Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1990, 7 - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL TO ENDORSE PROPOSITIONS 111 ( MEETING DATE: i!�tl6111'i{�Ip����l�pl�Il� City Of San Luis OBISPO May 1, 1990 COUNCIL AGENOA DEPORT ITS"" NUMBER: FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic@Z550--_ Prepared by: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Consideration of request by San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council to endorse Propositions 111 (SCA 1) and 116. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution endorsing Propositions 111 (SCA 1) and 108 to increase funding for transportation purposes and to adjust the methodology for computing the appropriation limit for State and local government , (Attachment 1) . 2. Adopt a resolution endorsing Proposition 116, which will allocate funds for rail related transportation projects (Attachment '2) . DISCUSSION: Background On March 16, 1990 the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (SLOACC) approved resolutions in support of Propositions 111 (SCA 1) and 116. The SLOACC also directed Area Council staff to solicit endorsements for these propositions from members agencies. SLOCAA's formal request for City support, along with descriptions of the propositions, are provided in Attachment 3. Additional background information prepared by the CAO is provided as Attachment 4. Attachment 7 has been prepared by the "Yes on 111 and 108" organization and includes a listing of current supporters of the propositions. (Note: While SLOACC did not specifically request support for Proposition 108, staff has included this proposition in the resolution since it provides the funding mechanism necessary to support the rail programs established by Proposition 111. ) Limitations and Reasons to Support the Propositions Included in the attached materials are descriptions of the numerous ways in which propositions will affect the state and local transportation system. Specific projects in San Luis Obispo County for which funding will become available if Proposition 111 is passed are identified, including improvements to Routes 46 and 41. However, in - terms of specific projects and future transportation programs, the proposed legislation is much more favorable to urban counties and larger cities. In addition, the propositions have been crafted to acquire support from a broad coalition of interests, including the California Taxpayers' Association, the League of Women Voters, the Governor, and organizations 7-/ r. city Of san As ompo =no COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT gena Report Page Two representing the education, business, local government, and law enforcement communities. Therefore, from any one perspective, the propositions undoubtedly include elements which are not entirely satisfactory. However, from a larger statewide perspective, staff believes the propositions should be supported. In addition, particularly with respect to the appropriation limitation adjustments, staff believes there are significant benefits to be derived for the City of San Luis Obispo. In summary, staff recommends adoption of resolutions in support of the propositions for the following reasons: • The methodology for computing state and local government. appropriation limits needs to be changed. As outlined in a May 1989 memorandum prepared by the Finance Director as a part of the development of the 1989-91 Financial Plan (Attachment 5) , the City is expected to exceed its appropriation limit by FY 1991-92. This projection excludes any changes in tax rates, such as the proposed increase in the transient occupancy tax or any 111/2 sales tax" initiative. Increases in these areas would only accelerate the timeframe for reaching our limit, and would therefore preclude using the increased revenues for their intended purposes. The adjustments in computing the appropriation limit will allow state government and local governments to benefit from economic growth and to have more flexibility in meeting pressing needs - many of which were not anticipated at the time the original appropriation limit was established in 1979 (e.g. , increased jail capacity; increased educational facilities; homeless needs; costs related to AIDS research, testing, and health care; open space acquisition; D.A.R.E. and other drug prevention programs) . The Finance Director has prepared a memorandum evaluating the general impact of Proposition 111 on the City's appropriation limit (Attachment 5) . • The State's inability to cope with increasing public and social service needs (as a result of the existing limitation) ultimately places great demands on cities: demands which cities are generally unable to meet. For example, State cutbacks in social program support severely limits what counties can do. As a result, cities such as San Luis Obispo are receiving more and more requests to deal with such issues as the homeless, battered women, and other social service needs. - 7-Z 111111Q11F1 A11 city of San LUIS OBISpo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Agenda Report Page Three • With respect to transportation and highways the State of California has gone from being one of the most progressive states in the nation to one of the most "gridlocked" states in the nation. This has had a significant effect on the overall economy and productivity of the state. In addition, the deficiencies in the major metropolitan areas have placed substantial growth pressures on more rural areas, such as San Luis Obispo County. • Although a substantial amount of the funds will be used to increase roadway capacity. other funds are specifically earmarked for programs to relieve traffic congestion without adding traffic lanes, including improved transit, rail, and safety programs. • Asa result of the gas tax increase the City will receive an additional subvention of approximately $250,000 which can be used to maintain existing city streets. This will help the City provide a stronger transit program without underfunding our street maintenance requirements. CONCURRENCES: The Public Works Director, Finance Director, and Transit Manager concur with the staff recommendation. CONCLUSION: In summary, the State and its local governments need increased flexibility and the ability to use additional resources in order to cope with numerous demands - demands in addition to only transportation related needs. While Propositions 111, 108, and 116 are not a "perfect solution", they do represent a significant improvement over the status quo and are recommended for support by the City Council. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council can go on record in opposition to the propositions or remain neutral on the matter. Staff does not recommend this alternative. In particular, if the appropriation limit adjustment does not pass in June, it is likely that the City will reach its appropriation limitation prior to the time that the City would wish to retain a status quo service level.. Based on Council approved policy (page B-9 of the 1989-91 Financial Plan) , the City will then "seek a vote of..the public to amend its appropriation limit at such time that tax proceeds are in excess of allowable limits. " This approach will be both costly and complicated. �i��ni�Ni��illil�l►h �����II city of san kdalk osispo - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Agenda Report Page Four ATTACMUMTS: i. Resolution in Support of Propositions 111 and 108 2. Resolution in Support of Proposition 116 3. Back-up Material from SLOACC 4. Back-up Material from CAO 5. May 1989 Finance Director Memo Related to Appropriation Limit 6. April 1990 Finance Director Memo 7. "Yes on 111 and 108" Information/List of Supporters i i KH\propo i 7 icy 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING PROPOSITIONS 111 (SCA 1) AND 108: THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990 WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo concurs that the State of California faces serious fiscal policy problems which threaten the critical areas of education, transportation, health services, law enforcement, senior programs and other taxpayer services thereby endangering the state's current and future economic health; and WHEREAS, SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to allow the state greater flexibility in making use of all available � ..' revenues generated by California's strong economy; and WHEREAS, SCA 1 would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax and truck weight fees as approved in SB 300 and AB 471 (1989) to provide increased funding for maintenance and improvement of highway and mass transit projects without reducing funds for other state programs; and WHEREAS, SCA 1 would provide approximately $16 million to fund currently programmed State Highway projects, another $71 million for other necessary long term transportation improvements in San Luis Obispo County, an increase in gas tax subventions to local jurisdictions, an environmental enhancement grant fund, and provide a guarantee of County Minimum funding pursuant to Section 188 of the Streets and Highways Code; and C ATTACHMENT 1 7`�' Resolution No. (1990 Series) Page Two WHEREAS, Proposition 108 will provide the funding needed to support the rail programs outlined under Propositionlil; and WHEREAS, SCA 1 would continue the guarantee of Proposition 98 that R-12 and the community colleges receive 40% of the state budget; and WHEREAS, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it will be impossible to maintain and improve local streets and roads and state highways; and WHEREAS, SCA 1 is supported by a board coalition including. Governor George Deukmejian, State Superintendent of Schools Bill Honig, California Taxpayers Association, California League of Women f� Voters, California Assocation of Highway Patrolmen, California School Boards Association, County Supervisors Association of California, California Transportation Association, California Chamber of Commerce, League of California Cities, University of California Board of Regents, California State University Board of. Trustees, and many others; and WHEREAS, reduction in the state's traffic congestion will require substantial investments in alternative methods of transportation including the expansion and construction of mass transit facilities; NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby endorse the -assage of Propositions 111 (SCA 1) and 108, the Traffic congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990 on the June 1990 ballot. �- 6 CResolution No. (1990 Series) Page Three On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. MAYOR RON DUNIN ATTEST: CITY CLERK PAM VOGES CI F JORGENSEN C . 7- 2 0 RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING PROPOSITION 116; THE CLEAN AIR . AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1990 (INITIATIVE) WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo finds that public transportation improvements result in enhanced public safety and mobility, cleaner air, less energy use, and less congestion on already overcrowded streets and highways; and WHEREAS, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Act) would provide $1990 million to improve and expand public transportation throughout California; and WHEREAS, the Act is compatible and consistent with the transportation package placed on the ballot by the Governor and State Legislature, and will thereby result in implementation of part of an overall transportation plan which will provide cleaner air and better transportation for all Californians; and WHEREAS, the Act would benefit San Luis Obispo County by providing, approximately ten million dollars to the region for critically needed transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the Act creates a trust fund for the Transportation Planning and Development Account which will prohibitthe current practice of reappropriating transit funds to the General Fund and which will provide full appropriation of state Transit Assistance Funds to all counties including San Luis Obispo County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby endorse the passage of the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act on the June 1990 ballot. ATTACHMENT 2 —� i Resolution No. (1990 Series) �. Page Two On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. MAYOR RON OUNIN ATTEST: CITY CLERK PAM VOGES C jtOWrEf JORGENSEN �- 9 o San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council ArroyoAta Grande Grover G4,(, Morro and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles Pismo Beach Paul C. Crawford, AICP, Executive Director San Luis Obispo Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager Sart Luis Obispo County Match 29, 1990 John Dunn. R LC L lel � City Administrator i orator City of San Luis Obispo , .. _. _ 1990 P.O. Boat 8100 ADMINISTRATION San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 SAN LUIS 081 eO, CCA Dear Mr. Dunn: At their regular meeting M Match 16, 1990, the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating omncil approved a resolution supporting SCA 1 (Proposition ill} and a resolution supporting Proposition 116. The Area Council also approved staff's recommendation to distribute the staff reports and resolutions to member jurisdictions for endorsement. Enclosed please find the following items: * Staff report on SCA 1 * Resolution on SCA 1 * Staff report on Proposition 116 * Resolution cn Proposition 116 SCA 11 if approved by the voters in June, will increase the state gas tax by nine cents arra truck weight fees by 55% to provide funding to meet California's grading transportation needs. Cities should expect a local fuel subvention increase of approximately $6.00 per capita. If SCA 1 is not approved by the voters, existing STIP projects noted in the enclosed staff report on SCS. 1 will be delayed well into the decade and no funding will be available for new highway projects. Proposition 116, if approved by the voters in June, will provide $1990 million statewide, primarily for rail projects. San Inis Obispo county would receive approximately $10 million for rail arra public transportation projects. