Letters
- Details
- Written by: Connie Walczak
Fifteen thousand Lake County voters will see this on their March ballots.
A bond is a tax! A portion of Yolo, Placer, Lake, Glenn and Butte counties will vote and will be taxed on the Yuba College school bond. All of Colusa, Yuba and Sutter counties will vote and be taxed on it!
Many of the projects listed on this bond are mirror images that were listed on previous Yuba College bonds. Why weren't the projects completed with the previous bonds?
The Yuba College administration is leasing a building at 425 Plumas St. in Yuba City at a whopping $310,000 per year. Why? Why are their offices not located on the campus?
We are already paying on four Yuba College bonds! We will be paying on those bonds for many, many years to come. This will impact your property taxes. If you rent, the increased property tax will likely be passed on to you.
How much longer will we be paying on these school bonds?
Our children and grandchildren will inherit these bonds:
– Yuba College Bond A: Ends Aug. 1, 2031; 11 years remaining.
– Yuba College Bond B: Ends Aug. 1, 2046, 26 years remaining.
– Yuba College Bond C: Ends Aug. 1, 2050, 30 years remaining.
– Yuba College Bond D: Ends Aug. 1, 2039, 19 years remaining.
Astounding! Taxes on four Yuba College bonds is enough!
Please visit and follow Yuba College Bond #5 - Vote No on Facebook.
Please share this information! It is important that voters and taxpayers see this!
Vote no on Measure C.
Connie Walczak lives in Plumas Lake, California.
- Details
- Written by: James Seif
A bond measure seeks the permission of voters to borrow money by selling bonds (debt) that must be repaid, with interest (up to 12%), over decades from higher property taxes. At current (low) interest, the total repayment amount would be about double the $228.4 million.
The total repayment depends upon the interest rate at the time bonds are sold. In this instance, the measure contemplates the sale of millions of dollars in bonds each year. Interest rates may increase greatly and would be paid back for 30 years or more.
This is the third bond measure from this district in the last 14 years. The first was $190 million in 2006 from Measure J. The second was $33.6 million in 2016 from Measure Q. The $33.6 bond was just sold in Oct 2019 and will show up on your 2020 tax bill.
Measure C now proposes to authorize use of the next borrowed money on projects that were supposed to be accomplished under the 2006 and 2016 bond measures.
Instead of identifying just what projects would be funded, this bond measure only pledges to use the money raised for any of a broad range of purposes – guaranteeing virtually nothing. It would give the college district administrators and their board members vast discretion in spending or squandering the money.
The Yuba College District already has a $48 million pension debt and an aggregate debt service of $369 million since Nov 2000 Enactment of Prop 39. Adding more debt on top of the debt they already have is not fiscally sound management of the money we have already given them.
If this passes, your grandchildren will still be paying for the debt incurred today. Our children are already burdened with too much debt, let’s not add to it or to our grandchildren as yet unborn!
Tell the district to be fiscally responsible by voting no on Measure C.
James Seif lives in Yuba City, California.
- Details
- Written by: Scott Wiars and Teresa Jamison
Look at the actual numbers, not the propaganda numbers being used by the supporters of this measure. According to the adopted 2018-19 Lake County Budget (*see attached), the North Shore Fire Protection District’s budget is almost $3.5 million dollars. According to the Registrar of Voters Pamphlet, Measure N will raise taxes by over $1.7 million dollars. The fire district wants to increase its income/budget by almost 50 percent!
Here are examples for a single family home. In NICE, the single family home fire tax will INCREASE by 140 percent, LUCERNE by 44 percent, and CLEARLAKE OAKS by 110 percent. Again, this is not acceptable. These examples are only the beginning of the outrageousness.
Let us examine some more specific examples. In Clearlake Oaks the existing “parcel” fire tax for a single family residence is $60 per year. The new tax is proposed to be $126 per year, that is a 110 percent increase in the tax! That means every homeowner will pay double! If you have an in-law rental on your property, that figure climbs to $220.50.
However, that is only the beginning. This tax unfairly places a huge burden on rental units. The existing tax is a “parcel tax,” which means you pay a $60 tax per parcel. If passed, the old parcel tax will become a “tenant tax.” For a duplex, instead of paying $60 for the parcel, you pay $126 for the first apartment unit and $94.50 for the second apartment. That is a total new tax of $220.50. Using simple math, that is 267 percent increase in the tax. (The difference between the proposed new tax and the old tax, divided by the old tax.)
Using the same formula for a 4 unit apartment, the tax increase is whopping 582 percent!
In Lucerne, the existing parcel tax $90. For a single family home, the tax increases 44 percent. For a duplex rental, the tax increase is 145 percent. For a four unit apartment building, the increase is 355 percent.
Every tenant would like to increase their personal income by these percentages. The Fire District needs to get real!
The numbers being used by the fire district are misleading. In one actual example, a landlord will be paying almost $1,000 per year more in taxes. Tenants, if this tax passes, your landlord is going to have to increase your rents to cover the additional costs. With the recent passage of California’s AB 1482, expect a rent increase before the end of the year. Why should the fire district get a 582 percent increase.
The Fire District obviously did not do their homework. Let’s address the impact of California’s AB 1482. After the initial fire tax increase, the Fire District can raise the taxes by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), up to 3 percent. AB 1482 limits rent increases up to 5 percent, plus the CPI. That means the rent increases will be limited to 5 percent. Because, the fire district will take the entire CPI adjustment. Now, add on normal increases for property taxes, the occasional school bonds that voters will approve, increases in other expenses like water, sewer, garbage service, and the landlord could be facing a negative cash flow, even after raising the rents. That assumes the landlord can raise the rent. Despite popular rumor, the rents in the north shore district are not increasing exponentially and most landlords are "mom and pop" landlords. Most landlords struggle under additional tax burdens. We need to encourage more rentals, not tax them more.
In my opinion, the fire district has been mismanaged if they now find themselves in this position after “fifteen years”. Perhaps Fire District management should be removed. How about a Grand Jury investigation into the mismanagement?
We all want a 50 percent increase of our personal income so that we may buy shiny new cars and fix up our homes. However, there is a certain reality.
I propose the North Shore Fire protection District live within their means.
In the meantime:
Vote no new taxes.
Vote no on tax increases up to 582 percent.
Vote no rent increases because of this additional tax.
Vote no on Measure N.
Scott Wiars is a landlord who lives in Clearlake Oaks, California. Teresa Jamison with a rental in Lucerne, California, who lives in Roseburg, Oregon.
- Details
- Written by: Olga Martin Steele
On Nov. 5 I’m voting yes on Measure N so that when I dial 911 – for my family, friends or neighbors – we’ll get a quick response by a well-trained local firefighter.
To keep fires small and reach medical emergencies in time to minimize impact and save lives, our local fire fighters need the best training and resources we can give them.
The multiple fires in recent years – especially the last fire that burned behind our homes in the Northshore and, sadly, in some cases reached homes and property – are a reminder of how important it is to support our fire district so that our first responders can be there for us when we need them.
And the recent Pacific Gas and Electric power shutdowns certainly punctuate that point. I could hear the fire sirens throughout that ordeal as our firefighters responded to calls and took comfort knowing they were there for our community.
It’s been said but worth repeating – $2.50 a week, the fee most homeowners will pay, is little to pay to support our life-saving first responders.
Lastly, fire and emergency services are provided to all who work, live, play or pass through our beautiful north shore. So while property owners pay the fee in Measure N, renters should also vote for this measure.
Olga Martin Steele lives in Clearlake Oaks, California.
How to resolve AdBlock issue?