The Secret News

By Brian Donahue

High noon will come at precisely 7:15 P.M. Tuesday. That’s when the final showdown is scheduled in an epic battle pitting the National Rifle Association, an organization devoted to preserving one of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, versus the Emeryville city council, a group hell bent on eviscerating that right.

At least that’s how NRA members are characterizing the proposed gun store ordinance. The city council, for its part, sees a set of reasonable and rationed regulations similar to rules applied to other businesses. The regulations have the backing of the City Attorney and the Chief of Police.

Blogs

(Reprinted from SF Weekly Blog “Sfoodie”)

Argentine Asador Primo’s Parilla Fires Up Grill in Emeryville

Nice grill: Javier Sandes and his mobile barbecue.

​Emeryville added another mobile food vendor to its growing fleet today with the rollout of Argentine grill Primo’s Parilla. Argentina-born Javier Sandes grills what his press release calls “free-range chicken and grass fed tri-tip” over almond wood and mesquite, on a transportable grill that ― duh ― stands apart from his panel truck. Sandes has been doing his slow-grilled Argentine asador thing for Oakland parties, apparently, serving it up with traditional chimichurri. He launched about an hour ago at 62nd Street and Doyle in the East Bay city ― follow Primo’s Parilla’s tweets for location updates.

Follow us on Twitter: @SFoodie

It’s Only Money, Honey (You Got It, I Want It)

By Liz Altieri

“The Proposed Budget is premised on the long-term budget philosophy of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. This budget philosophy includes the following major principles, which are elaborated below:

… Current year expenditures should be supported by current year revenues. One time revenues should not be used for ongoing costs, but should instead be used for necessary one-time expenditures or to strengthen fund reserves …

… The operating costs of any planned capital improvement should be estimated in the planning stage, so that these amounts can be recognized and budgeted.”

Patrick O’Keeffe, City Manager
Budget Presentation to the City Council
April 30, 2008

So what happened? How could the City of Emeryville need $1.2 million per year in a new special assessment for lights and park maintenance (LLAD)? In fact, the City did budget for these expenses – but with this new tax, those funds can be moved to fill another hole.

The problem is not so much that revenues are down from projections. Even if projections had been attained there would still be a “structural imbalance”. This new $1.2 million is merely a band-aid on a gaping wound caused by built-in skyrocketing employee expenses versus a revenue base that even in the good times can only grow so much.

Say that again? Even if revenues had attained projections there would still be a future shortfall.

The City has a remaining “rainy day fund” of about $3.8 million; they dipped into it for the current fiscal year’s “structural imbalance” to the tune of about $780,000.

So what’s a mother to do? You spend more than you take home. You still have savings in the bank. You need to buy time to work out a new plan – learn a new skill, take a second job, figure out how you are going to make the next payment. YOU USE YOUR SAVINGS. Yes, savings will run out. But it is a lot harder to renegotiate that mortgage with the bank when you have enough funds to pay it for the next year and a half. THE TAXPAYERS ARE THE CITY’S BANK.

But “we have too great an investment in this infrastructure to let it go to the dogs” [paraphrasing Councilmember Nora Davis at the Feb. 16, 2010 Council Meeting].

When asked how much of the $1.2 million would go to “light bulbs and sod”, the Finance Director replied “about 30%” – that’s $360,000. The rest is labor. Well, here is a novel idea: Will the neighbors really let the parks get overgrown? How about “Adopt a Park”? Volunteer to pick up litter, mow the lawn, and empty garbage cans. Better yet, organize students from the schools to help – maybe for community service credits?

We don’t need to be threatened by City Hall. We don’t need to pay for their unsustainable expense curve. Use the rainy day fund for one more year (hello…it’s raining), and sharpen your pencils. Cut staff payroll, shut down City Hall one day a month. You know this LLAD is just a band-aid – we are not STUPID.

