ARTICLE
The Santa Cruz Area Chamber works to provide informative material to our members and the greater Santa Cruz County community. November 6, 2018 election can lead to fundamental changes in the way our region will address some of the looming issues of our day. Last week the Chamber provided a quick snap shot review of the state ballot Propositions for your review. You can read them here: Summary of Statewide Ballot Propositions Your Chamber advocates on issues that impact our members and the economic vitality of the region. The Chamber does not systematically take a position on all ballot measures. The Chamber board votes to support or oppose a measure after thorough review of the issue that are core to the Chamber’s mission. This week’s eNews provides a summary of our local measures. Want more information than what's in this article? Click here. Santa Cruz County Local Ballot Measures Measure A – Scotts Valley Unified School District Parcel Tax To maintain quality core educational programs, prevent cuts in math, science, technology, reading, and the arts, attract and retain highly qualified teachers and counselors, and keep up with technology, shall “Scotts Valley Unified School District” levy an annual education parcel tax of $108 per parcel for five years, with independent community oversight, no funds for administrator salaries, pensions or benefits, senior and disabled exemptions, raising $820,000 annually in funding for “Scotts Valley Unified School District” that can’t be taken away by the State? Impartial Analysis of Measure A Dana McRae, County Counsel If this measure is approved by at least two-thirds of those voting on it, the Scotts Valley Unified School District (the “School District”) will be authorized to levy a special tax on real property. The tax would be imposed for five years beginning July 1, 2019, at the rate of $108.00 per year on each parcel within the School District. The proceeds of the special tax, if approved, may be applied only to the purposes stated in the full text of the ballot proposition and ballot question and not for any other purpose, such as administrators’ salaries, pensions or benefits. In accordance with State law, the School District would carry out accountability measures. It would create a special account into which the proceeds of the special tax shall be deposited. An annual report would show the amount of the special taxes which have been collected and expended, and the status of projects to be funded from those proceeds. A citizens’ oversight committee is to provide oversight concerning expenditure of the tax revenues. The special parcel tax is to be collected in the same manner, and subject to the same interest and penalties, as those property taxes which are based upon property value. Property owners who are 65 years of age or older, or who are receiving Supplemental Social Security for a disability regardless of age, may obtain an exemption if the property is used solely for owner-occupied, single family residential purposes, by applying prior to June 30 of any year to the School District. This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Trustees of the Scotts Valley Unified School District. A “yes” vote on Measure A is a vote to approve imposition of the special parcel tax. A “no” vote on Measure A is a vote against imposition of the special parcel tax. Measure B – Soquel Union Elementary School District To support academic excellence, retain and recruit quality teachers and support staff, offer student enrichment in the arts focusing on music, enhance science with hands-on lessons in school gardens, and provide local funding that cannot be taken away by the State, shall Soquel Union Elementary School District’s measure be adopted authorizing the levy of a parcel tax for six years at a rate of $96 per year raising approximately $990,000 with an exemption for seniors and with annual citizens’ oversight? Impartial Analysis of Measure B Dana McRae, County Counsel If this measure is approved by at least two-thirds of those voting on it, the Soquel Union Elementary School District (the “School District”) will be authorized to levy a special tax on real property. The tax would be imposed for six years beginning July 1, 2019, at the rate of $96.00 per year on each parcel within the School District. The proceeds of the special tax, if approved, may be applied only to the purposes stated in the full text of the ballot proposition and ballot question and not for any other purpose. In accordance with State law, the School District would carry out accountability measures. It would create a special account into which the proceeds of the special tax shall be deposited. An annual report would show the amount of the special taxes which have been collected and expended, and the status of projects to be funded from those proceeds. A citizens’ oversight committee is to provide oversight concerning expenditure of the tax revenues. The special parcel tax is to be collected in the same manner, and subject to the same interest and penalties, as those property taxes which are based upon property value. Property owners who are 65 years of age or older may obtain an exemption if the property is used solely for owner-occupied, single family residential purposes, by applying prior to June 30 of any year to the School District. This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Trustees of the Soquel Union Elementary School District. A “yes” vote on Measure B is a vote to approve imposition of the special parcel tax. A “no” vote on Measure B is a vote against imposition of the special parcel tax. Measure G – Santa Cruz County Sales Tax Unincorporated Area Retail Transaction and Use Tax. To continue funding 9-1-1 emergency response, paramedic, sheriff, fire, emergency preparedness, local street repairs, mental health services, homelessness programs, parks, economic development and other general county services, shall the County of Santa Cruz be authorized to increase by ordinance the sales tax on retail transactions in the unincorporated area of the County by one-half cent for twelve years, providing approximately $5,750,000 annually, subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight? Impartial Analysis of Measure G Jason Heath, Chief Assistant County Counsel If this measure is approved by a majority of those voting on it, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz will be authorized to adopt an ordinance enacting a temporary increase to the retail transactions and use tax (“sales tax”) on retail transactions in the unincorporated area of the County. The sales tax increase would be imposed for a period of twelve years at the rate of one-half of one percent on retail transactions in the unincorporated area only. The current sales tax rate in the County of Santa Cruz is eight and one-half percent. Accordingly, if this measure is approved, the sales tax rate would increase to nine percent for twelve years. If approved, this measure is expected to take effect in or around April of 2019. The revenue generated by this measure would be deposited in the County’s general fund and used by the County to pay for general County operations and services including emergency response, sheriff, fire, parks, street maintenance, mental health services, affordable housing, homelessness programs, youth and senior programs and economic development. This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz. A “yes” vote on Measure G is a vote to approve the increase in the sales tax. A “no” vote on Measure G is a vote against the increase in the sales tax. Measure H – Santa Cruz County Affordable Housing Bond The Chamber supports Measure H To provide affordable local housing for working families and vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, low-and moderate-income households, persons with