Item 10 Staff Report Adopt Resolution Supporting Proposition 46, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002r
MEETING DATE: 11/4/02
ITEM NO. + Q
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2002
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANA ER
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION ., HE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING AND EMERGENCY
SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002.
PURPOSE:
The League of California Cities and the community coalition, Yes on Proposition 46, Californians
for Housing and Emergency Shelter have requested that the Town of Los Gatos, along with cities
throughout California, adopt a resolution (Attachment No. 1) in support of Proposition 46, the
Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002. If adopted by Town Council, a copy of the
resolution will be forwarded to the League of California Cities and Yes on Proposition 46 Coalition.
The purpose of this staff report is to provide an overview of Proposition 46, including a fiscal
assessment and an analysis of arguments in support of/against the measure.
BACKGROUND:
Each year, nearly 150,000 houses and apartments are built in California. Most of these units are built
entirely with private dollars. Some, however, receive subsidies from federal, state, and local
governments. For some of the units that receive state funds, the state provides low -interest loans or
grants to developers (private, nonprofit, and local governments). Typically, there is a requirement
that the housing built be sold or rented to Californians with low incomes. Other state programs
provide home buyers with direct financial assistance to help with the costs of a down payment.
PREPARED BY:
N:\MGRVHaruyama\Staff R
46.wpd
MA, Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by: QSJAssistant Town Manager 1L—Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development
Revised: 10/25/02 5:21 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/01
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
November 4, 2002
The amount of funds that the state has provided to these types of housing programs has varied
considerably over time. In 1988 and 1990, voters approved a total of $600 million of general
obligation bonds to fund state housing programs (these funds have since been spent). Since that
time, the state typically has spent less than $20 million annually in General Fund revenues on state
housing programs. On a one-time basis, however, the state recently provided more than $350 million
in General Fund revenues for these purposes.
Presently, state budget has almost completely eliminated General Fund spending for housing. To
address California's housing need and ensure that the state General Fund has adequate funding for
state housing programs, the Legislature and the Governor placed Proposition 46, the Housing and
Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 on the November 2002 Ballot.
DISCUSSION:
The following section provides an overview of Proposition 46, including a fiscal assessment and an
analysis of arguments in support of and against the measure.
Proposition 46 Overview
Purpose of Proposition 46
Proposition 46 would allow the state to sell $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund 21
housing programs. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is
required to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. General Fund revenues would be used to
pay these costs over about 30 years. If passed, the measure would become effective immediately as
an urgency statute.
Proposition Bond Allocations
Attachment No. 2 (Proposition 46 - Uses of Bond Funds) describes the programs and the amount of
funding that each would receive under the measure. Most of the funds would go to existing state
housing programs. A number of the programs, however, are new, with details to be established by
subsequent legislation. The major allocations of the bond proceeds are as follows:
•
Multifamily Housing Programs ($1.11 Billion). This measure would fund a variety of
housing programs aimed at the construction of rental housing projects, such as apartment
buildings. These programs generally provide local governments, non-profit organizations,
and private developers with low -interest (3 percent) loans to fund part of the construction
cost. In exchange, a project must reserve a portion of its units for low-income households for
a period of 55 years. This measure gives funding priority to projects in already developed
areas and near existing public services (such as public transportation).
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
November 4, 2002
• Homeownership Programs ($405 Million). A number of the programs funded by this
measure would encourage homeownership for low- and moderate -income homebuyers. Most
of the funds would be used to provide down payment assistance to homebuyers through low -
interest loans or grants. Typically, eligibility for this assistance would be based on the
household's income, the cost of the home being purchased, and whether it is the household's
first home purchase.
• Farmworker Housing ($200 Million). These funds would be used to provide loans and grants
to the developers of housing for farmworkers. Program funds would be used for both rental
and owner -occupied housing.
• Other Programs ($385 Million). Additional funds would be allocated for the construction of
homeless shelters, payments to cities and counties based on their approval of housing units,
provision of mortgage insurance for high -risk homebuyers, and capital needs of local code
enforcement departments.
Most of the program funds probably would be allocated over a three -to five-year period. For many
of the programs, the measure limits the length of time available for the funds to be spent. If after a
specified length of time —between 18 and 48 months —a program's funds are unspent, they would
be reallocated to a different housing program.
The measure provides the Legislature broad authority to make future changes to the programs funded
by the measure. The measure also requires the State Auditor to perform periodic audits of the
agencies administering the funds and the recipients of the funds. All California cities and counties
are eligible to receive funding from Proposition 46.