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions regarding either of these propositions please contact me at 549-5714. Sincerely, Cam; � Ronald L. DeCarli, Program Manage Countv Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612 SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: MAitQi 16, 1990 SUBJECT: SENA= AMMUSM (SCA) 1 Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 (Proposition 111) will appear before California voters on the June 1990 ballot. It has been described as the most significant public finance and budget legislation of the decade. The primary purpose of the mitt is to increase the state gas tax by nine cents and truck weight fees by 55% to provide funding to meet California's growing transportation needs. If Passed, net revenues statewide frrm the tax and fee increases will generate an estimated $15.5 billion during the ten year period frsm July 1, 1990 to June 30, 2000. Its T�� will guarantee funding for a atmately $16 million for currently pr'91'it ci State HighaaaY projects in San Luis Obispo oanhty, give a high prdaalsility of finding for another $71 million for high priority, larger range state highway prop and puede substantial funds for local road projects. RSCQ�IBDATION Staff: a) Approve Attached Resolution Endorsing SCS, 1 (Prop. 111) b) Authorize Distribution of Staff Report and a Draft Resolution to Member Jurisdictions for Endorsement TIAC: CTAC: DISCUSSICkI The State of California is facing a severe shortage of funds to pay for current and long term transportation infrastructure inp ovements. Zihe C,overnor and legislature have agreed on SCA 1 as a significant means of raising tbg4wowamy funding• the lFogra-, 3n $28.5 5 bi . .. for. , `-`rail transpo�ta , aver ten yeas for the following p � 1. $3..5 ,billion to fund the sh=tfall in the existing state highway capital improvement program. ' These funds will guarantee the state share of already programmed STIP Projects. 2. $1.25 billion for interregional roads in Waal counties- Caltrans' proposed plan limits funding under this program to improvements for Route 101, Route 46 Fast and Route 41 West. A-3-1 O 3. $3.0 billion for passenger rail transit projects throughout the state. San Luis Obispo county has no rail projects included in the me plan. 4. $3' " " r tbr. flexible aongestian relief, one of the only programs Sari. county can apply for, t�i1T provide fiuYli ryg on a ti basis for any rty capacity enhario�ent project designed to reduce or eliminate traffic congestion, including on local roads and mass transit guideway improvements. 5. $1.0 billion for the Highway Systems Operation and Protection Plan (HSOpp) for maintenance, rehabilitation, safety and minor projects on state highways, programed by Caltrans. These funds count against funding allocated to the region and thereby reduce funding for new capital projects. 6. $1.0 billies far Traffic SYstem Management (TSIQ pr+ojlacts which are lh dt ad`t3o'vrban counties. 7. $2.0 billion for state-local transportation partnership program which is largely limited to counties that have passed a local option sales tax increase for transportation improvements. 8. $3.0 billion for annual subventions to cities and canities, based on population to the cities and an onment formula to the counties. This would provide an estimated total of $935,000 in the. first year arra up to $2.1 million in the tenth year for San Luis ^ Obispo County. Jl 9. $100 . million' ($10 million mn ally) for awixvn=tel atiin unit projects on a statewide grant basis. 10. $650 million for construction of s=dwalls and public transit inn urban counties. The handing programs of SCA 1 azgely .mit the opportunity for this county to receive any svbstant.- 1 additional state f% ng for a wide range of necessary hilway impxvvements (such. as additional interchange intro -t:u= s, passing lanes, bypasses, widenings) without a significant local fiend contribution. Moreover, they prwide only retinal state relief fcr local street and road maintesnw= and•constZucdcrd Passage of SCA 1 will, however, guarantee designated "County Mini" state highway funis for San Luis Obispo county and the state share of funding for cuzzwrtly programed State Highway projects in San Luis Obispo County, including: 1. Expansion and improvement of the Oak Park Road Interchange 033.4 million) ; 2. Cmwtrurticn of passing lanes. on Route 46 East from Airport Road to the Fast Junction of 41/46 ($3.3 million) ; 3. A realignment of Route 41 East frox Routs 101 to the Salinas River in Atascadero ($3.3 million) ; A-3-2 n / � i 4. Expansion and improvement of the Tefft Street interchange in Nipo;no ($2 million) ; 5. Expansion and improvement of the 4th Street/5 Cities Drive interchange in Pismo Beach ($2 million) ; 6. A curve improvement project on Route 1 at Callendar Black Take Road near Nipomo ($2 million) . In addition, Caltrans has noted that there are several other longer range, hick priority state highway projects in San Luis Obispo c=Tty which will have a high probability of being fronded, including: 1. Construction of a northbound truck climbing lane on Cvuesta Grade ($26 million) . 2. Additioral widening of Route 46 East to four lanes fr n Airport Road to almond Drive ($22 million) . 3. Cmw n=tion of passing lanes an Fzute 41 `•between Morro Bay and Atascadera ($3 million) . 4. Widening of Route 101 to six lanes in the south county between Grand Avenue and the Fourth Street/5 Cities Drive interchange ($20 million) . The attached resolution will be sent to all local jurisdictions in the Com'rty asking for their endorsement and various lobby groups throughout the State for their use in promoting the measure. � I Staff Report Prepared by Mike Harmon, 2-28-90 A-3-3 7-/3 o C, SAN IiJIS OBISPO AREA QDOMUTA IIdG CtWNC'IL RESOIDTION NO. 90-01 RESOIIfFION ENDORSING PROP0SITION 111 (SCA 1) ME TRAFFIC CCNGESTICN FM--EF AND SPENDING r IMTmA'r* ON ACT OF 1990 The following Resolution is now offered and reads: F ERW, the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council concurs that the State of California faces serious. fiscal policy problems which threaten the critical areas of education, transportation, health services, law enforcement, senior programs and other taxpayer services thereby endangering the states's current and future economic health; and WMMS, SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to allow the state greater flexibility in making use of all available revenues generated by California's strong economy; and WHEREAS, SCA 1 would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax and truck weight fees as approved in SB 300 and AB 471 (1989) to provide increased funding for maintenance and improvement of highway and mass transit projects without reducing funds for other state programs; and VaUy4MS, SCA 1 would provide approximately $16 million to fund currently proganned State Highway projects, another $71 million for other necessary long term transportation nprovements in San Luis Obispo County, an increase in gas tax subventions to local jurisdictions, an environmental enhancement grant fu-dl and provide a guarantee of County Minimum funding want to Section 188 of the Streets and Highways Coder and WHEREAS; SCA 1 would continue the guarantee of Proposition 98 that K-12 and the community colleges receive 40% of the state budget; and WHEms, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it will be impossible to maintain and improve local streets and roads arra state highways; and W mmm, SCA 1 is supported by a broad coalition including Governor George DeWmji.an, State Superintent of Schools Bill Honig, California Taxpayers Association,, California League of Ween Voters, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Scd=l Boards Association, county Supervisors Association of California, California Transportation Association, California chamber of Coerce, league of California Cities, University.of California Board of Regents, California State University Board of Tnmtees, and many others; and WHEREAS, reduction in the state's traffic congestion will require substantial investment s in alternative methods of transportation including the expansion and construction of mass transit facilities; NOW, ARE, BE iT RFSoum, that the San lois Obispo Area Coordinating Council does hereby endorse the passage of Proposition 111 (SCA 1) , The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990 on the June 1990 ballot. On motion by Delegate Blakely seconded by Delegate Ovitt �. and on the following roll call vote, to wit: Aim: Delegates Blakely, 0vitt, Coy, Ekbom, Johnson, Moots, Morrow, Sheets, and President Delany. NOES: Delegates Borgeson and Rappa ABSENT: Delegate Russell ABSTAIN: None i The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted on the 16th day of March, 1990 7-I� o C Evelyn Delany, President SAN UJIS OBISPO AMA COORDRaTING DOMCIL APPROVED AS TO FOM AND LMAL E'FF'ECP: Date: 40 Deputy qty Attest: tzry aC o�.��•�.. Rznald L. DeCarli, Program Manager 7_l/_ f ` SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: �'P OV ED. MARIIi 16, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 116, TEE CLEAN AIR AND TRANSPOKI'ATION Il+ff RovEmmr ACr OF 1990 MgWky P=positicn 116, the Clean Air and Transportation Inguw®ent Act of 1990, is an initiative which will appear on the June,, 1990 statewide ballot. If approved it will provide $1990 million statewide primarily for rail projects. San Luis Obispo County would receive appraodmately $10 million for rail and public transportation projects. RFX3JDATION Staff: - Approve attached resolution endorsing Proposition 116. Distribute sample staff report and draft resolution to member j=isdictions for endorsement. TMC: CMC: DISCUSSSION The Buds available if Proposition 116 passes would be limited to capital expenditures and may not be allocated for street or hi4ziay imprwements, operations, maintenance or mon. Californians for Transportation Solutiones, an organization promat;rg PivD=lticn 116, naked the following key provnsians pertaining to San Luis Obispo County: * $10,000,000 - to the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for any of the fallowing : - railroad grade crossings; - aegaisitien of railroad rights of may for railroad purposes% - rail passenger or other rail stations - railroad so u dwalls% - other rail safety improvements; - other public facilities for public transportation (Section 99628) . * Funding under this section does not require local matching funds. Other Features include the following: - ecupatible with Gann revision gas tax (SCA 1) ; A-4-1 7-�7 o C- - - complements $1 billion le�gislati• . rail bond measure (AB 973 Costa) - does not count against County funds will be appropriated o the California Transportation Commission. RTP& will be granted funis upon receipt and approval of eq3enditure plans; - creates trust fund for Transportation Planning and Development Account to prohibit the current practice of reapprcpriating transit funds to the General Fund thereby providing solvency to the State Transit Assistance Furl. This fund, in 1985, provided over $300,000 to San Luis Obispo County, since that time the STA fund has been continually reappropriated for other non-transportation purposes. San Luis obispo County received only $10,000 from this fund last year. The proposed change would allow full appropriation of this fund. provides that TP&D furls be used only for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. Additionally, Proposition 116 would provide $20 million to fund a program of competitive grants to local agencies for capital outlay for bicycle improvement projects which improve safety and convenience for bicycle oommiters. Um programs will also be available for the acquisition of both ommiter arra intercity rail cars and locorotives ($100,000,000) and for capital expenditures associated with waterborne ferry operations ($20,000,000) . Staff report prepared by C. Corliss, 2/24/90. A-4-2 7-/ SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL RESOIIT ON NO. 90 -Q2 REsciuPION ENDoORSZNG PROposIT w 116, THE CIEAN AIR AND TRANSpORIATION IlMPROVIIMEfr ACT OF 1990 (INITIATIVE) The following Resolution is now offered and reads: wmMS, the San l is Obispo Area Coordinating Council finds that public transportation iWrovenents result in enhanced public safety and mobility, cleaner air, less energy use, and less congestion on already overcrowded streets and highways; and MM;MS, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Act) would