On March 16, the Council will vote on whether or not to go forward with this new tax. They will have the ballots printed and “information letters” ready to explain to the complacent public the dire consequences of failure to cough up more tax dollars. They are in quite a rush to get this done – their time table shows pushing out the ballot just days after the vote, and ballot tabulations mere weeks afterwards in order to slap this assessment on the County rolls in time for the December tax collections.

City Hall appears to have great confidence that even if Joe and Jane Public say “No”, the business owners will carry the day. Get proactive – send a letter (or e-mail) to Wareham , Bay Street , Pixar, and Novartis – ask them to stand up to a fiscally irresponsible City government and make THEM fix this problem without further public subsidy.

Nobody wants more taxes right now. These times are too dire. Everybody should want this government to quit whining, put their hands back in their pockets, and tighten their belts. On this issue, both businesses and residents can unite.

It’s real easy to spend other people’s money.

Liz Altieri and her husband have lived in Emeryville for the past seven years, and own their Watergate residence. Liz has worked in Emeryville since 1997. She is currently studying for her real estate license and working with All Emeryville Properties as a broker’s assistant. Liz is an emeritus Board member of the Emeryville Chamber of Commerce, and has been a member of the General Plan Steering Committee since its inception.

Modest Increase in City’s Business License Tax Cap
Could Close Projected Budget Shortfalls for Next Two Years

By Brian W. Carver

Background
In a memorandum dated March 2, 2010 from the Emeryville Finance Department entitled “Budget Planning Discussions FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12,” (hereinafter, “Budget Planning Memo”) a preliminary estimate of the budget gap was provided as follows:

“The projected budget gap for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 is $1.66 million and $1.42 million respectively. ” (Budget Planning Memo at p.7).”

City staff reported on the various city departments and their staffing levels, noting that many departments already have positions frozen and wrote:

“The City can reduce the number of FTEs in various departments with a
corresponding reduction of services to the community. The organization
already has a lean staffing level. We cannot do more with less or even
the same for less. ” (Budget Planning Memo at p. 8) (emphasis added).

At a Special Meeting of the Emeryville City Council held on June 6, 2009 a sensible solution to the City’s budget shortfalls involving examining alternative structures for the City’s Business License Fee was briefly discussed, but fully exploring this option was ultimately postponed. The Council believed the proposal was an idea worthy of later study, but the Council at that time lacked a careful study of such alternatives and decided to proceed solely with an increased Card Room tax.1

This Memorandum presents such a study of the Business License Fees for every incorporated city in Alameda County and demonstrates that of those cities utilizing a gross receipts method of calculating their Business License Fees, EMERYVILLE IS THE ONLY CITY IN ALAMEDA COUNTY THAT PLACES A CAP ON THE MAXIMUM BUSINESS LICENSE FEE THAT IS OWED BY BUSINESSES.

This Memorandum then proposes that even without eliminating Emeryville’s one-of-a-kind cap on Business License Fees, but instead with merely a modest increase in that cap from the 2010 cap of $115,774.03 to a cap of $400,000, an additional $1,705,355.82 in revenue could be generated annually, completely eliminating the projected budget gaps for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 and even providing a modest surplus that could be utilized towards restoring some currently frozen staff positions. This change would only affect those businesses located in Emeryville whose gross receipts are greater than $144.7 million annually, thus no small business would be affected. The entire proposed Business License Fee amounts to less than one third of a day’s gross receipts for those businesses affected.

Discussion
Business License Fees in Emeryville
Every business operating in Emeryville is required to have a Business License. Businesses calculate their Business License Renewal Fee by multiplying their gross receipts times 0.0008 (and adding a $10 renewal fee). This rate can also be expressed as $0.80 for each $1,000 of gross receipts.2

Emeryville is unique within Alameda County by having a cap on the maximum Business License Fee that a business utilizing a gross receipts method of calculation will owe. Emeryville’s 2010 maximum Business License Fee is $115,774.03. Emeryville’s Business Licenses Cashier indicated that currently approximately five (5) to seven (7) businesses in Emeryville pay the maximum fee.

