Resolution 1984-68
.
.
~
RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 68
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY IN OPPOSITION TO
PROPOSITION 36.
WHEREAS, the Jarvis IV Initiative Constitutional Amendment
which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 36 would
lead to de facto minority rule by requiring a two-thirds vote for many
important local government decisions; and
~~iEREAS, Proposition 36, by further restricting local govern-
ments' revenue-raising authority beyond the requirements imposed by
Propositions 13 and 4, would seriously weaken the concept of "Home
Rule" by making local agencies more dependent upon the State for
their financial stability; and
vlliEREAS, Proposition 36 will further reduce the ability of
local government to plan for and finance public services and capital
improvements needed to sustain development and accommodate economic
growth; and
\~HEREAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will widen the dispari-
ties between the taxation of properties with similar market values; and
WHEREAS, while the supporters of Proposition 36 claim it will
reduce taxes, it will actually increase property taxes for nearly
all taxpayers who have purchased properties since 1978, including
approximately 50% of the homeowners in California; and
vJEEREAS, one widely applauded result of Proposition 13 has been
to relieve general taxpayers of the burden of paying for services
which could be charged directly to the service user through fees,
this trend will be reversed, returning part of the financial burden
for fee-supported services to general taxpayers if Proposition 36 is
enacted; and
w~EREAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will cost local school
districts some $750 million In 1985-86, thereby serviously jeopardi-
zing the urgently needed improvements in primary and secondary public
RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 68
-1-
" !... '.
..
.-
... .. -'~ ",.
education in California; and
WHEREAS, many of the provisions of Proposition 36 are confus-
ing and ambiguous and will require further clarification, either by
future ballot measures, state legislation and/or court interpretation;
and
vJI:-IEREAS, the passage of Proposition 36 will cost the City of
Gilroy an estimated $1.2 million. This loss of funds would restrict
future expansion and construction, Hnd i.A;'ithout maj OT :cevisions the
City reserves will soon be depleted. On August 31, 1984 we anticipated
the following loss to June 30, 1985:
General Fund:
Property Tax refund
Sewer refunds
Water refunds
$192,500.
243,250.
237,459.
$673,209.
142,000.
142,192.
13,767.
24,885.
Water Fund:
Sewer Fund:
Public Safety Fees:
Sewer Construction Fees:
Depreciation Funds:
249,139.
$1,245,192.
NOW, THEREFORE ,BE IT RESOLVED, by the adoption of this
resolution, the City of Gilroy opposes Proposition 36, the Jarvis IV
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October, 1984, by the follow-
ing vote:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: ALBERT", CAGE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM,
PATE, VALDEZ and HUGHAN.
COUNCIL }ffiHBERS: None
AYES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME}ffiERS: None
APPROVED:
RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 68
-2-