disabilities, homeless individuals and families; and supportive housing for individuals suffering from mental health illnesses or substance use disorders; shall the County of Santa Cruz issue up to $140,000,000 in general obligation bonds, with an estimated levy of $16.77 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, generating approximately $8,600,000 annually through maturity, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits? Impartial Analysis of Measure H Dana McRae, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz This measure seeks voter approval to authorize the County of Santa Cruz (“County”) to issue and sell up to $140,000,000 in general obligation bonds, in one or more series, at an interest rate not to exceed twelve percent per annum. The purpose of the bonds is to raise funds for the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable housing for populations that face challenges securing stable housing. People eligible for this housing include veterans, seniors, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, persons with mental health illnesses or substance use disorders and persons with low and very low incomes. A portion of the proceeds will also be available for low and middle-income persons to purchase homes. The proceeds from the sale of the bonds may only be spent as described in the full text of Measure H which is printed in this pamphlet and not for any other purpose. Measure H, if approved, would authorize an increase in the property tax rate in order to pay debt service on the bonds. The property tax increase would be based on assessed value, not market value. The best estimate of the average annual tax rate that would be required to fund the bond issue over the duration of the debt service is $12.21 per $100,000 of assessed value. The best estimate of the highest annual tax rate that would be required to fund the bond issue over the duration of the debt service is $16.77 per $100,000 of assessed value. The Tax Rate Statement printed in this pamphlet describes the tax rate in more detail. In accordance with State law, the County would carry out accountability measures. If the measure is approved, the proceeds of the bonds must be deposited in a special account created by the County. The County must ensure that an annual report is prepared describing the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the bond proceeds. An Oversight Committee including citizen representatives will review the annual report each year to ensure fiscal accountability. An independent, external auditor will review the County’s spending of bond proceeds to further ensure fiscal accountability. Pursuant to California law, this measure will become effective upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified voters voting on this measure. Approval of this measure will also constitute approval of the provision of up to 1,041 units of affordable housing as required by Article XXXIV of the California Constitution. This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz. A “yes” vote on Measure H is a vote to authorize the issuance and sale of up to $140,000,000 in general obligation bonds in order to provide affordable housing, to be secured by property taxes on property located within the County. A “no” vote on Measure H is a vote to not authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds. Measure I - City of Capitola cannabis business tax To protect the quality of life in the City of Capitola and to fund essential City services such as sidewalks, streets, and emergency response, shall Capitola voters enact an ordinance establishing a tax of no more than 7% on cannabis businesses in the city, generating estimated revenue of up to $310,000 annually per cannabis business, to remain in effect until changed or ended by voters, with all funds staying local? Impartial Analysis of Measure I Anthony Condotti, Capitola City Attorney In 2016 voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized the recreational use of cannabis (marijuana) by adults in the State of California, and established a regulatory framework for commercial production, distribution and retail sales of cannabis products. In early 2018, after initially waiting for the regulatory framework to take shape at the state level, the City Council directed staff to present options to allow limited retail cannabis sales. At its July 26, 2018, meeting, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Capitola Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.36 “Retail Cannabis Licenses” and amending Chapter 17.24 “Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts” to authorize retail cannabis sales in the C-R-Regional Commercial Zoning District. Under the terms of that ordinance, it will only go into effect with voter approval of the cannabis tax. At the same meeting, the Council ordered this Measure added to the November 6, 2018, ballot which, if approved, would establish a cannabis business tax cannabis for businesses operating in Capitola. The ordinance would authorize the City Council to set a maximum tax rate of seven percent (7%) of gross receipts, and also sets the initial tax rate at seven percent (7%), i.e., the Council would retain the authority to reduce the tax rate. The ordinance broadly defines "cannabis business" to include any for-profit or nonprofit business that distributes, delivers, dispenses, exchanges, barters or sells either medical or non-medical cannabis and includes, but is not limited to, medical marijuana cooperatives and businesses, and any other business which transports, manufactures, compounds, converts, processes, prepares, stores, packages, sells at wholesale, or sells at retail, cannabis or products made of cannabis. The tax is not a sales tax imposed on persons who purchase or otherwise acquire cannabis for their personal use. The proposed tax is a “general tax” as defined by the California Constitution. As such, all revenue it generates may be used by the City to pay for the provision of municipal services to City residents and visitors, including such services as emergency response, parks, street maintenance and repair, police, libraries, youth and senior programs, economic development and job creation, and other essential city services. This ballot measure has been placed on the ballot by the Capitola City Council. It requires a simple majority to pass. Measure J - City of Capitola transient occupancy tax There is no impartial analysis and no argument for or against this measure. To help fund youth programs, protect parks, beaches and open space, and support local businesses, shall a special tax measure paid only by hotel and short-term rental guests be approved increasing transient occupancy taxes from 10% to 12% until ended by voters, providing approximately $310,000 annually, and allocating dedicated portions to youth and early childhood programs, and local business groups for marketing and community improvements, and the balance to fund core City functions? Full text of measure J ORDINANCE NO.