.
Feedback

County Voters to Decide on Host of Tax Measures

Hike in hotel guest taxes in unincorporated areas on June 5 ballot, along with school parcel tax measures in Half Moon Bay, Daly City and Redwood City.

 

San Mateo County voters will consider several business-related taxes and a handful of school parcel tax and bond measures in the June 5 primary — including Measure S, an voters will be deciding on in Half Moon Bay.

Among the most contentious measures on the ballot are a proposed transient occupancy tax increase and business license taxes for commercial parking and car rental businesses in unincorporated areas of the county.

Proponents of all three measures include Board of Supervisors President Adrienne Tissier, Supervisor Carole Groom and San Mateo County Schools Superintendent Ann Campbell.

Opponents include the citizens' group Taxpayers for a Strong Economy and the general managers of the Best Western Grosvenor and San Francisco Airport Marriott hotels.

Measure U would raise the transient occupancy tax paid by guests at hotels in unincorporated areas from 10 percent to 12 percent. Supporters say Measure U would bring the transient occupancy tax in line with that of neighboring cities and counties. Opponents argue that the transient occupancy tax increase would hurt the hotel industry and discourage tourism.

Measure X proposes an 8 percent business license tax on all commercial parking facilities in unincorporated areas. The measure could raise approximately $5 million annually for the county's general fund, according to the measure's supporters. Opponents claim the new tax would add to the high cost of living on the Peninsula because the cost would be passed on to consumers. Measure T would levy a 2.5 percent business license tax on all car rental businesses in unincorporated areas. Proponents say car rental businesses pay less than 1 percent tax to the county, and that more than doubling the tax could raise nearly $8 million annually. Opponents say that any new taxes in a sluggish economy are a bad idea.

All three business tax measures require a simple majority to pass.

The June 5 ballot also includes three measures that would benefit local school districts. Measure S would authorize the issuance of $81 million in 40-year bonds for the , which includes four elementary schools, , an , and . The funds would help pay for school facility upgrades and maintenance. The bond measure requires 55 percent approval to pass.

Measure Y would levy a $45 annual tax on parcels within the Jefferson Union High School District for four years. The money would be used to enhance classroom programs and computer instruction, and attract and retain teachers.

In the Redwood City Elementary School District, Measure W aims to raise revenue for reading, writing and math programs, school libraries and other uses. The measure proposes a $67 parcel tax that would be in effect for five years. Measures Y and W both require two-thirds voter approval to pass.

Two special district taxes are on the ballot for voters in Portola Valley and the unincorporated San Mateo neighborhood of Highlands. Measure V would raise an annual parcel tax on properties in Portola Valley's Wayside II Road Maintenance District from $625 to $950. The funds would be used to cover the increasing costs of road maintenance and repair within the district.

Measure Z would extend a $65 annual parcel tax for police and fire services in the Highlands neighborhood. The tax has been in effect since 1982 and requires reauthorization by voters every four years.

Both Measures Z and V require a two-thirds majority to pass.

— Bay City News

To receive news feeds about Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated Coastside between Montara and Pescadero, visit Half Moon Bay Patch on Facebook and "like" us here. Follow us on Twitter here.

Want to blog for us? Click here.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.