HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - PROP 111 TRAFFIC RELIEF (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
NEW BUSINESS Ken Pulskamp
DATE: May 22, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSITIAlPARTMENT: City Manag r
BACKGROUND
This item is on the agenda to register the City of Santa Clarita's support for
Proposition 111.
The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitations Act of 1990, Prop 111,
contains two elements which are to provide the necessary resources to address
traffic congestion and modify the existing government spending limit. Overall,
15.5 billion will be raised over the next 10 years from the following sources:
• 9 cent per gallon Fuel Tax increase (5 cents on August 1, 1990,
additional 1 cent on January 1, 1991, '92, '93 and '94).
• 55% truck weight fee increase
Passage of Prop 111 would additionally modify the current constitutional
appropriations to allow the start budget to grow with state revenues. This
growth is expected to be about 8.7 percent a year as opposed to the 6.9 percent
allowable under the Gann limit.
The new revenues in conjunction with Proposition 108 will fund the 1988 State
Transportation Program shortfall of 3.5 billion, subvent to cities and counties
3 billion dollars for transportation systems (cities will receive 6.68 per
capita annually), establish a 3 billion dollar congestion relief program,
establish a 2 billion dollar state and local transportation partnership program
for local road or transit guideway projects, provide 1 billion to maintain and
rehab street highways, provide earthquake safe freeways, buildings and streets
and reduce traffic by expanding van, carpool and staggered work programs.
The total new revenue expected to be realized by Santa Clarita through Prop 111
is $1,033,000 annually. In addition, out of the total funds derived through
Prop 111, there are four specific projects within our area eligible for
funding. These projects are:
• Widening of Highway 126 and construct freeway from Ventura County line
to Route 14.
• Highway 14 widening from four to six lanes for 9.9 miles from Santa
Clarita to Escondido Summit.
Adopted:
APPSOVED
.-.:uwfda Item: _
•
Page 2
• Highway 14 widening from four to six lanes for 14.9 miles from Escondido
Summit to Palmdale.
• Highway 126 widening from two lanes to four lanes for 5.2 miles from
Ventura County Line to Route 5.
Through the adjustments to the Gann Limit and in addition to the transportation
elements, Prop 111 will provide for a revision of the school funding initiative
passed in 1988 to balance the state's educational needs with other services.
Specifically, Prop 111 would assist in providing adequate funding for the
University of California system as well as ensuring public school, K-14 funding.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Resolution 90-92 in support of Proposition 111 and
in conjunction authorize Mayor to sign letters of support.
ATTArRMRNT.4
Resolution
Proposition
Summaries
•
RESOLUTION NO. 90-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
TO SUPPORT PROPOSITION 111
WHEREAS, the state of California faces serious problems in its
fiscal policy 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, Prop 111 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, it would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax to
provide' increased funding for maintenance and improvement of highway and mass
transit projects without reducing funds for other state programs; and
WHEREAS, Prop 111 would continue the guarantees of Proposition 98
that K-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 the generally high level of education, transportation,
health services, law enforcement, senior programs and other vital services to
the residents of California; and
WHEREAS, Prop 111 is supported by a broad coalition including
Governor George Deukmejian, State Superintendent of Schools Bill Honig,
California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Taxpayers Association,
California Transportation Commission, League of Women Voters of California,
California Chamber of Commerce, California School Boards Association,
California State Automobile Association, County Supervisors Association of
California, League of California Cities, California Commission on Aging,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, California Police Chiefs
Association, California Retired Teachers Association, California Professional
Firefighters, California Business Roundable, 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 in the
expansion and construction of mass transit facilities.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF PROP 111, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND
SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990, ON THE JUNE 5, 1990 BALLOT.
i
r C ,ki �r7 s
The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation
-,,Act of 1990
Official Titleand Summary f,
THE. TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND SPENDING LI.MITATION ACT OF 1990 jhis measure would enact_
a statewide traffic congestion .relief program and update the spending limit on state and local government to better.
reflect the needs of, a growing California . population. It would provide new revenues to }ie used to reduce traffic
congestion by building state highways, local streets and roads; and public mass transit' facilities. This measure would
enact a 55% increase in truck weight fees and,a five -cent -per -gallon increase in the fuel taxon August 1, 1990, and an
additional one cent on January l of each of the next four years.. This measure updates the state appropriations limit to
allow for newfunding for- congestion relief, mass transit, health care, services for the "elderly; and other priority state
programs, while still providing anoverall limit on state and. local spending. This measure "Wo
uld continue to provide
that public education and community colleges receive at least 40%" of the state General .Fund budget, and would
provide that' revenuesin excess of the state appropriations limit are allocated equally};^between education: and
taxpayers. til q
Final Vote'Cast by the Legislature on SCA 1 (Proposition I11)1YfE
Assembly: Ayes 65 Senate:. Ayes 34 4.
4. Noes 5 Noes 2 Imo.
1,.. Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
Background.;' ' .' '.` : -
usin., the lower of the change in ;.1N ,the United States
g g ' (1) th
Under. the "California Constitution, there is a limit on .
Consumer Price Index (USCPI),,-or; (2)`. California per
the amount of tax revenues that the state and most local
. capita personal income. The current, population
governments. can . appropriate in a given . year: :This
, adjustment is based on the change ineachjurisdiction's
appropriations limit does not apply to nontax revenues,
population, except for schools, where tlie: adjustment is
such as user fees, or to., certain excluded appropriations,
the change in the number of students based on average
such as debt service on voter -approved -bonds. Whenever
daily attendance (ADA).
a local government cannot appropriate all of its tax
This measure changes the cost -of -living and: population
revenues, these "excess revenues". must be returned to
factors for, both the state and local appropriations -limits as
taxpayers. However, any excess . state 'revenues, � up to a
described below:
_
specified limit, must go to public schools and community.
• New cost -of -living factor.
colleges. Any excess revenues above that limit. must be "'.:
• For the. state and for schools, it is- the change in
returned.to taxpayers.:.:
California per capita personal
The California Constitution also requires the state to.,.....
