This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/rv/ for current information. |
| ||||||
|
||||||
Measure J General Tax on Mining, Extraction and Processing City of Banning Majority Approval Required Pass: 3,445 / 53.06% Yes votes ...... 3,048 / 46.94% No votes
See Also:
Index of all Measures |
||||||
|
Results as of November 21 7:51am, 100.00%% of Precincts Reporting (8/8) |
Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments | | ||||
Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a general mining tax of 80 cents per ton upon the excavation and processing of rock material, and placing the proceeds of these taxes in the City's general fund to be spent for general governmental purposes, which includes police, fire, and maintaining streets and public areas, a well as to pay for studying, correcting and reducing the effects of mining on residents and businesses?
As a general tax, proceeds from the proposed tax would be deposited into the City's general fund to be spent for general governmental purposes, such as police, fire, and maintaining streets and public areas. However, the Measure also gives the Banning City Council the option, without any obligation, of creating a "Mining Impact Fund". This fund, if established, would be a separate account into which General Fund proceeds may be deposited to pay for the monitoring, mitigation and remediation of mining impacts upon the environment. Under the ordinance, the following are examples of proper expenditures for remediating mining impacts:
Under Proposition 218, a statewide initiative adopted in November of 1996, the mining tax could only be increased beyond the 80 cents per ton by a vote of the people, but the ordinance gives the Council the ability to make changes to the ordinance other than increasing the rate. Under Proposition 218, any general tax must be approved by a majority of the voters. Your "Yes" vote means that you want the City to enact the proposed mining tax. Your "No" vote means that you do not want the City to enact the proposed mining tax. By: City Attorney
|
|
Arguments For Measure J | Arguments Against Measure J |
Measure "J" will not tax any residents or businesses, except Banning mines extracting rock, sand and/or gravel. Measure "J" would require mining operations to pay $.80 for every ton of material extracted, with the monies going to pay for general City services.
Banning City revenues have dropped by approximately 33% as a result of the recent recession, requiring a similar reduction in police and other City personnel. Measure "J" is proposed to help the City fund basic public services like fire, police, recreation, planning, code enforcement, street repair and other services that benefit the City's residents. While the vast majority of Banning businesses pay sales tax to fund these City services, mining operations currently pay none -- even though the mines occupy over 180 acres in the City, and cause significant environmental effects. Several years ago Banning's largest mine operator made an arrangement to have the sales taxes from its mining operations paid to Corona. This left other cities, like Banning, to bear the environmental impacts of the mine operation without getting any sales tax income. To correct this, the Measure "J" mining tax is proposed. Such mining taxes have been adopted in various California cities. Besides limited revenues for basic public services, the City lacks the funds needed to monitor City mines as required by law and to mitigate mine-related environmental impacts. Banning residents have reported deterioration of streets and traffic conditions, increased dust and noise, erosion problems, visual blight and water quality problems from mining operations in Banning. Measure J gives the Banning City Council the option of creating a special fund to collect the taxes from Measure "J" in order to remediate current and future negative environmental impacts caused by mining operations to the residents of Banning.
By: Don Peterson
| (No arguments against were submitted)
|