__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA AMENDING SECTION 3.32.030 OF THE CAPITOLA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF CAPITOLA VISITOR SERVICES FEE (TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA, CALIFORNIA, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to amend the City of Capitola Municipal Code Section 3.32.030 entitled Fee/Tax Imposed, to increase the Visitor Services Fee (Transient Occupancy Tax) from 10% to 12%; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance shall be known as the City of Capitola Visitor Services Fee (Transient Occupancy Tax) Increase. The City of Capitola hereinafter shall be called “City.” This Ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City. WHEREAS, this Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED as follows: SECTION 1. Section 3.32.030 “Fee/Tax Imposed” of Chapter 3.32 “Visitor Services Fee and Fund” of the City of Capitola Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “3.32.030 Fee/tax imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a general tax in an amount of ten twelve percent of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment by the operator to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the fee administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the fee administrator. The general tax revenues of 11.25 percent shall be placed in the city’s general fund, 0.40 percent shall be allocated exclusively to local business groups for marketing and community improvements, and 0.35 percent shall be allocated exclusively to youth and early childhood programs.” SECTION 2. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to amend the City of Capitola Municipal Code Section 3.32.030 of the Chapter entitled Fee/Tax Imposed, to increase the Visitor Services Fee (Transient Occupancy Tax) from 10% to 12%. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that a two-thirds majority vote in favor is declared by the City Council, and shall go into effect on January 1, 2019. Measure K - City of Capitola changing treasurer from elected to appointed In order to assure that the City of Capitola’s finances are overseen by a trained and qualified individual, shall the office of City Treasurer be changed from elective to appointive? Impartial Analysis of Measure K Anthony Condotti, Capitola City Attorney Under California law, general law cities like Capitola are required to have a city council, city manager, city clerk and city treasurer. The position of a city treasurer was initially an elected position at many cities throughout the state. However, California law allows cities, with voter approval, to make the city treasurer an appointed position. As professionally trained staffs have become commonplace, many cities have switched to appointing a treasurer, usually the current finance director, rather than electing one. The City of Capitola took a similar approach to the city clerk position, with voters approving making that position an appointed office in 1994. Today, all of Santa Cruz County’s other jurisdictions and approximately two-thirds of the state’s cities have appointed treasurers. At the June 28, 2018, regular meeting, current elected Treasurer Peter Wilk proposed transitioning his position from elected to appointed. At its July 26, 2018, meeting, the City Council ordered that this Measure be placed on the November 6, 2018, ballot which, if approved by the voters, would change the position of city treasurer from an elected to an appointed position. Appointments would be made by the City Council. The Measure requires a simple majority to pass. Measure L - Capitola Greenway initiative Shall the Capitola Municipal Code be amended to direct Capitola constituent departments to take all steps necessary to preserve and maintain the Capitola segment of the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission’s Rail Corridor and Trestle over Soquel Creek for bicyclists, pedestrians and other human powered transportation, and to prohibit expenditures to route bicyclists, pedestrians and other human powered transportation from the rail corridor to Capitola streets and sidewalks? Impartial Analysis of Measure L Anthony Condotti, Capitola City Attorney This measure was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by a legally sufficient number of registered voters in the City of Capitola. It proposes adding a Chapter to the Capitola Municipal Code concerning the proposed “Rail Trail” through the City of Capitola and Trestle across Soquel Creek in Capitola Village. The Rail Corridor and Trestle are owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). In 2013, after a multi-year process with extensive public input, RTC adopted the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan (Master Plan), establishing the proposed alignment for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network, including the Coastal Rail Trail and associated spur trails. “Segment 11” of the Rail Trail would run along the rail right-of-way approximately 3.2 miles down the coast from Jade Street Park to State Park Drive, diverting onto surface streets through Capitola Village to bypass the Trestle. Although contemplated as part of a future project, the Master Plan does not include funding for building the Rail Trail across the Trestle due to cost and existing structural conditions. In 2015, the Capitola City Council adopted the Master Plan, which is contemplated by and consistent with several policies enumerated in Capitola’s General Plan, adopted in 2014, the “Bicycle Transportation Plan,” adopted in 2011 and Local Coastal Plan, adopted in 1981. The stated purpose of the measure is to keep the proposed Rail Trail entirely within the existing Rail Corridor, including across the Trestle. It contains two operative provisions: First, it directs the City to take “all steps necessary” to preserve and utilize the RTC-owned Rail Corridor and Trestle, for “any form of human powered transportation,” such as walking, cycling, using a wheelchair, or skateboarding. Second, it prohibits the expenditure of City any “funds or resources related to the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, financing, marketing, or signage for a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks.” The measure expressly does not amend or rescind the General Plan, Local Coastal Program or Zoning Code, but rather states that it “shall be construed and harmonized in a manner to strengthen and define such provisions.” The measure raises a number of legal concerns, including: First, whether it proposes a legislative act, or merely directs administrative or executive actions, which are generally not subject to initiative or referendum; Second, whether the Measure’s terms are too vaguely defined and ambiguous to be enforceable; Third, whether its restrictions on expenditure of funds improperly interfere with the City Council’s authority over the City’s fiscal affairs. For these reasons the measure may be vulnerable to a legal challenge as to its validity. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure L. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the City Clerk at 831-475-7300 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you. Measure M - City of Santa Cruz rent control initiative The Chamber opposes Measure M Shall the City Charter be amended to enact rent control and just cause eviction regulations on residential rentals in the City of Santa Cruz, with exceptions under State Law, to be governed by a separately elected and autonomous rent board, with independent authority to set rents, fees, and penalties, and appoint an executive director, legal counsel and staff to oversee implementation, administration, and enforcement of the rent control and just cause eviction regulations? Impartial Analysis of Measure M Tony Condotti, City Attorney Introduction. This Measure was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by a legally sufficient number of registered voters in the City. It proposes a City Charter Amendment (“Amendment”) to establish a rent board, rent control and just cause eviction requirements for the City of Santa Cruz. Rent Board Autonomy. This Amendment provides for creation of a separately elected Rent Board with broad authority for implementation and administration, to function independently of the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney. The Rent Board would be authorized to: establish Rent Board Member compensation; hire paid executive director and staff; retain counsel; procure goods and services; hire hearing officers; adopt budgets; and initiate, defend and intervene