Upper Bay PRD tax

Bay Road resident called the PRD process flawed and possibly illegal — a vacant parcel was included while four parcels were excluded, and costs jumped from $138,000 to $450,000. He asked the Board to rescind and use Civil Code remedies instead.

She said petitioners refused to negotiate, staff met privately with one side, and her frontage parcel gets no daily benefit yet would pay the same rate — she asked for rate differentiation before ballot language is locked in.

He's not against paying his share — just wants it fair, using the pothole analogy. Once ballot language is set, fairness can't be fixed, he said.

Owner at 759 Bay Road for 32 years thanked the Board and asked approval so voters can finally decide; consensus failed but democracy is the remedy, he said.

Supported the equal per-parcel tax with a half share for the unimproved lot, and pushed back on the frontage complaint, noting the dangerous section belongs to 755 Bay Road.

Lamented how the adversarial process has soured neighbor relations, but said a PRD without funding has no teeth — the hearing's scope is financing, not relitigating the PRD.

25-year resident of 764 Bay Road urged approval, calling the equal assessment the democratic way.

Thanked the Board for hearing all sides and asked that the funding question be placed before the property owners who'll pay it.

PRD co-chair explained the four excluded parcels belong to the Alta Vista PRD with no Bay Road access, and asked for the equal-share structure.

Lives at the far end of the road and drives its full length; argued everyone benefits from the whole road and fair cost sharing reflects fair use.