Proposition 68 would authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for state and local parks, environmental protection and restoration projects, water infrastructure projects, and flood protection projects. Assuming a 3.5 percent interest rate over a 30-year period, the bond issue would generate $2.53 billion in interest, meaning the state would spend $6.53 billion to pay off the bond issue.
Proposition 69 would require that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) be dedicated for transportation-related purposes. As of 2018, the state constitution prohibited the legislature from using gasoline excise tax revenue or diesel excise tax revenue for general non-transportation purposes. The amendment would require the diesel sales tax revenue to be deposited into the Public Transportation Account, which was designed to distribute funds for mass transportation and rail systems. Proposition 69 would require the TIF revenue be spent on public streets and highways and public transportation systems. Although SB 1 requires revenue from the zero-emission vehicles fee to be placed in the Road MaintenReasons for Yes or No endorsements are highlighted in boldance and Rehabilitation Account, Proposition 69 does not contain a provision creating a constitutional mandate for zero-emission vehicles fee revenue.
Proposition 70 would require a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature to use revenue from the State Air Resources Board's auctioning or sale of greenhouse gas emissions allowances under the state's cap-and-trade program. To make sure no revenue is spent without the two-thirds vote, the measure would place all revenue from the cap-and-trade program in a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund beginning on January 1, 2024. The vote would take place anytime on or after January 1, 2024. Revenue would collect in this reserve fund until the one-time two-thirds vote occurreBallot Propositionsd. If legislators failed to secure a two-thirds vote, revenue would keep collecting in the reserve fund and the state would be unable to spend the revenue. Between January 1, 2024, and the passage of the spending bill, the measure would also suspend a sales tax exemption for manufacturers, increasing tax revenue about $260 million per year.
Heading into 2018, voter-approved ballot propositions went into effect on the day following the election date, unless the ballot proposition's language specified a different date. Proposition 71 would move the effective date of ballot propositions to the fifth day after the secretary of state certifies election results, rather than the day after the election. As of 2018, the secretary of state was required to certify election results no later than the 38th day after the election.
Proposition 72 would allow the California State Legislature to exclude rainwater capture systems added to properties after January 1, 2019, from counting as new construction. When a property owner adds new construction to his or her property, the new construction is assessed for taxable value. Adding a rainwater capture system to one's property counts as a new construction. As the ballot measure would exclude rainwater capture systems from the definition of new construction, the taxable value of a property would not increase because the property owner added a rainwater capture system.
BAY AREA TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN. Shall voters authorize a plan to reduce auto and truck traffic, relieve crowding on BART, unclog freeway bottlenecks, and improve bus, ferry, BART and commuter rail service as specified in the plan in this voter pamphlet, with a $1 toll increase effective in 2019, a $1 increase in 2022, and a $1 increase in 2025, on all Bay Area toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge, with independent oversight of all funds?
Central Committee of Libertarian Party of San Mateo County recommends a NO vote on this election's bond measures. Details and our ballot arguments against each measure are given below.
The City of Foster City realizes its levee needs $90,000,000 of improvements to meet Federal, FEMA, standards. With interest, the City estimates the taxpayers will pay a total of $155,122,284.
These bonds must be repaid by Ad Valorem property taxes. In California, the Ad Valorem taxes are very unequal. Some families must pay many times what neighbors pay, for the very same floor plan. The tax collector does not care.
Foster City does face problems from a once-in-a-100-year flood but is that even the most urgent danger? With the San Andreas fault running straight through the Peninsula and with Foster City built on vulernable fill land, concern for the inevitable earthquake seems more urgent than the slow rise in sea level.
The levee protects about 8,000 properties in San Mateo as well as the 9,000 in Foster City, according to the Daily Journal. Why don't the people in San Mateo who are also protected by this levee pay their share of the $155,122,284? And why don't they get a vote on this important issue?
Slowly rising sea level would surely affect the entire Bay Area. This is a regional problem with regional benefits and costs. In fact, Alameda County expressed concern that Foster City's levee work could negatively impact its communities. Why does Foster City have to do this all alone?
This is a regional problem; it needs a regional solution. Why does Foster City have to pay the $90,000,000 all by itself?
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, the Belmont Redwood Shores School District claims they need more money to continue providing quality education.
The district not only wants the 2013 parcel tax for 10 years they're already getting, they want an increase of $118 per year more for 5 years. And that's on top of 2 bond measures of $48M and $25M funded since 2010.
