state and local bond and tax ballot measures · state and local bond and tax ballot measures...

STATE AND LOCAL BONDSTATE AND LOCAL BOND

AND TAX BALLOT MEASURESAND TAX BALLOT MEASURES

Results of the March 7, 2000 Primary Election

Philip AngelidesPhilip AngelidesState Treasurer and ChairmanState Treasurer and Chairman

CDIAC 00-03CDIAC 00-03June 2000June 2000

C ALIFORNIA

D EBT AND

INVESTMENT A DVISORY C OMMISSION

June 2000

To all interested parties:

Voting is essential to invigorating California’s citizenry and integrating citizens into the public decision-making process—it’s the ability to use our voices to communicate our individual opinion and makethings happen. It is this powerful, yet fundamental, tool that invariably will dictate how we invest ourprecious public resources to help sustain the State’s economic and social strength well into the 21st

century.

Therefore, I am pleased to present this report, which summarizes the results of bond and taxmeasures submitted to voters at the March 2000 Primary Election. This is the twelfth in a series ofreports on statewide elections in California prepared by the California Debt and Investment AdvisoryCommission (CDIAC).

As evidenced by this report, Californians are more than willing to support prudent public expenditures.For example, of the 64 bond and tax-related measures tracked by the Commission, 35 (55 percent)passed and 29 (45 percent) failed. Four of five state general obligation (G.O.) bond proposals (80percent) and 15 of 25 local G.O. bond proposals (60 percent) were approved. Support for special taxmeasures, designed to fund public services such as senior programs, libraries, police, andemergency medical services, was lower, with only 9 of 20 passing (45 percent).

These Primary Election results are notable for three reasons:

• All but one (57 of 58) of the local bond and tax-related measures (98 percent) would havesucceeded under a 50 percent majority approval standard.

• Assuming a 55 percent approval requirement, as currently discussed by proponents ofProposition 26, all 18 local G.O. school bond proposals would have passed (only 12 of the 18, or67 percent, passed with the two-thirds approval currently required).

• Voters approved $4.5 million in state general obligation bonds. The previous Primary Election hadno state G.O. bond measures on the ballot.

In an effort to make this report a useful tool, it includes a narrative on the results of the statewideelection results, as well as data on the individual tax and bond ballot measures themselves. TheCommission would like to recognize the assistance of the elections departments of the 58 countyclerks’ offices in preparing this report.

Sincerely,

Philip AngelidesState Treasurer and Chairman

STATE AND LOCAL

BOND AND TAX BALLOT MEASURES

RESULTS OF THE MARCH 2000

PRIMARY ELECTION

JUNE 2000

CDIAC 00-03CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION

P.O. Box 942809Sacramento, CA 94209-0001

(916) 653-3269

The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA). If you need additional information or assistance, please contact the Commission at (916) 653-3269.

CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION

The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission was created by theLegislature to assist state and local agencies with the issuance, monitoring andmanagement of public debt, and with the investment of public funds through its researchand technical assistance programs. CDIAC also acts as the State’s clearinghouse forCalifornia’s public debt issuance information.

The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission members include:

Philip Angelides Wesley ChesbroCalifornia State Treasurer State Senatorand Chair

Louis J. PapanGray Davis State AssemblymanGovernor or Scott WildmanTim Gage State AssemblymanDirectorDepartment of Finance Susan Leal

TreasurerKathleen Connell City & County of San FranciscoState Controller

Donna LintonHilda Solis Assistant County AdministratorSenator Alameda County

Additional information concerning this reportor the programs of the California Debt andInvestment Advisory Commission may beobtained by contacting:

Hugo LópezExecutive Director

California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission(916) 653-3269

http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/stocda.htm

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission wishes to thank the staff ofthe Secretary of State’s Office and the county clerks’ election departments for theirassistance in providing the information contain in this publication.

This report was prepared by Robert Ingenito and Berma Williams of the CommissionStaff.

CONTENTS

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

II. Primary Election Results ................................................................................... 1

III. Summary of State and Local Measures by Purpose ........................................... 2

A. Education ............................................................................................... 3B. Capital Improvements and Public Works ................................................ 4C. Life Support ........................................................................................... 4D. General Government ............................................................................. 5E. Miscellaneous Projects .......................................................................... 5

III. Summary of State and Local Measures by Type ............................................... 5

A. Bonds .................................................................................................... 7

1. State General Obligation Bond ................................................... 72. Local General Obligation Bonds ................................................. 8

B. Tax Measures .................................................................................. 8

1. State Tax-Related Measures ...................................................... 82. Local Tax Measures ................................................................... 9

IV. Counties Reporting No Local Bond or Tax Measures ........................................ 10

TABLES & CHARTS

Table 1 Bond and Tax Measures Results ........................................................... 1Table 2 Results of Bond and Tax Measures, by Purpose ................................... 2Table 3 Results of Bond and Tax Measures, by Type ......................................... 6

Chart 1 All Proposed Bond and Tax Measures, by Purpose ............................... 2Chart 2 Approved Bond and Tax Measures, by Purpose .................................... 3Chart 3 All Proposed Bond and Tax Measures, by Type .................................... 6Chart 4 Approved Bond and Tax Measures, by Type ......................................... 6

SUMMARY TABLES

Appendix AMarch 7, 2000 Primary Election

Table A-1 Summary of State and Local General Obligation Bond Measures ..................A-1

Table A-2 Summary of State Ballot Measures ................................................................A-3

Table A-3 Summary of Local Special Tax Measures ......................................................A-4

Table A-4 Summary of Local General Tax Measures .....................................................A-6

Table A-5 Summary of Local Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Measures ...................A-6

Table A-6 Summary of Statewide and Local Election Results ........................................A-7

Table A-7 State and Local Bond and Tax MeasuresSummary of Types and Purposes ..........................................................A-10

1

STATE AND LOCAL BOND AND TAX BALLOT MEASURES

Results of March 2000 Primary Election

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of state and local bond and tax ballot measuresthat appeared on ballots in the March 7, 2000 Primary Election in California. Thedata used to develop the report was received from the California Secretary ofState’s office and the 58 county clerks’ election departments. The CaliforniaDebt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) has reported on statewideelections since 1986 and publishes complete statistics on bond and taxmeasures after each election. This is the twelfth report CDIAC has publishedsummarizing bond and tax elections.

