Preview
I DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney ELECTRONICALLY
ANDREW SHEN, State I3ar #232499
2
JENICA MALDONADO, State Bar #266982 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
3 Deputy City Attorneys County of San Francisco
City Hall, Room 234
4 1 Dr. Canton B. Goodlett Place 01/27/2020
San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
Telephone: (415)554-4661 Deputy Clerk
Facsimile: (415) 554-4745
6 E-Mail: jenica.maldonadosfcityatty.org
7 Attorneys for Respondents JOHN ARNTZ, in his official capacity
as Director of the Department of Elections for the City and
8 County of San Francisco; and, DENNIS J. HERRERA, in his offiëial
capacity as City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13
MICHAEL DENNY, Case No. CPF- 19-516970
14
Contestant, EXHIBIT P, PART 1
15 TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
vs. SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION
16 TO CONTESTANT’S STATEMENT OF
JOHN ARNTZ, Director of Elections; ELECTION CONTEST
17 DENNIS HERRERA, City Attorney,
Hearing Date: February 5, 2020
18 Respondents. Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: Dept. 302
19 Hearing Judge: Hon Ethan P. Schulman
20 Date Action Filed: December 26, 2019
Trial Date: None set
21
Attached Documents: Exhibit P1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
EX. P1 TO RJN ISO RESPS’ OPP. STAT. ELECTION CONTEST
CASE NO. CPF-19-5 16970
LEGISLATIVE
INTENT SERVICE, INC
712 Main Street, Suite 200, Woodland, CA 95695
(800)666-1917. Fax (530)668-5866. www.1egintent.com
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REPORT AND ANALYSIS
Re: Proposition 46 of 1986
Passed in the June 3, 1986, Primary Election
Our File No.: 37221
The legislative history of the above-referenced proposition is documented by
materials itemized in one declaration. We discuss Article XIII A, section 1(b)(2)
of the California Constitution later in this report. The materials for Exhibits B
and C are listed in this same declaration. The materials are organized as follows:
Exhibit A - Proposition 46, June 3, 1986 General Election
Exhibit B - Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55, Resolution
Chapter 142, Statutes of 1984
Exhibit C - Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26, Resolution
Chapter 43, Statutes of 1980
PROPOSITION 46 OF 1986
PASSED IN THE JuNE 3, 1986, PRIMARY ELECTION
Proposition 46 of the June 1986 primary election amended Article XIII A, section
1(b) of the California Constitution only, relating to property taxation. (See Exhibit
A, #1, page 19) Proposition 46 was placed on the ballot following successful
legislative passage of Assembly Constitutional AmendmentNo. 55 of 1984. (See
Exhibit B, #1 e) Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was introduced on
January 24, 1984, by Assemblymember Dominic L. Cortese, who at this time was
chair of the Assembly Committee on Local Government, which was the second
policy committee to review the measure. (See Exhibit B, #1 a and #4, page 1)
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was assigned to the Assembly
Committees on Revenue and Taxation, Local Government, and Elections,
For information on document numbers, research policies, request for judicial notice and more,
please visit wwwlegintentcom and click on “Research Aids & Policies” and “Points and
Authorities” at the bottom of the page.
Page lof4
Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments and the Senate Committees on
Revenue and Taxation and Constitutional Aniendments where policy issues raised
by the bill were considered. (See Exhibit B, #2, #3, #4, #6 and #9) Three
amendments were made to Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55. (See
Exhibit B, #lb through #ld and #2) Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55
was approved by the Legislature on August 30, 1984, and recorded by the Secretary
of State on September 7, 1984, as Resolution Chapter 142 of the Statutes of 1984.
(See Exhibit B, #le and #2)
The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Senate Democratic Caucus described
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as last amended on August 27, 1984:
This bill pennits an increase in property taxes to pay the interest
and redemption charges on any bonded indebtedness for the
acquisition and improvement of real property approved on or after
July 1, 1978 by 2/3 of the voters voting on the proposition.
(See Exhibit B, #11, page 1)
The analysis prepared for the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation
addressed the measure as follows:
ACA 55 would permit an increase in property taxes to pay
the interest and redemption charges on any bonded indebtedness
for capital facilities approved by a two-thirds vote of the people.
(See Exhibit 3, #3, page 1)
This analysis further stated:
The purpose of this bill is to restore to local government the ability
to issue General Obligation Bonds, with approval of two-thirds of
the voters, which was lost when Proposition 13 passed in June of
1978.
It has been determined that issuing General Obligation Bonds is
the least expensive method of financing public projects.
This is due to the fact that the agency can pledge its full faith and
credit, as well as raise taxes, to pay back the bonds and to cover the
debt service.
Since 1978, local agencies have abruptly curtailed construction of
new facilities and infrastructure because they have lacked both
revenues and financing mechanisms.
