San Ramon's Current State, and How We Got Here
Deep Dive into City Spending with Volunteer Support; Highlighting the Newsletter I Consider a Blackmail to Residents.
San Ramon's Current State, and How We Got Here?
Why Your Local Leadership Matters: How the Mayor and Council Shape Everyday Life
A resident recently asked me an interesting question: 'What difference does it make if you win or someone else does?' She was curious, especially because her husband felt that candidates often make promises, but rarely deliver once elected.
It made me reflect on how few people realize the significant impact their vote has, especially in local elections for council, city measures, or mayoral races. Decisions about what gets built and where directly affect residents’ daily lives. This becomes even more evident when we look at neighboring cities like Dublin and Danville, which were similar in size around 2010. By 2020, Dublin had grown by 58%, becoming the fastest-growing city in the area, while Danville’s population stayed the same.
The choices we make about who we elect truly shape the future of our communities. As mayor, I would have direct influence over which projects move forward, and even one decisive vote from the mayor can make a substantial impact.
City population 2010 through 2023
Danville: approximately 42K to 43K
Dublin: approximately 46K to 69K
Are We Represented? The Importance of Diverse Voices in Our Council
Examining the city council's decisions over the past two years reveals a concerning trend: nearly all agenda items have been unanimously approved, with little to no dissent. This lack of diverse viewpoints raises important questions about representation. We must foster an environment that encourages a range of perspectives to ensure our council truly reflects the community’s needs. Here are few examples how it looks like.
You can view all city council meetings at the following URL its the same pattern:
http://sanramonca.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx
This becomes even more apparent when you watch the meeting videos, which are also available at the same link.
City Council Meeting of June 23, 2024 (Town Hall for 1% Sales Tax Increase)
During the discussion of Measure N, the council’s priorities were made clear. The EMC research indicated only a 50% chance of the measure being approved.
Later in the meeting, the council discussed strategies to present the sales tax increase in a way that would encourage residents to approve it. The 10-year sunset clause was added specifically to avoid opposition from the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association. During the discussion (at the 2:06:00 mark), council members acknowledged that without this clause, the measure would likely face strong resistance from the association.
You can watch the full June 25, 2024, City Council meeting here: https://mediahttp.iqm2.com/SanRamonCA/2564_480.mp4.
This raises {highlights} concerns that the council is attempting to mislead residents into supporting the 1% sales tax increase, which would raise the rate from 8.75% to 9.75% - an 11.4% base rate change. The increase would generate $16 million annually, costing each resident about ~$188 per year, or approximately ~$640 per household, based on ~25,000 homes.
Townhall on July 23,2024
At a recent town hall, a resident presented receipts showing he paid $3,132.27 in sales tax. He pointed out that with the proposed 1% tax increase, he should be paying an additional $31.32. However, basic math reveals that the increase would actually result in him paying over $310. (refer to video where the part is captured from the meeting explaining it detail) Despite this discrepancy, the council failed to correct the resident, when this was actually an agenda item.
How did we get here?
I have concerns about some of the spending decisions in the city's budget, particularly given our current deficit, which forces us to compromise on public safety. Refer to budget20-21.pdf (civiclive.com). For example,
Page 210 of this FY20-21 budget has Capital Improvement Project. The city allocated $29.7Million over 5 years for "Citywide Intelligent Transportation System Upgrade" (row 17). And just four years later, we now do not have enough dollars to clean our toilets or keep fountains running. Could this project have been done for less? Did the residents understand and buy into the huge cost? Have the residents seen the value of this expense and do they value it over clean toilets? budget20-21.pdf (civiclive.com)
Row 23 shows a $16.8 Million 5 years cost of adding a third lane to a short section of Crow Canyon. The construction caused major traffic jams and accidents and took a painful two years to complete. At best this will shave driving time by 5-10 seconds. Was it a good use of our tax dollars? Ironically, the proposed sales tax is trying to raise $16 million too.
Row 13 shows $3.3M for "City Hall Reconfiguration". What is this and how many residents benefitted from this?
Row 5 shows $21.7M for the Iron Horse bridge. Could this not have waited, if the city finances were in such bad shape?
Row 56-57 have the Olympic Pool costs. A combined $6.5 million 5 year cost. The cost is equivalent of 20,000 passes for 5 years at Concord Waterpark.
