November 2018 Ballot Measures What Do They Mean?

Transcription

1 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS November 2018 Ballot Measures What Do They Mean? November 6, 2018 General Election

2 Program Notes The League does not support or oppose or endorse any candidate or political party. While League does take stands on some measures, this presentation is educational, presenting both sides. We will explain the measures and give the pro and con arguments. Questions may be raised after each segment. THE place to go for information on candidates, measures, financing.

3 Basic Election Facts General election: November 6 Register by October 22 VIG mailed 9/27-10/16, online now Vote by mail ballots mailed 10/8 Sources of Information used for this talk: Ballot pamphlets: Online Voter Inf Guide League of Women Voters Pros and Cons Legislative Analyst s Office reports

4 Pocket Guide for voting on measures Be careful and thoughtful. Initiative laws are hard to change. Is it good government? Does the measure deal with one issue that can easily be decided with a Yes or No vote or should this be examined in the legislative arena? Consider the fiscal effects: Create its own revenue? Earmark or obligate General Fund? Be wary of the ads, appeals to emotion, and unsupported claims. Check facts and claims e.g. FactCheck.org Identify who is funding campaigns. Vote your principles.

5 November 2018 State Propositions 1 Housing Bond 2 Use Mental Health Act funds for supportive housing 3 Water Infrastructure Bond 4 Construction at children s hospitals Health Care Bond 5 Transfer of property tax base 6 Repeals approval of SB 1, requires voter approval for more 7 Daylight Savings Time (enables all-year DST) 8 Regulation of outpatient kidney dialysis clinics 10 Enables city & county rent control laws 11 Regulates private sector ambulance work conditions 12 New standards for confinement of farm animals

6 Prop 1 - Affordable Housing Bond Legislative Statute. Bond Measure

7 Prop 1: Affordable Housing Bond THE QUESTION: : Should the state issue $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing programs for low-income residents, farmworkers, plus for mobile homes and transitoriented housing, and revenue bonds for veterans? THE SITUATION: Houses in CA cost 2.5 x national average, average rent 50% higher. Some state assistance for low income, $2B from feds

8 Prop 1: Affordable Housing Bond PROPOSAL: Authorize bonds of $4 billion for: Affordable multifamily housing (1.8B) Housing near public transportation (150M) Infrastructure (300M) Homeownership programs (450M) Farmworker housing (300M) Home loans for veterans (1B) (Revenue Bonds) ESTIMATED COST: Will increase state costs $170 million per year for 35 years.

9 Prop 1 - Pros and Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS Proposition 1 provides relief from the housing crisis by building some housing and helping those who struggle Honors veterans by providing home loan assistance Supporters: Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, CA Assn of Realtors, State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA, Essex Property Trust + ballot argument signers

10 Prop 1 - Pros and Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS Will help a very limited number of persons Taxpayers are being asked to borrow more money through these bonds, which will end up costing everyone Opponents: Gary Wesley signed the opposing arguments, no formal campaign yet

11 Prop 2 Mental Health Money for Housing Legislative statute, Bond measure

12 Prop 2: Mental Health Housing THE QUESTION: Should $2 billion in bonds be issued and the Mental Health Services Act be amended to fund the No Place Like Home Program? THE SITUATION: , Proposition 63, increased income tax on earners over $1M to fund mental health services bill, to spend $2 billion from Prop 63 funds on permanent supportive housing for those suffering from mental illness: challenged in court

13 Prop 2: Mental Health Housing THE PROPOSAL: - Approves the No Place Like Home Act of Approves issuance of $2B in bonds in support - Amends provisions of Prop 63 to allow use of the revenue for NPLHA - No more than $140M per year can be used for NPLHA ESTIMATED COST: Bonds repaid from Prop 63 funds. Likely cost 120M per year for the next 30 years.

14 Prop 2 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Prop. 2 alleviates the problem of homelessness complicated by mental illness. Supportive housing allows coordinated care of individuals who need treatment and housing stability. This uses funds already earmarked for mental health services Supporters: Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy, CA Assn of Realtors, State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA, Essex Property Trust + ballot argument signers; Steinberg Institute

15 Prop 2 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Prop. 2 spends money on buildings instead of on badly needed treatment.. - Restrictive zoning laws that make it difficult to build housing is not addressed Unnecessary: Counties already use Prop. 63 revenue to offer housing to severely mentally ill patients. (AB 727, 2017) Opponents: National Alliance on Mental Illness Contra Costa signed arguments; no known formal campaign

16 Prop 3 $8.9 B Water Infrastructure Bond Initiative Statute, General Obligation Bond Measure

17 Prop 3: Water Infrastructure Bond THE QUESTION: Should the State sell $8.9 billion in bonds to fund projects related to water supply and quality, watershed and fisheries restoration, habitat protection, water conveyance and groundwater sustainability and storage? THE SITUATION: Voters have authorized $31B in bonds for natural resource projects in the past 17 years, including a June $4.1 billion bond to fund parks, recreation, and conservation. Several billion still available.