in lawsuits. After receiving initial City funding, it empowers the Rent Board to annually bill residential landlords to pay for administration, implementation and enforcement costs, and to request and receive funding from the City General Fund. Rent Control. The Amendment would set maximum annual rent increases for residential units subject to the rent control at 100% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior year, with initial maximum base rent at the amount of rent in effect on October 19, 2017, and provisions for adjustment up or down by the Rent Board as specified. Both rent control and just cause eviction restrictions would apply to accessory dwelling units. A statewide measure that has also qualified for the November 2018 ballot seeks to repeal current State law exempting single-family residences, condominiums, and residences constructed after February 1995 from local rent control restrictions, and enabling landlords to set the initial rent for new tenants. Its passage would enable the Rent Board to apply rent control to these types of tenancies, and to adopt regulations restricting initial rent for new tenancies as well. Just Cause Eviction. The Measure would prohibit landlords from evicting tenants except for certain specified reasons, including failure to pay rent, committing or permitting a nuisance, or to enable the landlord to use the unit as a primary residence. Tenants evicted for reasons unrelated to the tenant’s conduct would be entitled to the equivalent of six months’ relocation assistance. Violations. A landlord’s violation of the Amendment’s requirements would be punishable as a misdemeanor, and would also give rise to liability in a civil action, which could result in money damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and civil penalties. Effect of Measure. The Measure would amend the City Charter to impose rent control, establish a rent board, and to establish limits on evictions. As a Charter Amendment, it could not be repealed or amended absent voter approval. A “Yes” vote is a vote to approve rent control, a rent board, and limits on evictions. A “No” vote is a vote against rent control, a rent board, and limits on evictions. Measure N - City of Scotts Valley transient occupancy tax Shall the City of Scotts Valley adopt an ordinance amending Section 3.24.030 of the Municipal Code raising the transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 11%? Impartial Analysis of Measure N Kirsten Powell, City Attorney, City of Scotts Valley This ballot measure, if adopted by City voters, would amend the Scotts Valley Municipal Code by raising the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from the current rate of 10 percent to 11 percent. The Transient Occupancy Tax is a tax paid by hotel and motel guests who spend fewer than 30 consecutive days in a hotel or motel in the City. The tax is on the room rent paid. For example, a hotel guest currently pays $10 tax per night on a $100 hotel room. If the ballot measure is adopted, the hotel guest would pay $11 tax per night on a $100 hotel room. All of the City's transient occupancy tax revenue is deposited into the City's General Fund and used to pay for City operations and programs, including police services, recreation, park maintenance, the repair of streets and roads, and other essential City services. This ballot measure therefore proposes a "general purpose tax" rather than a "special purpose tax" and requires a simple majority vote for adoption. Since many of the City's hotel/motel guests are non-City residents who are tourists or City visitors, much of the increased tax revenue generated by this measure, if adopted by the voters, would be paid by non-City residents. The tax revenue will underwrite the costs of providing municipal services to local visitors and City residents. A “Yes” vote will increase the tax from 10% to 11%. A “No” vote will leave the tax unchanged. This ballot measure has been placed on the ballot by the Scotts Valley City Council. Measure O - City of Watsonville transient occupancy tax To protect the quality of life in Watsonville by supporting police, fire, emergency services, parks and recreation, economic development, job creation, and essential city services; shall the City of Watsonville be authorized to levy an additional one percent of Transient Occupancy Tax on people staying at lodging facilities in the City? Impartial Analysis of Measure O Alan J. Smith, City Attorney Article 3 of Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Watsonville Municipal Code levies a 11% transient occupancy tax on each hotel or motel guest in the City. This ballot measure, if approved by City voters, would increase Watsonville’s transient occupancy tax from 11% to 12% of the room rent charged by the hotel or motel operator. The City Council voted to approve the proposed tax but it can only go into effect if approved by a majority of voters (1 more than 50%) at the November 6, 2018, election. This Transient Occupancy Tax is a general tax meaning that all tax revenue is deposited in the City's General Fund and is available to pay for the costs of all City operations and programs including police and fire protection, parks and recreation programs, economic and employment development, and essential City services. This ballot measure therefore proposes a "general tax" rather than a "special tax" and requires a simple majority (1 more than 50% of those voting) to pass. Many hotel/motel guests are tourists or City visitors. Therefore, much of the increased tax revenue from this measure, if adopted by the voters, would come from non-City residents. Revenue will pay for municipal services to these visitors while here and to City residents. A “Yes” vote will increase the tax from 11% to 12%. A “No” vote will leave the tax unchanged at 11%. Measure P - La Selva Recreation District To correct structural flaws in the La Selva Beach Clubhouse that, 80 years after construction, are causing deflection in the roof and a wall to bow; to upgrade and maintain District facilities; secure ADA compliance; and to qualify for potential state grants: shall La Selva Beach Recreation District levy a temporary parcel tax on properties in the District, $50 yearly for a period of 7 years, raising approximately $40,000 annually, with no funds used for administrative salaries or benefits? Impartial Analysis of Measure P Dana McRae, County Counsel If this measure is approved by at least two-thirds of those voting on it, the La Selva Beach Recreation District (the “District”) will be authorized to levy a special tax on real property. The tax would be imposed for seven years beginning July 1, 2019, at the rate of $50.00 per year on each residential parcel within the District. The proceeds of the special tax, if approved, may be applied only to the purposes set out in the full text of Measure P which is printed in this pamphlet. The proceeds of the special tax may not be used for administrators’ salaries or benefits. In accordance with State law, the District would carry out accountability measures. It would create a separate account into which the proceeds of the special tax shall be deposited. An annual report would show the amount of the special taxes which have been collected and expended, and the status of projects to be funded from those proceeds. The special parcel tax is to be collected in the same manner, and subject to the same interest and penalties, as those property taxes which are based upon property value. This measure has been placed on the ballot by the Board of Directors of the La Selva Beach Recreation District. A “yes” vote on Measure P is a vote to approve imposition of the special parcel tax. A “no” vote on Measure P is a vote against imposition of the special parcel tax. Want more information than what was in this article? Click here.
