News
by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 9:47 am 5
Time to read: about 4 minutes
Caltrain passengers wait at downtown Palo Alto train station on July 24, 2019. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.
Seeking to offer Palo Alto voters some reassurance about how funds from the city’s proposed business tax would be spent, the City Council this week passed a resolution pledging to devote the funds to three categories: transportation, housing and public safety.
The resolution, which the council passed by a 6-1 vote, with Greg Tanaka dissenting, aims to address one of the leading criticisms that had emerged from the business community in the lead up to the council’s decision earlier this month to place the tax measure on the November ballot. Because it is a general tax, with proceeds going into the general fund, the city has broad discretion over how the money would be spent.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce had urged the council to instead pursue a special tax that explicitly dedicates funds toward a particular project. Such a measure, however, would require a two-thirds majority to pass, a hurdle that recent polls indicate would likely be too high.
To split the difference, the council agreed to keep the tax proposal a general tax but to pass an accompanying resolution that would govern how the funding would be allocated. That is the same approach that the council took in 2012, when it raised the hotel tax and directed the proceeds from the measure to be used exclusively for projects on its list of infrastructure priorities, including new fire stations, the recently completed bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101 and the new public safety building, which is currently under construction.
Even though the resolution is not legally binding and the council can technically still shift its spending priorities, several council members pointed in recent meetings to the city’s experience with the hotel tax as an assurance that this would not happen. Mayor Pat Burt noted that the city had stuck to the spending plan outlined in its hotel-tax resolution despite fluctuations in council composition and the city’s economic conditions.
Help sustain the local news you depend on.
Your contribution matters. Become a member today.
“Frankly, when this sort of clear commitment is made to voters, if future councils don’t live up to that commitment, good luck going to the voters with other requests,” Burt said at the Aug. 1 meeting. “And frankly, if you’re an elected official and don’t live up to it, good luck trying to get reelected.”
The business tax, which is based on square footage and which exempts all business with less than 10,000 square feet of space, is expected to generate about $9.6 million annually. According to the resolution, one-third of these proceeds would be spent on transportation and for “safe train crossings.” The resolution states that because of Caltrain’s electrification effort, which will add more trains to the corridor, the city will need to modify its four at-grade crossings and separate them from the train right-of-way, a project known as grade separation.
The city has been discussing grade separation for more than a decade and is now narrowing down design options for the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings. Last year, the council agreed to pursue what’s known as a “partial underpass” design on the Churchill Avenue crossing. Work on the northernmost crossing, at Palo Alto Avenue, has been deferred so that the area could be analyzed as part of a broader downtown plan.
“It is estimated that an average investment of $250 million will be needed for the improvements needed at each crossing,” the council resolution reads. “City funds will be used as matching funds to secure additional county, state, and federal funds for these investments in transportation infrastructure.”
Another third of the proceeds would be devoted to affordable housing. The resolution states that “significant investments are needed to bring housing costs into reach for many moderate earners who work in the city, such as teachers, public safety employees and workers in the trades and service industries.” The city has contributed two loans of $20.5 million toward Wilton Court, a 59-apartment development that targets low-income residents and individuals with disabilities and that is now being constructed by Alta Housing at 3705 El Camino Real. With several affordable housing developments now going through the entitlement process, the council is expecting to play a role in funding these projects and helping them leverage state and federal funding.
Stay informed
Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.
Stay informed
Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.
The final third would go to public safety, an area that has seen cuts early in the pandemic as local revenues plummeted. Over the past year, the council has been restoring services and adding positions to the Police and Fire departments. In doing so, however, it has been relying largely on one-time sources, such as the city’s budget stabilization reserves. According to the Administrative Services Department, the city’s current spending plan only funds these positions for two years, after which time the city would need other funding sources. The resolution commits the council to using business tax proceeds to stabilize these services.
“Rising costs and constrained revenues have limited the City’s ability to provide public safety services — including police, fire, 911, and emergency services — at the level desired by the community,” the resolution states. “Stable long-term revenues from a business tax will put these highly-valued city services on sound footing into the future.”
As part of its compromise with critics of the tax proposal, the council also agreed to issue annual reports detailing receipts from the business tax and the city’s spending of the tax proceeds.
