The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - October 17, 1990 (34)11 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION SUBJECT: Review of State Ballot Proposition 126 DATE: October 17, 1990 and 134 PREPARED BY: C114ty Clerk ss:-:ssssssssssa:so=nsseas:ssasa:aaasssa:asses::ssssssssazaa:sss:ass:ass:ssssas:a RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and appropriate action B CKGRCLIZ INFORMATION: At an earlier City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tempore Hinchman requested that at a Council meeting prior to November Q 1990 that a discussion and review be held regarding Proposition 126 and Proposition 134. PROPOSITION 126 - The Alcohol Rbuse and Drug Education Tax Act of 1990. Imposes excise tax and excise surtax on beer, wine and distilled spirits, as specified, that would supercede such taxes previously imposed and would be in I i e u of all county, city or district taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages. Placed on Ballot Hsi: ACA 38 (Cortese) . Argunients For: 1. The measure. supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of educators, aicohol abuse experts, taxpayer advocates . farmers , and other community leaders, would help prevent alcohol abuse among children by allocating nearly $1 billion to schools over a 10 -year period. 2, Funds raised by this measure could be used effectively in such programs as hiring nEw officers to increase drunk driving patrols; treating alcoholics in trauma centers and mental health facilities; curing alcoholics in rehabilitation and recovery programs; and stepping up the war on illegal drug use and alcohol abuse. 3. The money raised by this proposition comes strictly film a tax on beer, wine and distilled spirits; not one penny comes from income, sales or other taxes. Arguments Against: 1, New tax revenues from this measure w i I I be deposited i n the state general fund, to be spent at the discretion of the state Legislature. 2. Nothing w i I I be done to address the negative impacts and costs of alcohol abuse to California taxpayers. 3. This initiative does not guarantee funding for alcohol and drug use education, programs affected by alcohol abuse or enforcement of drunk driving laws. League of Califcrnia Cities Policy Committees' (Community Services, Public Safety, and Revenue and Taxation) position: oppose California Chamber of Commerce's position: support cc -1 Propositions 126 and 134 October 17, 1990 Page Two A copy of the full text of information concerning this proposition as contained in the California Ballot Pamr-Ilet for the November 6, 1990 General Election is attached. PROPOSITION 134 - Alcohol Surtax Fund. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statue. Imposes an additional tax on alcohol products (5 cents per 12 ounces of beer, five ounces of wine, three ounces of fortified wine, one ounce of distilled spirits and an additional per unit floor stock tax). Resulting revenues would be deposited i n the newly crested Alcohol Surtax Fund to be appropriated for,,...40ft:, other, things, alcohol and drug abuse prevention, treatment and recovery programs; :`emergency medical care, community mental health programs, child abuse and -.-A,., stic violence prevention training and victim service, alco;iol and drug=related.-:law 'jenforcement costs. The funds are to be supplemental and not meant to replace existing funds. This measure is also called the Connelly initiative. Proponent: Andrew McGuire. Arguments For: 1. Approximately 33 percent of a I I mentally ill and homeless persons also have alcohol and drug problems. 2 This measure targets the heavy drinkers, the drunk drivers and alcohol abusers who cause most of the deaths and injuries attributable to alcohol. Arguments Against: 1. Proposition 134 continues the trend toward ballot box budgeting by earmarking the funds it raises. 2. This measure penalizes a I I Californians by locking i n $1.2 b i I I i o n i n current state spending and relying on tax increases to fund annual budget increases. League of California Cities Policy Committees' (Community Services, Public Safety, Revenue and Taxation) position: support California Chamber of Commerce's position: oppose A copy of the full text of information concerning this proposition as contained i n the California Ballot Pamphlet for the November 6, 1990 General Election is attached. Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR/jmp Attachment OCT 05 '90 15=47 L.CC-91044-8671 P.2 ` (At ta( 'ent) PROPOSITION 126 Analysis of Impact on Cities R2gkgr=d on • Proposition 126, a constitutional amendment, was placed on the ballot by the Legislature (ACA 38). It is the alcohol industry's response to Proposition 134, the so-called Nickel-a•Drink initiative. $u=Ay of Prooas ; Proposition 126 would irxxease the state tax, as of March 1, 1991 on beer (from 4 to 20 cents a gallon); specified wines (from I to 20 cents P. gallon); fortified wines (from 2 to 20 cents a gallon); and distilled spirits (from 52.00 to $3.30 a gallon). This additional tax on alodiolicbeverages is estimated to raise approximately V. 0 mUhm in the remainder of FY 90.91 and about S195 in FY 91-92. The proceeds from tHs additional tax would be placed in the State General Fund, Under the provisions of Proposition 98, approximately 41 percent of these proceeds, once placed m the Genaral Fund, will be required ID be passed on to schools. T he measure also includes a provision that if both Propositions 126 and 134 pass, all of the provisions ofthe measure that receives the largest number of votes will take affect, and none of the pruvisions cf the other measure, which received less of a majority vote, will take effect. The Segal impact cf this language is uncertain. Impacts an cities:: Because cf the mandates of Proposition 98, a portion of the revenue, approximately 41 percent will go to schools. There is neguarantee that any of the remaining revenue will go towards alcohol and drug abuse related programs that would benefit cities. Since the tax on alcoholic beverages would increase by this .Leasure, the sales tax, wbich is levied on the tttal price cf alcoholic beverages, will also increase. Tl -.e legislative Analyst estimates that local sales tax will increase by about 51.6 million anncally. °This added revenue would be forwarded to cities. Aside from the small amount in sales tax there is no guarantee that any of this money will be directed towards cities. dated Policies or Mtioaa of 'tee: The League opposed this measure, (ACA 38), wi►.ile it was being considered by the Legislature because the tax was considered to be too low and would not raise enoujh revenue to adequately address the problem of alcohol abuse and because 41% of all funds raised would be due to schools. The League also opposed ACA 38 because this tax increase is contained in a constitutional amendment. The League believes provisions like these do not belong in the Constitution, Constitutional amendments once in place, are more difficult to change than statutory amendments, ;sue: What position, if arty, should the Lea a take on proposition 1261 Should the eague continue to oppose Proposition 126? Ohis proposition has been referred to three League committees: Community Services, Publics Safety, .d Revenue and Tantim) . Committee Recommendation: 0 12 13 cw OCT Cis '90 15:48 LCC -916/444-8671 P.4 Analysis by the Laoslative Analyst Background Currently, the state taxer alcoholic beverages at the rate of 92 per gallon on liquor (distilled spirits), 4 cents per gallon on beer, and 1 cent per gallon on most wines. This year, the state will collect about 8126 million from these twes. Most of this revenue (76 percent) will come from the tax on liquor. These revenues go into the state'! Central Fund to pay for education, health, welfare and, other government programs. Under existing yrements of the State Constitution tion 98}, pu WWI anti mmmuni colleges are� mnteed a specific amount of funding each from tho state General Fund This guaranteed amount increases each year. The mount of the increase is calculated using one of three different fonulas. The formula used dependj on state and local revenue trends and other factors. Proposal This measure has two major parts: • Alcohol ?ares. It increases state taxes on most • Cmf7icts with 0A01llearures on this Ballot. It contains lsngunft stating how conflicts between it and two other measures on this ballot are to be resolved. Alcohol Taxes. This measure increases state taxes on Inst alcoholic beverages, beghming March 1. 1991. The tax on beer and most wises would Increase from 4 cents and 1 cent, respectively, to 24 cents per gallon (the tax on sparkling wines, such as chcmpagne, would remain at the current rate of 30 teats per gallon) . The tax on liquor would increase from $2 to $3.34 per gallon. As a result, taxes would go up by 9 cents on a six-pack of beer, by 4 cents oR a bottle (750 milBliters) cf most wines and by 26 cents on a i>ottie ("50 milliliters) cf ice. The state Gesterol Fund would receive ail of the revenue f3m the higher taxes. The measure places the new tax rates in 1$ State Cdnstitution. The Legislature could increase, bu: not reduce, taxer on alcoholic beverages in the future. Conflicts with Other ,{ wurss on this Ballot. This measure containslarguage stating how conflicts between it and two other measures on this ballot are to be resolved. • Proposition 134, The Alcohol Tax Act of 1940, also C90 would impose additional taxes on alcoholic beverages, although at rates higher than those imposed by this =E .s arc. if Proposition 134 also is approved, 'kis measure states that all of the provisions in :he measure with the 4rgest number of votes will take effect. -id none cf the provisions c•i the other measure will take effect. T::a ieji� &Gec:.;i this language. h uncertain. This is because the State Constitution currently requires that only she eonflieft provisions or the measure that rec-tv,?s the greater vote prE►vails. • Proposition 136, The a 4;:psyar s' .11vi:t toVr.8 A Act of 1990, requires that any aew or increased "specs d taxes" with respect to personal pr.,rerty he f::tcosa f on the tvlue of the property. While -the meaning of these provisions in Proposition 136 is uncertain, they may be interpreted to prohibit nose per-anit spetiai tares on cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and ocher items. However, Proposition 126 imposts a "general tax- on units (gallons) of alcoholic beer ages. to addition, the measure states that it hr exempt from the provisions of The Taxpayers' Ibght to vote Act of 1990. Fiscal E:iact 7he higher alcohol taxes imposed by this measure would rrult in additional state Ceneral Fund revenues of about $70 million in 1990-91 (part year) and about $195 ndllion in 1991-92 (first full years. These amounts include increased state sales tax revenue 02 mWion in 199192) that occurs because the sales tax levied on the total price of alcoholic beverages, including alcoholic beverage taxes. Similarly, local sales tax revenues would increase by about $1.6 million annually statewide. The amount of revenues after 1991-92 will depend on trends in alcohol sales. The measure increases the state's constitutional spending limit to include the additional tax revenue. Under existing requirements of the State Constitution, public schools and community colleges may receive approximately 41 percent of the additional revenues fmin the taxer imposed by this measure. Whether this occurs in ani year will depend upau which of the formulas used to determine the state funding guarantee is i1 effect that year. 14 13 OCT 05 '9$ 15:49 LCC -916/44.4-$671 P.5 126 Alcoholic Beverages. Taxes. Legislative Constitutional Amendment Argument in Faver of Proposition 126 Proposition 1:5 A Setter Approach Propositfors 1!'b.'lu Alcohol Abuse and Drug Education Act, is a fir Mor approach to alcohol taxes than Proposition 131. . Pr000ddon 134 doesn't direct a t>• M ro tnubbe tph m A . Proposition e nearly $1 billion over 10 yeirt to sclseoit Expeagree :five way to stop &I above Is tbrottgb earlrts y education. Wdren the dancers of alcohol conaunption and stoppins 1e by adults should be top priorities for California. elemar t 14 wkmft the war agaiatt alcohol abuse. I I is supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of t 6hol t�xpestR taxpayer advocates. fasters. and wee u p you to � on the alcohol tax—Proposition �- Hundreds�ofPublic Millionss�Avsole pnVosition 138 --the ale" taxI :alae nearly $1 billion in 10 yetrs fix schools An ounce of prevention Is worth a poTsad of cure. Our teachers. principals and :decal counselors coved use this money for prograats Which can bele Flowet the problem *f alcohol use by ourchtkiten An Additional Si SIWam Available for Drank Driving and Treabriesst Programs ProCltlen 1N raises an 111 $1 billion over 10 yeas which could be used for peopesai.aimed �t admin who abuu sheobol. 3t could be wed for V. -W 6 + plow bt fgat overnight, tach aa: • H�new oi�liears to iueresle drunk driving pserols. e T alcoholics in traum ceastnt aand nd eroaalittsiprbeam facilities. i R;WQ up th rt an use and alcohol abs. Without Raising Our Iueom Taxes None of the money raised by Propoga, n 126 comes from our income. Wes or other tastes. +tU of taus money comes from a taxis" beer, tong and dirtilbd eporta. The taxes on beer and distilled spirits will increase to the national average and wine taaw will be substantially tnemstA No Hidden Taxpayer Can Proposition 134 also contains hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden cwt* which all taspeyerr must bur. It suarmtees a few privileged government rovems hundreds of sash 64 of dollars Inywily budget in resses—wMti er they need theor not—awry year, forever- Pmoosttton IN'* budget escalators most eome from the stat/ s General F'urid—from our himme, abs and other taxes. The only other ept." is to ftneucaity cut budgets of other imporant program—tike ducational swvic«, sensor care w4 fhrepeotectioa . rropastetort IN mnraim no hidden facom or sola roc octets. It just increases alcohol txstae. Proposition 126, the Alcohol Abuse and Drug Education Act, is a fiscally sound approach to the problems of alcohol abuse. It can help prevent our children from usins alcohol. It can provide money for drunk driving enforcement, trauma care seaters. mental health and other important prosrams. It does all tb�s by imposing a substantial. yet fiscally round, tax N O on �6t , �e urge you to vote YES on Proposition 186 and134. ALFRED E ALQUIST Chdrmo% Sum Senate Commian on BttI and Pima Roolow ED YOGLIA Ptwfdm4 t;, gbrnia Tagima Amoctetion DAVID SROWN lUseidnhrr Association of C01110mild School Adminiwtrators Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition IN REBUTTAL ARGUMENT TO ARCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION les PROPOSITION 146 IS SPONSORED BY THE LIQUOR INDUSTRY. The reason they nay Proposition 126 is a better approach to taI the liquor industry than Propoation 13tr the "Nickeo-a•Drink" proposal, is that PrWasisim: 126 taxa them ler. The only reason Prepooation 126 is on the ballot is that the liquor industry Mends S1Ao0.t)fxr each year lobbs:ng the Mature and hu contributed over SIAK W to politicians since 14166 h;,t the liquor industry wants. the 1wg:tiature gives That., why the Legislature twill not ch ed the wine tax from leper gallon since 1037. The sok purpose of Proposition 126 is to defeat Proposition. 131. the \ickei-a•Thins" Aleehol Tax Initiative. When resdint the argument in favor of Proposition 126. CONSIDER THE SOLACE--IT,IS TY.E LIQUOR IIrVUSTI'tYl The w7utnents is nipport of proposition IN are faho and muleading Pr,,positson 126 does not rArantee one penny to schools for alcohol an.d dru use education. it does not give any money for the enforcement of Cal�ornia's drunk driving laws. Only Proposition 134 suarantew funds for alcohol related probienms, Only Proposition I34 guarantees funds for education program► and enforcement of drunk driving laws.. Seforg voting on Proposition 126, ask yourself whom do you trust: the liquor industry or former Sursoon General C. Everett Koop who said. "Who could quarrel with a ni- l -&-drink user fee ... to help save lives." Don't be fooled by the liquor mduttry. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 196• PATRICIA COLMAN President, Col(fornia Emergency Nurser Anticiotian MICHAEL SPARKS Chairperson, California t:orne%; on Alcohol Polity CAROLS MCDONALD Former Director, victim Sergio:, Mother: Against Drank Drivm (MADD) 15 14 Jrs:urnenti printed or, this page ere ti•r optntons of the authors and have rot been checxe For accura^y by any off;tial agency C90 OCT 05 '90 15:50 LCC -916!444-5671 P.6 Alcoholic Beverages. Taxes. Legislative Constitutional Amendment 11261 Argun. ent Against Prdpmotion 126 Proposition 126 is sponsored by the liquor industry. It is a key comp✓Amu of the liquor industry's campaign to defeat Propositivo 134, the-Nkkel-r-Drink" Alcohol Tax Initiative. Proposition 126 pluft Glifornia's exeta tax on alcohol in the state constitution. TAY. RATES SHOULD NOT BE 104 THE' CONSTITL' nom CALIFORNIA HAS THE LOWEST EXCISE TAXES ON ALCOHOL IN T4E DATION. For decades. " liquor Lobby hat opposed every alwTiol tax inereae proposal before the State I.egfslzture. Now, the liquor todustry is supportia: Propostt. 126. Wi3Y?.rm the hopes of pre-empting Proposition 134, the "Nickel -e -Drink" Alcohol Tax Initiative. PROPOSITION 116 DOES NOT EVEN BRING CALIFORNIA'S ALCOHOL TAX UP TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE" DONT IM POOLED COMPARE THE TWO The liquor industry lobbied the LegislaRue to put Proposition 126 oat I. 6t,w uhivrnia voters agaed Pod= to put Preposition 134 on the ballot. Propoarkm 128 will depo* its new tax revenues in the State Cetssral FsuM to be spent at the dheretion of ew State Legidatum Proposition 134, the "N;cfoa.a.Drtnk" Alcohol Tax lrlbove, sosires that its revenues be btvesoad to ptopw= 69 address alcohol related problems, inch;_ '_ : • Alcohol and drug abuts ed oblast • Enforcement of drunk dsivbtg, and other alcohol and dnwrelated, laws. • Esnergettcy artd trauma are tratment. • Alcohoi and drug &brut pit tion &ad reeowry ptop'ams. • Alcohol sad dist$ abs proimm • Co:>~tntsnily tsterstal itealtb • Pragrerru for the innocent vfctisns of alcohol abuse, including ssppoouusal and child abuse victims. • PrcrgiAms for infants with birth deteea caused by alcohol and drug dog not)+iog to add sea the negative impacts and - - PROPOSITION 10 DOLS NOTGUARAI\TFE ONE DOLLAR FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE EDUCATION OR PROCRAMS IMPACTED BY ALCOHOL AME. Propppo�tioa 126 tanores thew facts • Alcohol costs California uxp wrs 313 btli9on aw.vall.. • Alcohol is the leading rause of death among teenagers. • California's emergency medical system is sear collapse. largely because of alcohol related seedents and injuries. • Approximately 33% of all mentally ill and nomeltss persons also have alcohoi and drug presti'e.-.s. PROPOSITION 126 DOSS NOT GUARANTIM ONE DOLLAR FOR ENFORCEMENT OF DRUNK DAI4i- G LOWS. Before voting for Propositio- W. ask yourself this quest w; WHOM DO You TRUST? The liquor industry. whlch is spoinoring Proposition M. OR The fallowing group which ere supporting Proposition 134. the "Nit k6o-Drink Alcohol Tax lnittatiwx The California Association of Higitway f itro}nvo The California Courted on Akoitoi F:oaioun California Consort wn b;r the Prevention of Child Abuse The Am=can CAleita of Emergency Pbysiciam Cal fo:stfs Council of Community Mental Health Ageacia The Califorala Council an Children and Youtz Don't be fvoW by the ve aruvants of the akrohol industry. PRE-EMPT THE THE MUTIA3TTIVE ATTEMPT TO VOTE "NO" on PROPOSITION 1i16. VOTE "YES" on PROPOSITION 134. STEM C. MADISON Prnidas; Board of Direeters CdO nsia Cowinvasn fcr the Prevention of Ciii4l Abwt DL DONALD K BOWMAN Zemlia Director, Cat(fontia Coune i on A4vhol Pmblow CHIEF DONALD 1. BU RNM Provident, Col4fornia Police Chiefs Asw,.Iiadoe Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 126 Voters should compare ?topositions 196 and 134. We're sure youll agree: Proposition lei is a berm approach. SPENDS WHAT IT WFS ?rcpositioo 126 only spends what it actually raises in alcohol trxes—nearly 9" million annuall . Proposititm 134, in the first year. spends three tit w more money than raises. NO IMPACT ON OTHEk TAXES Proposition 126 has NO buiden income or sake tax increases• Proposition 134 ituarantees a few government p agrams more money eve .-y year. fore -es. F.