HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 Endorse Measure E ' , CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: , October 24, 1988
SUBJECT Written Communication Regarding Endorsement of
Measure E
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Supervisor Ed Campbell dated October 3,
1988 and attachments.
RECOMMENDATION Consider.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: This ballot measure would add a parcel tax of $10 per
benefit unit which would be estimated to raise
approximately $117,000 in the City of Dublin. Of that
amount, the County estimates that $99, 262 would be
returned to the City, with the difference being
retained by the County for oversite evaluation and
administration of the funded programs. This parcel
tax would end in seven years.
DESCRIPTION __ � p
The City has received a letter from Ed Campbell, T _
T
Ch m
airan of the Board of Supervisors, requesting an endorsement of Measure E
which has been placed by the County on the November 8, 1988 ballot.
Measure E would place a $10 parcel tax per benefit unit throughout the
County for the purpose of funding Drug Prevention Programs in schools, after
school sports and recreation programs as well as other activities aimed at
discouraging drug use.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. 5.4D 2
t Ri
„ctQpg4q
0' za BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
,p
U . q tt
1
October 3, 1988 RECEIVED
EDWARD R.CAMPBELL
SUPERVISOR.FIRST DISTRICT OCT 4 198a
C;:1'Y OF DUBLII
Honorable Linda Jeffrey
Mayor , City of Dublin
City Hall
P.O . Box 2340
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mayor Jeffrey:
This year, federal, state and local governments together will
_ -s erid �a rax mater { - bil iori •-on-_d-ru' enr-orcem-e-nt
P �P y�--� g __
Yet , despite these efforts , more than 70 million Americans will
continue to use illicit substances . The painful consequences of
that use will be keenly felt in communities across the country.
Over the past four years, for example, Alameda County courts
have seen a shocking 2, 200 percent increase in drug-related
juvenile cases . In Oakland drug-related murders tripled from
1985 to 1987 and narcotics arrests rose from 7 , 312 to 9, 682
during that same period.
It is clear that enforcement alone is not the answer . To reduce
drug dependency and crime we also need to develop effective
education, prevention and treatment programs. These programs
will require a stable funding source.
Less than 10 percent of our national anti-drug money goes for
prevention and rehabilitation. Alameda County receives less
than 50 cents per person annually for prevention programs .
We must make up the difference if we want to prevent our
children from getting involved in drugs. On November 8th,
Alameda County voters will be asked to approve an unprecedented
drug prevention tax--one which will keep us on the cutting edge
of the "war on drugs" .
Measure E is a special $10 per year ( 7 year sunset) parcel tax
which will raise nearly $5 million annually for locally
developed drug prevention activities. These funds will be used
to fund sustained drug prevention programs in schools,
after-school sports and recreation programs and other activities
aimed at discouraging drug use and drug crime .
1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 536 • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (415)874-7367
•
I I
Page -2-
October 3, 1988 •
Measure E
•
Eighty-three cents makes good practical and economical sense to
meet the problem head-on at the schoolyard and playground rather
than at the courtroom and the mortuary.
I hope you and your fellow councilmembers will join me in
endorsing Measure E on the November ballot. I am enclosing
additional information about the tax measure for your review and
I will be happy to meet with you if you so desire.
Thank you for your consideration of this Measure. If you have
any questions or concerns please do hot hesitate to contact me
at 272-6691 .
Sincer y
cy /0)
EDWARD R. CAMPBELL
CHAIRMAN
ERC/amb
ENCLOSURE
•
•
r r
KEY PREVENTION TAX FEATURES
-$10 per parcel as defined , weighted to address commercial
and industrial deferentials .
•
-7 year sunset.
-Allocation formula
-85 percent to community of origin to support local
prevention programs and activities.
-15 percent to Alameda County Department of Alcohol &
Drug for oversight, evaluation and general administration
of funded programs .
.—Funda_._rt ttl _.be_..d_i_s
Department of Alcohol & Drug.