The council approved the resolution on its “consent calendar,” which is reserved for noncontroversial items and which are approved without discussion. Tanaka, who has consistently opposed the tax, was the sole vote against the resolution. He said he disagrees with the city’s plan for allocating the funds.
“More should go toward the people who are actually paying the tax,” Tanaka said. “There should be a stronger nexus.”
Most Viewed Stories
■ Local Russian community confronts Ukraine conflict
■ Downtown Streets Enterprises creates paying gigs for homeless clients
■ Opinion: 30×30: A vision to protect our planet
■ Midpen Media Center changes leadership
■ California phases out new gas cars — so what’s next for electric cars?
Most Viewed Stories
■ Local Russian community confronts Ukraine conflict
■ Downtown Streets Enterprises creates paying gigs for homeless clients
Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.
by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 9:47 am
Seeking to offer Palo Alto voters some reassurance about how funds from the city’s proposed business tax would be spent, the City Council this week passed a resolution pledging to devote the funds to three categories: transportation, housing and public safety.
The resolution, which the council passed by a 6-1 vote, with Greg Tanaka dissenting, aims to address one of the leading criticisms that had emerged from the business community in the lead up to the council’s decision earlier this month to place the tax measure on the November ballot. Because it is a general tax, with proceeds going into the general fund, the city has broad discretion over how the money would be spent.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce had urged the council to instead pursue a special tax that explicitly dedicates funds toward a particular project. Such a measure, however, would require a two-thirds majority to pass, a hurdle that recent polls indicate would likely be too high.
To split the difference, the council agreed to keep the tax proposal a general tax but to pass an accompanying resolution that would govern how the funding would be allocated. That is the same approach that the council took in 2012, when it raised the hotel tax and directed the proceeds from the measure to be used exclusively for projects on its list of infrastructure priorities, including new fire stations, the recently completed bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101 and the new public safety building, which is currently under construction.
Even though the resolution is not legally binding and the council can technically still shift its spending priorities, several council members pointed in recent meetings to the city’s experience with the hotel tax as an assurance that this would not happen. Mayor Pat Burt noted that the city had stuck to the spending plan outlined in its hotel-tax resolution despite fluctuations in council composition and the city’s economic conditions.
“Frankly, when this sort of clear commitment is made to voters, if future councils don’t live up to that commitment, good luck going to the voters with other requests,” Burt said at the Aug. 1 meeting. “And frankly, if you’re an elected official and don’t live up to it, good luck trying to get reelected.”
The business tax, which is based on square footage and which exempts all business with less than 10,000 square feet of space, is expected to generate about $9.6 million annually. According to the resolution, one-third of these proceeds would be spent on transportation and for “safe train crossings.” The resolution states that because of Caltrain’s electrification effort, which will add more trains to the corridor, the city will need to modify its four at-grade crossings and separate them from the train right-of-way, a project known as grade separation.
The city has been discussing grade separation for more than a decade and is now narrowing down design options for the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings. Last year, the council agreed to pursue what’s known as a “partial underpass” design on the Churchill Avenue crossing. Work on the northernmost crossing, at Palo Alto Avenue, has been deferred so that the area could be analyzed as part of a broader downtown plan.
“It is estimated that an average investment of $250 million will be needed for the improvements needed at each crossing,” the council resolution reads. “City funds will be used as matching funds to secure additional county, state, and federal funds for these investments in transportation infrastructure.”
Another third of the proceeds would be devoted to affordable housing. The resolution states that “significant investments are needed to bring housing costs into reach for many moderate earners who work in the city, such as teachers, public safety employees and workers in the trades and service industries.” The city has contributed two loans of $20.5 million toward Wilton Court, a 59-apartment development that targets low-income residents and individuals with disabilities and that is now being constructed by Alta Housing at 3705 El Camino Real. With several affordable housing developments now going through the entitlement process, the council is expecting to play a role in funding these projects and helping them leverage state and federal funding.
The final third would go to public safety, an area that has seen cuts early in the pandemic as local revenues plummeted. Over the past year, the council has been restoring services and adding positions to the Police and Fire departments. In doing so, however, it has been relying largely on one-time sources, such as the city’s budget stabilization reserves. According to the Administrative Services Department, the city’s current spending plan only funds these positions for two years, after which time the city would need other funding sources. The resolution commits the council to using business tax proceeds to stabilize these services.
