Measure A: Contra Costa Community College District - parcel tax ($11/parcel for 6 years) (2/3 vote required) OPPOSE
Measure B: Antioch School Facilities Improvement District #1 – $56.5 million bond (55% vote required) NO POSITION
Measure C: Martinez Unified School District - parcel tax - $50/parcel for 5 years (2/3 vote required) NO POSITION
Measure D: San Ramon Valley Unified School District – $260 million bond (55% vote required) NO POSITION
Measure E: West Contra Costa Unified School District – $360 million bond (55% vote required OPPOSE
Measure G: West Contra Costa Unified School District – parcel tax renewal (2/3 vote required) OPPOSE CoCoTAX wrote the ballot argument opposing this measure
Measure H: Knightsen Elementary School District – $3 million bond (55% vote required) NO POSITION
Measure I: Chabot-Las Positas Community College District parcel tax ($28/parcel for 6 years) (2/3 vote required) NO POSITION
Measure J: City of Concord: Appoint City Treasurer - NO POSITION - NOT A TAX ISSUE
Measure K: Town of Moraga: Transaction and Use Tax ($0.01 x 20 years) - NO POSITION
Measure L: City of Orinda: Transaction and Use tax ($0.005 x 10 years) NO POSITION
Measure M: City of Pinole: Utility Use Tax extension (8% for 8 years) OPPOSE - Utility user taxes are hidden from taxpayers because they appear in the utility bill.
Measure N: City of Richmond: Business license fee for sugar-sweetened beverages ($0.01/oz) OPPOSE - This is a poorly written measure that is deceptive. This is an attempt to evade the 2/3rds vote for a tax.
Measure O: City of Richmond: Advisory on use of sugar-sweetened beverage business license fee. OPPOSE
Measure P: City of Richmond: Advisory vote on Citizens United case NO POSITION - NOT A TAX ISSUE
Measure Q: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District parcel tax ($75/parcel OR $75 per 1/4 Acre for commercial, industrial, institutional or Miscellaneous for 7 years).OPPOSE - CoCoTAX wrote the ballot argument opposing this measure.
Prop 30: Governor Brown's Sales, Income Tax Increase - OPPOSE
Increases sales tax by ¼% for four years, increases income taxes for 7 years on the income group that is already paying 40% of the state income taxes(and backdates the tax to 1/1/12), and increases the unemployment tax for 4 years. This does not solve the state’s financial problems. It simply delays the inevitable.
This measure is pitted agains Prop 38. CoCoTAX says no to both of them. They do not fix the state budget. If both Prop 30 and 38 are approved by voters, the one that receives the most votes becomes law.
Prop 31: Government Performance and Accountability Act - OPPOSE
While this proposition has some positive aspects, those are totally overshadowed by the negatives. Example: Local governments can band together to forn a service coordination plan. If these governments then find a state law or regulation that impedes their plan, they can in essence create the functional equivalent on their own. This could created a patchwork of laws and procedures throughout the state.
While the Pay-go portion, which says for any program or tax cut of $25 million, the funding source or the cuts to be made must be identified. Cal-TAX, the statewide taxpayer group, questions whether there would ever be a tax reduction under this law. It is difficult to assess what a program will ultimately cost, thus a program could initially be "under" the $25 million level, only to later exceed the limit.
The easiest way to evade the PayGo component is to use the initiative process, since initiatives are not covered by this measure. It is the regulations and bonds passed through the initiative process that largely have contributed to the financial havoc in California. This needs to go back to the drawing board before locking in some very bad outcomes.
Prop 32: Restriction of Campaign Contributions by Special Interests - SUPPORT
Prop 32 bans both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates. It also bans contributions by government contractors to politicians who control contracts awarded to them. Public employee unions (notably public school teachers) have fought this proposition because it also bans automatic paycheck deductions for political purposes; instead, Prop 32 requires union members to "opt in.
Prop 38: Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs (Molly Munger Tax) - OPPOSE
Prop 38 increases the state personal income tax for 12 years on a sliding scale, starting with those at a taxable income level of $7,346. The rate for individuals at a taxable income of $48,029 would be 10.9%. This is a massive increase.
Until the end of 2016-17, 70 percent of revenues would be dedicated to K-12 education and early care/education programs and 30% would be used for bond debt service. In 2017-18 and subsequent years, 85 percent would be provided to K-12 education and 15 percent to early care and education. Californians in the highest brackets would have a marginal tax rate of 12.5%
Prop 39: Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses - OPPOSE
Proposition 39 is a $1 billion tax increase on businesses. For the first 5 years, half of that goes to fund energy-efficient projects. Under current law, multistate firms pay income taxes based on a percentage of their sales in the state or a formula that includes their property holdings, payroll and sales. Prop. 39 would base a company's income tax liability solely on its sales in California. This is not the time to raise taxes on business to fund more energy projects.