HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 0216 CC REG ITEM 10ATO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Honorable City Council
rrEM 10. A .
l..: `i0( 0WNkK, C'A1,IFO1LYIA
.sv k'„1inol Meeting
of Ary 160 2,Qi2,1
AC I It )1: Agarpypd rPSD. .,W2,0l) °Nc 1
in is B* Lr T prom, -26
BY:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk -�D5T
February 9, 2000 (CC Meeting 2/16/00)
Consider Resolution in Support of Proposition 26, The
Let's Fix Our Schools Initiative
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
This item was continued from the City Council's February 2, 2000
regular meeting to allow the Council additional time to review
Proposition 26 (which was provided to the Council under separate
cover) .
The League of California Cities has requested support for
Proposition 26, which will appear on the March 2000 ballot.
Attached to this agenda report is a copy of the League's letter and
proposed language for a resolution in support of the initiative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachment: Letter dated January 13, 2000
000, ij" " :,0
■
`pp MEANS
lequt stet �Ullit!o ii�Cities
Oq�'NG TO4Et�'
January 12. 2000
Dear City Official:
RE: Support for Proposition 26, "Let's Fix Our Schools"
Ledque of California Cities
As some of you may have read in our previous communications, at its November 1999 meeting, the Board of
Directors of the League of California Cities voted overwhelmingly to endorse Proposition 26. This initiative has
won our board's support because we believe that good schools are an essential element in building strong, thriving
cities.
Our purpose in writing today is to advise you of the League's position on Proposition 26, and to urge you
and your city council to join us in speaking out in support of this important initiative.
Background. Proposition 26 will appear on the March 2000 ballot. It would reduce the number of votes needed to
pass local school bonds from the current two- thirds to a simple majority, helping to generate funds to repair and
update aging schools and build badly needed new ones. Just as importantly, it includes rigorous accountability
measures to ensure that voters get what they pay for.
Proposition 26 requires school districts to undergo two independent audits every year to monitor expenditures from
local bonds. One independent audit will scrutinize the finances of each project— making sure that every penny is
spent on school facilities and not on operating expenses. A second performance audit must also be conducted
annually to make sure every voter - approved project is done on time and on budget.
This initiative has broad -based support. Business leaders who see our decrepit schools as an impediment to
economic growth are active leaders in the campaign.
Your Support is Needed. Polls show strong voter support for Proposition 26 -- but there is still a long way to go
until the March election. Support from influential local leaders is critical to the success of this initiative. As
representatives of cities, our board believes we have a special need and responsibility to work in support of this
measure. The data is clear: our efforts to preserve and enhance the quality of life in cities are undermined when
public schools are neglected and decaying. Our work for strong cities must include support for repair and updating
of our schools.
We would appreciate your sponsorship of a resolution in support of Proposition 26 before your city council. Please
fax the enclosed resolution to (916) 554 -1052 as soon as possible. You can find updated campaign and initiative
information at the Prop 26 website: wwxv.letsfixourschools.com.
Proposition 26 gives our children —and our cities —the schools they need and deserve.
We look forward to your support.
Sincerely,
John Ferraro
Christopher McKenzie
President, League of California Cities
Executive Director
, 10 � 'r,
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE
SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 26 - THE LET'S FIX OUR SCHOOLS
INITIATIVE
WHEREAS, more than two million California students attend class in temporary facilities, and the
state must build six new classrooms every day if it is going to accommodate the quickly growing
student population; and
WHEREAS, without significant new construction and modernization, existing schools will not be
ready to handle the several hundred thousand additional students over the next decade; and
WHEREAS, The Let's Fix Our Schools Initiative would amend the California Constitution and
Education Code to allow passage of critically- needed local school bonds with a simple majority of
50 percent plus one, rather than the current two- thirds vote required, while holding local school
districts strictly accountable for prudent and responsible spending; and
WHEREAS, at a time when California families want safer schools, more class size reduction, and
better access to 21st century learning tools like computers and the Internet, we need to ensure that
local school districts have the funds to create classroom environments that help students learn; and
WHEREAS, last year voters passed Proposition 1A, a $9.2 billion statewide bond to provide state
matching funds for local school facilities construction and improvements; and
WHEREAS, school districts can only receive Proposition 1A state bond funds if they can generate
matching funds through local bonds; and
WHEREAS, most California voters believe bonds are the best way to build and repair classrooms
and reduce overcrowding in California's schools; and
WHEREAS, local school bonds require a two- thirds vote to pass, forcing many districts to run
numerous grueling campaigns.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the supports
the passage of the Let's Fix Our Schools Initiative on the March, 2000 statewide ballot because it is
a necessary and fair initiative.