(See Exhibit B, #3, page 2)
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was placed on the ballot as
Proposition 46 in June of 1986. According to the analysis prepared by the
Legislative Analyst:
Page 2 of 4
This constitutional amendment would allow local governments and
schools to increase the property tax rate above 1 percent for the
period necessary to pay off new general obligation bonds under the
following conditions:
• two-thirds of those voting in a local election must approve
the issuance of the bonds; and
• the money raised through the sale of the bonds must be
used exclusively to purchase or improve real property (that
is, land and buildings).
(See Exhibit A, #1, page 18)
The argument in favor of Proposition 46 stated, in part:
Proposition 46 requires a two-thirds vote by local taxpayers to use
general obligation bonds to build and repair police and fire
stations, conununity hospitals, and neighborhood schools....
(See Exhibit A, #1, page 19)
No arguments against Proposition 46 were filed. (See Exhibit A, #1, page 19)
Related Leis1ation: A similar measure, Proposition 4 (Senate Constitutional
Amendment No. 26 [Craven-1980J), had been presented to the voters in 1980, but
failed. (See generally, Exhibit C) According to the Senate Committee on Revenue
and Taxation analysis:
Proposition 4 proposed a similar concept to ACA 55, but would
have also allowed indebtedness for acquiring tangible personal
property necessary to the use of newly acquired or improved real
property.
(See Exhibit B, #9, page 2)
Understanding the legislative intent of any legislative measure necessarily includes
knowledge about various other measures competing with or preceding the bill
ultimately enacted, particularly where the focus is on specific language. As you
compare that enacted with the unsuccessful proposals in the failed bill, you may be
able to discern useful insight as to the intended meaning. Thus, we include
materials on Proposition 4 and Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26. (See
generally, Exhibit C)
A careful review of each version of the bills is very helpful in obtaining a full
understanding of legislative intent. (See Exhibit B, #1 and Exhibit C, #3) This can
be especially true where one is focusing on particular language; contrasting that
enacted with the unsuccessful proposals can afford insight as to the intended
meaning. Your review of each version of the bill should provide you with insight
Page 3 of 4
as to the development of the language of interest to you as the bill proceeded
through the Legislature (Id)
Article XIIIA. section 1(b)(2) of the California Constitution:
The proposal to add section 1 (b)(2) to Article XIIIA of the California Constitution
first occurred in the introduced version of Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No. 55. (See Exhibit B,#la) Changes were made in each subsequent amendment
of the bill. (See Exhibit B, #1 b through #1 d) No additional changes were made,
and the language was referred to the voters. (See Exhibit B, #le)
Your careful review of the documents enclosed may reveal helpful discussion on
the issue before you. You should also be able to draw some conclusions based
upon the assumption that the language was intended to be consistent with the
overall goal of the proposition. Thus, if you are unable to find specific discussion
regarding your research question, the analyses contained m the legislative bill files
enclosed herewith may provide you with an arguable assessment of the goals and
purpose that could be applicable to your particular situation.
Any analysis provided in this report is based upon the nature and extent of your
request to us, as well as a brief review of the enclosed documents As such, it must
be considered tentative in nature. A more conclusive statement of the impact of the
legislative history in your case would be dependent upon a complete understanding
of all of the factual issues involved and the applicable legal principles.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this assistance and hope that these efforts
will be of value to you
Prepared by: Anna Maria Bereczky-Anderson, Attorney at Law/vko; File no.: 37221
W:\Worldox\WDOCS\WORKPROD\00305\58768\00236355.DOC
Page 4 of 4
- i LEGISLATIVE
INTENT SERVICE, INC
712 Main Street Suite 200 Woodland CA 95695
(800) 666-1917 • Fax (530) 668-5866 www.legintent.com
DECLARATION OF ANNA MARIA BERECZKY-ANDERSON
I, Anna Mana Bereczky-Anderson, declare
I am an attorney licensed to practice in California, State Bar No 227794,
and am employed by Legislative Intent Service, Inc., a company specializing in
researching the history and intent of legislation
Under my direction and the direction of other attorneys on staff, the
research staff of Legislative Intent Service, Inc undertook to locate and obtain all
documents relevant to the enactment of Proposition 46 of the June 3, 1986, Primary
Election
The following list identifies all documents obtained by the staff of
Legislative Intent Service, Inc. on Proposition 46 of the June 3, 1986, Primary
Election. All listed documents have been forwarded with this Declaration except as
otherwise noted in this Declaration. All documents gathered by Legislative Intent
Service, Inc. and all copies forwarded with this Declaration are true and correct
copies of the originals located by Legislative Intent Service, Inc. In compiling this
collection, the staff of Legislative Intent Service, Inc. operated under directions to
locate and obtain all available material on the proposition.
EXHIBIT A — PRoPoSITIoN 46. P1uMARY ELECTION. JUNE 3, 1986:
1. Excerpts regarding Proposition 46 from the Calfornia Ballot
Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 3, 1986;
2. Material from the file on Ballot Propositions regarding
Proposition 46;
3. Material from the file of the League of Women Voters of
California on Proposition 46;
4. Material from the file of the California Taxpayer’s
Association on Proposition 46;
5. Material from the file of the California School Board
Association on Proposition 46;
6. Document from the file of the California Chamber of
Commerce on Proposition 46.
