Ballot Analysis And Recommendations A C B D

2y ago
17 Views
2 Downloads
2.68 MB
26 Pages
Last View : 2m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Aydin Oneil
Transcription

VOTER GUIDESAN FRANCISCO JUNE 2018 Ballot analysis and recommendations3 A B C DE F G H IREGIONALMEASUREBridge TollVOTE YESPROPFlavoredTobacco BanVOTE YESPROPPROPPROPPROPPublic UtilitiesRevenue BondsCommissionersSeeking OfficeCommercial RentTax for Child Careand EducationCommercial RentTax for Housingand HomelessnessVOTE YESVOTE YESVOTE NONO or TenantsSchoolsParcel TaxPolicy Useof TasersSports TeamsVOTE YESVOTE YESMAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT.spurvoterguide.orgVOTE NOVOTE NO

Nine city propositions and one regionalmeasure appear on the San Franciscoballot on June 5, 2018. SPUR providesin-depth analysis and recommendationson each one.The goal of the SPUR Voter Guide is toprovide objective analysis and advisevoters on which measures will deliverreal solutions. We evaluate measuresbased on two sets of factors:Outcomes Will the measure make the city better? Do the positive impacts of the measure outweighany negative impacts?Process Is it necessary and appropriate to be on the ballot? Is it written in a clear and straightforward way? Will it be implementable? Does the measure make it easier or harder to makefuture governance and management decisions?Our Ballot Analysis Committee heard argumentsfrom both sides of the issues, debated the measures’merits and provided recommendations to ourSan Francisco Board of Directors. The board thenvoted, with a 60 percent vote required for SPURto make a recommendation.IDEAS ACTION FOR A BETTER CITYSPUR promotes good planning and good governmentthrough research, education and advocacy.We are a member-supported nonprofit organization.Join us: www.spur.orgSPUR’s San Francisco Board of Directors reviewed, debated and adoptedthis analysis as official policy on February 21 and March 19, 2018.SPUR Ballot Analysis CommitteeBob Gamble (Co-Chair), Fran Weld (Co-Chair), Michaela Cassidy,Jim Chappell, Kim-Mai Cutler, Diane Filippi, Ed Harrington,Vince Hoenigman, Aaron Johnson, Jim Lazarus, Jeanne Myerson,George Miller, Terry Micheau, Molly Turner, Steve VettelSPUR StaffKristy Wang, Susannah Parsons, Karen Steen, Alicia John-Baptiste,Arielle Fleisher, Sarah Karlinsky, Laura Tam, Eli ZigasCopy edited by Valerie Sinzdak Designed by Nicole SmileyPaid for by the San Francisco Bay AreaPlanning and Urban Research Association.Financial disclosures available at sfethics.org.

In-depth ballotanalysis, made possibleby our members.Join SPURspur.org/voterguidejoin