For local " governments, each local, government. ,
provid6i a minimum level: of funding for public, schools s annually may choose either: " ---•`-•. -,� ;:�"=�"` ;, , .
and community colleges (K-14.education) ..
9 The change. in California per capita personal
Finally, the state now collects a 9 -cent -per -gallon tax on
income, or
motor vehicle fuels and also' collects. commercial vehicle
*'The percentage change ' in, the 'jurisdictions'*
weight.. fees' . These . revenues-, must .be used_ for
:'..assessed. valuation which is attributable to
transportation.;: pur'poses'..,-and are subject to: ' the.,
:: nonresidential new. construction - a
appropriations limit
•New population factor.
• For the state,, it is basedon both'i the_, change iii::''`,.
Proposal ..attendance at public schools 'and'' community:? ;
This measure makes changes in how the appropriations
colleges and in statewide population ,,
limit. operates . and- in how the minimum funding .:.
'_ For, local governments, the.: Legislature may
guarantee for public schools, schools. and community colleges is,.
'' . ;' establish an alternative population factor.
determined: Passage: of this` measure .also would cause-
Changes rin ' . ,the K-14 Education Funding
several changes in laws relating to transportation funding
Guarantee. Under existing law, two formulas' are used to:.
to take effect. These changes are. described below.
determine the minimum funding. guarantee for public...
Changes in the Appropriations. Limit Formula. The
'. schools and community colleges. One (known as the-.
state , and local appropriations limits are based on the
"percentage -of -revenues" formula) . guarantees . these :
amount.: of. tax .dollars appropriated in 197&-79, adjusted `
schools .and colleges collectively the' same percentage
for 'subsequent changes .in the " cost . of living and
(about 41 percent), of state General Fund tax revenues as
population: The current cost -of -living adjustment is made.. ,..
(Continued on page 61) ...'
18 -
90
Text of Proposed Law
This amendment proposed by Senate; Constitutional Amendment 1
(Statutes of 1989, Resolution Chapter 66) expressly amends the
Constitution by adding sections thereto and amending sections.thereof;,
therefore, existing provisions proposed to. be deleted are printed in
str+lteeat type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in
italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ARTICLES XIII B AND XVI
First—That Section 1 of Article XIII B thereof is amended to read:
SEC. 1. The total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the
state and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations
limit of sueh the entity of government for the prior year adjusted for the
ehanges change in" the cost of living and the change in population,
except as otherwise provided in this Miele article.
Second—That Section 1.5 is added to Article XIII B thereof, to read:
SEC. 1.5. The annual calculation of the appropriations limit under
this article for each entity of local government shall be reviewed as part
cf an annual financial audit.
Third—That Section 2 of Article XIII B thereof is amended to read:
Seetiett .2: ite�ittes ita l�teess of l�itt�itetietr.
SEC. 2. (a) (1) Fifty percent of till all revenues received by the
state in a fiscal year and in the fiscal year immediately following it in
excess of the amount which may be appropriated by the state in
compliance with this article during that fiscal year and the fiscal year
immediateht following it shall be transferred and allocated, from a
fiord established for that purpose, pursuant to Section 8.5 of Article .
,l VI.
e (2) Fifty percent of all revenues received by the state in a fiscal year
and in the fiscal year immediately following it in excess of that the
amount which is may be appropriated by the state in compliance with
this Art-iele; attd whieh would otherwise be pttfsttattt to
F �ieo {fir} 4 this Seetiea , to article during that fiscal year and the
fiscal year immediately following it shall be returned by a revision of
tax rates or fee schedules ��w��it��h��ii�n��]7 the next two( subsequent
[[figs-c`a-l_'years 7;
shall be 4•••••ll [ILSJieffed aftd aliaeated pttfstaant to Seetien 84 of A� XV4
i tap to the � atttettt3t pefttaittetl by that seetieta .
3 (b) lmeept as pfobtided itt {a} 4 dais Seetietr All
revenues received by at3y, an entity of government, other than the
state, in a fiscal year and in the fiscal year immediately following it in
excess of that the amount which is may be appropriated by sueh the
entity in compliance with this Aftiele article during the that fiscal year
x and the fiscal year immediately following it shall be returned by a
revision of tax rates or fee schedules within the next two subsequent
fiscal years. .
z Fourth—That subdivision (c) of Section 3 of Article XIII B thereof is
amended to read:
(c) (1) In the event of an emergency is declared by the legislative
1 body of an entity of government, the app appropriations
limit of the affected entity of government may be exceeded provided
that theapptepfiatieta appropriations limits in the following three years
are reduced accordingly to prevent an aggregate. increase in
appropriations resulting from the emergency.
(2) 1n the. event an emergency is declared by the Governor,
appropriations approved by atwo-thirds vote of the legislative body of
a in affected entity of government to an emergency account for
v� expenditures relating to that emergency shall not constitute
appropriations subject to limitation. As used in this paragraph,
"emergency" means the existence, as declared by the Governor, of
conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety o{ persons and
-� property within the state, or parts thereof; caused by sue r conditions as
attack or probable or imminent attack by an enemy of the United
States, fire, flood, drought, storm, civil disorder, earthquake, or volcanic
eruption.
Fifth—That Section 8 of Article XIII B thereof is amended to read:
SEC. 8. As used in this Ar-tiele article and except as otherwise
expressly provided herein:
(a) "Appropriations subject to limitation" of the state shall meati
means any authorization to expend during a fiscal year the proceeds of
taxes levied by or for the state, exclusive of state subventions for the use
and operation of localgovernment (other than subventions made
pursuant to Section 6 el: this ,+niti�;e) and further exclusive of refunds of
taxes, benefit payments from retirement, unemployment insurance,
and disability insurance funds ; .
M
(b) "Appropriations subject to limitation" of an. entity of local
tta
government shalleatt means any authorization to expend during a,
fiscal year the proceeds of taxes levied by or for that entity and the
proceeds of state subventions to that entity (other than subventions
made pursuant to Section 6 of this "Miele) exclusive of refunds of
taxes;.
