I
I
AND
I
I
I
I
I STATEAND LOCALBOND
I
I
| AND TAX BALLOT MEASURES
I
I
| Results of the June 1998 Primary Election
I
| MA1-FFONG
| State Treasurer and Chairman
I
I CDIAC 98.7
I
|
I STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Matt Fong
State Treasurer and Chairman
@
CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION
i 915 CAPITOL MALL,
P.O. BOX 942809 ROOM 400
SACRAMENTO, CA 94209-0001
i TELEPHONE: 654-7440
FAX: (916) (916) 653-3269
Executive Director
Peter W. Schaafsma
September1998
!
I To All Interested Parties:
This reportpresentsthe resultsof bond and tax measuressubmittedto the votersat theJune
I ' prepared by the California Debt and InvestmentAdvisoryCommission(CDIAC).
1998 PrimaryElection. This is the tenth in a series of reports onstatewide electionsin California
percent) failed.Twenty-fourof 39 (62 percent)localG.O. bond50 (52 percent)passedand 46 (48
Of the 96 bond and tax measurestrackedby theCommission,proposals were approved. The 24
i
m
G.O. Bondmeasuresapprovedtotaled$441 million, orethanthree timesthe $134 million
approvedin the 1996 primary. Supportfor specialtax measures,designedto fundpublicservices
I suchas seniorprograms,libraries,police,emergencymedca and fire,were mixed,with 16 of 41
passing(39 percent).
I This Primary Election'sresultsare notablefortwo reasons:
• Unlikeevery precedingprimaryelectionthis decade,the 1998 PrimaryElectionhad nostate
G.O. bondmeasureson the ballot;and
I "• Of the 15 defeated localG.O. bondproposals,14 receivedmorethan 50% of the votescast.
CDIAC identifiednineteenlocalballotmeasureson the Juneballotthatwere placedthere as a
I_ In addition,one measurewas placedonthe ballotin responseto theCaliforniaSupremeCourt's
direct resultof Proposition218, the Right to Vote on TaxesAct, which passed in November1996.
62,
December 1995 decisionon Proposition originallypassedin 1986. Voters approvednine of
i nineteen measuresmotivatedby Proposition 62
218, and the sole Proposition validation measure.
This report includesa summary of the statewideelectionresults,as well as data on the individual
tax and bondballotmeasuresthemselves. The Commission wouldlike to recognizethe
,1' assistanceof theelectionsdepartmentsof the 58 countyclerks'officesin preparingthis report.
Warmest regards,
I
' atat_e_rer_( _ _
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
i STATE AND LOCAL
I RESULTS OF PRIMARY ELECTION
BOND ANDTAXBALLOT MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
I
!
I
i September 1998
I
II
!
i CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION
i P.O. CA 94209-0001
Sacramento,Box 942809
,i (916) 653-3269
il
The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission complies with the Americans With Disibilities Act
(ADA). If you need additional information or assistance, please contact the Commission at (916) 653-3269.
I
I
I CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION
! The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission was created by the Legislature to
assist state and local agencies with the issuance, monitoring and management of public debt
CDIAC also acts as the state's clearinghouse for public debt issuance information.
i and with the investment of public funds through its research and technical assistance programs.
Commission members include:
The California Debt and Investment Advisory
J
I
F
Matt ong Vacancy
I California State Treasurer
and Chairman State Senator
Louis J. Papan
I Pete Wilson
Governor State Assemblyman
or Scott Wildman
i Craig
Director Brown Assemblyman
State
Department of Finance Donald W. Merz
i Kathleen Connell Treasurer-Tax Collector
Sonoma County
State Controller
i Vacancy Finance Leland
Robert Director
State Senator City of Fairfield
I Additional information concerning this report
i, Investment Advisory Commission
or the programs of the California may be
Debt and
obtained by contacting:
I Peter W. Schaafsma
i California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission
Executive Director
(916) 653-3269
!
I
!
!
I
I
l
,i
I
i
I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission wishes to thank the staff of
the county clerks' election departments for their assistance in providing the information
i' contained in this publication.
The report was prepared by Hardy Gumnor of the Commission Staff and David Felman,
i a student intern on a fellowship from Stanford University.
i
I
I
I
Ii,
t
I
l
i
I
i TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
I II. SUMMARY OF LOCAL MEASURES BY PURPOSE ........................................... 1
A. Education ........................................................................................................ 2
t B. Life Support .....................................................................................................
C. Capital Improvements and Public Works ........................................................ 3
2
D General Government ....................................................................................... 4
, E. Miscellaneous Purposes ................................................................................. 5
II1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL MEASURES BY TYPE .................................................... 5
al A. Bonds .............................................................................................................. 5
m 1. Local General Obligation Bonds 5
II B. Tax Measures ................................................................................................. 6
1. Special Tax Measures ............................................................................... 6
I 2. General Tax Measures
a) Proposition 62 Measures ................................................................... 7
7
3. Proposition 218 Measures ......................................................................... 8
i 4. Other Measures ....................................................................................... 9
IV. COUNTIES NOT REPORTING LOCAL BOND OR TAX MEASURES ................. 9
I TABLES AND CHARTS:
, Table 1: Bond and Tax Measures Results ............................................................ 1
Table 2: Results of Bond and Tax Measures By Purpose .................................... 1
, Table 3: Capital Improvements and Public Works By Purpose ............................. 3
I Table 4: Life Support Measures By Purpose 4
Table 5: Results of Bond and Tax Measures By Type ......................................... 6
Table 6: Special Tax Measures By Purpose ......................................................... 7
I Chart 1: All Proposed Bond and Tax Measures By Type ...................................... 5
I APPENDIX: SUMMARY TABLES
i Table A-2 Local Special Obligation Bond Measures .........................................
Table A-1 Local General Tax Measures ............................................................. A-3
A-1
Table A-3 Local General Tax Measures ............................................................ A-5
" i Table A-5 Other Local Tax Measures ................................................................ A-7
i Table A-4 Local Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax Measures .......................... A-6
Table A-6 Proposition 218 Tax Measures .......................................................... A-8
Table A-7 Summary of Election Results ............................................................ A-9
I Table A-8 Summary of Types and Purposes A-13
,n,
!
I
I STATE AND LOCAL BOND AND TAX BALLOT MEASURES
I Primary Election Results
Summary ofJune 2, 1998
I I. INTRODUCTION
11 This report presents the results of local tax and bond measures that appeared on ballots
in the June 2, 1998 Primary Election in California. Included in the report is certified data
obtained from the 58 county clerks' election departments. This is the tenth report the
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) has published
I summarizing statewide bond and tax elections.
Primary Election Results
I Ninety-six bond and tax measures in the
June Primary Election were tracked by Table1
I CDIAC. this decade, the 1998 Primary
election Unlike every preceding primary LocalRESULTS
BONDANDTAXMEASURES
State Totals
Election had no state bond or tax measures
1_ on the ballot. 1 Of the 96 measures, 50 (52 Passed 0 50 50
I percent) were approved by voters and 46 (48 Failed 0 46 46
percent) were defeated. The number of
i from the 1996 Primary
considerably in this election, 96, Election,
measures is up Totals 0 96 96
when 80 state and local bond and tax measures were reported to CDIAC, and the 1994
Primary Election, when 61 measures were reported. The overall passage rate of 52
percent Primary notably higher
I in the 1998 Election is than in both the 1996 and the
1994 Primary Elections which had approval rates of 40 and 38 percent, respectively. The
results are listed in Table 1.
I II. SUMMARY OF LOCAL MEASURES BY PURPOSE
I In Table 2 (below), the results of the 96 bond and tax measures are classified by the
following five purposes: education, capital improvements, life support, general
I government, and miscellaneous. A discussion of each category follows.
Table2
RESULTSOF
n MEASURES BONDANDTAX
BY PURPOSE
,in= Education CapitalImp. LifeSupport GeneralGov. Misc. Totals
I Passed
Failed
22
15
11
14
5
8
8
6
4
3
50
46
I Totals 37 25 13 14 7 96
_Therewere eight state measuresin the 1990 Primary,two in 1992, three in 1994, and three in
"1 1996.
