Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

Heather's article in the Daily Journal: (with photo)- Measure H will address flood issues

Sandbags have lined Easton Creek in Burlingame for three years since the water passageway is overwhelmed by rainfall annually. Safer city buildings and less flooding in the future are the goals Burlingame official hope to accomplish with Measure H the $44 million bond measure on the November ballot. The council unanimously approved the bond measure, Measure H, which will focus $37 million to flood control and $7 million to health and safety upgrades needed in city buildings in June. If approved, the planned projects will only take a chunk out of the $110 million laundry list of capital improvement updates needed in the city. Nobody thinks about this stuff until it starts raining. Like last year, everyone was talking about [the flooding],? said Public Works Director George Bagdon.

The bulk of the money will go to various storm drain improvements. The city-wide storm drain system includes five major watershed areas: Easton, Burlingame and Ralston, Sanchez and Terrace, El Portal and Trousdale and Mills. The watershed areas are old, not reinforced and flood frequently. Sandbags have lined the Easton Creek area for nearly three years, said Senior Engineer Doug Bell. Some business owners have taken it upon themselves to build a small wooden fence atop the dirt slopes to prevent floods near Mills Creek. Most water pumps have a 20-year work life. The pumps at the Marsten Pump Station have lasted 50 years, said Bell. The Easton Creek runs past the Marsten Pump Station. The old pumps can be easily overwhelmed causing water to be pushed over the dirt wall lined with sandbags and into the Easton Creek. The creeks are often overwhelmed with water coming from the city toward the bay and bay water traveling down the creeks, said Bagdon. Increasing development added to the problems. The more houses, libraries and buildings built the less natural ground to absorb some of the rain water, said Bagdon. This puts more pressure on the various creeks. Only one of these waterways is lined with cement, the others retain a naturally lined with dirt and plants. These waterways can maintain during the beginning of the rainy seasons but can become less firm as water begins to saturate the area, said Bagdon. The remainder of the funds would be used for seismic, safety and disability access at the police and fire stations, city hall and the recreation center. The recreation center will receive multiple updates such as reinforcement to the walls and ceilings, updates to the heating and ventilation systems and a new location for the wiring system. Temperature control in the large room, which houses a stage, can be a problem. One system is used for the entire room which can take hours to heat up or cool down, said Recreation Supervisor Lynn Mutto. It can be especially tough when performers want cool air and the audience is freezing, she said. The boiler was built in the '30s making finding replacement parts a chore. It's so antique you could sell this thing on Ebay,? said Syed Murtuza, assistant director of public works. To pay for all the changes the city hopes to charge a property tax of $31.97 per $100,000 of the assessed value of the property, said Sean Powers, representative from Government Financial Strategies Inc. This would cause the homeowner of a $300,000 home to pay $95.91, the owner of a $700,000 home $223.79 and the owner of a $1 million home $319.70 per year. If the city were to do a flat parcel tax of $150 per year instead the city would only raise $17.6 million. The revenues would drop to $12 million if the city gave a senior exemption.

For more information visit http://www.burlingamepublicsafety.org.

– Written by Fiona

Posted in

27 responses to “Selling it on Ebay”

  1. Anonymous

    I hope that if the bond measure is successful and the Rec Center is retrofitted with all the safety measures needed, we can discuss a gazillion dollar new rec center when we have the funds/leadership to really do it properly.

    There is a perfect place for it where there will be no problems from the Washington Park residents, no “green” space gobbled up by concrete, no businesses/residences have to be destroyed and it will utilize a city-owned parking lot.

    What a novel concept – a better use for one of our on-grade city parking lots!

  2. Angela

    Fiona that is a wonderful idea.

    I am glad the parking lots are city owned because they can be part of the downtown plan.

  3. dan

    the daily journal continues to support measure h so blndly,,,i wonder if any of their reporters are city homeowners and would actually vote to raise their own taxes?!?!

  4. Anonymous

    Dan, how do you suggest we fix the flood problem?

    Yes I am a homeowner and no I do not live in the worst flood areas of Burlingame but I will be voting for Measure H. I attended a meeting where Mr. Bagdon explained the flood problems we have including showing us photos of past floods that spoke volumes (just in case we have short memories) and convinced me that this is a problem that needs fixing. I don’t think Mr. Gates or Mr. Lucas will be coming to our rescue on this one so perhaps it is up to us ….