Proposition 46 Fiscal Assessment
Proposition 46 would enable the state to sell $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund 21
housing programs. As stated earlier, general obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that
the state is required to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. General Fund revenues would
be used to pay these costs over about 30 years.
The cost of these bonds would depend on their interest rates and the time period over which they are
repaid. Generally, the interest on bonds issued by the state is exempt from both state and federal
income taxes - lowering the payment amounts for the state. Historically, the type of bonds proposed
by this measure have not received the federal tax exemption, resulting in a higher interest rate for
the bonds. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of 6.25 percent (the current rate for this
type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost would be about $4.7 billion to pay off both the
principal ($2.1 billion) and interest ($2.6 billion). The average payment would be about $157
million per year. If passed, the $2.1 billion general obligation bonds would be paid through existing
funds in the state General Fund. Proposition 46 would not authorize a new tax.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
November 4, 2002
With respect to the administrative costs associated with the implementation of Proposition 46,
several agencies would experience some level of increased costs to administer the various housing
programs funded by this measure. Under existing law, a portion of the programs' allocations from
the bond funds - up to about $100 million could be used for these administrative costs. The measure
also authorizes some recipients to be charged for administrative costs, thus increasing funds
available for this purpose.
Fiscal Assessment - Town of Los Gatos
While the Town does not directly administer housing programs, it does contract with government
and nonprofit agencies to provide housing programs, including the Rental Dispute Resolution
Program ($33,250) and Below Market Price Housing Program ($11,000). While it is not anticipated
that the passage of Proposition 46 would impact the Rental Dispute Resolution Program, it is
possible that the Town's contractal costs for the Below Market Price Housing Program administered
through the Santa Clara County Housing Authority could increase. If this occurs, it is anticipated
that the increase would be minimal and would not financially impact the Town.
It is also anticipated that Proposition 46 will not impact Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program funding as this is a separately funded program administered through the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Arguments in Support of/Against Proposition 46
Arguments in Support of Proposition 46
Proposition 46 has currently has a substantial amount of support and has generated a large coalition
made up of senior organizations, business groups, labor unions, nonprofit housing and homeless
advocates, developers, educators, local governments and numerous charitable organizations
(Attachment No.3). Local legislative -oriented organizations such as the League of California Cities
and the Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) also support the measure.
Proponents of Proposition 46 reiterate housing experts' projections that the state will experience
strong growth in both jobs and people over the next two decades, and that the supply/demand
imbalance will worsen. Supporters argue that Proposition 46 provides a win -win solution by
generating housing for working people and seniors, and providing acccessiblity improvements to
apartments for disabled Californians, emergency shelter for battered women, and loan assistance for
military veterans, teachers, police, and firefighters.
In addition, proponents of Proposition 46 argue that the measure will not only provide housing
benefits, but economic benefits as well. According to the measure's supporters, Proposition 46
projects will create 276,000 full-time jobs and pay working men and women $9.38 billion in wages.
It is also anticipated that new homeowners will spend an estimated $25 billion on home goods and
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
November 4, 2002
services, pumping even more dollars into local economies.
Arguments Against Proposition 46
Opponents of Proposition 46, although small in number, argue that the measure would only
compound the state's current economic situation which includes a $24 billion dollar budget deficit
and $26.9 billion in current general obligation bonds. Opponents underscore the fact that California
has borrowed or approved more than $12.9 billion in different bonds, and that over time, taxpayers
will bear the burden of paying back the state's debt in increased taxes, rats, and fees.
In addition, opponents argue that Proposition 46 will not improve housing availability in California
because it does not mitigate the existing barriers to providing affordable, abundant housing. Rather
than approving a bond measure, opponents believe that the state should take proactive efforts to
streamline the home construction process to make building multifamily housing, such as
condominiums easier.
To date, Senator Ray Haynes, Chair of the State Constitutional Amendments Committee,
Assemblymember Anthony Pescett, Vice -Chair of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee,
and Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are the only individuals who
have publicly announced their opposition to Proposition 46.
CONCLUSION:
Proposition 46 would allow the state to sell $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund 21
housing programs. State General Fund revenues would be used to pay the principle and interest on
the bonds over a 30 year period. The bond funds would provide annual subsidies for about 25,000
multifamily and 10,000 farmworker households. The funds would also provide down payment
assistance to about 60,000 homebuyers and help provide space for 30,000 homeless shelter beds.
Additionally, the measure is expected to:
•
Create and preserve up to 22,000 permanently affordable rental units.
Enable more than 78,000 California families to purchase their own house.
Provide housing assistance for 7,000 to 8,500 farm worker families.
Create 31,000 new domestic violence and homeless shelter beds.