IN WITNESS THERETO, we the
day of
2000.
do hereby adopt this resolution this
Name, Title
Name, Title
Name, Title
ATTEST:
Name, Title
i�,
ji
i
.l.
t
�t
School Facilities. Local Majority Vote.
Bonds, Taxes. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute.
Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General
SCHOOL FACILITIES. LOCAL MAJORITY VOTE.
BONDS, TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT AND STATU'T'E.
• Authorizes school, community college districts, and county education offices that evaluate safety, class size,
information technology needs to issue bonds for' construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement
of school facilities if approved by majority of applicable jurisdiction's voters.
• New accountability requirements include annual performance, financial audits.
• Prohibits use of bonds for salaries or other school operating expenses.
• Requires that facilities be available to public charter schools.
• Authorizes property taxes higher than existing 1% limit by majority vote, rather than two- thirds currently
required, as necessary to pay the bonds.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's
Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• Increased local school district debt costs — potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide each
year within a decade. These costs would depend on voter action on future local school bond issues and would
vary by individual district.
• Unknown impact on state costs. Potential longer -term state savings to the extent local school districts
assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities.
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
BACKGROUND
Property Taxes
The California Constitution ' limits property taxes to
1 percent of the value of property. Property taxes may only
exceed this limit to pay for (1) any local government debts
approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978 or (2) bonds to buy
or improve real property that receive two- thirds voter approval
after July 1, 1978.
School Facilities
Kindergarten Through Twelfth Grade (K-12). California
public school facilities are the responsibility of over T,000 school
districts and county offices of education. Over the years, the
state has provided a significant portion of the funding for these
facilities through the state schools facilities pprogram. Most
recently, this program was funded with'$6.7 billion in state
general obligation bonds approved by the voters in November
1998.
Under this program, the state generally pays:
• 50 percent of the cost of new school facilities.
• 80 percent of the cost of modernizing existing facilities.
• 100 percent of the cost of either -new facilities or
modernization in "hardship cases." . .
In addition to state bonds, funding for school facilities has
been provided from a variety of other sources, including.
• School district general obligation bonds - ' • • .. -- . -
Special local bonds (known as "Mello= Roos" bonds).
• Fees : that school districts charge builders on . new
residential, commercial, and industrial construction.
Community Colleges. Community colleges are part of the
state's higher education system and include 107 campuses
operated by 72 local districts. Their facilities are funded
differently than K -12 schools. In recent years, most facilities
for community colleges have been funded 100 percent by the
state generally using state bonds. The state funds are available
only if appropriated by the Legislature for the specific facility.
There is no requirement that local community college districts
provide a portion of the funding in order to obtain .state funds.
Community college districts also may fund construction of
facilities with local general obligation bonds or other nonstate
funds if they so choose.
Charter Schools '
Charter schools are independent public schools formed by
teachers, parents, and other individuals and/or groups. The
schools function under contracts or "charters" with local school
districts, county boards of education, or the State Board of
Education. They are exempt from most state laws and
regulations affecting public schools.
As of October 1999, there were 252 charter schools in
California, serving about 88,000 students (less than 2 percent
of all K -12 students). The law permits an additional 100
charter schools each year until 2003, at which time the charter
school program will be reviewed by the Legislature. • Under
current. law,- school districts must allow charter schools to use,
at no charge, facilities not currently used by the district for
'instructional or administrative purposes.
66 P2000
PROPOSAL
This proposition (1) changes the State Constitution to lower
the voting requirement for passage of local school bonds and (2)
changes existing statutory law regarding charter schools
facilities. The local school jurisdictions affected by this
proposition are K -12 school districts, community college
districts, and county boards of education.
Voting Requirement for Passage of Local School Bonds
This proposition allows (1) school facilities bond measures to
be approved by a majority (rather than two - thirds) of the voters
in local elections and (2) property taxes to exceed the current
1 percent limit in order to repay the bonds.
This majority vote requirement would apply only if the local
bond measure presented to the voters includes:
• A requirement that the bond funds can be used only for
construction, rehabilitation, equipping of school facilities,
or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
facilities.
