Stage set: largest parcel tax defeat in the history of the city. Voters supporting the town center are of insufficient quantity to authorize payment for the town center. Yet:

Lempres: "I don't think there's any question that will be proceeding."

Lewis: "One thing is certain, the civic center is going to be built."

AND

"The tax also paid for roads and drainage projects, some of which may have to be delayed, postponed or cut."

HOW DARE these two council members – who both should be resigning based on this vote – impact the property values of residents by cutting their drainage yet still insist on building a Taj Mahal town center that voters have decided is too expensive.

Talk about tone deaf!

It is irresponsible for a Council to put a parcel tax on the ballot and then to have only DeGolia and Lewis actualyl work to pass the measure.

The Council should have realized that when only 61% of the voters supported Measure A on the Town Center - which did not involve a tax increase - that a new parcel tax would face a significant challenge. And why should voters support a parcel tax when Lempres, Widmer and Wiest were virtually silent.

And in contrast to previous parcel tax election losses this loss was by such a big margin that I do not think another attempt to pass it would even come close to the required 67%.

Measure A was advisory only and supported, but did not require, the use of general funds for the new Town Center. If the Council now decides to "punish" the community by compensating for the lost parcel tax revenues by reducing essential services I predict that there will be a revolt.

To Elizabeth Lewis and Mike Lempres –

I think you are making a mistake and should really reconsider your position here. The most objective approach can be taken by reading the ballot arguments. The opposition argument was essentially the money to pay for services like, for example, drainage, is already present in Atherton, and a special tax is not needed. The pro argument was essentially the surplus money has been allocated for the town center so yes, indeed, additional taxes are needed for the other services.

Voters rejected the pro argument and accepted the opposition argument in this election. This is incompatible with plowing ahead with the town center and cutting services.

I understand you worked hard to get the town center approved and built, and you have a healthy dose of your ego into this project. This isn't a criticism, just normal human nature. But the right thing to do as a fiduciary is to step back from that and be reflective.

@Concerned Resident

Actually, a majority supported the pro arguments. Measure F failed to clear the 2/3 threshold, but a voter minority should not dictate the terms under which existing tax revenue is allocated.

What the results mean is the council has to cut lower priority projects. How that is done is a bit of an art. Lower priority projects can be cut or delayed. Money can be borrowed against future tax revenue. Revenue planned to pay for pension obligations above the minimum required could be diverted to other projects.

If Measure F opponents want to use Measure A and Measure F as civic center referendums, then they do so at their own peril. Both measures had majority support, which means most voters are supportive of the current civic center plans.

That's why Lewis and Lempres can say that the civic center project should move ahead largely as is. The civic center has majority support. The council just needs to resolve how to serve the majority's desire with fewer upfront funds.

My view is that the voters expect the Town to continue to fund its current operations first and foremost and then to apply the remaining available funds to the Town Center.

@Apple –

I said voters rejected the parcel tax pro argument. That's a correct statement, since 67% support was required. The measure barely got 50%, and that was with an Almanac endorsement and the Town removing No on F signs and doing an about face and allowing for late ballot analysis submissions.

As another resident pointed out on the other thread, it's clear the voters rejected the parcel tax because they knew it was only necessary to pay for the (what they regard as overpriced) Town Center. The pro argument admitted the parcel tax was needed because of the Town Center. The other poster used the words "indirectly" because without the Town Center, the surplus could pay for all of the service expenses of the parcel tax.

I think playing word games and looking at ballot measures in a vacuum is not the right thing to do here. This is the first time in recent history that the parcel tax failed. It failed hard. Very hard, actually. The difference is the $50M proposed Town Center.

As I said, it's time to put egos aside.

The Parcel Tax has failed numerous times in the past.

Failed at a General Election in November 1999.
Failed at a Special Election held in March 2000.
Passed at a Special Election in June 2001.
Failed in a General Election in November 2004.
Passed in a Special Election in June 2005.
Passed in a General Election in November 2009.

