HomeMy WebLinkAbout52- City Attorney goo
p�
CL.
tom,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ,
.Z.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Shauna Clark, City Administrator '
FROM: Dennis A. Barlow, Sr. Asst. City Attorney
DATE: June 25, 1996
RE: Right to Vote on Taxes Act Initiative
You have asked that I review the material you provided on the above initiative. With
reference to our local concerns the initiative will do several things:
1. It will extend the provisions of Proposition 62, which was approved in 1986, to charter
cities. This will clear up the uncertainty that has existed since the Santa Clara County Local
Transportation Authority v. Guardino decision as to its applicability to charter cities. However
there will still exist uncertainty as to whether it applied between 1986 and the date of the
Guardino decision.
2. It will invalidate any tax imposed since January 1, 1995, which was not approved by
a vote of the people, including assessments.
3. It will make the approval of new or increased assessments very difficult for several
reasons, including at the hearing for approval, a majority protest is based on those property
owners who appear at the hearing and "vote" based on their financial obligation.
Dennis arlow
Sr. Asst. City Attorney
DAB/tbm [Jarvis.Mem]
League of California Cities
Califomia Cities
Work Together
June 20, 1996
TO: City Managers
FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
RE: Jarvis Initiative Qualifies for November Ballot
As you may know, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has just qualified a new initiative on public
financing for the November ballot that its authors hope will restrict local governments' use of
assessments as a way of financing public improvements and services. Self-titled the "Taxpayers Right
to Vote on Taxes," this measure would also extend Proposition 62's voter-approval requirement for
general taxes to charter cities.
Because the potential impacts of this initiative are so significant, the League of California Cities is
spearheading a major statewide effort to generate objective, factual information to share with the public,
the media and others who need to know the full scope of the issue. Our goal is to ensure that the
initiative is fully examined from all angles, and that all potential impacts are fully discussed.
An impressive number of organizations and local government entities have joined a coalition on this
effort, ranging from the League of Women Voters, the California State Association of Counties,the
California Parks and Recreation Society, and the California Special Districts Association. Coalition
representatives are participating by serving on the steering committee and by contributing financially to
this education project. These groups already have been of great help in providing background and
analyses of the initiative.
Additionally, the Coalition, in cooperation with the California Center for Civic Renewal,has retained
the services of legal counsel and public affairs advisors to assist in conducting exhaustive research to
better understand both the multi-layered effects of the initiative, as well as specific potential impacts on
charter cities and special districts. Both firms are well established and respected in their respective areas
of practice and will ensure that the effort is both effective and reflects well on its participants.
Public Education Project
An extensive communications program is underway. It includes:
• A research component
• Preparation and distribution of objective informational materials
• A media relations kit
• Community discussions
Very soon you'll be receiving sample letters, resolutions,press releases,brochures, further analyses and
other material to help you objectively inform your residents and business community about the impacts
of the Jarvis III initiative.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
POST OFFICE Box 1519 1400 K STREET,SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 602 EAST HUNTINGTON DR.,SUITE C
WFAYETTE,CA 94549 (916)658-8200 MONROVIA,CA 91016
r51 r,1?A3-7111 -.., ,,..,.. — ,,,,.,, (818)305-1315
You'll also be receiving a special newsletter on the November Ballot measures which will contain
updates and information on the Jarvis initiative. The August edition of Western City magazine will also
feature the measure.
The League will act as the clearinghouse for this information. In addition, we'll help any city needing
assistance getting this information out to its residents. And, we'll want to hear from you on the actions
you've taken to inform your citizens.
Additionally, attached is a brief analysis of the initiative, an article from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association and a progress report on the legal front related to Proposition 62.
City Actions on Ballot Measures
An easy-reference guide has been developed that explains the rules affecting cities' role to educate the
public on ballot measures. Generally, cities may not spend tax money to advocate ballot measures,
however, it is permissible to educate citizens on the impact the measure will have on the city and to take
a ormal position in support or opposition-,Contact our c as m9 t i
f P PP Y Y rary at 1'
916/658-8236 to get a copy of this guide.
City Action Checklist
There are several actions which you can plan to take over the next five months to develop an informed
citizenry:
♦ Meet with Business and Service Groups - Sit down with the various constituencies in your city and
discuss the impacts of the initiative. Community leaders and residents need objective, factual
information on how this ballot measure would impact services and development in the community.