provide $1990 million to iuProve and expand Public i transportation throughout California; and WMMEAS, the Act is cacpatible and consistent with the transportation package placed on the ballot by the Governor and State Legislature, and will thereby result in implementation of part of an overall transportation plan which will provide cleaner air and better transportation for all californians; and WBEREA.S, the Act would benefit San Luis Obispo County by providing approximately ten million dollars to the region for critically needed transportation juprovements; and MMZEAS, the Act creates a trust fund for the Transportation Planning and Development Account which will prohibit the current practice of reappropriating transit funds to the General Fund and which will provide full appropriation of stats 'transit Assistance Funds to all counties including San Luis Obispo County; 74? NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr F SOLVED, that the San LL= Obispo Area Coordinating Council does hereby endorse the passage of the Clean Air and Transportation Iuprovement Act on the June 1,990 ballot. On motion by Delegate Alako]-y i Se=ded by Delegate Ranva and on the following roll call vote, to wit: YES. Delegates Blakely, Rappa, Borgeson, Coy, Johnson, Moots, Morrow, ovitt, Sheetz and President Delany NOES: Delegate Ekbom AgsERr: Delegate Russell ABF-%,JIId: N-Re The foregoing resolution is hereby adapted on the 16th day of Match, 1990. Evelyn Delany, President SAN IUIS OBISPO AMA COORDIl=G COL24 , APPROVED AS To FORM AND LDGAL E.FFF3CI': Flya1 11Deputy Date: 4 S County AT=: Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager �lII�IIIII�II�III�III�������������IIIII 111111 aty of tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 a San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 April 3, 1990 Mayors/City Managers of cities within San Luis Obispo County Chairman of the Board/County Administrator: As indicated at the last Mayors/Managers meeting I attended the. Legislative update in Sacramento on Wednesday, March 28, and obtained the attached information about a State Constitutional Amendment (SCA 1) which is now known as Propositions 111 and 108. I have attached three documents that deal with these propositions: 1. League of California Cities - Questions and Answers to Propositions 111 and 108 2 . Sample resolution of support for Propositions ill and 108 3 . My notes on these matters from the speeches of Governor Deukmejian and Dick Woodward. The League will be putting out further information in the League Bulletin in the near future. Hope this information helps. Sincerely, unn City Administrative Officer JD:mc Attachments b:mayormgr 7-21 ATTA('T]MZMTA League of California Cities ■m- 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790 1■w` California Cates Work Togerner YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PROPOSITIONS 111 AND 108 June 1990 Ballot What is Proposition 111? Appearing on the June 1990 ballot will be a measure, titled Proposition 111 (titled"The7l Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990" and formerly known as SCA1). It contains three elements: - It revises the spending limit calculations for local government and the state.The revisions Will allow for your appropriations limit to be adjusted annually at a rate to keep pace with the economic growth in your city. - - It allows for increases in vehicle fuel taxes and truck weight fees to fund State,county and city transportation improvements. These new funds,which come from increases in the gas and diesel tax and commercial vehicle weight fees,would be exempt from state and local ap- propriations limits. - It revises the school funding initiative passed in 1988 to balance the state's educational needs with the needs of other state services. Impact on: Spending; Limit within the city. Legislation passed (Senate Bill 88) to implement Proposition 111 would allow Q. How would setting my city's limit be for one of two methods to change the limit different? based on population increases: either 1) changes in population in the city, or 2) the A. Currently, cities adjust their limits based on percentage increase in population for thee nt ire the change in the cost-of-living only. If Prop. county. I 1 I is passed, a city would adjust its "Gann Limit," or spending limit, by either 1) the Finally, Prop. 111 would exclude from the change in California's per capita personal spending limit any appropriations for certain income or 2) the percentage charge of growth capital expenses, defined as land, capital im- in total assessed value due to non-residential provements or equipment that exceed S 100,000 construction. and have a life expectancy of ten years or more. In addition, cities currently may adjust their It would also exclude from the state limit anv spending limits based on changes in population future increases in the gas tax or truck wei`,11t fees. 7—z? - Q. What if my city has an emergency Impact on: Transvortation and needs arty surpluses it might Q.Q. What does Prop. 111 do to relieve A. Prop. 111 allows for funds to be spent in congestion? excess of the limit for emergencies declared by A- In conjunction with Prop. 108, a-rail bonds the governor without reducing subsequent years' measure,$18.5 billion will be provided over the limits. next ten years to do the following: Q. How is the spending limit checked? Funding the 1988 State Transportation Im- provement Program(STIP)shortfall $3.5 A. The annual calculation of the appropriation billion. Projects to be funded are in the cur- limit will be reviewed as part of an annual audit. rent 1988 plan. The nature of this review will be defined by statute, and it is intended that cities will be • Subvention to cities and counties:$3 bil- involved in the drafting of this statute. Gori. Half the fund is for cities and half for counties, to be distributed to cities based on Q. If it passes, when would the population. Cities will have to maintain their provisions go into effect? local contributions to the transportation system and in counties with an urbanized area A. The base year for determining a city's limit of 50,000 or more, develop a Congestion would.be the 1986/87 year. The provisions will Management Plan in order to receive the go into effect on July 1, 1990. funds. Q. What is the impact of Proposition Cities can expect to receive an average of III if our city is not at its Gann $6.68 per capita annually once the full tax Limit? increase is in place. The first year will result in about half that amount,with the subvention A. First, it is expected that many cities not at increasing each year until it reaches the full their Gann limit will reach the limit in just a few amount in five years. years. • Flexible Congestion Relief Program-$3 Second, Proposition 111 excludes gas taxes from billion. Highways, local roads and transit the State Gann Limit which is the only way to guideway projects are eligible for funds under provide the opportunity for the state to raise this program. Funds would be spent on the new gas tax money. Without this Proposition, most cost-effective project designed to reduce there will be. no increases in the state gas tax. congestion as determined by the California Transportation Commission. .Third, the passage of Proposition 111 provides direct money for the local transportation system State-local transportation partnership pro- as well as providing new money for which local gram-$2 billion. The money in this fund can governments can compete. be used entirely by local government for local highway, local road or transit guideway proj- ects, and must be matched at least on a dollar- for-dollar basis with local funds. Intercity rail, commuter rail and urban rail transit-$3 billion. Also on the June ballot is ` 7,L3 Proposition 108, which authorizes the sale ofRanI �, $1 billion in general obligation bonds to be rtee �igallo . In addition, used for mass transit guideways, on specified it will come from an increase of 40 percent in rail corridors, includi: urb,:n rail, commuter weight fees for trucks over 4,000 pounds starting rail and intercity rail. Two additional$1 Aug. 1, 1990 and another 10 percent increase on billion bond measures for the same purposes Jan. 1, 1995. are scheduled to go before the voters in No- vember, 1992 and November, 1994. Fifteen Net revenues from the tax and fee increases will percent of the $3 billion is specifically allo- generate an estimated$15.5.bRgdtuing the cated for intercity rail projects. 1* 1. 199t3�io June 30, 2000. Inter-regional roads-$1.25 billion. This would be for specified state highway routes Q, Whm does the additional$3 billion primarily outside urban areas. come from? Traffic system management-$1 billion. For use on transportation systems management the first$1 billion of a total of STli tion in'` projects on state highways and local roads general obligation bonds to designed to increase carrying capacity without pans t: ttii Wo%n d $1 increasing lanes, as determined by the CTG billion bond authorization will beplaced on the November 1992 general election ballot and the Retrofit soundwalls-$150 million. To third on the November 1994 general election complete all remaining soundwalls designated ballot. in the current,soundwall program. Environmental enhancement and mitigation Q MW-'s the Congestion Manggenwnt -$100 million. For use on urban reforestation Plan? and other environmental mitigation measures A. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) to ease the environmental effects of transpor- would be required in every county with an tation facilities. urbanized area of 50,000 citizens or more as a • Transit operation and/or capital-$500 mil- condition to compete for and receive the funds.. lion. This would fund the State Transit Assis- The CMP would have to be developed and tance Program and would be apportioned to adopted annually and must contain the follow all areas of the state with half the apportion- ing: ment based on population and half on transit a) The CMP would be prepared by a public operator revenues. agency designated by the county board of • Maintenance and rehabilitation of state supervisors and a majority of cities repre- highways-$1 billion. To be used on additional senting a majority of the incorporated popu- state highway maintenance and rehabilitation lation in the county. This could either be an costs. existing agency or the local governments could create a new agency. The CMP would Q Where does the money come from? be prepared in cooperation with regional transportation planning agencies, Caltrans, A. The! will come from an increase in air pollution districts, and other local govern the.gsotuieand a "�`ie user tax rate of five cents ments. per gallon effective Aug. 1, 1990 and additional 3 �l� The agency that will produce the CMP must nance,safety,state-local partnership monies, be designated by a vote of the county and a transportation systems management monies, majority of the cities representing a majority intercity rail, and expenditures for the Transpor- of the population. tation Planning and Development Account. Counties not receiving their minimums during b) CMP elements would include service the 1988-93 period would have these minimums standards for roads, highways and public carried forward to the 1993-1998 period of the transit, trip reduction efforts to promote funding proposal. After adopting the 1992 alternative transportation methods, pro- STIP, the California Transportation Commis- grams to measure impacts of development sion is prohibited from allocating any funds for on regional transportation systems, and a any project if the STIP is not programmed in a seven-year capital improvement program manner that guarantees every county its county that maintains or improves service stan- minimum. dards, mitigates transportation impacts of development, and conforms vehicle emis- Impact on: Schools Bions reductions and mitigation measures. c) The CMP capital program would become Q How does Prop. 111 change funding the basis for the Regional Transportation . for schools approved by Prop. 987 Improvement Program (RTIP) adopted for A. Prop. 98,approved by voters in 1988,guar- the region by the regional transportation anteed.K-14 schools would receive a share of planning agency. the state general fund and determined what portion of the state's annual surplus,if any, d) The regional transportation planning would go to schools. This amount then became agency would evaluate the CMP for consis- part of the school'sbase funding. Prop. 111 tency with regional transportation plans and provides that 50 percent of any state surplus could exclude inconsistent projects from the over the state's limit will go to schools,but this RTIP. amount will not become a part of the school's base funding. The remainder of any surplus e) The agency responsible for developing would be returned to the taxpayers. the CMP would monitor implementation of the CMP by cities and counties and could recommend that the new gas tax subventions for local entities be withheld if cities are not in compliance. For Copies of Propositions 111 and 108 f) Authorizes the California Transportation contact the Commission to give priority projects to cities Secretary of State and counties in compliance with their CMP. Elections and Political Q How is the