That's recent history. The parcel tax has been on the books since 1979. It was not a new tax nor was it an unnecessary tax. The city, just like other agencies, has grown dependent on a revenue source that it has had for more nearly 40 years. That's not unusual. Cities and agencies become dependent on revenue sources - sales tax, parcel taxes, property taxes, business license taxes, fees, etc. Not unusual. The Council was clear when they put Measure F on the ballot that it might not be needed after the Civic Center Project was completed so they put it out for a 3 year term instead of 4 years.

The Council unanimously supported Measure F. I spoke with nearly all of the Council about the measure and all expressed their support and proactively worked toward its success. Lewis and DeGolia served as the campaign committee. Lempres shot and released a video. Wiest and Widmer sent out correspondence.

If the opposition cries that we should throw out Council Members simply because a ballot measure fails, we'd be throwing out council members, board members, and other elected officials regularly.

Measure F was not successful. Move on. The city needs to come up with some sort of strategy to address what needs to be addressed including the Civic Center. But don't think there will not be impacts all around.

The Civic Center is needed. It's not designed too big. City Hall and Police Station are not LEED certified buildings. Only the Library - which is fully funded. The others are built only to California Building Code Energy Standards. Get the facts. They are designed with deduct elements, to include the deduction of a new Council Chambers.

Calling for resignations is petty.

"The Council was clear when they put Measure F on the ballot that it might not be needed after the Civic Center Project was completed so they put it out for a 3 year term instead of 4 years."

Nice try, but didn't you get the memo? The voters knew the Council said the same thing four years ago, but never abated the tax when big surpluses came. Also, the Almanac finally let the cat out of the bag (after votes were counted, not before…yet an other example of the collusion the opposition group has had to overcome) that the three year cycle is not to make the tax go away after the Civic Center, but to line up the next election with the U.S. presidential year to get more voters. Had that been revealed before the election, you guys wouldn't have even merited the 50% showing as an incumbent measure with the full weight of the government behind it (as in taking signs away for the first time ever).

Next, you list the various years the parcel tax was defeated, in an attempt to sweep this defeat under the rug as just "business as usual," but those defeats were by slim margins. Calculations were done on the other thread. This defeat was massive, even with the collusion. This time is different. You cannot argue those numbers.

But let me cut to the heart of the matter. Reading the statements of Lewis, Lempres, yourself, Apple…both the lines and between them…it seems like the council and tax/civic center supporters are going the direction of "same strategy, different/better tactics."

I don't think that's the right thing to do here. The voters sent a big message. Where's DeGolia? He came on the boards to advocate the parcel tax. Why isn't he coming on them to explain how the strategy will change based on what the voters have said?

Same strategy/different tactics isn't how representative democracy is supposed to function after a very clear voter message is sent. You can continue to argue fine points of various details, all in an attempt, in my view, to further obscure the basic points…the snow job…and it hasn't worked. The voters are too educated, too smart, worked too hard for their money, and made too many sacrifices to get where they are today to be snowed.

WHAT IS THE NEW STRATEGY OF THE COUNCIL BASED ON THIS ELECTION?

Or is it just same strategy/different tactics?

"Same strategy/different tactics isn't how representative democracy is supposed to function after a very clear voter message is sent."

No one is arguing anything. I think you are correct. Voters sent a message that the parcel tax is not to be continued. So be it. Let's move on and find solutions that work.

But just to be clear, even with the parcel tax, as a percentage, we pay less in taxes to the city than residents pay as part of their basic municipal property taxes in the cities of East Palo Alto, Foster City, Redwood City, Belmont, Pacifica, Daly City, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Burlingame, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Millbrae, San Bruno, Menlo Park and San Carlos.

I would assume that the strategy of the council is to assess what's next, not only for the civic center, but also from a general budget perspective. They have to assess the message - is the message, don't tax us but still provide the services we demand? or is it, don't tax us and do and provide less? or is it, provide the same level of service, but find some other revenue source? or is it, we're just tired of all the work going on around town - so stop the work and slow down the effort. All are fine message, but they all come with different strategies. I also think that the message is not the same for every voter.

