The available official records confirm the referendum date and ballot question, but they do not show whether the budget passed or failed. They also do not provide the vote totals, turnout, adopted budget amount or the plan’s effect on the local tax rate.

What was on the ballot

The referendum concerned approval of Richmond’s FY 2026-27 municipal budget as adopted by the Town Council. That made the vote the decision point for whether the town’s adopted spending plan could take effect.

A municipal budget can shape the resources available for town services, staffing and capital work. It can also affect the local tax burden. The records in the approved packet do not identify specific service changes, staffing additions or reductions, capital projects, spending levels or tax-rate changes tied to this budget.

As a result, the referendum establishes what voters were asked to decide, but the available sources do not establish the final fiscal or operational outcome for residents, municipal workers, taxpayers or local businesses.

Notice and voting locations

The Town of Richmond published an official referendum alert dated May 19, 2026. A related warrant provided the formal ballot question and local notice details.

The warrant stated that notice was to be posted at Richmond Memorial Library and the Richmond Police Station no later than May 19. The official materials identify those locations alongside Richmond Town Hall in connection with the referendum’s notice and voting-related arrangements.

The notice was issued by the Richmond Town Clerk. The town, the Town Council, Richmond Memorial Library and the Richmond Police Department are the local entities identified in the referendum materials.

What remains unknown

The official notice and warrant available for this report do not include a certified election result. They do not say how many residents voted, how the votes were divided or whether the adopted budget became effective.

Those records also do not disclose the budget’s dollar total or a confirmed tax-rate effect. Until an official result and the adopted budget records are available, the referendum’s final effect on Richmond’s services, staffing, capital work and taxpayers cannot be determined from the approved materials.

The Board of Supervisors adopted the request at its July 14 meeting, according to the county. The referendum is not yet guaranteed: the court must approve the request before the question can appear on the ballot, and voter approval would still be followed by a separate county ordinance before the tax could be collected.

What the board approved

The proposed ballot question would ask whether Wythe County should be authorized to levy an additional 1% sales tax. The revenue would be restricted to capital projects for constructing or renovating schools and related facilities, including associated bond and loan financing costs.

The taxing authority and referendum electorate would be countywide. That means the proposal would cover Wytheville as part of Wythe County, although the county—not the town—would be the taxing authority.

Projects named in the proposal

According to the county, the potential revenue would support eligible school capital improvements totaling more than $72 million. The preliminary list includes a new Spiller Elementary School, renovations at Fort Chiswell High School, athletic-field and other facility improvements at county high schools, and roof and chiller replacement projects.

The list identifies eligible capital needs; it does not establish that every project has been fully designed, bid or scheduled for construction.

Revenue and tax comparison

Preliminary financial projections prepared by Davenport & Company and reviewed by county officials estimate that the additional 1% sales tax could generate approximately $5 million to $6 million annually.

The county also says financing a program of that size without the sales-tax revenue could require the equivalent of an estimated 20-cent increase in the real-estate-tax rate. The revenue estimate and tax comparison are preliminary county figures, not independently audited findings presented in the county announcement.

County estimates further indicate that more than 40% of the proposed sales-tax revenue could come from purchases by travelers and tourists visiting Wytheville and Wythe County. That is a county estimate, not an independently verified finding.

What state law requires

Virginia law allows an eligible county to seek an additional local sales tax of up to 1% for school capital projects, but the tax may be levied only after voters approve it in a referendum initiated by the local governing body.

The Circuit Court clerk must publish notice of the referendum in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks before the election. The ballot question must state that the revenue will be used solely for school construction or major renovation capital projects and must identify the tax’s expiration date.

If voters approve the measure, the Board of Supervisors would still have to adopt an ordinance before collection could begin. The ordinance must take effect on the first day of a month at least 120 days after adoption.

The additional tax could not be charged on food purchased for human consumption or essential personal hygiene products. The county’s proposed ballot language states that the tax would expire no later than June 30, 2046. Under state law, a bond- or loan-financed school-project tax expires when those bonds or loans are repaid, and the expiration date may not be more than 20 years after the resolution authorizing the referendum request.

What happens next

The immediate next step is review by the Wythe County Circuit Court. If the court orders the referendum, county voters could decide the question on Nov. 3. If voters approve it, the Board of Supervisors would then decide whether to enact the tax through an ordinance.