18 Prop 3: Water Infrastructure Bond THE PROPOSAL: $8.9 billion in bonds for: Watershed land improvement $2.5B Water supply and quality: $2.1B Fish and wildlife habitat $1.4B Water facility upgrades for specific projects in Central Valley, Bay Area, Oroville Dam $1.2B Groundwater recharge & storage $1.1B Flood protection $500M ESTIMATED COST: $17.3B; About $430M per year for 40 years.

19 Prop 3 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Funds projects to help increase water supply from a variety of sources such as storm water capture and desalination Will help ensure that disadvantaged communities can access safe drinking water Watershed restoration will improve water quality and protect agricultural interests Ducks Unlimited, CA Wildlife Fdn, CA Waterfowl Assn, Western Growers, ballot signers

20 Prop 3 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: We need more dams to collect rain and snow melt but these aren t included It panders to special interests by making recreation and wildlife a priority over farmers Paying back these new bonds will result in raised taxes Opponents Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group, no known formal campaign

21 Prop 4 - Children s Hospital Bond Initiative Statute, General Obligation Bond Measure

22 Prop 4: Children s Hospital Bond THE QUESTION: Should the State of California issue $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to expand and improve the buildings and equipment at children s hospitals? THE SITUATION: Children s hospitals provide specialized physical and mental healthcare services to infants and children. Over half the patients receive Medi-Cal benefits. Only a small amount of funding remains from the previous 2004 and 2008 bonds and is expected to be used by mid 2018.

23 Prop 4: Children s Hospital Bond THE PROPOSAL: Raise $1.5 billion For new facilities, improving and expanding current facilities, and purchasing new equipment. 72% to the 8 private nonprofit children s hospitals The rest to UC children s acute care centers and to nonprofit hospitals that care for children eligible for governmental programs. ESTIMATED COST: 2.9B; An extra $80 million annually for 35 years.

24 Prop 4 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Prop. 4 helps over 2 million sick children each year and leads to better health outcomes. Previous bonds have been used to add more beds and purchase new technology. Supporters: Ballot signers. Financial supporters: the 8 hospitals contributed over $1M each

25 Prop 4 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENT: The bond would need to be repaid, potentially through higher taxes. We should first look at improving the entire healthcare system including lowering costs Opponents: Gary Wesley, Attorney, signed opposing arguments; no known formal campaign

26 Prop 5 - Portable Prop 13 Benefits Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

27 Prop 5: Portable Prop 13 Benefits THE QUESTION: Should the Constitution be amended to allow homeowners over age 55 or disabled, or with property damaged by disaster or contaminated, to transfer their property tax base to replacement property within California, with adjustments for differences in property value? THE SITUATION: Tax rates are capped at 1.1% of newowner assessed value, growing annually by no more than 2%. Designated homeowners can transfer, one time, their tax base to replacement property if value is the same or less.

28 Prop 5: Portable Prop 13 Benefits THE PROPOSAL: Beginning 1/1/19, allows transfers for moves to the designated persons: - Anywhere in the state - No matter the purchase price - No limit on the number of times it can be used ESTIMATED COST: Over time, loss of $1B annually for local governments and $1B for schools. Local schools reimbursed by the state. SC County estimates jump from 178 to 7000 transactions

29 Prop 5: How it Works E.G.: 55 YO Couple, current home taxable value $200,000, market value $600,000, yearly tax $2,200. If they move: To a more expensive home: If new home is $700,000: $ : new home minus prior home market value + $200,000: prior home taxable value =$300,000: New home s tax value, tax $3,300 not $7K To a less expensive home: If new home is $450,000: 75%: New home divided by prior home market value x $200,000: prior home taxable value =$150,000 New home s tax value, tax $1650 not $2.2K

