Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 19, 2000 E-17COUNCIL COMMUNICATION U AGENDA TITLE: Resolution to support the passage of Proposition 26, "The Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability" that is scheduled for the March 7, 2000 election. MEETING DATE: January 19, 2000 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council support the passage of Proposition 26. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Proposition 26 will lower the voting requirement for passage of local school bonds from two-thirds majority to a simple majority and change existing law regarding charter school facilities. Voting Requirement for Passage of Local School Bonds This proposition allows (1) school facilities bond measures to be approved by a majority (rather than two-thirds) of the voters in local elections and (2) property taxes to exceed the current 1 percent limit in order to repay the bonds. This majority vote requirement would apply only if the local bond measure presented to the voters includes: • A requirement that the bond funds can be used only for construction, rehabilitation, equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities. • A specific list of school projects to be funded and the school board certifies it has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing the list. • A requirement that the school board conduct annual, independent financial and performance audits until all bond funds have been spent to ensure that the bond funds have been used only for the projects listed in the measure. Charter School Facilities This proposition requires each local K-12 school district to provide charter schools facilities sufficient to accommodate the charter school's students. The district, however, would not be required to spend its general discretionary revenues to provide these facilities for charter schools. The district, however, could choose to use these or other revenues --including state and local bonds. APPROVED: A. Di n Flynn -- i Manager cc0001.doc 01/12/00 Council Communication Meeting Date: January 19, 2000 Page 2 The proposition also provides that: • The facilities must be reasonably equivalent to the district schools that these students would otherwise attend. • The district may charge the charter school for its facilities. • A district may decline to provide facilities for a charter school with a current or projected enrollment of fewer than 80 students. Staff believes this proposition should be supported. I have provided as an attachment, a list of frequently asked questions and answers along with the current list of supporters. FUNDING: None required Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director KB/lw Attachments FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1 . Why reduce the current two-thirds vote requirement to pass local school bonds? ,. What are California's school facility needs? Does the initiative provide any safeguards to ensure that the money derived from local school bonds is spent properly? 4. Won't Proposition 1A provide the necessary dollars for school facility improvements? �. Are charter schools included? 6- What provisions are included in the initiative for charter schools? Why will this initiative be successful if a previous measure to do roughly oo the same thing failed in 1993? u. Will this initiative create new costs? 9. Are school bonds the best way to go? 10. Would California be alone in eliminating the supermajority for local school bonds? 1 1 . How many bonds have been attempted in recent California History? Why reduce the current two-thirds vote requirement to pass local school bonds? • 'his initiative makes it easier to nvestmert in our kids' education. • California is one of a few states that recuse a two-thirds majority vote fcr'ocal school bonds. This unfair requirement leaves our kids in dilapidated, sever" overcrowded facilities. • tie need to pass this initiative so we can extend the class size reduction program to ail California public school students. • 'his initiative will put the power to peace ocal school funding back in the lands of the majority of voters while ensunng sena accountability for every donar spent. • <ids will be better prepared for the 2:5' a^fury. Bond funds can be used to provide technology for our schools. Hnicn _7irrently rank dead last among the :0 states in computers per student. What are California's school facility needs? • rialf of California's school buildings are more than 30 years old, and many are in serous disrepair. Kids will be safer and hea:thier when old, dilapidated buildings are renovated or replaced. • California ranks dead last among the fif^/ states in pupils per instructionai cpmputer. • School crowding jeopardizes safety and !nc-eases supervision and behavior problems. Serious injury can result from a;.ng schools that do not meet earthquake or flood zone standards. • More than two million California students attend classes in temporary traders. Does the initiative provide any safeguards to ensure that the money derived from local school bonds is spent properly? • Yes. The "Let's Fix Our Schools" initiative nas strict accountability measures for every dollar spent written right into it. This guarantees that voters will get what they pay for and that every penny of bond money is spent on public school Page 1 of 3 01/12/2000 facilities and not on administrative salaries or operating expenses. • Under the measure's provisions, voters will receive a list of projects to be funded by each bond measure, and school cistricts will be required to obtain an annual, independent audit to ensure that all arojects get done on time and on budget- • This initiative returns control of school construction to local voters - as opposed to the Sacramento bureaucracy. • The initiative itself does not increase=roperty taxes. Bonds must meet stringent tests and still must be passed by voters. Wont Proposition 1A provide the necessary dollars for school facility improvements? • Proposition IA, approved by the voteK of California in 1998, is a step n the right direction. It provides state matcning _nds. but only if local districts can pass bonds with an unreasonable t%vo-t ver=s vote. This unfair requirement leaves our kids in severely