Sources

• Wythe County: Supervisors Request Referendum on 1% School Sales Tax
• Code of Virginia §58.1-605.1
• SWVA Sun: County leaders seeking referendum on school sales tax

The same meeting cycle includes a proposed 2026 budget amendment, a $290,376 contract for Joliet Fire Department medical and fitness evaluations, a proposed agreement involving Will County 9-1-1 surcharge grant funds, and contracts for sewer, lift-station, grounds-maintenance and public-works equipment.

All of the listed actions were pending as of Sunday, Aug. 2. The official meeting records say minutes are not finalized and that actions and results are not yet available.

Four meetings are scheduled at City Hall

The Public Service Committee is scheduled to meet at 4:30 p.m. Monday, Aug. 3. The Pre-Council Meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Monday. On Tuesday, Aug. 4, the Public Safety Committee is scheduled for 5:30 p.m., followed by the City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Each meeting is listed for the City Hall Council Chambers at 150 W. Jefferson St. in Joliet. The city records show final agendas, but draft or unavailable minutes.

Rock Run hearing and proposed taxes

The Aug. 4 City Council agenda includes a public hearing on creating the Rock Run Collection Business District and a proposed ordinance approving a business district plan, establishing the district and making a blighted-area finding within it.

The proposed ordinance also lists three business-district tax categories: a retailers’ occupation tax, a service occupation tax and a hotel operators’ occupation tax within the proposed district.

The agenda identifies proposed legislation, not an adopted tax structure. It does not by itself establish a final tax rate, revenue amount, effective date or whether the district and taxes will be approved. The council could approve, amend, postpone or reject the proposal.

The Herald-News has reported that the Rock Run Collection plan is scheduled for council consideration Tuesday. The final outcome and any changes will depend on the public hearing and council action.

Budget and public-safety agenda items

The Public Safety Committee’s Aug. 4 agenda includes an ordinance authorizing an amendment to Joliet’s 2026 annual budget. The item remains subject to action and does not show that the budget has already been amended.

The committee also lists an award of contract to Rock Valley Health for the 2026-27 Joliet Fire Department medical and fitness evaluations. The listed contract amount is $290,376.

A separate resolution would authorize an intergovernmental agreement between Joliet and the Will County 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone System Board to accept grant funds available under the 9-1-1 Surcharge Grant Program. The city agenda shows a proposed agreement between the two governments; it does not establish that the grant has been received, spent or completed.

Sewer, facilities and public-works decisions

The Aug. 3 Public Service Committee agenda includes a proposed $49,950 professional-services agreement with V3 Companies for construction engineering services related to the Minton Road lift-station replacement.

Other sewer-related items include a proposed $139,900 contract for the 2026 Hickory-Spring Creek cleaning project, a $91,700 change order for the 2025 sanitary sewer cleaning and inspection program, and a professional-services amendment with a not-to-exceed amount of $24,700 for sanitary sewer cleaning and television work.

The Pre-Council and City Council agendas also list a proposed $879,996 contract with Dukes Landscape Services for City of Joliet facilities grounds maintenance from 2026 through 2029. Another listed purchase would provide a Caterpillar generator for the Public Works Cedarwood facility from Altorfer Power Systems for $163,379.84.

These agenda items could affect city facilities, sewer operations, lift-station work and public-works readiness. The records describe pending awards, purchases and agreements rather than completed work or completed spending.

Parade closures and other local matters

The Public Service Committee agenda includes resolutions requesting closures of Routes 6 and 30 for the 2026 Black Joy Parade route and State Route 171 for the 2026 Mexican Independence Day Parade. The requests could affect travel when the parades occur, but the Aug. 3 agenda does not provide final closure schedules.

Other items on the meeting agendas include surplus city property, a lease extension for the Gateway Transportation Center snack bar at 90 E. Jefferson St., zoning appointments, liquor-license requests and a report on utilities maintenance activities.

For Joliet residents, businesses and commuters, the practical effects will depend on what city committees and the City Council approve, amend or postpone during the Aug. 3-4 meetings. The official agendas identify the pending actions; final results should appear in later city records after the meetings.

Sources

• Joliet City Council meeting agenda, Aug. 4, 2026
• The Herald-News Rock Run Collection report

The tax has not been approved. On July 21, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-28, placing the question on the November ballot. The action authorized voters to decide the issue; it did not immediately raise the city’s sales-tax rate.