Primary Election Results

CDIAC tracked 64 bond and tax measures in the March Primary Election. Unlikethe previous primary and general elections in 1998 (which combined includedonly one state bond and zero state tax measures), the 2000 Primary Election’sstatewide ballot included five bond measures and two tax-related measures(though neither sought to raise taxes directly). The total number of measures inthis election was down from the 1998 Primary Election, when 96 total measureswere reported to CDIAC. The overall passage rate of 55 percent in the 2000Primary Election is similar to the 1998 Primary Election, which had a 52 percentapproval rate. The results of the March Primary Election are summarized inTable 1.

<Insert Table 1>TABLE 1

BOND AND TAX MEASURES RESULTSMARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION

State Local Totals

Passed 4 31 35Failed 3 26 29

Totals 7 57 64

2

Fifteen of the 25 local general obligation bond (G.O.) issues were successfulunder the existing two-thirds supermajority vote requirement. An overwhelmingnumber of these local general obligation bond measures (12, or 80 percent) wereeducation proposals, to fund K-12 facilities. It is noteworthy that, if the voterequirement had been a simple majority (or 55 percent approval as currentlybeing discussed by the proponents of Proposition 26), every proposed localgeneral obligation bond measure would have passed, including an additional sixK-12 education facility measures. Moreover, under the supermajority voterequirement, only nine of the 20 proposed local special tax measures passed.However, if the voter requirement had been a simple majority, all but one of thespecial tax measures would have been successful.

II. SUMMARY OF STATE AND LOCAL MEASURES BY PURPOSE

In Table 2, the results of the 64 bond and tax measures are classified by thefollowing five purposes: education, capital improvement, life support, generalgovernment, and miscellaneous. Chart 1 and Chart 2 provide graphic portrayalsof these measures, by purpose. A discussion of each category follows.

TABLE 2

RESULTS OF BOND AND TAX MEASURES, BY PURPOSEMARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION

Capital Life GeneralEducation Improvement Support Government Miscellaneous Total

Passed 13 7 7 1 6 34Failed 8 5 8 6 3 30

Totals 21 12 15 7 9 64

CHART 1

ALL PROPOSED BOND AND TAX MEASURES, BY PURPOSEMARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION

Education33%

Life Support23%

Miscellaneous14%

Capital Improvement

19%

General Government

11%

3

A. Education

There were 21 education issues presented to voters in the March election,accounting for nearly one-third of all measures offered. Overall, 13 of the 21education measures were approved, yielding an approval rate of 62 percent.This is slightly higher than the 1998 education-related approval rate of 59percent.

Nineteen of the 21 education measures (90 percent) were for K-12 education;two were for community college facilities. Thirteen of the 19 K-12 educationmeasures were approved. The 68 percent passing rate for K-12 measures isslightly higher than the 1998 rate of 62 percent, when 21 of 34 measurespassed.

Eighteen of the 19 K-12 education measures were for general obligationbonds; the remaining one was an improvement bond measure in GonzalesUnified School District of Monterey County, which passed. K-12 G.O. bondamounts ranged from $3.3 million for Lassen Unified High School District ofLassen County (which failed, receiving 62 percent of the vote) to $303 millionfor Oakland Unified School District in Alameda County (which passed by awide margin, receiving 85 percent approval).

Neither of the two G.O. bond measures for community college facilitiespassed. A $215 million bond measure for Los Rios Community CollegeDistrict of Sacramento, EL Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Yolo counties wasdefeated by 1.4 percentage points. Although it won over 70 percent of thevote in Yolo County, the Los Rios measure failed to receive enough votes inthe district’s other four counties to achieve victory. The other community

CHART 2

APPROVED BOND AND TAX MEASURES, BY PURPOSE

MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION

Education37%

Life Support21%

Miscellaneous18%

General Government

3%

Capital Improvement

21%

4

college measure, a $49 million bond for College of the Sequoias in Fresno,Kings, and Tulare counties, fell short of approval by only one percentagepoint; however, this one did not gain the requisite support in any of theremaining three counties.

B. Capital Improvements and Public Works

Seven of twelve measures (58 percent) for capital improvement and publicworks passed, which is up significantly from 1998 when 11 of 25 suchmeasures (or 44 percent ) were approved. Successful measures included:

• A special tax for solid waste recovery in the City of Piedmont (AlamedaCounty);

• Two measures for multiple capital improvements and public works inOrange County and the City of Woodland (Yolo County);

• An advisory vote in the Lake Shastine Community Services District inSiskiyou County for water supply storage.

Among the defeated measures, voters in Somona County rejected atemporary sales tax increase to widen U.S. Highway 101 to relieve trafficcongestion. The measure received just under 60 percent of the vote. Anadditional Sonoma County measure to raise the sales tax (to fund varioustransportation projects) also failed to garner the requisite two-thirds majority.Elsewhere, voters of the City of Pleasanton (Alameda County) rejected a $50million bond measure to acquire local land owned by the City of SanFrancisco to be used for community facilities and open space.

C. Life Support

Of the 15 issues to provide, increase or enhance policy fire or emergencymedical services, seven were approved. This 47 percent approval rate for lifesupport measures represents a healthy increase from the 38 percentwitnessed in the 1998 Primary Election, when five of 13 measures passed.Voters approved four of seven fire protection measures, or 57 percent, and 3of 6 emergency medical service measures. Successful measures included:

• A special tax for fire protection in the Lassen Fire Protection District ofLassen County;

• Three special taxes to fund emergency medical services in variousMonterey County local agencies;

• A special tax for fire protection in San Mateo County.

5

Of the eight life support measures which failed to capture the two-thirdssupermajority needed for passage, six still received over 50 percent of thevote. Of those which received a majority, four received over 60 percentapproval, and one came within approximately one percentage point of two-thirds approval. That was a special tax for fire protection in the AmericanRiver Fire Protection District of Sacramento County.