Methods of Calculating Business License Fees
Emeryville utilizes a “gross receipts” method of calculating Business License Fees for most businesses. This method is common throughout Alameda County. However, many cities have a more complicated scheme through which businesses in different industries pay at a different rate of gross receipts depending on their industry type. Also, in many cities, some industries have their Business License Fee calculated through a non-gross receipts method, such as number of employees, or for taxicab services and delivery trucks, based upon number of vehicles used. For example, Emeryville bases this fee on square footage for businesses in the “Storage and Warehouse” category, but most other businesses in Emeryville utilize the gross receipts method of calculation. Thus, in order for the following comparisons to be most relevant to Emeryville’s situation, this memorandum focuses on those Business License Fees that are calculated using the gross receipts method and on businesses within the given city in commercial space as opposed to home-based businesses, which occasionally are subject to different rates or methods of calculation.

BUSINESS LICENSE FEES IN OTHER ALAMEDA COUNTY CITIES
Alameda The City of Alameda utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for businesses engaged in what it calls: Retail and Wholesale, Professional & Semi-professional, Bowling alley, Billiard/Pool room, Business Services, Theaters/Drive-ins, Vending Machines, and Manufacturing at a rate of $0.40 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.3
The City of Alameda does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.4

Albany
The City of Albany only utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for businesses providing utility service, defined as telephone, telegraph, gas and electric service at a rate of $1.00 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.5 The City of Albany does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.6

Berkeley
The City of Berkeley utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for
businesses engaged in what it calls: Business, Personal & Repair Services ($1.80), Construction or Contractor ($1.80), Entertainment/Recreation ($4.50), Grocer (retail or wholesale) ($0.60), Miscellaneous ($2.40), Motor Vehicle Sales ($1.20), Private Recycling Refuse Haulers ($1.80), Private Refuse Haulers ($1.50), Professional – Semiprofessional ($3.60), Rental of Real Property ($10.81), Retail and Wholesale Trade ($1.20) at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.7 The City of Berkeley does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.8

Dublin
The City of Dublin does not utilize a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees.9 For this and other reasons suitable comparisons with Dublin are not obtainable.

Fremont
The City of Fremont utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for
businesses engaged in what it calls: Retail Sales ($0.25), Service ($1.00), Rental Property ($1.30), Construction ($0.10) at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.10 The City of Fremont does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.11

Hayward
The City of Hayward utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for
businesses engaged in what it calls: Cleaning, Laundering, Dyeing, Pressing or Repairing, ($1.07), Bowling Alleys ($2.00), Professional – Semi-Professional Connected Business ($1.33), Wholesale Sales, Retail Merchants, Jobbers, Class I ($0.11), Retail Merchants, Jobbers, Other Businesses ($0.27) at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.12 The City of Hayward does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.13

Livermore
The City of Livermore utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for
businesses engaged in what it calls: Grocer ($0.50), Motor Vehicle Sales ($0.50), Licensed Contractor ($0.80), Manufacturing ($0.80), Recreation & Entertainment ($0.80), Retail ($0.80), Wholesale ($0.80), Utilities ($0.80), and Warehouse & Storage ($0.80), Rental Property Commercial and Residential ($1.20), Miscellaneous Professional ($2.40), Amusement and Vending Machines ($0.50) at at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.14 The City of Livermore does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.15

Newark
The City of Newark utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for
businesses engaged in what it calls Retail, Wholesale, General Businesses and Businesses not otherwise provided for ($0.15), Residential and Non-Residential Rentals ($0.15), Manufacturing ($0.10), Professions ($1.30), and Contractors ($0.80) at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.16 The City of Newark does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.17

Oakland
The City of Oakland utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for Retail Sales ($1.20), Grocers ($0.60), Automobile Dealers ($1.20), Wholesale Sales ($1.20), Business /Personal Service ($1.80), Professional / Semi-Professional ($3.60), Recreation/Entertainment ($4.50), Construction Contractors ($1.80), Rental Hotel/Motel ($1.80), Media Firms ($1.20), Public Utility ($1.00), and Firearms Dealers ($24.00) at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.18 The City of Oakland does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.19

