Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-23 City Council (14)City TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE DATE:OCTOBER 23, 2000 CMR: 398:00 SUBJECT:CALIFORNIA BALLOT ELECTION MEASURES FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2000 This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND On February 22, 2000, Council referred to the Policy and Services Committee the discussion of a process for addressing ballot propositions. Staff determined that it would develop this process in the context of evaluating and redesigning the City’s legislative advocacy program. The purpose of this staff report is to update Council of the status of staff’s efforts to redesign the legislative program and to provide Council with information regarding the propositions on the November 7, 2000 State ballot. DISCUSSION Redesign of the City’s Legislative Program Due largely to limited staff resources dedicated to legislative advocacy, the City’s current legislative program is, for the most part, reactive. Typically, the City generates and sends letters in support of or opposition to various bills, in response to requests from regional or professional associations. The City Manager’s Office is exploring the creation of a more effective and proactive legislative program. This program would set forth a process and dedicate resources to enable the City to identify and take more meaningful action on a small number of priority legislative initiatives. The program would also establish a streamlined process to enable the City to continue to respond to requests for action that are not necessarily identified as priorities for the City. Related to the establishment of a more proactive legislative program, the City Manager’s Office is also exploring the potential for the City to more proactively seek state, federal and private funding opportunities. Currently, grant opportunities are identified and requests are initiated by department staff members as part of their overall job CMR:398:00 Page 1 of 4 responsibilities. It is possible that a more coordinated and focused approach to grant writing would result in additional funds for City programs. It was staff’s intention to hire a temporary staff member in the City Manager’s Office to undertake the redesign of the City’s legislative advocacy program. The position was widely posted both within and outside of the City. Unfortunately, the City Manager’s Office was not able to identify a qualified candidate to take on the assignment. Consequently, without additional staff resources, the redesign of the City’s legislative program, and consequently the development of a process for addressing ballot propositions has been delayed. Staff is pursuing the use of consultant services to help develop a new legislative program for the City in as timely a manner possible. In the meantime, staff has prepared a summary of the propositions on the State ballot for the November 7, 2000 election for the Council’s information. Information Regarding Propositions on the November 7, 2000 Ballot There are eight propositions on the November ballot - five measures placed on the ballot by initiative and three measures placed by the Legislature. A brief description of each proposition along with the position of the League of California Cities follows. Summaries of the proposition prepared by the Secretary of State are attached. Additional information and analysis can be obtained by visiting the Secretary of State’s website at www.ss.ca.gov or the Legislative Analysts website at www.lao.ca.gov. Proposition 32 - Veteran’s Bond Act of 2000 This initiative authorizes the state to sell $500 million in general obligation bonds to finance the California Veteran Farm, Home and Mobilehome Purchase Assistance Program. The League of California Cities supports this measure. Proposition 33 -Legislature: Retirement This proposition amends the State Constitution to allow legislators to participate in the state Public Employees’. Retirement System. The League of California Cities has taken no position on this measure. Proposition 34 - Campaign Finance Reform Proposition 34 revises state laws on political campaigns for state and local elective offices and ballot propositions. The measure limits campaign contributions and loans to state candidates and political parties; provides voluntary spending limits; expands public disclosure requirements; and increases penalties. The League of California Cities has taken no position on this measure. Proposition 35 - Public Works Projects. Use of Private Contractors for Engineering and Architectural Services. CMR:398:00 Page 2 of 4 This initiative amends the State Constitution to allow the state and local governments to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all phases of a public works project. The League of California Cities supports this measure. Proposition 36- Drug Treatment Diversion Program This initiative changes state law so that certain adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, rather than being sent to prison or jail or supervised in the community, generally without drug treatment. The measure also provides state funds to counties to operate the drug treatment programs. The League of Califomia Cities opposes this measure, as do the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Narcotics Officers Association. Proposition 3 7 - Fees, Taxes, New Definitions, Vote Requirements This initiative, which amends the State Constitution, would classify as "taxes" some new charges that govemment otherwise could impose as fees. The measure would reclassify mitigation fees passed after July 1, 1999 as taxes, thereby subjecting them to a two-third~ vote for passage in the Legislature