! ,
I
I
I A. Education
There were 37 education issues presented to voters in the June election, accounting for
i nearly 40 percent of all an approval rate 59 percent. the is education the 1996
were approved, yielding measures offered. ofOverall, 22 of This 37 down from measures
approval rate of 75 percent, but up from the 1994 rate of 48 percent, for education-
i related measures.
Thirty-four of the 37 education measures, or 92 percent, were for K-12 education; three
were approved. The 62 percent passing rate for K-12 measures is much higher than the
i were for community college facilities. Twenty-one of the 34 K-12 education measures
1994 rate of 36 percent, when five of 14 measures passed, but down from the 1996 rate
of 75 percent, when six of eight passed.
i! Thirty-three of the 34 K-12 education measures were for general obligation bonds; the
remaining one was a special tax measure in Kerman Unified School District of Fresno
Ii County which was defeated. K-12 G.O. bond amounts ranged from $233,000 Buena
Vista Elementary School District in Tulare County, which passed comfortablyfor with 78
percent of the vote, to $91 million for Visalia Unified School District (also in Tulare
"1_ County) which failed by about seven percent.
1
All of the 34 K-12 measures, except a $1 million G.O. bond for Pope Valley Union
i • cast. However, thirteen of the 33 receiving a majority failed least 50 the two-thirds super-
Elementary School District in Napa County, received at to attain percent of the votes
majority required for G.O. bond and special tax passage. A $9.2 million bond for Wasco
Unified High School District in Kern County fell short of the two-thirds mark by just 0.4
i percent.
Only one of three G.O. bond measures for community college facilities passed. An $85
I Santa G.O. bond measure for over 74 percent of the College District the largest and
million Cruz Counties received the Cabrillo Community vote, making it of Monterey G.O.
bond measure to win approval in the 1998 Primary Election.
i For the two community college measures that failed, the margin of defeat was slim. A
West Hills Community College District of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Monterey, and San
.-I Benito Counties $19 million bond measure was defeated by just 0.5 of a percentage
I point. Although it won 68.5 percent of the vote in Kings County, the West Hills
Community College District measure failed to receive enough votes in the district's other
l College Districtto achieve ofvictory. Aby onlymillion bond for points.
four counties fell short approval $15 1.5 percentage Imperial Valley Community
1 B. Capital Improvements and Public Works
Eleven of 25 (44 percent) measures for capital improvements and public works passed,
which is up significantly from were approved. Successful improvements and public
works measures, or 22 percent, 1996 when five of 23 capitalmeasures included:
I • Three measures for communication systems in San Diego County;
I
I • A special tax for drainage services in the Rancho Murieta Community Services
I District of Sacramento County;
• Four measures for multiple capital improvements and public works in California City
I of Kern and Big River Community County, ElDistrict of San Bernardino County; Obispo
County, County, Davis of Yolo Services Paso De Robles of San Luis
, • revenues to vote in capital improvements and public works;
An advisory multiple Woodland, Yolo County that limits expenditure of new sales tax
i . • Services District; and,
A special tax for street improvement in Placer County's Northstar Community
,, A $210 million Certificates of Participation measure in San Diego County for
I convention center construction.
Among the defeated measures, voters in the City and County of San Francisco rejected
Ii the election's only public building Bond for With the second highest
this primary, this $89.9 million G.O. measure. the acquisition, construction, dollar renovation
and amount in
of the De Young Memorial Museum
1I missed the two-thirds majority it
needed for passage by slightly more Table3
than two percentage points. CAPITAL A
IMPROVEMENTS ND PUBLICWORKS
I For the second consecutive primary PURPOSE
BY
election, a $90 per parcel special tax Pass Fall Totals
i for water supply Services the Bear
Valley Community storage in District of Convention Center
Communications 0
3 0
6 1
9
Kern County also was defeated. In the FloodControl 1 1 2
1998 Primary Election, the measure MultipleCIPW 5 1 6
by percent compared
I failed 6 with 23 PublicBuilding 0 1 1
percent in the 1996 Primary Election. SolidWasteRecovery 0
StreetImprovements/ 1 1
2 1
3
Maintenance
I solid waste recovery,
Measures for collection,
wastewater and water WastewaterCollection 0
WasteSupply/Storage o 1
1 1
1
supply storage were also defeated.
.I Please see Table 3 for complete Totals 11 14 25
results by purpose.
I C. Life Support
medical services, five were approved. The 38 percent approval rate for life support
i Of the 13 issues proposed to provide, increase or enhance police, fire or emergency
measures represents a slight decline from the 46 percent rate witnessed in the 1996
Primary Election, when six of 13 measures passed.
!
I
I
i Voters approved three of eight fire protection measures, or 38 percent, and two of five
public safety measures, or 40 percent. Successful measures included:
I • A $100 per parcel special tax for fire suppression, prevention, rescue and emergency
services in the Clear Creek Community Services District of Lassen County;
I • A special tax for police and fire protection in Hillsborough, San Mateo County;
I • of HumboldtCounty;
A special tax of $15 per parcel for fire protection in the Loleta Fire Protection District
I • County's Ranchoraise revenue for the support of security services within Sacramento
A special tax to Murieta Community Services District; and,
i " • Community Services District, Orange County.
An extension of a special tax for law enforcement services in the Three Arch Ba_,
Of the eight life support measures which failed to capture the two-thirds majority needed
passage, over received a
I for six still received 50 )ercent of the vote. Of those which
majority, half (three of six) came within
Table 4 approximately two percentage points of
I LIFESUPPORTMEASURES PURPOSE
BY taxes for the were two fire protection special
approval. They Eastside Rural Fire Protection
District of San Joaquin County and the Valley
I FireProtection Pass
3 Fail
5 Totals
8 of the Moon a proposed 0.25District of sales tax
County and Fire Protection percent Sonoma
PublicSafety 2 3 5 for public safety in Madera County. Each
I Totals 5 8 13 presents over results of life support measures4
received the 64 percent of the vote. Table
by purpose.
I D. General Government
purposes
I measures measures for general government were approved. All passing
Eight of 14were general taxes, which require a majority vote. The 57 percent of the
rate is slightly higher than the 1996 Primary Election approval rate of 46 percent, when
I
!
13 of 28 measures passed.
The approved measures included two business taxes, four utility users' taxes, one
I total firearms receipts the City of Oakland (Alameda A 2.4 received 73 percent of
municipal services tax,inand one new construction tax. County)percent business tax on
the vote, more than any other general government tax measure. A utility users' tax
"I measure for Rio Dell in Humboldt County fell short of the 50 percent majority needed by
I just 0.1 percent.
I
I
I
I E. Miscellaneous Purposes
.I Included All five library are seven measures for were and health care facilities and
services. in this category measures up for approval library special taxes, which require a
two-thirds vote for approval. Although each library measure managed to gain more than
I 50 percent of the vote, only two 0.125 percent sales tax measures for library services in
Solano and Nevada Counties obtained the two-thirds needed. This election's 40 percent
rate of passage for library measures matches the 40 percent rate in the 1996 Primary
i Election, when two of five measures passed•
Both health care measures in the 1998 Primary Election won decisively• Passing with 90
i percent of levy a four-year annual for the Surprise for health care services. Also, a $2.3
County will the vote, a tax measure $150 special tax Valley Health Care District in Modoc
million G.O. bond for the maintenance of health care facilities in the Sierra Valley
Hospital District in Sierra County won with 72 percent of the vote.
I III. SUMMARY OF MEASURES BY TYPE
I As shown in Chart 1 (below), local measures in the 1998 Primary Election can be
categorized into four types: general obligation bonds, special tax, general tax, and other
1 measures. Table 5 (page 6) presents the results of the measures by type.
w
A. BONDS
I t. Local General Obligation
Bonds 1
Chart
ALL PROPOSED BOND AND TAX MEASURES
I Of the 39 G.O. bond measures
amounting to nearly $924 million, BYTYPE
voters approved 24. The 62 percent (N=96)
I passage Primary slightly lower of 66
the 1996 rate is Election rate than General
Taxes
percent, but much higher than the G.O.Bonds 14
orJ
I 33 percent figure for 1994• The 24
G.O. bonds approved totaled $441 39
million, more than three times the Special
Oth
I passed in 1996 local G.O. twice
$134 million inand more thanbonds 2 Taxes
41
the $168 million passed in 1994.