-Funds will be allocated by County Drug Advisory Board,
consistent with guidelines and procedures established by
County Department of Alcohol & Drug and approved by the Board
of Supervisors to include public hearings in each jurisdiction
(municipality ) , participation by an'd with existing municipal
anti -drug advisory/planning boards and an open request for
proposal ( RFP ) process .
-Tax proceeds will not be used to supplant or otherwise replace
funds currently budgeted for prevention , treatment or law
enforcement related drug programs .
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- State and federal funding of anti -drug efforts have largely
centered on law enforcement and criminal justice programs. Even
those funds have been sparse and allocated on basis of
bureaucratically administered proposals that often have little
to do with the needs of local communities. E.G. funds that came
to California as part of the 1986 Omnibus Drug Bill saw Alameda
County shut-out on its funding proposal designed - to extend our
AB 248 program ; school based funds were allocated on a per capita
basis which amounted to a few dollars per school enrollee county-
wide . -
- Alameda County currently spends $2 . 47 per capita on drug
prevention and treatment - funds which are provided thrugh state
and federal programs . No local revenue sources exist to augment .
appreciably these woefully underfunded programs or to meet the
growing gaps in needed services to at-risk youth and troubled
communities . During the last five years - when public awareness
a rid concern over th-e`spreadi ng fi g--pr-O- `fem lia`s- - -
priority - state and federal support has not even matched the
rise in cost-of-living. The county ' s general fund overmatch
therefore has grown disproportionately higher each year as local
needs exceed federal and state fiscal support.
▪ The relationship between drug abuse and mental illness has been
empirically demonstrated. In-take patients at the county ' s
psychiatric emergency room now evidence more than 40 percent
cocaine psychosis - yet the state has not increased its support
for local mental health programs - programs whichare fully the
responsibility of the state.
- Law enforcement and school officials alike are clear in their
belief that enforcement and education strategies without con-
current prevention efforts cannot stem the rising tide of drug
use and drug related violence. Yet no funds are available to
mount an offensive on that front. -
- The few examples of local successes in drug abatement are found
in communities which took the initiative to provide for their own
While no prototypes exist for a local prevention tax of
this kind , it is reasonable that locally generated funds
dedicated to services found lacking in the "drug war" can only
enhance whatever successes we may already be realizing. Further,.
locally funded prevention programs will attract both community
support and other funds , both public and private.
Assessment Formula
The assessment formula is based on the assumption that all communities
in Alameda County have drug problems and could benefit from the
implementation , expansion or enhancement of drug prevention
activities . _ Different communities perceive their drug problems
differently , but unlike even 3 to 5 years ago, no community perceives
itself as being without drug problems. Therefore , all parcels will be
assessed_ a_ flat__$1-0 _rate_wei ghted as follows to ada_ust for_ the
assessment variance on multiple unit, commercial and industrial
property .
1 . Single family residences 1 unit
2 . 2 - 4 residential units 2 units
3. 5 or more units 5 units
4. Commerical 5 units
5. Industrial 5 units
6. Rural 1 unit
7 . Institutional 2 units
Estimated tax proceeds based on County Assessor' s data.
Unit No . Weighting $10
1 244 ,865 . 1 = 244 ,865 2 ,448 ,650 .
2 . 25 ,891 2 = 51 ,782 517 ,820 .