♦ Meet with Editorial Boards - Call local editorial page editors and ask for a meeting to discuss the
Jarvis initiative. Ask key business leaders, the League of Women Voters, police and fire chiefs and
others to attend with you to discuss the broad impacts to the community.
♦ Brief City Hall Beat Reporter- Discuss Jarvis III with the city's beat reporter. Provide them with
any information you have on the local impacts.
/► ♦.Me_et with City Em,
mployee Groups -Provide information to employee groups and unions.
�`� ♦ Develop Local Information Coalition - Work with community organizations, employee unions,
other local government agencies, and others to disseminate information locally.
♦ Contribute Financially to Project- If the city is willing to make a financial contribution to the
public information project, please contact Debbie Thornton at 916/658-8228.
♦ Develop City Profile Develop a profile of the city's economic outlook, accomplishments, and
efficiencies. Use this profile when speakng to community groups an media to pfMde context for
your information.
Attachments
The Jarvis III Initiative
The Impact on Taxes
by Ifichael G. Colantuono, City Attorney, Cudahy
for the League's City Attorneys Department
1. Application of Proposition 62 to Charter Cities.
Section 1(b) of the proposed Article XIII C of the California Constitution includes charter cities
in the definition of the "local governments" covered by the initiative. Therefore, charter cities
would become subject to the rules of Proposition 62 and general law cities considering adopting
charters to avoid those rules would lost the option to do so.
2. Broader Definition of"Special Tax".
Section 1(d) would broaden the definition of"special tax" to include:
"any tax imposed for specific purposes including taxes imposed for
specific purposes which are placed into a general fund."
Current law allows those who support voter approval of taxes to make promises as to uses of the
proceeds of the tax, without triggering the two-thirds vote requirement, if the taxes are placed in
the general fund and are not legally (as opposed to politically) restricted to a specific purpose.
Section 1(d) of this initiative would limit the ability of local governments to tie proposed general
taxes to specific public concerns such as law enforcement, parks, libraries, etc.
3. Special Districts Could Not Impose General Taxes and
Would Require Two-Thirds Voter Approval of All Taxes.
Section 2(a) provides that"Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts,shall
have no power to level general taxes." This point would have significant impact on special
purpose entities, as special taxes require two-thirds approval and have been approved only
occasionally since the passage of Proposition 13.
4. Constitutionalization of Proposition 62 and Limit on Tax Elections.
Section 2(b) would move Proposition 62's statutory rules into the State Constitution and provide
that:
"The election [to approve a general tax] required by this subdivision shall be
consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the
(over)
governing body of the local government except in cases of emergency declared by
a unanimous vote of the governing body."
As regularly scheduled city council and board of supervisors elections in general law cities �nnd
counties are held only every two years, this provision obviously limits the flexibility of local
government to respond to changes in the economic climate or the state budget.
5. Required Validation of 1995-96 Window Period Taxes.
Section 2(c) bears quotation in full:
"Any general tax imposed, extended or increased, without voter approval,
by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the
effective date of the Article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved
by a majority vote of the voters voting in the election on this issue of the
imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective .
date of this Article and in compliance with subdivision(b) of this section."
If adopted, this section might obviate the need to determine whether or not the Guardino
decision retroactively invalidates taxes imposed between January 1, 1995 and December 14,
1995, limiting the retroactivity issue to taxes adopted between November 1986 and the end of
1994. It would expressly authorize the collection of such taxes if approved by the voters within
two years' time, and may impliedly authorize the collection of those taxes until the tax is
defeated at the polls. It would also, "backdate" the initiative's effective date to January 1, 1995.
Retroactive application of the initiative raises significant constitutional issues and will likely be
held inapplicable where it would violate the Contracts Clause of the federal constitution, as by
impairing revenues pledged for the payment of bonds.
6. Referenda and Initiatives on Taxes and Other Revenue Measures.
Section 3 would supersede existing provisions of the State Constitution by expressly authorizing
initiatives:
"in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment fee or charge. The
power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be
applicable to all local governments."
To some extent, this provision constitutionalizes the recent decision of the Supreme Court in
Rossi v. Brown, 9 CalAth 688 (1995), which upheld a San Francisco initiative that repealed a tax.
It goes further than that, however, as it extends the initiative power to assessments, fees, and
charges which had previously been considered administrative rather than legislative matters, and
therefore beyond the initiative power.
gAexcom\dt\jarvis\analysmc.doc
a . "Commentary
CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY
A Tax by Any. Other Name . .
property tax,if yottdon't pay henefits and police goes beyond the pale.