I The overwhelming majority of G.O. measures on the ballot, 33 of 39 measures or 85
percent, were designated for K-12 educational facility improvements. Of the 24 G.O.
• bond measures that passed, 21 totaling nearly $316 million, promoted K-12 education.
Primary or percent,
I The successful five of these nine of nine bonds, totaled $134 million, which is less than
In the 1996 Election, six bond measures 66 were for K-12 education.
half the 1998 figure.
! The remaining three of the 24 G.O. bond measures which passed included: an $85
million bond measure for the Cabrillo Community College District in Monterey and Santa
!
I
I Cruz Counties, a measure for a $2.3 million bond for health care services in the Sierra
Valley Hospital District of Sierra County, and a $38 million bond measure designated for
I multiple capital improvements and public works in El Paso De Robles, San Luis Obispo
County.
I District Napa County received more one for Pope of the Union Elementary School
All localinG.O. bond measures except than 50 percent Valley vote. Of these, 14 failed to
muster the two-thirds vote necessary for G.O. bond passage. In all, voters rejected
i nearly $483 million in local G.O bonds.
The details of the local General Obligation bond measures can be found in Table A-1
i beginning on page A-1.
I Table5
RESULTS OF BOND AND TAX
MEASURES BY TYPE
I G.O. Bonds Special Tax General Tax Other Sales Tax Totals*
Passed 24 i6 8 2 2 50
I Failed 15 25 6 0 8 46
Totals 39 41 14 2 10 96
.I *This column excludes sales taxes to avoid double-counting.
i B. TAX MEASURES
Fifty-five of the 96 bond and tax measures on the ballot, or 57 percent, were tax
measures. This number is slightly more than the 50 tax measures which appeared in the
I 1996 63 percent in 1996). Twenty-four of 55 tax of all measures (57 percent in 1998
versus Primary Election, but lower as a percentagemeasures in the 1998 Primary Election
passed, a 44 percent approval rate, which is higher than the 1996 rate of 38 percent
I when 19 of 50 passed. Detailed tables for tax measures begin on page A-2.
I 1. SpecialTax Measures
I
Support for special tax measures was mixed with 16 of 41 gaining approval. While the
i percent, when 5 of rate was notably slightly lower 1996 Primary Election rate of 22
39 percent passage 22 passed, it was higher than thethan the 1994 rate of 40 percent,
when 13 of 33 were approved. Special taxes represented the greatest number of tax
measures submitted to voters, 41 of 55, or 75 percent, unlike the 1996 primary, when
measures, percent,
I just 22 of the 50 tax or 44 were special taxes.
Special tax measures for multiple capital improvements and public works fared best with
I three of four two of five special of eight special tax measures for and facilities, two of
suppression, passing. Three tax measures for library services fire protection and
five public safety taxes, and one of three street maintenance and improvement taxes
I also were approved. Of the nine special tax measures for communications systems in
I °
I
I San Diego County, voters supported three. Two other special tax measures for flood
control and health care facilities and services won approval. The only measures for
I wastewater collection, water supply, solid waste recovery, and K-12 education failed.
Voters in Maywood, Los Angeles County,
I gave a street improvement measure just 34
percent of the votes, while a public safety Table6
special tax for Victorville in San Bernardino SPECIAL BY
TAXMEASURES PURPOSE
i votes. Two
County receiveddefeated 26 fire
only protection
percent of the Multiple
CIPW 3
Pass 1
Fail 4
Totals
measures came within one percent of FireProtection 3 5 8
Fire Protection District of San Joaquin LibraryFac 2 3 5
i passage, with the Eastside Rural County Communications 3 6 9
County obtaining 65.6 percent of the vote PublicSafety 2 3 5
and the Valley of the Moon Fire Protection HealthCare 1 0 1
' District of Sonoma County Valley with 66.1
percent. Flood Control
StreetImprov 1
1 1
2 2
3
K-12Education 0 1 1
I Eight sales tax as special on the June ballot
were proposed measures taxes, significantly SolidWaste
Wastewater 0
0 1
1 1
1
more than the one sales tax proposed in the WaterSupply 0 1 1
aS' 1996 Primary Election, which failed. Voters
I approved two special sales taxes in the 1998 Totals 16 25 41
Primary Election for library services, one in
i library County flood control, public safety, and multiple capital
Nevada services, and one in Solano County. Six other special salesimprovements and
tax measures for
public works received over 50 percent approval but fell short of the two-thirds necessary
for passage.
I
2. General Tax Measures
I Voters approved eight of 14 (57 percent) general tax measures for general government
purposes, a slightly higher approval rate than in 1996 when 14 of 28 (50 percent)
I passed. The utility percent was the rate successful type of general tax with the of
five passing. The 80users tax approval most represents a notable increase from four 33
percent rate in 1996 when only three of nine were approved by voters. The business tax
.il also emerged successfully in the 1998 Primary Election with a 66 percent approval rate,
I or two of three. One municipal services and one construction tax also were approved.
i tax for the City of designated in Yolo County andincluding a four year one-half cent in the
Two sales taxes Woodland as general taxes, a ten year 0.25 percent sales tax sales
City of Del Norte, missed the simple majority needed for general tax approval by six
.== percent and eleven percent, respectively. In addition, a transient occupancy tax for
I Mono County, the only tax of its type on the ballot, failed.
I a) Proposition62 Measures
Passed in 1986, Proposition 62 included two statutory voting requirements: (1) local
I governments cannot impose a general tax untir it is approved by a majority of voters;
I
I and, (2) local governments cannot impose a special tax until it has obtained two-thirds
voter approval. The latter requirement duplicates a constitutional voting requirement put
I in place by Proposition 13 in 1978.
In the years following the passage of Proposition 62, California's appellate courts
I effectively threw out in Imperial County enacted a utility users'Relying on those decisions,
the City of Brawley the first requirement mentioned above. tax without voter approval
in 1991. In December 1995, however, the California Supreme Court upheld the
i constitutionality of Proposition 62, and in it should continue to collect the utility directed
to conduct an election to decide whether August 1996, the City of Brawley was tax. The
Imperial County Superior Court ruled that the 1995 decision could be applied
retroactively to Brawley's utility user's tax; the City appealed the court's decision but did
I not prevail.
The only Proposition 62-related measure in the 1998 Primary Election, a four percent
percent vote, more
I utility users tax for Brawley, Imperial County, passed with 59 of the
than the majority vote it needed. In the 1996 Primary Election, 14 Proposition 62
measures appeared on the ballot, 10 of which passed.
i 3. Proposition 218 Measures
I Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, instituted voter approval requirements
for general taxes, assessments, and property-related fees. General taxes imposed after
i electorate 1995 and by November 6, 1998. 1996 election must be submitted to the
January 1,for approval prior to the November Assessments that were not grandfathered
by the measure had to meet calculation and voting requirements by July 1, 1997. In
Certain uses of did not meet the were also eliminated definition fees
eliminated. assessments that property-related fees new special benefit and those were
i addition,
which were still allowed had to comply with a fee rate calculation requirement by July 1,
1997.
I CDIAC has identified nineteen Proposition 218 measures that appeared on the June
1998 ballot, 15 designated as special taxes and four as general taxes. Nine of the 19
I measures passed, a 47 percent approval rate. The successful measures included:
• A special tax to replace existing Landscaping and Lighting assessments in Davis,
I expired on June 30, 1998 if 78 percent of a voter-approved tax;
Yolo County, which receivednot replaced by the vote. The assessments would have
I • in Hayward, continue a Supplemental Building permanent and Improvement in
A measure toAlameda County which was made Construction by the City CouncilTax
1995;
I • Two special tax measures to replace existing fees for security services and drainage
services in Sacramento County's Rancho Murrieta Community Services District. The
fees did not comply with Proposition 218's new requirements for property-related
I fees;
I
I
I • A special tax to replace a fire protection assessment for the Loleta Fire Protection
District of Humboldt County. The assessment was eliminated for not meeting
: Proposition 218's special benefit definition.