If passed, the $2.1 billion general obligation bonds would be paid through existing funds in the state
General Fund. Proposition 46 would not authorize a new tax.
However, while Proposition 46 would provide much needed housing relief for many Californians,
local government must also consider state's current economic situation. If Proposition 46 passes,
there is a potential risk that the passage of the measure could cause additional budgetary constraints
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
November 4, 2002
for the state.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Proposition 46 would allow the state to sell $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund 21
housing programs. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, it is estimated that it would cost
the state $157 million per year to pay back the principle and interest on the bonds. General Fund
revenues would be used to pay these costs for about 30 years. Because Proposition 46 does not
authorize a new tax, there would be no direct financial impact to taxpayers.
However, Proposition 46 would result in increased costs for agencies who would administer the
various housing programs under this measure. Under existing law, a portion of the programs'
allocations from the bond fund, up to $100 million, could be used for these administrative costs.
Proposition 46 also authorizes some recipients to be charged for administrative costs, thus increasing
funds available for this purpose.
While the Town does not directly coordinate any housing programs, it does contract with the Santa
Clara County Housing Authority to administer the Town's Below Market Price Housing Program.
It is possible that the Town's contractual costs for this program could increase. If this occurs, it is
anticipated that the increase would be minimal and would not financially impact the Town.
Additionally, the $100 million allocated to off -set administrative costs could absorb the potential
increase, as well as the fees collected from Proposition 46 funding recipients.
It should be noted that although Proposition 46 would not authorize a new tax, the state's current
economic situation does create some cause for concern. The state's deficit of $24 billion coupled
with $26.9 billion outstanding general obligation bonds, $11 billion in energy bonds that have yet
to be sold, $12.9 billion it has borrowed or approved in various bonds, and a potential $13 billion
school bond (on the November 2002 ballot) begs the question of whether the state can realistically
manage its fiscal responsibilities.
While Proposition 46 would provide much needed housing relief for many Californians, local
government must also consider state's current economic situation. If Proposition 46 passes, there
is a potential risk that the passage of the measure could cause additional budgetary constraints for
the state. Regardless of what steps the state may take to alleviate its financial difficulties, local
government must continue to be vigilant with respect to protecting its fiscal integrity and preserving
local control issues.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
November 4, 2002
Attachments:
Attachment No. 1:
Attachment No. 2:
Attachment No. 3:
Distribution:
Rebecca Elliot, League of California Cities, P.O. Box 54216, San Jose, CA 95154-4216
Yes on Proposition 46, 926 J Street, Suite 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814
Resolution Supporting Proposition 46, the Housing and Emergency Shelter
Trust Fund Act of 2002
Proposition 46 Uses of Bond Funds
Proposition 46 Supporter's List
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE HOUSING
AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
WHEREAS, approximately 220,000 housing units need to be produced in California each year to meet
demand; yet only four times in the last 20 years has the production target been reached; and
WHEREAS, while the national homeownership rate has reached a record high, California is about 10 percent
below the national average (67.8 percent) and ranks 48th in the nation; and
WHEREAS, over one-third of all renter families statewide pay over half their incomes in rent; over one-half
of all low-income renter families pay over half their income in rent; and almost three out of every four very low-
income renter families pay over half their incomes in rent; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development estimates that there are over 360,000
homeless individuals in California, and other data discloses that one-third of the homeless population, and the
segment increasing most rapidly are families with children; and
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to provide affordable housing in to meet the increasingly unfulfilled
housing needs of the state; and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to reaffirm the commitment to the housing policy of the state and
to help implement local housing programs by providing sufficient financial resources to do so over a reasonable
period of time.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Los Gatos Town Council hereby supports the passage of
the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002- Proposition 46 on the November 5, 2002 statewide
ballot.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California,
held on the day of , 2002 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
AB SENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT le
Proposition 46
Uses of Bond Funds
(In Millions)
Amount
Multifamily Housing
Programs
Multifamily Housing
Supportive Housing
Preservationa
Housing Trust Fundsa
Health and Social
Services
Student Housing
Disabled Modifications
Low -interest loans for affordable housing developments.
Units reserved for low-income renters in most cases for 55
years.
Low -interest loans for housing projects which also provide
health and social services to low-income renters.
Funds to maintain affordability of units in projects where
prior agreements are expiring.
Grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations to fund
local housing programs.
Low -interest loans for the construction of space for health and
social services connected to affordable housing projects.
Low -interest loans for housing near state universities. Units
reserved for low-income students.
Grants for modifications to rental housing to accommodate low-
income renters with disabilities.
