HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02122002 - C35 CONTRA
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS +� °. '- :•'_.'' - - ` • COSTA
ti a'• I
COUNTY
FROM: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema -
Member, CSAC Board of Directors
DATE: February 12, 2002
SUBJECT. CSAC Constitutional Amendment Proposal
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACKNOWLEDGE that the CSAC Board of Directors voted not to Continue to pursue a
Constitutional amendment to provide protection for local government revenues.
BACKGROUNDIREASOWS) FOR RECOMMENDATION($);
At their January 31, 2002 meeting, the CSAC Board of Directors voted not to Continue to pursue
placement of a Constitutional amendment on the November ballot to protect local revenues. This
vote Concluded over a year of discussion, debate and polling on the issue. The CSAC Board of
Directors "no go" decision is Consistent with our Board of Supervisors position on the issue.
The constitutional amendment proposal first began as a measure to stop the transfer of local
property taxes under the ERAF. When the polling made it clear that this issue was too complex
for the voters absent an extremely well financed media campaign, CSAC looked for alternatives
and began exploring the possibility of protecting remaining local revenues.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDAT�N OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE —OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
r
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED.)L-OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Sara Hoffman,335-1090 ATTESTED February 12, 2002
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
dkND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
Dept Heads BY DEPUTY
b
BAC GR0 ND REA N 3 FOR RECENDA 1 nt'd
% Gent Sales Tax Measure
During the process of polling and drafting language on protecting local revenue, a coalition of
hospitals, fire protection and police began to work on a % cent sales tax measure for public safety.
CSAC and the League of California Cities joined that coalition and that proposed % cent sales tax
measure was expanded to include protection of local revenues. However, the public safety and
hospital coalition did not want to fully protect local revenues, but only public safety revenues.
Ultimately, the League of California Cities dropped out of the coalition due to this limitation, followed
by the police chiefs and the hospitals for other reasons. Due to both funding and political
consequences, other coalition partners agreed not to further pursue the ballot measure at this time.
Constitutional Amendment Versions
While the coalition was developing its proposal, CSAC was still pursuing the possibility of a
constitutional amendment to protect local revenues, either"full protection" or public health and safety
protection. In addition, various versions were developed that allowed the suspension of the
protection under specified terms and conditions. On January 15, 2002, CSAC filed for title and
summary with the Attorney General's Office four versions of the constitutional amendment.
Subsequent to ding the alternatives, CSAC conducted statewide polls to determine what, if any,
significant differences in voters support could be distinguished among the alternatives. No version
started with the 60% positive response that is usually deemed necessary to proceed absent a very
well financed campaign. The full protection version with "push" questions was able to get only a 45%
positive response, while public safety got up to 54%. According to CSAC consultants, both
measures would require a well-funded campaign and at least neutrality from the education
community.
CS-AC Board Decides "No"
After considerable discussion, CSAC Board of Directors approved a motion not to pursue a
constitutional amendment at this time. However, in doing so, they acknowledged the positive
relationship developed with League of California Cities in the process and felt that it was very
important to continue that momentum. Some of the concerns expressed by various board members
included the difficulty in raising money for the campaign, given the economic situation today; the
complexity of the measure and the difficulty people would have understanding it; and the overall loss
of credibility for counties if it did not pass. The door was left open to reconsider the measure for the
2004 election.