The Santa Cruz Area Chamber works to provide informative material to our members and the greater Santa Cruz County community. November 6, 2018 election can lead to fundamental changes in the way our region will address some of the looming issues of our day. Last week the Chamber provided a quick snap shot review of the state ballot Propositions for your review. You can read them here: Summary of Statewide Ballot Propositions
Your Chamber advocates on issues that impact our members and the economic vitality of the region. The Chamber does not systematically take a position on all ballot measures. The Chamber board votes to support or oppose a measure after thorough review of the issue that are core to the Chamber’s mission. This week’s eNews provides a summary of our local measures. Want more information than what's in this article? Click here.
Santa Cruz County Local Ballot Measures
Measure A – Scotts Valley Unified School District Parcel Tax To maintain quality core educational programs, prevent cuts in math, science, technology, reading, and the arts, attract and retain highly qualified teachers and counselors, and keep up with technology, shall “Scotts Valley Unified School District” levy an annual education parcel tax of $108 per parcel for five years, with independent community oversight, no funds for administrator salaries, pensions or benefits, senior and disabled exemptions, raising $820,000 annually in funding for “Scotts Valley Unified School District” that can’t be taken away by the State?
Impartial Analysis of Measure A Dana McRae, County Counsel If this measure is approved by at least two-thirds of those voting on it, the Scotts Valley Unified School District (the “School District”) will be authorized to levy a special tax on real property. The tax would be imposed for five years beginning July 1, 2019, at the rate of $108.00 per year on each parcel within the School District.
The proceeds of the special tax, if approved, may be applied only to the purposes stated in the full text of the ballot proposition and ballot question and not for any other purpose, such as administrators’ salaries, pensions or benefits.
In accordance with State law, the School District would carry out accountability measures. It would create a special account into which the proceeds of the special tax shall be deposited. An annual report would show the amount of the special taxes which have been collected and expended, and the status of projects to be funded from those proceeds.
A citizens’ oversight committee is to provide oversight concerning expenditure of the tax revenues. The special parcel tax is to be collected in the same manner, and subject to the same interest and penalties, as those property taxes which are based upon property value.
Property owners who are 65 years of age or older, or who are receiving Supplemental Social Security for a disability regardless of age, may obtain an exemption if the property is used solely for owner-occupied, single family residential purposes, by applying prior to June 30 of any year to the School District.
This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Trustees of the Scotts Valley Unified School District.
A “yes” vote on Measure A is a vote to approve imposition of the special parcel tax. A “no” vote on Measure A is a vote against imposition of the special parcel tax.
Measure B – Soquel Union Elementary School District To support academic excellence, retain and recruit quality teachers and support staff, offer student enrichment in the arts focusing on music, enhance science with hands-on lessons in school gardens, and provide local funding that cannot be taken away by the State, shall Soquel Union Elementary School District’s measure be adopted authorizing the levy of a parcel tax for six years at a rate of $96 per year raising approximately $990,000 with an exemption for seniors and with annual citizens’ oversight?
Impartial Analysis of Measure B Dana McRae, County Counsel If this measure is approved by at least two-thirds of those voting on it, the Soquel Union Elementary School District (the “School District”) will be authorized to levy a special tax on real property. The tax would be imposed for six years beginning July 1, 2019, at the rate of $96.00 per year on each parcel within the School District.
The proceeds of the special tax, if approved, may be applied only to the purposes stated in the full text of the ballot proposition and ballot question and not for any other purpose.
A citizens’ oversight committee is to provide oversight concerning expenditure of the tax revenues.
The special parcel tax is to be collected in the same manner, and subject to the same interest and penalties, as those property taxes which are based upon property value.
Property owners who are 65 years of age or older may obtain an exemption if the property is used solely for owner-occupied, single family residential purposes, by applying prior to June 30 of any year to the School District.
This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Trustees of the Soquel Union Elementary School District.
A “yes” vote on Measure B is a vote to approve imposition of the special parcel tax. A “no” vote on Measure B is a vote against imposition of the special parcel tax.
Measure G – Santa Cruz County Sales Tax Unincorporated Area Retail Transaction and Use Tax. To continue funding 9-1-1 emergency response, paramedic, sheriff, fire, emergency preparedness, local street repairs, mental health services, homelessness programs, parks, economic development and other general county services, shall the County of Santa Cruz be authorized to increase by ordinance the sales tax on retail transactions in the unincorporated area of the County by one-half cent for twelve years, providing approximately $5,750,000 annually, subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight?
Impartial Analysis of Measure G Jason Heath, Chief Assistant County Counsel If this measure is approved by a majority of those voting on it, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz will be authorized to adopt an ordinance enacting a temporary increase to the retail transactions and use tax (“sales tax”) on retail transactions in the unincorporated area of the County. The sales tax increase would be imposed for a period of twelve years at the rate of one-half of one percent on retail transactions in the unincorporated area only. The current sales tax rate in the County of Santa Cruz is eight and one-half percent. Accordingly, if this measure is approved, the sales tax rate would increase to nine percent for twelve years. If approved, this measure is expected to take effect in or around April of 2019.
The revenue generated by this measure would be deposited in the County’s general fund and used by the County to pay for general County operations and services including emergency response, sheriff, fire, parks, street maintenance, mental health services, affordable housing, homelessness programs, youth and senior programs and economic development.
This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz.
A “yes” vote on Measure G is a vote to approve the increase in the sales tax. A “no” vote on Measure G is a vote against the increase in the sales tax.
Measure H – Santa Cruz County Affordable Housing Bond The Chamber supports Measure H To provide affordable local housing for working families and vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, low-and moderate-income households, persons with disabilities, homeless individuals and families; and supportive housing for individuals suffering from mental health illnesses or substance use disorders; shall the County of Santa Cruz issue up to $140,000,000 in general obligation bonds, with an estimated levy of $16.77 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, generating approximately $8,600,000 annually through maturity, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits?
