Loading...
CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 Proposed Tax Measure - Written CommunicationsJuly 30 , 2018 r,::;:-;--:--:'.:"'.":"'""".'"""".'--:--...::C~C~07~/.::_;31/2018 Item No. 5 @ L~ © ICJ Li \V/ Lai /nJ if] JUL 3 O 2018 1W , Dear Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council : CUPERTINO CITY CLERK For more than 40 years , Apple has been proud to call Cupertino our home. We have always enjoyed a strong partnership with both the city and its residents. Working creatively, we have solved many issues and are proud to be in a city with great schools , wonderful services and a robust economy. When deciding where to build our new headquarters , we had many options , but worked hard to secure enough land to build in Cupertino. On that project alone, we are glad to have invested more than $?OM on public benefits . And, as you know, Apple 's investment in Cupertino goes far beyond that. When we identified public safety risks on Bubb Road , we were happy to fund sidewalks and crosswalk improvements which help our employees as well as children and residents in the area. When we needed to do some emergency traffic signal overrides for Apple Park , we voluntarily paid for this throughout the city. It was just the right thing to do. When we heard from the community that they would really like an Apple store and visitor 's center in Cupertino , we voluntarily built those and are proud that they bring people from all over the world to our city. Traffic congestion is a significant and growing issue in our valley. As a company, we work hard to offer our employees a variety of alternate transportation options , and we 're very proud that over 25% of our employees take advantage of these commute alternatives on a daily basis. However, for Cupertino and Apple to thrive we need to partner on both long -term and short - term solutions that will move our residents and employees more efficiently and effectively. This means local solutions within our city, as well as partnering with VTA and other partners in the valley for regional solutions, especially along highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. We look forward to bringing our transportation teams together in the next few weeks to begin that dialog and to work as partners to create new transportation solutions, making our community an even better place to live and work . Very truly yours, ~ Kristina Raspe ~/ht Vice President Apple Inc . Ap ple T -!':~ \., .. j ; •..: • 7/27/18 Mayor & Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0 700 Fax (408)-703-2035 mcrawford~bergvc.com Ph 408-777-3308 3251 Fax 408-777-3333 CC 07-31-2018 Item No . 5 svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org; rsinks@cupertino.org; bchang@cupertino.org; dpaul@ cupertino .org ; sscharf@cupertino .org ci tyclerk@cuperti no . org ; manager@cuperti no. org Dear Mayor & Council Members, Reference: Proposed Business License Fee Measure Subject:· Objection & Comments Business Employee Tax Increase 1) As property owners we are opposed to increases in the Business License Fees being proposed. 2) These taxes affect property owners not just the employers that rent the buildings. Businesses have total operating budgets that they cannot exceed so they will look for other ways to reduce cost to mitigate the business tax. They will review all cost areas including rent, and if they are able to negotiate lower rents, that directly decreases property values. When property values decrease or stall so will property tax revenue. So if you impose an· employee head tax or other business tax you will lose a certain amount of tax revenue in another category. See more detail in Additional Informatio below: 3) The City appears to want to increase business tax just because Mountain View and other cities are proposing to do so. You have offered no justifications for increasing the business tax other than other cities are proposing head taxes and increasing business taxes and are currently looking for projects that the new taxes can be applied to. 4) If businesses decide not to not to locate in Cupertino or to outsource work to other more friendly tax locations or support staff outside of the City the result will be lost revenue for local business, including restaurants, services, hotels and lost City tax revenues. --5) Seattle proves business taxes do have consequences: a. Amazon halted construction of a 1 7 story downtown Seattle corporate headquarters complex and further threatened to sublease another building; Rainier Square, they had under lease in the same area rather than occupying it pending the council employment tax decision. b . In May 2018 Seattle passe.d a $275 employee head tax. c. .oV c. In late May opposition business groups gathered enough signatures for a Citizens Initiative; for a November ballot measure, to overturn the Council decision. d. In June the City Council repealed the May tax measure. e. Following Seattle's actions surrounding cities and counties, Tacoma and Pierce County announced a $275 TAX CREDIT PER NEW EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE to lure jobs from Seattle. Other Western metropolitan areas such as Phoenix began recruiting Seattle businesses citing lower taxes and cost of living. See more detail in ~dditional Information below: 6) Times may be good now but you all know business is cyclical and when; not if, the downturn comes companies will definitely consider the taxation structure in making relocation and employment decisions. You and other cities are acting as if there is no limit to the amount that you can tax business and individuals, there is a limit!!! 