No. At a fixed amount per parcel, this Special Tax charges small property owner the exact same Tax as very large owners. It is not " $.006 per square foot annually" but much much higher per square foot for smaller parcels.

Per Square Foot "uniform special taxes" are legal, and distribute the tax load much more in proportion to the SIZE of the parcels that need protecting.

NO on S would give the water district 8 more years to fashion a "uniform per square foot" tax (6/10 of a cent per square foot) that is Much Less REGRESSIVE (the small pay more proportionally). And would raise the same total money, and make large business property owners pay their fair share.

Me and my Family are voting Yes and encourage you to as well. I looked up my rate for my townhome and its clearly LESS because I'm on a smaller parcel and there are different rates which are less for condos and apartments too. I saw a post about going to safecleanwater.org to see the rates and I'm happy that I did. A lot of people saying no are putting our False information. We are ALL voting YES. I hope you read up like I did. I am will to vote yes to get the homeless out of our community and pay for Safe, Clean Water. I don't want these things to be put at risk in the future.

Like your comment. Now - rather than go to the Proponents site - I'll have to check my ballot booklet, and actually Read the Tax Measure. If it is, basically (as initially reported) 6/10 cent per square ft. it ain't so bad at all.

OK. There is a rate structure (per square foot / with a min.) for this "special tax". It will have 6 different categories and rates "such land use categories". Seems sort of reasonable. but, maybe

Is this local district exempt from the Borikus CA Supreme Court decision? The one that 'got' some school boards and their parcel taxes. It was referring to "uniform" in terms of special taxes. Maybe this district runs under different Gov Code.

Sorry for my error in 'reading a reporters words' too closely. Read the Measure (it's in our Sample Ballot)

This proposal is a lot of money for a very short geographic distance. Do we have a breakdown of costs?

This Water District will flush the additional tax money down the toilet and return for more.

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary tax

Please take a deep look at the opposition before you vote - Web Link
The opposition brings up VERY valid arguments!

I am voting No on Measure S because folks behind it are not honest. Measure S is ostensibly for clean water. Yeah right!. The water district owes $254 million in outstanding pension to a state agency called California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers). Measure S which has no sunset date is set up to fund that debt in pension obligation. Also, it is designed to pay obscene salaries of executives at Valley Water. Case in point - the new CEO, Rick Callendar was appointed in June 2020 at annual salary of $326,000. In July, 2020, his salary was bumped up by 4% in less than 4 weeks on the job. Meanwhile, the new CEO appoints Assistant CEO to run Valley Water at annual salary of $325,000. All within 2 months of his appointment. The new Assistant CEO, Melanie Richardson, runs the Agency while Rick Callender runs around on NAACP business and preaching the gospel of "diversity and inclusion". Meanwhile, Melanie Richardson is creating all kinds of high paying positions and filling them with his loyal caucasian friends. You and your friends on the board ought to take your job of oversight seriously and and rein in the waste of public dollars going on at Valley Water.
You want us to approve Measure S for Anderson Dam. On January 22, 2013 and November 10, 2015, your managers promised Morgan Hill residents that this dam will be fixed in 5 years at a cost of $200 million. Again, on April 10, 2014, your Valley Water managers came to Morgan Hill to promise the same thing. Five years has come and gone, but no project delivered. In fact, in 2017, suddenly the price tag for fixing the dam ballooned to $400 million. No managers held accountable. Now you have your hands out shamelessly asking us voters to trust you with your hands in our wallet in perpetuity. We Say Hell NO on Measure S until you clean house and rein in your Assistant CEO who is on a hiring spree of her loyal friends so that they can spike their retirement pay and leave us tax payers holding the bag. In fact, the Anderson Dam retrofit project has become a feasting bonanza for many consultants like HDR, Black & Veatch, URS, Geomatrix, Water Environment, etc. Riconada Water treatment retrofit is also a big mess. The project went from $175 million to over $300 million, and settlement of $10 million to pay off a bad construction contractor. The people at the helm are Melanie Richardson who donated $200 to your campaign on September 18, 2018; Rick Callendar who donated $100 to your campaing, Tina Yoke who donated $200 to your campaign. You see, Tony, this looks like pay to play. No on Measure S. We are done being Suckers. Measure S stinks. So vote NO on "S"