HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-06 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCII,
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
1
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 6, 2004 CMR:508:04
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN INCREASE IN THE
MONTHLY STORM DRAINAGE FEE FROM $4.25 TO $10.00 PER
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ERU) AND APPROVAL OF A
RELATED .RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES ,FOR A
PROTEST HEARING AND BALLOT PROCEEDING FOR A STORM
DRAINAGE FEE INCREASE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Adopt a resolution adopting the amount of the proposed Storm Drainage Fee increase,
describing the storm drain capital improvements and program enhancements on which
the proposed fee increase will be spent if approved, and adopting a schedule for the
protest hearing and mail ballot proceeding.
Adopt a resolution establishing procedures for the protest hearing and mail ballot
proceeding relative to the proposed increase in the Storm Drainage Fee.
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 per equivalent residential unit (ERU), has not been iiacreased
since 1994 and is insufficient to c, over the program’s operating costs. The Storm Drainage Fee is
a property-related fee subject to the provisions of Proposition 218, and cannot be increased
without the approval of a majority of property owners subject to the fee increase.
On September 13, 2004, staff presented and endorsed an enhanced storm drain program and
associated funding plan recommended by the City Manager-appointed Storm Drain Blue Ribbon
Committee (CMR:393:04). The program includes a set of high-priority storm drain system
capital improvements totaling $17 million, and also allocates $500 thousand per year for storm
drain system repairs, additional funding for storm drain maintenance, and annual funding for
innovative projects to reduce storm water runoff. The plan would be funded via an increase in
the Storm Drainage Fee to $10.00 per month per equivalent residential unit (ERU), with
provision for annual inflation adjustments and a fee "sunset" after completion of the capital
improvements in 12 years. The funding proposal also establishes three separate rate classes for
CMR:508:04 Page 1 of 4
single-family residential properties, based on parcel size, and includes the creation of an
independent oversight committee to review annual storm drain expenditures. Staff and the Storm
Drain Committee recommended that the city initiate the steps required by Proposition 218 to
obtain property owner approval of the proposed fee increase during the 2004-05 rainy season.
On November 8, 2004, Council directed staff to return to secure Council authorization to begin
the process, as specified by Proposition 218, to seek property owner 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.
DISCUSSION
The specific elements of the enhanced storm drain program and the associated funding plan were
presented to Council in the September 13, 2004 staff report. A detailed description of the
proposal is contained in the resolution and associated exhibits attached to this report (Attachment
A).
Proposition 218 requires public agencies to secure approval for increases in property-related fees
through either 1) a mail ballot proceeding requiring approval by a simple majority of property
owners returning ballots, or 2) a general election requiring approval by a two-thirds majority.
Staff and the Storm Drain Committee advocate the mail ballot proceeding alternative due to the
lower approval threshold and the expense of a general election. The City used the property
owner mail ballot option for the storm drain ballot proceeding conducted in 2000. Council
approved an ordinance in June 2000 that authorizes the City to conduct mail ballot proceedings
for property-related fees, special taxes, or assessments. The ordinance requires Council to adopt
individual resolutions authorizing specific mail ballot proceedings.
The process for submitting the proposed Storm Drainage Fee increase to property owners for
approval is governed by Proposition 218 and has two distinct phases - a public protest hearing
and a mail ballot proceeding. First, the City will mail a notice to all property owners, subj ect to
the Storm Drainage Fee, informing them of a public protest hearing to be held on February 14,
2005. Property owners will have the right to file a written protest opposing the fee increase at
any time prior to.the close of the public hearing. If a majority of property owners file a written
protest, Council may not proceed to the next phase, and the fee increase approval process is
terminated. If a majority protest does not occur, the Council may elect to call for a property
owner mail ballot proceeding. Staff would mail ballots to the owners of all properties subject to
the Storm Drainage Fee, with a prepaid return envelope. Property owners would be directed to
mail or hand-deliver their ballots to the City Clerk’s office for tabulation. The fee increase
would be approved if a majority of owners returning ballots vote to accept the increase. The
ballot proceeding has been scheduled to take place between March 14 and April 5, 2005.
