HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10051993 - 1.32 1. 32
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.. Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator r ;�
Costa
County
DATE: September 29, 1993
STqcoua�
SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2, 1993 BALLOT: PROPOSITION 170
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in SUPPORT of Proposition 170 on the November 2,
1993 ballot, which would amend the California Constitution to
require only a ;, simply majority voter approval for general
obligation bonds issued by school districts for capital
expenditures .
BACKGROUND:
California' s schools, from kindergarten through community colleges,
will need billions of dollars for construction and renovation in
the next five years . The State currently helps local governments
pay for schools by using bonds from the local school facilities
program. School districts often ask voters to approve bonds to
build and maintain schools . Currently, a school district must get
the approval of �Yk of the voters to raise property taxes beyond 1 %
of the property' s assessed value, which is required to pay for the
bonds . Schools also receive funding from special fees paid by
developers . The developer' s fees are limited, but current law says
that the limits will be removed if a statewide bond measure for
school facilities is rejected by the voters.
This Constitutional amendment would make local school districts
take more responsibility for funding school facilities, but would
also make it ' easier to do so. If approved by the voters,
Proposition 170 would require only a simply majority vote, instead
of a 21s majority to pass a local bond measure for school facilities
and raise the property tax above the 1% level . Under this measure,
developers ' fees would be limited even if a bond measure failed.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
/ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE �c•� .c
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON bei' 5, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT r� ) 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: County Administrator ATTESTED ol�T. J 1993
Each Board Member PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Each School District Superintendent SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(Via CAO)
BY DEPUTY
M382 opl88)
-2-
Passage of Proposition 170 will allow local communities to
determine the extend to which they wish to tax themselves to pay
for school facilities and to do so by a simple majority vote.
Under the current,, system it takes years to qualify for State school
bond funds because of the extraordinary demand for such capital
funds . On numerous occasions in Contra Costa County in recent
years school bond measures have gained substantially more than 50%
voter approval, but have failed to reach the extremely difficult 21a
voter approval .
Proposition 170 would make local communities much more responsible
for their own school facilities and would probably result in the
eventual phasing out of the State school bond program.
School officials in this County have asked the Board of Supervisors
to indicate its " support for Proposition 170 . The argument in
support of Proposition 170 is signed by the President of the State
PTA, the Director of the Congress of California Seniors and the
President of the ,,California Chamber of Commerce. The rebuttal to
the argument against Proposition 170 is signed by the President of
the League of Women Voters, the Executive Secretary of the
California Federation of Labor, AFL/CIO and by the President of
PORAC. The argument in opposition to Proposition 170 and the
rebuttal to the argument in support of Proposition 170 is signed by
the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,
Assemblyman Ross Johnson and the President of the Sherman Oaks
Homeowners Association.
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors go on record in
support of Proposition 170 .