Measure H: Take two for flood-control measure Council may go back to voters Council tackles flood measures - Officials seek alternatives to failed storm drain measure (San Mateo Times)
BURLINGAME City leaders are going to take another crack at the flood-control infrastructure improvements that were at the heart of the defeated Measure H, and it could come as early as June. At the conclusion of a study session Wednesday night, the City Council directed staff to prepare a list by Jan. 16 of options for financing as much as $39 million in storm drainage work and $2 million for seismic retrofits to the recreation center at 850 Burlingame Ave.
The primary option the council will consider is a general obligation bond, based on property-tax assessments, like Measure H, which fell just short of garnering the two-thirds majority it needed to pass on Nov. 7. The council also will study a Mello-Roos tax, or community facilities district, one of the main alternatives presented by opponents of Measure H, who felt that property tax assessments unfairly penalize new homeowners, whose assessments are higher. Council members said they were prepared to pay a consultant between $20,000 and $50,000 to analyze how the financial burden under a Mello-Roos tax would be distributed. The tax, which is most often used in new or developing communities, would give the city the option of localizing the costs of improvements by creating a special district that does not include the entire city. Mayor Terry Nagel was initially inclined to put off a second capital-improvements measure until 2008, but she was persuaded by her colleagues on the council to consider a shorter timetable. Joined by Councilwoman Cathy Baylock and Vice Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony, Councilman Russ Cohen urged the council to "capitalize on the momentum" created by the campaign for Measure H. Waiting could allow the city's efforts to educate the public on the need for capital improvements to dissipate, Cohen argued. Councilwoman Ann Keighran worried that Burlingame residents, as well as volunteers and campaign donors, might be "burnt-out" and reluctant to engage in a second campaign right on the heels of Measure H, which received 5,765 votes Nov. 7, leaving it 228 votes short of the required 67 percent.
Measure H would have raised $39 million for storm drainage work and $5 million for seismic and safety improvements to city facilities. This time, the council will consider dropping the figure for flood-control work to $30 million, while narrowing its focus on the remaining work on the recreation center. Nagel expressed some reluctance to spend thousands of dollars to study a Mello-Roos tax if the reason is solely to appease Measure H opponents, who were led by a core group of five new homeowners. Baylock joked that the effort amounts to "bribery." But the council reached consensus on including the analysis. "I feel it is our duty to look at another option," Keighran said. City Manager Jim Nantell said the city will have only preliminary data on how a Mello-Roos tax would work by Jan. 16. Since the council would have to decide by Feb. 20 to put a general obligation bond on the June ballot, it won't have long to consider its options.
Richard Voon, a leading opponent of Measure H, said the council may be moving too quickly. "June does seem a little rushed," said Voon. "I personally would like to see a November election and spend a little more time studying this. "We'll be watching it closely to make sure that they are giving the appropriate consideration to the Mello-Roos," he said.
Nantell said holding the election in November would mean competing against the Burlingame School District, which is likely to put forth a capital-improvements bond of its own. Proponents of Measure H felt one reason it was defeated was the proliferation of state and local bond measures on the ballot. And if the election is held in June, right after the rains of winter subside, the deficiencies of the city's storm drainage may be fresh in voters' minds, Measure H supporters said. If the council decides to try a Mello-Roos tax, it will have the option of holding a mail-in election in August.
BURLINGAME City leaders are going to take another crack at the flood-control infrastructure improvements that were at the heart of the defeated Measure H, and it could come as early as June. At the conclusion of a study session Wednesday night, the City Council directed staff to prepare a list by Jan. 16 of options for financing as much as $39 million in storm drainage work and $2 million for seismic retrofits to the recreation center at 850 Burlingame Ave.
The primary option the council will consider is a general obligation bond, based on property-tax assessments, like Measure H, which fell just short of garnering the two-thirds majority it needed to pass on Nov. 7. The council also will study a Mello-Roos tax, or community facilities district, one of the main alternatives presented by opponents of Measure H, who felt that property tax assessments unfairly penalize new homeowners, whose assessments are higher. Council members said they were prepared to pay a consultant between $20,000 and $50,000 to analyze how the financial burden under a Mello-Roos tax would be distributed. The tax, which is most often used in new or developing communities, would give the city the option of localizing the costs of improvements by creating a special district that does not include the entire city. Mayor Terry Nagel was initially inclined to put off a second capital-improvements measure until 2008, but she was persuaded by her colleagues on the council to consider a shorter timetable. Joined by Councilwoman Cathy Baylock and Vice Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony, Councilman Russ Cohen urged the council to "capitalize on the momentum" created by the campaign for Measure H. Waiting could allow the city's efforts to educate the public on the need for capital improvements to dissipate, Cohen argued. Councilwoman Ann Keighran worried that Burlingame residents, as well as volunteers and campaign donors, might be "burnt-out" and reluctant to engage in a second campaign right on the heels of Measure H, which received 5,765 votes Nov. 7, leaving it 228 votes short of the required 67 percent.