• Three special tax measures to replace county service area zone charges, no longer
i under Communications System used by for Diego County municipalities
allowed Regional the provisions of Proposition 218, San the Police, Fire and Public
Safety
and unincorporated area; and,
i • A general tax to replace a current in-lieu franchise fee and property tax on water,
sewage, drainage, and garbage for the City of Sacramento. Taxpayer groups
i argued that the definition of property-related fees tax fees did litigation to halt
Proposition 218's City's in-lieu franchise and propertyand threatened not comply with
this revenue stream.
i 4. OtherMeasures
i Each of the
They were: two miscellaneous bond- and tax-related measures on local ballots passed.
I • Participation San Diego Unified Port San Diego Convention million which is owned
Voters in the for the expansion of the District authorized $210 Center, in Certificates of
by the Port District but managed by the City. The measure passed with 62 percent
I of the vote, far more than the 50 percent majority needed for its approval; and,
• An advisory vote to determine the expenditure of new city sales tax revenues in
i measure, new sales tax revenues will only of
the vote. With the passage of thisthe simple majority it needed with 62 percent be
Woodland, Yolo County exceeded
used to provide funds for street repair, flood control facilities, additional police
accompanying sales tax measure which would have qualified under the restrictions
i officers, and recreational facilities. Interestingly, voters in Woodland gave an
of this advisory vote only 44 percent approval, short of the majority needed for
passage.
i IV. COUNTIES REPORTING NO LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
I The following 16 Counties reported no local bond or tax measures: Alpine, Amador,
Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Inyo, Lake, Merced, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Stanislaus,
i Tehema, Trinity, Ventura, and Yuba.
I
I
!
U ill L_-J II II lib M II
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF LOCAL GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY MEASURE YES NO AMOUNT PURPOSE
AUTHORIZED
24 LOCAL MEASURES PASSED
CONTRA COSTA WEST CONTRA COSTA USD E 76.0% 24.0% 40,000,000 K-I 2 SCHOOL FAC
FRESNO/KINGS/TULARE KINGSBURG JT UN HSD* C 68.3% 31.7% 10,100,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
KINGS REEF-SUNSET USD R 76.9% 23.1% 2,400,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
REEF-SUNSET USD S 76.8% 23.2% 7,600,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
LOS ANGELES LENNOX SD A 85.8% 14.2% 10,006,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
POMONA USD B 69.9% 30.1% 56,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MADERNMARIPOSA YOSEMITE JT UN HSD* B 71.0% 29.0% 11,760,600 1(-12 SCHOOL FAC
MARIN KENTFIELD SD B 77.2% 22.8% 13,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MENDOCINO MENDOCINO USD X 69.2% 30.7% 2,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MONTEREY/SANTA CRUZ CABRILLO CCD* C 74.2% 25.8% 85,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
PLACER LOOMIS UN ESD D 69.6% 30.4% 9,300,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
RIVERSIDE PALO VERDE USD E 72.6% 27.4% 10,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN BERNARDINO NEEDLES USD Y 82.7% 17.2% 6,819,604 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN DIEGO MOUNTAIN EMPIRE USD N 70.3% 29.7% 3,200,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN LUIS OBISPO EL PASO DE ROBLES D98 68.3% 31.7% 38,000,000 MULTIPLE CIPW
SAN MATEO PORTOLA VALLEY SD A 77.4% 22.6% 17,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA ESD 198 77.1% 22.9% 25,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SANTA CRUZ LOS GATOS - SARATOGA JT UN B 76.4% 23.6% 79,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
HSD
SIERRA SIERRA VALLEY HOSPITAL A 71.8% 28.2% 2,300,000 HEALTH CARE FAC/SERV
DISTRICT
TULARE BUENA VISTA ESD K 78.5% 21.5% 233,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SUNDALEUN ESD L 76.4% 23.6% 1,250,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAG
WOODLAKE UN ESD M 71,7% 26.3% 2,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
WOODLAKE UN HSD J 73.5% 26.5% 3,600,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
TUOLUMNE SUMMERVILLEUN HSD Q 68.1% 31.9% 9,991,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
TOTAL 441,053,604
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-1 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
i i i m in am m m I i
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF LOCAL GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY MEASURE YES _ AMOUNT P_
AUTHORIZED
15 LOCAL MEASURES FAILED
FRESNO/KINGS/MADERA/ WEST HILLS CCD* G 66.1% 33.9% 19,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
MONTEREY/SAN BENITO
HUMBOLDT SOUTHBAYUN SD Y 63.2% 36.8% 1,500,009 FAC
K-12SCHOOL
IMPERIAL IMPERIAL VALLEY CCD Q 65.1% 34.9% 15,000,099 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC.
KERN WASCOUNHSD C 66.2% 33.8% 9,200,099 EAC
K-12SCHOOL
KINGS UNSD
PIONEER P 63.8% 36.2% 5,000,000 FAC
K-12SCHOOL
MARIPOSA MARIPOSA USD A 52.0% 48.0% 29,790,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MONTEREY/SANTA CRUZ PAJARO VALLEY USD* A 60.9% 39+1% 75,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
NAPA POPE VALLEY UNION ESD B 39.5% 60,5% 1,070,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
RIVERSIDE HEMET USD G 59.4% 40.6% 37,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SACRAMENTO GALT JT UN HSD G 59.0% 41.0% 30,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO A 64.3% 35.6% 89,900,000 PUBLIC BUILDING
SAN JOAQUIN LINDEN USD B 63.8% 36.2% 11,825,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN LUIS OBISPO PASO ROBLES JT USD SCHOOL C-96 59.2% 40.8% 65,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
FAC IMP DIST NO 1
SU'CI'ER BRITTAN SD HH 53.0% 47.0% 2.100,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
TULARE VISALIA USD I 58.9% 41.1% 91,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
TOTAL 482.885,000
*MULTI*COUNTY MEASURE A-2 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
nil toni mm n m | iIIm toni mm m mm
TABLE Ao2
SUMMARY OF LOCAL SPECIAL TAX MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY _ YES _ SPECIAL TAX AMOUNTS PURPOSE
16 LOCAL MEASURES PASSED
HUMBOLDT LOLETA FIRE PROTECTION DIST° Z 79.7% 20.3% $15 PER PARCEL FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
KERN CALIFORNIA CITY B 76.5% 23.5% $75 PER PARCEL/3YR MULTIPLE CIPW
LASSEN CLEAR CREEK CSD P 70.8% 29.2% $100 PER PARCEL FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
MODOC SURPRISE VALLEY HEALTH CARE DIST A 89.8% 10.2% $150 PER PARCEIJ4YR HEALTH CARE FAC/SERVICES
NEVADA NEVADA CO B 69.4% 30.6% .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
