The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0282.094\ 16 r--__ sta.~!1eI)Ol , ______ ----, J , I I I ~:f::':':.;'-';;:'7' """0 , Hay 12, 1994 THE HONORABLE CITY COUlICIL PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA S~J\T£ BALLOT MBASURES -JUNE 1994 PRIHJ\RY ELECTION Members of the council: Report i.n....1}.tiJ!.f Nino state propositions will be presented ,to the voters on June 7. The l1leaS\lres have been placed on the ballot elthc).' by action of the State Legislature or by initiative petition. staff recommends that the Council take positions on six of the roeasuras. Th~ Council may want to take positions on additional ballot measures. .IlnM9.=~ Uine state ballot measures, or propositions, will appear on the ballot for the June 71 1994 prim~ry election. One of these qualified for the ballot as the result of initiative petition. The balance were placed on the ballot by the State Legislature. state law requires that legislative bond meaSUl."es appear fi:r~'c. on tho ballot. Because the three legislative bond measures for the June ballot were approved by t.he Legislature and Governor after the original ballot pamphlet deadlinc 1 they bear the unusual proposition numbers lA, 1B and lC. All other propositions are numbered sequentially from the .last state election. Public agencies may take formal positions in support of or in opposition to ballot measures, but public funds may not be used to encourage citizens .to vote a specific way_ It is 'permissible to provide information to the public on the impact any ballot m~asure will have on the city. Further information on the lneasures is contained in materials accompanying this report: the California Ballot Pamphlet and Supplemental Ballot Pamphlet p:l-epared by the secretary of state and the Pros/Cons publication of the League of Women voters of California {LWV). Pages 4 and 5 of both of the California ballot pamphlets contain brief summaries of the state measures. CMR:282:9< 1 >'-, ..• ' " ' ... ~' "'-\, 'hI Proposition. Table I lists the: '11n& ltIcasures, shows the positions taken by the League of CalIfornia Citios Board of Directors and indicatos if stafr recouO-nda. .any position to counciL fABlE I STATE BALLOT MEASURES Prlmtry Elec110(lj Jun .. 7. 1994 ~tJllro DtJt I&Q ~ij ~l!lgn Illi. ./\ f.ar1hqu."llle A~i\!r a')(j $elS!fllc NeLrt{al Support R&troflt 8()()d Arl of 1994. '8 Safe Schools A(.i of 1994. NeuHal Support Ie Higher EJucaHon Facl~ies Neutral Ilon(j A<:l 01 June 1934. 176 R4Hil:efs'lr.come Tax Cred~. No PositIon Oppose 116 Taxalloo: Noopn:lit Oppose Oppose Ot03ol>.tlon, 171 ?(optrty Tax Exemption. No Pos'hloo Disabled PtrSOOS' Acce-ss. '13 p,Oj)e<ty Tax E,cj\lSlOO. Oppose Oppose W.,.,. COr.s.M1!oo Equlpmont. 119 Murder. Pi.iffishrnenl. Support 100 Palk Lands.. Historic Silas, SUPIlOI' Support Ylldl ite and F()(GSI Conservation Bond '-<;1. C){R:282:94 \ , , lA, E.~tlJmLWs"ic Jl~.J.L»sm<LM_L_2LJ..~~.L. This "e"sura provides for $2 billion in genera I obligation bonds to fund repairs related to tha Northridge earthqul'lIke. Bond proceeds Arc allocated in the catogories of transportation, public infrnstructure, hat-arcl ~itigation projects, highway seismic rotrofit and housing reconstruction. The high .... ay portion is not restricted to Northridqe da~age, but could also be used for the BtatQwld. highw.y seismic r"troUt progr .... estabUshed follo"ing the Lohla Prieta Earthqu4k~. }"ivo. ~ay Area toll bt"1dges are inoluded in the retrofit progr ... , The underlying issue J;'.elatod to this And the other three bond measures on the ballot Ss. ''Whetha:t: the stl\t:c should increase its bonded indebtedll4Jas. An i)v.or ..... lo'W' of state bond debt appllnrs on page 18 of the Supplenente.l Ballot Pol'Inphlc.t', Sin11s1' information appears in the attached L~~ publication. Staff r~co .. en~9 tho counoil pupport P~opo~1tlon lA. This. l'lcasure authorizes the stato to sell $1 billion in general obllgaticn bond~ to inprove school facilities. The money would be spent to build noW' f:lchools and repllir c)(istiJl9 schools. In ot'der to receive rnone:y, ,school districts :oust r.'oot: cort"in eligibility requirements and contribute Ratching funds. The palo Alto Unified School District is currently studying the measure to confir.rn the distrlct t s eligibility to apply tor funding under its provis.ions. "rho district is Apt t.o onter into an extensive reconstruction proqraTll with!'" the ncar future, f6110wing upon the recorullendati<ms of the Schools for the, 21st Century planning study, staff reeoZlURends the coun'oil support Propo.9ition lB~ le. l!igb~~itl<1ill,lgJL1L91ld bct QL"'_\lllil_~-L This measure authorizes the state to 6-911 $900 ""illion in general obliqation bonds for California's public highor education system. The money would be us~d to construct new buildings, alter existing buildinqs and purchElise equipnent for use in the new or altered buildings, staff makes no recommendation. CMR:282:94 3 .' ,"- , \ • I I I j . ,,'. 175. Renters' Income Ta~~ This measure amends the state Constltution to require that tha renters' income tax credit ($60 individuals, $120 :marriod couples) be provided to all eligiblo renters each year, boqinninq in 1995. state law presently provides for this tax credit, however income limitations were imposed in 1991 and the entire tax <n:edit was suopende~ in 1993 because of stat~ budgot shortfall~. By plactnq it in tne constitution, the st~te wo~ld be prevented from 11~lting or suspending the credit in future years except by 0 vota t)f the people. stiff recommends the Counoil oppoa& Proposition 175. 