• A specific list of school projects to be funded and the school
board certifies it has evaluated safety, class size reduction,
and information technology needs in developing the list.
• A requirement that the school board conduct annual,
independent financial and performance audits until all
bond funds have been spent to ensure that the bond funds
have been used only for the projects listed in the measure.
Charter Schools Facilities
This proposition requires each local K -12 school district to
provide charter schools facilities sufficient to accommodate the
charter school's students. The district, however, would not be
required to spend its general discretionary revenues to provide
these facilities for charter schools. The district, however, could
choose to use these or other revenues — including state and local
bonds.
The proposition also provides that:
• The facilities must be reasonably equivalent to the district
schools that these students would otherwise attend.
• The district may charge the charter school for its facilities.
• A district may decline to provide facilities for a charter
school with a current or projected enrollment of fewer than
80 students.
FiscAL Eeescr
Local School Impact
This proposition would make it easier for school bonds to be
approved by local voters. For example between 1986 and June
1999:
• K -12 Schools. K -12 bond measures totaling over $17
billion received the necessary two- thirds voter approval.
During the same period, however, almost $11.billion of f i
bonds received over 50 percent —but .,less than
two-thirds —voter approval and therefore were defeated.
Community Colleges. Local community. college bond
measures totaling almost $330 million received the
necessary two - thirds voter approval. During the same
period, though, almost $390 million of bonds received over
50 percent—but less than two- thirds —voter approval and
therefore were defeated.
Districts approving bond measures that otherwise would not
have been approved would have increased debt costs to pay off
the bonds. The magnitude of these local costs is unknown, but
on a statewide basis could be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars annually within a decade.
State Impact
The proposition's impact on state costs is less certain. In the
near term, it could have varied effects on demand for state bond
funds. For instance, if more local bonds are approved, fewer
local jurisdictions would qualify for hardship funding by the
state. In this case, state funding would be reduced from 100
percent to 50 percent of the cost for a new local school. On the
other hand, there are over 500 school jurisdictions that do not
currently participate in the state school facilities program. To
the extent the reduced voter - approval requirement encourages
some of these districts to participate in the state program,
demand for state bond funds would increase.
In the longer run, the proposition could have a more
significant impact on state costs. For instance, its approval
could result in local districts assuming greater funding
responsibility for school facilities. If this occurred, the state's
debt service costs would decline over time.
The actual impact on state costs ultimately would depend on
the level of state bonds placed on the ballot in future years by
the Legislature and Governor, and voters' decisions on those
bond measures.
Charter Schools
The requirement that K -12 school districts provide charter
schools with comparable facilities could increase state and local
costs. As discussed above, districts are currently required to
provide facilities for charter schools only if unused district
facilities are available. The proposition might lead many
districts to increase the size of their bond issues somewhat to
cover the cost of facilities for charter schools. This could also
increase state costs to the extent districts apply for and receive
state matching funds. The amount of this increase is unknown,
as it would depend on the availability of existing facilities and
the number and types of charter schools.
For text of Proposition 26 see page 143
P2000 67
t,
2
passage in each house the bill has been delivered to the Secretary of
State and the commission for distribution to the public.
CTION 52. Severability
.ny provision of this law, or the application of any such provision to
any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of
this law to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such
provision to ersons or circumstances other than those as to which it is
held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this extent the
provisions of this law are severable.
SECTION 53. California Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court shall, to the fullest extent possible,
reform any provisions of this initiative that it, or any federal court,
determines to be unconstitutional or contrary to any superseding
provision of law in order that such provisions carry out the purposes of
the initiative.
SECTION 54. Status of Proponents
The proponents of this initiative shall be included among any
Zteat.O&Proposedl"wa- t'•on�in ie$
defendants in any udicial challenge to any provision of this initiativefF- V
SECTION 55. Vffective Date
All other provisions shall become effective January 1,2001, except as
otherwise stated by this measure.
SECTION 56. Section References
For purposes of this act, except as otherwise specified, all references
to sections shall be to those in effect on January 1, 1999.
SECTION 57. Amendment to Political Reform Act
(a) This act shall amend the Political Reform Act of 1974, as
amended, and all of its provisions that do not conflict with this act shall
apply to the provisions of this act, except as provided by subdivision (b).