7) We don't think sufficient business outreach has been done because of the time limit the City is under in trying to rush the tax through to beat a ballot deadline. 8) Previous Tax Burdens and Regulations. Consider all of the taxes and additional regulations that government has placed on business and individuals in the recent years. This does not even consider the increase in building costs today, costs are now out of control!! Don't add more costs!! a. LEED requirements. b. Increased affordable housing fees. c. AB 32 requiring first 30% and now 50% renewal electrical sourcing by utilities thereby increasing electrical rates by double to triple the previous costs in just the last several years. Look at your own utility billing you can verify those increasing rates. d. Buyers of conventional autos pay a hidden tax in the form of EV credits the government forces manufacturers to buy for gasoline powered vehicles. In effect the less well off individuals are being forced to subsidize the more affluent driving $70,000 Teslas. The less well off also subsidize home solar installations with tax credits for the affluent individuals that can afford solar. e. Californians pay the highest property tax, the highest income tax, the highest sales tax, the highest utility costs, the highest gasoline tax. It is time to start reducing not increasing costs and taxation. 9) You have offered no efforts to look at cost cutting in lieu of raising taxes. a. In September 2017 you just passed a TIF fee and now you want $10 million for traffic again. The TIF fees you passed were: Transportation Impact Fee -Single Family $5,968/Unit -Multi-Family $3,700/Unit Includes apartments, condos and townhomes -Retail-$9.60/sqft -Office -$16.81/sqft -Hotel -$3,272/room -Other (per PM trip) $6,025/trip 10) Obligation To Run Efficient City Operations You have run away and non-sustainable municipal pension liabilities, where is the discussion and investigation into reducing the pension liability?? You should be doing a study session on reducing cost to generate the funds you are trying to raise through the business tax, not slapping the taxpayers with another tax which you justify with a poll of citizens that will never have to pay these taxes directly. You have an implied duty to reduce public costs notjust increase them. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A) Employee Tax History In Seattle Seattle Councilmember Sally Bagshaw was most concerned about outreach. "My concern about a head tax is that we haven't brought in those 1,100 businesses that peo le dismiss and say 'they can pay for it,'" she said, advocating the council wait until Mayor-elect Jenny Durkan takes office to work on a proposal. The employee tax is something of a zombie -it was adopted by council in the early 2000s, then killed in 2009 at the height of the recession. Since then, it has come up as a proposed new revenue source again and again, including as a way to make a transportation levy smaller and as a funding mechanism for the Office of Labor Standards. But it's never gained traction, thanks in P.art to intense lobb ing a ainst it from the Chamber of Commerce. The city's largest employers, including Amazon and Starbucks, and several labor unions released statements criticizing the city council's decision and its approach to addressing homelessness.(38 11391 Business groups who remained opposed to the head tax responded days later with the formation of a camP.ai n to overturn the city council decision through a citizens' initiative J 401 The campaign, named "No Tax on Jobs", received $325,000 in committed donations from local economic development groups and businesses, including Amazon, Starbucks, Kroger, and Vulcan, IncJ41 1 The campaign was given until June 14 to collect 17,600 valid signatures to bring the initiative to the November 2018 ballot, and reportedly surpassed the threshold by June 11 using on-street petitioning by 2,000 volunteersJ 42)[43J On June 11, less than a month after the unanimous approval of the head tax, the city council announced plans for a special session to consider repealing the tax, to be held the following day. The seven councilmembers who are up for re - election in 2019, along with Mayor Durkan, voiced their support for the repeal in the