The City Attorney’s Office has developed detailed procedures to govern the protest hearing and
mail ballot proceeding because Proposition 218 does not provide detailed guidelines. The
procedures define the protest and ballot proceeding process by specifying voter eligibility
requirements, describing the notice and protest requirements, and providing details for
conducting the ballot proceeding and vote tabulation. The protest hearing and mail ballot
proceeding procedures and the associated Council resolution are attached to this report
CMR:508:04 Page 2 of 4
(Attachment B). The procedures recommended by the City Attorney’ s Office streamline staff’ s
work tasks and simplify the process for property owners to document changes in ownership.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Implementation of staff s recommendations (following property owner approval) 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. Even with the proposed increase, the Storm
Drainage Fee represents a very small percentage (four percent) of the typical single-
family residential monthly utility bill.
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 would 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
would experience a reduction in costs and a potential surplus due to prepayment of fees.
There is a potential opportunity 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.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff’s recommendations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-24 states that
the City should "improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system
improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with
larger lines or parallel lines." Program N-36 further states that the City should "complete
improvements to the storm drainage system consistent-with the priorities outlined in the City’s
1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified
and approved by the City Council."
TIMELINE
The timeline for the protest hearing and storm drain mail ballot proceeding is outlined in
Attachment C to this report.
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.
CMR:508:04 Page 3 of 4
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JOE TERESI
Senior Engineer
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Resolution Adopting the Amount of the Proposed Storm Drainage Fee
Increase, Describing the Storm Drain Capital Improvements and Program
Enhancements on which the Proposed Fee Increase Will Be Spent if
Approved, and Adopting a Schedule for the Protest Hearing and Mail
Batlot Proceeding
Resolution Establishing Procedures for the Storm Drainage Fee Protest
Hearing and Mail Ballot Proceeding (including Exhibit A: Procedures for
the Conduct of a Protest Hearing and Mail Ballot Proceeding Relating to a
Proposed Storm Drainage Fee Increase)
Timeline for protest hearing and storm drain mail ballot proceeding
Storm Drain Committee
Palo Alto Chamber bf Commerce
CMR:508:04 Page 4 of 4
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ADOPTING THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPOSED STORM
DRAINAGE ~FEE INCREASE, DESCRIBING THE STORM
DRAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAM
ENHANCEMENTS ON WHICH THE PROPOSED FEE WILL BE
SPENT IF APPROVED, AND ADOPTING A SCHEDULE FOR
THE PROTEST HEARING AND MAIL BALLOT PROCEEDING
ON THE PROPOSED FEE INCREASE
WHEREAS, Article X!IID of the California Constitution
~Proposition 218") requires the City to obtain voter approval
to increase property-related fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, storm drainage fees are property-related fees
and charges under the provisions of Proposition 218; and
WHEREAS, ~:the City Council is considering a proposal to
increase the storm drainage fee because the.fees that the City
currently charges for storm drainage are inadequate to support
basic storm drain maintenance costs,repairs,and capacity
upgrades; and "
WHEREAS, in order to conduct a fair process that
complies with the provisions of Proposition 218, the City
Council finds it appropriate to clearly describe the amount of
the proposed storm drainage fee increase, the storm drain
capital improvements and program enhancements on which the funds
from the proposed fee will be spent if property owners approve
the fee increase, and the schedule the City will follow in
submitting the proposed fee increase to property owners for
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION i. The City Council hereby declares that its
intent in adopting this resolution is to provide the community
with a guide to the protest and ballot proceeding process for
this proposed storm drainage fee increase.
SECTION 2. Council hereby approves the description of
the proposed storm drainage fee increase described in Exhibit
~A" and adopts the increased amounts listed :therein as the
proposed fees that will be submitted to property owners for
approval.