“Rising costs and constrained revenues have limited the City’s ability to provide public safety services — including police, fire, 911, and emergency services — at the level desired by the community,” the resolution states. “Stable long-term revenues from a business tax will put these highly-valued city services on sound footing into the future.”
As part of its compromise with critics of the tax proposal, the council also agreed to issue annual reports detailing receipts from the business tax and the city’s spending of the tax proceeds.
The council approved the resolution on its “consent calendar,” which is reserved for noncontroversial items and which are approved without discussion. Tanaka, who has consistently opposed the tax, was the sole vote against the resolution. He said he disagrees with the city’s plan for allocating the funds.
“More should go toward the people who are actually paying the tax,” Tanaka said. “There should be a stronger nexus.”
Seeking to offer Palo Alto voters some reassurance about how funds from the city’s proposed business tax would be spent, the City Council this week passed a resolution pledging to devote the funds to three categories: transportation, housing and public safety.
The resolution, which the council passed by a 6-1 vote, with Greg Tanaka dissenting, aims to address one of the leading criticisms that had emerged from the business community in the lead up to the council’s decision earlier this month to place the tax measure on the November ballot. Because it is a general tax, with proceeds going into the general fund, the city has broad discretion over how the money would be spent.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce had urged the council to instead pursue a special tax that explicitly dedicates funds toward a particular project. Such a measure, however, would require a two-thirds majority to pass, a hurdle that recent polls indicate would likely be too high.
To split the difference, the council agreed to keep the tax proposal a general tax but to pass an accompanying resolution that would govern how the funding would be allocated. That is the same approach that the council took in 2012, when it raised the hotel tax and directed the proceeds from the measure to be used exclusively for projects on its list of infrastructure priorities, including new fire stations, the recently completed bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101 and the new public safety building, which is currently under construction.
Even though the resolution is not legally binding and the council can technically still shift its spending priorities, several council members pointed in recent meetings to the city’s experience with the hotel tax as an assurance that this would not happen. Mayor Pat Burt noted that the city had stuck to the spending plan outlined in its hotel-tax resolution despite fluctuations in council composition and the city’s economic conditions.
“Frankly, when this sort of clear commitment is made to voters, if future councils don’t live up to that commitment, good luck going to the voters with other requests,” Burt said at the Aug. 1 meeting. “And frankly, if you’re an elected official and don’t live up to it, good luck trying to get reelected.”
The business tax, which is based on square footage and which exempts all business with less than 10,000 square feet of space, is expected to generate about $9.6 million annually. According to the resolution, one-third of these proceeds would be spent on transportation and for “safe train crossings.” The resolution states that because of Caltrain’s electrification effort, which will add more trains to the corridor, the city will need to modify its four at-grade crossings and separate them from the train right-of-way, a project known as grade separation.
The city has been discussing grade separation for more than a decade and is now narrowing down design options for the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings. Last year, the council agreed to pursue what’s known as a “partial underpass” design on the Churchill Avenue crossing. Work on the northernmost crossing, at Palo Alto Avenue, has been deferred so that the area could be analyzed as part of a broader downtown plan.
“It is estimated that an average investment of $250 million will be needed for the improvements needed at each crossing,” the council resolution reads. “City funds will be used as matching funds to secure additional county, state, and federal funds for these investments in transportation infrastructure.”
Another third of the proceeds would be devoted to affordable housing. The resolution states that “significant investments are needed to bring housing costs into reach for many moderate earners who work in the city, such as teachers, public safety employees and workers in the trades and service industries.” The city has contributed two loans of $20.5 million toward Wilton Court, a 59-apartment development that targets low-income residents and individuals with disabilities and that is now being constructed by Alta Housing at 3705 El Camino Real. With several affordable housing developments now going through the entitlement process, the council is expecting to play a role in funding these projects and helping them leverage state and federal funding.
The final third would go to public safety, an area that has seen cuts early in the pandemic as local revenues plummeted. Over the past year, the council has been restoring services and adding positions to the Police and Fire departments. In doing so, however, it has been relying largely on one-time sources, such as the city’s budget stabilization reserves. According to the Administrative Services Department, the city’s current spending plan only funds these positions for two years, after which time the city would need other funding sources. The resolution commits the council to using business tax proceeds to stabilize these services.