(b) If Proposition 208, as approved by voters in the November 5,
1996, statewide general election, is reinstated by the courts, Sections
85301 to 85312, inclusive, of the Government Code and Section 45 of
Proposition 208 shall prevail over conflicting provisions of this act. All
other provisions of this act shall be appropriately codified and take
effect as permitted by law.
Proposition 26: Text of Proposed Law
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with
the provisions of Section 8 of Article 11 of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure amends the California Constitution and the
Education Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted
are printed in etrileeeut type and new provisions proposed to be added
are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
TIIE MAJORITY RULE ACT FOR SMALLER CLASSES, SAFER
SCHOOLS, AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
SECTION 1. TITLE
This act shall be known as the Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes,
Safer Schools, and Financial Accountability.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The people of the State of California find and declare as follows:
(a) Investing in education is crucial if we are to prepare our children
for the 21st century.
" 1 We need to make sure our children have access to the learning
of the 21st century like computers and the Internet, but most
L...iornia classrooms do not have access to these technologies.
(c) We need to build new classrooms to facilitate class size reduction,
so our children can learn basic skills like reading and mathematics in
an environment that ensures that California's commitment to class size
reduction does not become an empty promise.
(d) We need to repair and rebuild our dilapidated schools to ensure
that our children learn in a safe and secure environment.
(e) Students in public charter schools should be entitled to
reasonable access to a safe and secure learning environment.
(f) We need to give local citizens and local parents the ability to build
those classrooms by majority vote local elections so each community can
decide what is best for its children.
(g) We need to ensure accountability so that funds are spent
prudently and only as directed by citizens of the community.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE AND INTENT
In order to prepare our children for the 21st century, to implement
class size reduction, to ensure that our children learn in a secure and
safe environment, and to ensure that school districts are accountable
for prudent and responsible spending for school facilities, the people of
the State of California do hereby enact the Majority Rule Act for Smaller
Classes, Safer Schools, and Financial Accountability. This measure is
intended to accomplish its purposes by amending the California.
Constitution and the Education Code:
(a) To provide an exception to the limitation on ad valorem property
taxes and the two - thirds vote requirement to allow school districts,
community college districts, and county offices of education to equip our
schools for the 21st century, to provide our children with smaller
classes, and to ensure our children's safety by repairing, building,
furnishing, an�i equipping school facilities;
(b) To require school district boards, community college boards, and
county offices of education to evaluate safety, class size reduction, and
information technology needs in developing a list of specific projects to
present to the voters;
(c) To ensure that before they vote, voters will be given a list of
specific projects their bond money will be used for,
(d) To require an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds
°- -m the sale rf the school facilities bonds until all of the proceeds have
i expended for the specified school facilities projects; and
,a) lb ensure that the proceeds from the sale of school facilities bonds
are used for specified school facilities projects only, and not for teacher
and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses, by
requiring an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the
funds have been expended on Specific projects only. .
SEC. 4. Section 1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is
amended to read:
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real
property shall noteaceed One percent (196) of the full cash value of such
property. The one rcent (190) tax to be collected by the counties and
apQQoortioned accord Png to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad
valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and
1redempption charges on (�) an ieedebtedaess o %the following
(1) lndebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978 ; er (2)
wt ben ed .
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real
property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two -thirds of the votes
cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community
college district, or county office of education for the construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities,
including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the
acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by a
majority of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on
the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this
paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the pro position approved
by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the
following accountability requirements:
(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used
only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not for any other
purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school
operating expenses.
(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and
certification that the school district board, community college board, or
county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and
information technology needs in developing that list.
(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college
board, or county office of education conduct an annual, inde endent
performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on
the specific projects listed.
(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college
board, or county office ojeducation conduct an annual, independent
financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of
those pnooeeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of taw or of this
Constitution, school districts, community college districti, and county
offices o %education may levy a majority vote ad valorem tax pursuant to
subdivision (b).