041130 sm 8260028 1
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. The Council hereby declares that, if the
proposed storm drainage fee increase is approved, it is the
City’s intent to spend the funds from that increase on the storm
drain capital improvements and program enhancements listed in
Exhibit
SECTION 4. The Council hereby adopts the schedule of
actions attached as Exhibit ~C" for this property owner protest
hearing and mail ballot proceeding to increase storm drainage
fees.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this resolution does not
constitute a project subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
041130 sm 8260028 2
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF AMOUNT OF THE PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE FEE
INCREASE
A. Summary of current storm drainage fee system
The City’s current storm drainage billing system is based on
Equivalent Residential Units ("ERU"), which are generally
determined by the square footage of impervious surface area on a
property. One ERU equals 2500 square feet of impervious sur.face
area on a property, and the current fee for one ERU is four
dollars and twenty-five cents ($4.25). The ERU calculation was
based on a sampling of single-family and duplex properties in
the City, in which the typical impervious surface area was 2500
square feet. Thus, all single-family and duplex residential
properties in the City are presumed to have one ERU of
impervious surface area and are currently charged -$4.25 per
month for that ERU, regardless of the actual impervious surface
area of their property. Commercial, industrial, institutional,
government, and ~multi-family residential properties are charged
for their actual amounts of impervious surface area, at a rate
of one ERU per 2500 square feet of impervious area.
B. Proposed storm drainage fee increase
i. New residential rate structure and increased fee
The proposal to increase storm drainage fees involves two
components. First, the charge per ERU would be raised from four
dollars and twenty-five cents ($4.25) to ten dollars ($i0).
Second, the impervious surface area would no longer be presumed
to be one ERU for all single-family and duplex properties.
Instead, those properties would be placed into one of three ERU
tiers based on the size of the property. Commercial,
industrial, institutional, government, and multi-family
residential properties would continue to be charged based on
actual impervious surface area, but at the increased rate of $i0
per ERU.
The following tables describe the changed rate structure and
proposed fee increase:
PARCEL SIZE
.(sq.ft.)PROPOSED RATE
Less than 6,000
sq.ft.$8.00
6,000-10,999 sq.ft.$i0.00
041130 sm 8260028
ERU
.8 ERU
1 ERU
1
NOT YET APPROVED
ii,000 sq.ft, or 1.4 ERU $14.00greater
<Iii!ICOMMERCIAL RATES(Commercial, industrial, multifamily res.)
$i0.00 per 2,500 square feet of impervious surface area (ERU),
Irounded to the nearest 0.i ERU.
2. Annual inflation adjustments to proposed fee increase
In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and
material costs, the proposed fee increase would be subject to
annual increases beyond the initial $I0.00 per ~ERU rate as of
July 1 of each year, starting, in 2006. Inflation adjustments
would be based on the lesser of~ the local rate of inflation
(based on the change in the Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CSMA, published by the United
States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) or 6
percent. The City Council would have the authority and
discretion to implement inflation adjustments on an annual basis
as part of the City budget process.
3. Twelve year sunset provision for proposed fee increase
The proposed storm drainage fee increase would sunset twelve
(12) .years from the date the fee increase is implemented, as the
storm drain capital improvements to be funded by the increase
would be completed by that time.
4. Oversight provision for proposed fee increase
The City Council would appoint an oversight committee to monitor
and review the proposed storm drain capital, improvements and
insure that the money raised from the increased Storm Drainage
Fee is spent in accordance with this resolution. The oversight
committee would report its findings to the City Council at least
annually.
5. Applicability of the Rate Assistance Program
The City’s existing Rate Assistance Program, which provides a
20% discount to qualified low-income utility customers, would
apply to the Storm Drainage Fee.
041130 sm 8260028 2
NOT YET APPROVED
6. Pay-as-you-go funding of capital improvements
The storm drain capital improvements to be funded through the
proposed Storm Drainage Fee increase would be paid for on a pay-
as-you-go basis, ~without debt financing.
o Up-front payment of Storm Drainage Fees by City of
Palo Alto
In order to accelerate the construction of the proposed storm
drain capital improvements, the City of Palo Alto would pre-pay
in advance the Storm Drainage Fees attributable to City-owned
properties for a period of twelve years, upon approval of the
increased Storm Drainage Fee.
041130 sm 8260028 3
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT "B"
LIST OF STORM DRAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAM
ENHANCEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED WITH FUNDING FROM THE PROPOSED FEE
INCREASE
A.Seven proposed storm drain capital improvement projects
o
°
o
o
Construct pump station at 96" storm drain outfall to
San Francisquito Creek (estimated cost = $4.5
mill~on).
Install new storm drain pipelines to increase drainage
capacity on Channing and Lincoln Avenues (from
Channing/Heather to ,Lincoln/Alma) (estimated cost =
$4.6 million).