Piedmont
The City of Piedmont utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for all businesses with gross receipts greater than $50,000 at a rate of $2.00 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.20 The City of Piedmont does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.21

Pleasanton
The City of Pleasanton utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for for all businesses with gross receipts greater than $250,000 at a rate of $0.30 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.22 The City of Pleasanton does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.23

San Leandro
The City of San Leandro utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for businesses engaged in what it calls: Coin Operated Devices and Towing at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts and for Firearms Dealers at a rate of $33.00 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts of concealable weapons and ammunition.24 The City of San Leandro does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.25

Union City
Union City utilizes a gross receipts method of calculating Business License Fees for Hotels/Motels Leasing, Commercial ($0.86), Retail Sales and Retail – Firearms ($0.43), Vending/Video Machines ($3.25) at the parenthetically-indicated rates per $1,000 of annual gross receipts.26 Union City does not employ a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation.27

A LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO EMERYVILLE’S BUDGET SHORTFALL

• Emeryville’s maximum cap on Business License Fees is extraordinarily unusual.

The above analysis shows that Emeryville compares very favorably to other cities in Alameda County with respect to the rate at which it calculates Business License Fees based upon gross receipts, and for most industries, asks for less in Business License Fees than its closest neighbors. Indeed, in comparison to Berkeley and Oakland, Emeryville offers every business type but Grocers a less costly rate.28 However, Emeryville is extraordinarily unusual in employing a maximum cap on the Business License Fee owed by businesses subject to the gross receipts method of calculation, and indeed the above analysis of every incorporated city in Alameda County demonstrates that of those cities utilizing a gross receipts method of calculating their Business License Fees, EMERYVILLE IS THE ONLY CITY IN ALAMEDA COUNTY THAT PLACES A CAP ON THE MAXIMUM BUSINESS LICENSE FEE THAT IS OWED BY BUSINESSES.

• The maximum cap need not be removed in its entirety.

At the Special Meeting of the Emeryville City Council held on June 6, 2009, some City Council members were in favor of removing Emeryville’s Business License Fee cap entirely.29 While such a change would place Emeryville more in line with the rest of the cities within Alameda County, the preliminary estimates of the budget gaps facing Emeryville in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 could likely be met without removing the cap in its entirety. Instead, a more moderate change that merely increased the 2010 cap of $115,774.03 to a cap of $400,000 would generate an additional $1,705,355.82 in revenue annually, completely eliminating the projected budget gaps for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 and even providing a modest surplus that could be utilized towards restoring some currently frozen staff positions or to accommodate already-expected increases in expenses.30 This proposal also takes a conservative approach and assumes that no additional revenue is available from other sources. If such additional revenue sources were presumed available, then an even lower maximum cap could suffice.

• This proposal allows the Economic Uncertainty Fund to be preserved.

Any such change to the Business License Fee maximum cap should likely be implemented to take effect for the 2011 renewal period, and thus the increased revenues would become available by the end of February 2011. In the interim, the City could draw on its Economic Uncertainty Fund, repaying the partial draw down once a new maximum cap on Business License Fees was in place. This strategy would preserve the Economic Uncertainty Fund for the future.

• This proposal would have no effect on small businesses in Emeryville and an unnoticeable effect on large businesses in Emeryville.

At the current gross receipts times 0.0008 rate, an Emeryville business must have gross receipts exceeding $144,717,537.50 to owe the current maximum Business License Fee. Only five to seven businesses in Emeryville currently report gross receipts in excess of $144.7 million. Thus, small businesses in Emeryville will not be affected at all by this proposal. The five to seven businesses in Emeryville who do have gross receipts in excess of $144.7 million would be asked to pay $400,000 annually for their Business License Fee as opposed to the current maximum of $115,774.03, assuming that their gross receipts exceed $500,000,000 annually, the level at which the proposed maximum cap would be triggered. The difference between the current cap and the proposed cap is $284,225.97. That difference would not be material to any of the Emeryville businesses who have gross receipts in excess of 1/2 of a billion dollars annually. Every other city in Alameda County would ask them to do more than does this proposal.

