Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Southwest California Legislative Council September agenda

37 views

Published on

One of our most attended and discussed meetings of the year. Our Council members have assigned themselves an initiative from the November ballot to research, evaluate, present, and recommend a position for the SWCLC to adopt. Discussion on the pro's and con's of each proposition, along with who supports and who funds, is always a lively and illuminating review that takes us behind the simple (and sometimes misleading) title statement.
* What's the truth behind the $4 billion 'veterans' housing bill? (Prop 1)
* Who benefits from tax portability? (Prop 5)
* Should the gas tax be repealed? (Prop 6)
* Is it time to do away with daylight savings time? (Prop 7)
* Does rent control contribute to more affordable housing? Prop 10)

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Southwest California Legislative Council September agenda

  1. 1. MEETING AGENDA Monday, September 17, 2018 Realtor House, 26529 Jefferson Ave, Murrieta Presiding: Greg Morrison, Chair 2018 Strategic Initiatives Budget & Tax Reform / Job Creation and Retention / Healthcare / Infrastructure & the Environment/ Public Safety Call to Order, Roll Call & Introductions: 12:00 p.m. Chair Report Approval of Minutes Action Legislative Report # 9 Action 1. California Proposition 1, the Housing Programs and Veterans' Loans Bond 2. California Proposition 2, the Use Millionaire's Tax Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Housing Bonds Measure. 3. California Proposition 3, the California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative. 4. California Proposition 4, the Children's Hospital Bonds Initiative. 5. California Proposition 5, the Property Tax Transfer Initiative. 6. California Proposition 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative. 7. California Proposition 7, the Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure. 8. California Proposition 8, the Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative. 9. California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative. 10. California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative. 11. Bill Tracker review Speaker and Chamber Announcements Information Our lunch sponsor Tyler & Bursch, LLP Thank You Adjourn – Next Meeting October 15, 2018 Follow us on: The Southwest California Legislative Council Thanks Our Partners: Southwest Riverside Country Association of Realtors Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District CR&R Waste Services Abbott Vascular Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce Canyon Lake Chamber of Commerce Commerce Bank of Temecula Valley California Apartment Association Southwest Healthcare Systems Temecula Valley Hospital EDC of Southwest California Paradise Chevrolet Cadillac The Murrieta Temecula Group Southern California Edison
  2. 2. Southwest California Legislative Council MEETING MINUTES Monday, August 20, 2018 Realtor House, 26529 Jefferson Ave, Murrieta Presiding: Chairman Greg Morrison Strategic Initiatives Budget & Tax Reform / Job Creation and Business Retention / Healthcare / Infrastructure & The Environment/ Public Safety Canyon Lake Chamber of Commerce Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Present Name Company A Benoit, Ben (LE) CA Apt. Association P Bouvet, Adam (MW) The Mill P Braicovich, Alex (LE) CR&R, Inc. A Cross, Eric (LE) Express Employment Professionals P Frank, Dennis (T) D.R. Frank & Associates A Hitzeman, Don (MW) The Law Office of Hitzeman & Evenson A Kelliher, John (T) Grapeline Wine Tours P McLeod, Erik (MW) Pacific Premier Bank P Morris, Andy (MW) Farmers Insurance P Morrison, Greg (LE) EVMWD A Neet, Brad (MW) Southwest Healthcare Systems P Nolta, Paul SBDC A Phillips, Derek A Ruiz, Adam (T) AR Homes Loans Direct P Sparkman, Joan (T) Southwest Healthcare Systems A Summers, Karen (MW) Rancon Real Estate A Walker, Barry (CL) Walker Trial Lawyers P= Present A=Absent EX= Excused CL=Canyon Lake LE=Lake Elsinore M=Menifee MW=Murrieta/Wildomar P=Perris T=Temecula
  3. 3. Southwest California Legislative Council Chamber Representatives A Cousins, Kim Lake Elsinore Chamber P Ellis, Patrick Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber A Estrada, Heather Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber A LoPiccolo, Tony Menifee Chamber P Monroe, Mike Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber P Niebla, Kimberly Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber P Sullivan, Alice Temecula Chamber P Strada, Heather Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber P Turnbow, Laura Temecula Chamber P Wunderlich, Gene SWCLC Guest Attendance Present Name Company E-mail  Ambrose, Brian City of Murrieta  Arias, Consuelo Senator Jeff Stone consuelo.arias@sen.ca.gov  Arlt, Patti MWD of SoCal parlt@mwdh2o.com  Ashworth, Daneen Meridian HR daneen@mymeridianhr.com  Balderrama, Olivia County Supervisor Washington  Bott, Jeff The Toll Roads (TCA) jbott@thetollroads.com  Connors, Brian Southwest Healthcare System  Dennstedt, Brenda Rep. Ken Calvert & WMWD bdennstedt@wmwd.com  Freese, Tim Alta Pacific Bank  Hellweg, Opal County Supervisor Washington ohellweg@rivco.org  Herrera, Debbie Senator Jeff Stone debbie.herren@sen.ca.gov  Johnston, Doug Petra Geoscience djohnston@petra-inc.com  Joyce, Jeremy Old Republic Title jjoyce@ortc.com  Krzenski, Keith PKC Kuebler, APC keith.krzenski@pkckuebler.com  Levasheff, Drake Azusa Pacific University dlevasheff@apu.edu  Lopez, Al Western Water  Lynch, Connie SRCAR ceo@srcar.org  MacDougal, Kristy Assemblywoman Waldron kristy.macdougall@asm.ca.gov  Myers, Morris MSJC mmyers@msjc.edu  O'Neal, Paul Nevada Hydro pauloneal@gmail.com  Perry, Heather Senator Morrell heather.perry@sen.ca.gov  Ramirez, Alma EMWD ramireza@emwd.org  Rountree, Roxanne EMWD rountrer@emwd.org  Ruiz, Yvonne Wine Country Notary yvonne@winecountrynotary.com  Sayles, Sundae Supervisor Washington ssayles@rivco.org  Stilwell, Samantha Assemblywoman Melendez samantha.stilwell@asm.ca.gov  Tate-Meyer, Carrie MSJC cmeyer@msjc.edu  Terrell, Randy
