Proposition 1
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs
legislative statute
Official Summary
Authorizes $4 billion of state general obligation bonds to fund existing housing programs.
Includes $1.5 billion for Multifamily Housing Program for low-income residents, $1 billion for loans to help veterans purchase farms and homes, $450 million for infill and transit-oriented housing projects, $300 million for farmworker housing program, and $300 million for manufactured and mobile homes.
Provides housing assistance for buyers, infrastructure financing, and matching grants to expand affordable housing stock.
Appropriates General Fund revenues to pay off bonds for existing programs that have no revenues or insufficient revenues.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $170 million annually over the next 35 years. These bond funds would be used to provide affordable housing.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18) combined totals for Prop 1 and 2
support: $5,223,958 ; big contributors = Zuckerberg, realtors, building/construction unions and businesses
oppose: none
Notes
This was passed by the Legislature, but bond funds need to be approved by the people.
Use of bond funds (in Millions):
$1,800 - Affordable multifamily housing programs
$ 450 - Infrastructure programs
$ 450 - Homeownership programs
$ 300 - Farmworker housing program
$1,000 - Veteran home loans (repaid by loan recipients, no net cost)
Cost: $170 million annually for 35 years
Proposition 2
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness
legislative statute
Official Summary
Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program, which finances permanent housing for individuals with mental illness who are homeless or at risk for chronic homelessness, as being consistent with the Mental Health Services Act approved by the electorate.
Ratifies issuance of up to $2 billion in previously authorized bonds to finance the No Place Like Home Program.
Amends the Mental Health Services Act to authorize transfers of up to $140 million annually from the existing Mental Health Services Fund to the No Place Like Home Program, with no increase in taxes.
Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18) combined totals for Prop 1 and 2
support: $5,223,958 ; big contributor = Zuckerberg, realtors, building/construction unions and businesses
oppose: none
Notes
This was passed by the Legislature, but bond funds need to be approved by the people.
Designates funds within the Mental Health Services Act (established in 2004) to the No Place Like Home program.
It is currently in the courts to approve the plan to pay for No Place Like Home using Mental Health Services Act funds. If the court approves the plan, this proposition will have been irrelevant. If the court rejects the plan, this proposition allows the state to move forward anyway.
Main points:
Approves up to $140 million of Mental Health Services Act funds per year to the No Place Like Home program.
Authorizes $2 billion in bonds for No Place Like Home, with the repayment handled by the Mental Health Services Act fund, typically $120 million per year.
Less funding would be available to non-No Place Like Home county mental health services.
Measure A
Proposed “Clean-Up” Amendments
Proposed “Clean-Up” Amendments
County Charter Amendments
Official Summary
Shall the Charter of the County of San Diego be amended for purposes of making “clean-up” amendments including amendments necessary to assure compliance with state and federal laws?
Notes
Brings election timelines into state and federal compliance, and recognizes the fire authority as an organizational unit under the chief administrative officer.
Measure B
Preserving Balanced Representation in Unincorporated Areas of San Diego County
Preserving Balanced Representation in Unincorporated Areas of San Diego County
County Charter Amendment
Official Summary
Should the Charter of San Diego County be amended to direct a redistricting commission to maintain the current practice of establishing representative boundaries where at least three Board of Supervisor districts include unincorporated territory, with two of the districts having area predominately outside incorporated cities, as population will permit?
Notes
Requires a redistricting commission authorized by state law to reapportion districts, instead of the Board of Supervisors.
Proposition 3
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage
Official Summary
Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects: $3.03 billion for safe drinking water and water quality, $2.895 billion for watershed and fisheries improvements, $940 million for habitat protection, $855 million for improved water conveyance, $685 million for groundwater sustainability/storage, and $472 million for surface water storage/dam repairs.
Appropriates money from General Fund to pay off bonds.
Requires certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources; gives priority to disadvantaged communities..
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $430 million per year over the next 40 years. Savings to local governments, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18)
support: $5,063,486 ; big contributors = Ducks Unlimited, CA Wildlife Fdn, waterfowl groups, farmers
oppose: none
Notes
Authorizes $8.877 billion in bonds, annual repayment cost of $430 million annually for 40 years. Savings to local governments likely averaging a few hundred million dollars annually.