D. General Government

One of the seven measures for general government purposes was approved.That one measure was a general tax for municipal services in the City ofPiedmont (Alameda County). The 17 percent passing rate was sharply lowerthan the 1998 Primary Election approval rate of 57 percent, when eight of 14measures general government passed.

E. Miscellaneous Projects

Included in this category are nine measures for libraries, veterans’ facilities,recreation projects, and health care facilities. Most noteworthy, voters in SanFrancisco approved two general obligation bond proposals, one for park andrecreation facilities and the other for capital outlay projects at the CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences.

III. SUMMARY OF STATE AND LOCAL MEASURES BY TYPE

As shown in Chart 3 and Chart 4, state and local measures are divided into fourcategories: general obligation bonds, general tax, special tax, and othermeasures. Table 3 summarizes the results of the measures by type.

6

TABLE 3

RESULTS OF BOND AND TAX MEASURES, BY TYPEMARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION

G.O. Bonds Special Tax General Tax Other Total

Passed 19 9 2 4 34Failed 11 12 3 4 30

Totals 30 21 5 8 64

CHART 3

ALL PROPOSED BOND AND TAX MEASURES, BY TYPEMARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION

G. O. Bonds46%

General Taxes8%

Special Taxes 33%

Other13%

CHART 4

APPROVED BOND AND TAX MEASURES,BY TYPE

G.O. Bonds56%Special Taxes

26%

General Taxes6%

Other12%

7

A. Bonds

1. State of California General Obligation Bonds

Four of five of the State of California’s general obligation bond measureswere approved. The passage of these G.O. bond measures represents adeparture from much of the previous decade, when voters were morereluctant to authorize additional general obligation debt. Below is asummary of the statewide general obligation bond measures.

• Proposition 12. This measure provides $2.1 billion dollars to protectland around lakes, rivers and streams, and the coast, and to buildneighborhood parks. The largest bond on the ballot, voters approvedthe measure by a 63 to 37 percent margin; the bond gained majorityapproval in every county in Southern California and the San FranciscoBay Area. Opposition to the measure came primarily from the rural,mountainous counties surrounding the Central Valley. Results from theCentral Valley itself were mixed.

• Proposition 13. This is a $2.0 billion clean-water and flood protectionbond proposal. California voters approved the measure by a 65 to 35percent margin. Vote totals on a county basis resemble the results forProposition 12; that is, the measure received majority support fromSouthern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the CentralValley, and generally was defeated elsewhere in the State.

• Proposition 14. This bond authorizes $350 million to provide fundsfor the construction and renovation of public library facilities. It givespriority for funding to “joint use” facilities (e.g. libraries that serve boththe community and a particular school district). This bond wasapproved by a 59 to 41 percent margin, with the regional patternmirroring that of Proposition 12.

• Proposition 15. Voters rejected this measure by a 54 to 46 percentmargin; it was the only statewide bond proposal that failed to pass.Proposition 15 would have allowed the State to sell $220 million inbonds for construction and renovation of laboratories for collecting,analyzing and interpreting crime scene evidence. The measurereceived majorities only in Los Angeles County and six San FranciscoBay Area counties.

• Proposition 16. This measure provides $50 million to pay the State’sshare of construction costs for new or existing veterans’ homes.Voters supported the measure by a 62 to 38 percent margin, as itreceived majority support in all 58 counties.

8

1. Local General Obligation Bonds

Local agencies’ general obligation bonds generally fared well, as 15 of25 proposals were approved. This 60 percent passing rate for localG.O. bonds is slightly lower than the 1998 Primary Election rate of 62percent, but much higher than the figures for several elections earlierin the decade. The overwhelming majority of G.O. bonds up forapproval (18, or 72 percent of the total) were earmarked for K-12educational facility improvements, with the remaining seven measuresdesignated for other purposes.

The 15 local G.O. bond measures approved totaled $964 million.Twelve of these measures ($754 million) were for K-12 schoolfacilities. The remaining three included a pair of measures in SanFrancisco for park and recreation facilities and improvements to theCalifornia Academy of Sciences ($87 million and $110 million,respectively), and an issue for improvements to San Luis ObispoCounty’s storm-drain facilities ($13 million).

The remaining 10 G.O. bond measures, totaling $525 million, failed tomuster the two-thirds supermajority needed. However, all 10measures received over 50 percent of the vote. Several issues thatcame close to passage were the Cajon Valley Unified School District,Manteca Unified School District, and Santa Maria Unified High SchoolDistrict bonds, which garnered 65.9, 65.7, and 65.5 percent approvalrates, respectively. In addition, both community college districtmeasures (Los Rios and College of the Sequoias) failed even thoughthey received over 65 percent approval.

The details of the local general obligation bond measures can be foundin Table A-1 on page A-1.

B. Tax Measures

2. State Tax-Related Measures

Voters rejected both measures on the statewide ballot that would havehad tax implications; however, neither measure would have raised taxesdirectly.

• Proposition 26. This measure would have amended the stateconstitution to lower the requirement for approving local school bondsfrom a two-thirds majority to a simple majority—50 percent plus onevote. The measure was defeated by a 51 to 49 percent margin. Themeasure received majority support from San Francisco Bay Area

9

counties, but was rejected by nearly every remaining county in theState.

• Proposition 28. This measure would have repealed Proposition 10, aNovember 1998 initiative that imposed a 50 cents-per-pack cigarettetax to fund early child-development programs. Voters rejected themeasure by a 72 to 28 percent margin, with the measure defeated inall 58 counties.

3. Local Tax Measures

Twenty-five of the 57 local bond and tax measures on the ballot, or 44percent, were local tax measures. This number is significantly lower thanthe 55 local tax measures which appeared in the 1998 Primary Election,and also is lower as a percentage of all measures (44 percent in 2000versus 57 percent in 1998). Eleven of the 25 local tax measures in the2000 Primary Election passed, a 44 percent approval rate, which isidentical to the 1998 rate when 24 of 55 passed. Detail tables for local taxmeasures begin on page A-3.

