General Plan 7.3C.1B: Adopt City policy on intergovernmental matters.

Summary: This act provides for the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002. The Act is for the purpose of providing shelters for battered women, clean and safe housing for low-income senior citizens, emergency shelters for homeless families with children, housing with social services for the homeless and mentally ill, repairs and accessibility improvements to apartments for families and handicapped citizens, homeownership assistance for military veterans, and security improvements and repairs to existing emergency shelters. The State will create a housing trust fund by issuing bonds totaling two billion one hundred million dollars ($2,100,000,000).

Staff Analysis: Existing law creates, among other housing programs, the Multifamily Housing Program and the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program. This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a program to make matching grants, from funds appropriated for this purpose by the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002. These grants would be for local agencies or nonprofit entities that have housing trust funds, to provide financing for rental housing projects affordable to very low-income families, as prescribed. Unused funds would revert for use in the Multifamily Housing Program. The proposition establishes the mechanism for funding and implementing local housing trust funds from proceeds of the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 (Housing Bond).

Fiscal Impact: These funds will be paid from existing state funds at an average annual cost of one hundred fifty seven million dollars ($157,000,000) per year over the 30-year life of the bonds. The bond requirements that every city and county is eligible to receive funds as specified in the measure and with all expenditures subject to an independent audit.

Proponents:

Supporter say that the bill provides affordable housing for working people, accessibility improvements to apartments for disabled, & loan assistance for military veterans, teachers, police and firefighters. They also contend that it will be paid out of existing state resources without raising taxes.

Opponents say this will adds to the state’s debts at a time when California is already on the brink of bankruptcy. They also believe it will not reduce red tape that homebuilders go through

LCC Position: Support

Staff Recommendation: Support

Summary: This thirteen billion fifty million dollar ($13,050,000,000) bond issue will provide funding for necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools. Funds will be targeted to areas of the greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California, to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate the growing student enrollment. These bonds may be used only for eligible projects.

Staff Analysis: This measure allows the state to issue $13.05 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K–12 school facilities ($11.4 billion) and higher education facilities ($1.65 billion). General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is obligated 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 state income and sales taxes.

Fiscal Impact: The cost of these bonds would depend on their interest rates and the time period over which they are repaid. If the $13.05 billion in bonds authorized by this proposition are sold at an interest rate of 5.25 percent (the current rate for this type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost over the period would be about $26.2 billion to pay off both the principal ($13.05 billion) and interest ($13.15 billion). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $873 million per year.

Proponents:

Proposition 47 ensures the critically overcrowded districts get their fair share of the funds. The proposition gives students access to the right technology today to be prepared for the workforce and society of tomorrow. The provisions are in place for audits of how the money is spent, and funds can only be spent on building or renovating schools–no bureaucracy overhead.

California has tens of billions of dollars in outstanding bonds, and our credit rating is the third lowest in the country. We need to be extremely careful whenever we consider more debt. Legislation allows schools to set aside funds in 2004 and not start building until 2011. Proposition 47 favors Los Angeles Unified over every other district. They could receive 24% of the funds even though they account for only 12% of the students.

City Policy: LAP 7.1.12 - Support funding for local governments and schools that are not in conflict with each other – and thus be supportable by the city.

LCC Position: Support

Staff Recommendation: Support

Official Summary: Amends Constitution to delete references to the municipal courts. These references are now obsolete due to the consolidation of superior and municipal trial courts into unified superior courts previously approved by voters. Deletes from Constitution the provisions providing for municipal courts in each county and vesting judicial power of the state in municipal courts. Make certain conforming and related changes in Constitution to reflect consolidation. Provides that the constitutional provision governing the transition process to a unified superior court will be automatically repealed on January 1, 2007.

Staff Analysis: This proposition has no impact on the City of Sunnyvale, since the courts are a county function as stated.

Fiscal Impact: There is no additional cost to state or local government.

Proponents:

This change is a non-controversial update of the California Constitution. It passed each house of the Legislature unanimously. The provisions in the California Constitution that deals with municipal courts are obsolete and need to be removed. Opponents of this measure do not frame their arguments around the issue that is before the voters. They argue against Proposition 220, which was decided by the voters four years ago.

Opponents:

City Policy: No specific Legislative Action Policy deals with this issue. In the Legislative/Management Sub-element Policy 7.3B.1 states "Periodically conduct Charter reviews to recommend appropriate changes to the Charter." The proposition is essentially the State equivalent. Since there are no municipal courts, references to them should be removed.