Let's assume we get passed the civic center project and back to regular business - 3 years from now. Yes, the council has said there will be more revenue than expenditures and there may not be a need for the parcel tax. But even with the parcel tax, I would guess that that revenue is not sufficient to address the continuing infrastructure needs as they slowly deteriorate around us. Believe it or not, there are pot holes and properties are flooding during heavy rain. And without the parcel tax, the residents have just put the city in fiscal jeopardy if there is an economic turndown - which may indeed come to pass. Cost of construction will go up, property values and revenue will go flat - and the infrastructure needs will continue to exist and get worse.

That's my perspective. A dialogue is important. But petty personal attacks are not helpful. Posters who head in that direction only inflame, cause more harm, and result in unproductive conversation.

"They have to assess the message - is the message, don't tax us but still provide the services we demand? or is it, don't tax us and do and provide less? or is it, provide the same level of service, but find some other revenue source? or is it, we're just tired of all the work going on around town - so stop the work and slow down the effort."

Interesting how none of the items on your menu include scaling down the Town Center.

That's what I meant by same strategy/different tactics.

@Wow,

That seems to be your singular interpretation of the list. However, they were merely a description of possible messages, not every possible message or the ultimate actions. Ultimate actions may well include the use of deduct alternates for the Town Center; the use of grant funds; other funding sources; or the reduction of projects.

If your assertion is that you are speaking for all voters that voted NO and asserting that their singular message was "scale down the Town Center" I think you are mistaken. I spoke with numerous no voters that expressed support for the Town Center project, but apprehension and ultimate no for the parcel tax because they felt, largely that the too much work was being in done in Town right now. Roads are fine. Drainage works. Etc. Their belief was that the city's revenues exceed expenditures so the parcel tax has reached its useful life.

In short, the Town Leadership has lost all credibility. They promised:
1) The Town Center would be paid by "donations" & be less that $20M
- The donations didn't come in
2) The Town Center would be funded by "found" money that Atherton didn't realize that they had
- No additional taxes would ever be required!
- The construction & resulting higher taxes would take care of Atherton's needs
3) Then, we need to vote for a parcel tax to pay for"basic" services
- A "renewal" of a parcel tax that would end is just a NEW tax!
- The $52M (Note new #) for the new Town Center & Library is not negotiable
4) Now, they will have to fire our police & other service support

Out leadership has no credibility & is focused on their own personal desires & NOT those of the residents.

Please run a "tight ship"and stop creating your personal legacy!

Seriously, it's like a game of whack a mole.

1) The Town Center would be paid by "donations" & be less that $20M - The donations didn't come in

The community AND the Council supported Measure L in 2012 advising that the city should primarily use private donations to design and build the new Town Center. The vote at the time received overwhelming support from the community - as could be expected. Who wouldn't vote to have someone else pay for a new Town Center? But, you are correct, the donations did not materialize. While the community supported using "other people's money" - very few stepped up.

2) The Town Center would be funded by "found" money that Atherton didn't realize that they had
- No additional taxes would ever be required!
- The construction & resulting higher taxes would take care of Atherton's needs

Half truth. With Measure A, we were told that the Town Center would be funded by donations, building fees, and the general fund plus the use of current and future surplus funds. It's wasn't "found" money - it was saved money.

3) Then, we need to vote for a parcel tax to pay for"basic" services
- A "renewal" of a parcel tax that would end is just a NEW tax!
- The $52M (Note new #) for the new Town Center & Library is not negotiable

No. The parcel tax does not pay for basic services. The parcel tax pays for capital projects, just like always - streets, drainage and public safety. No difference. And the tax has been around since 1979. It is not a new tax. As a voter, I understood that a vote for Measure A was also a vote for the parcel tax.

The budget, as of the last Council meeting actually dropped by $1.4 million - $50,733,960 - and that includes contingencies. Web Link

4) Now, they will have to fire our police & other service support

Really? Has that decision been made already? No. They have to develop a strategic plan to address the loss of the parcel tax.

I am really disappointed that the present political environment lives on rumors and half truths. Does no one do their homework any more? Does everyone just pick up on this misinformation and take as truth? It is truly sad to see the state of affairs at the federal and now apparently local level when the public feels that it is appropriate to simply put out false information, malign others, and deliberately spread lies. And at the end of the day - feel good about it.