Support for local special tax measures was mixed with 9 of 20 gainingapproval. While the 45 percent passage rate was slightly higher than the1998 Primary Election rate of 39 percent (when 16 of 41 passed), it wassignificantly higher than the 1996 rate of 22 percent, when 5 of 22 wereapproved. Special taxes represented the overwhelming number of localtax measures submitted to the voters, 20 of 25 (or 80 percent), similar tothe 1998 primary when 75 percent of the local tax measures were specialtaxes.

Special tax measures for specific purposes failed to show a discernablepattern by purpose. For instance, three of six special tax measures for fireprotection were approved; likewise, three of six measures for emergencymedical services also passed. A pair of transportation-related special taxmeasures (both in Sonoma County) failed, as did the only proposal for jailconstruction. However, single measures for water storage and solid wasterecovery passed.

Voters approved two of five general tax measures for general governmentpurposes, a lower approval rate than in 1998 when eight of 14 (57percent) passed. Unlike previous elections, when proposals to increasethe utility users tax generally were successful, the only attempt to increasethe utility users tax in the March Primary failed by an overwhelmingmargin. The two successful general tax measures were in AlamedaCounty and Siskiyou County.

10

IV. COUNTIES REPORTING NO LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES

Twenty seven of the State’s 58 counties reported no local bond or tax measures.They are: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn,Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Lake, Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced,Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, Shasta, Sierra, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama,Trinity, and Yuba.

TABLE A-1

SUMMARY OF STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURESMARCH 7, 2000

STATE MEASURES PASSEDPROPOSITION TITLE NUMBER YES NO AMOUNT PURPOSE

PARKS & WATER 12 63.3% 36.7% $2,100,000 PARKS/OPEN SPACE

DRINKING WATER 13 64.9% 35.1% $1,970,000 CLEAN WATER/FLOOD PROTECTION

LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION 14 59.1% 40.9% $350,000,000 PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES

VETERAN'S HOMES 16 62.4% 37.6% $50,000,000 HOUSING

LOCAL MEASURES PASSED

CO NAME AGENCYMEASURE/

PROP YES NO AMOUNT PURPOSE

ALAMEDA OAKLAND USD A 84.7% 15.2% $303,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES CENTINELA VALLEY UHSD C 72.7% 27.3% $59,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES LITTLE LAKE CITY SD K 75.9% 24.1% $34,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES WALNUT VALLEY USD AA 71.2% 28.8% $50,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES WEST COVINA USD G 72.3% 27.7% $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES WHITTIER CITY SD W 71.3% 28.7% $30,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

ORANGE MAGNOLIA SD G 73.8% 26.2% $9,700,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN DIEGO CARDIFF SD E 80.9% 19.1% $11,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN DIEGO OCEANSIDE USD G 69.5% 30.5% $125,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO A 78.7% 21.2% $110,000,000 RECREATION/SPORTS FACILITIES

SAN FRANCISCO CA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES B 67.0% 32.9% $87,445,000 RECREATION/SPORTS FACILITIES

SAN LUIS OBISPO S.L.O. CO FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. C 70.8% 29.2% $13,200,000 FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA HSD V2000 71.9% 28.1% $67,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA CRUZ SOQUEL UESD Q 77.4% 22.6% $15,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

VENTURA SANTA PAULA ESD D 80.0% 20.0% $10,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-1SOURCES: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND

COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTON DEPARTMENTS

TABLE A-1


STATE MEASURES PASSEDPROPOSITION TITLE NUMBER YES NO AMOUNT PURPOSE

PARKS & WATER 12 63.3% 36.7% $2,100,000 PARKS/OPEN SPACE

DRINKING WATER 13 64.9% 35.1% $1,970,000 CLEAN WATER/FLOOD PROTECTION

LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION 14 59.1% 40.9% $350,000,000 PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES

VETERAN'S HOMES 16 62.4% 37.6% $50,000,000 HOUSING




ALAMEDA OAKLAND USD A 84.7% 15.2% $303,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES CENTINELA VALLEY UHSD C 72.7% 27.3% $59,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES LITTLE LAKE CITY SD K 75.9% 24.1% $34,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES WALNUT VALLEY USD AA 71.2% 28.8% $50,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES WEST COVINA USD G 72.3% 27.7% $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LOS ANGELES WHITTIER CITY SD W 71.3% 28.7% $30,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

ORANGE MAGNOLIA SD G 73.8% 26.2% $9,700,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN DIEGO CARDIFF SD E 80.9% 19.1% $11,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN DIEGO OCEANSIDE USD G 69.5% 30.5% $125,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO A 78.7% 21.2% $110,000,000 RECREATION/SPORTS FACILITIES

SAN FRANCISCO CA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES B 67.0% 32.9% $87,445,000 RECREATION/SPORTS FACILITIES

SAN LUIS OBISPO S.L.O. CO FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. C 70.8% 29.2% $13,200,000 FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA HSD V2000 71.9% 28.1% $67,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA CRUZ SOQUEL UESD Q 77.4% 22.6% $15,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

VENTURA SANTA PAULA ESD D 80.0% 20.0% $10,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES



TABLE A-1


STATE MEASURES FAILEDPROPOSITION TITLE NUMBER YES NO AMOUNT PURPOSE

CRIME LABS 15 46.5% 53.5% $220,000,000

CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION OF LABORATORIES

LOCAL MEASURES FAILED



ALAMEDA PLEASANTON I 64.0% 35.9% $50,000,000 RESEDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/RETAIL DEV

EL DORADO/PLACER/

SACRAMENTO/SOLANO* LOS RIOS CCD I 64.5% 35.5% $215,000,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

FRESNO/KINGS/TULARE* COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS CCD J 65.8% 34.2% $49,200,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