northlsouth split handled? Reform Division 9161445-0820 A. All of the expenditures in the transportation package would be subject to the current method for determining the "north/south split"and "county minimums," except highway mainte- MAxcH 1990 4 �—�� o ���►�d��l iiii����►���►�IIIII Ill ��u�iiii�i i Till IIS city of sAn luis oaspo I 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 April 3, 1990 To: Mayors/City Managers From: John Dunn Subject: Speech o League of California Cities members by Governor Deukmejian and Dick Woodward in relation to Propositions 111 and 108 Governor Deukmejian stated that the State has 650, 000 new State residents each year, which is twice the national average of growth. He stated that we need to take some bold step, that we need to improve our transportation network. He said that Propositions 108 and 111 would provide $18 and one-half billion over ten years which, in addition to roadway improvements, would be used to expand transit, to improve the railroad system, and to increase the effectiveness of Caltrans. He cited the revenue-raising capacity of both the transit bond program and increasing the truck fees. He said that spending for the State transportation improvements would cost 16 cents per day per resident of California. Dick Woodward is a member of the advertising agency which will be promoting Propositions 111 and 108. He said that an excellent ten- minute video has been done for our use (the League will. notify us as to its availability) . He said that we're asking for a tax increase, and that is not a popular situation. The public is willing to approve a tax that is going to help them. What they want to know is where is the money going, what is. it going to do? He says that they are creating a statewide campaign that will have a local flavor. He added that the more specific we get as to what we are going to do with the money, the more we point out the benefits, the better we will do in the campaign. When people understand what's involved, we' ll do surprisingly well. He said that we can't buy this election through the paid media, that we have to have local support and maximize use of the free media. He said, "You need not worry about being on the wrong side of this issue, " that polling (over sampling in certain counties) gives more support for a 9-cent gas tax than for a 5-cent. gas tax. Voters understand the magnitude of the problem. The two propositions represent a unique package, for the first time gas tax will go for something other than pouring concrete. We have learned that we can't build ourselves out of our transportation dilemma. He said that rail transit will be an important part of the package. The local level will have decision-making power over how this money gets allocated. He said that cynicism toward government in 7-26 general, at all levels, people not trusting politicians, must be addressed, that we need accountability language, which is being placed in trailer legislation. He said that Propositions 111 and 108 are very complex initiatives, that they are based on some grand compromises in Sacramento. He said that in order to win, we have to talk transportation, even though there are other items in the initiative package. He said that it is important that we don't lose focus with the public, making it sound too complex; he said, "Transportation is where the electorate is, and where the media is. " JD:mc b/maymgrl i 7--27 city O� Santis OBISPO M MY"DATE.1989 M7" COUNCIL AGENDA R PORT FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance " SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CITY'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive and file this report on the City's appropriation limit. OVERVIEW The purpose of this report is to review the status of the City's appropriation limit and to discuss the implications of projected treads. The following are key findings from the City's Comprehensive Financial Management Plan (which will be formally presented to the City Council at its May 24, 1989 meeting on budget issues) regarding the City's appropriation limit: • The City's favorable variance from its limit has decreased significantly since the base year of 1978-79. • A favorable variance from the limit of $1.4 million is projected for 1988-89. • Projected. growth in the City's tax base (exclusive of any changes in tax rates such as Transient Occupancy Taxes) will cause the City to exceed its appropriations limit by 1991-92 BACKGROUND The Gann Spending-Limitation Initiative was approved -by the voters on November 6, 1979 (establishing Article XIIIB of the State Constitution), which provided for the limitation of state and local governmental appropriations. As discussed in the following summary of the major provisions of the Gann Initiative as they relate to the City of San Luis Obispo, the Gann Initiative is actually a limitation on tax revenues rather than a direct limitation on appropriations: • Appropriations subject to limitation may not exceed appropriations made in 1978-79 except as adjusted for increases in the cost of living, population, and service responsibility transfers. Increases in the cost of living are defined as the lesser of the changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index or California Personal Per Capita Income. • Appropriations financed through service fees (to the degree that they do not exceed the budgeted cost of performing the service), grant programs, fines and forfeitures, and other 'non-tax' sources as defined by the Initiative and SB 1352, are not subject to the Appropriations Limit. Additionally, appropriations for long-term indebtedness incurred prior to FY 1978-79 as well as increased costs as.a result of federally-mandated programs are also excluded from the limit. Essentially, with the exception of expenditures for debt service incurred prior to FY 1978-79. all appropriations funded through the proceeds of taxes are subject to limitation. • For the purposes of identifying proceeds from taxes under the Gann Initiative, state subventions which are unrestricted as to their use (such as Motor Vehicle Me ATTACHMENT 5 7�� 'IVA , G1C/ Q f sap LUIS o5ispo . ■a COUfVC�L AGENOA REPORT and Cigarette Tax In-Lieu revenues) are considered to be tax sources. Gas Tax, Local Transportation Fund, and SB 300 subventions are identified as non-tax sources as their use is restricted by the State. • All proceeds from taxes received in excess of the Appropriations Limit must be returned through refunds or revisions in tax rates or fee schedules within the next .two fiscal years; or approval by the voters of an increase in the City's Appropriations Limit would be required. Any voter approved increase in the Appropriations Limit would be valid for a maximum of four years and would require another vote at the end of that period for continuance. • The Gann Initiative is self-executing; to the extent feasible, local agencies are expected to implement the initiative without further legislative direction (other than SB 1352) or administrative auditing by the State. The Appropriations Limit computations and subsequent implementation of these limits is the sole responsibility of the City, and no formal review by another governmental agency is required. • Major concepts in implementing the Gann Initiative include: appropriations funded through tax sources are subject to the limit, not actual expenditures; and any excess of actual tax revenues over the Appropriations Limit, not actual expenditures or appropriations, must be returned. FINDINGS Provided in Attachment A.is a summary of the City's Appropriations Limit and actual proceeds from taxes subject to limitation from 1978-79 (the base year) through 1987-88 along with projections for 1988-89 through 1999-00 These projections have been made based on the following assumptions: • Annual increases in the cost of living of 5%. i • .Population increases consistent with the General Plan of approximately 1% annually beginning with 1990-91. • Real growth in the tax base of approximately 6% annually based on historical treads over the past 10 years. As reflected by Attachment A and the graphic summary provided in Attachment B, the City's variance from its limit has consistently declined since the base year (1978-79), and the limit is projected to be exceeded by 1991-92. This timetable would be negatively impacted by the proposed increase of 2% to 3% in the Transient Occupancy Tax, which is estimated to generate between $400,000 to $600,000 in additional revenues subject to limitation. i The impact of the Gann Initiative on local government finance is emerging as a critical issue throughout the State. Ultimately, any community which is experiencing real growth in its local economy will be faced with exceeding its appropriations limit. To date, 60 agencies have sought an override election. All overrides that were not linked to an increase in tax rates have been successful; and 63% of all overrides related to tax increases have been successful. i woo 7-01 City O� Santis IS OBISPO _ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE GANN LIMIT In November of 1999, several ballot initiatives aimed at changing the Gann Appropriations Limit to better accommodate economic growth were submitted for voter approval. These initiatives were sponsored or supported by a number of groups including the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association, the University and College Systems, California Tax Payers Association (Cal Tax), National Association of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce and others. Several of these supporters were the initial authors of the Gann Initiative in 1979. All of these initiatives were narrowly defeated. Presently, a coalition referred to as 'Project 90' and led by the California Tax Payers Association is developing a legislative measure which would modify Article XIIIB of the ' Gann appropriation limit and its, effect on State and local government. Their analysis indicates its impact is not what was originally contemplated by the 1979 authors and, in fact, compromises economic growth and entrepreneurial actions by public jurisdictions. j The Project 90 coalition presently includes Cal Tax, the California Chamber of Commerce, representatives of major public employee organizations, the University and College Systems, and the medical and health industry. As presently drafted, the Project 90 proposal is consistent with the League of California 1, Cities' policy of favoring modifications to Gann which better accommodate economic growth j and allows for the length of voter overrides to be determined in the ballot measure. ! I Several sources indicate there is strong legislative support for the Project 90 proposal. However, should the proposal not be approved by the legislature, the coalition is prepared to pursue a ballot initiative in June of 1990. � I RECOMMENDED GANN POLICIES The Comprehensive Financial Management Plan includes the following recommendations I regarding the City's appropriations limit: I 1. The City shall strive to develop revenue sources, both new and existing, which are considered non-tax proceeds and, therefore, not restricted by the expenditure limitation. 2. The City shall annually review user fees and charges and report to the City { Council the amount of program subsidy, if any, that is being provided by the General or Enterprise Funds. li 3. The City shall seek a vote of the public to amend its appropriations limit at such time that tax proceeds are in excess of allowable limits. 4. The City shall actively support League of California sponsored or supported legislation or initiatives which would modify Article XIIIB of the Constitution in a manner which would allow the City to retain projected tax revenues i resulting from growth in the local economy for use as determined by the City Council ! i ]-3b 1 City Of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT S.L34MARY The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the City's Appropriations Limit and to review the implications of projected trends on the City's futurefinancial capacity to fund existing levels of service and projected capital programs. i I i ATTAM ENT& 1. Attachment A - Summary of the City's Appropriations Limit and tax proceeds subject to limitation a 1978-79 through 1999-00. 