MEASURE

D

2002 Election Appropriations Limit

Shall the voters advise the Berkeley Unified School District to continue spending the revenues raised by the Berkeley Public Schools Educational Excellence Act of 1994 without again asking approval of the voters in 2002 to spend these funds for the purposes set out in the Act for the Berkeley

Schools Excellence Project (BSEP)?

THE SITUATION

In 1986 and again in 1994, the Berkeley voters overwhelmingly approved a special tax to fund BSEP, the last time until 2006. These funds allow the BUSD to reduce class sizes and provide enrichment programs in all Berkeley public schools. In compliance with Article XIII-B of the California Constitution (the "Gann limit"), the voters are being asked now to give majority approval to spend these funds voted for in 1994. The "Gann limit" requires going back to the voters every four years after the passage of a long-term tax for renewed approval to spend these tax monies for the original purposes.

THE PROPOSAL

This proposition , Measure D, would advise the BUSD to continue spending the funds being collected for class size reduction and certain enrichment programs in the Berkeley public schools, as provided in the Berkeley Public Schools Educational Excellence Act of 1994, without going through the cost of another election to allow the spending in 2002.

A YES vote means the voters advise the School Distict to continue spending the collected revenues without calling another election in 2002.

A NO vote means the voters advise the SchoolDistrict to ask again in 2002 for approval to spend these funds.

· Voters in 1986 and again in1994 overwhelmingly supported the special BSEP programs and tax, the last time voting to continue it to 2006.

· The new law may not require holding an election to authorize the spending of these revenues.

· The money spent on an election in 2002 could better go directly to improving the schools.

· There is no formal opposition.

Doris Fine, President, League of Women Voters; Mary Friedman, Director, Berkeley Public Education Foundation; Jeffrey Shattuck Leiter, Chairman and CEO, M.F.K. Blake Estate, Inc.; Pedro Noguera, Assoc. Prof., Graduate School of Education, U.C. Berkeley; Jonathan O'Donnell, Chair, BSEP

Planning and Oversight Committee.

MAJOR OPPONENTS

There is no formal opposition recorded in the Alameda County Voter Pamphlet.

MEASURE

E

Should a special tax of up to 8/10 of a cent per square foot of improvements on real estate be imposed to fund a program of emergency services and incidental case management for severely physically disabled people?

THE SITUATION

Severely physically disabled people frequently require specialized emergency services, such as urgent response by an attendant, transportation, and equipment repair, which are not currently available from traditional emergency service providers in Berkeley. A pilot project to provide emergency services has emphasized the need for a much more comprehensive program.

THE PROPOSAL

This special tax, Measure E, would authorize up to 8/10 of a cent per square foot of improvements on real estate to fund a new program of emergency services and incidental case management for severely physically disabled people. As a new tax, this measure requires a

2/3 vote. It would raise approximately $600,000 per year for 4 years, and would be adjusted annually for inflation. Average costs to property owners would range

The measure would provide:

• · coordination with existing emergency service providers;
• · response to an emergency by a skilled emergency attendant within 30 minutes;
• · case management services designed to minimize the use of such services; and
• · administration by a private or nonprofit organization, with the tax funds unable to be used to pay any City administrative costs for this program.

A YES vote means a special tax of up to 8/10 of a cent per square foot of improvements on real estate would be imposed to pay for a new program of emergency services and incidental case management for severely physically disabled people for the next 4 years.

A NO vote means there would be no new tax, and services for severely physically disabled people will not be expanded.

· The cost for 911 emergency calls is currently $463 per call. The estimated cost per call for this program would be $75-$80.

· Severely physically disabled people are often susceptible to emergencies. This measure would ensure that they would have appropriate emergency services when they are needed.

· Because this program would be administered by an outside provider, there would be no administrative costs to the City.

· Current emergency service programs should be adapted to provide most of these services without the costs of starting up and continuing a separate program.

· This program would be better provided as an insurance program such as provided by the California State Automobile Association (AAA) to vehicle owners.

· There should be funds in the program to provide administrative oversight by the City to ensure the services promised by the provider are really given.

Dion Louise Aroner, Assemblymember, 14th District; Shirley Dean, Mayor; Jeffrey Shattuck Leiter, former Mayor; Don Jellinek, candidate for Mayor; the Center for Independent Living.

MAJOR OPPONENTS

There is no formal opposition recorded in the Alameda County Voter Pamphlet.