LASSEN LASSEN UHSD S 61.9% 38.1% $3,300,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN DIEGO CAJON VLY UESD D 65.9% 34.1% $75,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN JOAQUIN MANTECA USD S 65.7% 34.3% $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SANTA BARBARA SANTA YNEZ VLY UHSD X2000 58.5% 41.5% $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA BARBARA SANTA MARIE JR UHSD W2000 65.5% 34.5% $30,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA CLARA SARATOGA N 60.2% 39.8% $15,000,000 LIBRARY

VENTURA FILLMORE USD E 63.8% 36.2% $7,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES



TABLE A-2

SUMMARY OF STATE BALLOT MEASURESMARCH 7, 2000

STATEWIDE MEASURES PASSED

PROPOSITION TITLE PROP NO YES NO PURPOSE

TRIBAL GAMING 1A 64.6% 35.4% GAMBLING ON TRIBAL LANDS

LOTTERIES AND RAFFLES 17 58.7% 41.3% LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION OF RAFFLES

MURDER 18 72.5% 27.5% SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

PEACE OFFICERS 19 73.6% 26.4% LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE AMENDMENT-LIFE IMPRISONMENT

STATE LOTTERY 20 53.0% 47.0% ALLOCATION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

JUVENILE CRIME 21 62.1% 37.9% INCREASE PUNISHMENT

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE 22 61.4% 38.6% ONLY MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND A WOMAN IS VALID

INDIAN GAMING 29 53.1% 46.9% AUTHORIZE CERTAIN TRIBAL-STATE GAMING COMPACTS

STATEWIDE MEASURES FAILED

PROPOSITION TITLE PROP NO YES NO PURPOSE

NONE OF THE ABOVE 23 36.0% 64.0% BALLOT OPTION

CAMPAIGN FINANCE 25 34.7% 65.3% CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPENDING LIMITS

LOCAL MAJORITY VOTE 26 48.7% 51.3% INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS 27 40.4% 59.6% TERM LIMIT DECLARATIONS

REPEAL TOBACCO TAX 28 27.8% 72.2% TOBACCO SURTAX

INSURANCE LAWSUITS 30 31.5% 68.5% INSURANCE CLAIMS PRACTICES

INSURANCE AMENDMENTS 31 28.4% 71.6% INSURANCE CLAIMS PRACTICES

A-3SOURCES: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND

COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS

TABLE A-3

SUMMARY OF LOCAL SPECIAL TAX MEASURESMARCH 7, 2000




ALAMEDA PIEDMONT H 74.6% 25.3% SEWER TAX $20 MONTH SOLID WASTE RECOVERY

ALAMEDA PIEDMONT G 70.6% 29.3% PRO RATE PARCEL TAX MUNICIPAL SERVICES

CONTRA COSTA EL CERRITOS A 67.0% 33.0%

$58 SINGLE-FAM/$45 MULTIFAM/ $410 NON RES PROPERTY 20 YRS MAX RECREATION/SPORTS

LASSEN

NORTHWEST LASSEN FIRE PD T 73.3% 26.7% $50 PER RES/$100 PER BUS FIRE PROTECTION/SUPRESSION

MARIPOSA

MARIPOSA CO HEALTHCARE AUTH A 71.4% 28.6% INCREASE TAX .5% HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

MONTEREY MONTEREY CO A 70.9% 29.0% $12 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY MONTEREY C 72.7% 27.2% $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY GONZALES E 70.8% 29.1% $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY GONZALES USD G 74.7% 25.2% $6,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

MONTEREY MISSION SOLEDAD RURAL FD J 74.5% 25.4% $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FIRE PROTECTION/SUPRESSION

SAN MATEO SAN MATEO COUNTY A 73.9% 26.1% $65 PER PARCEL FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION

SISKIYOU GRENADA FPD A 77.6% 22.4% PROP. 4 INCREASED $50,000/4YRS FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION

SISKIYOU LAKE SHASTINE CSD C 72.0% 28.1% $40 PER PARCEL SPEC ASS ADV VOTE WATER SUPPLY/STORAGE

YOLO WOODLAND H 65.3% 34.7% .5 CENT SALES TAX/6 YRS. MULTIPLE CAPITAL IMPROV




CONTRA COSTA DIABLO CSD C 46.2% 53.8% SPECIAL TAX $75 PER RES PROPERTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT

FRESNO SAN JOAQUIN B 5.8% 94.2% UTILITY USERS TAX OF 10% MULTIPLE CAPITAL IMPROV

MONTEREY SALINAS D 53.1% 46.8% $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY SOLEDAD F 65.1% 34.9% $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

NAPA NAPA CO H 64.6% 35.4% TOT FROM 10.5% TO 12% OTHER

NEVADA PENN VALLEY FPD H 63.8% 36.3%

RES & AGRIC $96 PER PARCEL/COMM/INDUS $5.75 PER 100 SQ FT/UNIMPROV PARCELS $48 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

NEVADA NEVADA I 53.9% 46.2%

$16-$24 PARCEL PROPERTY/$100-$500 COMM/INDUS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

ORANGE GARDEN GROVE H 40.3% 59.7% TOT FROM 10% TO 13% GENERAL GOVERNMENT

SACRAMENTO AMERICAN RIVER FPD K 65.8% 34.2% $100 PER PARCEL (MAX) FIRE PROTECTION

A-4 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS

TABLE A-3

SUMMARY OF LOCAL SPECIAL TAX MEASURESMARCH 7, 2000

LOCAL MEASURES FAILED (CONTINUED)



SAN BERNARDINO ADELANTO F 39.8% 60.1%

$50 SINGLE-FAMILY/APTS $25-75/BUS $100-$500 YR/10 YRS RECREATION & SPORTS FACILITES

SAN BERNARDINO MONTCLAIR G 61.7% 38.2% $2 PER MO FOR PARAMEDIC PROG EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

SAN MATEO ATHERTON C 50.4% 49.6% FINANCE MUNICIPAL SERVICES MULTIPLE CAPITAL IMPROV

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA U2000 61.2% 38.9% 1/2 CENT SALES TAX/5 YRS PRISONS/JAILS