USER FEE3Bridge TollBay Area Traffic Relief Plan User FeeIncreases tolls on the Bay Area’s seven state-owned bridges, excluding the Golden Gate Bridge,by 1 in 2019, 1 in 2022 and 1 in 2025 to fund regional transportation capital investments.VOTE YESWHAT THE MEASURE WOULD DOTHE BACKSTORYRegional Measure 3 (RM3) proposes a bridge toll increase to generate 4.45billion for transportation capital investments over a 25-year period and 60million annually to support transit operations. Tolls would increase by a total of 3 by 2025 on the seven state-owned toll bridges in the Bay Area (the GoldenGate Bridge is excluded), with an option to allow inflation indexing thereafter.As with other bridge tolls, funds would be collected and administered throughthe Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) acting as the Bay Area TollAuthority.RM3 was authorized by the California State Legislature in 2017 through theadoption of Senate Bill 595 (Beall), which also established an expenditureplan to accompany any new revenues generated. The expenditure plan wasdeveloped primarily by the Bay Area delegation of the state legislature, withinput from MTC and transportation, environmental, business and other interests.Although some compromises were necessary in finalizing the expenditure plan,the projects it would fund represent the major transportation capital prioritiesof each of the nine Bay Area counties. (See map on page 5.)Notable projects that would receive significant funding under RM3 include: 500 million to expand BART’s fleet; 375 million to expand BART to SiliconValley; 325 million to bring high-speed rail to the Transbay Transit Centerin San Francisco; 300 million to expand ferry service; and 50 million toimplement a new Clipper-based fare system. In addition, the expenditureplan would set aside up to 60 million annually to support transit operations,including 35 million for ferry service, 20 million for regional express busservice and 5 million for Transbay Transit Center operations.As is common in revenue and expenditure measures of this magnitude,the state’s authorizing legislation also included the establishment of anindependent oversight committee to monitor RM3-funded expenditures forconsistency with the expenditure plan. In addition, the legislation required thatMTC establish performance measures for RM3-funded bus and ferry service.The authorizing legislation also introduced an independent office of the BARTinspector general, adding a new layer of oversight to BART that covers bothRM3-funded and non-RM3-funded projects and activities.RM3 would also introduce new accountability measures, including an RM3independent oversight committee, transit performance measures and aninspector general for BART.RM3 is the successor to Regional Measures 1 and 2, passed in 1988 and 2004,respectively. Regional Measure 1 was dedicated to capital improvements only,while Regional Measure 2 allocated about 60 percent of its funding to capitaland 40 percent to operating support.RM3 would allow for discounts for some toll-payers. People crossing twostate-owned toll bridges during commute hours and using FasTrak wouldreceive a 50 percent discount on their tolls. Similar to today, carpools wouldalso receive a 50 percent discount.Finally, RM3 would allow MTC to index bridge tolls to inflation. This wouldenable MTC to increase bridge tolls in the future to fund capital projectswithout having to seek approval from the voters.RM3 was placed on the ballot by MTC acting as the Bay Area Toll Authority.Because RM3 is a fee and not a tax, it requires a simple majority (50 percentplus one vote) in the nine Bay Area counties to pass. It does not require amajority in each county.JUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: NINE-COUNTY BAY AREA MEASURE 4

128CloverdaleUSER FEE3128Bridge Toll29HealdsburgCalistoga1WindsorRegional Measure 3 Projects2.21.201820SMART Extensionto Windsor andN12RM3 would fund a number of transportation projects acrossthe Bay Area, including new BART cars, bringing high-speedrail to downtown San Francisco and implementing a newClipper fare system, as well as providing 60 million annuallyto fund transit system operations.2529DixonRohnert U.S. 101Marin-SonomaNarrowsBART ProjectBART existingBART extensionunder constructionExisting Light tSanCenterAnselmoI-680/SR-4 InterchangeImprovementsPinoleRichmond San RafaelBridge anyAlameda280Corridor Express LanesEnhancementSanMateo280Hillsborough1U.S. 101/SR-92Interchange9292BurlingameMillbraeFoster 0/SR-262Freeway ConnectorFremontEast Palo AmtrakAlto CorridorCapitolImprovementsPalo Alto 101Mountain82ViewLos AltosPortola Valley Los Altos280Hills680Milpitas237SunnyvaleSanta ClaraEastridge to BARTRegional ConnectorBART to San Jose(Phase 2)RM3 projects.ai MTC Graphics.pb —2.21.2018084AthertonI-680/SR-84 InterchangeReconstruction238Redwood CityMenloParkCupertino25MilesTri-Valley Transit AccessImprovements84Dumbarton CorridorImprovementsBelmontSan CarlosSanMateo238Union an BrunoFerry Service35Goods Movement and MitigationAmtrakCapitol CorridorImprovementsSouthSan Francisco82580Dublin580San LeandroBrisbaneColmaVasco RoadSafety ImprovementsSan RamonTransbayRail CrossingCaltrainDowntownExtensionBrentwood680Ferry ServiceEnhancementSan FranciscoOakleyByron Highway-Vasco RoadAirport ConnectorDanville580Oakland44Walnut CreekImprovementsMoragaPiedmontMuni FleetExpansionand FacilitiesRegional Express BusClaytonI-680 TransitEmeryvilleCore CapacityTransit Improvements160AntiochBrentwoodTransit CenterContraCosta24OrindaBerkeleySausalitoPleasant HillAC Transit-Rapid BusImprovementsEl Cerrito101PittsburgConcordI-80 Transit Improvementsin Contra Costa CountyRichmond580AmtrakMartinezCapitol CorridorImprovements80San PabloRio VistaSolanoHerculesBelvedereFerry ServiceTiburonEnhancementBay Trail/Safe Routes to Transit12680780 BeniciaFerry ServiceEnhancementLarkspurNext Generation Clipper Transit Fare n CanyonNovatoMill ValleyNew BART CarsAmtrakCapitol CorridorImprovements37RossProjects Not MappedFairfieldSuisun CityVallejoMarinI-80 WestboundTruck ScalesSR-29Improvements121Vacaville80Napa12116Map is for illustration only, showing planned projects anddoes not depict a commitment of funds. Exact projectsand project limits to be funded are subject to design andenvironmental review and approvals.505YountvilleSebastopolMilesBus ProjectRail ProjectLight Rail ProjectFerry ProjectHighway ProjectExisting Commuter RailNorth BayTransit AccessImprovements(Eligible in Contra Costa,Marin, Napa,Solano and Sonomacounties)128Santa HealdsburgRosa116Santa ClaraCampbellSaratoga 85Monte Sereno17San JoseSan JoseDiridonStationLos GatosBART ProjectBus ProjectSource: Metropolitan Transportation CommissionRail ProjectBART existingMorgan HillLight Rail ProjectBART extensionJUNE2018 SPURBALLOTANALYSIS:NINE-COUNTYBAYAREAMEASURE 5under constructionFerry Project101Highway ProjectExisting Light Rail