Why the city is proposing the measure

City officials describe the proposal as a response to a structural General Fund deficit, with ongoing expenses exceeding ongoing revenues. The city’s staff report says projected shortfalls and pressure on reserves have followed earlier spending reductions and other efforts to control costs.

The approximately $6 million figure is a city projection, not guaranteed revenue. If approved, the money would remain locally controlled and could support public safety, Sheriff protection, emergency and wildfire preparedness, street and pothole repairs, parks, recreation and other general city services, according to city materials.

The proposal would create additional unrestricted General Fund revenue rather than a dedicated tax fund. Spending decisions would continue through the city’s regular public budget process.

How the sales-tax rate would change

Diamond Bar’s combined sales-tax rate is currently 9.75%, according to the city’s voter explainer. A separate countywide measure, Measure ER, is scheduled to raise the rate to 10.25% on Oct. 1, 2026, regardless of what happens with the Diamond Bar proposal.

If local voters approve the proposed 1% measure, the city says the combined rate would rise again to 11.25% on April 1, 2027. The countywide Measure ER increase and the proposed Diamond Bar tax are separate actions with separate revenue purposes.

Accountability provisions and voting threshold

Passage requires a simple majority, or 50% plus one of the votes cast on the question. City materials describe annual independent audits, public reporting and oversight through the regular budget process as accountability provisions.

The city’s materials also describe potential exemptions for some common necessities, but voters should rely on the final ordinance and official impartial analysis for the formal details of what would and would not be taxable.

What happens next

Written ballot arguments and the City Attorney’s impartial analysis are due to the City Clerk by 5 p.m. Aug. 14. Rebuttals are due Aug. 24. Those documents are expected to give voters more information about the city’s financial claims, the proposed uses of the money and arguments for and against the measure before the Nov. 3 election.

For now, the local tax remains undecided. The July council action put the question before voters, while the countywide Measure ER increase is scheduled to take effect first on Oct. 1.

Sources

• Diamond Bar City Council staff report and Resolution No. 2026-28
• LAist Measure ER election coverage

What Fulton residents would vote on

Sonoma County adopted an ordinance on July 7, 2026, placing a parks, water quality and fire safety tax measure before voters. If approved by at least two-thirds of voters, the measure would extend the existing tax after Measure M expires on March 31, 2029.

The proposed county tax rate is one-eighth of a cent per dollar, or 0.125%. The ordinance says the revenue would support parks and recreation needs, including maintenance, improvements, programs, trails, open-space preserves, water quality and fire-safety work. The expenditure plan also includes funding for parks in unincorporated areas.

Fulton is an unincorporated Sonoma County community. That county jurisdiction is why Fulton residents are included in the countywide vote, assuming the measure remains on the ballot with its current scope and wording.

What Windsor is proposing

Windsor’s Town Council voted July 15, 2026, to place a proposed 1% general transactions-and-use tax on the same November 3 ballot. The council agenda says the measure would require approval by a majority of qualified Windsor voters.

If approved, the Windsor measure would direct an estimated $5.7 million a year to the town’s General Fund. Town materials list services such as emergency response, street repairs, traffic safety, park maintenance and recreation programs. The town says the proposed tax would take effect April 1, 2027, if voters approve it.

The Windsor proposal is separate from Sonoma County’s parks measure. It is limited to the Town of Windsor and does not become a Fulton tax simply because Windsor is nearby. A Fulton resident would not vote on the Windsor measure as a Fulton voter, although applicable sales- and-use-tax rules could affect a taxable purchase or use connected to Windsor if the measure passes.

How the two proposals differ

• Territory: The county parks measure applies across Sonoma County’s incorporated and unincorporated territory, including Fulton. Windsor’s proposal is limited to the town.
• Rate: The county proposal would extend a tax of one-eighth of a cent per dollar, or 0.125%. Windsor is proposing a separate 1% transactions-and-use tax.
• Approval threshold: The county measure requires approval by two-thirds of voters. Windsor’s proposal requires a majority of qualified electors voting on the measure.
• Purpose: The county measure is aimed at parks, recreation, trails, open-space, water-quality and fire-safety needs. Windsor’s measure would support General Fund services.
• Timing: The county measure would begin April 1, 2029, after Measure M expires, if approved. Windsor’s proposed start date is April 1, 2027, if its measure passes.