• This proposal recognizes Emeryville’s already “lean staffing level.”

This proposal allows Emeryville to balance its budget without further cuts to staff or communityservices. Choosing instead to fire fifteen teachers at the Emeryville Child Development Center and to further dismantle the incalculably valuable services they and the Recreation Center provide to Emeryville residents would be appalling. If the City is to have “Community Life” at all it must not reject the key drivers of that community life: Community Services.

Conclusion
This memorandum, through an analysis of the Businesses License Fees calculated based upon gross receipts in every incorporated city in Alameda County has shown that Emeryville alone places a maximum cap on those fees. This memorandum thus proposes raising that maximum cap as a means of closing current and future projected budget shortfalls. The precises amount of a new cap could best be determined by city staff, who should have greater access to relevant facts, but this memorandum proposes that a modest increase to $400,000 would have no adverse effects and would likely eliminate the projected shortfalls.

______________________________________
Brian Carver, an Emeryville resident, is an Assistant Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information. This is a reprint of a memo he sent to the Emeryville City Council on March 2, 2010

_____________________________________________
1 See Video of Special Council/Agency Meeting (June 6, 2009) available from http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/Media/
2 Commercial landlords in Emeryville pay at a lower 0.00035 rate. http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=241
3 City of Alameda: http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/services/business_license_fees.html Manufacturing businesses in Alameda are entitled to deduct the value of raw materials from their gross receipts.
4 City of Alameda Finance Department: 510-747-4880. Press “2” for Business Licenses. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
5 City of Albany: http://www.albanyca.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=7621
6 City of Albany Finance Department: 510-528-5730. Confimed on March 1, 2010.
7 City of Berkeley: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=4258
8 City of Berkeley Finance Department: 510-981-7200. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
9 City of Dublin: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSub.cfm?PL=exp&SL=buslic
10 City of Fremont: http://www.fremont.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1616
11 City of Fremont Revenue Division: 510-494-4790. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
12 City of Hayward: http://www.hayward-ca.gov/municipal/HMCWEB/BusinessLicenses.pdf
13 City of Hayward Finance Dept., Sr. Cust. Acct. Clerk, Eleanor Torres, 510-583-4622. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
14 City of Livermore: http://www.ci.livermore.ca.us/finance/Business_license.pdf
15 City of Livermore Finance Department: 925-960-4310. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
16 City of Newark: http://www.ci.newark.ca.us/images/uploads/finance /pdfs/LicenseFeeSchedule.pdf
17 City of Newark Finance Department: 510-578-4310. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
18 City of Oakland: http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/b_and_f1/revenue/taxtables.htm
19 City of Oakland Business Tax Section, Anna Lawrence: 510-238-7478. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
20 City of Piedmont: http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/forms/bizlicense.pdf
21 City of Piedmont Finance Department: 510-420-3045. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
22 City of Pleasanton: http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/pdf/zc.pdf
23 City of Pleasanton Business License Program: 925-931-5440. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
24 City of San Leandro: http://www.ci.san-leandro.ca.us/pdf/buslicfeecompched.pdf
25 City of San Leandro Business License Division: 510-577-3392. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
26 Union City: http://www.ci.union-city.ca.us/admin/admin_pdfs/Permits.Licenses/Fees_business.license.pdf
27 Union City Finance Department: 510-675-5343. Confirmed on March 1, 2010.
28 Again, this is true of those subject to a gross receipts method of calculating their Business License Fee.
29 See Video of Special Council/Agency Meeting (June 6, 2009) available from http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/Media/
30 This calculation assumes that six (6) businesses pay the increased maximum. Emeryville’s Business Licenses Cashier indicated that currently approximately five (5) to seven (7) businesses in Emeryville pay the maximum fee, and so the amount of additional revenue generated may be slightly more or less depending on this number. That variation could be better predicted by City staff and taken into account in recommending a maximum cap to the Council. Additionally, this variation would be small enough that the City’s Economic Uncertainty Fund could absorb any unexpected variation while maintaining that Fund’s vitality. These calculations also assume that all those Emeryville businesses with gross receipts exceeding $144.7 million have gross receipts that exceed $500 million. If not, those businesses that fall within that range would not reach the proposed maximum cap and would thus pay less.