3 22 ,000 5 = 110 ,000 1 ,100 ,000 - V
4. 12.,125 5 = 60 ,625 - 606 ,250
5. 4 , 947 5 = 24 ,735 V 247 ,350
6 . 2 ,476 1 = 2 ,476 24,760
7 . 414 2 = 828 8 ,280 -
Distribution Formulas
( less. 15 percent)
Planning Department Data
Population City Percent $10.00
75 ,918 Alameda 6 297 ,786
15 ,879 Albany 1 49,632
106 ,803 Berkeley 10 496 ,312
22 ,047 Dublin ' 2 99 ,262
4,929 Emeryville
7212'' 641,
103 ,396 Hayward 8 397.,048
56 ,445 . Livermore 5 248,156
39 , 398 Newark _3 148,894 •
357 ,788 Oakland 29 1 ,439,302
10 ,470 Piedmont 1 49,632
48 ,482 Pleasanton 4 198,524
67 ,053 San Leandro 5 248,156
50 ,120 Union City 4 198,524
117 ,642 Unincorporated 9 446 ,680
1 ,241 ,592 TOTAL 100 4,963,110
EXAMPLES OF SERVICES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED BY PREVENTION TAX FUNDING
- drug and mental health counselors targeted to work at ' school
sites among at-risk youth ;
- after school programs to help provide activities and services
to "latch-key" children;
- recreation activities to fill gaps local programs have suffered
over the past decade ; develop "mentor-role model " employment
opportunities for teens to work with elementary school children
in after-school programs in their own neighborhoods ;
grandparent outreach services to help advise and support growing
cadre of grandparents who are rearing children ;
develop P . A. L . /private/non-profit partnerships within targeted
neighborhoods to offer "club house" and related activities as
al.ternati ves to street .l i fe ;__..,
domestic/family counseling services to support family unification
and reunification ;
- street counselor programs to work among minority youth who often
become alienated from the mainstream due to social , cultural or
language barriers ; school age populations in many cities in the
county have "minority" children as the majority (including
Alameda and Oakland. )
"communicators" programs within middle/junior high schools to
help re-direct latent leadership among disaffected students such
as gang leaders., "incorrigibles" and truants ;
fortify Home Alert and Neighborhood Watch programs to provide
expanded training of interested residents in crime prevention,
conflict resolution and self-help project sponsorship (e. g. anti -
graffiti , streetscaping, blight removal ) ;
- development of "classroom prototype" curriculum on drug education
and prevention that remodels traditional "one-shot" approach
taken in current programs , purusing a strategy that treats
schools as a child ' s primary support system. .
•
Approved as to Rum
• RICHARD J. MOORE,County Counsel
) - 'By. - • 1 t. t
ORDINANCE NO. 0-88-60
AN ORDINANCE CALLING AN ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS OF ALA'IEDA COUNTY THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A SPECIAL TAX FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DRUG PREVENTION SHOULD BE APPROVED
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordain as follows:
SECTION I
An election is hereby called to be consolidated with the statewide
election to be held on November 8, 1988, throughout the County of Alameda.
When the results of the election are ascertained, .the Registrar of Voters is
hereby authorized and directed to certify the same to the Board of Supervisors
The full text of the measure is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
Registrar of Voters is instructed to print on the sample ballots and on the
official ballots the measure to be voted upon at said election in
substantially the following form, to wit:
ALAMEDA COUNTY MEASURE
Shall the ordinance proposed by the Board of YES
Supervisors of Alameda County levying a special tax of -
$10 per year per benefit unit on real property for the NO
purpose of drug prevention be approved?
SECTION II
The purpose of this election hereby called by this Board of Supervisors is
to propose to the qualified electors of Alameda County the question of whether
the proposed ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit A, should be approved.
SECTION III
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption - in
accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 25123(a). Before
the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be published
•
once with the naves of the members voting for and against the same in The
Inter-City Express, a newspaper published in the said County of Alameda.
•
•
•
•
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, State of
California, on the ash day of August ]9 AR , by the
following called vote:
AYES: Supervisors George, Knox, Perata, Santana and Chairman Campbell - 5
NOES: Supervisors None
EXCUSED: Supervisors None
Edward Campbell
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors,
County of Alameda, State of California
ATTEST: WILLIAM MEHRWEIN, Clerk,
of the Board of Supervisors, County
of Alameda, State of California
By Villia- Mrhrvpin
JFM/pb
8127/4
8/1/88
File: 3910
item: S-lA
Date: 8/9/88
0-88-60
•
•
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE
CALLING FOR ELECTION
O R D I N A N C E
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CRHAPIER 3.7 TO TITLE 2 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE WONT? OF ALAMEDA RELATING TO THE
IMPOSITION OF A SPECIAL TAX FUR THE PREVENTION OF DRUG USE
SECTION 1
i) Chapter 3.7 is added to Title 2 of the Ordinance Code of the County of
JAlameda to read:
CHAPTER 3.7
SPECIAL TAX FOR DRUG PREVENTION
Section 2-32.01. Authority. This ordinance and the tax
authorized herein are adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 4
of Article XII1B of the California Constitution; Article 3.5 of
Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code
(sections 50075 et seq.); and Article 3.7 of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of
Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code (sections 53720 et seq.).