SONOMA SONOMA CO C 60.3% 39.7% 1/2 CENT SALES TAX/16 YRS PUBLIC TRANSIT

SONOMA SONOMA CO B 58.5% 41.5% 1/2 CENT SALES TAX/8 YRS HIGHWAYS


TABLE A-4

SUMMARY OF LOCAL GENERAL TAX MEASURESMARCH 7, 2000

COUNTY AGENCYMEASURE/

PROP YES NO AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX ($) PURPOSELOCAL MEASURES PASSED

ALAMEDA PIEDMONT G 70.6% 29.3% PRO RATE PARCEL TAX MUNICIPAL SERVICES

SISKIYOU GRENADA FPD A 77.6% 22.4% PROP. 4 INCREASED $50,000/4YRS FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION


CONTRA COSTA DIABLO CSD C 46.2% 53.8% $75 PER RESIDENTAL PROPERTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORANGE GARDEN GROVE H 40.3% 59.7% TOT FROM 10% TO 13% GENERAL GOVERNMENT

RIVERSIDE ASSESSMENT B 27.1% 72.9% DISSOLVE AD 68-4632 GENERAL GOVERNMENT

NAPA NAPA CO H 64.6% 35.4% TOT FROM 10.5% TO 12% OTHER

TABLE A-5

SUMMARY OF LOCAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX MEASURESMARCH 7, 2000


PROP YES NO AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX ($) PURPOSE


YOLO WOODLAND H 65.3% 34.7% .5 CENT SALES TAX/6 YRS. MULTIPLE CIPW

MARIPOSA

MARIPOSA CO HEALTHCARE AUTH A 71.4% 28.6% 1/2% SALES TAX HEALTHCARE FAC


FRESNO SAN JOAQUIN B 5.8% 94.2% UTILITY USERS TAX OF 10% MULTI CIPW

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA U2000 61.2% 38.8% .5 CENT SALES TAX/5 YRS PRISONS/JAILS

SONOMA SONOMA CO C 60.3% 39.7% .5 CENT SALES TAX/16 YRS PUBLIC TRANSIT

SONOMA SONOMA CO B 58.5% 41.5% .5 CENT SALES TAX/8 YRS HIGHWAYS


TABLE A-6

SUMMARY OF STATEWIDE AND LOCAL ELECTION RESULTSMARCH 7, 2000

STATE BALLOT MEASURESMEASURE/

PROP YES PERCENT NO PERCENT TOTAL PASS/FAIL

TRIBAL GAMING 1A 4,654,597 64.3 2,565,221 35.5 7,219,818 PASS

PARKS & WATER 12 4,560,462 63.1 2,653,657 36.7 7,214,119 PASS

DRINKING WATER 13 4,645,741 64.7 2,520,850 35.1 7,166,591 PASS

LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION 14 4,204,655 58.8 2,922,529 41 7,127,184 PASS

CRIME LABS 15 3,198,011 46 3,680,569 53.5 6,878,580 FAIL

VETERAN'S HOMES 16 4,305,415 62.2 2,602,552 37.6 6,907,967 PASS

LOTTERIES & RAFFLES 17 4,016,555 58.5 2,833,443 41.3 6,849,998 PASS

MURDER, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE 18 4,989,171 72.3 1,898,334 27.5 6,887,505 PASS

PEACE OFFICERS 19 5,006,024 73.4 1,802,482 26.4 6,808,506 PASS

STATE LOTTERY 20 3,631,748 52.8 3,229,887 47 6,861,635 PASS

JUVENILE CRIME 21 4,384,260 61.9 2,685,659 37.9 7,069,919 PASS

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE 22 4,506,301 61.1 2,851,897 38.7 7,358,198 PASS

NONE OF THE ABOVE 23 2,301,276 37 4,041,086 63.7 6,342,362 FAIL

CAMPAIGN FINANCE 25 2,389,361 35 4,486,095 65.2 6,875,456 FAIL

SCHOOL BONDS, LOCAL MAJORITY VOTE 26 3,440,636 49 3,621,699 51.2 7,062,335 FAIL

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS 27 2,675,210 41 3,940,862 59.5 6,616,072 FAIL

REPEAL TOBACCO TAX 28 1,971,323 29 5,112,281 72.1 7,083,604 FAIL

INDIAN GAMING 29 3,571,112 52.9 3,162,041 46.9 6,733,153 PASS

INSURANCE LAWSUITS 30 2,186,350 32 4,737,402 68.4 6,923,752 FAIL

INSURANCE AMENDMENTS 31 1,937,854 29 4,877,740 71.5 6,815,594 FAIL


COUNTY CLERKS' DEPARTMENTS

TABLE A-6



PROP YES PERCENT NO PERCENT TOTAL PASS/FAILVOTE

REQUIRED

LOCAL BONDS AND TAX MEASURES

ALAMEDA OAKLAND USD A 96,683 84.7% 12,558 15.2% 109,241 PASS 2/3RDS

PLEASANTON I 12,264 64.0% 6,890 35.9% 19,154 FAIL 2/3RDS

PIEDMONT H 3,240 74.6% 1,101 25.3% 4,341 PASS 2/3RDS

PIEDMONT G 2,983 70.6% 1,239 29.3% 4,222 PASS MAJORITY

CONTRA COSTA DIABLO CSD C 232 46.2% 270 53.8% 502 FAIL 2/3RDS

EL CERRITOS A 5868 67.0% 2886 33.0% 8,754 PASS 2/3RDS

EL DORADO LOS RIOS CCD* I 23,494 59.7% 15,855 40.3% 39,349 FAIL 2/3RDS

FRESNO COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS CCD* J 99 57.2% 74 42.8% 173 FAIL 2/3RDS

SAN JOAQUIN B 13 5.8% 211 94.2% 224 FAIL 2/3RDS

KINGS COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS CCD* J 9,336 65.8% 4,855 34.2% 14,191 FAIL 2/3RDS