“Rising costs and constrained revenues have limited the City’s ability to provide public safety services — including police, fire, 911, and emergency services — at the level desired by the community,” the resolution states. “Stable long-term revenues from a business tax will put these highly-valued city services on sound footing into the future.”
As part of its compromise with critics of the tax proposal, the council also agreed to issue annual reports detailing receipts from the business tax and the city’s spending of the tax proceeds.
The council approved the resolution on its “consent calendar,” which is reserved for noncontroversial items and which are approved without discussion. Tanaka, who has consistently opposed the tax, was the sole vote against the resolution. He said he disagrees with the city’s plan for allocating the funds.
“More should go toward the people who are actually paying the tax,” Tanaka said. “There should be a stronger nexus.”
How does this qualify as a non-controversial matter? Because the business alliance won’t launch a campaign against it? No need; they successfully out-negotiated the City and got the tax reduced to a level that isn’t close to what is needed to offset the impact big business has on our infrastructure and services. A “pro” argument is that the revenue can be used to secure financing. As in debt. Had we not been played by big business we wouldn’t need to finance as much as will be needed to properly fund affordable housing development and grade separation projects. So disappointing!
Also, this should be going forward as a specific tax. It would be nice to live in a world where we can trust government to do as it promises, but that’s not our reality.
“Frankly, when this sort of clear commitment is made to voters, if future councils don’t live up to that commitment, good luck going to the voters with other requests,” Burt said at the Aug. 1 meeting. “And frankly, if you’re an elected official and don’t live up to it, good luck trying to get reelected.”
How about good luck to us voters who have to pay for this?
The business tax spectacle proved that nothing is an incentive to councils except threats and shakedowns from business lobbyists. Keep them happy and Councils can do absolutely nothing during their term, or spend wildly on things that nobody asked for.
This is like a never ending episode of Ozark, the local press just reports day in and day out. This story sounds so normal with 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 budgets for a paltry nothing tax on businesses and a disgusting situation that now sounds like we’re supposed to thank business lobbyists for the idea of spending right by taxpayers?
Frankly…
Do not interpret no votes as opposing the idea of a business tax; see the no votes for what they are: opposition to the way the Mayor Burt and most of the rest of the council caved to the business lobby which refuses to pay its fair share WHILE failing to consult us, the resident taxpayers about what WE want.
Remember, the amount of money slated for “affordable” housing would buy ONE Palo Alto home — hardly enough to compensate for all the homes Stanford is buying up and taking off the tax rolls.
What a pathetic joke. Shame on the mayor and business lobby.
I am pleased to see discussion of what we understand and what we don’t understand.
For example, I don’t understand property tax status when Stanford acquires off-campus commercial and residential property. Palo Alto’s loss of property tax is complicated and not absolute. If Stanford buys or receives a gift of a commercial property, the property still may taxed depending on its use. If Stanford shares title of a residence for a faculty or employee, what is the property tax impact of programs such as equity sharing?
Bottom line: City Council and Stanford owe citizens better information to preserve goodwill for both parties.
@NeilsonBuchananan
“I am pleased to see discussion of what we understand and what we don’t understand……
Bottom line: City Council and Stanford owe citizens better information to preserve goodwill for both parties.”
I don’t understand the Transportation plans in the Plan Bay Area. Besides broken links on the Plan Bay Area 2040 website, the sources and uses of funds show that the bulk of the burden for sources of funds is on local…not state or federal government. I’d never heard of this “plan,” was it covered by the local press?
Wish the local press could explain this plan but am not holding my breath. But housing is only one of other issues that need more information.
Don’t miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.
Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don’t be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.
See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.
Home
News
TownSquare
Blogs
A&E
Community Calendar
Sports
Home & Real Estate
Visitor Info
Send News Tips
Subscribe
Print Edition/Archives
Express / Weekend Express
Promotions
Special Pubs
Obituaries
Circulation & Delivery
About Us
Contact Us
Advertising Info
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Mountain View Voice
The Almanac
TheSixFifty.com
Redwood City Pulse
Redwood City Pulse
© 2022 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.
Embarcadero Media
PR MediaRelease
Sponsored content
Mobile site
© 2022 Palo Alto Online. All rights reserved.
About Author