USER FEE3Bridge TollPROSCONS The vast majority of projects that would be funded by RM3 have beenidentified as priorities in the region’s long-range transportation plan andare awaiting funding to move forward. If RM3 passes, it would successfullyexecute one of the plan’s stated funding strategies. Plan Bay Area 2040, the region’s transportation and land use plan, identifiesa funding gap of 198 billion, but RM3 would only generate 4.45 billion. The expenditure plan would invest in many transportation projects that arecritical for sustainable regional mobility, notably expanding BART’s fleet andconnecting Caltrain and high-speed rail to the Transbay Transit Center inSan Francisco. RM3 would fund important local transportation needs, such as replacing andexpanding Muni’s fleet and facilities, without which Muni cannot keep pacewith demand. The expenditure plan would allocate the majority of funding to sustainablemodes of travel (75 percent of funding would go to transit, bicycle andpedestrian projects) while reserving a sizeable portion of road funding forexpress-lane expansion, which would enable counties to reward carpoolingand appropriately price solo driving. Transit fares and bridge tolls have not increased in parallel in recent years;currently, it costs more to use transit to cross a bridge than it does to driveacross a bridge. By indexing bridge tolls to inflation, RM3 would start tocorrect the imbalance and would keep toll rates at appropriate levels infuture years.SPUR’S RECOMMENDATIONWhile RM3 wouldn’t generate enough money to solve our transportationproblems once and for all, it is a necessary measure to help us meet increasingdemands on our transportation system. The measure would pay for importanttransportation projects that would have real impact for many system users. Itwould also provide a long-term fix in that bridge tolls in the future could beindexed to inflation, allowing the region to better keep pace with its growingtransportation system needs.Vote YES on Measure 3. RM3 would provide an important regional revenue source for local projectsas federal funding for transportation projects continues to decline. The measure would offer a discount for people crossing more than onebridge. Although as a whole bridge toll-payers are disproportionatelyhigher-income, it’s important that RM3 would provide pricing relief for thosewho have been pushed to the edge of the region because of the Bay Area’saffordability crisis and who are thus forced to drive. The measure wouldalso offer a discount for carpools — an important component to encouragepeople to make sustainable transportation choices.JUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: NINE-COUNTY BAY AREA MEASURE 6

