Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 17, 1984 (95)CITY COUNCIL MEETIll's OCTO3ER 17, 1984 I'itITICN 36 Mayor Snider addressed the Council regarding his concerns regarding Proposition 36 advising that "we" do not want to emphasize or speculate on Bolla: losses or threatened loss of service. Mayor Snider further stater; that "we" sinply do not know what the courts or legislature will do in the after math of a Proposition 36 passage. Mayor Snider concluded in listing a nurber of organizations and aplencies that have pub1ieIy opposed Proposition 36 and that after march consideration, ne (Mayor Snider) feels that the. Council should take a position on Proposition 36 from the view point of public policy and the effect on the provision of fair And equitable government. Council D%mber Rein also spoke in opposition to Proposition 36 and the reasons that he felt that the City Council should oppose the proposition. Avery ;engthy discussion followed with both Council Mmber Pinkerton, and Olson indicating that they did not feel that it was appropriate for the Council to act on such matters. OOUNC I L ADCE'IS On motion- of Mayor Snider, Reid second, Counc i 1 adopt(--.' RES. OPPOSING Resolution No. 84-159 opposing Proposition 36. the Ja.v a IV P". 36 Initiative Constitutional Amendment which resolution reads in full as follows: RES. ND. 84-159 RE90UNICN NO. 84-159 RE90WTICN OPPOSING PF"X--FITICN 36, THE JARVIS IV INITIATIVE COWTIUMICKAL AMEN MFNY' WiERFAS, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Amendment which will appear on the Noverrber ballot as Proposition 36 would lead to de facto minority rule by requiring a two-thirds vote for many important local government decisions; and FM WHEREAS, Proposition 36, by further restricting local goverrments' revenue -raising authority beyond the requiriments imposed by Propositions 13 and 4, would seriously weaken the concept of "Home Rule" by making local agencies more dependent, upon the State for their financial stability; and WHEREAS, Proposition 36 will further reduce the ability of local government to plan for and finance public services and capital improvements needed to sustain development and accommodate economic growth; and WHEREAS, the passage of Proposi t ion 36 will widen the disparities between the taxation of propert.es with similar market values; and WH>;RFA.S, while the supporters of Proposition 36 claim it will reduce taxes, it will actually increase property taxes for nearly all taxpayers who have purchased properties since 1978. including; approximately 50% of the homeowners in California; and , W[1 RFAS, one widely applauded result of Proposition 13 has been to relieve general taxpayers of the burden of paying for services which could be charged directly to the service user through fees, this trend will be reversed, returning part of the financial burden for fee -supported services to general taxpayers if Proposition 36 is enacted; and WHEREAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will cost local school districts some 5150 million in 1985-86, thereby seriously jeopardzing the urgently needed improvements in primary and secondary public education in California; and WHEREAS, runny of the provisions of Proposition 36 are confusing and ambiguous and will require further clarification, either by future ballot measures, state legislation and/or court interpretation, NOW, T OMFO 2E, BE IT RESOLVED, by the adoption of this resolution, the City of Lodi opposes Proposition 36, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Amendment. RFS. NO 84-159 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: j I Cam ric i l Ni mime rs - Hi nchman , Reid, and Sn i der Counei I Ment>ers - Olson and Pinkerton Counc i I Nle{mbe rs - None i League of California Cities • SPECIAL BULLEn4 03 • ifnia C.'flhp5 Wnrti iorynfhef October 3, 1984 PROPOSMON 36 QARVIS IV) Contents 4 qtr C 1'\I f 0 ;�;j� or! 17 AM 9 1t 2 AItCF--� ht•"EIKHE Gs � Y (, .;_ERK Y f - LCi11 Page I. Non -Prof it Organization Involvement in Ballot Measure Campaigns . . . . . I 2. Fundraising Suggestions for City Off icia)s Acting in their individual Capacity . 1 3. Alternative Funding Ideas Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4. Proposition 36 -- What Can Cities Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5. Sample Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Californians Against Proposition 36 -- County Coalition Contacts . . . . . . 4 7. Californians Against Proposition 36 -- -- List of Organizations Which Oppose the Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . S S. "Educational Workshop Focuses on Latest Jarvis Tax Initiative" . . . . . Attachment 9. "Prop. 36 Is Not Faring As Weil as Prop. 13" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attachment 10. "County Rejects Jarvis' Tax -Cutting Prop. 36" . . . . . . . . . . . . Attachment 11. "NO on Proposition 36" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attachment 12. "Prop. 363 A Rescue Net for Prop. 13 or Complex Law?" . . . . . . . . Attachment 13. A survival guide for local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attachment CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS EOUTMERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE BOX MS. LAFAYETTE. CA 94549 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 10'52 WEST BTI) STREET, SUITE 410 1413) 202113 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 (916) 444.5790 (213) 4824M NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION INVOLVEMENT IN BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGNS There have been questions raised whether certain non-profit organizations may get involved or contribute to Californians Against Proposition 36. Californians Against Proposition 36 Is a non-profit corporation which has applied for and will receive to -x exempt status as a 501(cX4) organization. According to the lawyers for Californians Against Propositior 36, non-profit organizations which have a tax exempt status under either 501(cX3), 501(cX4) or 501(c)(6) may endorse a ballot measure, as well as participate in activities of the ballot measure so long as those activities do not constitute a substantial portion of the organization's activities. Generally speaking, non -prof it organizations may spend up to S to 10 percent of their annual budget on activities such as ballot measures without jeopardizing either the tax exempt status of the organization or the tax deductibility of the member's contributions, where applicable. If an organization still has questions regarding permissible activities, they should contact their own tax adviser or Ms. Hamilton at Californians .hgainst Proposition 36. FUNDRAISING SUGGESTIONS FOR CITY OFFICIALS ACTING IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY You can successfully raise money to support some of your County Coalition efforts against Proposition 36. Fresno County used a dual strategy in the "No on 9" campaign against Jarvis' proposed income tax cut. For those who could afford it, there was an afternoon reception for $25.00 per person. Expenses were minimized by having volunteers donate hors d'oeuvres and a talented bluegrass band provide free music. Many people in the anti -Jarvis effort, however, cannot afford that approach. For them, Fresno County held a simple raffle ($1.00 tickets; $99.00 cash prizo). if you print "donation not required" on the ticket, you will probably not violate the law (you should consult your attorney). In Frenno County, the raffle raised several thousand dollars. Donated prizes make raffles cheaper. If drawings aren't to your taste, consider selling some inexpensive item. Whatever you do, you should fino a way for people with little money to contribute affordably. Why should you bother to raise money? First, you can purchase local media coverage (state -campaign produced copy; local endorsements and talent) that the state campaign will not purchase because their priorities are, out of necessity, in the larger markets. You can also over any expenses you have for mailing, copying, etc. You may even raise enough money to make a contribution to the state campaign. Prepared by Karen Humphrey, Council Member, City of Fresno and member, League of California Cities Proposition 36 Public Education Task Force. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING IDEAS NEEDED The Jarvis "What If" Committee is formulating suggestions for alleviating some of the devastating provisions of Proposition 36. The League will issue guidelines to cities in early November if the Initiative passes. Committee members are especially interested in cost-cutting strategies and alternative funding Ideas. Please send your suggestions to the Sacramento office of the League. 1 PROPOSMON 36 WHAT CAN CITIES DO? I It is recommended that each city consider the following actions. It implemented effectively in Pvery city throughout the state, a large number of citizens will have a clearer understanding of the provisions and implications of Proposition 36. 