Section 2-32.02. Tax Rate.
(a) The Board of Supervisors shall levy a tax annually at the
rate of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per benefit unit on all parcels of
real property within the County not exempted by law or pursuant
to this ordinance as follows:
Schedule of Benefit Units
Categories of Parcels Benefit Units Assigned
Residential
Single Family 1
Multiple (2 - 4 Units) 2
Multiple (5 or more Units) 5
Commercial 5
Industrial 5
Vacant 1
• Institutional 2
(b) The category of a parcel shall be determined as of March 1
preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied. •
(c) The special tax is in addition to the annual tax rate
allowed by law.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
Section 2-32.03. Exemptions. Property owned by governmental
entities within their own jurisdictions is exempt. _ .
Section 2-32.04. Collection. The special tax shall be levied
and collected together with and not separately from taxes for County
purposes. The tax shall be a lien on the real property upon which it
is levied and shall be of the same force and effect as liens for
taxes, and the collection thereof may be enforced by the same means
as provided for the enforcement of liens for County taxes. So far as
applicable, all provisions of law relating to the equalization, levy,
payment and collection of other County taxes shall apply to special
taxes.
Section 2-32.05. Increased Appropriations Limit. The
appropriations limit for the County of Alameda shall be increased
annually by the amount of revenues collected pursuant to this
ordinance.
Section 2-32.06. Funding and Expending Proceeds. The
, ,-- aevenues--der ived--from—the---spez-iai'-takes-Shari-be-paid into the County
treasury and set apart in a special fund. These revenues may be used
solely for drug prevention. Drug prevention as used herein includes,
but is not limited to, the direct intervention through programs or
activities to deter or discourage the use of drugs or drug related
activity among a targeted population within a community or
communities.
Section 2-32.07. Distribution of Revenues.
(a) Eighty-Five percent (85%) of the revenues collected shall
be allocated for local programs to the community area in which
the taxes were generated.
(b) Fifteen percent (15x) of the revenues collected shall be
allocated to the Alameda County Department of Alcohol and Drug
Abuse to be used for planning, evaluation of local programs,
co-community projects and general administrative expenses.
Section 2-32.08. Administration. The program shall be
administered by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse of the
County of Alameda in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by
the Board of Supervisors which shall include:
(a) The method of allocating revenues to community groups or
the expenditure of funds in local communities after public
hearings in each community affected;
(b) The development of programs and the giving of assistance to
community groups in the planning of programs;
(c) The evaluation and monitoring of all programs and groups •
receiving revenues to ensure that the revenues are being
expended in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance;
(d) Any other acts necessary to implement the purposes of this
ordinance.
•
Section 2-32.09. Effective Date and Duration of Ordinance.
This ordinance shall be adopted if approved by two-thirds of the
•
•
•
voters voting on the proposition at an election to be held on
Tuesday, November 1, 1988 and go into effect July 1 of the fiscal
year following the date the Board of Supervisors, has by resolution,
declared that the proposition was approved by two-thirds of the
voters voting thereon.
The authorization to levy a tax under this ordinance shall
expire after the 1995-96 fiscal year ending June 30, 1996.
Section 2-32.10. Severability. If any provisions of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, such invalidity shall not effect any other provision or
application of this ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be severable.
JFM/pb
8127/1
8/1/88
1
•
I —