Resident Doubts Belmont City Motives for Tax Measure I
10/10/16
A letter from resident Kristin Mercer
Mr. Kennan’s letter to the editor mentions the need for greater transparency from Belmont Officials. I AGREE!
I was originally pleased when Council formed the “Infrastructure Committee” in 2014, but it quickly became evident it was in fact a “Tax Measure Committee”. The meetings were led by the Finance Director, not the Public Works director. And at the first meeting he opened with “This committee is tasked with identifying revenue sources for infrastructure”.
Instead of establishing a policy to prioritize projects, or making a 5-year budget to see how far our already growing revenues would get us, their FIRST action was to hire a pollster to ascertain voter’s stomach for a TAX. The poll results were not good, so they then hired another consultant to market the idea of a tax for infrastructure.Finally, when a second poll indicated voters would still not approve a tax, the “Infrastructure Committee” recommended AGAINST putting it on the ballot. That was 2015 – the last time the committee officially met.
Fast forward to 2016 and staff independently hired a third poll, and recommended Council put the measure on the ballot – claiming it was the “Committee” recommendation, when in fact the Committee had not met publicly for a year. I do not buy their story. Several financial professionals have examined the data and assert the city has growing revenue to improve streets. Witness the 5 large commercial projects under construction, adding a 10% revenue bump alone! Something doesn’t add up, and I’m not willing to commit my unborn grandchildren to a tax until 2046, based on staff manipulation. Especially not a General Tax, that will be used for anything that staff manipulates future councils into buying. I VOTE NO on Measure I.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
November 8, 2016 Belmont residents vote for/against Measure I, a half-cent sales tax for “general purposes”, meaning any General Fund type expenditure, including salaries, pensions, drains, etc.
The City cannot, specifically indicate how $1.3 million raised annually for the next 30 years would be spent since Measure I only requires 50% voter approval.
The City’s ballot statement reads the $1.3 million “would provide funding for maintaining general City of Belmont services/facilities such as ……… “.
“Such as” means “including, but not limited to”.
belmont.gov states:
“Measure I would generate around $1.3 Million annually and could” (repeat could) “be used to address aging infrastructure items such as such as pothole repair, repairing and maintaining neighborhood streets, storm drain repair as well as public safety services.”
The City’s pleas for funds for sub-standard roads which have dismal average pavement condition indices (P.C.I.’s) of 56 overall and 52 for residential streets are understandable.
This deplorable situation has resulted from the City’s decade long underfunding of the overlay/top sealing of roads with abysmal P.C.I.’s.
But the $39 million ($1.3 x 30 years) Measure I, without any guarantees that the greater proportion of the $39 million would be spent on roads, is not the answer.
Instead, the City should propose a specific tax measure with a 2/3 majority. But first the City will need to be much more transparent about the costs of, and existing available funds for, improving residential streets.
Meanwhile refuse the City’s no accountability “blank check” request.
Belmont's Proposed Half-Cent Transaction and Use (Sales) Tax for General Purposes
7/26/16
Letter from Resident Perry Kennan
On the Agenda for tonight’s (7-26-2016) Belmont City Council meeting is a Staff Report by City Manager, Greg Scoles, recommending the City "Consider Calling for a Special Municipal Election Seeking Voter Approval of a Half-Cent Transaction and Use (Sales) Tax for General Purposes."
How did this item get on the Agenda? Where is the recommendation from the Infrastructure Committee which has not met in over a year?
Do Belmont's Council Protocols permit the City Manager to recommend the Council, under “Other Business” at a meeting, “CONSIDER” a proposed major ACTION by the Council and at the SAME meeting adopt a resolution taking the ACTION. The City Manager is not talking here about fixing potholes or approving a contract. He recommends the Council take a major action tonight on something that will have a major impact on residents and Belmont businesses.
The City Manager’s Staff Report is not exactly a well written and convincing document. It states the half cent tax is needed in order to:
1) Maintain 911 emergency response times and neighborhood police patrols.
2) Fix streets
3) Improve deteriorated storm drains and protect the water quality of our creeks.
4) Develop sources of revenue that cannot be hijacked by the State.
A major deficiency of the Report is that it omits any financial projections for the years 2016 to (say) 2025 supporting the City’s cry for help?
As regards the four areas of need listed above:
1) Police. Did the City really pay $50,000, or whatever, for two surveys by consultants to learn safety is the number one concern of Belmont citizens? They might just as well have asked citizens if they beat their spouses. One question the consultants did not ask was "Should Belmont consider switching to another provider of police services?" Per one estimate based on San Carlos the potential saving is nearly $1 million annually. I do not favor such a switch myself but other residents might feel differently.