(c) "Proceeds of taxes" shall include, but not be restricted to, all tax
revenues and the proceeds to an entity of government, from * (1)
regulatory licenses, user charges, and user fees to the extent that stteh
those proceeds exceed the costs reasonably borne by sueh that entity in
providing the regulation, product, or service, and, {ii} (2) the
investment of tax revenues. With respect to any local government,
"proceeds of taxes" shall include subventions received from the state,
other than pursuant to Section 6 of this Af:tiele , and, with respect to the
state, proceeds of taxes shall exclude such subventions-,.
(d) "Local government" shall mtteatt means any city, county, city and
county, school district, special district, authority, or other political
subdivision of or within the state
{e} =gest of livifte shall mean the etttef Pfiee lade* €ef the
United States as repented by the United States l3epart�ttetrt of Laber-, of
sueeessef egeeey 4 the United States G T pfaN ided; hawewr, .
that fef purposes of Seetiee 4 -,the ehange in eeA of h�+it3 &,m, the
prye
eeeding af shall ift tie _—, ex—od the ehange in Gelifemia per
f=
eapita perseeal ineeme etft said preeeding yeaf; .
(e). (1) Change in the cost of living' for the state, dschool district,
or a community college district means the percentage change in
California per capita personal intone from the preceding year. .
(2) "Change in the cost of living"for an entity of local government,
other than a school district or a community college district,shall be ..
either (A) the percentage change in California per capita personal
income from the preceding year, or (B) the percentage change in the
local assessment roll from the preceding year for the jurisdiction due to
the addition of local nonresidential new construction. Each entity of
local government shall select its change iii the cost of living pursuant to
this paragraph annually by a recorded vote of the entity's governing
body.
(f) atiett- "Change in population" of any entity of
government, other than the state,a school district, or a community
college district, shall be determined by a method prescribed by the
Legislature; pfevided that sw a an shall be reYised, as
eeeessaty; to felleet the per-iedie eettsaas ,.,.cvndtieted by the United States
Peparttoent 4 Wiz; of sueeesser ageney e€ the United Sates
err The peptilation e€ any seheel distriet shall be stteh sehool
distriet=s aN,efage dit4 AttendAnee as detefiitted by a ttaethed
ptesefihed by the begislattife; .
Change in population" of a school district.or a community college
district shall be the percentage change in the average daily attendance
of the school district or community college district from the preceding
fiscal year, as determined by a method prescribed by the Legislature.
"Change in population " of the state shall be determined by adding
(1) the percentage change in the state's population multiplied by the
percentage of the state's budget in the prior fiscal year that is expended
for other than. educational purposes for kindergarten and grades one to
12, inclusive, and the community colleges, and (2) the percentage
change in the.total statewide average daily attendance in kindergarten
and grades one to 12, inclusive, and the community colleges, multiplied
by the percentage of the state's budget in the prior fiscal year that is.
expended for educational purposesfor kindergarten and grades one to
I? inclusive, and the community eolleges. .
Any determination of population pursuant to this subdivision, other
than that measured by average daily attendance, shall be fevised, as
necessary, to reflect the periodic census conducted by the United States .
Departinent of Commerce, orsuecessordepartment.
(g) "Debt service" shall taeat3 means appropriations required to pay
the cost of interest and redemption charges, including the funding of
any reserve or sinking fund required in connection therewith, on
indebtedness existing or legally authorized as of January 1, 1979, or on
bonded indebtedness thereafter approved according to law by a vote of
the electors of the issuing entity voting in an election for staeh that
purpose:
(h) The "appropriations limit" of each entity of government for each
fiscal year shall be is that amount which total annual appropriations
(Continued on page 62)
'19
11 The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation
Act of 1990
Argument in Favor of Proposition 111
California has reached a crossroads. We enter a new decade
facing monumental challenges—unprecedented traffic
congestion, explosive population growth, spiraling health-care
costs, dramatically increased needs for police and fire
protection and the education of our children.
The nature and magnitude of these demands call for an
INNOVATIVE, COMPREHENSIVE BLUEPRINT to move
California into the 21st century.
That's why a broad bipartisan coalition, including the League
of Women Voters, the business community, law enforcement,
taxpayer associations, education, seniors, health care, labor and
transportation supports Proposition 111.
Proposition 111 contains three major components: a traffic
congestion relic program, a plan to raise new funds to pay or
it and a modification of the existing. governmental spend ng
limit to permit the money to be used.
Traffic congestion has become unbearable and isexpected to
double—even triple=in some. areas in just 10 years.
Even if revenues were available, we could not simply build
our way out of gridlock. Those days are long gone. We must set
new priorities.
Proposition 11/'s innovative transportation package will
spend $18.5 billion over the next /0 years to:
• Make our freeways, bridges and streets EARTHQUAKE
SAFE.
• COMPLETE HIGHWAY and MASS TRANSIT PROJECTS
already authorized but not funded.
•. FIX POTHOLES and INCREASE MAINTENANCE of
local streets and highways.. .
• REDUCE PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC by expanding van,
carpool and.staggered work hour programs.
• EXPAND LOCAL RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS in Los
Angeles, the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Clara,
San Joaquin Valley, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, the
coastal counties and elsewhere.
• IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW through synchronized signals,
freeway ramp signals, electronic traffic messages and other
modern devices.
• Improve state highways.
• REDUCE AIR POLLUTION.
Where will the new money come from? Directly from those
who use the roads through increased user fees—a
5 -cent -per -gallon fuel tax increase this year and an. additional 1
cent each of the next four years (a total increase of 9 cents) and
increased truck weight fees. The Passenger Rail. and Clean Air
Bond Act—Proposition 108—will provide the other necessary
funds. It's part of the Proposition lll.blueprint but must appear
separately on the ballot.
. The gasoline tax increase will be about $60 a )EAR for the
average driver. It's AN INCREASE WE CANAFFORD. .