ORANGE THREE ARCH BAY CSD B 77.4% 22.6% $150 RES AND COMM/5YR PUBLIC SAFETY
PLACER NORTHSTAR CSD E 78.7% 21.3% $280 PER PARCEL STREET IMPROV/MAINTENANCE
SACRAMENTO RANCHO MURIETA CSD* J 76.6% 23.4% $4.73-19.62 PER LOT PUBLIC SAFETY
RES/$,011-$.175 PER SQ FT
NON-RES (MONTHLY)
RANCHO MURIETA CSD* K 79.4% 20.6% $2.30-$3.45 PER LOT RESI$0- FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN
$18.36 PER ACRE NON-RES
(MONTHLY)
SAN BERNARDINO BIG RIVER CSD F 62.3% 37.6% $0-$36 PER LANDOWNER MULTIPLE CIPW
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135,ZONE B)* F 73.9% 26.1% $15.75 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135,ZONE F)* J 68.5% 31.5% $7.84 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135,ZONE H)° L 69.2% 30.8% $5.68 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN MATEO HILLSBOROUGH B 78.9% 21.1% $496 IMPROVED/S190 FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
UNIMPROVED PARCEL
SOLANO SOLANO COUNTY B 68.1% 31.9% .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
YOLO DAVIS* M 78.6% 21.3% $49 PER SF RES/$40 PER MULTIPLE CIPW
1,000 SQ FT COMM (MAX
TAX)
25 LOCAL MEASURES FAILED
ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY B 58.7% 41.2% $.005 SALES TAX/15YR MULTIPLE CIPW
CASTRO VALLEY SAN DIST J 60.9% 39.0% $15 PER SF RES SOLID WASTE RECOVERY
CALAVERAS GLENCOE RAILROAD FLAT FIRE B 61.0% 39.0% $40 PER PARCEL/9YR FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
PROTECTION DIST
*PROPOSITION 218 MEASURE A-3 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
[-Z
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF LOCAL SPECIAL TAX MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY MEASURE YE_ _IQ SPECIAL TAX AMOUNTS PURPOSE/MISC
CONTRA COSTA CONTRACOSTA CO A 64.5% 35.5% .125% SALESTAX LIBRARY SERVICES
EL DORADO GOLDENWEST CSD H 59.6% 40.3% RAISE FROM $120 TO $240 STREET IMPROV/MAINTENANCE
FRESNO KERMANUSD CFD NO 98-1 A 58,8% 41.1% $255 PER SF RES K-12 SCHOOL FAC
PARLIER D 52.6% 47.3% 6% UTILITY USERS TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT CO A 51.1% 48.8% .25% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
KERN BEAR VALLEY CSD A 61.3% 38.7% $90 PER PARCEL WATER SUPPLY/STORAGE
LASSEN NORTHWESTLASSEN FIRE PROTECTION N 60.3% 39.7% $50 RES/$100 COMM FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
DIST*
STONES-BENGARDCSD O 57.1% 42.9% $100 PER PARCEIJ3YR WASTEWATER COLLECTION
LOS ANGELES MAYWOOD S 34.0% 66.0% $96-$154 RES15614-$t536 STREET IMPROV/MAINTENANCE
1
COMM _1ACRE
MADERA MADERA P 64.3% 35.7% .25% SALESTAX PUBLIC SAFETY
RIVERSIDE COACHELLAFIRE PROTECTION DIST N 40.0% 60.0% $52 PER PARCEL (MAX TAX) FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
SAN BENITO SAN BENITOCO I 55,1% 44.9% .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
VICTORVILLE* E 26.4% 73.5% $86.29 SFPJ$,052PER SQ FT PUBLIC SAFETY
COMM
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135)* C 56.2% 43.8% $6,16 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE C)* G 53.1% 46.9% $4.13 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE D)* H 56.9% 43.1% $4.97 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE G)* K 58.7% 41.4% $7.21 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE J)* D 55.7% 44.3% $17.50 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
VISTA* M 53.3% 46.7% $4.83 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN JOAQUIN EASTSIDE RURAL CO FIRE PROTECTION C 65.6% 34.4% $.05 PER SQ FT RESI$.06 PER FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
DIST SQ FT COMM (MAX TAX)
SONOMA VALLEYOF THE MOON FIRE PROTECTION C 66.1% 33,9% $40 PER SFR (MAX TAX) FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
DIST
SUTTER SUTrER CO FLOOD PROTECTION II 65.2% 34.8% .5% SALESTAX FLOOD CONTROUSTORM DRAIN
AUTHORITY
*PROPOSITION 218 MEASURE A4 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
C--_ IBm I i i i HI i
TABLEA-3
SUMMARY OF LOCAL GENERAL TAX MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY _ YES _LO GENERAL TAX AMOUNTS PURPOSE
8 LOCAL MEASURES PASSED
ALAMEDA HAY_NARD* F 61.9% 38.0% $1/RES SQUARE FT/$1.4 COMM GENERAL GOVERNMENT
(NEW CONSTRUCTION)
ALAMEDA OAKLAND D 73.1% 26.8% 2.4% ON TOTAL FIREARMS GENERAL GOVERNMENT
RECEIPTS
ALAMEDA SAN LEANDRO H 53.2% 46.7% $50 BASE FEE PLUS 3% OF SALES GENERAL GOVERNMENT
IMPERIAL BRAVVLEY P 58.9% 41.1% 4% UTILITY USERS TAX (PROP 62) GENERAL GOVERNMENT
MONTEREY MARINA F 63.7% 36.2% 5% UTILITY USERS TAX (CONTINUE) GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO* I 54.4% 45.6% 11% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
YOLO WINTERS O 71.9% 28.0% RAISE MONTHLY MUNI SERVICES GENERAL GOVERNMENT
TAX FROM $5 TO $10
YOLO WINTERS P 68.5% 31.4% 5% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
6 LOCAL MEASURES FAILED
ALAMEDA SAN LEANDRO* I 39.5% 60.4% $50 MINIMUM FEE GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEL NORTE DEL NORTE CO B 39.1% 60.9% .25% SALES TAX/10 YR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
HUMBOLDT RIO DELL* B 49.9% 50.1% 7% RES UTILITY USERS TAX/2% GENERAL GOVERNMENT
NON RES
MONO MONO CO B 46.8% 53.2% RAISE TOT FROM 9% TO 10% GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SAN BERNARDINO MONTCLAIR D 38.8% 61.1% REPEAL 4.74% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
YOLO WOODLAND L 44.1% 55.8% $.005 SALES TAX/4YR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*PROPOSITION 218 MEASURE A-5 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
m m m m m m ,,-
m m m m m m m
TABLE A-4
SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS AND USE (SALES) TAX MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY MEASURE YES NO E_ AMOUNT OF TAX ($) PURPOSE
2 MEASURES PASSED
NEVADA NEVADA CO B 69.4% 30.6% SPECIAL TAX .t25% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
SOLANO SOLANOCO B 68.1% 31.9% SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
8 MEASURES FAILED
ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY B 58.7% 41.2% SPECIAL TAX $.005 SALES TAX/15YR MULTIPLE CIPW
(CONTINUE)
CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CO A 64.5% 35.5% SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
DEL NORTE DEL NORTE CO B 39.1% 60.9% GENERAL TAX .25% SALES TAX/10 YR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDTCO A 51.1% 48.8% SPECIAL TAX .25% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
MADERA MADERA P 64.3% 35.7% SPECIAL TAX .25% SALES TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
SAN BENITO SAN BENITO CO I 55.1% 44.9% SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX/10YR LIBRARY SERVICES
SUTIER SUTTER CO FLOOD II 65.2% 34.8% SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX FLOOD CONTROU STORM
PROTECTION AUTHORITY DRAIN
YOLO WOODLAND L 44.1% 55.8% GENERAL TAX $.005 SALES TAX/4YR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
A-6 SOURCE:COUNTYCLERKS'ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