  5. Anonymous

    Have you read the material? This is bare bones work, not the extensive building projects talked about under other Councils. Basic seismic stuff, basic repairs and replacing pump stations that are completely overloaded and have been for years.

    I don’t want to pay more taxes, who does? I certainly wouldn’t support a new community center/city hall at this point, but that isn’t what this is about. We have to at least maintain some kind of basic standards.

    I have lived here long enough to see the kind of regular flooding that happens all over in the middle of this town. It may not flood my house, but someday, it could. Certainly it floods the streets that I use everyday. I will also be voting for this one.

  6. Rich Grogan

    What I do not understand is, if the city had knowledge for years that reducing the surface are of drainable material, dirt, grass, etc; why has the city continued to allow construction that restricts this this drainage?

    Do we need houses with larger footprints? What is wrong with reducing the surface footprint and allowing more square footage basements, etc.

    Do we need larger cement driveways, how about requiring driveways to be of a material that allows water drainage?

    Do we need larger parking lots? How about above or below grade parking structures?

    Just a thought

  7. Anonymous

    Rich, you might find this article from United Airlines Hemisphere’s magazine interesting (I fly too much!!!)

    http://www.hemispheresmagazine.com/sept06/shade

    It is scary how much of the urban forest is being eroded and here in Burlingame we see examples all over. Have you checked how many stumps are in the eucalytpus grove alongside California Drive north of Oak Grove!

  8. Anonymous

    You know Rich, you are right about that. These ideas would all help the situation, and they are things that could be done at the City Council and planning level. The huge homes do put a burden on our infrastructure, absolutely. Maybe the city should establish a scaled fee schedule, with surcharges when houses are over a certain footprint, or have 4 or 5 bathrooms. These big homes do require more infrastructure than the smaller, modest ones. The run-off also ends up affecting the neighbors too, if there are no drains around.

  9. Rich Grogan

    Admin

    Thank you for sharing that great article from United Airlines Hemisphere’s magazine. I hope all, who read this blog will take the time to read the article; it is an eye opener.

    Today, while on a bike ride with my daughter and a neighbor we passed a house on Vancouver south of Easton the had a SOLD sign on the lawn and in the parking strip there were two, recently cut, large stumps marked for removal.

    Ah yes, Burlingame The City of Trees, or maybe not.

  10. dan

    fiona/jen, i do not discount the benefits to the city infrastructure. the problem is that newer residents will grossly pay a disproportionate amount of the bond. we all benefit equally, so we should pay equally.

    at the city council meeting that the council members approved this repayment structure, other payment options were briefly discussed that would have been more equitable to all homeowners. the council chose this type of repayment based on “assessed property value” which shifts the repayment to more of the residents that moved here in the last 5-7 years.

    beware!!! there is NO CAP on the amount you will repay! since the bond will be sold in $5-10 million sections over the next 10 years, if interest rates go up, we each will be stuck with having to pay even more than the city would lead you to believe based on their “educational/lobbying” materials.

    v/r to all,,,, dan

  11. james

    Why are you ranting against a tax structure that has been approved for many other taxes dating back to the late ’70s? We’ve been using assessed value for almost 30 years in California and much longer in Eastern states that use a “mil rate” approach.

    Try to look on the bright side: If we were to apply a flat tax, commercial properties would pay less than 10% of the burden. Under the assessed value method, commercial properties will pay more than 25% of the tax.

    You appear to have lost the forest for the trees–or maybe you are really a big owner of business buildings in disguise? If you are not it is counter productive for the very people you THINK you are helping. Get informed!

  12. James, I think many business owners are for the bond measure, since a majority of business property has the potential to flood.

    I think new homeowners in the Burlingame hills might see less benefit than business owners. Most business owners and landlords will not be able to vote on this bond measure.

    I could argue for or against this bond measure and make very valid points for either side. I see the inequity that new home owners will face with this bond measure. I think the older home owners might not be sympathetic because they are not a cash strapped (in general) as are the new owners with very large mortgages.

    By the way James, I think Dan’s a doctor and a resident.

  13. James, I love the ‘we’re sticking it to the business owners worse than we’re sticking it to you’ argument.

  14. Anonymous

    September 27, 2006
    Dear Editor:

    We disagree with the San Mateo Daily Journal’s support of Measure H (September 20, 2006). While we embrace the underlying intent of the measure to improve Burlingame’s flood and seismic infrastructure, the fine details of the tax formula are inequitable to many Burlingame homeowners.