Install Southgate neighborhood storm drain system
(estimated cost = $2.0 million).
Extend Gailen Avenue/Bibbits Drive storm drain outfall
to the Adobe. Storm Water Pump Station (estimated cost
: $650 thousand).
Connect the Clara Drive storm drains to the Matadero
Storm Water Pump Station (estimated cost A $900
thousand).
Construct improvements to the Matadero Storm Water
Pump Station and install new storm drain pipelines to
increase drainage capacity leading to the Matadero
Storm Water Pump Station (estimated cost = $3.0
million).
Install storm drainage improvements along southbound
Alma Street (estimated cost = $1.5 million).
A map of the proposed projects is included in this exhibit.
Proposed funding for enhanced maintenance of the City’s
storm drainage system
°
$500,000 budgeted annually (subject to annual
adjustment for inflation) to replace and/or
rehabilitate deteriorated components of the City’s
storm drain system, including pipelines, catch basins,
and manholes.
$90,000 budgeted annually (subject to annual adjustment
for inflation) to fund additional storm drain
maintenance resources, including staff and/or contract
services, to perform services including, but not
limited to, storm drain cleaning, minor storm drain
041130 sm 8260028 1
NOT YET APPROVED
C o
mo
repairs, video inspection of storm drain pipelines,
and/or curb and gutter repairs.
Funding of innovative projects
$125,000 budgeted annually (subject to annual
adjustment for inflation) for innovative~ projects to
reduce the amount of storm water runoff and
environmental pollutants that enter storm drains and
creeks.
Funding of storm water quality protection activities
$i00,000 budgeted annually (subject to annual
adjustment for inflation) to pay for existing services
related to storm water quality protection currently
funded through the Wastewater Treatment Fund.
Funding of additional engineering staff
$115,000 budgeted annually (subject to annual
adjustment for inflation) for an additional staff
engineer to assist with implementation of the
recommended storm drain capital improvements.
041130 sm 8260028 2
NEW PUMP STATION @ ~
<’SAN FRANCISQUITO CK /
V MATA D E~’~ ,P U M P~8 TAT I O N~
1~’, .....’. ’,. x ~..-< ~ .... .........;...v ~ ;,’--...’ y . .. ~ ........ADOBE.RUMP STATION
~ ~ ~:~Sto~ Drain
Capital Improvements
P a 1 o a lt o ~ ~
NOT YET APPROVED
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED STORM
DRAINAGE FEE INCREASE
DATE
12/06/04
12/27/04
12/27/04-
2/14/05
2/14/05
~ ACTION ,
i. Council adoption of resolution establishing
procedures for a protest hearing and property owner
ballot proceeding on the proposed storm drainage
fee increase
2. Council adoption of a resolution adopting the
amount of the proposed fee increase, describing the
projects on which the increased fees will be spent
if approved, and a schedule of actions for the
proposed fee increase
City mails notice’of the proposal to increase storm
drainage, fees to property owners subject to the
proposed increase
Owners of property subject to the proposed fee
increase may submit written protests to the
proposal
Phblic protest hearing on the proposed fee increase
IF NO MAJORITY PROTEST BY THE CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Council adoption of resolution calling a special
2/14/05 mail ballot proceeding to submit the issue of the
proposed fee increase to property owners
3/14/05 City mails ballots to property owners
Ballot proceeding day - deadline to return ballots4/5/05 to City Clerk
4/18/05 Council certification of ballot proceeding results
IF AMAJORITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS VOTE TO APPROVE FEE INCREASE:
4/18/05
5/9/05
Council adoption of resolution to amend billing and
rate classes in Utility Rule and Regulation 25 to
conform to the provisions of the approved fee
increase
Effective date of new storm drainage rates
041130 sm 8260028 1
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT E~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0
ALTO ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF
A PROTEST HEARING AND BALLOT PROCEEDING RELATING
TO A PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE FEE INCREASE
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 was adopted on November 6,
1996, adding Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering a proposal to
increase the storm drainage utility fee; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIID of the California Constitution
(~Proposition 218") requires the City to obtain property owner
approval to impose property related fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, ;’Article XIIID of the California Constitution
also imposes cebtain procedural and substantive requirements
relating to increases for property-related fees, but does not
set forth all of the procedures necessary to conduct a protest
hearing and ballot proceeding; and
WHEREAS, some of the requirements of Proposition 218 are
unclear and require judicial interpretation or legislative
implementation; and
WHEREAS, in order to conduct a ~fair and accurate~protest
hea~ing and ballot proceeding and provide the community with a
guide, to the City.’s process for implementing the proVisions of
Proposition 218, the City Council finds it necessary and
appropriate to adopt local procedures to govern the procedures
on the proposed fee increase.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION i. The Council hereby declares that its intent
in adopting this resolution is to adopt procedures that are
consistent and in compliance with articles XIIIC and XIIID of
the California Constitution and with the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act (Government Code sections 53750 et seq.) . It
is not the intent of the City Council to vary in any way from
the requirements of articles XIIIC and XIIID or the Proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act.