Impartial Analysis of Measure H Dana McRae, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz This measure seeks voter approval to authorize the County of Santa Cruz (“County”) to issue and sell up to $140,000,000 in general obligation bonds, in one or more series, at an interest rate not to exceed twelve percent per annum. The purpose of the bonds is to raise funds for the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable housing for populations that face challenges securing stable housing. People eligible for this housing include veterans, seniors, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, persons with mental health illnesses or substance use disorders and persons with low and very low incomes. A portion of the proceeds will also be available for low and middle-income persons to purchase homes. The proceeds from the sale of the bonds may only be spent as described in the full text of Measure H which is printed in this pamphlet and not for any other purpose.
Measure H, if approved, would authorize an increase in the property tax rate in order to pay debt service on the bonds. The property tax increase would be based on assessed value, not market value. The best estimate of the average annual tax rate that would be required to fund the bond issue over the duration of the debt service is $12.21 per $100,000 of assessed value. The best estimate of the highest annual tax rate that would be required to fund the bond issue over the duration of the debt service is $16.77 per $100,000 of assessed value. The Tax Rate Statement printed in this pamphlet describes the tax rate in more detail.
In accordance with State law, the County would carry out accountability measures. If the measure is approved, the proceeds of the bonds must be deposited in a special account created by the County. The County must ensure that an annual report is prepared describing the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the bond proceeds. An Oversight Committee including citizen representatives will review the annual report each year to ensure fiscal accountability. An independent, external auditor will review the County’s spending of bond proceeds to further ensure fiscal accountability.
Pursuant to California law, this measure will become effective upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified voters voting on this measure. Approval of this measure will also constitute approval of the provision of up to 1,041 units of affordable housing as required by Article XXXIV of the California Constitution.
A “yes” vote on Measure H is a vote to authorize the issuance and sale of up to $140,000,000 in general obligation bonds in order to provide affordable housing, to be secured by property taxes on property located within the County. A “no” vote on Measure H is a vote to not authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds.
Measure I - City of Capitola cannabis business tax To protect the quality of life in the City of Capitola and to fund essential City services such as sidewalks, streets, and emergency response, shall Capitola voters enact an ordinance establishing a tax of no more than 7% on cannabis businesses in the city, generating estimated revenue of up to $310,000 annually per cannabis business, to remain in effect until changed or ended by voters, with all funds staying local?
Impartial Analysis of Measure I Anthony Condotti, Capitola City Attorney In 2016 voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which legalized the recreational use of cannabis (marijuana) by adults in the State of California, and established a regulatory framework for commercial production, distribution and retail sales of cannabis products. In early 2018, after initially waiting for the regulatory framework to take shape at the state level, the City Council directed staff to present options to allow limited retail cannabis sales.
At its July 26, 2018, meeting, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Capitola Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.36 “Retail Cannabis Licenses” and amending Chapter 17.24 “Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts” to authorize retail cannabis sales in the C-R-Regional Commercial Zoning District. Under the terms of that ordinance, it will only go into effect with voter approval of the cannabis tax.
At the same meeting, the Council ordered this Measure added to the November 6, 2018, ballot which, if approved, would establish a cannabis business tax cannabis for businesses operating in Capitola. The ordinance would authorize the City Council to set a maximum tax rate of seven percent (7%) of gross receipts, and also sets the initial tax rate at seven percent (7%), i.e., the Council would retain the authority to reduce the tax rate.
The ordinance broadly defines "cannabis business" to include any for-profit or nonprofit business that distributes, delivers, dispenses, exchanges, barters or sells either medical or non-medical cannabis and includes, but is not limited to, medical marijuana cooperatives and businesses, and any other business which transports, manufactures, compounds, converts, processes, prepares, stores, packages, sells at wholesale, or sells at retail, cannabis or products made of cannabis. The tax is not a sales tax imposed on persons who purchase or otherwise acquire cannabis for their personal use. The proposed tax is a “general tax” as defined by the California Constitution. As such, all revenue it generates may be used by the City to pay for the provision of municipal services to City residents and visitors, including such services as emergency response, parks, street maintenance and repair, police, libraries, youth and senior programs, economic development and job creation, and other essential city services.
This ballot measure has been placed on the ballot by the Capitola City Council. It requires a simple majority to pass.
Measure J - City of Capitola transient occupancy tax There is no impartial analysis and no argument for or against this measure. To help fund youth programs, protect parks, beaches and open space, and support local businesses, shall a special tax measure paid only by hotel and short-term rental guests be approved increasing transient occupancy taxes from 10% to 12% until ended by voters, providing approximately $310,000 annually, and allocating dedicated portions to youth and early childhood programs, and local business groups for marketing and community improvements, and the balance to fund core City functions?
Full text of measure J ORDINANCE NO.__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA AMENDING SECTION 3.32.030 OF THE CAPITOLA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF CAPITOLA VISITOR SERVICES FEE (TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX)
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CAPITOLA, CALIFORNIA, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to amend the City of Capitola Municipal Code Section 3.32.030 entitled Fee/Tax Imposed, to increase the Visitor Services Fee (Transient Occupancy Tax) from 10% to 12%; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance shall be known as the City of Capitola Visitor Services Fee (Transient Occupancy Tax) Increase. The City of Capitola hereinafter shall be called “City.” This Ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the City.
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 3.32.030 “Fee/Tax Imposed” of Chapter 3.32 “Visitor Services Fee and Fund” of the City of Capitola Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3.32.030 Fee/tax imposed.
