Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - Supporting Proposition 40 - Park BondITEM io TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Proposition 40 (Parks Bond); Adoption of 2002 Legislative Platform and Related Resolution RECOMMENDED (1) Adopt Resolution 2002 -, in support of Proposition 40 (Parks Bond) on the ACTIONS: March 5, 2002 Primary Election ballot, and (2) Adopt Resolution 2002 -_ confirming the City's Legislative Platform for 2002 and authorizing the Mayor to issue letters consistent with the Platform. SUMMARY: This Item asks the Council to approve the City's 2002 Legislative Platform. The 2002 Platform is similar to the 2001 Platform except for those changes identified in tr sike^° (deletions) and underline (additions). The Resolution associated with the Platform allows the Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature and to Congress consistent with the Platform. The Item also states the City's formal support for Proposition 40 on the March 5, 2002 Primary Election ballot. If passed by a majority of the voters voting, Proposition 40 - called the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 - would authorize the appropriation of $2.6 billion in State general obligation bonds for parks and clean water purposes. BACKGROUND: The City of Newport Beach has traditionally played a significant role in legislative advocacy in both Sacramento and Washington. We do not play as active a lobbying role as many cities, but we do attempt to protect the programs, services, and philosophy directed by the City Council. The City's legislative efforts include: I. Legislative Platform II. Contract Lobbyists III. Memberships hi Local Government Organizations that Lobby IV. City employees' Professional Associations, and the V. Annual Council Resolution directing our advocacy efforts I — Legislative Platform. Each year, the City Council adopts broad policy guidelines via a Platform that directs City staff's and contractors' activities relating to the City's legislative agenda. The Platform covers the following: 1 -Fiscal Stability 2 - Regional Coordination Newport Beach City Council Page 2 3 - Labor Relations 4 - Surface Transportation 5 - Platming, Zoning, and LAFCO Law 6 - Water Quality and Environmental Quality 7 - Aviation The Platform generally advocates for positions advantageous to cities as the most direct provider of government services to local residents. We continue to request limitations on state mandated programs without commensurate revenue, freedoms on local revenue sources, repeal of the 1992 -93 property tax shifts, local control over planning and zoning, funds for protection of Newport Bay, and the ability to effectively address the regions aviation needs (see Attachment C for the full text of the Platform. The 2002 Platform proposes limited changes from the 2001 Platform - these changes are either stFU& eut (meaning that we have proposed that these sections be deleted) or underlined (added). II - Contract Lobbyists. Records of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) of the State of California will show that the City is a "lobbyist employer' which has recently employed the following lobbying firms that deal with state agencies: • Emanuels and Associates (SB 124, SB 516, general legislation) • Sloat, Higgins, and Associates (short term projects, aviation) • Enviro Communications, Inc. (Caltrans /PCH reversion issues) • Richard Robinson and Associates (SB 124) III - Local Government Organizations that Lobby. The City is a dues - paying member of several coalitions and associations that advocate collectively for issues of interest to the City. These include (but are not limited to): • The League of California Cities • The Orange County Division of the League of California Cities • The Southern California Association of Governments • The California Coastal Coalition • The Orange County Coastal Coalition IV - Employees' Professional Organizations. In addition to the above, department directors and others in the City also are members of about 65 other organizations that both lobby the State Legislature (or Congress) and use city dollars to pay membership dues. These include the: • California Fire Chiefs Association • California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains • California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) • International City /County Managers' Association • California Society of Municipal Finance Officers • American Library Association City staff often serve in leadership capacities in these organizations. For example, Police Chief McDonell will be CPCA President in February 2002. Z Page 3 V - Council Resolution. Whenever the League of California Cities or our own lobbyists suggest that we contact a legislator or the Legislature on a particular bill, the City often must act quickly to issue an advocacy letter under the Mayor's signature. Each year, the Council adopts a formal Resolution which authorizes the Mayor (or the Mayor pro Tempore or City Manager in the Mayor's absence) to issue these letters reflecting positions that conform to the adopted Platform. The Resolution also directs City staff to provide all City Council members with copies of the Cit/, s legislative correspondence. During the course of the legislative year (December through September in