' A IVavember initiative it,government can pal a lien Policy. services are a general service to
against your house. the entire community and must be sup-
will stop government If Proposition 13 is sup- ported by taxes, not assessments. Police
tl from passing property posed to protect against assesstncnts arc illegal.
increased property taxes, Fvcn if city officials conclude they
t<",xes disguised cis how are these wssPSsment cannot pursue a police assessment and
! districts possible? settle for u police tax on the ballot, one
° assessments. It's because t.hc California has to wonder if the factions in City Hall
? ,
By JOEL FOX j Supreme ('ourt, in a 1992 are talking to one another. Putting both
case called Knox vs. Orland, a police tux and a lundscaping assess-
decided that Proposition 13 ment on the same ballot probably will
M ad Assessment Disease hers just dealt with "taxes." It was silent on doom both.
struck Los Angeles. "assessments,"so they could be raised,In
How else can you explain t� most cases,withouta vote of the people. Fortunately, there is tin-antidote for
rash of assrssment notices popping up,in Trouble is, assessments pass the duck this Mad Assessment Disease. It's called
our mailboxes and even more assess- test.You know,if it walks like a duck and the Right to Vote on Taxes Act spun•
mt,nls suggested by our elected official. quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Well, an sure(] by the.Huward .Iarvis Taxpayers
assessmvilt is mono out of our rockrl Assn. More than 1 million Californians
1'first there is the ltias Angeles c.ommn• y y l
nit•y College Asscssnlctit. This as4cis- and it's levied against your property, so signed petitions to place this initiative on
ment district is so wide that it eovq.rs it's a property lax,pure and simple. the November ballot.
more than a indlion pieces of property. 'rruc assrssmr.nt districts gn hark to The proposal deals with all kinds of
'd'ile rommnunity college district plans jo ancirnt Roman roads and English ace taxes, assessments and fees, hor assess-
rwse $200 million to maintain landscape walla, when neighhors got together to ments, it states that property owners
and 11gliUng and huild recrcatton facia- p ty for capital improvements that hens- have to approve by a muicrity vote any
tics.The district hats a lone; list of rccre• filed their property. ",w.isment on their property.The Ilea is
anon 3itcs they want to work on and Thy:benefit that eoirto modern iissess- to make sure that these assessments are
they'll make the.decision once they have meats have, though, is booms. Take the true benefit asar..ssincnts, that they
year money. Residential property is argument put forth by community col- indeed benefit the taxed property.
Weeed for$12 it parcel. lege district officials.They claim that the Meanwhile, this new list of aasess-
You can't v'otr on this measure,but you benefit attributed to property will come merits will serve its kindling for the vic-
car. protest. Under Ilse assessment law, u with incrcaAcd values. No right.-minded
writt^n proles'. by owners of inure tllart real estate authority will ever testify tort' fire for the Right to Vote on Taxes
half the asscssahle property will kill tits that a property value has increased Act this November,
project. That just won't happen, so the because it community college 20 miles
only way to slop it is to pressure the away has a lighted football field. Joel Fox is president of the Horc:urd
rlrctCd trnstrcS Of the district to vote no. Tho connrrlion between prwprrty Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.
Meanwhile,the city of Lois Angeies has
Jumped into the fray,sending out notices
for a landscaping and lig;httng assessment
to improve parks.Thin one is supposed to '
cost t'eyidcntial property an additional
$18 a year Please don't confuse this
assossmcni. with the oils that already
ahhrtrs nn your property lax bill.That is
a county mscssmrnl for parks.
The city and cotntniunity college;
haven't aUd(leltly gone. rrazy over land.
scapittg.Special assessments are a way to
incrrasse government revenue. If the
assessments are adopted, money that
used to be Ill the landscaping and lighting
budget can)iv shifted to other Sections of
thr.htid�cls.
Tho city also is exploring; a police•
assf,ssmcnt. Swine city offichtlS want to
avoid the two-thirds vote rcquircmrnton
sprciA taxes that conies with a parcel lax,
which is it lax on property.