1. Encourage Local Civic, and Business Leaders to Take a Public ftsi.t_ion. Conduct a deliberate and systematic effort to meet individually with the leaders of a variety of local civic and business groups. This effort could be performed by the mayor and city manager or by another team of city officials including a member of the city council and a top level staff member. In these meetings, city representatives could discuss the public policy implications of Proposition 36, explain some of the 1 1cely effects on public services in your community and urge these local leaders and. the organizations they represent to adopt public positions in opposition to Pro- position 36. Many statewide associations oppose Proposition 36; their local counterparts would provide a possible starting place for this local effort. Some of these organizations are: American Association of Retired Persons Associatian of Retarded Citizens Califoniia Building Industry Association California Chamber of Commerce California PTA California Taxpayers Association League of Women Voters Service Employees International Union The California Roundtahle California Farm Bureau Federation 2. Focus on Policy Issues. Emphasize the public policy implications of Proposition 36 rather than the size of dollar losses to your city. Proposition 36 will: -- Increase the inequity of the property *oma. -- Increase the veto power of only one-third of the voters. -- Perpetuate the underfunding of vital government services. -- Continue the shift of power to the state wid federal governments. -- Make local government less responsive. -- Impede economic growth by eliminating the ability of local government to finance capital improvements. 3. Do Not Publicize Dire Local Government Service Reductions. As far as the general public and the media are concerned, adopt a "we'll have to wait and see" approach concerning specific impacts on city services. Do not make specific monetary or statistical predictions. After the Proposition 13 "bail out" delayed or eliminated promised service reductions, public officials have little credibility with this approach. -2- 4; 0 SAMPLE RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 36 WHEREAS, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Amendment which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 36 would lead to de facto minority rule by requiring a two-thirds vote for many important local govenment decisions; and W4EREAS, Proposition 36, by further restricting local governments' revenue -raising authority beyond the requirements imposed by Propositions 13 and 4, would seriously weak,:n the concept of "Home Rule" by making local agencies more dependent upon the Stafe for their financial stability; and WHEREAS, proposition 36 will further reduce the ability of local government to plan for and finance oublic services and capital imprivements needeu to sustain develop- ment and accommodate economic growth; and WHEREAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will widen the disparities between the taxation of properties with similar market valaes; and 'WHEREAS, while the supporters of Proposition 36 claim it will reduce taxes. it will actually increase property taxes for nearly all taxpayers who have purchased properties since 1978, including approximately 50" of the homeowners ii Cal;foreia; and WHEREAS, one widely applauded result of Proposition 13 has been to relieve general taxpayers of the burden of paying for services which could be charged directly to the service user through fees, this trend will be reversed, returning Dart of the financial burden for fee -supported services to general taxpayers if Proposition 36 is enacted; and WHEREAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will cost local school districts some $75,0 million in 1985-86, thereby seriously jeopardizing the urgently needed improvements in primary and secondary public education in California; and WHEREAS, many of the Drovisions of Proposition 36 are confusing and ambiguous and will require further clarification, either by future ballot measures, state legislation and/o- court interpretation, NOW, THERFORE, BE T RESOLVED b the adoption this resolution, the Cit of Y p o Y opposes Proposition 36, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Wndment. ba ire Submitted by Joy Picus, Council Member, City of los Ar3eles, and Vice Chair, League of California Cities Proposition 36 Public Education Task Force. - 3 - - 4 - CALIFORNIANS AGARW PROPOSITION 36 County Coalitian Contacts ALAMEDA: SACRAMENTO: Bill Berck 415/887-0152 Jim Donnelly 916/444-3216 Coletfp Johnson-Schulle 916/444-6010 BUTTE: Robert Rankin 916/343-7629 SAN BFNiiu: flick .owry 408/637-5393 CALAVERAS: Mari Geizler b: 209/736-4662 SAN BERNARDIYO. h: 209/754-3256 Bill Imada 213;275-6388 COLUSA: SAN DIEGO: Jim Marks 916/458-7791 Ed Van Ginkel b: 619/265-3020 h: 619/286-9131 CONTRA COSTA: Ron Stewart 415/944-1388 SAN FRAYCISCO: Paul Katz .115/778-1655 Steve Neuberger 415/931-6491 IL DORADO: SALT LUIS OBISPO Vrcki Barber 916/985-41.71 Betty Nielsen 805/544-0695 Norm Woods 916/544-2281 SAN MATEO: FRESNO: Edie Mendez 415/697-7682 Karen Humphrey 2n9/224-8929 John Ward 415/363-4568 IMPERIAL: SANTA BARBARA: Ed Van Ginkel b: 619/265-3020 Don Gotz 213/275-6388 h: 619/286-9131 SANTA CL ARA: KERN: Teresa Johnson 408/998-7900 Ward Woileson 805/325-7487 Steve Preminger 408/998-7150 LOS ANGELES: SANTA CRUZ: Peter Coye 213/275-6388 Jack Raper 408/688-6P22 Roxanna Lightfoot 213/275-6388 Javier Rodriguez 213/275-6388 SOLARO: Phillip Bowman 707/644-8921 MAR IN : Re9gie Winner 415/897-7"18 SONOMA: Beth Hinters 415/472-2044 Reggie Dinner 415/397-1218 MARIPOSA: STANISLAUS: Eris Bruun 209/966-3691 John Allard 209/571-6575 Mike Brannan 209/576-4075 MERGED: Peggy Dressler 209/523-1305 Larry Duquette 209/384-3333 TRINITY: MONO: Robert Gravette X16/623-2861 Arlene Reveal 714/932-7031 TULARE: MONTEREY: Thelma Gomez 109/686-3335 Troy PraRilette 408/313-295' 408/424-0654 TUOLUMNE: Tom Kendall ?09/536-3451 NAPA: VENTURA: Robert- Hansen 707/252-5511 Don Gotz 2:3/275-6388 ORANGE: YOLO: Ann Vogel 213.275-6388 Sue Boyd 916/756.4492 ielen Thomson 916/753-7223 PLACER: Linda Lehner 916/791-7061 RIVERSIDE: Bill Imbda 213/275-6388 - 4 - CALIFORNIANS AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 Organizations Which Oppose the Initiative AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS - - AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME) AMERICAN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT * ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER * ARCADE WATFR DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS ----* ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL DISTRICTS * ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS * ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATLR AGENCIES * BEACH CITIES COUNCIL ON AGiNG BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT * BERKELEY FEDERATION OF TEACHERS. L-1078 * BLACK AMERICAN POLITICAL. ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA * BLACK 'JOMEN'S ORGANIZATION FOR POLITICAL ACTION * BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES BOARD OF REGENTS OF TINE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CATHOLIC HOSPITALS CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION —CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE --CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE * CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION *.CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES -----CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BALANCE --!-CALIFORNIANS FOR EFFTCIE14T LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION CALJFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION —A -CALIFORNIA HOUSING COUNCIL, INC. CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL, INC. * CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL -CIC * CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATION OF POLICE AND SHERIFFS * CALTFORNIA PARK AND RECREATION SOCIETY CALIFORNIA PROBATION, PAROLE AND CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION —CALIFORNIA ROUNDTA�LE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BIARDS ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA STATE E'1PLOYEES ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA STATE PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION —CALIFORNIA TAX RE f ORM ASSOCIATION --,CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION * CALIFORNIA NATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION * CAPISTRANO VALLEY NATER DISTRICT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS * CATHOLIC COMMITTEE FOR AGING * CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO * COALITION FOR ECONOMIC SURVIVAL * CONCORD CHAMBER OF COK4ERCE * CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA SENIORS CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS PROGRAM _ S _ • CONTRA COSTA CO►-' BOARD OF EDUCATION • CONTRA COSTA BOAk. 'OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY SUPERVIS;5RS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA * DAVIS AREA CHAMBER OF COWiERCE * DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S FORUM OF SAN FRANCISCO DESERT VIEW ;DATER DISTRICT • DISTRICT EIGHT DEMOCRATIC CLUB FEDERATED FIRE FIGHTERS OF CALIFORNIA • FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION :REY PANTHERS • 1.ITERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION • KEEP LIBRARIES ALIVE LA MESA.. CHAMBER OF CO`1MERCE • LATINO DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF SAN FRANCISCO LEAc;UE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES * LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION LEAGUE OF ''WOMEN VOTE -4S OF CALIFORNIA • LEAGUE OF WOMEri VOTERS, LONG BEACH • LONG BFACH AREA '1 T IZENS INVOLVED • LOS ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE • LOS ANGELES COLLEGIATE COUNCIL/CALOBBY, CALIFORNIA STATE, LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA * MEXICA,I AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIATION • MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OAKLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ORANGE COU14TY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OTAY WATER DISTRICT • PEACE OFFICERS RESERACH ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA * PEOPLE FOR A GOLDEN GATE RATIONAL RECREATION AREA * PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INC. (PERC) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF VENTURA COUNTY * PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 1 * PUBLIC SECURITIES ASSOCIATION. DISTRICT VI RI'ICON DEL DIABLO MUNICIPAL 'MATER DISTRICT * SAN BERNARD!NO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION * SAN FRANCISCO CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION * SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS * SAN FRANCISCO SECOND DISTRICT PTA SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SRM JOAQUIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. SAN JOSE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE • SAN MATEO COUNTY CHAMBER OF COf1iERCE * SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB OF LOCAL -1304, USWA SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION * SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, L-250 * SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, L-390/400 * SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, L-535 * SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, 660 SHASTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION SOLANO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES * STANISLAUS COUNTY [BOARD OF SUPERVISORS * STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION * STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA * TEAMSTERS LOCAL 356 • TEHAMA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT * WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT * Additions to the "No on 36" coalition Jarvis Update 4 Educational Workshop Focuses On Latest Jarvis Tax Initiative The '-No on Prop 36" campaign com- mrtFee p►esenteC a strong messaoe to public o!fictios attending an educationa. workshop on Proposition 36 Ithe latest Howard Jarvis Inihar-vel "Do not be complacent about the Initiative— Become involved—Take the Campaign seriously " The '-No on Prop 36" committee also cautionkd public officials against pre- senting a "the house will fail down.. kind of campaign as in Proposition 13 Public Officials (several snembers of ACWA were present for the Aug 30 briefing on the Jarvis Initiative) were asked 110 panicipale in creating county coaittions to establish a bipartisan atmosphere and to communicate the generr.! message of. "I was yes on Propos+tidn 13—trial was needed. but I'm no on 36. as it goes too far " In talking about the impacts on reve- nue sources for local government. Dick Simpson. executive vice president of (gal -Tax Ftesearcr,, said. "Local govern- ment revenues are recovering from the recent recession, but continued .re- covery depends, among otner things. on there bung no new redurtions in re- maining revenues However. Proposition 36 would have the effect of reducing those remaining revenues " Simpson presented the following analysis which looked at portions of Proposition 13 and some of its amending changes made oy the courts and legis- lature. as well as examined and evalu- ated the possible impact of the major provisions of Proposition 36 Proposition 13 Proposition 13 of 1978 • Limned ad valorem tax to 1 percent of market value • Prrrmitted override of limit for pre - 1978 debt • Limited assessed value increases to 2 percent per year (Base year un- specified) • PtOperty reappraised on change of ownership or new construction • Required 2/3 vote to increase spe• cial laxes , Non Ad Valorem Property Taxes • 1979 legislation • Per parcel assessments • Examples (1982-83, Flood control and water conserva- Lon $42.6 million County sanitation d►s- fricis .. .. ........ S23.2 million California water dis treats .... .............. S19 3 trillion • Estimated current levy $300 mil- lion San Francisco vs. Farrell • Modified 213 vote requirement for special taxes • Allows non -property tax increases by simple majority vote of local gov- erntng body • Aids cities more than counties used frequently in 1983 • Primarily affects business license and utility user taxes • Over $300 million has been raised Carman vs. Alvord • Allows property tax increases to pay voter -approved pens -ion system costs • Both cities and counties may use it • Current levy. SSS million. • Legislature suspended further use until 1965.86 • $850 million in potential properly tax increases Proposition 36 Jarvis IV Would "Save 13" Dr. Overturning Farrel and Carman By eltininalinq most parcel taxes and by strengthening legislative 2/3 vote re- quirement Jarvis IV Would Also: • Sit now limits on fees • Prohibit use of fee revenues for pensions • May invalidate $4 S billion in voter - approved GO bonds • Eliminate some financial support for state water plan • Refund S1 ' billion If, properties with a pre -3 1,77 lien date • Reduce assessments on above propeftrrs • Increase taxes for most properties 4 with a post -3/11/77 lien date. • Increase limits on change of owner - Ship reappraisals. Pro and Con 1. New 1 Percent Limit Limits ad valorem and any other property tax 110 1 portent M.V. Pro: • Eliminates c urrent and future parcel taxes Con: • Invalidates some local voter• approved taxes • Removes leasrble rsrenue source for some functions Fiscal Impact • Possible $300 million tax reduction. • Flood control, sitnrtation, water, irnyahon, highway lijhting districts it 113 of total reduction. 2. New Bonded Debt Limit Allows over of i percent limit for bonded debt it. • Approved by voters before 7/1/78 • Evidenced by issuance of bonds Pro: • Reverses Carnvn decision. Con: • Invalidates unissued G.O. bonds • Invalidates some or all -water district overrides for state water plan. Fiscal Intpac t • Eliminates S56 minion in current and $830 million in future Carman taxes • May Invalidate $4.5 billion M un- Issued local G.O. bonds. 3. New Limit On Fees And Fee Increases Requires any new fee or tee increase. state or local, above CPI growth, to have 2/3 vote of Legislature or voters. Pro. • Stops oxcessevi fees Con: • Could destabilize vEtaf local ser vices • CPI not a valid measure, of tee growth • Most voters nut directly affected by some tees • Inhibits growth Fiscal Imprlct • Adverse capital funding effects • Primary impacts water, sewers. power, landfills. "rts, airports. transit 4. A. Prohibition o/ Fees For Pension Costs B. Limitation of Fees To "Direct hosts" Prohibits fees for pensions, deftt % fee as any state or local charge for drte. s costs of service Pro: • Nano Con: • Pension cost exclusion would bring contract impairment suits • Pension costs equal 15.20 percent of payrolls • Do "direct costs" exclude deprecia- tion and capital outlay reserves. both needed for infrastructure maintenance and gfowth7 Fiscal Impact • Unknown, pending litigation of pension and -direct cost" questions 5. Stronger 2/3 Legislative Vote Strengthens requirement that new or increased taxes must have 2/3 legssla- live vote. Pro: • After 8/15/63, would elimrna'e any tax increase on simple majority vote (e.g . AB 3. Ort Severance). Con: • !,00phole Legislature may autho- rize Total tax which will not need tater local vote • loophole would transfer more local decisions to legislature e Would also require 2/3 vote for tax reductions Fiscal impact • Unknown 6. Restores 2/3 Local Vote Requires approval by 2/3 of qualified voters lot any new or increased local tax Pro: • Overturns Farrell. used by, cities to raise business and utility user, taxes by council majority Con: • Farrell -type taxes, as needed, have reduced pressures for stale income and sales tax increases Fiscal Impact • Any Farrell -type tax enacted after 8/15/83 would be eliminates unless enacted by 2/3 local vote. 7. Assessment Rollback + Prop- erty Tax Refunds Rolls back 2 percent inflation in- creases for properties with pr -March 19-77 lien dales requires refunds and reappraisals Pro: • For recipients of refunds, effect is positive Con: • Refunds and reappraisals go to r. properties with oldest values • Properties with higher. post 1977, appraisals get no refunds. no reduced assessment. but do get a tax increase to most cases Fiscal tmpuct • Taxpayer refunds or credits 41.29 billion • Ongoing property tax reduction - S" million • Property tax increases - S158 million 8. New Change In Ownership Provisions Reappraisal would not occur on change in ownership involving intra - family transfers to -immediate family Pro: • Property to an intra -family transfer of a home. rental, or business would not be reappraised Con: • A further departure from market value standards could increase inci- dence of unequal property taxes Fiscal Impact • Unpredictable •Memberi of immediate family: "Parents. grandpr.rents. stepparents. uncles. aunts. t.pouse. stepchildren, siblings. and lineal descendents of the owner, or the guardian or trustee for any of the forep:»ng persons - A Jarvis IV Re -Cap t. Eliminates Carman Taxes But Also invalidates unissued G O bonds and some or all S W.P overrides. 