West Seeks Community Input/Participation in Transit Center Public Hearing, I-80 Pedestrian-Bike Bridge Workshop, ECCL, “Shortest Triathlon”, and Cooperative Grocery

Dear Emeryville neighbors,

This is my second letter to you since taking office in November 2009. My purpose in writing you is to inform you of upcoming city council actions, provide transparency about the city process and to ask for your input and participation. I encourage you to reply to me about something that is important to you. The best ways to contact me are by email at emeryvillewest@gmail.com or by phone at (510) 420-5795. Of course, if you see me in the park, or at the grocery store, please introduce yourself!

My topics for this email include events for public input and organizations or activities for community participation: Transit Center Public Hearing, I-80 Ped/Bike Bridge Community Workshop, ECCL living room conversations, the Shortest Triathlon, and joining the COG.

Vital Public Input (the City Council needs to hear from you!):

Public Hearing on the Transit Center Tuesday, Feb 16, 2010, 7:16 p.m., City Council Chambers, City Hall (corner of Park Ave. and Hollis)

This development project (conditional use permit and design review) was not approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 2010, and the City Council appealed that decision to itself for a public hearing this Tuesday. I was the only council member who voted against appealing the P.C. decision because the developer could appeal the decision. I know that there are people in town who have been following this project and who have opinions on the scale and transit nature of the building. Wareham Development has built many buildings in this area of town, including the Terraces, the Amtrak Station, Emery Station I, Emery Station East and North, and some of the Novartis buildings. They are about to begin on the Emery Greenway project at the corner of Powell and Hollis. The “Transit Center” is planned for the Amtrak parking lot site on Horton Blvd., and will be a 163 foot high building (9 stories) with parking below, an office/bio-tech building, and bus bays for folks to connect to from Amtrak. The Heritage Square Parking Garage (7 stories, 73 feet high) is planned for the corner of Horton and 62nd St. This combined project will create an additional 528 parking spaces on our designated bike blvd, bringing the total to over 800 spaces for cars. Please go to the city’s website to read more about the project in our staff report (warning: that file is extremely large) which is under city council agenda for March 2, 2010.

I ran for city council to change the way large development projects happen in town, making sure that residents are getting tangible benefits from the public money that is spent. For this project, our Redevelopment Agency is putting in money to help clean up the toxic site (up to $3 million), paying for the replacement of the public parking spaces (around $2-$3 million), and there is federal money being spent on the plaza improvements (close to $1 million). There are public benefits from the project, including job creation, a public plaza at the end of 59th St., new tax revenues, a new elevator to the bridge over the train tracks, a new traffic signal at 62nd and Hollis, and bike valet parking. What do you think about the balance of benefits and costs? I am asking you to send a message to the entire city council (you can access a form on the city of Emeryville’s website) if you have an opinion in support of or in opposition to this project. Even better, please attend the public hearing and make your voice heard!

I-80 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Community workshop: Weds, Feb. 24, 6:30-8:30, City Council Chambers

Are you someone who wishes you didn’t have to go all the way to Berkeley to ride safely to the Bay trail? We are planning for a new pedestrian and bike bridge to cross I-80 at the west end of 65th St., and would like your input. Please come, learn about the 3 bridge alignments that are proposed, hear about the process and timeline, and also give direct feedback to staff on the plan that makes the most sense to you. See you there!