Come to think of it, an assessment is a
tax on property,too. AsscsvmcnLs appeair
on our property tax bill. And, like. any
League of California Cities
�■-� 1400 K STREET• SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916)658-8200
California Cities
Work Together
MEMORANDUM
TO: Proposition 62 Working Group: Bob Herrick, Kimberly Hall Barlow;
Tom Brown; Jim Lindholm; Jac Crawford; David Hirsch; Lois Jeffrey;
Wynne Furth; Steve Mayer; Glen Shishido; Dave Levy; Libby Silver;
Andy Faber; Sayre Weaver; Greg Stepanicich; Craig Labadie; Doug Barnes;
Michael Colantuono; Michelle Kenyon; Dan Hentschke;Natalie West
FROM: JoAnne Speers, League Staff
DATE: June 17, 1996
RE: Proposition 62 Progress Report
Thank you again for attending the meeting on May 3 in Santa Barbara. This memorandum
explains the progress made on the various items discussed during the meeting.
Ordinance Collection Effort
There has been a tremendous response to our request for ordinances enacted in reliance on court
of appeal decisions finding Proposition 62 unconstitutional. As a result of the statewide fax to
city attorneys and follow up telephone calls, the League will be able to give ordinances from at
least 112 cities to counsel for public entities defending Proposition 62 litigation. More are
arriving daily.
Amicus Effort
Andrea Saltzman, with Meyers,Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson, is taking the lead on the
amicus effort, with Sayre Weaver, of Richards, Watson and Gershon, focusing on the reliance
issue. Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, chair of the Legal Advocacy Committee and with
McDonough, Holland and Allen, is coordinating and supervising the effort on behalf of the Legal
Advocacy Committee.
So far, some 64 cities have authorized their names to be added to the brief as the result of the
statewide fax. As with the ordinances, more are arriving daily. Andrea Saltzman will be sending
out a supplemental mailing shortly.
The briefing schedule in the case has been extended. The county's brief is now due June 27.
Proposition 62 Progress Report
Page 2
June 17, 1996
SB 1590
The legislative effort to resolve the retroactivity issue has passed out of the Senate and is now
before the Assembly. The Assembly leadership has taken the unusual step of assigning the bill
to two policy committees: Assembly Local Government Committee and Assembly Revenue and
Taxation Committee. The feedback from Revenue and Taxation Committee members has not be
encouraging; League staff and leadership are working hard to persuade assembly members of
the bill's necessity.
Taxpayers Right to Vote Initiative
The League has also been working hard in coordinating an informational effort with respect to
the so-called "Taxpayers Right to Vote on Taxes Act." A number of public entities (special
districts, county clerks, League of Women Voters, libraries and parks, water districts, cities,
counties and schools) will be pooling public resources through the Center for Civic Renewal to
generate objective, factual information for voters on what the measure would mean should it be
approved.
It does appear that the measure will qualify for the November ballot. Among other things, the
initiative will be analyzed by Natalie West and Dan Hentschke in the August issue of Western
City magazine.
Taxes Placed on June 4 Ballot
The feedback the League is receiving is that June 4 was a rough day for those cities that elected
to put their taxes on the ballot in response to the ultimatum by the Jarvis group. The League
would be interested in hearing about any elections in which the voters ratified the tax.
cc: City Attorneys Department Officers
Legal Advocacy Committee Members
Andrea Saltzman
gAegil\js\prop62%-96upd.doe
Ob 27fi99b 26: 19 FROM S.O.S.—ELECTIONS DIU TO 919093945159 P-02
COPY
,�-.» 1916)657 Zlbb
,i VTSiO,`i5c i W•i 1Ct STRE£r
SACRAHE.M.CA 45$14
::4,00cm F4Kass VOW Re +a+Red+pc
-aloes ARM I-SOD-345-VOTE
laig,mw+w
:_i,mmd P-emtrShiv - �Flanag end 5veeeh impart
,.+tW433-S6B3
`.0rem=4 S--- r *+% "MajL• :amnessaaeLeayv+
Voem Pub ie
ao ajoc Retoewt BILL JONES
Uoiteem C,�meeetc:sl Cove
*errretary of btate
_4tate of California
DATE: June 20, 1996
TO: interested Parties
FROM: Cathy Mitchell
initiative and Ballot Pamphlet Coordinator
SUBJECT: Initiatives
November 5. 1996 Ballot
This package contains information regarding the following:
• 12 measures are on the November 5, 1996 ballot
2 initiatives are attempting to qualify for the November ballot
20 initiatives are in circulation
• There are no initiatives on file with the Attorney General's Office
"Empring the ifrte;sfty of California's e(Wion process" c
ORDINANCE NO.