  4. 4. Southwest California Legislative Council  Valencia, Meggon Rancho CA Water District valenciam@ranchowater.com  Wilson, Walter SRCAR walter@srcar.org  Wunderlich, Linda Valley Business Journal publishertvbj@verizon.net Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morrison at 12:15pm Chairman Morrison thanked Sally Myers, Sizzler Restaurant, for providing the wonderful lunch! ACTION ITEMS Approval of Minutes Meeting minutes from the July 23, 2018 SWCLC meeting were reviewed. The motion was made to approve the July 23, 2018 meeting minutes as written. The motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous vote. AB 2455, as amended, (3) Kalra. Home care aide registry: disclosure of personal contact information. Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE AB 2455 AB 2463, as amended, (2) Quirk-Silva. Small Business Technical Assistance and Expansion Act of 2018. Recommended action: SUPPORT – The SWCLC voted unanimously to SUPPORT AB 2463 AB 3075, as amended,(2) Berman. Office of Elections Cybersecurity Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE AB 3075 AB 3178, as amended, (5) Rubio. Integrated waste management plans: source reduction and recycling element: diversion requirements. Recommended action: SUPPORT – The SWCLC voted unanimously to SUPPORT AB 3178 SB 100, as amended, (9) De León. California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases. Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE SB 100 SB 1186, as amended, Hill. Law enforcement agencies: surveillance: policies. Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE SB 1186 SB 845, Water Quality: Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund Recommended action: OPPOSE – The SWCLC voted unanimously to OPPOSE SB 845 California Proposition 11, the Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative The SWCLC voted unanimously to SUPPORT Proposition 11 Dynamex Independent Contractor Decision Review of CalChamber’s request of legislators to provide clarification of the guidelines related to independent contractors. Assignment of 2018 Ballot Propositions Prop 1 – $4 billion in bonds for Veteran housing programs Adam Ruiz Prop 2 - Millionaire’s tax for $2 billion in bonds for homelessness prevention housing Dennis Frank Prop 3 - $8.877 billion in water related infrastructure and environmental bonds Greg Morrison Prop 4 - $1.5 billion in bonds for children’s hospital Joan Sparkman/Brad Neet Prop 5 – Transfer tax assessments for 55+ and severely disabled Gene Wunderlich Prop 6 – Repeal of 2017 fuel tax and future fee increase vote requirement John Kelliher Prop 7 – Permanent Daylight Savings Time Andy Morris Prop 8 – Dialysis refund requirements Brad Neet Prop 10 – Rent Control Adam Bouvet Prop 12 – Sale of meat from animals confined in spaces below a specific size Erik McLeod
  5. 5. Southwest California Legislative Council US Chamber of Commerce Reported by Vartan Djinaniann: Djinaniann addressed the current trade and tariff issues and the importance of remaining competitive in the world market. Key points:  6 million jobs go toward manufacturing export products  41 million manufacturing jobs in US rely on trade  98% of manufacturing jobs are small businesses  US Chamber feels there is the need for trade agreements rather than tariffs  Collaboration and partnerships with other countries are needed to effectively negotiate with China  Requested details on businesses that are being effected by tariffs Senator Stone Report by Debbie Herrera: Governor Brown appointed Senator Stone to the Wildfire Committee. The committee will address vegetation management. An audit of DMV processes was proposed but failed to pass. Senator Morrell Report by Heather Perry: SB 174 was amended from an emission reduction bill to eligibility to serve on commissions to be expanded to all Californians regardless of immigration status. An event to recognize first responders will be held on September 22nd in Rancho Cucamonga. Assemblymember Melissa Melendez Reported by Samantha Stilwell: Assemblymember Melendez is co-author of AB3162 – Additional oversight for sober living homes. Melendez opposes SB1172 which would require less accountability related to high-speed rail cost overruns. Assemblymember Marie Waldron Report by Kristy MacDougal: Bad Bill: SB 439 – Most crimes committed by a child less than 11 years of age cannot be prosecuted. County Supervisor Chuck Washington State of the County is scheduled for Thursday, September 6th at Pechanga Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Reported by Alice Sullivan:  Women In Business, Thursday, August 30, 2018 at Pechanga Resort & Casino  Professional Development – August 24th – Topic: Leadership & Critical Thinking  Monte Carlo – Wednesday, September 19th at Wilson Creek Winery Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce Reported by Patrick Ellis  Ellis thanked all for attending the Murrieta Chamber’s Awards event  Get Shamrocked – end of September  November 14th – Economic Outlook and launching of Explore Murrieta SWCLC thanked Sizzler Restaurant for their generous donation of lunch for today’s meeting. Adjournment: 1:25 pm Next meeting Monday, September 17, 2018