Emeryville Center for Community Life Living Room Conversations, March 6-10, 2010

The Center for Community Life is a significant undertaking for our small town and school district. This year is time for us to scale back the project from the original $125 million concept and gauge what level of community support exists before putting a school bond measure on the ballot. This joint use facility that would include schools, a rec center, a library and community services needs your input! It will be stronger with the inclusion of residents’ ideas. For a week in March, folks will be meeting in living rooms, community rooms, and cafes to talk in small groups about how to refine or influence this project. Please try to find a group that fits your schedule and make sure your ideas are incorporated. The conversations will be facilitated and will include an elected official and staff. Gather your neighbors and host one! Please don’t miss this opportunity to be involved.

Building Community at events and organizations: April 17, 2010 Shortest Triathlon, 8:00 a.m., begins at the Emery Secondary School Pool, ends at City Hall

Come join me! Last year I completed my very first triathlon in about 45 minutes. This year, because I am one year older, I hope to do it in 46 minutes. It was a great event, and I loved seeing people I knew there, participating and cheering everyone on. You, too, can do it! Some folks are competitive, others are just hoping to finish. Proceeds will support wellness programs in the Emery Schools. Register at Active.com. Later that day: Earth Day in Emeryville on 47th St. and Temescal Creek Park at noon.

The Cooperative Grocery, aka the COG, 1450 67th St.

Want to spend less money on your groceries? Want to know that you are buying from local companies? Want to be a part of a community that believes in sustainable production? The COG is right here in Emeryville, at Hollis and 67th St. I knew about it because I pick up my Full Belly Farm weekly vegetable box there every Friday. Now that I have joined the member supported grocery store, I find I save money on non-perishable items I used to buy elsewhere. Plus, I really enjoy meeting the people who are members. Check it out at thecog.org, and feel free to ask me questions about this fantastic opportunity to shop here in Emeryville and support a non-profit organization selling quality food.

Thanks for reading my newsletter, and please, respond to me with any feedback or if you would like to be removed. Happy Valentine’s Day!

Sincerely,
Jennifer West
Emeryville City Council Member
emeryvillewest@gmail.com
(510) 420-5795

Below is the text of a letter sent by John Sugiyama, superintendant of the Emery Unified School District, to Shirley Enomoto, author of the previous post regarding the parcel tax exemption for seniors.

Hello Shirley!

Thank you for your patience in receiving this reply to your inquiry regarding the notification of Emeryville parcel owners regarding the senior exemption provision of Measure A. We have researched this issue extensively and finally have information that we believe is accurate. Hopefully this information will be helpful to you.

1. Contrary to what we understood previously, the letter notifying parcel owners of the senior exemption is only mailed to those seniors who have previously applied for the exemption. The letter is not mailed to all parcel owners in Emeryville nor does any law or statute require such a mailing since the notice of senior exemption was clearly stated in the ballot language for Measure A.

2. While the ballot language states, “Any one application from a qualified applicant will provide an exemption for the parcel for the remaining term of the assessment . . . “ the language continues on to state, “ . . . so long as such applicant continues to use the parcel as his or her principal residence.” Therefore, the only way to determine whether an applicant continues to use the parcel as his or her principal residence is for the applicant to re-submit the exemption form on an annual basis. The County Tax Assessor only knows if the parcel has changed hands, not, for example, if a parcel owner moves out and continues to rent the property and claim the exemption (for which they are no longer eligible).

However, given that there are seniors such as yourself who were not 65 at the time the parcel tax was passed and that they may not recall that they are eligible for the senior exemption when they turn 65 years old prior to July 1 of an assessment year, we have directed NBS to mail the notice of the senior exemption letter to every residential parcel owner on record with the County Tax Assessor this April as a reminder for anyone who is 65 years of age prior to July 1, 2010. In this way, we can be sure that every eligible senior will receive notification of the exemption provision in Measure A. Of course, those seniors who have previously filed the exemption request will receive the same letter in early April.