Local agencies currently spend ~$25 billion, and the state ~$4 billion, annually on water projects.
Monies from previous bond measures, roughly $10 billion, is still available for water projects.
Vast majority of monies will be used for Central Valley.
Proposal (in Millions):
$2,495 - Watershed land projects, includes 50 subcategories and specific areas
$250M Sierra Nevada Conservancy, $60 M California Tahoe Conservancy, $100M San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program of the Coastal Conservancy, $180M LA-Ventura-Orange Counties, $40M San Diego River Conservancy, $215M State Coastal Conservancy, $150M Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers, $320M Wildlife Conservation Board, $25M Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, $170M Dept Parks and Rec, $60M Dept of Conservation, $100M CA Ocean Protection Council, $200M Natural Resources Agency (Salton Sea Mgmt Program), $5M Delta Stewardship Council, $50M Urban Streams Restoration Program, $70M CA Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection, $15M Delta Protection Commission, $25M UC
$2,130 - Water supply, including:
$550 M rainwater collection/cleaning
$500 M drinking water cleanup
$400 M recycling wastewater and desalination
$300 M water conservation including turf removal, leak detection, toilet replacement
$1,440 - Fish and Wildlife habitat improvement
$400M for native fish in Central Valley, $300M for salmon & steelhead trout and $280M for migratory birds in Central Valley
$1,227 - Water facility upgrades
$1,085 - Groundwater management
$ 500 - Flood protection
$200 M to Central Valley Flood Protection Board
$200 M San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
Many programs must have at least 50% matching local funds, except if project directly benefits a disadvantaged community or economically distressed area. Minimum 10% of funds shall be allocated for projects serving severely disadvantaged communities.
Proposition 4
Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children’s Health Care
Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children’s Health Care
Official Summary
Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children's hospitals.
Designates 72 percent of funds to qualifying private nonprofit hospitals providing comprehensive services to high volumes of children eligible for governmental programs and children with special health needs eligible for the California Children's Services program, 18 percent of funds to University of California general acute care children's hospitals, and 10 percent of funds to public and private nonprofit hospitals providing services to children eligible for the California Children's Services program.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $80 million annually over the next 35 years.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18)
support: $10,932,096 ; big contributors = each hospital that would receive $135M donated $1.36M
oppose: none
Notes
Fund allocation (in millions):
$1,080 Private Nonprofit Hospitals, each $135: Oakland, Los Angeles, Orange County, Long Beach, Loma Linda, Stanford, San Diego, Madera
$ 270 UC Children’s Hospitals, each $54: UC Los Angeles, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco
$ 150 Other private nonprofit hospitals
Moneys could be used for just about anything except personnel: construction, remodeling, furniture, equipment, financing, etc.
Measure C
Protecting Good Government Through Sound Fiscal Practices
Protecting Good Government Through Sound Fiscal Practices
County Charter Amendment
Official Summary
Should the Charter of San Diego County be amended to require pension stabilization funds be used solely for pension-related liabilities and prohibit using long-term obligations to finance current operations or recurring needs?
Notes
Once the Supervisors appropriate funds for pension stabilization, they can only be used for pension stabilization. And long term debt proceeds could not be used for recurring operational needs.
Measure X
Oceanside Sales Tax Increase
Oceanside Sales Tax Increase
Official Summary
To provide funding to maintain and improve general city services including: police patrols, crime, drug, and gang prevention, fire , paramedic and 9-1-1 response, pothole repair, street maintenance, improved infrastructure, maintain safe, clean parks and beaches, and address homelessness, shall the City of Oceanside establish a sales tax of one-half of one percent (0.5%) for 7 years, providing an estimated 11 million dollars annually for general city services, requiring citizen oversight, independent audits, and all funds controlled locally?
Notes
Sales tax would go from 7.75% to 8.25%. Currently all of North County is 7.75%, with the exceptions of Vista (8.25%) and Del Mar (8.75%).