  6. 6. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative item #1: Action California Proposition 1, the Housing Programs and Veterans' Loans Bond Presentation: Adam Ruiz Recommended action: A "yes" vote supports this measure to authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing- related programs, loans, grants, and projects and housing loans for veterans. A "no" vote opposes this measure to authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-related programs, loans, grants, and projects and housing loans for veterans. Overview Proposition 1 would authorize $4 billion in general obligation bonds for housing-related programs, loans, grants, and projects and housing loans for veterans. The measure would distribute bond revenue as follows:  $1 billion for the CalVet Home Loan Program, which offers loans to veterans for the purchase of homes, farms, units in cooperative developments, and mobile homes;  $1.5 billion for the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), which offers loans for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing for persons with incomes of 60 percent or below of the area median income;  $150 million for the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund, which offers loans and grants to local governments and developers for housing projects near transit stations;  $300 million for the Regional Planning, Housing, and Infill Incentive Account, which offers grants for infill infrastructure that supports high-density affordable and mixed-income housing;  $150 million for the Home Purchase Assistance Program, which offers loans to low-income and moderate- income homebuyers;  $300 million for the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Fund, which offers grants and loans for farmworker housing;  $300 million for the Local Housing Trust Matching Grant Program, which offers matching grants to local housing trust funds for "pilot programs to demonstrate innovative, cost-saving approaches to creating or preserving affordable housing;" and  $300 million for the Self-Help Housing Fund, which provides forgivable loans for mortgage assistance, the development of multiple home ownership units, and manufactured homes.
  7. 7. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative item #2: Action California Proposition 2, the Use Millionaire's Tax Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Housing Bonds Measure Presentation: Dennis Frank Recommended action: A yes vote supports authorizing the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004)—a 1 percent tax on income above $1 million for mental health services—on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services. A no vote opposes authorizing the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 (2004) on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services.
  8. 8. Southwest California Legislative Council Overview The California State Legislature passed legislation to spend revenue from Proposition 63 on revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing in 2016. The legislation, however, did not go into effect because of pending litigation over whether revenue from the millionaire's tax could be spent on homelessness prevention housing. Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bonds do not require a public vote in California. Proposition 2 was referred to the ballot because the revenue for the bond would come from a tax that was created through a ballot initiative, Proposition 63. In California, changes to ballot initiatives require a vote of the public. Legislative item #3: Action California Proposition 3, the California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative Presentation: Greg Morrison Recommended action:
  9. 9. Southwest California Legislative Council A "yes" vote supports this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. A "no" vote opposes this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. Overview Proposition 3 would issue $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects. The state fiscal analyst said the bond would generate about $8.4 billion in interest over a 40-year period, meaning the bond would cost the state a total of $17.3 billion. The largest amount of bond revenue—$2.355 billion—would go toward conservancies and state parks to restore and protect watershed lands and nonprofits and local agencies for river parkways. The measure would also allocate $640 million to groundwater sustainability agencies to implement their plans and $500 million for public water system infrastructure improvements to meet safe drinking water standards, including the treatment of contaminants, or ensure affordable drinking water. The ballot initiative would require that $1.398 billion be spent on projects benefitting what the state defines as disadvantaged communities and an additional $2.637 billion be prioritized for disadvantaged communities. California defines disadvantaged communities as communities with an annual median household income less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. With a median household income of $63,783 in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Burea, 80 percent was $51,026.