2) Fix streets. Many times have I spoken at council meetings on the need for the City Council to schedule a council meeting to establish goals for "fix". These pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Fix means bring the three classes of streets (arterial, collector and residential) up to a certain standard as measured by their pavement condition indices (P.C.I.s). Many citizens believe that the City Manager has a philosophy of "Staff knows best; Leave it to Us; No, we don't need citizen Help, and that's why we dispensed with the Finance Commission".
3) Improve storm drains. The most current report in the Infrastructure Binder in the Belmont Library is a report dated 2007. So, where does the City stand today? Stop the scare stories. Give residents the facts and the dollars available compared with the dollars needed.
4) Sacramento. The only way to stop the state from purloining Belmont revenues is to secede from California (a la what Texas maintains it has the option to do). In any event, the State is currently flush with funds and a raid on Belmont's Treasury is unlikely at this time.
In summary, the City Manager has dropped the ball. Insufficient financial information provided to residents too late in the day. This is an example of the “solution” being presented to residents without the “problem” having been properly defined. In the San Mateo Daily Journal it was stated "Let's see what the residents want”. Good. I concur. BUT first define the problem.
The draft ordinance may be an attempt by the City to fly a trial balloon. Instead a lead balloon seems a more likely description because the Staff Report’s lack of supporting data, which absence will be received negatively by voters.
Continuing metaphorically, the City Manager’s proposal looks like a "Hail Mary Pass", if not a bomb (in NFL parlance) or a floater, which will bomb.
I think it is highly possible that tonight wisdom will prevail and the City Council will decline to approve the draft half cent sales tax resolution and ordinance submitted by the City Manager.
Belmont Officials Cut Corners in Pursuing New Taxes
7/24/16
Guest Article by Timothy E. Strinden
At the Belmont City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 26th, the Council will consider placing a measure on the November ballot to raise the City's sales tax rate from 9.0% to 9.5%, to help pay for infrastructure and other general services. Raising the rate to 9.5% will make it higher than all but one other city in San Mateo County, and higher than 99% of California cities.
I have opposed a tax increase as unnecessary for more than a year, but would also like to highlight the lack of transparency and due process by City officials in pursuing a tax hike. In response to her request, I sent the following email to Daily Journal Reporter Samantha Weigel on 7/22/16, for use in an article she was writing on the proposed ballot measure:
Dear Samantha,
Not only is the proposed sales tax unnecessary, but the process leading to it has been lacking in transparency and due process. Belmont's Infrastructure Committee is tasked with overseeing public opinion surveys and making recommendations to the City Council on funding for infrastructure, but there is no record of the Committee meeting since June of last year:
Instead, City Manager Greg Scoles seems to have usurped the authority of the Committee by contracting for this year's survey and proposing the sales tax increase without proper consideration and recommendations by the Committee, or opportunity for public input.
The Staff Report states that the City Council on June 28th "directed the Council's Infrastructure Subcommittee to work with staff to identify proposed solutions," and that "the Council's Infrastructure Subcommittee recommends the Council consider this ballot measure." There is no public record of this happening:
Before consideration by the Council, the survey questions and results should have been discussed at a public meeting of the Infrastructure Committee with the opportunity for public comment. At the very least, the survey report, including the questions and results, should have been included in the agenda for the Council meeting on Tuesday, which it has not:
I previously asked City Manager Scoles for the survey narrative and questions, but he wouldn't provide them to me. The wording of the narrative and questions is important to determine whether participants were misled.
The proposed Resolution falsely states that "current and projected City revenues are insufficient to maintain the City's infrastructure at its present deteriorated condition and prevent accelerating decline in the condition of the City's streets and storm drains."
This is clearly false because the City has been spending much more than the $1.2 million needed to maintain the City's streets this year and last year, and it would cost only $1.7 million to replace the City's metal storm drain pipes, which are the only pipes that are deteriorated. The remaining concrete and plastic pipes are only about halfway through their 100-year estimated lives.
New projected revenue sources will provide more than the $1.3 million per year from the half-cent sales tax, and are enough by themselves to bring the City's infrastructure into acceptable condition over time. I calculate that the planned Marriott and Hilton hotels will generate revenue of at least $1.5 million per year, and other large developments under construction or in the planning stages, including CSUS, will add hundreds of thousands more dollars. So, there is no need for a new sales tax.
