Letters to the Editor

Measure A use clarification
I am writing on behalf of the Council of Governments (COG) and
the San Benito County Measure A Authority regarding a recent letter
to the editor from Marvin Jones of Hollister. Mr. Jones questioned
the Authority’s use of Measure A sales tax funds.
Measure A use clarification

I am writing on behalf of the Council of Governments (COG) and the San Benito County Measure A Authority regarding a recent letter to the editor from Marvin Jones of Hollister. Mr. Jones questioned the Authority’s use of Measure A sales tax funds.

The Measure A Authority was established in 1990 after San Benito County voters approved a one-half percent sales tax for 10 years to fund transportation improvements. Measure A included a prioritized list of projects to be constructed with the sales tax funds collected. The intent of Measure A was to fund as many projects on the list as possible; however, depending on actual project costs and actual revenues collected, it was conveyed to the voters that not all projects could necessarily be funded.

In addition, the voter-approved expenditure plan noted that traffic impact fees would “be combined with the Measure A revenue for local road projects and improvements” included in the expenditure plan. Traffic impact fees were intended for development to pay its fair share from traffic impacts to the regional roads. Combining Measure A funds and traffic impact fees for projects recognized that those already using the roads should pay for road improvements and those moving into new houses should also pay for road improvements. The recent increase in the traffic impact fee is merely a result of increased construction costs, but does not cover the full cost of all of the projects on the list.

Throughout the 1990s, Measure A funds were used to construct the Highway 156 Bypass, traffic lights at The Alameda in San Juan Bautista, the San Benito Street Extension project, and the Westside Boulevard and Union Road Extension project. In the mid-1990s, COG began work on design and environmental review for the Highway 25 Bypass. In 1999, the sales tax ended and was no longer collected. At that time, cost estimates for the Bypass had surpassed those from 1989, and all remaining Measure A funds that had been collected were necessary to construct the Highway 25 Bypass.

  Mr. Jones asked if the Council of Governments and the Measure A Authority were “double dipping” into funds from the sales tax and the traffic impact fees. The answer is no. Most transportation projects require multiple sources of funding to become a reality.

Further, San Benito County has a major deficit of funding to pay for the most critical transportation projects including Highway 25 north of Hollister.

  Please contact the COG office at 637-7665 if you’d like any further information on Measure A projects and expenditures.

Lisa Rheinheimer

Executive Director

Mistake or swindle?

If you have ever had to check and read your PG&E meter, you can attest to the difficulty of accurately reading all of the numbers. However, if you have ever read your city water meter, you know it is a lot less confusing and is identical to a non-digital car odometer. My water meter was misread for two consistent billing cycles and I believe there are only two explanations for this: either the city has an incompetent employee or the city is out to swindle its residents. It was a helpful city employee in the finance department that encouraged me to check my own meter, so I suspect the reason for the misread meter was due to incompetence.

I hope my experience encourages other concerned residents to check their own meter.

Dennis Lawn

Hollister

Vote no on Indian gambling

Scott MacDonald, who opposes Props. 94-97, said it best when he said, “Indian gambling was supposed to be a tide that raised all boats, but this instead is a private harbor that raises four yachts.”

  I would also add that these four yachts are towing several pleasure craft carrying many of our elected officials.

  Voters must vote against the creation of four super-tribes. Props. 94-97 give these four tribes the ability of placing even larger amounts of increased gambling cash revenues in the pockets of career politicians.

  The political influence of these four tribes and other special interest groups within the state of California is detrimental to our democracy.

  As an example, according to the California secretary of state website, each of the following have contributed money to the “Friends of Jeff Denham Against the Recall:”

– Pechanga band of Mission Indians ($50,000)

– Los Alamitos Race Course ($50,000)

– Crime Victims United Political Action Committee, sponsored by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association ($49,000)

– Native Americans and Peace Officers Political Action Committee ($49,000)

– Minorities in Law Enforcement Independent Expenditure Committee ($49,000)

– Sycuan band of the Kemeyaay Nation ($20,000)

– Morongo Band of Mission Indians Native American Rights Fund ($10,000)

– Please vote no on Propositions 91-97 on Feb. 5.

Robert Oen

Soledad