Tax funds could be used for any municipal purpose, and would commence on April 1, 2019.
Proposition 5
Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property
Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property
Official Summary
Removes the following current requirements for homeowners who are over 55 years old or severely disabled to transfer their property tax base to a replacement residence: that replacement property be of equal or lesser value, replacement residence be in specific county, and the transfer occur only once.
Removes similar replacement-value and location requirements on transfers for contaminated or disaster-destroyed property.
Requires adjustments to the replacement property's tax base, based on the new property's value
Fiscal Impact: Schools and other local governments each probably would lose over $100 million in annual property tax revenue in the first few years, growing over time to about $1 billion per year (in today's dollars). Similar increase in state costs to backfill school property tax losses.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18)
support: $13,204,875 ; big contributor = realtors
oppose: $2,862,680 : Teachers, Firefighters, County Supervisors (those who would lose property tax funding)
Notes
Currently, if one is over 55 and sell a house, its tax basis (what was originally paid for it) can transfer to a new house as long as the new house costs less than the selling price of the original house, and it is either in the same county or in one of the counties that have a transference relationship. Tax basis is what is used to compute property taxes, which is a primary source of funding for local services such as police, fire and teachers.
If this passes, someone over 55 could transfer a modified tax basis to any house, regardless of the selling price of the old house and purchasing price of the new house. If the new house is less than the selling price of the original house, the tax basis is actually reduced by the percentage of difference. If the new house is more, the tax basis is adjusted slightly up, based on the difference.
Example 1, downsizing:
Your Main St house was purchased for $200k many years ago. You sell it for $400k and buy a condo on Seaside Dr for $300k. Your new tax basis for the Seaside Dr condo will be:
You are under 55
$400k : Seaside Dr purchase price
You are over 55 (current law)
$200k : purchase price of Main St, which was transferred to Seaside Dr
You are over 55 (if Prop 5 passes)
$150k : purchase price of Main St * (Main St selling price / Seaside Dr purchase price) = 200 * (400/300)
Example 2, moving up:
Your Main St house was purchased for $200k many years ago. You sell it for $400k and buy a condo on Tranquility Rd for $600k. Your new tax basis for the Tranquility Rd condo will be:
You are under 55
$600k : Tranquility Rd purchase price
You are over 55 (current law)
$600k : Tranquility Rd purchase price
You are over 55 (if Prop 5 passes)
$400k : purchase price of Main St + (Seaside Dr purchase price -Main St selling price) = 200 + (600-400)
Proposition 6
Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Approved by the Electorate
Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Approved by the Electorate
Official Summary
Repeals a 2017 transportation law's tax and fee provisions that pay for repairs and improvements to local roads, state highways, and public transportation.
Requires the Legislature to submit any measure enacting specified taxes or fees on gas or diesel fuel, or on the privilege to operate a vehicle on public highways, to the electorate for approval.
Fiscal Impact: Reduced ongoing state revenues of $5.1 billion from the elimination of fuel and vehicle taxes passed by the Legislature in 2017. These revenues mainly would have paid for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs. The requirement that voters approve new or increased fuel and vehicle taxes passed by the Legislature in the future could result in lower revenues from such taxes than otherwise would have been available.
Show Me The Money (through 10/22/18)
support: $4,746,741 ; big contributors = Republican Party and candidates
oppose: $43,300,847 ; big contributors = construction workers, contractors, engineers
Notes
Repeals recent increase in gasoline excise tax (+12 cents/gal plus 17.3 cents/gal) and diesel sales tax (+4% plus 35 cents/gal), additional DMV fee of $25 to $175 and fee of $100/yr for zero emission vehicles after 2020. All this money is allocated 2/3 to highway and road repairs, with the rest going to other other transportation programs.
Also says that voters would need to approve any new/increased gasoline and diesel excise and sales taxes, vehicle license fees and transportation improvement fees.
Measure Y
Voter Approval for Changes to Open Space and Agricultural Land
Voter Approval for Changes to Open Space and Agricultural Land
Official Summary
Shall the Initiative Measure Amending the Land Use Element of the Oceanside General Plan to Require Voter Approval of Proposals to Change the Land Use Designation or Zoning of Agricultural or Open Space Land to Any Other Use be adopted?
