On August 20, the Council Finance Committee will take a deeper dive into potential Tax Measures to place on the 2020 Ballot. The latest analysis describes the process and revenue potential for a General Bond or a Parcel Tax and a commissioned study on Business Tax measures in the Bay Area over the past 10 years, including comparative research across municipalities and analysis and modeling of the range of potential revenue the city might generate via a business tax vehicle (based on employee head count, square footage, or payroll expenses).
There are a lot of variables that can impact how much revenue a given tax might generate, including potential exemptions and different pricing levels and structures. In selecting an appropriate vehicle, the city must also consider “potential areas of tax leakage” and impacts on the economic environment and tax ecosystem. With further Finance Committee and council direction to narrow the focus, more complex scenarios will be modeled. Meanwhile, In a nutshell, the initial analysis modeled the following including initial, general assessments of impacts on equity, administrability, stability, and economic benefits:
General Obligation Bonds ranging from $100 to $500 million in debt issuance. These would require 2/3 voter approval.
Parcel Taxes of either a flat $350 per parcel or a $1 per square foot per eligible parcel, yielding between $7 million and $25 million per year. City parcel taxes typically require 2/3 voter approval.
Business license taxes, whether based on employee headcount, square footage, or payroll size, could potentially generate $1 million to $15.5 million annually, depending on the tax rate. If the tax is considered a “general tax”, it requires only majority voter approval. If a “special tax” it would require 2/3 voter approval. Whether “general” or “special” depends on the level of specificity regarding what the revenues will be spent on.
Following the Finance Committee meeting, staff will return to City Council with an update and confirm timing for next steps, including polling and stakeholder outreach, with an eye toward a decision about the type of measure to pursue by October/November. Click here for the staff report.
On June 17, City Council voted 6-1 (Tanaka dissenting) to adopt the city’s Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Ordinance. The final budget recommended by the Council Finance Committee reflects a 2.8 percent increase ($19.4 million) over the proposed budget presented in April, primarily due to reappropriations to continue ongoing capital projects. However, the FY 2020 Budget also imposes a multi- million dollar reduction in the city’s operating budget, marking the second year of continued reductions in the General Fund necessitated in large part by council’s decision to proactively fund the City’s long-term pension obligations.
Other notable elements of the adopted FY 2020 Budget include:
Increased city investment of $270,000 in the Transportation Management Association (TMA) to shift commuters out of single occupancy vehicle modes ($180,000 derived from increasing parking fees by 7.5 percent and $90,000 from the University Avenue Fund), bringing the city’s 2020 investment to $750,000;
Addition of an Automated Parking Guidance System as part of the city’s priority Infrastructure Plan (replacing the sidelined Downtown Parking Garage);
Dedication of new hotel Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and voter approved TOT rate increase revenues towards funding the Infrastructure Plan.
Also on June 17, the council approved the Fiscal Year 2020 Utility Financial Plans and adopted customer rate increases across the utilities system, including electric, gas, wastewater, water, and storm water and surface water drainage. Each of those rate changes received the recommendation of both the Utilities Advisory Commission and the Council Finance Committee and were included in the assumptions underlying the city’s FY 2020 Budget. Here’s how the rate increases break down:
Electric: Total increase of 8 percent across electric rates, including an approximate 4 percent increase for residential customers. Additional annual rate increases of 4 percent are projected through FY 2023.
Gas: Gas distribution-related rates will rise by an average of 8 percent (following 6 percent increase in July, 2018), including a 13.25 percent hike for residential customers. When combined with supply-related rates, the overall system rate increase for natural gas will be 5 percent, with 8.1 percent attributed to residential customers. Additional annual rate increases of four to eight percent are projected through 2024.
Wastewater: 7 percent increase in wastewater collection rates for 2020, with projected additional increases of 6 percent annually through FY 2024.
Water: Water costs are projected to rise by an average of 3 to 4 percent annually over next several years. Proposed overall rate increase of one percent in FY2020, followed by annual increases of 2 to 6 percent in later years. On average, residential customers will see an increase of 2 percent.
Storm Drain: Storm water and surface water drainage rates will rise by 4.5 percent, consistent with the annual Consumer Price Index adjustment approved by ballot measure in April 2017.
After several fits and starts in the past ten years, City Council voted 6-1 (Tanaka dissenting) on April 22 to begin laying the groundwork for a business tax to be placed on the ballot in 2020. The approved work plan presents an iterative approach to outreach, analysis, and refinement featuring frequent check-ins with council, the business community and the general public.
Initial thinking is for the revenue measure to support a variety of transportation improvements, including grade separations. The approved work plan calls for a decision this October on which type of revenue generating model to pursue, followed by polling and additional outreach and analysis, and culminating in draft ballot language by June 2020.