In addition to exempting the new gas tax revenues from the
spending. limit so they can be used on the transportation
improvements, Proposition 111 will permit state and local limits
to GROWN WITH OUR ECONOMY—but no faster. This
RETAINS STRONG TAXPAYER SPENDING, CONTROLS
while enabling already -collected taxes to be used for pressing
senior, law enforcement, K-14 schools, higher education and
health=care needs.
THE CHOICE IS SIMPLE: Watch our traffic and other
problems get worse—or do something about them NOW!
We have the technology and know-how to tackle these
problems. Now=IN PROPOSITIONS 111 and 108—WE HAVE
THE BLUEPRINT.I
Join business, our schools; seniors, law enforcement, health
care, higher education, labor and taxpayers.
.VOTE YES on PROPOSITIONS 111 and 108!
TOM NOBLE .
President
California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CHP)
KIRK WEST
President
California Chamber of Commerce
HONORABLE JOHN GARAMENDI .
State Senator, 5th District
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 111
The proponents ,of Proposition 111 want you to believe that
you must approve higher taxation levels if we are to improve
our roads and highways, relieve congestion, and build rail
systems.
What they don't tell you is that you are being asked to. revise
the spending limitation on government far beyond what is
necessary to allow the imposition of a 9 -cent gas tax hike.
They don't tell you that by approving Proposition 111, you
will give carte blanche approval to future tax hikes—because
Proposition 111 guarantees that the politicians won't have to
come back and ask your permission next time to increase
spending.
The proponents say Proposition 111 retains strong taxpayer
spending controls. Don't believe it. Proposition 111 guts the
Gann Limit on government spending—under the formula
being proposed, government would never reach a spending
limit..
If you think voters erred in imposing a limit on how much
government can spend, then this proposition is for you. But if
you want to hold a rein on taxation, vote it down.
Nobody is disputing that our streets need repair, that signals
need to be synchronized, that state highways need to be
improved.
The ugument.is over how you finance those projects.
Proposition 111 is the wrong way.
If you approve Proposition 111, the message you will be
sending is clear: the politicians can spend as much money as
they want and you don't mind altering your.personal budget to
pay for it.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 111.
HONORABLE RICHARD L. bIOUNTJOY
Member of the Assembly, 42nd District
HONORABLE PETER. F. SCHABARUM
Supervisor., Los Angeles County
ARTHUR B. LAFFER, Ph.D.
Chairman, A. B. Laffer Assoc.
20 Arguments. printed on this page are theopinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. P90
The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation
Act of 1990 111
Argument Against Proposition 111
Proponents call it "The Traffic Congestion Relief and
Spending Limitation Act of 1990." Don't be fooled by deceptive
titles.
This proposition is a tax increase, pure and simple.
It would raise your gas tax by 9 cents per gallon, raise sales
taxes, taxes on trucks, and pave the way for $3 billion more of
bonded indebtedness. Over the next ten years, these new taxes
would total $18.5 billion, or more than $600 per man, woman,
and child in California. For a family of four, this is $2,400!
Most importantly, it would eliminate the Gann Limit, which
voters imposed in 1979 to curtail runaway spending by both
local and state government.
Why would your lawmakers want to eliminate the 'Gann
Limit? So they can raise your.taxes, of course.
Do you really think government needs more of your
paycheck?
Even with the Garin Limit, the State Budget has increased a
whopping 100 percent since 1980. Just imagine what it would
have been -without-streh-aspe+i4rrg restriction.
The average family income certainly has not enjoyed such
growth during that same time period. Why should you cut back
even more just so government can increase its spending?
The "traffic congestion" section of Proposition 111 requires
local city and county governments to reduce traffic in their
areas or face financial sanctions. ' .
That sounds good until you realize what it actually means.
Many feel that the formula set down could be -reached only by
enacting_ such drastic measures as forced carpooling,
live -where -you -work ordinances, and government -mandated
working hours.
That is just unacceptable. Government controls too much of
our lives already.
Our streets and highways do need improving; however,
before digging their hands into your pockets even deeper,
politicians should review the operations of the State
Department of Transportation to make our current tax dollars
go further. The Department admits to an incredible 43 -percent
operation overhead.
Let's make sure our tax.dollars are being spent wisely before
we throw more money at the problem. An increase in taxes
should be the last resort.
It is absolutely essential that the people of California keep
control of government and not allow the big spenders to return
to unbridled and runaway excesses.
We urge a NO vote on Proposition 111.
RICHARD L. MOUNTJOY
Member of the Assembly, 42nd District
PETER F. SCHABARUM
Supervisor, Los Angeles County
ARTHUR B. LAFFER, Ph.D.
Chairman, A. R Laffer Assoc.
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 111
Here are THE FACTS. They speak loudest for Proposition
111. It will:
• Spend $18.5 billion over the next 10 years to:
• Make our FREEWAYS, BRIDGES and STREETS
EARTHQUAKE -SAFE.
• COMPLETE already authorized, but not funded, MASS
TRANSIT and HIGHWAY PROJECTS.
• EXPAND LOCAL RAIL TRANSIT systems.
• Install SYNCHRONIZED SIGNALS and other. MODERN
DEVICES to IMPROVE TRAFFICFLOW.
• REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION and AIR
POLLUTION.
• Mandate a VERY STRINGENT LIMITATION on
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES. '
• Require THOSE WHO USE THE ROADS TO PAY FOR
THE IMPROVEMENTS through increased user taxes. A
9 -cent -per -gallon tax increase amounts to only $60 a year
for the typical driver
• KEEP THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING limit in place
but make important modifications to ENSURE IT IS
WORKING FOR THE TAXPAYERS, not against them.
• Modify the spending limit to ALLOW THE NEW GAS
TAX FUNDS TO BE SPENT ON TRANSPORTATION
IMPR O VEMENTS.
• Allow the LIMIT TO GROW WITH THE ECONOMY but
NO FASTER. That will enable us to use already -collected
taxes to meet senior, law enforcement, education and other
needs.