CHARTER AMENDMENTAPublic UtilitiesRevenue BondsPublic Utilities Revenue BondsAuthorizes the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to issue revenue bonds to pay for powerand electrical facilities without having to obtain voter approval.VOTE YESWHAT THE MEASURE WOULD DOTHE BACKSTORYThis measure would amend the City Charter to give the San Francisco PublicUtilities Commission (SFPUC) the authority to issue revenue bonds to pay fornew power facilities with a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors and thesupport of the mayor.1The SFPUC provides water, wastewater and power services to residents andbusinesses in San Francisco. The agency’s Power Enterprise program has tworoles. First, it delivers clean power from the Hetch Hetchy hydroelectricitysystem to all municipal electricity users, including Muni, the fire department,the airport and the school district. Second, it provides clean energy to SanFrancisco residents and businesses that are enrolled in CleanPowerSF, acommunity-choice energy program that was established in 2016. This charteramendment would make it easier for the SFPUC to issue debt in order tofinance projects that serve both classes of customers.While the SFPUC has the authority to issue revenue bonds for drinking waterand wastewater facilities, the agency is mostly restricted to using cash topay for new power facilities; it can issue revenue bonds only for a narrowset of power-related projects, including energy efficiency upgrades andimprovements to the Hetch Hetchy power system.Under this measure, revenue bonds for power facilities would be subject tothe same process that now exists for water and wastewater bonds: obtainingapproval from the SFPUC and the Revenue Bond Oversight Committee, passinga two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors and getting the support of themayor, following an independent engineering evaluation and a certification ofcompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.The SFPUC could use the new revenue-bonding authority to build new cleanpower facilities and to invest in newer sustainable technologies, such as electricvehicle infrastructure and energy storage. The ballot measure would specificallyprohibit the SFPUC from using its new revenue-bonding authority to invest inany fossil fuel or nuclear power facilities.In 2015, the SFPUC became subject to federal regulatory requirements forenergy reliability that will require it to own and operate more power facilitiesto serve its growing base of CleanPowerSF customers. This measure wouldhelp the SFPUC pay for those facilities more cost-effectively and scale up itsability to take on projects.This measure was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the Board ofSupervisors. As an amendment to the City Charter, it must be on the ballotand requires a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote) to pass.FOOTNOTE1Unlike other cities and counties, the San Francisco City Charter requires voter approval forrevenue bonds unless otherwise exempted. There are about eight different exemptions to thisvoter approval requirement.JUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: SAN FRANCISCO CITY MEASURES 7

CHARTER AMENDMENTAPublic Utilities Revenue BondsPROSSPUR’S RECOMMENDATION Using bonds to finance projects is a prudent business practice that utilities,like most businesses, need to maintain assets in a state of good repair and tostrategically expand when necessary.Prop. A would give the city’s power operations the same ability to issue debtthat is already delegated to the airport, the port and the SFPUC’s own waterand sewer operations. We believe it’s important to confer on the city’s publicelectricity utility the ability to reinvest in aging infrastructure, respond tonew sustainability technologies, comply with regulations and maintain costeffectiveness for its customers. Requiring voter support for infrastructural revenue bonds is too burdensome,typically requiring an expensive public information campaign to win. Othertypes of revenue bonds that support the city’s infrastructure have alreadybeen exempted from having to obtain voter approval. This measure would support San Francisco’s climate action goals by makingit easier for the city to invest in innovative and sustainable clean powertechnologies, such as electric vehicle infrastructure, grid improvements andsolar-plus-storage batteries. This measure would help the city comply with new electricity reliabilityrequirements more easily and cost-effectively.Vote YES on Prop A.CONS Some voters might object to taking decision-making power — in this case forrevenue bonding of power and electricity facilities — away from voters andvesting it with the SFPUC.JUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: SAN FRANCISCO CITY MEASURES 8

10staff & board members.64hours of analysis.500ballot measures.We can’t do it without you.spur.org/contribute