What to watch next

Neither measure has been approved by voters. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Windsor Town Council have taken the steps needed to place the proposals on the November 3, 2026, ballot, but final ballot wording, election materials and any later election-authority changes remain important for voters to review.

For Fulton residents, the relevant question is whether the countywide parks-tax extension receives the required two-thirds approval. Windsor residents will separately decide whether to approve the town’s proposed 1% General Fund tax.

Sources

• Sonoma County parks-tax ordinance
• Town of Windsor tax announcement
• Windsor Town Council agenda
• KRCB News

The examination period for the measure’s text, primary arguments and the city attorney’s impartial analysis runs through Thursday, July 30. The City of Highland says physical copies are available at City Hall, 27215 Base Line, and that the measure materials and related documents are available through its elections page and financial-outlook page.

What voters can review

The public review materials include the arguments submitted for and against the measure, along with the impartial analysis prepared by the city attorney. The analysis is intended to explain the measure’s effect and operation in neutral terms.

The city’s public notice also says voters may request a copy of the ordinance or measure from the City Clerk’s Office.

What the proposal would do

The measure would establish a 1% transactions-and-use tax on applicable retail sales in Highland. The City Council describes it as a general tax, meaning the revenue would go into the city’s general fund rather than being restricted to one narrowly defined project or program.

City documents estimate that the measure could generate approximately $6.35 million annually. That is a city estimate, not a guaranteed amount: revenue would depend on taxable sales, and the measure would not take effect unless voters approve it.

The proposed ballot language says the revenue could help maintain police, fire and emergency services and improve critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, drainage, the 5th Street Corridor interchange and other improvement projects. Those are stated purposes in the city resolution; they do not guarantee that specific projects or spending allocations would be funded.

Why the city is presenting the measure

Highland’s financial-outlook materials point to rising public-safety contract costs, roadway maintenance needs and long-term capital-improvement pressures. The city says it contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement and CAL FIRE for fire protection and emergency response, with those contracts expected to increase annually.

The same city materials say Highland is responsible for more than 159 miles of roadway, has more than $94 million in needed street repairs and faces nearly $225 million in identified needs over the next five years of its capital-improvement program. They also identify storm-drain projects and proposed interchange work as infrastructure needs.

Those figures provide the fiscal context cited by the city for presenting the measure. They describe current and anticipated pressures, not spending that has already been approved through this proposed tax.

What happens next

The City Council approved placing the measure on the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election ballot at its June 9 meeting. Under the resolution, the proposed general tax must receive approval from a majority of qualified Highland voters voting on the question before it can take effect.

For now, the proposal remains undecided. Residents who want to evaluate it before the election can review the ballot measure text, arguments, impartial analysis and related election documents during the public examination period, which ends July 30.

Sources

• Notice of Public Examination Periods

Now, the central question for drivers is whether the council can muster enough votes to override the veto and restore the vehicle-fee changes quickly.

What Proposal 192 would have changed for Marion County drivers

Proposal 192 targeted two vehicle-fee streams in the consolidated city-county code: an excise surtax and an annual wheel tax.

Vehicle excise surtax (passenger vehicles, certain trucks, motorcycles)

The proposal would have set an annual excise surtax of 10% (paid with vehicle registration) for passenger cars, trucks under 11,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, and motorcycles. The proposal’s fee language also says the annual surtax on a vehicle may not be less than $7.50 and includes $100 fee language. Local reporting described the change as a $100 annual excise tax for passenger vehicles under the proposal.

Annual wheel tax (buses, RVs, trailers, tractors, trucks)

Proposal 192 would have set an annual wheel tax with a $240 schedule, paid with registration, for vehicle classes including buses, recreational vehicles, semitrailers, tractors, trailers, and trucks. The proposal also includes exemptions—such as vehicles owned by the state or certain political subdivisions, and vehicles subject to the annual excise surtax.

How the $50 million road “match” was tied to these fee changes

In its “whereas” clauses, Proposal 192 points to Indiana Code language that creates an opportunity for the consolidated city to receive $50 million starting calendar year 2027 to repair and rehabilitate roads throughout the county. The proposal says that—under the match mechanics—

• The city must provide a local match solely from a new revenue source.
• The match must grow annually through 2031.
• If the city cannot provide the required match in any year, it becomes ineligible to receive the $50 million in all subsequent years.
• The consolidated city must notify the state comptroller no later than December 31 of the prior calendar year if it can provide the match required.