2. Restores 2/3 vole for local Farrell - type taxes But legislature could authorize new taxes for local government without local vote. 3. Strengthens legislative 2/3 vote for tax increases. But: Would also require 2/3 vote for tax decreases 4. Rolls back 2 percent inflation assessments. requires refund of $1 7 billion But Favors properties with older, lower, base -year values. Causes higher taxes for most properties with post - 3/1/77 Len dates. increases inequities 5 Property in an intra -family transfer would not be reappraised But moves property taxation farther away troy» equal treatment G Fees could no longer meet full service Coll% 7 Fre-supported enterprises could encounter problems in maintaining plant and accommodating economic growth 5 S. Prohibttton of fee support for employee pennons shifts cost to general funds and raises contract impairment questions for independent special drs- trrcis 9. impact on infrastructure financing e Retains prohrbd4on against prop- erty taxes for G O bonds • May invalidate trnirssued G.O bonds • limits fees to "direct cost" of service. possibly excluding costs for depreciation and capital reserves • Puts greater pressure on fees to mea -t opera anal costs 'That the new Jarvis initiative goes beyond amending changes in Proposi- tion 13 made by the coups and legisla- ture." Simpson said "is an important point only in understanding the fall scope of the proposal. In terms of public fiscal policy. it is more tmpeirtsnl to consider tree measure's tmpacton souse basic issues - Simpson listed the following as #x - am, pies x-ampies of those rzsues 1. Would Jarvis IV improve property tax equity Or would it widen the tax disparities between properties with similar market values? 2. Would Jarvis IV strengthen local government. or make it more dep?ndent on the statelO 3 Would simple majority popular vote assure adequate consultation of voters? 4. Would Jarvis IV improve the ability of local governments to finance tate public services and capital improve- ments needed to accommodate *co- mmie growth, 5. Could S1.3 billion in added tax relief be taken without adverse irnpa!:t on functions? 6. It a later recession generates needs for new local revenues, which of these potenLal sources would likely be tar- geted Sales tax? Split rout? Per- sonal income lax? Oil severance tax? Bank and corporation tax -1 ACWA has announced its opposition to the proposition and has urged its members and other affected organiza- tions to take positions on Proposition 36 and to send to the ACWA office copies of the actions taken by their boards of directors A C Prod. 36 Is Not Faring As Well as Prop. 13 1t. Mr* till Eirld Proposition ate. Now and Jan t.' fte%,* initiatitr to Until and rclund properh tazies, I% aot generating the level of in terest or toter %upport achieved by his 1978 tai limita- tion nruasure. Proposition 13. which um. strung!) endorsed wv %oter• A statewide sur%r) completed the flirt Uer1 of IS-eptemiter at►►ong a santpit of 1021 tegi.teted votrrr found li ipt l+:tir morn thatt hair of the pubs-, 53 pert rut. have heard abt•ut Prultusittou 36 Al►aottC thCKe &uare of the ttlea torr srimmetit n evrul% divided - 111 pritrilt ill favor. 19 percent agatrst avid 17 Itercent undecided Ali rrRiattred v oter► in the• sam ttir. w iirther or, not they alread 1llta yta(+ut the nilliali%e. were read a sutntnat% of Proliosillon Wo s kt-% eien►rn1% and asked how they w ould t otr it the election w ere held ICKtir� 111t. l"Uh Show about Ilse %jilt vitt, sl,ln 43Itercei,i sa)mg the% -Avid, ♦tete %r%. 41 lirrcent sad mi: lite% v uuld volt iso and ld per. trrt undwcided The two lit•r- c tiltact• I•vtitt diftrrtm a brtwern thug eutltlg Yr and no 1% Ittalml- t;olh in%igiiificam Thr questtot, A a% posrd a• tui loM "Proposition 36 amends and add% to Propoiition 13 h% prohibit - hit fifty new tatter on real estate propert% and requiring a two. thirds. note for toot ting ani new local taxes. fees and aeset imeiativ It would also make rtfunds total. Ing more than $1 billion to Most who owned property In California bel%-een 1076 and 1979. if volt were toting today on Proposition 36. would you note Yet or No?' M periodic surveys after thr Wgtrrcenl-to 33perceni passage of i•roikPwictn 13 fit 1978. the Califur ria Poll obsrr%ed a gradual soften utg of the publ►t 4 c tewpoint that are too high slid as; increawd iwarene%% that sonic goverittatut f -t -r% t( -t% have detertoi atee Fut exanipir. Sit a Field lttsti tate• stud, doiie last ►eat, five dears attar the passage of Prolwsition 13. 43 rcrrent of the pui►lic said that. otrrali. the n►ta�ure had left them nt•ttile-1 hM:rr nor wonse off. An additional 29 percent said they were lict-tvi off. and 23 percent fell they well' ►!t:r:t. off In the current survey, a ques tleft was posed to measure the pub tic's overall feelings about the tax and government spending changes that have occurred in California shier the passage of Proltotition 13 - Slightly more than one-half. 53 Ik re ent, sad the) are satisfied, and 45 prr(vio sa% they% ori• discatisfwd with these chatlgc• i..p..tFA+ ivVi, 1A. lair/ituhit.b p +I i Cn Angew gait. Wvdnrday. St wmbrr S. IVPs: County Rejects Jarvis' fProp. 36 By TED vOt1.MER r.wft .iWf Wrttrr, j The As Angeles County tiwrl Of Suprrvtsora dominated by t -m .ervatives voted S to 0 Tuesday to ot+tuw the Isteel •reatpor. m He - and Jar,J' tat -sl Shing arae -4: Fr,v Ashton 36 The vote against the November ballot mraaure. barked by :ft. noted conservative tots rut:r• came &her I,oa Angeles Cuu•':, Turf Admint'trot Ive Officer Here, L Muerord warned d a r"Llcuor. ;r a W16e range .,I cou-Ity wrvtcos from ph4wri. tat refunds ar.1 permanent re'SUCtton M tura man dated by the measu" Jarvis has marrtainrd that the Initiative is designed w strengthen the 1996 tit -cutting Pray tion 13. tahich he rya has been weakened by court decttwru hoard Chairman Deane Dana a coffaervai.vesaid the messure w,y4d weaker. local goverrirni ni Conaer,at,.e Pric..(habarurr %a,,:the meAsure "wenI dyertraMrd and M,ae Anto.rutvlttt the Ir •! cortse•c,au.c agreed wen L. . that the mrrs .re mould hum qA A control U FAleiman and Kennett. Hann: the Iwo more liberal board men !ars Posned to the vote HufMrd isho had rtcornmet.de,: the board thtton• sot.-, the Jana measure would mean $:'467 !n:• Ilion In tat refunds to about ♦ thou of the rountv't fesdents The rr Inam:rfg Ns ufdrnts would revel. r rt. ditivct benefi. from the deaf rr How Prop. 36 Would Affect Taxes I floor. tarocxlsrtr(w• 13 s .sus•^,esti Prnv.a.n• .rent.*' wot,e•t,es that are tads by a•oe ca" va•. t,Mae•IJr.vVr - w\.ne••. L. es► -..,•roti o.",r,.I,,.p'4.✓ -he"06:1, o,_ Oft "o 36 or• !'pa N�wmtr• be'+c• w<v�d msy,v,, rrw d•ne.en<.e, b. a rr+p •aeurads It, sOn.e Owr+e's lhts Cha'! ahvvv. h0^ the LW Arto-los Gw^r. M•er step—n,strat.vr oe•. , «cn,-d Cows is. 0..4 r. two Negev\ ye•.,rrr at 51..'5,00 •nr 1984 a.a-ape valve :,t • fns ArQ.uat [vent, r.pnl. u, Kir• -he r+e« m,tre,N 1984 Ms,. I 1464 Attets, 0'. value A vet aye Ta. Rate'! 12 Is Rr!,ntd ,d,do, Prue 36 -0—sowne, t E ae•+rpt.Pea Net P,,44,rt r Is. }l;`fu^. .a a,!• •.R thy' r, r lltwr r , ..ire► :ft,r tet r..u:� ., o_. m .•,. ^e rum '. hv,.uirt r,ghr frf A—,*.. •A're'a!, 11 u,}'..: ., JAA •fl.,'11•t•; or!)\ !, ♦ Jit tr.'t t,utt nM •1 •t lr '.,f! MArtt 1 ;Y"- cot,: Ih. lr"11%;' r - t f "U must: I li;:r t o-,! ir:1 P`\r^.r .. n„qr that 'nr 8W. , rrturu pertra•:ert cn,r.Il". if, the tot. atfu(t;:rt -ould take a^., t•.fr 12W, '.:,..,..• from aC thusr Ie, ro Up lr!r T,f' car,. ,rat Huff, • . $...i !fir redu(t cl-r Ise M'a.►t..a.'wr I&"'.%a.ar. sr 6-0-0.110► I tots s.gs..w. "a 1 !wt V ;Oil 11 4(io t 2 . ,0'` 467 372 (.252' No Return 76 .?lf. S 13? S 1 294 M, 41-- I. t• ,rf for ter roJ^t,' r IUr! ;.r. sot...! h(V.th scr, feet I—! 