both the State Legislature and the US Congress), the City offers its opinion on dozens of pieces of legislation. In 2001, the City corresponded with its legislators frequently on: • Senate Bill 124 0ohnson) relating to Caltrans West Park; • Senate Bill 516 0ohnson) relating to the Newport Coast planning process and Local Coastal Program; and • Water quality and environmental protection grants administered by State agencies. Proposition 40. In 2001, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1602 (Keeley) which enacted the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. This $2.6 billion bond measure - set as Proposition 40 on the March 5, 2002 Primary Election ballot - would authorize the appropriation of a series of park- and clean water - related projects statewide, including $375 MN for protection and restoration of water resources, including: $75 MN for acquisition and development of river parkways and for protecting urban streams. $300 MN to provide watershed protection and water quality projects to protect beaches, coastal waters, rivers, lakes and streams from contaminants, pollution and other environmental threats. Other competitive grant sources in Proposition 40 will be the following: • $200 MN for the State Coastal Conservancy; • $300 MN to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the acquisition, development, restoration, and rehabilitation of habitat, including aquatic habitat and water resources, to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. If Proposition 40 passes, Newport Beach would receive $365,000 in per capita park funds automatically. The City Council previously supported the successful Proposition 12 on the March 2000 ballot and later received $13 MN for the Upper Newport Bay dredging project. Other Endorsements. Other local governments in support of Proposition 40 include the cities of Agoura Hills, Avenal, Carson, Culver City, Dublin, Maywood, Los Angeles, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverbank, Santa Clarita, Santa Cruz, Turlock, and West Hollywood. The League of California Cities supports Proposition 40. The counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Clara are in support as well. 7 J Page 4 More information from the California Secretary of State's office about Proposition 40, including arguments in favor and in opposition, is included as Attachment D. Readers can access the Secretary of State's web site for more details (www.ss.ca.gov). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A- Resolution 2002 -_ relating to Proposition 40 Attachment B - Resolution 2002 -� relating to the 2002 Legislative Platform Attachment C - The proposed 2002 Legislative Platform Attachment D - Information about Proposition 40 ■1 Page 5 Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. 2002-, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 40 ON THE MARCH 5, 2002 PRIMARY BALLOT WHEREAS, California's state, regional, and local parks and beaches serve as recreational, social, and cultural centers for California's communities, providing important venues for youth enrichment and safety; community identity; protection of natural, cultural and historic sites, parkland and open space; and tourism, and WHEREAS, in order to maintain a high quality of life for California's growing population, our state needs a continuing investment in parks, beaches, surface water quality protection, recreation facilities, and WHEREAS, each generation of Californians has an obligation to be good stewards of these natural and community resources in order to pass them onto their children, and WHEREAS, California's citizens and visitors have increased their visits to state and local parks and beaches, and WHEREAS, California's open space, parks, mountains, rivers, beaches and coastline, and forests positively impact the state and local economy, and WHEREAS, California is largely an urban state where it is projected the state's population will continue to grow by 18 million by 2020; thereby placing more pressure on existing parkland, beaches and related facilities, and WHEREAS, California's economy is dependent upon maintaining a high quality of life that includes good surface water quality and attractive and safe public park, beach, and recreation facilities, and WHEREAS, Proposition 40, the Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhoods Parks, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2002, provides $2.6 billion for state and local park, beach, and water quality projects to preserve California's natural heritage and allow urban areas to expand much needed recreation facilities that serve children, youth, seniors, and families; now, therefore be it I Page 6 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the City of Newport Beach hereby supports the passage of Proposition 40, the Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2002, and encourages California voters to approve this bond act on March 5, 2002. ADOPTED this 22nd day of January, 2002. TOD W. RIDGEWAY MAYOR OF NEWPORT BEACH ATTEST: LAVONNE HARKLESS NEWPORT BEACH CITY CLERK 0 Page 7 Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE 2002 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM WHEREAS, the City Council historically promotes legislative actions consistent with the goals and functions