So, drivers should think of the veto as blocking the fee changes unless council can restore them—because Proposal 192 itself ties the match eligibility mechanics to the “new revenue source” created by the vehicle-fee increases.

What Hogsett’s veto changes right away

By vetoing Proposal 192, Hogsett blocked the ordinance as passed by the council from taking effect automatically. The measure returns to the full City-County Council for a potential override vote.

Under council rules cited in local coverage, overriding the mayor’s veto requires 17 affirmative votes out of 25 councilors.

The July 6 vote—and what happens next for an override

The full council voted 14-10 on July 6 to advance Proposal 192. Local reporting says the full council’s reconsideration and potential veto-override vote is likely at its Aug. 10 meeting.

What Marion County drivers should watch next

• Whether the council reaches 17 votes to override—because that is the threshold needed to restore the vehicle-fee changes.
• Whether the council’s next version still satisfies Proposal 192’s stated “match” mechanics (new revenue source, growth through 2031, and notice timing).
• What changes—if any—are made between July 16 and Aug. 10 during the council’s reconsideration process.

The veto doesn’t mean the state road funding match is lost by default; it means the specific vehicle-fee path in Proposal 192 is currently blocked unless council overrides.

Sources

• Proposal 192 official PDF
• WFYI: July 6 council vote
• WIBC: Veto + override math
• Mirror Indy: Aug. 10 likely override vote

In the official tabulation for Measure E, No received 57,379 votes (54.07%) and Yes received 48,741 votes (45.93%). The measure required a majority of Yes votes to pass, and 108 of 108 precincts reported.

What Measure E was—and how it made it onto the June 2 ballot

Measure E was an initiative petition outcome that Oakland placed before voters through a formal city action process. Oakland’s Legistar record for File #26-0483 shows the city accepted the certification of the initiative petition proposing the ordinance titled the “Oakland Public Safety, Cleanliness And Community Accountability Act Of 2026,” called a special municipal election for June 2, 2026, and directed the city clerk to submit the measure to voters.

In its reporting, KQED described Measure E as a residential parcel tax framed around police and fire funding, emergency shelter capacity, and street cleanliness/anti-illegal dumping priorities.

What Measure E would have funded

KQED reported that the parcel tax was expected to raise an estimated $34 million annually. The outlet also detailed elements of the Measure E spending plan, including equipment replacement and maintaining temporary homelessness-related shelter capacity.

KQED reported the proposal included:

• A $192 annual residential parcel tax (as proposed in the measure).
• Replacing outdated public safety equipment that the city said is beyond its useful life (including fire engines, ladder trucks, and ambulances).
• Maintaining 190 temporary emergency shelter beds that KQED said were expected to be taken offline this summer due to state funding cuts.
• Funding 52 full-time equivalent positions, including roles tied to “violence interrupters,” staffing aimed at homeless encampments/illegal dumping/park maintenance, and sworn police officers.

What the Measure E “No” vote means for Oakland’s next decisions

Because Measure E failed, the city cannot implement the spending plan as described in the measure. KQED reported that Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee and other city officials acknowledged they would not move forward with implementing the Measure E spending plan based on the election result.

That matters for residents because the operational “gap” voters were reacting to—emergency response readiness, homelessness support/shelter capacity, and illegal dumping enforcement—was exactly where Measure E revenue was intended to be applied.

Timing: Oakland’s adopted budget still runs July 1, 2026 to June 2027

Even though Measure E is off the table, residents’ near-term baseline is still the budget the city approved before final election results. KALW reported that once adopted, Oakland’s budget would determine the city’s funding from July 1, 2026 to the end of June 2027.

KALW also reported that council debate centered on staffing and vacancies, and that the council’s approach relied on using one-time revenues for one-time expenses to address core issues such as public safety and reducing homelessness.

With Measure E’s parcel tax revenue rejected by voters, Oakland’s administration will now have to revisit how those priorities are carried out mid-cycle—using whatever mix of revenues and staffing decisions the city can support without the measure’s expected parcel tax income.

What residents should watch next

To see what changes after the election, residents should track follow-through in Oakland governance and budgeting—especially where city planning converts “election math” into operational decisions:

• Mid-cycle budget adjustments: look for council agenda items and amendments affecting public safety readiness, shelter capacity planning, and cleanliness/anti-dumping enforcement.
• Staffing and vacancies: watch police and fire staffing planning, and staffing tied to homelessness response and illegal dumping work.
• Homelessness service capacity: monitor how the city plans for shelter beds and encampment-related supports now that Measure E’s spending plan can’t move forward as proposed.
• Illegal dumping and park maintenance priorities: see whether enforcement and cleanup commitments are maintained, restructured, or deprioritized.