2 Attachment B - Graphic summary of the City's appropriations limit trends. i o � � ATTACHMFm a CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND TAX PROCBEDS SUBJECT TO LIMITITATION ACTUAL AND PROJECTED • 1978-89 THROUGH 1999-00 PROCEEDS FROM VARIANCE- APPROPRIATIONS TAXES SUBJECT FAVORABLE LIMIT TO LIMITATION (UNFAVORABLE) --------------------- --------------------------------- ACTUAL 1978-79 $8,220, 471 $8,220, 471 $0 1979-80 9, 025,701 61355,807 21669, 894 1980-81 10, 171, 331 6, 057,803 4, 113, 528 1981-82 11,213,275 8,577,460 2, 635,815 1982-83 12,284, 800 80551, 198 3,733,602 1983-84 12,752,036 9,798, 697 2,953,339 1984-85 13,640,976 10,739,997 2,900,979 1985-86 14,439,832 13,877,293 2,562,539 1986-87 15,210, 675 13,476,829 1,733,846 I 1987-88 15,784, 358 14,854, 111 930,247 PROJECTED I 1988-89 17,077,276 15,666,454 1,410,822 1989-90 18,252,192 17,136,012 1,116,180 1990-91 ' 1 , 360, 100 181819,448 5401652 1991-92 ,533,322 20, 679,220 (145, 898) 1992-93 X11773 ,535 22,713, 103 (939,568) 1993-94 23, 068,479 24,9909612 (1,922, 133) 1994-95 24,476,285 27, 519,411 (3, 043, 126) i 1995-96 25,959,548 30,347,508 (4, 38.71960) 1 1996-97 27,530,101 33,446,364 (5,9161263) 1997-98 29, 192,919 36,886,527 (7, 693 ,.608) I 1998-99 30,953,252 40,697,256 (9,744 , 004) 1999-00 32,816, 638 45,066, 226 (12, 249 , 588) I I ^1r �� ATTACHMENT a °f o vs Z °'N ; O ' Q J Q Q D LU W m2 m2 LU W O p O CL � Na W � 000) w� i Ct0 W r IL 00 = i �X Jzo Wa H . ap W i ZOO mac= W �� N Q 2 Z F- ~ co i a CC V O a �' Z a O F- U ac CL O c _ a i Q co Im �O 0 N 0 C CDC ow 3 MEMORANDUM April 17, 1990 TO: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Y717ic r FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance (, SUBJECT: FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSITION 111 The following is a brief summary of the impacts of Proposition 111 (SCA1) as it affects the City's: 11 Appropriations Limit ■ Gas Tax Revenues Appropriations Limit Modifications Passage of proposition I I1 will positively impact the calculation of the City's Appropriations Limit. As discussed with the Council during the 1989-91 Financial Plan preparation process, the effect of the initiative (Proposition 4 - Gann Spending Limit) which established the concept of appropriation limitation is to limit the.City's tax revenues to 1978-79 levels except as adjusted for increases in population and cost of living. Under current procedures for calculating the appropriations limit, it is projected that the City will exceed its Appropriations Limit by Fiscal Year 1991-92. Although the quantitative impact of Proposition 1 I 1 on the City's Appropriation Limit can not be calculated at this time, the following features are included in its provisions which are favorable to the City: ■ Increases in the limit due to changes in population can be based on either the percentage increase in the City's population or the County-wide population, whichever is greater. ■ Increases in the limit due to changes in the "cost of living" will be based on the percentage increase in personal income. Currently, an increase in the "cost of living" is defined as the lesser of changes in the consumer price index (CPI) or personal income. Historically, changes in personal income have been greater than changes in the CPI. ■ Appropriations for capital improvements and acquisitions with a cost of $100,000 or greater and a life in excess of 10 years are excluded from the Appropriations Limit. It is anticipated that guidance will be received from a broad variety of sources (State Controller, State Department of Finance, League of California Cities, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers) regarding the procedures to be followed in calculating the City's Appropriations Limit if Proposition i l l is adopted. Until that time, it is not possible to accurately calculate the specific impact of Proposition I I 1 on the City's Appropriations Limit. However, it can be anticipated that the proposed revisions will significantly improve the City's position relative to its current Appropriations Limit as calculated under existing constitutional and legislative provisions. J ATTACHMENT 6 ��� i i Gas Tax Revenues With the additional gas tax revenues permitted under Proposition 111,subventions to cities and counties from this revenue source are projected to increase by approximately $6.00 per capita. For the City of San Luis Obispo, this will result in approximately $250,000 annually in additional revenues. This revenue increase is especially valuable in light of the results of the City's long-term financial planning efforts which indicate the need for additional revenues if current service levels are to be maintained and capital facility goals achieved. Specifically, the additional revenues would address two key issues: ■ Under the City's Pavement Management Plan adopted in February of 1988, the level of funding allocated to street resurfacing and reconstruction has increased by approximately$370,000 annually(from$250,000 to$620,000). The additional $250,000 in street-related funds can be used to offset a significant portion of this increase. ■ The additional revenues are excluded from the City's Appropriations Limit. SUMMARY Although the exact impact of Proposition 111 is difficult to project, it will positively affect . the City's long-term financial health in two key areas: ■ Improve the City's variance from its Appropriations Limit. ■ Generate additional revenues($250,000 annually)to offset higher levels of street maintenance previously approved by Council. If you have any questions concerning this initial review of the financial impacts of Proposition 111 in the City,or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. ' ME40/PROP111.YPF 7 �s • C YESON C 111&108 THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT! : JUST THE FACTS Proposition 11L/ The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act Proposition 108: The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act Transportation Package Specifically,new revenues will be used to: New Revenues: Earthquake-safe freeways, bridges and streets — A total of 5185 billion will be raised over the next Every.major earthquake uncovers new ways of 10 years from the following sources: reinforcing our existing transporiation system to prevent future tragedies. We have the know-how • 9-Cent-Per-Gallon Fuel Tax Increase (5 cents on August and technology,but lack the funds to undertake the - 1, 1990,additional 1 ant on January 1, 1991, 1992, 1993 seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the safek and 1994) of all our bridges and overpasses. • 55%Truck weight Fee Increase Complete already authorized, but unfunded projects— There is currently a S35 billion shortfall • Rail Transit Bonds(Si billion bond in svAl (Proposition in the state transportation improvement program. 108);additional Sl billion bond measures will be placed on Hundreds of already-authorized freeway widening, 1992 and 1994 ballots] interchange improvement, general safety New Expenditures: reinforcements, transit and other projects have (in billion dollars) been halted for lack of funds. Proposition 111 will 3-5 Complete already-authorized projects. enable these projects to proceed. 3.0 Maintenance and repair of local streets and roads. Fix potholes and increase maintenance of local 3.0 (Prop.log and future bonds)Build and-expand streets and roads — A full two-thirds of our main intercity,commuter and urban rail transit. roads are in fair to very poor condition and in need 3.0 Construct projects spedfically designed to reduce of resurfacing or reconstruction, according to The congestion on existing routes. Road Information Program (TRIP). 20 Matching funds for dry and county priority transportation projects Reduce peak-hour traffic by expanding van, 125 improve interregional roads outside urban areas. carpool and staggered work hour programs—The 1.0 Peak-hour reduction projects,such as vanpools. best way to decrease traffic congestion is to reduce the number of vehicles using the system. More 1.0 Highway repair,maintenance and safety. programs and incentives are needed to encourage 0.5 Transit expansion,operation and maintenance. the private sector to promote carpool and flextir C 0.25 Environmental enhancements and soundwall to get folks off the highways during peak hours. - retrofitting. 518.5 billion aSQN11,s. /111m,:asc.e.a•-5—:e-Cd5o,.'c3re A 94010/'415.313.0:70°ac'rab43.:192 �/ 'u0 hes;�lhr'7c aae,3•c S,:e_'? �_cs:^qe rs 9064/x,:3•::5 odds .- 4 Build and expand rail transit systems — While The plan must outline a program for reducing $3.5 billion is earmarked erclusively for transit traffic and address important land use, air quality projects,another$5 billion in congestion relief and and other issues. The Congestion Management matching funds will be available for local Programwill also encourage coordination with the governments to use on rail projects as well.. private sector to promote van pools, staggered Together,Proposition 111 and 108 will provide the work hours and other peak-hour traffic relief funds needed to expand existing light rail, programs. commuter and intercity lines and start new services where they are needed. TaypayerAccountability: Improve traffic flow— In some cases, getting cars The Propositions will require the Auditor General moving faster is simply a matter of making to conduct an annual review of the state's relatively small investments to improve the existing expenditure of these new funds. system. Wider use of synchronized signals on major thoroughfares, re-directing traffic with Spending Limitation Modifications highway alert signs and ramp meters to control freeway flow are just a few of the ways we can make Exempts increased fuel taxes —Without a change the most of what we've already got. in the existing government spending limit,the new revenues could not be spent. Proposition 111 will Improvements to and maintenance of state ensure that new revenues that coine in from the use highways Built decades ago, California's of state and local roads are spent on improving the npressive highway system now suffers from transportation system. ieruse, everyday wear and lack of adequate funding. As a result of inflation, increased fuel Exempts emergency expenditures — Proposition efficiency and skyrocketing construction and 111 will exempt one-time expenditures for material costs,we are actually spending less on our earthquakes and other emergencies: highways today than we were decades ago. Proposition 111 will provide the funds necessary to Reflects growth in the economy — The existing, ensure the endurance and safety of our world ten-year-old limit is still tied to an inflation factor renowned highways. (the National Consumer Price Index). Proposition 111 will allow it to keep pace with our economy by Congestion Management Program: permitting the.limit to grow with California's per A fundamental objective of the transportation . capita personal income. package is to promote a coordinated regional Reflect school population growth — The measure approach to reduce congestion and to ensure new will require the state limit reflect the annual growth transportation funds are properly used on projects in average daily attendance in our public schools. that will have the maximum impact on congestion relief. Exempts capital outlay projects — Capital outlay expenditures (school buildings, etc.) tend to be To receive the new revenues provided for local cyclical and do not readily fit within a limit designed congestion relief and other improvements, a to control annual spending. To prevent capital transportation commission (or appropriate outlays from resulting in significant service cuts, regional agency) in every urban county must work Proposition 111 will remove them from the -with air quality management and other relevant limitation. )cal government agencies to prepare a congestion management plan- ;7-37 o c YESON 111J08 THERES A LOT RIDING ON IT! Proposition 108: The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act Moving California into a New Era of Rail Transit Proposition 108 is the rail transit bonding portion of the comprehensive transportation blueprint outlined in Proposition 111 —the Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending limitation Act. As required by this visionary package,over the next four years,voters will be asked to approve three separate $1 billion rail transit bond measures,totalling S3 billion.Proposition 108 on the June ballot is the first of these measures. Although the law requires that Proposition 108—because it is a bond measure — appear separately on the ballot, it will NOT go into effect unless BOTH Propositions 111 AND 108 receive voter approval in June. Proposition 108 will fund high priority capital outlay rail projects on intercity (Amtrak), commuter and urban corridors throughout the state. (Eligible corridors are listed on.the reverse side.) Proposition 108 will usher California into a new era of rail transit. It will: • Provide frustrated commuters and everyday citizens with real, and safe, alternatives to battling traffic. • Remove thousands of automobiles from our congested streets and highways. In fact,experience shows that every rail car removes 75 to 125 automobiles from traffic • Reduce dangerous pollution levels in the air we breathe. • Prove cost-effective. Light rail can be built at one-tenth the cost of highways. • Keep California prosperous. According to fiscally conservative State Treasurer Thomas Hayes, "Proposition 108 is exactly the kind of investment we should be making and is vital to keeping the California economy healthy and prosperous". Join the movement toward a SAFER, CLEANER and MORE EFFICIENT ^ TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM! VOTE YES on 108 and YES on 111± 1/ / _3or The following corridors wi.U be eligible for Proposition 108 funds: INTERCITY RAIL Santa Clara: Los Angeles-San Diego Sunnyvale- Santa Clara Santa Barbara- Los Angeles San Jose - Vasona Los Angeles -Fresno-Bay Area/Sacramento Route 237 Bay Area- Sacramento - Auburn San Francisco: San Francisco-Eureka Extensions, improvements and additions to the COMMUTER RAIL San Francisco Municipal Railway. San Francisco- San Jose San Francisco-Santa Rosa-Sonoma San Jose-Gilroy Gilroy- Monterey Santa Cruz County: Stockton-Livermore Boardwalk-University