HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 79-84RESOLUTION NO. 'T9-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD OPPOSING PROPOSITION 36 ON THE
NOVEMBER 6, 1984, BALLOT JARVIS IV).
WHEREAS, one significant impact of 1978's Proposition 13
has been a gradual shift from property tax revenues to user fee
revenues to pay for many public services; and
WHEREAS, under Proposition 36, no new fees or taxes may
be imposed after August 15, 1983, unless they are approved by
two-thirds vote of qualified voters, thereby effectively halting
further progress toward a "user-pays" approach to providing
public services; and
WNEREAS, under Proposition 36, fees cannot be increased
by a percentage greater than the annual increase in the consumer
price index after August 15, 1983, unless approved by two-thirds
of qualified voters. This may affect the expansion of Sewer
Plant No. 3 if the sewer fees cannot be increased to properly
fund the proposed construction. A development moratorium may be
unavoidable if that sewer plant cannot be expanded; and
WHEREAS, adoption of Proposition 36 will, it has been
estimated, cost the City $2,345,823 in loss of revenue, which, as
stated above, cannot be offset by new or increased user fees; and
WHEREAS, more than 65% of the property tax relief
provided by Proposition 36 will go to owners of income-producing
property; less than 35% of such relief will go to homeowners; and
WHEREAS, the two-thirds popular vote required for
adding fees or increasing user fees above the consumer price
index, as provided in Proposition 36, holds the popular majority
hostage to the whims of a minority; and
WHEREAS, one direct result of the additional restrictions
on local government financing options created by Proposition 36
is a shift of the decision-making power away from communities and
to Sacramento as the state is
essential services; and
WHEREAS, opposition
called upon to provide funding for
to Proposition 36 cuts across
partisan and
as the League
Commerce, the
ideological lines, and includes such diverse groups
of California Cities, the California Chamber of
California Building Industry Association, the
California PTA, the California Taxpayers Association, the
California Farm Bureau Federation, and the League of Women Voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield that the City opposes Proposition 36 and
urges voter rejection of that Proposition.
.......... o0o .........
2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of October, 1984, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, CHILDS, CHRISTENSEN, MOORE, PAYNE, RATTY, ROCKOFF
A B..~_NT~ C__ _OU__N. CJ_LM_~N, ~l~[~J~.
CITY CL~K and Ex ~f~c~o Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED this 3rd day of October, 1984
Z:'(j ,,.
APPROVED as to form:
CItY ATtORnEY of the City of Bakersfield
AJS/bl 3