1„r . y.e• IAN rr:4ttrrr..'�. tnf <r+ter;• 1. 1hr n•1..0 r..uiC � r , c',ur. . + .!. A.:,, 171:: nil , v, , I`erma twill rha,•.git tr.e p• .sxr. , tas ItrJrl✓e - t use arn•tM' 1's mtll!•It, a ro„•".+ r,.rr;. ea,h vta, In AIl,iflo, : ..rltrd. the (-M!, u. ter+: %.%, ai.,u' 1102 est;:. ,for, to f(drr. tial yu', rr,enur. nor CII,:A ” into ,sir (t.JW' mat, e.ftl; lis As tM: preiurnet.i: . oud tit kiet 11, IM first year the los: tat" r,rv:q mean the ehmms!Ior a. .,Out 3.ARa Sib•. from the county's work force of %.”. Hufford said The county's 93 incorporated clurt would lose about 1%9 million With fix largest city 1r!. Angelfs.losing about two-thirds of that total Hufford said t,06 Angelet niftrtals wId Mortdal the• have not: nude any specific forecast of the effect of the Jarvis Intuallve Losses totaling about 1171 mil ion alt would be telt by local pubis( schools. redevelopment .geneses an, tt\dtger.Arn• service dtnncu. lluff„r � ltd Propotation 36 to aimed at what Jarvis charges has been a stead, erbcton of the ortgtnsi intent of hu f,rr. ttaast:ae. 'Propoaitxim 11. by the Lrvelature and the courts since Its passage it, 19,6 Proper' vor X would redtxe LSr Use-; a .: Properties purchased before hatch 1 IV—,. and resin' to a refund of about it 7Dillion to pt•\q.rtt own. ere iistrl, df- Rtr^lrrf and homeowners who taught their properties sfte, March 1 1597. would nW Fere,,t retrays The meas,,rr also r ould brrtt the ability of local governments to levy apec,s: Lure for taw enforcement. fin prArellon, education or other p+trposes by M'luintig a two thirds approvs! by affected voters '•The Islis-e6 trrwI of Propnsl ter, 36 an the co inty genets: fund eQuates to an approirmate 21 54e ,:tel in the net county test of most de"stroma_- tldfforI sa.d it. ntammtr- ::-e board Obp,.s.t'or -C tow tnea.ar, In lutun vean however the Itnp.ct vel,. dienirual: because the orasw-rty Ivo refunds A" a one t;mr loss Hufford ta•d the event, s reve- nue Ma• eft ^ a!r! -err ba -ed on Me assumptrrn that the state would nuc not- out lora' ;overs. fount and :,%a• rim mea.un dont not oke effer• unto' uhf :9S.; 46 fnsral vest Hardest hes by the measure would he :ave rnfn"Pir-m. fire an: PUNIC healer. eervV" nor^.all• landed by pr Ataert. taxes Huffortt said State mandated seifart and htatlh liv grame would be hurt only sholil) M coneluded t.00ai SCvernment also would cartlnue to lost even more power to Sacra eeente than it has Since 11epa&mon 1 J. Hufford w armed Pleat cesteaol, t.larortes Sus arils ally Hufford peMicted if Prt;■utu.at 36 passes. neat )rar the Sheriffs Dr a irtmrnt woad just about I.6ZS P—mors. tfea;th Ser. vices atm, a' 1.247 P Abttt srxta. Strvtres r a r ;fart I atout 1 7Oft and the Probation Department abau• 641 In all R= yobs III be lost during the first vest w l.t!e anotet• 1.951) fewer Count, la- would ber fund" the rut a! year Other prolectrd effects of the tis-euttine measure came from varw'tus special tistricts and key Please we PROP. >k Page 1 Cwselssd from ty.1 M•Prr..-e-kta r•goted M be tot hardrs. by the me sNh *FI -4 Cetmsi James Easton. acting Chart TV.twvr of the tAr Angeles County Fto--A Cotnrol D- ar ct ta.d the nrasure would result M a 604 btrdtet eF"fa" I sort hurt rood mirul. ttoc and eFles Proaaell" Comt+ Fire Cr.•ef Jolles N_ Englund wd _ the ca Plot flltaaue would result M a t '•drar.1c" 16% funding r'et actson M 11 the first vest 1,he crosaty provides Etre and panmrdic aerv'sow to the unincorpG'ated areas as !tell 0 to 43 cites Englund predicted that XC)Oa. ; at ieast 7D engine ampoisxs and , lits paramedic rescue squad! would ' be eturinoted rveral two wtaaru I -could be closed and that the pu.•chase of new equipment would be delayed OLIbraries County Utfortar. Undo F Crisrhow estimated that the Jarvis measure would mesh a layoff of 23% of the staff to tout 333 11A" and pan tune workenI. the ciosurt of IS of the totuty's 92 branch libran" looted in 47 sista, or! un.:rteorporu" arrak rrltac. tso- ll! A r e opera:shg hotpe d tMy— li'-w.nes tentasrNr>s open irW ` freeze ort fats book purebases !fir' u least four month. L I I,OS ANGELES TIMES -- SEPTEMBFR 16, 1984 NO on Proposition 36 Howard Jarvis. California's self—appointed tax cutter, claims that Proposition 36 must be passed trio fall to "save" Proposition 13. Don't be fooled. Proposition 13 does not need saving. Since its passage in 1978, it has reduced California piny taxes from among the higheto in the nation to leas than the average. The base fact of Proposition 13—the I% tate rete—is in the Cahforr- a Constitu- tion and wW remain then for the foreseeable future. So is the 2% annual limit on party assessment increases. Proposition 36 to a much different creature. It would c: fipple the ability of every level of government in California to raise the most basic sorts of revenue to provide for the most basic public seWxm from water rupplies to street lighting. It has taken California six years and a radical reordering of state and local financing to adjust to the arbitrary tax rules of Proposition 13. The turmoil created by Proposition 13 would hale by comparison if Jarvis should succeed with Propov- tion 36. There are myriad reasons for Californians to vote no on Proposition 36 this Nov. 6. Just a few: Inequality -Proposition 13 treated two classes Of taxpayers in '- lifornia: those who pay some property tat and those who pay a lot more. A basic .enet of good taxawn is that it be fair. The latest Jams pian takes an inequitable situation and snakes it worse. Limits Fees --Proposition 36 would limit the use of fees and assessments to those actions which directly benefit the land affected or pay for the current costa of the program involved. For instance. fire district fees could not Lv used to finance pensions of the fire fighters and other casts generaUy considered as overhead even if such fees were previouWy approved by voters. Tax Restrictions—The measure requires a two-thirds vote of the Mate Legialature, or of the voters in a local government, to impose any new tax or fee or to raise an; fee at a rate higher than, the Consumer Price Index. This effectively impos- es minority rule throughout state and local government in California. Local Control—State law would require Sam - mento to take over even more financing of California schools because o( the estimated =?- million loss to local school districts during 1984-86. The state most likely would be screed to pay for many local services that otherwis r would have to be eliminated Thr*e is an enticement, of course, and It will be a tempting one for many voters. By reversing the methoe used to imp.ement Proposition 13 back in 1979. Jarvis promises tar; refunds of nearly 63 billion. plus interest, to property owners. B+it the refunds would only go to some taxpayers, not all: In (Act, they would go to those families who already get the most benefit from Proposition 13—those who have lived in the same homes dnee 1878 or before. Homeowners who bought their homes since then already pay a higher !ax and would get no refund at all. In L.os Angeles County, officials estimate that neatly 860.000 families would get a refund. Another R,i0.000 would get gone. More than half the refunds in the county would go to budnesses and landlords. Still, most Califor- :tin business and industry is united in opposition to Proposition 36. -Ms is going to stop growth and economic development in Califatmia." said John T. Hay, president of the state Chamber of Commerce. Standard A Poor's, the bond -rating nem. already has put the state on a credit watch. PnVosition 13, for all its flaws, did put the brakat on runaway property taxes. And every homeowner benefitM. Proposition 36 appears to have no such redeeming feature. it is a legaL fiscal and bureaucratic mine field riddled with potential hidden tax increases. Even Jarvis and his backers are not sure where the urines are planted or when they might go off. Jarvis' moat celebrated supporter, economist Arthur B. I.affer, admits that 7ropositOn 36 contains challengeable economic features and fuzzy provisions that may have to be (axed by future ballot meaeure4 and state :egiidatiom It will be at good test of our public officials. I.affer sam to see how well they can cope with the ambiguities. That is not the way to make good law. Or any law at all. Ci 11" a &am* Monday . Sep"ber 17, 1994 -Part I AM$ Seeks to York in'. _x Cw-, Prop. 36: A Rescue Net for Prop. 13 or Complex Law? By RONALD 1, 'iOBLK 71mes Staff wntee , unservative ecortom,ist Arthur li IJffer IM'. r Could Ue state and local summed It up In a twrnkhryp government and the cturta into legal knots for eg years while .t- ' All we're asking the prnple is tempting to sort out what It all Do you like the chsngca the courts mea M. have merle (in 1•ropo%dlon 1,11, if In his bid to "save 13,'" Jarvis Is vo„ like the chanipes. Voir agauhst &*king voters to appez-ve an mitis- ! •np, I.n mat 3fi ' ' t I ve that would Conversely, the !ormer I !tit' pr,. a T Bigger big property tax rt frwor