Page 1of2
ExIIIBIT B — ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT No.55 OF 1984:
1. All versions of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55
(Cortese-1984);
2. Procedural history. of Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No. 55 from the 1983-84 Assembly Final History;
3. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55
prepared for the Assembly Committee on Revenue and
Taxation;
4. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55
prepared for the Assembly Committee on Local
Government;
5. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly
Committee on Local Government on Assembly
Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as follows:
a. Previously Obtained Material,
+ b. Updated Collection of Material;
6. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55
prepared for the Assembly Committee on Elections,
Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments;
7. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly
Committee on Elections, Reapportionment, and
Constitutional Amendments on Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 55 as follows:
a. Previously Obtained Material,
+ b. Updated Collection of Material;
8. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 55 prepared by the Assembly Office of
Research;
9. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55
prepared for the Senate Committee on Revenue and
Taxation;
10. Material from the legislative bill file of the Senate
Committee on Revenue and Taxation on Assembly
Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as follows:
a. Previously Obtained Material,
+ b. Updated Collection of Material;
11. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 55 prcpared by the Senate Democratic
Caucus;
12. Material from the legislative bill file of the Senate
Democratic Caucus on Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No. 55;
13. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 55 prepared by the Senate Republican
Caucus;
Page2of3
14 Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly
Constitutional Amendment No 55 prepared by the Assembly
Office of Research,
15. Material from the legislative bill file of Assemblymember
Dominic Cortese on Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No. 55 as follows:
a. Previously Obtained Material,
+ b. Updated Collection of Material;
16. Excerpt regarding Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No. 55 from the 1984 Summary Digest ofStatutes Enacted
and Resolutions Adopted, prepared by Legislative Counsel;
17. Material from the file of the Legislative Representative of
the League of California Cities on Assembly Constitutional
Amendment No. 55;
18. Material from the legislative bill file of the State Board Of
Equalization on Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No.55.
EXHIBIT C — PROPOSITION 4, GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 4, 1980:
1. Excerpt regarding Proposition 4 from the Calfornia Ballot
Pamphlet, General Election, November 4, 1980;
2. Excerpt regarding Proposition 4 from Comprehensives,
prepared by the League of Women Voters of California,
1980;
3. All versions of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26
(Craven- 1980);
4. Procedural history of Senate Constitutional Amendment No.
26 from the 1979-80 Senate Final History.
+ Because it is not unusual for more materials to
become publicly available after our earlier research of
legislation, we re-gathered these file materials, denoting them
as “updated collection of material.”
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24 day of December, 2019 at
Woodland, California.
â/keciI-’’
ANNA MARIA BERECZKY-ANDERSON
W:\Worldox\WDOCS\PROPS\46\002 1981 6.DOC
Page 3 of 3
X re Prop 46
CALIFORNIA BALLOT PAMPHLET
Primary Election
JUNE 3, 1c86
0)
(0
(0
(0
0
(0
(0
(
>
(0
F
z
>
CO
uJ
-j.
Compiled by 1’MRCH FONG EU Secretary of State
Analyses by WILUAM G. WMM Legislative Analyst
LIS -1
SACRAMENTO Q554
Dear Follow Ca1ifornians
This is your california Ballot Pamphlet for the June 3, 1986.
Primary Election. It contains the ballot title, a short summary, the
Legislative Analysts ana)ysis, the pro and con arguments and
rebuttals, and the complete text of each proposition. It also con
tains the legislative vote cast for and against each measure
proposed by the Legislature
Many rights and responsbihUes go along with citizenship Vot
Ing is one of the most important as it is the foundahon on which
our democratic system is built. Read carefully each oftho mas
ures and information about them contained in this pamphlet. Leg
islative propositions and citizen-sponsored initiatives are designed
specifically to give you, the electorate, the opportunity to influ
ence the laws which regulate usall.
Take advantage of this oppottunity and exercise your rights by
voting on June 3, 1986.
SECRErARY OF STATE
P86
CONTENTS
Proposition Pager
J3ONDACI’S
42 Veterans Bond Act of 4—5, 40—41
43 community Parkiands Act of 1986 6-9, 41—42
44 Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 10—13, 42—45
LEGISLATWE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
45’ Deposit of Public Moneys in Credit Unions 14—17
46 Property Taxation 18—19
/
47 Allocation of Vehicle License Fee Taxes to Counties
and Oities 20-21
48 legislator? and Judges’ Retirement Systems 22—23
49 Nonpartisan Offices 24—27
50
51
Property Taxation.
INITIATIVE STATUTE
Multiple
Disasters
Defendants Tort
-
Damage Liability 32—35
I
fOND ACT , :
52 County Correctional Facility Capital Expendthire
Bond Act of 1986 36—39, 46
2
w
2
.uJ.