Notes
Does 3 things:
Adds a voter approval step for properties changing from Agricultural designation to any other zoning.
Adds a voter approval step for properties changing from Open Space designation to any other zoning.
“Residential development and agritourism shall be permitted provided such development does not interfere with existing agricultural operations and that the open space character of the area is preserved. Appropriate minimum lot areas shall be determined by the area’s topography, adjacent land uses, and the availability of public services and utilities; however, under no circumstances shall lot areas be less than two and one half acres. Lot configurations and dimensions sal provide areas of sufficient size to conduct limited low-intensity agricultural activities such as orchards, gardens, and the keeping of livestock.”
Measure D
San Diego County Elective Offices to be Held at a General Election and Requiring Adoption of Local Regulations Relating to Write-In Candidates for County Elective Office
San Diego County Elective Offices to be Held at a General Election and Requiring Adoption of Local Regulations Relating to Write-In Candidates for County Elective Office
County Charter Amendments
Official Summary
Shall this initiative measure, proposing county charter amendments requiring all elections for San Diego County Elective Offices to be held at a general election and requiring adoption of local regulations relating to write-in candidates for county elective office, be adopted?
Notes
Currently, if a county office candidate receives a majority of the votes (+50%) in the primary, that candidate is elected and the office does not appear on the general election ballot. This measure would change it so that every office goes to the general election. One argument is that those elected to office in the primary cycle are elected by a vastly smaller voting electorate than in a general election.
If there are 2 or less candidates for a county office, they will skip the primary ballot and be placed on the general election ballot.
Write-in candidates would need to qualifying before the printing of the primary ballot, which is inconsistent with state election laws. Also currently write-in candidates cannot appear on the general election ballot. This measure would allow a write in candidate to appear on the general election ballot if the primary had 2 or fewer candidates.
Proposition 7
Conforms California Daylight Savings Time to Federal Law. Allows Legislature to Change Daylight Savings Time Period
Conforms California Daylight Savings Time to Federal Law. Allows Legislature to Change Daylight Savings Time Period
legislative statute
Official Summary
Establishes the time zone designated by federal law as "Pacific standard time" as the standard time within California.
Provides that California daylight saving time begins at 2 a.m. on the second Sunday of March and ends at 2 a.m. on the first Sunday of November, consistent with current federal law.
Permits the Legislature by two-thirds vote to make future changes to California's daylight saving time period, including for its year-round application, if changes are consistent with federal law.
Fiscal Impact: This measure has no direct fiscal effect because changes to daylight saving time would depend on future actions by the Legislature and potentially the federal government.
support: none
oppose: none
Notes
Lays the groundwork for the California legislature to be able to change from cycling between Pacific Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time to permanently being on Pacific Standard Time (or permanently on Daylight Savings Time), similar to Arizona and Hawaii. If, after this passes, the legislature decided to have California stop cycling between Standard Time and Daylight Savings Time, they could do so, within the parameters of Federal law, with a 2/3 vote.
Proposition 8
Regulates Amounts Outpatient Kidney Dialysis Clinics Charge for Dialysis Treatment
Regulates Amounts Outpatient Kidney Dialysis Clinics Charge for Dialysis Treatment
Official Summary
Limits the charges to 115 percent of the costs for direct patient care and quality improvement costs, including training, patient education, and technology support.
Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed the limit.
Requires annual reporting to the state regarding clinic costs, patient charges, and revenue.
Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on the source of payment for care.
Fiscal Impact: Overall annual effect on state and local governments ranging from net positive impact in the low tens of millions of dollars to net negative impact in the tens of millions of dollars.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/22/18)
support: $20,372,138 ; big contributors = SEIU, healthcare workers
oppose: $105,631,925 ; big contributors = dialysis companies (primarily DaVita)
Notes
There are 588 chronic dialysis clinics (CDCs) in CA, 50% by DaVita, 22% by Fresenius, 8% by Satellite Healthcare, 6% by US Renal Care and 14% other. Medicare pays for the majority of people on dialysis. This proposition does not affect Medicare/Medi-Cal rates, only those paid by group and individual health insurers who normally pay a higher rate that Medicare/Medi-Cal.
