While upgrading San Mateo’s stormwater infrastructure garners widespread support, some concerns have emerged over whether the city should foot the bill or share the cost with property owners.
Proponents of the fee, however, say the city is already paying to ensure the city stays flood free and that a dedicated funding stream is necessary for long-term improvements.
The city mailed ballots to property owners on Nov. 1 asking them to vote on whether to implement a monthly fee, up to $11 for residential properties, which would fund key stormwater infrastructure initiatives, including Marina Lagoon dredging.
Jerry Hill, a former San Mateo mayor and state senator, said there is no doubt the city desperately needs upgrades, but roughly $70 million in rainy day reserves, in addition to a healthy general fund, gives the city plenty to work with without resorting to a fee on property owners that is likely to increase in perpetuity.
“There’s not a question for the need for storm infrastructure and repairs, but the city’s general fund is in a strong fiscal position, with a $71 million rainy day reserve,” he said, also noting there are numerous critical services that lean on the general fund and don’t have a specific source of funding, such as police services and road repairs.
He also surfaced the city’s reluctance to dip into the rainy day reserve in case its insurance provider refuses to pay out a claim from an ongoing civil case surrounding a former San Mateo police officer convicted of sexual assault in 2019. The city did not comment on the pending litigation with the insurance firm.
But dipping into rainy day reserves is no easy feat, said Danielle Cwirko-Godycki, coalition leader for Flood Free San Mateo and supporter of the measure, as it took their organization nine months of advocacy to have $3 million drawn from the fund for key weather preparations ahead of this winter season.
According to its statement, the city is already using about $12 million from the rainy day fund this year, and the remainder will be particularly important over the next eight years as budget deficits are expected.
The monthly fee is not just a way to fund infrastructure projects, but to secure additional funds, as the revenue would make the city more competitive for state and federal grants, some of which require the city to match funds.
Recommended for you
“Should the property owners pass this, the city can leverage these funds in order to borrow monies to do bigger projects. It also shows a commitment on behalf of the city that they can’t be used for anything other than stormwater infrastructure,” City Manager Alex Khojikian said.
The ballot measure marks one of the final steps in a four-year process to make pipe and drainage improvements that have been neglected for more than 50 years. To make sufficient stormwater system improvements, the city estimates a cost of around $9 million each year, and the property owner fees would supplement a little less than half that amount. The fee could also increase by 3% each year at the council’s discretion, making the potential cost to property owners quite high, said Hill, also citing sewer fee increases as an example.
“They keep saying they want more affordable housing … that’s admirable, but they’re just talking about buying a home. They’re not talking about the affordability of maintaining a home,” he said. “They feel the timing is right, people were flooded, the urgency has been created, and that will get them to vote yes. That’s the mental thinking of the city.”
But to Cwirko-Godycki, whose home was affected by the New Year’s flooding along with many others, the fee is still lower than the cost of the alternatives.
“I want to acknowledge that nobody likes paying a fee, and it is a burden and a cost, but we also have to think big picture, which is, do I pay $8 today or do I pay $30,000 again when I have to redo my home because of all the water damage and flooding?” she said. “Flood Free’s goal is to get on the dartboard and continue to work and advocate for state and federal matching funds and really develop programs and mechanisms so we can pay for this infrastructure over the long term.”
Mail-in ballots were sent to property owners on Nov. 1, who have until Dec. 17 to cast their votes.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 102
(3) comments
If the city can raise 3% a year, they will raise it 3% a year. BTW, Foster City residents should foot the bill for the dredging Foster City's lagoon.
Foster City lagoon is an entirely different Lagoon from the San Mateo Marina Lagoon. Foster City residents do pay a fee to have their lagoon dredged and maintained. San Mateo residents do not.
Homeowners, just vote No on subsidizing others. Just vote No on providing more pension and benefit money. Just vote No because the city hasn’t accounted for the money allocated for maintenance and improvements in the past. As Not So Common noted, if the city can raise fees by 3% a year, they will. I’d bet the city will also grant raises to city workers of perhaps 3% a year.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.