LASSEN LASSEN UHSD S 4,054 61.9% 2,491 38.1% 6,545 FAIL 2/3RDS

NORTHWEST LASSEN FIRE PD T 143 73.3% 52 26.7% 195 PASS 2/3RDS

LOS ANGELES CENTINELA VALLEY UHSD C 12,296 72.7% 4,619 27.3% 16,915 PASS 2/3RDS

LITTLE LAKE CITY SD K 4,898 75.9% 1,553 24.1% 6,451 PASS 2/3RDS

WALNUT VALLEY USD AA 8,477 71.2% 3,426 28.8% 11,903 PASS 2/3RDS

WEST COVINA USD G 7,824 72.3% 2,995 27.7% 10,819 PASS 2/3RDS

WHITTIER CITY SD W 9,040 71.3% 3,634 28.7% 12,674 PASS 2/3RDS

MARIPOSA MARIPOSA CO HEALTHCARE AUTH A 4,361 71.4% 1,749 28.6% 6,110 PASS 2/3RDS

MONTEREY MONTEREY CO A 54,834 70.9% 22,485 29.0% 77,319 PASS 2/3RDS

MONTEREY C 5,431 72.7% 2,037 27.2% 7,468 PASS 2/3RDS

SALINAS D 10,578 53.1% 9,342 46.8% 19,920 FAIL 2/3RDS

GONZALES E 697 70.7% 288 29.2% 985 PASS 2/3RDS

SOLEDAD F 777 65.0% 417 34.9% 1,194 FAIL 2/3RDS

GONZALES USD G 887 74.6% 301 25.3% 1,188 PASS 2/3RDS

MISSION SOLEDAD RURAL FD J 126 74.5% 43 25.4% 169 PASS 2/3RDS

NAPA NAPA CO H 22,997 64.6% 12,587 35.4% 35,584 FAIL 2/3RDS

NEVADA PENN VALLEY FPD H 3,023 63.8% 1,719 36.2% 4,742 FAIL 2/3RDS

NEVADA I 686 53.8% 588 46.2% 1,274 FAIL 2/3RDS

ORANGE GARDEN GROVE H 11,406 40.3% 16,867 59.7% 28,273 FAIL MAJORITY

MAGNOLIA SD G 5,797 73.8% 2,061 26.2% 7,858 PASS 2/3RDS

ORANGE CO F 437,612 67.3% 212,904 32.7% 650,516 PASS MAJORITY



TABLE A-6



PROP YES PERCENT NO PERCENT TOTAL PASS/FAILVOTE

REQUIRED

LOCAL BONDS AND TAX MEASURES (Continued)

PLACER LOS RIO CCD* I 27 40.3% 40 59.7% 67 FAIL 2/3RDS

SACRAMENTO AMERICAN RIVER FPD K 1,394 65.8% 724 34.2% 2,118 FAIL 2/3RDS

LOS RIOS CCD* I 166,829 65.2% 89,080 34.8% 255,909 FAIL 2/3RDS

SAN BERNARDINO ADELANTO F 607 39.8% 915 60.1% 1,522 FAIL 2/3RDS

MONTCLAIR G 2,354 61.7% 1,458 38.2% 3,812 FAIL 2/3RDS

SAN DIEGO CAJON VLY UESD PROP D 21,705 65.9% 11,219 34.1% 32,924 FAIL 2/3RDS

CARDIFF SD PROP E 3,032 80.4% 714 19.1% 3,746 PASS 2/3RDS

OCEANSIDE USD PROP G 15,739 69.5% 6,914 30.5% 22,653 PASS 2/3RDS

SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO A 143,634 78.7% 38,767 21.2% 182,401 PASS 2/3RDS

CA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES B 122,087 67.0% 60,049 32.9% 182,136 PASS 2/3RDS

SAN JOAQUIN MANTECA USD S 9,680 65.7% 5,055 34.3% 14,735 FAIL 2/3RDS

SAN LUIS OBISPO

S.L.O. CO FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. C 9,895 70.8% 4,090 29.2% 13,985 PASS 2/3RDS

SAN MATEO ATHERTON C 1,371 50.4% 1,348 49.6% 2,719 FAIL 2/3RDS

SAN MATEO COUNTY A 956 73.9% 338 26.1% 1,294 PASS 2/3RDS

SANTA BARBARA SANTA YNEZ VLY UHSD X2000 4,160 58.5% 2,947 41.5% 7,107 FAIL 2/3RDS

SANTA MARIE JR UHSD W2000 17,905 65.5% 9,414 34.5% 27,319 FAIL 2/3RDS

SANTA BARBARA U2000 62,411 61.2% 39,653 38.8% 102,064 FAIL 2/3RDS

SANTA BARBARA HSD V2000 38,832 71.9% 15,188 28.1% 54,020 PASS 2/3RDS

SANTA CLARA SARATOGA N 5,423 60.2% 3,588 39.8% 9,011 FAIL 2/3RDS

SANTA CRUZ SOQUEL UESD Q 8,451 77.4% 2,461 22.6% 10,912 PASS 2/3RDS

SISKIYOU GRENADA FPD A 159 77.6% 46 22.4% 205 PASS 2/3RDS

LAKE SHASTINE CSD C 395 71.9% 154 28.1% 549 PASS 2/3RDS

SOLANO* LOS RIOS CCD I 5 55.5% 4 44.4% 9 FAIL 2/3RDS

SONOMA SONOMA CO C 88,819 60.3% 58,444 39.7% 147,263 FAIL 2/3RDS

SONOMA SONOMA CO B 87,532 58.5% 61,972 41.5% 149,504 FAIL 2/3RDS

SANTA PAULA ESD D 3,863 80.0% 964 20.0% 4,827 PASS 2/3RDS

TULARE COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS* J 30,277 65.8% 15,735 34.2% 46,012 FAIL 2/3RDS

YOLO WOODLAND H 7,461 65.3% 3,967 34.7% 11,428 PASS MAJORITY

LOS RIOS CCD* I 18,238 75.5% 5,915 24.5% 24,153 PASS 2/3RDS



TABLE A-7

LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURESSUMMARY OF TYPES AND PURPOSES

MARCH 7, 2000

COUNTY AGENCY TYPE DEBT/TAX AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX ($) PURPOSE

ALAMEDA OAKLAND USD GO BOND $303,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