30 Prop 5 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Older adults on fixed incomes need this protection. More houses will become available for younger families. Prop. 5 will protect Prop. 13 tax reductions Supporters: CA Assn of Realtors, Natl Assn of Realtors, ballot signers

31 Prop 5 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Essential local services and schools will be affected. Loss of local revenue will become worse every year (including over generations). Seniors already receive Prop. 13 protection Opponents: SEIU, CA Teachers Assn, CA Professional Firefighters, CA State Assn of Counties, ballot signers

32 Prop 6 - Gas Tax Repeal Initiative Constitutional Amendment

33 Prop 6: Gas Tax Repeal THE QUESTION: Should the increase in vehicle fuel taxes and fees enacted by the Legislature in 2017 be reversed and should the Constitution be amended to require voter approval of any transportation related taxes and fees? THE SITUATION: Last year, lawmakers passed SB1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act. Revenue estimated $5.1B annually when all are implemented. Prop 69 in June dedicates this to transportation purposes.

34 Tax increases in SB 1 that would be repealed Gasoline base excise tax up 12 to 30 /gal. Variable excise tax set at 17.3 Diesel fuel up 20 to 36 Sales tax up from 1.75% to 5.75% Annual Transportation Improvement fee (new) $25-$175 depending on value of car. Electric car annual fee of $100 starting 2020.

35 THE PROPOSAL: Prop 6: Gas Tax Repeal - Repeal the fuel tax increases and vehicle fees enacted by SB1 - Amend the Constitution to require any future legislatively-imposed taxes on fuels and vehicles to take effect only if the voters of the state vote to approve it ESTIMATED COST: Loss of $5.1B annually from anticipated. More difficult time raising revenue from transportation sources in the future.

36 Prop 6 -Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Gas taxes and fees are too high, fall the hardest on hardworking families, and are unnecessary in a state that has a budget surplus. One third of the gas tax increase will be diverted to non-road related pet projects including building parks and training for formerly incarcerated felons Tax increases on gasoline that directly affect people s lives are too big for just the governor and Leg to decide Supporters CA Republican Party, Kevin McCarty for Congress, John Cox for Governor, ballot signers

37 Prop 6 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Reliable transportation infrastructure is critical to get Californians to work, move goods to the market, and support our economy. 89% of counties have poor or at-risk roads, > 1600 bridges and overpasses are structurally unsafe. Requiring voter approval of transportation taxes already passed by a supermajority in the Leg risks the unintended consequences of ballot box budgeting Opponents: CA Alliance for Jobs, Laborers Pacific Regional Organizing Coalition, State Bldg & Const. Trades Council of CA, So CA District of Laborers

38 Prop 7 - Daylight Savings Time Legislative Statute

39 PROP 7: DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME THE QUESTION: Should the legislature be allowed to change Daylight Savings Time by a two-thirds vote if federal law authorizes it? THE SITUATION: Part-year Daylight Savings Time was started during World War II to save energy. Federal law requires this. CA voters approved in 1949, thus voters must vote to authorize the Leg to change it.

40 PROP 7: DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME THE PROPOSAL: Would change law by requiring 2/3 vote of Leg to determine how the state sets its time, whether changing time period for DST, to make DST year round, or to stay on standard time. If vote is for full time DST, State must ask Congress and President to amend the Uniform Time Act to allow. Advises Leg to consider instituting year-round DST. ESTIMATED COST: Unknown, could be minor.

41 Pros & Cons - Prop 7 SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS Medical studies show that the risk of heart attacks and strokes increases during the days following a time change. Changing clocks twice a year increases our electricity use by 4%, increases the amount of fuel used by cars and costs $434 million. Supporters Ballot signers; authorized by state legislature. No known formal campaign.

42 Pros & Cons - Prop 7 OPPOSING ARGUMENTS The United States tried year-round DST in 1974 because of the energy crisis. People hated getting up in the dark in the morning. There are no conclusive studies that having DST year-round saves energy or money. Opponents: Ballot signers. No known formal campaign.

43 Prop 8 - Dialysis Clinic Profit Limit Initiative Statute

44 Prop 8: Dialysis Clinic Profit Limit THE QUESTION: Should outpatient dialysis clinics be required to rebate money to private insurers if their revenue exceeds allowable costs by more than 15%? THE SITUATION: People suffering from End Stage Renal Disease receive dialysis to survive, typically in a chronic dialysis clinic 3X a week. Of 588 clinics, the majority are owned by 1 of 2 for-profit companies. Most dialysis paid by Medicare and MediCal; private insurance payments are multiple times higher.