wake of the initiative's signature-gathering campaign.1111 The repeal was passed by a 7-2 vote of the city counci Aftermath In response to Seattle's head tax, officials from Tacoma and Pierce County announced a $275 tax credit per employee for new jobs to lure businesses. Other large metropolitan areas in the Western United States, such as Phoenix, began recruiting Seattle-area businesses for potential moves, citing lower taxes and cost of living. B) Property Taxes a All Revenue From Property Taxes Is Allocated to Local Governments. Property tax revenue remains within the county in which it is collected and is used .r O exclusively by local governments. State laws control the allocation of property tax revenue from the 1 percent rate to more than 4,000 local governments, with K-14 districts and counties receiving the largest amounts. The distribution of property tax revenue, however, varies significantly by locality. The Property Tax Has a Significant Effect on the State Budget. Although the property tax is a local revenue source, it affects the state budget due to the state's education finance system-additional property tax revenue from the 1 percent rate for K-14 districts generally decreases the state's spending obligation for education. Over the years, the state has changed the laws regarding property tax allocation many times in order to reduce its costs for education programs or address other policy interests. Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford Cc: Timm Borden Director of Public Works City of Cupertino 10300 Toree Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-777-3200; Dir: 408-777-3382; Fax: 408-777-3333 Email: timmb@cupertino.org • \ The sili con valle y organization Exec utive Committee 2018 BOARD CHAIR Le nnies Gutierrez Comcast FIRST VICE CHAIR Marc Pa r kinson Pet r i n ovich Pugh & Com p an y ~ECOND VICE CHAIR Roxan n e Va ne Heritage Bank VICE CHAIR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN f Rick Be atty Lehig h Hanson VICE CHAIR MEMBERSHIP Jea nne Ser pa Rep u bl ic Services VILE CHAIR PUBLIC POLICY & O.DVOCACY Pau l Ca rdus Silicon Va ll ey Assoc. o f Rea ltors VICE CHAIR roMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT Janikke Klem Techno logy Credit Un ion '-T LARGE Michael Bangs Oracl e Sean Cottle Hoge Fe n ton To ny Mirenda Blach Co n struction Co mpany Michael Tu rpin Bay A r ea News Group Hanh Ngu ye n Kaiser Pe r ma nente Tracey Enfa ntino Env iro nme nta l Syste m s, In c. SVO PAC CO LHAIR An il Ba bbar California Apartment Association SV0 PA( CO LHAIR Tracey En fa ntino Env iro n menta l Systems, In c. LEGAL COUNSEL Eu ge ne A sh ley, Esq. Hoge Fenton TREASURER Mich ae l Fox Jr. Good w ill Silico n Va ll ey IMMEDIATE Pi\q <HAIR Da n Bozzuto Bozzuto Insurance Services PRESIDENT & CEO Matthew R. Mahood The si licon va ll ey organization July 27, 2018 Mayor Darcy Paul and City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Cupertino Business Head Tax Honorable Mayor Paul and City Council: CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 On behalf of The Silicon Valley Organization (The SVO), I am writing to voice our strong opposition to the newly proposed business tax, under consideration by the Cupertino City Council at your July 31 st special meeting. By way of background , The SVO is the Silicon Valley's premier business advocacy organization representing 1,400+ companies that employ nearly 300,000 workers and we represent our membership as the region's largest Chamber of Commerce. We have serious concerns and reservations about the City of Cupertino 's lack of transparency and community engagement in the development of this new business tax. The city staff report notes that approximately 30 businesses were engaged over a time period of several weeks. In 2012, the United States Census Bureau es t imated that there are 5,960 businesses in the City of Cupertino and it is likely that there are even more businesses today, due to sustained and stro ng economic growth over the past five years . Put into perspective, Cupertino city staff conducted outreach to less than 0 .5 % of all businesses that could be impacted by the proposed employee headcount/business tax. In addition, the city conducted two business forums where attendees expressed that the process was rushed without much time for meaningful engagement from stakeholders. Given that the City of Cupertino is seeking to multiply their business tax revenues by at least 10 times, it would behoove the City Council to consider a more delibe r ate commun ity engagement process. Furthermore, while it has been indicated that the increased business tax revenues will fund transportation improvement projects, there is no guarantee that the funds will be used for that purpose. The revenue measure resolution is drafted to d i rect tax monies into the city's general fund, which can be spent at the discretion of the current and future City Councils. Even if the Council adopts a resolution, it is not binding and future City Councils can change their spending priorities, at any time for any reason . Without a clear link as to how increased revenue w i ll fund the stated transportation improvement projects, there is no relationship between the tax and its justification. 