1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROPOSING THE
ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR
2 ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS, EQUIPMENT AND ATTENDANT EXPENSES,
CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON SUCH PROPOSITION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996,
3 AND PROVIDING FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WITH
THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
4
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO
5
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
6
SECTION 1. Findings. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
7
Bernardino, California find and declare as follows:
8
(a) The City's revenues which are available for the funding of its Police Department have
9
not increased commensurately with the increase in the City's population and the attendant increase
10
in crime, gangs, drugs, and other public safety emergencies within the City.
11
(b) The Mayor and Common Council have received reports from the Chief of Police
12
indicating that the ability of the City's Police Department to provide adequate police protection
13
and to adequately respond to public safety emergencies could be significantly improved if the City
14
had a source of additional revenues with which to employ and retain additional Police Department
15
officers and employees, and purchase and acquire additional equipment for that department as
16
hereinafter specified.
17
(c) Pursuant to Government Code § 53978, the Mayor and Common Council may
18
propose by ordinance or resolution the adoption of a special tax, which proposition shall be
19
submitted to the voters of the City, and upon the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast by voters
20
voting in an election on the proposition, the Mayor and Common Council may collect the special
21
tax.
22
(d) The Mayor and Common Council have levied assessments within the City's
23
Assessment District No. 994, the boundaries of which are coterminous with the boundaries of the
24
City, for the maintenance of street lights and street sweeping within the City since 1990, as
25
amended and increased in 1994, and the revenues from those assessments have enabled the City
26
to divert other revenues which would have been utilized for that purpose to the funding of the
27
28 DAB:tbm [Tax.Ord] 1 June 27, 1996
AN ORDINANCE . . . PROPOSING THE ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS,
1 EQUIPMENT AND ATTENDANT EXPENSES, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON
SUCH PROPOSITION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
2 CONSOLIDATION OF THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
3
budget of the Police Department.
4
(e) An election should be called and held within the City on the proposition of the City
5
being authorized to annually levy and collect special taxes on or with respect to parcels of
6
property within the City to pay for additional Police Department officers, employees, equipment
7
and attendant costs on November 5, 1996, and that election should be consolidated with the
8
statewide general election which is to be held on that date.
9
(f) If that proposition is approved by two-thirds of the votes cast by voters voting thereon
10
in that election, the amount of the special tax which will be levied annually on or with respect to
11
a parcel improved with a single family residence, commencing in the 1997-98 fiscal year, will be
12
$86.98 as compared to the average assessment which has been levied on residential parcels within
13
Assessment District No. 994, in the amount of$65 per year, a difference of$21.98.
14
(g) If that proposition is so approved, the revenues from the levy and collection of the
15
special taxes shall be utilized only for the purposes specified in Section 6 of this Ordinance, and
16
the Mayor and Common Council shall discontinue the levy of assessments on parcels of property
17
within Assessment District No. 994.
18
(h) If that proposition is so approved, the Mayor and Common Council intend to provide
19
police protection services which will be commensurate with the population and needs of the City.
20
SECTION 2. Proposed Special Taxes. The Mayor and Common Council propose the
21
adoption of and the authorization for the Mayor and Common Council to annually levy special
22
taxes on or with respect to parcels of property within the City, as identified from the Assessors
23
Parcel Maps and Assessors Parcel Numbers of the County Assessor of the County of San
24
Bernardino, in an amount not to exceed the following amounts for the following types of property,
25
based on Assessment Units (AU):
26
(a) A vacant lot shall be .5 AU.
27
28 DAB:tbm [Tax.Ord] 2 June 27, 1996
AN ORDINANCE . . . PROPOSING THE ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS,
1 EQUIPMENT AND ATTENDANT EXPENSES, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON
SUCH PROPOSITION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
2 CONSOLIDATION OF THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
3
(b) Commercial, Industrial and Retail property shall be 1 AU per quarter acre of
4
property.
5
(c) Multi-family property shall be .73 AU per living unit per parcel.
6
(d) Mobile Home Parks shall be .63 AU per mobile home per parcel.
7
(e) Condominiums and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) shall be .9 AU per parcel.
8
(f) Single Family Homes shall be 1 AU per parcel.
9
SECTION 3. Value of Assessment Units. In the 1997-98 Fiscal Year the value of an
10
Assessment Unit shall not exceed $86.98; in 1998-99 such value shall not exceed $113.66; in
11
1999-2000, such value shall not exceed $138.66; in 2000-2001, such value shall not exceed
12
$158.87; and in 2001-2002 such value shall not exceed $169.84.
13
SECTION 4. Call of Election. The Mayor and Common Council hereby call a special
14
election on the proposed special taxes and on the proposition set forth in Section 4 below for
15
Tuesday, November 5, 1996. Pursuant to Elections Code § 10403, said election shall be
16
consolidated with the statewide general election which will be held on November 5, 1996, so that
17
the proposition set forth in Section 4 will appear on the same ballot as that provided for said
18
statewide election.
19
SECTION 5. Proposition. The proposition to be submitted to the voters in said election
20
shall be as follows:
21
"Shall the City of San Bernardino annually levy special taxes on or with respect
22
to parcels of property to replace the street lighting and street sweeping assessment
23
and to pay for additional police officers, employees, equipment and attendant costs,
24
which shall not exceed in any fiscal year the amounts specified in Ordinance No.
25
MC- of the City of San Bernardino for the types of property specified in that
26
ordinance and which will be collected as provided therein?"
27
28 DAB:tbm [Tax.Ordl 3 June 27, 1996
AN ORDINANCE . . . PROPOSING THE ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS,
1 EQUIPMENT AND ATTENDANT EXPENSES, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON
SUCH PROPOSITION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
2 CONSOLIDATION OF THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
3
SECTION 6. Collection of Special Taxes. The special taxes shall, if approved by the
4
voters in said election, be levied and collected by the County of San Bernardino on behalf of the
5
City in the same manner and by subject to the same penalty and interest as all other taxes which
6
are collected by the County of San Bernardino on behalf of the City.
7
The Special Taxes shall be first collected in the 1997-98 Fiscal Year.
8
SECTION 7. Use of Revenues. The revenues from the collection of the special taxes,
9
net of an amount equal to the annual revenues from the assessments levied in Assessment District
10
No. 994 ($4,446,202) and processing and collection costs, shall be allocated for each fiscal year
11
in which those special taxes are levied to pay for additional officers, employees, equipment and
12
attendant costs. These uses shall include the hiring and payment of the salaries, benefits and other
13
related costs of additional sworn officers for the Police Department, and capital expenditures,
14
including the purchase of vehicles, computers, and radios and the purchase and implementation
15
of an automated report writing system, and acting as matching funds for federal, state or other
16
grants for police purposes.
17
An amount of the revenues from the collection of the special taxes equal to the annual
18
revenues from the assessments levied in Assessment District No. 994, shall be allocated and
19
utilized to pay expenses of the Police Department that have been incurred and paid from the
20
proceeds of such Assessment District since such assessments were initially levied.
21
SECTION 8. Segregation of Revenues. The revenues received from the collection of
22
the special taxes shall be segregated from al other revenues of the City, shall not be a part of the
23
City's General Fund, and shall be utilized only for the purposes specified in Section 6 hereof.
24
SECTION 9. Discontinuance of Assessment District No 994 If the special taxes
25
specified in Section 2 above are approved by two-thirds of the votes cast by voters voting in the
26
special election thereon, the Mayor and Common Council shall levy the special taxes in lieu of
27
28 DAB:tbm [Tax.Ord] 4 June 27, 1996
AN ORDINANCE . . . PROPOSING THE ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS,
1 EQUIPMENT AND ATTENDANT EXPENSES, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON
SUCH PROPOSITION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
2 CONSOLIDATION OF THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
3
and shall discontinue the levy of the assessments on parcels within Assessment District No. 994
4
in the 1997-98 Fiscal Year.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 DAB:tbm[Tax.Ord] 5 June 27, 1996
AN ORDINANCE . . . PROPOSING THE ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS,
1 EQUIPMENT AND ATTENDANT EXPENSES, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON
SUCH PROPOSITION FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1996, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
2 CONSOLIDATION OF THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
3
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
4
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof,
5
held on the day of , 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
6
7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENr
g NEGRETE
9 CURLIN
10 ARIAS
11 OBERHELMAN
12 DEVLIN
13 ANDERSON
14 MILLER
15
16
CITY CLERK
17
The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this day of , 1996
18
19
20 TOM MINOR, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
21
22 Approved as to form
and legal content:
23
JAMES F. PENMAN,
24 City Attorney
25
26
By /
27
28 DAB:tbm [Tax.Ord] 6 June 27, 1996