Plus, the proposed sales tax is a general tax that may be used for any City purpose. There is no guarantee that the proceeds will be used to pay for infrastructure, or that they won't be used for increased staff salaries and benefits.
The proposed Resolution declares that the urgent need for additional revenue is an "emergency," because the California constitution states that Belmont voters may vote on general tax measures only in odd-numbered years, unless the Council unanimously declares an emergency. There is clearly no emergency in this case because current and projected revenues are adequate to maintain and steadily improve the City's infrastructure.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
An Op-Ed by Timothy E. Strinden, published in the San Mateo Daily Journal June 27, 2016
As it did in a major misinformation campaign last year at this time, Belmont is again exaggerating the nature of its infrastructure problems to gain support for tax increases to pay for them. Although the City’s financial condition and future prospects are the best they’ve been in many years, City Manager Greg Scoles claims in Belmont’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Brief that “the City’s infrastructure is in crisis,” and provides false and misleading information to support this conclusion.
The Resolution to adopt the City’s budget at its June 28 City Council meeting states, “this urgent need constitutes an emergency that requires immediate extraordinary action to address.” It is irresponsible of City officials to foment panic over this issue when there is no real infrastructure crisis or emergency.
The City claims that deferred infrastructure costs total over $135 million, but a more reasonable estimate is about $54 million, based on my research last year at this time, as explained in three articles I wrote for Belmont Watch online. I found that over half the amount claimed for streets and storm drains is unnecessary, and the inclusion of $25 million to replace the Barrett Community Center is a luxury the City can’t afford.
The City reduced the amount for streets from $50 million last year to $42 million this year, mainly because last year’s estimate was based on data that was obsolete at the time. The figure of $42 million is still unrealistic because it includes $38 million to raise Belmont’s streets from a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 56 to an “optimal” PCI of 82, which is higher than for any other city in San Mateo County. Instead, City officials should consider lower and more affordable PCI goals.
The Budget Brief states that the City needs $57 million to upgrade its storm drains, and that it has a "50-year-old, deteriorated storm drain infrastructure." However, 94.5% of its storm drains are either reinforced concrete or plastic, with an expected life of 100 years, and they are only about halfway through their useful life. So, the system is far from “deteriorated.”
City officials should focus on the most critical storm drain needs, which total only about $10 million. The City claims in a Staff Report for the Council meeting Tuesday that “many of our pipes are completely deteriorated and rusted through.” This greatly distorts the problem because the metal pipes subject to rusting constitute only 5.5% of the City’s pipes, and would cost only about $1.7 million to replace. The other high priority is installing storm drains where none currently exist, for an estimated $8.4 million.
The City should drop its plan to spend $21 million to replace perfectly good drain pipe that backs up once every 10 years due to heavy rains, because the gutters are adequate to handle the overflow and it’s a minor inconvenience with which we can live.
Belmont’s improving finances are sufficient to fund infrastructure needs in the foreseeable future. The 2015 Staff Report on Street Pavement Condition estimated it would cost only $1.2 million per year to maintain the City's streets. For FY 2016, the City budgeted $1.5 million to pavement repair ("overlay") alone, which is more than enough to maintain and improve the streets. For FY 2017, the Budget Brief says the City will allocate more than $1 million in “additional relief” for streets, and the FY 2017 Budget shows dedicated revenues of $3.1 million for Street Maintenance and Improvements from the gas tax and grants (Funds 231 and 234).
In addition, I calculate that transient occupancy, or hotel, taxes from the planned Marriott and Hilton hotels will generate revenue for Belmont of at least $1.5 million per year, which could be earmarked for streets and storm drains. So, there appear to be enough long-term revenue sources to ensure our streets and storm drains steadily improve in condition without raising taxes.
City Manager Scoles claimed that a recent survey of some residents indicated support for increased taxes for infrastructure and other purposes, but he would not provide me with the survey questions to see if they were worded to indicate there was a crisis with no solution except new taxes. If so, the survey results may be meaningless.
After the City’s outreach campaign last year, a survey found that only 42% of residents supported a utility users tax (UUT) and 52% supported a sales tax increase. While it dropped plans for a UUT, the Infrastructure Committee decided to continue to pursue a sales tax in the future, even though Scoles said the $1 million or $2 million it would generate wouldn’t be enough to solve the City’s problems.
So, why aren’t City officials looking at alternatives besides increased taxes, like prioritizing and focusing on the most critical problems, instead of spending more money on polling and outreach?
3/16/15
An open letter to Belmont Vice Mayor and Audit Committee Vice Chairman Eric Reed.