i _ i me L__ m _ mo m i E_ i m
TABLE A-5
SUMMARY OF OTHER LOCAL TAX MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTy AGENCY MEASURE YES N_ AMOUNT PURPOSE
2 MEASURES PASSED
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT A 62.0% 38.0% $210,000,000 COP CONVENTION CENTER
ADVISORY VOTE ON NEW SALES
YOLO WOODLAND K 61.9% 38.0% TAX REVENUE MULTIPLE CIPW
A-7 SOURCE:COUNTY CLERKS'ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
el mn H L_- el in N N | H | | | | D | e
TABLE A-6
SUMMARY OF PROPOSITION 218 TAX MEASURES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY MEASURE Y_ N_ TAX TYP_ TAX AMOUNT PURPOSE
9 MEASURES PASSED
ALAMEDA HAYWARD F 61.9% 38.0% GENERAL TAX $1/RES SQUARE FT/$1.4 COMM GENERAL GOVERNMENT
NEVV CONSTRUCTION
HUMBOLDT LOLETA FIRE PROTECTION DIST Z 79.7% 20.3% SPECIAL TAX $15 PER PARCEL FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSIO
SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO I 54.4% 45.6% GENERAL TAX 11% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
RANCHO MURIETA CSO J 76.6% 23.4% SPECIAL TAX $4.73-19.62 (MO.) RES PUBLIC SAFETY
RANCHO MURIETA CSD K 79.4% 20.6% SPECIAL TAX $2.30-$3.45 (MO.) PER LOT FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE B) F 73.9% 26.1% SPECIAL TAX $15.75 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE F) J 68.5% 31.5% SPECIAL TAX $7.84 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE H) L 69.2% 30.8% SPECIAL TAX $5.68 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
YOLO DAVIS M 78.6% 21.3% SPECIAL TAX $49 SFR (MAX TAX) MULTIPLE CIPW
10 MEASURES FAILED
ALAMEDA SAN LEANDRO I 39.5% 60.4% GENERAL TAX $50 MINIMUM FEE GENERAL GOVERNMENT
HUMBOLDT RIO DELL B 49.9% 50.1% GENERAL TAX 7% RES UTILITY USERS GENERAL GOVERNMENT
TAXI2% NON RES
LASSEN NORTHWEST LASSEN FIRE N 60.3% 39.7% SPECIAL TAX $50 RES/$100 COMM FIRE PROTECTIONISUPPRESSIO
PROTECTION DIST
SAN BERNARDINO VICTORVILLE E 26.4% 73.5% SPECIAL TAX $86.29 SFR/$.052 SQ FT COMM PUBLIC SAFETY
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135) C 56.2% 43.8% SPECIAL TAX $6.16 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE C) G 83.1% 46.9% SPECIAL TAX $4.13 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE D) H 56.9% 43.1% SPECIAL TAX $4.97 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE G) K 58.7% 41.4% SPECIAL TAX $7.21 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE J) D 55.7% 44.3% SPECIAL TAX $17.50 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
VISTA M 53.3% 46.7% SPECIAL TAX $4.83 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
A*8 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
i | H e | i H | | H | | D | | i | D
TABLE A-7
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS
JUNE 2, 1998
MEASURE/ PASS/ VOTE
COUNTY AGENCY PROP YES NO TOTAL FAIL REQUIRED
ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY B 153,231 58.7% 107,514 41.2% 260,745 FAIL 2J3RDS
CASTRO VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT J 7,560 60.9% 4,843 39.0% 12,403 FAIL 2/3RDS
HAYWARD F 11,065 61.9% 6,789 38.0% 17,854 PASS MAJORITY
OAKLAND D 53,583 73.1% 19,658 26.8% 73,241 PASS MAJORITY
SAN LEANDRO H 8,529 53.2% 7,500 46.7% 16,029 PASS MAJORITY
SAN LEANDRO I 5,910 39.5% 9,025 60.4% 14,935 FAIL MAJORITY
CALAVERAS GLENCOE RAILROAD FLAT FIRE PROTECTION DIST B 293 61.0% 187 39.0% 480 FAIL 2/3RDS
CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CO A 134,552 64.5% 73,927 35.5% 208,479 FAIL 2/3RDS
WEST CONTRA COSTA USD E 32,895 76.0% 10,416 24.0% 43,311 PASS 2/3RDS
DEL NORTE DEL NORTE CO B 2,207 39.1% 3,440 60.9% 5,647 FAIL MAJORITY
EL DORADO GOLDEN WEST CSD H 250 59.6% 169 40.3% 419 FAIL 2/3RDS
FRESNO KERMAN USD CFD NO 98-1 A 1,089 58.8% 761 41.1% 1,850 FAIL 2/3RDS
KINGSBURG JT UN HSD* C 1,769 70.3% 747 29.6% 2,516 PASS 2/3RDS
PARLIER D 410 52.6% 368 47.3% 778 FAIL 2/3RDS
WEST HILLS CCD° G 2,626 63.5% 1,507 36.4% 4,133 FAIL 2/3RDS
HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT CO A 18,491 51.1% 17,653 48.8% 36,144 FAIL 2/3RDS
LOLETA FIRE PROTECTION DIST Z 392 79.7% 100 20.3% 492 PASS 2J3RDS
RIO DELL B 367 49.9% 369 50.1% 736 FAIL MAJORITY
SOUTH BAY UN SD Y 1,127 63.2% 656 36.8% 1,783 FAIL 2/3RDS
IMPERIAL BRAWl_EY P 2,128 58.9% 1,483 41.1% 3,611 PASS MAJORITY
IMPERIAL VALLEY CCD Q 12,477 65.1% 6,683 34.9% 19,160 FAIL 2J3RDS
KERN BEAR VALLEY CSD A 923 61.3% 583 38.7% 1,506 FAIL 2/3RDS
CALIFORNIACITY B 1,583 76.5% 486 23.5% 2,069 PASS 2/3RDS
WASCO UN HSD C 1,265 66.2% 646 33.8% 1,911 FAIL 2/3RDS
KINGS KINGSBURG JT UN HSD" C 108 56.8% 82 43.2% 190 FAIL 2/3RDS
PIONEER UN SD P 848 63.8% 481 36.2% 1,329 FAIL 2/3RDS
REEF-SUNSET USD R 493 76.9% 146 23.1% 641 PASS 2/3RDS
REEF-SUNSET USD S 494 76.8% 149 23.2% 643 PASS 2/3RDS
WEST HILLS CCD* G 3,377 68.5% 1,553 31.5% 4,930 PASS 2/3RDS
LASSEN CLEAR CREEK CSD P 63 70.8% 26 29.2% 89 PASS 2/3RDS
NORTHWEST LASSEN FIRE PROTECTION DIST N 88 60.3% 58 39.7% 146 FAIL 2/3RDS
STONES-BENGARD CSD O 40 57.1% 30 42.9% 70 FAIL 2/3RDS
LOS ANGELES LENNOX SD A 1,417 85.8% 234 14.2% 1,651 PASS 2/3RDS
MAYWOOD S 671 34.0% 1,291 66.0% 1,962 FAIL 2/3RDS
*MULTI-COUNTYMEASURE A-9 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
| | | H | | in m H H H | | D H | at | |
TABLE A-7
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS
JUNE 2, 1998
MEASURE/ PASS/ VOTE
COUNTY _ PROP YES NO TOTAL FAIL REQUIRED
LOS ANGELES POMONA USD B 11,104 69.9% 4,791 30.1% 15,895 PASS 2/3RDS
MADERA MADERA P 2,997 64.3% 1,667 35.7% 4,664 FAIL 2/3RDS
WEST HILLS CCD* G 60 58.8% 42 41.2% 102 FAIL 2/3RDS
YOSEMITE JT UN HSD° B 4,858 70.9% 1,991 29.1% 6,849 PASS 2/3RDS
MARIN KENTFIELDSD B 3,358 77.2% 989 22.8% 4.347 PASS 2/3RDS
MARIPOSA MARIPOSA USD A 3,073 52.0% 2,837 48.0% 5,910 FAIL 2/3RDS
YOSEMITE JT UN HSD* B 82 74.5% 28 25.5% 110 PASS 2/3RDS
MENDOCINO MENDOCINO USD X 1,657 69.2% 735 30.7% 2,392 PASS 2/3RDS
MODOC SURPRISE VALLEY HEALTH CARE DIST A 513 89.8% 58 10.2% 571 PASS 2/3RDS
MONO MONO CO B 1,474 46.8% 1,675 53.2% 3,149 FAIL MAJORITY
MONTEREY CABRILLOCCD* C 1,137 63.9% 641 36.0% 1,778 FAIL 2/3RDS
MARINA F 1,976 63.7% 1,126 36.2% 3,102 PASS MAJORITY
PAJARO VALLEY USD* A 655 60.5% 427 39.4% 1,082 FAIL 2/3RDS
WEST HILLSCCD° G 5 45.4% 6 54.5% 11 FAIL 2/3RDS
NAPA POPE VALLEY UN ESD B 92 39.5% 141 60.5% 233 FAIL 2/3RDS
NEVADA NEVADA CO B 21,599 69.4% 9,540 30.6% 31,139 PASS 2/3RDS
ORANGE THREE ARCH BAY CSD B 349 77.4% 102 22.6% 451 PASS 2/3RDS
PLACER LOOMIS UN ESD D 3,562 69.6% 1,558 30.4% 5,120 PASS 2/3RDS
NORTHSTAR CSD E 59 78.7% 16 21.3% 75 PASS ?J3RDS
RIVERSIDE COACHELLAFIRE PROTECTION DIST N 431 40.0% 652 60.0% 1,083 FAIL 2/3RDS
HEMET USD O 13,376 59.4% 9,141 40.6% 22,517 FAIL 213RDS
PALOVERDE USD E 1,478 72.6% 557 27.4% 2,035 PASS 2/3RDS
SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO I 37,941 54.4% 31,746 45.6% 69,687 PASS MAJORITY
GALT JT UN HSD G 2,961 59.6% 2,054 41.0% 5,615 FAIL 2/3RDS
RANCHO MURIETA CSD J 1,349 76.6% 411 23.4% 1,760 PASS 2/3RDS