  10. 10. Southwest California Legislative Council
  11. 11. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative Item #4 Action California_Proposition_4,_Children's_Hospital_Bonds_Initiative_(2018) Presentation: Brad Neet & Joan Sparkman Recommended action: Support – Yes vote A yes vote supports authorizing $1.5 billion in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of children's hospitals in California. A no vote opposes authorizing $1.5 billion in bonds for the construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of children's hospitals in California. Overview Proposition 4 would authorize $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to provide for the Children's Hospital Bond Act Fund. The fund would be used to award grants to children's hospitals for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipment projects. The initiative would allocate the $1.5 billion in bond funds as follows:  72 percent ($1.08 billion) to seven nonprofit hospitals providing comprehensive services to high volumes of children eligible for governmental programs and children with special health needs eligible for California Children’s Services.  18 percent ($270 million) to five University of California general acute hospitals, including the University of California, Davis Children's Hospital; Mattel Children's Hospital at University of California, Los Angeles; University Children's Hospital at University of California, Irvine; University of California, San Francisco Children's Hospital; and University of California, San Diego Children's Hospital.  10 percent ($150 million) to public and private hospitals that provide pediatric services to children eligible for California Children’s Services. The state's legislative analyst estimated that interest on the bond would be $1.4 billion over 35 years, bringing the total cost of the bond to $2.9 billion. Proposition review from Brad & Joan Summary: Proposition 4 would authorize $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds to provide for the Children's Hospital Bond Act Fund. The fund would be used to award grants to children's hospitals for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipment projects. The initiative would allocate the $1.5 billion in bond funds as follows: • providing comprehensive services to high volumes of children eligible for governmental programs and children with special health needs eligible for California Children’s Services. • including the University of California, Davis Children's Hospital; Mattel Children's 72 percent ($1.08 billion) to seven nonprofit hospitals 18 percent ($270 million) to five University of California general acute hospitals
  12. 12. Southwest California Legislative Council Hospital at University of California, Los Angeles; University Children's Hospital at University of California, Irvine; University of California, San Francisco Children's Hospital; and University of California, San Diego Children's Hospital. • that provide pediatric services to children eligible for California Children’s Services. The state's legislative analyst estimated that interest on the bond would be $1.4 billion over 35 years, bringing the total cost of the bond to $2.9 billion. The 2018 ballot initiative is the third bond measure related to children's hospitals in California. California Children's Hospital Association developed all three of the ballot initiatives. In 2004, 58.26 percent of electors voted to pass Proposition 61, a $750-million bond measure for children's hospitals. In 2008, 55.26 percent of electors voted to pass California Proposition 3, a $980-million bond measure for children's hospitals. The California Children's Hospital Association developed both of the ballot initiatives. The California Children's Hospital Association's Yes on Children's Hospital, a ballot measure committee, had raised $10.22 million to support the ballot initiative. Contributions were from eight children's hospitals that would receive bond revenue from the measure. No PAC had been formed to oppose Proposition 4. The fiscal impact statement is as follows: “ State costs of $2.9 billion to pay off principal ($1.5 billion) and interest ($1.4 billion) on bonds over a 35- year period. Annual payments would average $84 million. Annual payments would be lower than this average in the initial and final few years, and somewhat higher in the intervening years. Support James Stein, a pediatric surgeon, Maria Minon, chief medical officer of CHOC Children's, and Roberto Gugig, a pediatric gastroenterologist, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 4: “ There are eight California not-for-profit Children’s Hospitals and five more University of California Children’s Hospitals. Over two million times each year, seriously ill children receive highly specialized care in a California Children’s Hospital. No matter what a family can pay. Children with complex medical conditions and life threatening diseases. Cancer. Sickle Cell. Cystic Fibrosis. We perform 97% of all pediatric organ transplants, 96% of all pediatric heart surgeries, and 76% of all pediatric cancer treatments. With each new research breakthrough, new lifesaving technology, the finest pediatric specialists, cures happen every single day at California’s Children’s Hospitals. Today, 85% of children with leukemia leave our hospitals cured. As premier pediatric research centers, we are making breakthroughs that keep every California child healthy without ever needing to walk through our doors. Because of our success, the demand on us grows. We’ve become regional hubs, with children now referred to us from many other hospitals in California. Proposition 4 asks voters to consider investing less than $40 per year for each patient we see . . . money to help us build more capacity to cure more California children. 14 years ago, Californians supported our first bond. We have honored that trust ever since. Every dollar has been spent on building new facilities, modernizing older ones, adding more beds and purchasing the best and most advanced medical technology . . . curing more children. The State Treasurer’s Office administers all state bond funds, but testified to the Senate and Assembly Health Committees that “this program in particular has been very successful.” We take great professional pride in what we do. As human beings we are privileged to witness the innocent strength in children, the love in their families, the resolve in our staffs, the generosity of our benefactors, and the triumph of the human spirit. We invite you to join the millions of California voters who have supported Children’s Hospitals. We can all vote Yes on Proposition 4—Building to Cure More Children. 10 percent ($150 million) to public and private hospitals
