The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-11-04; City Council; DEL RM; General Election Sample Ballot & Information Pamplet- . -,. , ., , .: . .- .~- .. . - .. INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS (ABSENTEE VOTERS: Please disregard the following 1nstruci;ons.) STEP 1. Insert the ballot card all the way into the Votomatic. STEP 2. Be sure the two slots in the stub ot your card fit down over the Iwo red pins. STEP 3. Using the punch device attached to the Votomatic. punch through the ballot card at the point of the arrow opposite the name of the candi. date of your choi-e. Hold punch vertical (straight up). Do not use pen or pencil. STEP 4. Do not vote for more candidates than indicated for each contest. STEP 5. Afier voting. withdraw the ballot card. Check to be sure the punchout is not hanging to the back of the card. STEP 6. Fold the ballot card at the perfora. lion (as demonstrated at the polls). with the stub showing, and return it to the precinct board member. NOTE All distinguishing marks or era- sures are lorbidden and make the ballot void. If you make a mistake. return your ballot card and obiain another. k4 """" I I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS . . ;, . .- . ., 1 To vote for. a candidate whose name appears on the ballot, punch the ballot card In the hole at the point of the arrow OppOslte the candidate's name. Where two or more candldates for the Same offlce are to be elected, punch the ballot card In the hole at the ' point. of the arrow 'opposite the names of all candidates for the office for whom you desire to vote, not to exceed, however, the number of candidates to be elected. :ha offlce and the person's name In the blank spaces provided for To vote for a quallfled wrlte-In candldate, write the name Of that purpose on the ballot card. To vote on any measure, punch the ballot card In the nobe at the point of the arrow oppos1te.the word "YES" Or Opposite the word "NO". Ail dlstlngulshlng marks or erasures are forbldden and make the ballot vold. TO START YOUR VOTING GO TO NEXT PAGE I, .. fP4 115-1 GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNTY . OFFICIAL BALLOT STATE GOVERNOR Vote for One MARIA ELIZABETH MUNOZ Peace and Freedom GARY V. MILLER JOSEPH FUHRIG GEORGE "DUKE" DEUKMEJIAN TOM BFtADLEV Educator Governing Board Member. Mt. SAC Corn. CollRge DiS:. Prolassor of Economics Governor, State 01 Calilornta Mayor. City 01 Los Angeles 33. 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ Amerlcan lndependent Ubertarlan ' pepubllcrn .. Democratlc .. 0 0 0 0 0 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Vote for One LEO T. MC CARTHY Mtena!Y Governor Democratlc 9., 0 10+ 0 11+ 0 12+ 0 MIKE CURB CLYDE KUHN NORMA JEAN ALMODOVAR ' RepubllCWl College Inswclor xuthor Truck Driver 13+ 0 Peace and Freedom Ubertarlan I J-MES C. "JIM" GRIFFIN Amerlcan Independent SECRETARYOFSTATE Vote for One MARCH FONG EU Democratlc 15+ 0 GLORIA GARCIA Peace and Freedom 16+ 0 RICHARD WINGER Ubertarlan 17+ 0 THERESA "TENA" DIETRICH Amerlcan Independent 18+ 0 BRUCENESTANDE Republlcan 19* 0 Secretary of State of California Worker Election Law Consultant Printer County Supervisor - CONTROLLER Vote for One BILL CAMPBELL Republlcan 21 + NICHOLAS W. KUDROVZEFF . . Amerlcan Independent 22+ GRAY DAVIS Democratlc CAROLYN TREYNOR JOHN HAAG Cglornia State Senator Retired Electrical Director Member of 1b.a State Assembly, California Legislalure Business AdrdnlStratOr peaw/PolitlcaI Organizer 23+ 25+ Llbertarlan 24+ Peace and Freedom 0 0 0 0 0 N-01-4 415-2 "" .. ~. ... .. .- ...-.... """"" .. . . . . ,~. 'T"""" .. . . .. .. .. GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNN OFFICIAL BALLOT STATE (CONTINUED) TREASURER vote for One RAY CULLEN MERTON D. SHORT Amerlcan Independent 29+ 0 MAUREEN SMITH JESSE M. UNRUH certified PuMk Accountant Avialor UnionlCommunlty Organizer Calilornia Stale Treasurer mrtarlan 28* 0 Peace and Freedom DsmocraUc 30+ 0 31+ 0 ArrORNEY GENERAL Vote for One JOHN VAN DE KAMP Democratk GARY R. ODOM CAROL L NEWMAN ROBERT J. EVANS BRUCE GWSON .. . , Republlcan Anorney General, Calilornla Anorney Anornay. private practice 33+ 0 35+ 0 35+ 0 37+ 0 Amerlcan Independent . 3.+ 0 Ubertarlan peace and Freedom ' - Law Anorney-al-Law MEMBER. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - 3RD DISTRICT vole for One - MAXINE BELLQUIRK MARK F. BUCKLEY ERNEST J."ERNIE" DRONENBURG. JR. JACK R. SANDERS peace and Freedom DemocmUc 40+ 0 Republlcan Llberlarlan 42+ 0 39+ 0 '41+ 0 Peace Aclivisl ~eputy Assessor/Accoun:anl Incumbent Small Businessman Ne-7 415-1 4 j I i GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DlEGO COUNTY ' !. ! OFFICIAL BALLOT 'I i UNITED STATES SENATOR i Vote for Ono PAUL KANGAS Peace and Freedom ED ZSCHAU BRECK MC KINLEY EDWARD B. "ED" VALLEN Amerlcan Independent AUN CmN Soclalisl Organher 55+ U. S. Congressman '~ Finadd Consunant Republlun Uberlarlan 56+ 57+ 59+ Dlrec(3r. PaMOliC CommillW ' 58+ Unlted Stat- Senator DemocraUc Oi 01 I' UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE .. i '. . URDDlSTRlCT ' Vote for One . PHYLLIS AVERY .. Hktorical AeSaSrCher Uhrtarlan 62+ Oi AnorneylBusin%rsman 63+0; ' Member 01 U. S. Congress . 64+0; JOSEPH CHIRRA DernocnUc RON PACKARD Republlun i ., .. STATE SENATOR MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY i 1 ; 71Tw DISTRICT ' vote for One i: Ubartarlan 73+ 0 1 N-03-26 4 15-4 I . GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,lS86 - SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICIAL BALLOT ' JUDICIAL FOR CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shah ROSE WZABEM BIRD k elected to the OfRCe YES 81+ 0 torthetermprWbedbylaw? No 82+ 0 FOR ASSoClATE JUSTICE OF ME SUPREME COURT Shah CRUt REYNOSO be elected 10 the.Ofk9 torthe term presdbed by law7 " FOR ASSSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shall EDWARD A PANELLI be elected to the OH+ YES 87* 0 lor the (orm presdbd by law? NO Rn., n FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF ME SUPREME COURT ~ ~~ Shall JOSEPH R. GRODIN be elected 10 the OM lor the term prescribed by law? ~ ~~ ~ FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT Shall STANLEY YESGO MOSK be elected to the OKCe for the term presaibed by law? - No 94+ 0 YES 96+ 0 NO 97+ 0 FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COUHT Shd MALCOLM M. LUCAS be elected 10 the OW for the term presaibed by lawl " FOR PRESIDING JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISfRICT, DIVISION ONE - Shall DANIEL J. KREMER be elected to the OmCa .YES gg+ 0 NO loo+ .o YES 102+ 0 No 103+ 0 lor the term prescribed by law? FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTIC COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DlS%lCT, DIVISION ONE Shall EDWARD 1. BVNR be docled 10 the lor the term prWbd by law? N-04-7 415-S .. .. .. .. GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICIAL BALLOT JUDICIAL (CONTINUED) FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE Shall JERRY J. LEWIS be elecled to the ollice YES 106* 0 IGr the term prdbed by Iw? . NO 107* 0 j ! - FOR PRESIDING JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DIShlCT, DIVISION TWO - Shan JOSEPH B. CAMPBELL be elected to the ollice YES log* 0 lor the term prescribed by low7 .. NO 110* 0 FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO Shall JOHN H. HEWS be elected to the oflice YES 112* 0 lor :he term prescribed by law7 NO 113+ 0 . .- ) FOR PRESIDING JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISfRICT, DIVISION THREE i 1: Shall JOHN K. TROTTER, JR. be eleCted to the Office YES 115* 0 !or the term prescribed by law? NO 116+ 0' ~~ - FOURTH APPEUTE DISTRICT. DIVISION THREE FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL - Shall SHEILA PRELL SONENSHINE be elected to the oflice v~s118* O NO 119+ 0 lor the term prescribed by law7 FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APFELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE ?- Shall EDWARD J. WALLIN be elecled to the oflice YES 121* 0 lor the term prescribed by law7 NO 122* 0 YES 124* 0 NO 125+ 0 FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE Shall THOMAS F. CROSBV, JR. be elected Io the oflice lor the term presr'ibed by law? r JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT - OFFICE NO. 4 Vote for One S. CHARLES,WICKERSHAM E. MAC AMOS, JR. Deputy Dlstrc! Anorney 127* 0 ~ Judge 128* 0 . ..- N-05-5 415-11 , , "..., .. )._ ~-.,r 7 ,.. . . ! SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Mamber. Governha Board Vote for no more than Three RAY JENKINS MARY ANN MC CARTHY WILLIAMS. KOVACH JAMES O'LEARY EdualorlSlow-gmwlh Advocate !nwmbent Businessman Educator I DEINNA '"E" RICH Del Mar School Board MARY LOU SCHULT2 kcurnbent SANDRA PARISH Solana Beach Board Member 1339 134+ 13!W 1369 137+ 138+ 1399 1419 1429 1439 ENClNlTAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Member, Govemlng Board Vote for no more than Three ANTHONY BRANDENBURG Incumbent H. J. WALKER. JR. Biologist. ' BILL CARU Appolnted Incumken1 SANDRA SCHUL?Z 1449 Incumbent . t i 1 GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICIAL BALLOT ! .. \ .. .. , :I ., COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - !&I DISTRICT Vote for One JOHN MAC DONALO CLYDE ROMNEY Cih, CoundlmberlEducalor 168+ Oovarmnlsl Relalions Counsel . 169* 0 0 .I GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DlEGO COUNTY OFFICIAL BALLOT CITY OF CARLSBAD vice Mayor 184* 0 Comnity ActivisVBustnossman 185+ 0 MAVOR Vote for One CUUDE "BUD" LEWIS BOB PRESCOlT CITY COUNCIL Vote for no more than Two LOIS HUMPHREYS PATHOUEMER-RUNSVOU) ROGER BURKE MARVLYNN BROWN-BELLMAN (MBB) DENNIS BRANDMMR ALBERT MEND024 SUSAN MILLER-REPASKY JOHN J. MAMAUX ERIC URSON RICHARD L REPASKY MARK PElTlNE Director, Leucadia County Water Teacher 188+ Trslnlng Adnrlnlslrator 189+ Community Planner/Consuitant 190+ Businessman 191+ Retired Government AdminisValor Mother/BuslneffmomanTrraincr 193+ Business Consunant Agrkunurai Cooperative Manager 195+ Private Inveslgator Incumbenl 187* .. 192+ .. 194+ 196+ 197+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY CLERK Vote for One AIJZTHA "LEE" RA'VIENKRANZ incumbent 199+ 0 TREASURER Vote ?or One BILL ESTERLINE RUTH L COVE Appointed Incumbent Business Consu~ant-Acc3untant 201+ 0 202+ 0 ! GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNN OFFICIAL BALLOT MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF VOTERS - STATE 53 54 55 56 GREENE-HUGHES SCHOOL BUILDING !~€ASE-PURCHASE hundred million dollws (ssoO.OOC.000) to provide capnal outlay YES 237e .D j BOND UW OF 1986. This act provides for a hnd issue of eight for constructin or inprovemento: puMi schools to be sold at a rate not Io exceed four hundred million dollars (t400.000.coo) per year. NO 23W 0 i NEW PRISON CONSTRUCTION BOND ACT OF 1986. This act provides lor the acquisition and construction of state youth and YES 239* 0 addl correctional facilities pursuant to a bond issue of five NO 24(il+ 0 ", CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER BOND LAW OF 1986. 1 This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred million dollars YES 241+ 0 i (SlOO.ooO.000) tc provide funds for improvemenl of domestic waler systenr, to meet minimum drinking water standards. NO 242+ O .: HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1986. This , SCI provWs for a bond Issue of four hundred million dollars (uoO.000.000) to provide capltal lor construction or improve- ment 01 facliities at Californla's public hlgher education Institutions. ~ Including the University of Caliiornia's nine campuses. the Calicornia State csmpusfs. and the Calilornia Maritime Academy. to be sold at a rate MI University's IO campuses. the Calnornia Community m~s 106 YES 245+ 0 to exceed Iwo hundred firtv millian dollars IS250.000.000I oer vear. NO 246+ 0 hundred million dollars ($500.~.000). ,* t i ~ ~~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ,~ ,. , ~~ ,~ - ~ ~ ~~ I ' impact: Would result in'an annuai Gate saving of abut $400.000 by YES 248+ (J preventkg the automatic increase of luture retirement benefits of Iewer than 20 people when salaries of statewide elected omcers increase in the , NO 249+ 0 t11111.. / 1 58! ".".". TAXATION. FAMILY TRANSFERS. Exempts transfers 01 real roper& between spouses and beween parents and children om properly tax rew855ment. Fiscal impact: Would reduce i I local prop9 '_"x revenues. Local overnments would lose about $17 L8Iura. Schonl and cnmmmihl cnliwe didtricts would lose about Sll million in 19 7 88. 537 million in 1888-89 and increasing amounts in luture. but state ald would onset these losses, resulllng In a loss lo the rnliiion in 1987-88. $23 million in 1998-89, and increasjng amounts in- State General Fund in these mwunls. __ ~ , . .~ ~~ ~ ~~~252* O NO 253* O ' ELECTED DISTRICT AlTORNEY. Requires onice 01 county YE^ 254+ 0 59 district anorney to be elective. Flscal impact: Measure would have no direct state or local fiscal ellect NO 255+ 0: TAXATION. REPUCEMEM RESIDENCES. Legislature may pmit homwnets over 55 who change residences to keep assesmen1 u,nder maln conditions. Fiscd Impact: Measure . has no dued state or local ened unless the Legislature passes laws Implementing R. if the Legislalure does 50, prom tax revenues would I be reduced. Loss of revenue would probably amunt to several million I comnunily mlw and school dimlcts the balance. The State General YES 259+ 0 1 dollars per year. Lacd governments would bear 60 peacent of loss. through higher Mate ald. Fund would onset 1099 to mmnily colleges and School d!stricts NO 260* 0 1 NSB-1O.t 41s-10 I 60 - 1 !I \( ' I GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNiY OFFICIAL BALLOT STATE - CONTINUED PUBLIC OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE. CONTRACTOR COM- YES 264+ 0 NO 265+ 0 LOCAL TAXATION. For new and increased taxes, local YES 268+ 0 .i ., Rovldm lor private enforcement.. Fiscal inpact: No direct eflect applied to chmer cilies. NO 269.+ 0 omcials to ensura English m offcld state amn language. YES 270+ 0 i 1 on the wsls or revenues 01 the slate or local governments. NO 271+ 0 63 OFFICIAL STAT€ LANGUAGE. Requires Legislature and State. .. ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS). .. Declares AIDS VIN~ canler a contagious condition, Subj%cc to .. upon its lnlerpretation by disease regulation. Fiscal ImpaCr The conrmnkable disease to AIDS, gken the current state 01 medical ,.E;.; knowW5ge. there would be no substantial change in stale and local . - 1 . costs. If measure were Interpreted to requlre added dlsew mnuois. ' ii msls could range to hundreds of millions 01 dollars per yeU depending i ,; on -res taken. NO 276+ O .. .;,, YES 275+ 0 !.: 65 TOXIC DISCHARGE AND EXPOSURE RESTRICTIONS. RohlMts dlrharge 01 toxic chenjc& into drinking water and 'I. Costs of slate and kcal enforcamen1 are estimated at sxx).ooO In 1987 ? : and thereafter would depend on many factors. but could exceed 'f . requires warnings 01 toxk chmkals exposure. Fiscal krpsa: YES 278+ 0 i' :. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I $1,oOO,ooO annually. Costs would be parUally onset b~ fines Collecled. NO 279* 0 .. :! - ! 1 ! ! I t i ! I i i i ! I ! . . GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4,1986 - SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICIAL BALLOT CITY OF CARLSBAD E growlh management plan that 1) NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE Shall an Ordinance be adopted to provide as a part 01 the 1888 - concunent with needy e!I necessary public Iacilities be provided as APPROVED b the City of Carlsbad unless it I: guaranteed that requlred by sald pian with emphasis on ensuring good Iraftic circulation. schc~ls. parks. Ilbrarles, open space and recreational amenities: and 2) the City Council shall not approve residential development which would Increase the number 01 dwelling units beyond the limit In said ordinance WITHOUT AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE CITIZENS. The City may YES 292J 01 without a conespondingmduction In the residential dwelling unit limit. . N3 ,293+ 0 add additional public lacilitles. The Ci shall not reduce puMic facilities Bond Proposllbn: Shall the City 01 Carlsbad, Calitornia, incur a , F bonded Indebtedness !n !he principal mount ot U.950.ooO tor i the purpose 01 the acquisnion by said City 01 a certain mni- ! cipal improvement, to wit approximately 52.68 acres of undeveloped purpoSBs, and lor the payment of all costs and expenses In W~rIeclMn land known as Hosp Grove to be acquired lor park and open space YES 296+ 0: with such acquisition and the issuanw ot the bonds7 i i 1 ' ' NO 297+ 0' G the Carlsbad Municipal Code which would RESTRICT THC RATE Shall an initiative ordinance be adopted adding Chapter 21.64 to OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS in the City lor ten yea commencing Januav 1. 1987 to not more than 1,ooO Units in 1967, 750 units in 1988 and 500 units each year thereaher through 1996 with exceptions lor lhe replacement 01 damaged or deslroyed units and lor low Imme or senior citizen projects. The Ciiy 01 Carlsbad shall vigorously delend any challenge to the validity or YES 301 * 0 constitutionality 01 this ordinam inasmuch as this ordlnance represents the desires of a majorily 01 the voters 01 Carlsbad. .. NO 3023 0' H calendar years 1987 and 1988 the City of Carisbad. Calilornia Shall an,lnltiative ordinance be adopted as follows: "During Ihe shall (must) build in the Macario Canyon Park, all 01 the following: 1) Five (5) baseball/sotl~all fields. each with a mirdmum distance lrom home plate to any oulfteld tence 01 three hundred leet, and each field lighted lor night use; 2) lour (4) rectangular soccer/loolbaII lields. each with minimum measurements of two hundred feet wide and 'three comnity center, containing a gymnasium large enough to house an . hundred liHy feet long, esch fdd will be lighted tor nigh1 use: 3) One (1) olficial full sized basketball court, plus spectator seciing: 4) A tot lot, picnic area. and adequate public facilities (restrooms. parklng lots. bleachers, etc.) to service the entire Ballfield and Sports Complex tacility. We believe the estimated cost ot this project to be approximately Three YES 309* 0 and One-Hall Million Dollars ($3,xlo,ooO.uO) and tcel that it is a good Investment in our Ciiy's tuture. NO 310+ 0': ? ! 1 VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET The following pages conlaln CANDIDATE’S STATEMENTS .. together wlth .. , ,; BALLOT MEASURES, ANALYSES, ,. ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS . ., ,.. (whlchever Is appllcable lo your ballot) Some of the following pages may contah proposed charier Mlendmenls. The portions to be deleled are prlnted IneWesut type, and the portions to be added are underlined. Argiments In support 01 or in opposition lo the proposed laws are the oplnlons of the authors and have not been checked lor scwracy by any offldd agency. CANDIDATE’S STATEMENTS Although dl locrl nonputtssn c.ndldale9 had the opportunity to sum a statement, the lollowing pages may not mntsin a complete list 01 statements. A ccmplele list 01 candidates appears on the sample ballot. . Each statement is volunleered by the candidale. The statements are the opinions 01 the aulhom and have not bean checked lor accuracy by any omcld ngency. FP-I 475-71 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Judge of the Superior Court - Office No. 4 S. CHARLES 'WICKERSHAM Age: 48 Depuly District Attorney Chuck Wkkersham Is the one prosecutor criminals have hoped and prayod would not try them lor their crimes. Not once in 20 years have his convicticns been overturned by the appellate courts. Chuck Wickersham's approach to crime is hard and Straighnorward . . . Us0 a gun - go 10 jail,. . Sell drugs - go to jail.. , Commit rape - go to jail, , , Comnit robbery - go to jail. Sinply stated, break the law - go to jail is Chuck Wkkersham's message to criminals. Wckersham does not believe anyone is above the law. Chuck Wickersham prosecuted and convicted Mayor Roger Hedgecock. Chuck Chuck Wickersham Is the only candidate for Superior Court e4 to Cali lor'the Ouster 01 Chiel Justice Rose Bird. Chuck Wickersham is the Law Enlorcement. candida'& He has the endorsements 01 the Association . . . and the Deputy District Anorney's Association. Police Onices Association . , .. the San Diego CounN Police Chiels' and Sherill's He was named Prosecutor 01 the Year in 19Ss and served as Special ASSiStant U.3. Anorney. We all agr ee... we nsed tougher judge. Chuck Wckersham has been a tough prosecutor. Chuck Wckersham wlli be a tough judge. Vote lor Chuck Wkkersham and Send a clear messago to tile crirrdnai element in San Diego Counly. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Judge of the Superior Court - Office No. 4 E. MAC AMOS, JR. Judge, San Diogo Municlpal Court Age: 43 JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE Judge Mac Amos has Served as a Municipal Court Judge for over four years and has served by assignment as a Superior Court Judge. A graduate of the Caiilornia Judicial College. Judge Amos was eiected'to lhe Executive WMd, Sari Dw County Judges Association, in 1986. HIGHEST RATING: The San Diego County Bar Association rated Judge Amas "weil-qualilied' to serve on the Superior Coun. No other candidate rewived this rating. the highest given by the (LssocIation. OUALIFICATIONS: over eighteen years experience as judge. federal prosecutor and trial the FBI, Custom, SEC and Treasury Dept. for the prosecution 01 major cridnal cases. attorney. . . Served as Assistant United States Anorney and received commenda~ns lrom EDUCATION B.S.. Stanford University; J.D, UCLA Law School MILITARY: Honorable discharge, USAR, Judge Advocate General Corps COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. President. Eaqie Scout Alumni Association . . . Asst. scoub~ster. . . Coach, Youth Soccer and Liltle League . . . Navy League. . . Volunteer Judge, San Diego Schools Programs FAMILY: Mafried for thirteen years with three sons an 1 resiow in San C&dDel Cerro area Join the thausands of San Diegans who made Judge Amos the leader in the Primary the San Diego Tribune, and the San Diego edition L'i the Times. in Supporling Judge Amos as the best qualmlied candidate. NCS-104.1 . 415-14 SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board RAY JENKINS Educator/Slow-Growth Advocate comnunities nust no1 compromise Ihe avaltability or quality of education tor our prosent or San Oiuito Schools-face unprecedented challenge today. The growh of our As a member 01 the San Oiuilo Board I will work to provide top qualily education (willlin future students. Walt educated students 01 today will be responsible citizens of tomorrow. educator will enable me to evaluate both the merits and drawbacks of projects, programs' a sound budget) for all our students. My background as a qualilied and experienced and budgets presented to the board. As a member 01 the San Dieguito Citizens Planning Group and an aclie leader in 1119 lpwrporation Election I have worked 10 restrain the overcrowding of our dassfooms. I will work for careful use 01 every tax dollar. I strongty believe In full parlicipation and open decision making In our school district. I will linen thoughflully to every concerned person about an issue before a decision is reached. I have the energy, time and background to be an enective board member. Feel free to call me at 753-7444 il you have questions. I need and csk lor your vote November 4. I. SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governing Board MARY ANN MC CARTHY - . Drug Preventlon Speclallst MARY ANN MC CARTHY is a proven leader in education. ' ' ' MARY ANN MC CARTHY listens to our community. She actively seeks our community's opinions. She is comnined to represent the concerns 01 the entire San Dieguito comrunily. She has served as President. Vce-President. and Clerk 01 the San Dieguito School Board. MARY ANN MC CARMY is recognizad statewide as a 8ubslance abuse educalion leader. She has acted as advisor lo the Calilornia School Boards Association and the San Oil0 County Off- 01 Education. She organized California's Educators Subslance Abuse Coaliin. She was a 1985 San Dieguito Woman of Action nominee. MARY ANN MC CAF.MY provides strong leadership neoessary to achieve outstanding of the highest rated in Caiilornia She has locused on svenglhening graduation rwlts. San Dieguito's lest Scores are the best in San Diego County and the district is One requlremenls, oflering relevant courses. and maintaining a balallced budget. cuniculum, school finance, and new school construdion. Crudal concerns fau'ng the school disW in coming years are a CCmprehenSiVe MARY ANN MC CARTHY has the experience, the commilmenl, and the dedication lo find the answers to these imponant Issues., Cast your vote lor continued excellence In education. Re-c.Iec1 Miuy AnnMcCarlhy . . I" ./ -. SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOCL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board WILLIAM S. KOVACH Age: 45 Businessman EXPERIENCE Past 'President and Clerk 01 Ihe Cardill School Board . . . Adjunct Prolessor 01 Astrophysics and Lecturer at San Diego Slate Universily in Ihe Depanment 01 Astronomy. . . Owner and ope:ator ol two successful nurseries localed in Encininlas and Leucadia lor the past 10 years . . . Program manager and Stall Scientisl al General DynamicdConvair and General Dyna,nics/Pomona for 7 years EDUCATION: B.S. in Astronomy - Case lnslilule 01 Technology, Ph.D. In Astrophysics - Ohio Stale University. William S. Kovach has the experience, educarlon and; as a parent. the concern to be a strong member 01 the San Dieguito High School board 01 Iruslees. While he was a member 01 the Cardill School mard. the Cardill school system became known for il's high academic ar:llevements and fiscal responsibllily. He will conUnue lhls record 01 achievement wilile on the board of Son Dieguito High School Disuicl. it is Ume lor new people and new Ideas as the San Dieguito High School Dlslricl moves lrom a rural Io an urban onvironmenl. AGENDA . . . rbnligure the Junior High Inlo a more responsive middle school system . . . reccns'der closing the High School campuses ;. . Increased responsiveness 01 the system 10 parental concerns SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governing Board DR. JAMES O'LEARV JIM IS A CANDIDATE WHO KNOWS EDUCATION. EDUCATION: Ph.D - United States Inlernalional. Unlvorsity. Philosophy and Human Behavior. . . MS. - San Diego State University, Educational Counselor. Social Worker, Rehabililalhn Counselor and Child Wellare and Anendance . . . E.A. - San Diego Slate OBSERVATIONS: As a father of two students, I am concerned about the recent nalionai UnivwsHy, Soclal xiem K-e . . . A.A. - San DiegojComuniIy College. Social Science reporls Implying Iho nalhn is at risk because 01 educational misdirection. My 15 years Of experieme BS an educator give me valuable expenise I am willing lo share. ISSUES: Meet educational needs 01 ALL sludents . . . Cut Administrative Fat . . . Improve leacher and classified salaries and worklng conditions. . . Prom318 local school control in curriculum and personnel maners GET ME INCENTIVES AND PRIORITIES RIGHT - AND MCHERS CAN.TSCH ANYBODY ANYWING Age: 41 Educator SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board DEANNA ''DEE'' RICH' EducatorSchool Board My twelve years of active school and eomnity involvement demOnStrate my deep comnitrnent to quality education that meets the needs 01 ALL STUDENTS. Proven laadenhlp and experlenca: Since 1981. &amber Del Mar School Board. including presldeq. Del Mar schools earned the distinction 01 a perfect score in the 1966 state compliance review. Currently. Vi-Chairman School FinancinG Authority. ayoncy responsible lor funding and construction of school lacilities for 7.000 nw K-12 students in Del Mar, Solana Beach, and San Dieguito School Districts. EducrUon and communtly Involvement: Phi Beta Kappa Graduate Tuns University: Calitornia Teaching Credontial: Chairman Toney Pines Planning Group: Commurrily Representative for San Diego City Coumil and Board 01 SupeIvisors; hlembership Chairman Children's Creative Workshop: Scripps Auxiliary Board; Earl Warren Site Council; Vi-President Toney Pines Parent Association; Coalition for Resporsible Experience counts In dealing with the issues: GROWTH -- Facilities must be available Planning. conanent with need . . . -- Educaiion canmt bend to pressures of growth. Parents expect excellunce from our schools for all students. The District must be reSpOnsive. . . SCHOOL FINANCE -- State budget iimits must be mt vith sound fiscal mansgement and innovative solutions. i pledge lo be an accessible. responslve board member, dedicated to providing qualily education lor all mdents. SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board MARY LOU SCHULTZ IncumbenVTeacher I have wed as your representative,on the San Dieguilo High School Board siw 1981 and have been Clerk and President I sewed on the Encinitas School Board Iron. 1975 10 1881. Several issues face the Hgh School Dislricl. Development in La Costa, Encinitas, and NoRh Ci West has brought many new Students to our sc!mob. The District has carefully budgeted and has managed to malntain adequate facilities. Dlegueno Junlor High Opened last year In Endnitas. Torrey Pines High School is being expanded by the addation 01 23 new ciawooms. San Dieguito High School's 50 year old dassroofm were remodeled to meet our new needs. As growth continues, wa must work with city. county and slate age- lo provide adequate housing lor students. Another issue is curriculum. Significant chenges have been made. &I SNdentS now take a core curriculum of English, math. science. history. art and physical education. A seventh period is available for students who want lo take more classes. Lottery funds were used to ComrmnHy Involvement is essentlal. We have exceilent. active school site counck Many expand summer school oliefings. Teachers designed and Implemented these changes. local busine?lses have adopted our schools. I would appredate your vole. Thank you. .., - ... . . .. . ' i "".. I,... . . SAN DlEGUlTO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board SANDRA PARISH Solana Beach Board of Trustees EXPERIENCED IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS - i have experlewd public schools as a student. teacher. acWely involved parent and administrator. I am concluding a C year term on the Solana Beach E!%Ilmntary School Board. am a fomr high 5chOol teacher and curriculum developor and have held parent leadership roles such a3 Torrey Pin08 Parent Club President, Parent Volunteer Coordinator and Parent Coordinator for Earl Warren Basketball. INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY - I sewed on the steering committee for Solana Beach cityhwd. received the PTA’s Honorary Service Award, served on the local Olympic comnrlltee. was nominated for MZ. Solana Beach (community service award) anb belong 10 National Charily League and Junior League of San Diego. . . . CONCERNED AND COMMl”ED TO IMPROVING PUBLIC, SCHOOL EDUCATION - Mother of a high school and junior high sludent. I share the concern of parents about quality education. I will be accessible to the community and conmil the necessary time to visiring school sites and observing brsl hand the operation and programs. Olher commnts are providing qualily lacilities and program in the midst of large growth and developmnl; supporting policies which upgrade the teaching profession; reviewing counseling functions and reducing student caseloads; and, promoting tight budget controls and pnrdent spending. , Age: 42 NCS-048.4 41s-16 . . ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governing Board TONYBRANDEN8URG Age: 46 School Board PresldenUAttorney Tony has served on the Eminitas School Board for flve yeers. His leadership and organlzahnal skills have been recognized by his peers In that they have Selected him as Resident of that Board for the last three years. Hls.comnt to education Is dear end posslMe. As a lormer teacher Tony believes io a curriculum strong in the basic skills conclse: to see that all of our children receive the nnest .educational opportunities enhanced with the necessary materials sulficienl towards assisting our children in becoming ~lfectlve. productive, self-reliant citizens. He believes in both parent and cormunity Involvement In our schools and has contimusly encouraged their panidpation and input. Currlwlu~ins~c~nal media and a Juris Doctorate Degree in Law. He has an undergraduate degree In Teacher Training, a graduate degree in hlm well qualified to continue serving on our Board of Education. Tony and his family are His expefieme. leadershlp and personal wmmitment lo our chlldren's education make pmud to be a pM of Encinilas. he respectfully requests your continued suppott. ENClNlTAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT H. J. WALKER, JR. Biologist Member of the Governing Board Age: 36 overmowding threatens nur fine standing. My major concern as a School Board Trustee Endnitas has an excellent school district and we all want lo keep It that way. However, will be with the child, maximizing oducation and salely in these crowded conditions. I have one Chiid In kindergarten and another will enter this District in three years. I have been m%nied 10 an educator for lhineen years and have some expierW myself as an lnstruclor. I md on the board of director3 of a homeowners association in this area lor four years, emre Involving recreation. adar energy and mMIecture. as treasurer for lw-3 years. I have led or w0fked on various comrmnily committees and My interest and deslre to be a T~stee has prompted me to anend school board WtingS regularly lor more than 6 year. 1 have the energy and background to provide an additional perspective lo this hard. Thank You. NCS-028.1 416-19 ! 1 /' .. :, .. . I. . .: .. .. !. L ._ .. ENClNlTAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board WILLIAM L CARL1 Age: 32 Chemlcal Company - Reglonal Manager As an INCUMBENT on the Enclnitas School Board, I wlsh to earn your vote to continue for another term lor the following reasons: to seo our school district mve in a positive direction. I am CONFIDENT that I can continue to be an ettective Board member and sincerely wish should bo slressed. I will work 19 Insure that BASIC FUNDAMENTALS IN EDUCATION are a first priority and GROWlH is a malor issue in our district I have boen involved in several decisions that bilect growlh and wish to cany out those decisions. I can pmvlde A STRONG LIAISON wlth our newly elected City Council m3mberS. COMMUNITY. I have a me love for our oommunlty and wish to see our SCHOOLS REFLECT OUR I am a father of a three year old daughter and wish to see her enter the BEST SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. ~~ ~ A?, a bualnessman. I will continue to contribute a business prospectlve to the Board. As a Board member. I will continue lo be RESPONSIVE TO YOUR NEEDS. My past voting you in advance for your vote on election day. record will substantlate that point I do un'lerstand the rob 01 a Board member and thank ENClNlTAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Member of the Governlng Board SANDRA SCHULlZ buttgat cUU, chulging enrollment disblbution. and revlslon 01 educagonal priorities. -: ~~~ing the past 5 years, our DISW has den with the impternentation 01 Prop 13, significant 1 Throughout thls time, the overall level of education4 programs has been maintained. ,3 growlh accommodated. and academlc achievement accelerated. We have been I successlul In maintaining the many programs and servkes Impoflant to quality education. , 7he DIsfia now has one 01 the test programs In the County and continues to Imprcm j I'm proud to be a member 01 a Board whlch has wo&ed sa atlecuveiy toward thew accomplishments. .;I * . ... COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Board of Supervlsors - 51h Dlslricl JOHN MAC DONALD City Counclimember/Educator John MacDonald, whom low budget, grass roots campaign carried him to a first place As Deputy Mayor 01 Oceanside. MacDonald is the only candidate who has succBssfuily finish in the June primary, has a long record of service to our 5th Supervisc!ial DisVict. implemented a Growth Management Plan. He has als designed a first-class Growth Management Plan for San Diew County. An expaiencsd exacutlve who was PresiCant of MiraCOsta College lor 19 years, John MacDonald knows how to reduce wsts and increase elficiency in county government. In Johr! MacDonald is the only candidate who has a;Uvely fought altempts to reduce the Owanside, he helped elimlnate a huge defcil and put the city c . a sound financial basis. MacDonald will make upgrading Highway 76 and Highway 78 and reducing WalfiC treatment of sewage thal is poured into the wan OH our North County coast. congestion a top priofity. A Navy veteran. he Is past president 01 the Oceanside Chamber 01 Commerce and served on the California League 01 Cities Adminislralive Policiss Cornnillee and the Owanside Economic Development Council. ' Nonh County deservm a Supervisbr with 'a proven record of experience. leadership and chric Involvement John MacDonald. .. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Board of Supervisors - 5th District CLYDE ROMNEY Governmental Relations Counsel Clyda Romney is QUALIFIED FOR COUNTY SUPERVISOR -- Notlh County resldenl slnw 1071 . . . Years 01 business experience as partner In successful professional pr-. . . EWed to local school board In 1981 . . . Leader in Boy Scouts, church and comnunlty allairs . . . Served all 01 North County as Congressman Packarde Chief of Sta:l, . . Specialist on vitally important water issues. Clyde Romney is RIGHT ON THE ISSUES -- with I county pi~ that isn't constantly ignored or avoided . . . We must solve our traflic "GroWh rmst be controlled by the people, not by special interests. . . It must be managed prom by widening Highway 78, improving Highway 76 and our local roads . . . Our bexhes. the OC~M and our li4ng environment must be protected from poliUterS . . . Dynamic new leadenhlp is nee.!& to reN1 : pride and high mrak to County empbySeS . . . Border problerm and drug &us0 threalen the quality 01 life lor all 01 us. Criminals are turned loose for lack 01 ]all space. We m81 DroteCt our cnizens now." He's a red family man who shares our concerns because he's one of us. He knows North county. He'll iisten to us. Clyde Romny wlll lead ua Inlo the future. Age: 43 Romney CARES ABOUT PEOPLE -- ncs-1m.4 411-21 4 .I i .. .. I I .1 '. I i .. : ~. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Treasurer-Tax Collector PAUL BOUND Age: 60 Chlef Deputy Tax Collector Paul Boland has 14 years experience in the Tax Collector's offke, lncludlng 8 years In tho , wrnblnad Treasurer-Tan Collectoh oMce. Through his efforls, San Dlego County is a : State leader in both percentage of property taxes wllected and interest eared. Over this p4od he introduced numerous cost and labor-saving changes which greatly ~ improved the etf~lency of the oMce.. Paul bland 89 a concerned taxpayer slrlves lo '; reduce wsts. ... Since becomifq Chief Deputy Tan Collector In 1983, Paul Bohnd improved service to the 1 public while inplementing major kgislative changes imposed by State government. He i modernized Mlng. ml!ection and deposn of lanes so tax dollam are Invested immediately. . assuring to help offset taxes. bland received 41 percent 01 primary vote - more lhan double that of closes1 opponent 1 ! among E candidates. I Botand's background - US. Navy Captain - 16 years of commandlmanagement ; assignments - @A from George Washington University. Paul Boland ha the professional experience and maturily needed to handle this highly i technical and crikal position. Uecting him Treasurer-Tax Collector ensures continued 1 integrity and etrciency. Paul bland is endorsed by outgoing Treasurer-Tax Collector, James E. Jones. Vote for Paul Boland - the rlght cholce. ! EXPERIENCE - INTEGRITY - EXPERTISE 1 1 :I COUNTY OF SAN DlEGO Treasurer-Tax Collector JAN JANETTE Age: 45 t Property Tax Coordlnator JAN JANl3lE has over ten years' experience with county government In lhe Property Tax .: i Assessment feld. She is currently involved with county efforls to combine the electronic data prowsing funcfions of the Assessor. lhe Auditor and ule Treasurer-Tan Collector I OKlces. JAN JAN~ is the qualified candidate who will restore sccountabifit$ win provide the .I will address current lnvesbnent and wiiection policies. WHAT the Treasurer-Tax Collector I h5W level of public service, will establish policies to :enw high empbyee morale and does Is regulated, but the disweUona!y powers ot the office allow flexibility in HOW those ! lasks are performed. JAN JANITIE feels that the vast amounts of money invested by this CHI should be 1 invested in the local emnomy whenever possible. When the rate of return and safoty are '; equal. San' Dlego finra mst be given lhe highest prlority in keeping with a wmmiIrnent to 4 wppctl a mng local emnomy. JAN JANETTE is endorsed by several dvlc loaders: Jim Batas. Congressman . . . Hewltl j ! FlW Ryan, Candidale for Congrew . , . M. Lany Lawrence, 8uslness Executive . . . *Palrlck Bornman, Former San Dlego County Supervisor. . . *Carl SllVa, Deputy County Arrufflor.. . *Gene Smlth, Business ExecuUve '(Candidate for the olh 01 Treasurer-Tax Collector In the June primarv) ; I j NCS-110.9 ! 415-22 ; w . . . _-. . . ". . , ... 1 :\ CITY OF CARLSBAD CLAUDE "BUD" LEWIS Age: 55' As your Councilman lor the past sixlean years. I have responded to your concerns in the development of our city: Our need for more roads, schools; and parks has been evident. I have repeatedly voted against any devdopment which would put additionai strain on these facilies. .. As Mayor, I pushed for a strict Growlh Management Plat, where facilities and services must be in placa prior to development. I believe the City's plan, which I co-authored, is Ihe besl s3lubn to the growlh problem Idng our city. ' I have Insisted upon and encouraged the council to approve a significant reduction In the overall densily of our r3y: Thls wilt allow for an Increased allomrent fcr open spaces. Another achievement was my work on the recently revised baHc circulation plan. The In place prior ro devalopmenl . Growlh Management Plan Includes thls and also m!es that adeqdSe cirwlaUon mlst be I will continue to work to prevent any expansion of Pai-m Airpoll. My othw priorities will be the wnsmction of a Senlor Citizen's Cent%, a permanent Library in South Carisbad, and dly-wide park fadinies. Support me as your Mayor. I have the experience and cornrunen1 to orovide the [eadershlp whkh Crrrlsbad needs1 Mayor Teacher - Varsity Coach . .. CITY OF CARLSBAD Mayor . BOB PRESCOll Communlty ActlvlsffBuslnessman ! Education and Quallfications: Graduate - Universlly of New Hanphlre. 'a Col. USMC, ! Ret Famiiy owned end operated bavd agency. .i3 yew In elecled OW 68 PreSidetV & Member of MiraCosta College Board of Trustees and Carfsbsd City Coundlmember. S~IVIC~ on many local, regional. .state and federal comnmeeS and wmnissions. Leader In Fight to Stop Bullet Train. Cadsbad has been our family's hometown since 19Bl. Throughout the years, I haw been active In the comnunily, working lor better educaUon. parks, libraries, police and lire servkes; and the best In environmental quality. As we &atemine our wum into the future, Carlsbad will need a full time mayor. I can fill that nmd. provlding the CjtY with stable and responsive leadership. I will be available to represent thk r3y on the many reglonal and state agenc:k which make decisions that I WiB work to: (1)Regulate Growlh {2)lnprove TraIRc Urculalbn (Wrovlde Adequate ~ Senbr Fadlitles (4)Expedlte Dwdopment of our Parks and Ball Fields (5)Protw our Beclchecl and Lagoons. I will work to UnHe the comnunity and work to develop a slroong unily of purpose. I ask fw your vote on November 4th. .. . vnaIlyeHectourwmnunily. :. .' NCS-022.1 415-23 CITY OF CARLSEAD Member of the City Councll LOIS HUMPHREYS Age: 40 Dlrector, Leucadia County Water As a long time cormxlnily acUvlsl and present oMceholder on the Leucadla County Water Dlsbkt. I lee1 I am well qualified to be on the Carlsbad City Council. I have waked dlt@n@y In Catisbad to 888 that our tax dollars are spent wisely. I led the election which residential homes and cost rrillions In wasted tax money. I helped other citizens pressure deleated a satellite sewage treatment leclllty which wuld have been hated near to Ihe City Councll into passlng more open and hones4 campaign dlsdosure laws. I worked to protect res!?lenIs lrom the danger and noise ol trucks passing through our nelghborhood strwIs. I woned with Concerned Citizens to gather signahlres lor the Citizens Sbw Growlh Initiative. and I wholeheartedly suppori that measure. The luhlre 01 -bad will depend on eWed oHcials with experience In local government and who can plar! IntellinUy lor lha 11lWre. As your elected Council member, you will have a leader who win respend to cltlzens' concerns and who will help Catisbad grow sensitively. gracelully and sensibly Into a comnity in which we will all be proud to live. , ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the Clty Council PAT HOUEMER-RUNSVOLD Age: 40 Teacher; Admlnlstratlve Assistant group of our &ens lhat demand and expect reasonable andwmomical solutions to our I Wive m a long time resldent 01 Cadsbad that I can more truly represent the larger city's wnent problems. I am an EducaUon graduate 01 the Columbus. Ohio'Domnlcan College. I have taught In Calilornia buSlneSsmen and we have lour children who have anended Carlsbad Schools. Ohio, Calnornla and overseas lor the Depmnl of Delense. I am manied lo a native I subsnib lo local newspapecs and am conversant with the worklngs 01 our clty councll where my lamily resldes. and the Coaslal Commissbn. I am a very &e representative of the chy neighborhood My principal concerns lor Carlsbad are: 1. To represent all clbens equally, lairly and with courtesy. . .2 lnsisl on Ughtw control 01 building growlh and development to prevent bss 01 plannlng control and ex- cost burden to wrreM citizens . . . 3. Institute desires 01 the ciibens 10 lha Clly Council . . I 4. Insist thal La Costa area lamilles have lull neighborhood "town-meetings" which will address, update and represent the needs and wisdom 01 senior dtizens . , . 6. Clean and adequate supply of water lor a growing city. r?presentation In Car(sbad plannlng lor IntegraUan of southern areas . . . 5. Usten to the CITY OF CAALSBAD Member of theClty Council ROCERBURKE Age: 50 Training Admlnistrator My Me Eliiabeth and I have lived in Carlsbad with our four childw 1% the past wenteen years. My concern for the future of Carlsbad and my prlde In what it,has been and can be led me to file for this olfi. Dudng the next few short yean Cerlsbad will lake Its final confguralbn. This h the most vital point in our city's history. I want to make sure that the special features of our dty are retained. The most imponan1 of these are our remaining take now bads to enhancement of these key features. as well as, to selection of the most beautiful additional project3 bat an be dmiined. While Assistant Prlndpal at Carlsbod High School and k. Presldent of the Optidst Club of ' i comnuniiy service organizations ond ciiy omclals on many civk projects. One of the most Carlsbad. I provided leadership to foster a cooperative, cost effective approach with olher memorabh of those project8 was the Carlsbad Blcentennlal Celebrabn which I had the ~ pfivi!+ga lo direct. I wish to continue my pubilc serviw as your councilman and I enlist t r a Eucalyptus groves. our beaches and our lagoons. We must make sure that each step we , ..e/ ,I 'ii ti I: !: 'I' ., . i.' ... .. ~-~ ~~ J . , .), . ~~ ~ .. .I t CITY OF CARLSBAD .]' Member of !he City Council r. MARYLYNN BROWN-BELLMAN (MBB) Age: 44 .. j, ~ ' . Communlty PiannerlConsultanUBusinesswoman .. BA, Anthropology; MA, Urban/Environmental Planning ,. Buena Vista and Batiquitos Legcon Foundations. 