|
LT!* '^•r.-. . .r.-.�...-R-r.- . ..�..... .. -,. .,-.t.r..r---•1res�r- --- -^ - "- '^tt*' r -^.—tr '._-- - - •r r—.r - .._.....,_.... _._„.__-•- -r,•,iP,R;,r� . ._.... •.� -vvi T-7r'nTTifC'""'s^'T'''-w-. T--- -.___..._._may,. WY'fl — -i _t,_r,._r. . _ ..,
<br /> 202
<br /> Legislative Committee Report 72 -4 . Councilman Henderson , Chairman ,
<br /> reported the Committee had met on October 24 , 1972 , to consider
<br /> ballot propositions for the gaeral election of November 7th , at
<br /> request of Council . Committee ' s report dated October 25 , 1972 ,
<br /> ( for full text , see Clerk ' s file - Legislative Committee ) offered
<br /> recommendations on two of the measures of primary importance to
<br /> municipalities :
<br /> 1 . County Proposition A - Parks and Open Space , would amend the
<br /> Charter of the County of San Mateo to provide that , annually
<br /> for a ten year period , the Board of Supervisors would set
<br /> aside an amount equal to ten cents on the tax rate , which
<br /> amount would be budgeted each year for the purpose of park
<br /> acquisition and development . It was estimated such funds ,
<br /> together with estimated Federal funds , would total approximately
<br /> $4o , 000 , 000 . Funds would provide for planned and orderly acqui -
<br /> sition and development of park and open space lands . Committee
<br /> recommended support of County Proposition A , and in event of
<br /> Council supoort , that letters indicating City ' s position be
<br /> sent to the County Board of Supervisors and to Joseph E . Judge ,
<br /> Sr . , Chairman, Citizens Committee for Parks .
<br /> Councilman Henderson commented further that there had been
<br /> some unfortunate misunderstanding with regard to County Propo-
<br /> sitionA , particulary as to an editorial in the Redwood City
<br /> Tribune indicating opposition . Relative to concerns that this
<br /> would mean a tax increase she reported on the experience of
<br /> Santa Clara County with a similar proposition , and that their
<br /> tax rate for the current year had been reduced .
<br /> 2 , Proposition 14 - Watson Initiative , would establish several
<br /> property tax rate limitations , prescribe tax rates for sales ,
<br /> use , cigarettes , distilled spirits , banks , corporations , and
<br /> insurance companies , limit total ad valorem tax on property to
<br /> 1 . 75 per cent of market value (with certain exceptions ) ,
<br /> eliminate property tax for welfare purposes , limit property
<br /> tax for education , and require State funding of welfare
<br /> and education from other taxes . It would require a severence
<br /> tax on extraction of minerals and hydrocarbons , require two -thirds
<br /> vote of the Legislature to increase designated taxes , and restrict
<br /> exemptions from property tax to those approved by election . It
<br /> was estimated that , if proposed initiative is adopted , undefined
<br /> additional financing from State , school , and local governmental
<br /> sources would be required , approximating 1 . 233 billion dollars .
<br /> As in past years , this version of the "Watson Initiative " purports
<br /> to offer tax relief in certain specified areas without providing
<br /> sufficient funding from other sources . Furthermore , it limits
<br /> legislative flexibility to meet fiscal crises incurred by its
<br /> restrictions . For example , instead of aiding the tax burden of
<br /> the homeowner , Proposition 14 would benefit commercial , industrial ,
<br /> and income property owners disproportionately . It was estimated
<br /> the Proposition would reduce property taxes State -wide by 3 . 2
<br /> billion dollars . However , homeowners pay approximately 25 per
<br /> cent of all property taxes , and thus would receive only that pro-
<br /> portion of the reduction . ?5 per cent of the reduction would
<br /> directly benefit non-homeowners . Although proponents state that
<br /> Proposition 14 would provide relief to renters by halting escala -
<br /> tion of rents to meet higher taxes , there is no specific pro-
<br /> vision in the proposition for direct property relief for renters .
<br /> On the contrary , renters and homeowners would be saddled with
<br /> 40% increase in sales taxes , 25% increase in liquor taxes ,
<br /> 100% increase in cigarette taxes , and would be required to pay
<br /> a substantial portion of additional State taxes (primarily
<br /> personal income tax increases ) necessary to fund the initiative .
<br /> Finally , the initiative would provide only $825 per pupil in the
<br /> public school system , while under present law , approximately
<br /> $$ 995 per pupil is designated for 1973 -74 , Therefore , a revenue
<br /> gap of $771 , 000 , 000 with respect to education alone would be
<br /> created by the initiative .
<br /> 10/30/72
<br /> Reg . Adj . Mtg .
<br /> �. - __..._1_�.
<br />
|