The requirement that the senior exemption be renewed annually will remain for the reasons stated above. For your information, our district along with many other school districts and city governments use NBS to manage their parcel taxes. We have been very pleased with their services and have no reasons to terminate our contract with them. If you are interested in learning more about NBS, their website is www.nbsgov.com.

I want to thank you for bringing the issue of notification of parcel owners about the senior exemption to our attention. As a result of your inquiry, we can now take action to be sure that all residential parcel owners are informed annually of their ability to apply for a senior exemption.

We expect that the letter will be mailed out by NBS sometime in early April. Please e-mail me to let me know that you have received the letter.

Thanks again,

John Sugiyama

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO

By Liz Altieri

Be prepared to reach into your wallets so your city employees don’t have to. The City of Emeryville ’s Finance Committee (Nora Davis, Chair; Jennifer West, Member) is currently contemplating “revenue enhancements” to recommend to the full City Council. This is due to the grim news revealed at last June’s City Council “Advance” (as opposed to “Retreat”) regarding budget projections for Fiscal 2009-10, which started on July 1: “The current revenue base is inadequate in sustaining our cost structures.” While some savings are expected from freezing open staff positions, the City Council is looking to new revenues to address this “fiscal imbalance” – more taxes.

The easy way out is a special “Landscape and Lighting Assessment District” (LLAD) which can be imposed on property taxpayers without going through a regular election. A simple mailing to property owners – residents and businesses in Emeryville – can result in new property taxes which are weighted by the number of square feet owned, and if you don’t respond to the mailing, your vote doesn’t count. Twenty commercial property owners (count them: Wareham , Madison Marquette ( Bay Street ), Pixar, etc.) can sway this vote. Hey, do any of these people have projects pending before the City? Can you hear “Let’s Make a Deal” in any of these back rooms at City Hall? And who will really pay this tax? Their tenants, that’s who – other Emeryville small businesses AND their customers.

You may have recently received a telephone poll, which was commissioned and paid for by the City, to find out how taxpayers would react to this new tax. Couched in vague terms relating to “quality of life” issues, the bare facts of a new tax are veiled by threats of unmaintained parks and dim street lights. No where mentioned is the alternative of cutting city employee costs – which currently consume 72% of the General Fund.

Government employees, including Emeryville workers, have some of the most lucrative jobs around. Paid medical, dental and vision benefits, 37.5 hours work weeks, liberal vacation and “administrative” pay, car allowances (where, in our “Green” City?), retirement at 55 with almost full salaries – we are not talking fire and police here, but your average pencil pusher at City Hall. With state and local governments across California requiring closures of government offices and unpaid furloughs from employees, has Emeryville even contemplated further tightening its own belt before stretching out its palms for taxpayer silver? No way. Embittered employees might take a walk – to where, Vallejo ? Hey, can I apply for that job?

It is time to demand that Emeryville government look around its own house for ways to save money before grabbing at the public to continue financing its employees’ extravagant salary and benefits packages. We’re not going to take it any more. Contact your City Council members before it’s too late.

Liz Altieri and her husband have lived in Emeryville for the past seven years, and own their Watergate residence. Liz has worked in Emeryville since 1997. She is currently studying for her real estate license and working with All Emeryville Properties as a broker’s assistant. Liz is an emeritus Board member of the Emeryville Chamber of Commerce, and has been a member of the General Plan Steering Committee since its inception.

Residents Call for Change in Second Phase of Emeryville Development

As you’ve probably heard, this is not the best economic climate for commercial real estate development. Even in the Bay Area city of Emeryville, one of the friendliest places around for developers, the pace of building has slowed.

A second phase of the prominent Bay Street shopping center has been in the works for years. Current plans call for a department store and a parking garage… but right now, it’s just an empty lot.

While that project has been standing still, the city around it has been changing. The population of Emeryville has nearly doubled in the past decade. And some residents are starting to speak out. They’re hoping the new mall, called Site B, won’t be just more of the same. KALW’s Zoe Corneli reports from Emeryville.

Listen to full story