45 Prop 8: Dialysis Clinic Profit Limit THE PROPOSAL: Companies must rebate payers if the clinic chains annual revenues are >15% higher than a cap based on total allowable costs of direct patient services care and health care quality improvement costs. Includes costs of line staff, drugs, med supplies, staff training, patient education, electronic health information systems. Not clear if costs of certain staff e.g. med. directors and nurse managers, required by federal law, are part of the cap. Allows clinic operators appeals. ESTIMATED COST: Impact varies from net savings of tens of millions to a similar net cost.

46 Prop 8 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Prop. 8 provides incentive for dialysis clinic companies to lower their costs and improve the quality of patient care. When insurance companies are charged less for dialysis the overall cost of insurance will decrease for everyone. Supporters include SEIU, CA State Council of Service Employees, ballot signers

47 Prop 8 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Prop. 8 sets arbitrary limits on what insurance companies pay for dialysis treatment will not cover the complete cost of running a clinic. Clinics will reduce operations or close, depriving patients of access and increasing the risk of poor medical outcomes. Opponents include ballot signers, DaVita, Fresenius Medical Care, US Renal Care, Inc.

48 Prop 10 Allows Expanded Rent Control Initiative Statute

49 Prop 10: Expanded Rent Control THE QUESTION: Should the current state law that limits the scope of city and county rent-control ordinances be repealed, thereby allowing cities and counties more authority to limit the rental rates that residential property owners may charge for new tenants, new construction, and single-family homes? THE SITUATION: Leg passed Costa-Hawkins Act in 1995, -moratorium on rent control laws -can t apply existing rent regulations to new unit -can raise rents with new tenants -landlords can receive a fair rate of return

50 Prop 10: Expanded Rent Control THE PROPOSAL: - Repeals Costa Hawkins. - Allows cities and counties to regulate rents on housing property - Allows regulation of how much rent can be raised with new tenant. - Retains right of fair return - Does not change existing rent control laws ESTIMATED COST: It depends. Most likely reduce state and local revenues, esp for property tax, perhaps in 10s of million $$s.

51 Prop 10 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS High rents hurt seniors, families, all with low or fixed income. This prop protects them Will allow local areas to decide what makes sense for their issues but doesn t change or mandate any rent control measures Supporters AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Coalition for Affordable Housing, SEIU CA, CA Teachers Assn, CA Nurses Assn, East Bay Working Families, Am Fed of State, County and Municipal Employees, ballot signers

52 Prop 10 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS Rent control laws reduce the amount of rental property available: landlords will stop renting, building more isn t encouraged Allows the creation of new local bureaucrats with power to regulate rents on all types of residential property Opponents Western National Group, Essex Property Trust, Equity Residential, CA Assn of Realtors, Prometheus Real Estate Group, Avalonbay Communities, Blackstone Group, ballot signers

53 Proposition 11 Paramedic Break Time Initiative Statute

54 Prop 11: Paramedic Break Time THE QUESTION: Should the Labor Code be amended to allow private ambulance employees to remain on call during work breaks and to exempt their employers from potential liability for violations of existing law regarding work breaks? THE SITUATION: In 2016, Court ruling that security guards cannot be required to keep their radios on and remain on call during meal or break time. Emergency Medical Services industry wants a specific exemption made for its workers due to the similarity. Otherwise, providers estimate that 25% more ambulances would be needed.

55 Prop 11: Paramedic Break Time THE PROPOSAL: Amend state labor laws, allowing providers personnel to remain on call during breaks but specifying breaks cannot be at beginning/end of shift. Requires providers to operate enough ambulances to meet performance requirements. These regs would be retroactive for lawsuits already filed. Also guarantees technicians additional training, education, counseling and services. ESTIMATED COST: Slightly lower EMT contract costs for local govts, in low 10s of millions annually.

56 Prop 11 - Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS Prop. 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying medical personnel to be on call during their work breaks. Emergency personnel must be able to respond quickly and deliver lifesaving medical care during mass casualty events. Prop. 11 mandates that such personnel receive additional training to meet emergency standards. Supporters American Medical Response

57 Prop 11 - Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS None filed, no committee formed to date.

58 Prop 12 Farm Animal Cages Initiative Statute

59 Prop 12: Farm Animal Cages THE QUESTION: Should the State revise its current farm animal confinement laws with new confinement space standards for egglaying hens, pregnant pigs, and calves raised for veal, and prohibit the sale of eggs and meat that do not comply with these standards, including those produced in other states? THE SITUATION: In 2008 voters passed an initiative requiring cages of farm animals to allow them to stand up, turn around and extend their limbs/wings. Complaints arose about vagueness, implementation and enforcement.