of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, such legislative actions are typically included within the City's adopted Legislative Platform for the coming year; and WHEREAS, such promotion once required separate City Council actions to approve individual letters of support or opposition related to specific pieces of legislation; and WHEREAS, this piece -by -piece approval can delay important actions necessary to assist in the passage or defeat of legislation; and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to efficiently pursue legislation that reflects the Legislative Platform and the goals of the City, now, therefore be it RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the City Council hereby adopts the attached Legislative Platform for 2002 and be it also RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to make statements and write letters necessary to support legislative actions consistent with the City's adopted 2002 Legislative Platform during Calendar Year 2002. If the Mayor is unavailable to sign a City advocacy letter, he may designate the Mayor pro Tempore or the City Manager to sign and issue the letter in his absence. All correspondence prepared on the City's behalf will be copied to each Council member. ADOPTED this 22nd day of January, 2002. TOD W. RIDGEWAY MAYOR OF NEWPORT BEACH ATTEST: LAVONNE HARKLESS NEWPORT BEACH CITY CLERK rJ Page 8 City of Newport Beach 2002 Legislative Platform I - FISCAL STABILITY. The City's objective is to protect existing cit y revenue sources levels and to limit the cost of government upon the taxpayers of Newport Beach. The City also seeks to protect Newport Beach residents and businesses from onerous fiscal actions by other levels of government which may impair our ability to protect our quality of life. Therefore, the City shall: (a) Advocate for a stable, safe, and economical supply of electricity and natural gas provided by either investor -owned utilities or public- sector providers. (b) Support legislation leading to greater financial independence from State government and which would result in greater predictability in local government budgeting. (c) Oppose legislation that would impose state and federal mandated costs for which there is no local reimbursement or offsetting benefits. (d) In the absence of statewide fiscal reform, the City shall oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates existing local revenue sources, including the city share of property tax, sales and use tax, local governments' share of vehicle license fees, transient occupancy taxes, business license taxes, and State subventions to local governments. (e) As a part of a comprehensive reform package, the City will support changes in the State -Local fiscal relationship if the changes maintain or improve revenues to local governments, promote local discretion on land use decisions, and result in the long -term stability of local government revenue sources. (f) Support legislation that reforms California's tort system to curtail unreasonable liability exposure for public agencies and restore the ability of public agencies to obtain affordable insurance. (g) Oppose any changes in State law that would limit the ability of charter cities to presetve the local revenue base. II — REGIONAL COORDINATION. The City supports regional cooperation that does not infringe on local areas of authority without offsetting financial benefit. Therefore, the City shall: (a) Support reform of existing state, regional, and local planning processes only if directly linked to reforms in the current revenue and tax structure of state and local governments. (b) Oppose legislation that creates or grants powers to sub - regional or regional bodies that would infringe on local concerns. III - LABOR RELATIONS. The City respects the working conditions, benefits, and rights of Newport Beach employees and the conservative fiscal management principles of the community. Therefore, the City shall: (a) Oppose legislation that would impose compulsory and binding arbitration with respect to public employees; with the States passage of binding arbitration for fire and police wages, the City shall advocate for full reimbursement from the State Mandates Claims Fund for any arbitration awards resulting from SB 402 (Burton, 2000). Page 9 (b) Oppose legislation that imposes mandated employee benefits that are more properly decided at the local bargaining table. (c) Oppose efforts that reduce local control over public employee disputes. (d) Oppose legislation that would grant public employees the right to strike. (e) Support legislation to reform worker's compensation formulas to rely on higher thresholds for compensability or a proportionate exposure formula. (f) Support workers compensation reform which curtails stress claims by stipulating that benefits can only be paid when it can be shown that a sudden and extraordinary job event was the predominant cause of the stress injury and would repeal the minimum rate law. (g) Oppose workers compensation reform that would exclude police officers, firefighters, and others with life- threatening jobs from the increased proof stress threshold. IV - SURFACE TRANSPORTATION. The City supports expanded transportation systems, programs and services. Therefore, the City shall: (a) Support legislation that