Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11101987 - 2.3 ;2 . TO BOARD OF SUPERVISOR FROM: Phil Batchelor Contra County Administrator Costa DATE . November . 5, 1987Coiry SUBJECT: Report on Ballot Propositions • C, D, and E SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . .. Accept: this report from the County Administrator. 2 . Authorize. the Chair of the Board to send. a letter to each county in California explaining the advisory measures that were. on the November 3 ballot and recommending that each county put similar .measures on the next available ballot. 3 . Authorize . the Chair of the Board to share this report with the Executive Committee of CSAC at their annual meeting in Monterey later this, month, recommending that CSAC endorse efforts by. the counties to place similar .measures on the ballot in as many counties as possible. 4. Authorize the Chair of the Board to' send. letters to this County' s legislative -delegation, the .1 leadership in both houses of the Legislature and the Governor noting the results of the election in this County and urging that the Legislature give prompt. attention to . the subject matter of the three propositions as soon as. they reconvene in January, .1988 . 5 . Authorize the Chair of the Board to write to each city in the County calling their attention to .the election results and urging the city or town council , to write to. their legislators urging that the Legislature give immediate attention to the subject matter of the three propositions. BACKGROUND: In an effort. to gauge the public support for some . of the proposals: the Board has been working on for several years, the Board placed on the November 3, 1987. ballot three advisory , . measures: Measures C, D, and E. Measure C asked the voters: "Should. the California State budget revenue surplus be allocated to fund essential local services such as CONTINUED ON 'ATTACHMENT:. YES SIGNATURE' . X RECOMMENDATION. OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _ OTHER S I GNAT URE S : ACTION OF BOARD ON November 10, ' 1987 J•..FPROVED AS RECCIAMENDED _x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNAN I.VIO'US (ABSENT -_ AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:— NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED � County Administrator November 10 1987 Legislative Delegation (via CAO) — --- - --___ Legislative Leadership (via CAO) PHIL BATCHELOR..CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Each City in the COuniv (via CAO) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR . Each California County (via CAO) BY _ M382/7-83 DEPUTY - Page 2 provided by schools, counties and cities instead of being used for tax. rebate"? Measure C' passed with a 58 .7% "Yes" vote. Measure D asked the voters: "Should the California -Constitution be amended to strengthen legal requirements that the State fully fund all programs it imposes upon local government"? Measure D passed with' an 80. 5% ."Yes" vote. Measure E asked the voters: I "Should a California law be enacted to require that a specified .portion of the existing taxes you now pay to the State .hereafter be dedicated to counties, schools, cities,and special districts to provide a stable source of funding for local services"? Measure E passed. with a 78. 0% "Yes" vote. This substantial. positive voter reaction to these. three advisory'. measures provides the Board of Supervisors with an opportunity to . . encourage other -counties to place similar measures on their ballots, hopefully by June, 1988 . The Board may also want to . make a special point of calling this vote to the attention of our . legislative delegation and the leadership. of the Legislature, as well as the Governor. Sending letters .to each city would also provide an opportunity for each city to write to their legislative delegation,. calling on them to take action. '.on the . three subjects covered , by these three ballot measures; namely, the use. of the State surplus to assist local government before rebating the surplus to the taxpayers; more adequate reimbursement to local government for State-mandated local programs and the need for a stable source of revenue for local government..