In addition to a $43 million infrastructure bond and a $240 million San Mateo Union High School District Bond that will be on the November 2006 ballot, Burlingame residents will be asked this fall to also approve a countywide, 1/8-cent sales tax to fund county and city parks.
The measure, to be placed on the ballot by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, may bring in around $16 million dollars a year. According to the ballot language, 52 percent will be divided among the 20 county cities, 42 percent will go to the county government itself and the remaining 6 percent will be shared among three local parks districts.
Burlingame's annual share will be approximately $163,404 should the measure pass, as the allocation is based on city population. Our neighbor to the west, Hillsborough, will get around $112,902 a year.
But this is where this poorly crafted measure breaks down. Hillsborough produces very little sales tax. In fact, the only sales tax produced in Hillsborough is largely through private transactions. This is due to the fact that Hillsborough has, by policy, prevented commercial activity in that community just as Portola Valley has done.
Burlingame residents, however, enjoy diverse and active business districts and the community is host to a large auto row which generates tremendous sales tax, as well as our hotels on the Bay front.
In fact, in the second quarter of 2005, Burlingame generated a total of $210,694,000 in total taxable sales, compared to that of Hillsborough which generated only $1,443,000 or about 1.5 percent of Burlingame's total. Yet, under the formula for the Parks Tax worked out by the San Mateo County leadership, Hillsborough's allocation of this new sales tax is not that much lower than Burlingame's.
In fact, Burlingame generates the fourth highest amount of taxable sales in San Mateo County, but because the allocation of this new sales tax funding will be based on the number of people in each community, Burlingame's piece of the proverbial pie will be in the mid to lower end of the scale.
This tax is a bad deal for Burlingame under the proposed formula. In fact, Burlingame will end up subsidizing the parks facilities of our neighbors.
Thus far, city officials have not weighed in on this issue but hopefully they will soon. This tax really only benefits the county government and the communities with larger populations such as Daly City or those with little to no commercial activity like Hillsborough and Portola Valley.
Let's hear from our local leaders on this issue.
- Written by politicalblunder
Recent Comments