or voter approval in local communities. The League of Califomia Cities opposes this measure. The League’s analysis states that "Reclassifying regulatory fees as taxes will involve the additional expense of submitting such measures to the voters. This may have a chilling effect on such fees and limit local agencies’ financial ability to address the effects of activities with an adverse impact on local communities. Some examples of current fees that may be reclassified as taxes if this initiative passes include fees on toxic polluters to pay for clean-up of toxic sites; fees on liquor store permits to pay for increased law enforcement because of neighborhood nuisance; and fees on tire producers to pay for the disposal of used tires." Proposition 38 - School Vouchers. State-Funded Private and Religious Education This initiative, which amends the State Constitution, authorizes annual state payments of at least $4,000 per pupil for private/religious schools and makes major changes in public funding for K-12 education. The League of California Cities opposes this measure. The Palo Alto Unified School District has also voted to Oppose this measure. Proposition 39 - School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds. Taxes. Accountability Requirements This initiative changes the State Constitution to lower the voting requirement for passage of local school bonds and changes existing statutory law regarding charter school facilities. The League of Califomia Cities supports this measure. The Palo Alto Unified School District has also voted to support this measure. ATTACHMENTS Ballot Measure Summary CMR:398:00 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: Audrey Seymour, Assistant to the City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emil Assistant City Manager CMR:398:00 Page 4 of 4 Ballot Measure Summary SUMMARY This act provides for a bond issue of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) to provide farm and home aid for California veterans. Fiscal Impact: Costs of about $858 million over 25 years (average cost of about $34 million per year); costs paid by participating Veterans. SUMMARY Allows legislative members to participate in the Public Employees’. Retirement System plans in which a majority of state employees may participate. Fiscal Impact: Annual state costs under $1 million to provide retirement benefits to legislators, with these costs replacing other spending from the fixed annual amount provided in support of the Legislature. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES NO YES NO A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not be able to issue these bonds for this purpose. A YES vote on this measure means: The state would be able to issue’S500 million in general obligation bonds to provide loans for the veterans" farm and home purchase (Cal~-Vet) program. A YES vote on this measure means: State legislators could earn retirement benefits under a state retirement system for their years of service in the Legislature. A NO vote on this measure means: For ~etirement purposes, state I~gislators would continue to earn only Social Security benefits for their years of service in the Legislature. ARGUMENTS PRO The time-honored Cai-Vet Loan Program helps wartime veterans to purchase homes and farms in Caiifomia at no expense to taxpayers. Voter- approved bonds finance the Program and are repaid, along with all program costs, by veteran loan holders. This measure would replenish such bonds. We urge your support. CON Proposition 32 is a half billion dollar bond measure that would cost~ taxpayers a fortune. The money would be used to buy homes for "veterans" defined to even include persons like Presidential candidate George W. Bush who joined his state’s Air National Guard instead of going to fight in Vietnam! ARGUMENTS PRO Proposition 33 is about fairness and about allowing everyone to serve in the Legislature, not just the rich. Proposition 33 only allows members of the Legislature to participate in the same pension plan as every other state employee. No additional perks. Proposition 33 will require no additional state spending. CON Vote NO. Legislators’ salaries are now $99,000, plus some reimbursement for living expenses. They need no more perks. This measure, written by politicians, wipes out a key part of Proposition 140 enacted by voters in 1990 and will increase general fund costs. Vote NO on Proposition 33. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR Glenn Gilbert Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs California State Assembly AGAINST Melvin L Emerich Attorney at Law 1020 N Street, Room 357 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 319-2486 glenn.gilbert@asm.ca.gov 95 South Market St., #300 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 995-3224 www.melemerich.com FOR ADDHTIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGAINST Yes on Prop. 33 Lewis Uhler, President The National Tax-Limitation Committee c/o Western Group P.O. Box 596 Yucaipa, CA 92399 (909) 795-9722 151 N. Sunrise Ave., Suite 901 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 786-9400 Ballot Measure Summary SUMMARY Limits campaign contributions and loans to state candidates and political parties. Provides voluntary spending limits; expands public disclosure requirements and increases penalties. Fiscal Impact: Additional net costs to the state, potentially up to several million dollars annually, and unknown but probably not significant costs to local government. SUMMARY Amends Constitution eliminating existing restrictions on state, local contracting with private entities for engineering, architectural services; contracts awarded by competitive selection; bidding permitted, not required. Fiscal Impact: Unknown impact on state spending for architectural and engineering services and construction proiect delivery. Actual impact will depend on how the state uses the contracting flexibility under the proposition. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES NO YES NO A YES vote on this measure means: New contribution and voluntary spending limits will be established for state elective offices. Limits pre- viously adopted by the voters for state and local offices, which have not been. im- plemented because of a pending lawsuit, would be repealed. The new limits are higher than those that would be repealed. ARGUMENTS PRO A NO vote on this measure means: Existing contribution and voluntary spending limits for state and local elective offices enacted by a voter- approved initiative would not be repealed. CON Incumbent politicians will be begging for money when they should be tending to the public’s business. Challengers will be forced to seek campaign funds from any and all sources that want political favors from Sacramento. Proposition 34 is a recipe for a government more beholden to special interests, Vote No. Proposition 34 is real reform that puts voters--not special interests--back-in charge of California’s political process. Proposition 34 sets enforceable, constitutional, limits on cam- paign financing where none exist today. It limits con- tributions and spending, speeds up disclosure, increases fines and closes loopholes for wealthy candidates without public financing. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGAINST Tom Knox Lonni Granlund Committee for Constitutional Western Group Campaign Reform RO. Box 596 Yucaipa, CA 92399 (909) 795-9722 westerngrp@aol.com 1215 K Street, Ste. 2100 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-3354 CAyeson34.org A YES vote on this measure means: The state could contract with private individuals or firms for architectural and engineering services in all situations rather than only under certain conditions (such as when the work is of a temporary nature or of such a specialized nature that it cannot be provided by state employees). A NO vote on this measure means: The state could contract with private individuals or firms for architectural and engineering services only under certain conditions. ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 3.S--Supported by hun- dreds of taxpayer groups, seniors, schools, local govern- ments, business, labor, highway/earthquake safety en- gineers. Restores government’s ability to engage in public/private partnerships with qualified engi- neers to speed up thousands of backlogged highway and other public works projects. Creates 40,000 jobs. Saves taxpayers $2.5 billion annually. CON Proposition 35 changes the Constitution to benefit one special interest at taxpayer expense. Like other states, California currently awards engineering contracts based on cost, qualifications, and exper- ience. Prop. 35 replaces that with an undefined contracting process which allows overpriced government contracts based on campaign contributions and political influence. Vote FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGAINST Taxpayers for Fair Competition-- A coalition of taxpayers, engineers, seniors, schools, local government, business, labor, highway safety experts and frustrated commuters. 11300 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 840 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 996-2671Anfo@YesProp35.com www.YesProp35.com Steve Hopcraft No On Prop. 35 3551 N St. Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 446-0512 noonprop35@cwo.com noonprop35.org Ballot Measure Summary SUMMARY Requires probation and drug treatment, not incarceration, for possession, use, transportation of controlled substances and similar parole violations, except sale or manufact~e. Authorizes dismissal of charges after completion of treatment. Fiscal impact: Net annual savings of $100 million to $150 million to the state and about $40 million to local governments. Potential avoidance of one-time -capital outlay costs to the state of $450 million to $550 million. SUMMARY Requires two-thirds vote of State Legislature, majority or two-thirds of local electorate to impose future state, local fees on activity to study or mitigate its environmental, societal or economic effects. Defines such fees as taxes except property, development, certain other fees. Fiscal Impact: Unknown, potentially significant, reduction in future state and local government revenues from making it more difficult to approve certain regulatory charges. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES NO A YES vote on this measure means: Adult offenders convicted of being under the influence of illegal drugs or using, transporting, or pos- sessing illegal drugs for personal use would generally be sentenced to probation and drug treatment. A NO vote on this measure means: Adult offenders convicted of being under the influence of illegal drugs or using, transporting, or pos- sessing illegal drugs would generally continue to be sentenced to prison, jail, or probation. There would be no requirement that they be sentenced to drug treatment. ARGUMENTS PRO The war on drugs has failed. Nonviolent drug users are overcrowding our jails. Violent criminals are being released early. Drug treatment programs are rarely available. We pay $25,000 annually for prisoners when treatment costs only $4,000. Expanded treatment programs will reduce crime, save lives, and save taxpayers hundreds of millions. OON Proposition 36 prohibits jail for persons convicted of using heroin, crack, PCP and other illegal drugs, or for possessing "date rape" drugs--even those with prior convictions for rape, child molesting and other violent crimes. Proposition 36 has no regulatory safeguards, cripples legitimate treatment, invites fraud and endangers public safety. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES NO A YES vote on this measure A NO vote on this measure means: Government actions to means: Current laws and establish certain regulatory constitutional requirements charges would require approval regarding regulatory charges by a greater number of would not be changed. legislators or local voters. ARGUMENTS PRO The California Taxpayers Association urges you to vote Yes on Proposition 37 to stop hidden taxes on food, gasoline, utilities and other necessities. Proposition 37 makes politicians accountable to taxpayers by requiring a vote of the people or a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to enact these hidden taxes. CON Proposition 37 protects polluters and shifts their costs to taxpayers. The oil and tobacco lobbies who paid for Prop. 37 want you to pay for the pollution and sickness they cause. American Cancer Society, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club and California Tax Reform Association say: No on 37! FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR California Campaign for New Drug Policies (310) 394-2952 www.drugreform.org AGAINST Californians United Against DnJg Abuse/Sponsored by Law Enforce- ment, Drug Treatment Profes- sionals, Healthcare, Crime Victims and Taxpayers--No on 36. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 1-800-995-3221 www.noonprop36.com FOR ADDITIONAL iNFORMATiON FOR AGAINST Californians Against Hidden DougLinney Taxes Taxpayers Against Polluter Protection 591 Redwood Hwy., Suite 4000 Mill Valley, CA 94941 (916) 448-4266 info@yesonprop37.org www.yesonF~rop37.org 1904 Franklin Street, Suite 909 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 444-4793 info@polluterprotecti0n.com www.polluterprotection.com Ballot Measure Summary SUMMARY Authorizes annual state payments of at least $4000 per pupil for private/religious schools. Permits replacement of current constitutional public school funding formula. Fiscal Impact: Near- term state costs from zero to $1.1 billion annually. Long-term state impact from $2 billion in annual costs to $3 billion in annual savings, depending on how many public school students shift to private schools. SUMMARY Authorizes bonds for repair, construction or replacement of school facilities, classrooms, if approved by 55% local vote. Fiscal Impact: Increased bond debt for many school districts. Long-term costs statewide could total in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Potential longer-term state savings to the extent school districts assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote 0n this measure means: In addition to funding a public school system, the state would make available to all NO A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not fund scholarships (vouchers) to pay tuition and fees at private school-age children (kindergarten schools. The current approach through 12¯ grade) scholarships of funding public education for (v(~uchers) of at least $4,000 each kindergarten through 12~ grade year to pay tuition and fees at through a system of public private schools,schools would continue. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES NO A YES vote on this measure A NO vote on this measure means: Local school bonds means: Local school bonds could be approved by a would continue to require 55 percent vote rather than a approval by a two-thirds vote of two-thirds vote of the local the local electorate. electorate. ARGUMENTS PRO CON Prop. 38 gives a $4,000 school voucher to all parents to choose the best education for their children and provides a stronger public education funding guarantee. Prop. 38 holds schools accountable to parents and students, is only fair, and leads to smaller, safer classrooms. Proposition 38 would create voucher schools with no standards for students, no credentials for teachers, and no accountability to taxpayers. Not one penny of the billions spent on Prop 38 wilt be used to make our children’s public schools better. Prop 38 is an expensive experiment our children can’t afford. ARGUMENTS Parents, business, teachers and taxpayers say "Yes on 39" to fix our classrooms and fix the way schools spend money. The California State PTA says 39 helps reduce class size and protects taxpayers and home- owners. It requires a tough 55% vote for bonds and prohibits spending on administration or bureaucracy. CON Proposition 39 destroys 121 year Constitutional Protection requiring two-thirds vote to approve local bonds. 39 has No property tax limits. 39 could lead to further actions which double property taxes, re- turning to pre-1978 levels. Bonds create homeowner liens. "Special Provisions" can be changed anytime without voter approval. Vote No. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORNIATIION FOR AGAINST Pat Rosenstiel No on Prop 38 Committee Prop38Yes, School Vouchers 2000 400 Seaport Ct., Suite 102 Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 306-1111 Campaign@vouchers2000.com www.38Yes.com 1510 J Street, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 442-4406 info@NoVouchers2000.com www.NoOnProp38.com FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGAINST Taxpayers for Accountability & ion Coup,~l Better Schools Save Our Homes committee, Vote No on Proposition 39 1121 L Street, Suite 401 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 341-1055 info@betterschoolsforCA.org www.yesonprop39.org 921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-9959 Info@SaveOurHomes.com www.SaveOurHomes.com