60 Prop 12: Farm Animal Cages THE PROPOSAL: Place specific standard measurements on the coops and cages used to contain breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens. Require by 2022 all egg-laying hens be raised in specified "cage-free" conditions. Would apply to anyone selling related food products in California, even if the farms are out of state. ESTIMATED COST: It might increase enforcement costs up to $10M annually and decrease income tax revenue not more than several million dollars annually from farms due to expenses incurred to meet space requirements. Consumer prices likely to increase for these products.

61 Prop 12 Pros & Cons SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS: Proposition 12 would: Strengthen and clarify California s decade-old farm animal anti-cruelty law. Prevent egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves from being housed inhumanely in small cages for their entire lives. Reduce the risk of people being sickened by food poisoning and factory farm pollution by preventing overcrowding of animals in small spaces. Supporters Humane Society, ASPCA, several individuals, ballot signers

62 Prop 12 Pros & Cons OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Proposition 12: Is not a truly cruelty-free alternative to current factory farm practices. Would face court or legislative challenges from other states regarding the ban on selling non-conforming eggs and meat. Mandates full compliance by 2022, a too-narrow time frame that could result in supply disruptions, price spikes, and shortages of eggs, pork products, and veal. Opponents Humane Farming Assn. Action Fund, Natl Assn of Egg Farmers, Assn of CA Egg Farmers, Natl Pork Producers Council, CA Pork Producers Assn.

63 Measure A Sales Tax Extension Majority Vote THE QUESTION: Should the 0.125% (one-eighth cent) County-wide sales tax set to expire on March 31, 2023, be extended on an ongoing basis to fund local priorities? THE SITUATION In 2012, voters approved a 1/8 sales tax for 10 years to be used for County purposes, with annual public reports to ensure financial accountability. Annual revenues have been used to improve core health and social service programs including supporting community health clinics, expanding adult and child crisis stabilization services, and funding improvements in the SC Valley Medical Center Emergency Room. Currently, the County-wide sales tax rate (including state sales tax) is 9.0% with the exceptions of Campbell and San Jose sales tax rates of 9.25%.

64 Measure A Sales Tax Extension THE PROPOSAL Measure A will allow the current 1/8 sales tax to continue on an ongoing basis for general fund revenue. The County Board of Supervisors maintains that revenues will be used to fund local priorities such as law enforcement and public safety, trauma and emergency care, affordable housing, supportive services for the homeless, transit for seniors and the disabled, children and family services, agricultural preservation, and mental health services. Annual audit and public reports will continue to be mandated. FISCAL EFFECTS There will be no increase to current taxes. It is estimated to raise $50M annually.

65 Measure A Pros and Cons SUPPORTERS SAY It will continue the critical funding for Valley Medical Center s Trauma Center, neonatal unit, and other important health services for Santa Clara County It ensures public safety to keep neighborhoods safe It funds efforts to create affordable housing for families and seniors and create innovative homeless programs It requires strict accountability and transparency with public audits and annual reports published for review * Supporters: see ballot signers

66 Measure A Pros and Cons OPPONENTS SAY County of Santa Clara has tax measures on the ballot for every election Nov 2008, 2010, 2012, 2016 and 2018 is no different No guarantee tax money will be spent on basic services The County overspent on costs for one new building by $180 million, approximately 100% over budget County of Santa Clara needs to stop raising taxes again and again until they get their priorities straight and can be held accountable * Opponents: See ballot signers

67 Measure S Construction Contracts Majority Vote, Charter Amendment SITUATION: Currently, public bidding is the primary procurement method for public works contracts over $100,000. The City must award these contracts to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Section 1217 s low-bid requirements prevents the City from implementing programs supporting the use of small, local and economically disadvantaged businesses. Also currently, the City can procure a designbuild contract without public bidding (same contractor both designs and builds), if the contract is over $5M and the Council determines the contract would save money or result in faster project completion.

