Smart Voter
State of California June 2, 1998 Primary
Proposition 224
State-Funded Design and Engineering Services.

Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures.

1,936,722 / 38.1% Yes votes ...... 3,134,749 / 61.9% No votes

Infomation shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Official Information | Arguments |
Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:
  • 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.

Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:
  • 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.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote of this measure means:
State and local governments would have to use a new process before they could contract out certain construction-related services.

A NO vote of this measure means:
The current processes for contracting out construction-related services would not change.

Official Sources of Information
Arguments Submitted to the Secretary of State

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, Rebuttal

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, Rebuttal

Contact FOR Proposition 224:
Taxpayers for Competitive
660 "J" Street, Suite 445
Sacramento, CA 95814
Steve Hopcraft
(916) 457-5546

Contact AGAINST Proposition 224:
Taxpayers Against 224
111 Anza Boulevard,
Suite 406
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 340-0470 or
(310) 996-2600

  Live Election Returns

All Propositions
includes results by county (from Sec. of St.)
Nonpartisan Analysis

League of Women Voters

Other Analysis of Prop 224 See also Campaign Finance Info

Prop 224 Contributions Data from the Secretary of State

Contributions Summary for all Propositions
News and Analysis

Orange County Register

Sacramento Bee San Diego Union Tribune
Suggest a link related to this contest
Links to outside sources are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Home (Ballot Lookup) || State Election Links
About Smart Voter || Feedback

Created: June 17, 1998 11:14
Smart Voter '98 <>
Copyright © 1998 League of Women Voters of California, Smart Valley Inc.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.