10 years professional experlenw in i! compledaes faced by our growing populaoe. My goals will be: Growh Management - .. ,. .' z I Memberships Include: The Cedsbad Historic Sodety and Chamber of Cornmeroe. The 1 Cormxlnlty Planning overseas, S.D. County and local CHy PlannerlConwHant. k a 12 year resldent of our comnuniiy, I recognize and understand the unique ,t 3 Comroning the rate and paoe of growth Is on absolute must that i support. The future :; appearance of our CXy however, has not yet been addressed. I will therefore vigorously :s 11 1.: work to implement a system of dearly understandable guidelines :or local development consis(Bnt with our c&ens' deslres. to the conrnunitv's southern areas. A new City Hail Is needed. The new faciiity should be Center. Ubrary Fadlit%, must be expanded et the main branch and full sewices extended our carmunny. tun In a more wnbnlly located area, thereby saving money while promoung unification . of As a CHy Councllmbw, I will resolutely pursue the goals of our Comni;y while .. ,/ !! .'J' . Public FaeiItUas - I WNI Insure the Umely WmpleUm of a nsv, full-se~k~ Senior Clizens '% '! ! !i ! J.. I, . -. .... .... "" "_ - .. L CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the City Council DENNIS BRANDMEYER Self-employed Real Estate Broker/Remodel Conslructlon Carlsbad is ready tor new leadership, free trom special interest control and nut obligated ; by campaign contrihulins. i have stMed and managed two successtui businesses in Carlsbad. one with over 1s employees. My two small children anend our city schools ! and frequently play on our beaches. i will work for my lamiiy's future as well as yours. Educatbn and experience: 1966-68 USMA West Point pre-engineering. graduLled 1971 ; 2 Technology. 1974-80 Aircrall mechanic with experience as part-time Jr. college UCU BA Political Science with minor in Economics, 1972-74 LBCC Aviation Maintenance maintenance Inswctor. International Technical Representative for Beech Aircraft, FAA Authori2ed Inspector and Private Pilot. 1980-83 founder Medical Staffing Services of conswcl!m business. Invoked with wan sports since 1961. Carlsbad. 'I983-present self-employed Calif. Real Estate Broker with small remodel ' I support the general mnwnsus that any future development should improve our ,I i comnity. We need performance standards, a controlled rate ot building and a .i population total lower than ti* 135,000 prolected by the cily's general plan. A conservative 1 tiscal policy must be adopted to prevent dependency on excessive growlh to balance our .:I city's budget. I will be cornmined to responsible city management with a reaiistk 1 perspective on all issues. i Age: 39 1 I .. 8 f .. ..... ....,, ................. -?.l;.- nn;mT. :,.. .I7 . ! CITY OF CARLSBAD i Member of the City Councll ALBERT MENDOZA I am a second generatbn native Calitornian. born and raised in San Francisco. Following 4 my WWll combat service in the US. Army Air Corp I graduated with a B.S. degree in 3 Business Administatbn from the University ot San Francisco. I gained valuable : experience in a variety ot private sector settings before entering government service. I i retired after 26 years with the State 01 Calitornla. Employment Development Departmen1 2 As a hlgh level Admlnisbator I had responsibility for San Diego, lmperlal and Riverside i counties; worked in Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles; was appolnted by then Governor Reagan's Administration to oversea a specld amployment program. I am a member of the Board of Directors for North County United Way, the Board 01 1 i Directors for SER. A volunteer for North County Association ot Retarded Citizens, 1 President 01 the Beca Scholarship Foundation - an Hispanic scholarship organization, ) Treasurer ot the Comned Ciiens. Also a member of North Coastal Veteran's ,. Emplopent Comnntee. I will Mrq to the City Councll poslUon a unique perspective based on my exIenSEV0 successful admlnisbative background, a genuine commitment to Comnity servb and I . red concern for the prcservation ot a beautiful and solvent Carisbad. I will listen and represent all of Cartsbads citizens capably and compassionately. ,i Retired f , ! , NCS-022.4 '\ i ii i: ! II ! 'CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the Clty Councll SUSAN MILLER-REPASKV .' Age: 46 3M Statlc Analyst Electronlc Speclallst We cannot dlrect the future of those who live and work In Carlsbad by chance, only by a commitment to excellence -- no more medbcrilyl I put myself fomard as a leader and sewant of the.people. I ofler a completely new ethic 01 everyday men and women who strive lor a relallonship wlth their God, peace 01 aHernaUve lo city government. My prordse lo the citizens 01 Carlsbad is based on the mind. excellenCe of character.,and positive ani(udes toward who they are and Who they choose to become. I am responsible, creative. drivm'and comnlned to excellence. I keep my commilmenls. have corn for all people, and respen their needs and vlewpolnts. I have pursued many vocations: sales/marketlng, service station ownership. executive seuetary to Corporate Presldents/Hottywood Producers, Personnel Director. Paralegal, and prasenay 3M Statlc Analysl I have ratsed 4 children. presently raising 2 (enrolled a1 Le Costa Meadows Elementary). I am dedicated to sbuctured growth. a safe city for all reasonable walks of life, daycare canters, green belts. education, and a dNg free comnunlly. Whether you help me or not, 1'11 continue to help you but I can do more and bener things for you when dected. .. CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the City Council JOHN J. MAMAUX Age: 54 Buslness Consultant Mamaux has a 22 year history of commitment to and caring lor Cmsbad. John med for nine years as e Carisbad School District Trustee. He is uniquely honored John was lnmmental in establkhlng a ml-million dollar annual (ax base and public convenience lor Csrlsbad with Car Counby and Plaza Camino Real. MamauX has received many community recognitions. Including "Carlsbad Cllizen of the Year" (1977) and "Man and Boy Award' (1975) when he was president of the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club. earned a Fels Fellowship and a Public Achievement Award. John Studied Urban Policy Msmwx has a Masters In Government Administration from Whmon Graduate School and wHh the.&wklngs InStiNte. Msmwx wants faciliies now. for those of us already here, With Mamaux. deflclencies will be conwed before nsw development occurs. Parks. librrvie3. reueational lacilities. and a Senior Citizens Center will be buiil to sew0 our residents. Benet rolationships will exist between schools and police to Improve drug education and enforcemen1 Roads and Intersecfbns wNI be upgraded and maintained. Mamaur. as a member of City Coukll, will brlng Improved city rnanagument. inlelligent planning. and tough growth controls. Mamaux has demonstrated !hat, he cares lor Carlsbad. 6s 'Tlllruslee EmeciNS." NCS-012.5 41s-27 . CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the City Council ERIC IARSON Age: 37 ; Agrlculturai Cooperatlve Manager Polytechnic. San Luis OMspo. - Since cdving In Carlsbad in 1971 I have had ihe oppormnity to serve the CW as a i n-mmberof Ihe Patks and Recreation Conmission and the Planning Commission. This has ' given ma a clear understanding of Ihe City's responsibilities to (he residents. Jus1 as imporlant has been my woe as a volunteer.'Sewice as a director of the Carlsbad Friends i , 01 the Ubre~~. the Wens Vista Lagoon Foundation and the Carisbad Educational 1 Foundation has shown m the spirit that makes Cerlsbad such a fine community. Insuring that Carlsbad remains the type of community n Is today serve9 as my only : insplr&n for becoming a Council candidate. r' .. 1 ? !: CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the City Councll ! RICHARD L REPASKY. Age: 43 : Presldent of Buckeye Investigations, Inc. senn'ng three lours in Vietnam as a Naval O(lic(K, and dng Presidents Nixorr, Ford, and : i C6rler. as a Special Agent with the US. Secret Service reinforced in me the Love of this ; of Comnerce and a Director 01 the Cardiff Town Council showed me how to get Ihe job Counby which I M returning to our Youth. Serving as a Director of the Cardiff Chamber 1 done In meeting the dally needs of the People, and I believe that my desire lor %wed ,; Growlh. Clean Oceans. better TramC Control, and improved Law Enformnl, dill enable ~i ma to serve the needs and desires 01 the People 01 Carlsbad as Ci .Councilman. ,: Carlsbad k repidly building out and it is Um to slow down growlh and return that Quality of Ule, which we dl want to enjoy here. Schwis. Patka, Streets and Ughting need to i of the People are pisced above those 01 the Big Business or the Big Developer. A Vote for j improve, wlth No New Taxes. A Vote for Rkhard L Repasky will ensure that the interest3 j Richard L Rep- Is a Vote for a return to Common Sense. Honesty, and Integrity. . .. :_. . . , . .. - - CITY OF CARLSBAD Member of the City Council MARK PETTINE City CouncllmernberlAttorney Mark Peltine. the citizen's candidate, kept his promlses 10 the voters of Carlsbed. . '~ Mark has co-sponsored the Growth Managemnt Plan. He has six) sponsored lhe Reform Ordlnance. Additionally, he has supported the ellons 01 Ihe Senior Citizens Io Economic Monnoring Pian, the Beach Erosion Cornminee, and the Campaign Spending obtain a permanent center. and supported the City's eflorts to provide more parks and M& has opened up cily govetnment to all people by holding open monlhly fOrUmS so that cithens may express their conwrns. Mark PMne is also working lo establiih a North County Regional Planning Board that .would address environmntd Issues. such as adequate.roads, schools. open space, parks, etc. Mark Penine is a native Californian. He is a graduate 01 the University 01 California and the Univecsity of the Padfic Law School. He entered public service in 1976 as a Deputy Disbicl Attorney lor San Dm County and Is cdnenUy In privale predce. Mark's rwrd during the pest two years on the City Council de& shows that he has done end continues 10 do (hose things the people elected him to do. He has earned your "PWR Vole lo re-elect Mark Penine. the cMzen's candidate. ,. .. PWng lwds. , : ! .. CITY OF CARLSBAD Treasurer WILLIAM C. ESTERLINE Age: 67 Carlsbad Clty Treasurer I am the incumbent City Treasurer, having been appointed lo that position in June, 1983. Prior to that lime I was empbyed as a Registered Representative with a New Yo& Stock Exchange member firm lor IS years. Alter graduation from the UniversHy 01 Southern Calilornia. I SeNed 27 years as a United i Statsn Ma~ine. My wile Belly and I have lived In Cerlsbad lor x) years. We have two daughters and four grandchildren. I am a member and Past President 01 the Carlsbad ! Rotary Club. .. i CITY OF CARLSBAD Treasurer RUTH L COW Business Consultant Rulh L Coyle, president of General Managers Associates. a Carlsbad based financial consulting firm, would bring over 25 years 01 financial management experience to the City Treasurer OHM. Afler serving 17 years as an executive with lhe George S. May Company. Fluor Utah lnternationsl and three other national organizations, the promilwnt wnmunily lender opened her own firm here In 1978. She was honored BS Woman of the Year in business and finance by the national Amorican Business Women's Assodatlon in 1982. She is vecy familier with city government, having wed on the 198J Land Use Element Cornniltee that studied Carlsbad's growh problerm. She was a volunteer In lormer mayor Ron Packards successlul write-in wnpdgn lor Congress. In 1985 she received the coveted President's Award for DMnguished Comrmnlty Service Iron the Cerlsbad Chamber of Commeru). Wflh aster of Business AdmlniStration and Bachelor of Science degrees, her corporate and consulling responsibiiirjes oflen included directing mllti-Milliin dollar inVeSUWnl programs. Rulh L Co@ has the lime, energy, desire and experience to help Carlsbad during the busy years ahead. Her goal is to earn the higM rate possible lor lhe city's more than 533 million of inactive funds with a minimum 01 risk. Age: 55 >' I I c- ,P "" .. . .. ". I - " I !. ! .. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Proposltlon A (This proposition will appear on the ballot In the lollowlng lorn.) SIN DIEGO COUW REGION4L JUSTIC': FACILITIES A FINANCING ORDINANCE AND AN INCREASE IN THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT OF THE COUHN OF SAN DIEGO. Shall approval be given to (1) an ordinance 01 the County 01 San Dlego imposing a one-hd 01 one percent b-ansactions and use tax lor a tern not to exceed live years to be used solely lor the purpos~s of improving. expanding, conmcting or acquiring sites lor regional justice lacili to the exlent slate or lederal funds are not made available to the County 01 San Diego spacffically lor such purposes. and (2) an iwem In the appropriation 1in-d 01 the County 01 Sen Diego in the armunt equal to the Bmount of mch tax to be collected? ., , ORDINANCE NO. - (NEW SERIES) AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 1.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 22.150) TO DiVtSlON 2 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF REGIONAL JUSTICE FACILITIES. IMPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT COUNTYWIDE T~NSACTIONS AN3 USE T&.~ AND INCREkiNG'THE COUNTY The Board of Supervisors 01 the County of San Dibco ordains as lollows: Saclbn 1. Chapter 1.5 (comnenclng with section 22.150) Is hereby added IO ihe County Code 01 Regulatory Ordinances to read as follows: CHAPTER 1.5 SAN DIEGO COUNN REGIONAL JUSTICE FACILITIES FINANCING ORDINANCE Sec. 22.150. PURPOSE AND INTENT. The County of San Dlego as a regional government is required to provide justice lacilities such as court9 and jails lor all the people s' the County 01 San Oqo in order to promote their health. salety and wellare. The purposes of this ordinance are to impose a one-hail 01 one percent (112%) countywide retail transactions and use tax. limit the collection 01 such tax to the absence 01 state or lederd funding lor the same purposes. the County 01 San Diego. establish the duration of such tax. and Increase the constitufiond approprlations liml for Sec. 22.151. COUNPNVIDE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. ordinance there Is hereby imposed In the Incorpornied and unincorporated tenitory of the (a) In addition to any 0th taxes authorized by law, on the operalive date 01 this County 01 San Diego, in accordance wlth chapler 13.5 (commawing wilh Section 2W50) 01 part 2 01 divlslon 2. 01 (ille 3 of the Government Code and part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of diWn 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. a retail transactions and use tax at the rate 01 one-hd 01 one percent (1/25h) In addition to any existing or luture authorked slate or local sales tlu or transactions and use tax. (b) The proceeds 01 the tax Imposed by this ordinance shall be deposited into the San Dwo County Reglonal Justlce Facilities Financing Fund and Its uses shall Include, but not be llm'ted to: (1) slte acquisition. capital acquisition, construction, reconsbuction, expansion, improvement. malntename and financing of regional justke lacitilies; (2) the adm'nisvation and implementation 01 thls chapter. Including costs of legal proceedings relating to lhis ordinam; and (3) casts related to planning. envlronmenlal review, engirmring. design and rlghl-ol-way acquisition 01 any regional justice facility. The proceeds 01 the tax. shall not be used for the operation 01 any regbnal justice facilities. but not be limited to. jails; women's centers; juvenile halls; or any other type of detention (c) For purpow of this ordinance. the term "regiocal justice facillW shall Include. 1Rcility lor the confinement of persons accused, convicted or sentenced regarding a criminal onense; and caurts or courtroom. (d) The County 01 San Olego shall ConVact wilh the State Board 01 Equalizatbn to perlorm all functions incident to the administration end operation of lhis ordinance. including the colleclbn of the additional tax imposed by thls ordinance. (e) The proceeds of the tax deposited into the San Diego County Regbnal Justice 6acllities Financing Fund shall be used in accordance wilh the San Diego County Regional Justke Facilities Plan adopted. and as may be amended from time to time, by the Board 01 Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors shall utilize such proceeds in accordance wilh the tollowing priority: (1) Federal or stale funds made available to the County of San Diego speclfically lor financing regional junice facilities subject to the Plan; (2) Proceeds 01 the tax i-sod by lhis Ordinance. Sec. 22.152. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. This Ordinance shall become eftective on November 4, 1986 only il No-thirds (2/3) of the electors voting on the measure at the election held on November 4, 1986 votn lo approve the ordinance. I1 so approved, the provisions 01 this ordinance shall become operative on, and the taxes authorized by this ordinance shall be imposed commonclng on April 1. 1987, the first day of lhe first calendar quarter commencing more than 120 days aller November 4,1985. Sec. 22.153. DURATION OF TAX after five (5) years following its operative date, uniesa extended by a vote 01 two-lhirds The provisions of this ordinance shall no longer be 01 any lorce and eHecl, on or (U3) 01 the electors voting at an electio*l called lor that purpose by the Board Of Supervisors; or unless earlier repealed by the Board 01 Supervisors based upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that suMclent lunds have been generated by the tax or olhor revenues to solve the need for regional justice lacilities in the County Of San DlegO. Sec. 22.154, IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. upon approval of lhis ordinance by the voters, the Board of Supervisors shall BneCl such other ordinances and take such other actions as may be necessary lor the implementatlon 01 this ordinance and the collection of the one-half of one percent (1/2%) VansacUons and use tax authorized by this ordinance. ,. i Sec 22.153 INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS UMiT. Calilornla Constitution is hereby increased by the munt 01 taxes generated by the The appmpriatiom limit imposed on San Diego County by Anicle XlilB 01 the transactions and UM tan imposed by this ordinance. lor the nexl lour fiscal years lollowing the operaw date of this ordinance. Sec. 22.158. AMENDMENTS. this section. I1 any portion 01 subdMsbn (a) Is declared Invalid. then subdivlrJ0.l (b) shall Tho ordinance may be amended or repealed by either 01 the procedure3 set forth In be the exclusive means 01 Mlending or repealing this ordinance. (a) This ordinance may be amended or repealed to further Its purposes by ordinanco, passed by roli-call vote entmd In the minutes, lour-lihs 01 the Board concurring. H at least 20 days prior to passrge. the ordi;lance a8 proposed has been publicly noucad in a newspaper 01 general circulation within the County of San Diego. (b) This ordinance may be amended or repealed by an ordinance thaf becomes enective only when approved by the ek~ors at a special election called by the bard 01 Supelvisors lor such purpose. Sec. 22.157. SEVERABIUTY. If any section, par¶, clause or phrase 01 this Grdinance is lor any reason held Invalid or unconstitutional. the remaining portions shall not be allected but shall remain in lull force and eflecL COUNTY COUNSEL'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS You are asked to vote on the San Diego County Regbnal JusuCe Facilii Financing Ordinance which imposes a one-hllH 01 one percent (1/2%) Counlywlde transactions and use tan lor the financing 01 regional justice lacilities and increasing the constitutional The major elemenlS 01 the Ordinance, which have been authorized by state legislation, are appropriation limit 01 Sen Olego County. as lollom: 1. lmposss a Vansaction and use tax of 1/2 percent in the incorporated and unincorporated territory 01 the County 01 Sen Oio lor a period not t~ exceed five years; 2. Requires the proceeds 01 the tax to be deposito.! Into Ihe San Diego County Regbnal Juslice Facilities Fund 3. limits the use 01 the proceeds 01 the tax to activities relating to Iho linancing of other type of detention facility lor the conlimnt 01 persons accused, convicted or regional justice lacilities, which are defined as jails, women's centers, juvenile halls. or any sentenced regarding a criminal oflense, and courts and courUooms. 4. Requires that the proceeds 01 the tax can be used to linance regional juslico facilities alter the Board 01 Supwlsora ha3 developed a plan and only alter state or ioderal lunds received lor such purposes have first been expended in accordance wilh the plan; and 5. ' Increases the County's appropriation limit In an mount equal to tho tax to be collected. ArWs Xlll B 01 the Califorria ConstiNtion limits the County's total annual appropriations unless such limit Is Increased by a two-thirds vote 01 the electors Uotillg. Passage 01 the Ordinance will ensure that the taxes collected may be appropriated lor the purposes enumerated In the Ordinance. Thii Ordinance will become efleclive only il approved by a two-thlrds (213) Vole Of the Wora voting on the Ordinance, II the Ordinance is approved. it becomes eflective on comntncing on wrii I. 1087. November 4, 1988 and the taxes authorized by the Ordinance Will be Imposed PR-013.3 415-13 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION A ' YESONA VMddS and dNnk drivm -- we anes(ed and then turned 10088 each month bBcaUusB our More than 2,oOO crlrnlnals -- dNg addlcts, drug pushen. pmv&rs, pmStilut9S, jalh and courts are jammed. Many are back on the svaets even before the mesling uisls threatem the safety of every man, wmn and child and we need sccion. oMcer has convleted the necessary reporis. Our streets have become our jails1 This "I've seen what they turn loo& from the jails," says Norma Phillips, President of Proposition A h the help we need. It would add a half-cent to our sales tax for Eiy - flve years and ralse $403 mlllon to build OddiKbnal jails and wuris. The revenue raised could only be used to provide facilities. This tax Could not be exrended beyond .five years without awlher 2/3 vote of the electorate. Futhemre. If more stale or federal funds for jails and courts becorm avdleble, the lay will end sooner. Mothers Agalns( DNnk Driving. ."ll's,yl" . : , ... , .. .. . I .> " Why use a sales tax? Because n's fair to all and n's srwl for taxpayers. The jails ProposIMn A h a grass roola camp%n supported by a broad co.lilion Including: organlzahns such llb MADD, Greater San DW Chamber of Comnerce. Neighborhood Walch groups, the media pollce ChlefS In every ciiy In our County, school leaders, the clergy. and cornruntry leaders munly-wide. and Wurb would be pald lor without burdenlng our children and grandchildren with debL San Dii County Is In a r.cB agalnst Ume and crime whlch we wnwt afford to losa Let's gel uimlnals off our streets and pmvlde speedy trials. Protect your neighborhoods and the publlc safety. Vote Ye3 on A -- la slam the &or on crlme In San County1 . TAXPAYERSAGAINST CRIME Clair Burgener Former Congressman Uod Van Deerlin ~ormer Congressman Sherlfl John OuW County of San Dii ~o~ice Chief 8111 Wendcr City of San Dlego ,. Moth8 Agdnsl ONnk DriVlrQ Norma Phillips, Presldent . .. 426-34 REBUITAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION A ' We quWn the need to ]all people who ham, only tlwmelves. Over 3Wh of the prboners in jell M then for VlClMese 'crknes" - pros(l(ution. drugs. gmbllng. etc. We feel Ils Ghne we slopped prosecuting peaceful actMly mmng consenting adub and concernate efloR, on lung the fed akrrlnab who rob, rape. burglarize and kill Innocent victha.' &I for. dbcuaian, Ws agree that there !a indeed a need for more jails. Unfortunately. we have been paying for more jails since we bat staled paying our taxes in San Olego Coumy yean .BO. So where are the Jails? The wry llrsl obUgaUon of government b to protect b dthem with the very first tax doilm collected. Letts get our pdofkim slralghlened out if the county government wishes lo raise the saler tax. then let the people vole regarding higher We3 to support low dollan currenUy spent 9n pubk housing for the jails that should have been bum bng ago. income people in brand spanklng new housing. for instance. and use the millions of It talcep emma ga u) SS)C Ls to tax oursekes more to pay for enantid wetbe. public ut Obw. and public housing and then s(art Widlng our lairs today with govehmenl servlcss. Lers vote on the MvobuJ government spending - things such as the tax dollan that ha- been collected today. moment (hat the (ederld 7u rb!om" law b disallowing the deductibiw of such taxes. The flnd bony b that poiitWans UB pushlng lor a sales tan increate a1 the vety PAT WRIGHT. ChJnun BETSY A. MILL Uber(ulm Putyof San Diego %le Senate. MbkI 38 Ubmtian Candidate FRED SCHNAUBELT DICK RIDER ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION A NO ON PROMSITION A !i 11 ;i rj I1 .I it 988m9 that In every &ctk.n we're asked to vote lor more spending on ]ails. Now we're being told that the aknlnda will run wild in the sLre~~ts unless we raise the sales tax. .. '; Nolice that the poiitldans dldn't come to us urging a hlpher tan to pay lor the many frills and ineikiencles burled wilhln the county's billion &liar budget They know we need :I lails. The prime responsibilliy 01 our government Is to protecl the citizens. So shouldn't , I ! j! the poliudans pay lor ltm jails. and put the Mlls up lor a Vote? .. ! 1 :; i ,. .. mls *'temporary" sales tax increase (does, anybody believe thls inwease is temporary?) ts regressive In that k lails most heavily upon the poor. The Calilornia sales i,! ;j taxistw highasilk. . ' .. I, Private contractors. experts in' the mnections Ileld. cnn run ]ails at a savings of 10% ' 1 lo 25%. Yet the county has not moved In this direction. The state of Calilornla has bgun ildted private contracting 01 its correcllond fscllltbs. and we should lollow suiL mere are ailernaivea to laii for lhe less dangerous nan-vloienl ,onendws. One inexpensive innavaWn is electronic home detentlDn where the prisoner ls not housed at taxpayer expense. Another ailernative Is to emphasize ofienders working to pey restilutlon !i 1.1 to the victims or pedormlng comrunty se~b instead of sewing time. 1: court system would both save detention cost3 and improve our juW sys(em,ln wneral. since many 01 the county prlsoner~ are awaiting mal, money invested in a speedier i1 time for roads. It's time to demand that government provide BssBntiai emvlces Whout tax Nert year they will have on the ballot yet proposal to ralse the SaidS 1% this increps~s. We an all protect our earnings and lorce the county to buf!get our money responsibly, Wh a deckbe "NO" vote on ProposiSon A. * ?I y ii PAT WRIGHT, Chairman Libenarian Peny 01 San Dw BETSY A. MILL' Libertarian Candidate State Senate. DW 311 FRED SCHNAUBELT, Presldent JACK R. SANDERS Frederick Schnauben a sons. IN. Uberlarian Candidate Board 01 Equsliation UMan Candidate DICK RIDER 4181 Congrasdond Dlsfict ., .. i REBUrrAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION A Lionel Van Da6flin FO~ Congressmsn Police Chief Bill blender uty 01 San DW CITY OF CARLSBAD Proposlllon E - (This proposlbn will appear on the ballot In the lollowlng form.) Shall an ordinance be adopted to provide ns a pM 01 the 1986 E gmwh managemont plan that I) NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE mnwrrenl with the City 01 Carlsbad unless H Is guarantaed that requlred by sald plan with emphasis on ensurlng good traKlc circulation. all necessary public faciliUas be provided as xhoois;p~s, Ubraries. apen space and recrealional amenltles; and 2) the Chy Council shall not approve resldential development which would Iwreese the number of dwelling units beyond the limit in said or5inance WITHOUT AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE CITIZENS. The Cqty may add addtknal puMk lacilitles. The Chy shall not reduce public facilities without a correspondlng reduction In the residenUd dwelling unit limit PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People of Ihe Cky of Cnrlsbad do ordain as follow9: Pubk FaciliUss and Land Use Elements to add the follow in^: A. That lhe Carlsbad general plan shall be amende,d by the amendment of the “The Chy of Carlsbad in ImplemenUng Its puMic facilities element and growlh managemem plan has made an estimate of the number of dwelling units that will be built prolens. The “8 Capltal irrgrovement Budget. growlh management plan. and public as a r%)un of the appllcalion 01 the density ranges in the Land Use Elemenr to individual fscllitk plan1 IWCI all bwd on thls esumnte. In order to ensure thnt all necessary public fscilitles wiU be available concurmnt with need to serve new development k Is necessav to eslimnte. For that purpose the City has been divided Inla four quadranls alonq El Camino llmlt the number of rssldenUal dwelling units which can be consaucted In the Cily to that COnstrUcted M approved in the Uly aHer November 4, 1986 is 115 loilows: Northwest Red and Palomsr Alrporl Road. The mawlmum number 01 resldenllal dwelling units to be Quadram 5.844; ~or(heast Quadrant 6.166; Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southeast Quadrant 10,801. The Chy shall not appro\% any General Plan amendment. zone change, tenlatve subdlvislon map or other dlsnetlonaty approval for a Wdopment which could result in development above the limn In nny quadrant. In order to ensure that development does the Land Use Uement density ranges. not exceed the Ut?il the following growlh management control polnlg are established for ALLOWED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE General Plan Densltv Ranges Growth Management Control Point RL 0 - 1.5 RM 4 - 8.0 RLM 0 - 4.0 RMH 8 - 15.0 RH 15 - 23.0 3.2 1 .o 11.5 6.0 19.0 (ConUnued on nen page) PR-W1.I 415-18 I The Cty shall not approve any resldential development sl a density that exceeds the growlh management control point lor the, applicable density. range without making the to~lowing findings: excess of the mnhol point to ensure that Ihe adequacy 01 Ihe City's public ta~lI1ies plans 1. That the prolecl will provide suHiclen1 addillonal public tacllitles for the density In will not be advetsely Impacted. . .L. ; ! ., .. 2. That there have been sufiient developments approved in the quadrant at so the approval will not resun In exceeding the quadrant limit densities below the control point lo cover the mils In the project above the control poinl end City Council on an annual basts to ensure thal the consvuctlon 01 residential unils The City Maneger shall mnnor all approvals and report to the Planning Commission within each quadrant. on a wmlaUva basis. will be at or below the growth managemenl con(r0l points and lhat the overall quadrant llmits are being mainlalned. ' If the annual repon Indicates in any way that it is likdy that the lirril may be exceeded. the Council shall take appropriate action by revising the growlh management plan end the City's zoning code to ensure that the ceillngs will be maintained. The CHy Council or the Planning Comnission shall not find lhat all neoessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need 89 required by the Public Facililies Element and the uty's 1986 growth managemenl plan unless Ihe provlston 01 such faciliUes Is guaranteed. In guaranteeing that the facilities will be provided emphasis shall be given to ensuring good tratRc drculalion, schools, parks. libraries. open space and recceational amenities. F'uMii facilides may be added. The Ci Council shall not nlaterlally reduce public lscllilles without making WrreSpOndIng reductions In resldential densities. I ! Nothing In this seclbn shall be Construed 89 ckanging the requirement that any specik resldenUal density above the minlwm a!lowed by the Land Use Element density ranges and the applkaMe mning shall be justified according Io the requirements 01 the appropriate General Plan and zoning provisions. I I :-I ... 8 (Continued on nen page) 8. The zoning map 01 Ihe City of Cadsbad shall be amended to provld% that building pem*s hed or approved lor residential dwelling units In Ihe City an6f November 4, 1886 shall rot be imreased without an affirmative vote of the people. sheU rot exceed the llrrJts estaMished In the map in this section. The numbers on the map Munklpal Code (Growth Management) as necessary lo Impkment the General Plan 8m9ndmeM of Section A and the Msp Of Section B. C. The C&y Councll shall adopl amendments lo Chapter 21.90 01 the Cafisbad D. Thls ordlnance Is Inconsistent with and Intended (19 an alternaUve to any inltlatiV9 ordinanca whkh wuld place an annual numerical IifrJIetion on the rate of residential wnsbuclbn. If tMs ordinance and any such initiative ordlnance are both p8ssei by a majotity voclng thereon then the one wilh the mst votes shall prwnil.” PR-00V.1 , &IS-40 ! 4 .. ! ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION E I VIE mratorium on building.was needed. The moratorium gave Carlsbad time to lind an Most people agree that the paw of growlh in Carlsbad has been so Inst that a Intelligent way lo plan future growlh. The result is Proposition E, which puts strict rules on !he books--rules that can't change unlesa you, the voter, change them. be built in Cartsbad reduces the overall density 01 the city and guarantees that we will Proposition E puts a permanent cap on the total number 01 residential units'that can always be a bw density residential community with 40%opon spaca. NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED unlw all required public laciiities are provided up lront. ProposiWn E guarantees that the cost 01 needed puMi faciliUes will be paid by land dwebpers and future homeowners-9 by current Carlsbad taxpayers. Proposition E gives us controlled growth without increased taxes and Without destroying our properly values or beautiful comhnitv. Propo9Mn E was put on lhe ballot by the City Coundl and is endorsed by the Carlsbad Unified School Dlslrict. . ! Now Is the time to put strict limits on development and a cap on our luture growlh. I vote preserve Carlsbad. VOTE YES ON PRCPOSiTlON E MARY H. CASLER RICHARD J. CHICK ANN J. KULCHIN . ' CLAUDE A. LEWIS HOWARD C. HARMON REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSlTlON E The City concedes the pace of growlh was so last a mratorium was needed and yet. it concocted a scheme that does nothing to slow down :he pace 01 growlh. Propositlon E together with the growlh management ordinance Ihat is not on the ballot will, il failhtully implemented, provide public facilities. But that's not the problem. The problem 1s too much growth. too last And hoposition E does mthing to cure the cancer of to lind. ever-inwecuing growlh. That caw will eventually kiii the quality 01 lib most 01 us c~me Proposition E puts a cap on the number 01 residential units, but that cap is neither As stated in the ballot question Proposition E Is an amendment lo the 1986 growth permanent wr does It sbw down the rate of growth. . management ordinance. which k not on the baiiot. That ordinance contains a self-destruct date 01 June 30, 2001, filleen years from now. That provision kills the claim of pemnence. And how does ProposMn E and the aSsOclated ordinance &w the paw 01 growth. which lhe city agrees Is out 01 control? The city and the developers would like you to believe that by lying grow\ to the rovislon of public lacilities, growlh Will slow down. But, will it. really? What P the ciiy and developers build the lacillties laster than needed7 Obviously, growlh will be 8p wded up Instead of slowed. If you want MPLOSIVE GROWTH vote lor E. ll you want GRADUAL GROWTH vote lor G. COLA. J. SKOTNICKI, USMC Ret. THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Secretary. ASSOdation 01 Co-Chalrman, Concerned Citizens Carlsbad Taxpayen, ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION E There are two battot propositlons on growlh on the ballot. One is the CITIZENS SLOW GROWTH INITIATIVE, PROPOSITION G. The other is City Hall's PROPOSiTlON E. iI you want the growlh rate stowed down, PROPOSITION G will do It. It limits growlh to lo00 new dwelling unlh In 1987 -- 750 in I988 and 500 a year lor the next 8 years. That's a draslk much-needed cut lrom the growlh binge 01 2500 to 3000 dwelling units ir recant ,i years. So, ll you want SLOW GROWTH, vote YES on PROPOSITION G. Only the votm can change it -- City Hall Can'L , . You want tacilities up lront? That's already provided by City Hall's growth managanlent plan -- It became law Aug. I, 1806 and IS NOT ON THE BALLOT. What does Clty Halt's PROPOSITION E give you? Actually, 11's a trick to conluse thousands of votors who want SLOW GROYVFH. It Exes a "cap" 01 34,MK) more dwelling I units. It does not SLOW GROWTH. It permits FAST GROWTH! PROPOSITION E also j contains a killer dauw Io kill the Citizens' Sbw Growlh Initiative. i Be aware that City Hall has shamefully approved a propaganda campaign using tax dollars lo manipulate voters. I i .. 1 ! Thus, 8 you want SLOW GROWTH and FACILITIES UP FRONT, you get both by voting YES on PROPOSITION 0 and NO on PROPOSITION E. ,' 11 you don't vote this way, then in ten years y0u.11 get ub to 82,700 more people in 1 5 . Carisbad -- an average minlrmm of 138,400 additional cat trips per day. We'll need 9 ! mre elementary schools. .. Developers and Cily Hall won't save Carlsbad from becoming L. A. South -- the voters will have to do it. You can do il by voting YES on PROPOSITION G and NO on PROPOSITION E. It may be your last chance to snve the Carlsbad we love. NELSON AIDRICH ! ALBERT MENDOZA Co-Chairman, Concerned Utizens Treasurer, Concerned Citizens Carlsbad City Council Candidate I THOMAS WlW SMITH COL A. J. SKOTNICKI, USMC Ret. ! 2. Co-Chairman, Concerned ClUZens Secretary, Association of Carlsbad Taxpayers . .. -. - . .. - ”- ” I I I I 1 i! 1 *- REBUITALTO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION E Fact PROPOSITION E places 13 limit on Ihe number 01 homes that can EVER be built In Carlsbad. This limit can ONLY be changed by a VOTE 01 the people. There is Fact: , PROPOSITION E IS A PLAN FOR ME ORDERLY LONG-TERM IX) such limil under Proposilion G. , DEVELOPMENT OF CARLSBAD. PROPOSITION E provides that NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED all public lacililies being required up front. This mans the roads, schools, parks, libraries and open Space hava already been planned, and a melhod lor their linanclng ar,d lime table for their Installation has been approved teloro any construction starts. Fact: Den* has been lowered throughout Ihe City while open space has been greatly increased. Fact: PROPOSlTlON E Is a Mueprlnt for the ordeq development 01 Cfdsbad over the nexl 20 years 90 you will know exactly where, when and how development is going to occur. Proposimn G does rot give you any such answers. .Fact PROPOSITION 0 IS NO PIAN AT ALL The opponents 01 PROPOSITION E contend that if you vote lor PROPOSITION E you will be authorizing an lncreasa 01 over 82.W new people to Carlsbad within the nexl IO years. RlOlCULOUSl The Cily has only grown 10 52,WO in its 100 years of exIsIence. PROWSITION E is suppolled by a large number of responsible electors who have studied the issues. It is a thoughtlul. lar-reaching masterplan lor Ihe future of Cartsbad over the next two decades. VOTE YES ON PROPOSIFON E Carlsbad Associatiin 01 JEANNE 8. MC FADDEN, Co-chalr HOWARD C. HARM0i.I Responsible Elecloo Senior Citizens Association Vw-president Co-chair Carlsbad Association 01 Responsible Electors Carlsbad Unilied School DisbiCl STEPHEN M. CHEUREUX JUL.IE NYGAARD. TNSIW President . Carlsbad Chamber of Comnerce SEENA TRIGAS TNSIW. Carlsbad Library .. ,’ ; .. .- i :, CITY OF CARLSBAD Proposltlon F (This pmposiUon will appear on the ballot in the following form.) Bond Proposition: Shall tho Cily of Carisbad, Caiitornla. Imur a F bonded IndebtedmsS in the principal amunt of ~S.S~~,OW for the purpose of the acquisition by said City of a certain munl- dpal Inprovement. to wit approximately 52.68 acres of undeveloped land known rn Hosp Gfow Io be acquired for park and open space plirposes, and for the payment of all wsb and expenses in WnnecUon wllh such acquisition and the issuance 01 the bonds? . j. I' PR-001.7 415.44 .I i ! ! ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION F treasured Cnrlsbad landmark. For over two decades. mncerned citizens have been trying The Hosp Grove bond issue oflers voters aK histork opportunity to preserve this to protect from furlher development'a rustic stand 01 woods and wildiile dear 10 wnerations 01 Carlsbad residents. Hosp Grove's value to the mmrmnlty goes lar beyond its scenic lunclion as Lagoon. The forest harbors a rich population 01 small animals and Woe-nesling birds. it is northern gateway to the city and majestic backdrop to the urban mall and Buene Vista a nature aree in the.heart 01 the city--a butler between commercial and residentid areas. symbol of the endangered Carisbad we all cherish. between the lagoon and the inevitable pollulanls of urban development. And it is a living The bond Issue Is our last chaw to preserve intact the grove's remaining unspoiled acres. Undor tern 01 the development-purchase agreemnt approved by the city council. the grove's owners will be ellowed to develop the slopes adjacent to Monroe and 2/3 majority. The agreement also comnits the city (If the bonds fail) to pursue a nearly Manon streets (across from PInze Camino Real) should the bond Issue lail to pass by a million-dollar purchase of a lesser parcel, most of which is already protected es designated open space or dedicated park land. This agreement has limited the public's options on Hosp Grove. Foreclosing the possibility 01 alternate solutions, il requires voters to choosa now between approving bonds lor oubight purchase 01 the lorest or accepting the extensive conwnercial and residential development pawned by the agreement. the brg desired goal. Proposition F Is the last chance to save our beloved Hosp Grove Given these cholces. It is clear that only e YES vote on the bonds will accomplish lor our own and fulure generations. MARK PETTINE CLAUDE LEWIS City Councll Member City Council Member CHy 01 Carlsbad Uty of Carlsbad KAY F. CHRISTIANSEN JULIE FISH Historical Preservation Neighborhood Alliance Comsslon tc Save Hosp Grove 0. E. ADAMS Co-Founder La Costa Community Awareness Group ,! ., REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION F NONSENSE1 The real issue IS whether the City should spend 85,950,000 10 buy HOSp Grove when the City presently has the rlghf to buy the majority 01 the Grove lor 9975,000. preserved under the tern of the d9VOiOF VOTE NO In order to retain Carlsbad's financial ability to buy ohr open space and Park lands of broader comrunity benelit. RUTH L. COYLE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION F Vote NO on the Ballot ProDosltlonl The proposal to acqulre 52.68 acres 01 Hosp Grove lor 95,950,000 would be a waste 01 taxpayers' money, and would the properly taxes 01 every proper:y owner in CarlSbSd. The majority of Hosp Grove is too steep to be usable, and its acquisifion would benefit only a small number 01 nearby residents. What Carlsbad needs 1s more Usable park land that can be u53d for Little League, soccer. sofiball. and other recreational activitias. Six million dollars could buy a large amount of There Is an nlternatlve to spendina $5,950,0001 The CHy Council has already approved a naner, more appropriate park land lor USB by Carlsbad residents. proposal that could be implemented M this ballot measure (ails. Under thls proposal, the City would acquire more than hall of Hosp Grove lcr 1/6 the cost 01 acquiring the 52.68 &Hersan %eel. across lrom the popular duck-leeding area 01 Buena Vista Lagoon, lor acres. This proposal Includes the CHy acquisition of 9 acres 01 Hosp Grove land on $975,000. In additio_l. the City would receive approximately 18.8 acres of dedicated open space In Hosp Grove m. should a specialty commercial center a1 the corner of Monroe and Manon Streets, and a residential development on Hosp Way be approved. Instead of paying Increased taxes to acquire mostly unusable land which benefits only a lew people, the alternative proposal allows the City of Carlsbad to acquire the most usable and visible areas of Hosp Grove lor 1/6 of the price. at no cost to taxpayers. Vote NO on the Ballot ProDorltlonl RUTH L COYLE REBUlTAL TO THE ARGUMENT.AGAlNST PROPOSITION F The value 01 Hosp Grove cannot be measured by Ihe same use-factor criteria as actlVe sports parks--such as Stagecoach Park and Calaveras Hills Pah, both 01 which will lealure ample playlng flolds when completed. Uke other Lalure parks. such a3 YoSemite and Sequola Natlonal Forest. the value 01 Hosp Grove lles In the visual grandeur 01 its wooded slopes-enjoyed by everyone who passes--and In its prssem as a nature area in the heart 01 the city. UnlsSS Proposition F passss. the entire hillside ea3 of the Monroe and Marron Intersection (rsroso hom Ihe mall) will be bu;ldozed flat lor a shopping center: and the slopes west 01 the Interselion will be selectively graded for office buildings. Proposition F allows us to retain the present wooded hillsides a1 that corner. ralher than add more $oommerclal develoDrrmnt with mre commercial traMc. because we would be paying a disproportionate price lor development rights, \Nilhoul In smct flnancid terms. the ailernalive proposal is a bad baraain lor taxpayeC3, commensurate benefils. duck-landing area (which is protected by the Department Of Fish and Game) Ne lnCluded Moreovw. the "No" argument does not make clear that the slopes am059 IrOm the In lha Propodtbn F bead issue. We have one last cham to save this histollc Cakbad landmark: Vote Yes on F. PR-OO~.# Nelghborhood Alliance to Save Hosp Grove JULIE FISH I i ! CITY OF CARLSBAD Proposltlon G I (Thin pmpmldon MI1 appear on the ballot In the lollowlng ton.) Shall an lnltiative ordinance be adopted adding Chapter 21.64 to G the CarlSbsd Munklpal Code which would REST%,T THE RATE OF CCINSTRUCTlON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLlNj UNITS In the Cm, lor ten vem oummenclng January 1, 1987 to not more than 1,WO unb In 1987. 750 units In 1988 and 500 units each year (herealter through 1998 with exceptbns lor the replacement of damaged or destroyed unb and tor low Income or senior cnizen projects. The City ot Carlsbad shall vlgwously defend any challenge to the validity or the deslres of a majority 01 the voters 01 Carlsbad. wnsUNtionallly 01 thls ordinam InasMch as this ordlnam represents PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People 01 the of Mbad do ordain as totiows: That lWs 21 01 :he Carlsbad Munlclpal Code shall be amended by Ihe addition of Chapter 21.64 to resirlct the rate ot conslruction 01 residential dwelling unia in the City tor ten ye- wmnandng Januy, I, 1987. adversely affecting the capacity ot Schools to accommodate Students. t'm capacity ot city 1. The City 01 Carlsbad Is experiencing Intense reSldenUal development which is streets and local treeway system to meet IraKc needs, the semirural character 01 the wmnlly and the quality ot llle prevalent In Carlsbad. The people ot Carlsbad are very much concerned about the City'$ rapid growlh. - It k Ihe Intent of this chapter to obtain a lower rate of residential development; to penlt elfe*ive advance planning and establishment 01 adequate municipal services such as schools, streets, parks, water, sewage, police and llre protection. and ofher cusfomary .