John Horgan's Column, San Mateo County Times, December 8, 2008:
OWNERS of property in Burlingame are going to have their vocabularies expanded soon. A proposed increase in the town's property tax will see to that.
The planned tax hike, proceeds from which would be used to pay for storm-drain renovations, would be unique in the town.
For one thing, not every registered voter would be able to cast a ballot in the mail-only election on May 5. If the City Council goes forward with this exercise, as fully anticipated, each piece of property would get one vote. A simple majority would be needed for passage. If a parcel is owned by more than one person, it would still be allowed just that single vote. Renters would have no say whatsoever. Then there is the sensitive matter of precisely how much each chunk of taxable land would be assessed. All parcels are not created equal, not by a long shot.
The city has undertaken a comprehensive review of every property within its borders. And a determination has been made as to the impact of each one on the storm-drain system. That's where key wording comes into play. So get out your friendly Webster's. Guiding the hamlet's analysis is the concept of "impervious square footage." That's square footage that won't allow water to be absorbed, such as concrete, plastic, metal or wood.
A parcel would be taxed according to its amount of such square footage, which is increased by things such as driveways, patios, swimming pools, tennis courts and decks. So, big houses with lots of concrete or wooden amenities would be hit fairly hard, as would hotels and other businesses with large parking lots.
Each unit in a condominium complex would receive an assessment based on its percentage of the setup's total impervious square footage.
The city staff has estimated that a typical storm-drain tax in bureaucratic parlance, it's dubbed a "fee" in this overall scenario would run in the neighborhood of about $150. Why is Burlingame taking such a convoluted approach to securing an estimated $39 million for its proposed capital-improvement projects? In 2006, a traditional bond measure was attempted. It required a two-thirds vote for approval. It failed, but just barely. A vocal cadre of relatively new homeowners was deemed at least partially responsible for Measure H's defeat.
They argued that they had paid top dollar for their manses and that the state's tax system forced them to bear way too much of the Measure H burden. Fearful of another knockout at the polls, the city's policymakers opted to concoct this latest alternative in the hope that it wouldn't be as offensive to those prior critics. In essence, the City Council has decided to bow to the wishes of the newcomers.
Will it work? Let's put it this way: If a longtime Burlingame homeowner who bought his home before the implementation of Prop. 13 is paying a total property tax of $2,000 per year, that new $150 bill would represent a 7.5 percent increase, roughly twice what the Measure H bond formula would have imposed.
Obviously, the council is counting on the goodwill of its well-established taxpayers in this matter, even during very tough economic times.
It may be a gamble worth taking. Burlingame's infrastructure needs an upgrade. There isn't much debate about that. It's only the method of funding that remains a sticking point in some quarters.
A special hearing on all of this will be held Jan. 20.
- Written by Joanne
I am very offended by the term "concoct" in this article.
I believe what is being proposed by the city is a "fair and balanced" solution to a tax that we all need to chip in for.
Lets be real about this..
The impact on flooding in one part of the city effects the whole city. It is a drain on every publics work dept. over and over again. Not to forget the spillage into SF Bay that we are being fined for.
The cost is more or less the price we are now paying for the passing of Prop 13.
Remember that?
Posted by: Holy Roller | December 12, 2008 at 01:37 AM