Have they earned this extension that will cost you $590 over the next 5 years (on top of the taxes you are already paying)?
That means 26% do NOT meet standards.
If you got 74% a test, that would be a C grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 26% failure rate with more money?
If no, we encourage you to vote No on Measure K.
Belmont Redwood Shores School District is already spending $10,616 per student. For an average class size of 26 students, that's $270,016 per class per year.
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $92,347 per shortened work year.
Yet they want more of your hard earned money to paid their salaries and fat pension plans.
Tell the Belmont Redwood Shores School District to be fiscally responsible by voting No on Measure K.
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, Brisbane School District claims they need more money to contine providing quality education.
Have they earned this extension that will cost you $1,328 over the next 8 years (on top of the property taxes you are already paying)?
Let's look at the student test scores for Math learners achieving proficiency.
2015-16 school year results: 52% meeting proficiency.
That means 48% do NOT meet standards.
If you got 52% on a test, that would be an F grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 48% failure rate with more money?
If no, we encourage you to vote NO on Measure L.
Brisbane School District is already spending $17,019 per student compared to the statewide average of $11,431. That 149% above the average. For an average class size of 26 students, that's $442,494 per class per year.
The measure says that none of the funds will be used for administration. But funds generated separately from the parcel tax can be used for administation expenses without limits. So that is really an empty promise. Do not be fooled.
Tell the Brisbane School District Board to be fiscally responsible by voting NO on Measure L.
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, the Millbrae Elementary School District claims they need more money to continue providing quality education.
Have they earned this additional tax that will cost you $485 over the next 5 years (on top of the taxes you are already paying)?
Let's look at the latest student test scores for Math learners attaining proficiency.
If you got 61% on a test, that would be a D- grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 39% failure rate with more money?
If no, we encourage you to vote No on Measure N.
* For English, only 66% met or exceed standards!
No wonder that student enrollment is declining.
Yet the District administration wants more of your hard earned money to pad their salaries and fat pension plans.
The measure says no funds will be used for administration. But, funds generated separately from this parcel tax can be used for administration expenses without limits. So that is really an empty promise. Do not be fooled.
Tell the Millbrae Elementary School District Board to be fiscally responsible by voting No on Measure N.
With this latest "temporary" parcel tax, the Ravenswood City School District claims they need more money to continue providing quality education.
The district just got a $26M bond measure approved in 2016 and now they're back for another $70M bond this election. Plus they want another parcel tax.
Have they earned this extension that will cost you $1,568 over the next 8 years (on top of the taxes you are already paying)?
If you got 12% on a test, that would be an F- grade, would it not?
Should you, the voters, reward a 88% failure rate with more money?
If no, we we encourage you to vote No on Measure Q.
Ravenswood City School District is already spending $15,924 per student. That's 139% of the California average. Clearly more money equals lower grades!
For an average class of 25 students, that's $398,100 per class per year.
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $81,339 per shortened work year.
Yet the District administration wants more of your hard earned money to paid their salaries and fat pension plans.
The measure says that no funds will be used for administration. But funds generated separately from this parcel tax can be used for administration expenses without limits. So that is really an empty promise. Do not be fooled.
Tell the Ravenswood City School District Board to be fiscally responsible by voting NO on Measure Q.
Ravenswood City School District claims they need $70M (plus 32 years of interest) to "repair more aging buildings", virtually identical to the "repair aging buildings" statement for the $26M bond in 2016.
This begs the question, why are repairs not part of the normal yearly budget?
Just two years ago they wanted to "upgrade school safety_ and now they want to "further upgrade safety." Deja vu all over again?
The district just got a $26M bond message approved in 2016 and now they're back for another $70M bond this election. Plus they want a separate parcel tax.
They want to "improve technology". But most technology is obsolete in 4-6 years yet the interest payments for that technology will continue for 30+ years.
Would you buy a computer and take out a 30+ year loan to pay for it?
But that's exactly what the districts wants and to stick you with the bill!
If you thinks that's nuts, please vote NO on Measure S.
The average salary and benefits for teachers is $81, 339.
Subtract $81,399 and that's still over $300K per classroom per year.
The administration just wants more of your hard earned money to pad their salaries and fat pension plans.
Tell the Ravenswood City School District Board to be fiscally responsible.