will allow Clara Drive to drain regardless of the creek level. Improvement to Matadero Pump Station and installation of replacement or parallel storm drain pipes leading to the pump station (Cost: $3 million) Current Condition A large portion of southeastern Palo Alto drains to Matadero Creek via the Matadero Storm Water Pump .Station. The watershed area is roughly bounded by Seale Avenue, Highway 101, Barron Creek, and Alma Street. Most of this 1200-acre area drains through a network of trunk pipelines to a pump station located adjacent to Matadero Creek, just upstream of West Bayshore Road. Much of the land in this area, particularly the eastem portion near Highway 101, is lower than the creek water level during storm events. Without the pump station, this land would be unable to drain until the creek recedes, several hours after the rainfall stops. Problems in this watershed include the capacity of the pump station and the trunk storm drain pipes leading to it. Recommended Solution .... The recommended infrastructure improvements include upgrades to the Matadero Pump Station and the construction of replacement or parallel pipelines for several of the trunk pipelines feeding the pump station. The Master Plan analysis showed that several of the large trunk pipelines that drain to the Matadero Pump Station (including those along Loma Verde Avenue, the former Seale,Wooster Canal right-of-way north of Colorado Avenue, and the former Sterling Canal right-of-way east of Maddux Drive and Kenneth Drive) are undersized and need to be replaced with larger pipelines or supplemented with parallel pipelines: 9/3/04 Page 4 Attachment D Improve drainage along Alma Street (Cost: $1.5 million) Current Condition There are several locations along southbound Alma Street that do not have adequate storm drain capacity. There are also areas where storm runoff drains onto Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board railroad property and is absorbed into the ground. When the ground becomes saturated, water begins to pond onto the roadway, creating hazardous driving conditions. Similarly, in areas where undersized storm drains exist along Alma Street, ponds form and cause dangerous road conditions. Recommended Solution The recommended infrastructure improvements include the construction of numerous new catch basins along the southbound side of Alma Street and installation of approximately 4,400 linear feet of new storm drain pipelines to properly drain this heavily traveled roadway. 9/3/04 Page 5 Attachment E ¯NEW PUMP STATION @ --, -.-, /SAN FRANCISQUITO CK/,,/ ’\, _ ,<~. ~~--.,’,:,~,. , ; -, ,, ’ :<, -." .~, .... .......-. ~ .....x ~EXTEND GAILEN/BIBBITS..-.----~-..~ ...... The City of Palo Alto Proposed Storm Drain Capital Improvements This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment F Proposition 218 Property_ Owner Election Process and Timeline Start 4 weeks 1 week 7 weeks, 4 weeks 3 weeks Finance Committee review of Storm Drainage Program and related financing plan Council adoption of ordinance authorizing mail ballot process and resolution establishing procedures for protest hearing/election (Need 4 weeks to allow for processing of FC minutes) Legal notices/brochures mailed; start of 1st 45-day noticing period Protest hearing (Need at least 45-day protest period) Ballots mailed Ballots due back to City Clerk (Need at least 45 days between protest hearing and election day) 2 weeks Council certification of election results (Need time to process staff report) 3 weeks Effective date of new rate 24 weeks elapsed time Attachment G Proposed Proposition ,218 Property_ Owner Election Timeline 1118104 1216104 12113104 1/31/05 2128/05 Finance Committee review of Storm Drainage Program and related financing plan Council adoption of ordinance authorizing mail ballot process and resolution establishing procedures for protest hearing/election Legal notices/brochures mailed; start of 1st 45-day noticing period Protest hearing (Need at least 45-day protest period) Ballots mailed 3/21/05 4/4105 4/25105 Ballots due back to City Clerk (Need at least 45 days between protest hearing and election day) Council certification of election results (Need time to process staff report) Effective date of new rate