The Council Finance Committee will kick off three budget hearings on May 15. The city’s proposed Fiscal Year 2020 Budget anticipates healthy revenue growth from sales tax (9.9 percent), property tax (7.3 percent), and hotel tax (17 percent), but expects labor costs to rise by 9.2 percent – a costly increase when the city has so many infrastructure projects lined up. Taking that and the city’s growing pension and retiree benefit obligations into account, even with healthy revenue growth, the proposed budget calls for a reduction of the equivalent of 9.95 full time employees, phasing back of city investments in Project Safety Net (a community collaboration to promote youth well-being), and a “service inventory” to evaluate city programs and their costs, with an eye toward reducing ongoing costs and identifying areas that can be cut to provide $4 million in savings to put toward long term pension liabilities.
“This budget reflects the very difficult straddle we have before us, in which we have continued cost escalation of everything in the Bay Area, the increase in demand for services and infrastructure as our community grows and our move to accurately recognize some of our cost structure, including our commitment to fund our long-term liabilities. Those things to some extent mutually exclude one another.”
Palo Alto Unified’s 2016 tax misestimation and 2017 contract blunder will affect bottom line for several years
Palo Alto Weekly – by Elena Kadvany / January 19, 2018
Palo Alto Unified, a well-resourced district that has set ambitious and costly educational goals for the next several years, is facing a financial squeeze: There is no ongoing revenue to pay for budget additions in the next school year, staff said Thursday.
This prompted board President Ken Dauber to ask Interim Superintendent Karen Hendricks to come up with $3 million to $5 million in administrative cuts, an amount he warned “may not be ambitious enough” to address an ongoing deficit.
Palo Alto considers eliminating one of the basement levels at planned garage near California Avenue
Palo Alto Weekly – by Gennady Sheyner / January 19, 2018
With cost estimates rising dramatically, Palo Alto is considering scaling back its plans for the California Avenue area parking garage by removing one of the two planned underground levels.
The revision, which is proposed in a new report from the Public Works Department, would reduce the cost of the garage by between $6 million and $8 million at a time when the city’s overall infrastructure plan is facing a funding gap of about $50 million.
City’s practice of moving money from utility funds to General Fund may also hinge on Redding case
Palo Alto Weekly – by Gennady Sheyner / January 19, 2018
For more than a century, Palo Alto’s municipal utilities have served the city as both a provider of critical services and a revenue-generating asset from which the city can transfer money to pay for basic services like public safety, libraries and park maintenance.
Now, that long and at times controversial practice is facing a legal challenge. Downtown resident Miriam Green has filed a lawsuit against the city, charging that the transfer amounts to an illegal tax. At the same time, the state Supreme Court is preparing to hear an argument over a similar case in Redding, where an appeals court has recently struck down by a 2-1 vote the city’s transfer policy.
Palo Alto Weekly – by Gennady Sheyner / November 28, 2017
City Council moves ahead with new fire station and bike bridge, despite major questions about latest cost estimates
Palo Alto’s ambitious plan to fix up the city’s aged infrastructure and build a new bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101 is being strained by a sizzling construction market, which is adding millions of dollars to the price of each project and forcing local officials to lower their expectations.
Despite the obstacle, two priority projects on the city’s infrastructure list moved forward Monday night, when the council voted to approve the construction contract to rebuild the 1948 fire station near Rinconada Park and to approve the environmental analysis for the new bike bridge at Adobe Creek.
In each case, council members voiced significant reservations about the cost increases. The budget for the fire station has gone up from $6.7 million, the amount in the city’s 2014 Infrastructure Plan, to about $8.6 million (or $9.5 million, if you factor in the cost of staff salary and benefits).
Palo Alto Weekly – by Palo Alto Weekly staff / October 13, 2017
Transcript of City Councilman Eric Filseth’s conversation with Weekly journalists
Ever wonder what the real deal is with Palo Alto’s unfunded pension and retiree medical liabilities (from $550 million to maybe even $1 billion)? How is the city going to pay for it?
This interview with City Council Finance Committee Chair Eric Filseth breaks down the problem in a refreshingly clear way. Hear his conversation with Palo Alto Weekly Editor Jocelyn Dong and city hall reporter Gennady Sheyner in this “Behind the Headlines” podcast, or click on the headline to read the transcription.
Palo Alto Weekly – by Gennady Sheyner / October 9, 2017
With reimbursement from Stanford decreasing, Palo Alto seeks leaner service model
The Palo Alto Fire Department plans to eliminate 11 positions — roughly 10 percent of its workforce — to deal with falling revenues from its contract with Stanford University.
The staffing reduction, which the City Council is set to approve on Oct. 16, would eliminate seven firefighter positions and four apparatus-operator positions. Fire Chief Eric Nickel said the change is expected to save about $1.5 million annually, while maintaining service levels that will allow the department to meet its performance standards.