For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and shall pay a general tax in an amount of ten twelve percent of the rent charged by the operator. The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the city which is extinguished only by payment by the operator to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the fee administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the fee administrator. The general tax revenues of 11.25 percent shall be placed in the city’s general fund, 0.40 percent shall be allocated exclusively to local business groups for marketing and community improvements, and 0.35 percent shall be allocated exclusively to youth and early childhood programs.”
SECTION 2. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to amend the City of Capitola Municipal Code Section 3.32.030 of the Chapter entitled Fee/Tax Imposed, to increase the Visitor Services Fee (Transient Occupancy Tax) from 10% to 12%.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that a two-thirds majority vote in favor is declared by the City Council, and shall go into effect on January 1, 2019.
Measure K - City of Capitola changing treasurer from elected to appointed In order to assure that the City of Capitola’s finances are overseen by a trained and qualified individual, shall the office of City Treasurer be changed from elective to appointive?
Impartial Analysis of Measure K Anthony Condotti, Capitola City Attorney Under California law, general law cities like Capitola are required to have a city council, city manager, city clerk and city treasurer. The position of a city treasurer was initially an elected position at many cities throughout the state. However, California law allows cities, with voter approval, to make the city treasurer an appointed position.
As professionally trained staffs have become commonplace, many cities have switched to appointing a treasurer, usually the current finance director, rather than electing one. The City of Capitola took a similar approach to the city clerk position, with voters approving making that position an appointed office in 1994. Today, all of Santa Cruz County’s other jurisdictions and approximately two-thirds of the state’s cities have appointed treasurers.
At the June 28, 2018, regular meeting, current elected Treasurer Peter Wilk proposed transitioning his position from elected to appointed. At its July 26, 2018, meeting, the City Council ordered that this Measure be placed on the November 6, 2018, ballot which, if approved by the voters, would change the position of city treasurer from an elected to an appointed position. Appointments would be made by the City Council. The Measure requires a simple majority to pass.
Measure L - Capitola Greenway initiative Shall the Capitola Municipal Code be amended to direct Capitola constituent departments to take all steps necessary to preserve and maintain the Capitola segment of the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission’s Rail Corridor and Trestle over Soquel Creek for bicyclists, pedestrians and other human powered transportation, and to prohibit expenditures to route bicyclists, pedestrians and other human powered transportation from the rail corridor to Capitola streets and sidewalks?
Impartial Analysis of Measure L Anthony Condotti, Capitola City Attorney This measure was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by a legally sufficient number of registered voters in the City of Capitola. It proposes adding a Chapter to the Capitola Municipal Code concerning the proposed “Rail Trail” through the City of Capitola and Trestle across Soquel Creek in Capitola Village. The Rail Corridor and Trestle are owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). In 2013, after a multi-year process with extensive public input, RTC adopted the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan (Master Plan), establishing the proposed alignment for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network, including the Coastal Rail Trail and associated spur trails. “Segment 11” of the Rail Trail would run along the rail right-of-way approximately 3.2 miles down the coast from Jade Street Park to State Park Drive, diverting onto surface streets through Capitola Village to bypass the Trestle. Although contemplated as part of a future project, the Master Plan does not include funding for building the Rail Trail across the Trestle due to cost and existing structural conditions. In 2015, the Capitola City Council adopted the Master Plan, which is contemplated by and consistent with several policies enumerated in Capitola’s General Plan, adopted in 2014, the “Bicycle Transportation Plan,” adopted in 2011 and Local Coastal Plan, adopted in 1981.
The stated purpose of the measure is to keep the proposed Rail Trail entirely within the existing Rail Corridor, including across the Trestle. It contains two operative provisions:
First, it directs the City to take “all steps necessary” to preserve and utilize the RTC-owned Rail Corridor and Trestle, for “any form of human powered transportation,” such as walking, cycling, using a wheelchair, or skateboarding.
Second, it prohibits the expenditure of City any “funds or resources related to the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, financing, marketing, or signage for a detour of the Trail onto Capitola streets or sidewalks.”
The measure expressly does not amend or rescind the General Plan, Local Coastal Program or Zoning Code, but rather states that it “shall be construed and harmonized in a manner to strengthen and define such provisions.”
The measure raises a number of legal concerns, including: First, whether it proposes a legislative act, or merely directs administrative or executive actions, which are generally not subject to initiative or referendum; Second, whether the Measure’s terms are too vaguely defined and ambiguous to be enforceable; Third, whether its restrictions on expenditure of funds improperly interfere with the City Council’s authority over the City’s fiscal affairs. For these reasons the measure may be vulnerable to a legal challenge as to its validity.
The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure L. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the City Clerk at 831-475-7300 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.
Measure M - City of Santa Cruz rent control initiative The Chamber opposes Measure M Shall the City Charter be amended to enact rent control and just cause eviction regulations on residential rentals in the City of Santa Cruz, with exceptions under State Law, to be governed by a separately elected and autonomous rent board, with independent authority to set rents, fees, and penalties, and appoint an executive director, legal counsel and staff to oversee implementation, administration, and enforcement of the rent control and just cause eviction regulations?
Impartial Analysis of Measure M Tony Condotti, City Attorney Introduction. This Measure was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by a legally sufficient number of registered voters in the City. It proposes a City Charter Amendment (“Amendment”) to establish a rent board, rent control and just cause eviction requirements for the City of Santa Cruz.
Rent Board Autonomy. This Amendment provides for creation of a separately elected Rent Board with broad authority for implementation and administration, to function independently of the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney. The Rent Board would be authorized to: establish Rent Board Member compensation; hire paid executive director and staff; retain counsel; procure goods and services; hire hearing officers; adopt budgets; and initiate, defend and intervene in lawsuits. After receiving initial City funding, it empowers the Rent Board to annually bill residential landlords to pay for administration, implementation and enforcement costs, and to request and receive funding from the City General Fund.