101 W Santa Clara St I San Jo5e California 95113 IP: 408 291-5250 IF· 408-286-5019 I thesvo.com The silicon valley organization For an ideal community and stakeholder input process, we can look to the City of San Jose's Business Modernization Tax in 2016. City leaders engaged with the business community, and other key stakeholders, through at least a six month long process that resulted in a balanced approach to an increased business tax with a maximum cap. The negotiations yielded a fair tax structure that encourages economic growth, without punishing our local job creators. For these reasons, we urge the Mayor and City Council to take a more deliberative process for community engagement and do not place the business headcount tax on the November 2018 ballot. By partnering with the business community, there are more options to deliver essential city services and critical transportation projects that Cupertino residents deserve. Sincerely, /141 ~-,_/(. A#,L_f Matthew R. Mahood President & CEO The Silicon Valley Organization 101 W. Santa Cldra St I San Jo,e. California 95113 IP 408 291 5250 IF 408 28b 5019 I thesvo.con, 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, California95 11 0 (408)50 1-7864 svlg .org CARL GUARDINO President & CEO Boa rd Officers: STEVE MILLIGAN, Chair Western Digital Corporal.ion JAMES GUTIERREZ. Vice Chair lnsikt RAQUEL GONZALEZ, Treasurer Bank of America GREG BECKER. Fonner Char SVB Financial Gr<X4) STEVE BERGLUND, Former Chair Trirrble Inc. AART OE GEUS, Fooner Char Synopsys TOM WERNER, Fonner Char SunPower Board Members: BDBBYBELL KLA-Tenco( DAWNET BEVERLEY Donnelley Flnanci~ Solutions GEORGE BLUMENTHAL University of Cafifomia, Santa Cruz JOHN BOlNID KQED CARLA BORAGNO Genentech CHRIS BOYD Kaiser Permanente JOE BURTON Plantronics RAM/ BRANITZKY Sapphire Ventures KEVIN COWNS Accenture LISA DANIELS KPMG JENNY DEARBORN SAP MICHAEL ENGH, S.J Santa Clara Uriversity TOM FALLON lnfinera JOHNGAUDER Gom:ast KEN GOLDMAN Hi!lspire DOUG GRAHAM Lockheed Martin LAURAGU/0 IBM STEFAN HECK Nauto ERIC HOUSER Wells Fargo Bank JULIA HU Lari< AIDAN HUGHES ARUP VICKI HUFFECKERT PwC MARY HUSS SVBJ/SF Business Times TOM KEMP Gentrify ERIC KUTCHER McKinsey & COOl)any JANET LAMKIN United Airlines JOHNLEDEK BO Biosciences JENNY LINTON OSlso/1 ENRIQUE LORES HPlnc . MATT MAHAN Brigade TARKAN MANER Nexenta KEN MCNEELY AT&T BEN MINICUCCI AJaska,Ajr1ines MARY PAPAZIAN San Jose State University JES PEDERSEN Webcof Builders ANDY PIERCE Slryl<er Endoscopy KIMPOLESE ClearStreet RYAN POPPLE Proterra RUDY REYES Verizon BILL RUH GE SHARON RYAN Bay hea News Group RONSEGE Echeloo DARREN SNELLGROVE Johnson & Johnson JEFF THOMAS Nasdaq JED YORK San Francisco 49ers Establi shed in 1978 by David Pa ckard 30 July 2018 Mayor Darcy Paul and Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Cupertino Business License Tax on Jobs CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 The Honorable Mayor Paul and Members of the Cupertino City Council: I am writing on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group ("SVLG") to express opposition to the proposed business tax on jobs that is being considered by the Cupertino City Council tomorrow. SVLG has over 350 members that comprise a diverse group of companies within Silicon Valley, including some with their headquarters in Cupertino. SVLG opposes this business license tax based on jobs for several reasons. Most importantly, new taxes should identify the specific purposes for the tax, and should be for a fixed term of years needed to raise the funds to accomplish those objectives. To achieve the two-thirds vote of the electorate that is required to pass a special tax, collaboration with stakeholders, including the business community that will pay those taxes, should be thorough and comprehensive . The proposal in its current form is a general tax that does not bind future City Councils, despite the intentions of the current Council, and there is no time limit on the tax. SVLG also believes that taxes should be capped at a reasonable level for any one company. This avoids a disproportionate level of tax for any specific company, but it also protects the City from undue reliance upon one large taxpayer that might encounter economic difficulties in the future, even if they are quite successful currently. In addition, when a tax is based on headcount of employees within Cupertino with larger employers paying higher amounts per employee, it is a tax on jobs. The jobs affected include those of smaller businesses that are beneficiaries of the economic activity of larger companies . Such activity includes not only more business for restaurants, dry