LCC Position: Support

Staff Recommendation: Support

Official Summary: Increases state grant funds available for before/after school programs, providing tutoring, homework assistance, and educational enrichment. Requires that, beginning 2004–05, new grants will not be taken from education funds guaranteed by Proposition 98.

This proposition makes various funding changes to the state’s Before and After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Program. The measure also renames the program to the After School Education and Safety Program (funds would still be available for before school programs) and makes other technical programmatic changes.

Fiscal Impact: Additional annual state costs for before and after school programs of up to $455 million, beginning in 2004–05.

Proponents:

After school programs will actually save the taxpayers money by reducing juvenile crime. Before and after school programs have been shown to improve students' grades. The additional funding will not come from new taxes. These funds can be used for before and after school programs in elementary, middle, or junior high schools.

While this is a noble use of the state budget, it disregards principles of good government by earmarking funds, thereby reducing government's flexibility to respond to current priorities and needs. It takes a single after school program and sets it apart from all other needs funded by your tax dollars, giving it a larger share of money. While the measure would "give priority" to schools with low-income students, it requires matching funds from the school or district, and poorer schools are less likely to be able to provide these funds. It is a continuous allocation that cannot be reduced by the legislature

City Policy: Goal 5.1E Support efforts to improve the availability and quality of education made available in Sunnyvale.

LCC Position: Support

Staff Recommendation: Support

Summary: Authorizes $3,440,000,000 general obligation bonds to fund a variety of water projects, including: Specified CALFED Bay-Delta Program projects including urban and agricultural water use efficiency projects; Grants and loans to reduce Colorado River water use; Purchasing, protecting and restoring coastal wetlands near urban areas; Competitive grants for water management and quality improvement projects; Development of river parkways; Improved security for state, local and regional water systems; Grants for desalination and drinking water disinfection. Appropriates money from state General Fund to pay off bonds. State cost of up to $6.9 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($3.44 billion) and interest ($3.46 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $230 million per year. Reduction in local property tax revenues, ranging from a few million dollars to roughly $10 million annually, about one-half of which would be offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss. Unknown costs to state and local governments to operate or maintain properties or projects purchased or developed with these bond funds

Staff Analysis: This measure allows the state to sell $3.44 billion in general obligation bonds for various water-related programs. This measure allows the state to sell $3.44 billion in general obligation bonds for various water-related programs. The bond money would be available for expenditure by various state agencies and for loans and grants to local agencies and nonprofit associations. More than half of the funds would be allocated to two purposes—coastal protection and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

Fiscal Impact: State cost of up to $6.9 billion over 30 years to repay bonds. Reduction in local property tax revenues, up to roughly $10 million annually; partially offset by state funds. Unknown state and local operation and maintenance costs.

Proponents:

This proposition provides California with a safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water while also creating new water supplies to keep up with population growth. The funds will be used to remove dangerous pollutants from our drinking water while protecting rivers, lakes, streams, coastal wetlands, beaches and bays. Other projects from this proposition will include protecting our water supply from terrorist threats.

Proposition 50 will cost taxpayers $5.7 billion. A canal to divert water from the Sacramento River to the California Aqueduct is not included. Proposition 50 was funded by large real-estate developers.

City Policy: LAP 3.1.1 Support statewide action plan for addressing water-related issues, including availability, quality and recycling.

LCC Position: No Position

Staff Recommendation: Support

Official Summary: Creates "Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund." Redistributes portion of existing state revenues from motor vehicle sales/leases from General Fund to Trust Fund for transportation, environmental, and safety programs. Allocates portion of these funds for: school bus safety; clean air programs; highway improvements; mass transit improvements including bus purchase, commuter and light rail expansion. Provides funds for environmental enhancement programs and traffic mitigation programs. Allocates money to 45 specific projects. For remainder of Trust Fund, specifies distribution percentages, restricts fund uses, requires accountability mechanisms. Redirects specified General Fund revenues to state and local transportation-related purposes of about $420 million in 2002-03, $910 million in 2003-04, and increasing amounts annually thereafter, depending on the increase in the sale and leasing of motor vehicles.

Staff Analysis: This measure redirects 30% of the transportation-related sales tax revenue from the lease and sale of new and used motor vehicles that currently goes to General Fund supported programs. Under the measure, these revenues would continue to be deposited in the General Fund and then transferred to a new Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund.

Fiscal Impact: Redirects specified General Fund revenues to transportation-related purposes, totaling about $420 million in 2002–03, $910 million in 2003–04, and increasing amounts annually thereafter, depending on increases in motor vehicle sales and leasing.