SEC. 5. Section 18 of Article XVI of the California Constitution is
amended to read:
SEC. 18. (a) No county, city, town, hew lip; board of education, or
school district ; shall incur any indebtedness or liability, in any
manner or for any purpose, exceeding in any year the income and
revenue provided for suck that year, wtthett the asom of unless the
indebtedness or liability is approved by two- thirds of the qualified
eleeEars bhereef voters of the public entity voting at an "election to be
held for that p e, ezeepb provided that wMEk respeeE to say seek
ge:blie entity whisk is a"— -zed to inner iadebbeInese %r peblie eeheel
pt:rpesee; sny pre eeiien for the ineerrenee of iadeb6eeilaeee is the Perm
of gesere} eblegeEien beads for the parpeee of eepairia; reeeaeEreeEMag
ar replacing e►ekee} bestildings determined, in Eke nseaner
prescribed by= I be abseils_ —.,. eassfe for eekeel e:ee; shell he
apen the voting eft t of s !!eieri6y of Ebe qes I e P" elensre e>! the
eats6y veEir>g en the prepeei%ien eE eleetieei; nor anl!ese
fore or at the time of incurring seeeb the indebtedness provision shell
be is made for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the
interest on'extek the indebtedness as it falls due; and aloe prerieten is
P2000 143
Text of Proposed Laws -- Continued
eenstitttte for a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof, on
or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty 40 years from the time
of contra = ct g the same, prov�ided� however enythieg to the eezttrery
_,__A when indebtedness.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on or after the effective date of
the measure adding this subdivision, in the case of any school district,
community college district, or county office of education, any proposition
for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation
bonds for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping
of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
facilities, shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the voters
of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition at an
election. This subdivision shall apply only to a proposition for the
incurrence of indebtedness in the form ofgeneral obligation bonds for
the purposes specified in this subdivision if the proposition meets all of
the accountability requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of
Section 1 of Article XIII A.
(c) When two or more propositions for incurring any indebtedness or
liability are submitted at the same election, the votes cast for and
against each proposition shall be counted separately, and when
two- thirds or a majority of the gdalified eleeters voters, as the case may
&u
eh voting on any one of seh thhose propositions, vote in favor thereof,
seeh the proposition shall be deemed adopted.
SEC. 6. Section 47614 of the Education Code is amended to read:
47614. A seheel distriet in whieh a eheirter seheel operates shell
permi a eksrter seheol to ash at ete eherge, f6eilitie:9 net eetrrentay
emg aced by the seheel distriet for instrueteenal or administratiye
purposes; or that he" net been histerieelly u3 ed for rental pnrpeses
provided the eherter sehoei shell! be responsible for reasonable
maintene»ee of these `6eilitics (a) The intent of the people in amending
this .section is that public school facilities should be shared fairly among
a!! public school pupils, including those in charter schools.
(b/ Each school district shall make available, to each charter school
operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for the charter school
to accommodate all of the charter school's in- district students in
conditions reasonabl equivalent to those in which the students would
be accommodated i7ihey were attending other public schools of the
district. Facilities provided shall be contiguous, furnished, and
equipped, and shall remain the property of the school district. The
school district shall make reasonable efforts to provide the charter school
with facilities near to where the charter school wishes to locate, and
shall not move the charter school unnecessarily.
(1) The school district may charge the charter school a pro rata share
(based on the ratio of space allocated by the school district to the charter
school divided by the total space of the district) of those school district
facilities costs which the school district pays for with unrestricted
general fund revenues. The charter school shall not be otherwise charged
for use of the facilities. No school district shall be required to use
unrestricted general fund revenues to rent, buy, or lease facilities for
charter school students.
(2) Each year, each charter school desiring facilities from a school
district in which it is operating shall provide the school district with a
reasonable projection of the charter school's average daily classroom
attendance by in- district students for the following year. The district
shall allocate facilities to the charter school for that following year based
upon this projection. If the charter school, during that following year,
generates less average daily classroom attendance by in- district students
than it projected, the charter school shall reimburse the district for the
over- allocated space at rases to be set by the State Board of Education.
(3) Each school district's responsibilities under this section shall take
effect on July 1, 2003, or if the school district passes a school bond
measure in the years 2000, 2001, or 2002, on the first day of July next
following such passage.
(4) Facilities requests based upon projections of fewer than 80 units of
average daily classroom attendance for the year may be denied by the
school district.
(5) The term "operating," us used in this section, shall mean either
currently providing public education to in- district students, or having
identified at least 80 in- district students who are meaningfully
interested in enrolling in the charter school for the following year.
(6) The State Department of Education shall propose, and the State
Board of Education may adopt, regulations implementing this
subdivision, including, but not limited to, defining the terms "average
daily classroom attendance," "conditions reasonably equivalent,"
"in- district students," and "facilities costs," as well as defining the
procedures and establishing timelines for the request for, reimbursement
for, and provision of facilities.