overcrowded, dilao,cated facilities. • This initiative will make it easter to -^vest in our kids' education while ensuring strict accountability for every dollar s=ent. Are charter schools included? • Yes. Charter public schools are an .,-:crtant, growing part of the California public school system. All public school cmic-en should have the cnance to lean in safe and adequate buildings. What provisions are included in the initiative for charter schools? • -he measure provides that all <ias c :,_blit schools will benefit because pumic ; narter school students are enntle —: `aalities that are equitable to those provided to other public school s -ce^s. Why will this initiative be successful if a previous measure to do roughly the same thing failed in 1993? • Proposition 170, which failed =assace n _993, did not have the same broad- based support that this initiative n.as. -iis initiative is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of teacners, carers. cusiness leaders, police and other =uciic safety organizations, children's acvc--acy groups, and labor organizations bemuse they know that good schools are the `cundation for a healthy, growing economy. • in addition, class size reduction nas=r-duced an urgent and undeniable neva for new classrooms to replace traders arc :Id, dilapidated classrooms. Will this initiative create new costs? • No. This initiative will merely crovice a getter ooportunity for the majonty of local voters to invest in their <ias' ecccaoon. This initiative itself would not Increase any taxes. • A recent pod found that more :nan =ercent of California voters are willing to make an additional investment •n e=:cat'.on while ensuring greater accountaoility for every dollar spent. Are school bonds the best way to go? • The majority of California voters be:•eve -hat bonds are the most approonate way to fund long-term projects, esnecta-iy-eoairing classrooms and reducing sC•ool overcrowding. They also firmly beueve n the concept of majority rule on this issue. Would California be alone in eliminating the the supermajority for local school bonds? • No. California is one of the few states :o require a two-thirds vote for local school ponds. Page 2 of 3 01/12/2000 Now many bonds have been attempted in recent California History? • Since 1966, 771 local school bonds have been attempted. Of these, 417, or 54% passed, 312, or 40%, failed yet receved over 50% of the vote. 42 received less than 50% of the vote. Seven hundred twenty-six bonds received over 50% of the vote constituting 94% of the total number of bonds attempted since 1986. Based on EdSource information w29 updates from Fall 1999 provided by prop 26 campaign staff. Page.3 of 3 01/12/2000 Local School Bonds: Proposition 26 CURRENT ENDORSEMENTS January 10, 1999 Business . Accel Partners ALZA Pharmaceuticals • AMD . American Electronics Association (1,400 high-tech companies) . Apple Computers . Associated General Contractors of California . Black Business Association . California Association for Local Economic Development . California Association of Realtors . California Buildin!. Industry :Association . California Business _Alliance . California Business for Education Excellence . California Business Properties Association . California Business Roundtable . California Chamber of Commerce . California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance • California Manufacturers _Association . California Public Securities Association California Retailers Association • Cisco Systems. Inc. . Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce . Consumer Federation of California • Daly City-Colma Chamber of Chamber . eBay. Inc. . Fresno Hispanic Chamber of Commerce . Glendora Chamber of Commerce . Hewlett-Packard Company . Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Monterey County • Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Orange County . Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Santa Clara Countv . Home Ownership Advancement Foundation . Irvine Company . Latin Business Association . Latino Chamber of Commerce of Santa Cruz County . Lightspan Partnership . Lockheed Martin Corporation • Paradise Ridge Chamber of Commerce . Quantum Corporation . Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce . Redwood Citv- San Mateo Chamber of Commerce . Sacramento Asian -Pacific Chamber of Commerce . Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce • San Benito County Hispanic Chamber of Pagel of 4 01/12/2000 Commerce • San Diego County Black Chamber of Commerce • San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce • San Jose/Silicon Valle- Chamber of Commerce • San Marino Chamber of Commerce • Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce • Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group • Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce • Technology Network • The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU) • Vallejo Chamber of Commerce • XILINX Children and Education • Alameda Education Foundation • Association of California Community College Administrators • Association of California School Administrators • Association of California School Administrators Region XV • :association of Califomia urban School Districts • Association for the Imnrovement of Seeondar% Education • Association of Low Wealth Schools • Association of ;Mexican American Educators • California Association for the Gifted • California Association of School Psychologists • California Association of Suburban School Districts • California Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Lan_ua=es • Children NOW • California Continuation Education Association • California Countv Superintendents Educational Services Association • California Faculty Association • California Retired Teachers Association • California School Boards Association • California School Library: Association • California School Emnlovees Association • California School Nurses Organization • California Speech -Language -Hearing Association • California State Board of Educationy • California State PTA • California Teachers Association • Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice • Children's Advocacy- Institute • Children's Defense Fund • Children's Network Council of Solano