BASIC FUNDING GUARANTEES provided TO PUBLIC
SCHOOLS on the November 1988.ballot are retained, along
with a commitment that one-quarter of the schools' share of
excess -limit funds will go to their base to reduce class sizes.
Proposition 111 is supported by a broad bipartisan coalition
including business, our schools, seniors, law enforcement, health
care, higher education, labor and taxpayers.
Vote YES ON PROPOSITION III—A consensus blueprint to
move California into the 21st century.
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
Governor
LARRY MCCARTHY
President, California Taxpayers Association
DR. H. C. COX
Chair, AARP
California State Legislative Committee
(American Association of Retired Persons)
P90 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 21
I�
I
M■■s
®;M; League of California Cities
California Cities
Work Together
TO: City Managers
FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
RE: Projects to be funded by Propositions 111 and 108
'.; `' Y ► 'i 1990
Please find enclosed the list of projects that are scheduled to be funded by the state and
county portions of Propositions 111 and 108. We're forwarding them to you, by county,
to enable you to inform members of the city council, employees and citizens about the
impact these two very important ballot measures will have on cities.
In addition, I'm attaching a list of actions that you may want to consider. We feel that
Propositions 111 and 108 are two of the most important measures our voters will act on.
Our goal is to ensure that all citizens are as fully informed about the impacts these
measures will have on cities as possible.
We're also publishing a weekly newsletter, called "Update," that is distributed with the
"Legislative Bulletin." It includes a variety of information about what the two ballot
measures will do and how they impact cities, as well as suggestions for informing citizens
and employees.
Should you have any questions about any of these items, please contact the League's
Communications Director, Sheri Erlewine, at 916/444-5790.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
BOX 7005, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 404 HILTON CENTER OFFICE BLDG.
(415) 283-2113 (916) 444-5790 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213) 629-1422
• 0
- League of California Cities
PROPOSI'T'IONS 111 AND 108
Local Actions for Cities
The following actions are those that may be taken by a city to educate citizens and
employees about the impacts that Propositions 111 and 108 can have on the city. Care
should be taken to ensure that cities not devote public resources to advocating or
opposing a ballot measure, but to informing. The city attorney should be consulted
should questions arise, and the League's "Guide to City Participation in Ballot Measure
Campaigns" is available. Should you have any questions about activities or this
information, contact the League's Director of Communications at 916/444-5790.
1. Take a Position on the Measures - At an upcoming City Council meeting, the
Council should vote to take a position on the measures (be sure to act on both
measures). Documenting the impact they will have on the city, including which
projects will be funded and the actual amount of revenues, will be important.
Sample resolutions are available from the League office.
2. Issue a News Release - Notify the local news media of the city's stance on the
measures. Again, be sure to document the impact. Sample releases and release
formats are available from the League.
3. Editorials or Op -Ed -Stories - Requesting a meeting with the editor of your
local paper to discuss the measures could result in an editorial. A letter to the
editor could be submitted to the paper as an op-ed piece.
4. Presentations at Service Clubs - You might consider making a speech at a
local service club to talk about how important these measures are for cities. This
is an ideal way to informally present news ideas to an important group of citizen
and business leaders. Speeches of varying lengths are available.
5. Articles for Local Publications - An article submitted to local newsletters, ex.
chamber of commerce newsletter, senior citizens publications, recreation
brochure, etc., would 'help to get the issues before citizens.
6. Employee Education Efforts - Be sure all city employees understand the
measures and their impact. This can be done by distributing the League's fact
- sheet to all employees (possibly with paychecks) and ensuring that the weekly
newsletter published by the League, called "Update," is distributed weekly to all
employees.
7. Citizen newsletter articles - Citizen newsletters, bill inserts or other mailings to
all citizens or to blocks of citizens could include a discussion of the ballot
measures.
0
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Project Completion Delayed Indefinitely Unless Prop. 711 Passes (1988 STIP):
Route
Description of Project
1 , .
Pacific Coast Highway - Widen and channelize from. Marine to Grand.
5
Golden State Freeway Widen southbound roadway from Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway)
to Van Nuys Blvd.
10
San Bernardino Freeway - = Extend eastbound busway from Baldwin Avenue to Puente Avenue.
10
Santa Monica Freeway Construct eastbound on-ramp at Lincoln Blvd.
47 Construct separation at Seaside Toll Plaza.
60
Pomona Freeway Construct interchange at Route 71 (Corona Expressway) and add
climbing lane from Greenwood Avenue to Route 71.
101
Ventura Freeway Construct interchange at Valley Circle.
101
Ventura Freeway Widen freeway from Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway) to Route 27
(Topanga Canyon).
105 Complete freeway from Route 605 to Route 1.
110
Harbor Freeway Complete guideway for buses; to support rail later.
118 Widen freeway from Topanga to Balboa.
iKi
Santa Paula Freeway Widen highway from 11th Street to 15th Street.
138 Construct passing lanes, channelize and correct curve from Route 5
to Route 18.
187 Widen highway from Pacific to Lincoln.
210
Foothill Freeway Add lanes from Route 164 to Route 39 (Azusa Avenue).
213
Western Avenue Improve conventional highway from Carson
to Del Amo Blvd.
405
San Diego Freeway Restripe 5th lane from Studebaker Road to Route 101 (Ventura Freeway)
0
405
San Diego Freeway Construct interchange at Arbor Vitae.
605 Widen fire6way from Route 91 (Artesia Freeway) to. Fairtcn Street.
Transit Prop A and Metro -Rail.
Various Roadway state highway rehabilitation projects.
Various Soundwalls.
Priority Highway Proiects Eliqible For Prom 111 Funds:
Rouse Description of Project
10
San Bernardino Freeway Extend busway from Baldwin to Citrus.
30 Construct freeway, widen conventional highway from Foothill Blvd- to
San Bernardino County line.
48 Construct shoulders from 270th Street West to Route 14.
57
Orange Freeway Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
to Route 60.
60 -
Pomona Freeway Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Route 57 to San
Bernardino County line.
71
Corona Expressway Convert to freeway from Holt to North Ranch Road.