Rent Control. The Amendment would set maximum annual rent increases for residential units subject to the rent control at 100% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior year, with initial maximum base rent at the amount of rent in effect on October 19, 2017, and provisions for adjustment up or down by the Rent Board as specified. Both rent control and just cause eviction restrictions would apply to accessory dwelling units. A statewide measure that has also qualified for the November 2018 ballot seeks to repeal current State law exempting single-family residences, condominiums, and residences constructed after February 1995 from local rent control restrictions, and enabling landlords to set the initial rent for new tenants. Its passage would enable the Rent Board to apply rent control to these types of tenancies, and to adopt regulations restricting initial rent for new tenancies as well.
Just Cause Eviction. The Measure would prohibit landlords from evicting tenants except for certain specified reasons, including failure to pay rent, committing or permitting a nuisance, or to enable the landlord to use the unit as a primary residence. Tenants evicted for reasons unrelated to the tenant’s conduct would be entitled to the equivalent of six months’ relocation assistance.
Violations. A landlord’s violation of the Amendment’s requirements would be punishable as a misdemeanor, and would also give rise to liability in a civil action, which could result in money damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and civil penalties.
Effect of Measure. The Measure would amend the City Charter to impose rent control, establish a rent board, and to establish limits on evictions. As a Charter Amendment, it could not be repealed or amended absent voter approval. A “Yes” vote is a vote to approve rent control, a rent board, and limits on evictions. A “No” vote is a vote against rent control, a rent board, and limits on evictions.
Measure N - City of Scotts Valley transient occupancy tax Shall the City of Scotts Valley adopt an ordinance amending Section 3.24.030 of the Municipal Code raising the transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 11%?
Impartial Analysis of Measure N Kirsten Powell, City Attorney, City of Scotts Valley This ballot measure, if adopted by City voters, would amend the Scotts Valley Municipal Code by raising the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from the current rate of 10 percent to 11 percent. The Transient Occupancy Tax is a tax paid by hotel and motel guests who spend fewer than 30 consecutive days in a hotel or motel in the City. The tax is on the room rent paid. For example, a hotel guest currently pays $10 tax per night on a $100 hotel room. If the ballot measure is adopted, the hotel guest would pay $11 tax per night on a $100 hotel room.
All of the City's transient occupancy tax revenue is deposited into the City's General Fund and used to pay for City operations and programs, including police services, recreation, park maintenance, the repair of streets and roads, and other essential City services. This ballot measure therefore proposes a "general purpose tax" rather than a "special purpose tax" and requires a simple majority vote for adoption. Since many of the City's hotel/motel guests are non-City residents who are tourists or City visitors, much of the increased tax revenue generated by this measure, if adopted by the voters, would be paid by non-City residents. The tax revenue will underwrite the costs of providing municipal services to local visitors and City residents. A “Yes” vote will increase the tax from 10% to 11%. A “No” vote will leave the tax unchanged.
This ballot measure has been placed on the ballot by the Scotts Valley City Council.
Measure O - City of Watsonville transient occupancy tax To protect the quality of life in Watsonville by supporting police, fire, emergency services, parks and recreation, economic development, job creation, and essential city services; shall the City of Watsonville be authorized to levy an additional one percent of Transient Occupancy Tax on people staying at lodging facilities in the City?
Impartial Analysis of Measure O Alan J. Smith, City Attorney Article 3 of Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Watsonville Municipal Code levies a 11% transient occupancy tax on each hotel or motel guest in the City. This ballot measure, if approved by City voters, would increase Watsonville’s transient occupancy tax from 11% to 12% of the room rent charged by the hotel or motel operator.
The City Council voted to approve the proposed tax but it can only go into effect if approved by a majority of voters (1 more than 50%) at the November 6, 2018, election. This Transient Occupancy Tax is a general tax meaning that all tax revenue is deposited in the City's General Fund and is available to pay for the costs of all City operations and programs including police and fire protection, parks and recreation programs, economic and employment development, and essential City services. This ballot measure therefore proposes a "general tax" rather than a "special tax" and requires a simple majority (1 more than 50% of those voting) to pass.
Many hotel/motel guests are tourists or City visitors. Therefore, much of the increased tax revenue from this measure, if adopted by the voters, would come from non-City residents. Revenue will pay for municipal services to these visitors while here and to City residents.
A “Yes” vote will increase the tax from 11% to 12%. A “No” vote will leave the tax unchanged at 11%. Measure P - La Selva Recreation District To correct structural flaws in the La Selva Beach Clubhouse that, 80 years after construction, are causing deflection in the roof and a wall to bow; to upgrade and maintain District facilities; secure ADA compliance; and to qualify for potential state grants: shall La Selva Beach Recreation District levy a temporary parcel tax on properties in the District, $50 yearly for a period of 7 years, raising approximately $40,000 annually, with no funds used for administrative salaries or benefits?
Impartial Analysis of Measure P Dana McRae, County Counsel If this measure is approved by at least two-thirds of those voting on it, the La Selva Beach Recreation District (the “District”) will be authorized to levy a special tax on real property. The tax would be imposed for seven years beginning July 1, 2019, at the rate of $50.00 per year on each residential parcel within the District.
The proceeds of the special tax, if approved, may be applied only to the purposes set out in the full text of Measure P which is printed in this pamphlet. The proceeds of the special tax may not be used for administrators’ salaries or benefits.
In accordance with State law, the District would carry out accountability measures. It would create a separate account into which the proceeds of the special tax shall be deposited. An annual report would show the amount of the special taxes which have been collected and expended, and the status of projects to be funded from those proceeds.
This measure has been placed on the ballot by the Board of Directors of the La Selva Beach Recreation District.
A “yes” vote on Measure P is a vote to approve imposition of the special parcel tax. A “no” vote on Measure P is a vote against imposition of the special parcel tax.
Want more information than what was in this article? Click here.