$800.0
195.0
50.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
5.0
$1,110.0
Homeownership Programs
Homebuyer's
Downpayment
Assistance
CalHome
Building Equity and
Growth in
Neighborhoodsa
Nonprofit -Sponsored
Counseling
Self -Help Construction
Management
School Facility Fees
School Personnel
Deferred low -interest loans up to 3 percent of home purchase
price for first-time low- and moderate -income homebuyers.
$117.5
Variety of homeownership programs for low-income
households. 115.0
Grants to local governments to fund homebuyer assistance in
high -density developments.
Downpayment assistance for first-time, low-income
homebuyers participating in specified counseling programs.
Grants to organizations which assist low- and moderate -
income households in building their own homes.
Downpayment assistance to eligible homebuyers to cover
some or all of the fees paid to school districts to fund new
school facilities.
Loans to school personnel for down payment assistance.
75.0
12.5
10.0
50.0
25.0
$405.0
Farmworker Housing Programs
Farmworker Housing
Migrant Workers
Low -interest loans and grants for construction of housing for
farmworkers.
Low -interest loans and grants for projects which serve
migratory workers.
$155.0
25.0
L
Health Services Low -interest loans and grants for farmworker housing which
also provides health services.
20.0
$200.0
Other Programs
Emergency Housing Grants for the construction of homeless shelters.
Assistance
$195.0
Jobs -Housing Grants to local governments based on the amount of housing
Improvementa they approve.
100.0
Housing Loan Insurance for high -risk housing mortgages.
Insurance
85.0
Code Enforcement Grants for capital expenditures for local code enforcement
departments.
5.0
$385.0
Total
$2,100.0
a New program for which details would be established by subsequent legislation.
Yes on Proposition 46
Page 1 of 15
Californians for Housing and Emergency Shelte
YES on
get the facts
background
benefits for callfornians
our supporters
what others are saying
newsroom
you can help
contribute
profile of theiwoek
informacion en esp !f of
home
j+yin us
Supporter's List
rf_`sciurocs I contact us I slto map
Women's Organizations
A Safe Place
American Association of University Women -
California
Asian Pacific Women's Center, Inc.
Association to Aid Victims of Domestic Violence
Downtown Women's Center
League of Women Voters of the Bay Area
League of Women Voters of California
League of Women Voters of San Diego
Statewide California Coalition for Battered Women
YWCA of San Gabriel Valley
Senior Organizations
AARP California
Congress of California Seniors
Gray Panthers of California
Lao Senior Association, Inc.
Old Women's Project
Business Organizations
Alliance for Community Care
Alpha Omega Career Translations
Barbara Sanders and Associates
Bay Area Council
Benedetti & Associates, CPA Inc.
Berger/Detmer Architects
California Apartment Association
California Association of Mortgage Brokers
California Building Industry Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Council for Environmental and Economic
Balance
California Land Title Association
California Reinvestment Committee
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html
10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 2 of 15
Clara -Mateo Alliance, Inc.
Clearinghouse CDFI
Consumer Attorneys of California
Core Development Inc.
Diana Bermuidez Consulting
East Bay Community Law Center
Economic Development Alliance for Business
(EDAB)
Eden I & R
Emergency Planning Consultants
Fannie Mae Bay Area Partnership
Fresno West Coalition for Economic Development
Friends Committee on Legislation
Florian's Fine Wines and Specialty Foods
Goldfarb & Lipman
Gubb & Barshay LLP
J.H. Fitzmaurice, Inc.
The John Stewart Company
Kern Consumer Action Network (KCAN)
The Lazarus Project, Inc.
McCamaut & Durrett Architects
Merritt Community Capital Corporation
Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
Northern California Reinvestment Consortium
Novogradac & Company LLP
Perlman Architects, Inc.
Pyatok Architects, Inc.
Quest Capital
Rubicon Programs, Inc.
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Regional Economic Development
Corporation
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Advisors
Silicon Valley Bank
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Sperry Van Ness
Springboard Consulting & Training Services
Stewart Consulting
The Stirnkorb Company Inc.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Ventura Chamber of Commerce
Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
Visalia Chamber of Commerce
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 3 of 15
Wine Institute
Law Enforcement
California State Sheriffs Association
California Professional Firefighters
California State Firefighters Association
East Bay Community Law Center
Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County
Laurie Smith, Sheriff, Santa Clara County
Michael Carona, Sheriff, Orange County
Labor Unions
AFSCME
California Conference of Carpenters
California School Employees Association
California State Council of Laborers
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
District Council of Ironworkers State of California
IBEW Local Union 11
IBEW Local Union 340
Los Angeles and Orange Building and Construction
Trades Council
San Bernardino/Riverside Building Trades
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and
Construction Trades Council
Service Employees International Union
Service Employees International Union Local 535
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council
United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO
Housing Organizations and Nonprofit Housing
Developers
Access Land Development Services, Inc.