of California, Santa Orange County-Los Angeles Cruz _ Riverside County-Orange County Los Angeles Metro Rats: San Bernardino County-Los Angeles Wilshire/Alvarado-Wilshire/Westera Ventura-San Fernando Valley-Los Angeles Saugus-Los Angeles Wilshire/Alvarado-Lankershim/Chandler Oceanside-San Diego San Fernando Valley Extension Escondido-Oceanside Union Station-State Routes 5 and 710 Wilshire/Western-Wilshire/Route 405 URBAN RAIL TRANSIT Los Angeles County Rail Corridors: Sacramento: San Fernando Valley Roseville extension Pasadena- Los Angeles Hazel extension Coastal Corridor (Torrance-Santa Monica) Meadowview extension Santa Monica- Los Angeles Arena extension Route 5 BART: Route 110 Bayfair- East Livermore San Diego: Concord- East Antioch El Cajon- Santee. Fremont - Warm Springs Downtown- Old Town Daly City-SF Airport Airport- Point Loma Coliseum-Oakland Airport Old Town- Mission Valley Richmond -Crockett Mission Vallev - La Mesa Warm Springs - San Jose La Jolla - Miramar Old Town - Del Mar Alameda and Contra Costa: Downtown - Escondido Pleasanton-Concord Chula.Vista - Otay Mesa 7s31 0 YES on PROPOSITIONS 111 & 108 VI Hy CALIFORNIA BUSINESS SUPPORTS 111 & 1081. California has reached a crosaruaft we enter a now decade facing nhonuu W91111 Chaliarg"—managing rrafflc conggsdon,coping with explosive population growth,addM*Q SPIM +g health are cosm ensuring adequate law erdoramwt end puck sally protection and teachhkhg our children the SM necessary to compete In the modem woridora. The nature and magnitude of these demands call for an hvvattve and comprehensive plan—a blueprint to move California toward the start of a new certM. Thar$why the California Chamber d Conrnera.Calfiomia Taxpayers Assoc California Business Roundtable, California Manufacturers Association. California Association d Highway Patroftrw% gigue of Women Voters d California.California State Automobile Association organized" taxpayer. a r. transcongestion n.Re f and, health cars. h Ad dd 1990 educationbor and Proposition 111 an the June S ballot Cpngestlpn Retie(and Spending Proposition t t 1 contains two major components that will provide the resources and direction necessary to address todaYs challenges: a traffic. congestion relief package and a modtlla*m d the existing government spending pma Traffic Congestion Rellet An efficient transportation system is critical to maintain a strong and dynamic California economy. Current congestion levels have become unbearable.t No longer lot concentrated entr worse! CongestionlyIn the >s expected urban to ele�ock now plagues us an and It's only going 9 and even triple in some areas—In just t0 Ysam Even tl revenues were available.we can no longer expect to simply build our way out of gridlock. Those days are long gone. We need a dramatic change In directlon. Proposition 111 outlines a sensible.far-reaching transportation package that utilizes innovative strategies to tackle today's unique traffic problems and better prepare for tomomW s needs. it sets new priorities. It represents a whole new comprehensive approach to solving our traffic nightmares. It will require$18.5 billion be spent over the next ten years to: • Make our freeways.bridges and streets earthquake sate. • Complete highway and mass transit projects authorized but nonfunded. • Fb( potholes and khcrease maintenance of local streets and state highway$. • Reduce peak-hour traffic by expanding van.carpool and staggered work hour programa. • Expand local rail transit systems in Los Angeles. the Bay Area San Diego. Sacramento. Santa para. San Joaquin Valley.Riverside, San Bernardino. Orange.the coastal counties and elsewhere. • Improve traffic flow through synchronized signals. freeway ramp signals. electronic traffic message t signs and other modem devices. • Improve state highways. 111 Nue Bougvard.Suit@ 406.aurllngam4.CA 94010 • Phone:(415)3400470 FLi (415)3461392 Exemt"Tower 8 041UV,11400 w.otympie Boulevard.Los Angeles,CA 90054.• Phone: 1213)4458885 Fu: (213)4458800�� 1121 L Stress.Suet@ 1000.Seuamenw,CA 99614 . Phone:(916)4"-&= Fax (916)446-7.104 w—•.ew., Truwrar Id 891694 s. Mars w l ft now Rhaney CORM ftm7 Dh*ham than who use the t09da IMO inCgaaed uaar ha-a S cem-pK9s0on tud me tagger this year and an addMond 1 art each d the nod tour yam(a coral Increase d 8 ants) and taraeed truck what trig. It* P.ssrnprr Flat and Clan Air Said Act - aM wnathdar of the dada . (Woug h an taegrd t� d the Propoeltlon 108 r� provide rh�asaary PmpoWw 111 package,for trdMW reasons*me rel banall bonds vA appear sepwaWy On the ballot) The gasoline In increase will octal about$W a year for the average driver. It's an tnogaar we can attend Span" Limit Modifications: The wdsting spending M* on state and total 90VOMIT01 threatens assandal govwnmft*WrAces needed to maintain soonomb gmwh it prevent us tram using the revenues generated by growth to meet the demands of growdL Propo$Ww 111 will exempt the now gas tax mwKm from the Arnie and w0 regire state and local ft t: to grow with our economy. but no taster. This w0 keep strong taxpayer conirds On 90vrrnrnOM spending W will enable already-collected taxes to be used to meet pressing law enf fOOMOM senior, education and other needs. The chola Is simple: We can let our tmffic and other problems pat worsts or we an do something about it NOW. We have the technology and the know-how to tackle these concerns. Now-in Propositions 11 t a toe �a -we have a consensus plan of acdon VOTE YES ON PROPOSITIONS 111 & 108 741 YES ON 111JOS THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT! WHYEDUCATION SUPPORTS PROPOSITIONS 111 and 108! . Propositions 111 and 108 represent a consensus I It will: blueprint to move California into the 21st Increase the dollars for our schools by Ceniury. requiring current spending limits on education They are supported by California's education spending to reflect both the growth in our community — educators, school boards, parents economy and the growth in school population. and student associations — as well as a diverse This will enable the use of already-collected taxes coalition that includes California's highway to meet our education and other vital service patrol "officers, police chiefs, taxpayer needs. associations,health care and senior associations, Without these changes, according to the the Chamber of Commerce, Governor Commission on State Finance — even though Deukmejian and the leadership of BOTH the funds will be available — the existing limit will Democratic and Republican parties. deny$22 billion in revenues to vital service cuts ' Just what are Propositions 111 and 108 that over the next 10 years. i make them so widely supported? • Strengthens the 40% general fund minimum Proposition 11.1 contains two major funding guarantees provided to our kindergarten components: through community colleges. In lean economic years, Proposition 111 requires "that any 1) an update of the existing government legislative suspension of education's guaranteed spending limitation; and minium be paid back in future years. 2) a comprehensive transportation package. • Exempts capital outlay expenditures for Updating the Spending Limit for Our Schools: school buildings and facilities from the spending limit. This will be a tremendous benefit to The current, spending limit has become overcrowded districts. outdated. It fails to reflect the growth of our 9 provides for annual cost of living adjustments economy and could prevent the expenditure of for the following categorical programs which are already-collected revenues to meet our growing not currently permitted to keep pace with needs. inflation: It fails to reflect the dramatic increase in the -Child Care number of kil',, entering our schools every year. -Instructional Materials Finally,it pi 'ie funding needs of kindergarten _Special Education through comm pity college against every other -Regional Occupational Programs service in the state. -School Improvement While keeping strong taxpayer controls on -Economic Impact Aid government spending.Proposition 111 will make -Staff Development several changes in the existing limit. -Gifted and Talented Education YES ONIn510BsIII An:ago,Klalo.Sute406Bun•ngan*.CA9a010a1a151340"13.47 n400 wes+olym K.Bwe.alc Sade 276 ucs Angeles CA 90064.12131 w5"d665 FAX 12til"58K4 ..,. a ........ re c 11•IGIA1 4 -BWFAX 19161 U6-7'Cs An Innovative and Comprehensive Join the FollowingitiGroups in Support or the Transportation Package Campaign to Pass Proposons 111 & 108: Getting our kids to and from school is becoming Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig more and more dangerous. Our local streets and California Federation of Teachers roads are in dire need of repair and congestion California School Boards Association levels, already unbearable, are expected to double and triple in the next 10 years. California Community College Trustees and Propositions 111 and 108 outline a far-reaching Board of Governors transportation blueprint. The first will raise the Faculty Association of California Community fuel tax by 9 cents per gallon(as a user fee,it will Colleges be exempt from the spending limit). That's about California Retired.Teachers Association a$60 annual increase for the average commuter. California State Student Association The second will authorize the first of three $1 billion rail transit bonds. University of California Board of Regents Together, they will provide $18.5 billion over U.C.President David Gardner the next ten years to: California Faculty Association • Make our streets, highways, bridges and California State University Board of Trustees overpasses earthquake-safe. American Association of University Women • Double our commitment to fixing potholes and increasing streets and road maintenance in Californians for Higher F,Bucation every county in the state. Association of Independent California •Complete already authorized, but unfunded, Colleges and Universities rail and highway projects that will reduce traffic Academic Senate of the California State congestion. University • Build and expand rail transit systems University of California Student Association throughout the state to get more people off our California Association of Highway Patrolmen highways and onto safe, clean and environmentally sound alternatives. League of Women Voters of California • Expand vanpool and staggered business hour California Transportation Commission programs. California Chamber of Commerce • Maximize the existing system by increasing California.Police Chiefs Association the use of synchronized signals, electronic �.,_ ..,..L _«_...L__ message aiert signs and other modern devices. AMULLU�Ovile`-'u"V, Ovutue=++ %-4uLLUA L"a • Improve and maintain our highways and California State Automobile Association freeways. California Seniors Coalition Together, Propositions 111 and 108 will ensure American Association of Retired Persons our commitment to public education and move (AARP) California safely toward a new century. 7-�3 YESON 111J08 THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT! Propositions 111 & 108 are Good for the Environment '. Propositions 111 and 108 will improve the quality of life and the environment in California and will begin the reorientation of our transportation system towards rail and transit They represent a dramatic change in direction in our state transportationpolicy;a growing awareness of the critical relationship between our transportation systems and the environment and a commitment to better managing growth and getting more people off our highways and onto safe,clean and environmentally sound alternatives. Proposition .111 — the Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act — outlines a comprehensive blueprint to move California into the 21st Century. It contains two major components: 1) an update of the government spending limitation;and 2) an innovative transportation package. A Visionary Transportation Package: Traffic congestion has become unbearable and is expected to get worse— two and three times as bad in the next 10 years! And its impact on the environment is becoming more visible than ever Vehicles traveling in bumper-to-bumper traffic spew out three times the pollutants as those traveling at maximum legal speeds.. Propositions 111 and 108 outline a far-reaching, innovative and comprehensive transportation blueprint.Together, these measures represent the largest comautmrnt of funds to rail transit ever before proposed in the State of California. A total of$8S billion—more than one-half of the total proposed new project dollars—will be available for new building,expansion and operation of transit systems throughout the state. The measures will raise$18.5 billion over the next ten years which will be expended as follows: • $3 billion bonds — Exclusively for expansion of commuter, intercity and urban rail transit corridors, including: new commuter rail along major Southern California corridors; BART extensions; light rail extensions in Sacramento, Santa Clara and San Diego; new rail transit lines in Los Angeles;and intercity rail throughout the state. •$500 million—Direct transit operating subsidies.This doubles the current state support for transit operations and provides a critical margin for local transit systems. Currently, the state is providing no operating and only some capital subsidies for transit. a$S