72
Whittier Blvd. Widen conventional highway for relinquishment from Pico Rivera West
city limits to Atlantic.
91
Artesia Freeway Widen freeway from Route 605 to Orange County line.
118
Simi Valley Freeway Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool and mixed flow lanes from
Ventura County line to Route 405.
126
Santa Paula Freeway Widen highway and construct freeway from Ventura County line to
Route 14.
138
Palmdale Blvd. Widen conventional highway from Route 14 to Avenue T.
210
Foothill Freeway Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Route 134 to
Foothill Blvd.
405
San Diego Freeway Widen freeway and add bus -and -car-pool lane from Orange County line
to Route 11 a.
605 Widen freeway from Orange County line to South Street.
V
710
Long Beach Freeway Widen existing freeway and construct new freeway from Route 105
(Century Freeway) to Route 210 (Foothill Freeway).
Rail Transit Projects Eligible For.Props. 111 & 108 Funds:
Los Angeles Metro Rail
-Wilshire/Alvarado-Wilshire/Western
-Wilshire/Alvarado-Lankershim/Chandler
-San Fernando Valley Extension
-Union Station -State Highway Routes 5 and 710
— Wilshire/Westem-Wilshire/State Highway Route
Los Angeles Courty-light 9ail
San Fernando Valley
-Pasadena-Los Angeles
-Coastal Corridor (Torrance to Santa Monica)
Santa Monica -Los Angeles
-State Highway Route 5
State Highway Route 110
Los Angeles County Commuter and Intercity Rail Improvement
Projects:
-Los Angeles to Santa Barbara County
-Los Angeles to Ventura County
-Los Angeles to San Bernardino County
-Los Angeles to Orange County
-Los Angeles to San Diego County
-Improvements include: 22 low cost time Improvement projects for faster train service; 2 new
Amtrak Stations (locations to be determined); station improvements at Burbank Airport,
Chatsworth and Glendale; new station at Van Nuys Airport; new rolling stock.(4 trainsets and
10 2xtra cars); and upgrade siding and track.
Interregional Projects Eligible For Prop. 111 Funds:
Route Description of Project
14
Santa Clarita to Escondido Summit
14
Escondido Summit to Palmdale
126
Ventura County to Route 5
138
Palmdale to Route 18
138
Pearblossom
138
Route 18 to San Bernardino County
Widen 4 lane Freeway to 6 lanes. 9.9 miles
Widen 4 lane Freeway to 6 lanes. 14.9 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 5.2 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 18.0 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes and add bridge. 5.3 miles
Widen 2 lanes to 4 lanes. 5.6 miles
Automobile Club of Southern California
HEADQUARTERS: 2601 SOUTH F I G U E R 0 A STREET • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007-3294
MAILING: P.O. BOX- 2890 TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90051-0890
HIGHWAY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
A. KEITH GILBERT. MANAGER
N1 AR 2 i l 90
March 19, 1990
CtT Y CF S:i;J , A C! ,.S;l A
John Medina
Director of Public Works
23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr: Medina:
The Auto Club is supporting Proposition 111, which will implement
the transportation funding package passed by the Legislature last
year. As part of our campaign effort, we have developed the
attached fact sheet concerning local streets and roads expendi-
tures and the expected new revenues for each agency. The. state
controller's Report for the 1987-88 Fiscal Year is the basis for
the expenditure data. -
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the fact sheet, I
would appreciate hearing from you. Please call me at
(213) 741-4426.
Cordially,
Ray Mellen
Transportation Engineer
jm
Attachment
PROPOSITION 111 F0 SHEET
Developed by Automobile Club
February 1990
l ` � R l
�k,OBllfC
F d
b� Southern California pAp 4
yFRN C?`�t0
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
NEW FUNDS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
Approval of Proposition 111 will trigger a 10 -year $18.5 billion
transportation improvement program. Included is $3.0 billion to
be allocated directly by formula to cities and counties for use
in improving and maintaining local streets and roads. Over the
next 10 years, the program will provide $819 million to Los
Angeles County and the cities.
BACKGROUND
Our local streets and roads exist for a simple purpose: to help
people get from one place to another. Of the 175,000 miles of
public streets, roads, and highways that weave our communities
together, all but 15,000 are local streets and roads. While the
15,000 -mile state highway and freeway network carries more than
50 per -cent of all travel, the beginning and end of our trips
occur on local streets.
These streets are critical because they are the ones that take
people from their homes to business, jobs, the marketplace,
hospitals, vacations; and bring emergency services. Local roads
are also important for another entirely different reason --they
provide a convenient path for essential public utilities, such as
water, sewers, electricity, telephone, television, and cable.
The responsibility to plan, operate, and maintain local streets
and roads rests with our local governments. Most local govern-
ment regulations require land developers to be responsible for
the construction of new roads. To operate, maintain, and modern-
ize these roads, local governments obtain funds from business
property taxes, traffic fines, utility taxes, special assess-
ments, and user fees (including the gasoline tax). To minimize
the cost of collection, the state collects the gasoline tax and
then allocates a portion of this money to cities and counties
according to population and other factors.
CURRENT FUNDING
Los Angeles County cities and county street and road budgets
total $715 million. Of this amount, $174 million comes from
motorist taxes and fees, $218 million from local revenues, and
$323 million from other sources including federal funds and
private sources. But this is not enough to meet all urgent -
street and road needs. The table on the reverse shows an
estimate of typical current expenditures for local agencies and
how they will be augmented by the transportation funding package.