say%, a vote for the Yovem funds for some while CatOing mod - ,s ballot measure "wd1 i.,rk m est tax hikes for others, Propo+,tical 13. the pnpen y ,,, • Further widen the pp that my„It hromsuNin that mak II, Prtspontion 13 helped foaler be. and Jwrvta a hrAinchold norm, %1% twren the property taxais paid by tars AS,, Mair who have hung ontoprtgvny Elkleitialir. Proposition 36 is Ir.r rears anG chore who bought aurum, at ore• turntng a number til i rcvnUy. court deeworo and local mtriprt. • ercate a !Iota) tangle that taton* hearing on Prtnpnntlon 13. upptxrentadthe as•rnuecomplain which tax -cutter Jarvis believes could make It mote difficult than riddled the 1978 measure with a ever for local government to rot number of fiscal kAVW a cash to underwrite vtW services Sound simple` An was the east wit:: Proposttlon In fact. Proposition 3R, a pro 13. rentor would rep no immtds- Posed ,mhst lutional amendment is ate tax breaks itom Proposition 311 a cuniphcatrd piece of tax law, salsas ora JAS<Vpl, rage 8 'note than there times 0 trngth of F`n poalwon 13, that cpponrnw be C, JARVIS: Newest Tax Measure Is Complex i toitlawd from rw 1 , is, directly contrary to Prop„ W. 13 an far as treating property taxpayers equltablr.' said John if Sullivan. vice president and gener- al counsrl for Sarramento hasrd ('at Tax Research. a nonprofit lob hying group supported by businre% 'This in 181) degrees olVeate i from Proposition 1J1 For his part. Jarvis urs this view is nonsense and that /'ropes taxi 38 nmply locks in what he -intended to do all along with Proposition 13 put & tight lia on government's ability to tax the public "Proposition 13 it in series trouble." says Jarvis TTir courts. "politicians and special Interests"' 1 all "have undermiried' the mea. sure. he c harges Proposition 311's first onority. ,Mn, is to correct what Jarvis feel* are bad court decisions on f'ropoo- lion 13 Orw deramon 'tad to do with the 2% annual cap on increaser In assessed values allowed under Proposition 13 The court ruled that a 2% Increase should be added for 1 every year since 1975. the bur i year set by Propuaton 13 for establishing property values Jarvis claims. icIwever that hr never meant for the 2% increases to be triggered for the three tax asaeSament re&rs before Pripoat . ton 13 passed in Will Instead. he $AV$. the 2's, increases should have Sow into effect after the measure was approved and not applied ret rosctivety Therefore. Proposition N calls for a 2% refund Land a like reduc- - ton in as&►xsed values) in each of the three tax assr+ment rears before Proposition 13 was op- proved—amounung tct about 8 i% icompoundedl. plus 1.3% mtrer•t. for the three years Mis.id'Mger Mike Accord" u Peter Schaafama of the legislative analyst ■ office, a little it" than half of all property „worn. residential and commer C -Al. would receive rffuflQa The refunds. oversgerg 11315, would do_ pend ,tri the property's value Those individuals who put chaswl their property after !March 1 LM.; .,NilA gen r*ire/vmi E _but whereas Propontwn 13 tire tsiaucdly cut property taxes by $7 billion. this attrartive refund pro vwaon of Prapontwm 36 would ironically inner a property tax take for more than half of the state's property owner% "Perot why Prapowl in 36. like Propcomuim 13 mays that property taxes must be limited to 1% of assessed value plus - and this se thr tml v reception in the new measure- uvea to Cover any bonded drtK approved by voters before July 1. 17M This lid. coupled with redurtio na in assessed valu" on prrtpr'ri y bought before Much 1. 1917, would stn tsar of the tax burden to those propertin purchased after that dais. If the innuauvr passes. it will be nrrehary to impow a property to ulcerans an all swlwre ao there will be stloup morey to pay for previ oudy approved (iiia tesum TM massae wll: average 12u to 125 the first year and smaller inerraara alter that unul the debt is retired. accord" to stale lax anal vets 111r las hoses arrn i likely to matter much to !hoar owners who bought their property before Maedi 1. 19Th. because they would get refunds Their first year hike would be oiTset several umrs over by the rebate That wouldn 1 be the COW for recent purchaar s of prop. eny who would not rterlve rtfixids and who would have to shook$" the tax -nesse, however modrsl, Wiled w CMMy 1•0064e+las Not only would recent porch" V" of homy No contmrrctal prop rorty be suck with a w mcrew but the gap between p-opert y tarn pad by recent buyer, and those who bought before Ma. -ch 1. 19T? would oleo Roth i. er Angeles col v and noun ty officials, have hero wrestling too aaren what tow means locally In his meant report to the I.Am Argrka County Roard .est Super vi ton. Chwf Admintetrauve Officer Nasty L "ord oMtmated that abood 33%. or 25 million roar. rsaadenta, mould quality It- Propo. Mason 36 tax refunds. another 22%. or 11 million property owners. wouldn't gel a refund, and 45% of the county a residents who ere miters. or about 3.5 million people woutdn ; receive a tax refund as the: In an internal oeawi to Mayor Tan Bradley las Mauch. Cott Ad mawsttative Ofter Keith Comer gnat the Proposition X formula would produce a orw time windfall Of 11$ lot ted, avrragt 1 ais Angrwo hsme ra,l said shirr 1975 1 uo gel the aq Mgt .d mh.' a -ll. ti-, or -n-) .ori that this sveragr home a ann-wl lt*. Protw•rlV tax tool. would be reduceil by 1.70 W Anti more. said the Comrw memo. under Proposetwo 36, `a hoariness property valued N 11W million in 1975 would receive a mr-lime MOM (refund) and have its annual 11 7 mullion proper t v tan Nil reduced by 1T3.1100 " In response to criticism that !'n"tio n IS would beriefit some morr than otherseconomist def ter whit says he u interested in making s bid for the tl S lienale in 15tMt, says that while the measure wouldn't br ail things to all pnple it would gas a kmg way toward making Pnmpwlkxn 13 work the way Jarvis originally enviswm d it Acknowledging that '-this to not a perfect prttpo soon" taller said that ted tax inrrrasre would be ..very mull" and would be'*Msrt.' by Pmplsttion Mrs tough cap on total ten Many cites and counties com- EcorxmvW Arthwr S. l.ff}K 'The couru have taken every opportunity over the 1aa six years to interpret Proposition 13 to maximiye the ambiguities and to extend the tax base' prnsated for revenues mulling from Proposition 13 by enacting thousands of tees Rarely did these regia require voice approval Jarvis didn't anticipate that Pnipostion 13 would r.ciduor this stampede toward lees 1:1 finance everything from police and fire protection to maintenance of suwta and roada in fart. Propin tion 13 didn't even mention thr word ..fie .' Ames M levee Itut Proposition 36 comrs down on fees with a vertgaanre Any new fee proposed by katal government after Aug IS 19!11 would require a .�`•tAatds vote, either by lora) volrr t or the Loretto - tature do exrattng feed could tw in creased after this tamr date by a peer,op tege greater than the con • sumer price irweea during the 12 months pr' vwY to the increase pro{wisal i their was a two thirds . .. . _:al vain of the legislature '9onir clues. like San Francisco. are stung on a large srrpiw. snit Legislative Analyst SchA&Iwm so they wouldn't face an tmnethate ttanwial crunch of 11tapoal13on 36 became taw But other Cilie. and particularly countlaa and special districts torics the better two Nov. ernnenud ematiN are heavily de- pendent on property taus and fen 1 could two a revenue r qure". he saidL in at to Manes rests that raged the CP) Ilarthermore, it's no snap get unif that two -thuds vote Cal • Tu and the L.tw- of Call forms Otey each conducted sur- vevs between Joie. IFIA. when Pel"UNwu 13 panned. lid Novem- ber. 1953, on thio wublritt They found that in that owe. app old - matay 180 ekctlona retire held asking for voter approval of special taxon Mg that only 27% of the elecuom succeeded in gatntrd the regnnred two-thirds rote Cinder Prgwisttion 36, fern would fare this acme t too thirds ted New taus and tax inervmauw also mon meet the strwt two-thirds lint. Jarvis and Lsoffer and thew Map - proctrn charge that blieral leaders have blamed loopholes through l'raposnwwn 13 pe m rely through .heir mKtp►rtatMro of which taxes require a two.thirds vote and w hw h don't -Ihe rourts have taken every appo 1unnv over the last sae years to m'rri rt Pnposntnom 13 to man nesse err JA R V M fact 19 MafdaY• *1Wvdbrr 17.19M Port 1 Janis weft to York in, Tax Cels Prop. 36: A Rescue Net for Prop. 13 or Complex Law? By Rtlk AU)1. S(1R1.F. rt"we Mal! lt'elbr conservative econttnntst Arthur it l.affer lwvr could LM Mato and local summed it up in a Iwink ling government and the courts into legal krtota for years while at. ..Ali we're asklr* the penpir In tempting to sort out what it all Do you like the changes the court. rrMens ht yr made tin {T,pinrt111' Il In his bid to -my@ W Jortits is vat like the changes. vcnr again• 1'r14-1011ton raking voters to approve an Initsa• ;tat live that would, Conversely. the former INC pro s Trvsger bg property tax re- fi,ssor says. a vote for the Vuvem fund+ for some while causing mod herbal" measure -'w,it kick !n sit tas hikes nor other/. 