COVER SLOGAN
0
The slogan on thIs ballot parrphlet cover was chosen from among 36,333 proposed entries for the Secretary of
State—7!Eleven voter slogan contest. The dontest, which ran from January 6 to February 15, was designed to rncrease.,.,
voter awareness and participation Lueretla Gunnett of Wilhts recetved $lr000 for her winning slogan “What a difference
a vote makes Second place winner of $SOQ was Will Courtenay of San Francisco with his entry ‘You’re needed for %
group decision Register Vote.” Third place winner of $250 was Territa Lowenberg of Lafayette with her slogan “Be
heard, not herded, Vote!’ The second- and third-place slogans will appear on the November 1986 ballot pamphlet cover.
Throughout this booklet, where space permitted, are printed slogans from the contest. Because so many clever and
catchy slogans were submitted, we wanted to share as many of them as possible with you. The authors’ names appear
with the slogans.
Please note that Proposition 42 Is he first proposition for this election To avoid confusion with past measures, the
Legislature passed a law which requires propositions to be numbered consecutively starting with the next number after
tbse used in the November 1982 General Election. This numbering scheme runs in twenty-year cycles.
P86 3
Property Taxation
Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General
PBOPERTY TAXATION LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT currently Constitution limits ad valo
rem property taxes to maximum of 1% of the property’s full cash value. An exception to the 1% limit is provided for
ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay interest and redemption charges on indebtedness approved by the voters
before July 1, 1978 This measure would provide a further exception to the 1% limit, it would be inapplicable to bonded
indebtedness for the acqwsition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two thirds of the
votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local
government fiscal impact By itself,measure has no fiscal effect No increase can occur in property tai rate unless
two thirds of those voting in local election approve issuance of general obligation bonds State costs for tax relief
programs could increase, because cost of these programs rises as local property tax rate increases, State income tax
revenues could decline as taxpayers deduct greater amounts for property tax payments on state Income tax returns.
-“ - -
Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on ACA 55 (Proposition 46) -
V’ Msembly: Ayes 12- Senate: Ayes 30
Noes 2 Noes V2 -
IV
a
-
(C
- Analysis by the Legislative Analyst -
I:
C
Background. (C
- . , - ernrnents and schools to increase the property tax rate
Under the California Constitution, real property (such above 1 percent for the period necessaryto pay off new
as land and buildings) is taxed on the basis of its full cash geiieral obligation bonds wider the following conditions Li
value The Constitution limits the tax rate on real proper- • two thirds of those voting in a local election must CV;
ty to 1 percent of its full cash value. This limit, however, - approve the issuance of the bonds; and “V
may be exceeded in order to raise the money needed to • the noney raised through the sale of the bands muse
l1.
pay off debt approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1918 be used exclusively to purchase or improve real prop F”
Before 1978, local governments and school 4istricts s- erty (that is land and buildings) Li
sued “general obligation” bonds to finance hind acquisi-
-
‘ ‘ - V F”
tion and building construction. Genøral obligation bonds ‘2
are backed by the issuer’s promise tu raise its property tax Fiscal Effect
U.
rate to assure that enough money is available to pay off the -
V
IV”
bonds The 1 percent limit on the property tax rate, By itself, this measure has no fiscal effect The measure ‘1
howeer, has prevented local governments from issuing merely permits local voters to approve an increase in the C,
new general obligation bonds. property tax rate. No Increase can occur in the property
tax rate if thismeasure is ii
Consequently, local governments and séhools must el- adopted, unless two-thirds of
ther forgo land acquisition and building construction those voting in a local election approve the issuance of
finance these activities in other ways, such as through the general obligation bonds
sale of “revenue’ bonds or through lease-purchase at If local voters approve the issuance of new general obh
rangements. These financing alternatives generally re- gation bonds, state costs and revenues could be affected in a
quite the local government or school district to pay a high two flays First, state costs for tax relief programs could
or rate of interest than the rate it would have to pay on Increase, because the cost of these programs rises as the
general obligation bonds local property tax rate increases Second, state income tax
revenues could decline as taxpayers deduct greater
Proposal ‘
- amounts for property tax payments on their state income
This constitutional amendment would allow local gov- tax returns. ‘ -
The most effective letter goin to government: Vote Tuesday.
Michael Schaefer, La Jolla
18 -P88
Property Taxation
Argument in Favor of Proposition 46
Proposition 46 protects your taxes from wasicin) spend We all know the bad condition of our local streets and
log. roads and the health hazards of toxic waste and made
Proposition 46 rcqtures a t iro-Ibirds i’otcby bc’;,!tax quate sanitnUon facilities.Proposition 46 will give you a
payers to use general obligation bonds to iuld and repair r.’heaper and quicker way to solve these problems.
police and fIre stations, conununily hospitals, and neigh General obligation bonds can be used oni>’ for const ruct
I)orbOncI schools. general obligation bonds mean major ing essential, permanent public facilities. The>’ cannot be
savings for taxpayers. used for government employee salaries or pensions, and
The State of California is already using general obliga they cannot be used for unnecessary or temporary items
hen bonds. IF LOCAL GQVEIINIvJEIVTS HAD BEEN like office equipment and government cars.