-Mwidon 1344annual budget #AVlato►t wtust be pard for oy our income and gala taxer- The o er option: cut other important programs' budgets—like firefighting, senior care and transPorGstfost. ft o%xy FOR SCHOOLS Proposition 126 could�ive +rlarly it billion neer 10 years to public rci:oa::.t!Yr moot ef.srtive place for prevention education. Eduestors—ince the Csliforria Teachers Association r:ld California School Admimr+Mors—support Proposition 126. Proposition 134 directs NO +Honey to public sch,41s. FAIA TO C6ASU1 us Proposition :26 increases beer and liquor taxes to the national avemo .. Proposition 13„ inercases alcohol taxes to twiCe the national everaBo--that s unfair to consumers. BUDGET COMMOU Proposi!ion 126 will receive vtroog budget and spending controls. Programs recei%* Pmpodtton 12i rnottey must justify annually that out tax dollars are spent effiekntly. Proposition 134 programs get more money every yearwhetherthey need it or not. No citizens car government groupp will oversee � Pro tion 134 expendirires. Money can be spent or. Ice equipment acrd salaria. Vote for the better aicohel tax proposition. - 1T -C O1 %pOPOSIT o% 1£5 'vO 01 norosrnos 134 JERRY PIERSON Secretary/Treamrrr Cnlifornie Council of Police and Sheriffs ;Cal -cops, SALL`.' DAVIS former Dirtctor, Stara Dspar:ment of Drug and A?:ciao: Priarems KIRK WEST Presirent, California Chamber of Cornmerer 16 C90 Arguments printed on this p+ye W rf,P authors and have not beer. chert ed Far accuwe}, by any official agency 1!i OCT OS '90 15 51 LCC -916,,_4,44-8671 PROPOSITION 134 Analysis of Impact on Cities P. 7 Proposition 134 is an initiative statute and constitutional amendment (increased revenues outside the Appropriations limit) that addresses the need for additional revenue for drug and alcohol problems. It is referred to as the Nickel -a - Drink initiative. Proposition 134 is a competing measure to Proposition 126. Summm of ' Proposition 134 would raise the surtax on beer from 4 tD 57 cents a gallon, on most wines from 1 cent tD $129 a gallon and on distilled spirits from $2.00 to 58.40 per gallon. It is estimated that Proposition 134 would generate approximately $360 million in the remainder of fiscal year 199021 and $760 million in 1991.92. The measure guarantees that the current level of state funding would remain at the current levels for e:dsting state programa mthe areas of health, metal health, law enforcement, social service and drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment, with annual adjustments for pepulation and cost increases. The revenue rai sed f mn the surtax would be in addition to this statefuading. Surtax revenuewouldbe devoted to emergency medical and trauma care treatment, law efameim mental health and other health and social services. Local and state law enforcement would receive twenty-one percent of the proceeds from Proposition 134. Fifty pe=M cf the 21 percent, would be distributed to cities, based oA their population, and fifty percent distributed to counties. This money would be for the enforcement eELm prohibiting DUI of alcoholic beverages or any other drug and for the enforcement of alcobol- and other drug-related laws. Amounts will also be devoted tD city and county recreation and park programs that address alcohol and other drug impacts on public parks and facs'lities. State and local sales tax revenue would also increase. Im�eities; Under Proposition 134, twenty one percent of the revenues would be devoted to local programs a% stated above. Another lesser amount would be available for parks and recreation programs. A statewide emergency medical air tramportation network would be developed. Local sales taxes would increase as a result of Proposition 134 because of the increased cost of alcoholic beverages. The measure would presumably result in deaeased drug and alcohol abuse in cities. Related Policies et Positions of title: The League has existing policies supporting the need for increased drug prevention and enforcement programs, both at the state and local levels. 'The League also supports additional financial assistance from the state for such programs. The League generally has opposed earmarking go state funds, similar to the provision of Propositiot. 134 to guarantee current levels of state funding for a variety of state programs. Issue: 'Khat position, if any, should the League take on Proposition 134? Is this an appropriate way to raise revenue frr anti-drug programs? Are there potential problems with using the sales tar approach oumvighed by the need for increased funding at the local level? How should the League resolve two possible conflicting policies -- namely the suppon for increased funding at the state and local level for drug-related programs with opposition to earmarking of state funds. (This measure also is being reviewed by the Community Services Committee and Revenue and Taxation Committee). Committee Recommendation: 28 ,..,...00T 1 i5:52 LCC -916/444-9671 p,g Alcohol Surtax. Constitutional Amendment. 13411nitiative Statute Official 'title and Sumnxarys ALCOHOL SURTAX. CONSTTTL'•TIONAL A-'►4E.tiDMEW. MIAMI! STATUTE • Establishes Alcohol Surtax Fund to Slate Treasury. • Imposes surtax of five cents ppeegr 1St ounces beer: 3 ounces most winesi l ounce distilled spirits. • Imposes additiasial par wait floor stoc tan. • Proceeds deposed inice Alcohol Sarni Fuad. • Guarantees 2980-a0 aonsstrtast Awohng with required enwial adjustments, and appropriates Surtax Fund revenges for iacteas•d fundins for alcohol and drug abuse prevention, treatment and recovery progrAms (24%); emeriency medical care (23%); community xaental health programs (1390); child abuse nal domestic in! v- prevention training and victim services (1596): alcoi:ol and drug related law easfortemetlt.calm other propaats (21%). Summary of Legislative Analyst's Wiliam of Net State and Local Goi mme tt Fiscal Impacts • Surtax would increase tax an bees from 4 eencs to 57 cents per gallon, most wines from 1 cent to $129 per gallon. and distilled spirits from 82 to $SAO per gallon. • The sueeax would took in additional stat rawentsa of approximately $360 million in 199x.&1 and $760 measi in 1891-8R, depaa V on alcohol sales. • Stat Ceoesvl Fmd revessues ectad it crease or decrease several million dollars due to effect on ales tax revenues gad revewm fry existing alcoholic beverage tozes. • Local sales tax revetttse would Increase by several million dollars. • The guarantee for IM40 level notttrtax funding, with required annual adjustments, for various health. juxettti bealsh. criminal justice and other programs could increase costs by 8180 million its 199041 and over $300 million is 1991-+92; possibly additional tens of millions of dollars in subsequent yestrs. • These costs would Lava to be funded from revenues other than surtim • Fxpaaditure of surtax revenues for prevention and treatment programs could result in future savings. Analysis by tate T., &Iative Analyst Sackvound Currently. the state taxes alcoholic beverages at the rate of 52 per gallon on liquor (&sHUed spirits), 4 cents per gallon an beer, and I cent per gallon on most wines. This year. the state will collect about $128 million from these taxes Most cf the revenue (76 percent) w i I I come from the tsx on liquor. These revenues go into the state's General Fund to pay for education, health, welfare, and other governamt programs. Propwal This treasure has four major parts: • Akohol Sort= It imposes a surtax --a to collected in 1"tion to the existing state alcoho: taxon bee., wine. and liquor. • Requirententsfor Spending the Surtax Revenues. It creates the Alcohol Surtax Fund into which iU surtax revenues Would be deposited. It also specifies how this mon!y would oe spent e Cuoronterd Funding Level for Existing State PrOgrams. In addition to specifying hou the new revenucit from. the surtax would be spent, the measure establishes a guaranteed funding level for certain existing state programs. Specifi.al:y, is requires the. state to keep the funding fur a broad M1 variety of health, mental health. law enforcement, social services, and drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment programs at their 1989-90 funding levels plus annual adjustments for population and cost increases. • Conflict With Another Measure on This Ballot. It contains language stating bow a conflict with another measure on this ballot is to be resolved. Alcohol Surtaxes. This measure adds surtaxes to the existing state tax or beer, wine, and liquor beginning January 1, 1991. The new surtaxes would increase the state tax on beer from 4 cents to 57 cents per gallon, the tax for most wines would increase from 1 cent to 31.29 per gallon, and tl:@ tax on liquor would increase from $2 to $8.40 per gallon. As a result, taxes would go up by 30 cents on a six-pack of beer, by 25 cents on a bottle (730 milliliters) of most wines, and by 81.27 on a bottle (730 milliliters) of liquor. Hou: Surtax Becenus. Will be Spent. The measure requires the state to spend the revenues from the surtax fcr the following purposes: • Alcohol and Drug Abuse ; revention and Treatment Twenty -lour pereent of the revenues %vould be used for alcohol and drug abuse preventio;i and treatment services. 29 Cyt► OCT 05 '90 15:53 LCC-9iCX_444-8671 e Emc•rgancy Medical and `'y_.,.auma Cars • Tm atment. Twenty-five percent of the revenues would be used for emergency medical and trauma care treatment. • .Manta! Nealth. Fifteen percent of the revenues would be used forsloeally:implemented.community > mental health e' Verioesse thl o $oc41- Services. Fifteen percent of the revenues would be used for prevention, treatment. and health services for autl disabled Persona• P.9 approval requirements. V1' ew or increased special taxes enacted through the initiative process. Propositio» 138` also requires that. any special taxes imposed on personal prop' be imposed on the value of the property `This' measure: (Propositioa'134) states that it would viol be affected by the metion`6f the State tfittstitution to which =� these new-egvircments would be added. Fiscal Effect Rnenve From the Now Surtaxes. T.hr alcohol urwes lrapo;ed by_this`measure would result in additional state:' •wM• --: a nFwy�y,•p, ;sorcsuw v�;atrrivwuaway , ww uNafsYN w! ;s�v!'