From: Andrew Freeman
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Business License Tax Modernization - Nov 28 Meeting Comment Date: Monday, November 27, 2023 12:08:40 PM
Attachments: Belmont Receipts Tax Comment Andrew Freeman.pdf Dear City Council,
Karen Clark in her staff report titled Business License Tax Modernization & Equity Update, notes that the current BLT is “outdated and idiosyncratic and unable to meet the current and evolving business structure and community service needs”.
I am curious as to whose business structure she is referring to and which community’s service needs she is attempting to address, that of the small Belmont business community, or that of voting Belmont residents? Idiosyncratic means quirky. There is nothing unique, special or odd about the current formula. As to ‘outdated’, in what sense does a simple employee head tax need to be modernized, unless the real goal here is to explore new ways to generate revenue under the guise of “modernization,” “equity”,” fairness,” and “progressive.” As to small businesses being “severely overburdened” I am puzzled by the methodology employed to make such a determination. As to “exacerbating inequities,” again, what inequities are we talking about when it comes to a simple flat fee and head tax? If Belmont is truly serious about the weight of this tax on the very small, work-fromhome artisan or therapist, making truly de-minimis income, why not simply exempt them from this tax, or make it a token $100? This would have little, if any impact on revenues.
The various timeline “steps” talk about samplings of businesses but give no clue as to the methodology or numbers of businesses polled. In fact, there are so few businesses in Belmont that it would have been far simpler to send a survey to each one. After all you did send every business a multi-page mailer on the minimum wage increase, why avoid being transparent about proposed tax increases?
Using terms like “modern” and “equitable” are meaningless buzzwords designed to give the appearance of a thoughtful, organized process when it seems quite obvious that the business community is opposed to a gross receipts tax. Frankly, this staff report is long on hyperbole and assumes “facts” not in evidence, and where facts ARE available, for example, the ‘actual’ revenues generated by various city’s license taxes, ‘estimates’ are used instead.
The May, ‘22 report, while leaning heavily on percentages to demonstrate inequities for the smallest business, provides zero analysis of the various business tax modalities across population size and business numbers in San Mateo County cities. Belmont businesses and voters deserve a more thoughtful and comprehensive analysis.
Belmont has the smallest actual number of businesses in San Mateo County. Based on this tentative proposal it would appear the council desires even fewer.
In respect of a gross receipts tax, there is no thought given to the profit margins of the businesses who will pay this tax. Admittedly, this is impossible under state statute, but, thinking of the grocery, restaurant, drug, hardware and auto shops in the city, I can easily see a situation where this proposed tax is especially onerous and will simply be passed on to patrons in the form of higher food and service prices. Clearly, coming off a recent 9% CPI figure, with few of those prices coming back down, many businesses will find it difficult, if not impossible to hand off these costs, and it will be simply easier to set up shop in a more hospitable city. At least, the TOT places the extra burden on non-residents. Perhaps that is the goal of this proposal, to make Belmont an exclusively apartment and Biotech community to maximize revenue.
Moreover, no guidance is provided in this effort as to whether the Belmont business owner, who will actually pay the tax, is actually in a position to vote on this measure.
The business license tax is a purely regulatory and administrative function, why does it need to be any more complicated or remunerative than it already is.
It should be quite clear that the primary driver of this agenda is the enormous and growing pension service obligations of Belmont’s defined benefit obligations to CalPERS. These pension obligations are, unlike a Social Security/401(k) match, a completely open-ended bottomless pit of liability. Perhaps the city council should spend its energy looking to the future of its pension obligations instead.
Thank you,
Andrew Freeman, CFP
From: JOSEPH RUK
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; Donna Bregante-Ruk
Subject: Council Mtg 11//28/23
Date: Monday, November 27, 2023 10:42:22 AM
Dear Council,
In response to agenda item #9.D cannabis draft proposal zoning district S-3 the measure should be voted down. A definite NO vote or consideration to allow cannabis stores or dispensaries in the City of Belmont.
This is not activity of drawing circles on a map to miss schools, parks and day care centers. This is a moral issue and what is right for the citizens of Belmont. Obviously this matter should have been presented to the voters to determine their desire and feelings. A greater out reach program should have been presented to the surrounding neighborhoods and residents and not a limited section along El Camino. In addition two voter districts have not had the chance to select their representative, especially district #2 next to El Camino and said cannabis district. Looks like a ploy to pass with the least amount of notification and obstruction.
Specifically the proposal is just to generate revenue based on the multiple of charges, fees, etc listed. And that is it.
Is that all Belmont cares about, money and not the welfare of the citizens. Shame on you if that is the case. The council did not have the decency to respond back to earlier inquires and hid behind the Brown Act and could not discuss. This is open transparency?
With all the problems with drugs, fentanyl addiction this is what Belmont wants to pursue, pot. Look at all the break ins around the Bay Area at pot shoppes. Just in last two weeks two in San Leandro. In past several in Oakland.
Already more crime activity along Sixth street with people casing out homes. So let’s bring in more potential problems.
Why Belmont? No other cities in the county seem to be pursuing this desire to have pot shoppes in their cities. The pot industry is losing money to illegal sales, drop in revenue and pushing to have food to generate revenue.
Obviously the council does not care since it is not next to their neighborhood or homes. To them it is a bunch of circles. Just push it off to the south end of Belmont to get the least reaction. Why not the north end, no parks or schools. Why not along Harbor toward 101, oh do not want to be next county government offices.
Totally a bad policy that should have never been considered by the council.
Sincerely,
Donna and Joe Ruk
1596 Sunnyslope Ave.
Sent from my iPad