Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




California Proposition 35, Private Vendors Allowed for Public Works Projects (2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 35, also known as the Public Works Projects Act of 2000, was on the November 7, 2000 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Proposition 35 amended the California Constitution by eliminating several restrictions that had previously prevented the state government and local governments throughout the state from contracting with private entities for engineering and architectural services. Under the terms of Proposition 35, at any time that a California government agency awards a contract to a private entity, the government agency first has to go through a competitive selection process; bidding is permitted but not required.

Election results

Proposition 35
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 5,471,515 55.2%
No4,448,64744.8%

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXAXBXIXIIXIIIXIII AXIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX CXXXXIXXIIXXXIVXXXV
Proposition 35 added Article XXII to the California Constitution.

Article XXII consists of these two sections:

Section 1:

The State of California and all other governmental entities, including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities and counties, school districts and other special districts, local and regional agencies and joint power agencies, shall be allowed to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all public works of improvement. The choice and authority to contract shall extend to all phases of project development including permitting and environmental studies, rights-of-way services, design phase services and construction phase services. The choice and authority shall exist without regard to funding sources whether federal, state, regional, local or private, whether or not the project is programmed by a state, regional or local governmental entity, and whether or not the completed project is a part of any state owned or state operated system or facility.

Section 2:

Nothing contained in Article VII of this Constitution shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit the State or any other governmental entities, including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities and counties, school districts and other special districts, local and regional agencies and joint power agencies, from contracting with private entities for the performance of architectural and engineering services.

Text of measure

Title

Proposition 35 2000.PNG

The ballot title was:

Public Works Projects. Use of Private Contractors for Engineering and Architectural Services.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Summary

The summary of the ballot measure prepared by the California Attorney General read:

  • Amends constitution to provide that in the design, development and construction of public works projects, state government may choose to contract with private entities for engineering and architectural services without regard to certain existing legal restrictions which apply to the procurement of other services.
  • Specifies that local governments may also choose to contract with private entities for engineering, architectural services.

Imposes competitive selection process, which permits but does not require competitive bidding, in awarding engineering and architectural contracts.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 35. That estimate was:

  • Unknown fiscal impact on state spending for architectural and engineering services and construction project delivery. Actual impact will depend on how the state uses the contracting flexibility granted by the proposition in the future.
  • Little or no fiscal impact on local governments because they generally can now contract for these services.

Campaign spending

$14,312,273 was spent in favor of the measure. $9,620,341 was spent opposing the measure.

See also

External links