�a ;rasp• - n - be -used for "various year) and a760 million 1h:'1991 92'T6rst full `year). rl:a ttewide erAerg v amount of slirtvc revenuesafter,.1991 would depend rk' on trends W 01cobol sates. All of the=revenues raised by .' ;<" W revenues only be the measure would be used to increase, service: in the for these programs areas descried above. s'in 1983-90. The Effect:"op`Reoenue Front Eza"ting Taxes. This leve to specify how measure also -IM increase or decreast, ata*e �3eiterul coag the specific Fund iavanues by several nnillion collars eagh year: due htegorie: desc ed to its efiecb an isles tai reveniloi Ld revenues 4irna the: Gsearontstd.sasdt�sg,tvel for Existing State W rams. The :disuse requires the state to keep •Mft for the five described above ;at F;; vie 1989-60 level with annwl . for Population rid cost increpea.'tbestate s>ote revenues fiom ow min to payy for these Meedfaading levels; :stead, it tvould have to we other state mouey. In 989-W, the state spent arose than 32 billion on Huss rograms. Asa result of the guarantee provided in this .teasure, the -state mould be required to ssud at least amount in the future, phu additiona� amounts to over population and cost increases. Conflict With Another Measure on This 'allot. Proposition 135 (the Taxpayers' Right to Vote .ct of 1990), also on this ballot, imposes new voter existing .alcoholic beverage taxes: ' Local 'sates tax ' revenues would increase by> several mSllion dollars - .. Coat:; of the Gr�arantrsd Fvndln�: Lensl. The requirement to keep riding for.:variety of health. mental health, crimen justice. and other "progr84= at their 196-W level, A a�j aments#or population avid - coat increases could izsitfally raise state coats by about $180 million in 1990-91 and by over $300.million in 1991-92. This latter amount could grow by teas of millions of dollars in each subsequent year. These costs would be funded by regular (nonsurtax) state revenues. Impact on Program Expenditures. Spending the sartax revenues on prevention and treatment programa could result in future state And local savings in various governmental programs. OCT 05' '90,IS:54 LCC -616'144-8671 P.10 134 Alcohol Surtax. Constitutional AmendmeAt ..' Initiative statute Ariramertt in Favor of Proposition 134 PROPOSITION 134 IS THE "ItiICKEL-A-DRINK" ALCOHOL TAX I.NTTIATIVE. Proposition 134 increases the excise tax on alcohol equal to a ••nickel -a -drink" and invests the proceeds to fight alcohol related Lro4aft Speclliatly. IN earmarks the revenues frost the rtekel-&Druck" Aleaiwl�i iNive fw. e Alcohol and drug Ause educ adm e Enforcement of driving, and other alcohol and drug related. laws. e Emergency am tratnnsi care treatment. • AlcoW and drug abusetion and recovery programa • Community mental health ZregtamL a Programs for innocent v:ctuns of alcohol abuse, including spousal and child abuse %%ft 1. • Programs for infittts with birth defects caused by drinking and drug use during pregnancy The idea for a ntckei-a•drink "user fee" originated with former Surgeon Cenral C. Everett ICttop who said: "Who could quarrel with a ntckera-dr ak Luer fee. - .. to help save lives." Who quarrels with a nickel -a -drink user fee? THE LIQUOR I.\`Di:MYI The liquor industry's motive for oRposing Propruitft 134 is twofold preserve its profits AND the station s lowest overall tax on Yost should vote YES on Proposition 134 because: • Alcohol costs California taxpayers over $13 billion annually. • A oohol is the leading cause of deeth among teenagers. • Californias ems medical case system is near collapse, largely because of= related accidenis and injuries. • About 6696 of alcohol Ls oonu med by only 119'0 of the people. • Approximately 33% of all mentally ill and homeless persons also have alceEtnt and drug ptobiems. • California has the lo"st alcohol taxes iii the nation. For instance. the tax on wine has been It per gallon since 1937; it has not chanced for 93 years. BEFORE VOTIING ON PROPOSITION 134. ASIC YOURSELF THIS SIMPLE QUESTION: WHOM DO YOU TRUSTe. The liquor_industry or the supporters of Proposition 134, which include CALiFORtiIA (.11W—41711S. MOTHERS AVAI.NST DRUNK DRIVING i:lltOp1 THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIAT104N OF HIGHWAY PATRGI.M0 THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL PROBM S THE CALIFOR1\1A COUNCIL OF CHURCHES THE C.{I.IFORNIA CONSORTIUM FOR THE PREV�'TION OF CHILD ABUSE THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS—.CALIFORNIA CHAPTER THE CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS' ASSO4hATlON THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEt'8 ASSOCIATION THE C LZORNIA COUNCIL OF COMMU*DIY ME1%TAL HEALTH AMCM THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH For the vast majority ority of the Californiam who drink moderately or not at nit, the "nada-dank"rax tall1 tort leu dusts .?', nuts a rerelc Preposition 134 targets the heavy drinkers—the gunk drivers ;Ind alcohol abusers who cause most of the deaths and injuries attributable to al,ohoL Proposition 134 will provide 4780 million annually for programs that alcohol related t rcbli ms in rd&mia. PLEASE REMEMBER ALSO TO VOTE NO ON PROPOSITIONS 120 AND 138. Both ant spotuamd by thtr liquor industry as pert of its compaign to defeat Propositu►n 1JI. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION '134. THE '•N1CX F.L-A- DRINTC" ALCOHOL TAX INTI nATIVE. DR. DO-14ALD M. BOWWN Ata ntivo Dinrctor, California Council on Alcohol Prvhkwu MICHAEL P. TRAINOR. M.D. Prosidnr; American College of Vorwavy Physirians, State Chapter of California THOMAS A. NOBLE Preti&,A. California Association of Highway Patrvtmon Rebuttal tc Argument in Favor of Proposition 134 T.T"S NOT WHAT IT CLAIMS! Proposition 134 is not just a "nickel" alcohol lax. it requires spending more f it raises. EVERYONE PAYS • Proposition 114's author testified that automatic badger increases could be 00 to $100 million annually. • The Le ',!hive Analyst says Proposition 134 could spend tens to hundred, of millions of dollars snore than it ralses each year. • A Sensate Committee reports mandated spending could be $2 billion mon Maan prmded by alrohol taxes within a few Years. THIS SHORTFALL MUST` BE PAID BY THE GENERAL FUND—BY YOUR I COME AND SALES TAXES. lip cc $200 per z=ily yearl}, plus any alcohol surtaxes you ;ay FALSE PR0%fISES--MISPL1%CED PRIORITIES Proposition 134 fails to deliver on the promoters' promises. The ttuararteed sperdittg plan misses the snarl: • California Teachers Association opposes Proposition 134 Because no money is directed to public schoois for alcohol abuse progriirits. • Less that~ half the spending goes to alcohol abuse programs. Propmiuion 134 rperidi nearip as much nn liter, mVrol as oi-1 abuse ;arc". Rrttidn cornmunimhons. is Police and firefighters oppose Proposition 134 because tlttre nista mars goes to private phyrician subsidies than to drunk drirtng onfomment BAD GOVERNSI N'T Proposition I34 requfres automatic spending increases ""allg. above the alcohol tux. There is no annual revirzs or oversight to ensure spending increases are needed. Wasteful or unneeded progra.,W cannot he cut by the Legislature or Governor. It never ervins. so socuding h,. es increase f6mver. Proposition 134 is a bad lag all of us will pay for. tote "NO" on 134. MARC KERN, PhXX Addiction Alternatives Research is Treatment Center FOBERT B. HAMILTO?► President, C41.fiornia State Fireneon i .4wm. DANA W. REED Former Director, C.at(f Dept. of Traffr Safety .. 3L - 46 Arguments prirtW on this page are the opinions of the authors and have r,,)t beer, checkcn; fo: accuracy b> any official agent.. C90 OCT 0 '90 15:55 LCC -9144-8671 P.II Alcohol Surtax. Const.;utional Amendment, Initiative Statute Argument Again st Proposition 134 VOTE NO m Proposition 134. T✓:it it no► just an Wcobol Asx. Despite its claims. Proposition 134: . Locks in spending of 81.9 billion in its first year ($11 bion in current general fund monies. pits new alcohol taxes of 8730 million) and DICTATES ANNUAL BUDGET VCREI►S£S that we all pay. e T!Ire-.--is tax increases --Ear all taxpilers—to fund annual budget incl r.:.. - ;ter only alternutive is to cut important state programs:. • Di:+ : i lio monies to pubo scbools for prevention programs. . Spened most funds on prcgmrj not related to alcohol or drug SPENDING EXCEEDS ALCOHOL TAX' 134 penalize, all Californians"-»otjust drhikers—bv FAR MORE THAN THE TAX RAISES. it locks in $1.2 uillicn i :rant state spending—then requires annual budget :ncreaQt :cb all taxpayers must pay for. These. -yet increases are tied to California's explosive population -rowth. ;fi^ea Sectson. =40. Proposition i34 per -capita spending level escx:atcr dame".; Proposition 134 could evenrtally spend five times more than i; raises. We wail pay either through income or other tax increases or through redu:ctiors in vital state raqq,ams. °rrooppooaaltlon 134 such salty $totes vONE OF 7MSE d!A 1:VA FORY SPENDING 1NCREA'SFS rANOF ,•'.41D BY MALCOM SI-RTAx THREATENS IMPORTANT SERVICES r: $•.tion 134 threatens funds for programs like senior citizen ::vital welfare. safe food and agdculture. prisons, conservation �t -:-e ;rJtection by creaeng-new demands on the General Fund. The :,eKalative Analvst estimates these 1NMEASES COULD COST' sa MCJ1JO.V IN 771E NEXT TITIC 1,EARS OTHER ; AX INCREASES State in=—ac or sales rxes miv be requimd because Proposition 134 '70$11 mrllsens ►nave+:hon it Mimi A Se:.a a s3udget Lamm lee investigation found deficits could res..'h 11341 82 billion. -equal to a VW income tax for every California family -on top of the alcohol tato. SCHOOLS GET NOTHING Prcposition 13, deprives California public schools of any right to Alcohol Surt•u funds. The bon answer to alcohol .Suse and illegal drug use is ptevendnn education. Yet Proposition 134 giver nod ung to ichoois for;, vw.ttibn NO FUNDS FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPARTMENT Less than half of Proposition 133 spending actually goes to fight illegd drug use or alcohol abuse., Proposition 134 scatters funds to a dozen proyms.,bimut not onscent goes to Califanda's De�parmtettt of A tom n ragr LOnly3 percent of its 8730 mL n tax you to fight drug, the prvgrM that should be the Number One public safety prarity In our state. BI_AMC CHECK F04 WASTE Even if you like higher alcohol taxek consider that Propodoon 13+: e Mandates higher government spendfnp entry year, whether wor a or not. whether money ., .ueded or not. • �matual iacxeases;% if fraud Aww or abuse are groiam e Pro ib1ts the Governor and ..egislatwe horn cutting these budgets, wen for disasters or financial crises. e Esemj* several hundreds of indli'ont of dollsta of government froe stole's coadfaravaol Spoiling limit e no m thcipe usm dam. so spending increases moor to forever. problem youin to 'N0 on Proposition 13C It creates mar.