*) provide for a desirable amount 01 open space: to ensure availability 01 housing for a broad specbum of population; and 19 prevent the delerioratlon of the quality ot lite prevalent In Carlsbad. dwelling units whkh have the least adverse Impact upon the puMi lacilities and p)BN;cBs In approving development priority shall be given to the consttuctlon ot resIdenUa1 as well as the quality 01 Me prevalent In Carlsbad as described In thls section. CHy 01 Carlsbad shall not allow the start of wnabuction of more than 1,oOO realdenUal 2. Comnenclng January 1, 1987 and continuing through Dmber 31. 1996, the dwelling unb In 1687. 7% residentiai dwelling unRs in 1988, and x)o resldential dwelling units each year lherodl9f through 1996. 3. The limitations ot Section zi.64.wO shall not apply to: a) Projects replaclng damaged or dfstroyed dwellings on a one-lor-one basis: b) Remodeling or additions to exisling dwellings which do not resun in an increase In the numbec of dwelling units; and c) Dwelllng una 01 any low Income or senior citizen prolecla lunded or subsidized pursuant to the provisions 01 applicable lederal or state law. 4. This chapter may be amended or repealed only by a majority ot the voter$ voting at an electlon rhereon. (Continued on next page) 415-47 PR-OO1.tQ reason held io be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent judsdicuon, such 5. II any section. sentence, clause, phrase. par(, or portion 01 this chapter Is lor any decision shall not allect the validity 01 the remalning portions 01 this chapter. it is horeby declared that this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or porlion thefeol. would have been adopted or paSsed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections. sentemes. clauses. phrases,'pm. or portions be declared invalid or umnsti1UIional.' 6. a) This chapter shall expire and be 01 no tutlher lorce and enect on January 1. 1997: and b) The City Council shall place a measure on the ballot 01 the November 1996 - December 31, 2000 with a restriction on the construction of dwelling units not to exceed general mnicipal election asklng the City's electors if this chapter shall be ertended until 500 unils per year. Cily Council shall take all steps necessary to vigorously delend any challenge to the 7. This chapter represenls the will of a majority 01 the voters of Carlsbad and the validity or constitutionality 01 this chapter." .. ,. .,. .. .. .. .... .. . . .. . .~ . . . . ,__.- - ” . . - ” .” ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION G For years. plans 01 developers have been placed above deslres of Carlsbad CiliZenS. As a resun, the growth rate Is raglng out of contlol. The majority 01 the City .Council refuses to take effective salon agalnst this rampant rate 01 growth. PROPOSITION G is a Citizens”Initialive,.designed by Citizens. to respond to Citizens‘ desire 10 slow growlh la Carsbad. PROPOSITION G was circulated by your neighbors and wa placed on the ballot by the signatures 01 5.100 Citizens. The aim 01 PROPOSITION G Is to curb growth the next ten years. It allow about loo0 when n will be submined to the Citizens lot a vote. It will reduce the number 01 people dwelling units to be built in 1987.750 In 1988. and 500 units per year thereaner lor 8 years. lamming our sveets. beaches, parks. schools. playing lields and other publlc and private lacilies. This will allow City planners to absorb the exVaordinafy growth of recent years. PROPOSITION G Is a reasonable slow growth plan similar to those approved in Sari Clemente and many other Calilornla communities. PROPOSITlON G tells the Cl Council what Cilizens want in clear terms. It illlows a Ilrrited number 01 new dwellings ever/ year. Developers mus. compete lor tho rlght to build, Insuring better quality.projects. PROPOSVION 0 would allow only 13.800 more people In Carlsbad in the next ton yoars cny H~II and developer plans would allow up to 82,700 people in the next ten years. too many people, packed into too linle space, too last1 PROPOSITION G locuses on the issue directly affecting the quality of life 01 the Citizens: what we enjoy in Carlsbad. PROPOSITION G Is our 1851 chance to choose ber.veen a queky @I lile like that of L A. or Vote YES on PROPOSITION G to save Carlsbad. NELSON ALDRICH Co-Chairman. Concerned Citizens Treasurer. Concerned Citizens ALBERT MENDOZA Carlsbad City Councti Candidate C3L: A. J. 5KCTNICKI. USMC Rot Secretary, Assomtion of Carlsbad Taxpayers THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Co-Chalrman. Concemd CIIL~~S MARK PmlNE Carlrbad City Councilman PR.W1.11 415-40 REBURAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION G The proponenls 01 Proposition G would have you Mleve that lts passage will solve 1 ! construction 01 roads, schoois. parks, libraries and open space. Where will the City get :he needed lunds? PROPOSITION 0 is NO PLAN AT ALL i PROPOSITION G WILL PROMOTE UNLIMITED LOW INCOME AND SUBSIDIZED ? ati 01 Carlsbad's problem. THiS IS FALSE. Propositlon G do89 NOT provlde lor the HOUSING. It also allom oniy a limited nurnbar 01 housing unlts each year of the type which wf Carlsbad residenls preler. Do you really want Cadsbad to develop this way7 Proposition G is BAD lor Carisbad and its economy. Where will your children iivo? If Proposition G passes. ll probably wilt MI be In Carisbad. Proposition G will NOT encourage the development 01 a quality community with housing oppomnities lor ail. Proposition G will encourage low Income housing whlch will dramatically alfect the "quality 01 Me" In Carlsbad. Proposition G requires the Ci to delend all leal challenges to its ConstiNlionality. The cost of such lawsuits could be tremendous. This will mean less mnies available lor other projecls. Deleat 01 Proposition G will protect the Cily lrom years 01 iitigation and save your dollars. .. Propositlon G will NOT produce e balanced comnunlty 01 homes, Industry, commercial and open space areas whlch we all want. PROPOSITION G IS A' POORLY CONCEIVED INiTlATlVE WHICH WILL ONLY HARM AND DIVIDE OUR CITY RATHER THAN SOLVE ITS PROBLEMS. t VOTE NO ON PROPOSlTiON G JEANNE 8. McFADDEN. Co-chair HOWARD C. HARMON, Vlce-preddent Carlsbad Association 01 Responsible Electors Senlor Citfzens Assodallon Co-chalr, Carlsbad Associalion 01 ResponslMe Electors STEPHEN M. CHEUREUX JULIE NYGAARD, Trustee President Carlsbad Unified School District Car!sbad Chamber 01 Commerce SEENATRiGAS Trustee. Carlsbad Ubrq ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION G VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION G to believe that this one page document provides a bluepririt lor Carlsbads development Proposition G sounds tough but It really Isn't. Supporters of Proposition G want you lor the nert ten years. but it does not. Proposilbn G will produce pressure far. zone changes and general plan amendments and result in an unbalanced community. Proposition G leaves Carlsbad open to industrial. commercial and low income housing deveiopment. creating un!imited vamc and no way lo pay for schools. the City to raise the money lor necessary public lacilities. ll passed, The Clty will be sued Arbitrary numrical limitations on growlh will not work. They make it Impossible for by the building lndusby and developers. The cost 01 delense will be subslanlial and wiii have to be paid from taxpayers' funds. Recent rulings of the Supreme Court have said that ~Umerical growth limitations must R? justirtnd by objective faas. No such justification has been presented In this measure. NOW 01 us wants the kind of growth and development that Propositon G permits. dream. Proposition G is poorly wrinen and lull of loopholes; it's a legal nighlInarQ and a lawyer's VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION G MARY H. CASLER RICHARD J. CHICK ANN J. KULCHIN HOWARD C. HARMON ' ,' CLAUDE A. LEWIS REBUlTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION G . . VOTE YES ON G Sounds touah? If G isn't as toual. as il sounds. whv are all the deveiooers and the CiN council maj&y fighting It so mu&? ll's tough. ail right. and they know it: construction of dwelling uniw in the neYt ten years. Proposition G makes no pretenses about being anylhing except a resviction on the In itself, G creates no imbalance in development. Only ii the city councll Illegally disturbs would there be an unbalanced community. that balance by nllowing zone changes or too many low income housing developments Providing the necessary public IacililiBs is not the problem. L.A. has adoquale public There are adequate funds available to provide the necessary public lacilities for the new lacilities. Do you want to live there? The problem is too many people. too fast. dwellings Proposition G allows. However, there Mil never be enough public facilities to The Clty Is beselged with growth problems. Therefore, there Is a substanllal legal maintain our existing qualily 01 lile under the cilyldeveloper plan, Proposition E. lustilcation lor Proposilion 0. in fact. the City Council has already made the necessary The Council majority Is ttying to deceive us when they claim there is no juslilication, since legal findings to supporl Jusllfialion by enacting the so-called growth management plan. tkq have already bund il twbe true. Initiatives like Proposition G have already been subjected to legal challenge and beon Vote YES on G. Gradual Growlh, and NO on E, Explosive Growlh. upheld. THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Co-Chairman, Concerned Citizens NELSON ALDRICH Co-Chairman, Qnwrned Citizens COL. A. J. SKOTNICKI. USMC Ret. Secretary. AsSOclation 01 Carlsbad Taxpayers ALBERT MENDOZA Treasurer, Concerned Citizens ! i .I CITY OF CARLSBAD Proposltlon ti (This proposition will appear on the ballot In the following lorm.) H calendar years 1987 and 1988 the City of Carlsbad, Californla Shall an Inlllative ordinance be adopted 89 foliows: “Duritg the shall (rmsl) build In the Mac& Canyon Park. all 01 the 1) Five (5) basebaNsoHbsll Wds. each with a minimum distam from home plat9 to My Oulfiid lenCe 01 three hundred feel, and each field lihled for Wht us,; 2) lour (4) rectangular soccar/(ootball Wds, each with mirWlum meQsurements 01 (wo hundred leet wide and three hundred Any lee1 long. each fied will be Ughled lor nlghl use; 3) One (1) comrunily mter, containing a gymnasium large enough Io house an otRdd lull sized be.sketbrdl coun plus speclator aeatlng; 4) A lot bt, ’ picnic area, and adequate public IaciliUea (rsmoam. parking lots. We believe the estimated cost01 thb prom to be approximately Three bleachers. etc.) Io service the entire Bslhield Md Spom Complex ladlity. Md One-HM Minion Dollam (S3.SOO.ooO.W) and feel that il Is a good lnvssbmnt In our Clly’s lulure. lollowing: PROPOSED ORDINANCE The People 01 the City 01 Crdabad do ordain as Iollows: “During the c&ndnr year3 1887 and 1988 the Cily of Carlabad, Californla 9hdi (rmst) bund In tho Macario Canyon Park. dl of the following: 1. Five (5) baseball/soflball fields, each with a minirmrn dislam from horn8 plate 10 any ouhield lence of three hundred leet. and each field lighted lor night use; two hundred feet wide and three hundred fifly feet long, each fwd will be lighted lor night Use; 2. Four (4) rectangular soccerlloolball Gelds, each wi(h minimum measurements 01 ohW3 lull sized Dasketball courl, plus speclator seating; 3. One (4) cormunity canter. containing a gymnasium large enough to house sn bleachers. etc.) Io service the entire Balmeld and Sports Complex lacllity. 4. A to1 lot. pknic area, and adequate puMic lacillllffl (rnslroom, parking lots, We believe the &mated cost 01 this pro)ec( to be approxlmaldy Three and One-Hail Million D~llar~ ($3.5Oo.ooO.W) and led that I( is a good lnvasrmenl in our City’s lutllre. Severability Clause. If any section. subsection, sentem. clause, phrase. part or potlion of this Ordinance Is for any reason held to be Invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgement of any court 01 competent jurisd~n. such decision shall not aned the validily of the remaining portions 01 this Ordinance, which shall remain in full lor- and elfecl” PR-001.15 $15-61 !& !: ,! ji ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION H I , .. ;< I/ There is an ex(reme shorlage 01 Bailfieids And Active Recreation Facilities in the City 01 ! ,, ;I Carisbad. ' .. . :! 3; !< .f ; of Carisbad. This nleasure will require the City to lullill its promises to provide the much needed Sports & Recreation Facilities in the City 01 Carisbads exisling Macario Canyon Park. It Is our opinion thal (he city has sulficlent lunds lo provide these facilities for the Cilizens. * 'L ,1 I, -11 4 if .I; . . Chairman. C.ARA. Councilwoman JAMES A. COURTNEY ANN J. KULCHIN Carlsbad Athletic Recreatlon Assn. ' . Clty 01 Carlsbad President indoor o1,Carlsbad .. Propositlon H ignores (he fact lhal with completion 01 construction a1 Stagecoach and Calavera Hills Parks the City will meet the standards sel lor pds and recreation fields. Proposition H wanls developninlol Macario Canyon now -- when there are no roads or utililb servklng the site. This does not make good economic sense. The Ci has a Master Pian lor Macario Canyon and lhe park will be developed wherl more imdiale perk needs me setisfied. To use existing funds lor this devolopmenl would deprive Catlsbad citizens 01 park development nearer their homes. VOTE NO ON PROPOSIT'ION H. JAMES M. POPOVICH CATHY REGAN BARBARA 8. DONOVAN MARJORIE A. MORRISON \ !. . .. .. ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION H VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION H Devebpmenl of Mucarlo Canyon Is premalure and would be an unwise Investment 01 city funds at lhls Ume. There are many obstacles to Improving the canyon; there are no roads or utililies Into the area; there are sl;.lincant environmental concarns which musl he resolved betore development can occur. The total cost of building the proposed roads, utilities. ballfields and gymnasium Is estimaled to be between 95.6 million and 57.1 million. proposed, 11 would lake mre than two years to complete. ml Ihe 53.5 million Indicated In (he petition. Even il the project could be approved as .- master plan study done In 1982 suggested a 15 year developmenl program. In 1984. the This 300 acre canyon was acqulred by the City in 1981 lor !ulure developmenl. A ' Clly leased the land lo a lmr as a way of saving money until development is timely. .. The City does mt need Macnrk Canyon Park a1 thls lime. The Clty has a program to spend available funds Io build park and recreation facilities In areas close to exisling housing such e& Calavera Hills and La Cosla. If Macarii Canyon is develop& ahead of win be needed. If we wait and lollow the,City park plan. then developers lees and prlvato schedule, it mans that other needed projects will be delayed lor years or a bond issue lunding sources will be used. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION H for good park planning and wise use cf City funds. CLAUDEA LEWIS . ' RICHARD J. CHICK SCOTT WRIGHT MARY H. CASLER REBUlTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION H No rebunal Io the argument against the proposition was tiled in the O(fiCB ot the City Clel?. .. .. I, .. . PR-001.17 ,. ,.. .. - ..,_ r.. I i 1 , i I I i j ! 1 i i ! <! I .! ! i i ! i r 1 i ? i f i i 415-S4 ' \ ! . _.. . .. .. .. .. '. . I i ; i .! i i I :j ? ! ., i ACCESS? YES OR NO ..\ . , Refer to this symbol on the .back cover. of this pamphlet. If your polling place is' not accessible, please call: . .\ Registrar. of Voters -. 56.5-5800 FC-4 41s-ss t PERMANENT ABSENT VOTER QUALIFICATIONS Any voter who has lost, or has lost the use of, one or more llmbs; has lost, or has lost the use of, both hands; Is unable to move walker, wheelchalr); is sufferlng from lung disease, blindness, or about without the aid of an asslstant devlce (e.g., canes, crutches, cardiovascular disease; has a slgnlficant llmltatlon In the use of the lower extremities; Is sufferlng from e dlagnosed disease or dlsorder which substantlally lmpalrs or Interferes with the person's moblllty. may apply for permanent absent voter status ... (E.C.. Sec. 1451). '' ,, By completing the Absent Voter Appllcatlon and checklng the box on !he back cover, the voter Is acknowledglng hlslher right to I official ballot wlll be sent to you each tlme there Is an election permanent absent-volerstatus. As a permanent absent voter, an wlthln your precinct. Once you have claimed permanent absent voter status, you need not apply again unless you change your resldence or mailing address, your polltlcal party, or your name. If the voter fails to return hlslher official absent voter ballot for any statewlde direct prlmary or general electlon the voter's name wlll be deleted from the permanent llst and helshe must reapply. (E.C. Sec. 1456). The Registrar of Voter's 'Office has a TDD (Telecommuncation Device for the Deaf). For asslstance please call 565-3966. Proposltlons, analyses, arguments and rebunals are avaliable on tape. For assistance.' please call the Blind Recreatlon Center at the following numbers: San Dlego - 298-5021 or 583-1541; North County - 747-4590. You may also call the Reglstrar of Voters at .. ! . ASSISTANCE FOR THE HANDICAPPED 565-5800. 444.4 The County of San Dlego does not discrlmlnate on the bask of Gkability. If you are dlsabied and feel you have been denied partlclpation In the electoral process, please contact the Registrar of Voter's Office at 565-5800 Immediately. A voter unable to mark a ballot may recelve the asslstance Of not more than two persons selected by the voter. If there is no accesslblllty to the polllng place, the physically handlcapped may request a regular ballot from a precinct board polls, which Is accessible to the physlcally handicapped. member and vote It at a location as near as possible outside the a**** 495.S8 FP-3 ! i i' ! i i f i ! ,. . . . .. /:, . - - I , 0 el 415 ABSENT VOTER BALLOT APPLICATION I . Cll" . %,,e rn 15 cod.' MAIL OR DELIVER APPLICATION TO: REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 5201-1 Rulnn Rd.. (P. 0. Box 05520) San Diego. CA 92138-5520 LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE 1 PAID 1 US POSTAGF L(U1.t: llAW Sara Dlcyo. Ch Perrnd NO 4 0 DO N3T REMOVE THIS LABEL .. .. I I ! : : . County of San Diego California Sample Ballot & Voter Information Pamphlet GENERAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4,1986 i b' .. r 7 County of San Diego California SarTlpk Ballot & Voter Information Pamphlet GENERAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1986 POLLS OPEN AT 7 A.M. AND CLOSE 4T 8 P.M. THE LOCATICN OF YOUR POLLING PLACE IS SHOWN ON THE BACK COVER Inlormalion concerning the Slate Proposilions will be mailed by the Secretary of State in a scparale pamphlet. Spanish translation of lhis pamphlel is available upon request !rom the 3mce 01 (he Regislrar of Voters. Esle lollelo esli disponible on espafiol previa petlcibn al Reglslrador de b'olanles. Compiled and Distributed by: REG!STRAR OF VOTERS San Diego, CA 92123 5201-1 Roffin Road j i I I i I i ! i I i ! I 1 I ! ! 1 I ! ! I I County of San Diego California 1 Sample Ballot & Voter Information Pamphlet GENERAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4,1986 POLLS OPEN AT 7 A.M. AND CLOSE AT 8 P.M. THE LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE IS SHOWN ON THE BACK COVER Infornoation concerning Ihr Stale Proposilions will be mailed by lhrj Secre:zry 01 Stale in a separate parnphlel. Spanish lranslation of this pamphlet is available upon retlUeSl (lorn lhC Ofice 01 the Registrar of Voters. Este lolleto esth disponible en espariol previa petici6n a1 Regwador de Vofanfes. Compiled and Distributed by: REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 5201-1 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 i (619) 565-5000 I e 398 I ., ... - -. - - .. . ! ! ATTENTION ! ! The order of the candidates was incorrect on the first page of your Sample Ballot. This is the correct version to be used in voting your ballot. ABSENTEE VOTERS ONLY Absentee voters in areas affected by thls problem, ' who were sent or received an official Absentee Ballot prior to this correction (October 10, 1986) will receive a new ballot in the mail. If you have a question, call: Absentee 565-5563 STATE GOVERNOR I JOSEPH FUHRIG Vote for One Llberlarlan 9rn ~~ ~ ~ Professor of Economics Governor. Stale of Calilnrc;a 4+0 W'W GEORGE "DUKE" DEUKMEJIAN Republlcan TOM BRADLEY Democrallc crn ~~ ~ Mayor, City of Cos Angeles Educator 6+ 0 Governing Board Member, Mt. SAC Comm. College DiSl. .I" MARIA ELIZABETH MUNOZ Peace and Freedom GARY V. MILLER Amerlcan lcdependent 7+0 Ll #"I IES C. "JIM" GRIFFIN SECRETARYOFSTATE Vole tor One RICHARD WINGER Llberlarlan THERESA "TENA" DIETRICH Amerlcan Independent 16+ 0 Election Law Consullant 15+ 0 Printer BRUCENESTANDE Republlcan Ccunly Supervisor MARCH FONG EU Secretary of State of California Democrallc 18+ 0 GLORIA GARCIA Peace and Freedom . 19+ 0 Worker 17+ 0 CONTROLLER Vote tor One - GRAY DAVIS Democrallc CAROLYN TREYNOR Llbettarlan JOHN HAAG Peace and Freedom BILL CAMPBELL ~mber of the State Assembly. California Legislature Business Administrator PeacelPolitlcal Organizer Calilornia State Senator Zalired Electrical Direclor 21 + 22+ 23+ 24+ 25+ Republlcan 0 NICHOLAS W. KUDROVZEFF Amerlcan Independent - B CORRECTED PAGE 0 ,o ,o ,o 0 L N-01-4 Replaces Sample Ballot Version .. REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 5201-1 Rullm Rd.. (P. 0. 8ox 8552133 San Dicgo. CA 92130-5520 CORRECTION N-0 1 -4 ? COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REGISTRAR OF VOTERS PUBLIC RELATIONS 5201-1 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 f?ELEASEIMKED-- PHONE: SS7R7 DATE: OCC.QE!EKlrilesa CONTACT mcxi" (not for public referral) KLKCTION STATISTICS TO ENHANCE YOUR COVERAGE FOR THE NOVEMBER 4, 1986 HAS BEEN COMPILED AND RELEASED BY THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS GUBERNATORIAL GENERAL ELECTION, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION , OFFICE. SAMPLE BALLOT MAILING..... ........... SEPT. 29 - OCT. 17 NUMBER OF CANDIDATES .................... 599 NUMBER OF ELECTIVE POSITIONS ............ 138 NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS: (COUNTYWIDE) .................. 24 (STATEWIDE). .................. 13 NUMBER OF VOTING PRECINCTS.. .......... 2.654 CITY OF SAN DIEGO 838 ABSENTEE 496 DECLARED ABSENTEE 442 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 878 NUMBER OF BALLOT DISTRICTS .............. 496 ...................... ............. ........... ............. DEMOCRATIC 453,077 REPUBLICAN 524,997 408,959 400,450 AMERICAN INDEPENDENT 14,970 15.5iO PEACE & FREEDOM LIBERTARIAN 3,034 3,111 NON-PARTISAN 121,114 5,447 117 555 6,629 TOTAL 1,122,639 952,214 1"- VOTER TURNOUT (PROJECTED) 60% 67.66% - OVER - "" 1978 389,687 319,882 8,910 2,062 N/A "_J"_ 84 881 805,422 69.78% 07TBERRAl'OPIAL QENBRAL ELBCtIOll VOTER TURJiOUT PIOUPBS !!ma 7- 8 8- 9 9 " 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 1 1- 2 2- 3 3- 4 4- 5 5- 6 6- 7 7- 8 Est. Absentee Estimated Actual 11-8 1966 11-3 11-5 1970 11-7 "" "" "" 1974 "" 1978 6.5 5.78 4.54 6.01 11.93 11.26 8.38 20.21 18.62 17.01 12.78 14.78 25.13 22.57 16.78 19.43 29.98 26.58 20 :I5 23.29 34.36 30.98 25.16 26.66 38.47 35.69 26.53 29.94 42.89 40.01 29.88 33.20 47.66 44.83 34.74 38.26 56.08 53.92 41.55 46.10 66.60 62.95 49.96 55.75 73.51 71.42 57.29 63.46 75.3 74.77 61.47 67.88 3.0 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.71 78.30 77.77 63.47 70.88 78.79 75.86 63.21 69.78 11-2 "" 1982 5.78 10.51 15.66 19.86 23.49 27.00 29.71 33.09 37.50 44.80 52.29 60.54 63.92 5.00 5.13 68.92 67.66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REGISTRAR OF VOTERS PUBLIC RELATIONS SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 5201-1 RUFFIN ROAD DATE: -- CONTACT: MAGGIE EDWARDS RELEASE: "1- PHONE: 565-5282 (not for public referral) ELECTION CONSOLIDATION DUE TO RECENT LEGISLATION, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALL POLITICAL SUBOIVISIONS ARE PERMITTED TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR ELECTIONS WITH A STATEWIDE ELECTION. AS A RESULT OF THIS HEAVY CONSOLIDATION IN SAN OIEGO COUNTY, THERE ARE 496 DIFFERENT BALLOT STYLES RATHER THAN THE USUAL 100 TO 150. THERE ARE 442 PRECINCTS WITH LESS THAN 100 REGISTERED VOTERS. THE LAW ALLOWS A PRECINCT WITH LESS THAN 100 VOTERS TO BECOME A MAILED BALLOT PRECINCT (CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 1005.). THEREFORE, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 19,000 REGISTERED VOTERS RECEIVING A MAILED BALLOT. THIS VOTED BALLOT MUST BE IN THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OFFICE BY B:OO P.M. NOVEHBER 4 OR THE VOTER MAY DROP OFF THE BALLOT AT ANY POLLING PLACE IN THE COUNTY BEFORE 8:OO P.M. ON ELECTION DAY. FOR THOSE VOTERS GOING TO THE POLLS ON ELECTION DAY, PLEASE CHECK THE BACK COVER OF THE SAMPLE BALLOT FOR POLLS LOCATION. THE POLLING PLACE MAY HAVE CHANGED FOR THIS ELECTION DUE TO THE HEAVY CONSOLIOATION. x ! :! COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 52014 RUFFIN ROAD, SAN DIEGO. CA 92123 (8 19) 565-5800 October 23, 1986 Lee Rautenkranz, City Clerk City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 1200 Elm Avenue Dear Ms. Rautenkranz: Enclosed is a set of Dolls locator microfiche for you to Use in helping any of your voters who are having trouble finding out where they are to go to vote. If any of your voters have questions/problems beyond simply looking them up on this fiche, please be sure to have them Call our public number f0.r further help (565-3932). In addition, I am also sending you copies cf the election materials which to have a set in case some of your voters contact you with questions. Also are going to the registered voters in your City. We thought YOU would like included is/are copy(s) of the sample ballot(s) which include Your City. materials, please contact Judy Nelson at 565-3932. If you have any questions or need additional copies Of any of these Sincerely, \ KDB:JMN:crnc Enclosures z 3 c 00 000 00 0000 000 00 0000 0000 000 00 00 -00 2 m ? 00 00 c L (L ?u a 0 -1 0 J 0 0 P$ UVI VI z z 4 VI 4 111 a a 0 0 (L a (L a 00 00 n 0 0 U a LT a a a 0 0 LT a a a a 00 00 0 z -1 4 -1 I I a Y 3: VI e e 3 0 u YI LT s:: W 0 I 0 * a m u n z= a n 0 a c 0000 00000 000 000 coo0 000 00 000 00 0000 000 z 3 u 0 !- 00000 00000 onooo 00000 0000 00000 NI < 0 o c x n Y . . X m m c c r F F o o > > 000 YO0 00 00 00 00 0000000000" 0 - p w c < c -1 u d -1 w -1 w c c 0 n 4 - ~> (I 3 - > c U .. i . u N c W 0 a U c z ... > c u u 0 woooooooooo c ? - " A , 00 0000 00 -000000 N a u 0 w 0 c > - N a 2 W c ... 0 i > u z 00 000 0 c W u z U Y P N LL 0 u. U 0 U W e 000 000000 00000 N LL 0 L 000 00000 000000 woo0 e 0 - = W mu 38 z- I- O z u 3 Y r 3 I U w c I U Y e LL 0 u. 0 N 0 W c 0 > ... 0: 0 u Y c 0 > - w c 0 > - 0 U u J u. J 3 W c 0 > - c yl I 0 W c 0 > c u LL .. L c U LL t- Lo 0 I .. J 0 0 I u Lo L u c u J 3 I U c, 0 z m I P .1 < U i I- z Y U = Y OOOOOO 00000000000 000 0000000000 000000000 OOOO c = 0 z u .. N 0 N F m U 0 u 0: C u_ a 0 U Y 6 - > W c 0 > - + 0 > - w c 0 > - W I- 0 > c = x W = .1 U 0 z U 3 I 4 wz LLO 4c > c - W I "5 ." t c u I > c u I F I u . . o u 0 10000000000000 00000 000J00 LLOOOOOOO - o 00000 o 0000 u 0 Y 0 jL U c 0 > I Y + 0 > L _1 0 ci L i LL J < z u 00 0000000 00000 - u Y OOOOOO w c 0 > - I w c e u 0 I 10 -1 Y 0 u z Y Y 0 'DX 4 2 W . . 00 00 00 - Y W c c 0 0 > Q 2. c .., m c 2 .+ " N 910 0 c a Q 0 e 0 L "I 0000 YO0 z c > 0 > I I a a Y Y c c ., I -1 -1 3 L (L 0 m I. 000000 0 n ' D 4 0 0 + Y < VI z 0 I- Y a a a . . c w 2 " 5 a c OOOOOOOO~ E 5 c 0000000000 0 u- (1 f 3 Y c Lo .. 0 b 000 zoo 0 > - m c 2 VI . . U < Y 0 ,- - - - - - @. e 000000 000000 0000 -00 -00 00000000 2000 zoo00 LOO0 a a 0 5 r - U d ma < 000000000000 - LI N L (L ^000000 000000 NO00 ~000 z 0 a il Ln c 3 > 3 x > N . . . . 0 N z > > z > > t z z 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 c 'D C * m m m m m ?) 0 0 m m 0 m 10 m m * 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 m 9 m 0 0 m 0 N 0 - 0 W 0 m m 9 9 c Q (D m 9 m m m Qi 7 0 0 0 0 Y) (D 0 c m m m 0 0 C * 0 0 * 0 * c 0 0 0 0 0 N v m m 0 9 . 0 Y) 0 0 m m m m m m m 0 0 0 9 9 Q 0 z 4 u w R w L , 3 3 0 0 0 e 0 c w 9 0 un 0- 0 z 0 N P) 9 0 7 0 > 0 0 - m 0 e .. J 0 a 0 "? z b" 4N CY) om m u- n IN m m P 0 c Ym am ->9 L.4 0 > 0 z 0 , 0 F 0 > 1 > 0 > 0 z 0 2 J , 0 0 c JI c c 0 j, 0 9 9 - a 0 m Y) 0 -7 0 y1 0 I o c 0 w I 0 c m 0 c I 0 .l - 0 p: c 0 9 m 0 c I D 0 9 0 O I 0 -7 - 0 0 v 0 0 v m 10 D m m 0 r m m 0 r m N 0 - N 0 - n. a ?- a a : D e f D 4 ?- d a t: c -m N m- m re 0 m- u) 0 > 0 z 0 > 0 z 3 > o > U z m < m 4 m < .. U z Y z CALIFORNIA BALLOT PAMPHLET GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 4,1986 YOU’RE NEEDED FOR A GROUP Compiled by MARCH FONG EU Secretary of State Analyses by JOHN L. VICKERMAN Acting Legislative Analyst Dear Fellow Californians: 1986, General Elgtion..It contains the ballot title, a short sum- I. This is your California Ballot Pamphlet for the November 4, ments axid rebuttds, axid the compiete text of each proposition. It mary, the Legislative Analyst's analysis, the pro and con argu- also contains tKe legislative vote cast for and against each medre proposed by the Legislature. Many rights arid responsibilities go along with citizenship. 'Jot- ing is one of the'most important as it is the foundation on which ures snd information about them contained in this pamphlet. kg- our democratic system is built. Read carefully each of the meas- islative propositions and citizen-sponsored initiatives are designed specifically to give you, the electorate, the opportunity to innu- ence the laws which regulate us all. voting on November 4, 1986. Take advantage of this opportunity and exercise your rights by SECRETARY OF STATE CONTENTS r.lgr5 53 Greene-Hughes School Building Lessc-Purchase Bond Low of 1986 ................................................................................................. 4-7.56 54 New Prison Construction Bond Act of 1986 .................................. 8-11 55 California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986 ...................... 12-15, 56-59 56 Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986 .............................. 16-19 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 57 Retirement Benefits for Nonjudicial and Nonlegislative Elected State Constitutional Officers .......................................... 20-23 .% Taxation. Family Transfers .................................................................. 24-21 59 Elected District Attorney .................................................................... 28-31 60 Taxation. Replacement Residences .................................................. 32-35 INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE 61 Compensation of Public Officials, Employees, Individual Public Coneactors ............................................................................ 3639, 59-62 INITIATIVE STATUTE 62 Taxation. Local Governments and Districts .................................. 4043 INITIATIVE CONSIlTUTIONAL AMENDMENT 63 Official State Language ........ .. ............................................................... 44-17 INITIATIVE STATUTES ”- 64 Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) ........................ 4&51 65 Restrictions on Toxic Discharges into Drinking Water; Requirement of Notice of Persons’ Exposure to ‘Toxics .......... 52-55, 6263 On the Cover. .. Roukie. La Mirada High School. in Los Angeles, first-place winner and recipient of a $5M) award in the ‘:Get Out and The “Together we can make the difference. Vote.” poster on the cover of this ballot pamphlet w3s designed by Paula Vote” student contest sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles Education Fund, 1986. voter slogan contest. The contest, which ran from January 6 to February 15, 1986, was designed to incren:s va:er The other two posters depicted on :he cover use the slogans from the runners-up in the Secretary of State’l/Eleven awareness and participation. The winning slogan appeared on the June 3,1986, primary election ballot pampirirl LYYCI. .& second-place winner, Will Courtenay of San Francisco received $500 for his entry, “You’re needed for a group decision.” Territa Lowenberg of Lafayette rereived $250 as third-place winner for her slogan. “Be heard, not herded. voter . catchy slogans were submitted, we wanted to share as many of them as possible with you. The authors’ names appear Throughout this pamphlet, where spacc permitted, are printed slogms from the contest. Because so many clever and with the slogans. G86 3 Greene-Hughes School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1986 Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General issue of eight hundred million dollars ($8oo,ooO,ooO) to provide capital outlay for construction or improvement of publir GREENE-HUGHES SCIIOOL DUILDllrrG LEASE-PURCHASE BOND LAW OF 1986. This act provides for a bond schools to be sold at a rate not to exceed four hundred million dollars ($400,000,noO) p<r year. Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on AB 4245 (Proposition 53) Assembly: Ayes 70 Noes 1 Senate: Ayes 29 Noes 0 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1578, the state has provided most of the money used by local public school facilities. Under the current state aid program, school dis- districts to construct, reconstruct, or rn3dernize school tricts may be required to contribute up to 10 percent of the cost of each project from local funds. Proposition 46 on tbe June 1986 ballot restored to school districts the ability to issue school construction bonds and levy a property tax increase (subject to a two-thirds voter approval), in order to finance school facilities. This ability had been eliminated by Proposition 13. additional school facilities needed Lo meet current enroll- School Facilities Funding Needs. The total amount of men: in the state is unknown. As ofJune 1,1986, however, of new school construction projects totaled approximately applications submitted by school districts for state funding $1.3 billion. In addition, applications for state funding of reconstructio;: or rehabilitation of school facilities totaled approximately $991 million. from state sources in 1986-87 to fund these requests. This An estimated 5406 million is available under current law amount includes $130 million in bond funds from Proposi- tion 26 of 1984.5200 million in state tidelands oil revenues which were appropriated but not spent, and $76 million in federal funds and revenues from other sources. funding lorally through issuance of school construction Since June 1986 school district.. have been able to raise bonds under the authority granted hy Proposition 46. The amount of money school districts may be able to generate through this mechanism is not known. Proposal This measure would authorize the state tu sell $so0 mil- lion of state general obligation bonds in order to provide funds for the construction, reconstruction, or moderniza- obligation bondsare backed by the'state,meaning that the tion of elementary and secondary school facilities. General state will use its taxing power to assure that enough money would be used to pay the principal and interest costs on is available to pay off the bonds. The state's General Fund these bonds. General Fund revenues come primarily from the state corporate and personal income taxes and the state sales tax. be used for the construction of new school facilities. No At least $400 million of the bond money would have to more than $360 million of the funds raised from the boni sale could be used for the reconstruction or modernization of existing school facilities. Up to $40 million of the bond sale proceeds could be used to buy and install air-condi- school districts with year-round school programs. tioning equipment and insulation materialqJ~ eligible Fiscal Effect Paying Off the Bonds. For these types of bonds, the state tyFically would make principal and interest pay- ments over a period of up to 20 years from the state's General Fund. The average payment would be about $66 million each year if .$4W million in bonds were sold in both 19W7 and 1987-88 at an interest rate of 7 percent. Borrowing Costs for Other Honds. By increasing the amount which the state borrows. tkk measure may cause bond programs. These costs :annot be estimated. the state and local government: to pay marc undzr other State Revenues. The people who buy these bonds are earn. Therefore, if California taxpayers buy these bonds not required to pay state income tax on the interest they instead of making taxable investments, the state would collect less taxes. This loss of revenue cannot 'be estimated. Vote November 4, 1.986. 4 Text of Proposed Law 1W. Chapter 423) is submitted to the people in accord- This law proposed by Assemhly Bill 4345 (Statutes of ance with thc provisions of Article XVI of the Constitu- tion. therefore, new provisions pro sed to be added arc print- This proposed law adds sections to the Education Code; ed in italic type to indicate tet they arc new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Chapter 21.7 (commencin with Section 17696) is added to Part 10 of the Education Eode, to read: CHAPTER 21. Z GREENE-HUCHB Scrroo~ BUILDING L.EASE-i‘URCHASE BOND LAW OF 1986 176% This chapter may be cited as the Grcene- Hughes School Building Lease-Purchase Bonn Law of 1M. (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 167.20) of Part 3 of 17W.l. The State General Obligation Bond Law for the purpose of the issuance, .de, axd repayment 06 Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code) is adopted and otherwise providing with respect to. the bonds au- thorized to be issued by this chapter, and the provisions of full in this chapter. All references in this chapter to ‘here- that law are included in this chapter as though set out in in“shaU be deemed to refer both to this chapter and that law. of this chapter as used in the State General 08, ation 17696.15. As used in this chapter, and for the urposes Bond Law, the following words shall have the folfiwing meanings: (a) “Committee” means the State SchmI Building Fi- nance Committee created by section 15909. (b) “Board” means the State Allocation Board. chase Fund. ic) “Frmd”meanstheStateSchoolBuildingL.ease-Pur- 17696.2. For the pu e of creahng a fund to provide aid to school districts o Y the state in accordance with the prons~ons of the Leroy F. Greene State School Building Leuse-Purchase Law of 1976 (Chapter 22 commencing with Section 1 nGQ)). and of all acts amen d atory thereof andsupplementary thereto, and to provide fun& to repa . any money advanced or loaned to the State School Build. ing Lease-Purchase Fund under any act of the Legislature, together with interest proviaed for in that act. and to be used to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund ursuant to Section 16724.5 of the Gov- ernment Code, t R e committee shall be and is hereby au- thorized and empowered to create a debt or debts, liabili. amormt of eight hundred million dollars ($sw,ooO,ooO) !n ty or liabilities, of the State of California, in the aggregate the manner provided herein, but not in excess therrol: 17696.B. All lmnds herein authorized, which shall shall constihlte &did and legally bindin eneral obliga- have been duly sold and delivered as herein provided, tions of the State of California, and thefu$%ith and credit of the State of CaIifornia is hereby ledged for the punc- tual paynent of both principal an finterest thereof There shall be collected annually in the same manner and at the same time as other state revenue is collected such a sum, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, as shall be required to pay the rincipal and interest on the bondsas herein provided, ana% is hereby made the duty ofall oficers charged by law with any duty in regard to the collection of the revenue, to do and erform each and every act which shall be necesmry to cn P kct the addi- tional sum. G86 interest in each fi.wnlyear, thereshall br transferred to the On the several dates of maturity of the principal and General FunJ in the Slate Treasury. all of thr money in dhision (0 of Section 621 7 of the Public Resources Code, thr fund exclucive or funds transferred pursuant to sub- not in excess of the rincipal of and interest on the bonds then due md paya&e, excrpt as herein providd for the prior redemption of the bonds, and, in the event the principal and interest then due and payahle. then the bal- moneysoreturnedon thrdatesofmaturityislessthanthe ance remaining unpaid shall be returned to the General Fund in the State Treasxy out of the fund as soon thered fer as it shall become available. 1 i696.3. All mor1e.v deposittd in the fund under Ser- tion Ihswl of Division 4 of Etle 2 of the Cevernment tion I ?732 and pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Sec- Fund, as provided in Section 17696.25. When transferred Code shall be available only for transfer to the General to the Cencral Fund, the monev shall be applied as a reimbursement of the General Fund on account of rinei- palandinterestdueandpayableorpaidfrom the &nerol Fund on the earliest issue of school building bonds for which the Genrral Fund has not bee0 fully reimbursed by the transkr of funds. era1 Fund in the State Treasury for the purpose of this 17696.35. There is hereby appropriated from the Gen- chapter, an amount that will e ual the following: (a) The sum annually as w‘ il be necessary to pay the principal of and the interest on the bonds isrued and sold pursgant to the provisions of this cha ter, as the principal and interest become due and payabg. ’ (6) The sum as is necessary to carry out .%=tion 17&354 which sum is appropriated without regard Lo fiscal years. 176964. For the pu ses gf cqving out the provi- sions of this chapter, tr Director of Finance may, by era1 Fund of an amount or amounts not to exceed thr executive order, authorize the withdrawal from the Gen- amount of the unsold bonds which the committee has by resolution authorized to be sold for the purpose of ca ing out this chapter. An amounts withdrawn shall% deposited in the fund to allocated by the board in ac- cordance with this cha ter An mane-vs made available under this secti0.n to tfe bbardhll be returned by the board to the General Fund for moneys received from the sale of bonds sold for the purpose of carrying out this chapter. sup rted by a ,statement of the apportionments nladc 17696.5. Upon request of the board from time to he, anco be made under Chapter 22 (commencing with Fection I77m), the rommittee shall determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue an bonds author- ized under this chapter in order to fundYthe apportion- ments, and, if so, thr aaount of bonds to be issued and sold. Four hundred million dollars (.s4oo,~,ooO) shall be four hundred million dollars (si%J,,,oW,ooO) s?rall become available for apportionment on December 1, IW, and availai>le for apportionment on December I, I=. such that a total of eight hundred million dollars ($8WW,w,OW) shall sell the bonds so determined at such different times has become available fgr apportionment. The Treasurer porhonmenis. as necessary to service expenditures requjred by the ap- tion 16754ofthe Government Code. intermtshallbemm- 17W.6. In computing the net interest cost under Ser- Dutrd From the date of the bonds or the last Drdins heerrst payment drte. whiche\.rr is latest, to ihe rwp& Confinurd on page .X 5 Greene-Hughes Schhol Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of^ 1986 - Argument in Favor of Proposition 53 In recent years, California has made great strides in schools in growhg areas and Ix~dlg needed repairs to older improving its elementary and secondary schools. Test schools. Schoolchildrcn in every part of California will school, and staff nlorale is on the upswing. scores are rising, students are spending more time in benefit from your YI:S vote. Using hands to pay for schools But California's school population is prowing again. In Ontstmding schools arc vital to California's economic many areas of the state. cinssrooms arc badly overcrowd- hedth. To continut: om progress for educational excel- ed. And over the next five years we will need to provide Imcc. let's XSSIIIC that every California child has a safe, classrooms for nearly 450,000 new students. To keep up the un:ro\vdcd clasroom. Join us in voting YES on Proposi- momentum for improvement in the schools, our children tion 53. need adequatc classrooms, science laboratories, and librar- ies that a more demanding curriculum requires. That is GE0HC.E I>IXjX>IEJL\X why we urge you to vote YES on Proposition 53. modeling and replacement needs is estimated to be over Supen'nlendenl of Public Inrtnmlion $4 billion by 1990. is a safc and financially solwd California tradition. Culrirlor BILL HOSIC The total need for new school construction, school re- Your YES vote on Proposition 53 will help provide new TERFSA r. HUGIIES Mcnrber orlbe Aarrnbly. 4ifh Dblricl ~~ Rebuttal to Argument in To receive an education in California is a privilege. The educational svstem is B MOTHERHOOD-APPLE PIE is- sue. The fisal'year 198687 budget provides $21 billion for eduCaiion, or 55 percent of the General Fund. If Legisla- ture-approved bond issues for education in this ballot pamphlet are passed by the voters, the total for education would, take 58 percent of the budget, or over SZ billion. percent, for vital necessities: law enforcement, correction- This budget pie would be reduced to $15 billion, or 42 al facilities, welfare, and costs of government. PROPOSITION 53 will place control of the funds for board. In effect, LOCAL DISTRICTS LOSE CONTROL. local school districts in a seven-member Sacramento The largest school district in California, Ins Angeles, has leased. closed and sold schools. Others are used for ad- ministrative purposes. This problem is NOT LJNJQUZ Favor of Proposition 53 districts shou!d be resoonsibk onlv to constituents in their only to Lns Angeles. but exihts in other districts. School districts. Constituentl must retain LOCAL CONTROL. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 53. utilized for NEW SCHOOLS. This hw must be changed. Hy state law, LOTERY FUND proceeds may not be To operate schools year-round is not the remedy. %[other- or 42 percent of the budget expendihrres, i? not adequate hooding parents and all taxpayers realize that SI5 biliion. to provide safety or vital senices for California citizens. jeopardize fiscal stability by raising taxes. VOTE NO ON Thc Bond Act provides for year-round schools. Don't PROPOSITION 53. Proidml. United Volen Lrapr ELLISON PLOIAXOOD If you have any questions about voting call your county clerk or registrar of voters. Greene-Hughes School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1986 Argument Against Proposition 53 1986, General Election. For the immediate past decade, nanced from current revenues-on a “pay as you go” basis SCHOOLS - $800 mil!ion bond issue - November 4, During past fiscal years. the educational system was fi- ind since 1977, California State Budgets have exceeded a “and the school system must return to that policy. Why total of $225,ooO,wO,ooO. Of those billions of dollars, over has new school construction faltered? Poor planning of the 53% has gone to the mandatory state education system- existing fund allocations for new classrooms. At this date, ur-112.5 billion dollars. As voters and taxpayers, let us join in dialogue with the er money-iq outstanding, plus billions more in local bond- more than $8 billion in general obligation bonds-taxpay- authors of the $800 million school bond measure that cd indebtedness. A Znancial burden is an albatross on Cali. would provide $3€4 million to remodel existing school fornia taxpayers’ backs. California legislators have a ’ ings. A seven-member allocation board would distribute California State Lottery funds for sc~~oo~show are the buildings and $440 million for new construction of build- fiduciary responsibility to California taxpayers. the funds to school districts. Certainly the money has been proceeds being utilized? Ask questions. Do not accept the utilized to Pay teacher, salaries, Pension Plan PiYmenh thesis that new school funds or bonds are an absolute ne- insurance, and the general mdntenance of the education- cessity to preserve the system. ne taxpayers’ ability to al system, while the overall excellence of students has make intelligent decisions and exercise control on govern- been declining. Obviously, higher standards from students ment spending are the choices we face. ~~i~ the dialogue school administrators, all the money from future state must be demanded, and until that is forthcoming from and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 53. budgets will be of no avail. $800 million is only the tip of the financial iceberg. President. Chiled Voters Lcwx ELLISON BLOODGOOD Rebuttal to Argument about the way California’s schools operate. First, oppo- The opposition argument is based on misinformation nents argue that.higher standards must be demanded of students. We concur, and, since 1983 higher standards, more time in school, aud more homework have been key elements of the current education improvement. Help continue iniprovement. Vote YES on Proposition 53. Second, opponents imply that in the past, school con- is simply not true. The majority of school construction struction has been paid for out of current revenues. This method of general obligation bonds. projects have been financed through the fair and prudent Using bonds to pay for school construction is fair and prudent because it allows the cost of school construction to be shared eqlitably b,: today’s and tomorrow‘s taxpay- ers. Why should today’s taxpayers fund the full cost of schools that will be used for the next 50 years? Bonds are Against Proposition 53 a method preferred by private industry to fund their capi- tal outlay projects. We believe government should use the same proven, efiicient mechanisms private businesses use to pay their bills. Vote YFS on Proposition 53. Finally, oppnents imply that lottery funds can and should be used for school construction. The opponents may not understand that the voters prohibited the use of lottery funds for school construction when they approved the lottery initiative in 1964. Californians is a fair deal for taxpayers. Vote YES on Using bonds to build schools for the next generation of Proposition, 53. BILL HONIG SnprrintendmI ofpublic Imlnmlion TERESA P. HUGIIES Member ofthr Awembly. 47lh Dirlrier Polls are open from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. New Prison Construction Bond Act of 1986 ’ Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General youth and adult correctional facilities pursuant to a bond issue of five hundred million dollars (WOjM).OOO.OOO). NEW PR!SON CONSTRUCTION BOND ACT OF 1986. This act provides for the acquisition and construction of state Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on AB 2.545 (Proposition 54) Assembly: Ayes 68 Noes 1 Senatc. Ayes 32 Noe.; 0 ~~ Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background number of people sent to the state’s adult prisons and In recent years there has been a great increase in the youth correctional institutions. This trend is expected to continue. These facilities were not designed to house this increase. about 33,200 inmates. In June 1986 it held about S5,OOO Adult Prison System. This system was built to house inmates. ByJuly 1989 the Department of Corrections ex- pects an inmate population of over 65,OOO. several ways. The Department of Correcticns is housing The state is addressing the prison capacity problem in two inmates in cells intended to house only one inmate. In classrooms and other space into temporary dormitories. addition, the department has convcrted gymnasiums, The state dso has approved funds fcr new prisons to in- crease the system’s capacity to about 45,OOO beds by July 1389. Most of the money for these new prisons has come from bond funds approved by the voters ($495 million in 1982 and $300 million in 1984). The state has provided addition- al money from the General Fund and from lease-purchase agreements. In addition tc these steps, the department plans to build more prisons (for an additional 9,“ inmates), to improve der construction. This work will cost over $600 milliox existing prisons and complete new prisons currently un- The department plans to fund this $800 million effort with money from this $503 million bond measure and lease- purchase agreements. million to renovate existing prisons to meet minimum fire, Based on a 1980 study, it would cost at least another $500 life safety and earthquake requirements. stitutiions were built to house about 5,900 offenders. In Youth Correctiocal Institutions. The state’s youth in- June 1W there were about 7,600 in the system. By 1991 the Department of the Youth Authority expects this num- ber to increase to 9,9Nl. In order to house this population, the department plans to construct facilities for an addi- tional 3,300 offenders at a cost of about $370 million. At the direction of the Legislature, however, the department is studying options to reduce the size of this expected popu- additional racilities. The study should be completed by lation. The results of the study will determine the need for November 1, 1956. Proposal in general obligation bonds for youth and adult prison This measure would permit the state to sell $500 million construction. General obligation bonds are backed by the assure that enough money is available to pay off the bonds. state, meaning that the state will use its taxing power to Revenues deposited in the state’s General Fund would be used to pay the principal and interest costs on the bonds. General Fund revenues come primarily from the state corporate and personal income taxes and the state sales tax. remodel buildings or maintain facilities. The measure does The state could use the money to buy land, construct 6r nut indicate how the money will be divided between the state’s 1986 budget would spend over $14 million from this Department of Corrections and the Youth Authority. The projects at Youth .4uthority institutiom. The Governor bond measure (if approved) For various construction and the Legislature would determine hew to spend the rest of the money. Fiscal Effect Paying Off the Eonds. For these types of bonds the state typically wodd make principal and interest pay- ments over a pcriod of up to 20 years from the state’s General Fund. The average payment would be about $43 million each year if the bonds were sold at an interest rate of 7 percent. Borrowing Costs for Other Bonds. By increasing the amount which the state borrows, this measure may Cause bond programs. These costs cannot be estimnted. the state and local governments to pay more under other State Revenues. The people who buy these bonds are not required to pav state income tax on the interest they instcad .If making taxable investmcnts, the state would earn. Therefore, iF California taxpayers buy these bonds collect less taxes. This loss of revenue cannot be estimated. 8 Ggg Text of Proposed Law This Inw proposed by Assembly Bill 2.545 (Statutes of 1986, Chaptcr 409) is submitted to the pro,! ance with the provisions of Article XVI of LIIC Constitu- .- e 111 accord- tion. This proposed law adds sections to thc Penal Code; ed in italic type to indicate tgat they arc new. therefore, new provisions pro osed to hcadded are print- PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Cha ter 14 (commencing with Section 7300) is added to Ti& 7 of Part 3 of the Penal Code. to read: CHAPTER 14. A'EIV PnlsoN CDNSTRUCTIO.V BOND ACT OF 1986 the New Prison 8onstruction Bond Act of 1986. 73GU. This chs ter shall be known and may be cited as adopted for the urpose of the issuance, sale 3nd repa 7301. The State General Obligation Bond Law is ment of, and otferwise providing with respect to, t& provisions of that law are included in this chapter as ban& authorized to be isued by this chapter, and the thou h set out in full in this chapter except that, notwith- stan&g anything in the State General Obli ation Bond Law, then~mumma~trityoft.~ebondssha~notexceed ZOyears from the date ofeach res ective series. The matu- rity of each respective series shd be calculated from the date of such enes Construction Fund, which fund is hereb created The 7W. There is in the State Treasury the 1986 Prison roceeds of the de of bonds authorized gy this aci shdl deposited in this fund and may be transferred upon proval of the Director of Finance, to the 1984 Prison Con- request of the Department of Corrections and upm ap. struction Fund established by Section 7202 If the mone.vs are so transferred, "fund" means the 1984 Prison Con- struction Fund. hereby created. The committee shall ronsist of the Con- 7303. The 1986 Prison Construction Committee is troller, the State Treasurer, and the Director of Financc, That committee shall be the "committee."as that term is used in the State General Obligation Bond Law. The Department of Corrections is the "board" for the purpose of the State General Obligation Bond Law and this chapter. powered to create a debt or debts, liability or liabililies, of 7304. The committee is hereb,v authorizcd and em- million dollars ($sw,,oW,aaO), in the manner prosided in the Slate of Cdifomia, in thc aggregate of five hundred this chapter. That debt or debts, liability or liabilities, shall he created fur the pur se of providing the fund to be used for the object angork specified in Section 73ffi. 73E. The committee may determine whether or not it is necessar,v or desirable to issue any bonds authorized be issued an8solh. The committee may authorire the under this cha ter and ifso, the amount of bonds then to Treasurer tosellalloranypart ofthe bondsherein aulhor- ized at such time or times as may be fixed bv the Trcns- nrer. acquisition. construction, renovation, remodeling, and de- 73ffi. The moneys in the fund shall be used for the ferred rndnlcnancr of statr youth and ad1111 corrections fitcjlitics. ,307. (a) .4/1 bonds herein actiw?ized, which shall .shall constitute valid md le@!!' iinrhg general obliga- haw bccn duly ,sold and dclivcrcd ;is herein providcd, tionc of thc State of Californw 2nd the fi:11 liith :md credit of the State of California is her+ ledgcd for the punc- tuel pqment of both principal miinterest thereon. (b) Therc shall be collected anmafly in the same man- ed such a sum, in additio~ to !he ordinxy revcnues ofthe ncr and st the same time as other state revenue is collect- stnte, asshall be requircd to ay the principaland interest on ?ho.se bonds, and it is Rereby made the dut of ali onicers charged b.v Imv with onr; duty in regar K to the every act which .shall be neccssary to collect that addition- collection of that revenne to do and perform each and a1 sum. (cj All nones deposited in the fond which has been derivedfrom remiurn andaccruedinterest on bondssold shall be avaiible for transfer to the General Fund as a credit to expcnditures for bond interest. provkion of law requirillg repayments to the state which (d) All money deposited in the fund pursuant to any are financed by the proceeds of the bonds authorized by this chapter shall be available for transfer to the General Fund. When transferred to the General Fund that money shall be applied as a reimbursement to the General Fund on account of principal and interest on the bonds which has been paid from the General Fund. 7308. There is hereby ap ro rigteed from the General Fund in the State Treasury xr tie purpose of this chapter such an amount as will equal the following: (a) That sun1 annually as will be necessary to pay the principal of and the interest on the bonds issued and sG!d pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. ofSection 7309, which sum is appropriated w.thout regard (bj That sum as is necessary to carry out the provisions to fisc31 years. this chaptcr, the Director of Finance may y executive 73W. For the purpose of cmpng out the rovision.s of order authorize the withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or amounts not to exceed the amount of the unsold bonds which the committee has by resolution au- thorized to be sold for the purpose of carrying out this fund and shall be disbursed by the committee in mrd- chapter. Any amounts withdra wn shall be deposited in the ance with this cvhapter. Any money made available under this section to the board shall be returned by the board to the General Fznd from mone.vs received from the sale of bonds sold for the purpose of carrying out this chapter. lhose withdrawals from the Genera' Fund shall be re- turned to the General Fund with intercvt at the rate which would otherwise have beerr eamcd by those sums in the Pooled Money Inve.ctment Fund. 7310 Al/prarcrdsf>om thesale of hnds, except those available for $e urpose provided in Section 7306 but derived from remiums and accrued interest. shall be p~y rinci a1 and intere.yt on bonds. The moncy in lhe shall not be availaf16 for trznsfer to the General Fund to f;nd%ay {e expended onlv as herein provided. ant to apprupriations b.v the Legislature. 7311. Money in the fundmay only be expended pursu- ! GB6 9 New Prison Construction Bond Act of 1986 Argument in Favor of Proposition 54 In the past decade, California enacted more phlic safety laws :nan in any other time in the state’s history. The “Use a Gun. Go to Prison’’ law requires criminals convicted of using a gun in the commission of a sericus felony to be sentenced to state prison. Other mandatory prey on the elderly and disabied uhile others requirz pris- sentencing laws require the incarceration of those who on terms for those convicted of forcible rape, commission of burglaries and other serious crimes. These and other tough laws have resulted in more rrimi- naLc being sentenced <o state prisons than ever before. IN THE PAST SIX YEARS THE NUMBER OF FELONS IN OUR STATE PRISON HAS INCREASED FROM 21,000 TO MORETHAN 55,wO. However. our state prisons were INSKRJTIONS ARE SERIOUSLY OVERCROWDED, built to house only about 32,000 convicted felons. OUR often placing our courageous California correctional off- eers and staff in great danger. PASSAGE OF THIS BOND TION OF CONVICTED FELONS from the law-abiding MEASURE IS VITAL TO THE CONTINUED ISOLA- public as well BS to the safety of correctional officers and staff. WE CURREi’iiLY H.4VE THOUSANDS OF INMATES HOUSED IN TEMPORARY FACILITIES, with some liv- ing in tents. In 39 other states, the courts have issued orders limiting the prison population. We want to avoid that in Californi3. Xlurc than 15.ooO new prison cells have either been completed or are currently being built. Tllese bonds will make it possible to build additional facilities to meet thc challenge of our prison population, which we anticipair increasing to more than 70,000 within the next five years. NEW PHISONS MIJST BE BUILT IF WE ARE TO CONTINUE PROTECTING SOCIETY FROM CRIMI- NALS. We must have the funds provided by this bond to build additional prison facilities or the courts may not al- low any more felons to be confined. THIS BOND MWS- URE W1I.S COST LUS THAN $2 PER YEAR FOR EACH RESIDENT OF 1HIS STATE.. THIS IS A SMALL TRICETO PAY TO BElTER PROTECTYOUR FAMILY AND HOME. If you favor increased public safety. vote yes on Proposi- tion 54. GEOEGE DEUYMEjIAN covern*r Member of the Assembly, 7ZnJ Dktrirt RICHARD ROBINSON St,ts senstor. 3518 DiltriCt ROBERT PRESLEY Rebuttal to Argument in INMATES HAVE TO WORK, VOTE NO’ON 54. Prop. 54 IF YOU U’Ah“ CHEAPER PRISONS WHERE THE is not needed to build new prisons. NEW PRISONS WILL BE BUILT FOR LESS IF PROP. 54 IS DEFEATED. The limits that the taxpayers have placed on state bureaucrats. only reason Prop. 54 is on the ballot is to evade spending children will have to pay for. These limits do not count bmds, bonds which your grand- Financing the needed prisons from the millions wall- abie in prior prison bonds and in the General Fund re- serve is a lot cheaper than floating another bond. A ves vote trees orison olanners to continue mendim as Favor of Proposition 54 one prison nearly reached $1 million. The Aonemktcnt Camps Wait till you see what they do uith the toilet. Prison officials have soent several hundred thousand dollarsplmning~ten work camps which they promised to build in 1983. So far only one camp has materialized. These camps {World War 11-style barracks and cot beds) have taken longer to build than the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower, and rhe Hwver Dam. (Note that prison planning consultants are paid by the - if there is no tomorrow. For example: hour.) The :Million-Dollar Door DONT GET CONNED BY THIS PnISON CON. VOTE Because prison planning consultants kept changing No. their minds about the type of cell door to he used (should it slide or should it swing shut?), the door design costs at Member of ?he Arrembly, 53rd flirtrid RICHARD FlOYD New Prison Construction Bond Act of 1986 Argument Against Proposition 54 WILL YOU BUY ANYTHING? Before you sign away another half billion dollars. you Prop. 54 is the third prison bond in threr clcctions. might want to know what you’re buying. api, which was themostexpensivepri.yov ever built in this The first prison bond went to build a prison at Tchuch- state. At a cost of $lOO,W4 per cell, we could have housed these felons cheaper in condos. The second bond went: - for a prison at Vacaville which is more than A year behindschedule (it still isn’t finished) and more than 30% over budLret. for a prison in the Mojave DeJert. Out of the whole desert, the prison planners bought land in tk flight path of an Air Force Rase. This is the second site abandoned because it wils too close to an air base. for a prison in San Diego, but the planncrs forgot to obtain sewage connections. The Department of Cor- rections proposed to instead use Porta Potties a: a cost ofS1,CWper month per inmatejust to flush the toilet. At that cost we could have put the cons up cheaper aka hote:. This oversight cost you an extra few million dollars. If you want to send a message that this sort of waste has ~ got to stou-IUST VOTE NO. ., The Caiifoinia Department of Corrections is starting to resemble the Pentamn-after all. it’s no? their nlonev. CONSULTANTS. Where will this new prison bond go? Into the pocket; of The Department of Corrcrtiox is paying a consulting firm millions of;lnllars a ycm to plan the new prisons. This project. the bigger :hc take. firm ~cts a percentugc of each project. The biggcr the found hundreds of tho lsands of dollars going for racquet- h 1984 audit uf t1.e Corrections contrack consultant ball club Jws, apartmcnts, spouses on payroll, and other “Trojcct-related” expen.xs. The Departmcnt of Corrections says that it has cleaned up its act. if you Lelieve that, you may be interested in buying some F!arida swampland. Supporters of Prop. 54 say that without this bond no ncw PYCOCK! Prisons will bc built if Californians defeat this prison? can be built to Icck up criminals. That is POP- bond. We have already approved over $1 billion in new prisons will hzve to be built 011 a tighter LM,dget than they prison funding. Defeatixg F..,?. 54 will mean that new are now. The supporters of this measwe plan to finance prisons less of what you voters decide. !rue-purchase is just a through a new gimmick called “lease-purchase,” regard- fancv was of Duttinn the state into debt without the saw0 of the public: These new prison building schemes have become big business-monkcy business. The only way to make il bccome the people’s business again is to VOTE NO. I Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 54 The opponent? 3rymcnl contains numerous inaccu- rate and incorrect statements. His argument isparticular- lyperplexingsince he voted for thismensure twice when it was debated in the Legjslature. URE DOES NOT PASS, THERE WILL BE NO MOKEY The truth of the matter is that IF THIS BOND MEAS- available TO CONTINUE BUILDING PRISONS. Correctional facilities are o1,erburdened by increased commitments. From December 22, 1985, to July 1, 1986, the prison population increased by over 5,000. MORE PRISONS MUST BE BUILT IF WE ARE TO CONTINUE STREETS. REMOVING VIOLENT FELONS FROM 9UR The Department of Corrections occupied the new pris- on at Vztaville in less than a year from the date the prison was authorized. THE EFFORTS OF THE STATE TO BUILD NEW~PRISONS HAVE BEEN PRAISED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NIJ). !n their June construction bulletin the NIJ stated, “CALIFORNIA HAS DEVELOPED ECONOMICAL BUILDING METH- ODS, and CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS :!re now shar- THE TIME AND COSTS REOUIRED FOR COMPLE- ing this technology to help others in the state REDUCE TION OF NEW JAILS AND PRISONS.” California S Auditor General found that the Corrections Departmen1 sal-edn~ore than .$5Omiffion from earlier esti- mates in building the San Dieeo prison. of new jobs for California. workers and will allow law en- Passage of this measure will provide tens of thousands forcement to remove dangerous felons from our streets. ~~~ ~ ~ THIS BOND MEASUREu WILL COST LESS TKAh’ $2 PAY FOR PUBLIC SAFEiT PER YEAR FOR EACH CITIZEN: A SMALL PRICE TO IF YOU FAVOR I?VCREASED PUBLIC SAFETX Oalifornia ‘Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986 Final Vcke Cast by the Legislature on AB 2668 (Proposition 55) Assembly: .Ayes 67 Noes 5 Senatc: Ayes 32 Noes 1 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background Since 1960 the state has made loans and grants to help era1 obligation bonds to raise this money. All buL about $50 pay for local water supply systems. The state haq --Id gen- million of the $380 million authorized by previous bond acts will be spent or committed by November 1986. The Department of Water Resources administers the safe drinking water program in cooperation with the De- Senices has estimated that a total of $500 million is needed partment of Health Senices. The Department of Health systems. to eliminate health hazards in 900 of the state’s local water Proposal of general obligation bonds to make loans an2 grants for This mesure would permit the state to sell $100 rnillim local water systems. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state will use its taxing power to assure that enough money is available to pay off the bonds. The state’s General. Fund would he used to pay the net principal and interest costs on these bonds. Gen- eral Fund revenues are derived primarily from the state corporate and personal income taxes and the state sales tax. The Department of Water Resources would use the money from the sale of the bonds for loans and grants to public and private water suppliers to bring drinking water quality up ta state health standards. The !oms and grants could be used for constructing, improving, or rehabilitat- ing water systems to meet drinking water standards. suppliers whose facilities pose the most critical public Loans. First priority for the loans would go to water health problems. The maximum loan to any water supplier would he $5 million, unless the Legislature rlises this limit. The interest rate on these loans would be one-half of the interest rate that the state pays on the bonds. money could be used for loans, part of the money could he Grants and Other Uses. Although all of the bond used fcr other purposes. such as: 1. Up to $25 million for grants to public agmcies that supply water in order to make up the difference between repay. The maximum grant to any supplier would he the cost of a project and the loan amount the agencies can $4oo,ooo. 2. Up to $3 mi!lion for short-term loans or grants to water suppliers to study and identify ways of improving their water systems. Up to $1 million could bc used for grants to public agencies. 3. Up to $5 million for administrative costs of the De- partment of Water Resources and Department of Health Services. About .$3 million of these costs would be repaid from fees charged to the loan recipients. 4. Up to $1.5 millicn for legaI expenses of the Attorney Genera;. also reduces the interest rate on existing and new loans Reduced Interest Rate on Other Loans. This measure made from the 1984 Safe Drinking Water Bond Fund. Under the 1984 Bond Law, about $50 million can be loaned This measure would lower the interest rate on these loans at the same interest rate paid by the state on the bonds. to one-half of the rate that the state pays on the bonds. Fiscal Effect Paying Off the Bonds. For these types of bonds the state typically would make principal and interest pap- nients over a period of up to 30 years from the state’s General Fund. The average payment would be about $8.1 million each year if the bonds were sdd at an interest rate of 7.5 percent. Net Costs. If all of the loas are repaid on time, tho net state cost codd average up to $5.5 million each year for 30 years. for a total of $165 million. This net cost would consist of (1) up to $28.5 million for grants, administrative, and legal costs, and (2) onehalf of the interest cost on the new bonds and the 19M bonds because loans would be pro- vided at a reduced interest rate. Over the 30 years, the bonds, and $42 million for the 1984 bonds. total interest subsidy would be 594.5 million for the new amount which the state borrows, this measure may cililse Borrowing Costs for Other Bonds. By increusing the the state and local gnvernrnents to pay more under other bond programs. These costs cannot bc estimated. Siatc Revenues. Purchasers of these bonds nre not re- 12 G86 quired to p~y state income tax on the intcrcst they eurn. of making other t:tx:blc invcstments. thc state would col- Therefore, if California taxpayers buy these bonds instead 1wt less taxes. This loss cmnot be estimated. Text of E’roposed Law 1986. Chapter 410) is submitted to the people in accord- This law proposed by Assembly Bill 2W (Statutcs of axe with the provisions of .Wide XVI of the Constitu- tio.1. therefore, new provisions pro o,ed to be added are print- This proposed law adds suctions to the Water Code; ed in italic type to indicate t r- la+ they are new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Chapter 10.7 (commencin with Section 13895) is added to Division 7 of the Water 5 ode. to rend: CHAPTER 10.7, CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER BOND L* W OF 1986 as the California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986. 13895. This chapter shall be known and may be cited of the following: 13895.1. The Legidahre hereby finds and declnres all covered toxic chemica!s in 126 of California ‘s large public (a) The Stale Department of Health Services has dis- drinking water (b) Many of$zt%:mical contaminants in California’s drinking watersu pliesare known orsuspected ofcausing cancer, birth de P ects, and other serious illnesses. (c) Following the passage of the California Safe Drink- ing Water Bond Law of 1984, the State Department of Health Services received 1.3Y requests for eight hundred lic drinking water systems. The department has deter- twenty-five million dollars ($825,,wO,oOO) to improve pub- mined that an additional five hundred million dollars ($sw,,oW,~) isneededimmediatelyforpublic watersvs- enable hundreds of s.vstems to meet minimum health terns to correct deficiencies which pose a health hazard to standards. (d) New monitoring programs for small public water systems are expected to identify many new toxic contami- nation problems. It is unlikely that these problems can be solved without financial assistanre from the State of Cali- fornia. 13895.2. The Legidature further finds and declares that the protection ofthe health, safety, and welfare of the people of California n uires that water supplied for do- mesticpurposesbeataltimespure, wholesome,andpota- ble, and that it is in the interest of thep““““ that,the State of California provide technical and manna1 wIstance to the end that the peo le of California are assured ;I safe. dependable, andpotaElesup 1 ofuaterfordomesticpur- poses and that water is avaii&e in adeqnate~tity at suficient Dressore for health, cleanliness, an other do- ..~~~~~ mestic pu;poses. that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the 13895.3. The Legid2ture further finds and declares a$domestic watersuppliesatleastmeetminimum domes- ” ofdomestic water supply systems to assure that tic water supply standards established under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4010) ofpart I ofDivision 501 ihe Health azd Safety Code. 138Y5.4. The State General Obligation Bond Law (Chapter 4 (commencing with Sectim 16720) ofPart 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Codc) is adopted and otherwise pro\,idinp with rcaspcct to, the bods :ru- for thc purpose of the issuance, de, and repayment 06 thorized to be issurd pursuant to this chapter, and the provisions of that law arc included in this chapter as stan mg .mythmg m the .State Cencrd 8blfgation Bond thoujh yt out /n fu!l in this chapter, e.yce t that nohwlh- Law, the bonds authorized hereunder shall bear the rates of in:erest, or manimum rates, as may, from time to time, 13895.5. As used in this chapter, and for purposes of this cha ter fwd in the State General Obli ation Bond ~3w (~Rapter’4.(con,rnenc;IJ with section 1 & .w) ofpart .3 of Division 4 of 7% 2 oft%? Government Code), the follou~ing terms shall have !he following meanings: nance Committee created 5y Section 124795.6. (a) ”Committee” means the Safe Drinking Water Fi- Resources. (b) “Department” mean? the Department of Water provision to the public of piped water for human con- (c) “Domestic water system” means a system for the sumption. if the system has at least five service mnnec- tions or regularly supplies water to at least 25 individuals. and distribution facilities under t e control ofthe operator The term includes any water su ply, treatment, storage, R of the system. /dl ‘%Lnd”rnean.s the California Safe Drinking Water Find. son, partnership, corpomfion, association, or other entit.v (e) “Supplier” or “supplier of water” means any per- or oliticalsubdivisinn of the state which owns or operates a Bomestic water systun. (0 “Federal assisttmce” means funds available, or which ma become awilable, to R supplier either directly or throug~allocation by:.”-r(?tcfim the federal overn ment as gTmts or loans for the i.nprovement of&mesi water systems. (g “Treatment works” mean, an; deykes or systems use d. m the treatment of water supy les, mclud~ng neces- sary lands, which render water suppliespure, wholesome, and potable for domestic purpose. struction, improvement, 3r rehab;l;t.?tion uftke domzstir (h) “Project” ‘means proposed ;bcill!ie.s for tke con- water system, and may inch:de water .cupply, treatmerr! necessary to carry out ti.e purpase of th% r.‘?apter. works, and all or part i;f a utter dism’bofion system. if ti, “‘Public agency” means snv city, c~u~ty, city and county, district, joint powers aothorihl, or &:.r oliticzl subdivision ofthestate whicn owns or operrlesa &nestic water system. For urposes of this cha trr, Chapter 10.2 (commencin witlSeciion 13810), C R apter 10.5 (corn- nrcncing wit% Scction 138501, qnd ChapteT 10.6 (com- rnmrcinr wfth Section 138801. a rmlitical subd~vision ofthe - ....~~.~ stste may be any public ap I.W.Q.5 fi. TheSafe Drin IIJP Water Finance Committee is hereby created. The commTttee shall consist of the Gov- crnor, the Treasurer, :he Director of Finance, the Direc- tor of Water Resources, and the State Director ofHealth Servfccs or their designated representatives. A majority of ..~~ ~~~~ ~~~ Argument in Favor of Proposition S5 Watcr Bond Law of 1986. Vote yes on Proposition 55, the California Safe Drinking fundamental responsibility of the state. Citizens have Ensuring safe drinking water and the public health is a recognized this need and responsibility in the past with their overwhelming approval of water bond issues in 1976. IW and 1984. Yet, despite these efforts, we still have drinking water problems. Following the passage of the California Safe of Health Services received 1,359 requests for W2.5 million Drinking Water Bond Law of 1984. the State Department to improve public drinking water systems in our sta:e. This means that significant numbers of Californians con- tinue to drink polluted water which fails to meet public health standards as set by the Department of Health Serv- ices. The Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986 will ad- dress this urgent problem. Californiai economic growth as well as our quality of life depends upon the availability of safe drinking water for all of our citizens. The 1986 Safe Drinking Water Bond systems and meeting direct health threats by bringing Law will assist communities in modernizing their water their drinking water up to primary drinking water stand- ard levels, This bond law will provide $75 million in loans and up to $25 million in grants to small and medium wa:er districts for construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of public and private drinking water systems. Grants will bc rnadc on thc basis of immediate hcalth-rclated prob- lems ccrtified by Ihc Deportment of Health Services. In all CL~SPS, the cornmnnity must seek federal water project funding before applying to the state for nssistance. It is supported by the Association of California Water Support for this bond law is widespread and bip:rtism. Agencies, the Health Officers Association of C:difornia, the Californis Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. the California PTA, the California .Municipnl Utilities Association, and the League of Women Voters. Bond funds have been allocatcd. The Department of All but a small portion of the 1984 Safe Drinking Water Health Services continues to add community water sup- pliers to its priority hcalth hazard list as new sources of contamination are discovered. This effort deserves your support. While we will not fully solve California’s drinking waler problems with this bond law, it will help ns meet ow most immediate needs. The safety of our communities and the health oi our childrev deserve no less. Support safe drinking water for all Californians. Vote YES on Proposition 55. JACK OCONNELL Membcr of the Asremh1.v. .Ell, District hfcmbrr of Congms% 19fb Distn.cl ROBERT J. LACOMARSISO Member of the Asremb1.v. .9Ih IXstdcI RICIIARD KAT2 Rebuttal to Argument in Fabor of Proposition 55 The November 1986 ballot contains a record high Bonds are exempt from Proposition I, passed by a 74% Sl~,~,ooO in bond measures proposed by the Legisla- vote of the people in 1979, which limits the growth ofstate ture. They say that the taxpayers won’t have to pay, but budgets. The maximum will swn be renched, and the they don? tell us that there are millions of dollars in inter- politicians are scrnmbling to deceive the taxpayers while est that will be due to bondholders. still maintainingall their government prvgrams for special not just those of us eligible to cast ballots in 1986, but Don’t make debtors out of our childrcn. Vote NO on taxpayers of many years in the future. Since our children Proposition 55. and grandchildren do not have an opportunity to vote, we cm only call these bond measures “taxation without rep resentation,” the same battle cry that led our forefathers to fight a revolution against the British Crown. The politicians only seek bond financing of this expen- sivewater treatment propbsal hecausevoters have limited their ability to constantly raise government spending. This money must come from the pockets of taxpayers- interest groups. TED UROIVN Liberlariun rwndidalr for U.S H~prcwnbt~~~. Ziib Districl LAURA G. BROWN Libcrlrrrim cmdihlc Tor Slalr Sc~~lor. 24118 Dirlrict STEPHEN I. hiALMBEAG Liberlnrian eandidde for Slale Road of Equrlizalion. 4th Dirtriel California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 19% Argument Against Proposition 55 Proposition 5Z asks for $100 million to improve water centive, these companies would providL the service much fornia drinking water supplies. While pure drinking water does. It would then be logical for l:he owners to pass any treatment and filtering systems to allegedly protect Cali. more efficiently and economically thnn the government is an admirable goal, it seems improper for all the taxpay- improvement costs dong to their customers. This is the ers of California to subsidize a project that will only bene- most fair and equitable solution. fit a few communities. We urge a "NO" vote on Proposition 55. We believe that the communities which have aging or defective water systems should ask for money from the users of those systems. If the people who will benefit vcte to pay, then the improvements will be made. If they vote 'ho," then the systems will remain as they are. An even better solution would be to sell water treat- men! facilities to private businesses. With profit as an in- NORMA JEAN ALMODOVAR Librdwrim emdidere for l,icuIcmnt Cownaor TED BROWN Libertsrisn rmdidalc for LIS Hepmsent~tive, 23.5 Dislriel LAURA 6. BXOWN Liberl*risn csndidnlc for Stale Senator, 24th Dislrid Rebuttal to Ar,fument Against Proposition 55 The opponents to Proposition 55 are misinformed about the California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986. passed in 1976, community water districts statewide, in a Since the original Safe.Drinking Water Bond Law was majority of cases; have established a surcharge program consisting of a smdl'fee on each monthly bill for repay- ment ofthe loans with a trust fund holding and disbursing by-wr feks, not general local government property tax debt service fimds.'TJvn?fo;e, the loan program is repaid resources. ' The'opponents to .Proposition 55 are clearly not in- formed about th? magnitude of the problem facing our dnnkingwater supply. +&every day in the newspaper drinking water, especially toxic contamination. This con-, vou read about a new 'burce of. contamination to our t.;mination is not restijcted. to a certain area; the problem is statede. TKe State:Departrhent of Health Services recently surveyed 2,@ latge water-systems in.the state for the presence of 100 chemicals. Nearly 20 percent of them had detectable levels of contaminants. The California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986 is designed to do: provide services in a timely manner is a program established to do precise!v what government which the citizenry cannot provide for themselves acting alone. With tile passage of this bond measure, everyone prove, hut the general taxpayer is spared the nmssity of benefits. Not only do your community water systems im- result from poor-quality drinking water. funding health and safety cost5 which most surely will JACK OCONNELL Member ofrhe Arremblu, 35lh Dislrirl RORERT LAGOMARSTNO Member of &n-, 19th Disltict RICHARD KATZ .yember ofthe Aarrnblr, 391h Distriel You must reregister to vote if you move. If you need a registraEon form call the Secretary of State at 1-800-345-VoTE or TDD 1-Bib-833-8683. Official Title and Summary Preparcd by tlre Attorney Gecral HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND AL-I' OF 19%. 'This :ICL provides for a bond issue of four :;undred million dollars ($4GU,ooO,oM)) to providP capital for construction or improvement of fxilities :It California's pljblic higher education institutions, including the University of Cdiforniu's ninr rwnpusrs. the C:diTorni:t State University's 19 c;m- puses, the California Community College's 106 campuses, and thr C:lliforni;l blaritirnc Acodrm,, to be rol.1 at a ratc not to exceed two hundred fifty million dollars ($Z~'!W,XO) per year. Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on SB 2766 (Proposition 56) Assembly: Ayes 55 Nocs D Scnatr: Ayes 27 Nocs 2 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background California's system of public higher education consists of This system includes the University of California, the Cali- 135 campuses serving approximately 1.6 million students. fomia State University, the California Community Col- leges and the California Maritime Academy. The University of California has nine campuses with a total enrollmcnt of about 138,ooO students. This system offers bachelor, master and doctoral degrees. The univer- sity is also the primary state-supported agency for re- search. The California State University system has 19 campuses grants bachelor and master degrees. with an enrollment of about 320,000 students. The system The Cdifornia Community Colleges provide instruction to approximately 1.2 million students at 106 campuses op- erated by 70 locally governed districts throughout the state. The community colleges give associate degrees and also offer a variety of basic skill courses. The Cdifornia Marihine Academy provides instruction for students who seek to become licensed officers in the US. Merchant Marine. One ofsix such schools in the coun- try, the academy has an enrollment of about 400 students. The state funds planning, construction and alterations tion. In recent years, these funds have come from the for buildings in the state's system of public higher educa- state's tidelands oil revenue md from lease-curchase agreements. Proposal This measure authorizes the state to sell $400 million in general obligation bonds to fund facilities for California's public higher education system. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the st.lte will use its pay off the bonds. Revenues deposited in the state's Gcn- taxing power to assure that enough money is available to era1 Fund would be used to pay the principal and interest Costs on the bonds. Ceneral Fund revenues are derivcd primarily from state corporate and personal income taxes and the state sales tax. The state could spend the bond money to purchase building sitesandcertain equipment,construct new bnild- ings and alter existing buildings. The state also could use the moncy for short-term loans to the community collegrs would be repaid from thc state's tidelands oil revenue. for the purchase of instructional equipment. These loans The Governor and the Legislature would decide how to spend the bond money. No more than $150 million could be authorized per year, cxcept in thsfirst year $250 mil- lion could be authorized. Loans to the community colleges would not require legislative appruval. this bond measure (if approved) for projects at various *' The state's 1986 budget would spend 5242 million from : campuses. About $260 million in additional money will be needed to complete these projects. Fiscal Effect state :ypically would make principal and interest pay- Paying Off the Bonds. For these types of bonds the ments over a period of up to 20 years from the state.: General Fund. The average payment would be about $35 million each year iC the bonds were sold at an interest rate of I percent. Borrowing Costs for Other Bonds. E.8 increasing the amount which the state borrows, this :wasurc may cause the state and loqal gcvernments to pav more under other bond programs. These costs cannot h? er.timated. State Revenues. The people who buy these bonds are not required to pa): state income tax on the interest they earn. Therefore, if Californi:, taxpayers buy these bonds instead of making taxable investments, the state would collect less taxes. This loss ofrevenue cannot be estimated. ure appropriates future revenue from the state's tidelands Paying Off Loans to Community Cdleges. This meas- oil to replacc any bond money lent to the community colleges. The amount required for this purpose would de- pend on the amount of money lent to the community collcges. 16 G86 'kt of Pr Chapter 424) is submitted to thc peo le in accordance This Inw proposed by Senate I3ill2366 (Statutes of 1986, with the provisions of Article XVI of tie Constitution. tion Code; therefore. new provisions proposed to be added This proposed law expressly adds sections to the Edunt- are printed in it;dic type to indicate that they are nc\v. PROPOSED LAW 673.50) is added to Part 40 of the Education Code, to read: SEC. 2. Chapter 14.5 (commencing with Section CHAPTER 14.5. HIGHER EDUCATION FAGIIJTIU BOND ACT OF 1986 as the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act oi'l9tK 673Tl. .This chapter shall be known and mav bc cited (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of 67'2.51. The State General Obligation Bond Law Divikion 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code) is adopted for the purpose of the issuance, sale, and repayment 06 and otherwise providing with respect to. the bard au- thorized to be issued by this chapter, and the provisions of set out in fullin this chapter. All references in this chapter thatlawareherebyincorporatedinthischapterasthough to *%erein" shall be deemed to refer both to this chapter and that hw. 67352. As used in this chapter, and for the purposes of this chapter as used in the State Gcneral Obligation Bond Law, the following words shall have the foliowing mean- ings: (a) "Board" means the State Public Works Board. /b) '%omznittee"meam the Hi her Education Facili- 67353. ties nnancc committee, createfpursuant to Section (c) '%und"means the Higier Education Capital Out- Section 67354. lay Bond Fund, created pursuant to subdivision (e) of mittee is hereby created, consisting of the Got,ernor, the 673.52 The Higher Education Facilities Finance Com- President of the University of California, the Chancellor of Controller, the Treasurer, the Director of Finance, the the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Commnmity Colleges, or their designees. The Treasurer shall serve as chairperson of the committee. 67354. (a) Fur the urpose of funding aid to the Uni- versiw of California, tRe ca~ifornia State University, the California Communit Colleges, and the California Mari- struction of buildings and the acquisition nf related fix- time Academy for de construction, including the con- tures, renovation. and reconstruction of hcilities, for the acquisition of sites upon which these facilities are to be constructed, for the equipping of new. rcnovated, or reconstructed facilities, which ,uruip~~'1t.9hall},r;vea use- ful life of at least 10 years, to rovide funds for paymcc! ofpreconstruction costs, inclu d? mg, but not limited to. pre- liminary plans and working drawinqs, ;md lo provide funds to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expensc Revolving Fund ursuant to Section Ib724.5 of the Gov- ernment Code, t R e committee shall be 2nd is hereby a[!