Smart because we do not NEED bells & whistles!

Editorial in the Daily Journal - Burlingame council is wise to focus on critical needs

In the days before Sept. 11, the Burlingame City Council approved large-scale renovations to its main library and fire station. It was paid for through certificates of participation, a way for cities to borrow money from money they already have. It was a smart way to fund renovations when money was easy to come by and the economy was strong. Fast forward a few years and the city is facing other serious issues such as a sewer and water system that needs major renovation and a City Hall and Recreation Center that may not be safe in an earthquake. The trouble now is that the city does not have the money to make the much-needed repairs.

On Monday night, the City Council voted to place a $44 million bond measure on the November ballot that will need two-thirds majority to pass. Much of that money, $31 million, will be used for flood control while $6 million will be used for safety upgrades to city buildings. An additional $7 million will be used to pay taxes on the bond. The $44 million may seem like a lot to you and I, but for a city to take care of critical infrastructure needs, it is a modest amount. Before Monday night's discussion, there were those who argued that the city should emphasize major renovations to the recreation center as part of the plan because it would fill a need in giving the city's teens a place to go. The council was wise to leave such wide-scale plans out of the proposal. People in Burlingame are smart. They don't need bells and whistles to sell them on a bond for infrastructure improvements. In fact, it might turn them off after years of cuts to the city's workers, sidewalk repairs and other city services. Instead, city officials have a task ahead of them to convince two-thirds of the electorate to spend $31.97 per $100,000 of each home's assessed value every year for 30 years. City officials also have to show that the assessed value is not necessarily the home's worth and is often significantly less than what it would sell for. Nonetheless, it should be easier to sell voters on a tax that would pay for critical sewer improvements that will save the city and its residents money on repairs and seismic work that will keep people safe in a major earthquake. Selling voters on a $41 million recreation center when the old one can suffice with some repairs was not the way to go. You wouldn't buy a new Cadillac when your Buick still runs and you need a new roof right? There may be a time when the city can afford a new recreation center and there should be some serious discussion on the idea at some point in the future. But for now, the City Council made a smart choice in removing a proposal for a new recreation center from the discussion of asking the voters for a new tax.

There is also a letter from Daniel in the Daily Journal.

- Written by Fiona

Comments

[Joanne]

Thanks, Daily Journal, for a great editorial. Those who listened to the entire city council meeting on Monday night, saw the consultant's charts about how city income continues to be down -- not only the hotel tax, but also restaurant receipts -- from its height. The free-wheeling spending days are over (at least for the foreseeable future). We need to concentrate on what we need, not what we'd like. Let's fix up the city buildings we've got and do preventive repairs on the storm drains.