From Belmont Resident Perry Kennan:
Mr. Vice Mayor,
The Audit Committee has replaced all the responsibilities (of) the Finance Commission.
Finance Commission meetings were televised, as well they should have been. Audit Committee meetings are not televised, but should be, in the minds of many citizens as well as in the interests of governmental transparency.
Please champion, at a not too distant Council meeting (preferably the March 24, 2015 meeting) the introduction to City Council of an agenda item regarding the televising of Audit Committee meetings.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Perry Kennan
With voters tired of parcel taxes, the City has set in motion a plan to ask voters for a utility tax on electricity, gas, telephone, cellular, cable, water and garbage. The ostensible purpose of the tax is to repair streets, storm drains and city facilities; but once in place, the funds can be used for a variety of municipal service needs, fully at the discretion of the city council [4]. Your added utility taxes may in fact fund pensions, youth activities, police, fire or any other service the Council favors. And there’s more: The City has spent $118,000 on consultants to sell this tax idea to voters in the November 2015 election.
AN INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR COMMITTEE - BUT NO REPAIRS
In March 2014 the Council created an Infrastructure Repair Ad-Hoc Committee to identify a means of funding Belmont’s infrastructure maintenance. The Committee consists of Councilmembers Stone and Reed, Finance Commissioners Ashby and McCune, and Treasurer Violet. Their official objectives include: identifying alternatives for funding the City’s infrastructure needs; selecting and overseeing the work of a public opinion pollster; making recommendations to Council based on the survey results; and providing guidance on electoral activities relating to the funding alternatives. [1]
It’s called the Infrastructure Repair Committee but they have no mission to repair, or even analyze what needs repair, set repair priorities and standards, or budget for it. Nor has the Committee spent any time discussing non-tax alternatives for funding the City’s infrastructure needs. The Committee’s entire mission is to determine the best tax strategy.
GODBE POLLING RESULTS
In May 2014 Godbe Research conducted phone interviews of 304 likely Belmont voters at a cost of $30,000. The City has refused to reveal the survey questions, so readers are asked to trust the researchers interpretation of the responses. The researchers identified the following top 5 needs in order of priority [2]:
- Maintain 9-1-1 emergency response times.
- Fix potholes and repairing streets, sidewalks and storm drains.
- Maintain parks, open space, and sports fields.
- Maintain after-school programs for children and teens.
- Maintain senior services including health, nutrition and transportation programs.
One might wonder if the survey questions were designed to get the pre-determined answers the Committee wanted. If they’re addressing infrastructure, why are they asking residents about 911 service and after-school programs? Could it be an effort to justify a general tax, instead of a parcel tax? the Godbe survey indicated that only 55.8% of the likely voters supported any new tax [2]. But a parcel tax measure requires 66 ⅔ %, whereas a general tax requires only 50% voter approval [3]. So it’s safer to try for a general tax, requiring only 50% voter approval.
PLUS, general tax revenues can be used for any purpose the Council chooses, whereas parcel tax revenues must be used for the specified purpose, e.g., street repairs. Thus, in order to have the look and feel of a general tax, the proposal lumps in other “nice-to-have” services like youth and senior programs.
And why a general utility tax - on electricity, gas, telephone, cellular, cable, water and garbage? Because, under California law, once voters have approved a general utility tax, the City Council can use the revenue for whatever they want, and it only requires 50% voter approval to increase the tax [4].
Should taxpayers demand a specific tax to dedicate 100% of the proceeds to infrastructure maintenance needs? After all, wasn’t this the objective of the Committee – to identify funding alternatives for the City’s infrastructure maintenance needs?
SELLING THE GENERAL UTILITY TAX TO RESIDENTS
On October 14, 2014, the Council approved the hiring of The Lew Edwards Group for $88,000 to “provide communications outreach and consulting services to assist the City in engaging the public on the need for the infrastructure revenue measure.”[5] In other words, a campaign manager to promote the new utility user tax. It’s anticipated that the campaign will begin in early 2015.
The consultant outlined how they would conduct community outreach to “identify resident concerns.” Council already spent $30,000 on the Godbe resident survey to identify resident concerns, but apparently that didn’t do the job – they need another consultant to conduct outreach in order to decide if residents want better streets, storm drains and facilities, and how much they are willing to pay for them.
So, in order to raise the funds for infrastructure maintenance, the City wants to spend additional money on “nice-to-have” services. Does this make sense? And the Council is spending $118,000 of taxpayers’ money to convince us that these are needed services in order to sell a general utility user tax on the November 2015 ballot.