billion—Competitive between highway and rail. For the first time in California history, there will be competition at the regional and local levels between rail and highways. This part of the package provides a tremendous opportunity for effective local advocacy for transit alternatives. ($3 billion in "flexible congestion relief"funds which local governments must use to reduce traffic and air pollution. S2 billion in state matching funds for local projects.) • $35 billion — Complete already-approved transit and highway projects contained in the St?, Transportation Improvement Program. YEso 111SioBa111AnzaBawvara.Suae406Bwungame.CA94010.141SI34;'0.170Fox1-:5,34:792 11400 west Nroc 9ou"ara.Swre.278 Los Angews CA 90064 a 12131445-6885 FAA%213,44i dfi00 �j 11:1 L Street.Sucre 1000.Sacramento.CA 95814.19161444.8p60.:AA 19161 u671p4 / • $1 billion — Expansion of carpooling, promotion of staggered business hour programs, signal synchronization and other traffic flow improvements.These innovative programs will improve air Cuality and gas mileage by maximizing the efficiency of the existing system,without adding any new nes. • $250 million - Environmental enhancement and mitigation and soundwalls retrofitting. For urban forestation and other evironmental mitigation measures to ease the environmental effects of transportation facilities. a$4 billion—Earthquake safety, rehabilitation and.maintenance. $1 billion at the state level and $3 billion for cities and counties. •$125 billion—Interregional (mostly rural) road improvements. Where will these new funds come from? Proposition 111 will raise the fuel tax by 9 cents per gallon.That's about a$60 annual increase for the average commuter. Proposition 108—the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Act—will authorize the first of three$1 billion rail transit bonds. (Although an intergral part of the entire transportation package,as abond measure Proposition 108 must appear separately on the ballot.It will take effect only if Proposition 111 passes as well.) Proposition 111 also includes a congestion management program. This unique feature requires regional cooperation among transportation agencies, air districts,and local governments to provide for transportation needs in advance of growth, and sets stringent standards for the use of new transportation funds. New growth will have to be combined with transportation investments which reduce congestion and �mprove air quality. All current environmental safeguards remain in place as well,so this program .;rovides unprecedented environmental protections. Updating the Spending Limit to Protect the Environment: The problem:The existing limit on government spending—more than a decade old fails to reflect the growth in our economy. The result: According to the Commission on State Finance — even though funds will be available — the limit will deny$22 billion in vital services over the next 10 years. That means the limit could shortchange critical programs to clean up mounting air and water pollution—programs such as the Wildlands Program, Hazardous Waste Control, water quality efforts to investigate groundwater contamination and prevent leaks from solid waste facilities and the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program. Proposition 111 will allow state and local spending limits to grow with the state's economy and thereby enable us to use dready-collected revenues to meet pressing needs for health,education,social and environmental programs. At a time when booming population and economic growth place further strains on the environment, we should be increasing, not eroding, state support for clean air and water and land and coastal protection. vr►TIE Son PROPOSITIONS 111 & 108 on JUNE 5! 7-yam Charman Ge.e•ror • �- Girwee Ce Chairs YESONsweewoCo-crtauS. :^-e'Dona,c.r Sur"" aevoen: Ca.:orma 111&108 °ouce Cre's $SOGd4cr Duane Daurer Presloent Ca'orna =SS«.anor.c+rronorlals arc r ea::r.j.siems THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT •naureantesic nt zac ENDORSERS AS OF 03/28/90 ^res�cem Cd�tarma icr«i Baares =ssoaatmr (IN WRITING) _a.lc Galore, ­esieent --o uh-yers 1,or :a,iom'd Constitutional Officers .: E IB-•u Leonarc Chair Caaon-a Trarscortaron Comml55�nr Governor George Deukmejian :dnCV UgMner gowloer Treasurer Thomas Hayes Mothers Against Ortmtt Oming,MA00t Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig _arry G Lutz Chairman CalrtOma Commrssgn ' on Aging Gubernatorial Candidates -arryMcCanry°.esicent raidom-a Ta.navers 'swc,anor Former Mayor Dianne Feinstein -.m Noose c•esi°em Senator Pete Wilson -aworn-a Ass«lahon of -:nwav°a'ro,men .a: ;e wagre•:allaros Statewide organizations zresloe l League or .vomen voters or :ai,!om,dlLWVI *AARP, California State Legislative Committee 4nk West aeaaent Cadorna Cramoer of (American Association of Retired Persons) Commerce Academic Senate of the California State University Finao CD-ChM: *Alliance of Trades and Maintenance RonaroA Clarke. American Association of University Women, California Chairman°acrcGasa Elernic .*American Electronics Association x Loowroa Cool) Chalmun *American Federation of State, County and Municipal ARCO Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) ofuce Lee Regional oeector UAW Regan 6 *Associated General Contractors of California warier Shorenstem Association of California School Administrators rrmw The Shwenfoem Co Association of California State Attorneys and 'oma Ass«anon or Administrative Law Judges -gnwav oa:romen Association of California Water Agencies :mdsmw ra.oaver5 Association of Independent California Colleges and =ss«aeon a:,tornia cha hoe.of Universities :ommerce dooma°coe Chefs Association of Motor Vehicle Investigators Assocolor -eaque of women voters *Automobile Club of Southern California o:c" California Asphalt Pavement Association �a��tOm�a Ass«�aton cr 55 "osorta5 ane..eaten *California Association of Area Agencies on Aging 9vzlef>n _adnlefl"SK:.ona, *California Association of Highway Patrolmen >-ace G'f ce•s *California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems SSS«ator :aiJotma �nerne,�f's ou"`.'°'°°"Ce no California Association of Professional Scientists a :adorn-a Bale Aulamoo-o *California Association of Public Hospitals +SS«�dt�Cr _d:domans or Better *California Association of Special Investigators 'aansoo *California Building Industry Association :d�bma Trarsrt TrarS Ased^°r California Business Roundtable adorn.a'rr`c-of Salely E' O,Ovees *California Chamber of Commerce :a.-lomars•c'-.Cher Ecucalor *California Commission On Aging ,:are 6,-.c^c arc California Common Cause _3rsnucic-"razes - anrna California Community Colleges Board of Governors :55«a•orc•:mdorna California Community College Trustees Association e . e'cm.a Gl•es _cWRRe.c *California Confederation of the Arts -c•' rternaUora .,r-0n *California Correctional Peace Officers Association .rnOC A,;c^oo,•e -eroscace a,c =e•cu,:va r-o-e—enl =ssooalec 3e-e•a ^Game ='7n:'°. ,;°r:ra::c's c•Gas rorn•a ':00':.es 0, _o:_eya•° Scae 272 Los=-,e-es G 3Y)z a 2' ^/ G -dna L s - -_._= 5,.•e 'COG Savame :?5c' ■�9•_ / ©�L (Statewide organizations- Continued) C *California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance *California Council of Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors *California Council of Police & Sheriffs California Department of Forestry Employees Association . *California Dump Truck Owners Association *California Farm Bureau Federation *California Federation of Teachers California Faculty Association California Highway Users Conference *California Manufacturers Association California Nurses Association California Park and Recreation Society *California Police Chiefs Association California Postsecondary Education Commission California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association California Professional Firefighters *California Republican Party - *California arty -*California Restaurant Association California Retailers Association California Retired Teachers Association California School Boards Association *California School Employees Association *California Senior Legislature *California Seniors Coalition California Special Districts Association *California State Automobile Association California State Board of Education California State Employees Association California State Firemen's Association California State Park and Recreation Commission California State Police Association California State Student Association California State University Board of Trustees *California Taxpayers' Association California Tax Reform Association *California Teachers Association *California Transit Association *California Transportation Commission *California Union of Safety Employees *Californians For Better Transportation *Californians For Higher Education Coalition For Project Delivery *Consulting Engineers Association Of California *County Supervisors Association of California Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Health Access of California Laborers' International Union. of North America *League of California Cities. *League of Women Voters of California Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California *Motor Vehicle Conference 7-1/7 O (Statewide Organizations - Continued) i *Older Women's League of California Professional Engineers in California Government *Project 40, A Coalition of Organizations Representing Business, Labor and Health Retired Public Employees Association *State Building and Construction Trades Council of California Statewide University Police Association *Triple A Council of California *UAW Region 6, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America United Domestic Workers of America University of California Board of Regents UCLA Alumni Association Board of Directors UCSC Alumni Association Council University of California Student Association Regional Organizations *Aggregate Producers Association of Northern California *Bay Area Council *Building Owners and Managers Association of the East Bay International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, \� AFL-CIO *Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce *Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 , AFL-CIO Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Southern California Association of Governments *Southern California Contractors Association, Inc. *Southern California Ready Mixed Concrete Association *Southern California Rock Products Association Southern California Transportation Action Committee County/Local Organizations *Alameda County Fire Chief's Association Alameda County Transportation Authority Burlingame, Plumbers Local #467 *Central City Association of Los Angeles *Gardena Valley Chamber of Commerce Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce *Indio Chamber of Commerce Kern County Taxpayers Association Los Angeles County Transportation Commission *Los Angeles Taxpayers Association *Merced County Association of Governments *Monterey County Transportation Commission Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce Nevada County Transportation Commission North of the River Municipal Water District *Orange County Division - League of California Cities (County/Local organizations - Continued) \( Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce *Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce Redlands Chamber of Commerce *Riverside Sheriff's Association *Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association *Sacramento Transportation Coalition *San Bernardino Associated Governments San Diego Highway Development Association *San Joaquin Council of Governments *San Mateo Chamber of Commerce San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group Santa Clara County Traffic Authority *Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission United way of Greater Los Angeles Valley Industry and Commerce Association Visalia Chamber of Commerce Legislators Assemblyman Jim Costa Assemblyman Richard Katz Assemblyman Ted Lempert State Senator John Garamendi 1 State Senator Quentin Kopp Board- of supervisors Fresno County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors *Sacramento County Board of Supervisors *Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors *Shasta County Board of Supervisors *Solano County Board of Supervisors Tehama County Board of Supervisors City Councils *City of Brisbane City of Dublin *City of Hollister *City of Los Angeles *City of Palo Alto *City of Rialto City of Saratoga City of Visalia 7—�7 O City and County Officials -� Alameda County, Diz . ,tor of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle Benicia, Director of. Public Works, Don Curtis Buena Park, Councilmember Donna L. Chessen Burbank, Director of Public Works, Ora Lampman Ceres, Director of Public Works, Joe Hollstein Claremont, Councilmember Judy Wright Contra Costa County, Supervisor Robert I. Schroder Daly City, Councilmember Albert M. Teglia Daly City, Mayor James J. Tucker Davis, Director of Public Works, David B. Pelz Dublin, Vice Mayor Georgean M. .Vonheeder .El Dorado County, Transportation Director, Scott Chadd El Dorado County, Supervisor Robert E. Dorr Fontana, Administrative Analyst, Lee Ann Overstreet Fresno, Director of Public Works, Richard Conrad Half Moon Bay, City Council. Member Larry A. Patterson Hayward, Deputy State Fire