Bottom line: the failure of Measure E is a real constraint on Oakland’s planned funding for public safety and cleanliness priorities. The most important next step for residents is watching how Oakland updates budget assumptions and operational plans after the vote.

Sources

• Alameda County Registrar of Voters — Certified Final Results for Oakland Measure E (June 2, 2026 election)
• City of Oakland Legistar — File #26-0483 (initiative certification / election-related action)
• KQED — Oakland’s Measure E defeat and what changes next for city services
• KALW — Oakland budget passes (context for service planning after Measure E loss)
• San Francisco Chronicle — Oakland Measure E parcel tax fails

Johnson did not say layoffs or service cuts are imminent, but he framed the situation as a midyear reality check that could lead to budget changes as the city and City Council head toward the 2027 budget.

Johnson’s core claim: certain revenue lines aren’t showing up yet

Johnson pointed to several revenue items the city counted on in the adopted plan that, in his account, have not produced money so far.

$89.6 million from debt collection: Johnson said no firms have expressed interest in purchasing the rights to collect debt owed to the city by Chicagoans who failed to pay utility bills and red-light camera tickets. He also said he blocked medical debt owed to the city from being included in the attempted sale.

$29.3 million from ads on city property: Johnson said no firms have expressed interest in selling advertising spots on 3,000 city light poles, city vehicles and bridge houses.

$6 million from “augmented reality” licensing: Johnson said no interest has developed for an advertising licensing proposal in the budget that was expected to bring in $6 million.

What the numbers show so far

CBS Chicago, using the mayor’s mid-year materials, reported that the city is $32 million under budget on revenues through the first half of 2026.

The blame fight: mayor’s office vs. City Council

WTTW reported the dispute is also political: Johnson said his administration has worked to implement the approved plan, while City Council members argue the administration is responsible for slow or incomplete execution.

FOX 32 reported that Ald. Marty Quinn said it’s “convenient for the mayor to relitigate the budget-making process,” while other aldermen pointed to responsibility for administering revenue measures.

What comes next for residents

FOX 32 reported that next week’s mid-year budget hearing could prompt additional City Council action before aldermen work on the 2027 budget.

Johnson also warned that 2027 could be even tougher: WTTW reported the city faces a likely $1.16 billion deficit in 2027, with a new forecast due by the end of August.

For Chicago residents, the key takeaway is that midyear gaps can shift timing and priorities—even after a budget has been approved.

Sources

• WTTW News (July 7, 2026): $130M short after revenue-backed City Council spending plan didn’t materialize, Johnson says
• CBS Chicago (date in article): Johnson says Chicago falling short of 2026 revenue predictions
• FOX 32 Chicago (date in article): Chicago reportedly facing $130M midyear budget shortfall
• Chicago Civic Federation: FY2026 adopted budget context (live briefing)
• City of Chicago (data.gov catalog): 2026 Budget Ordinance — Appropriations dataset

The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Board of Directors unanimously voted June 10, 2026, after two public readings, to recommend that the County Board of Supervisors place the extension before voters on the November 3, 2026, General Election ballot.

That does not mean the measure is already on the ballot. SBCTA said the Board of Supervisors still must decide whether to advance the recommendation and formally submit the proposed extension to the Registrar of Voters for ballot inclusion.

What Measure I pays for

Measure I is the countywide half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. Voters first approved it in 1989, it took effect in 1990, and voters extended it in 2004 through 2040.

For San Bernardino residents, the issue is not a city-only tax or a San Bernardino City Council decision. It is a countywide transportation funding measure with local consequences for streets, roads, transit, freeway connections, goods movement and other transportation work that affects commuters, employers, bus and rail riders, delivery routes and neighborhood mobility.

SBCTA says it administers Measure I and uses the funding for regional and local road improvements, freeway construction projects, train and bus transportation, railroad crossings, ridesharing, congestion management and long-term planning. Its Measure I overview describes the tax as a locally reinvested funding source that has supported freeway expansions, interchange upgrades, public transit improvements and local road repairs across the county’s cities and towns.