CHARTER AMENDMENTBCommissionersSeeking OfficeProhibiting Appointed CommissionersFrom Running for OfficeRequires that appointed members of a city board or commission established by the CityCharter resign their seats if they declare candidacy for state or local elected office.VOTE YESWHAT THE MEASURE WOULD DOPROSThis measure would amend the San Francisco City Charter to require thatappointed members of boards and commissions established by the charterforfeit their seats if they file a declaration of candidacy for any state electedoffice, the BART Board of Directors or any elected office referenced in Section13.101 of the City Charter: the mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney,treasurer, assessor-recorder, public defender, and members of the Board ofEducation, Board of Community College District or Board of Supervisors. It’s a good government practice to set clear “rules of the game” and to codifya common-sense policy that is already generally practiced.The measure would exempt appointed members of boards and commissionsestablished by ordinance and citizen advisory committees. Neither would themeasure apply to elected officials, including those who have been appointed toa board or commission because of their office.CONS This measure is a solution in search of a problem. It is generally acceptedpractice to resign an appointed seat if a board or commission memberdecides to run for elected office, and there is little evidence that the currentsystem is being abused.SPUR’S RECOMMENDATIONTHE BACKSTORYSan Francisco has a number of commissions and boards, which includepolicy and decision-making boards as well as advisory bodies. Members areappointed by the mayor, the Board of Supervisors or other elected officials.Depending on the commission or board, these appointees either serve at thepleasure of the appointing authority (which means they can be removed atany time) or serve fixed terms (which ensures that they will be able to makeindependent judgments).Though it is commonly accepted practice for appointed members to resigntheir commission or board seats should they decide to run for state or localelected office, current law does not require it. This measure arose out ofconcern that appointed commission or board members could unfairly use theirstatus to elevate their political campaigns or that political ambitions couldcompromise their ability to fulfill their responsibilities.This measure was placed on the ballot by a vote of 7-4 at the Board ofSupervisors. As a charter amendment, it must be on the ballot andrequires a simple majority (50 percent plus one vote) to pass.This measure would help ensure that sitting commissioners and boardmembers make decisions in service of their jobs and not to benefit their ownpolitical ambitions. While there isn’t an obvious need for this amendment tothe City Charter, what is accepted practice today is no guarantee of goodbehavior in the future. Today, multiple elected officials and bodies besides themayor have appointing authority, which makes it more difficult for voters tohold a commissioner or board member accountable. With regard to conflictsof interest related to running for elected office, this measure would codify acommon-sense practice and set reasonable standards of behavior for thesepublic servants.Vote YES on Prop B.JUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: SAN FRANCISCO CITY MEASURES 10