County • Coalition for Adequate School Housing • Community College Facility Coalition • The College Board • The California State University • Community College League of California • County School Facilir: Consortia Page 2 of 4 01/12/2000 • Faculty Association of California Community Colleges • Kids in Common • McCarthy Brothers Company/ Education Services Group • Mt. Olive Lutheran Preschool • Small School Districts Association • United Teachers Los A-ngeles (UTLA) • University of California Health • California Physicians Alliance • California Nurses Association Labor • American Federation of Mate. County, and Municipal Emplo} ees • California Association of Professional Scientists • California Conference Board - Amalgamated Transit Union • California State Council of Hotel and Restaurant Employees • California State Council of Service Employees • California State Employees association, Local 1000. SEIU. AFL-CIO • California State Pipes Trades Council • California Union of Safety- Employees • Cement Masons Local 600 • Communication Workers of America Local 9503 • District Council of Iron %Yorkers of the State of California & Vicinin- • Engineering & Utilities Contractors Association • Engineers & Scientists of California Local 20 IFPTE (AFL-CIO) • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 100 • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 441 • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 639 • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Ninth District • Northern California Carpenters Regional Council • Plumbers and Fitters Local Union 246 • Plumbers UA Local Union 393 • Professional Engineers in California Government • San Jose Newspaper Guild! CWA Local 39098 • Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council • Service Employees International Union Local 660 (Los Angeles) • Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 108 • Southern California) -Nevada Regional Council of Carpenters • Southern California Pipe Trades District 16 Page 3 of 4 01/12/2000 • State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. AFL-CIO • United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 230 • United Auto Workers Region • United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770 Local Government • California State Association of Counties • League of California Cities • San Francisco Board of Supervisors Public. -Community Interest • ACCION San Die<_o • AARP • American Association of university Women of California • Barristers Club of San Francisco • Bar Association of San Francisco • California Common Cause • California Council of Churches/Church IMPACT • California National Orzanization of Women (California NOW) • Center for Public Intere-t Law • Chinese American Council of Sacramento • Coalition for Rural Pueblos Economic Development • Congress of California Seniors • Gray Panthers of Los Angeles • Greenlining Institute (represents over 50 ethnic organizations) • League of African-American Voters • League of Women Voters of California • Lutheran Office of Pubiic Policy • National Taxpayers' Alliance • National Association of Social Workers — California Chapter • Mexican American Political Association . Plannin(y and Consen-ation League • Sacramento Civil Rights Network • Public Safetv • California Association of Highwav Patrolmen • California State Firefighters Association • San Diego City Fire Fighters • California Organization. of Police and Sheriffs (COPS) • California Professional Firefighters • Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAQ Page 4 of 4 01/12/2000 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 26, "THE MAJORITY RULE ACT FOR SMALLER CLASSES, SAFER SCHOOLS AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY" WHEREAS, more than two million California students attend class in temporary facilities, and the state must build six new classrooms every day if it is going to accommodate the quickly growing student population; and WHEREAS, without significant new construction and modernization, existing schools will not be ready to handle the estimated 300,000 additional students over the next seven years; and WHEREAS, at a time when California families want safer schools, more class size reduction, and better access to 21st century learning tools like computers and the Internet, we need to ensure that local school districts have the funds to create classroom environments that help students learn; and WHEREAS, last year voters passed Proposition 1A, a $9.2 billion statewide bond to provide state matching funds for local school facilities construction and improvements; and WHEREAS, school districts can only receive Proposition 1A state bond funds if they can generate matching funds through local bonds; and WHEREAS, local school bonds require a two-thirds vote to pass, forcing many districts to run numerous campaigns; and WHEREAS, this initiative would amend the California Constitution and Education Code to allow passage of critically needed local school bonds with a simple majority of 50 percent plus one, rather than the current two-thirds vote required, while holding local school districts strictly accountable for prudent and responsible spending; and WHEREAS, a local school bond in Lodi Unified School District recently received 61.9 percent, but failed passage due to the two-thirds vote requirement for local school bonds; and WHEREAS, the local school bond in Lodi Unified School District would have passed with a simple majority of 50 percent plus one, but the two-thirds vote requirement prevented the will of the majority of voters from being heard, and denied our children the chance to enjoy a positive learning environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi supports the passage of Proposition 26, the "Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability," and encourages California voters to approve this Proposition on March 7, 2000. Dated: January 19, 2000 hereby certify that Resolution No. 2000-10 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held January 19, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Land, Pennino and Mann (Mayor) NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Nakanishi ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk 2000-10