Protect Burlingame

Fee heads to city's property owners (by Heather Murtagh, Daily Journal) An annual fee costing anywhere from an estimated $116 to $2,060 will go before Burlingame property owners in May after the City Council approved a ballot measure in an effort to raise $39 million for storm drain improvements. A fee based on storm drainage will go before property owners through an all-mail ballot May 5 after the City Council unanimously approved the measure last night. As a result, ballots will be mailed to property owners in early April. Ballots must be received not postmarked on that date by 8 p.m. with a signature. Ballots without a signature will not be counted. A simple majority is required to pass the measure. The effort came after a long battle to find an equitable way to raise money to replace aging, and in many cases broken, infrastructure. There is never going to be a good time to pay for this infrastructure. The problem is, the longer we wait, the more expensive it gets,? said Councilwoman Terry Nagel. Property owners now face an annual storm drain fee based on multiplying a parcel's square footage by the impervious area, the total of which would then be multiplied by about 4.2 cents per square foot for the fee total an estimated average of $150 per single-family household per year. The square foot rate can increase for inflation but no more than 2 percent annually. If approved, the fee would be in place for 30 years and a citizens oversight committee will be created. Property owner votes will be unweighted, meaning the owner of a hotel or apartment building, for example, would have only one vote regardless of the number of rooms. However, an owner of multiple properties would receive one vote per property. Not all property owners who attended last night's meeting welcomed the fee proposal calling it a method to circumvent Proposition 13. Others simply felt the fee was unnecessary. A number of speakers simply said clearing tree debris from drains would lessen flooding, offering a cheaper solution than the proposed fee. In addition, some questioned why the fee was not also imposed on Hillsborough residents since runoff from homes in the town often flow to Burlingame. The Burlingame City Council, however, does not have jurisdiction over another city. Murtuza explained the city is working with Hillsborough to limit runoff from new developments. Those opposed to the fee were in the minority. Many explained having no desire to pay more fees, but saw the need. This has the possibility of becoming a health issue and a real liability issue that will cause the city a lot of money,? said resident John Root. This is here and now and you've got to deal with it. The amount of emergency repairs we're having to do are depriving us from all the other things on the to-do list. Then you're stuck not doing the things you need to do. This is a basic flat fee. It's like maintenance, like replacing a roof. We've got to replace a system that's falling apart before it becomes a liability.? Not passing the measure means further budget cuts, said Public Works Director Syed Murtuza. Earlier this month, the council approved $2.3 million in savings and cuts. The need to cut back will increase three- to four-fold if the fee does not pass, Murtuza said. If the fee passes, a list of 10 capital improvement projects are slated to be funded including: pump station and pipeline at Easton Creek; bypass pipeline at Burlingame Creek; bypass pipeline at Ralston Creek; storm drainage improvements at Terrace Creek/Laguna area; widening and embankment improvements at Mills Creek; rehabilitation of El Portal, Trousdale and Gilbreth Creek; new Rollins Road pump station, debris basin and pipeline system project; citywide storm drainage and water quality; rehabilitation of deteriorated bridge and culvert structures under roadways; and upgrade storm drainage pump stations, said Murtuza. The battle to fund the improvements began in Burlingame over two years ago with Measure H a $44 million bond measure marginally defeated in November 2006. The narrow defeat was attributed to a small but vocal group of residents who felt the general obligation tax was unfair for new homeowners. The fee was one of three options previously discussed by the council early last year. Two other options were previously discussed a second attempt at a general obligation bond and a community facility district. A community facilities district allows for financing of public improvements and services. Creation would require a two-thirds voter approval. One downside of the fee option was a limitation on the funds. These funds can only be used for storm drainage purposes including maintenance and operations. Conversely, money from a bond measure could also be used for projects like sidewalks. For more information about the storm drain fee visit www.burlingame.org. A citizen group favoring the fee, Protect Burlingame, was already created. For more information on Protect Burlingame visit www.protectburlingame.org. *** Very impressive meeting where everyone had the chance to speak up for or against though interestingly no comment from the anti-Measure H group though there is quote from Lorne in the San Mateo Times (click here). Also very impressed with two councilmembers who were precise, clear, and had done their homework especially Mayor Keighran who kept a well organized meeting from going haywire because of a few in the audience who did not seem to know council protocol.

- Written by Fiona

Comments

FYI, just wanted to share this letter to the editor which was printed today, in response to the article above:

Assessing a home's value
Dear Editor: In the Jan. 18 article, Residents could face new fees for drains,? it is mentioned that the prior Burlingame Measure H storm drain tax that failed to pass in 2006 was based on the age of the building.? This is an incorrect defini tion of assessed value.
Assessed value is a function of when a home was acquired by the current owner, not the age of the home. In other words, two homes can have the same age, as well as the same economic market value, but different assessed values depend ing on when they were purchased by their respective current owners.
Lorne Abramson, Burlingame

[Susan]

Interesting that the city is just now ASKING to impose this fee. The Burlingame Hills was told that we will be paying upwards of $1,000 per household for an undefined period of time to upgrade the sewers. Another case of municipalities neglecting to budget for maintenance with the "taxes" we already pay--and then coming back to take fees. For those on fixed income with relatively low property taxes, this is a huge bite--and it seems never ending. Our "fixed" property taxes have risen about $3,000 in the last five years...

[Concerned]

Gavin delayed until after the recall vote, like any disingenuous unfaithful liar, to sign the developer pushed SB 9 and 10.
CA, which has attracted 47% of the nation’s homeless with promises of “free stuff” is now beyond repair.
None of these promised new housing units will be affordable.
This egomaniac is a poster child for the failure of the progressive strategy.