Out leadership has no credibility & is focused on their own personal desires & NOT those of the residents.

It is the general public that seems to lack credibility.

The Daily states:

"Lempres said the council will look at the different ways it can move forward at an upcoming meeting. Those options include CUTTING the two things that the tax funds, police and capital improvements, Lempres SAID. The council will also decide whether to put the parcel tax before voters AGAIN."
********


If the Council now decides to "punish" the community by compensating for the lost parcel tax revenues by reducing essential services I predict that there will be a revolt.

Perhaps the Fire District could find a way to share its bloated coffers with Atherton.

"Seriously, it's like a game of whack a mole.", with 13 likes thus far (4 PM on 11/9).

That's the attitude toward people with different views that caused the parcel tax to fail hard.

@Peter

The Daily states:

"Lempres said the council will look at the different ways it can move forward at an upcoming meeting. Those options include CUTTING the two things that the tax funds, police and capital improvements, Lempres SAID. The council will also decide whether to put the parcel tax before voters AGAIN."
********

Peter, that's correct. But the poster said "4) Now, they will have to fire our police & other service support"

Your post and the Daily's post are correct. The council will likely have to look at the different ways it can move forward. As noted, options include cutting capital improvements and police as well as whether to put the measure out again. But no decisions have been made. No discussion held. All speculation at this point. To state an otherwise conclusion of "...will have to fire our police & other service support" feeds misinformation and prejudices public participation and decision-making.

"If the Council now decides to "punish" the community by compensating for the lost parcel tax revenues by reducing essential services I predict that there will be a revolt."

You should know as a Board Member that it's not helpful to characterize decisions by elected bodies with fiduciary responsibility as decisions made to "punish" the community so long as those decisions are made logically, rationally, and without bias. The Council may well be forced to choose between competing priorities. Selecting one over the other based on a rationale priority may well be seen by others as a win/lose - but that does not mean that the elected body is "punishing" the community. To use that phraseology implies that the Council is malicious in its decision-making and it feeds misinformation, speculation, and aggression. As a Board Member, you try and make the best possible decision with the best possible information to do so. But that decision does mean that the solution is always a win/win in the eyes of the public. That does not mean that you are punishing the public by your decision and when someone accuses you of doing so, they do so unfairly.

It is ludicrous to suggest that capital improvements and police services depend on another parcel tax.

The increases in property taxes have and will exceed the loss from the expiring parcel tax.

To even suggest that essential services will be cut before cutting other expenditures is the Washington monument strategy used by the Park Service whenever its budget is threatened -"if you cut our budget then we will close the Washington monument."

"It is ludicrous to suggest that capital improvements and police services depend on another parcel tax. The increases in property taxes have and will exceed the loss from the expiring parcel tax."

True. I absolutely agree that the city's revenues over expenses cover the parcel tax. I think that's why the Council wanted the tax for three years only - that's what was said at their public meeting on the topic. The idea was that the Town Center would be done and renewal at that time may not be necessary; until then, every ounce of surplus would be needed for the Town Center.

@Peter – whoever Just the Facts is, I have no doubt they understand the various distinctions here, but have seen fit to take the view that the town center project takes priority over everything else, funding-wise. It's a very ego-centric view by the people who have led the project. S/he will never admit that the roads and emergency service funding should take priority, and the town center scaled back to meet the remaining budget available. The town center is going to get built come hell or high water, no matter what suffers as a result. And as a side benefit, won't that show the voters what a mistake they made about the tax? Problem is, it's going to backfire big time for them. Wait and see. The voters aren't nearly as dumb as they think.

@Just the Facts – more lies. The Almanac admitted the tax was going on a three-year cycle to line up with presidential elections, to both save money and get more voter turnout. The council was planning on continuing to go for more tax renewals. The promise you admit was made is just another example of the bait and switch technique that worked well four years ago, but not this time.