•, more FRANS M. JORDAN Police Chid City and County of Son Frant:seo LARRY MCCARMY PraaMe*4 Cal(h;: nia Taspayem Associatie+t iiElp3lEit9' L SALINGER Forow Ereeulive, Director, Cal(for»ia School Boards Atwdd e" Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 134 ., op_cnent :f the"� ;rel `. D &V* Laitiative is tate liquor lobby ere spend;rg more visa M million t:�irg to cottf„se :raters orifi: . .ixeding utforr^ah+�r. cpt s.: Cn nS ,fiver 140 nA'!ion annualiy for almhol se obs and i:, the community. : .o: t_ho� Spea:iiag exceeds alcohol tut T.ct Prepo-iucr. 134 supplements current iund:ng for alcoato =: etatac protgr acts and services. A *'safety clause" in Prop. 134 ;aarantees that po-itician, will no., be a!lowed -o cut back or current furdin g for aicohc;-:elated programs and seiv.ces wbeu the Nickel•A-Drink funds become available. Thi: "safety clause" is what the 'iu--r lob -by is catlins the "escalator clause.'" Pro;. 134 does no' L-ierease other taxes. Inste.d. $760 -nil-hon in alcoSoi taxes u;'! be added revenue for our Citi -s. counties and state aleohoi-:elates; F^rograr:s and services Laquer !cbby: "Ord} 3% hoes to fight drunk C.nvttig... Fact: Prop. 134 uill prov:ae up to Sl29 m",on for :ne erforce:rdnt cf drum ''%ring laws. Liquor lobby: -No funds fou aleci of ind drug de tment." Fact: Every nickel of tha `:ickel :A -Drink tax wilispent for alcohol related services and programs; v -vice_ hike chi d abuse programs. alcohol abuse education in public schools. and programs for the vi_turts of drunk drivers By pa}irg a nickel-s-firink more. peopic w!,c drink alcohol car, contribure to coveting VP. ^^sts related tr, ;heir behavior. We think :hat's fair anti respe:rsi! y urge you to, vote yes on Frapoetian 134. HARRY SNYDER Wait Coast Dinrsor. Ccraamen L'niu^. U.S.. 1ne. Publisher of Consumer Reports RIC LOYA Exec. Director, Cs Assoc. of S.hooi H4uh.. i,ducatory )ACQULINT E MASSO Santa Clara County Chopter of Mothers.4gaiasi Drur+:. Dricing 11Mi %01)i 32 C90 Argumen, panted or. this page are the opinions of tate author+ and hive not been checke' for ;.ccumcy bu• any offichd agenc.. 4: Special =j CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 Overview of November Ballot Propositions Following are brief summaries of the 28 measures that will appear cn the November ballot. The arguments pro and con tine based. on arguments submitted for file voters' pamphlet. Proposition 124 Public Finance. Allows the Legislature to authorize local hospital districts to acquire and own sbxk Cf 6-0tporations that engage in ar►y health cam -related business, subject iD the Same.)bligations and liabilities as are imposed an all other stockholders in these corporations. Placed On Ballot W: ACA 29 (Leslie). Chanber Position: No Position Proposition 125 Motor Vehkle Fuels, Tax Revenues. Exclusive PublicM3W Transit Guide- ways. authorizes use of motor vehicle fuel tart revenues for the acquisition of rail transit vehicles..nd rail transit equip- ment which operate only on exclusive public mass transit guideways. Placed Ch Ballot By: ACA 32 (Coma), Chamber R)sW= Support Proposition 126 The Alcohol Abuse and Drug Educa- tion Tax Act of 1490, imposes excise tax and excise surtax on beer, wine and distilled spirits. as specified. that would supercede such taxes previously imposed and would be in lieu of all county. city or district taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages. Placed on Ballot By. ACA 38 (Cortese). Chamber Position: Support Arguments For: 1. The measure. supported by abroad bipartisan coalition of educators. alcohol Proposition 127 Property Taxation. New Construction exclusion. Allows Legislature to exclude from "new constriction" the construction or installation of seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements using earthquake -hazard relief technologies. Arguments For: 1. Allowing hospital districts to acquire and own stock to health-related businesses will allow district hospitals the oppc rtunity forjoint ventures and pamw-ships; dpe use cf economic and innovative ways to broaden services; and the ability to compete cn equal ground with private hospitals. 2 This meas ure grants district hospitals ways of operating more efficiently, by giving them some of the Arguments For: 1. By allowing state and local agencies flexibility to use existing rail funds for the most necessary rail capital improvements, this measure will increase efficiency. I By providing more seats. an addi- t i oral funding source for equipment and allowing trains to run more often. the initiative will benefit rural and urban ILts cf the srate and continue to reduce gridlock on overburdened freeways. abuse experts. taxpayer advocates, fanners. and other community leaders, vculd help prevent alcohol abuse among children by allocating nearly $1 billion to schools over a I0 -year period. 2 Funds raised by :his measure could be used effectively in such programs as hiring new officers to increase drunk driving patrols; treating alcoholics in trauma centers and mental health facilities: curing alcoholics in rehabilita- tion and recovery programs: and stepping up the war on illegal drug use and alcohoi abuse. 3. The money raised by this proposi- Qualified improvements would be defined by the Legislature. Piaked On Ballot By: SCA 33 (Rogers) Chamber Position: No Position Arguments For: 1. As confirmed by the October 17. 1989 earthquake, it is much less expen- sive to strengthen buildings than to pay for the consequences of economic tools their competitors already have. Arguments Against: 1. No govemment agatcia can own corporate stock and allowing hospital districts to do so sets a bbd preadgrt. - 2 Unlike priyau• hospitals.pablic hospitals do not make decisions to make a profit for their investors. d- refore, public hospitals do riot compete with private hospitals and should not cb so at order to k et p the stock mm*et private. Arguments Against: 1. Since gasoline tax revenues would be reduced by the amount of reduced automobile use (resulting from increased transit utilization), taxes would have to be raised to make up for the shortfall. 2. The proposition requires millions of Californians who wi I I never have access to the tax -funded nass transit facilities to pay for those w ho live o i public mass transit routes. tion comes strictly from a tax on beer. wine and distilled spirits; not one penny comes from income, sales or other taxes. Arguments Against: I. New tax revenues from this measure will be deposited in the state general fund. to be spent at the discretion of the state Legislature. 1. Nothing will be done to address the negative impacts and costs of alcohol abuse to California taxpayers. 3. This initiative does not guarantee Funding for alcohol and drug use educa- tion. programs affected by alcohol abuse or enforcement of chunk driving laws. disruption. demolition. rebuilding and even de:;ih, 2. The insignificact loss of property tax revenue in the short term is a small and f air price to pay for long-term earthquake safety, Arguments Against: None filed. �Special R . SEPTEMBER 21. 1990 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER CF COMMERCE Pi'Oposltit�n �. 19a'tural Envirornnent.Nhk Health. &rids. Initiative Statute. Also referred to as the Hayden initiative and "Big Green." Requires regulation of pesticides toe nsum food and agricultural worker safely, phases out theca=e of cancer-causing pesticides and chemicals (thought tD deplete the ozone layer) on . food Would te4* ioducdon in': emissions of gases contn'buting to global warming and rega ire oil spill prevendon and contingency plans. Establishes an office of statewide environmental ` ' , . advocate, to be elected "in the'same' - manxr as the Governer" to impleti.tnt the measure, and to enforce "all the laws of d -e State of California relating to envitvrtrnental research and public health" Appropriates $40 million for environmental research and authorizes the salt of 3300 mir!ion in general obligation bonds for ancient rtdwoods acquisition and forestry proieM Proponents: T13u Hayden, U o y d Connelly, Albert H. Meyerhoff, Bob Proposition 129 Crimes. Ta.,.ation. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Appropriates $561 million in 1991 to state and local governments for drug enforc,.-ment and tr atment, and for gang -related purposes, with additional funds allocated in subsequent years. Raises funds by conforming state corporate tax laws with federal talc laws and authorizing the sale of $740 million in general obligation bonds for drug abuse. confinement and treatment facilities. Includes Proposition 115 Proposition 130 Forest Protection. Timber Harvesting. Bond Act. Initlative Statute. Authorizes issuance of $742 million in general obligation bonds to fund a 10 - year state acquisition program and limited logging moratorium, permitting public acquisition of designated ancient forests providing wildlife habitat. Requires state -funded compensation. a retraining program for loggers displaced by new regulations.wiidlife surveys and mitigation measures, among oil cr Mulholland. Michael Picker. Cart Pope and John Il Van de Kamp. Chamber Position: Oppose Arguments For: 1. In 1985 theNatiaal Center for Health Statistics issued a study stating that overall medical costs for ca nce r in California exceed $7 billion a year. 7he initiative will save billions of dollars in health cane and energy costs byprotect- m CaliforrtWd from toxic chemical pollution of air, water and food. 2 While phasing out chemicals that destroy theozone layer, cancer-causing pesticides on food, and toxic -chemical contamination in drinking and coastal waters, the initiative will provide $40 million for research on safer substitutes. Arguments Against: 1. New regulations would cause food prices to escalate by 30 perctnt; electric- ity by 20 percent; and gasoline by 60 cents per gallon. 