PLEASANTON GO BOND $50,000,000 RESEDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/RETAIL DEV

PIEDMONT SPECIAL TAX SEWER TAX $20 MONTH SOLID WASTE RECOVERY

PIEDMONT GENERAL TAX PRO RATE PARCEL TAX MUNICIPAL SERVICES

CONTRA COSTA DIABLO CSD SPECIAL TAX

ONE-TIME SPECIAL TAX OF NO MORE THAN $75 PER RESIDENTAL PROPERTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT

EL CERRITOS SPECIAL TAX

$58 SINGLE-FAM/$45.00 MULT-FAM/$410 NON RES PROERTY 20 YRS MAX RECREATION/SPORTS

EL DORADO LOS RIOS CCD* GO BOND $215,000,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

FRESNO COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS CCD* GO BOND $49,200,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL TAX UTILITY USERS TAX OF 10% MULTI CIPW

KINGS COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS CCD* GO BOND $49,200,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

LASSEN LASSEN UHSD GO BOND 3,300,000 K-12 SCHOOL

NORTHWEST LASSEN FIRE PD SPECIAL TAX $50 PER RES/$100 PER BUS FIRE PROTECTION/SUPRESSION

LOS ANGELES CENTINELA VALLEY UHSD GO BOND $59,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

LITTLE LAKE CITY SD GO BOND $34,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

WALNUT VALLEY USD GO BOND $50,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

WEST COVINA USD GO BOND $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

WHITTIER CITY SD GO BOND $30,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

MARIPOSA MARIPOSA CO HEALTHCARE AUTH SALES TAX INCREASE TRANSACTION USE .5% HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

MONTEREY MONTEREY CO SPECIAL TAX $12 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY MONTEREY SPECIAL TAX $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY SALINAS SPECIAL TAX $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY GONZALES SPECIAL TAX $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY SOLEDAD SPECIAL TAX $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE

MONTEREY GONZALES USD IMPROVEMENT BOND $6,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

MONTEREY MISSION SOLEDAD RURAL FD SPECIAL TAX $5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FIRE PROTECTION/SUPRESSION

NAPA NAPA CO GENERAL TAX TOT FROM 10.5% TO 12% OTHER

NEVADA PENN VALLEY FPD SPECIAL TAX

RES & AGRIC $96 PER PARCEL/COMM/INDUS $5.75 PER 100 SQ FT/UNIMPROV PARCELS $48 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-10 SOURCES: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENT

TABLE A-7


MARCH 7, 2000

Local Bond and Tax Measures (continued)COUNTY AGENCY TYPE DEBT/TAX AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX ($) PURPOSE

NEVADA NEVADA SPECIAL TAX

$16-$24 PARCEL PROPERTY/$100-$500 COMM/INDUS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

ORANGE GARDEN GROVE GENERAL TAX TOT FROM 10% TO 13% GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MAGNOLIA SD GO BOND $9,700,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

ORANGE CO OTHER

SAFE & HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE MULTI CIPW

PLACER LOS RIO CCD* GO BOND $215,000,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

RIVERSIDE WILDOMAR BENEFIT ASSESSMENT BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISSOLVE AD 68-4632 GENERAL GOVERNMENT

SACRAMENTO AMERICAN RIVER FPD SPECIAL TAX $100 PER PARCEL (MAX) FIRE PROTECTION

LOS RIOS CCD* GO BOND $215,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

SAN BERNARDINOADELANTO BENEFIT ASSESSMENT

$50 SINGLE-FAM/APTS $25-75/BUS $100-$500/10 YEARS RECREATION & SPORTS FACILITES

MONTCLAIR SPECIAL TAX

$2 PER MONTH FOR PARAMEDIC PROG EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

SAN DIEGO CAJON VLY UESD GO BOND $75,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

CARDIFF SD GO BOND $11,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

OCEANSIDE USD GO BOND $125,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO GO BOND $110,000,000 RECREATION/SPORTS FACILITIES

CA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES GO BOND $87,445,000 RECREATION/SPORTS FACILITIES

SAN JOAQUIN MANTECA USD GO BOND $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTICT GO BOND $13,200,000 FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN

SAN MATEO ATHERTON SPECIAL TAX FINANCE MUNICIPAL SERVICES MULTIPLE CIPW

SAN MATEO COUNTY SPECIAL TAX $65 PER PARCELFIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION

SANTA BARBARA SANTA YNEZ VLY UHSD GO BOND $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA BARBARA SANTA MARIE JR UHSD GO BOND $30,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX/5 YRS PRISONS/JAILS

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA HSD GO BOND $67,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES

SANTA CLARA SARATOGA GO BOND $15,000,000 LIBRARY

SANTA CRUZ SOQUEL UESD GO BOND $15,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITES


TABLE A-7


MARCH 7, 2000

Local Bond and Tax Measures (continued)COUNTY AGENCY TYPE DEBT/TAX AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX ($) PURPOSE

SISKIYOU GRENADA FPD GENERAL TAX PROP. 4 INCREASED $50,000/4YRS FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION

SISKIYOULAKE SHASTINE CSD SPECIAL TAX

$40 PER PARCEL SPEC ASS ADV VOTE WATER SUPPLY/STORAGE

SOLANO* LOS RIOS CCD GO BOND 215,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY HOUSING

SONOMA SONOMA CO SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX/16 YRS PUBLIC TRANSIT

SONOMA SONOMA CO SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX/8 YRS HIGHWAYS

TULARE COLLEGE OF THE SEQUOIAS* GO BOND $49,200,000 COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES

SONOMA SONOMA CO SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX/16 YRS PUBLIC TRANSIT

SONOMA SONOMA CO SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX/8 YRS HIGHWAYS

SANTA PAULA ESD GO BOND $10,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

YOLO WOODLAND

USE/TRANSACTION SALES TAX .5% SALES TAX/6 YRS. MULTIPLE CIPW

LOS RIOS CCD* GO BOND 215,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY HOUSING


state and local bond and tax ballot measures · state and local bond and tax ballot measures...

Documents