helps local agencies finance local transportation facilities. (b) Oppose legislation that requires additional State and Federal review of projects that are predominantly of regional or local significance. (c) Support legislation that gives local agencies greater access to and discretion over transportation funds. V - PLANNING, ZONING, and LAFCO LAW. The City seeks to protect and strengthen the City's land use authority, including zoning, incorporation, annexation, and community development. Therefore, the City shall: (a) Support efforts to strengthen the legal and fiscal capability of the City to prepare, adopt and implement plans for orderly growth, development, beautification and conservation of local planning areas, including but not limited to, regulatory authority over zoning, subdivisions, and annexations. FFogr imq such as the Newport Coast-. {�)Su ppor�efft�ats- which -eaped rte- citie�zcnnexatie +rt��terrik3ry- � +itltiti -E x- isti+ig- Local- Leastal (c�(JSupport efforts that are consistent with the doctrine of "home rule" and the local exercise of police powers over local land use, including expanding cities' ability to regulate the placement of neighborhood -based residential treatment centers and group homes. fAUc Oppose development agreements in cities' spheres of influence in undeveloped areas that do not conform to city standards. e d Support the existing right of the City of Newport Beach to annex areas within its Sphere of Influence. (j3(e.)Oppose efforts to change the Cortese -Knox Act (LAFCO Law) in any manner that would adversely impact the ability of recognized regional entities to plan for regional facilities, including aviation facilities. VI - AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The City supports effective measures to improve the environment, including water quality, solid waste, hazardous materials clean -up, and ocean, beaches and bay protection. Therefore, the City shall: (a) Support legislation and funding measures that would increase water supply and improve water quality in this region. 9 Page 10 (b) Support measures that permit the sale, lease, exchange or transfer of surplus water within the State. (c) Support measures that maintain and enhance local authority and flexibility to regulate solid waste and recyclable materials. (d) Support legislation that limits local government liability as a third party in Superfund cleanup litigation. (e) Support measures providing funds or other capabilities to maintain and protect the ocean, beaches, harbor and bay. (f) Pursue legislative and executive action that provides long -term sources of funds and /or services to enhance and protect Newport Bay. (g) Pursue legislative and executive action to continue the annual Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore petroleum drilling moratorium and pursue the establishment of a permanent wildlife preserve off the Orange County Coast (h) Support measures that improve funding resources and the science associated with water quality testing and beach closure standards. (i) Advocate for Regional Board control over fines and fees collected from water quality violations so that such fines and fees remain in the region to be used directly for water quality improvements. VII—AVIATION. Asa neighbor to Jol-m Wayne Airport, the City is an active participant in the local and regional planning and operation of commercial airports in Orange County. The City shall advocate for legislative and executive actions that are consistent with the City Council's Policy A -17 (Newport Beach Aviation Policy), including: (a) Promoting the ability of local airport operators to impose aircraft noise controls. (b) Actions that preserve, extend, or recreate the John Wayne Airport (JWA) 1985 Settlement Agreement. (c) Promoting the use of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro as Orange County's second commercial airport. 10 OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Attorney General THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002. • This act provides for a bond issue of two billion six hundred million dollars ($2,600,000,000) to provide funds to: protect rivers, lakes, and streams to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; protect beaches and coastal areas threatened by pollution; improve air quality; preserve open space and farmland threatened by unplanned development•, protect wildlife habitat; restore historical and cultural resources; repair and improve safety of state and neighborhood parks. • Subject to annual independent audit. • Appropriates money from state General Fund to pay off bonds. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYSTS ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT: • State cost of about $4.3 billion over 25 years to pay off bah the principal ($2.6 billion) and interest ($1.7 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $172 million per year. • Costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments to operate or maintain property bought or improved with these bond funds. FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON AB 1602 (PROPOSITION 40) Assembly: Ayes 60 Noes 8 Senate: Ayes 29 Noes 4 6 - title and summary PROP THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002. 