@Wow - You are correct. My personal belief is that the city has decent roads, passable drainage, and enough general funds to cover for the 2 additional police officers funded by the parcel tax. I believe that the Town Center is the highest priority at the moment. I've seen the facilities. They are deplorable and a significant public and personnel liability waiting to happen. Can there be reductions to them? Maybe. That should be part of the council's conversation. I believed that paying $2,250 ($750 a year times three years of the parcel tax) was a small price to pay to get both the Town Center AND capital projects. I live in Atherton, I think I can afford $2,250 to get a nice city hall and police AND roads, drainage and public safety. However, I also believe that the city should slow down on capital projects. This small community can only take so much. Focus on the immediate safety concerns; not the nice to have bicycle projects, park projects, etc. I'm entitled to those opinions, but I don't have to sling mud, misinformation and make personal attacks to state them.

"The Almanac admitted the tax was going on a three-year cycle to line up with presidential elections, to both save money and get more voter turnout"

So, it was a newspaper, the Almanac, making that statement, right? Not the actual public city council at the public meeting where their statements were different?

I do not understand the comments on what needs to be cut. The Town is Operations at a Surplus already. All programs planned are funded and as the Town said during the Civic Center vote all future programs were also projected as funded.

The only question is the amount of the General Fund to go towards the Civic Center-which has not be bid yet. The Council has agreed alternate items to be considered if the funding is not there.

So with the first priority is the Town’s ongoing operations, and with a an annual budget surplus, there should be NO suggestions of cutting of programs at all. Merely a scare tactic and one which is really inappropriate!

@Just the facts – yes, the Almanac reported that the tax was going to be three years so it can line up with presidential elections for better voter turnout and lower cost. Maybe the Almanac can respond about whether this is just something they came up with on their own, or someone from the town told them this. If they made it up, I'd like to know why, since that would be irresponsible journalism. If they didn't, clearly DeGolia was telling voters what he thought they wanted to hear, but with no intention of actually following through, since plans were already being made for the next tax.

@True Facts – yes, it's a scare tactic. Yes, it's clearly inappropriate. Like I said above, they didn't see this type of defeat coming, and they're also very out of touch with what the reaction is going to be to these manipulations/scare tactics. Carpenter predicted a revolt and I agree with him.

@True

Correct.

"The Town is Operations at a Surplus already. All programs planned are funded and as the Town said during the Civic Center vote all future programs were also projected as funded."

With respect to city operations, the parcel tax only funds 2 ADDITIONAL police officers beyond regular complement. All other general operations are fully funded by basic revenues. These are the only positions that should be evaluated.

The parcel tax also paid for capital projects. Capital projects are not operations. It is these projects that need to be carefully considered by the council. Which of these projects are "must do" and which are "could do". With the loss of the parcel tax, the "could do"s should go away leaving only the "must do" projects. These must then be balanced against the Town Center project.

@Wow

It was likely said at a public meeting, but to declare that it was the intent is incorrect. At the meeting, the clear intent was to set the parcel tax at 3 years so it could be re-evaluated as to its need after the Town Center project. When the argument was made to set it at 3 years, the discussion revolved around when that timing would be. The timing happened to align with presidential and Council elections. It was not a motive but a by-product.

Council save money, contract your police services to the county sheriff. Fire services are basically contracted out as a special district, with a 98.5% approval rating. How will your council deal with this blow with a reduced tax base. Understand that your voters are not happy with additional taxes, they want things to remain the same!

Parcel taxes are less likely to be approved when turnout is higher.

@Wow
the tax was going to be three years so it can line up with presidential elections for better voter turnout and lower cost...DeGolia was telling voters what he thought they wanted to hear, but with no intention of actually following through, since plans were already being made for the next tax.

Your theory isn't supported by the facts. The only time that the parcel tax came up in a Presidential Election was 2004. It failed. Also, if you had read the updated article, you'd see that DeGolia doesn't want to bring the parcel tax back for another vote. If you have evidence that "plans have been made" to continue this tax, share it, otherwise don't make statements that you can't support. While at it, your statement that this defeat "is the largest parcel tax defeat in the history of the city" is also false. It was defeated by a greater margin in both 1999 and 2000.

I think that Carpenter is right that taxes are less likely to be supported when turnout is greater.