Proposal is that starting in 2019, the revenue of CDCs must not exceed a cap, calculated as 115% of “direct patient care services costs” and “health care quality improvement costs” - specific line items still TBD. Costs excluded from the cap calculation include things that do not touch the client, such as administrative overhead. The cap would be computed across all clinics for a particular CDC, not per clinic. The amount exceeded by the cap would need to be refunded to payers.
This measure also prohibits CDCs from refusing to provide treatment to a person based on who is paying for the treatment.
Proposition 10
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Official Summary
Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose.
Allows policies that would limit the rental rates that residential-property owners may charge for new tenants, new construction, and single-family homes.
In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their rental property.
Fiscal Impact: Potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/22/18)
support: $25,619,691 ; big contributors = AIDS organizations, teachers, nurses
oppose: $65,569,257 ; big contributors = realtors, builders, property rental companies
Notes
Allows local governments across California to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing. Currently, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (which would be repealed with this measure) prohibits local governments from enacting rent control on free-standing houses, condos and townhouses, and those that were not under rent control before 2/1/1995. About 1/5 of Californians live in cities with rent control already.
If passes, local governments could form rent control boards and define maximum rental rates, and maximum increases in rent when a new renter moves in. The measure requires that landlords would have a fair rate of return.
Proposition 11
Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain On-Call During Work Breaks. Eliminates Certain Employer Liability
Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain On-Call During Work Breaks. Eliminates Certain Employer Liability
Official Summary
Makes labor law entitling hourly employees to take work breaks for meals and rest, without being on-call, inapplicable to private-sector emergency ambulance employees. Regulates timing of meal breaks for these employees.
Eliminates employers' liability—in actions pending on or after October 25, 2017—for violations of existing law regarding work breaks. Requires employers to provide training regarding certain emergency incidents, violence prevention, and mental health and wellness.
Requires employers to provide employees certain mental-health services.
Fiscal Impact: Likely fiscal benefit to local governments (in the form of lower costs and higher revenues), potentially in the tens of millions of dollars each year.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/22/18)
support: $29,925,786 ; big contributor = American Medical Response, ambulance service provider
oppose: none
Notes
Allows ambulance providers to require workers to remain on call during breaks, paid at their regular rate. Currently a 10 minute break every 4 hours is paid, but meal breaks are unpaid. Also requires employer-paid training and mental health services.
A recent court decision says that when security guards are on break, they are off duty and cannot be interrupted with a call. It is expected that this decision will apply to ambulance workers as well. If applied to ambulance services, the companies would need more employees to ensure that SLAs (service level agreements, with local agencies) are satisfied.
Private companies operate 75% of ambulances in California. The other 25% are controlled by local fire departments.
Proposition 12
Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Specified Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Noncomplying Products
Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Specified Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Noncomplying Products
Official Summary
Establishes new minimum space requirements for confining veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens.
Requires egg-laying hens be raised in cage-free environment after December 31, 2021.
Prohibits certain commercial sales of specified meat and egg products derived from animals confined in noncomplying manner.
Defines sales violations as unfair competition.
Creates good faith defense for sellers relying upon written certification by suppliers that meat and egg products comply with new confinement standards.
Requires State of California to issue implementing regulations.
Fiscal Impact: Potential decrease in state income tax revenues from farm businesses, likely not more than several million dollars annually. State costs up to $10 million annually to enforce the measure.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18)
support: $12,804,455 ; big contributor = Humane Society
oppose: $566,360 ; big contributor = Humane Farming Action Fund, PETA
Notes
In 2008, Prop 2 banned “the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that did not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs”, but did not specify square footage. This measure specifies square footage as of 2020: veal calves 43sf, hens 1sf (cage free starting in 2022), breeding pigs 24sf (2022). It also specifies that the sale of products resulting from animals confined in violation is prohibited.