    Specifically, the tax is based on assessed value (not market value); it is thus analogous to Proposition 13. City residents who benefit from equal services should pay equally. Homeowners and business owners who purchased property in Burlingame in the last 5-7 years will likely pay $500- 1000 more per year for the next 20-40 years. Since all citizens reap the same potential benefit (in terms of improved infrastructure and property values), regardless of when they purchased their property, we support a flat parcel tax (similar to State Proposition 88 on the November ballot for school improvements) or a more equitable alternative.

    If you share our concern and you are interested in campaigning against Measure H, please e-mail us at: AGAINSTMEASUREH@HOTMAIL.COM

    Lorne Abramson, CFA, CFP
    Daniel Glatt, MD
    Lawrence Lustig, MD
    Richard Voon

  15. flooded james

    Just because someone is a doctor doesn’t mean he or she isn’t a commercial property owner. In fact, the odds might go up. Just look at the letter above.

    If Fred can’t figure out that someone is calling for a change on this issue that would actually cost the people he THINKS he is helping when it’s obvious that’s Fred’s problem.

    If it is true, I’m glad commercial property owners are mostly for the tax-bond. When will they be speaking up about it?

  16. Anonymous

    To clarify, James, we’re a currently group of Burlingame home owners, not commercial property owners. For those of interested in following our efforts — go to
    http://www.againstmeasureh.com

  17. James, business owners would be wise to avoid endorsing a tax on residents. I just think most won’t mind paying their fair share.

  18. Anonymous

    FYI — Front page story from today’s print edition of the Burlingame Daily News, re: Burlingame Measure H:
    ———————
    Thursday Oct 5

    Group embittered by flood bond

    Recent homeowners call levying of Measure H unfair

    By Kristina Peterson

    After enjoying seemingly unchallenged support, Burlingame’s flood bond measure on the November ballot is facing its first opposition from a group of young property owners unhappy with its financing structure.

    “We are not anti-tax, nor are we against flood infrastructure improvements, but we do have serious concerns about the financial details of the bond measure,” said Lorne Abramson, one of the creators of the Web site, http://www.againstmeasureh.com.

    If approved by two-thirds of voters in November, Measure H would authorize the city to sell $44 million in bonds to fund projects that would strengthen the pipes, levees, pumps and catch basins of the city’s 75-year-old flood infrastructure. In addition, $7 million would go toward making several public buildings seismically safe and handicap-accessible.

    Property owners would pay for the bonds depending on the assessed value of their homes, at an average rate of $32 per year for each $100,000 of assessed value for 30 years.

    “Properties are assessed when they are purchased or major improvements are made, so for most properties, the current assessed value is far below market value,” a city pamphlet on the measure states.

    But for those who recently bought their homes, the assessed value is much higher than that for someone who moved in decades ago — the crux of the new war being waged between longtime and relatively new residents.

    “This places an unfair burden on new Burlingame homeowners,” Abramson said.

    Defining a “new homeowner” as someone who moved to the city within the last three years, he pointed out that while this group only represents 13 percent of the city’s population, it will pay 31 percent of the bond’s tax.

    Richard Voon, who moved to Burlingame in September 2005, agreed that the assessed value of one’s home is not the best way to determine how much residents should pay.

    “The average homeowner in Burlingame will pay $122 per year for a total of $3,776, while the average person who’s bought a home here in the past three years will pay $363 per year, for a total of $11,243,” said Voon.

    Syed Murtuza, Burlingame’s assistant director of public works, said that while “no tax can ever be fair to all people,” the structure of Measure H “benefits the maximum number of people.”

    Both sides agree that 90 percent of residents will pay less under Measure H than if a flat parcel tax were issued in which every property owner paid $339.24 per year.

    At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, longtime resident Charles Voltz said that he was initially upset over his relatively higher property taxes when he moved into town 20 years ago, but in time changed his mind.

    “There were many amenities there that I had not paid for that were already there … As a newcomer, I was a free rider,” Voltz said.

    Abramson countered that “from another demographics perspective,” the current prices of Burlingame homes “reflect paying for those amenities.”

    E-mail Kristina Peterson at kpeterson@dailynewsgroup.com.

  19. According to city officials with whom we’ve spoken, there are apparently SEVERAL different financing alternatives available for flood infrastructure improvements. These alternatives are NOT limited to just an assessed value property tax (the current proposal) OR flat parcel taxes. OTHER alternatives may include a Mello-Roos tax, a general utility tax or a dedicated utility tax.