176. TM{atlon: Nonprofit .QL'ilbni;atiQn~ A constitutional amendment, this measure prevents city and count)' governments from imposing business liC('lIlSG taxos or fees 01) nonprofit organizations if they are based on inconC' or gross reoeipts. Nonprofit organizations are generally exempt from taxation under federal and state law, and local governments soldon if ever apply their business license tax to nonprofits. Palo Alto do en not have a business license tax. Hevert.helesB, this r.ie1\sure represents an incursion into an area of local governmant authority. staff reoommends the council oppose proposition 176. 177. Pro.p.ru:.tL~~ption. Dill~et:~QlHi~....A&:~ Modifications to buildings usually trigger property tax reassessment, however} over the years since the passago 6f proposition 13 1 some exceptions hav~ been approvnd. This constitutional amendment would extend the property tit)'. cX(JJ:1ption to all buildings that are modified to provide aCCE'la8 for tho disabled. These moclifications could be required for ADA compli~nce. Voters approved a similar exemption for modifications to private ho~os in 1990 (Proposition 110, 'Which was :supPolted by the Palo Alto City council.) The exemption ends when the prOpel"t.y is sold and . reappraised at its full market value. Cities, counties and special districts would bear nearly one-half of the annua 1 property ta)( revenue lOBS which the Legislative Analyst estimates could g.ro\ro' to as much as $10 million statewide. staff makes no t:eco1l1roendation. CMR:282:94 4 I j I I I , I I I , , I I , I '\'~ . "". -.. , i .' . , i 1 "",··1 ;' ,I ,),~ .... ·-1~;l~' ' .... 11 ~ •. ~."', , 17.L...........£t:®erty Tax Exclusion. WateL.....~tlYftti9~'lY..!I:?~_!,. 'this cOil$titutiorial amendment excludes from property taxation the installation of water conservation equipment for commercial agricultural purposes. As with Proposition 1771 cities, counties and special districts 'Would boar nearly one-half of the annual property tax revenue loss which the Legislative Analyst estimates could grow to as much as $10 million statewide. From the perspective of the City's utilities Department, there are adequate economic reasons for agricultural water Usel'S to exercise water conservation without a p~operty tax e~clu8ion. $uch an eXClusion would distort the price signals that water agencies are sendin9 to Agricultural' customers and may even,make it less cost-effective to install water-efficient conservation equipment from a total cost basis. staff ,recommends the COllhCil oppose proposition 178~ 179 t Murder, __ P\lDis~ This legislative initiative Qmends the penal Code to inc):-ease by five years the penalty tor second-dt!gree murder if the killing occurs during a ul'ivc-by shooting. The penalty would become imprisonment lor 20 years to life. The proposal wa9 approved unanimously in the State Lcgislaturcj no ballot argument opposing the measure was submitted, staff makes no recommendation. l]P.. Park!ands, Hist2r-~tes. Wildlife ~Qrest Conservation l!.QDd Act. This initiative statute authorizes a general obligation bond issue of nearly $2 billion for the acquisition, development, restoration and cOllservation of park lands, historic site's, wildlife areas and forests throughout California. since 19&4, voters have authorized about $1.3 billion in general obligation bonds for pal:'"ks and wildlife. As of December 1993, all but $10 million had been:comrnitted' for specific projects. proposition 180 ma1<:es the bond tunds available in two ways. About $1.5 billion will be appropriated directly to the state and local agencies that will spend the money on specific projects or cate90ries of projects which are identified in the ballot measure. The remainder will be available when appropriated by the Legislature through the annual budget. To countol-the public concern about the state's incl'easl;!d bonded indebteduess l the CMR: 282: 94 5 · . '. '. :_..:.,_.;"-:K"";':'~"'.-.~'~--=;' . concludinq section of the text of the measure acknowledges thu i~portance of avoldinq impairment of the statefs credit rating. Host of the previous state park bond authorizations have been put on the ballot by the Le9islature. However, a,graosroots initiative sinil.r to this one appeared on the ballot in 1988 (Proposition 70) and was endorsed by the Palo Alto City council. The sponsors or Proposition 180 (Californians for Parks and Wildlite 1994 and the Planning ancl Conservat.ion League) have prepared a pack aye of information which accompanies this staff report. It includes descriptions of projects ill Santa Cla:ra county and nearby areas which could be funded from passage of this eeasut'e~ "staft r80~Aaen~D the Council support proposition 180~ Staff .rGcommends that the Council: 1) Support Propositions lA, 18 and 180 on the June 1994 primary election ballot; 2) 0pp090 propositions 175, 176, and 178; J) Consider whether Ccuncil Menbors wish to announce positions in support of or opposition to the other ballot measures. Respectfully submitted, ~~'" ".,'"' En~lo9UrE',S : LWV Pros and Cons /. U<' ~-- Ber are f7~~jnY Assistan~~oManager California Ballot pamphlet (for Council Members only) California Supplemental Ballot Pamphlet (for Counnil Members only) CHR,282,94 6 -' i,r-" i I I ['