Proposition 23
Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.
Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.
initiative statute
Official Summary
Requires physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site during dialysis treatment. Prohibits clinics from reducing services without state approval. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $6,917,438 - healthcare workers
oppose: $104,405,156 - DaVita, Fresenius, US Renal Care
Notes
Two companies operate approximately 75% of dialysis clinics: DaVita and Fresenius. Apprx $3 Billion is paid for dialysis services in CA. Medicare pays for the majority of people on dialysis, plus Medi-Cal and individual or group health insurance (which are often charged significantly more). CDPH is governing entity. This proposition states that:
a doctor must be on-site during all treatment hours
clinic must report infection-related information to CDPH and face penalties if they do not
clinic must notify and obtain consent from CDPH before closing or substantially reducing services
clinic cannot refuse care to a patient based on who is paying for the patient’s treatment.
Proposition 24
Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
initiative statute
Official Summary
Permits consumers to: prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, and limit businesses’ use of "sensitive personal information," including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency.
Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs of at least $10 million, but unlikely exceeding low tens of millions of dollars, to enforce expanded consumer privacy laws. Some costs would be offset by penalties for violating these laws.
support: $5,907,002 - Alastair MacTaggart
oppose: $48,368
Notes
Businesses collect data about consumers from different sources. These include (1) public sources, (2) consumers themselves (such as when consumers create an account), or (3) other businesses (such as by purchasing data).
Under state law, certain businesses that operate in California and collect personal data must meet consumer data privacy requirements. (Personal data include information such as names, Internet or purchase activity, and predictions about consumers.) These businesses generally (1) earn more than $25 million in annual revenue; (2) buy, sell, or share the personal data of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices annually; or (3) earn 50 percent or more of their annual revenues from selling personal data.
The ballot initiative would do the following:
changes threshold for a company needing to comply with data privacy requirements, from 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices annually to 100,000 or more consumers or households.
requires these companies to not share a consumer's personal information upon the consumer's request, including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, religion, genetic data, private communications, sexual orientation, and specified health information
requires these companies to provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information, as defined in law, used or disclosed for advertising or marketing;
requires these companies to obtain permission before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 16 and obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 13
requires these companies to correct a consumer's inaccurate personal information upon the consumer's request
establish California Privacy Protection Agency to additionally enforce and implement consumer privacy laws and impose fines.
triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16, to $7500.
authorizes civil penalties for theft of consumer login information in certain situations
eliminates the ability of businesses to avoid penalties by addressing violations within 30 days of being told of the violation
Proposition 25
Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk
Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk
referendum
Official Summary
A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, law replacing money bail with system based on public safety and flight risk.
Fiscal Impact: Increased costs possibly in mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for release from jail prior to trial. Decreased county jail costs, possibly in high tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $13,446,871 - John Arnold, Steven and Connie Ballmer, Patty Quillin, Act Now, Tom Steyer
oppose: $10,181,122 - bail bonds and insurance companies
Notes
In 2018, the bail industry issued about $6 billion in bail bonds and collected about $560 million in bail bond fees. Insurance companies are required to pay a 2.4 percent state insurance tax on these fees—about $13 million in 2018.
SB10, to eliminate bail and change the processes for getting released from jail before trial, was passed in 2018 but has not gone into effect, pending the results of this referendum.
Changes to existing system:
Require Automatic Release for Most Misdemeanor Crimes
People placed in jail for (1) felonies and (2) misdemeanors that are ineligible for automatic release will be assessed for their risk of committing a new crime or failing to appear in court if released
High-risk people, medium-risk people who are not released, and certain others (such as those charged with certain severe felonies, including murder or arson of a home) would remain in county jail until arraignment.
State trial courts responsible for pretrial assessment; Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools are currently used by city/county trail courts to determine whether to assign bail or release an arrested person on their own recognizance (OR).