Measure H would have raised $39 million for storm drainage work and $5 million for seismic and safety improvements to city facilities. This time, the council will consider dropping the figure for flood-control work to $30 million, while narrowing its focus on the remaining work on the recreation center. Nagel expressed some reluctance to spend thousands of dollars to study a Mello-Roos tax if the reason is solely to appease Measure H opponents, who were led by a core group of five new homeowners. Baylock joked that the effort amounts to "bribery." But the council reached consensus on including the analysis. "I feel it is our duty to look at another option," Keighran said. City Manager Jim Nantell said the city will have only preliminary data on how a Mello-Roos tax would work by Jan. 16. Since the council would have to decide by Feb. 20 to put a general obligation bond on the June ballot, it won't have long to consider its options.
Richard Voon, a leading opponent of Measure H, said the council may be moving too quickly. "June does seem a little rushed," said Voon. "I personally would like to see a November election and spend a little more time studying this. "We'll be watching it closely to make sure that they are giving the appropriate consideration to the Mello-Roos," he said.
Nantell said holding the election in November would mean competing against the Burlingame School District, which is likely to put forth a capital-improvements bond of its own. Proponents of Measure H felt one reason it was defeated was the proliferation of state and local bond measures on the ballot. And if the election is held in June, right after the rains of winter subside, the deficiencies of the city's storm drainage may be fresh in voters' minds, Measure H supporters said. If the council decides to try a Mello-Roos tax, it will have the option of holding a mail-in election in August.
- Written by Fiona
Maybe the $20,000 spent on hiring a consultant to formulate and implement an equitable tax plan to accomplish the goals of Measure H would offer better results than the $150,000 the city spent to "educate/scare" (remember the outdated flood pictures) voters into voting "yes" this past November.
Posted by: dan | December 16, 2006 at 07:53 AM
Dan, I think there was at least a couple of photos from 2005 - which for those with long and short memories, is not that outdated. We even remember 2004, 2002 and even 1998. A neighbor's house in 1998 had a hole smashed into the side of the house from rushing water. That was powerful for me because it showed the power of water - unwelcome water. See photos.
I attended the meeting when they discussed spending money on a consultant and I hope that the Mello-Roos plan will turn out to be fairer for all and does not tick off any factions in this town - up in the hills or down in the dales.
Posted by: | December 16, 2006 at 04:10 PM
Dear Burlingame New(er) Homeowner:
Important update! Burlingame 's Measure H failed to pass on November 7th but another flood bond measure may be on its way shortly!!!
We had previously e-mailed you prior to the November 7th election, to share our group's concerns about Burlingame 's Measure H - the $44MM bond measure/30+ year property tax for flood and seismic infrastructure improvements. While Measure H ultimately failed at the polls, the City may be going back to voters within the next several months with another bond issue which could include the exact same assessed value? tax structure our group opposed in November.
Since the election, our group has been directly engaged with city officials to explore alternatives to the assessed value property tax structure proposed by Measure H which we believe would have significantly and unfairly burdened newer homeowners (we had estimated newer homeowners represented approximately 13% of all homeowners in Burlingame , but would be paying 30% of the tax!). While these discussions continue, we are concerned the City Council will rush to get another assessed value property tax structure on the ballot, without giving thorough consideration to other, fairer financing alternatives. Funds have recently been allocated by the City Council for a consultant to study various options, but we want to ensure the Council does not make a decision to proceed based on preliminary data/incomplete analysis. This is not just about spending money; it's a matter of the Council (our Board of Directors?) spending adequate time on the issue.
While we have always supported the underlying intent of Measure H, we assume there are inevitable political calculations involved in terms of the City Council expediting a second ballot initiative -- including the desire to spend whatever capital? remains from the prior campaign, a separate bond apparently planned in 2007 by the Burlingame School District which could conceivably compete? for voter/taxpayer funds, and the fact that two Council seats are up for re-election in November 2007.
We encourage you to write directly to our City Council Members, urging them to give adequate, deliberate consideration to ALL of the financing alternatives:
Mayor Terry Nagel: [email protected]
Vice Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony: [email protected]
Council Member Cathy Baylock: [email protected]
Council Member Russ Cohen: [email protected]
Council Member Ann Keighran: [email protected]
For more detail on what's been happening since the election, please see the article below from last Friday's San Mateo County Times. Thank you for your continued interest, and we'll keep you posted.
Posted by: | December 19, 2006 at 08:47 PM