Affirmed Housing Group
Affordable Housing Associates
Affordable Housing Clearinghouse
Affordable Housing Collaborative
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
Alameda County Housing and Community
Development
Alameda County -wide Homeless Continuum of Care
Council
Alameda Homeless Network
Alliance for West Oakland Development, Inc.
Association of Housing and Homeless Service
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 4 of 15
Providers
Berkeley Food and Housing Project
Bridge Housing Corporation
Building Opportunities for Self -Sufficiency (BOSS)
California Affordable Housing Law Project
California Association of Homes and Services for
the Aging (CAHSA)
Catholic Charities Shared Housing Program
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnerships Corp.
California Rebuild America Coalition
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Urban Family Life
Center for Independent Living
Center for Independent Living, Fresno
Century Housing
Charities Housing Development Corporation
Christian Church Homes of Northern California
Citizens Housing Corporation
Community Development Council
Community Economics, Inc.
Community Homeless Alliance Ministry
Community Housing Opportunities Corporation
Community Housing and Shelter Services (CHSS)
Community Housing Partnership
Community Resources for Independence
Community Resource Project, Inc.
Core Development, Inc.
Diablo Realty
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
East Oakland Community Development Corp.
East Oakland Community Project
Ecumenical Association for Housing
Eden Housing, Inc.
Emergency Housing Consortium
Fresno Rescue Mission, Inc.
Friends of the Homeless
Habitat for Humanity of Fresno
Habitat for Humanity of Visalia
Habitat for Humanity, Mt. Diablo
Hearth Homes Community Building
Homebase, The Center for Common Concerns
Home Builders Association of the Central Coast
Home Center, Turning Point of Central California
Housing Authority of Alameda County
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 5 of 15
Housing Authority of the County of Stanislaus
Housing for Independent People
Housing California
Housing Leadership Council of Silicon Valley
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Human Investment Project, Inc.
Independent Living Resources
Independent Living Services of Northern California
Interfaith Interim Housing
Linc Housing Corporation
Livable Places
Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Lutheran Social Services of Southern California
Marin Continuum of Housing Services
Mercy Housing of California
Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition
National Housing Development Corporation
Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County
Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern
California
North Bay Housing Coalition
Northern California Reinvestment Consortium
Oakland Community Housing, Inc.
Oakland Housing Authority
Oaks of Hebron, Inc.
Orange County Community Development
Corporation
Orange County Community Housing Corporation
Pacific Housing
Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Peninsula Habitat for Humanity
Petaluma Ecumenical Properties
Portals House
Regional Task Force on the Homeless
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates
Resources for Community Development
Resources for Independent Living
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Sacramento Mutual Housing Association
San Diego Association of Nonprofits
San Diego Community Housing Corporation
San Diego Countywide Alliance of Tenants
(SA N D CAT)
San Diego Housing Coalition
San Diego Housing Federation
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
. Yes on Proposition 46 Page 6 of 15
San Diego Interfaith Housing Federation
San Francisco Housing Development Corporation
Santa Clara County Association of Realtors
Santa Rosa Creek Commons
Segue Construction, Inc.
Self -Help Enterprises
Sharp Mesa Vista
Shelter Inc., of Contra Costa County
Shelter Partnership
Sobrato Family Affordable Housing Program
Sonoma County Task Force on the Homeless
Southern California Association of Non-profit
Housing
Southern California Housing Development
Corporation
Speno Family Properties
Tenant Associations Coalition
Tenderloin Housing Clinic
The Marin Housing Council
Transportation and Land Use Coalition
Tri-City Homeless Coalition
Tri-County Apartment Association
Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty Forum
Urban Habitat
Ventura County Coastal Association of Realtors
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Westside Housing & Economic Network, Inc.