- thorized and empowerrd to crcate 3 debt or dcbts, liabili- ty or liabilities, of the State of California, in the aggregate amount of four hundred million do1lar.s ($4CQ,wO,wO) in the manner provided in this chapter, but not in e.wes.9 thereoL (b) The committee shall authorize the issuance of bonds under this chapter only to the extent nccc.s.s;tr? to op0scd Lnw timd thc apportionments th;rt nre cxpress1.v anthorizcd by the Legishturc in the annual Budge1 Act. Pursuant to that Icgisl;ltivr dirccrion, the committee shall determine when the bonds authorized under this ch:zpter shail bc issned in order tn fund thr wthorized apportionn~ents, mrd the :mount of thc bonds to br issned and sold. (c) Up lo two hnndred f7ft.v million dullarc ($250,oW,- fiscal year, and II to one &mired fifly million dollars M} shall be avdable for a portionment in t.ie 19'1667 ($150,oW,~) shaj be at,uiLtblc fora portionrnent for thc 1.98749 fiscal ear, and in each sugsequent fiscal ear, exccpt that t K e maximum aggregate dcbt or liahity amount set forth i;~ subdivision (a) shallnot be exceeded. bonds nuthorizcd by the Committee nf such different (3') Pursuant to thissection, thr Trefmurershallsell the apportionments. times as necessary to scrvicc expenditures required by thc (e) The proceeds ofhonds issued ;md sold pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the Higher Education State Tressury. Capital Outlay Bond Fund, which isherr-by createdin the provide short-term loans to communi col!eges for the 67354.5. lhe proceeds of the bonds may also be used to purchase of instructional eqnipment. T x ose loans shall be lay Fund fur l'uhlic Higher Education beginning in the repaid from the r'irst moneys available in :he Capital Out- :98749 fiscal year. been du1.v sold and delivered BJ herein provided, shall 67355. All bonds hsrein authorized, which shall have constitute valid nnd legnlly bindin eneral obligations of State cf California is hercby pledged for the unctual pay- the State of California, and the fuiflith and credit of the ment of both princi JI and interest thereof and at the same time as other state revenue is collected a There shall be cojkted annually in the same manner sum, in addition to the ordiriarv revenues of the state, as is required to pav the principdand interest on.the bonds as herein rovided, and it is hereby made the duty of all oflicers cLr ed hy law with any duty in regard to the collection o!t!le revenue, to do and perform each and every act which L nece.s.s:wy to collect the additional sum. 67356. Then E':, herehya propriatedfrom the General Fund in the Sa L Treasury P or the urpose of this chapter, an amount >'kt will e ual the folLwing: (a) The sum annua%y as will be necessary to pay the principal of and the inicrcst on the bonds issued and sold pursuant to the provisions of this ch:t ter, as the principal and interest become due and payad. (b) The sum as is necessary to carry out Section 67357, which sum hap ropriated without .-egard to fiscal years. 67357. For t& purpose5 of carrying out the provisions of this r:hn tw, the Director of Fir.mce may, by executive order, antfoiize the withdratval from the General Fundof an amount or amounts not to esceed the amount of the unsold bonds which the conunittee ha? by resolution au- thorized to be sold for the purpose of carryitzg out this chapter. Any amounts withdrawn shall he depositedin the fimd to br ;rllocated b.v the board in uccordance with this chapter. Any moneys made available under this section to Fund, together with iriterest in the 3mount that those thc board shall he returned b.v the board to the General moncys would have earned in the Pooled Money Invest- ment Account, which repayment shall be made from mone.vs received from the sale of bonds sold for the pur- pose of c;trr,ying out this chilptcr. G86 17 Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986 Argument in Fav Californi:l hzs established onc of the must respected systems of higher educatioll in tikc world. Thr University of California, the California Statc University, and the Cali- system that guarantees every high school graduate &:: op- fornia Community Colleges have combined tu produce :! portunity to pursue a college education. These collcgcs and universities, with 135 campuses that enroll JYcr 1.5 million students. prepare individuals for leadership oti tionsin a wide variety ofcarecrs thst contribute to Cak: nia's growth and prosperity. includinE texhcrs. doctors. business leaders, rese;lrch scientists. industrialists and apri- cultural specialists. The construction of facilities at our colleges and univer- sities has not kept pace with the demands of recent times. Until recently, the state's total funding for highcr educa- tion construction steadily declined, leaving our campuws with an enormous backlog of prqjects urgently ncerled 10 maintain the quality of California's higher education pro- grams. Proposition 56 would provide S400 million, over t\vo years, to construct projects urgently needed to: Accornrndate increases in student enrollments. New and renovated classrooms, libraries, xnd labomto- with pcpulation growth. Without a carefully pinned ries are needed on our cpmpuses in order tn kee pace and cost-effective ex anslon, our colleges and universi- ties wi!l be hopeless{. overcrowded. Upgrade for earthquxke, health and safet,v reqoire- ments. Older buildings on our campuses were con- structed before new methods for making buildings safer in the event of carthquakes or fires were a~ailahlc. bring these faci!ities into compliance with new earth- Renovation and replacement projects are needed to quake, fire, and other safetv rcgulations. Adapt to ncrv technolo=. Rapid technological or of Proposition 5G devrlopmrnt, a direct result of our successful higher cd3xation systcrn, has increased the uced fur new and rrnoxlted f:lcilikies. Statr.of-the-nrt inptructional and rcsc;trch Lhoratories nrr essential to adequatelv train thc trachrrs, scientists. doctors, ad enginpers who will attract industrv mcl job? to the state as well as improve All oft IC ronsrrllctlon roieetr which will be funded from the yjity of )if: fur every Californian. this bond measure in tic i,on;ing ear have already been revietvcd and approvcd by the dbvernor and the State Legislature. In past ycm. public higher education institu- ficlds to pay for rweded ConStrlJC~iOn projects. The decline tions have drpcndrd on incume from state-owned oil in oil prices, which has benefited consumers, hzs at the Same time sharply reduced !he amount of motley available for higher rducation facility need$. Recognizing this rob lem, ?he Governor :md ihe Legislature authorizJ thii bond issue as an alternative way of financing needed im- provcmrnts at thc state's colleges and universities. California's public collegec and unir,ersities by providing Proposition 56 will maintain and enhsnce the qualitv of funds needed to modernize teaching an2 research facili- s Jacr for increasing numbers of future students. Funding tics, improve health and safety and help ensure ndcquate thesineedcd projectsdrpends on the p"swge of the High- er Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986 now becore you. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON PROPOSITIOX 56. Slde Sendor. Ih'lh Distrirf CAW K. HART GEORGE IXL'K~IEJIAN cl,";7,n... scrwf'. ErlrrcHlior, C"",,,>iffCC GOl*rnO,, sat" of Cdifomb DAVID P. GARDSER Prrridenl. 1jn;v~df.v or Calironnia Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 56 Proponents ofProposition 56clsim that their f;dities have not kept pare with demands of recent times. Yet renovations are alw;?r;s needed but should be obtained at . New technology, research laboratories and classroom they a!so claim that Caliiornia has rvtablishcd one of thc a pace payable WIl'HOUr GOING INTO DEBT.' most respected svstems of higher education in thr world. . Evcn with n welcomed dccreme in oil rices. State Geperal Fund budyts hay grown from SXi gillion three NOT rerwired i* lb? state.. . thos demanding different . if 11s $400 mllllon Item, WHICH WILL COST TAX- criteria I%. tunL73. PAYERS OVER Y1 billion TO REPAY, is so urgent right budgets fkhghe; education, yet the institutions did not vide fur it out of the regdar budget. . Fundin 7 Itas increased sub.stantially in our rcccnt now, then the Legislature and the Covernor should pro- spend their funds cn building these "needed facilities." . . These bonds are a BAD BUSINESS DEAL for all tax- tion have DROPPED ,q.mrrally siner 1974 :Iccordina to Vote X0 on Proposition 56. in 1984. the most recent data published by thc Spate College Bonrd ing tostate-of-the-art methods;d hnvr withstood Califor- t Edlrc;ltiorlul lbcilifies have xlways bccn built wcorcl- nia's earthquakes. .\l,.,nbrr dl/,<. :Ix.<~.,nbh: Slh I>iSlriCI WHICH IS 'mW . Unlike F' I.., :d!r2:ge education is VOLUST.4RY and years a o to 837 bi hon tbs vear. The highest ever. .?., ".. ." . Freshmen enrollments in California's higher educa- payers-and for 20 years of repayment! SOIAS FIIIL%BLI.F- 0.1). .\Ien,ber of ll~r ..lswmbI:.. 6Yfb Di~lricl I)OS sl~:l~,\sll,\sl Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986 2 Arguntent Against Proposition 56 want y nIon$y ever come back with an amwcr showing the bond money 1x1s to last lor 10 )T:IT.F, tut you will bc ASK YOURSELF: Would studies run by those who Thk nleasurc rrqnircs that cqnipmcnt urch;tsed with that't ey drdn t need it? WHO MADE THE STUDIES THAT CAUSED THE - Whcn the state's universities and collcgrs can come to DEMAUD FOR THESE BONDS? The Zlnivcrsity of Cali. the taxpayers whcnevcr thcy want to expand or create a' fornia, the State University and Colleges and the Corn- more grandiose image they haw very little reason to think ' munity College Systems. thcy murl mansFe thcir regolnr budpets and personnel , ate" demand for $403 million, alld the amount is consid- Private universities must compete for students with ered by them to be only the rl0rc.n p:l.vnrcnt for constroc. the statc universities. When the statc system gets repular tion and equipment for 2 years. infusions of public tax dollars such as from these bonds, the . However, this borld proposal $1 billion !s1,~ private universities must increase their fees to their stu- million) to you the taxpayers Over the 7.0.~~~~ dents by Fimilar a!nolmtS to provide corn etitivc facilities. period in rincipal and interest. $400 miiion to the llniversities-$$l billion debt pay- feel most obligated to tzach their stufcnts what we all Of all the levels of education the hi \e, levels should back. lvwe to learn-namely to live withio our means. In every Does that make good sense? Consider also that the bond payments each year ha,je to nues. Jsst as we can't spend our way out of a debt as case any debt ought to be payable out of predictable reve- year's new "desperate needs." be added tc what has to be paid in order to individubls, we can't do it as a state. We can't avoid serious debt by spending this $4400 million above our state income. and equipment or recons~ructiol, and it comn,its 400 mil. struction should fe budgeted eacl~ year out of the avail. . THIS bond issue addresses on/y of cOnStruction Summarizin W'e say that truly needed costs for con- lion tnx dollars abo,,c those already Rerlcrous increases' able revenues on i~ priority basis decided by the Legis1.p furnished by.the Le 'slature in the budget. tore. This is what we call the budgeting psc. and t!le Solutions fullfng for other higher prob. Legislature has spent far more this year tKLver berore lems are not n part. or. hi her education. It is enough, without the debt of this the best Way to improve the peliormance oistu..!mts or teachers? Be advised that dollars used for bond re ayment of prin- cipal and interest out of each yearly bu&et WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR SALARY INCREASES. hfcrzber of lhc Asscmb1.v. Xlh Dislrirl paying for it for 20 ,yr,wr,s. They created the "wish list" that heanne this "desper- efficiently. Do new buiidings quarantee a bettrr education' Is th$'&&u~~~~~~&c bond propositi,,n, NOLAN FRIZZELLFC O.D. Membrr oflhe Arrrmbl?, fflll) fiAI"c1 DON SEBASI'IANI Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 56 The opponents' argument against Pro osition 56 i est rates currently available. California voters have repeat- nores the critical construction needs of 8alifornia's cd edly approved bond issues over the years for h;gh-priority leges and universities, and the benefits they provide to our long-term state nceds. At the same time, California's level economy and all Californians. Proposition 56 wiil help our of indebtedness is we// below average when compared to colleges and universities: Keep pace with increasing student enrollments. other states. To argue that the state should not use bonds Renovate existing buildings, build new classrooms that individuals should not use mortgages to finance &ir to finance long-term construction projects is like ST. 'ng Modernize laboratories to keep up to d.ate with scien- Proposition 56 will not din~inish California's financial and libraries. homes. tific development. stability. It svill fund urgently needed improvements to Make critical earthquake, health and safety improve- our college campuses and maintain the quality of Califor- ments. nia's higher cducntion programs. The rojects to be financed by Proposition 56 were de- VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 56. "elope$ after careful planning and study by not just the universities, but also the Governor and tile LC islaturc Bond funds will be used to construct buildings w%ich will last well into the 21st century, long after the bonds are repaid. DAVID P. GAHDNER private industry to finance long-term construction needs. Bond financing is particularly sensible given the low inter- CARY K. UART Stole S~*mm?. 181h Disl~cl Chaimrrrr. Srmle Education Commitlw Bond funds are commonly used by government and Pmddcnl, CIn;wnity of Califoom;~ W. ANN REYNOLDS Cl,sncellor, C8l;forn;a S1str u"i"ri~;t? Retirement Benefits for Nonjudicial and Nonlegislative Elected State Constitutional Officers Official Title and Sumntary Prepared by the Attorney General RETIREMENT BESEFITS FOR N0NJUDIC:IAL AND YONLEGISLATIt'E ELECTED STATE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMEIVDMENT. Presently retirement benefits for nonjudicial and nonlegislative elected state constitutional officers are governed by statute and differ depending upon the dates such officers held office. For those who took office prior to October 7, 1974. their retirement benefits have been increased as the compensation paid their successors has increased. This measurc amcnds the Constitution to preclude the retire- ment benefits of any nonlegislative or non:udicinl elected state constitutional officers from increasing or being affected by changes in compensation payable to their successors on or after November 5,1986. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local goverlunent fiscal impact: This measure would reduce the future retirement benefits of fewer than 20 people. resulting in mnual state savings of about $400,000. The state would realize savings because there retirement benefits would not be adjusted for increases in the salaries 01 state elected officials due to take effect in January 1987 and in future years. Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on SCA 32 (Proposition 57) Assembly: Ayes 74 Noes 0 Senate: Ayes 38 Koes 0 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst ' to their benefits: (1) a direct, annual cost-of-living adjust- ment, and (2) an indirect adjustment wben'the salaries of Background erpor and the Stale Treasurer) and the four elected mem- through a state retirement system, Persons serving in This constitutional amendment eliminates the connec- bers of the Board of Equalizution receive pension benefits prOPOS~l these 11 offices receive initial retirement benefits, up to a tion between future increases iu :he salaries of the persons maximum of 60 percent of salary, based on the number of serving in the 11 state offices and the retirement benefits years they serve in office. For officials taking office on or after October 7, 1974, Thus, beginning November 5. 19% these retired officia!s of those officials who took office prior to October 7, 1974. retirement benefits are based on their highestsalarv wh+ (or their beneficiaries) would receive only one adjust- in office. These benefits increase each year at the rate of ment-an annual cost-of-living increase. inflation. .Thus, if prices go up by 5 percent in any one year, retirement benefits increase by 5 percent in the fol- Fiscal Effect lowing year. For cfficials who took office prior to October 7, 1974, fits of fewer than 20 people, resulting in annual state sav- This measure would reduce the future retirement bene- howwer, benefits are based on the current saalary of the ings of about $400,000. The stnte would realize savings office from which the official retired. These benefits also because these retirement benefits would not be adjusted increase each year by the rate of inflation in the prior year. Tor increases in the salaries of state elected officials due to As a resul;, these retired persons receive two adjustments take effect in January 1987 and in future VeXS. The seven.statewide elected officials (such as the Gov- the 11 state omcials are increascd. If you need an absentee ba!!ot call your county clerk or registrar of voters for an application. Test of Proposed Law This amendment proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 32 (Statutes of 1986, Resolution Chapter 57) expressly amends the Constihition by adding a section thereto; therefore. new Frcvisions propose2 to be added are printed in italic :>pe to indicate that they .?re new. PROPOSED ILMENDhlEhT TO ARTICLE E1 all of whose credited service in the Legidators’ Retire- Sec. 7. (a) The retirement allotwnce for any person, me.nt System was rendered or was decmed to have been rendered as m elective oficer of the state whose office is provided for by the California Constitution, other than a judgeandotherthana”emberoftheSer.ateorAssemb1.v. and all or any part of whose retirement allowance is cal- culated on the bask of the compensation payable to the or to retirement, or for the Nm’vor or kneficiw ofsuch oficer holding the ofice which the member last held pri- a person, shall not be increased or aFected in any manner b.vchangesonordter;Vovember5,1986,in thecompensa- tion payable to the officer holding the ofice which the member last held prior to retirement. (b) This section shall apply to any person, survivor, or beneficiary described in subdivzkion (a) who receives, or is receiving, fmm the kgidators’ Retirement System a retirement allowance on or after November 5.1986 all or any part of which allowance i.r calculated on the basis of the con;pensatim payable to the oficer holding the ofice which the member last held prior to retirement. (e) It is the intent of the pcwple, in adopting this sec- ab1.v to be expected hy certain members andretired mem- tion, to restrict retirement allowances to am0unt.c reason- bers of the Legislators’ Retirement Svstem and to preserve the hiccharacter ofearnedretiremeat benefits while prohibiting windfays and unforeseen ndvafitages a sound retirement system. it is not the i=&ent of this which have no relation to the real theory and objective of section to deny any member, retiredmember, survivor, or section shall not be conshued as a repudiation of a debt beneficiq a reasonable retirement allowance. Thtis, this reasonable retirement allowmce from the Lemdators’ nor the impairment of a contract for a suhtantial and - Retirement Svstem. (d) The pmple and the kgis!ahre hereby r%d and lowances of persons descrikd in subdivision (a) which declare that the dramatic increase in the retirement al- would otherwise result when the comoensation for those offices increases on Novemher 5,1986; or January 5,1987 arc not benefits which could have reasolrably been expect- ed. The people and the Legikhture further find and de- clare that the kgidature did not intend to provide in its schcme of compenmtion for those offices such windfall benefits. ~~~~ ~ ~ 21 Retirement Benefits for Nonjudicial and Nonlegislative Argument in Favor of Proposition 57 surgery. One ofour public pension systems nceds some delicatc ‘VOW-in order to prevent millions of taxpayer dollars The voters of this state must perform this operation. from being wasted on the pension benefits of a handful of former state officials. to do the job properly. Proposition 57 gives YCW-tiae votcrc-an opportunity Proposition 57 will correct a significant legal problem that involves 3 very small number of cases. Because of the combined effects of an outdated law, an old court decision and a ncw law that takes effect next January kt, 16 former creases in their pensions. constitutional o%cers could receive huge, undeserved in- If these unwarranted increases are allowed to take cf- times Iarger than the salaries they earned in ofice. fect, tte pensions of this favored group will be several PROPOSITION 57 WOULD STOP SCANDALOUS PENSION INCREASES! Curren’ law provides that when the salaries of our con- stitutional officers (such as the Governor and the Attorney Gcncral) are increased, the pensions of 16 retired consti- tutional officers are increased in a similar manner. Proposition 57 would break this link between salaries of our current state officials and the pensions of retired offi- ci:&! TliFSE PENSIONS! AS L’OTERS, YOU CAN AFFECT THE SIZE OF retired officials from receiving outrageous increases in Proposition 57 must be approved XOIV to stop these their pensions come January lst! Like the scalpel of a skilled surgeon, Proposition 57 goes right to the source of :he problem and eliminates it. WADE P. DEDDEIi Slate Senalor, 40th Dislricl .Author of pmpsitinn LEO T. .\lcCARTIIY Lie“le,,snt Governor Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 57 Would ProDosition 57 trulv *‘ston scandalous oendon increases”? Voters should examine this measure closelv. First, Proposition 57 only applies to “state constitutional officers” who never served in the Legislature as members of the Assembly or State Senate. based on increases “‘in the compensation payable to the Second, Proposition 57 only limits pension increases officer holding the office which thei;etireeJlast heldpnor to retirement. ’* free to increase retirement benefits on any basis other Even if Proposition 57 passes, the Legislature would be thhzn the compensation payable to current officeholders. pension increases. Proposition 57 does not guarantee any real limitation on Third, it may be too late to take away the exorbitant pensions the Legislalure has promised former and current constitutional officers. Any person who has served as Gov- ernor, Attorney General or other constitutional officer may have a “vested”right to promised increases based on the salpries of later officeholders. The reason is that retirement benefits are considered part uf a person’s employment contract. Under the United States Constitution (Article I, Section IO), a state may not pass any laws ‘Ympdring the ob!igation of contracts.” As a result, the couits would he forced to hold that creases promised while they were in office by an overly Proposition 57 Sould not deprive retirees of pension in- generous or wasteful Legislature. The only way to “stop scandalous pension increases” for Certain politicians would thcn blame the courts! former officeholders may be to stop large salary incre;lses for current officeholders. GARY B. WESLEY .4tlO”,C~ UI Dn” Voting. 1 our response- -7 your ability. Will Courtcnay, San Francisco Retirement Bemfits for Nonjudicial and Nonlegislative Elected State Constitutional Officers Argument Against Proposition 57 This measure is a proposal by the Legislature to place in our State Constitution a limit on the retirement b-nefits payable to “state constitutional officers” (i.c., the Gover- nor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State. Controller. SuDerintendent of Public Instruction and Treasurer). .. The trouble with the orooosal is that the onlv limit would be that retiremcntbeAefits ‘Shall not be increased or aMected in any manner b.v changes on or dter !Voven~- holding the oRice which the mcmber last held prior to ber 5, 1986 in the compensation payable to the onicer retirement. ’‘ The windfall retirement benefits already being re- ceived by former officeholders would continue to flow from the government treasury, and the Legislature would retain the authority to increase these retirement benefits on any basis other than the compensation payablr to subsequent officeholdcrs. the retirement benefits payable toa person “whosecrcdit- In addition, this measure would not placc ANY limit on ed service in the Legislators’ Rbtirement System” is not restrictcd to service as a constitutional officer. Governor Deukmejian, for example, who served as a State Senator before becorning Attorney General and then Governor, would evidrntly be unalfected by the limit imposed by this measure, and his retirement benefits s a former At- based on later increases in compensation to subsequent torney General and Governor could continue to soar officeholders. respectfully recommend a “no” vote. This memurc docs not go far cnwgh. For this renson. I Afforney If LlU GARY R. WFSLEY Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 57 Mr. Wesley says Proposition 57 docs not go far enough. limit pensions earned by retirees who served in other He is completely WRONG! Proposition 57 goes as far as legally possible to limit the Again, Mr. Wesley is absolutely WRONG. A greut deal of elected offices before becoming constitutional officers. outrageous pensions received by a select few. caw was taken to nake sure that Proposibon 57 would First, Mr. Wesley states th;lt Proposition 57 would not limit the future benefits of each and every one of the 16 reduce the retirement benefits now being received by a former officials who receive these unconscionable pen- handful of former constitutional officers. If it were possible sions. to roll,back the pensions of these 16 retirees, the Legisla- No! a single “NO’ vote was cast on Proposition 57 as it tuie would have done it. moved through the Legislature! oaid to a retiree. it cannot be stoDDed. This is an excellent VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 57! Legal opinion is unanimous: once a pension benefit is THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES IN PROPOSITION 57! &son to vote FOR Prcposition 57 if the-pensions of these as scheduled on January 1, 1987,’ there will be no chance 16 former constitutional officers are allowed to skyrocket WADIE P. DEDDEM to reduce them ever again. DAN McCDRQUODALE YOU-the voters-must approve Proposition 57 NOW to keep these pensions from going any higher! Second, Mr. Wesley writes that Propohition 57 does not Sfde knsfor. 4Ofh Disfricl Sfare Sendor, IZfJo Disfricf, ERNEST DRONENBERG Member. Sfrte Board or Equrlizafios 3rd Disfdcf Here’s voting for you, California! Ray Van Diest, Redding Taxation. Family Transfers Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General TAXATION. FAMILY TRANSFEHS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAX. AMENDMENT. State Conslitution Article XI11 A, enacted as Proposition 13 in 1978, with certain exceptions, places a limitation on real property taxes equal to 1 percent of its full cash value listed on the 1975-1976 tax bill. Property may be reassessed on “purchase” or other “change include the purchase or transfer of (1) real property between spouses aj.d (2) the principal residence and the first of ownership.”This measure amends Article XI11 A to provide the terms “purchase” and “change of ownership” do not $l,wO,wO of other real pmperty between parents and children. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estinate osstate and an estimated $17 million in 1987-88, $37 million in 1985-89, and increasing amounts in future years. Remaining losses local fiscal impact Measure would reduce local property tax revenues. Cities, counties, and special districts would lose losses, resulting in an estimated loss to the General Fund of S11 million in 19874, $23 million in 198R89, and increasing would be to school and community college districts. Increased state aid from the State General Fund would offset these amounts in future years. Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on ACA 2 (Proposition 58) Assembly: Ayes 74 Senate: Ayes 34 Noes 0 Noes 0 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background Under the California Constitution, real property (such value. This value is the property’s 1975-76 assessed value, us land and buildings), is taxed on the basis of its assessed or its market value when “purchased, newly constructed, or a change of ownership has occurred after the 1975 as- sessment.”The assessed value may increase at a later date to reflect the value of improvements made by the owner. Otherwise, the assessed value may increase to reflect infla- tion, but by no more than 2 percent each year. Generally, the assessed value of real property is considerably less than its current market value. The Legislature has passed statutes that define certain ownership.” As a result, in these cases, reassessment of the transfers of real property as not constituting a “change of property to reflect its market value is prohibited. These include transfers between spouses, and transfers of eligi- ble dwelling units between pa:ents and children under limited rthnnstances. These include: transfers of a dwelling unit from a parent or legal guardian to a minor child, or between minor sihlings, as a result of a court order reltited to the death of the parent: transfers of a dwelling unit from a parent or legal guardian to a disabled child following the death of the parent. Proposal cumstances under which reassessment is not required in This constih~tional amendment would broaden the cir- Cases involving the transfer of real property between par- ents and children. In addition, the measure would plncc the existing statutory treatment of property tracsfers between spouses into the Constitution. Thus, the mensure prohibits the reassessment of property to reflect its mar- ket value under additional circumstances. dren, the measure applies to transfers of the principal In the case of transfers between parents and their chil- residence, regardless of value, and to a limited amount of all other real property. This limit is the first $l,ooO,ooO of .” assessed value, regardless of the number of properties transferred. Property transferred after the $l,ooO,OM) as- sessed value ceiling is reached would be subject to reas- sessment. The measure provides for the Legislature to define its terms, and these definitions would affect the scope of the measure. between parents and children which occur after the meas- The measure would apply only to transfers of property ure become$ effective. Fiscal Effect property transferred between spouses, and between par- The ,provisions preventing the reassessment of :ea1 provided for by existing law, would have no fiscal effect. ents and their children un4er the limited circumstances This is because existing statutory law prevents reassess- ment in these CBSCS. transferred between parents and their children under cir- The prcvisions which prevent reassessment of property cumstances not covered by existing law, however, would reduce local property tax revenues. The scope of the reve- nue losses would depend on actions taken by the Legisla- ture in defining the terms used in the measure. If these terms were defined broadly, revenues wouid fall by an estimated $28 million in 1987-88, $60 million in 1PW9, and increasing amounts in subsequent years. Of these $17 million i;l 198748, $37 million in 1!3&b89, and incrcas- amounts, cities, counties and special districts would lose ing amounts in each subsequent year. 24 and community college districts:Under existing law, high- amount to $11 million in 198798, $23 million in ”89, The remainder,of the losses would affect school districts Statc General Fund cost for the increased aid would er state aid would offset theye losses. We estimate that the and incressing amwnts in each subsequent year. Text of Proposed Law Amendment 2 (Statutes of 1986, Resolution Chapter 61) This amendment proposed by Assembly Constitutional expressly amends the Constitution by adding provisions are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XI11 A, SECFION 2 (g) For purp0se.c of subdivision (a), the terms ‘>pur- purchase or transfer of real property between spouses chased”and “change in o.vnership“shal1 not include the since Mavh 1,1975, including, but not limited to, all of the following: spouse, or the sum’vingspouse ofa deceased transferor, or (1) Transfers to a trustee for the beneficial use of a by a trustee of such a trust to the spouse of the trustor. (2) Transfers to a spouse which take effect upon the death of a spouse. tion with a property settlement ngrecment or decree of (3) Transfers to a spouse or former spouse in connec- dissolution of a marriage or legal sqwration. between spouses, of any coowner’s interest. 74) The crealion, transfer, cr termination, solely spouse or former spouse in exchange for the interest of the (5) The distribution of a legal entity’s property to a spouse in the legal entity in connection with a property settlement agreement or a decree of dissolution of a mar- riage or legal separation. chased”and “change of ownership”shal1 not inelude the (h) For purposes of subdivision (a), the terms ’pur- purchase or transfer of the principal residence of the parents and their children. as defined by the IRgisliuxe, transferor in the case of 3 purchase or kansfer betwceo and the purchase or transfer of the first $l,oW,o[M of the full cash value of .dl other real property between parents and their chfldren, as defined by the Legislature. This subdivision shali apply to botlr voluntary transfers and transfers resulting from a court order or judicial decree. (i) Unless specifically provided otherwise, amend- ments to this section shall bz effective for change of own- plcted, after the effective date of the .Imecdment. erships which occur, and new construction which is com- You’re the ruler! Make the system measure up! Vote! Richard Harris, Davis 2.5 Taxation. Family Transfers - Arguments in Favor of Proposition 58 It's time to fix another mistake made in Proposition 13. In addition to the exemption from reappraisal of trans- Proposition 58 will e.yempt most transfers of' property Ters between parents and thcir childrcn, thcrc is another praisals which are required by Proposition 13. The princi- Proposition 58 makcs surr thxt when property is trans- between parents and children from property tax reap- very important feature of Proposition 53. other property may be transferred without reappraisal. go up. pal residence of the transferee and up to S1 mi!lion of ferred between husbands and wives, pmperty tares won't special relationship that is recognized in all other areas of ferred between spouses is currently in law. The strength of our society rests in the family. This is a This protection against reappraisal of property trans- the tax code. There :!re two reasons to provide constitutional protec- Many parents have aided their children in obtaining tion for transfers of property between spouses to prevent their first homes. In doing so, title is often in the name of tax increases resulting from reappraisal: the parent. When title is transferred, there is a reappraisal (1) Some attorneys have argued that the statutory pro- undercurrent law,even though theoccupants ofthe prop- tection is unconstitutional. erty remain the same. (2) Constitutional protection is more secure a it can such transactions from reappraisal. Inherited property Please votc yes on Proposition 58. passing from parents to children (or viw versa) would also be exempt, up to the limit provided in the bi!l. Many family businesses and farms are jeopardized by reappraisals caused by the death of the parents. These viable business becomes uneconomic. reappraisals often increzse property taxes so much that a A yes vote on Propositim 58 will protect propeity trans- fers within the family. i'roposition 58 would correct this problem and exempt only be changed by another vote of the people. I.UCY KlLLEA Member of fhc Auembh; 7.Ylb Dislricl THOMAS M. HANNIGAN Member or the Asrrmbty. 4th DLvtricl fie"lm"a"1 Covernor LEO T. MCCARTIIY ! Rebuttal-to Arguments in Favor of Proposition 58 Proponents contend it's unfair to reassess property and property changes hands? impose higher property taxes upon family members who The Legislature and Governor should stop tinkering have received homes and other real estate often FOR with Proposition 13 and offer voters a comprehensive ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as a gift or through inhcrit- amendment which eliminates a11 of these inequities. ance. Fine. But what about the millions of Californians who (1) ~~~~li~~ the assessed of all property at the monthly income to BUY a home in today's inflated real 13. H~~~~ built since 1915, for example, would be taxed at must use their own life sri~gs and most of their O"n 1975 levels established for some owners under Proposition estate market? a level reflective of khe area's lnwer property vn!ues in forced to move for economic reasons (such as job layoffs and transfers) be additionally burdened with Property automatic reduction in the tax riltr so that government (2) Periodically reassess all property but provide for an owners of commercial and industrial property purchased ~o up, taxes 3-4 times higher than their residential neighbors ad does not get money just because overall property at lower prices years ago? higher property taxes imposed on the landlord each time Alfomr). HI LHW Here are some possibilities: Why should these first-time home buyers and families 1975, Why should renters face rent incre;~ses due, in part, to CAW 11. WESLEY Taxation. Family Transfers Argument Against Proposition 58 Propositicn 13, a ronstitutional limitation on property This measure is a preposal by the Legislature to amend taxes approved by voters in 1918. Under Proposition 13 (now ArticleXIII A of the Califor- nia Constitution), assessed property values generally arc frozen nt their 1975 levelr; however, property is reassessed and higher property taxes are imposed each time the ownership has occurred aRer the 1.975 assessment. ’’ property is “purchased, newlv constructed, or a cllmge in As a result of this reassessment each time property changes hands, new owners are reqnired to pay far more in property taxes than do their neighbors whose property has the same value but was purchased earlier when prop- erty values were lower. In addition, this automatic reassessment provision has tax burden from owners of commercial and industrial caused a giadual but massive shift of the overall property property (which is often leased but seldom sold) to own- ers (and renters) of residential property. 13 which would correct these inequities, the Legislature Instead of offering voters an amendment to Proposition proposes in this measure to retain the basic flaw but ex- empt a relatively small number of persons from the unfair tax burden the automatic reassessment provision places upon new owncrs and renters of residential property. Specifically, this measure provides that property “pur. chased or otherwise transferred “between spouses since March 1, 1975,” would not be subject to reassessment and higher property taxes. This measure also provides that property ”purchased” or othcrwiae transferred “between parents and their children” (“after the effective date of the amendment” following this election) would not be subject to reassessment and higher property taxes. Surcly. it is unfair to reassrss property which changes hands within a family-especially when a spouse or parent sons who must pay the sky-high current price for a home has died. However. it is even more unfair to require per- in California to suffer the additional penalty of paying sky-high property taxes imposed following reassessment. A “no”Lote on this measure may send a message to the Legislattjre (and Governor) that voters want to be offered a comprehensive amendment to Proposition 13 which would eliminate the tdairness to all newowners and rent. ers created by thc automatic reassessment provision. on this measure. For this reason, I respectfully recommend a “no” vote GARY 8. WESLEY Atfome.v a! Law Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 58 58. What he is suggesting is that Proposition 58 be held T~~ relief pro,.idrd by proposition 58 is needed now. hostage to,some future unspecified reform of Proposition please yes on proposition 58, er taxes on property transferred between parents and chi!. 13. This is not fair to California families who will pay high- dren while they wait for Mr. Wesley to develop his plan Mr. Wesley does not question the fairness of Proposition for a comprehensive reform of Proposition 13. THOhiAS M. HANNICAN hfrrnber offhe Aoernbl.v, 4th Disfrirf Your direct line ta the Capitol-your vote. Linda Bunch and Sally Burgan, San Diego Elected District Attorney Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General ELECTED DISTRICT ATI'ORNEY. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Presently the State Con- stitution does not provide for elected district attorneys. State statutory law provides for elccted district attorneys but provides that offce may be made appointive office by local popular vote. This measure amends the Constitution to require the Legislature provide'for an elected district attorney in all counties. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of state and local government fiscal impact: This measure would have no direct state or local fiscal effect. Final Vote Cast by the Legisiature on SCA 26 (Proposition 59) Assembly: Ayes 68 Noes 2 Senate: Ayes 37 Noes 0 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background The offce of district attorney in all of the state's 58 counties is filled by election. This could be +-hnnged to an appointive office with the approval of the -doters. Proposal the district attorney to be filled by election in all counties. This constitutional amendment requires the offrce of Fiscal Effect effect. This measure would have no direct state or local fiscal 28 Celebrate your freedom . . . Vote Dayna Carr, Fremont This amendment proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 26 (Statutes of 1986. Rcsolution Chapter 66) expressly amends the Constitution by amending sections are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. thereof; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XI, SECTIONS 1 AND 4 to read: First-That Section 1 of Article XI thereof is amended are legal subdivisions of the State. The Legislature shall SEC. 1. (a) The State is divided into counties which prescribe uniform procedure for county formation, con- ’ solidation, and boundary change. Formation or consol;da- tion requires approval by a majority of electors voting on the question in each affected county. A boundary change requires approval by the governing body of each affected county. No county s-?t shall be removed unless two-thirds of the qualified electors of the county, voting on the proposition at a general election, shall vote in favor of such :emoval: A proposition of removal shall not be submitted in the same county more than once in four years. (b) The Legislature shall provide for county powers, an elected county sheriff, an elected district attorney, and an elected governing body in each county. Except as pro- vided in subdivision (b) of Section 4 of this article, each sation of its members, but the ordinance prescribing such governing body shall prescribe by ordinance the compen- compensation shall be subject to referendum. The Legisla- ture or the governing body may provide for other officers body. The governing body shall provide for the number, whose compensation shall be prescribed by the governing compensation, tenure, and appointment of ecployees. amended to read: Second-’fiat Section 4 of Article XI thereof is SEC. 4. County charters shall provide for: (a) A governing body of 5 or more mtmbers, elected requirement that they reside in a district. Chart- (1) by district or. (2) at large, or (3) at large, with a or coun- ties are subject to statutes that relate to apportioning population of governing body districts. of the governing body. If a county charter provides for the (b) The compensation, terms, and removal ofmembers Legislature to prescribe the salary of the governing body, such compensation shail he prescribed by the governing body by ordinance. ;c) An elected sheriff, an elect& district attorney, other officers, their election or appointment, compensa- tion, terms and removal. (d) The performance of functions rcquired by statute. (e) The powers and duties of governing bodies and dl other county officers, and for consolidation and segrega- tion of county officers, and for the manner of filling all vacancies occurrinq therein. ordinance, of the appointment and number of assistants, (f) The fixing and regulation by governing bodies, by deputies, clerks, attach& and other persons to be em- oloved. and for the Drescribina and regulating by such ~~~, ~ . bodies ofthe powers,huties, qudifications, and cornpensa- which they shall br appointed, and the manner of their tion of such persons, the times at which, and terms for appointment and removal. (g) Whenever any county has framed and adopted a charter, and the same shall huve been approved by the by the Legislature in pursuance of Section l(b) of this Legislature as hereir. provided, the general laws adopted article, shd, as to such county, be superseded by said charter as to matters for which, under this section it‘ is competent to make provision in such charter, and for which provision is made therein, except as herein other- wise expressly provided. provided by this Constitution or by statute for Counties. (h) Charter counties shall have all the powers that are Text of Proposed I.aw Counties fifty-eight. Vote: cooperate. Donald Way, Los Angeles 29 Elected District Attorney 1 Argument in Favor of Proposition 59 County district attorneys are important and powerful pointed-officials. Proposition 59 does this by amending public oficials. They are inteqral parts or buth the law thc State Constitution to sperify that district attorneys, siderable discretion ovcr thc prosecution of criminals and of supervisors, must be elected by the people. cnforcement and criminal justire systems. They hold con- along with county sheriffs and members of county boards such, they must be held accountable, not by some political for the adoption of the Federal Constitution, Wrote that it the enforcement of state laws and local ordinances. As hlmost two hundred years ago, James Madison, arguing appointing power, but directly by the people. Californians is essential that qovernment “should have an immediate have ensured that district attorneys remain both account- dependence on, and sympathy with, the people. Frequent of district attorney an elective office. California voters dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.” able by. and responsive to, the people by making the officc elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this render that judgment at the polls. thus have the right to judge thdr district attorneys and PROTECT TOUR RIGHTS. GUARANTEE THAT CIS- Now, however, there are those who would deprive us of ABLE TO THE PEOPLE. VOTE YES ON PROPOSI- TRICT AlTORNEYS REMAIN DIRECTLY ACCOUNT- by which district attorneys can be appointed instead of this right. The law currently contains a Icophole; a means TION 59. being elected. In some counties there are those who would use this loophole to change a position dependent on the voters into a position dependent on political power brokers. This threat to the right of Californians to elect their county district attorneys is the reason why Proposi- tion 59 is before you. We wrote Proposition 59 to ensure that dishkt attorneys will always remain elected-not ap- IMVID ROBERT1 .. Slrre Scnnlor, 2” Dhlrirl DAN McCORQUODALE St*tc Senator, IZlh Dirtrid CECIL HICKS Uirtricl AIlornc.~, Comfy of Omngc Pr&fcnl, Califomin District Allorney.r Arrocialion Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 59 decide whether their county district attorney will be We need to encourage good people to run for public elected or appointed (by the elected county board of office and not simply leave candidates to raise money from supervisors). special interest groups, such LS businesses which generate Proponents argue :hat forcing voters in every county to toxic pollution. How can we expect our locai and state elect their district attorney will make thesc ”‘import:: t ofiicials to restrict and, if necessary, prosecute major cam- and powerful public o.