ORDINANCECCommercial RentTax for Child Careand EducationAdditional Tax on Commercial Rents Mostlyto Fund Child Care and EducationImposes a tax on commercial landlords in San Francisco to fund child care and education programs.VOTE NOWHAT THE MEASURE WOULD DOThis measure would impose a tax on individuals and businesses that receiveincome from the lease or sublease of commercial space, primarily offices.The measure would exempt industrial uses, arts activities and retail salesor services that are not chain stores. Gross receipts received from leases tononprofits and government entities would also be exempt from the tax, aswould small business enterprises (defined for tax year 2017 as those withannual gross receipts under 1,090,000). The city controller estimates that20 percent of San Francisco’s commercial tax base would be exempt.Gross receipts from the lease of warehouse space would be taxed at anadditional 1 percent, and gross receipts for other commercial space wouldbe taxed at an additional 3.5 percent. Currently, the gross receipts tax ratefor real estate properties ranges between 0.285 percent and 0.3 percent.Effectively, this measure would increase the tax rate for commercial rentincome to 3.785 percent or 3.8 percent for most types of commercial space.Prop. C would deposit all revenues into a fund that would be appropriatedon an annual or supplemental basis. After administrative costs, 15 percentof the amount remaining would go to the General Fund and could beexpended on any purpose. The other 85 percent would be spent on eligibleprograms, including early care and education for children under 6 years old(in families at or below 85 percent of state median income) and early careand education for children under 4 years old (in families at or below 200percent of area median income), as well as on increasing compensation andaccess to training for care professionals and staff.The city controller estimates that this tax would generate 146 millionannually. (For perspective, the total business tax budgeted for 2017–18is 752 million.)The measure would go into effect on January 1, 2019. It could be amendedor repealed by the Board of Supervisors by ordinance without going backto the voters unless the amendment is intended to increase the tax. Themeasure would prevent the mayor and Board of Supervisors from reducingGeneral Fund support for early childhood care and education below thecurrent baseline level of 84.6 million, ensuring that the board could notsimply use this as a substitute source of funds for existing programs.There are two commercial rent taxes on the ballot this election,Propositions C and D. They are structured to ensure that, even if bothwin, only one of them will take effect (generally, the one with the greaternumber of votes; however, because Prop. C requires a simple majority topass and Prop. D requires two-thirds of the vote, Prop. C could win withfewer votes than Prop. D).THE BACKSTORYIn 2012, San Francisco switched its system of taxing businesses from apayroll tax to a gross receipts tax. The gross receipts tax applied differenttax rates to different industries and included commercial rents as a typeof industry. In developing the current gross receipts tax, the mayor’s officeand the city controller’s office conducted extensive outreach to affectedbusiness sectors. That process resulted in establishing different tax ratesbased on the relative profitability of industries in San Francisco. Everybusiness that grosses more than 1,090,000 in San Francisco or has a SanFrancisco payroll expense of more than 300,000 is subject to the grossreceipts tax. However, the gross receipts tax has not grown sufficiently tofully phase out the payroll tax. (In a future election, the gross receipts taxmay be renegotiated and brought back to the voters, but neither of thecommercial rent tax measures on the June ballot provides this needed fix.)At the end of 2017, negotiations among the Board of Supervisors and themayor over a potential commercial rent tax measure to fund transportationexpanded to include housing and child care. With Mayor Ed Lee’s death,the issues became increasingly politicized. This measure and a competingcommercial rent tax measure to fund housing and homelessness solutions(Prop. D) were both put on the ballot.San Francisco’s budgeted spending on childcare in FY 2017–18 isapproximately 110 million, including 12 million on early childhoodeducation funding through the Children and Families Commission and 99 million through the city’s Office of Early Childhood Education. OECEJUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: SAN FRANCISCO CITY MEASURES 11

ORDINANCECCommercial Rent Tax for Child Care and Educationprovides eligible families with financial assistance for child care and works tobuild the supply of quality care available in the city. Since March 2004, SanFrancisco has also administered the Preschool for All program, which expandsaccess to high-quality preschool education. Although the number of jobs lost would be small, economic modeling by thecontroller’s office predicts that this tax would have a net negative economiceffect on San Francisco (including a loss of gross domestic product and aloss of disposable income per capita).According to the Children’s Council of San Francisco, there is only enoughlicensed child care capacity for 15 percent of San Francisco infants. In anincreasingly unaffordable San Francisco, child care can account for 40 percentof a family’s basic expenses and can be one of several factors pushing families toleave the city. In addition, the challenge of finding quality affordable child care isa barrier to keeping women in the workforce. While buildings cannot leave San Francisco, tenants can. To the extent thatthis tax would be passed on to tenants, some business tenants might move toother cities, impacting the strength and diversity of San Francisco’s economy.Prop. C was put on the ballot with voter signatures and requires a simple majority(50 percent plus one vote) to pass.PROS San Francisco families face a documented shortage of affordable child care,adding to other pressures that push families to leave San Francisco. Thismeasure would create an ongoing source of funding that could increase theavailability of child care over time and improve the quality of care provided inSan Francisco. When jobs are created, so is the need for high-quality child care for employees.Proponents argue that public investment is needed to maintain our economicsustainability and growth. Since buildings, unlike businesses, cannot leave San Francisco, increasingthe gross receipts tax on commercial real estate would be unlikely to pushcommercial building owners out of San Francisco or to reduce the city’seconomic competitiveness overall.CONS The 2012 decision to convert San Francisco’s business tax system from a payrolltax to a gross receipts tax underwent a carefully considered process thatinvolved myriad stakeholders in an effort to balance their needs and priorities.This measure skipped over that process and would increase taxes significantlyfor only one industry. It is unclear whether the measure’s authors studied theimpact of this tax or undertook analysis to determine which industries couldbear an additional tax burden and how much.SPUR’S RECOMMENDATIONWhile there is a clear need for more affordable child care to serve San Franciscofamilies, SPUR was ultimately not convinced that this tax structure at this tax ratewas the appropriate choice, in part because it does not follow our principles forgood tax policy.1 Singling out one segment of one industry with a significant taxincrease over a single year is not equitable, and while the cause is a good one,the potential tax bears no relationship to the industry that would be affected(such as a tax on pollution that goes to fund environmental cleanup).A more comprehensive effort to update and reform the gross receipts taxis needed, and it should take into account the city’s growing and changingexpenditure needs. The process should also include robust outreach andnegotiation with all members of the business community, which appears to havebeen absent in the development of this measure. This scattershot effort is nota step in the right direction, nor does it set a good example for others seekingfunding for their agendas.Vote NO on Prop C.FOOTNOTE1SPUR, “Principles and Framework of Good Tax Policy,” Back in the Black: A fiscal strategyfor investing in San Jose’s future, May 2016, page 44, ns pdfs/SPUR Back in the Black.pdf#page 45JUNE 2018 SPUR BALLOT ANALYSIS: SAN FRANCISCO CITY MEASURES 12