68 Measure S Construction Contracts PROPOSAL: Increase the threshold to $600,000, authorize annual adjustments for inflation. Bid amount remains primary, but adds alternative allowing consideration of a bidder s qualifications: a bidder s safety record, past performance, labor compliance, management competence, financial condition and relevant experience. Lower the design-build threshold to $1M Add authorization to apply programs supporting the use of small, local and economically disadvantaged businesses

69 Measure S Pros and Cons SUPPORTERS SAY: ensures San Jose residents get projects built by contractors who offer the lowest cost together with the best record of accomplishment for experience, work quality and expertise. enables San Jose to stretch its public works dollars further by protecting taxpayers and promoting efficiency reforms the public works bidding process by increasing the opportunity for small, local, and economically disadvantaged businesses to compete. Supporters: see ballot argument

70 Measure S Pros and Cons OPPONENTS: No opposition argument filed

71 Measure T Disaster Preparedness, Public Safety, and Infrastructure Bond 2/3 vote needed THE SITUATION: Current Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure (DMIF) backlog is $1.4B. There is no identified potential source of funding after leveraging funding from the 2016 City sales tax measure, the VTA Measure B sales tax, gas tax revenue, and other federal, state, and regional funding. The DMIF grows by $112 million per year. Voters last approved general obligation bonds in 2000 (for parks) and 2002 (for library and public safety). As of June, the City had $382.8 million in general obligation debt, 1.3% of the taxable property value. City charter limits are 15%.

72 Measure T Disaster Preparedness, Public Safety, and Infrastructure Bond PROPOSAL: $650 million in general obligation bonds only for the costs of design and improvements and land acquisition. Community Oversight Committee & audits. * To improve emergency and disaster response, repair bridges vulnerable to earthquake damage, repave deteriorating streets and potholes, prevent flooding and water quality contamination including acquisition of open space in Coyote Valley for these purposes, and repair or replacement of critical infrastructure. * At least $300 million of the revenue would be for repaving streets and potholes in the worst condition. FISCAL: Property tax assessed at 10.7 per $1,000 of assessed value, end after bonds repaid

73 Measure T Pros and Cons SUPPORTERS SAY: Will make us safer by reversing decades of underinvestment in streets, bridges, and public safety facilities to make daily driving safer and improve our daily emergency response Will prepare us for floods, earthquakes, and other disasters Will save us money by spending on disaster prevention, upgrading emergency operations, protecting open space Supporters: see ballot arguments

74 Measure T Pros and Cons OPPONENTS SAY: Construction contractors would need to sign a Project Labor Agreement requiring them to work with unions on most infrastructure projects, preventing many local workers from building in their own community Interest on bonds mean $650 million will likely cost $1.1 billion; we already pay high taxes Funds should not be used to upgrade 911 communication technologies which will be obsolete in 5-6 years, while payments go on. Opponents: see ballot arguments

75 Measure U Charter Amendments Majority vote needed THE QUESTION: Shall the Charter be amended to: Remove the Mayor and Council s ability to approve their salaries; Require the Salary Setting Commission to adjust the base salaries once every five years; Limit increases thereafter to annual adjustments for inflation; and Allow the City Council to place Competing ordinances on the same ballot? THE SITUATION: : Every 2 years, the Salary Setting Commission recommends to the Council what their salaries should be. They may adopt or set a lesser amount, or reduce at any time. * CA law allows a city council to submit any ordinance to the voters, even if it competes with a citizen initiative, but our Charter prevents it.

76 Measure U Charter Amendments PROPOSAL: *Amends the City Charter to authorize the Commission to set salaries for the City Council. The Council would still be able to reduce at any time. The salaries set would occur every five years, and in the intervening 5-year period would increase annually with inflation. * Amends Charter to allow the City Council to place 1+ ordinances on the ballot to compete with a citizen initiative if submitted by a 2/3 vote of Council. Before submitting, Council must refer the citizen initiative to a consultant to assess its accuracy, economic impact, if it would create an entitlement hard to reverse. Report must be accepted by majority vote.