Proponents:

The proposition will relieve traffic congestion and make needed safety improvements to California’s transportation infrastructure. It will reduce oil and gas pollution in our environment. It will improve public transit, which will reduce congestion on our roads using existing vehicle sales tax.

City Policy: LAP 7.1.17 – Support flexible spending of state and federal transportation funds for locally determined needs.

LCC Position: Oppose

Staff Recommendation: Oppose

Official Summary: Allows persons who are legally eligible to vote and have valid identification to register and vote on election day at their polling place. Increases criminal penalty for voter and voter registration fraud. Criminalizes conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Requires trained staff at polling places to manage election day registration, creates fund to implement measure, including training and providing personnel for election day registration. Allows persons to register or reregister during 28 days preceding election day at local election offices. Provides more time to county election officials to prepare voter registration lists. Annual state costs of about $6 million to fund counties for election day voter registration activities, thereby resulting in no anticipated net county cost. Minor state administrative costs and unknown, but probably minor, state costs to enforce a new election fraud offense.

Staff Analysis: The legislative policy does not support increased costs. This proposition has the potential for a $6 million dollar impact to fund counties for Election Day voter registration activities. The proposition will provide for recovery of this estimated cost and therefore the impact on election cost for local jurisdiction is diminious. It has the potential for increased voter turnout in local elections but increase the risks for voter fraud.

Fiscal Impact: Annual state costs of about $6 million to fund counties for election day voter registration activities. No anticipated net county costs. State administrative costs are unknown, but probably minor, and there will be state costs to enforce new election fraud offense.

Proponents:

Proposition 52 allows eligible Californians to register and vote on election day at their polling place after showing a drivers license or two forms of valid ID. It will increase voter turnout while increasing penalties for voter fraud. Join the League of Women Voters of California and vote Yes.

Opponents:

Prop. 52 makes it easy for Criminals and Non Citizens to vote without providing official ID to prove who they are. That's not fair to citizens who are properly registered. Vote NO on 52 to protect your vote and stop vote fraud!

City Policy: Legislative/Management Policy 7.3.1 - In cooperation with County Registrar of Voters, contain costs of elections as long as the elections process is not adversely affected (i.e., purge voter rolls, limit costs for candidate statements, prevent abuse of absentee ballot process). Support continued state reimbursement of absentee ballot costs. 7.3.2 - In cooperation with County Registrar of Voters, support practices which would increase voter turnout in local elections (e.g., mail ballots, more information to voters for judicial elections).

LCC Position: Neutral

Staff Recommendation: Support

Official Question: Shall the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority continue to plan, design, construct and provide transit services as described in the official Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP 2020) as adopted on December 14, 2000?

Staff Analysis: The Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ("VTA") has called for an advisory vote on the VTA's comprehensive transit program. An advisory vote is not legally binding but provides the VTA with important information about the voters' preferences.

In 1976, the voters passed a law that requires the VTA to submit its comprehensive transit program to County voters for an advisory vote every six years. "Transit" primarily, means buses, light rail and trains. Since it has been six years, since the last vote, the VTA's transit program is due this year for another advisory vote. The VTA transit program that is the subject of this vote is the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 ("Plan") adopted by the VTA Board in December 2000. This VTA Plan provides for improving buses and light rail cars, completing the Tasman East, Capitol and Vasona light rail lines, developing BART connections for the South Bay, planning for rapid transit, and supporting the operation of Caltrain and commuter rail services.

Fiscal Impact: Voting for this measure does not increase taxes.

City Policy: LAP 7.i.7 Support continued operation for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bus transit and paratransit service including more frequent services to and throughout the City.

Staff Recommendation: Support

Official Question: TO EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND MAKE CRITICAL ROAD REPAIRS, WITHOUT RAISING ANY NEW TAXES, shall Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Ordinance 11.02.01, allocating the future State Transportation Improvement Program and discretionary federal funds identified in the August, 2000 Valley Transportation Plan 2020 Expenditure Plan TO IMPROVE THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY HIGHWAYS, EXPRESSWAYS, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND LOCAL STREET AND ROAD REPAIRS, with transit improvements still funded through VTA's half-cent sales tax approved in November 2000, be adopted?

Staff Analysis: This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ("VTA") for enactment by the voters of a VTA ordinance allocating the use of certain State Transportation Improvement Program ("STIP") and Federal Discretionary Funds to roadway, bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 adopted December 14, 2000, and prohibiting the use of these funds for transit projects. In November, 2000, the voters approved a 1/2 of 1 percent sales tax for 30 years to finance transit projects, defined as primarily bus, light rail and commuter rail projects. This sales tax revenue is not available for roadway, bicycle and pedestrian projects. In August, 2000, the VTA Board passed a resolution committing State Transportation Improvement Program ("STIP") Funds and Federal Discretionary Funds for various roadway, bicycle and pedestrian projects in the Valley Transportation Plan 2020. This resolution, however, is not legally binding on the VTA Board and the funds committed to roadway, bicycle and pedestrian projects by this resolution could be subsequently revoked by future VTA Board action.