MILE TO USE THESE BONDS LAST YEA!? THEY Proposition 46 ss’ill continue the tradition of strengthen
WOULD 1(4 VE SA l”ED MORE TI-IAN $150 MILLION IN ing local voter control over local financial issues. No local
INTEREST COSTS. agency will be able to spend any of your tax dollars on
Pjosition 46 puts local voters, not the politicians, in general obligrt t ion
bonds wit bout your approval.
charge of determ
Preview
I DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney ELECTRONICALLY ANDREW SHEN, State I3ar #232499 2 JENICA MALDONADO, State Bar #266982 F I L E D Superior Court of California, 3 Deputy City Attorneys County of San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 4 1 Dr. Canton B. Goodlett Place 01/27/2020 San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO Telephone: (415)554-4661 Deputy Clerk Facsimile: (415) 554-4745 6 E-Mail: jenica.maldonadosfcityatty.org 7 Attorneys for Respondents JOHN ARNTZ, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Elections for the City and 8 County of San Francisco; and, DENNIS J. HERRERA, in his offiëial capacity as City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 MICHAEL DENNY, Case No. CPF- 19-516970 14 Contestant, EXHIBIT P, PART 1 15 TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN vs. SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION 16 TO CONTESTANT’S STATEMENT OF JOHN ARNTZ, Director of Elections; ELECTION CONTEST 17 DENNIS HERRERA, City Attorney, Hearing Date: February 5, 2020 18 Respondents. Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Dept. 302 19 Hearing Judge: Hon Ethan P. Schulman 20 Date Action Filed: December 26, 2019 Trial Date: None set 21 Attached Documents: Exhibit P1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 EX. P1 TO RJN ISO RESPS’ OPP. STAT. ELECTION CONTEST CASE NO. CPF-19-5 16970 LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE, INC 712 Main Street, Suite 200, Woodland, CA 95695 (800)666-1917. Fax (530)668-5866. www.1egintent.com LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REPORT AND ANALYSIS Re: Proposition 46 of 1986 Passed in the June 3, 1986, Primary Election Our File No.: 37221 The legislative history of the above-referenced proposition is documented by materials itemized in one declaration. We discuss Article XIII A, section 1(b)(2) of the California Constitution later in this report. The materials for Exhibits B and C are listed in this same declaration. The materials are organized as follows: Exhibit A - Proposition 46, June 3, 1986 General Election Exhibit B - Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55, Resolution Chapter 142, Statutes of 1984 Exhibit C - Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26, Resolution Chapter 43, Statutes of 1980 PROPOSITION 46 OF 1986 PASSED IN THE JuNE 3, 1986, PRIMARY ELECTION Proposition 46 of the June 1986 primary election amended Article XIII A, section 1(b) of the California Constitution only, relating to property taxation. (See Exhibit A, #1, page 19) Proposition 46 was placed on the ballot following successful legislative passage of Assembly Constitutional AmendmentNo. 55 of 1984. (See Exhibit B, #1 e) Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was introduced on January 24, 1984, by Assemblymember Dominic L. Cortese, who at this time was chair of the Assembly Committee on Local Government, which was the second policy committee to review the measure. (See Exhibit B, #1 a and #4, page 1) Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was assigned to the Assembly Committees on Revenue and Taxation, Local Government, and Elections, For information on document numbers, research policies, request for judicial notice and more, please visit wwwlegintentcom and click on “Research Aids & Policies” and “Points and Authorities” at the bottom of the page. Page lof4 Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments and the Senate Committees on Revenue and Taxation and Constitutional Aniendments where policy issues raised by the bill were considered. (See Exhibit B, #2, #3, #4, #6 and #9) Three amendments were made to Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55. (See Exhibit B, #lb through #ld and #2) Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was approved by the Legislature on August 30, 1984, and recorded by the Secretary of State on September 7, 1984, as Resolution Chapter 142 of the Statutes of 1984. (See Exhibit B, #le and #2) The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Senate Democratic Caucus described Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as last amended on August 27, 1984: This bill pennits an increase in property taxes to pay the interest and redemption charges on any bonded indebtedness for the acquisition and improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978 by 2/3 of the voters voting on the proposition. (See Exhibit B, #11, page 1) The analysis prepared for the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation addressed the measure as follows: ACA 55 would permit an increase in property taxes to pay the interest and redemption charges on any bonded indebtedness for capital facilities approved by a two-thirds vote of the people. (See Exhibit 3, #3, page 1) This analysis further stated: The purpose of this bill is to restore to local government the ability to issue General Obligation Bonds, with approval of two-thirds of the voters, which was lost when Proposition 13 passed in June of 1978. It has been determined that issuing General Obligation Bonds is the least expensive method of financing public projects. This is due to the fact that the agency can pledge its full faith and credit, as well as raise taxes, to pay back the bonds and to cover the debt service. Since 1978, local agencies have abruptly curtailed construction of new facilities and infrastructure because they have lacked both revenues and financing mechanisms. (See Exhibit B, #3, page 2) Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 