  13. 13. Southwest California Legislative Council Opposition: Arguments Official arguments Gary Wesley wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 4: “ This is another general obligation bond measure. It asks voters permission for the State of California to borrow more money by selling “bonds” that would need to be repaid with interest (potentially through higher property taxes) usually over many decades. I say “potentially” because sometimes bond proceeds are used for financing but repaid by program recipients—such as homeowners under the former Cal-Vet home-farm loan program. Bond measures present several questions: 1. How far in debt is the government already? 2. What is the expected total cost of the measure to the public? 3. Are the proposed uses for the money specified? 4. Are the proposed uses justified—given other things that may be needed or desired? 5. Should voters continue to finance projects through higher property taxes when California’s property tax system is so unfair? CALIFORNIA’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM IS UNFAIR In 1978, California voters approved a voter initiative then-known as Proposition 13. The initiative added provisions to the California Constitution that prevented the “reassessment” of real
  14. 14. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative item #5: Action California Proposition 5, the Property Tax Transfer Initiative Presentation: Gene Wunderlich Recommended action: SUPPORT A "yes" vote supports amending Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or (c) the buyer's number of moves. A "no" vote opposes amending Proposition 13 (1978) to change how tax assessments are transferred between properties for homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled. Overview What changes would this ballot initiative make to state law? Proposition 5 would amend Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer the tax-assessed value from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or (c) the number of moves. As of 2018,
  15. 15. Southwest California Legislative Council homebuyers over 55 years of age were eligible to transfer their tax assessments from their prior home to their new home if the new home's market value is equal to or less than the prior home's value and once in their lifetimes. Furthermore, counties, not the state, decide whether tax assessments can be transferred across county lines. If the new home is a different value than the prior home, the initiative would allow for an adjusted value between the old and new values. If the new home has a higher market value then the prior home, the assessed value would be adjusted upward. If the new home has a lower market value then the prior home, the assessed value would be adjusted downward. The formulas for the adjustments would as follows: Upward adjustment: (assessed value of their prior home) + [(the new home’s market value) - (the prior home's market value)] Example: An individual sold her house for $500,000. The house had a tax-assessed value of $75,000. She bought a new house for $800,000. The tax-assessed value of the new house would be ($75,000) + [($800,000)-($500,000)] = $375,000. Downward adjustment: (assessed value of their prior home) × [(the new home’s market value) ÷ (the prior home's market value)] Example: An individual sold his house for $500,000. The house had a tax-assessed value of $75,000. He bought a new house for $300,000. The tax-assessed value of the new house would be ($75,000) × [($300,000) ÷ ($500,000)] = $45,000. What does Proposition 13 have to do with this ballot initiative? California Proposition 13, the Tax Limitations Initiative, was on the ballot for the election on June 6, 1978. Voters approved Proposition 13. Proposition 13 required that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limited annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less. When a property is sold or transferred to new owners, however, the property is reassessed at 1 percent of its full cash value and the limit on increases to assessed value resets. In 1986, voters approved Proposition 60, which amended Proposition 13 to allow homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the taxable value of their present home to a replacement home, assuming the replacement home was of equal or lesser value, located within the same county, and purchased within two years of selling the original home. Proposition 13 was again amended in 1988 when voters approved Proposition 90, which allowed qualified homeowners age 55 or older to transfer the current taxable value of their original home to a replacement home in another county, but only if the county in which the replacement home is located agrees to participate in the program. Support The Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for Seniors, a political action committee, was organized to sponsor the ballot initiative. The California Association of Realtors (CAR) developed the ballot initiative. Alex Creel, senior VP of governmental affairs for CAR, filed the initiative. CAR, in a statement about the initiative, said, "It's important because seniors, who are often on a fixed income, fear they will not be able to afford a big property tax increase if they sell their existing home and buy another one, discouraging them from ever moving. As a result of this 'moving penalty' almost three-quarters of homeowners 55 and older haven't moved since 2000."
