Public Roads: Who Pays?
ln the August issue of the Orinda News, Daniel Gutu objected to the public funding of maintaining the 30 miles of residential streets that are currently maintained by the residents living on those streets. He called that a "gift" to these 1,500 Orinda families.
In 2017, his road was repaired by the city of Orinda. It had a PCI of 9 (a failed street) before the repair and a PCI of 100 (a new street) after the repair. It was literally rebuilt.
This cost the city about $110,000 which was paid for with interest (an additional $50,000) by all of the property owners in Orinda based on the assessed value of their property.
Since the assessed value of homes on private roads represents 25% of Orinda's property tax base, residents living on private roads paid 25% of the cost to repair Mr. Gutu's street ($40,000), a gift shared by Mr. Gutu and his nine neighbors.
So I ask - who is gifting whom?
Bob Daoro
Orinda
Vote No on Sales Tax
The arguments that Lafayette needs a sales tax do not present the full picture. A big chunk of the alleged need is the assertion that there are "unfunded mandates" from the state. But the state constitution requires that all state mandates be funded, unless a fee can be charged, such as to a developer. See art. XIII B, section 6(a) and Govt. Code Section 17556(d). Indeed, there is an entire state agency - the Commission on State Mandates-whose function is to hear and decide claims by cities for reimbursement. If a test claim is approved, the Commission adopts parameters for other affected cities to claim reimbursement.
The City Council asserts that compliance with conditions in its stormwater discharge permit is an unfunded mandate. But in a case decided in 2022, the court of appeal upheld a ruling by the Commission that most costs incurred by cities to satisfy conditions the state imposed on their stormwater discharge permits were reimbursable from the state. The parameters, however, have not yet been issued.
Another alleged unfunded mandate is staff time for compliance with state housing mandates. However, either impact fees can be charged to housing developers, or if not, a claim should be filed with the Commission.
Lafayette should assert its rights under the California Constitution to cause the state to fund the mandates, or charge appropriate impact fees to developers, instead of imposing an increase in sales tax.
Nick Waranoff
Orinda
ln the August issue of the Orinda News, Daniel Gutu objected to the public funding of maintaining the 30 miles of residential streets that are currently maintained by the residents living on those streets. He called that a "gift" to these 1,500 Orinda families.
In 2017, his road was repaired by the city of Orinda. It had a PCI of 9 (a failed street) before the repair and a PCI of 100 (a new street) after the repair. It was literally rebuilt.
This cost the city about $110,000 which was paid for with interest (an additional $50,000) by all of the property owners in Orinda based on the assessed value of their property.
Since the assessed value of homes on private roads represents 25% of Orinda's property tax base, residents living on private roads paid 25% of the cost to repair Mr. Gutu's street ($40,000), a gift shared by Mr. Gutu and his nine neighbors.
So I ask - who is gifting whom?
Bob Daoro
Orinda
Vote No on Sales Tax
The arguments that Lafayette needs a sales tax do not present the full picture. A big chunk of the alleged need is the assertion that there are "unfunded mandates" from the state. But the state constitution requires that all state mandates be funded, unless a fee can be charged, such as to a developer. See art. XIII B, section 6(a) and Govt. Code Section 17556(d). Indeed, there is an entire state agency - the Commission on State Mandates-whose function is to hear and decide claims by cities for reimbursement. If a test claim is approved, the Commission adopts parameters for other affected cities to claim reimbursement.
The City Council asserts that compliance with conditions in its stormwater discharge permit is an unfunded mandate. But in a case decided in 2022, the court of appeal upheld a ruling by the Commission that most costs incurred by cities to satisfy conditions the state imposed on their stormwater discharge permits were reimbursable from the state. The parameters, however, have not yet been issued.
Another alleged unfunded mandate is staff time for compliance with state housing mandates. However, either impact fees can be charged to housing developers, or if not, a claim should be filed with the Commission.
Lafayette should assert its rights under the California Constitution to cause the state to fund the mandates, or charge appropriate impact fees to developers, instead of imposing an increase in sales tax.
Nick Waranoff
Orinda
Reach the reporter at:
Lamorinda Weekly, Moraga CA