041130 sm 8260021 1
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the ~Procedures
For the Conduct of a Protest Hearing and Ballot Proceeding
Relating to a Proposed Storm Drainage Fee Increase", as set
forth in. Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the proposed storm
drainage fee increase is an action that is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges) of the CEQA guidelines.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
041130 sm 8260021 2
EXHIBIT "A"
PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF A
PROTEST HEARING AND BALLOT PROCEEDING
RELATING TO A PROPOSED STORI~ DRAINAGE
FEE INCREASE
2004-05
The following procedures have been adopted by
the City Council of the City of Palo Alto for
the purpose of conducting all proceedings
required by Article XIIID of the California
Constitution for consideration, of a proposed
storm drainage fee increase.Where no
specific procedures are imposed by Ar ticl e
XIIID, or the Proposi ti on 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act (Chapt. 28,1997 stats.),
these procedures shall apply.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Calculation of the fee
Notice of the fee increase
Eligibility to protest and vote
Conduct of the public hearing
Conduct of the ballot proceeding
Conduct of post-ballot proceedings
Page 1
Page 1
Pages 1-3
Pages 3-6
Pages 6-9
Page 9
ii
io Calculation of the fee and proposed increase:
Storm Drainage fees are property-related fees, and the
City must submit the proposed increase to the voters
under Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
C °
o New storm drainage fees shall be calculated in
accordance with Utility Rate Schedule D-I and with
~Utilities Rule and Regulation 25.
Providing notice of the proposed fee increase, as required
by Article XIIID, Section ~6, of the California
Constitution:
The City shall send notice to the record owner(s) of
each parcel to which the fee increase is proposed to
apply. Only property owners shall receive notice.
o ~Record ownership" shall be determined by the name
appearing on the last equalized secured property tax
assessment roll. If the assessment roll indicates more
than one owner, each owner shall receive notice at the
address shown in the assessment roll.
°The notice shall be sent by first class mail, at least
forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the
public hearing on the fee increase.
o The form of the notice of hearing is on file with the
City Clerk.
o The notice provided by these procedures, in accordance
with Article XIIID, section 6 of the California
Constitution, shall supersede and be in lieu of notice
required ’by any other statutes to’ levy or increase
this fee. ’
°The City Clerk, or the delegate of the City Clerk, may
certify the proper mailing of notices by an affidavit,
which shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in
the absence of fraud.
o Failure of any person to receive notice shall not
invalidate the proceedings.
Determining eligibility to file a protest and to vote:
i..Only one protes~ and vote per parcel subject to the
proposed fee increase shall be allowed.
2.The last equalized secured property tax assessment
o
o
o
o
o
o
roll of the Santa Clara County Recorder is presumptive
evidence of property ownership for voting purposes.
When a parcel is held as community property, in joint
tenancy, or as a tenancy in common, any spouse, joint
tenant, or tenant in common shall be presumed to have
authority to file a protest Or cast a vote on behalf
of such parcel.
If the owner(s) of a parcel desire to designate a
particular owner as the person authorized to file a
protest or cast the vote for such parcel, they may
file with the City Clerk, at any time prior to the
commencement of the public hearing or the date of the
ballot proceeding, as the case may be, a written
authorization of such designation,signed under
penalty of perjury by all the owners of record.. If
the owners of a parcel fail to designate a particular
owner as the single voter, any owner of record may
file a protest and vote. However, only one protest
per parcel will be considered and only one vote per
parcel will be allowed.