%cials” more accountable. paign contributors? In fact, many county district attorneys (especially in Of course, we all cringe at !he idea that our tax dollars large counties) run unopposed for reelection every four would be spent on slick, perhaps dishonest, campaign lit- ycars because ofthe BIG MONEY from SPECIAL INTER- erature and ccmmercials. But use of public campaign against a powerful incumbent. EST GROUPS necded to mount a countywide campaign funds can be restricted. For now, if you believe that local voters should be al- As a result, VOTERS OFTEN HAVE NO CHOICE ON lowed to retain the power to amend their own County ELECTION DAY. This is not accountability-it is ;I sham. charters to provide for the election or appointment of large county district attorneys) more accountable, WE If voters really want to make public olficials (including local district attorneys, vote “no” on Proposition 59. NEED TO CHAXGE THE WAY POLITICAL CAM. ,lll”,,~cy It LIW Proposition 59 would strip local voters of the power to P.4IGNS ARE FINANCED. CAW E. WESLEY Vote today; do it the California way. Melinda Styles, San Bcrnardino Elected District Attorney Argument Against Proposition 59 This measure is a proposal by thc Legislature to add to sounds :IS if hc will be “tougher” on crime. An attorney the California Constitution two provisions: One provision would require that county ch;lrtcrs pro- attorncy based on campaign rhetoric, Votcrs in some with littlr expcriencc and ability could be elected district vide for the election of district attoraeys. counties may prcfcr to ;dIow their electcd board of super- to “provide for” ‘h elected district attorney“ in every district attorney and rcmovc the appointee if hc or shc is The second provision wculd authorize the Legislature visors to appoint a qualified attorney to serve as county county. not tough enough on crime (or otherwise unsatishctory) The district attorne:, is resrmsiblc for the prosecution Thc second question is whether the Lrgislatur: should of ielony offenses crmmitted 111 the county. In addition. be empo.vcred to ”provide for” the election of district demeanor” offenses committed in portions of the county laturc could prescribe that all district attorneys through- the county district attorney prosecutes less serious, ‘his- attorneys in each county. Under this provision, the kgis- not within a city and in cities which do not prosccutc out the state be clccted in June or November when WE misdemeanors on their own. Further, the district attorney nominate or elect a Governor, for example, and prevent in each county mav handle child support and consumer counties,such asSan Francisco. from electing their district fraud prosecutions. attorneys in conjunction with the election of other county make sure that district attorneys are elected by voters in district attorney be left to voters in each of California’s 58 The first question is whether California voters want to of€icers. Why shouldn’t the decision of when to elect a each county and not, for example, appointed by the elect- counties? ed board of supervisors. For these re:sons, I respectfully recommend a “no.’ wunty. Any attorney can run for the position of Lounty district attorney. Voters often select the candidate who Altorney at Iaw In my view, the decision should be left to voters in each vote. CARY B. IITSLEY Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 59 question “is whether California voters want to make sure The opponent to Proposition 59 says that the primary thatdistrict attorneysare elected by voters in each county and not.. .appointed:. . .”We agree completcly. The en- tire issue is whether Californians want their district attor- neys to be responsible to the voters or to some political power broker whom a district attorney may be called upon to investigate. We authored Proposition 59 to give the people the opportunity to guarantee once and for all that district attorneys remain independent, subject only to stihltion for years. In charter counties, Proposition 59 cdlls elected district attorneys. Ir, noncharter counties, the for the county charters, not the Legislature, to provide for Legislature already has the right to determine the dates of local elcctions. Proposition59simply preserves cright cur- rently enjoyed in each of California’s counties-the right of the voters to elect their district attorney. power brokers to choose district attorneys? Ifyou want the The question is simple. Do you want the people or the people to decide, vote YES on Proposition 59. the judgment ‘of the people. The opponent raises a false and mle’eading argument about the Legislature playing games with election dates. statr senare,. zlnl mtriet The language cited by the opponent has been in the Con- Proposition 59 does not give any new power to anyone. DAN hICCORQUODALE .State senillor, 12fh DirtW .. DAVID ROBERT1 Vote; the proof’s in the polling! Jeffrey Dennis Wehter, Fresno Taxation. Replacement Residences Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney Gencral TAXATION. REPLACEMENT RESIDENCES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMEYT. State Constitu- tion Article XI11 A, enacted as Proposition 13 in 1978, with czrtain exceptions. places a limitation on real property taxes of ownership. This measure amends Article XI11 A to permit the Legislature to allow persons over age 55, who sell their equal to 1 percent of the value ofits assessed value listed on the 19751976 tax bill. Property mdy be reassessed on change residence and buy or build another of equal or lesser value within two years in the same county, to transfer the old government fscnl impact This measure has no direct state or local fiscal effect unless the Legislature passes laws residence’s assessed value to the new residence. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local would probably amount to several million dollars per year beginning in 1987-88. Cities, counties, and special districts irnplcmenting it. If the Legislature passes such laws, property tax revenues would be reduced. The locs of this revenue would bear N) percent of this loss. The other 40 percent would affect community college and school districts. Higher state aid to community college and school diskicts would offset these losses. The State General Fund would bear the cost for the higher aid. Final Vote Cast by the Lcgislatcrc on ACA 5 (Proposition SO) Assembly: Ayes 70 Senate: Ayes 27 Noes I) Noes I Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background Under’the California Constitution, real property (such as land and buildings), is taxed on the basis of its assessed value. This value is either the property’s 1975-76 assessed value. or its market value when “purchased, newly con- structd, or a change of ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessmer.:.*’ The assessed value may increase at a the owner. Othenvise, the assessed value may increase to later date to reflect the value of improvements mnde by reflect inflation, but by no more than 2 percent each year. Generally, the assessed value of real property is considera- bly less than its current market value. Proposal This constitutional amendment would authorize the Legislature to provide a special method of establishing quired by a homeowner over the age of 55. Specifically, assessed value for replacement residential property ac- this method would allow homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the assessed value of their present home to a replacement home located in the same county. To qualify for this special treatment, the replacement home must be: Purchased or newly constructed as a replacement Fw the person’s principal residence; . Of equal or lesser value than the original property; . Located within the same county; and Purchased or newly constructed within two years of the sale of the present property. cl~ased or newly constructed on or after November5.1985. The measure could apply to replacement property pur- Fiscal Effect This measure has no direct state or local effect because it merely authorizes the Legislature to implement its provisions. the laws for its implementation, the amendment would If this measure is approved, and the Legislature enacts reduce praperty tax revenue collections. These revenue losses probably would amount to several millions of dollars per year, beginning in 1987-88. Cities, counties, and spe- cial districts would bear approximately 60 percent of the revenue loss. The remainder of the losses would affect school districts and community college districts. Under existing law, high- Fund would bear the cost for the higher aid, beginning in er state aid would offset these losses. The State General 19874. 32 Text of Proposed Law This amendment propcsed by .4ssembly Constit~~tional Amcndmcnt 5 (Statutes of 1986, Resolution Chapter 75) expressly amends the Constitution by amending a section thercof; therefore, existing provisions proposed tu be dc- leted are printed in proposed to be inserted or addcd are printed in itdic t.vpc +ype and new provisions to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE X!II A, SECTION 2 SEC. 2. (a) The full cash value means the count;* 76 tax bill under “full cash value” or, thereafter, the ap assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975- praised value of rral property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. All real property not already assessed up to the 197S76 full cash value may be reassessed to reflect that valuation. For purposcs or this section. +he ifffft “newly constructed” 4kttu does not include real property which is reccnstructed after a disaster, as dc- StRk the real property, as reconstructed, is comparable to clared by the Governor, *here the fair market value of its fair market value prior to the disaster. Also, the term “newly constructed’’ shall not include the portion of reconstruction or improvement to a structure, construct- ed of unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction, necessary to comply with any local ordinance rehting to seismic safety during the first 15 years following that reconstruction or improvement. However, the Legislsture may provide that under ap- propriate circumstances and pursuant to definitions and procedures established by the Legidature, any person over the age of 55 years who resides in property which is eligible for the homeownrr’s exemption undersubdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII and any implementing legidation may transfer the base year value ofthcpropcr- tyentitled to e.remption, with theandjustmen:routhorized by subdivision (b), to any replacemcnt dwelltng of equal or lesser value located within the same county and pur- principal residence within two years after the sale of the chased or newly constructed by that person as his or her son over the age of 55 years” includes a married couple original property. For purposes of this section, ‘>ny per- one member of which is over the age of 55 years. For purposes of this section, “replncernent dwel1ing”me;ms if abode, whether real property or personal property, and bnilding, structure, or other shelter constitutinguplxe of section, a two-dwelling unit shall be considered :IS two any land on which it may be .situated. For purposes ofthis separate singlc-family dwel1ing.s. This paragraph shall r,ot apply to nny replacement dwelling which wxs purchased paragraph. or newly constructed prior to the effective date of this c 33 Taxation. Replacement Residences Argtnnent in Favor of Proposition 60 California can create new housing opportunities for sen- ior citizens by easing a property tax burden that now pre- vents many of them from finding affordablr housing. At first homes. This proposition will do both by protecting the same time, we can help many young families find their older homeowners from huge property tax increases whcn new smaller residences. As a result, more seniors will be they choose to sell their large family homes and move into able to enjoy the rewards of years of hard work, and new buyers, many of whom are young families, will be able to enjoy the homes that served the seniors so well for so many years. just the opposite result. State law requires residentid Unfortunately, today, our property tax systcm leads to property to be assessed at its full cash value upon change That's good for scniors who want to remain in their of ownership or when it has been newly constructed. But itS bad for seniors who wish to sell their homes and present homes because it kceps their property tax bill low. move to a new address because they are likely to find a much higher property tax assessment when they get buyers who cannot afford newly built homes but would there. And it's bad for a lot of would-be first-time home gladly buy a senior citizen's house and move into an estab- lished neighborhood. The solution is to let seniors who want to sell their homes take their current property tax assessment to their new place of residence. that by amending the State Constitution to nuthorizc thr If approved by the voters, Proposition 60 would do just Lcgishture to provide that the bnsc year vduc of owncr- occupird residcntinl property (.an bc trmsferrcd for sen- iors to ncwly purchased or constrllctcd owner-occupird residcntial propc+ of cqual or lrsscr vaiue. To qualiSy for Proposition 60, thc property must bc: (1) I\ replaccmcnt for property located within the same county. (2) Purchased by eithrr In) :I person owr the age of 55 years or (b) a nurricd couplr if onr spouse is over the age of 55 ?cars. (3) Eligiblr for the hotneowncrs' exemption, (4) Purchascd within two ycars of the sale of the origi- nal property. Local gwwrnment and schools will nut lose revcnue from this measure. This is true became when seniors sell ne\\. property tax revenue. That new revenue will oCTset their hgcr homes for current market prices it will create rcsidcnces. any loss from the lower assessments on the seniors' new By approving Proposition 60, we can help increase our senior citizens' freedom to live where they choose and help many young families have the opportunity to achieve thc American dream of home ownership. dlrmbrr of llw Ancmbly, 57118 IXrlrirl DAW ELIXR Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 60 down property taxes for some homeowners, landlords and Proposition 13 has had the beneficial effect of holding businesses. However. Proposition 13 wi~s poorly written. Tk courts have been forced to give definition to terms the authors provision hascreated perhaps the most unfair property tax never defined and the infamous outomntic rrassessrneut system in the entire United States. crs a comprehensive amendment to Proposition 13 long The Legislature and Governor should have offered vot- ago. Instead, they continue to propose exemptions from divide and covquer California'taxpayers. reassessment for the privileged few. Maybe thc aim is to Certainly, oldc; persons (and 55 is ancient!) should hc allowed to move without facing reassessment and highcr But what about younger persons who must qualify for :I pTOpert)' tdXeS. loan and spend most of their monthly income to buy a house in today's market? First-time home buyers have no house to sell and "tradc up." Why should they be additiun- ally burdened with sky-high property tnxes? They should not. Not only is Proposition €4 unfair t3 younger persons but it actually docs NOT guarantee any exemption for home- owners over 55. The measure stites that "the hgidature mz?; provide" for such an exemption. Furthermore, if a person over 55 were to purchase a morc expensive home or any homc in another county, the scssccl and higher property l:lxes imposed. exemption would not apply! The new home would be reas. Proposition 60 is not the ansuw. Let's stick togcther and dcrnand a comprchensivc: amendmcnt. G,AHT 1%. wKS1.I:Y Allon,e."nl LllW Taxation. Replacement Residences Argument Against Prooosition 60 amend Proposition 13, a constitutional limitation on prop- itself the authority to exempt some persons from the un- This measure is another proposal by th.: L&ature to proposes in this nleasure to retain the basic flaw but give erty tares approved by voters in 19778. Proposition 60 would permit, but not require. the Legis- places upon ALL new owners and renters of residential fair tax burdcn the automatic reassessment provision lature to allow “>n.vperson over the age of55” to move Yo property. any replacrment dwelling of equal or lesser valoc located Thcrc would bc no nced to exempt persons over the agc within thesamecount,v”and transfer to the new home the of 55 from automiltic reassessment if the Legislature tax base (i.e., “assessed value”) established for the former would allow voters to decide whether to eliminate this home. aspect of Prcposition 13 altogether. The Legislature is continuing to tinker with Proposition I challenge thc proponents of this measure to explain to which would eliminate all of the inequities caused by its comprehensive amendmmt to Proposition 13 such as: 13 instead ofoffering voters a comprehensive amendment voters why the Legislature has refused to offer voters a automatic reassessment provision. Under Proposition 13 (now Article XI11 A of the Califor- 1975 lcvcls established for some owners under Proposition (I) Equalize the assessed value of all property at thc nia Constitution), assessed property values generally arr 13. I-lotnes built since 1975, for example, would bc taxed at and higher property taxes are imposed each time the 1975. frozen at their 1975 levels; however, property is reassessed a level reflective of the area’s lower pioperty vaiues in property is “purchased, newly constrccted, or a change in (2) Periodically reassess all property but provide for an ownership has occurred af€er the 1975 assessment.” As a result of this reassessment each time property does not get more money just because overall property automatic reduction in the tax rate so that government changes hands, new owners are required to pay far more values increase. in property taxes than do their neighbors whose property If proponents of this measure have any other ideas for has the same value but was purchased earlier when prop- making our property tax system fairer io ALL Californi- erty values were lower. In addition, this autonlatic reassessment provision has In my opinion, a ‘*no‘’ vote on this measure may send a caused a gradual but massive shift of :he overall property message to the Legislature and Governor that voters want property (which is often leased but seldom sold) to own- 13. tax burden from owners of commercial and industrial to be offered a comprehensive amendment to Proposition ers (and renters) of residential property. Persons of all ages are hurt by automatic reassersment. Instead of offering voters an amendment to Proposition 13 which would correct these inequities, the Legislature ans, those ideas should be included in their rebuttal. GARY B. WFSLEY Atforney st Lnw . Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 60 The opponent of Proposition 60 is right on one count. current property tax laws while maintaining the tax relief approved measure known as Proposition 13. ir?positioti Dl’ voting for Proposition 60 we can help give senior Proposition €5 will not make major changes in the voter-’ provided by Proposition 13. 60, like Proposition 13, eases the property tax burden for citizens freedom to live where thcy choose in their county senior citizens. Republicans and Democrats agree that Proposition 60 Please remember that Proposition €5 stands for fnimess. encourages the transfer of ~nderused, larger homes to Proposition 60 helps our seniors and at the same time it younger, growing families. helps young families. We urge you to support Proposition 60 because it will allow senior citizens to improve thcir housing without being penalized by excessive taxation. . The American Association of Retired Persons sup- ports Proposition 60 because it will allow older Californi- ans the freedom to sell their homes and move within their county withoct paying excessive property taxes. e Republican and Democratic legislative leaders back Proposition 60 because it corrects an unfairness in our area. . Not one taxpayer association has opposed Proposition €5. On November 4 vole yes on 60. VIOLA J. TTIOMAS chirperson. Cnlifomie Sfale &&/dive Comrnilte, ilrneriesn ASSW~~~;O~~ mtircd ~erronr JIM KEYSOR Dept.v count.^ Aucnor, County of Lor Aweles IIENRY J. MELLO SI& Sennfor, 17th Dirlrict Chnirmm. Senale Subcommittee on Afl‘rw Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General COMPENSATION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC CONTRACTORS. 1NITI.ATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Sets Gcvernor’y annual salary at S80,ooO: other “Constitutiona.l” officers at $52,500. Limits maximum compensation of elected or appointed state and local government employees and individual public contractors to 80% of Governor’s sdary. Requires people’s vote to increase salaries of constitutional officcrs, members of Board of Equalization. legislators, judiciary, and specified local elected officers. Prohibits public officials and employees from accruing sick leave or vacation from one calendar )‘ear to another. Summary of Legislative reductions would amount to $125 million in the first year at the state IeveI and roughly the same amount at the local Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact Public official and employee salary and benefit-related level. These reductions would not necessarily result in comparable savings. ?‘Ley would be offset to some extent or could be outweighed by the need to pay various costs depending on unknown factors relating to (1) how the measure is interpreted, (2) possible payment of vested sick and vacation leave at a one-time cost of about 57 billion, (3) how the employees and contractors. Ngt fiscal impact is unknown. measure would be implemented, (4) its effect on governmental efficiency resulting from its limitation on pay for officers, Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background tion in setting the salaries and fringe benefits of elected Currently, the state and local govenments have discre- officials and public employees. These governments set the salaries of elected officials (such as the Governor, judges creased without voter approval. For public employees, and city council members), and the salaries may be in- state and local governments can pay the amounts neces- sary to attract and retain qualified persons. With regard to fringe benefits, virtually all public employees earn vaca- tion and sick leave, and governments allow most of them year to year. to carry over at least some portion of unused leave from dividuals for services. While the law places some restric- State and local governmen3 may contract with in- tions on the kinds of services governments may provide through contracts, generally there are no specific limita- tions on either the amount or length of contracts. Proposal the laws governing compensation for state and local elect- This constitutional amendment changes substantially ed officials and employees. It also places restrictions on The proposed amendment, however, contains many contracting that affect both state and local governments. phrases which are either unclear or subject to different interpretations. Consequently, this analysis is based on as- sumptions about how the courts would interpret the initia- tive. The main provisions of this measure are as follows: Elected Officials. This measure increases the Cover- nor’s annual salary from $49,100 to W,ooO and adds a new provision requiring that the voters approve any future increases. (Under existing law, this salary would have in- creased to $85,ooO on January 5, 1987.) The initiative also sets an annual salary of $52,500 for all other constitutional offkers (such as the State Treasurer and Controller) and members of the Board of Equalization. (Under existing 36 law, these salaries also would have increased in the coming year.) state and local elected officials to 80 percent of the Gover- In addition, the measure limits the salaries of all other nor’s salary. On November 5, 1986, this limit would be SM,ooO. In the future, these salaries could be increased only with the voters’ approval, but the new salaries still measure provides one exception to this limit by allowing could not exceed 80 percent of the Governor‘s salary. The local voters, through an initiative, to approve salaries for local officials (elected or appointed) which exceed the limit. State and Local Government Employees. This initia- tive also limits the pay of all state and local government employces to 80 percent of the GovemorS salary. The ary.” “Compensation” typically includes salary plus em- measure uses both the terms “compensation” and “sal- ployer payments for health, retirement and other benc- fits. The courts, however, probably would interpret this pay provision as a salary hi:. If so, the highest allowable salary for any public employee would be frozen at $64,ooO until the people voted to increase the Governor’s salary. If, however, the courts were to interpret this measure ils placing a limit on “compensation” (which would include fringe benefits), the highest allowable salary would be frozen at about the $SO,oOO level. over unused vacation and sick leave from one calendar The initiative would not allow public employees to carry year to another. It is unclear, however, whether this re- striction would apply only to leave earned in the future or whether it also would apply to leave earned prior to this election. Given that the law generally protects an em- ployee’s right to already earned benefits, the courts proba- future vacation and sick leave. bl? would interpret this restriction ds applying only to ?tote and Local Government Contracts. The initiative contract more tl:an 80 pcrcent of the Governor:F annual prohibits public agencies from paying individuals under salary. In addition, thcse individuals could not receive c86 cornpensotion greatcr thnn $75 per hour, nor could thcir cumstances." the Legislature could approve-by a two- contracts exceed two years in length. Urder "specid Cir- compensation in excess of the limit, as long as thc con- thirds 'vote-state contracts for individuals which providc does not define "special circumstances," and does not al- tracts did not exceed four years in length. The mcasure low this provision to be uscd by local governments. Fiscal Effect The initiative would have sevcral fiscal effects on state and local governments, many of which are difficult to employees, an unknown-but probably similar-number measure. The salary limit would affect about 9,ooO state of local government employees. and a relatively small number of elected officials. hlost of the affected em- ployees fall into one of the following categories: (1) top- level managers (such as executive directors of state agen- cies, city managers, and police aod fire chiefs): (2) medi- cal personnel (such as doctors at county hospitais and Uni- versity of California medical school stafo; (3) legal positions (such as state judges, district attorneys and their senior prosecutors, and staff counsel to state depart- ments); and (4) University of California personnel (senior professors and administrators). The salary and benefit-related reductions associated with these positions would be about $125 million at the state level, with local government reductions of roughly the same amount. These reductions, however, would not result in comparable savings, for at least two reasons. First, at the state level, the Legislature could use the "special circumstances" provision to approve contracts with em- ployees affected by the limit to provide compensation ap- proaching the former salary levels. It is unknown how often, or how extensively, this provision would be used. Second, governments would be allowed to increase non- salary forms of compensation in an attempt to keep total pay packages compctitive wiih those of othcr public and private employers. offset to some extent by other costs. Fur Instance. the Any net savings from the salary reductions also would be prohibition 011 the carry-over of vacation ;md sick leave probably would result in increased use of leave time, espe- cially toward the end of a calendar year. As a result, gov- substitute workers in essential public programs, such as crnments would incur unknown costs each year to pay . police, fire, and education services. This analysis assumes that the carry-over restrictions imposed on vacation and sick leave would not apply to unused leave time earned prior to the amendment's effective date (November 5, 1986). If the courts were to rule to the contrary, state and local governments could face one-time costs'of about $7 billion to buy out these protected benLSts. A major por- tion, but not al!, of this cost otherwise would be paid ont to employees over a period of many years. initiative would be its impact on the public sector's ability An important, immediate and longterm effect of this to hire and retain qualified and experienced employees. State and local governments compete for these employees with other employers in the public and private sectors. Presumably, these governments are now paying salaries above $64,ooO in order to attract and keep competent in- dividuals. Under the salary limit, governments in many cases would be forced to rely on less qualified or ex- perienced employees and contractors. This, in turn, would These costs cannot be estimated, but they would be sub- lead to less efficient, more costly government services. stantial. ings to state and local govcrnments from salary reductions. In summary, this measure would result in unknown sav- These savings, however, would be offset to some extent- and could even be outweighed-by various costs. The net fiscal impact is unknown because it would depend on how the measure is interpreted and implemented. Text of Proposed Law accordance with the provisions of Article 11, Section 8 of This initiative measure is submitted to the people in the Constitution. This initiative measure ex ressly repeals, adds, and amends existing provisions o P the Constitution. and re- peals provisions of the C;overnrnerlt Code; therefore, +ype and new provisions proposed to be added are printed provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in skiket& in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION I: Sections 11550 through 11569 of the Cali- fornia Government Code are hereby repealed. U.66&BTee+we 4l4iele1; &&?ie+dWee4i(ieftS ' *l74w%tnta*e6d (yltwe(kettsaft$FwelmRtkffl"skaUke pd*e&ef+be- fejGkettWd%neIie% *Wd" ' IMfim G86 37 Compensation of Public Officials, Employees, Individual Public Contractors. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute Argument in Favor of Proposition 61 limit the salaries, which PROPOSITION 61 does. The only way to stop the salaries from skyrocketing is to ture. And clectcd officialx will ximply have to get voter ap roval whcn they votc themselves a raise. Your elected officials don’t like that and neither do the that so bad? ublic employee union bosses. They want no limits. The It is clear that what the bureaucrats and politicians are [elieve they have a right to whatever pay raises the wist redly mad about is that, from now on. salaries must be nothing to say about it! to vote themselves. And you, the taxpayer, shouldlhave discussed and voted u on in the clear light of dat; And one thing I’ve Earned, bureaucrats don’t ~ke the with diic pre%ctions abut losin qualified teachers. But The bureaucrats and politicians have a sweet little deal what they fail to tell you is that %e salary limit for class- oing and they don’t want you, or anybody else, “rocking room teachers is $64,ooO a year! %e boat.” Teachers don’t make that kind of money; only the Well, I say “rock it” or “dock it.” We’re through paying bureaucrats do. the bills, Vote YES on Proposition 61. It just requires a two-thirds roll-call votc of the Legisla- Can salaries ever be raised above these limits? Sure! Even more alling, the politicians are trying to scare you light. PAUL GANN Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 61 Cann claims the pay limitations of Prop. 61 would save taxpayer dollars. That’s NOT TRUE! Achlallv it could COST TAXPAY- ” ERS BILLI0N.S. - ” - ”” - . -. Pro sition 61’s COST TO STATE AND LOCAL TAX- PAY& COULD BE ABOUT $7 BILLION, according to the official impact report by Legislative Analyst John L. Vickerman. Staggering tax increases and municipal bank- N tcies could result. kopition 61 rohibits public employees from ac- cumuahng earns sick leave and vacation time. This would encourage absenteeism. Accurnulation of this time is good because employees could use it in the event of serious illnesses. In addition: According to California’s chief legal counsel, Prop. 61 is so poorly and ambiguously written it would cause years of Jitiration in the state courts iust to fimre out what it I means! - State School Superintendent Bill Honig says unrea. sonable ay limitations would DEVASTATE OUR PROCR&S TOWARD EXCELLENCE IN EDUCA- TION. highly qualified and experienced university researchers in . It would cause a loss of high-tech jobs in California as medicine, a iculture, and computers leave the state. DON’T BE FOOLED! ABUSES, WONTSA VE YOU ONE CENT, BUT WOULD PROPOSITION 61 WONT CORRECT PENSION COST YOU A BUNDLE! VOTE NO ON PROP. 61! RICHARD P. SIMPSON Cdifomir T.rmyerr‘ Asmidon Compensation of Public Officials, Employees, Individual Public Contractors. Initiative Constitutional Amend Argument Against Proposition fil DONT BE MISLED! Proposition 61 is NOT ABOUT PESSlON REFORM and IT IVOULD iVOT SAVE TASPAYI’HS nOI.l.ARSI It doesn’t contain one word about lowering the outra- geous pensions of former elected officials! In fact, Proposition 61 wou!d DRASTICALLY REDUCE the QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES in Cnlifor- nia and could COST TAXPAYERS BILLIOA!S! ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ It puts a straitjacket on California‘s economic future. Prop. 61 IS unfair, arbitrarv and unworkable We no longer would be able to hire and retain the best police chiefs, prosecutors, university prcsidents. scientists, toxic experts, school officials and medical personnel. ficult, if not impossible, to contract with private business, And our state and local governments would find it dif- even for such vital functions as highway construction. flood and fire control and toxic cleanup. An exaggeration? NO! Take a look. The mandatory pay limit in Prop. 61 will REDUCE PAYCHECKSof thousands of our best and brightest pub- lic employees, includin Top LA WENFOR8bMENTexperts. the very people wedeoend on to keen us safe. ~ .. TGp EDUCATOdS, including.the Universitv of Cali- fornia president, Nobel Laureate professors, and superin- tendents of our lar est school districts. provide Californians with the best and most advanced Renowned D8CTORS AND RESEARCHERS who ~ ~~ ~ medical care. to betterpa ‘ngjobsin OTHERSTATESand private busi- CALIFORNIA WOULD LOSE its best public servants ness. Wed re stuck with mediocre manapynt., . The UNFAIR SALARY LIMIT violates aw prlnclples of our American system: that skilled and talented people saliries, not senseikss regulation. can earn their wa up, and that competition determines Under Pro 61 workers would be mandated to use their earned sick Lave and vacation time each year or lose it forever. Al~Sl~.YTEl?l.S,~i IVOULD FLOLWSH. Flexibili- ty in times of cmergcncy would become impossible. Cali- forniadoesn’tnced more regulations which are harmful to both management and ern loyees Furthermore, the contra f: lctory and confusing language used throu hout Prop 61 would leave interpretation and control in &e hands of the court$ or, u’orse, to the politi- cians in Sacramento! Prop. 61 puts unworkable limits on government‘s ability to contract with the privatc sector for important services, cleanup. These services cost millions of dollars, yet Prop. like highway construction. emergency services and tcxic 61 prohibits contracts exceeding $64.ooO annually without a vote of the Lcgislature. As n result, such services would have to be performed either by full-time civil service bureauratsat great cost to the state-or, worse yet, the Legislature will meddle in every large contract. THESE DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THE SACK ROOMS OF SACRA- MENTO! Would this initiative save tax ayers money? Not a chancel Government would be far P ess efficient and effec- tive, public management mediocre and waste would in- crease. AND THh IMMEDIATE COST TO TAXPAYERS COULD BEBILLIONS OFDOLLARSbecause state cof- fers would be drained to compensate employees for leave time they have alread earned. Hardworking and tainted people have mzde California great: but Prop. 61 restricts our ability to compete for and Keep the best and the brightest. For the sake of our future, VOTE NO ON PROP. 61! IllCHARD P. SIMPSON Cdifonrirr Tarpn.vcn’ rlssociafion LINDA URODER Pmidenf. Leawe of IVornm Vofcrr of Crlifomia RILL HONK Sfate SvpFrinfendenf of Public Imfmrfion Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 61 Did theyjust say that Paul Gann is going to raise the cost All PROPOSITION 61 says is the people have the right of ovemment? If you believe that, I’ve got a little swampland in Florida ed officials-that limit is $64,ooO. to set maximum salary limits for their elected and appoint- you might be interested in! That’s right, J said $&,&XI a year. Does that sound like ful government spending, and fh not about to switch I think not. For years, I’ve been sponsorin initiatives to cut waste- we’re turning these public officials out into the streets? now. Then, why are elected politicians so upset? My initiatives have saved California taxpayers literally Because if PROPOSITION 61 passes and they want 3. And they’ve all passed b huge margins or two reasons: And it gives the peo le the ri ht by initiative, to change tens of billions of dollars, without cuttin vital services. salary increase, it must be approved by the voters. (1) Each solved a proglem the Legislature refused to anv of these public ohciais’ sa?ar;es. up or down. correct. (2) Each did it fairly, treating both workers and taxpay- This is why I urge you to vote “YES” Oh’ PROPOSI- ers with respect. That’s what PROPOSlTION 61 does. It simply puts a reasonable limit on government salaries. P,\UL CANN P Now you can see what all the fuss is redly about! TION 61! Taxation. Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General TAXATION. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AYD DISTHICrS. INITIATIVI: STATUTE. Enacts statutes regurding new or increased taxation by local governments and districts. Imposition of special taxes, delined as taxes for special purposes, will require approval by two-thirds of voters. Imposition or general taxes, defined 8s taxes for general governmental purposes, will require approval by two-thirds vote of legislative body; submission of proposed tax to electorate; approval by majority of voters. Contains provisions governing election conduct. Contains restrictions on specified types of taxes. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: The measure prevcnts Restricts use of revenues. Requires ratification by majority vote of voters to continue taxes imposed after August 1,1985. imposition of new or higher general taxes by local agencies without voter approval. It also could reduce existing tax revenues to local agencies, if? majority of their voters do not ratify the continuation of new or higher taxes adopted after August I, 1985. As this is a statutory, not a constitutional, initiative, the provisions of this measure imposing penalties and requiring voter approval cannot be applied to charter cities. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background authority to impose new or higher :axes. General law cities Under the State Constitution, charter cities have broad have been granted similar authority by the Legislature. Counties and certain special districts, including transit dis- trick. have limited authority to impose new or higher taxes. The taxes imposed by these locd government agencies are classified as either general or special taxes. A general tax raises money for general governmental purposes. Con- versely, the revenue generated by a special tax must be used for a specific purpose. least a majority of the local agency's governing body. In New or higher general taxes must be approved by at some cases, approval also must be given by a majority of approved by at least two-thirds of the voters. the voters. New or higher special taxes must generally be Prnposal adoption of new or higher general and special taxes by This measure establishes new requirements for the local agencies. In particular, this measure: 1. Requires al! proposals for a new or higher gcnernl tax to be approved by two-thirds of the local agency's govern- ing body, and by a majority of the voters. 2. Requires all local ordinances or resolutions p;oposing a new or higher general or special tax to contain specific information. For example, the ordinance must state the method of collection and the proposed use of the special tax revenues. 3. Penalizes local agencies that fail to comply with the nbove requirements. The measure requires a reduction in the agency's property tal allocations equal to the revenges derived from the new or higher tax. 4. Requires local agencies to stop collecting any new or higher general tax adopted after July 31. 1985, unless a majority of the voters approve the tax by November 5, 1988. Because this measure is not a constitutional amend- . ment, the approval requirements for the adoption of new . ' or higher general taxes, and the pennlty provisions, would not apply to charter cities. Thus, this measure does not change the constitutional authority or charter cities to im- pose new or higher general taxes by a majority vote of the city council. Fiscal Effect This measure would prevent the imposition of new or cies other than charter cities. The measure also could higher general taxes without voter approval by local agen- reduce the amount of tax revenues collected by local agencies in the future. if a majority of their voters do not nuthorize the continuation of newor higher taxesadopted after Augmst 1, 1985. Be a ballot boxer. Vote. David Eaton, Roseville 40 Text of Proposed Law accordance with the provisions of Article 11, Scction 8 of This initiative measure is submitted to the pcople in the Constitution. This initiative measure adds sections t3 the Govern- ment Code; therefore, the new provisions provoscd to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that thry nrc new. PHOPOSED L.4W fairs) of Part 1 (Powers and Duties Common to Cities, Article 3.7 is hereby added to Chapter 4 (Financial Af- and other Agencies) of Title 5 (Local Agencies) of the Counties and other agencies) of Div. 2 (Cities, Counties Government Code, commencing with Section 53720. ARTICLE 3.7 VOTER APPHOVAL OF TAXES 53720. DEF7NITIONS. As used in this Article: and county, including a chartered city or county, or any (a) "local government" means any county, city, city public or municipal corporation; and, (b) "district"means an agency of thestate, formedpur- suant to general law or special act, for the localperform- ited boundaries. ance ufgovernmentalorproprietary functions within lim- 53721. All taxes are either special taxes or general mentd uumoses. Special taxes are taxes imposed for spe- taxes. General taxes are taxes imposed frrrgeneralgovern- cific pu.po.cs. 53722. Nolocalgovernment ur districtmay impose any .soecial tax unless and until such soecial tax is submitted to a proved by a two-thirds vote of the voters votinin,n in an tkelectoratc of the local govirnment, or district and efection on the issue. 5372.3. No localgovernment, or district, whether or not authoriked to levy a property tax, may impose any eneral electorate of the local government, or district and ap- tax unless and until such general tax is submittefto the proved bv a majority vote of the voters voting in an elec- tion on the kwe. ."~. ". "" ."" ~ 53724. (a) A taxsubject to tbe vote requirements re scribed by Section 53722 or Section 537D shafbe wof the localgovernment or district. The ordinance or ro sed by an ordinance or resolution of the legislative resolution roposing such tax shall include the ppe of tax and rate oftax to be leviod, the method of colloction, the date u n which an election shall be held on the fwe. and, if?special tax, the purpose or service for which its imposition is sought. (b) No tm subject to the vote re uirement prescribed b Section 5372.3 shall be presente 2 at an election unless tle ordinance or resolution proposingsuch taxisapproved hv B two-third9 vote of all members of the lemdative bodv -, - . .. . "" ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ of the local government or district. (c) ficept as provided in subdivision (d), the election on any tax proposed pursuant to this Article shall be con- solidated w.th a statewide primary election, a statewide Y general electicn, or a regularly scheduled local election at which all of the electors of the local government or district are entitled to vote. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the legisl~~tive body of the local government or district ma,v provide that ,sh:rll hr hcld at ;rn.v dxtc ol CI WIX crmttcd hy law. The thr clrclion on an? tax proyoyl prlrsua!rt to this Article local govrmmcnt or didrict shal?boar the cost uf any rlcction held ursu.Int to thi.nubdivision. An election held pursuant tu tt%.sub&i.sion shnll be deemedut the request and shal! r!ot bo deemed a st:#te mandate. of thc local govcmmcnt or district calling such election, on1.v for the purpose or service for which it was imposed. (e) The revenues from any special ta.r shall be used and for no othcr uurnose whatsoever. .YlIlA ofthe California Constitution, nolocalgovernn~ent 53725 (a) Exiepi as permitted in Section 1 of Article or district may impose any ad vnlorem tare3 on real prop- erty. No local Rovernmcnt qr district may in~pose any transaction tax or sdes tax on the sale of red property within the city, county or district. (b) Taxzspermitted by Subdivision (h) ofsection 1 of rlrticle XIIIA of the California Constitution shall not be subject to the vote requirements prescribed by this Arti. de. 53726 ficept as set forth in Section 53727, this Article shallnot be construed to rcpeal or affect znystatute ennct- edprior to August I, 1985 which authorizes the impo.Fition of i special tax. the California Constitution, nor Arlicle 3.5 ofDivision 1 of 53727. (a) Neither this Article, nor Article XIII A of Title 5 of the Government Code (ccmmencing w'th Sec- tion 5W75) shall be construed to authorize any local gov- ernment or district to impose any eneral or speciaJ tax which it is not otherwise authorizefto impose; p-ovided, however, that any special tax imposed pursrrnnt to Article 3.5 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code prior to August 1, 1985 shall not be affected by this section. trict on or alter August I, 1985, and prior to the effective date of this Article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majoricv vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue ofim sition, which election shall be held within two years of tc effective date of this Articlc. Any IocalpTnment or district which fails to seek or obtain suc maJorlly approval shall cease to impose such tax on and after November 15,l.W. 537%. If any localgovernment or district imyes any tax without complying with the requirements o thls Artf- de, or in excess of its authoritv as clarified by Section 53727, whether or not any provision of Section 53727 is held not applicable to such jurisdiction. the amount of propertv tax revenue allucated to the jurisdiction pursu- ant to chaptcr 6 of part 0.5 of Division I of the Revenue and Taxation Code (commencing uithsection 95) shallbe reduced b.v one dollar (S1.W) for cach one dollsr (S1.W) of revenue attributable to such tax for each year that the right of any citizen or taxpayer tu maintain any action to tax is collected. Nothing in this section shall impair the invalidate an.v tax imposed in violation of this Article. 