1'ropciattion 11. the prtyierty is, a Further widen the sad that revidt brainstorm that made llnw Propostuon 13 helped foster he. +rd JArVIs • hutiaehold rtarnr sss lwern Lilt property ta— pald by > cars ago those who have hurts onto property Essentially. proposition % is fon' Yfwv and than who bousht aimed al overturning 1 number of m'entlyt. court GeCufont and local inuTpre- s Create a !heal sands that tattonis hearing on Propoiatgn I.J. 1a of thernobw�aar which tax -cutter Jarvis beiteves R�WCo��mplain could make It WAM .irt than Y riddled the 1978 measure with o f ver for local goverrNrwnt to raw nwnhtr of fiscal loopholes rash to urMerwrHe visa) aervteea Soundsimple, As was the cane with Ptopoaluon In fact. Propwton 36, a pro 13, rroten wouW resp no mnie&. polled toutstnuttonal smendnfent. is alt us brooks (tore Propo"Uon 3S a corri{tlicatsd peer of tax law r{saaa we JAZYM resp J novice than 1%ree times the length of {'ntposittnn 13. that Opponenut be JARVISs Newest Tax Measure Is Complex /ba::waed frim Pie" I ' is direCtlY contrary to Preop., no . 13 u to a trraung pRY{irrty taxpayers equitabl%.' said John II r Oven. vice president and genet ►, counsel for Sacramento - tweed Cal -Tait Research. a nonprofit lob. hying grmip supported by business "Thu to 180 drere" ,Ktp.vtte t from Pntpontion 17, - ' For his port. Jarvis says this view is ntonaerise and that Pr pow ofin 36 simply kicks in what he 'intended to do all along with Propootan I.i put a tight lid on government's ability to tae the public " Prapontion 13 a to serious trouble." says Jarvis The courts polltnctarts and special interests.. all 'have undermined" the mea stire. hecharges Prr.{ostton We first pricirtty, than, tato, orrect what Jarvis feels are diad court dectawns an Propose. ton 13 (ha decuon had to do with the 2% annuer cap on increases to assessed slues allowed under Propoestson 0 The court ruled that s 2% increase should be added for every yew ante 1975. the bane year set by PropLwtmet 13 for estahltshingproperiy valtirs Jarvis claims, however. that he - laver meant for the 2% iricrcaan to be tryWered for the three tan assessment years before Propos . ton 13 passed in I". Instead, he says. the 2% Increases should have leant into effect after the measure was approved and met applied rot - - roacuvNy Therefore. Proposition .1R calls for a 2% rrfwW lard a like reduc lion to ~44wel values I in each rJ - the three tax alsesomenl veal before Proposition 17 was aft proved–Amounting to about 61% tcompounded). plus 11% interest, for tis three years Wo*W Trlgpr Mike Aceotdtng w Peter Schaaf.tna of the legislative analyst s ofltre. a - - ;title it" than half of 411 pniperty owners, rerdrnusl and rammer hal, wriuld rreeive returula The - rrfeinds. averaging 6315. would da- prrid on the property's value - - Thow individuals who par chawd their prnperiv after March - 1197; r„old ret eve relumt OTI • • • W6uld Do. The K6y P"wMU e,•6: 6 Retw lsc Roquw" to r"Adtds to prop" owners who purchased ! be•o+o Mich 1. 1977. std MOM. urWOM PFOP"nion 13 forrrxrta. had 2% ! arrhuN ncrwrM in Mer o•ootsod valuation low one or mors of the ftoo ! vows prow to Pr*POW n 13's p"aaa-e n 1976. Rahrnds got4d &~a" 11316 per property owner nNowwo. ecoord V to h-isNtir" enetrst 6 Tor h•eo"aoaer ADpworratalr 1:20$26 n tax mosses per Property owner to sorvwo bonded deal atcumW below" pssoape of Propoortrah 13. according to 1epNetM awhdvat. Tae aroroow would be r""u►ed bee"uae pre -1976. 2% orrw! ncsoos" n earo"eod proper- ( —wes would be nvoMMlod. thou rodrerg aoprty tax bees. to pr"rede more, needed to seep up pa mw"s an bond debts. as property r owmsws would held to shoulder a tae ehcrMes. 6 Teres New M-08 of tom naooeas QmAd orMv be onscled by o- twttw& vole, DO rwM or twoffrrds vote d Nate Lepalature [knee -19— ta.ea allowed under • CaMorrw Supremo Govt decision thN per•xha oev councls to now" taus wrthoul vole, mproral Such ta.ee w acted after A" 16. 1963. would be nvoloclood. 6 f"ae: Reemcts u" of tees wfod rwtr local Wmfttons have resod on to woo" r"vrxre once We pees" of h000nhon 13 hclsres that aur "a eeseot ry deoct cools of the servo" of wdrwntes alga M declared • tax and nbpct to the two -mels vote rephrronrent ft~s tees hom hero- used to fund phbac aripov" PwAmn bobrow 6 MwPyMws- To"& M"y sweMdota taw caaactod by utrs and special drNrcte laude me low hood control. "boot msnlen"nc* or moscao ob"temerht). wtw:h Me expected to-ansrale oboist $300 md►on be, the std of the rest. "ccordrr- to lepol"twa enalysl • P "M V Tle"Oe rs E.emws ham reepparsal moa-femdv ! trrrefere of .weid"rrtW and oorrunertlet property 6 ►ra1•"rsy V*kWd " Tiff n effect eaeeeeed volaorron of Pleaw , to pwchaso porn reload of sWoo" maraN tela". epp".amiv WwV ovvrraw mole control over property s lax Mehr- v Tho an Govfemmw•t i 6 6h1aM Sar" rcr""w in rowenum--otout $100 mucor—ove, Awl two Vera or" property tau rehrdo woad be taxed as pore•-nai wwome be t1N NNe. I to. , or the erNo world here to roprace k%Waxnratalr $600 moon n bet prop" to. revenues now uteri to urderwmme pubk schools n the MN veer and $260 ,Wk h n.the socand roe,. 0000rdrr- to the leVrsMtM erM1yN's office 6 CwiwY"er Moo end 6*"Md ObYNq Could be hard tot by r"hhctruno on u" of taxes errd taco to Mtonte local wvrcas 1"-rY"tne snMyN s office pwodicta locale wo d �oes $2 6 braron our the firm two hecal vers.6 fist -ger refunds to ormoal hell of ttw NNe's owners owrs d 1 7 Won $600 rRdxen n local fee Waxes- and wdaah n otter local revenue loss". A Taal d tow lei MOMiit�Ar6G featt6s VAN t9M hrcpaM ►nq _ .' _ -' _ � r 117.00 1964 Maeeaed Value .r _48,12- t 17r00Q .f 104 Property To 467 ! _ -_ _._ 1221 i ' To. thhd+w Prop 36 438, • 1.264 i Rohrd Under Prop 36 290. 0� ar.r :► •b wwa+.nr[r..a w s wli•arrse"e a + hna wu v ;ya A survival guide for ' local government The financing revolution in California By Jobn Rebtuss sp"w to The bee WHAT LOO}•S like a museum, sounds like a tax shelter and means more money for a local convention center? it's a f22 -million deri in which Oakland officials sold their museum to investors. The money is used to convert the civic suditorlurn to a convention center and the city will lease and eventually buy it back from the in- vestors. The investors' money comes from tax-exempt boners issued by a locally created public authonty Sound complex') The plan bots worked so sell that officials intend to sell the auditorium under the some arrangements to fund Me sec- ond stage of the convention center, that a, if Congress doesn't repeal the recent legislation that permtb these tax shelters. Are high-nong financial transac- tions like this now common in Cali- fornia" No But they are a lot more common than, say, 10 years ago And they're only one example of the creative ways trial governments are adapting modern business and finan- cial practices to their own opera tions Actuath, the Oakland leaseback deal isn't very different than mane others over the past 23m.>ears, other than the fact that the muvum was actt.ally wed. rather than merely leased. Thk: little difference is worth about 2 percent per year in interest. A more radical seise occurred in Fairfield. There the city used Its power to condemn scattered proper- ty holdings so a developer could create a shopptiiS mall Fatrt►eld's pnee was a 25 -percent share of grass receipts The city lis, in effect, in the real estate and development bust - 111M John Rehfuss is professor of public administration at Califor- nia State University, Sacramen- to WHAT HAT CAUSED this revolution in local government finance' First. it's not just a financing revolution, but a management revoluvon invoiv- injt an aggressive, sometimes fren- zied, sears'. for money Second. it has largely happened because of the passage of Proposition 13, when N• tits. counties, schools and special districts lost $7 billion In property tax revenues. All of this wasn t made up oy state aid. so localities. particu- lany cities (which have the most lege! power), are looking bard for savvirip or new revenues wherever they can Tb -.rd. tie 1981 and 1982 recission cut sales tax receipts dras- t►carty. forcing localities to tighten erten iMils and become even more crit effective. There are a numtwr of ways that go%,-rnmrnt% have responded to their li.rai crunch A common way i% in dramnlica0y Increase tees and charve• E vents and cervices such as cen.ir.r citizen recreation programs and expanded sewer li"rs can nn longer 1w culradized by the general latrayrr Therefore, alt the Chiu (and they can be very high) are "IronIloaded•- onto the user A minor example is Sacramento County'. 