Executors, administrators, and guardians may sign the
protest and/or ballot on behalf of the estate they
represent. If such representatives are not shown on
the latest assessment roll, the representatives may
file with the City Clerk, at any time prior to the
commencement of the public hearing, or the date of the
ballot proceeding, as the case may be, written
documentation of the legal representation, signed
under penalty of perjury.
Trustees may sign the protest and/or ballot provided
for in these procedures on behalf of the trust they
represent. If a trustee is not shown on the latest
assessment roll, the trustee may file with the City
Clerk a declaration signed under penalty of perjury.
If more than one representative is shown on the latest
assessment roll as paying taxes and assessments on
behalf of the property owner(s), the provisions
relating Go co-ownership in subsections C3 and C4
shall govern the right to sign the protest or ballot.
Any person may sign a protest and/or ballot for a
public or quasi-public corporation, private
corporation, or unincorporated association if the
board of directors, trustees, or other managing body
gives him/her written authorization to sign. Such
written authorization, signed under penalty of
2
Do
perjury, may be filed with the City Clerk prior to
commencement of the public hearing or prior to the
date of the ballot proceeding, as the case may be.
o The owner of any parcel to which the fee increase is
proposed to apply, which has been assessed in the
wrong name or to unknown owners, or which has passed
from the owner listed on the last equalized assessment
roll, may sign the protest and/or ballot for such
parcel by filing with the City Clerk, at any time
prior to the commencement of the public hearing, or
prior to the date of the ballot proceeding, as the
case may be:
(i)
or
a duly acknowledged proxy from such former owner;
i0.
(ii)a declaration, signed under pehalty of perjury,
that~ the person signing is the owner of the
property.
A tenan.t of real property shall not have the power or
authority to participate in the protest or ballot
proceedings.
ii.The City Manager is designated as the voting
representative with respect to City-owned property.
12.If, prior to the commencement of the public hearing,
or the date of the ballot proceeding, as the case may
be, no documentation relating to the voting authority
for a parcel is filed with the City Clerk as provided
for in this section C, the ownership information shown
in the latest secured equalized property tax
assessment roll shall be conclusive evidence of
ownership for protest and/or voting purposes, and the
owner or representative listed on that assessment roll
who votes on behalf of the parcel shall be presumed to
be legally authorized to do s6.
13. In any case where the documentation provided to the
City Clerk in accordance with this section C is
ambiguous or unclear, the City Attorney shall
determine whether the documentation is adequate for
the purpose provided.
Guidelines for protests and the conduct of the public
hearing:
The Director of Public Works shall prepare a written
report (the "Master List") for the City Council, which
shall contain a list of all parcels to which the fee
increase is proposed to apply, the names of owners
listed on the last equalized property tax assessment
roll, and the amount of the proposed fee increase for
each parcel. The proposed fee increase shall include
the proposed initial increase plus any proposed
inflation adjustment.The name of any person
designated as the authorized voter by the procedures
in section C, and that voter’s address, shall be added
to the Master List.
o
o
o
o
Protests must (i) bein writing; (2) state the grounds
for the protest; (3) identify the parcel for which the
protest is made; and (4) contain a legible signature
of an eligible property owner. Protests that do not
meet these requirements will not be considered;
however, the Council may waive any irregularities in
the form or content of any written protest if the
protest is in substantial compliance with these
procedures.
All protests must be filed before the close of the
public ~testimony portion of the public hearing.- The
City Clerk shall endorse the date of filing on each
written protest, and shall indicate whether the
protest was timely filed. No protest received after
the close of the public testimony portion of the
public hearing shall be counted in determining the
amount of protest, but the Council may, in its
discretion, consider such protests in making its
decision.
Protests’ may be withdrawn in writing at any time
before the conclusion of the public testimony portion
of the public hearing.
All protests shall be considered public records.
At~ the time and place fixed for the hearing, or at any
time to which the hearing is adjourned, the Council
shall:
(i)Hear all persons interested in the matter of
the proposed fee increase;
(ii)Hear all objections,
written communications
property subject¯to
increase; and
protests, or other
from any owner of
the proposed fee
4
o
o
o
i0.