SEC. 7. CONFORMITY
The Legislature shall conform all applicable laws to this act. Until
the Legislature has done so, any statutes that would be affected by this
act shall be deemed to have been conformed with the majority vote
requirements of this act.
SEC. 8. SEVF.RABILITY
If any of the provisions of this measure or the applicability of any
provision of this measure to any person or circumstances shall be found
to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such finding shall not affect
the remaining provisions or applications of this measure to other
persons or circumstances, and to that extent the provisions of this
measure are deemed to be severable.
SEC. 9. AMENDMENT
Section 6 of this measure may be amended to further its purpose by a
bill passed by a majority of the membership of both houses of the
Legislature and signed by the Governor, provided that at least 14 days
prior to passage in each house, copies of the bill in final form shall be
made available by the clerk of each house to the public and the news
media.
SEC. 10. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its
purposes.
Proposition 27: Text of Proposed Law
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with
the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution.
This initiative- measure adds a section to the Elections Code;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type
to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
Section 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "Congressional
Term Limits Declaration Act of 1998."
Section 2. Findings and Declarations of Purpose
(a) The State of California allows a candidate's political party
affiliation and profession, vocation, or occupation to appear on the
ballot.
(b) A candidate's party designation informs the people of certain
basic choices a candidate will make with respect to the candidate's
service in public office. Party designations are allowed because they
may help the people discern what kind of representative the candidate
will make.
(c) Many candidates currently inform the people of how many terms
of office they intend to serve, but in an unofficial and unaccountable
way.
(d) A candidate's position on voluntarily limiting his or her service
h ps the people discern what kind of representative the candidate will
make to such an extent that the people of the State of California declare
their desire to enact the Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act
of 1998.
Section 3. Voluntary Term Limits Declaration
Section 13107.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
13107.5. (a) Any person seeking to be elected to the United States
Congress may submit to the Secretary of State, no later than 15 days
prior to the certification of all congressional election ballots, an executed
copy of any one of the following declarations but is not required to
submit a declaration. If a candidate does not submit a declaration as
described by this section, the Secretary of State may not, on that account,
refuse to place his or her name on the official ballot.
Term Limits Declaration One
Part A: 1, voluntarily declare that, if elected, 1
will not serve in the United States IHouse of Representatives more than
3 terms] [Senate more than 2 terms] after the effective date of the
Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act of 1998.
Signature by candidate executes Part A Date
After executing Part A, a candidate may execute and submit the
voluntary statement in Part B.
Part B: I, authorize and request the Secretary of
State to place. the applicable ballot designation, "Signed declaration to
limit service to [3 terms] [2 terms]" or "Running for :() term 'after
declaring to limit service to no more than [3 terms] [2 terms]" next to my
144 P2000
PROPOSITION 26
Last two bond elections far exceeded the 50 + 1 percent that is proposed In Prop. 26.
• November 7, 1997 Measure "U" Election - 65 1% yes votes
• April 14. 1998 Measure "1M Election - 60.8% yes votes
2. The District currently has approximately 100 relocatable classrooms. The loading factor
varies when considering class size reduction, therefore an average of 25 students are
housed in each relocatable classroom. 100 relocatables x 25 students = 2500 students.
The average student population of an elementary school is 600 students, middle school
is 850 students and high school is 1800 students
3. The lease on each relocatable building is $4,000.00 year. Currently the District is paying
approximately $400,000 a year in lease rental payments on relocatable classrooms.
4. District has been a leader in the State of California in soliciting and receiving state
monies to fund schools. The District Superintendent has chaired two statewide bond
campaigns to assure availability of state funds. Changes in law are now requiring
matching shares through !oval contributions.
5. Modemized schools with the proper technology wiring and media and library resources
will provide Moorpark children an opportunity to continue to grow and prepare for the 21"
century.
District has carefully established a constructiorVmodernization reeds list for local bonds
to provide the adequate facilities necessary and replace relocatable buildings with
permanent structures.
7. District will continue to seek state resources to build and modernize schools. Existing
schools will require modernization to maintain equity with the newer schools.
District has involved itself with legislation dealing with increases in developer fees.
District is first in the geographic area to establish new alternative developer fees.
10. District has marketed and sold one parcel and has marketed another parcel however, we
have encountered problems with entitlements.
Zo'd 8£99T£SS02T zaPUVU -AaH �I -U-Ad d£tv =£O 00- 9T -qed