Further Info for Wednesday's Study Session

Last discussion for June tax measure (Daily Journal)

A $37 million property tax effort to keep the city of Burlingame from flooding and make certain city buildings are seismically safe will likely head to a special June ballot after a City Council vote Wednesday. At this time, it would be the only thing in front of local voters in June an appealing change from the situation in November when Burlingame's bond was seen to be lost among several multi-billion state infrastructure bond initiatives and local tax requests. But the June ballot is not a foregone conclusion as the council will consider other alternatives. There have been three proposals. It's important to stress, the bond measure is just one of three alternatives. We need to figure out which makes sense in terms of the tax that displeases the least number of people,? said Mayor Terry Nagel.

The proposed 30-year bond would issue four separate series of bonds for a total of $37 million, according to a report written by Finance Director Jesus Nava. The annual tax is based on the assessed value of a home. The current median assessed home value in Burlingame is worth $425,000, said Nava. Using that figure, tax payment would range from $17.72 up to $159.89 with an average annual payment of $96.86 over the 30-year repayment plan. Assessed value is often different than actual value since it is the price of the home when purchased. A special June election is estimated to cost $90,000. This cost would be covered through funds in the budget reserve, said Nava.

The battle to fund the much-needed city improvements began more than a year ago with Measure H a $44 million bond measure that was marginally defeated in November. The unsuccessful effort left city officials scrambling for a new solution. Deciding to keep the momentum and education fresh in the public's mind was the driving effort behind researching a second bond attempt.If the latest bond attempt is successful, it will not include improvements to the Easton Creek levee and catch basin or the Bayfront area. Prior to the final vote, however, the council will hold an hour-long study session to discuss the other funding options. Unfortunately, the details of these other plans weren't available to council members last week.

The council study session will be at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 21 at City Hall, conference room A, 501 Primrose Road. A vote will be held during the regular council meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 21 at City Hall in council chambers.

Additional article in San Mateo Times. (some interesting points below from this article, but go to the link for the whole article)

Under one scenario cited in the study, every single-family residence in Burlingame would pay an annual flat tax of $175 over the 30-year life of a community facilities district. Condominium owners would pay $123 and commercial properties would pay $871 per acre. Nantell said that based on these numbers a community facilities district would lower payments for owners of the most expensive homes, when compared with a general obligation bond, while increasing payments for the 30 percent of residents whose homes are assessed at less than $300,000. As for a $37 million general obligation bond, the study estimated that the owner of a home worth $548,000 would pay a maximum of $206 a year, a minimum of $23 and an average of $125 over the life of the tax.

Lorne Abramson, a leading opponent of Measure H, was shown the draft report last week in a meeting with its authors and city staff. "It looked rather encouraging (and)it would welcome additional thought and consideration," said Abramson, adding that his group would "vigorously oppose" an effort to pass a $37 million bond measure.

The consultants' report considered two other funding mechanisms benefit assessment districts and storm-drain user fees but did not recommend them to the council, partly because they might be susceptible to legal challenges.

Additional article in Daily News

- Written by Fiona

Comments

Does anyone recall what commercial properties, like hotels, paid in the previous scenario?

Hi Jen -- With regard to the previous scenario (Measure H) or any assessed value structure, cost ultimately depends on the how long a given commercial property has been owned, and its respective assessed value (just like for single family residential). Thus, newer commercial properties are penalized disproportionately versus longer-term commercial properties of similar size. Here are some points re: CFD vs. GO/assessed value that we have shared with the City.

1. CFD provides certainty to renters and businesses that lease property in Burlingame (under GO these constituents would likely have no idea what the assessed value of the property is)

2. CFD is more friendly to newer and future businesses (as with the residential sector, a GO bond would put more of a burden on new commercial/industrial property owners vs. those that have been in Burlingame for a long time)

3. GO/assessed value places more of a burden on recent and future commercial/industrial property owners

Also, one other point: The $175 figure for a CFD is just one preliminary scenario -- but please do bear in mind this equates to $14.58 per month!!! I assume this is a very reasonable cost/investment for all of us single family residential property owners/taxpayers to bear for necessary flood infrastructure improvemnets.

Thank you Lorne. Can Seniors opt out? $14 isn't horrible for most people, but for seniors, it can be. And if the Seniors can opt out, what does that do the the rest of the assessment (as far as coming up with the total necessary?)

Hi Jen -- My understanding is that a CFD would allow a means-tested deferral for seniors, just as Measure H offered: http://www.burlingamepublicsafety.org./seniors.v4.pdf

Not sure how this impacts the $175 fixed rate scenario, and how many seniors in our community qualify for this deferral i.e., income less than $24K (as of 2005), per the above link. I do think $14.58 is pretty darn reasonable for the community, overall, for upgrading our flood infrastructure needs.

Here is another link to info re: property tax deferral program offered to qualified senior citizens under Measure H, and any consequent successor tax (including a CFD):

http://www.sco.ca.gov/col/taxinfo/ptp/geninfo/description.shtml#1