This ballot measure, if approved by a majority of the voters, would make legally binding on the VTA Board the use of the designated STIP and Federal Discretionary Funds for roadway, bicycle and pedestrian projects until 2036 when the transit tax would expire. The VTA Board would not be able to sue the STIP and Federal Discretionary Funds for transit projects until 2036 unless the voters subsequently by ballot initiative repealed or amended this ballot measure. This prohibition would not, however, apply to new sources of State or Federal Transportation funding not identified in the Valley Transportation Plan 2020.

Fiscal Impact: Approval of this ballot measure will not result in any new or increased taxes.

City Policy: LAP1.i. (1) Support local sales tax dedicated to regional transportation needs.

LAP 1.i (7) Support continued operation of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority bus transit and paratransit service, including more frequent service to and throughout the City.

R1.8 (Land Use and Transportation Element) - Support statewide, regional, and subregional efforts that provide for an effective transportation system.

Staff Recommendation: Support

Official Question: Shall Ordinance 1580, New Series, be adopted to authorize the City to continue to impose the Transient Occupancy Tax at the current rate of 10% of the room rate?

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

Official Question: "To improve library and community services for children by expanding Children’s Library to provide needed space and safety repairs; rebuilding and expanding the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center for all community users; and, to meet current health and safety codes by making plumbing, heating, ventilation, and lighting system upgrades to 50-year-old systems in all three facilities, shall the City of Palo Alto issue $49.1 million in bonds, subject to independent citizen oversight and annual audits?"

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

Official Question: To reduce classroom shortage, shall the City of San Jose be authorized to lease a portion of Ramblewood Park to Franklin-McKinley School District for any legally allowed term, but not less than 40 years, to allow construction of a new school on 0.56 acres, accommodating approximately 450 students, and to allow the District to use the park for school-related recreational uses, if the District’s study identifies Ramblewood Park as the most feasible site?

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

Official Question: To provide the ability to create jobs, attract business and serve as a citywide emergency disaster shelter by improving safety, security and future expansion of the San Jose Convention Center, shall the City be authorized to increase the transient occupancy tax (hotel levy), by 4%, paid only by hotel guests and visitors, with no increase in local property taxes, a citizens oversight committee, and guaranteed annual financial audits?

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

Official Question: "Shall Cambrian Elementary School District repair 40-year old local schools, improve student safety conditions, upgrade wiring for technology and safety standards, install energy efficient heating/cooling systems, replace aging plumbing, fix leaky roofs/bathrooms, repair, construct, acquire, equip libraries, classrooms, and current sites, qualify for State matching funds, by issuing $20,975,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, appoint a Citizens Oversight Committee and perform audits to ensure no bond money is used for administrators’ salaries?"

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

Official Question: To hire, train, retain teachers, provide competitive teacher salaries, fund school libraries, purchase textbooks, preserve science classes/modern labs, maintain neighborhood schools and small class size, protect junior high electives like music, foreign language, computer classes, and balance the educational program, shall Los Altos School District increase its existing parcel tax and annual appropriations limit by $333/parcel beginning July 1, 2003, with independent citizens' oversight of expenditures and exemptions for parcels owned/occupied by persons 65 years/older?

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

Official Question: "To make schools safe, relieve overcrowding, and qualify for State matching funds, shall Gilroy Unified School District repair and renovate local schools, including: upgrade deteriorated plumbing and bathrooms; repair aging roofs; install energy efficient heating/cooling; replace portables with permanent classrooms; increase electrical capacity; construct, acquire, and improve classrooms and schools, including Phase 1 of a new high school; by issuing $69,000,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, with citizen oversight and no money for staff salaries?"

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale

Staff Recommendation: No Position

MEASURE J: Parcel Tax -- East Side Union High School District (2/3 Approval)

Official Question: To train faculty and students to use modern technology, to retain and attract quality teachers and counselors, and to increase student safety, shall East Side Union High School District levy an annual tax of $49.75 per parcel ($4.15 per month) for six years so long as a senior citizen (65 and older) exemption is provided, no money is used for administrative salaries, and a citizens’ oversight committee is established?

Staff Analysis: No Impact on Sunnyvale