(iii)Take and receive oral and documentary
evidence pertaining to the proposed fee
increase.
The hearing may be continued from time to time, as the
Council determines necessary to complete its
consideration of the proposed fee increase.
If the Council determines, .at the close of the public
testimony portion of the public hearing, that written
protests have been received from property owners
representing a majority of the parcels subject to the
proposed fee increase, the Mayor shall declare the
proceedings closed and the fee increase shall not be
approved.
If the Council determines, at the close of the public
testimony portion of the public hearing, that written
protests have not been received from property owners
representing a majority of the parcels subject to the
proposed fee increase, the Council may:
i)Remedy,correct, and/or revise any clerical
error or informality in the report
containing the proposed fee increase for
each property, any minor defect in the
proceedings, and any of the acts or
determinations of any City officers or
employees in the proceedings or report.
Modifications or corrections that increase
the fee proposed for any individual parcel
to an amount greater than that shown in the
notice mailed to the property owner pursuant
to Section B and subsection D 1 of these
Procedures will not be allowed; and
ii Confirm the report containing the.proposed
fee increase for each property, as may have
been amended in accordance with subparagraph
(i) of this subsection D(9), and each of the
proposed fee increases therein; and
iii)Adopt a resolution calling
proceeding.
for a ballot
The resolution calling for a ballot proceeding shall
state that the proceeding is being held for the
purpose of submitting the fee increase to a vote of
the property owners of parcels subject to the proposed
fee increase.
ii.The date of the ballot proceeding shall be no less
than forty-five (45) days after the Council adopts the
resolution calling for the ballot proceeding.
E o Conduct of the ballot proceeding.
The City Clerk shall be responsible for the conduct of
the ballot proceeding governed by these procedures.
The City Clerk may designate one or more persons as
ballot proceeding officials, to assist the City Clerk
in canvassing the ballots.
2.The ballot proceeding shall be solely by mailed ballot.
o
o
The ballot proceeding materials shall include all
supplies necessary for the use and return of ~the
ballot.The ballot proceeding materials may contain
the full text of the measdre but, because this is a
property owner ballot proceeding, shall not contain a
voter information pamphlet, ballot arguments, or an
impartial analysis.
The identification envelope for return of the ballot
shall contain the following:
(i)The name of the record owner, or, if a
specific person has been designated pursuant
to the provisions in Section C of these
procedures, the name of the representative
authorized to cast the vote for the parcel;
(ii)The property address or parcel number;
(iii)A declaration, under penalty of perjury,
stating that the voter is the owner of
record or the authorized representative of
the owner(s) entitled to vote and is the
person whose name appears on the
identification envelope;
(iv)Spaces for the voter to print and sign his
or her name.
(v)Space for the voter to indicate the date of
signing and place of execution of the
declaration described in paragraph (iii).
(vi)A notice that the envelope contains an
official ballot and is to be opened only by
the appropriate ballot proceeding officials.
6
o The form of the ballot shall be as follows:
o
o
o
i0.
(i)The ballot shall contain the following
ballot measure:
Shall the monthly Storm Drainage Fee be increased to
$i0.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for a
period of 12 years, subject to annual adjustment fo~
inflation up to.a maximum of six percent per year?
The storm drainage fee will be used to. improve local
drainage and prevent street flooding by funding:
high-priority storm drain system capacity
upgrades,
drainage system repairs]
enhanced storm drain maintenance, and
storm water quality protection activities
[] YES [] NO
(ii)The ballot may be preprinted in a manner
that will allow machine tabulation of the
votes.
(iii)Because this is a property owner ballot
proceeding, all ballots will be in English.
One vote per parcel subject
increase shall be allowed.
to the proposed fee
The ballot and ballot proceeding materials described
in subsection E(4) including a stamped, self-addressed
return envelope, shall be mailed to the property owner
or the authorized voter designated under Section C by
depositing them in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage
prepaid, on or before the twenty-first (21st) day
prior to the date set for the ballot proceeding.
The ballot shall be nonforwardable. The City Clerk
shall not forward any ballot that is returned to the
City Clerk.
¯The City Clerk, or the delegate of the City Clerk, may
certify the proper mailing of ballots by an affidavit,
which shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in
the absence of fraud.
