My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
MO 2002-046 to 2002-050
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Minute Orders
>
2002
>
MO 2002-046 to 2002-050
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2022 12:34:52 PM
Creation date
7/12/2022 12:33:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Minute Order
Document Date (6)
12/31/2002
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Community Recreation Facilities Bond Campaign <br />July 10, 2002 <br />Page 4 <br />3 The Santa Clara Measure A and B Tax Program — In the early 1990's Santa Clara <br />County introduced a new tax election methodology that was originally challenged by <br />anti -tax groups, but has since been upheld by the California Courts. The election <br />proposed a "general tax" (as distinguished from a "special tax") increase as Measure <br />A and a companion Measure B advisory measure whereby the voters directed the <br />Board of Supervisors on how to spend the money. As a "general tax" Measure A <br />required only 50.1 % of yes votes. Measure B was basically a promise by the Board <br />to spend the money in a specified fashion, and, as an advisory measure, it didn't <br />matter what percentage of approval it received. <br />If we were to use the Santa Clara Measure A and B approach, we would <br />suggest putting together a package of taxes so none of the increases would be <br />considered too objectionable. <br />Advantages of the Santa Clara Measure A and B approach is that the resulting new <br />tax funds could be used for maintenance or for capital improvements, and the voters <br />would know exactly what they are getting for their money. The funds could be <br />capitalized at low interest rates through the sale of certificates of participation. <br />Discussion of Project Make -Up for Tax/Assessment Election <br />The City's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan identified 10 possible projects that are <br />candidates to be funded from proceeds of a voter -approved bond issue. These projects <br />were Burrell Field, Swimming Pool Enhancements (Washington Manor Park and Boys <br />and Girls Club were highest priorities of the Aquatics Task Force), Manor Branch <br />Library, a Senior Center, a Youth Center, Mulford Marina Branch Library, South Branch <br />Library and a new EastShore/Davis Branch Library. Two additional projects suggested <br />by the City Council include an expansion of Warden Park and the purchase of open space <br />for future park use. <br />A hypothetical list of improvements and costs could look something like the following: <br />Burrell Field Improvements <br />$2.5 million <br />Washington Manor Park Pool <br />5.0 million <br />Boys & Girls Pool <br />.8 million <br />Senior Center <br />7.0 million <br />Open Space Acquisition <br />4.0 million <br />Total Capital Improvements <br />$19.3 million <br />Required annual taxes to raise $19.3 million = $1.7 million <br />Additionally, we would want to raise some amount (up to $3 million based on the <br />estimate provided by Public Works) annually for enhanced maintenance of City parks <br />and school grounds. <br />S3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.