40 AN.A.LYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND The state carries out various programs to conserve natural and cultural resources, protect the environment, and provide recreational opportunities for the public. The state also provides grants and loans to local public agencies and nonprofit associations for similar purposes. Some of the funding for such programs has come from general obligation bond funds. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is required to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds. General Fund revenues would be used to pay these costs. These revenues come primarily from the state personal and corporate income taxes and sales tax. Since 1980, voters have approved about $7.6 billion of general obligation bonds to provide funding for these state and local programs as follows: • Bonds to Improve Water Quality and Supply. About $3.8 billion in bonds have been approved for various water - related purposes, including improving the safety of drinking water, flood control, water quality, and the reliability of the water supply. • Bonds for Natural Resource Conservation and Recreational Opportunities. About $3.8 billion in bonds have been approved to purchase, protect, and improve recreational areas (such as parks and beaches), cultural areas (such as historic buildings and museums), and natural areas (such as wilderness and open -space areas, trails, wildlife habitat, and the coast). It is estimated that all but about $1.2 billion of the bonds authorized by these previous bond acts will have been spent or committed to specific projects as of June 2002. In addition, the state also carries out programs that provide grants to public agencies and private organizations for projects that reduce air pollution. These programs have been funded from various funds, including the General Fund. PROPOSAL This measure allows the state to sell $2.6 billion of general obligation bonds to conserve natural resources (land, air, and water), to acquire and improve state and local parks, and to preserve historical and cultural resources. �— For text of Proposition 40 see page 60. Figure 1 summarizes the purposes for which the bond money would be used. The bond money would be available for expenditure by various state agencies and for grants to local public agencies and nonprofit associations. FISCAL EFFECT Bond Costs. For these bonds, the state would make principal and interest payments from the state's General Fund over a period of about 25 years. If the bonds were sold at an interest rate of 5 percent (the current rate for this type of bond), the cost would be about $4.3 billion to pay off both the principal ($2.6 billion) and interest ($1.7 billion). The average payment would be about $172 million per year. Operational Costs. The state and local governments that buy or improve property with these bond funds will incur additional costs to operate or manage these properties. These costs may be offset partly by revenues from those properties, such as state park entrance fees. The net additional costs (statewide) could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. I� Analysis 7 + CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT USES OF BOND FUNDS /W Mrzuows/ Amount Land. Air, and Water Conservation $1,275.0 • State Conservancies acquisition. development, and restoration projects. 445.o • Wildlife habitat acquisition and restoration projects. 300.0 • Water quality protection and restoration activities. including protection ofwalersheds. coastal waters. beaches, rivers. and lakes. 300.0 • Agricultural and grazing lands preservation. 75.0 • Urban river parkways and streams development, restoration, and protection projects. 75,0 • Grants for reducing air emissions from diesel - fueled equipment operating within stale and local parks. 5o.0 • Land and water resource protection and restoration through the California Conservation Corps. 20.0 • Urban forestry programs. 10.0 Parks and Recreation $1,057.5 • Urban parks and recreational facilities acquisition and development. 460.0 • Regional and local park acquisitions and development (funds distributed based on population). 372.5 • Slate park improvements and acquisitions. 225.0 Historical and Cultural Resources Preservation $267.5 Acquisition, development. and preservation ofculturally and /or historically significant properties. structures, and artifacts. 267.5 PP FISCAL EFFECT Bond Costs. For these bonds, the state would make principal and interest payments from the state's General Fund over a period of about 25 years. If the bonds were sold at an interest rate of 5 percent (the current rate for this type of bond), the cost would be about $4.3 billion to pay off both the principal ($2.6 billion) and interest ($1.7 billion). The average payment would be about $172 million per year. Operational Costs. The state and local governments that buy or improve property with these bond funds will incur additional costs to operate or manage these properties. These costs may be offset partly by revenues from those properties, such as state park entrance fees. The net additional costs (statewide) could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. I� Analysis 7 + PROP 40 THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2OO2. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4O Yes on 40 for Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection! Clean water and clean air are essential for all Californians. Safe neighborhood parks give our children and families secure places to enjoy the outdoors. Protecting California's coast from pollution and over- development is vital for people and wildlife. Working together to pass Proposition 40, we can improve our quality of life today and for future generations. YES ON 40 WILL: • Protect our drinking water, our air and our beaches from toxic poutaion • Protect coastal lands and beaches threatened by development • Provide kids with safe places to play • Enhance our economy and protect our environment YES ON 40 IS SUPPORTED BY: • California Organization of Police and Sheriffs • National Audubon Society • Clean Water Action • National Wildlife Federation • Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles • League for Coastal Protection • League of Women Voters of California ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDITS AND STRICT SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED: • Annual Audits • Public Hearings • Citizen Reviews YES ON 40 WILL NOT RAISE TAXES. It requires existing tax revenue to be spent more efficiently and effectively. A HEALTHY CALIFORNIA FOR ALL: "Clean water, clean air, and safe parks benefit all Californians. Yes on 40 is the prescription for a healthy California." League of Women Voters of California CLEAN WATER: "We can help keep our water free of pollution and protect our bays, beaches and rivers from urban runoff by supporting Proposition 40. This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water." Clean Water Action CLEAN AIR: "Yes on 40 reduces air pollution and improves air quality by replacing the dirtiest vehicles old, polluting diesel trucks and buses —with new, cleaner vehicles and pollution control equipment. We will breathe easier by voting yes on 40." Califomia Air Pollution Control Officers Association SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS: "Giving kids safe places to play keeps them away from gangs, drugs and violence. Yes on 40 will make our communities safer." California Organization of Police and Sheriffs HELPS FISH AND WILDLIFE: "Protecting our lands and restoring polluted waterways will help our state's wildlife. Yes on 40 will preserve California's natural resources for future generations." The Nature Conservancy INVEST IN CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE: "California's economy depends on preserving quality of life. The investments provided by this measure will keep California's tourism industry strong, helping California companies attract and keep employees, and strengthening communities throughout the state." California Business Properties Association TOUGH FISCAL SAFEGUARDS: "Strict safeguards will ensure that Proposition 40 funds are spent properly and efficiently. Fortunately, California can afford to make this wise investment in our future." State Treasurer Philip Angelides Together, we can make a big difference in improving the health and quality of life of our children, grandchildren and generations to come. Yes on 40 cleans our air and water, reduces pollution, protects our coast, bays, beaches and lakes and makes our parks safer. Proposition 40 includes annual audits and strict financial safeguards. To help, or for more information, see www.voteyeson40.org. YES on 40! DAN TAYLOR, Executive Director Audubon California HANK LOCAYO, President Congress of Caufomia Seniors BARBARA INATSUGU, President League of Women Voters of California REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 40 DONT BE FOOLED AGAIN: The special interests in favor of Proposition 40 listed above are the same groups that asked us to vote for Propositions 12 and 13 two years ago. To quote the 2000 California Voter Information Guide, they promised its that Proposition 12 would: 1. "Protect Our Air, Water, Rivers & Beaches from Toxic Pollution" 2. "Provide Kids Safe Places to Play" 3. "Help Keep Kids Off Streets & Out of Gangs" 4. "Protect our Environment & Enhance our Economy" SOUND FAMILIAR? These are the very same claims they now make for Proposition 40! So why do they want to spend another $2,600,000,000 of our money on the same thing? More importantly, what did they do with the $4,000,000,000 we gave them in 2000? It turns out they substituted the word "pork" for "park." For example: • $44,750,000 for three "science" centers • $30,000,000 to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program • $15,000,000 to the City of San Francisco • $2,750,000 for rail sites and underground mines • $2,000,000 for a "visitor" center along the American River • $2,OOQ000 for a "camp" in Alameda County • $250,000 to "maintain the state flower' PROPOSITION 40 DOES MORE OF THE SAME: It will blow most of the $2,600,000,000 on more pork, not neighborhood parks, not clean air to breathe, and not clean water to drink. WETRUSTED THEM ONCE AND GOT BURNED. Don't let them waste another $2,600,000,000 that we cannot afford to lose. Vote NO on Proposition 40! SENATOR RAY HAYNES, Vice -Chair California State Senate Health Committee ASSEMBLYMAN DICK DICKERSON, Vice -Char California State Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife LEWIS K. UHLER, President The National Tax Limitation Committee - r-- • 8 Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the apinimu of the authors and havoc not been checked far accuracy by any o&ial agency. THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002. ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 40 CALIFORNIANS CANNOT AFFORD MORE DEBT. Just last year, California was running a huge surplus and our economy was strong. But we now find ourselves living in an entirely different world. Our economy is faltering. Instead of a surplus, we now have a projected budget deficit of over $14,000,000,00 This will mean a cut in state services, a tax increase, or both. Either way, the people of California will come out losers. But things will be much worse if Proposition 40 passes, since this new bond will cost more than $5,000,000,000 to repay, including compounded interest! Sales taxes were just hiked in January. Californians are already obligated to repay $42,000,000,000 for our other bonds. It now costs taxpayers $2,582,901,000 per year just to make the payments on our bond debt, money that could otherwise be spent on education, health care or public safety. In short, Californians simply cannot afford to take on more debt at this time. And even if we could, Proposition 40 does not even do what it claims. For example: PROPOSITION 40 WONT PROVIDE "CLEAN WATER" TO DRINK: California's population is expected to grrow by over five million people in the next decade. This will place an enormous strain on our seater supply. However, this bond will not provide a single drop of drinking water for California's growing population. It will not build a single water storage reservoir or water treatment facility. On the other hand, Proposition 40 will give up to $375,000,000 for private organizations to spend on their pet projects, and lers them use these funds for their own "administrative costs." PROP 40 PROPOSITION 40 WON'T PROVIDE "SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS": The vast majority of the money will not go for neighborhood parks. Besides, Californians made a huge investment in neighborhood parks just two years ago. In 2000, the voters approved Propositions 12 and 13, bonds for parks and clean water totaling over $4,000,000,000. At that time, the state was projecting a huge budget surplus. Now the backers of Proposition 40 want you to approve their new $2,600,000,000 water and parks bond. But what did they do with all the money we gave them two years ago? Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the same thing twice. CALIFORNIANS MUST FOCUS ON OUR PRIORITIES: In these uncertain times, approving Proposition 40 would be like taking out a loan to buy new patio furniture when you can't afford to pay your mortgage air rent. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, California has higher priorities, including law enforcement and disease control. Now is not the time for lower priority spending. We simply don't have the money. Proposition 40 4 bad for families, bad for taxpayers, and bad for California. Just Vote NO. SENATOR RAY HAYNES, Chair California State Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee ASSEMBLYMAN DICK DICKERSON. Vice -Chair California State Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife JON COUPAL, President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association' REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 40 THE OPPONENTS ARE WRONG ON THE FACTS. Clean air, clean water and safe neighborhood parks are essential investments to protect our health, economy and quality of life. PROPOSITION 40 WILL PROTECT CLEAN AIR AND WATER: Proposition 40 protects our drinking water and the health of our families by keeping toxic waste out of our water supplies. It protects our air by replacing the most polluting diesel trucks and buses. That's why Proposition 40 is supported by pollution control officers, health and community groups. PROPOSITION 40 WILL KEEP OUR BEACHES AND COASTAL WATERS CLEAN: Proposition 40 will protect our beaches and coastal waters from toxic pollution and urban runoff, making them safe for our families. That's why Proposition 40 is supported by the League for Coastal Protection. PROPOSITION 40 WILL MAKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS SAFER: Proposition 40 will improve and expand neighborhood parks and provide youth with alternatives to gangs, drugs and violence. That's why Proposition 40 is supported by the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, and Latino Issues Forum. PROPOSITION 40 INCLUDES STRICT FINANCIAL SAFEGUARDS: Annual audits and public hearings ensure that funds are spent as promised. Proposition 40 does not raise taxes — existing state revenues will be used. YES ON 40 IS CRITICALLY NEEDED TODAY. Proposition 40 will build safer, stronger communities, while protecting our health, economy and quality of life. That's why Proposition 40 is supported by business groups like the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. VOTE YES ON 40. TOM PORTER, California State Director AARP RUSSELL J. "RUSTY" HAMMER, President Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce MONTY HOLDEN, Executive Director California Organization of Police and Sheriffs i Arguments printed on this page are the opinfaru of the authm's wul hate not been checked ftrr a -curacy by any official agency. Arguments 9 + a7:a ELI !