    We believe all citizens reap the same flood infrastructure benefit, regardless of when they purchased their property. The City Council should go back to the drawing board and explore other financing methods that offer more certainty and fairness to Burlingame taxpayers.

  20. Anonymous

    The question was posed to City Attorney Larry Anderson and the answer is included below. Also, there is plenty of information on Mello-Roos districts in California cities and it is generally used in newly developed areas with a small improvement area to provide for baseline infrastructure.

    Also, regarding a flat tax, 90% of property owners will pay less under Measure H than under a flat tax. “Against Measure H” must convince 90% of the property owners to pay more in order to make the measure more fair to the 10%. Also, under a flat tax, commercial property owners would only shoulder 8% of the burden, whereas with Measure H, 27% of the debt is repaid by commercial property owners. Please see City Attorney Anderson’s analysis of Mello-Roos tax districts as it relates to the City of Burlingame:

    “Here is brief outline of the key factors in Mello-Roos (Community Facility District) financing:

    The bonds are used for capital improvements

    Mello-Roos districts are primarily formed (requires 2/3 majority vote) in new developments to raise funds for capital work and public services

    Bonds are issued and secured by levy of special tax on property within district.

    Special tax is not an ad-valorem property tax, but can be collected through property tax bill

    Formation of a district is complicated and designing the rate and apportionment of the special tax to property owners can be difficult, confusing, and politically sensitive

    Mello-Roos districts can also fund ongoing operations and services

    As we discussed earlier when we looked at the options that local government has for financing local facilities, Mello-Roos makes sense when a specific district or identified districts are to be laid out at varying levels of tax assessment. This could particularly apply to a neighborhood facility, such as a park. However, because of the requirements for designing the level of taxes and the 2/3 voter requirement, a Mello-Roos district has all the downsides of a general obligation bond and an assessment district, without most of the benefits of either. Mello-Roos probably makes little sense for a city-wide financing program.”

  21. Mayor Baylock – Thank you for your comments on Mello Roos. That’s just one option. With regard to parcel taxes, however, they don’t necessarily have to be flat taxes. Apparently, a municipality can levy different parcel rates depending on type of property (residential, single family, multi family, commercial). You can also charge commercial parcel taxes based on square footage. Obviously, there are MORE THAN JUST 2 ALTERATIVES OUT THERE (assessed value Prop 13, or flat parcel tax). For instance, here is something Oakland did (note they charged the commercial property owners by square footage): http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/alm/meas/Q/

  22. as a newer residential homeowner and non-commercial property owner, i feel that i should not have to pay more than my neighbor for the same city services. period!

    as for comments that commercial property owners would support this measure, i think this is generally incorrect. it all depends on when the commercial property owner bought their property and what the assessed value is.

    also, some commercial property owners PRIVATELY OPPOSE the measure, but are afraid to publically say so or give financial support against the measure because they are afraid of potential political backlash by the city council members that are supporting the measure.

    v/r dan

  23. Anonymous

    Commercial property owners will pay approximately 27% of the $44 million needed or approx. $12 million.

  24. Anonymous

    As a non-commercial property owner, I TOO will be “paying more than my neighbor for the same city services, period”.

    AND, yes, I am supporting Measure H.

  25. Anonymous

    SAN MATEO COUNTY REPUBLICANS: NO ON MEASURE H
    SAN MATEO COUNTY GREEN PARTY: NO ON MEASURE H
    SAN MATEO COUNTY LIBERTARIANS: NO ON MEASURE H
    SAN MATEO COUNTY DEMOCRATS: HAVE NOT REVIEWED.

  26. Anonymous

    Thanks again for the endorsements, I will be voting YES on Measure H even if the Demos say Yes or No to Measure H! But please keep us informed when the information is available.

    Hope you read the flyer being sent in the mail. There are examples from Burlingame residents who have been affected by flooding because they LIVE in Burlingame. As an example, a home owner has to fill 50 sadbags every winter just to keep the water out of her house. Sounds like a third world country, doesn’t it?

    Even though it must be a funny sight to see a canoe navigating watery Laguna Avenue, it can’t be a bundle of laughs for the residents.

    And if you don’t believe the residents’ stories, there are plenty of photos to remind us short memoried residents or new residents of a watery Burlingame with or without the help of a few sandbags.

Leave a Reply


The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026