Whenever the City Clerk is required to mail a ballot
to any address outside the territorial limits of the
United States, the City Clerk shall mail the ballot
airmail and, if under any law of the United States
official proceeding ballots may be mailed without the
payment of postage, the City Clerk shall so mail the
ballot.
ii.Any record owner or voter designated by the procedures
in Section C that has failed to receive,lost, or
destroyed his or her original ballot may obtain a
second replacement ballot from the City Clerk by
filing with the City Clerk a statement under penalty
of perjury that the voter has not voted.
12.The City Clerk shall only issue replacement ballots in
the seven days prior to ballot proceeding day to
voters who pick up ballots in person at the Clerk’s
office; no replacement ballots shall be mailed during
the seven day period prior to ballot proceeding day.
13.The City Clerk shall keep a record of all ballots sent
and received and shall verify, prior to counting the
ballots, that only one vote has been cast for each
parcel to which the proposed fee increase will apply.
If the Clerk determines that a voter has attempted to
vote twice, or that more than one vote has been
attempted for the same parcel, both ballots shall be
void.
14.All ballots shall be voted on or before the day of the
proceeding. After marking the ballot, the voter shall
either: (a) return the ballot by mail or (b) return
the ballot in person to the City Clerk.
15.The City. Clerk must receive all ballots by no later
than 8:00 p.m. on ballot proceeding day. Ballots
received after the deadline, regardless of the date
postmarked, will not be counted.
16.The vote of each voting property owner shall be
secret; no voter shall place any mark upon a ballot
that will make that ballot identifiable.
17.The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all
ballots. The Clerk shall examine and accept as valid
all ballots except those in the following categories:
(±)a photocopy of a ballot;
(ii)an unsigned ballot envelope;
(iii)a ballot enclosed in an envelope that does
not contain an original signature;
(iv)
(v)
a ballot ~enclosed in an envelope signed by a
person who is not on the Master List of
record owners or designated as the
authorized voting representative;
a baliot that lacks an identifiable "yes" or
"no" vote;
(vi)a ballot received after the deadline
specified in section E(13) of these
procedures; or
(vii)any ballot not delivered in compliance with
the requirements of these procedures
The Clerk shall write the cause of the rejection on
the face of the ballot envelope. No ballot shall be
removed .from its identification envelope until the
time for processing. No ballot shall be rejected for
cause after the envelope has been opened unless the
ballot lacks an identifiable ~yes" or "no" vote.
18.To protect the privacy of the choices of property
owners who participate in the proceeding and to
protect the integrity of the balloting process,
ballots shall not be public records, as that phrase is
defined in the Public Records Act, and shall not be
open to public inspection at any time.. The City Clerk
shall establish appropriate and reasonable
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to
ensure the security and confidentiality of the
ballots.
19.The City Clerk shall allow anyone who wishes to
observe the ballot return process sufficiently close
access to enable them to observe and challenge whether
the Clerk is following established procedures for the.
protest and ballot proceeding, but this right of
access shall not be construed in a manner that allows
observers to disrupt the Clerk’s duties.
20.To the extent not covered by these procedures, the
voting shall be consistent with the provisions of the
Elections Code, insofar as the City Clerk determines
such provisions are applicable to these proceedings
and are not inconsistent with Article XIID of the
California Constitution.
9
Conduct of the post-ballot proceeding actions:
Not later than 30 days after the ballot proceeding,
the City Clerk shall transmit to the Council a written
notification as to the results of the ballot
proceeding.
If the ballot proceeding results indicate that a
majority of the voters voting upon the fee increase
voted in favor of the increase, the City Council may
adopt the fee increase by resolution amending Utility
Rate Schedule D-Io
Attachment C
Timeline for Proposed Proposition 218 Property_ Owner
Mail Ballot Proceeding
12/6
12/27
2/14
Council adoption of resolutions proposing a Storm Drainage Fee increase
and establishing procedures for protest hearing/mail ballot proceeding
Legal notices mailed; start of 1st 45-day noticing period
Protest hearing
(Need at least 45-day protest period)
3/14 Ballots mailed
4/5
4/18
5/9
BallOts due back to City Clerk
(Need at least 45 days between protest hearing and final balloting day)
Council certification of election results
(Need time to process staff report)
Effective date of new rate