Claremont, California, Measure SC, Police Building Bond Issue (June 2018)
| Measure SC: Claremont Police Building Bond Issue |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| June 5, 2018 |
| Status: |
 DefeatedMajority required: 66.67% |
| Topic: |
| Local bond issues |
| Related articles |
| Local bond issues on the ballot June 5, 2018 ballot measures in California Los Angeles County, California ballot measures Local law enforcement on the ballot |
| See also |
| Claremont, California |
A bond issue for police facilities was on the ballot for Claremont voters in Los Angeles County, California, on June 5, 2018. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing the city to issue up to $24,000,000 in bonds at a tax rate of $30.03 per $100,000 of assessed property value, with proceeds used to construct a new police facility. |
| A no vote was a vote against authorizing the city to issue up to $24,000,000 in bonds at a tax rate of $30.03 per $100,000 of assessed property value for a new police facility. |
A two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for the approval of this measure.
Election results
|
Claremont Measure SC |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 5,603 | 57.69% | ||
|
|
4,109 | 42.31% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[1]
| “ |
Shall the measure to impose an ad valorem tax on real property located in the City of Claremont at the maximum rate of $30.33 per $100,000 of assessed value, for a maximum term of 25 years, to annually raise an estimated $1.55 million through the sale of general obligation bonds with net proceeds of $23.5 million for construction of a new City police facility that will replace the existing 45-year old substandard police building, be adopted?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Claremont City Attorney:
| “ |
This measure would authorize the City of Claremont to issue general obligation bonds with net proceeds of $23.5 million and a 25-year term to finance the design and construction of a new City police facility. The current Claremont Police Station is 45 years old. It was designed for an all-male police department that was half the size of Claremont’s current department. Built in the 1970’s, the Station does not comply with modern building standards, and its jail facility is at risk of decertification (in which case, the City could not use it as a jail anymore). The general obligation bonds would fund a new Police Station that would be located on the same site as the current Police Station. The proposed Station would be larger (approximately 26,000 square feet), it would serve a co-ed police department, and it would comply with modern building standards and regulations for jails. In addition, the proposed Station would be more energy efficient, would be accessible to people with disabilities, and would have electrical and mechanical systems that can better meet the demands of today’s advanced computer and communication systems. The Claremont City Council placed this measure on the ballot. This measure approves funding for a new Police Station, but it does not commit the City to a particular building design. If this measure is approved, the City will evaluate design options for the building through a public process. Financial Implications The City would pay the debt service on the general obligation bonds through an ad valorem tax that it would impose on all taxable real property in the City of Claremont. The maximum tax rate would be $30.33 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. The City estimates that, the year after it issues the first bonds, the estimated debt service would require a tax rate of $26.41 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. To illustrate, the estimated annual tax for a home with an assessed valuation of $500,000 would be $132.05 the first year after bonds are issued. The City expects this rate to decrease each year (assuming one bond series) with the average tax rate being approximately $24.47 per $100,000 of assessed valuation over the 25-year issue. California law requires an affirmative two-thirds vote to impose the tax and issue the bonds. A “yes” vote on Measure SC is a vote in favor of issuing the bonds and imposing an ad valorem tax for a new police facility. A “no” vote on Measure SC would disapprove the issuance of bonds and imposition of an ad valorem tax for a new police facility.[2] |
” |
| —Claremont City Attorney[3] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]
- Opanyi Nasiali, mayor
- Butch Henderson, senior pastor emeritus, Claremont United Church of Christ
- Julie Pedroza, community volunteer
- Paul Wheeler, Claremont businessman, architect
- Betty Crocker, professor, neighborhood watch organizer
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[4]
| “ |
Claremont's current Police Station is failing. It fails to meet current building codes. It fails to meet accessibility requirements for the disabled. It fails to meet state Department of Corrections' jail standards. It fails to meet technological demands of a modern 24/7 police force. It fails to provide adequate and equal facilities for female officers. It will fail in a major earthquake or other disaster. And most importantly, it fails to meet the high standard of safety our community deserves. Our community needs a station that is not failing, and will not fail us in a disaster. We need a station that serves the emergency needs of our residents, businesses, and visitors. For more than two years, a 15 member citizen committee scrutinized every aspect of the station. They differentiated between "needs "&"wants" and agreed upon a functional, efficient, and reasonable station at the existing location. The committee established a cost not to exceed $25 million, and selected a General Obligation Bond as the fair and equitable financing option. While not everyone will agree on the details of the proposed facility, what we can agree on is the fact that we can no longer postpone the building of a new station. Patching is no longer an option. Are we willing to risk a costly lawsuit or the closure of the station for violations and non-compliance with state and federal requirements or pay a higher cost to build after a disaster? The time is now to replace the inadequate and unsafe station with a new building that reflects Claremont's commitment to safety. That safety depends on your vote! Please vote YES on Measure .... [2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[5]
- Gary Lowe, Claremont resident
- Jay Pocock, Claremont resident
- Donna Sue Lowe, Claremont resident
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[5]
| “ |
This measure would levy a new tax for 25 years for yet another oversized and over-priced police station. In 2015, Claremont voters defeated Measure PS by a 3 to 1 margin. At the time, the City of Claremont told us it was absolutely necessary to spend $50,000,000 on a palatial police station. City officials now come back and propose a different but still imposing edifice almost three times the size of the current structure, and over five times its original cost in real dollars. From the time the existing building opened, our population has increased by less than half, and Claremont is built out. A building the size and cost of the one proposed isn't needed now or in the future. City staff has no idea what the additional operating costs of this huge building will be, nor where that money will come from. Compared to other funding options rejected by the City, this financing scheme exempts nonprofits and the colleges from payment of over $4,900,000 while businesses would enjoy nearly $2,800,000 in tax breaks. As a result, homeowners will pay more than $5,000,000 in additional taxes, roughly $500. It is unfair. In the City's survey, half of those responding thought this large station was unnecessary and four out of five opposed this financing scheme because of the cost. This measure isn't what the general public supports. City staff reports a typical homeowner will pay almost $4,000 in all, New residents-young families with children will pay even more because of the increase in assessed value when they buy. Claremont just lost $11,000,000 in the water takeover debacle through bad decisions. City spending has taken our financial reserves well below guidelines. With unfunded pensions, state mandates, and with additional county and state taxes, this is too much. Please vote NO. [2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
Measure SC was put on the ballot through a 5-0 vote of the Claremont City Council on January 23, 2018.[6]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ County of Los Angeles, "Statewide Direct Primary Election - Measures Appearing on the Ballot," accessed April 14, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ City of Claremont, "Impartial Analysis," accessed April 15, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 City of Claremont, "Direct Argument in Favor," accessed April 15, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 City of Claremont, "Direct Argument Against the Measure," accessed April 15, 2018
- ↑ City of Claremont, "Ordinance No. 2018-03," accessed April 15, 2018
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