cleaners and retail stores, but also for hotels and other businesses in the hospitality industry that accommodate travelers to meetings at larger employers. For these reasons, SVLG respectfully opposes the proposed business license tax based on headcount. Respectfully submitted, Dan Kostenbauder Vice President, Tax Policy Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2018 NAIOP Silicon Valley Board of Director Companies Bank of America CFLD Cushman & Wakefield Dostart Development Hines Hudson Pacific Properties Irvine Company J. P. DiNapoli Companies Jay P a ul Company Menlo Equities M eridian Newmark Cornish & Carey Northmarq Capital Orchard Commercial Orch ard Partners PGIM Real Estate PS Business Parks Toeniskoetter Development Sobrato Company South Bay Development TMG Partners NAIOP COMM ER C I A L R E AL E STA T E DEVE LO PME NT ASSOC I ATI O N SILICON V ALL E Y CHAP T ER July 30, 2018 Transmitted via EMAIL Mayor Darcy Paul & Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95104 -3202 Dear Mayor Paul & Council Members, CC 07-31-2018 Item No . 5 NAIOP Silicon Valley is the Commercial Real Estate Development Association representing developers, owners and related professionals in office, industria l and mixed-u se real estate throughout Silicon Valley with over 175 local professional real estate members . NAIOP advocates for responsible, sustainable development that creates jobs and benefits throughout the Silicon Valley region in which our members work and live . On behalf of NAIOP Silicon Valley I am w r iting to voice our oppo sition to the proposed business ta x under consideration by the city council at the July 31st special meeting. NAIOP has serious concerns and reservation s about the City of Cupertino's lack of transparency and community engagement in the development of this newly proposed business license tax restructuring. Per the city's staff report it is noted that with the lim ited timeframe for outreach, only approximately 30 businesses were engaged with to review the proposed business license ta x restructuring and fi scal implication s. Additionally, at both busine ss outreach forums , attendees expressed that they believed the proposal's process was being rushed and required more time for the City to effectively engage with all stakeholders! The abbreviated community engagement proce ss demands that the city council implement a more robust stakeholder engagement process prior to any formal action by the city . While it has been indicated that the increased business tax revenues will fund transportation improvement projects, there is no guarantee that the funds will be used for that purpose . The revenue measure resolution is drafted to direct tax monies into the city's general fund , which can be spent at the discretion of the current and future City Councils . Even if the Council adopts a resolution, it is not legally binding and future City Councils can change their spending priorities at any time for any reason . Without a clear link as to how increased revenue will fund the stated tran sportation improvement projects, there is no relationship between the ta x and its ju stification . For these reasons , we urge the Mayor and City Council to take a more thoughtful and inclusive proce ss for broad -based stakeholder engagement and not place the business headcount tax on the November 2018 ballot . By partnering with the bu siness community, there are more options to deliver essential city services and critical transportation projects that Cupertino residents deserve . Respectfully, Pat r ici a E. Sausedo , Exec . Director NAIOP Silicon Valley Cc : Clerk of th e Board Th e SO B RAJ O Organ ization July 30, 2018 Mayor Darcy Paul & Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95104 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members; CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 Sobra to Deve lopme nt Company, LL C Sob rato Fam il y Ho ld ings, LLC Sobrato Bui lders, In corp o rate d Sobrato Fam il y Foundatio n Sobrato Constru ction Co rporatio n I am writing to you on behalf of the Sobrato Organization, as a longstanding member of the community and commercial landlord we are concerned about the proposed restructuring of the business license tax at the special meeting on July 31st. We understand the genesis of this tax is traffic congestion, which we are sympathetic to. However, the tax as currently proposed unfairly punishes local businesses and is not guaranteed to be used to address the stated goal being used to justify the tax. While it has been stated that the increased business tax revenues will fund transportation improvement projects, there is no guarantee that the funds will be used for that purpose now or in the future. The revenue measure resolution is drafted to direct these new revenues into the City's general fund, which can be spent at the discretion of the current and future City Councils . Even if the Council adopts a resolution , it is not legally binding, and future City Councils can change their spending priorities at any time for any reason without addressing the stated goal of the proposed tax. Without a plan as to how to spend the revenues to accomplish the goal of reducing traffic congestion, the new tax unfairly punishes local bus i nesses for being successful without justification . One of the goals of government should be to encourage employment, which this proposal will have the exact opposite effect of. A per employee tax cou ld se rve as a deterrent to employment impacting entry level jobs the most and may encourage companies to fill labor needs through contracting or outsourcing as a way to avoid or minimize the tax . As we are sympathetic to the quality of life issues surrounding traffic, we encourage the City to develop a long -term strategy with broad-based community outreach, including regional partners, for solutions that also include the consideration of zoning policies. We have found one of the most potent ways to reduce traffic congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions while strengthening a City's economic base is to encourage denser housing near employment. We appreciate the ability to comment on th is issue, and we are happy to discuss should you have any questions. Best Rega r ds ,2~z:/J i~~~d Truemp1er -v v~ Vice President, Development & 10600 N. De Anza Bou levard, Ste. 200, Cupertino, CA 95014-2075 P (408) 446-0700 F (408) 446-0583 www .sobrato.com Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Keith Warner < keith@pacificworkplaces .com > Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12 :47 PM CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 City Council; Darcy Paul; Steven Scharf; Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang Cupertino City Manager's Office; Econom ic Development; City Clerk No Employee Ta x Honorable Mayor Paul and City Council: I am writing to share my serious concerns about the City of Cupertino's lack of transparency and community engagement in the development of this new business tax. Given that the City of Cupertino is seeking to multiply their business tax revenues by at least 10 times, I think the wise thing for the City Council to do is to consider a more deliberate community engagement process. Furthermore, while it has been indicated that the increased business tax revenues will fund transportation improvement projects, there is no guarantee that the funds will be used for that purpose. The revenue measure resolution is drafted to direct tax monies into the city 's general fund, which can be spent at the discretion of the current and future City Councils. Even if the Council adopts a resolution, it is not binding and future City Councils can change their spending priorities , at any time for any reason. Without a clear link as to how increased revenue will fund the stated transportation improvement projects, there is no relationship between the tax and its justification. As a Cupertino Business Owner, I urge you to please take a more deliberative process and engage the community. Do not place the business headcount tax on the November 2018 ballot. Regards, Keith PAC I FIC WOR KPI.A.C S www.PacificWorkolac e s .com Tota l Control Panel T o: ci tyc lerk @c u pe1t ino .org F ro m : ke ith @ pacifi cw orkpl aces.com Keith Warner Managing Partn er Cup e rtino San Jo se Santa Cruz Sunnyval e Phone : (40 8) 973-7 800 Keith@PacificWo rkp laces.com Mes sage Score: 40 My Sp am Bl ockin g Level: Hi gh Blo ck thi s se nd er Block pac ificwork pl aces .com 1 Hi gh (60): l\s, Medium (75): l\,s·, Low (90): ?a :s Thi s message was d elivered because the co nt ent filter score did not exceed yo ur filter leve l. 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com > Tuesday, July 31 , 2018 12 :34 PM City Council Change in Tax Structure CC 07-31-2018 Item No . .I"' Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers : I was disappointed to read that the City staff is not rec01mnending the tax change to the city for 2018 , although I agree that the business c01mnunity should be working with the city to come up with a good transportation plan. It is clear that our tax structure is outdated . It is clear the Apple is not paiiicularly interested in helping the c01mnunity. Perhaps the city and business community will continue to make headway on a transportation plan without the tax measure. However, I think that rarely do such things happen without significant pressure. I hope that Cupertino can maintain the pressure to move forward on a joint plan without the pressure of a tax change. 