Why San Bernardino is specifically affected

The County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution April 7, 2026, approving the Measure I Expenditure Plan for a proposed continuation of the existing tax. County materials say the proposed continuation is expected to be considered by voters on the November 3, 2026, General Election ballot.

If voters approve the continuation, county materials project the plan would generate about $7.5 billion over its first 30 years. That is a projection, not guaranteed revenue.

The expenditure plan uses a Return to Source model, meaning revenue generated within specific subareas would be reinvested in those same communities. San Bernardino is listed in the San Bernardino Valley subarea, along with Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, Upland, Yucaipa and valley unincorporated areas.

County materials describe eligible investments as local streets and roads, regional highway and transit improvements, transportation operations, roadway repair, congestion relief, goods movement, transit services and active transportation infrastructure.

That matters locally because the current record supports broad funding categories and the valley return-to-source structure, but it does not establish a final list of specific San Bernardino city projects tied to the extension. Residents should treat the proposal as a funding framework until future ballot materials, plans or project lists provide more detail.

Election dates to watch

The immediate step is whether the County Board of Supervisors formally sends the proposed extension to the Registrar of Voters. If it advances, voters would see more formal ballot materials before the November election.

The Registrar of Voters lists October 5, 2026, as the date mail ballots are delivered to the U.S. Post Office and early voting begins. The voter registration deadline is October 19. Election Day is November 3, and the deadline to complete the official canvass and certify the results is December 3.

For San Bernardino commuters, taxpayers, renters, homeowners and business owners, the practical question is whether voters want to keep a major local transportation revenue stream in place after 2040. The policy question before county leaders comes first: whether to put that decision in front of voters this fall.

Sources

• SBCTA June 10 Measure I extension recommendation
• San Bernardino County Board Actions for April 7, 2026
• San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters 2026 General Election page

The City of Cleveland and Ideastream both point to the same problem: many residents and workers assume that filing federal and state taxes, or having payroll withholding taken out, means they are done. For Cleveland local income tax, that is not necessarily true.

Who usually needs to file

In most cases, people who live in Cleveland, work in Cleveland, conduct business in Cleveland, or profit from rental property in Cleveland need to submit a 2025 local income tax filing by April 15. That does not automatically mean they will owe money. But it does mean many people still have a filing obligation even if taxes were already withheld from a paycheck or handled through another return.

That distinction matters for residents, commuters, landlords, and small business owners. Missing the filing step can create headaches later, even for people who thought they were already covered.

Who may file an exemption certificate instead

Some people with a filing obligation may not need to file a full tax return because they had no municipal taxable income for the year. In those cases, the city says a 2025 exemption certificate may be required instead.

The city gives examples including some retirees who only receive pension or Social Security income, people who had no income for the full year, and members of the Armed Forces. Those are examples, not a complete list, so people with unusual situations should check CCA rules or ask for direct help before assuming they are exempt.

Where to get help before April 15

For many taxpayers, Cleveland says the easiest route is CCA’s e-file system, which can handle most standard individual filings and exemption certificates. Paper forms and exemption certificates are also available, and tax packets can be picked up at Cleveland Public Library branches.

People who want in-person help can go to the CCA office at 205 West Saint Clair Avenue downtown. The city’s tax page lists regular weekday office hours, and the city says walk-ins are accepted. Ideastream also reported temporary pre-deadline extended hours through 5 p.m. and a Saturday walk-in window on April 11 from 7:30 to 11:30 a.m.

Phone help is more limited. Cleveland says forms and exemption certificates cannot be filed by phone, though payments can be made by phone during office hours.

Cases that may need paper or in-person handling

Not every return can be finished online. The city says taxpayers with Schedule C business income, Schedule E rental or supplemental income, and people requesting refunds may need to use paper forms and handle their filing by mail or in person.

Refund requests are a common trouble spot. Cleveland says taxpayers seeking a refund must file the tax form and a separate refund worksheet, and the online system does not currently process refund requests.

The practical move this week is simple: gather W-2s, 1099s, and any business or rental paperwork, confirm whether a tax form or exemption certificate applies, and do not wait until the last few days to sort it out. For Cleveland taxpayers, the biggest risk may be assuming no further local filing is required when the city says otherwise.

Sources

• Ideastream local tax filing explainer
• City of Cleveland FILE initiative announcement
• City of Cleveland Division of Taxation page
• CCA individual filing due dates page
• CCA individual forms and instructions page
• Ccaohio