2018 General Election
Elected Officials
Federal
US Senator: Kevin De Leon or Diane Feinstein
US Rep 49th District: Mike Levin or Diane Harkey
State
Governor: Gavin Newsom or John Cox
Lieutenant Governor: Eleni Kounalakis or Ed Hernandez
Secretary of State: Mark Meuser or Alex Padilla
Controller: Betty Yee or Konstantinos Roditis
Treasurer: Fiona Ma or Greg Conlon
Attorney General: Xavier Becerra or Steven Bailey
Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner or Ricardo Lara
State Board of Equalization, 4th District: Joel Anderson or Mike Schaefer
State Senator, 36th District: Pat Bates or Marggie Castellanno
State Assembly, 76th District: Elizabeth Warren or Tasha Boerner Horvath
Judicial
(vote yes/no for Associate Justices)
Associate Justice, Supreme Court: Carol Corrigan (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Supreme Court: Leondra Kruger (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Joan Kathleen Irion
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Judith Haller
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Richard Huffman (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Patricia Benke
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Cynthia Aaron
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: William Dato
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Patricia Guerrero
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Douglas Miller (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Richard Fields (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Art McKinster (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Marsha Slough (no info on VotersEdge)
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 3: David Thompson
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 3: Raymond Ikola
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 3: Thomas Goethals (no info on VotersEdge)
Judge of Superior Court Office 37: Matt Brower or Gary Kreep
School
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond or Marshall Tuck
County
Board of Supervisors, District 5: Michelle Gomez or Jim Desmond
City of Oceanside
City Council, District 1: Susan Custer (no info on VotersEdge) or Chuck Lowery or Michael Odegaard or Esther Sanchez
Treasurer: Victor Roy (no info on VotersEdge) or Rafe Edward Trickey
State of California Propositions
County of San Diego Propositions
City of Oceanside Propositions
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposition 68
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018
PASSED
Official Summary
Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for: parks, natural resources protection, climate adaptation, water quality and supply, and flood protection. Fiscal Impact: Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $200 million annually over 40 years. Local government savings for natural resources-related projects, likely averaging several tens of millions of dollars annually over the next few decades
Official CA Voter Guide Summary ; text of proposed law, 25 pages
Show Me The Money (as of May 28)
support: $6,318,437 ; big contributor = Nature Conservancy
oppose: $0
Notes
The state would pay approximately $2.3 billion in interest
The measure would also reallocate $100 million in unissued bonds that voters approved via Proposition 1 (2014), Proposition 84 (2006), and Proposition 40 (2002).
For several of the programs funded by this bond, recipients—mostly local governments—would only be eligible to receive the funding if they provide some funding to support the projects.
The proposition also includes several provisions designed to assist “disadvantaged communities” and very disadvantaged communities (generally, communities with lower average incomes). For example, the local cost-share requirement would not apply to most of the grants provided to these communities. In addition, the proposition requires that for each use specified in the bond, at least 15 percent of the funds benefit very disadvantaged communities.
This bill passed the State Assembly Sept 15, 2017, the Senate on Sept 16, 2017, and was signed by the Governor Oct 15, 2017. Why is this on the ballot? The California Constitution requires that general obligation bond issues of $300,000 or more be referred to voters for approval or rejection.
summary of allocations
Details:
Allocations:
$725 million - creation and expansion of safe neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods
including $48 million for central valley, Inland Empire, gateway, rural, and desert communities
$22 million to desert community towns in the County of San Bernardino (population <22,000)
$350 million - flood protection facilities, levee improvements, and related investments that protect persons and property from flood damage in the Central Valley
$290 million - drought and groundwater investments, including groundwater recharge with surface water, stormwater, and recycled water and projects to prevent contamination of groundwater sources of drinking water
$250 million - clean drinking water and drought programs
$30 million to San Joaquin River
$218 million - restoration and preservation of existing state park facilities
first priority to deferred maintenance
$10 million for projects that facilitate new or enhanced park use and user experiences and increase revenue generation to support operations
local cost share min 25%, unless disadvantaged community
$18 million for facility improvements for county fairs
$30 million for lower cost coastal accommodation project development in units of the state park system
$25 million for protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural resources
at least $10 million each in : Central Valley, Central Coast, East Bay, Imperial and Coachella Valley, Inland Empire
$200 million - per capita grants to local governments for the improvement of local parks
local community has to match 20%, unless severely disadvantaged
$15 million for urbanized counties (population > 500,000)
County minimum of $400,000
40% of total: Allocation of funds shall be in same ratio as the county's population is to the total state population.