12 charge for parking In rerreal,nn areas. A major example tc the common practice of cities, whilr 1-u+ng building permits, to reyuirr improvements such as rtrrel% anti crwerc (they always herr► rind at" charges for parks, firr .tat„ -n% and future police servic- e,. This ndd% enormous sends to a new huu.e 11n percent by one estimate) Devetnpern are crying the blues and jxnnt,ni: out that the charge, are as mac h tit n drag on the housing mar- kri a• h,kh Interest rales t.ocal of� stall .imre lliv v they can't provl .,nils a without the charges. Fur• then, they note that the charg" will simply be passed onto the buyers in e 30 -year rt+origage instead of being collected over time In higher taxrs. Another cora•cultinit loci!- Local officials are using 'creative (inane. Ing to fund expensive capital proj. esti. Oakland Is one case. Another method Is expanding traditional lease -purr hacing arrangements to 10 years and marketing them to more investors, lhur creating a form of tax-exempt read estate Investment trust. Tire. financing mechantitm is called tax-exempt Certifi:r ,. of Participation, ('Y XrP'a-). Lease pur- chasers are. In, effect, rentlaF, ire Mead of buying equipment to avoid legal debt requirements for voter approval This reduce% the cont of a , lease purchase to that of an ordinary bond tissue A Santa Rosi city halt, Los An- get•rit police statloa and Fresno ; methane gas far illty nate TXCP financing, Usher ways of cttttingcoeea Involve tough -fussed management, generally i~rlalyd with bucloesi; and corps► rate life. Used * public officials for e? sometime, thmethods have re- cently bten employed more often and more publicSy to cut back Sacramento bounty drew a to of national attention when it tried to rave general assistance money (tha(s money not used for state or federal assistance programs). The j Hannon house was developed into a home where adults eligible for gen. oral assmsince would hove to take shelter and meats there rather than a cash payment. It was cheaper to the county and. as expected, many people chose to leave the axstetance rolls rather than live there. The Renison house was labeled a throw• ball to the 'poorhouse,' and a suit has been ftted which is lens.+ before the Stale Supreme Court. It revived. It will be a controversial but cheaper way of providing general mtstance. ANnTHER cost-cutting method arKes from collecilvr bargaining. Steel and auto unions were forced Info 'givebacks' of previously earned benefits to companies In !leu of layoffs when their Industries went spur. Civil service uniort members alio face detnt� for givebacks. Los Angeles Coss y pulled out of the Social SecurflY system in 1982 to ,► save the employer's abare of conirt- butons. This was part of a collective bargaining agreement to maintain salaries but reduce employer fringe beneni cosm Likewise. the City of Sacramento showed Its Neth when facing a 115#1 tact -Ander decree awarding an t l percent midyear hike to firefeKhters. The city simply told oft 20 firefight- ers to make up the settlement cost. This involved minority and women firefighters Fcriiinatety. all those laid off were eventually rehired to fill vacancies. Unfortunately. trad- Ing- jobs br pay hikes Is a way of collective bargaining life In Califor- nia governments today. Government managers are becoming nate skilled at rust -cul- ling Innovatioro In recent year, Sin Jaw hires private contractors to cite parain= violators Garden Grove saves M.tlllll annually by contract- ing out managemeal of its health Insurance plan. Hercules (Contra Laos County) hires policemen for a thr"-year contract. which can be terminated by e"W puny Menlo Prrk publb-hes a gift catalog from which citizens can select tax-exempt 61 - Orb for the city. west Covina con- tracts out its recreation program to a private firm for a traction of the coat plus a share of the remipts. Norwalk engineers developed a 'bulletproor street upt for use In neighborhoods plagued with vendai- Ism. Ventura switched to civic volun- teers for special services It could no longer afford after Propoottion 13. Finally. San Diego sores stoney by registering voters b•• ::rail, although the program Is now .n legal limbo Some public officials. both career and political. have been able to make names for themselves by high- lighting their ability to manage under fiscal corttraints. B.T. Collins reaped tremendous publicity and a larger budget from bis work as head of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the motto. 'Hard work. low pay and miserable conditions.' The slo- gan drew recruits like files and showed that 11.7. was as adept at media Imagery as be was at manage- ment His reward was to move up as Gov. Jerry Brown's chief of staff. Lower -key and mare professional. Dave RowlantU m6ved up to San Joaquin County executive because he took heat. cut the buQjtp yid set up a strong mannftement "rm In Moto County after Propos saO J sometimes. public ofirrimic cut one too many corners 110poij for money. State contfoller4ek Cory. who won election in 1ll "th the slogan. 'The man oil cotdpanies fear most' ruined his Image: irel!uushed through a hasty lnveatlrieit Into Texas oil leases. apparltrtiv.tosing the Teaches RetlremeM PMIQ some iii million Since then; taislellow voting member. Glibert allim. who was president of the riverii, {en the country. • ; . ; . T%e Cory nasco isn' !!i cal of most public exrcutive�bljn are more professional. Iesa MQrroyant and -are simply trying td Ree# their government anovt M the Owe of red Ink. Their eflort;.x are 1114PrWt, but not enough to bring thoit Vvern- ments back to flscat 1101 —Fiscal beelth will collie wben:"f*W et- ther stop demanding getvfpelt or agree to Mance them i*%O uwely. Until then. Improved tj &&ihent and creVve financing:*% help goveromal limp along .atLame- one perforins major sarvf?. Ri•S�ICN NO. 84-159 RMM,TTICN OP"ING PFKXKSITICN 36, 1i IE JARVIS IV INITIATIVE CONSTI'1LYMNAL ANIENfiM417 WHEREAS, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Amendment which will appear on the Novemi>er ballot as Proposition 36 would lead to de facto minority rule by requiring a two-thirds vote for many important local government decisions; and WHEREAS. Proposition 36, by further restricting local governments' revenue -raising authority beyond the requirements imposed by Propositions 13 and 4, would seriously weaken the concept of "biome Rule" by making local agencies more dependent upon the State for their financial stability; and WIIIERFAS, Proposition 36 will further reduce the ability of local government to plan for and finance public services and capital improvements needed to sustain development and accomimdate econrrmic growth; and WFIR£FAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will widen the disparities between the taxation of properties with similar market values; and WHEREAS, while the supporters of Proposition 36 claim it will reduce taxes, it will actually increase property taxes for nearly all taxpayers who have purchased properties since 1978, including approximately 50% of the homeowners in California; and *IIRFAS , one widely applauded result of Proposition 13 has 4nen to relieve general taxpayers of the burden of paying for services which could be charged directly to the service user through fees, this trend will be reversed, returning part of the financial burden for fee -supported services to general taxpayers if Proposition 36 is enacted; and WFIFRFAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will cost local school districts some $750 million in 1985-86, thereby seriously jeopardizing the urgently needed improvements in primary and secondary public education in California; and WHEREAS, many of the Provisions of Proposition 36 are confusing and ambiguous and will require further clarification, either by future ballot measures. state legislation and/or court interpretation, NM. UMMKM, BE IT RESMVEU, by the adoption of this resolution, the City of Lodi opposes Proposition 36, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Dated: October 17, 1984 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 84-159 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held Wednesday, October 17, 1984 by the following vote: Ayes: Council himbers: Hinchmn, Reid, s fuider ftyor) Noes: Council Members: Olson and Pinkerton Absent: Council Members: None Alice M. Reimche City Clerk NO i 1 1 1 { i f 1 WE DC NOT WAKE M BMAS 1 ZE CR SPBCLJI.ATE CN DOLLAR IAESES CR 111REA'I ED DOSS OF SERV ICES . WE S IMPLY DO NDT K" MM THE C URM CR LBGISIATtRE WILL DO IN THE AFTFIRVIATN OF A PROFUSITICN 36 PASSACR. WE StMD TAKE A PCSITICN CN PROPC1SITICN 36 FRM IHE VIEW POINT O1F PUBLIC PCL ICY AND niE EFFBC: T CN THE PKJV I S I CN OF FAIR AND BQU ITABLE COVFMWr. AS A MkMR OF IMEM7, , TfIE MIMING AM CIES HAVE OONE kN ROM AS OPPOSING PRrFM IT ICN 36. AMIItICAN ASSOCIATICN (F RETIRED P>SEM AWRIC•AN AS.90CIATICN CP UNIVERSITY WM N AS90CIAM CEM -RAL CCI+TIIitY>PC IS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. CALTK NIA QEiMiFR OF 01ANI RC,E CALI KRNIA CUM CAUSE CALI KIIN IA COUNCIL FCR EN IIFiCD` ENTAL AND FJOMMIC BALANCE CALIF(TIiNTANS FOR EFFICIENT ID AL ODVFS-bElT CALIFCHVIA FAR&I BLEW FEI)ERA`'ICN CALIM NIA HaBING OQNCIL, INC. CALIMMIA PjaMrAP E CALIKIRNIA TAX RF.tKM AS90CIATICN CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS AS.90CIATICN