Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews FY2027 stormwater budget and asks staff to clarify long‑term fiscal outlook
Summary
The Palo Alto Stormwater Management Oversight Committee reviewed the fiscal year 2027 proposed stormwater budget, noting a 3% CPI fee increase that yields roughly $270,000 in added revenue and asking staff to add language in the committee memo recognizing continued evaluation of the 13 ballot‑measure projects’ long‑term funding needs.
The Stormwater Management Oversight Committee met to consider the city’s proposed fiscal year 2027 stormwater budget and related planning for 13 ballot‑measure capital improvement projects.
Michelle Nelson, senior management analyst for Public Works, told the committee that the proposed fee revenue increase follows the ballot measure’s index rule — annual CPI or 6%, whichever is less — and that the Bay Area CPI of 3% produces roughly $270,000 in additional revenue for the stormwater fund for 2027. Nelson said operating expenses show only modest CPI‑driven adjustments and staffing changes; there were no proposed changes to maintenance, green storm infrastructure (GSI) or the innovative projects budgets.
Nelson said staff have reappropriated one‑time capital project funds from adopted 2026 into proposed 2027 to reflect projects that will spend in the next fiscal year rather than this one. She also noted a scheduling change in the five‑year CIP: Lewis Road design is being moved into 2027 with construction expected in 2028, a shift from prior planning.
Committee members pressed staff on longer‑term affordability for the 13 ballot‑measure projects, noting that the cost estimates in the 2015 storm drain master plan are now dated. Nelson and engineering staff said they have been tracking costs from recent projects and will refine projections as design and bid results come in; they warned that until multiple projects go to bid, projections will remain uncertain.
After discussion, the committee agreed to ask staff to revise a line in the committee memo about future fiscal outlook. The chair asked for a motion to authorize staff to draft more cautious language stating that committee and staff are continuing to evaluate the 2015 ballot‑measure estimates, and to finalize that language by e‑mail. A member moved and a second was recorded; the motion carried with no nays reported in the meeting transcript.
The committee also heard that the proposed 3% fee increase had been reviewed by the finance committee at recent hearings and that staff expect continued discussion there during the May budget hearings. Nelson said the fee split is roughly 55% for base program operations and 45% for project and infrastructure purposes in the presentation materials shared with the committee.
The committee concluded with staff offering to circulate updated CIP maps (including a last‑updated date) and with plans to continue refining cost estimates as design and bids progress.