$200 million - Natural Resources Agency to implement agreements for water quality, water supply, and watershed protection projects
$180 million - state conservancies
$30 million each: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy; Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; Sierra Nevada Conservancy
$27 million: California Tahoe Conservancy
$20 million each: San Francisco Bay
$12 million: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy; San Diego River Conservancy
$7 million: Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
$6 million: Baldwin Hills Conservancy; San Joaquin River Conservancy
$175 million - projects related to ocean, bay, and coastal protection
$85 million to State Coastal Conservancy for protection of beaches, bays, wetlands and coastal watershed resources - 25% to San Francisco Bay Area Conservation Program
$35 million to California Ocean Protection Trust Fund
$30 million to State Coastal Conservancy for lower cost coastal accommodation grants and project development to public agencies and nonprofit organizations
$20 million to State Coastal Conservancy for coastal forest watersheds
$5 million to State Coastal Conservancy for acquisition of land to help estuarine lagoons
$170 million - restoration activities identified in the Salton Sea Management Program Phase I
$162 million - grants to conservancies and programs to protect urban creeks and streams
local communities must match 20%
$37.5 million to Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
$37.5 million to San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
$20 million to Los Angeles River in the City of Glendale
$16 million to Santa Ana River Conservancy Program
$15 million to San Fernando Valley / Los Angeles River watershed
$10 million to Lower American River Conservancy Program
$10 million to Santa Margarita River (San Diego)
%5 million to Clear Lake
$3 million to Los Gatos Creek and Upper Guadalupe River Watersheds
$3 million to Russian River
$137 million - Wildlife Conservation Board to provide regional conservation investment strategies, conservation plans, funds for the UC Natural Reserve System, and to improve national recreation areas serving urbanized areas
$100 million - programs to prevent damages from stormwater, mudslides, and flash floods
$100 million - competitive grants for multibenefit projects in urbanized areas to address flooding, including stormwater capture and reuse, low-impact development planning, urban watershed restoration, and permeable surfaces
$80 million - competitive grants for groundwater cleanup of contaminated drinking water sources
$60 million - improvement of wildlife and fish passage, incl 1/2 for Southern California Steelhead
$60 million - protection and restoration of upper watershed lands in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains that improve water supply and quality
$60 million - competitive grants to protect natural, cultural, historic, and Native American resources; covert retired fossil fuel powerplant sites for open space, parks, or tourism; science centers; civic and athletic venues; cultural centers that recognize that contributions of the state's ethnic communities; and nonprofit aquariums
$20 million for multi-benefit green infrastructure in disadvantaged communities
$50 million - Department of Fish and Wildlife to address deferred maintenance
$50 million - projects that provide ecological restoration of forests, including projects to reduce fire risk
min 30% for urban forestry projects, min 50% of that to previously underserved local entities
50% to Sierra Nevada Conservancy
$40 million - grants to local jurisdictions whose voters passed local measures between 2012 and 2018 to improve local or regional park infrastructure
minimum $250,000 per recipient
$40 million - to California Ocean Protection Trust for projects to assist coastal communities with adaptation to climate change, including projects that address ocean acidification, sea level rise, or habitat restoration
35% for San Francisco; 12% for West Coyote Hills
$40 million - California Conservation Corps to rehabilitate state and local parks and restore watersheds
$30 million - grants to regional park districts, counties, open-space districts, joint powers authorities, and eligible nonprofit organizations to restore and improve parks
$30 million - grants to local agencies, state conservancies, Native American tribes, joint powers authorities, and nonprofit organizations to promote new or alternative access to parks, waterways, outdoor recreation, and natural environments
$30 million - Salton Sea Authority to provide air quality and habitat projects
$30 million - protection and restoration of habitat associated with the Pacific Flyway
$30 million - Department of Fish and Wildlife to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams, rivers, wildlife refuges, wetland habitat areas, and estuaries
$30 million - projects on farms and ranches to sequester carbon, improve habitat, reduce development pressures, and increase water absorption and retention
$25 million - competitive grants to rural areas for recreational projects to support economic and health-related goals
$25 million - stream restoration to benefit fisheries and wildlife
$18 million - Wildlife Conservation Board to provide wildlife corridors and open space, improve threatened and endangered species habitat, improve adaptation and resilience of natural systems to climate change, protect and improve existing open-space corridors and trail linkages, provide wildlife rehabilitation facilities, control invasive plants or insects, improve aquatic or riparian habitat, provide projects to benefit salmon and steelhead, provide hunting and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities through agreements with private landowners
$15 million - grants to cities and districts in urbanized counties with populations of 200,000 or less that provide park and recreation services
Rules
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Fund is created
Not more than 5% of a grant program may be used for administrative costs.