2 ft measure includes theequiva- lent of 12 pieces of legislation; there are too many important issues to be voted on together. provisions related to criminal justice and removes right to privacy in state Constitution that limits criminal defen- dants' rights to those granted by the U.S. Supreme Omrt through its interpretation of the federal Constitution. Proponent: John Van de Kamp. Chamber Position: Oppose Arguments For. 1, The initiative provides funding for needed drug enforcement agents. 1 It clarif es ambiguous language in current law that protects a woman's light to an abortion in California. 3. Closing state corporate tax loop- holes will raise $220 million to fight provisions. the measure limits timber - cutting practices. logging sites and burning of forest residues. Proponent: Thomas Lippe. Chamber Position: Oppose Arguments For: I. The proposition prevents global warming by preserving big trees which absorb carbon dioxide and provides jobs by guaranteeing a lasting timber supply. 2. The measure was w r i t. by forestry experts and is supported by more than 100 environmental and civic organizations. 3. The initiative would give broad, authority over all environmental issues to a single individual. would create the potential for thousands of new lawsuits against state and local govemmtnts, and would force burinesses to comply with hundreds of new government regula- tions. 4. Many provisions in this initiative duplicate existing law, depend on scientific applications yet to be devel- oped or mimic legislation tat: failed last year. For example: supporters propose to cancel all cancer-causing ingredients by January 1996, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture already is reviewing all pesticides to eliminate those known to cause cancer, the initiative requires scientists iD produce an alternative to CFCs and halons (blamed for the opening in the ozone layer) by 1997, and there seem to be no viable options to these rtfriger- ants, coolants and solvents at this tire. drugs every year for the next eight years. Arguments Against: 1. Corporate tax loopholes already have been closed as part of the budget - balancing process this yertr, no new funds remain. 2. Earmarking new tax dollars is bad public policy. 3. The need for the initiative is questionable since voiers just approved a 5450 million bond act for prisons in June. Arguments Against: I. By reducing timber harvesting by 70 percent. the measure puts more than I W.000 Californians out of work. 2. The initiative politicizes the timber harvest approval process. results in a buildup of hazardous forest debris (which could lead to catastrophic fires) ,.id significantly inercuses consumer prices for new iomes. timber and I:apei products. p �' ecialReport CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEPTEMBER 21, 1990. Proposition 131 Govemwent Officials. Ethics. Cam- paign Financing. Initiative Constitu- tional Amendment and Statute. Limits terms of statewide elected officials and members of the Legislature. Statewide elected officials could serve no more than eight successive years in office: state legislators and members of the Board of Equalization could serve no more than 12 successive years. Limits gifts to elected state and local nfiicials. prohibits honoraria and the use of public resources for personal or campaign purposes. and enlarges- conflict of interst. remedies against legislators and state- wide officeholders. Establishes cam- paign-contr:htttion limits for elective offices and provides for partial public funding for candidates to state office who agree to the limits specified. Proposition 132 Maine Resources. Initiative Constitu- donal Amendment. Proposes to establish a Marine Protec- tinh Zone within three miles of Souther California coastal waters between Point Arguello and the Mexican border. Bemo en 3anuary 1.1991 and December 31. 1993. the use of gill nets or trammel nets in the zone would be subject to an additional permit with fees ranging from $250 in 1991 to $1.000 in 1993. Starting January 1, 1994, use of gill or trammel nets within the zone would be pmh i b - Proposition 133 Drug Enforcement and Prevention. Taxes. Prison Terms. Initiative Statute. Increases state sales and use taxes one. half cent for four years beginning with the 1991-92 Psca! year. Deposits money in a "safe streets fund" to be used for anti-drug education (42 percent). anii- drug law enforcement (40 percent). prisons and j ails (; u percent) and drug treatment (8 percent). Seeks to prohibit early release of persons convicted twice or murder; manslaughter. rare or other sexual assault; mayhem: sale.1 issession for sale, transportation or manufacturing of large amounts of drugs. selling drugs to minors on schoolgrounds or p!ay- grounds: or usin:! minors to se -1 drugs. Expands the restrictions on lobbying activities by former elected officials. Proponents: John Van de Kamp, John R Phillips and Tan McEnery. Chamber Position: Oppose Arguments For. 1. Proposition 131 gives people with diffeivnt viewpoints, including wormen and minorities. Meoppottunity to run for political office. 2 The initiativeputs an endo special interest contributionsby placing strict limits on contributions. 3. Proposition 131 establishes voluntary public financing. at no cost to the taxpayer, for campaigns that provide matching funds for candidates who run for office. thereby ending candidates' dependence onpowerful lobbyistsand wealthy interests, Arguments Against: 1. With the creation of a tax-fnrrded ited. Revenues from permit fees provide compenswionto fishermen for the loss of permits after January 1, 19^4. Proponent: Doris Allen. Chamber Position: No Position Arguments For: 1. According to the U.S. Mst;m Mammal Commission. 72 percent of all fish species caught in gi!I nets have no commercial or economic value. 2. Gill nets broken free of their fishing boats (ghost nets) ta4 e 400 years to biodegrade and have already been banned along tht coasts of Canada. Oregon and Washington. Proponent: Leo McCarthy. Chamber Position., Oppose Arguments For: 1. Proposition 133provides more funding for anti-drug education and law enforcement programs and takes away ealy release and good behavior credits for repeat violent crime offenders. 2. The half cent sales tax money u,oulu be used specifically forpurposes stated above and not be diverted for anything else. 3. This measure. endorsed by many major law enforcement organizations in the state, will put thousands more police officers on the street. Arguments Against: 1. Earmarking statesv;de sales tax t'onds is bad public policy. ?. The sales tax is traditionally campaign fund Proposition 131 will shift to political campaigns millions in tax dollars now used for education, prisons and health care. The programs must continue to be funded or vital services will be cut. 2 The mea sure d x zt't limit cam- paign spending: it allows for taxJollars to be matched with contributions. 3. The Department of Finance and legislative analyst estimate state general fund revenue will drop by $12 million because Proposition 131 permits a tax mbfmt checkoff of $3 10 go for campaign funding. Arguments Against: 1. This measure will increase Califor- nia's imports of fish from other nations. 2 Gill nets are used safely offshore Oregon. Washington. Canada and central and southern California: they are used in San Francisco Bay. Tomales Bay, H o m bo I d t Bay and the Klamath River. considered a re v en u e source for the general fund. Becaure Proposition 133 earmarks the funds it raises. other programs will have to be cut to comply with the Proposition 98 guarantee that K-14 education; receive 42 percent of general fund monies. . 3. After four years. this proposed sales tax may be revoked, but the programs must continue to be funded. much to the deiriment of other state programs. such as care for the elderly. health care and higher education. 141 Special R SEPTEMBER 21. 1990 _ CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Prnpdsition 134:} Alcohol Surtax Hurl. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and statute. 21poses an additional tax on alcohol products (5 cents per 12 ounces ofbeer. five ounces cf wine, three ounces of fortified wine. one ounce of distilled spiritsand an additional per unit floor stock tail. Resulting revenues would he deposited in the newly czffitedAlcohol Surtax Rued to be appropriated for. among other things. alcohol and drug abuse prevention, trtatmcnt and rerov- b iti0 `135 Pestkride Regulation. Initiative statute. Proposes to expand the state program for monitoring pesticide residue in produce andprctssed foods. Mandates review of cancer-causing pesfiddes. establishes state training and information programs for pesticide users, crates new and modifies existing pesticide -related state advisory panel$, creates a state -ap- pointed advocate to coordinute pesticide policies and provides for state disposal of unregistered pesticides. Appropriates $5 million annually Through 1995 for pesticide research. Provides that. in the Prob•tion 136 State.Local Taxation, initiative Constittsfi oal Ametedm-mL R eq u', res that any ne w tax or any increases in existing state general or special tmwbe approved by two-thirds of each house ofthe Legislature. New taxes or tax increases enacted by the initiative would require majority vote of voters voting for general taxes, a two- thirds vote for special taxes, Among other things, restricts use of IocaI special taxes b purposes for which they were imposed, limits tax rate on new state Proposition 137 Initiative and Referendum Process. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Requires voter approval of any statute that "provides the manner in w h is l i statewide or local initiative or referen- dum petitions are circulated. presented eryprograms. emergency medical care. community mental health programs, child abuse and domestic violence prevention training and victim service, alcohol and drug-related law enforce- ment costs. The funds are to be supple- mental and not meant to replace existing funds. This measure is also called the Connelly initiative. Proponent: Andrew McGuire. Chamber Position: Oppose Arguments For. 1. Approximately 33 percent of all mentally ill and homeless persons also have alcohol and drug problems, case of competing perticide-related initiatives on the ballot. the pesticide - enforcement provisions of the measure rec ving tete most votes supersede sh,,..ar provisions of the other, Sporn sored by the agricultural community as an alternative to;t#te Hayden initiative. it is known as,CREFUL: Proponents., David L Moore, JoPI Nelsen. Dennis H. Merwin, Bob L.. Vice and Leland H. Ruth. Chamber Position: Support Arguments For. 1. Doctors. scientists and nutritionists agree :be best cancer prevention is a healthful diet t ich in fresh fruits and vegetables. personal property taxes and extends to charter counties power of voters to increase local general taxes by majority vote. Provides for new state and local ad valorem, sales and transaction taxes on real property. Provides for temporary exception for state and local taxes for disaster relief. Also known as the Taxpayers Right to Vote Initiative. Proponents: Joel Fox and Richard Gann. Chamber Position: Support Arguments For: 1. By giving taxpayers the right to vote, Proposition 136 will make it more or certified." Also requires voter approval of any statute that prescribes the manner in which initiatives and referenda arc submitted to voters. Proponent: Joel Fox. Chamhev Position: No Position Argument For: The measure is necessary to protect 2. This measure targets the heavy drinkers, the drunk drivers and alcohol abusers who cause most of tite deaths and injuries attributable to alcohol. Arguments Against: 1. Pn)position 134 continues thetrend toward ballot box budgeting by earmark- ing the funds it raises, 2, This measure penalizes all Califor- nians by locking in 51.2 billion in current state spending and relying on tax Increases to fund annual budget it, creases. 2. By providing $2S million to develop safe alternative pest control methods, Proposition 135 can help provide an affordable and wholesome food supply. 3. Proposition 135 establishes 15 new programs for food safety and environ- mental protection. Arguments Against: 1. Must of Proposition 135 mpeats what is already California law. 2 The cost cf pesticide testing will be shifted fim the pesticide industries to the taxpaver. 3. The measure delays urgently needed pesticide refonn by creating a slow and ambiguous process. difficult for politicians to use special taxes as a means cf getting around the tax limitations of Proposition 13. 2. Each year individual California households pay tax increases of more tKwi 51,350: this measure protects individuals fin such increases. Arguments Against: 1. Proposition 136 makes it nearly impossible to raise excise taxes. such as those on alcohol and cigarettes. and eliminates accountability to taxpayers. 2. The initiative tries to wipe out any other measure on the ballot which does not follow its special interest rules. people's votes before any changes are made in the initiativeproce,;s. Argument Against: This initiative would prevent the Legislature from passing laws to protect the people • stepping misleading initiative campaign practices - without costly ba.riers and years of delay. ^ Special RepotY rsl ORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 Proposition 138 Forestry PMagarnTimber Harvest- ing. Bond Act Initiative Statute. Authorizes a $300 million general obligation bond issue to supporta loan/ grant program-, Limits timber cutting practices and requires state -approved timber and wildlife management plan on timberlands exceeding 5,000 acres. Mandates wildlife resources and timber- land studies, allows state acquisition of specified timberiands and bars forced purchase of others for a 10-yearperiod. Introduced as an alternative to Proposi- tion 130, Sponsored by the timber industry. µ•. � .Inmate Inbar. %K Credit. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and statute. Permits state prison altd county jail officials to contract with public entities. profit or ton -profit organizations. businesses and entities for prison labor. except in sttalms or lockouts. Adds statutes requiring the state prison dilutor to establish joint venture programs for employment of inmates. 'Inmate wages would be comparable to non -inmate wages for similar work and b.: subject to deductions for taxes. room and bard. lawful restitution fines or victim compensation, and family support. Allows inmate employers a 10 percent tax credit against specified state taxes. Proposition 140 Terms cf Ounce. Legislators Retire- ment Legislative Operating Costs initiative Constitutional Amendment. Limits stare senators. all statewide elected affiaers(exceptthe Insurance Commissioner). and mariners of the Board of Equalization to two terms. Also limits members of the Assembly to three terms. and requires legislators to partici• pate in federal Social Security and precludes accrual of other pension and retirement benefits resulting from legislative service. In addition, it would limit the Legislature's expenditures for compensation and for operating and equipment costs to amount specified in the measure. Proponent: George A. Craig. f'ham6er Position: Support Arguments Elr: 1. Thzs measure stripes a balance between eavir•ottnwr,tal, human and economic concerns by banning cleircut- ting, enacting a massive tree -planting program, imposing strict forest manage- ment regulations, keeping timber harvest decisions away from politicians and expanding state parks. 2. Timber harvest reducdo ns under Proposition 138 are far less than those that would be caused by Proposition 130. 3. The measure is supported by licensed professional foresters. wildlife biologists and other experts in forestry. Propotsentt George Nukmejian. Chambtr Position: Support Arguments Err: 1. Prison inmates employed in the program will reimburse the state cr county for a portion of their room and board: pay federal, state and local taxes; and provide restitution to crime victims. 2 Studies show that such programs keep inmates out of prison once they are back in society. For every inmate not retumingbprison. taxpayers would save $20,000 a year and there would be fewer crime victims. 3. Inmate employnwnt supports the emerging California industries and creates jobs now being exported over - 4, The inmate labor program is patterned after a California youth authority program resulting in $227,000 Proponent: Peter F. Schaburum. JG. Ford. Jr. and Lewis K. Uhler. Chamber Position: No Position Arguments Etre: 1. Proposition 140 means there will be no more lifetime legislators who have developed cozy relationships with special interests. 2 The measure ends extravagant pensions for legislators 3. Limiting terms will create more competitive elections. Arguments Against: 1. By preventing legislators from returning tooffice after two terms. Proposition 140 in effect takes away from voters t he i r right to select whom- ever the): wish to represent them. '_. The measure treats everyone the Arguments Against: I. Proposition 138 abolishes the forest reforms and protections of Proposition 130. 2 The measure increases the chance of global warming by allowing the increased dest=ion of forests. 3. This proposition is opposed by room than I00 environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, Audubon Society chapters and tris California League cf omxo%ekn tis paid to victims. $345,000 toward room and board costs,$ 18 1,000 for irv. n taxes and a lower rate of rtpeat offend- ers returning to the system This four- year-old program has had no security problems. Arguments Against: 1. Private employment of prisoners could lead to competition with labor unions and small business owners for workforce retention. 2 The initiative has no provision for job training. same; the competent and dedicated are lumped together with those who are not. 3. Proposition 140's retirement provisions hurt qualified officeholders whc are not rich and have to provide economic security for their families. Aft $Dedal ReDort" SUn MBER 21, 1990 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Proposition 141 Tozk Chem)cal Discharge. Public Agencies. Legislative Statute. Exters;is the requirements and civil penalty provisions of Proposition 65 to fexi xttl, gate and local government agencies and w ate r systems serving the public. The warning requirements are effective November 1991, and prohibi• boas against discharges am effective July 1M Restrictions not applicable to public sewage treatment plants. Provides exemptions to drinking water rcquirx Proposition 142 Worm' Bond Act of IV". Pmvides for a bond issue of $400 mi5m topro vIdo farm and home aid for CaYmnla veterans. Pboed An Ballot By: SB 2755 (Ro. Chamber Position: support Proposition 143 Hig w Education Facilit les Bond Act of Novetnber 19". ProYi4cs for a bond issue of $450 million to fund constructionlimprovc- tnesd cf facilities for the University of Cal)fornia, the California State Univer- sity. the California communitycoilegcs, Hastirtgs College of the Law, the California Maritime Academy, and off• compos facilities of the California State Proposition 144 New Prison Construction Bond Act of 1996-B. Prv6des for a bond issue of $450 million to provide funds to relieve oycrrruwding in the state's prisons and Cali fom i a Youth Authority facilities Proposition 145 California Housing Bond Act of 1990. W i s h e s a housing program address- ing the housing crisis in California by authorizing the use of funds from the First -Time Homt B i vers Bond Act of 1982, under which .h�, voters of this state audrotized a bond issu., of S200 million toprovide financial as.sistancv to first. mcnt, covering such cases as chemicals that arc present due to storm water runoff and chemicals put intodrinking water for public health pugmses. Also exemptschcmical release~; resulting from public agency's response to an emergency. such as firefighting. Placed On Ballot E�: SB 65 (Kopp). Chamber Position: No Position Arguments For: 1, Public agencies and public officials should be accountable for the same provisionsthat Proposition 63 requires forth.: private sector, Arguments For: 1. Since its beginning in 1921. the: Cal -Vet home and farm loan program has been entirely seif•wpporting and financial ! y safe aid wound. 2 The loans generate ttrousands of jobs. millions of dollars in paymli and economic opportun i t ies for at I the industries. University approved by university trusters ort o= before July 1. 