53729. This Article may on1.v be amended by vote of the electorate of the State of California. 53730. If any provision of this Article, or the applica- tion thcrcof tu any person, organization, local govern- ment, district, or circumstance is held invalid or unconsti- tuticnd, the provision to other jxrsons, organizations, local gdvernments, districts, or circumstmces shdl not be ;rlfectod thereby hut shall remain in full force and effect. (b) Any tau imposed by any local government or dis- , , c86 41 Taxation. Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute Argument in Favor of Proposition 62 vote on any tas increases proposed by your local go\’ern- A YES vote on Proposition 62 gives back your right to ments. Proposition 62 will decide whether government con- trols the people, or people control the government. In 1978. Proposition 13 returned the power to control the State Supreme Court twisted the language of Proposi- tax increases to the people, where it belongs. However, tion 13 in a 1982 decision (City and County of San Fran- cisn, vs. Farrell) which took away your right to vote on city and county tax increases. 108 cities already have increased taxes over 300 million Since the Supreme Court decision, politicians in over been increased, and the figures are growing. dollars without a vote of the people. In all, 138 taxes have When politicians can raise taxes on their own without a vote of the people, you can bet your bottom dollar those sharply in communities all over California. And that’s just taxes are going to go up and up. They have already risen the bcginning Ilnles we stop them now with Proposition 62. increased local taxes by voting “YES on Proposition 62, You can take back your right to vote on your new or the Taxpayers’ Voting ilights Act. Proposition 62 requircs new or increased local, general purpose taxes be approved by a ma.iority vote at an elec- locnl government or agency puts the tux on the ballot. tion. after a two-thirds vote by a legislative body of the Proposilion 62 giues you the right to vote on new taxes as well as increases in existine taxes. ON ~PXOPOSITIOh 52. Guarantee your r’ght to voc on your taxes. VOTE YES Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition e2 Those claims for Proposition 62 are misleadiag. l’roponents say taxes have risen “sharply” since 1982. With zO,9UO,ooO pcople in California cities, their estimate averages $14.35 each-not enough to take a family of four running wild raising taxes. to the movies. It’s hardly evidence that city councils are what proponents claim. This proposition is so poorly written that it wouldn’t do would require a complex process to impose new taxes, but It probably wouldn’t require a vote on tax increases. It says nothing about a vote to increase existing taxes. Nor does it apply to fees or assessments. Like others before it, Proposition 62 would lead to years of costly lawsuits. The authors even neglected to make this a constitution- al amendment. That means they’ve left out charter cities, They’ve left out 82 cities, including: xvhich haveconstitutional authority togovern themselves. Anaheim Bakersfield Downey Fresno Glendale Huntington Beach INine Long Beach Los Angeles . Marysville Oakland Pasadena Riverside San Bernardino Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Santa Ana San Jose Santa Barbara Sunnyvale Stockton Torrance Ventura That leaves mostly small- and medium-sized cities, which already generally havc lower taxes than charter. cities. On the other hand, Proposition 62 will cost California cities millions in extra interest costs. Investors will he reluctant to buy California municipal bonds bccause Proposi:ion 62 will make it difficult for nonchartel cities to resolve any futnre fiscal crisis. Proposition 62 is unnecessary It wouldn‘t do what proponents claim. It would increase interest costs. And it would keep lawyers busy for years to come. VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION 62. Taxation. Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute Argument Against Proposition 62 WE URGE YOU TO VOTE “NO”O~VPROPOSITI0.V because it would prevent local government from becnuse it unnecessarily interferes with local control, meeting critical local needs, and because it imposes a cumbersome and unworkable process on our system of representative government. to further limit your city’s ability to provide the level of There’s no indication a need exists for a statewide law plice and fire protection and the qudi!y df parks, street maintenance md other servb-rs you wdnt. If taxes are too high in any one com..runity, voters can own taxes-or turn their elected officials out of office. use the initiative process at the local level to reduce their ready have the authoriw to control the amount of local Why restrict all Uifornia cities, when local voters al- taxes they pay? Why impose a statewide law when a local initiative will do? The fact is Proposition 62 goes far beyond the taxpayer protections of current law. It requires an overly restrictive and cumbersome two-step process. In practice, it would prevent local government from raising necessary reve- nues-no matter how great the need. law from raising the property tax or sales tax. They can’t Your city council members already are prohibited by impose an inwme tax. They may charge fees for some services, but only enough to cover the cost of providing those services. State law also limits how much “our citv can spend. And your city council members know they will face your wrath at the next election if they’ve misjudged your wishes. Current law provides little flexibility in financing local needs when existing revenue sources fall short, some ex- ceptional need arises, or the people demand more or bet- ter scrvices. nia worked hard to 1l;aintain adequate levels ofpolice, fire During the recent recession, cities throughout Califor- and paramedic protection and other basic services. They economized, dropped programs, laid off workers, and del;tyed repairs of streets and other public structures. When no other means could be found. some cities had to raise revenues to keep police officers and firefighters on the job. cil with all the responsibility for meeting ycur needs, but Take away that flexibility and you leave yonr city coun- none of the authority they must have to get the job done. Not all Californians are dike, nor arc all California cities. Why treat them as if they come from the same mold? DONT put statewide restrictions on all California cities when local problems should be solved by local laws. DONT tie the hands of the people you elect to repre- sent you. DONT make it harder to get what you nerd from City Hall. DO make sure your city council has the tools it needs to meet your needs. VOTE ’XO” ON PROPOSITIOV 62 Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 62 about the real objective of Proposition 62. The real objec- The argument against Proposition 62 says nothing at all tive is winning back your right to vote. Lincoln said it h+st “Government of, hy and for the people.” The opponents’ argument makes it clear- raises the people would have to pay. 1. They want to deny the people’s right to vote on tax limited taxation rather than ,people controlling the gov- 2. They want government to control the people by un- ernment. 3. They say thi; proposition “interferes with local con- trol.” Local control by whom? Certainly, not the pesple. Recently, sone 108 local governments have raised taxes more than 300 million dollars with no vote of the people. taxes from local government every year and you wou’t Unless Proposition 62 passes, you can expect much higher - have a say. It is in your interes: to vote YES ON PROPOSITION 62. It will bring hack rights the State Supreme Court took away from us, which we won with Proposition 13. Official State Language. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General OFFICIAL STATE LANGUAGE. INlTIATlVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Provides that English is the official language of State of California. Requires Legislature to ellforce this pcwision by appropriate legislation. Requires Legislature and state officials to take all steps necessary to ensure that the role of English as the common language of the state is preserved and enhanced. Provides that the Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the standing to sue the state to enforce these provisions. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local role of English as the common language. Provides that ary resident of or person doing bushes in state shall have governments. government fiscal impact: This measure would have no direct effect on the costs or revenues of the state or local Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background status on the English language. Pmposal the official language of the State of California. It directs This constitutionxl amendment declares that English is the Legislature to enact appropriate legislation to pre- serve the role of English the state’s common language. In addition, it prohibits the Legislature from passing laws which diminish or ignore the role of English as the state’s common language. Fiscal Effect nues or the state and local governments. The California Constitution does not confer any special This measure would have no e‘ffect on the costs or reve- Make the power connection . . . register and vote! Norma Webb, Redding 44 Text of Proposed Law This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the orovisions of Article It. Section 8 G- the Constihltion. This initiative measure amends the Constitution bv add- ing sections thereto; therefore, new provisions prdpsed to be added are printed in ;talk @pe to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I11 Section 1. Section 6 is added to Article 11: of the Con- stitution to read as follows: Englhh is the common language of the people cf the SEC. 6. (a) u, Unitedstates ofAmerica and the State of California. This section is intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by thiy Constitution. f California. lb) Eoplsh e the Qfficial haze 0 Endish is the official lanmraae ofthe State of California. : (e)” ” P. ate legidation. The Legislature and oficials ofthe State of The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropri- California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shal! make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language ofthe State OfCalifornia. (d) P-Rinhtn andluu$-. Any person who is a resident oigr doiing business in the %ate of California shall have srandinr to sue the State of ... of the State of California shd have jurisdicticn tG hear Cafifbrnia to enforce this section, and‘the Cwrts of record provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the cases brought to enforce this section. The Legidature may time and manner of suits brought under this section. Section 2. Severability such provision to any person or circumstahce, shall be held If any prodsios of this section, or the ay ‘plication of any invalid, the remainder of this section to the extent it can be given effect shall not be affected thereby, and t? this end the provisions of this section are severable. It does make a difference. Show your interest . . . Vote. Jerrie Bruce, San Diego U 63 Official. State Language. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Argument in Favor move toward fears and tensions of language rivalries and The State of California stand:; at a crossroads. It can ethnic distrust, Or it can reverse that trend and strengther. our common bond, the English language. Our immi r mts learned English if they arrived not knowing Lhe%lgua e Millions of immigrants now living have learned Englisi dr are le pate in our culture. With one language we learn to it in order to partici- un IeSr erstanding. ct other people, other cultures, with sympathy and conflicts and ethnic separatism. Today, there is a serious Our American heritage is now threatened by language erosion of En lish as our common bond. This amendment reaffjrms Calzornia's oneness as a state, and as one of fifty stzt?: united by a common tongue. Tn~s amendment establishes a broad principle: En lish is the oficial language of California. It is entit!ed to fegal have a similar status. This amendment recognizes in law recognition and protection as such. Noother language can what hns long been a political at3 social reality. Nothin in the amendment prohibits the use of lan- Cmily communications, religious ceremonies or private ages otter than hglish in unofficial situations, such as business. Nothing in this amendment forbids teaching for- eign languages. Nothing in this amendment removes or reduces any Celifornian's constitutional rights. The amendment gives guidance to the Legislature, the lish: Governor and the courts. Government must protect Eng- by passing no law that ignores LC aiminishes English; . by issuing voting ballots and matrrials in English only by ensuring that immigrants are taught English as (except where required by federal law); quickly as possible (except as required by federal i by functioning in English, except where public law); of Proposition 63 hedth, safely and justice require thc use of other lan- guagcs: by wcighin the effect of proposcd legislation on the role of Enaish: and by preserving and enhancing the role of English as Californians have already expressed themselves deci- our common language. sively. More thm a million Californians asked to place this measurr on the ballot, the third largest mmber ofpetition signatures in California history. In 19%. 70+ percent of California voters, 6.300,000, approvcd Proposition 38, "Voting Materials in En lish 0kL.Y." This amendment sed a Ckdr message: English is the official language of California. To function, to participate in our society, we must know English. Englislr is the lan- guage ofopporhmity, of government, of unity. English, in a fundamental sense, is L'S. which ignore the role of English in our state; some may Every year California's governmen: makes amisions cause irreversible harm. Government's bilingual actpitics cost millions of taxpayers' dollars each year. This amend- ment will force government oflicials !o stop and think before taking action. divided or a state united-a true part of the Union. YES The future of California hangs in the balance-a state is for unity-for what is right and best for our state, for our country, and for all of us. LISH AS THE OFFIC!AL LANGUAGE OF C.4LIFOR- PLEASE VOTE YES OK PHOPOSITION 63"EKG- NIA. S. I. IIAYAKAWA, Ph.D. J. WILLIAM OROZCO u"ilcdSr.4lrr Scns1or. 1"IW STANLEY DIAMOND B,,Si"SSlfl.Y" Clssirman. C.difomia Kwlkh Cxmpaign Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 63 cial" Gguage; it seeks to make it California's only !an- of foreign languages where public hcalth, sa P ety and ruse jus- guage. It does nothin positive to increase En lish profi- tice require. ciency. It only puni5es 'those who haven't %ad a fair lnevitabledisputeso\,er theme:;ningof Proposition 63's opportunity to learn it. propositior. 63 threatens to isol:lte those who hZlven't pet dragged into countless, costly lawsuits at taxpayers' ex- sweeping language will mean OUT government will be mastered English from essential government services PenSC. such as 911 emergency operators, public an. America's greatness and uniqueness lie in the FJCt that nouncements, schools, and COUrtS. B~ preventin them we are a nation of diverse ~ople with a shared commit- from becoming better, involved citizens ,%& mak- ment to democracy, free J om and fairness. That is the the tr:lllsition into ~~~~i~~~ ~ropos~tion 63 common bond which holds our nation and state together. new citizcns. ti71 discourage rather than encourage the assimilation of It runs much dee er than the Endish Iy!I?Ee. tion. its harmftll effects will be virtually permanent and unchangeable. All governmental bodies, from the State Legislature to local school boards, police and hospit:ds will 1% powcrless to mcct thc changing and varying nerds of \fHWI. Srrv Frmrirro AUT rouna the public. Proposition 63 is inflexible. It docs not contain the CX. shlfr Srnrror. 24th Didrirl ST.\lE COUNCII. OF SERYlCE EhlPLOYEES Pro sition 63 doesn't simply make English our "off- ceptions the proponents claim. It hasno exce :ion fo. Proposition 63 &reed< iqtoler;mce and IvIsIveness. It War,= yct, because Proposition 63 amends the Constitu- Vote NO on Propositio~l 67! bc:ra;;s our denlocratic iLvnls. TIII' IIONOII.4BL.I'. DLAXSE IWXNSTEIN Official State Language. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Argument Against Proposition 63 This summer we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the wniting lists for English courses at com;nunity collegesand Statue of Libert That glorious 4th of July brought all adult schools. Rut this initiative does nothing positir~ to Americans toqet r- er. No\ . , four months later. Proposition help. For instance. it provides for no increase ill desperate- 63 threatens to divide us and tarnish onr proud heritage of I? needed night and weekezd En lish clas\es. tolerance and diversity. The Los Angeles County Boarfof Sllpervisc;s, when lish as our conunon language. Instead, it undermines thc and wisely rejected it by a unmimous, bipxYsan vote. On This proposition, despite its title, does not preserve Eng- faccd Lvith a negative local olwsur? like tl ,is one, firmly efforts of new citizens of our statc to contribute to and April 21. 1986, thry said in part: enter the mainstream of American life. English is and will remain the lvge of California. help anyone learn Enqlish. They will wb improve human "l5nglish as the official langwce rcroiuhns will not Proposition 63 won't change that. at It lvrll do IS pro- relations, and they WI I not Iwd to :L lbettrr comrnunit duce a nightmare of expensive litigation and needless re- They will create greater intergrout. tcnsi2n md ill will, Y sentment. enco-xage resentment md biptr). pit r : hii,,r against Proposition 63 could mean that state and local overn- neighbor and roup aqairsr :roc:>. 'l'hcv %&ct ;>u; U "i-! ment must eliminate multilingual police. Err, antemer- fears, not ouraest value.. jeopardizing the lives and safety of potential victinns. gency sewices such as 911 telephone operators. thereby "In many areas . . . non-El..Klish-spr3kirig pelsons have somrtimes represented a prt'hlem for schaoltk achers, SCY- crime victims. and defendants have to be eliminated. It could mean that court interpreters for witnesses, vice providers, law enforrrmL.,! .;fT;cers, who are unable to understand them. Th? problem will he solved over time It could outlaw essential multilin ual public service in- as newcomers learn English. it has ha-~pened many times speaking parents how to enroll their chifdren in public . . . good will, sensitivi: and humor will help us through formation such as pamphlets informin non-English- before in our history. In the mcanwhifr . . . commou sense schools. Even foreign street si ns and the teaching of languagcs Well said%y pllblic officials representing both des of in public schools could &e in jeopardy. the political spectrum. these consequences. But' Proposition 63 openly invites productive. It is, in the mi-' fu~,dmental seuse, un- We can hope that sensible court decisions will prevent Proposition 63ir unnecessary. It is negativeand counter- cost1 legal attempts to seek such resillts. It is certain to set American. Vote XC on Proposition 63! Cali&nian against Californian with tragic conse uences whelming majority of immigrants want to learn English. Altom~v Cencral In fact, a recent study shows that 98% of Latin parents ;a it is essential for their children to read and write Ennlisx this challen ing perio$* What makes this especially troubling is that tze over: JOlIN VAN DE KAMP WILLIE L. RIIOWN. JR. well. ., Mans, Latinos and other recent immigrants fill long Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 63 When this country was founded, immi rants from all stead, Pro osition 63 will serve as a directional marker over the world streamed to our shores wi& one hope-a towards w%ch we ;.j society can point our new immi- chance at success. People with divergent backgrounds grants. were forced into close contact, yet the assimilation of these The official language proposition is rrot an attempt to into one nation gave us a diversity, a strength and a immigrants to assimilate into our country. We believe to cultures was remarkably constructive. This assimilation isolate anyone. Indeed. it is the oppo*i:e. We want all uniqueness that today we treasure. Every schoolchild be a success in California and in the United States, you learns to marvel at the miracle of the American melting ' must be proficient in English, We want to cherish and But the meltin pot was not an accident. There was a to our society. Yet we remember the common thread common thread $at tied society together. 'The binding us together as Americans is the English langua e English language. proposition 63 will s&engthen the ingredients may have varied, but this is no time to change thread in early America and current California was the The melting pot ha5 served this nation ior 2UU years. T%e lish language and invigorate our melting pot. It will not the recipe. \'ok yes on ProPosition 63. eliminate bilingual police and fire services. It will not pro- hibit the teaching of foreign languages in our schools. In- pot. preserve the ethnic diverdy that adds strength and fiber FRANK IlILL dlcrnbcr of Ihr Asrembly, SZnd Dirfrirl Acquired Immune Deficiency Syrldrorne (AIDS). Initiative Statute Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS). INITIATIVE STATUTE. Declare.$ that AIDS is an infcc- infectious, contagious and communicable condition. Requires both be placed on the list of reportable diseases and tious. contagious and communicable discase and that the condition of being a carrier of thc HTLV-I11 virus is an conditions maintained by the director of the Department of Health Services. Provides that both are subject to quarantine and isolation statutes and regulations. Provides that Department of Health Serviccs personnel and all health officers shall Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local povernmcnt fiscal impact: The fiscal effect of the fulfill the duties and obligations set forth in specified statutory provisions to preserve the public health from AIDS. measure could vary greatly depending upon how it would be interpreted by public health officers and the cuurts. If only existing discretionary comrnunicablc disease controls were applied to the AIDS diseasc, given the current state of medical knowledge, there would be no substantial change in state and local costs as a direct result of this measure. If the measure were interpreted to require added control measures, depending upon the level of activity taken, the cost of implementing these measures could range to hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background ease that impairs the body’s normal ability to resist harm- Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a dis. ful diseases and infections. The disease is caused by a virus that is spread through intimate sexual contact or exposure of this analysis, there was no readily available method to to the blood of an infected person. As of the preparation detect whether a person actually has the AIDS virus. A test dws exist to detect whether a person has ever been infect- ed with the AIDS virus and as a result has developed may or may not develop the AIDS disease after a period antibodies to it. A person infected with the AIDS virus of several years. There is no known cure for AIDS, which is ultimately fatal. As of June 30, I%, there were 5,188 cases of AIDS and 2,406 deaths from the disease in California. The State De- uartment of Health Services estimates that UD to 500.000 ~~~~~ persons in California are infected with the AIDS virus, and that by 1990 there will be approximately 30,000 cases of AIDS in the state. cal health officers have broad authority to take measures Existing Laws Covering Communicable Diseases. Lo- they believe are necessary to prolect public health and prevent the spread of disease-causing organisms. Howev. er, this broad authority is limited to situations where there may have the disease and poses a danger to the public. The is a reasonable belief that the individual affected has or on how easily an organism is spread from one person to kind of measure taken by health officers varies, depending another. For example, to prevent the spread of a disease, local health officers may require isolation of infectcd or diseased persons and quarantine of exposed persons. In addition, persons infected with a disease-causing organism may be excluded from schools for the duration of the in- fection and excluded from food handling jobs. In some cases, these measures may be applied to persons suspected of having the infection or the disease. Current AIDS Reporting Requirements. Physicians and other health care providers are now required to re- 48 port cases of certain listed communicable diseases to local health officers who, in turn, report the cases to the State Department of Health Services. At the time this analysis was prepared, AIDS was not on the list of communicable diseases that must be reported to local health officers. However, AIDS is being reported undcr a regulation which requires an unusual disease, not listed as a com- municable disease, to be reported by local health officers. report caqes of AIDS to local health officers who, in turn, Under other provisions of Isw, hospitals are required to report the cases to the State Department of Health Serv- ices. Counties also report to the state the number of cases in which hlood tests performed at certain facilities reveal the presence of antibodies to the AIDS virus, indicating does not allow the release of the names or other identjfy- that a person has been infected with the virus. Existing law ing information for persons who take the .4IDS antibody test. persons who have AIDS and persons who are capahle of According to the State Department of Health Scrviccs, spreading the AIDS virus arc subject to existing communi- cable disease laws. However, no health officer has ever taken any official action to require persons infected with the AIDS virus to be isolated or quarantined, because there is no medical evidence which demonstrates that the AIDS virus is transmitted by casual contact with an infect- ed person. In addition, no health officer has recommended spreading AIDS, from schools or jobs. excluding persons with AIDS, or those who are capable of Proposal This measure declares that AIDS and the “condtion of being a carrier” of the virus that causes AIDS arc com- municable diseases. The measure also requires the State Department of Health Services to add these conditions to cayes are already being rcported, the measurc would re- the list of diseases that must be reported. Because AIDS quire the reporting of those who arc “carriers of the AIDS readily wailable. virus.” Currently, no tcst to lnake this determination is G86 The meusurc also states that the Department of I~lcnlth Services and all health officers “shall fulfill all of the duties aud obligations specified” under the applicable laws “in a manner consistent with the intent of this act.” Although ferent interpretations, it most likely means that the la\vs the meaning of this language could be subject to two dif- and regulations which currently apply to other communi- of being a carrier” of the AIDS virus. Thus, health officers cable diseases shall also apply to AIDS and the “condition tions necessary to control this disease. Based on existing would continue to exercise their discretion in taking ac- if any, AIDS patients and carriers of the AIDS virus would medical knowledge and health department practices, few, be placed in isolation or under quarantine. Similarly, few, if any, persons would be excluded from schools or food handling jobs. If, however, the language is interpreted as placing new requirements 011 health omcers, it could rt“ sult in new actions such as expanding testing progrxms for sons who have the disease, and excluding persons infected the AIDS virus, imposing isolation or quarantine of per- with the AIDS virus from schools and food handling posi- tions. Fiscal Effect The fxal effect of this measure could vary greatly, de- pending on how it would be interpreted by state and local health officers and the courts. If existing discretionary communicable disease controls were applied to the AIDS discasc, there would be no substantial net chanp.’ in state and local costs u a direct result of this measure. ‘J’ibus, the primary efrcct of this r.r:asure would bc to jcIqutie the causes .41DS. Very few cases would be reported because rcporting of persons who are carriers of the \itLJ which no tcst to confirm that a pcrson carries the virus is readily available. If such a tcst becomes wifiel;. available in thc future, more cases would be rcported. The fiscal impact could be very substantial if the mea- ure were interpreted to require changes in AIDS control measures by state and local health officers, either volun- tarily or as a result of a change in medical knowledge on which mandate ccrtain control measures. Ultimately, the how the disease is spread, or as a result of court decisions fiscal impact would depend on the level of activity that st:& 2nd local health officers might undertake with re- spe..t to: (1) identifying, isolating and quarantining per- vi:: mfected with the virus. or having the disease, and (2) excluding those perrons from schools or food handling range from millions of dnllars to hundreds of millions of positions. The cost of implementing these actions could dollars per year. In surnnlary, the net fiscal impact of this measure is unknown-and could vary greatly, depending on what actions are taken by health officers and the courts to im- plement this mea.wrc. Text of Proposed Law accordance with the provisions of Article 11, Section 8 of This initiative measure is submitted to the people in the Constitution. This initiative measure proposes to add new provisions to the law; therefore, the new pwisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type toindicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW Section 1. The purpose of this Act is to: A. &force and confirm the declaration ofthe Califor- nia Legidature set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 195 that acquiredimmune deficiencysyndrome (AIDS) is senbus and life threatening to men and women fiom all segments ofsociety, that .4IDS is usual1.v lethal and that it is caused by an infectuous agent with a high concentration of c&s in California; B. Protect victims ofacquired immune deficiency syn- munities,,.and the public health at large; and drome (AIDS), members oftheir families and local com- ment of Health services and local health ollicers and the C. Utilize the exikting structure of the State Depart- statutes and regulations under which they serve to prc- serve thepublic health from acquired immune deficiency syndrome (A IDS). Section 2. infectuous, contagious and communicable disease and the Acquired immune dcficicncy syndrome (AIDS) is an infectuous, contagious and communicable condition and condition of being a carrier of the HTLV-III virus is an Department of Health Services on the list of reportable both shall be placed and maintained by the director of the diseases and conditions manr‘ated by Health and Safety provicions of Division 4 of such code and the rules and Code Section 312.3, and 60th shall be included within the repl~lations set forth in Administrative Code Title 17, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, and all personnel of the De- partment of Health Services and all health ollicers shall fulfillall of the duties and obligationsspecified in each and a11 of the sections ofsaid statutory division and administra- tive code subchapter in a manner consistent with the 1.7- provisions. tent ofthis Act, as shall all other persons identified in &?id Section 3. thereof of this Act is deemed unconstitutional bv a proprr In the event that any section, subsection or portion court of law, then that scction, subsection or portion thcreofshall he stricken from the ilct and all other sec- tions, subsection.^ and portions thereof shall remain in fo.rce, alterable only 6.v the people, according to process. 49 Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Initiative Statute Arguments in Favor of Proposition 64 communicable diseases to AIDS and AIDS virus carriers. sense agrees. You and your family have the right to be Proposition 64 extcnds cxisting public hcullh codes Inr Thc mcdical f;lcts arc clcor. Thc law is clear. Common This means that the same public health codes that already protected from ;dl contagious diseases, including AIDS- protect you and your family from othcr dangerous diseases the deadliest of them all. If you agree, vote YES on Prop* will nlso protect you from AIDS. Proposition 64 will keep sition 64. AIDS out of our schools, out of commerical food establish- ments, and will give health officials the power to test and Cdifornia Direelor. Nvrional Democratic Polic? Comn,;rler quarantine where needed. These measures are not ncw: they are the same health measures applied, br,law. cvcry day, to every other dangerous contagious disease. Today AIDS is out of control. There are at least 300.000 AIDS carriersin California, and the number of cases of this highly contagious disease isdoublingevery6 to 12months. California law today makes it illegal for public health The number of “unexplained” AIDS case-ases nut in authorities to he informed of a large number of those drug user-ontinued to prow st alarming rates. Indeed, others. IIow can they take thc necessary steps to slow its “high-risk’’ groups, such as homosexuals end intravenous (about 385,000) who can spread the deadly AIDS virus to the majority of cases woridwide fall into no identifiable spread as long as this is truc? “risk group” whatsoever. The AIDS ;rirus has been found Under existing law, a physician who encounters any of living in many bodily fluids, including blood. saliva, respi- 58 reportable diseases is required to report to health ofi- of seven days outside the body. There presently exist no lis and gonorrhea. Contact tracing is conducted. But, for ratory fluids, sweat, and tears, and it can survive upwards cials. Included are several vencreal diseases, such as syphi- cure for the sick and no vaccination for the healthy. It is those with the AIDS virus, not yet developed into AIDS, 103% lethal. AIDS is the gravest public health threat our nation has sexual lobby prohibits contact tracing. Proposition 64 will a special state law passed at the request of the male homo ever faced. The existing law of California clearly states require that those with the AIDS virus be reported as are to protect the public from any communicabledisease, and tine. that certain proven public health measures must be taken other communicable diseases. It does not require quaran- no competent medical professional denies that AIDS is The COS; of the AIDS epidemic in California, it is es- “comnlunicab!e.” Despite these facts, politicians and spe- timated, will be at least 59,400 lives by 1991 and almost $6 cia1 interest groups have circumvented the public health billion to be paid by insurance andlor taxpayers. Let’s laws. For thr first time in our history, a deadly disease is reduce those statistics by voting YES on Proposition 64. being treated as a “civil rights” issue, rather than as a public health issue. ,%lcmkr of consrrss. 3Ylh Disrricl KIIUSIIRO CIIANDHI (NDPC), md Membrrelert. Lor Atracles Cormr.v Dcmocr~~tie Party Central Committcr JOHN CRAUERIIOLZ. M.D., FCAP fFdlow, College of American Pathologists) WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER Rebuttal to Arguments in Favor of Proposition 64 .. Would you let a stranger with no medical training or restaurant, grocery store, or in the workplace. Think for a medid background diagnose a disease or illness that you moment. if it were true that AIDS is casunllv transnlitted, have? Would you let a political extremist dictate medical clearly many more men, women and children would be ill. policy? OF COURSE NOT This is just not the fact. The followers of Lyndon LaRuuche suggest that the The followers of Lyndon LaRouche are at it again! Esing NOT TRUE! In fact, the California Medical Associwtion, ate panic in California. Say NO to PANIC. Vote NO on hands of the medical community have been tied. THISIS partial kcths and falsehoods, they are attempting to cre- the California Nurses Association, the California Hospital Proposition 64. Association and other health professionals believe that Proposition 64 would seriously hurt their ability to treat Pm;dent, califemi8 rir,rsn As-iarion HELEN MIRAMONTES, R.N., M.S., CCRN and find a clire for AIDS. These health professionals are seriou$i concerned that years of research will he under- C. DUANE DAUNER mined by fear gencratcd by this irrational proposition. prcridenr. Csliforn;# Iforpita1 Auocialion NO ONE has contracted AIDS from casval contact at a CLADbEN V. ELLIOTT, M.D. Pmsidenf. Cslifomig hlcdicrl rl.-&lhn Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Initiative Statute Argument Against Proposition 64 Proposition 64 must bc defeated for the .srrfct.vand pub- billions oFdo1l;lrs to quarantine and isolate AIDS carriers lic health of all Californians. It is an irrational, inappropri- and could require p~blic health officials to do so. Quaran- problem. The proponents of this measure nre followers of documented cxes of AIDS ever being transmitted hy ate and misguided appronch to a serious public health tine would serve no medical purpose because thereare no mosphere of fear, misunderstanding. inndeqrrotc health C3lifornians from all walks of life know thcy must unite extremist Lyndon LIRouche. They want to create an at- casual contact. care and panic. In.fact, the acronym of their campaign to end this dreadful epidemic. Californians can be proud committee is PANIC. that doctors and public health officials have acted in a Public health decisions must be left in thr hands of the professional, rational and rcsponsible manner to protect medical profession and public health oficials or we will the health of Californians and have taken all appropriate endanger the Iives OfCalifornians. The California Medical precautions as they are needed. This kind ofinitiative can Association and county public health officials recognize only dividc, creste panic and force thousands not to get the danger of allowing political extremists to dictate state tested or treated because offenr. public health and medical policy. Join us, the bs Angeles 7hes, The bs Angeles Herald upon Californians by follokrs of Lyndon LaRouche will cnlAssociation, and many others in opposing the extremes This type of repressive and discriminatory action forced Eraminer, San l-k~ncisco Examiner, the Glifornia Mdi- not serve to limit the problem, but rather could prolong of followers of Lyndon LaRouche. Vote NO on Proposition ar other discriminatory measures, including loss of jobs, the spread ofthis terrible disease. The fear of quarantinc 64! will make people reluctant to be tested. Fearing social isolation, individualsat risk will avoid early mcdicnl inter- vention, or even infection testing, driving AIDS under- Member of Congress, 12th Dislrirl ground. GLADDEN V. ELLIOlT, M.D. Pmidcnt. Cnlifomb Mcdiesl Arro~irlion ED ZSCHAU Enforcement of this measure could cost the t.~pa,vers ALAN CRANSTON U"'nifCd starer SEnrtor Rehuttal to Argument Opponents of Proposition 64 have spent a great deal of The facts: health laws has resulted in nearly 500,000 people infected Health officials' failure to implement existing public in California, each capable of infecting others. AIDS is the most rapidly spreading lethal disease in the country. Of those infected, between 40% and 99% will proha- bly diebetween ux),oM) and 500,000 deaths in California -and AIDS is doubling every ycar. The vast majority of AIDS cases worldwide lie outside "high risk" groups. The victims are not homosexuals, and are not intravenous drug users. In Haiti, three years ago, 70% of AIDS eases were in "high risk groups. Today, over 70% are not in "high risk" groups. Could this happen here? It can and it viill, unless we stop it. Do we know with certainty how AIDS spreads? We do rhetoric, while avoiding medical issues. Against Proposition 64 not. The majority of cases have never been studied. Many health officials are demanding public health called for more reporting and testing powers. ~neasures. Dr. Kizer, California's to) health official, has . The AIDS virus exists in many bodily effluents and survives outside the hody. Proposition 64 implements theexistinglledth 1aws;laws scientifically designed to protect your health; laws which have been ruled constitutional by courts for decades. 64. Don't gamble with human life. Vote YES on Proposition GUS S. SERMOS Former Cenlerr for Disease Conlml Public Health Adviser wilh AIDS Pmpr.m irr Florid. NANCY T. MULLAN, M.D. JOHN GHAUEHHOIZ M.D., FCAP Burbank (Fellow, College of Amerie.n PatholomW 1 of Notice of Persons’ Exposure to Toxics. Initiative Statute Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney Gencral SONS EXPOSURE TO TOXICS. INITIATIVE STATGTE. Providec persons doing business shall neither expose in- RESTRICTIONS ON TOXIC DISCHARGES INTO DRINKING WATER; REQUIREhlEXT OF NOTICE OF PER- dividuak to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first gibing clcar and reasonable warning, nor discharge such chemicals into drinking water. Allows exceptions. Requires Governor publish lis!s orsuch chemicals. Authorizes Attorney General and, under specified conditions, district or city attorneys and other persons to scek of hazardous waste disclose this information to :oca1 board of supervisors and health officer. Summary of Legislative injunctions and civil penalties. Requires designated government employees obtaining information of illegal dischart,e Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Costs of enforcement of the measure by state and local agencies are estimated at $5OO,OOO in 1987 and thereafter would dcpend on many factors, but could exceed Sl,ooO,ooO annually. These costs would be partially offset by fines collected under the memure. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background Currently, the state has a number of programs designed to protect people against possible exposures to harmful chemicals. The major programs involve the regulation of: . Waste Discharges. The S!ate Water Resources Con- boards regulate the discharge of wastes into state wa- trol Board and the regional water quality control ters, inclnding rivers, streams, and groundwater that partment of IIe&ln Services regulates the disposal may be used as souxes of drinking water. The De- and cleanup of hazardous waste, including hazardous waste that may contaminate drinking water. . Drinking Water. Current law prohibits local water agencies from supplying drinking water to the pubh that contains dangerous levels of certain harmful chemicals. Local water agencies must inform custom- ers when the level of these chemicals exceeds certain limits. The Department of Health Services enforces these limits. Workplace Hazards. The Department of Industrial Relations regulates exposure to cancer-causing place. Current law also requires employers to inforrn materials and other harmful substances in the work. workers of possible exposure to dangerous substances. Pesticides. The Department of Food and Agricul- in other business applications, such as maintenance of ture regulates the use of pesticides in agriculture and landscaping and golf courses. These regulatory agencies must make judgments about the amounts of harmful chemicals that can be released into the environment. In doing so, they try to balance what it costs to prevent the release of chemicals against the risks the chemicals pose to public health and safety. As prevention typically goes up. The risk that some sub- the level of allowable exposure goes down, the cost of stances pose to health is not always known. Often, scien- tists cannot determine precisely the health impact of low- level exposures that occur over 20 or 30 years. Proposal This measure proposes two additional reqnircmcnts for would prohibit those businesses frcm knowingly releasing businesses employing IO or more people. First, it generally into any source of drinking water any chemical in an amount that is known to cause cancer or in an amount that excccds Ji J,UUIth of the amount necessary for an observa- ble effect on “reproductive toxicity.’’ The term “repro- ductive toxicity”is not defined. Second, the measure gen- erally would require those businesses to warn people before knowingly and intentionally exposing them to measure would require the state to issue lists of substanccs chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. stringent stapdards, :he practical effect of the require- Because these new requirements would result in more ments wouid be to impose new conditions for the issuance order to implement the new requirements, state agencies of permits for +ischarges into sources of drinking water. In that are responsible for issuing permits wouid be required to alter state regulations and develop new standards for sources of drinking water. the amount of chemicals that may he discharged into The measure also would impose civil penalties and in- crease existing fines for toxic discharges. In addition, the measure would allow state or local governments, or any person acting in the public interest, to sue a business that violates these rules. Fiscal Effect It is estimated that the administrative actions resulting from the enactment of this measure would cost around are unknown and would depend on many factors, but 8500,MM in 1987. Starting in 1988, the costs of these actions these costs could exceed $1 million annually. to state and local law enforcement agencies. A portion of In addition, the measure would result in unknown costs these costs could be offset by increased civil penalties and fines collected under the measure. local governments may strengthen enforcement activities Beyond these direst effects of the measure, state and costs of any ndditional enforcement could be significnnt. to ensure compliancr with the new requiremcnts. The 52 G86 Text of Proposed Law accordance with the provisions of Article 11, Section a of This initiative measure is submitted to the people in the Constitution. This initistive measure amends and adds sections to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, &sting provisions new provisions proposed to {e added are printed 1n rt'alic proposed to be deleted are rinted in a *,and &x= to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMEAT ACT n F 1 @?A ~~ ~ ". .. "" " "" SECTION 1. The people of California find that haz- ardous chemicals pose a serious potential threat to their health and well-being, that state government agencies have failed to rode them with adequate protection, and that these fa; P ures have been serious enough to lead to investigations by kderd agencies of the administration of fore declare their rights: California's ton? protection programs. The people there- against chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or (a) To protect themselves and the water thev drink other reproductive harm. (h) To be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. (c) Tosecure strict enforcement of the laws controlling hazardous chemicals and deter actions that threaten public health and mfety. onto offenders and less onto law-abiding taxp:dyers. (d) To shift the cost ofhazwdous waste cleanups more furt erance of these rights. Thepple hereby enact the provisions of this initiative in 25249.5) is added to IVISIO~ 20 of the HeJth and Safety SECTION 2. Cha&t?r6.6 (cornmencin with Section Code, to read: CIfNTER 6.6. SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC E;VFORCEMENT ACT OF 19% 25249.5. Mbon 0 ter With Chemicals hkown to Cause Ca n Contaminatine Drink;- tive Toxicity. No person in the course nCer of doing dv usmess . .. shall knowinzly disiharze or release a chemicafknown to the state to Cause cance; or reproductive toxicity into wa- ter or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water, not- withstanding any other provision or authorization of law except as prox'ded in Section 25249.9. chemicals Known to Cause'Cancer Or Rem 25249.6. Reauired Warnins Before &y. No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionalLv exposc any individual to a chemical known to the state to cau.ce cancer or reproduc- tive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable 25249.10. warning to snch individual, except aprovided in Section %-249.7. Enforcement. (a) Any person violating or threatenitrg to t,iolatc Scc- tion 25.