ORDINANCEDCommercial RentTax for Housingand HomelessnessAdditional Tax on Commercial Rents Mostly to FundHousing and Homelessness ServicesImposes a tax on commercial landlords in San Francisco to fund housing and homelessness programs.NO RECOMMENDATIONWHAT THE MEASURE WOULD DOThis measure would impose a tax on individuals and businesses that receiveincome from the lease or sublease of commercial space, primarily offices. Themeasure would exempt spaces used for production, distribution and repair(including industrial, warehouse and similar uses); retail sales and services(including chain stores); and entertainment, arts and recreation.

Schools Sports Teams Parcel Tax REGIONAL MEASURE PROP PROP PROP PROP PROP PROP PROP . RM3 was placed on the ballot by MTC acting as the Bay Area Toll Authority. Because RM3 is a fee and not a tax, it requires a simple majority (50 percent . Emeryville Los Gatos Danville San Carlos Gilroy San Pablo Belmont Colma Sebastopol Campbell .

Related Documents:

a ballot is given. When you go to the polling area, you will be given a ballot and directed to a voting booth. “YES” means the After marking the ballot, you will fold it, leave the voting booth, and place your folded ballot in the ballot box. You should not

What is the last day I can request an absentee ballot? The final day to submit an absentee ballot application is Friday, October 22 at 5:00 p.m. When will I receive my by-mail absentee ballot? Local registrars will begin issuing absentee ballots on Friday, September 17 to those who have already been approved for an absentee ballot.

Ballot Drop Box . Overview . A ballot drop box provides a secure and convenient means for voters to return their mail ballot. A drop box is a secure, locked structure operated by election officials where voters may deliver their ballots from the time they receive them in the mail up to the time polls close on Election Day.

Ballot TRACE is a service similar to TrackMyVote in that it utilizes the Postal Service’s intelligent mail barcode technology to track a ballot through every stage of the mail ballot proc

because ballot order is randomized within each county and there are many counties and contests to analyze. Doing so for all statewide offices contested in the 2014 Democratic and Republican primaries and runoffs yields precise estimates of the ballot order effect across twenty-four different contests. Except for a few high-profile, high-

E-mail: lcs.ga@state.co.us 303-866-4799 September 11, 2018 This booklet provides information on the 13 statewide measures on the November 6, 2018, ballot and on the judges who are on the ballot for retention in your area. The information is presented in two sections. Section One — Analyses and Titles and Text Analyses.File Size: 1MB

develop the ballot and apply labels to the ballot envelopes on May 16, 2018 with Secretary/Treasurer, Ellen Pulver and Assistant Secretary/Treasurer, Dawn Pingel in Black River Falls and again to stuff the ballot packe

612 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION FORENSICS AND SECURITY, VOL. 4, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2009 ballot is cast. This prevents voters from falsely claiming that a valid confirmation code, obtained from an uncast ballot, came from a cast ballot. When it is not possible to use the different inks required for chit serial numbers and