WM Stuart House
Local Government
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Association of Bay Area Governments
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
League of California Cities
Monterey Bay Division- League of CA Cities
California Humane Legislative Network
California Redevelopment Association
California State Association of Counties
San Diego Association of Governments
City of Alameda
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Avalon
City of Belmont
City of Berkeley, Housing Advisory Commission
City of Campbell
City of Cerritos
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 7 of 15
City of Chico
City of Culver City
City of Cupertino
City of Davis
City of Farmersville
City of Folsom
City of Gilroy
City of Grass Valley
City of Hayward
City of Ione
City of Live Oak
City of Lomit
City of Los Angeles
City of Long Beach
City of Malibu
City of Marysville
City of Monte Sereno
City of Morgan Hill
City of Novato
City of Oakland
City of Pinole
City of Poway
City of Red Bluff
City of Redondo Beach
City of Riverbank
City of Riverside
City of Roseville
City of Sacramento
City of San Bernardino
City of San Diego
City of San Jose
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Pablo
City of San Ramon
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Maria
City of Santa Rosa
City of Walnut Creek
City of Watsonville
City of West Hollywood
City of West Sacramento
City of Whittier
City of Winters
City Selection Committee of the County of Santa
Cruz
County of Santa Barbara
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
. Yes on Proposition 46 Page 8 of 15
Contra Costa County
Merced County Community Action Agency
St. Helena Planning Commission
San Jose City Council
Santa Clara City Council
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Cities Association
Santa Clara County Green Party
Santa Cruz County
Town of Los Altos Hills
Town of Truckee
Government Officials
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senate
Zoe Lofgren, U.S. House of Representatives
Cruz Bustamante, California Lieutenant Governor
Bill Lockyer, California Attorney General
Latino Legislative Caucus
California State Senate
John Burton, Honorary Campaign Chair
Dede Alpert
Wesley Chesbro
Joe Dunn
Dianne Feinstein
Michael J. Machado
Jack O'Connell
Don Perata
Gloria Romero
Jack Scott
Nell Soto
California State Assembly
Elaine Alquist
Hannah Beth Jackson
Judy Chu
Rebecca Cohn
Manny Diaz
Marco A. Firebaugh
Tom Harman
Fred Keeley
Christine T. Kehoe
John Longville
Alan Lowenthal
Ken Maddox
Joe Nation
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
• Yes on Proposition 46 Page 9 of 15
Fran Pavley
Simon Salinas
Joe Simitian
Darrell Steinberg
Virginia Strom -Martin
Howard Wayne
County Officials
Blanca Alvarado, Santa Clara County, Board of
Supervisors
Juan Arambula, Fresno County, Board of
Supervisors
Roger Dickinson, Sacramento County, Board of
Supervisors
James Beall, Santa Clara County, Board of
Supervisors
Mark Leno, San Francisco County, Board of
Supervisors
Bill Maze, Tulare County, Board of Supervisors
Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assesor
City Officials
Mayors
Willie L. Brown, Jr., San Francisco
Ron Gonzales, City of San Jose
James Hahn, Los Angeles
Henry Manayan, City of Milpitas
Valerie Matzger, City of Piedmont
Roberta MacGlashan, City of Citrus Heights
Sandra Hillard, City of Yuba City
Betty Boyle, City of Pinole
William R. Cooke, City of Tulare
Ronald O. Loveridge, City of Riverside
Susan Seamans, City of Rolling Hills
Ron Bates, City of Los Alamitos
Lydia Sondhi, City of Cypress
Jack Lucas, City of Monte Sereno
Judy Nadler, City of Santa Clara
Anna M. Caballero, City of Salinas
Art B. Armendariz, City of Delano
Ray Luna, City of Santa Paula
Bill Bogaard, City of Pasadena
Janet Lockhart, City of Dublin
Ken Slavens, City of Stittelena
Rick Soares, City of Elk Grove
Dan Briggs, City of Elk Grove
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 10 of 15
Marty Blum, City of Santa Barbara
Ray DiGuilio, City of Ventura
Dick DeWees, City of Lompoc
Stephen Lieberman, City of Grover Beach
Clara Johnson, City of Brisbane
Vice Mayors
R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr., Vice Mayor, City of
Mountain View
Carol Dutra-Vernaci, Vice Mayor, City of Union City
Ed Balico, Vice Mayor, City of Hercules
Russell Eddington, Vice Mayor, City of California
Mary Ann Kline, Vice Mayor, Sand City
Laura Flores Espinosa, Vice Mayor, City of Santa
Paula
Janet Kurvers, Vice Mayor, City of Cotati
City Council Members/ City Officials
Eric Garcetti, Council Member, City of Los Angeles
Dave Jones, Council Member, City of Sacramento
Mark Ridley -Thomas, Council Member, City of Los
Angeles
John L. McLemore, Council Member, City of Santa
Clara
Joe Pirzynski, Council Member, Town of Los Gatos
Bill Spriggs, Council Member, City of Merced
William Ingram, Council Member, City of Livingston
Janet Ruggiero, Community Development Director,
City of Citrus Heights
Mike Yalow, Council Member, City of Orland
Nora Campos, Council Member, City of San Jose
Ray Castillo, Council Member, City of El Centro
Jessica R. Maes, Council Member, City of
Huntington Park
Rolf Janssen, Council Member, City of Bell
Dennis Washburn, Council Member, City of
Calabasas
Anthony B. Santos, Council Member, City of San
Leandro
Shirley McManus, Council Member, City of San
Leandro
Garry Loeffler, Council Member, City of San
Leandro
Kris Valstad, Council Member, City of Hercules
Richard Ortega, Council Member, City of Tulare
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
• Yes on Proposition 46 Page 11 of 15
Janice Hahn, Council Member, City of Los Angeles
Larry Clark, Council Member, City of Rancho Pales
Verdes
David Bauer, Council Member, City of Belmont
Margarita Irma Lopez, Council Member, City of
King
Thomas M. Mancini, Council Member, City of
Seaside
Ruth M. Vreeland, Council Member, City of
Monterey
Janet Barnes, Council Member, City of Salinas
Braden Phillips, LBPD Administration Bureau
Manager, City of Long Beach
Ernest G. Gutierrez, Council Member, City of El
Monte
Anthony Martinez, Council Member, City of Delano
Paul A. Gutierrez, Council Member, City of
Riverbank
Bob Orach, Council Member, City of Santa Maria
Hal Ledford, City Manager, City of La Puente
Christine Mulholland, Council Member, City of San
Luis Obispo
Rosemary Economy, Planning Commissioner, City
of Cerritos
John A. English, Council Member, City of Fairfield
William Savidge, Council Member, City of St.