2020 will be a critical year, indeed , on so many levels . I will attend the Special Meeting July 31. I would v ote for a tax measure that w ould come forward in 2018 for the simple reason that I am not persuaded that the business c01mnunity will be serous about helping the city with it s tran sportations needs. This is based on the simple fact that they hav e not yet come forward with such plans . Apple Park was appro v ed in 2012. Traffic conditions were bad then. Even with Apple providing some of their own employees with busses , the traffic situation has worsened for the c01mnunity, including those busses. Government and business relationships are complicated at best. It is not at all unusual for major transp01iation systems to be funded jointly. Waiting until desperation strikes usually gives rise to poorly thought out plans. Given the ov erall quagmire of go v enunental entities , business organizations , joint govenunent, NGO's, and business entities, I have become increasingly skeptical that anything short of a "shot at the wallet" will be effective. I remain hopeful because this Council has been able to find solutions in the past, such as the Vallco Special Plan Charette Process. Sincerely, Connie Cum1ingham 31 year Resident Total Control Panel T o: cityco un c il @.cupe11 ino.om: Fro m : cunnin ghamconniel @gm ai l.com Message Score: 1 M y Spam Bl ockin g Level: Hi gh Block thi s sender Block gm ail.com This message was delive red because the co nt ent jilt er sco re did not exceed your fi lt er leve l. 1 Hi gh (6 0): ?:,;;~ M edium (7 5): P.:i~ Low (9 0): hs, Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear council Members, Catherine Thaler <catherinethaler@gmail.com> Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:17 AM City Council City Clerk Agenda Item #5 -Restructuring the Business Tax CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 I strongly urge that you postpone putting this matter on the ballot until the year 2020. Although transportation is a critical issue it is not just a Cupertino issue, it is a regional issue. At this time there is no 'plan' to address this serious issue, therefore you are trying to tax for a possible future solution. Postponing the ballot choice allows Cupertino and surrounding cities to come up with some solutions to this growing problem. I know that many of the cars driving in our city are simply passing through on their way to or from work and their dri v ers liv e is San Jose , Saratoga, Los Gatos or other cities. How do they pay their fair share? Maybe some people come through Santa Clara or Smmyvale to work and only drive half a block on Cupertino streets. This will not be easy but it certainly de s erv es time and effort by all neighboring jurisdictions to develop some solutions . Once that happens , then a way to pay for it should be presented to the people. Thank you, Cathy Thaler Total Control Panel To: c itvclerk@.cupe1i in o.or g From : catheiin eth a ler@gmaiI.com M essage Score: 1 My Spam Bl ock in g Leve l: Hi gh B lock th is sender Block gm ail.com Th is message was delive red because the content filte r score did no t exceed your fi lt er level. 1 Hi gh (60): i':):'cS Medium (75 ): I',,s:: Low (90): P h.' CC 07-31-2018 Item No. 5 Lauren Sapudar From: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:50 AM 1 [ Ir ~')f!I<'. To: City Council 'aJbo~l Subject: Win-Win Idea re: Meeting to decide jobs tax, Tues., July 31, 6pm, Cupertino 1 wow; Community Hall Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers: I sent the following email to Mr. Kitson, Director of Conununication , Cupe1iino Chamber of Commerce. I believe that the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses need to show concrete progress soon in order to show good faith that they will be working with Cupertino to find solutions for our transportation issues. There are $1.5 million dollars needed for the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study. I I The Chamber, or its individual businesses, could urge VTA to find the money, or the Chamber or its individual businesses could advance the money to the VTA to restart the Study process. This is a major project that will be funded by the govenunent once the 2016 Measure B funds are available. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham "Dear Mr. Kitson: Thank you for your thoughts. I understand that the 2018 tax would be a general tax, with an inherent issue that future city councils could possibly change the focus of the tax money. My biggest concern is that waiting until 2020 for a specific tax plan could allow business and city leaders to become distracted by other issues, of which there are many facing our c01mnunity. There might not be any progress on transit at all by 2020, even though we have been aware of this problem since Apple Park was approved in 2012. Possible Win-Win First Step: One step that would show c01mnitment is that our businesses would either 1) urge the VTA to find money, 1.5 million, to fund the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study or 2) find the 1.5 million dollars themselves to fund that study. When the lawsuit against 2016 Measure B that has prohibited VTA from proceeding on this project is concluded, that money would become available to repay the advance. The