Why Not Increase Developer Fees?
One area where we can increase revenue is by raising developer fees, a topic I’ve highlighted in recent debates. Currently, our city charges significantly less than Pleasanton (refer to https://www.danvillesanramon.com/blogs/2023/05/04/developer-fees-increase-cost-of-housing/)
For instance, in San Ramon, developer fees for a 2,000-square-foot new home are approximately $78,000, while Pleasanton's fees for a 3,000-square-foot new home reach $160,000. This shows that we have substantial room to adjust our fees.
Additionally, I propose a comprehensive review of all city operations. To achieve this, we should freeze any new project approvalsBased on information from the city website and research conducted by residents, here are some of the direct costs associated with Measure N: until our budget is balanced. It’s also crucial to consider restructuring city departments, similar to practices in the corporate world. This approach will help us optimize resources and improve our financial stability.
Cost of bringing Measure N to the Ballot:
Based on information from the city website and research conducted by residents, here are some of the direct costs associated with Measure N:
$100,000 for EMC Research to assess the viability of a 1% sales tax increase.
$100,000 allocated to Clifford Moss for ongoing work related to Measure N on April 6, 2023.
Additional $212,000 allocated to Clifford Moss for ongoing work related to Measure N on May 6, 2024.
"Yes for Measure N" Committee Funding:
Funding around Measure N also shows the deep connection showing about $134K was raised in short span for the committee formed Yes for Measure N.
Top 3 Contributors:
Sunset Development: $25,000
Rosendin Electric: $15,000
ABM and Employees: $15,000
Complete spreadsheet is here
.
Source : https://www.southtechhosting.com/sanramoncity/campaigndocswebretrieval
If you see letters from supporters of measure N, you know its in developers interest thats why they are funding this initiative.
How else city is trying ?
If you haven't yet read this newsletter, I highly recommend it: San Ramon Fall '24 Newsletter.
After reviewing the newsletter, a crucial question arises: Why have we reached this point, and why should this council be given more voice?
The City of San Ramon is implementing significant cuts across various departments due to budget shortfalls, yet this is being used as leverage to push residents toward supporting Measure N, which proposes a 1% sales tax increase. This tactic can be seen as coercive, as it frames the decision as a choice between essential service cuts and passing the tax measure.
Key features being cut include:
Public Safety: Staffing cuts in the Police Department, leaving five sworn officer positions and four administrative roles unfilled. These cuts directly affect vital services like investigations, traffic management, and community resources, raising concerns about public safety.
Parks and Community Services: Multiple community services and events are scaled back or eliminated, including the reduction of library hours by 10 per week, elimination of middle school teen programs, and cancellation of popular events like the Holiday Tree Lighting and Party in the Park.
Public Works: Landscape maintenance will be reduced by 25–50%, leading to less frequent mowing and a more natural, potentially neglected appearance of parks.
Information Technology & Administrative Services: Deferred upgrades to both the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system and the Finance Division software, which would have improved resident interaction and internal efficiency.
Public Facilities Maintenance: Reductions in janitorial services for public spaces, which will result in visibly less clean facilities.
By presenting these deep cuts to essential services and infrastructure, the city creates a sense of urgency, suggesting that without the tax increase, the quality of life in San Ramon will suffer. This "blackmail" tactic pressures residents into supporting Measure N to avoid further degradation of services, positioning the measure as the only viable solution to restore and maintain service levels. However, this approach may limit residents' ability to make a fully informed and unbiased decision.
The the total cost of the Iron Horse bridge is $29.1M over the years pre-2020 to 2025, at least $16.3M of which was already spent by 2020-2021 as shown in Row 5 of the 20-21 budget
Per the FAQ the final cost of $29.1M uses $23.5M in grant/Measure J funds that could not be used to fill gaps in the general city budget.
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Shared%20Documents/IHT%20Project%20FAQ%20050823.pdf
The feasibility, community input and design work happened between 2009-2015. Delaying the project further would risk the and the final costs would like only grow higher.
I've read through this note and have a specific question regarding the expenditure on the Iron Horse Bridge. Are you saying that the funds ($21.7M) spent towards the bridge could have been used to cover our budget deficit, which the tax measure hopes to address?