Marshall Carol D. Jordan Humboldt County, Supervisor Stan Dixon Lake County, Supervisor Voris Brumfield Lancaster, Director of Public Works, Jeff L. Long Long Beach, Councilmember Jan Hall Los Angeles, Legislative Analyst Michael P. Karsch Los Gatos, Town Engineer, Christine L. Fischer Marin County, Supervisor Bob Roumiguiere Mariposa County, Supervisor George P. Radanovich Merced County, Supervisor Anthony R. Whitehurst Merced County, Assistant CAO Greg B. Wellman Monterey County, Supervisor Dusan M. Petrovic Moreno Valley, Planning Commissioner Theresa Canady Millbrae, Councilmember Doris Morse Newark, Assistant City Engineer, Glenn Gebhardt. Orange, City Engineer, Gary D. Johnson Orinda, Councilmember., Richard G. Heggie Pacifica, Mayor Peter Loeb Palm Desert, Asst. City Manager Richard Folkers Placer County, Supervisor Susan Hogg Plumas County, Supervisor John Schramel Port. Hueneme, Councilmember James F. Daniels Rancho Palos Verdes, Councilmember Jacki Bacharach Redondo Beach, Planning Commissioner- , Tony Cole San Bernardino County, Assistant Director of Transportation, Charles L. Laird San Bernardino County, Director of Transportation Ken A. Miller San Bruno, Director of Public Works, Lee R. Ritzman San Diego County, Supervisor John MacDonald San Francisco County, Supervisor Tom Hsieh San Francisco County, Supervisor Willie B. Kennedy ^ San Jose, Councilmember Jim Beall J San Mateo, Councilmember Paul J. Gumbinger San Mateo, Mayor Tom Mack X�� (City and County officials - Continued) San Mateo County, Supervisor Tom Nolan Santa Barbara County, Supervisor E. Dianne Owens Santa Clara County, Supervisor Dianne McKenna Santa Cruz, Principal Admin. Analyst Carol H. Girvetz Santa Cruz, HSA Administrator Elinor Hall Santa Cruz, Supervisor, Fred Keeley Santa Monica, Councilmember, Christine E. Reed Susanville, City Engineer, Danny Graham Tehama County, Supervisor Burt Bundy Tuolumne County, Supervisor Charles H. Walter Turlock, Deputy Director of Public Works Gary A. Stockhoff Tustin, Mayor Richard B. Edgar Visalia, Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director Bill Carr Westminster, Councilmember Lyn Gillespie Yorba Linda, Assistant City Engineer Fernando C. Saldivar Transportation Leaders Rod Diridon, President, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Joseph A. Duffel, Commissioner, California Transportation Commission David R. Fadness, Chairman, Santa Clara County Transportation Commission Robert Fitzgerald, President, San Mateo County Transportation Authority Margie Handley, Commissioner, California Transportation Commission J. T. Hawthorne, Commissioner, California Transportation Commission Stanley W. Hulett, Commissioner, California . Transportation Commission W. E. (Bill) Leonard, Chairman, California Transportation Commission Jerome F. Lipp, Commissioner, California Transportation Commission Joe Levy, Commissioner, California Transportation Commission Bruce Nestande, Commissioner, California Transportation. Commission Patricia S. Price, Regional Manager, Commuter Transport Services James P. Reichert, General Manager, Orange County Transit District Steve Ruggenberg, General Manager, Golden Empire Transit Albert M. Teglia, Board of Directors, San Mateo County Transit. District 7-SI Business Leaders Alta Loma, Member of Governmental Affairs, Chamber of Commerce, Don Donnelly Burlingame, President of. Commercial Leasing & Development Luciano Giampa Burlingame, Vice President of Commercial Leasing & Development Greg Kuhl Chico, Chief Executive Officer of Greater Chico Chamber Bob Linscheid Concord, Associate, Harris & Associates Robert S. Guletz Concord, Principal of Reynolds & Brown, Jon Q. Reynolds Costa Mesa, Principal of Wood-Mahan Insurance Brokers Bob Mahan Danville, President of C.W. Roen Construction Bruce A. Roen Encino, President of Transcon Property Services, Inc. Stuart M. Solomon Encino, Senior Business Developer of The Money Store Investment Corp. , Todd G. Tanner Fairfield, Member of Fairfield-Suisun Chamber of Commerce, Elwin C. Beane Fairfield, President of Marie Calenders' , DenDis Landis Fresno, President of Mauldin-Dorfineier, Patrick Mauldin Irvine, Vice President Public Relations of United Agribusiness League, Frank Caterinicchio Irvine, Vice President Corporate Relations of Fluor Daniel Corporation, J. Robert Fluor Irvine, Manager of Fluor Daniel, Inc. , Kent A. Olsen Long Beach, President of Griffith Company Donald L. McGrew Long Beach, Executive Vice President of. Herman Weissker, Incorporated, Peter J. Van Emon Los Angeles, Vice President of Merrill Lynch Capital Markets - Public Finance Group - Western Region Stephen R. Coma Los Angeles, Vice President of Carter Hawley Hale Bill Dombrowski Los Angeles, Senior Project. Manager of HCB Contractors Dennis A. Watsabaugh Marysville, President of Yuba Trucking, Mike Lindeman Menlo Park, Managing Partner of Ford Land Company Thomas W. Ford Menlo Park, Manager of Government & Community Relations and Transportation Coordinator of Raychem Corp. Michal S. Mendelsohn Modesto, Vice President/General Manager of Western Stone Products, John M. Jefferies Modesto, President of George Reed Inc. , Wendell Reed Newport Beach, President of The Tarnutzer Companies, Inc. , Byron M. Tarnutzer (Transportation Leaders - Continued) 01 Leo J. Trombatore, Former Cal Trans Director Jim Wilkinson, Chairman, San Mateo Economic Development Association Transportation Council Linda J. Wilshusen, Executive Director, Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission Association officers Aptos, Chamber of Commerce, Director Karen Hibble Atwater, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director Terry C. Easley Century City, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President, Joel Baker Concord, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President Harry L. York Encino, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director Jan Sobel Fairfield/Suisun, Chamber of Commerce, Director Jeffrey Hopkins Gardena, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President Tom H. Parks Humboldt County, League of Women Voters President Judy Bennett Indio, Chamber of Commerce, Chief_ Executive officer Jeep Shelton � La Quinta, Chamber of Commerce, Korryn Friestad Los Angeles, President of Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Ray Remy Marin County, League of Women Voters President Anne H. Layzer Marin County, League of Women Voters Vice President Robyn Prud'homme-Bauer Merced, AAUW Education Chair, Bettylou George Napa County, Republican Central Committee, Member Diane I. Mitchell Newport Harbor Area, Chamber of Commerce, President Richard Luehrs San Francisco, Chamber of Commerce, Vice President James Lazarus San Mateo, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director Anne H. LeClair San Mateo County, League of Women Voters Board of Directors State & National Action Chair Mary A. Steiner Southern California Association of Governments President, Christine E. Reed USF College Republicans, President, Tammy Eglinlon Vista, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President Virginia R. Tapia C 7� O (Business Leade_s - Continued) Sun Valley, Vice President of Kruse Construction Jon R. Kruse Thousand Oaks, President of California Solar, Rick White Ventura, Account. Executive of Commuter Transportation Services, Patricia Sheckells Walnut Creek, Vice President of Nolte & Associates Rick Cole Wells Fargo and Company R-12 Education Burbank Board of Education, President, Vivian Kaufman Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Board Vice President, Kathy Kinley Chico Unified School District, Board Member, Mary Anne Houx Coast Joint Union High School Board of Trustees President, Louis E. Barnes Del Paso Heights School District, Board Member Susan L. Scott Dixie School District Board of Trustees Escondido Union High School District, Board Vice President John L. D'Amelio Inyo County School District, Board_ President Emilie Martin Lake Elsinore Unified School District, Board Member Sonja Wilson Lancaster School District, Board President Frank D. Astourian Livermore School District, Board Member, Joyce E. Brown Los Alamitos Unified School District, Board President Virginia F. Wilson Los Altos School District, Board Member, Ann G. Baker Los Angeles County Board of Education, Member Roberta Weintraub Millbrae Elementary School District, Board Member Donna L. Ravaglia Monrovia Unified School District, Board Member, Christine Goudy Mountain View-Los Altos Unified High School District Board Member, Judy Hannemann Napa Valley Unified School District, Board President Jana K. Jack Newport-Mesa School District, Board President Judith A. Franco Novato Unified School District, Board President Kerry Mazzoni Oakland Unified School District, Board Member Kathleen Crawford Piedmont Board of Education, Former Member Tamra C. Hege i (Business Leaders - Continued) COakland, Vice President of ICF Kaiser Engineers Gerald V. Gibney Paramount, President of Concrete Coring, Ted .W. Page Pleasanton, President of TJKM Transportation Consultants Chris D. Kinzel Rancho Cucamonga, President of L. S. Hawley Corp. L. D. Hawley Rancho Cucamonga, President of Security Investment Management Company, George D. Voigt Redwood City, President of Grove & Associates Michael I. Grove Rialto, Regional Manager of Southern California Edison Robert Stranger Sacramento, Director of Transportation of Nolte & Associates, Richard L. De Rosa Sacramento, Partner, Price Waterhouse, Eric G. Juline Sacramento, President of Roy Heatly Associates Roy F. Heatly Sacramento, President of John F. Otto, Incorporated Carl R. Otto San Diego, President of Federhart & Assoc. James W. Federhart San Francisco, Vice President of Bay Area Council James Bourgart San Francisco, Executive Vice President of Nationwide Construction, Dorothy A. Erickson San Francisco, Chief Executive Officer of The Gap Donald G. Fisher San Francisco, Principal of Damner Pike and Company Peter Pike San Jose, President of Biggs Cardosa Associates Stephen A. Biggs San Jose, President/Chief Executive Officer of Technology Centre of Silicon Valley, Peter B. Giles San Jose, Vice President of HMH Inc. , James T. Harper San Jose, President/Chief Executive Officer of San Jose Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Steven J. Tedesco San Mateo, President of C-Rem Engineers Robert R. Eppler San Mateo County, President of San Mateo Economic Development Association, Paul Shepherd San Ramon, operations Manager of Majors Engineering Patrick J. Flynn Santa Ana, CH2M Hill of California, Incorporated Santa Ana, Senior Vice President of Steve P. Rados; Inc. Stephen S. Rados Santa Barbara, President of J. W. Bailey Construction Co. J. W. Bailey Santa Clara, President of Arcadia Contractors Inc. Joe Sweeney Santa Clara, President of Brero Construction Claudette weber 7�5� O C (Higher Education - Continued) University of California - State Student Association, C Executive Director, Dale Kelly Bankhead --/ University of California- Santa Cruz, Chancellor Robert Stevens Senior Leaders Clarence F. Nedom, President, Triple-A. Council of California Senior Assemblyman Joseph M. Crowell_ , California Senior Legislature Senior Senator Ed Kramer, California Senior Legislature Newslpapers Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee San Bernardino Sun San Diego Tribune Ukiah Daily Journal * Denotes organizations that have endorsed both Propositions 108 and ill. C C 7—.S� (K-12 Education — Continued) Pleasanton Unified School District, Board Clerk Juanita Haugen Porterville Elementary Schools, Board President Barbara R. Job Robla School District, Board Member, Gary Miller Santa Clara County School Board Association President and Saratoga Union School District Member Mary Ellen Comport Savanna School District, Board President, Gary R. Fite Scotts Valley Union School District, Board President Jeanne E. Maclaren Sunnyvale School District, Board Member, Jeanne Gonzales Sunnyvale School District, Representative of Parent Group Council, Margaret Quillinan Tustin Unified School District, Board Member Merlin L. Henry Jr. Ukiah Unified School District, Board Member Patricia A. Hartley Ukiah School District, Board Member, Peggy Smart Ukiah Unified School District, Board Vice President Barry Vogel Whisman Elementary School District, Board President Dave Hem Woodland Joint Unified School District, Board Member Brenda Jones Higher Education California State University Academic Senate, Chair Government Affairs Committee, Bernice Biggs California State University Academic Senate, Professor of Economics Erwin L. Kelly, Jr. California State University Academic Senate, Professor Sandra Wilcox California State University - Sacramento, President Donald R. Gerth California State University - Sacramento, Professor Dennis Huff California State University - Sacramento, Associate Vice President William Pickens California State University - Sacramento, Dean, School of Arts and Sciences Dr. William J. Sullivan, Jr. California State University - Sacramento, Professor Marilyn Winters Fresno County, State Center Community College District Glendale Community College District - Board of Trustees Redwoods Community College District - Board of Trustees San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Governing Board State Center Community College District Governing Board —S7