Measure E opponent cites fuzzy ballot language as reason he will vote no | Opinion

Although I like Fresno State, I oppose Measure E after reading it in my Fresno County Voter Information Guide. Others have also noticed flaws in the measure.

Measure E would impose a .25% tax on sales of items purchased in Fresno County, with some exceptions. The measure would run for 25 years and is expected to generate approximately $1.6 billion in al,l or about $63 million annually. The proceeds are to be used primarily for Fresno State facilities.

The measure’s original sponsor, Richard Spencer, initially sought out political consultant Tim Orman to see if funds from Measure P (the Fresno city sales tax measure to fund city parks) might be available to fund renovations to Fresno State’s football stadium. Orman reportedly told Mr. Spencer that it would be easier to start a new tax initiative for that purpose.

The resulting first Measure E was for a .20% sales tax with 33% going to stadium improvements/athletics with the remainder going to miscellaneous academic projects. The voters did not approve that version.

Recent marketing of the current measure indicates that, while the sales tax had been increased by 25%, the percentage devoted to athletics was decreased from 33% to 15%. And the promoters provided a wish list of appealing facility-related projects.

However, while the text of the measure in the voter guide provides a list of acceptable spending categories, no amounts or allocation percentages are shown. Significantly, stadium improvements are not shown as an allowed spending category.

But there is one final allowable spending category: “other uses necessary for Fresno State to help our students and community reach their full potential.” This vague wording seems to allow spending on virtually anything, and in any amount, including the stadium upgrades that supporters want.

I believe the measure was changed perhaps because supporters concluded that promoting the measure to enhance the Fresno State football brand was a marketing loser. But I think it is possible that this measure remains primarily a way to do just that.

The seven members of the citizens oversight committee could be paid more than $80,000 annually, and the five non-CSU committee members (being a Fresno County resident is the only qualification) are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors. Spending proposals will need only a majority vote to approve.

This means that spending proposals suggested by the two CSU representatives (Fresno State President and CSU Chancellor, or designees) can be overridden by the five non-CSU members, who can determine what Fresno State facilities should be improved, leased, purchased or built with the measure’s funds. I believe non-CSU individuals should not have the authority to make those decisions for Fresno State.

And should two CSU officials (or designees) be paid $80,000 per year by Fresno County taxpayers to do Fresno State facilities planning? Taxpayers already pay them salaries.

The measure will require two $50 million endowment funds, the returns from which will be the source for deferred maintenance spending and student scholarships, respectively. It will take nine and a half months each to fund these endowments (from the $63 million per year tax proceeds). If the committee decides to fund the endowments first (as it should), there will be little spending on anything else until they are.

The measure does not say what sort of investments are authorized for the endowment funds to generate the estimated $5 million to $10 million combined annual returns. Will the citizen committee be qualified to make such investment decisions?

And spending $5 million or less per year for 25 years, or a maximum of $125 million (from the one endowment fund’s returns), on deferred maintenance will not nearly cover the $500 million said to be needed now.

Finally, there is a provision stating that the measure’s funds can be spent up to two miles from the campus, or two miles from any facility occupied by the school. Off-campus projects funded by the measure “must be in furtherance of any required off-site mitigation.” I think this provision should be better explained.

There are too many flaws and questions surrounding this measure. I will vote no, regardless of how fond I am of Fresno State.