financial teclmicalities of how to make that happen are knowable by govermnent and business leaders. It takes focus to make it happen. As we all know, delays in a study create a problem of data becoming old as time drags on. Phase 1 of the study completed in March 2018. Therefore, four months of valuable time for Phase 2 of the study have been lost. After Phase 2 is funded, the process for the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study could go forward with the money that local residents have already voted for in the 2016 Measure B. Win-Win! It would be heartening to me and other transit supporters to see that our businesses, city govenunent and county government could work together to move this State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study forward in the near future. I think this would show good faith. It is not the final fix for our transpo1iation issues. 1 That would be an important first step for public/private partnerships, and cost nothing to the businesses in the long run, since it is a govenunent project. Can this be done? Since it has been stated that our tax structure is obsolete , then I will certainly be watching closely to see how leadership in Cupertino moves forward . At minimum, a restructuring of the tax seems to be in order, even if the amount of tax were not changed overall. Best regards, Connie Cunningham 31 year Cupertino Resident Vallco Charette process supporter Transit supporter" Total Control Panel To: citvcoun c il (@c upe1iino.org From : cunninghamconniel @gmail.com Message Score: 50 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block g mail.com This message was delivered because the conte nt filte r score did not exceed your filter level. 2 High (60): i\u,: Medium (75): F<·" Low (90): S\1,,os granum partners box 2460 saratoga, ca li forn ia 95070 Mayor, City Council and City Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino , CA 95014 los gatos p hone: 408 395-010 1 los gatos fax: 408 395-3434 fo)~CC~~~~fm tru JUL 3 1 2018 IY) CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Mayor, City Council and City Manager and all residents of the City of Cupertino , I, Bob Gran um and Gran um Partners have been a part of the community and invested and developed property in Cupertino over several decades. We are very concerned with the proposal for a Business License Fee and the concept of potentially having an additional tax burden that will have a negative impact on the community. This is a big surprise to all businesses and residents and appears to be unfair, punitive resulting in unintended damages and consequences . Hopefully, before the possibility of approving such a proposal , the City should engage others from the community in a dialogue before submitting this to the Council for action and embarking down an unnecessary path. Isn't this premature or at least deserving of being tabled for more input and discussion and equitable treatment for the community and all of the businesses who contribute to a substantial capital base envied by commun ities in most parts of the world? We admire and are very proud of the great C ity of Cupertino and the very multitude of entities both big and small as well as the breadth of our residents of the comm unity . They all together have brought both prosperity and recognition to the City. Have you considered or do you believe if this proposal of a so -called Business License Fee had been in existence previously ; the remarkable achievements of the C ity would have ever been accomplished with such a confiscatory , punitive and imprudently applied tax? Th is cannot be answered except with a resounding "No ". There is more here to consider. There are situations when elected officials with the wisdom and time to devote to such important matters carefully and dutifully consider all the elements , all factors , all impacts all reasons and all consequences and this is one of them . A substantial 'pot' of undeserved gains or seizure of each entity 's checkbook by the taxing au thorities is just simply Not Fair and is Unwarranted . Please make the right decision . This affects everyone , and few having considered the proposition , its fairness and potential damage as compared with the benefits we all enjoy today , would with rational thought , even allow one to advance this beyond the idea stage . How could this even have proceeded to this point? So , please arrest this process and vote absolutely no or, if you must (and you should not think so) then listen to the community members that have lived here and are exceedingly grateful for what has been achieved here and leave it as it is and as it was meant to be . No one would have dreamed that such an idea could have equitably been able to advance in view of all the unfair and negative consequences . Please end it tonight. It is neither fair nor warranted and has potentially grave results . Please consider this. Thanks and b st r gards to all ,