RANCHO MURIETA CSD K 1,398 79.4% 363 20.6% 1,761 PASS 2/3RDS
SAN BENITO SAN BENITO CO I 6,654 55.1% 4,942 44.9% 10,996 FAIL 2/3RDS
WEST HILLS CCD* 0.0% 0.0% 2/3RDS
SAN BERNARDINO BIG RIVER CSD F 174 62.3% 105 37.6% 279 PASS MAJORITY
MONTCLAIR D 1,177 38.8% 1,851 61.1% 3,628 FAIL MAJORITY
NEEDLES USD Y 1,149 82.7% 240 17.2% 1,389 PASS 2/3RDS
VlCTORVILLE E 1,943 26.4% 5,416 73.5% 7,359 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO MOUNTAIN EMPIRE USD N 1,551 76.3% 656 29.7% 2,207 PASS 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135) C 84,172 56.2% 65,592 43,8% 149,764 FAIL 2/3RDS
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-10 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
I I I m I a I m m IBm m I B m n I m m
TABLE A-7
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS
JUNE 2, 1998
MEASURE/ PASS/ VOTE
COUNTY AGENCY PROP YES NO TOTAL FAIL REQUIRED
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE B) F 896 73.9% 316 26.1% 1,212 PASS 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE C) G 5,921 53.1% 5,228 46.9% 11,149 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE D) H 1,636 56.9% 1,242 43.1% 2,878 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE F) J 6,794 68.5% 3,118 31.5% 9,912 PASS 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE G) K 4.599 58.7% 3,242 41.4% 7,841 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE H) L 2,262 69.2% 1,008 30.8% 3,270 PASS 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE J) D 43,256 55.7% 34,468 44.3% 77,724 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT A 126,589 62.0% 77,635 38.0% 204,224 PASS MAJORITY
VISTA M 6,122 53.3% 5.368 46.7% 11,490 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO A 118,013 64.3% 65,383 35.6% 183,396 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN JOAQUIN EASTSlDE RURAL CO FIRE PROTECTION DIST C 1,616 65.6% 848 34.4% 2,464 FAIL 2/3RDS
LINDEN USD B 1,842 63.8% 1,044 36.2% 2,886 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN LUIS OBISPO EL PASO DE ROBLES D-98 3,825 68.3% 1,778 31.7% 5,603 PASS 2/3RDS
PASO ROBLESJT USD SCHOOL FAC IMP DIST NO 1 C-98 4,941 59.2% 3,405 40.8% 8,346 FAIL 2/3RDS
SAN MATEO HILLSBOROUGH B 2,803 78.9% 748 21.1% 3,551 PASS 2/3RDS
PORTOLAVALLEY SO A 2,373 77.4% 695 22.6% 3,068 PASS 2/3RDS
SANTA BARBARA SANTABARBARAESD 198 15,489 77.1% 4,606 22.9% 20,095 PASS 2J3RDS
SANTA CRUZ CABRILLOCCD* C 45,040 74.5% 15,395 25.5% 60,435 PASS 2/3RDS
LOSGATOS - SARATOGA JT UN HSD B 1,165 76.4% 359 23.6% 1,524 PASS 2/3RDS
PAJAROVALLEY USD* A 11,253 61.0% 7,207 39.0% 18,460 FAIL 2/3RDS
SIERRA SIERRA VALLEY HOSPITAL DIST A 663 71.8% 260 28.2% 923 PASS 2/3RDS
SOLANO SOLANOCOUNTY B 47,712 68.1% 22,329 31.9% 70,041 PASS 2/3RDS
SONOMA VALLEYOF THE MOON FIRE PROTECTION DIST C 3,384 66.1% 1,736 33.9% 5,120 FAIL 2/3RDS
SUTTER BRD_AN SD HH 510 53.0% 453 47.0% 963 FAIL 2/3RDS
sUTrER CO FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY II 12,074 65.2% 6,446 34.8% 18,520 FAIL 2/3RDS
TULARE BUENAVISTA ESD K 73 78.5% 20 21.5% 93 PASS 2/3RDS
KINGSBURGJT UN HSD* C 359 64.6% 207 36.6% 566 FAIL 213RDS
SUNDALEUN ESD L 382 76.4% 118 23.6% 500 PASS 2/3RDS
VISALIA USD I 12,518 58.9% 8,743 41.1% 21,261 FAIL 2J3RDS
WOODLAKE UN ESD M 753 71.7% 297 28.3% 1,050 PASS 2/3RDS
WOODLAKE UN HSD J 1,471 73.5% 529 26.5% 2,000 PASS 2/3RDS
TUOLUMNE SUMMERVILLEUN HSD Q 2,305 68.1% 1,078 31.9% 3,383 PASS 2/3RDS
YOLO DAVIS M 12,409 78.6% 3,368 21.3% 15,777 PASS 2/3RDS
WINTERS O 930 71.9% 362 28.0% 1,292 PASS MAJORITY
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-11 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
m n n m m m m n m m m m m m m m L m m
TABLE A-7
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS
JUNE 2, 1998
MEASURE/ PASS/ VOTE
COUNTY AGENCY PROP YES NO TOTAL FAIL REQUIRED
YOLO WINTERS P 990 68.5% 408 31.4% 1,298 PASS MAJORITY
WOODLAND K 6,257 61.9% 3,848 38.0% 10,105 PASS MAJORITY
WOODLAND L 4.488 44.1% 5.686 55.8% 10,174 FAIL MAJORITY
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-12 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
n i B m n n n n n m B m B m
TABLE A-8
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF TYPES AND PURPOSES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY TYPE DEBT/TAX AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX ($) PURPOSE
ALAMEDA ALAMEDA COUNTY SPECIAL TAX $.005 SALESTAX/15YR MULTIPLE CIPW
CASTRO VALLEY SAN OIST SPECIAL TAX $15 PER SF RES SOLID WASTE RECOVERY
HAYWARD GENERAL TAX $1 RES SQ FT/$1.4 COMM (CONTINUE) GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OAKLAND GENERAL TAX 2.4% ON TOTAL FIREARMS RECEIPTS GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SAN LEANDRO GENERAL TAX $50 BASE FEE PLUS 3% OF SALES GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SAN LEANDRO GENERAL TAX $50 MINIMUM FEE GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CALAVERAS GLENCOE RAILROAD FLAT FIRE PROT DIST SPECIAL TAX $40 PER PARCEIJgYR FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CO SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
WEST CONTRA COSTA USD GO BOND $40,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
DEL NORTE DEL NORTE CO GENERAL TAX .25% SALES TAX/10 YR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EL DORADO GOLDEN WEST CSD SPECIAL TAX RAISE FROM $120 TO $240 STREET IMPROV/MAINTENANCE
FRESNO KERMAN USD CFD NO 98-1 SPECIAL TAX $255 PER SF RES K-12 SCHOOL FAC
KINGSBURG JT UN HSD* GO BOND $10,100,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
PARMER SPECIAL TAX 6% UTILITY USERS TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
WEST HILLS CCD* GO BOND $19,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT CO SPECIAL TAX .25% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
LOLETA FIRE PROT DIST SPECIAL TAX $15 PER PARCEL FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
RIO DELL GENERAL TAX 7% RES UTILITY USERS TAX/2% NON RES GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SOUTH BAY UN SD GO BOND $1,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
IMPERIAL BRAWLEY GENERAL TAX 4% UTILITY USERS TAX (PROP 62) GENERAL GOVERNMENT
IMPERIAL VALLEY CCD GO BOND $15,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
KERN BEAR VALLEY CSD SPECIAL TAX $90 PER PARCEL WATER SUPPLY/STORAGE
CALIFORNIA CITY SPECIAL TAX $75 PER PARCEL/3YR MULTIPLE CIPW
WASCO UN HSD GO BOND $9,200,000 t_1 ACRE
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE Ao13 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
l m I I I F I m I m Imm m I B mm L m I
TABLE A-8
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF TYPES AND PURPOSES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY TYPE DEBT/TAX AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX f$1 Rp_
LOS ANGELES POMONA USD GO BOND $50,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MADERA MADERA SPECIALTAX .25% SALES TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
