|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Earlier this summer, Mountain View approved putting a revenue measure on the November ballot that would tax some of the most expensive properties in the city. If passed by voters, the revenue measure could add $9.5 million annually to Mountain View’s coffers.
But the City Council stopped short of demarcating what exactly would be funded from the potential windfall, setting off a heated discussion about some of the biggest needs in the community.
Now the City Council has come back with a plan of its spending priorities for Measure G – a property transfer tax on sales of more than $6 million. In a unanimous vote, the City Council approved allocating the largest share of funding for a new police and fire building at its meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 10.
The council also carved out funding for two other high priority areas – parks and open space and affordable housing. With the council’s decision, the city will set aside 35% to 40% of the revenue for public safety facilities, 30% to 35% for parks and open space, 20% to 25% for affordable housing and 5% to 15% for other government services.
While some community members supported the spending plan, others expressed concern that the largest piece of the pie would go to a new police and fire building, which already has funding earmarked from other revenue sources. They recommended deprioritizing it to support other critical needs in Mountain View.
“The percentage allocated to the public safety facility seems disproportionately high, especially given the community’s stated policies,” said Mountain View resident April Webster, who advocated for more funding to go towards active transportation, while also expressing support for parks, open space and affordable housing.
Mayor Pat Showalter and Council member Alison Hicks expressed some ambivalence about the allocation categories as well, noting that they would have supported more money for affordable housing and parks and open space. But they also pointed out that the expenditure plan had flexibility, with the possibility of reviewing it in 10 years to make sure the breakdown still aligns with city priorities.
For Council member Lucas Ramirez, the expenditure plan was an opportunity to rebuild trust with the community, he said. While the revenue will help fund some projects, Ramirez also noted that needs were great and it was important to be transparent and tactical with spending priorities.
“The intent of the expenditure plan really is to provide a level of transparency and provide assurance to the community that we’re going to spend the money in a manner that is consistent with the priorities as we understand them – again understanding that many priorities are sometimes conflicting,” he said.
Ramirez also said there would be opportunities to revisit the expenditure plan and make adjustments. To this end, Ramirez proposed creating a “windfall” allocation strategy. If the property transfer tax generated more money than expected, then the revenue could be reallocated to better support other priorities, like parks and affordable housing, and not “superfund” the public safety building, he said.
City Manager Kimbra McCarthy also clarified that the community would have more opportunities to weigh in on the public safety building, which will be brought back to council later this year, with plans to try and reduce its $200 million construction costs.
Additionally, Ramirez proposed a “shortfall” allocation strategy that could be triggered during an economic downturn. “That’s a really good time to check in with the community to make sure that this is going to work as intended,” he said.
Balancing this approach, Ramirez proposed requiring a two-thirds majority from the council to amend or repeal the goals and spending priorities for Measure G. The other council members backed Ramirez’s motion.
The city’s emphasis on transparency and accountability seemed to sway some members of the public, including an opposition group to Measure G that was backed by Mountain View resident Jim Zaorski.
“We are cautiously optimistic that we can quickly get rid of the campaign against (Measure) G. Personally, I’m for that. The thing about ‘no blank checks’ has been resolved and now we’re focusing on community, and I commend you all for that,” Zaorski said.
Hells Angels member reaches plea deal in fatal punch case at Mountain View concertApril 22, 2026 8:00 am
Yeah no. A big slush fund that can change as the wind and election changes. If they want a new public safety building, they should float a bond
Meanwhile, they don’t have “enough money” to share with the kids from Shoreline.
Balderdash
Thank you for this article. To clarify, a 2/3 supermajority vote of the City Council would be required to amend or repeal the resolution adopting the expenditure plan — not “appeal.”
“Balancing this approach, Ramirez proposed requiring a two-thirds majority from the council to amend or appeal the goals and spending priorities for Measure G.”
Thank you for catching the typo. It has been fixed.
Building a new police and fire facility will no doubt fill the entire lot and remove many, if not all, of the heritage trees on site. How about saving the trees, converting the site into a proper park and build a much smaller, or taller, public safety facility and kill two birds with one stone? The city did, years ago, promise to increase the tree canopy – but how many heritage trees have we lost to developers over the past ten years or so? Too many.
At its very BEST, Measure G is a badly written bill that needs to be rejected by voters so we can get a better one.
At its worst, it is a deceptive bill written with words that the City Council believed were “what voters wanted to hear”, even though they knew that there was no legal obligation on them to spend the new funds in any particular way. The impartial analysis provided by the City Attorney on Measure G says, “All revenue generated by this tax would go into the City’s general fund and could be used for any general governmental purpose.” Translation: Measure G is indeed a blank check.
1) If it is true that only a trivial amount of residential properties will be impacted by this bill, then why wasn’t the bill written to target COMMERCIAL properties alone?
The language clearly states that it will be imposed on “residential/commercial property sales above $6,000,000 only”. It would have been so very easy to leave off the word “residential”.
If it is true that Measure G is not intended to target residential property, it is a badly written bill.
Today, one can only conclude that the bill IS INTENDED to target residential property, because that is what the language of the bill says it will actually do.
Does the City Council understand that we are in the middle of a housing crisis? Do they understand that raising taxes on residential property INCREASES THE COST OF HOUSING? They cannot honestly claim that it is not intended to target residential property when the language of the bill specifies that it will do exactly that If they somehow made a truly horrible, awful mistake and did not catch their error before the bill was put on the ballot, there is only one solution that makes sense: voters need to vote NO, so we can get a better bill.
2) If it is true that Measure G is intended to be a “sock it to the rich” bill, then why doesn’t it contain any indexes to inflation?
Those who understand the principles of Math can understand that it is only a matter of time before the typical residential property will be worth $6 million. We all know that real estate tends to appreciate over time. It is only a matter of before the TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY in MV will be impacted by Measure G. Based on the median home value of $2.75 million in Q2 2024, and an annual appreciation rate of 6%, the math shows that the median home value in Mountain View will be $6 million in about 13 years or so. Between now and 2037, more and more homeowners will be impacted each yearer by Measure G, until almost everyone is impacted. I have gone to great lengths to try to explain this to former mayor Lucas Ramirez. If he had questions or confusion, I wish he had contacted me so that I could explain the Math.
Again, If the City Council somehow made a truly horrible, awful mistake and did not catch their error before the bill was put on the ballot, there is only one solution that makes sense: voters need to vote NO, so we can get a better bill that contains indexes to inflation to ensure that only the wealthiest residents are forced to pay higher transfer taxes.
3) Instituting a new “two-thirds majority from the council to amend or repeal the goals and spending priorities for Measure G.” does not impress me. The council has 7 members. A majority requires 4 votes. A “super majority” vote of ⅔ requires 5 votes. Woo-hoo! 2 council members could object, and yet, the spending priorities of the City Council could be changed. In this case, ⅔ is not a super high bar, especially in a council that values its “collegiality”.
Another concern. I don’t see a provision for a sliding scale of the transfer charge so that the cost of a $6M transfer ($90,000) does not cost tens of thousands of dollars more than a $5.999M transfer ($19,767). That does not seem fair. Also, I’m generally not in favor of such a large percentage of these funds going to a new police headquarters. Can’t we just improve/refurbish the existing one?