  16. 16. Southwest California Legislative Council Arguments Yes on 5 Steve White, president of the California Association of Realtors, said: “ Many seniors live in homes that no longer fit their needs because their homes are now too big or too far away from their families. If they want to downsize or move closer to their children, they could face property tax increases of 100 percent, 200 percent or even 300 percent. ” The California Chamber of Commerce endorsed the ballot initiative, stating: “ California is facing a massive housing shortage and needs at least 100,000 additional new units a year to meet demand. The CalChamber Board voted to support this measure because it could help ease the shortage by freeing up modest-priced and move-up housing for young families. The change is important because seniors, who often are on a fixed income, fear they will not be able to afford a big property tax increase if they sell their existing home and buy another one, discouraging them from ever moving. As a result of this “moving penalty,” almost three-quarters of homeowners 55 and older haven’t moved since 2000. In addition, a recent estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that this initiative would increase home sales in the tens of thousands per year. Official arguments Penny Lilburn, executive director of Highland Senior Center, Kyle Miles, commander of AMVETS Department of California, and Susan Chandler, president of Californians for Disability Rights, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 5: ” PROP. 5 GIVES ALL SENIORS (55+) AND SEVERELY DISABLED THE RIGHT TO MOVE WITHOUT PENALTY PROP. 5, the Property Tax Fairness Initiative, eliminates the “moving penalty” that exists today in order to protect seniors (55+) and severely disabled people who want to move to safer, more practical homes or closer to their families. PROP. 5 limits the property tax penalties they could face if they purchase another home in any county of the state. PROP. 5 ELIMINATES MOVING CHALLENGES FOR SENIORS (55+) Millions of California seniors live in homes that are inadequate for their needs—whether too big, too many stairs, or simply too far away from their family and loved ones. Under PROP. 5, senior homeowners (age 55+) would be able to transfer their home’s current taxable value, no matter where in the state they might choose to move. PROP. 5 EMPOWERS RETIREES LIVING ON FIXED INCOMES Most retirees live on a fixed income, often from a pension and/or Social Security. PROP. 5 eliminates the possibility of a 100%, 200%, or even 300% increase in property taxes that retired teachers, firefighters, police, and other retirees often have to pay if they want to sell their current home to buy another one somewhere else in California. PROP. 5 PROTECTS AGAINST PROPERTY TAX BASE “MOVING PENALTY”
  17. 17. Southwest California Legislative Council Under current California law, property taxes are capped at a small percentage of the value of the property when purchased. This becomes known as the property’s “tax base.” In addition, there is a limit on how much property taxes can increase annually. Seniors and the severely disabled are often on fixed incomes and can’t afford large property tax increases. But if they choose to move to a new home, their “tax base” will often increase dramatically due to the rise in home prices over the past several decades. PROP. 5 protects these Californians from this “moving penalty” by allowing them to keep a lower, fairer tax base. PROP. 5 EXTENDS THE BENEFITS OF PROP. 13, BRINGS TAX STABILITY AND PEACE OF MIND PROP. 5 eliminates the “moving penalty” that exists today that is contributing to the housing shortage in California. Just as Prop. 13 (1978) prevented millions of seniors from being taxed out of their homes, PROP. 5 will help millions more today. PROP. 5 will help alleviate the housing shortage and will bring tax stability and peace of mind for millions of middle-class and working-class families throughout California. PROP. 5 EMPOWERS SEVERELY DISABLED PEOPLE TRAPPED IN INADEQUATE HOMES Many severely disabled people in California live in homes that are no longer safe or practical for them, but they cannot afford to move because their property taxes could skyrocket if they buy a new home elsewhere in California. This could happen even if they move to a less expensive home. Under PROP. 5, severely disabled homeowners would be able to move to more suitable homes without being subjected to the “moving penalty.”[8] San Diego Union-Tribune (November 28, 2017) called for more thorough study on the initiative: "The Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that the measure could eventually lead to $2 billion or more in lost annual tax revenue. Realtors challenge this assertion and point to the new revenue that would come in as older homes worth $500,000 and more are finally taxed at their current value. This question needs more thorough study because the basic concept of the Realtors’ proposal makes considerable sense — at least if it can’t be readily gamed by wealthy people to limit their property taxes. Retirement security is a huge issue for millions of aging Californians on fixed incomes. Protecting this growing group is a good idea." Opposition No on Prop 5 is leading the campaign in opposition to Proposition 5. Opponents  California Teachers Association Arguments Rep. David Chiu (D-17) said he opposed the initiative: “ It doesn’t add housing, and it is going to make it harder for cities and counties to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety to the tune of $2 billion per year. We’re in the midst of the most intense housing crisis our state has ever experienced, and this proposal does nothing to address it. ” Laura Clark, executive director of YIMBY Action, criticized the measure, saying: “ We’re talking about, once again, another tax giveaway to people who are wealthy. ”
