- Prohibits contracting where performance of work by civil service employees is less costly unless urgent need for contract.
- Prohibits contracts which Controller or awarding agency determines are against public interest, health, safety or where quality of work would be lower than civil service work.
- Contractors must indemnify state in suits related to performance of contracts.
- Requires defined competitive bidding of state-funded design and engineering contracts over $50,000, unless delay from bidding would endanger public health or safety.
- Provisions severable and should be harmonized with similar measures on subject.
- Unknown impact on state and local government costs to obtain construction-related services. Impact would depend largely on factors included in the cost comparison analyses required by the proposition.
- Administrative costs to the State Controller--one-time costs of probably less than $500,000 and annual costs of up to $2 million.
- A YES vote of this measure means:
- State and local
governments would have to use
a new process before they could
contract out certain
- A NO vote of this measure means:
- The current
processes for contracting
services would not change.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 224:
- Prop. 224 stops politicians from giving
overpriced, no-bid contracts to campaign
contributors and requires competitive bidding
for state contracts. Hold
contractors responsible for their work.
Require cost effectiveness and
competitive bidding. Protect bridges and
public safety. Join law enforcement,
firefighters, engineers, businesses, labor,
teachers and seniors--Yes on 224!
Full Text of Argument In Favor,
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 224:
- A deceptive scheme promoted by
state bureaucrats! Virtually
prohibits government contracting
with private earthquake safety
engineers. Delays highway, school
and hospital earthquake
retrofitting! More Bureaucrats!
Higher Taxes! Less Accountability!
Opposed by California Taxpayers'
Association, seismic engineers,
business, schools, labor, cities,
counties. Don't let them fool you.
Vote "No" on 224.
Full Text of Argument Against,
- Contact FOR Proposition 224:
- Taxpayers for Competitive
660 "J" Street, Suite 445
Sacramento, CA 95814
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 224:
- Taxpayers Against 224
111 Anza Boulevard,
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 340-0470 or
Live Election Returns|
- All Propositions
- includes results by county (from Sec. of St.)
League of Women Voters
Other Analysis of Prop 224
Campaign Finance Info
News and Analysis
- Prop 224 Contributions Data from the Secretary of State
- Contributions Summary for all Propositions
Orange County Register
San Diego Union Tribune
Links to outside sources are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.