77 Measure U Pros and Cons SUPPORTERS SAY: It removes the Mayor and City Council s ability to approve their own salaries by empowering the Salary Setting Commission to set salaries, allowing the Commission to adjust the salary once every five years, and limit salary increases to adjustments for inflation. It enables the Council to fight special interests by placing a competing measure on the ballot, if approved by 2/3rds of the Council. It will give San Jose the same ability as other California cities regarding submitting competing ordinances. Supporters: see ballot arguments

78 Measure U Pros and Cons OPPONENTS SAY: No opposing arguments were submitted.

79 Measure V Affordable Housing Bond 2/3 vote needed SITUATION Our metro area is the nation s second most costly rental and housing market. In 2016 SCC voters approved a $950 million housing bond that allocates 85% to residents at or below 50% of average median income (AMI), 10% for moderate income housing, and 5% for first time homebuyers. While market-rate housing construction is at 72% of the city s goal, housing for moderate income housing is at only 5% of the goal. Voters last approved general obligation bonds in 2000 (for parks) and 2002 (for library and public safety). As of June, the City had $382.8 million in general obligation debt, 1.3% of the taxable property value. City charter limit IS 15%.

80 Measure V Affordable Housing Bond PROPOSAL: Authorize the City to issue up to $450 million in general obligation municipal bonds to fund housing for working families, veterans, seniors, teachers, nurses, paramedics and other workers, individuals with disabilities, domestic violence survivors, and homeless individuals. For land, new housing, acquisition and rehab of existing apartments or homes Minimum of $150M for projects for earners up to 30% of the AMI, and $75M for moderate income earners, other for those 31% to 80%. FISCAL: Property tax assessed at 8.2 per $1,000 of assessed value, end after bonds repaid

81 Measure V Pros and Cons SUPPORTERS SAY: Provides housing affordable in San Jose for working families, veterans, seniors, teachers, nurses, and paramedics. It helps homeless residents get back on their feet, both to address issues of health, public safety, blight, and public nuisances, and because it s simply the right thing to do. It leverages private investment and state funding, saves us $19,282 for each homeless person using public services who is housed, and enables more workers to live in the community they serve. Supporters: see ballot arguments

82 Measure V Pros and Cons OPPONENTS SAY: A significant reason why we don t have affordable housing is City policies that restrict new construction of affordable housing. Supply hasn t kept up with demand because of too much government: zoning laws limit density, banking laws restrict lending, and building codes add unnecessary costs. So far there has been no low-income housing project solely funded by the tax increase imposed by the County after passage of the 2016 measure. Opponents: see ballot arguments

83 Thanks Thank you for your interest in informed democracy and for your attendance. Please make sure you are correctly registered and VOTE. Your vote counts.

84 California State Budget Areas State and consumer services K through 12 Education Higher Education General Government Legislative, Judicial and Executive Tax Relief and Local Government Statewide Expenditures Business Transportation and Housing Health and Human Services Natural Resources Environmental protection Corrections and Rehabilitation Realignment Labor and Workforce Development

85 California Local Government Counties Subdivisions of the State. Perform state functions and services at local level, general government in unincorporated areas. Cities municipal corporations, general government under charter or general law. Have tax, police, and corporate powers. Special Districts authorized by Legislature to perform specific public services. Have powers under principal act (e.g. AB 3) and broad enabling law (e.g. Community Services District Law).

86 The California Initiative Power Right reserved to the People (Const. Art. II) Measures may be placed on ballot by Legislature or citizen initiative Measures may amend the Constitution or enact laws (legislative acts). Legislature cannot amend a voter-approved measure except as that measure allows. Courts interpret initiative measures broadly to uphold the voters will.

87 Referendums and voter approval California Constitution Article II reserves to the people the right to referendum on legislative acts. Article XXI allows referendum on district maps approved by Citizens Redistricting Commission. Article XVI requires voter approval for state bonds (majority vote) and local bonds (2/3 vote except school construction bonds 55%). Article XIII C requires voter approval for new local taxes and tax increases - 2/3 vote for special tax, majority vote for general tax. Neither initiative nor referendum may be used so as to interfere with governmental responsibility for fiscal management.

88 Retroactivity Constitutional Principles Tax measures are exempt from referendum. Taxes may be repealed by initiative. An initiative may have retroactive effect subject to the principle that a measure cannot interfere with essential government functions.

89 Current limits on rent control No rent control on single family homes, condominiums, or new (after 2/1/95 or date of enactment) units. No vacancy control in most situations Mobile home rent control allowed by separate state law.

90 Rent Control Basics Cities and counties may limit rents to correct disruption of residential rental market, maintain safe & habitable housing stock, and promote maintenance during shortages. Ordinance must afford property owners: Due process of law notice and hearing Fair return on property avoid taking Ordinances commonly include just cause for eviction, relocation, mediation of disputes.