  18. 18. Southwest California Legislative Council Official arguments Gerald G. Wilson, board member of the Middle Class Taxpayers Association, Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project, and Gary Passmore, president of the Congress of California Seniors, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 5: VOTE NO ON PROP. 5 We urge a NO on Prop. 5 for one simple reason. We have a terrible affordable-housing crisis in California, and Prop. 5 will do NOTHING to make this crisis better. What Prop. 5 will do:  Prop. 5 will further raise the cost of housing.  Prop. 5 will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially $1 billion in local revenue losses to our public schools.  Prop. 5 will cost local services, including fire, police, and health care, up to $1 billion in revenue losses.  Prop. 5 gives a huge tax break to wealthy Californians.  Prop. 5 gives a huge windfall to the real estate industry, the ONLY sponsor of the initiative. We urge a No on Prop. 5 because of what it does NOT do:  It does NOT build any new housing.  It does NOT help first-time homebuyers.  It does NOT bring down the cost of rent.  It does NOT address homelessness. Housing advocates are clear: “Prop. 5 does nothing for affordable housing, and will even make the current situation worse,” says Shamus Roller of the National Housing Law Project, a champion for affordable housing. For the last 30 years, older homeowners who move to a smaller and less expensive house have been able to bring their current property tax with them, an encouragement to leave a larger and more expensive home to a younger family. These homeowners can do this once in their lifetime. This was an extension of Prop. 13. But Prop. 5 changes this equation. If it’s passed, a homeowner over 55 can use their tax break to keep buying more expensive houses, over and over, anywhere in California. Meanwhile, younger, first-time home buyers with less income will face higher housing prices, and renters will have an even harder time becoming homeowners. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst says Prop. 5 will cause massive revenue losses at the local level. That’s why firefighters, teachers, and nurses all say No on Prop. 5. This initiative will result in reductions to critical public services including fire protection, police protection, and health care. Public school funding comes primarily from local property taxes. Prop. 5 means less local revenue for our public schools. “Fighting the wildfires that have plagued our communities in the past few years requires more—not less—local resources. We just can’t afford Prop. 5,” says Brian Rice, President of California Professional Firefighters. The real estate interests who cynically paid to put Prop. 5 on the ballot have decided to pit some homeowners against others. Why? You’ll have to ask them. But we think it must have something to do with their profits. We can’t afford Prop. 5. Please join us in voting No. Committees in support of Proposition 5 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Totals in support Total raised: $7,204,875.08 Total spent: $6,641,367.42
  19. 19. Southwest California Legislative Council Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for Seniors, Sponsored by the California Association of Realtors $6,700,050.00 $504,825.08 $6,136,542.34 Total $6,700,050.00 $504,825.08 $6,136,542.34 Donors The following were the donors who contributed to the support committee as of September 6, 2018: Donor Cash In-kind Total California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC $3,700,000.00 $504,825.08 $4,204,825.08 National Association of Realtors $3,000,000.00 $0.00 $3,000,000.00 Fiscal impact statement “ Annual property tax losses for cities, counties, and special districts of around $150 million in the near term, growing over time to $1 billion or more per year (in today’s dollars). Annual property tax losses for schools of around $150 million per year in the near term, growing over time to $1 billion or more per year (in today’s dollars). Increase in state costs for schools of an equivalent amount in most years. ”
  20. 20. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative Item #6 Action California Proposition 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Presentation: John Kelliher Recommended action: A yes vote supports this initiative to:  repeal fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) and  require voter approval (via ballot propositions) for the California State Legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future. A no vote opposes this initiative, thus:  keeping the fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), in place and  allowing the state legislature to continue to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees through a two-thirds vote of each chamber and without voter approval. Overview As of 2018, increasing a tax in California requires a two-thirds vote of each state legislative chamber and the governor's signature. Proposition 6 would create the additional step of voter approval (via ballot propositions), along with legislative passage and the governor's signature, to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees. The requirement that tax increases receive voter approval would affect taxes and tax rates enacted after January 1, 2017, meaning fuel taxes and vehicle fees that were created or increased in 2017 or 2018 would be repealed. This would have the effect of repealing the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), which the state legislature approved along party lines in April 2017.
  21. 21. Southwest California Legislative Council
  22. 22. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative Item #7 Action California Proposition 7, the Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure. Presentation: Andy Morris Recommended action: A yes vote supports allowing the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight saving time (DST) in California by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow for permanent DST. A no vote opposes allowing the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight saving time (DST) in California by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow for permanent DST. Overview Proposition 7 would allow the California State Legislature to establish permanent, year-round daylight saving time (DST) by a two-thirds vote if the federal Uniform Time Act is changed to allow for permanent DST As of 2018, the Uniform Time Act allows states to adopt one of two options: (a) adopt DST between the second Sunday of March or the first Sunday of November or (b) remain on standard time all year. In 2016, the California State Legislature asked the President and Congress to pass an act that would allow California to adopt year-round DST. In March 2018, Florida also asked the federal government to allow the state to enact year-round DST. To enact Proposition 7, Proposition 12 (1949), a ballot initiative that established DST in California, would need to be repealed. In California, a ballot initiative cannot be repealed without the consent of voters. Therefore, the state legislature cannot take action unless voters approve Proposition 7. Legislative Item #8 Action California Proposition 8, the Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative Presentation: Brad Neet Recommended action: No Vote A "yes" vote supports requiring dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers for revenue above 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements.