Helena
Janet Condron, Council Member, City of Santa Rosa
Jeff Kolin, City Manager, City of Santa Rosa
Thomas M. Mancini, Council Member, City of
Seaside
Ruth M. Vreland, Council Member, City of Monterey
Ila Mettee-McCutchon, Council Member, City of
Marina
Keith Breskin, City Manager, City of King
Beatrice Watson, City Clerk, City of Fontana
Michael Leary, Council Member, City of Elk Grove
Jim Cooper, Council Member, City of Elk Grove
Sophia Scherman, Council Member, City of Elk
Grove
Andy Fox, Council Member, City of Thousand Oaks
Rusty Fairly, Council Member, City of Santa
Barbara
John Procter, Council Member, City of Santa Paula
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 12 of 15
Surlene Grant, Council Member, City of San
Leandro
Education Leaders
Board of Trustees of the California State University
California State Student Association
California Teachers Association
Brian Cooley, President Sacramento County Board
of Education
Ron Dwyer -Voss, President Natomas Unified School
District
Fresno Unified School District, President, Board of
Education
Fresno Unified School District- Project ACCESS
Mill Valley School District
Sacramento ENRICHES
St. Mary's Center
Michelle Yanez, Vice President Rio Hondo College
Visalia Unified School District
Westwood College of Technology- Los Angeles
Wilshire Campus
Youth Organizations
California Coalition for Youth
Santa Barbara County KIDS NETWORK
Solano County Children and Families Commission
Valley Teen Ranch
Health Organizations
Blue Shield of California
California Council of Community Mental Agencies
California Healthcare Association's Center for
Behavioral Health
California Mental Health Planning Council
California Psychiatric Association
Creating Healthy Minds
Mental Health Advocacy Project
Mental Health Association in California
Mental Health Association in Los Angeles County
Santa Barbara Mental Health Association
Religious Organizations
Alliance of Catholic Health Care
California Catholic Conference
California Church IMPACT
Catholic Charities
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 13 of 15
Contra Costa Faith Works
Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program
Interfaith Council on Religion, Race, Economic &
Social Justice
Jewish Community Relations Council of the San
Francisco Bay Area
Lutheran Office of Public Policy- California
Sisters of Notre Dame deNamur
Society of St. Vincent De Paul of Alameda County
St. John's Church
St. Rose of Lima Parish
San Andreas Community Covenant Church Youth
and Family Life
Tri-Valley Interfaith Poverty Forum
Unitarian Universalist Church of South County
Other Organizations
ACORN
Alameda County Community Food Bank
Alameda County Developmental Disabilities Council
Amador County Voices for Families Alliance
Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency
Anti -Displacement Network
Asian Pacific Environment Network
Planning and Conservation League Board of
Directors
Asian Law Alliance
Bay Planning Coalition
California Futures Network
California Foundation for Independent Living
Centers
Chicano Consortium
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Community Rehabilitation Services, Inc.
Community Resources for Independence
Community Technology Alliance
Family Service of the North Bay
Good News Center
Good Samaritan Services, Inc.
Greenbelt Alliance
Homeward Bound of Marin County
Jericho: A Voice for Justice
Laotian Organizing Project (LOP)
Latino Issues Forum
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 14 of 15
League of Women Voters
Loaves & Fishes
Los Amigos of Orange County
Mayfair Improvement Initiative
National Multiple Sclerosis Society- CA Action
Network
Orange County Congregation Community
Organization
Placer County Social Justice Advocates
Placer Independent Resource Services
Project Match, Inc.