1990, Placed On Ballot Bpi' AB 2479 (Nolan), Chamber Position: Support Arguments For: 1, This measure will =ojfttthod.ate increases in student enrollments. adapt higherlAucatim to new technology, strengthen the state's economy. and improve earthquake safety, 2 Higher education fuels innovations and technological breakthroughs, through new construction. Placed On Ballot Hsi: AB 524 (Murray). Chamber Ec tica: Support Argument For: 1, Overcrowding is a serious threat to public and prison staff safety. 2. This measure will provide funds to remove the criminal element from the time homebuyers, providing for a bond issue of $125 million to fund a housing and earthquake safety program. Placed On Ballot By; aB 2456 (Maddy). Chamber Position: Support Arguments For. 1. Housing prices in California have doubled in the last decade and ihis measure u ill make homeou ncrship a 2. The business community bears the burden and expense of added restrictions to offs.t emissions of unregulated public agencies. Arguments Against: 1. Drinking water already is regulated extc.tsively to pratec-t public health. 2. Proposition 141 may lead to water shortages because it makes no allow- ances for the beneficial use of chlorine. Arguments Against: I. A mc-ession will cause rnany ofthe veterans who own homes and fanns under CaI-Vet to default, leaving taxpayers to font the bill. 2 The economy can be re:Aved only by cutting back the size of government. reducing taxes and eliminating burdut- somc agencies trying to m a t e jobs. keeping Californiatm the cuttingedgc of new industries, Arguments Against: I. Construction for this measure could be paid for cut of the billions already set aside for the universities in the state budget. 2 Privrte businesses could be encour- aged to donate iwildirgx as tax-deduct- ible contributions, neighborhoods and keep it behind bars. Argument Against: 1, Funds for prisons reduce n i 1 oc a tions Cor praqmvis to help red u,, suture criminal behavior. 2 Prisons do not deter crime or rehabilitate offenders. reality formany families again. 2. Many livr in ,unsafe, unhealthy housing. Arguments Against: I. Mr m e a s u rc subsidizes persons malting over $80,000 a year, 2. Proposition 145 costs all ta.tpayers $30 m'.11ion a )-car for the next 30 pears to pay off the bonds. Special . CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEPTEMBER21, "M Proposition 146 School. Facilities Bond Act of 1990. Authorizes a bond issue of $800 million to provide capital outlay for construction or improvement of public Schools. Placed On Ballot By: AB 236 (Clute). Chamber Position: Support Proposition 147 County Correctional Facility Capital F_xpenditureaud Juvenile Facility Band Act of 1994 Authorizes issuance of $225 million in general obligation bonds for the con- struction, reconstruction, remodeling. replacement and deferred maintenance of county correctional facilities. juvenile facilities, and youth centers and shelters. Placed On BaW By: SB 1094 (Presley). Proposition 148 Water Resources Bond Act e. 1990. Provides for a bond issue of $380 million to provide funds for a water resources program. Makes changes in the Water Conservation Pond Law of 1988 relating to administrative fees and the California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976relating to loans. Placed On Ballot By: AB 1312 (Fi lante). Proposition 149 California Park, Recreation and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1990. Authorizes issuance of $437 million in general obligation bonds for acquisition. development, rehabilitation or restora- tion of real property for wildlife. park. beach. recreation, coastal, historic and Proposition 150 County Courthouse Facility Capital Expenditure Bond Act of 1990. Authorizes issuance of S2(A) million in general obligation Lumds for the construc- tion. reconstruction. remodeling. replace- ment and deferred maintenance of comity courthouse facilities. Placed Oil Ballot By: AB 2150 (W. Brown). Arguments For. 1. Overcrowding hurts learning. 2. The bonds are cost-effective and will help schools throughout California Arguments Against: 1. Proposition 146ignarts the possibility of shifting half of public school enrollment into private schools Chamber Position: Support Arguments For. 1. There is an immediate need for $39 million in fi re, heal t:h and safety repairs. renovations and replacement of existing juvenik halls and eanttps. 2 Youth centers and shelters are in need of more than $100 million, which can be funded by this measure. 3. Counties are encouraged to match funds for additional construction, and a required to demonstrate adre adequacy of care for mentally ill and inebriated Chamber Position: Support Arguments lx: 1. Providing urgently needed funding is crucial to ensure California's future is environmentally and economically sound. 2. Proposition 148 ensures safe drinking water. helps clean up rivers and streams. expands use of existing water supplies. provides assistance to drought - stricken areas and builds critical flood control projects. museum purposes. Placed On 13211o4 By. AB 145 Costa). Chamber Position: Oppose Argument Err: Through improving local parks in every community. expand ing/improv1ng state parks. protecting important wildlife habitat. and benefiting the coast and rivers. this measure meets California's Chamber Pusitiun: Support Arguu;;nts For: 1. Limited county courthouse facilities have resulted not only in overcrowding, but lung delays in bringing criminals to Justice. 2. The pond money will he issued to counties that comply with strict stan- dards. and the County Courthouse Facility Capital Expenditure Finance Committee will strictly implement and through a voucher system. 2 The bonds, when sold, will tr ,ass 72 million annually for paymera of ,IincilW and interest ,tines. 'an"ts Against: I.As khIS as tie govtn%n nt and GN -rates jails. their buildling aid upkeep should be a regularly b expenditure, 2 California's capacity ID issue bads is exceeding safe kvels. Arguments Against: 1. The control and cleanup of pollution in state waters should be base by commercial fanning and indwZy. 2 The water projects will cost abort $684 million in principal and in(ttcst over 20 years. increased demands for recreation and protects the environment. Argument Against: Almost S3 billion is already ccxrm'4- ted to state and local parks. and half Coe money has not been spent yet; if this measure were passed. the total alloation for CaGfomia's parks would be r&uiy $5 billion. oversee the program. ArgumentsAgainst: I. The courthouses are overcrowded, not f. ,r the lack of facilities. but because the justice system tries to control i'rl*. 2. The measure will indenture children aed more than double the cost of capital improvements through the interest paid to bond holders. Swdal Report �1 SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER CFCOMMURCE Proposition 151 Child Care Facilities Financing Act of 1990, Authorizes sale of S30 million in general obligation bonds tDprovide funds for child care facilities. Placed On Ballot Dpi: SB 78 (Watson), Chamber Position: Support. Argument For: in California 1.5 to 2.5 million children need child care outside the home; only 25 percent ars in child care licensed to rnect health and safety standards and less than 10petrent are in care that is ditrctly subsidized. 4rgument Against: Taxpayers should not pay high bond interest rates to"provide child cane facilities. Proposidon In Forest Protection. Timber Narvesting, Bond Act. Initiative Statute. California Chamber Positions on November: Ballot Measures-- Proposition 131 Government officials. Ethics. Campaign Financing. Initiative Constitutional Oppose Ballot Na Ameazdntent and Statute. Proposition 124 Public Finance. No Position Proposition 125 NbtIr Vehicle Fuels. Tax Revenues. Exclusive Public Maw Transit Guideways. Support og 426 : The Alcohol Abuse and Drug Education Tax Act of 1990, Sugptsrt ptopost ion, -04- Alcohol Surtax Fund. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Oppose Proposition 127 Property Taxation. New Consr action Exclusion. No Position Support Natural Environment. Public Health. Bonds. Initiative Statute. Oppose Proposition 129 Crines. Taxation. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Oppose Proposidon In Forest Protection. Timber Narvesting, Bond Act. Initiative Statute. oppose Proposition 131 Government officials. Ethics. Campaign Financing. Initiative Constitutional Oppose Ameazdntent and Statute. Proposition 132 Marine Resources, Initiative Constitutional Amendment. No Position Proposition 133 Drug Enforctmtnt and Prevention. Tines. Prison Tenns, Initiative Statute. Oppose ptopost ion, -04- Alcohol Surtax Fund. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Oppose Proosttton -135: Pesticide Regulation. Initiative Statute. Support 2? "Pr"ition .136 State, Local Taxation. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Support Propo,itim 137 Initiative and Referendum Process. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. No Position t Proposition 138 Forestry Program, Timber Harvesting. Bond Act. Initiative Statute. Support i pops: Prison Inmate Labor Tax Credit. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Su pport Proposition 140 Terms of Office. Legislators Retirement. Legislative Operating Costs. Initiative No Position Constitutional Amendment, Proposition 141 Toxic Chemical Discharge. Public Agencies. Legislative Statute. No Position Prcposition 142 Veterans. Bond Act of 1990. Support Proposition 143 Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of November 1990. Support Proposition 144 New Prison Construction Bond Act of 1990-B. Support Proposition 145 California Housing Bond Act of 1990. Support Proposition 146 School Facilities Bond Act of 1990. Support Proposition 147 County Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure and Juvenile Facility Bond Support Act of 1990. Proposition 148 Water Resources Bond Act of 1990. Support Proposition 149 California Park, Recreation and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1990. Oppose Proposition 150 County Courthouse Facility Capital Expenditure Bond Act of 1990. Support Proposition 151 Child Care Facilities Financing Act of 1990. Support