04.04
3-5-90
gency
Total
Popula- Road
tion `files
.Qoura Hills
20.202
.lhambra
73.671
rcadia
49.345
.rtesia
14,941
.valon
2,496
.zusa
37.587
yell Gardens
38,331
ieverly Hill
34,731
3radbury
924
iurbank
93,462
,arson
88,680
;erritos
58,375
,laremont
36.484
6.358
173
:omoton II 93.070
,ovina
43,268
:udahv
20,424
lulver City
41.001
)iamond Bar
62.000
Downev
86,919
Duarte
21,168
:1 Monte 93,859
El Segundo 15,781
,ardena 50.945
Glendale 161,903
31endora Gdns 48.047
jermosa Bch. JI 19,757
Midden Hills I 1.981
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CURRENT TYPICAL
ANNUAL EXPENDITURE (1)
(3000,S)
Local
Fuel General Other
Taxes Funds Sources
(2) (3) (4)
52
2-75
151
975
141
659
30
204
i
38
78
496
102
39
831
381
99
462
3
18
227
1.212
205
1,175
131
774
116
485
59
172
13
274
84
547
(6)
___-L6)
194
1,152
52
287
151
1,247
53
196
212
674
619
92 844
47 264
(7) 32
192
3.358
0
47
0
1,058
212
451
831
0
5,379
0
5.743
3,127
2,689
1.640
1.406
373
763
79
3.043
(6)
1,814
280
0
1,280
370
12,431
1,475
59
318
264
0
1.603
3.113
1.834
79
108
573
1,132
32
87
603
273
155
226
1.035
741
539
909
3.747
2,404
258
58
(6)
1,861
48
2,686
82
1,045
2,610
1.189
68
676
73
0
Typical
New
Revenue Total.
Sub- Prop 111 Annual
total ($000) ($000)
(5)
2,070 142
7.446 517
2.493 346
146
18
264
164
2.391
2.127
2,175
443
2,618
864
1,713
11110
197
422
269
1,061
2,135
1,379
6.114
244
6.358
173
6
179
4.204
2,664
410
256
4,614
2,920
2,487
88
2.575
5.353
3.737
653
304
_.E. 006
4.041
754
3,936
611
3.648
143
288
4.827
1,838
601
4
11
1,_685
____158
2,447
_ 1�_
11,.L60
337
36'10
85
1- 3 7_9
46 j
-2 -
;encytion
Popula-
Total
Road
Miles
CURRENT TYPICAL
ANNUAL EXPENDITURE (1) .
($000,5)
Typical
New
Revenue
Prop 111
($000)
(5)
Total
Annual
($000)
.,.Fuel....._General
Taxes
(2)
Local
Funds
(3)
Other -
Sources
(4)
Sub-
total
zt!ztn Park
51,210
65
686
596
723
2,005
359
2.364
adustry
zglewood
390
102,888
62
11
2,655
714
3,380
3
3.383
186
1.368
467
4.946
6.781
722
8
7.503
2,023
Ywindale
a Canada -F1
1.072
20,828
27
20
603
1,392
2,015
54
283
655
197
1,135
146
1,281
a Habra Hts
5,379
41
77
26
58
161
38
199
akewood
a Mirada
76,974
42,730
197
1,021
1,94
443
3.378
1,593
540
300
3,918
113
571
0
1,022
1,893
ancaster
74,597
268
915
0
7,833
8,748
1,233
524
236
9.272
a Puente
33,629
66
450
49
734
11469
a Verne
30,085
79
396
900
414
1,710
473
365
24.476
257,937
211
191
143
2918
23.591
1,921
ay'mdale
27,249
38
367
31
75
664
omita
20.335
31
275
38
52
508
oniz Beach
415,808
812
5.368
13,433
5.675
27,394
os Angeles
3,361,529
6.846
43.633
91,932
122.372
281,528
ynwood
anhattan Bch
53.794
35,294
95
715
778
1,128
2,621
378
2,999
89
464
1.177
948
2,589
248
2,837
avwood
.onrovia
24,611
33.904
27
333
29
86
448
3,558
2,155
173
238
415
621
98
452
1.681
1,425
3.796
ontebello
59.146
123
790
246
1.119
2,570
onterev Prk
63,882
111
840
1,492
598
2,930
448
3,378
.orwalk
90,337
178
1.192
1,969
520
3,681
634
4,315
,almdale
39.149
176
453
2.084
9,786
12,323
275
12.598
'ls Vrds Ests
'aramount
15.080
42,736
78
207
261
1,698
1,644
106
300
1,750
2,217
70
562
228
1,127
1.917
Pasadena
131,960
321
115
1.709
793
16,904
2,118
20,731
926
21,657
'ico Rivera
59,337
629
2,085
3,507
416
3.923
,omona
119.144
321
1,566
2,754
4.390
8,710
836
344
456
(7)
9,546
2.413
ho Palos Vds
49.051
114
127
656
845
420
993
2,069
5.695
.edcndo Bch
64,986
234
4,616
6.151
(7)
,011ing Hills
_ 2,105
(7)
(7)
7)
(7)
(7)
'lnq: Hls Ests
'osemead
7,933
30
109
57
(73)
93
56
149
47.425
76
628
584
288
1,500
333
1,833
;an Dimas
31,720.
114
402
738
2,501
3,641
223
3,864
;an Fernando
20,312
46
276
568
409
1,253
143
1,396
;an Gabriel
;an Marino
34,369
72
455
689
247
1,391
241
1,632
13,921
62
191
0
620
811
99
909
;anta Clarita
147,228
(6)
1,134
337T
1,181
2.652
1,033
3.685
Total
Popula- Road
;ency I tion Miles
-3 -
CURRENT TYPICAL
ANNUAL EXPENDITURE (1)
($000'S)
Local
Fuel General Other
Taxes Funds Sources
(2) (3) (4)
Typical
New
Revenue
Sub- Prop 111 Total
total ($000) Annual
(5) ($000)
3nta Fe Sors
15.495
102
5.61
212
1,554
2,794
4.560
.3nta Monica
97.212
145
1.277
3.799
1.272
6.348
ierra Madre
11,219
41
154
231
28
413
ional Hill
8.176
36
1-14
1.238
4.202
5.554
o. E1 Monte
18.878
39
257
418
334
1.009
outh Gate
79.170
127
1.048
0
161
1.209
o. Pasadena
24,417
60
331
434518_
1.283
emple City
- 32,255
71
432
.489
489
1,410
orrance
141,505
329
1,860
5,681
11,597
19.138
90
47
7
2,273
926
3.206
ernon
alnut
25,001
68
324
487
1,075
1.886
'est Covina
94.211
221
1.241
535
4.607
6.383
Hollvwoo1
68,463
41
913
2.433
218
3.564
Westlake Vill
11.388
26
158
0
1,679
1.837
,hittier
73.873
187
984
2.406
277
3.667
Jaincorp.