%9.5 or Section 25249.6 may be eri;oined in ;my court of competent .iurisdic+ion. (b) Anvperson who hns violatedSection 25249.5 Gr Scc- tion 25249.6 shall bc liirble for a civil penalty not to excrcd $25w per day for tach such \,iolation in addition to my other penal1.v est;rblished by hv. Such civil pcndty m::y be assessed and rccovcred in a civil action bronpht in nl.~ G86 court of competent jurisdiction. (c) Actionspursuant to this section may be brought by St;:teofCaliforni~:orbyanydistrictattorne.vorgvanycih. the Attorney Gcnerd in thr IJ~III~ of the peo le of the attorr!ey of a city h .. or with the comsrnt a"nf"R" oft e rstnct ' attornev by .a cityprose- pulation in excess of 7jo.Mk) prosecutor, or .as pror.ided in subdi5,fsion (dj. cutor in any city or city md county having a full-time city any person in the public interest if (1) the action is com- (d) Actionspursuant to thisxection may be brought by menced more than sixty days after the person has given notice of the vinlation w!rich is the subject of the action to the Attornqv General and the dictrict attorney 2nd any citv attorney in whose 'urikdiction the violation is alle~eil Attornev General nor any disfriet attorney nor any citv to occur and to the alhged violator, and (2) neither the prosecuting an action against such violation. attorney or prosecutor has commenced and is diligently 25249.8 List Of Chemicals -- r Or yon or before March I, 1937 the Governor shall cause to be published a list of those chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxiciw within be revised and republished in light of additional knowl- the meaning of this chapter, and he shall cause such list to edge at least once per year thereafter. Such list shall in- ence in Labor Code Section 6382!b) (I) and those clude at a minimum thore substances identified by refer- substances identified additionallv by reference in Labor Code Section 6382(d). reproductive tonkit within the meaning of this cha trr (b) A chemical i.7 known to the state to cause cmcer or if in the opinion of tie state's qualified e rts it has &en ing to general1.v accepted rinci les to cause cancer or clearly shown through scientifically vall%esting accord- reproductive toxicity, or ira boBv considered to be au- causing cancer or reproductive toncity, or if an agency of th0ritatir.e by such experts has hrmally identified it as the state or federal government has formally required it to be hbeled or identified as causing cancer or reproduc- tive toxicity. year, thcreafter, the Gwernor shall cause to bepubIisE2 (c) On or before]alJuary I. 1989, and at least once n sepnrate list of those chemicals that at the time ofpubli- cation are required by state or federal law to have been tested for potential to cause cancer or re roductive ton'c- ity but that the state's qualified experts Lve not found to have been adequate1.v tested as required. Id) The Gvernor shall identifv and consult with the rchve TW .. r. statej qualified experts as necessary to carry out his duties under this section. this scction, tie Governor and his designates shall not be (e) In carr ing out the duties of the Governor under considered to be ado tingor amendinga regulation with- in the meaning of tie Administrative Procedure Act as defined in Government Code Section 11370. 2i249.9 Ex m tions from Disch (a) Section:5&5 shall not appt~% Ey-rge or release that takes place less than twenty mJnths subse- qrrent to the listin of the chemical in question on the list 25249.8. required to bepuflished under sulxlivision (a) ofktion, * (b) Section 25249.5 shall not ::p h to dnt discharge or rcleme that rnrcts lmth of thr fol~;,;'ng.c~,~eri~J: (I) The- divrh:rrgc or rrlr:isr :dl not cww XI>' sipnifi- c;mt ;mount of thr di.rch;rprd or relcm-d chemicd to CO,,li,,"Cd 011 px.ec 62 53 . .. ., . Restrictions on Toxic Discharges into Drinking Water; Requirement of Notice of Persons' Exposure to Toxics. Initiative Statute Argument in Favor of Proposition 6.5 Nearly every week Fees a ncw toxic c;ltnstrophe. Children in Fullerton. Riverstde, McFnrland, Sncmmento. and Sm JOSP hrx alrelrdy been exposed to chemicals that may makc thcnl stcrll? ve them cancer. ere are certain rhemicols that arc Scientificallv known-not merelvsusvected. but knoun-to cau,~cancer and birth drfrctr. Or8 Propdsitiori 65 would: . Keep these chemichls out of our drinkin wdtrr warn us^ before we're exposed to any of thpse hanprrour chemicnlr. Give QrivatecitiZPns the right to cnforce thcsc lnws in court. . Make government olfcials tell the public when an illewl The cost to tax ayers will be negligible, according to thc Attor- discharge of hazardous waste could cause serious harm 6ur mesent toxic laws aren't tough enough. Despite then). ne renerars oicial estimate. pol1ute;s contaminate our drinking water and expose us to ex- innocent people is jeopardized. And the public must pny m:lssIve tremely toxic chemicals without OUT knowing it. The health, or costs for cleonup. The Governor's Toxics Task Force found: . Toxic chemicals cnn cause cancer, birth defccts, and genrtic damage. Much of ox drinking water is polluted by toxic chemicals. Exposure to toxics costs Californians more than $1.3 billion Proposition 65 turns that report into action. with requirements per year in medical care, lost income, and deaths. that are clear. simde. and strainhtforward. SAFE DRINKING WATER Proposition.65 ets tough on Tohics. Promsition 65 sinnles out chemicals that are scicn'ifically knaG to cause canccr 6r re roductive disorders (such as birttl defects). Effectively, it tells Eusines,: Don't put these chrml- cpls into OUT dlrinkine water moolies. WARKING E lloth pthlic prosecutors and ordinary citizens ciul enforce thrsc hralth protcciions dirrctly in court. Pro outton 65 also toughens cnforccmrnt Tor crimind I:I\VS :~Irc.& in'thc books. Finrs and jail terms are doubled Tor tosic crimes like midnight dumping. Policc and prosecutors inrc eivcn wtru rca.ards for enforcing toxics imvs. Proposition 65's nc\v civil oflenrcr locus only on chwnicds that are krrowr, to the .slut<' to C~EC cancer or re roductivc disorders. Chemicals thnt arc only suspect BW not incfuded. The Governor mut list therc chcmicds, arter full consultation with the state's ualifird ex ,erts. At a nlininlum, the Govcmor must include the &rmicals already listed as known carcinogens by two orgnniza- scientists: the U.S.'s Nntional Toxicoloqy Propran and the U.S.'s tionr OF the most highly regarded national and internatinnnl Intrrnational Agcnc!. for Rcscmch on Cancer. onlv to bltsincsses that krrow they ure putting one olthc chemi- Thcse ncw laws will not toke anyone by surprise. They apl'ly cdf out in!o the environment. and that know the chemical is Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 6.5 WE JOIN SCIENTISIS, HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND FARMERS IN URGING A "NO VOTE ON PROPOSITION 65. Everybody wants safe drinking water. Proposition 65 simply Restrictions on Toxic Discharges into Drinking Water; Requirement of Notice of Persons' Exposure to Toxics. Initiative Statute Argument Agair TOXIC POLLUTION IS A SERIOUS \!ATTI% REQUIRING SERIOUS ATTENTION. Proposition 65 is a .simplis!ic re.?ponsr to a cumple~ problen~. pound when we say that Propos;tio!l65 is faulty from a wientific As scientists, health professionals. and farmers, we arc on solid mint of view. is so tidl ofe.wmations :IS to be mcmineless from . Public water systems ARE EXEAIPT! . Militarybascs whichcontaminateresidcntinl drinking water s County landfills ARE EXEMPT! . Thousands of businesses WOULD DE EXE24ifl. . A GOOD LAW APPLIES EVENLY AND EQUALLY TO ARE EXEMIT! vvmwnNr I . -. . . - , . -. * This is a bad law made worse becsuse it is 1o;lded with r.r. em tions I%CT~'PROPOSITlO8 65 UNFAIRLY TARGET5 CALIFOP- NIA FARMERS. Normally, manufacturers-not users-must prove the safety of their product. Bul Proposition 6.5 puts that bardcrr on C:rmer.<. Many common feertiliz-rs, weed and st control materials- yfectly safe when properly used-wouEbe effectively lwnned or most hrmers-but allowed for many nonfarmers. FARMERS MAY EVEN HAVE TO STOP IRRIGATING. Farmers are having a tou h time as it is pravidin quality food, would add to tieir burden and mav be the final straw :o break in adequate su ply, at theyowest possible price. hopsition 65 the back of man FACT: PROP~SITION~~~SBOUIW HUNTER PROVISION IS A BONANZA FOR PRIVATE LAWYERS. almost anyone can be sued. People who sue will gct a reward Proposition 65 creates a lawyer's paradise: anyone ccn sue; from penaltics collected. Thus, nvironnle,ltalreSlrlntion is tak- enfrom thehandsofgovernntentreplntorsandprosecutorsnnd rontrol chemicals and torics. hvor of cytrcmr "solutions." We nwd to build on the system wc have. not abandon it in The rim& scim!ifie- fact of the matter is !hat manmade cw ~inoeens remesent onlv a tiny fraction of the total carcinogens -~~~ ~~ ~ We ;;;e exp.sed to, mod of which are natural substances sud~ as :mnunts of rnanmndc rarcinoeens we hizhlv remlatefin Cali- tobacco, alcohol, ;and chemicals in green plants. Si iificant ~~ ~ fornis under the most itringerit laws in tXe'UniTed States. This initiative wil! result in chasing after trivial amounts ofmanmade carcinogens at enormous cmiwith minimal benefit to our health. Wc'rc concerned aboot safer, cleaner drinking water. And we're concerned that wc get there in an inlelligent, rational and fair rnimner. Proposition 65 just won't do that. We urge you to VOTE NO ON THE TOXICS INITIATIVE. Vote no on PROPos~rIOx 65. Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 65 Who's really against Proposition W? , Proposition 65 treats farmers exactly th? same as everyone The big oil and chemical companies are leading the opposition elre-no tougher, no casier. Small family farms. like other mall "because they know they would he forced to stop dumping businesses. are exempt. extremely dangerous chemicals into our drinking water if . Proposition E5 is had strictly on scientific testing. more Proposition 65 passes. The existing laws don't stop them. Proposi- than any cxisting toxics law. tion 65 will. That's why they're spending millions of dollars on a . proposition 65 docs not apply to insignificant (safe) amounts misleading media ca . Proposition 65 will not In any way weaken anvof California's cals that are scienti&ly known to muse cancer. or birth de- DONT BE FOOLED BY THE DIG POLLUTERS. before they expose you to such a chemical. fects, into your drinking water. And that they must warn you Votc YES on Proposition 65! . Proposition 65 means tougher law enforcement. It will help GET TOUGH ON TOXICS! prosecutors put polluters in jail. That's why the California Dis- trict Attorneys Association has endorsed it. sition 65 a plies equally to all businesses in California, empPoyees),.. ex:F?g the smaI?est businesses (those with f*wPr than IO NORMAN W. FIIEPJ-TONE, JR. more than 90% of nlfRazardour waste in CalLurnin (accordinp .ALRERl 11. CERSTEN, JR. to official state estimates). Bu,;ncrr,nmz: hfclrmbcr. Lilllc IIoaver C~~nvrnilrion DONT BE FOOL%% Proporition65siirn ly says that businessesshouldn't put chemi- misting protections in toxics law. of chemicals. ARTiIUR C. UFTON, M.D. Fornnrr Director. Nwliond Inrliluler of Ildlh Proposlhon 65 B lies tu the big businr.s?s that produce lirmer. ViS"liJ4 Proposition 53 Text of Proposed LIIW c0l~tiu"ed fmm page 5 coupon rate or ratcs specificd in the bid, the compuhrtion ti~,em;iturityd~ttesofthebon~ls then oflrredforsalcat the to be made on a 360-day-year bmis. 176967. The rornmittee ma)' mthorize thc Treasurer to sell all or SJI~ part of the bold herein ;urthorized at such time 0. times as may p' fi.xed b.v thr Tremurcr. authorized deposited in the fund, as provided in Section 17696.8 .4llproceeds rom the sale of thc bonds herein premium and accrued interest, sha#be available for the 16757oftl1e Government Code, exce t those derilrd front purpose herein provided, hut shall not be available for to pay princi ?I and interest on bonds. trander to the General Fundpursuant toSectiom 17bYS.E 17696.9. &th respect to ti;eproceed.v of bonds;wthor- Proposition 55 Text of Proposed Law continued rim page 13 the committee may act for thc committee. 1.36957. There is in the Stmte Treasury the California safe DMking Water Fund, which fund is hereby created. 138958. The committee may create a debt or debts. gateamount ofonehundredmillion dollars ($lW,wO,wO) liability or liabilities, of the State of California, in an ;Iggrc- liabilip or IiabiIiSes, shall be created for the purpose of in the mannerprovided in this chapter. The debt or debts, provi m the money to be used for the objects and works million dollars ($laO,oW,oW) of the moae s in the firnd 1m.9. (a) An aggregate amount of one hundred 3rc hcl&y continuously appropr:ated ardshall be used for the urposes set forth in this sectior: and Section 1.1598. ~~pp'i?~ having authority to construct, operate, and (b) #he department may enter into contracts with aid in the construction o&rojects which will enablc the maintain domestic waters stems, for loans to suppliers to sup lier to meet, ata minimum. snfe drinking water stand- argestablished ursuant to Chapter i (commencin with Section 4010) ofpart 1 of Division 5 of the Heal8 and safety Code. may inclllde provisions as a eefby the parties thereto, (c) Any contract entered into ursuant to this section ad the contract shall inclug in substance, all ofthe fol- lowing provisions: (1) An estimate of fhe reasonable cost of thc project. (2) An agreement by the department to loan to the supplier, during the progress of construction or following completion of construction as agreed by the parties, an amount which equals the portion of construction costs found by the department to be eli ible for a state loan. over a period not to exceed myears, (Aj t c mount of (3) An agreement by the suppler to re ay the state the loan, (Bj the administrative fee as described in Sec- amount of the loan plus the adn~inistrative fee. tion im, and (C) interest on the princip31, which is the peditiously with and complete, the project, (Bj to com- (4) An agreement by the supplier, (A) to proceed cx- mence operation of the project upon completion thereof, and to proper1.v operate and maintain the project in ac- cordance with the applicable provisions of law, (C to apply for, and make reasonable efforts to secure, fe d era1 department and of the State Department o&iealth Sen.- assistance for the project, (0) to secure ap roval of the mize and best utilize the amounts of that 3ssi.rtance avail- ices beforeapplyingforfederalassistance in order to rn;lxi- 56 specifiecfin section 138959. r: abie. and (E) tn providc for payment of the supplicrk .share of the cost of the project, ifnr~y. :iccordancc with this chapter, with grants provided to id) Bond proceeds .nay be used for a grant program in su pliersthatar~politic:~l.subdiricionsofthestatc thatare otfcrwise unable to meet minimum safe drinking water standards estab1i.shed pursuant to Chapter 7 (commenc- ing with Section 4010) of Part I ofDivision 5 of thc Health and Sdety Code. The totnl amount ofgrnntsmadepursu- dollars ($.%,oW,W). ant to this chapter shall not exceed twent,v-five mi:iion ofarly bonds authorized to he issued under the allfornla (e) Notwithstanding any other provision, the roceeds Safe Drinking Wbter Bond LAW of 1976 (ChaEter 10.5 (commencing with Section 13850)), and the allfornm Safe Drinking Water Bond law of 1964 (Chapter 10.2 (commencing with Section 13810)) which are unissued shall be used for loans and grants to suppliers in accord- and uncornmitted on the effective date of this chapter, ance with the terms, conditions. andpurposesofthis chap- ter. Loans made after November 6, 1994, pursuant to an interest rnte calculated asprcscribed in Section 1%!Xa3, Chapter 10.2 (commencing with Section 1381@) shallcarry suppliers tiat are political subdivisions of the state, from 138%. a) The department may make stategrants to subdivisicn (d) of Section 13895.9, to aid% the construc- moneysin the fund nvailabk for thatpur osepursuant to meet, at 3 minimum, safe drinking waterstandards estab- tion of projects which will enable the public agency to liched pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4010) ofPart 1 ofDivision Softhe Health andSdety Code. A grant may be made by the department only upon the specific approval of the Legislature, by an act enacted after the receipt of report filed pursuant to Section 13895.2 this chapter may indude provisions as agree by the par- (b) Any contract for a granl enlered into ~rrsuant to tics thereto, and the contract shall include, in substance, all of the followi~~~ provi.sions: (1) Am estimate of the reasonable cost of the project. ublic agency, during the progress of construction or fol. (2) An ;rgreement by the department to grant to the rowing completion of construction as agreed by the par- ties, an amount which cquals the por(ion of construction pant. costs found b,v the department to be eligible for a state (Sj An ageen~d I;?. tbepubiicagency, (A) loproceed e.rpeditious1y with, ;md completc, the project, (0) to com- mence opecation of the project upon com,detion thereat and to properlv oper:ltr ;Ind maintain the project in ac- GBfi 8. .. 8 cordance with the applicable provisions of law. (CJ to apply for. ;End make reasomble elforts to sccurc. fedcrd mistance for the project. (D) to secure np rot I of the department and of the State Department o p He ;'il 11th Serv ices before app1.vingfor federal ;rssistance in order to maxi- mire Nnd best utilize the amounts of that ;wi,stunce +.xi/. able, and (E) to oride for payment of the public agency? share of &-cast of the project. if any. 13546.1. /LppIications for grants under :hi.< chapter shall be madc to the dcpartnierrt ih the form ;md wfth the supporting mated as prescribed b,v the department. 13896.2. The department shall prepare a report on each ant ap lication urm?nt to this chapter. Thc re- ifit isnot in session, with theJoint Rules Committee. The port s%l be ficd with tge Le>slature, if it is in session or, department shall be authorized to make the grant on1.v upn the specific ap roral of the grant by the Legislature, dpartment. b an act enacted atfer the receipt of tne report from thc projects for dnmestic water systems. The State Depart- 13896.3. (a) Loans and grants may be made only for ment of Health Services ma,v make remonable allowance for future water supply needs and may Jrovide for addi- later exgement. The loans and grants ma,v be made for tional ca city when ecesssive costs woujd be incurred by all, or any part, of the cost of coustruc~g, irnprovin or State Department of Health Serviccs, improvement or rehabilitating any system wl~z in the judgment ofthe rehabiiitation is necessary to provide pure, wholesome, andpotable water in adequate rrantityat sumcientpres- .sure for health, cleanliness, adother domestic urposes and notifv ap .';cants of eligi'bility of ccmponerts request- The State Department of Iiealth Services shall d%ermine ed to be incpuded in the proposed project. The depart- ment shall use this determination as a bwiis for disbursing fw&. No single public agency shall receive gran3 ursu- ant to this chapter totaling more than four hundrexthou- sand dollars (W,wO). Loans may be made to provide for the urchase of a water system or the purchase of watcr- sheflands. No loan to an individual supplier shall exceed Legi?lature by an act raises the limit specified in thi.7 scc- the sum of five million doilars ($.5,,oW,ooO), unless the tion. pursuant to this c apter, the department shallpropo.se to (b) Upn recei t of an application for a grant or loan the applicant improvements to the applicant's water development, distribution, and utilization system which will conserve water in a cost-effective manner. These im- provements may include, but nerd not be limited to, leak detection and re air proLgram.s, valve repair and replace- provements to achieve corrosion rontrol, distribution and ment, meter capbration and replacement, physical im- installation of water conservation devices and fixtures, and other capital improvements which can be demonstrated to conserve water in a cost-ef7ectii.e manner. The depart- improvemer?ts in the grant or loan. Failurc by the appli- ment and applicant may agree to include these capital in thegrantorloanapplication shallnot besu&cient cause cant to include water conservation capitalim rovements for the department to refuse to make thc grant or loan. chapter shall not c approved by thr depmtment. unless 13896.4. An ap lication for a grant pursuant to this the department determines that the public agencv is 0th- standards established pursuant to Chapter 7 Icommenc- erwse unable to meet mininlum safe drinking water ing with Section 4010) of Part 1 ofDivikion 5 of the Health and Safety code. approval by the State Dcparttnent of Health Ser5,ice.s of No grant shall be mode by the deputment except upor1 projectplanssubmitted bv theapplicmt and upon u8ritlen G86 R E 21 proval b.v the State Department ofHealth Services that t& proposed projcct is consistent w?th Chapter 7 (com- mencing with Section 4010) oiPart 1 of Dirision 5 of the Hedtll and Safety Code. 138965. First pri0rit.v for graat,~ s.'x#ll bc ranted to ublic agerrcics hming immediate health reited prob- ems, as certified b.v the State Department ofHealth Serv- ices. Additional high priori& shall be granted to projects to correct immediate problems. as opposed to grants for construction o.pprojects to mzet future growth needs. pliers with the most critical public health problems. Prior- 138966. First priority for loans shall be gi'ven to sup- lesser c;rpability to rcasonably finance system improve- ity for loans shall also be given to suppliers which have a ments. 13896 7. Preliminary design work, including a cost esti- mate for the project, shaJ be completed before a loan or rant is ow;wded. Operation and maintenance costs shall fe the responsibilit of the supplier and ma) not be con- side, ed as part of tle project Cost. Cosk for planning and %wing the receipt of a oan or grant, subject to a roval reliminary engineerin studies may be reimbursed fol- b.v the department and tho State Department of%ea/th Services. ant to this chapter unless the public agency has ago ap- 13896.8. Noapplicationforagrantmaybemade ursu- plied for P loan pursuanl to this chapter. A public agency. shall be cligible for a ant only ta the extent that the department finds that $ agency is found unable to repay the full costs of a loan. unable to repay the full costs ofa loan, the appfcant may If the department has detendned that the a plicant is also file for a grant. Upon receipt ofa grant application, costs t&t the applicant is capable ofrepaying. Grant funds the de drtment shall determine that portion of the full shall only be provided for that portion that the applicant is not capable of re ayihg. 13896.9. Grant &nds shall be expended b the public grazt funds may be expended by the pu%lic agency unless agency within three years of the makin of de grant. No the public agency is able to demonstrate to the depart- ment, withinone earofthemakingofthegrant,support- for the project will be within M percent of the public ed b.v an accepta&e bid, that the amount to be expended agency's cost estimate for the project. ' 13,597. For the purpose of administering this chapter, the total expenditures of the department and the State Department of Health Services may nof e.rceed Spercent of the total amount of the bonds authorized to be issued sonnblc schedule of administrative fees for loans, which under this chapter. The department shall establish a rea- fees shall be paid by the sup liw pursuant to Section istration of this cha ter 13895.9, to reirnbursc the state &r the msts ofstate admin- thestate'sinterestsintheuseendre aymmto grantand Chargesincurredgy the Attorney Generalin rotecting loan fund.s under this chapter shall !e paid from the pro- not be aid from funds allocated for administrative pur- reeds of bond sales under this chapter. These charges shall poses, &t shall be treated as a progr exceed 1.5 percent of the total amount oft e bonds au- am ey not to thorized to be sold under this chapter. 13897.1. As much of the mone,vs in the hd as may be necessary shall be used to reimburse the General Obliga- 16724.5 of the Government &de. tion Bond Erpense Revolvin Fund pursuant to Section 13897.2. Repayment of all or part of the principal. ferrcd during :I developmcnt period not e.m?edinp 10 which i.r the lo;m plos the administrative fm, may be de- ymrs within the mnvinmn 5O-ycar repaymcnt period, 31 7 P peridis .ustXxder the circumtances, Interest on thr when, in the de . hnent>judgment. the de\.clopment principdshall not be deferred. Rrpaymen! of rincipd which is deferrcd during a de\*elopment pcrio$maF, itt the option of the su plier. be aio' in annual installments duMg the remaingr of the i&~ repa.vment perid. interest rate for loans made pursuant to thic chapter at jo 13697.3. The department shall annuallv establish the percent of the avera e interest rate. computed by the true interest cost metho$: paid by the state on general obliga. pursuant to this chapter sh:Jl carry the established interest .?km bondr for the pnor dendar vear. All loans *.?de rate for the calendar year in which the funds are commit- from the department, and shd remain at that interest ted to the loan, as of the date of the letter of commitment rate for the duration of the loan. hearing and with the concurrence of the State Depart- 13B7.4. [a) The department, after public notice and ment of Health Senim. shall adopt rules and regulations nece+sary to caq- out the purposes of this chapter. The procedures for establishing the eligibility of a supplicr. regulatiorxshallinclude, but not be limited to, criteria and that, in its ju pent. w.11 most effectivelv cam out this (b) The degartmen?,.!hall adopt rules and regulations cha ter in the public interest, to the end that the people of &hma are most eficiently and most economical1.v provided supplies of we, wholebome, and potable do- the denial of funds mestic water. The ruls and sion oflaw, e.tistingrulesand regulations adopted gv thi (c) Nohw'thstandingsubdivi~on (a) or any other rovi department pursuant to the Caliomia Safe Dnnking Wa- ter Bond Law of 1984 (Chapter 10.2 (commencing with Section 13810)) which are in effect on the effective date of this chapter, may, at the option of the departn~cnt, be utilized upon voter approval of this chapter for pur osa ofimplementing this chapter. The department, wit R the may subs uently revise those rules and regulations pur- concurrence of the State Deparhnent of Health Services. Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Codc ils suant to zapter3.5 (commenciug with Section 11340/ of n- to im lement provisions of this chapter which differ fmm C R apter 102 (commencing with Section 13810) or for any other reason to carry out the purposcs of this chanter. .. .~~~~ ~~~~ r---~ shall notifv suppliers tha; ma.v be efigib!e for loans pursu- 13B7.5. The Statc Department of Health Serr,ices ant to this chapter of (a) the purpses of this chapter and (b) the rules and regulations adopted by the department. 13897.6. (a) The Stete Department of Hcalth Serv- ices, after public notice and hearing and with the advice pnori?,v list of suppliers to be considered for financing. of the department, shall, from time to time, e.~tahlish a vision of law, the nority list established b.v the Statc De- (b) Xolwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other pro- partment of Heagh Services pursuant to the California safe Drinking Water Bond LAW of 1984 (Chapter 102 (commencing uith Won I3810)) in effirt on the effec- tive date of rhir cha ter ma); at the option df the State Department of Heagh Services, be utilizrd upon t'oter approval of this chapter until the State Dcpartnwni of Health Senices adoptr a new priarih- lirt I~~.OW.~~O) ofstate 10;urr for projects be aur.hriid 1359ia .w UlaP clnn h.en~;mP millm douns by the dc artment in a singlc cdendar quarter. So com department finds !hat the su plier has the rapzrcit? to tract shafbe approved by the department, unlrcc the repay the loan an~ount.~ spcci&i in thc contcrrt. Comnrision shdl tilrnish comments concerning the abili- .4t the reques: of the department. the Public Utilities projcct from othrr s0urce.s and the ability to repy the ty of .suppliers sul>ject to its juri.sdiction to finance the IO311. 13S97.9. .UI bonds authorized. nhich have been duly sold and dclit-ered ursumt to this chapter. shd consti- tute valid and leg$%. bindin encral obli ations of the State of California. and the fujjith and ere% of the State of California is hereby pledged for the punchfalpa.vment of both principd and interest thereon There shall be collected :mnuallJ- in the wme manner, and at the .wme time as other state revenue is collected, a sum. in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state. that is required to pay the princi a1 and interest on the bonds, md it is hereb!- made tfe dut.v of all officers of that revenue, to do and perform each and every act charged by law with an)' duty in regard to the collection which shall be nece*wn to collect that additional sum. Allmoneydepositedin the fund which hasbeen derived from premium on bonds.<old isavailable for transfer to the General Fund as a credit to expenditxes for bond inter- est. 138% /a) All money repaid to the state pursuant to any contract c-vecuted under Section 13655.9 shall be de. positedin the General Fundand, when so deposited, shall account ofprincipaland interest on bondsimedpursuant be ifpplicd as a reimbursement to the General Fund on Fund. to this chapter which has been paid horn the General (b) The department may entcr into cuntracts w'th suppliers of water for grants or short-tenn loans for the parpose of investigating and identifjng alternatives for section shall be made from the fund. Xo strpplier may system improvements. Anyloansorgrantspursuant to this receive for a s!ngle investigation more than twenty-Eve pursuant to this section. The State Department of Health thousand dollars ($5,wO) in the form of a loan or grant Services shall review all proposed investigations and shall determine if they are necessary and appropnate. shall include terms and conditions consistent wirh this (c) Any contract entered into pursuant to this section chaptcr. and any loan contract shall rovide for a repay- ment perid not to exceed 24 mon& ma.v be cxpendrd To.- the purposes of this section, of which (d) Sot mare than three million dollars ($3,oW,oW) not more than one million dollars (Sl.wO.OW) may be used for grants to ublic agencies. A loan or grant made for the purposes orphis section shallnot decrease the max- imum ;mount of any other loan or grant which may be made under this chapter, Chapter 10.2 (commencing with Section 13810), Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 13850),orCha tcrl06(commencirrgwithSection13880). 13898.1. Tkre is herebv appro riated fiom the Gen- eral Fund in the State Trea.wy, the purpose of this chapter. an amount equal to the sum of the following: 06 and the interest on, the hands issued and sold pursuant (a) Theamount annuall.vneces.sap t0pa.v theprincipal and pJxble. lo this ch;lptcr, as the principal and interest beromc due (6) The amount n-n. to cam' out Section 13S€?.Z which amount i.s appropriate-d without regard to tiscal !.ears. tk"~-ofF~~-.~estnttn . 1- For the purpcse of carping out this chapter. ire the uith&au a' from the &nerd Fd dm amount .Porder..- or ;m,ounts not tu '..weed the mount of the unsold bonds which thc conmittee has by resolution, ;ruthonzed to be sold for the purpose of carryin out this cha ter A~rymnount.~ tvithdrml-n shdbc depostecfin ihc fund c86 and sha!l be disbursed i.!. the departmrnt irr ;tccord;rncr md, ifso. the ;mount of bonds then to be issued and sold. with this ch;lpte.-. Any monry JIXI~C ;nxihbIe under this .('occes.q;vr mues of bonds m;r,v be mrthorized and sold to section 10 thc department sh:rll be rcturnrd 6y :he dcpirrt- makc thosenrr~~n~emcntspro~re,~sively, wditshallnot be ment to fhr Gencr;ll Fmd 1115 intcrrst thc monr)' tvoold rrrccwr,v that dl ofthc bonds;ruthori;?cd to be issuedshall hate earned in the Poolr$.\,/one.v h,cstment Accorrrtt bc old at ;my one time. from monc)' received from the fivt ?:!< of bor~d.~ sold for 1389S.4. The committee may ;n&horize the Trensurer the urpow ofcarrying out thi.% chaptcr .s~~bscqnrnt to the to rll all or anv : ofthc bonds authorized at the time nddrm~~/. or timrs as fi.w$L thhr Treasurer. by :I statement of the proposrd ilrriu1 em-nts to I$ mmie thosr derived from prenkms and accrued interest, are 13898.3. Uporl request of the dcprtmcnl, ZII ported 13898.5. All procrcds from the sale of bonds, except pursuant to Section 1395.9 for tfr &poses stated awrilabk for the purpose providedin Section 13898.5, but therein, the committee shd determine n.he/hrr or no1 it itre nof awlahle for transfer to the General Fund to ay is necessar? or desirable to iss~sue an? bond.$ ;nrthorizrd principnl and interest on bonds. The money in the fi%d under this chapter in order to make thosr :lrrangernents. nwy be rspended on1.v as provided in this chapter. 59 contracted for b.v agencics ill state government in excess of eighty percent of the Govcrnori salary if the contract nnd arc ap ,roved IJ~ both houses by il two- thirds roll call or co.?tracts in question do not exceed four years in length or city and countykpower to set salariesporsuant to Arti- vote. Insokr as this section may conflict with LI city, county rle XJ sections 3 through 5, this sectjon shall take prece- dence. (c) !Yo increase in the salary of any consfitutional offi- cer, member of the Board ofEqualization, member ofthe Legislature, supreme orappellate rourtjusticeorjud e of a court of record shall become operative unless surf in- crease ha been approved bya nrajorit ofthe voters ofthe .state voting in a statewide gcnernl eiction. ty charter adopted pursuant to Article XI Se-tion 3 ofthis (d) Notwithstanding any city, county, or city andcoun- Constitution, JJO increase in the salary ofan elected officer ofa city, county, city and county or special district which establishes the saory payable to its members shall become effective unless such increase has been approved by a mnjority of the voters of tl~e city, county, city and county, or special di.5trict voting on the question at an election. salar,v for tho.ye employees and officials referenced in sub- (e) On the effective date of this section, the annual sections (b) and (c) above, except the Governor, Consti- tutional officers and members of the Board of Equaliza- paid to the Governor as of that date. No elected or ap- tion, shall not exceed eighty percent of the annual salary pointed official, or any employee subject to the provisions . . ofthis section shall be permitted to accumulate sick Ieave or vacation time from one calendar year to another. (0 Any public employee on the state or local level who serves in more than one paid public position in this state may not receive a total 3ggre ate corn ensation, includ- ing ension pAyments derive%in whol or in art from salary. pubfc funds, in excess oisightypercent of the &vernorj (g) The electorate of any city, county, city and c0unt.v or special district may, b,v initiative, adjust the salary of an,v elected or appointed official in that jurisdiction in Section 26. Notwithstanding Article IISection 11 or Article excess of the limitation set forth in subsection (0 of this XI Section .3, no legdative body shall enact laws which rertrict the electorate's ri ht to use the initiative process to increase or decrease tie compensation or the condi- tions of :my future accruals ofemplo ee benefits of their elected or appointed officials. Any raws existin on the electorate's right to do so are nulland void. Nolwithstand- effective date of this measure which purport to%nit the ing any other provision of law, the signatures ofnot less than IOpcrcent of the voters ofanyjurisdiction shall uali @ the initiative for the next general election ballot oytha; jurisdiction. AI1 other sections of the Californ'a Elections Code or 3 local jurisdiction :c Charter shall govern the process for such initiatives. (11) After the date this section becomes effective, the Le islatureshallenactnolawsauthorizinganypublic~ffi- ciafrorered by this section to engage the services ofpri- compcnsation e.rceeds seventy-Eve dollars per hour and vule subcontractors wherein the contractual amount of no contract may exceed two years in duration, and in no event may the total compensation for an irldividual ex- ceed the amount set forth in subsection (h) OfthisSection 26. Fuurthernrore, 110 state official or agency shall enip/oy, hire, contract with, pry or otherwise corn ensate any at- tome). or legal firm to act on behalf of t f: e state or any agenr). thereof where the state or .w.v agencj' thereofis a p1aintiK defendmt, complainant etitioner respondent or red prty in interest unless t R e Ctlrfornr i. '; I Attorney 61 General has formallv ltotrd .a cortllict in rrnre.srntin~ thr agency. (i) Ifat1.v provision of this section or the 11 lic:~tion thereof to an.v person or circwntstanccs is hc~in~~:tlicl, section which can begiven el)i..ct without the inwrlidpro- such invalidity shall not affect !hr other provisioionr of t11i.s vision or its ilDD/iCafiOn and to this end the oro1:i.don.s of L this section ai; severable. tion is hereby repealed. jdgedeeeeteCreetn$M SECTION 111. Article I11 Section 4(b) of thc Constitu- *-mJefm3ly&%hk*&* tte(epmpeetkitwewe3iR~k~nt~(rrtte ~e~efdGeehf~M&w&ee+k~ efejdge$tniRgeCetRtdBFFRekelevh level djdgesskellne&em&k++eme&iig&mefee&w+ SECTION IV. Article V Section 12 ofthe Constitution is amended to read as follows: ARTICLE V Section 12 Compensation of the Gover- nor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General; Controller. Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Treasurer shall be prescribed by 4ktlttte W mey m+ be e(. deeremd $wiftg R iertft .4rticlc XY Sec- hbn %(a) and modified by the voters of the Skte of Cali- fornia pursuant to Article XX Section 26(c) of this Consti- tution. is nmended to rr:d ;IS follows: SIXTIOS V. Arliclc VI Svclion 5 or the Constitution vided into nnmicitxtl court and illstice earn( districts as AR1ICI.I;. \'I Section 5 (il) Ihch county shall he di- provided by st:ttuie, Ibut a city ri>:~y not be divided into shall have one or more judgcs. morr thxl onr district. Phch rnu~~icipal and justice court Thrrc shxll bc a municipnl court in each district of more than 40,ooO rcsidents and &I justice court in rach district of ;tsccrt;~incd its provided by statute. 40.OMl resident: or Icss. The number of residents shall be l'hr LcgisLtturo shall providc for thc org;~niz:~tion and prcsrr,hc the!uri:diction of nlunicip;d an?jurtice courts, It shall ~~preccrilml for eac.1 mun~c~pal court and provide for rach ,iusticc court the number, qualifications, nlld compensalioll , suhjcct to .Arlic/c SSScction 26(c:, of jr~dgcs. officrrs. and cmploycrs. (b) Solwithsta~tding thc provisions of wb&kkm .s~~bdividion !a), any city in San Dicgo Colmty may be (!ividcd iuto mort than onr mnnici- pal court or justicc court district if thc Lcgisletnre dctcr- mines th;tt unud progr;tphic conditiot~s warrmlt such division. tion is ame:ldcd to rcad as follows: SECTION VI: Article VI Section 19 of thc Constitu- scribe Compensation forjodges ofconrtsofrecord, subject ARTICLE Vi Section 19 The Legislature shnll prr- to Articlr XX Sectiorr 26(c) ofthe Constitution, A judze of a court of record may not receive the ?alary for thc iudichl office hcld bv thc iudee rchiic anv cause before the judge remains pending ahd ;ndetermiried for 90 days nf- ter it has bcen submitted for decision. Proposition 65 Text of Proposed Law enter an source of drinking water. continued fmm page 53 (2) de discharge or release is in conformity with x11 other laws and with every applic;hle regtt1;Ition. pennit, In any achon brought to enforce Section 2i149.5. tlw brrr- requirement, and order. den ofshowng that a discharge or release- meets the crite- ria of this subdivision shall be on the defendant. 25249.10 Exemotions from W:~rnitt~~Reouirrme~~t. Section 25249.6 shall not ap ly to any of the folloa.irg: (a! An exmsure for which Y edcral Iawpo<.rrns w:trninp in 3 manner that prermpts stzlte author2.v. months subsequent to the listing of thc chemical in qurs- (b) An exposure that takes p!:rce less than tar/\-e tion on the list required to be published under subdivision (a) of Section 25249.8. show that the exposureposes no signific;mt risk ;r.ssumi~~p (c) An exposure for which the pcrson responsiblr can lifetime es osurc at the level in question for substancrs known to t x e state to cause cancer. and that the espostrrr will have no observable effect ;tss,rming r.rpostrrr nt one thousand (IOW) times the level in qucstion for sub.sterlcrs knorvn to the state to cause reproductive toxicit>: b;rsrd on evidence and standnrds of comparable .scirntific validit>. to the evidence and sbtnd:lrds which hrm thc .scientific sion (a) of Section 25249.8. In any action brmught to rn- 6asis for the listing of arch chen~ical pursrr;mt lo subdi\.i- forceSection ,25249.6. the btrrdcrt ofshou~ing t11:tt :III rrpo- sure meets the criteria ofthis .subdh.isiort .sh;t11 !x on thr 62 cludingthissection. Each ~~gcncy.so desi~fl:ltcdn~:r.vadopt required to iri~pleinent the pro!..’sion.<of this ch;rpter in- and modify regulations, st;tnrl;lrd.y. and pcrmits as nccm say to conform with and i.~pIemrnt the prot?sions of thir chnpter and to further its purp~es. , a5e49.13 PreservatioaOf VS~JIIZ Rrghts. Obliwtions, -galobligation otherwise requiredin comn~on ’ . A’othing in thjs chxpter shall alter or di- law or by statute orregulation, and rrothing in this ch;l tcr shall create or enlarge any defense in any action to en 7 orce such legal obligation. Pen:l!ties and sanctions imposed un- der this cha ter $hall be in addition to any penalties or sanctions otRerwLe prescribed by !aw. SECTION 3. Subdivision (d) of Section 25189.5 of thc Health and Safety Code is amended to read: (d The court shall also impose upon a person convict- ed o J’ violat~n subdivision (b) or (c) a fine of not less than five thoummfdollars ($5,000) or more than Mfy one hcm-, dred thousand dollars fsse,eee) (%lW,OW) for each day 01 violation except as furtherFyided in this subdivision. If the act which violated sub IWSIO~ (b) or (c) caused redt MI injuryorc.:rlsedasubstantialprobabilitythat~ea;h coudresdt, the person convicted of violating subdivision prison for$ IO 36 months, in add?tion to the tcrm speci- (b) or (c) may be punished by im risonrnent in the state fied in su lvmon (b) or (c and may be fined u to two, hurIcired fitly thousand dolks ($.?.5O,lXQ) for ear R day of -. violation. Health and SafePj Code as follows: SECI‘IOS 4. Section 25180.7 is hereby added to the (a) Within the meaning of this section, a “‘desipxtted government emplo,vee”is-any person defined as a I‘desig- nated em loyee” by Government Code Section 81019, as amend.d Jb) Any designatedgcvernment employee who obtains i ormahon In the course of his oficial duties revealing the illegal discharge or threatened illegal discharge of a hazardous waste within the geo a hical area of his juris- diction and who knows that sucf%charge or threatened discharge is likely to cause substantial injury to the ublic health or safety must, within seventy-two hours, &close such information to the local Board of Supervisors and to r uired under thissubdivision when otherwise rohibit- the Iwal health officer. No disclosure of information is Sby law, or when law enforcement personnelRave de- ongoingcriminalinvesti ation, or when thzin ormatlon IS termined that such disclosure wou!d adverse1 r‘ affect . dn ‘. alread general public !%owledge within the locality nfi fectedyby the dischar e or threatened discharge. (c) An designate $ government employee who know- ingly aniintentionay fails to disclose infomation re- quired to be disclose under subdivision (bi shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the county j;~ilfor 1101 more th;m onc.~r;~r or by imprisonment in state prison for not morc th;m thrce >‘cars. Thr court may also impose II on thc person a finc of not less than five thou- sm~d do!Lrs (sjoooi or more than twentyfive thousand dollnrs ($25,wO). Thr felony conviction for violation of this scction shall require forfritrlrc ofgotwnment ern- ployment within thirty da F of conviction. (dj .4ny Iocd he:llth o&cer who rcceitvs infornwtion pursu:lnt to subdivi.sion (h) shell takc appropriate action IO noticv locd news media and shall make such informa- lion :wailable to fhe public without delay. SECTION 5. Section 25192 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: pursuant to this chapter or Chapter 6.6 Icommcrlcing with 25192. (a) All civil and criminal penalties collected Section 25249.5) shall be npportioncd in thc following manncr: (1) Fifty percent shall be deposited in the Swedsw #&&e Cht4 Aeeem~+ Naz;lrdous Substance Account in thr General Fund. the city attorney, ci;yprosecutor, district attorney, or ?t- (2) Twenty-five percent shall be paid to the office of torney General, whichever office brought the ’1 . c t’ Ion, orm the case ofan nction brought by a person under subdivi. sion (d) ofsection 25249.7 tn such person. ment and used to nnd the activity of the load health (3) Twenty-five ercent shall be paid to the depart- pursuant to Section 2.5180. If investigation by the oca1 &eem oficer to enforce the provisions of this cha ter police departnent or sheriffs omce or California High- way Patrol led to the bringing of the action, the local health officer shalp a total of forty percent of his por- tion under this su wmon to caid invectigating agency or agencies to be usedfor thesamepur ose Ifmore than one agency is eligible for payment unBr tbis provision. divi- sion ofpayment amon the eligible agencies shal! be in the discretion of the !oca B health oficer. (b) If a reward is paid to B person ursuant to Section 25191.7, the amount of the reward sha K be deducted from the amount of the civil penalty before the amount is ap portioned pursuant to subdivision (a). Account pursuant to t IS section shall be included in the (c) Anyamountsder’tcd!n theHazardousSubstance computztion of the state account rebate specified in See- F P tion ~25347.2. ap lication thereofis le6 invalid, that invalidity shall not SECTION 6. If an rovision of this initiative or the a&t other provisions or applications of the initiative application, and to this cnd the provisions of t rslnftlat~ve which can be &en effect without the invalid[To,viFon,or are severable. SECTION 7. To further its pur oses this initiative may bc amended by statute, passe&n each house by a two.thirds vote. SECJ-~ON 8. This initiative shall tnkc effect on Jmu- ary 1, 1987.