was placed on the ballot as Proposition 46 in June of 1986. According to the analysis prepared by the Legislative Analyst: Page 2 of 4 This constitutional amendment would allow local governments and schools to increase the property tax rate above 1 percent for the period necessary to pay off new general obligation bonds under the following conditions: • two-thirds of those voting in a local election must approve the issuance of the bonds; and • the money raised through the sale of the bonds must be used exclusively to purchase or improve real property (that is, land and buildings). (See Exhibit A, #1, page 18) The argument in favor of Proposition 46 stated, in part: Proposition 46 requires a two-thirds vote by local taxpayers to use general obligation bonds to build and repair police and fire stations, conununity hospitals, and neighborhood schools.... (See Exhibit A, #1, page 19) No arguments against Proposition 46 were filed. (See Exhibit A, #1, page 19) Related Leis1ation: A similar measure, Proposition 4 (Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26 [Craven-1980J), had been presented to the voters in 1980, but failed. (See generally, Exhibit C) According to the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation analysis: Proposition 4 proposed a similar concept to ACA 55, but would have also allowed indebtedness for acquiring tangible personal property necessary to the use of newly acquired or improved real property. (See Exhibit B, #9, page 2) Understanding the legislative intent of any legislative measure necessarily includes knowledge about various other measures competing with or preceding the bill ultimately enacted, particularly where the focus is on specific language. As you compare that enacted with the unsuccessful proposals in the failed bill, you may be able to discern useful insight as to the intended meaning. Thus, we include materials on Proposition 4 and Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26. (See generally, Exhibit C) A careful review of each version of the bills is very helpful in obtaining a full understanding of legislative intent. (See Exhibit B, #1 and Exhibit C, #3) This can be especially true where one is focusing on particular language; contrasting that enacted with the unsuccessful proposals can afford insight as to the intended meaning. Your review of each version of the bill should provide you with insight Page 3 of 4 as to the development of the language of interest to you as the bill proceeded through the Legislature (Id) Article XIIIA. section 1(b)(2) of the California Constitution: The proposal to add section 1 (b)(2) to Article XIIIA of the California Constitution first occurred in the introduced version of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55. (See Exhibit B,#la) Changes were made in each subsequent amendment of the bill. (See Exhibit B, #1 b through #1 d) No additional changes were made, and the language was referred to the voters. (See Exhibit B, #le) Your careful review of the documents enclosed may reveal helpful discussion on the issue before you. You should also be able to draw some conclusions based upon the assumption that the language was intended to be consistent with the overall goal of the proposition. Thus, if you are unable to find specific discussion regarding your research question, the analyses contained m the legislative bill files enclosed herewith may provide you with an arguable assessment of the goals and purpose that could be applicable to your particular situation. Any analysis provided in this report is based upon the nature and extent of your request to us, as well as a brief review of the enclosed documents As such, it must be considered tentative in nature. A more conclusive statement of the impact of the legislative history in your case would be dependent upon a complete understanding of all of the factual issues involved and the applicable legal principles. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this assistance and hope that these efforts will be of value to you Prepared by: Anna Maria Bereczky-Anderson, Attorney at Law/vko; File no.: 37221 W:\Worldox\WDOCS\WORKPROD\00305\58768\00236355.DOC Page 4 of 4 - i LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE, INC 712 Main Street Suite 200 Woodland CA 95695 (800) 666-1917 • Fax (530) 668-5866 www.legintent.com DECLARATION OF ANNA MARIA BERECZKY-ANDERSON I, Anna Mana Bereczky-Anderson, declare I am an attorney licensed to practice in California, State Bar No 227794, and am employed by Legislative Intent Service, Inc., a company specializing in researching the history and intent of legislation Under my direction and the direction of other attorneys on staff, the research staff of Legislative Intent Service, Inc undertook to locate and obtain all documents relevant to the enactment of Proposition 46 of the June 3, 1986, Primary Election The following list identifies all documents obtained by the staff of Legislative Intent Service, Inc. on Proposition 46 of the June 3, 1986, Primary Election. All listed documents have been forwarded with this Declaration except as otherwise noted in this Declaration. All documents gathered by Legislative Intent Service, Inc. and all copies forwarded with this Declaration are true and correct copies of the originals located by Legislative Intent Service, Inc. In compiling this collection, the staff of Legislative Intent Service, Inc. operated under directions to locate and obtain all available material on the proposition. EXHIBIT A — PRoPoSITIoN 46. P1uMARY ELECTION. JUNE 3, 1986: 1. Excerpts regarding Proposition 46 from the Calfornia Ballot Pamphlet, Primary Election, June 3, 1986; 2. Material from the file on Ballot Propositions regarding Proposition 46; 3. Material from the file of the League of Women Voters of California on Proposition 46; 4. Material from the file of the California Taxpayer’s Association on Proposition 46; 5. Material from the file of the California School Board Association on Proposition 46; 6. Document from the file of the California Chamber of Commerce on Proposition 46. Page 1of2 ExIIIBIT B — ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT No.55 OF 1984: 1. All versions of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 (Cortese-1984); 2. Procedural history. of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 from the 1983-84 Assembly Final History; 3. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation; 4. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Local Government; 5. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly Committee on Local Government on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as follows: a. Previously Obtained Material, + b. Updated Collection of Material; 6. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Elections, Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments; 7. Material from the legislative bill file of the Assembly Committee on Elections, Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as follows: a. Previously Obtained Material, + b. Updated Collection of Material; 8. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prepared by the Assembly Office of Research; 9. Analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prepared for the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation; 10. Material from the legislative bill file of the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as follows: a. Previously Obtained Material, + b. Updated Collection of Material; 11. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prcpared by the Senate Democratic Caucus; 12. Material from the legislative bill file of the Senate Democratic Caucus on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55; 13. Third Reading analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 prepared by the Senate Republican Caucus; Page2of3 14 Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No 55 prepared by the Assembly Office of Research, 15. Material from the legislative bill file of Assemblymember Dominic Cortese on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 as follows: a. Previously Obtained Material, + b. Updated Collection of Material; 16. Excerpt regarding Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55 from the 1984 Summary Digest ofStatutes Enacted and Resolutions Adopted, prepared by Legislative Counsel; 17. Material from the file of the Legislative Representative of the League of California Cities on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 55; 18. Material from the legislative bill file of the State Board Of Equalization on Assembly Constitutional Amendment No.55. EXHIBIT C — PROPOSITION 4, GENERAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 4, 1980: 1. Excerpt regarding Proposition 4 from the Calfornia Ballot Pamphlet, General Election, November 4, 1980; 2. Excerpt regarding Proposition 4 from Comprehensives, prepared by the League of Women Voters of California, 1980; 3. All versions of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26 (Craven- 1980); 4. Procedural history of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26 from the 1979-80 Senate Final History. + Because it is not unusual for more materials to become publicly available after our earlier research of legislation, we re-gathered these file materials, denoting them as “updated collection of material.” I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24 day of December, 2019 at Woodland, California. â/keciI-’’ ANNA MARIA BERECZKY-ANDERSON W:\Worldox\WDOCS\PROPS\46\002 1981 6.DOC Page 3 of 3 X re Prop 46 CALIFORNIA BALLOT PAMPHLET Primary Election JUNE 3, 1c86 0) (0 (0 (0 0 (0 (0 ( > (0 F z > CO uJ -j. Compiled by 1’MRCH FONG EU Secretary of State Analyses by WILUAM G. WMM Legislative Analyst LIS -1 SACRAMENTO Q554 Dear Follow Ca1ifornians This is your california Ballot Pamphlet for the June 3, 1986. Primary Election. It contains the ballot title, a short summary, the Legislative Analysts ana)ysis, the pro and con arguments and rebuttals, and the complete text of each proposition. It also con tains the legislative vote cast for and against each measure proposed by the Legislature Many rights and responsbihUes go along with citizenship Vot Ing is one of the most important as it is the foundahon on which our democratic system is built. Read carefully each oftho mas ures and information about them contained in this pamphlet. Leg islative propositions and citizen-sponsored initiatives are designed specifically to give you, the electorate, the opportunity to influ ence the laws which regulate usall. Take advantage of this oppottunity and exercise your rights by voting on June 3, 1986. SECRErARY OF STATE P86 CONTENTS Proposition Pager J3ONDACI’S 42 Veterans Bond Act of 4—5, 40—41 43 community Parkiands Act of 1986 6-9, 41—42 44 Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 10—13, 42—45 LEGISLATWE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 45’ Deposit of Public Moneys in Credit Unions 14—17 46 Property Taxation 18—19 / 47 Allocation of Vehicle License Fee Taxes to Counties and Oities 20-21 48 legislator? and Judges’ Retirement Systems 22—23 49 Nonpartisan Offices 24—27 50 51 Property Taxation. INITIATIVE STATUTE Multiple Disasters Defendants Tort - Damage Liability 32—35 I fOND ACT , : 52 County Correctional Facility Capital Expendthire Bond Act of 1986 36—39, 46 2 w 2 .uJ. COVER SLOGAN 0 The slogan on thIs ballot parrphlet cover was chosen from among 36,333 proposed entries for the Secretary of State—7!Eleven voter slogan contest. The dontest, which ran from January 6 to February 15, was designed to rncrease.,., voter awareness and participation Lueretla Gunnett of Wilhts recetved $lr000 for her winning slogan “What a difference a vote makes Second place winner of $SOQ was Will Courtenay of San Francisco with his entry ‘You’re needed for % group decision Register Vote.” Third place winner of $250 was Territa Lowenberg of Lafayette with her slogan “Be heard, not herded, Vote!’ The second- and third-place slogans will appear on the November 1986 ballot pamphlet cover. Throughout this booklet, where space permitted, are printed slogans from the contest. Because so many clever and catchy slogans were submitted, we wanted to share as many of them as possible with you. The authors’ names appear with the slogans. Please note that Proposition 42 Is he first proposition for this election To avoid confusion with past measures, the Legislature passed a law which requires propositions to be numbered consecutively starting with the next number after tbse used in the November 1982 General Election. This numbering scheme runs in twenty-year cycles. P86 3 Property Taxation Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General PBOPERTY TAXATION LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT currently Constitution limits ad valo rem property taxes to maximum of 1% of the property’s full cash value. An exception to the 1% limit is provided for ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay interest and redemption charges on indebtedness approved by the voters before July 1, 1978 This measure would provide a further exception to the 1% limit, it would be inapplicable to bonded indebtedness for the acqwsition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact By itself,measure has no fiscal effect No increase can occur in property tai rate unless two thirds of those voting in local election approve issuance of general obligation bonds State costs for tax relief programs could increase, because cost of these programs rises as local property tax rate increases, State income tax revenues could decline as taxpayers deduct greater amounts for property tax payments on state Income tax returns. -“ - - Final Vote Cast by the Legislature on ACA 55 (Proposition 46) - V’ Msembly: Ayes 12- Senate: Ayes 30 Noes 2 Noes V2 - IV a - (C - Analysis by the Legislative Analyst - I: C Background. (C - . , - ernrnents and schools to increase the property tax rate Under the California Constitution, real property (such above 1 percent for the period necessaryto pay off new as land and buildings) is taxed on the basis of its full cash geiieral obligation bonds wider the following conditions Li value The Constitution limits the tax rate on real proper- • two thirds of those voting in a local election must CV; ty to 1 percent of its full cash value. This limit, however, - approve the issuance of the bonds; and “V may be exceeded in order to raise the money needed to • the noney raised through the sale of the bands muse l1. pay off debt approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1918 be used exclusively to purchase or improve real prop F” Before 1978, local governments and school 4istricts s- erty (that is land and buildings) Li sued “general obligation” bonds to finance hind acquisi- - ‘ ‘ - V F” tion and building construction. Genøral obligation bonds ‘2 are backed by the issuer’s promise tu raise its property tax Fiscal Effect U. rate to assure that enough money is available to pay off the - V IV” bonds The 1 percent limit on the property tax rate, By itself, this measure has no fiscal effect The measure ‘1 howeer, has prevented local governments from issuing merely permits local voters to approve an increase in the C, new general obligation bonds. property tax rate. No Increase can occur in the property tax rate if thismeasure is ii Consequently, local governments and séhools must el- adopted, unless two-thirds of ther forgo land acquisition and building construction those voting in a local election approve the issuance of finance these activities in other ways, such as through the general obligation bonds sale of “revenue’ bonds or through lease-purchase at If local voters approve the issuance of new general obh rangements. These financing alternatives generally re- gation bonds, state costs and revenues could be affected in a quite the local government or school district to pay a high two flays First, state costs for tax relief programs could or rate of interest than the rate it would have to pay on Increase, because the cost of these programs rises as the general obligation bonds local property tax rate increases Second, state income tax revenues could decline as taxpayers deduct greater Proposal ‘ - amounts for property tax payments on their state income This constitutional amendment would allow local gov- tax returns. ‘ - The most effective letter goin to government: Vote Tuesday. Michael Schaefer, La Jolla 18 -P88 Property Taxation Argument in Favor of Proposition 46 Proposition 46 protects your taxes from wasicin) spend We all know the bad condition of our local streets and log. roads and the health hazards of toxic waste and made Proposition 46 rcqtures a t iro-Ibirds i’otcby bc’;,!tax quate sanitnUon facilities.Proposition 46 will give you a payers to use general obligation bonds to iuld and repair r.’heaper and quicker way to solve these problems. police and fIre stations, conununily hospitals, and neigh General obligation bonds can be used oni>’ for const ruct I)orbOncI schools. general obligation bonds mean major ing essential, permanent public facilities. The>’ cannot be savings for taxpayers. used for government employee salaries or pensions, and The State of California is already using general obliga they cannot be used for unnecessary or temporary items hen bonds. IF LOCAL GQVEIINIvJEIVTS HAD BEEN like office equipment and government cars. MILE TO USE THESE BONDS LAST YEA!? THEY Proposition 46 ss’ill continue the tradition of strengthen WOULD 1(4 VE SA l”ED MORE TI-IAN $150 MILLION IN ing local voter control over local financial issues. No local INTEREST COSTS. agency will be able to spend any of your tax dollars on Pjosition 46 puts local voters, not the politicians, in general obligrt t ion bonds wit bout your approval. charge of determ