849,993
3,627 1
75,034
915
78,089
154,038
Total
Votes:
174,223 1218.211 1322.573
1. Based on State Controller's Report for 1987-88 Fiscal Year.
2. State fuel tax subventions to local agencies.
3. General Fund revenues to local street and road programs.
4,669
79492
3.207
57
5.61
132
1.141
171 11-1. 4 54
1
3.207
175
2.061
661
7,044
480
4,044
36,451 0190,489
805.524
4. Includes special assessments, developer contributions, revenue from traffic
fines, and federal highway funds for streets and roads.
5. Projected for 1994 after full fuel tax in place.
6. Newly incorporated city, data not available.
7. Private streets.
YES
t}tERES A t.OT RIDING ON R!
Transportation Package _
New Revenues:
A total of 518.5 billion will be raised over the next
10 years from the following sources:
• 9 -Cent -Per -Gallon Fuel Tax Increase (5 ants on August
1, 1990, additional 1 cent on January 1, 1991, 1992, 1943
and 1994)
• 55% Truck Weight Fee Increase
• Rail Transit Bonds [SI billion bond in 1990 (Proposition
108); additional $1 billion bond measures will be placed on
1992 and 1994 ballots]
New Expenditures
(in billion dollars)
3.5 Complete already -authorized projects.
3.0 Maintenance and repair of local streets and roads.
3.0 (Prop. 108 and future bonds) Build and expand
intercity, commuter and urban rail transit.
3.0 Construct projects specifically designed to reduce
congestion on existing routes.
2.0 Matching funds for dry and county priority
transportation projects
1.25 Improve interregional roads outside urban areas
1.0 Peak -hour reduction projects, such as vanpools.
1.0 Highway repair, maintenance and safety.
0.5 Transit expansion, operation and maintenance.
0.25 Environmental enhancements and soundwall
rctroritting.
S18.5 billion
S eciftcal new revenues will be used to:
Earthquake -safe btmys, bridges and streets —
Every major earthquake uncovers new ways of
reinforcing our existing transportation system to
prevent future tragedies We have the know-how
and technology, but lack the funds to undertake the
seismic retrofitting necessary to improve, the safety
of all our bridges and overpasses.
Complete already authorized, but unfunded
projects — There is currently a $3.5 billion shortfall
in the state transportation improvement program.
Hundreds of already -authorized freeway widening,
interchange improvement, general safety
reinforcements, transit and other projects have
been halted for lack of funds. Proposition 111 wiU
enable these projects to proceed.
Fix potholes and increase maintenance of local
streets and roads — A full two-thirds of our main
roads are in fair tb very poor condition and in need
of resurfacing or reconstruction, according to The
Road Information Program ( TRIP).
Reduce peak -hour traffic by expanding van,
carpool and staggered work hour programs — Tile
best way to decrease traffic congestion is to reduce
the number of vehicles using the system. More
programs and incentives are needed to encourage
the private sector to promote carpool and flextime
to get folks off the highways during peak hours.
0
Build and expand rail transit systems — While
$3.5 billion is earmarked arclwhwly for transit
projects, another $5 billion in congestion relief and
matching funds will be available for local
governments to use on rail projects as well.
Together, Proposition 111 and 108 will provide the
funds needed to expand existing light rail,
commuter and intercity lines and start new services
where they are needed -
Improve traMc flow — In some taus, getting cars
.moving faster is simply a matter of making
relatively small investments to improve the existing
system., Wider use of synrhroniud signals on
major thoroughfares, re -directing traffic with
__.,,highway alert signs and ramp meters to control
freeway flow are just a few of the ways we can make
the most of what we've already got.
Improvements to and maintenance of state
highways -• Built decades ago, California's
impressive highway system now suffers from
overuse, everyday wear and lack of adequate
funding. As a result of inflation,. increased fuel
efficiency and skyrocketing construction and
material costs, we are actually spending less on our
highways today than we were decades ago.
Proposition 111 will provide the funds necessary to
ensure the endurance and safety of our world
renowned highways..
Congestion Management Program:
A fundamental objective of the transportation
package is to promote a coordinated regional
approach to reduce congestion and to ensure new
transportation funds are properly used on projects
that will have the maximum impact on congestion
relief.
To receive the new revenues provided for local
congestion relief and other improvements, a
transportation commission (or appropriate
regional agency) in every urban county must work
with air quality management and other relevant
local government agencies to prepare a congestion
management plan.
•
The plan must outline a program for reducing
traffic and address important land use, air quality
and other issues. The Congestion Management
Program will also encourage coordination with the
private sector to promote van pools, staggered
work hours and other peak -hour traffic relief
P
TaypayerAccountabE t ..
"Ile propositions will require the Auditor General
to, conduct an annual review of the state's
expenditure of these new funds.
Spending Limitation Modifications
Exempts increased fuel taxes — Without a change
in the existing government spending limit, the new
revenues could not.be spent Proposition 111 will
ensure that new revenues that come in from the use
of state and local roads are spent on improving the
transportation system.
Exempts emergency expenditures — Proposition
111 will exempt one-time expenditures for
earthquakes and other emergencies.
Reflects growth in the economy — 'Ibe existing,
ten -year-old limit is still tied to an inflation factor
(the National Consumer Price Index). Proposition
111 will allow it to keep pace with our economy by
permitting the limit to grow with California's per
capita personal income.
Reflect school population growth — The measure
will require the state limit reflect the annual growth
in average daily attendance in our public schools.
Exempts capital outlay projects — Capital outlay
expenditures (school buildings, etc.) tend to be
cyclical and do not readily fit within a limit designed
to control annual spending. To prevent capital
outlays from resulting in significant service cuts,
Proposition 111 will remove them from the
limitation.