Up to 10% of funds allocated can be used for planning and monitoring, more if the project benefits a disadvantaged community.
At least 20% of funds shall be allocated to severely disadvantaged communities, 15% of projects that enhance and protect coastal and ocean resources or projects that plan, develop, and implement climate adaptation and resiliency projects.
Up to 10% may be allocated for technical assistance to disadvantaged communities.
A project whose application includes the use of services of the California Conservation Corps or certified community conservation corps shall be given preference for receipt of a grant under this division.
A project that includes water efficiencies, stormwater capture for infiltration or reuse, or carbon sequestration features in the project design may be given priority for grant funding.
Background
In recent years, the state has spent about $5 billion annually to support programs to protect the environment, conserve natural resources, provide flood protection, improve water quality, and offer recreational opportunities for the public.
Since 2000, voters have authorized about $27 billion in General Obligation bonds in statewide elections to fund various natural resources projects.
As of December 1, 2017, California had $73.33 billion in debt from general obligation (GO) bonds. The state repays GO bonds over time, with interest, using the state’s General Fund.
Proposition 69
Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit
Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit
initiative constitutional amendment
PASSED
Official Summary
Requires that certain revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law be used only for transportation purposes and generally prohibits Legislature from diverting funds to other purposes. Fiscal Impact: No direct effect on the amount of state and local revenues or costs but could affect how some monies are spent.
Show Me The Money (as of May 28)
support: $7,006,997 ; major contributors = building and construction industry
oppose: $0
Notes
Bottom line: Currently legislators allocate funds from increased gas taxes and auto registration fees to transportation projects. But they aren't required to do so by law. This is the law that would require it.
This is related to SB1, passed in April 2017 which increased gas taxes and auto registration fees. The legislature chose to dedicate all these revenues to transportation, but the State Constitution does not require it. This proposition would formalize the requirement to spend the revenue on transportation.
These revenues will not be counted in state and local spending limits.
Funds would be deposited into the Public Transportation Account quarterly.
Funds could not be used to pay principal or interest on bonds, unless the bond act specifically authorizes it.
Proposition 70
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund
Official Summary
Beginning in 2024, requires that cap-and-trade revenues accumulate in a reserve fund until the Legislature, by a two-thirds majority, authorizes use of the revenues. Fiscal Impact: Beginning in 2024, potential temporary increase in state sales tax revenue, ranging from none to a few hundred million dollars annually, and possible changes in how revenue from sale of greenhouse gas emission permits is spent.
Show Me The Money (as of May 29)
support: $0
oppose: $29,348 ; major contributor = Tom Steyer
Notes
Bottom line: changes allocation of moneys from cap and trade system from simple majority to 2/3 vote.
Creates The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund (GGRRF) to hold funds from the auction or sale of cap-and-trade allowances. Current funds are deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), used for state and local programs. The state can spend money from GGRF when passed with majority votes.
Funds may be used from the new GGRRF with 2/3 vote of Legislature starting in 2024. This is contrasted with current allocation from GGRF that only requires a majority.
Background on Cap and Trade: Under this program, which began in 2012, the state issues a limited number of permits to emit greenhouse gasses (GHG). Certain companies responsible for large amounts of GHG emissions must obtain a permit for each ton of GHG they emit. The state gives about half of the permits away to certain industries for free and sells the other half at auctions. A recent state law allows cap-and-trade to operate in California through 2030.
Proposition 71
Ballot measures: effective date
Official Summary
Provides that ballot measures approved by a majority of voters shall take effect five days after the Secretary of State certifies the results of the election. Fiscal Impact: Likely little or no effect on state and local finances.
Show Me The Money (as of May 29)
support: $0
oppose: $0
Notes
Bottom line: changes effective date from the day after the election to the 5th day after the state certifies the election (currently max 38 days).
Also corrects some grammar!
Ballot measures can always specify the date they take effect, even if it is retroactive. This is currently the case, too.
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs