Voters will weigh in on multiple city, state measures
By GENEVA WHITMARSH Daily Press Staff Writer
Santa Monica voters will be asked to weigh in on numerous measures on the Nov. 2 ballot, including a county-wide sales tax hike that would bring in more than $4 million for the city’s law enforcement agencies.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca’s tax proposal asks voters to decide whether the county sales tax should be raised by.5 percent to fund local police and fire departments, jails, prosecutors and other agencies. If passed, the sales tax would rise from 8.25 percent to 8.75 percent, an increase of about $91 a year for the average family.
The proposition — Measure A on the ballot — would net an estimated $560 million, with funds distributed to various cities within the county. Approximately $4.2 million has been earmarked for law enforcement in Santa Monica, said Steve Whitmore, Baca’s spokesperson.
“We’re very hopeful it will go through, not only for Santa Monica, but for the county,” said Santa Monica Police Lt. Frank Fabrega. “It’s too early to say where the money would go, but we can always use money for equipment and to add technology to the organization.”
Of the remaining money, approximately $50 million will go toward jails, $20 million to hiring prosecutors, $14 million for other criminal justice agencies and $11 million for a new communications system that allows police and firefighters to communicate on one frequency.
Opponents of the measure say increased arrests would overwhelm an already overworked district attorney’s office. LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has voted against it, saying the county could use existing tobacco tax revenues to boost the sheriff’s budget and fund jails.
Experts say the proposition could be a hard sell: Voters often have a resistance to tax hikes, and the measure must be approved by two-thirds of the county’s voters for it to move forward.
The proposition is the only county measure on the ballot.
Santa Monica voters also can expect to see a variety of city and state measures on the ballot.
CITY MEASURES Measure N: The local initiative would increase the tax rate from 12 to 14 percent and increase nightly rates at local hotels by an average of about $4. The increase is expected to raise $3.5 million and would help Santa Monica City Hall in its goal to give local schools an additional $6 million annually for the next five years.
Opponents say an increased tax could turn away some potential business, including travel agents who buy package deals in bulk for foreign tourists. The city’s current tax is lower than the taxes in surrounding cities including Beverly Hills, Marina Del Rey and West Hollywood.
Measure S: The $135 million bond would be spent to build and upgrade several buildings at Santa Monica College, buy more open space in Santa Monica and Malibu, and fund the development of other properties throughout the city.
If approved, it would be the second SMC bond proposal approved in 2 1/2 years and would cost the average Santa Monica homeowner $77 in the first year. The average renter would have to pay $13 in the first year.
The proposition’s creators originally asked for a $175 million bond, but reworked the proposal after failing to garner enough support among the college’s board of trustees.
Santa Monica took the heaviest hit under the revised bond: Whereas the previous plan proposed $75 million in projects at SMC, $75 million in joint efforts with Santa Monica City Hall and $25 million in joint projects with Malibu City Hall, the new bond proposes just $45 million for joint projects with Santa Monica City Hall and a slightly reduced amount for SMC.
STATE MEASURES Proposition 1A: Allows local property and sales tax revenues to remain with the local government. Proponents say it would safeguard funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks and other local services. Provisions would only be suspended if the governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the legislature concurs.
Proposition 59: Provides right of access to meetings with governmental bodies and to writings of government officials, and requires detailed explanations for a waiver from such access. Preserves limited access to certain meetings and records, including law enforcement protection records.
Proposition 60: Provides the right for a political party participating in a primary election for partisan office to also participate in the general election for that office. The candidate receiving the most votes from among that party’s candidates in primary election cannot be denied placement on the general election ballot.
Proposition 60A: Dedicates proceeds from sales of surplus state property purchased with general fund monies to payment of principal interest on Economic Recovery Bonds approved in March 2004. When those bonds are repaid, excess funds go directly to the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties.
Proposition 61: Authorizes $750,000 in general obligation bonds to fund grants for the construction, expansion and remodeling of eligible children’s hospitals. Twenty percent of bonds would be available for grants to certain University of California general acute care hospitals, and 80 percent of the bonds would be tapped for grants to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
Assuming 30-year bonds at an interest rate of 5.5 percent, the state cost would be about $1 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750 million) and the interest ($800 million) on the bonds. Payments would be about $50 million a year and would result in minor administrative costs to the California Health Facilities Financing Authority.
Proposition 62: Requires primary elections in which voters cast ballots for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration. The measure exempts presidential nominations and elections of central party candidates in which only registered party members may vote unless the party otherwise permits.
Only the two primary-election candidates with the most votes from an office, whether or not they are members of the same party, would be listed on the general election ballot. However, the candidate receiving the majority vote in a special primary election would take office.
Proposition 63: Imposes additional 1 percent tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. State officials say the increase would result in revenues of approximately $250 million in 2004-05, $680 million in 2005-06 and $700 million a year later.
The initiative would provide funds to counties to expand services and develop programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors, and would require the state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs.
Proposition 64: Amends business competition laws to: limit the individual’s right to sue by allowing enforcement only if the individual has been actually injured by and suffered financial/property loss because of an unfair business practice; require representative claims to comply with requirements applicable to class action lawsuits; authorize only the California Attorney General or local public officials to sue on behalf of the general public to enforce unfair business competition laws.
Penalties recovered by the Attorney General or local prosecutors could only be used for enforcement of consumer protection laws.
Proposition 65: Requires voter approval on any legislation that provides for any reduction of local governments’ vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and proportionate share of property tax revenues.
Proposition 66: Amends “three strikes” law to require increased sentences only when the current conviction is for a specified violent and/or serious felony. Only prior convictions for such felonies, brought and tried separately, would qualify for second and third strike sentence increases.
Proponents say the measure will result in significant net savings to the state due to a reduction in court-related activities, parole supervision and the incarceration of and counseling services for sex offenders. Savings are also expected as result of the delayed construction of additional prison beds.
Proposition 67: Provides funding for emergency personnel training and equipment, reimbursement for uncompensated emergency physician care and uncompensated community clinic care, and emergency telephone system improvements.
The funding would come from an addition of 3 percent to the surcharge rate on telephone use within California, portions of tobacco taxes, and criminal and traffic penalties. A monthly cap of 50 cents on the surcharge collected by residential service providers would apply. The cap would not apply to cell phone or business lines.
Proposition 68: Authorizes the governor to renegotiate tribal-state compacts to require that tribes pay 25 percent of slot machine/gaming device revenues to a government fund, comply with multiple state laws and accept state court jurisdiction. If all compacted tribes fail to accept the terms within 90 days, the measures authorizes 16 specified non-tribal racetracks and gaming establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices with 33 percent of their revenue going to fund public safety, regulatory and social programs. If approved, the measure is expected to garner revenues of more than $1 billion annually.
Proposition 69: Requires collection of DNA samples from adults and juveniles arrested and/or charged with specific crimes for submission to state DNA database. In five years, samples would be required from all adults arrested and/or charged with a felony. Authorizes a $7 million loan from the legislature for implementation.
Proposition 70: Requires Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to federally recognized Indian tribes. The agreement would grant the tribes exclusive gaming rights on Indian land; no limits on the number of machines, facilities or types of games; and a contribution to the state fund base on prevailing state corporate tax rate. Contributions would be in lieu of any other fees, taxes or levies and would terminate if the state permits non-tribal casino-type gambling.
Proposition 71: Establishes the “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” to regulate stem cell research and provide funding through grants and loans for both research and research facilities. Also establishes the constitutional right to conduct stem cell research and prohibits the Institute’s funding of human reproductive cloning research.
The state would pay about $6 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3 billion) on the bonds. Payments would be about $200 million per year.
Proposition 72: Provides for individual and dependent health care coverage for employees working for large and medium-sized employers. Requires that employers pay at least 80 percent for coverage cost, with a maximum 20 percent employee contribution. Also requires employers to pay for health coverage or pay a fee to a medical insurance board that purchases primary private health coverage.
If enacted, the measure would apply to employers with 200 or more employees beginning 2006 and would apply to employers with 50 to 199 employers a year later. It would apply to employers with 20 to 49 employees if the tax credit is enacted.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 24, 2004. Read the original PDF.