WEST HILLS CCD* GO BOND $19,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
YOSEMITE JT UN HSD* GO BOND $11,760,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MARIN KENTFIELD SD GO BOND $13,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MARIPOSA MARIPOSA USD GO BOND $29,790,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
YOSEMITE JT UN HSD* GO BOND $11,760,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MENDOCINO MENDOCINO USD GO BOND $2,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
MODOC SURPRISE VALLEY HEALTH CARE DIST SPECIAL TAX $150 PER PARCEL/4YR HEALTH CARE FAC/SERVlCES
MONO MONO CO GENERAL TAX RAISE TOT FROM 9% TO 10% GENERAL GOVERNMENT
MONTEREY CABRILLO CCD* GO BOND $85,000,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
MARINA GENERAL TAX 5% UTILITY USERS TAX (CONTINUE) GENERAL GOVERNMENT
PAJARO VALLEY DSD* GO BOND $75,600,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
WEST HILLS CCD* GO BOND $19,660,000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
NAPA POPE VALLEY UNION ESD GO BOND $1,076,060 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
NEVADA NEVADA CO SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
ORANGE THREE ARCH BAY CSD SPECIAL TAX $150 RES AND COMM/$160 VACANTI5YR PUBLIC SAFETY
PLACER LOOMIS UN ESD GO BOND $9,300,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
NORTHSTAR CSD SPECIAL TAX $286 PER PARCEL STREET IMPROV/MAINTENANCE
RIVERSIDE COACHELLA FIRE PROTECTION DIST SPECIAL TAX $62 PER PARCEL (MAX TAX) FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
HEMET USD GO BOND $37,560,006 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
PALO VERDE USD GO BOND $10,000,666 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SACRAMENTO GALT JT UN HSD GO BOND $30,000,006 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
RANCHO MURIETA CSD SPECIAL TAX $4.73-19.62 PER LOT RES/$.011-$.175 PER SQ PUBLIC SAFETY
FT NON-RES (MONTHLY)
RANCHO MURIETA CSD SPECIAL TAX $2.30-$3.45 PER LOT RES/$0-$18.36 PER FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN
ACRE NON-RES (MONTHLY)
SACRAMENTO GENERAL TAX 11% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SAN BENITO SAN BENITO CO SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
WEST HILLSCCD* GO BOND $19,000,600 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
SAN BERNARDINO BIG RIVER CSD SPECIAL TAX $0-$36 PER LANDOWNER MULTIPLE CIPW
MONTCLAIR GENERAL TAX REPEAL 4.74% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
NEEDLES USD GO BOND $6,819,604 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
VICTORVILLE SPECIAL TAX $86.29 SFPJ$.052 PER SQ FT COMM PUBLIC SAFETY
SAN DIEGO MOUNTAIN EMPIRE USD GO BOND $3,200,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-14 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
m m n m m m m n m m mm n m m m m m m m
TABLE A-8
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF TYPES AND PURPOSES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY AGENCY _ AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX #S) PURPOSE
SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 136) SPECIAL TAX $6.16 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135. ZONE B) SPECIAL TAX $15.75 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135. ZONE C) SPECIAL TAX $4.13 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE D) SPECIAL TAX $4.97 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135. ZONE F) SPECIAL TAX $7.84 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135, ZONE G) SPECIAL TAX $7.21 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135. ZONE H) SPECIAL TAX $5.68 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO CO (CSA 135. ZONE J) SPECIAL TAX $17.50 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT COP $210,000,000 CONVENTION CENTER
VISTA SPECIAL TAX $4.83 SFR (MAX TAX) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO GO BOND $89,900,000 PUBLIC BUILDING
SAN JOAQUlN EASTSIDE RURAL CO FIRE PROT DIST SPECIAL TAX $.05 PER SQ FT RES/$.06 PER SQ FT COMM FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
(MAX TAX)
LINDEN USD GO BOND $11.825.000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN LUtS OBISPO EL PASO DE ROBLES GO BOND $38.000.000 MULTIPLE CIPW
PASO ROBLES JT USD SCH FAC IMP DIST NO 1 GO BOND $65.000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SAN MATED HILLSBOROUGH SPECIAL TAX $496 IMPROVED/S190 UNIMPROVED PARCEL FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
PORTOLA VALLEY SD GO BOND $17,000,600 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA ESD GO BOND $25,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SANTA CRUZ CABRILLO CCD" GO BOND $85,000.000 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FAC
LOS GATOS - SARATOGA JT UN HSD GO BOND $79,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
PAJARO VALLEY USD* GO BOND $75,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SIERRA SIERRA VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT GO BOND $2,300,000 HEALTH CARE FAC/SERVICES
SOLANO SOLANO COUNTY SPECIAL TAX .125% SALES TAX LIBRARY SERVICES
SONOMA VALLEY OF THE MOON FIRE PROT DIST SPECIAL TAX $40 PER SFR (MAX TAX) FIRE PROTECTION/SUPPRESSION
SU I I_R BRITTAN SD GO BOND $2,100,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SUTTER CO FLOOD PROT AUTHORITY SPECIAL TAX .5% SALES TAX FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN
TULARE BUENA VISTA ESD GO BOND $233,000 K-t2 SCHOOL FAC
KINGSBURG JT UN HSD* GO BOND $10,100,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
SUNDALE UN ESD GO BOND $1,250,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
VISALIA USD GO BOND $91,000,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
WOODLAKE UN HSD GO BOND $3,600,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
WOODLAKE UN ESD GO BOND $2,500,000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
TUOLUMNE SUMMERVILLE UN HSD GO BOND $9,991.000 K-12 SCHOOL FAC
TOLD DAVIS SPECIAL TAX $49 SFPJ$40 PER 1,000 SQ FT COMM MULTIPLE CIPW
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-15 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
m m m m m m m m L m m m m m m m m m m
TABLE Ao8
LOCAL BOND AND TAX MEASURES
SUMMARY OF TYPES AND PURPOSES
JUNE 2, 1998
COUNTY _ TYPE DEBT/TAX AMOUNT OF BOND OR TAX IS) PURPOSE
YOLO WINTERS GENERAL TAX RAISE MUNI SERVICES TAX FROM $5 TO $10 GENERAL GOVERNMENT
(MONTHLY)
WINTERS GENERAL TAX 5% UTILITY USERS TAX GENERAL GOVERNMENT
WOODLAND OTHER NEW SALES TAX REVENUE ADVISORY VOTE MULTIPLE CIPW
WOODLAND GENERAL TAX $.005 SALES TAXI4YR GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*MULTI-COUNTY MEASURE A-16 SOURCE: COUNTY CLERKS' ELECTION DEPARTMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission
915 Capitol Mall, Room 400
I
(916) 653-3269
Sacramento,CA95814 I
I
I
I
I