Project New Village
Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board -
Contra Costa County
Richmond District Democratic Club
San Diego ACORN
San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau
Sierra Club
St. Joseph Health System
Shelter, Hunger & Health Partnership of Orange
County
Sierra Club of California
Sierra Planning Organization
The Kennedy Commission
Transitional Living and Community Support
United Way of San Diego County
Veterans Crisis Programs
Volunteers of America- Bay Area
West Contra Costa Rainbow Coalition
Yes on 46 Editorial Endorsements
Fresno Bee
La Opinion
Los Angeles Times
Modesto Bee
North County Times
Pasadena Star News
Press -Enterprise
Press Democrat
Redding Record Searchlight
Sacramento Bee
Sacramento Business Journal
San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
Yes on Proposition 46 Page 15 of 15
San Jose Mercury News
Santa Rose Press Democrat
Torrance Daily Breeze
Visalia Times Delta
Whittier Daily News
Join use
Home I Our Supporters
Yes on Prop 46! Californians for Housing and Emergency Shelter
get the facts I background I benefits for californians I our supporters I what others are
saying
newsroom I you can help I contribute I profile of the week I join us I resources I
contact us I site map
http://www.prop46yes.org/supporters.html 10/24/2002
RESOLUTION 2002 - 168
RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE
HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002
WHEREAS, approximately 220,000 housing units need to be produced in California each year to
meet demand; yet only four times in the last 20 years has the production target been reached; and
WHEREAS, while the national homeownership rate has reached a record high, California is about
10 percent below the national average (67.8 percent) and ranks 48th in the nation; and
WHEREAS, over one-third of all renter families statewide pay over half their incomes in rent; over
one-half of all low-income renter families pay over half their income in rent; and almost three out of every
four very low-income renter families pay over half their incomes in rent; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development estimates that there are over
360,000 homeless individuals in California, and other data discloses that one-third of the homeless
population, and the segment increasing most rapidly are families with children; and
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to provide affordable housing in to meet the increasingly
unfulfilled housing needs of the state; and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to reaffirm the commitment to the housing policy of the
state and to help implement local housing programs by providing sufficient financial resources to do so over
a reasonable period of time.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Los Gatos Town Council hereby supports the
passage of the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002- Proposition 46 on the November
5, 2002 statewide ballot.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California,
held on the 4th day of November, 2002 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
SIGNED:/s/ Randy Attaway
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Town Council Minutes November 4, 2002
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
TREASURER'S REPORT (05.02)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council accept and file informational
report submitted by the Treasurer to the Council for the months ended August 31, 2002 and
September 30, 2002. Carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2002 (06.V)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council approve the Minutes of October
21, 2002, Joint Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting as submitted. Carried unanimously.
DOWNTOWN & LOS GATOS BOULEVARD BANNER PROGRAM (07.31)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council approve the proposed Downtown
and Los Gatos Boulevard Banner Program. Carried unanimously.
AMICUS BRIEF/SAN JOSE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE VS CITY OF MORGAN HILL (09.28)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council authorize the Town Attorney to
include the Town of los Gatos as an amicus curiae in the case of San Jose Christian College vs. the
City of Morgan Hill, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, case 02-15693, at no cost to the Town. Carried
unanimously.
HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT/RESOLUTION 2002-168 (10.39)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-168
entitled, RESOLUTION OF TOWN OF LOS GATOS SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 46, THE
HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND ACT OF 2002. Carried
unanimously.
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUNDS/RESOLUTION 2002-169 (11.36)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-169
entitled, RESOLUTION OF TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES FUND (SLESF) FOR TWO ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS TO BE
ASSIGNED AS A MOTORCYCLE TRAFFIC OFFICER AND A SCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER. Carried unanimously.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) RESOLUTION 2002-170 (12.39)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-170
entitled, RESOLUTION OF TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CITY -COUNTY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AND DELEGATING
AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS FOR FY 2003/04 AND FY 2004/05. Carried
unanimously.
ANNEXATION/SHANNON ROAD #21/16689-16695-16707 & 16717/RESOLUTION 2002-171(13.26)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council adopt Resolution 2002-171
entitled, RESOLUTION OF TOWN OF LOS GATOS ORDERING THE REORGANIZATION
OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS SHANNON ROAD #21
(APN'S: 523-06-001, -044, -043 AND -004) TO THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS. Carried
unanimously.
TC:D 13:MM 110402 2