  23. 23. Southwest California Legislative Council A "no" vote opposes requiring dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers for revenue above 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements. Overview Proposition 8 would require dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers, such as insurers, for revenue above 115 percent of the costs of (a) direct patient care, such as wages and benefits of non- managerial clinic staff who furnish direct care to patients, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and (b) healthcare improvements, such as staff training and patient education and counseling. Revenue earned above the 115 percent cap would need to be refunded to patients or the patients' payers each year. Clinics that do not issue required refunds within 210 days after the end of the fiscal year would be fined an amount equal to 5 percent of their total required refunds, but not to exceed $100,000. The measure would also prohibit dialysis clinics from discriminating or refusing services based on a patient's payer, including the patient himself or herself, a private insurer, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, or Medicare. The initiative would require chronic dialysis clinics to report to the state government information required to enforce the measure, including the costs associated with operating a chronic dialysis clinic, treatment revenue, and the amount of each payer’s refund. The state department of public health would enforce the initiative. Proposition review from Brad Ballot summary The official ballot summary is as follows:[15] “ • 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. ” What do the campaigns believe would be the effects of limiting revenue and requiring refunds? The ballot initiative itself would not require dialysis clinics to invest in equipment, staffing, and patient care. According to Sean Wherley, a spokesperson for the SEIU-UHW West, the requirement to refund profits above the limit would incentivize clinics to spend revenue on healthcare improvements because the revenue spent on direct patient care services and healthcare improvements would not be limited. The concepts of direct patient care services and healthcare improvements would be defined as follows: • direct patient care services costs: salaries, wages, and benefits of non-managerial clinic workers who furnish direct care to dialysis patients; staff training and development; pharmaceuticals and medical supplies; costs associated with renting and maintaining facilities, utilities, lab testing; and depreciation of facilities and equipment. • healthcare improvement costs: additional health information technologies; training non- managerial workers engaged in direct patient care; and patient education and counseling.
  24. 24. Southwest California Legislative Council Patients and Caregivers to Protect Dialysis Patients, the committee opposed to Proposition 8, said that direct patient care services and healthcare improvement costs would not include spending on medical directors, clinic coordinators, professional services, regulatory compliance, or facility security. Therefore, according to the committee, the requirement to refund profits above the limit would result in clinic closures and reduced patient access. Who is behind the campaigns? Note: The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which covered through June 30, 2018, and interim reports available as of July 31, 2018. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is September 27, 2018. Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection is leading the campaign in support of the initiative. The SEIU-UHW West organized the campaign committee. Supporters call the initiative the Fair Pricing for Dialysis Act. Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection had raised $6.02 million, with the SEIU-UHW West donating 99.96 percent of the total funds. The California Dialysis Council, a statewide association of dialysis clinics, organized the campaign committee Patients and Caregivers to Protect Dialysis Patients. The committee had raised $18.02 million, with 51 percent from the dialysis business Fresenius Medical Care North America and 48 percent from the dialysis business DaVita. Fiscal impact Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance. The fiscal impact statement is as follows: “ State administrative costs of around $1 million annually to be covered by increases in license fees on chronic dialysis clinics. State and local government savings largely associated with reduced government employee and retiree health benefits spending on dialysis treatment, potentially up to tens of millions of dollars annually. ” Supporters • California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) • California Labor Federation Arguments Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection issued an informational sheet. The following is an excerpt “ Dialysis patient care is in crisis and it’s driving up costs for all Californians. Patient care is suffering Patients and caregivers report bloodstains and cockroaches in dialysis clinics. The lack of sanitation and hygiene can contribute to high infection rates. Overcharging drives up costs California dialysis companies charge patients with private insurance an average $150,000 for a year of dialysis treatment. That’s a 350% markup from the cost of providing care! Insurance companies are forced to pass the costs to all policyholders, driving up healthcare premiums for ALL Californians. Blue Shield of California reports that it takes 3,800 enrollees to offset the cost of one dialysis patient. Dialysis corporation profits are out of control
  25. 25. Southwest California Legislative Council Big dialysis corporations make billions of dollars annually, yet the largest company in California, DaVita, spends only 73% of its revenue toward providing patient care. The average profit margin for dialysis clinics in California is 17% — nearly five times as high as an average hospital in California. Some patients face additional hurdles In low income communities and communities of color clinics are often in run-down strip malls with outdated equipment. Opponents • California Medical Association • National Kidney Foundation Arguments Patients and Caregivers to Protect Dialysis Patients issued an informational sheet. The following is an excerpt: “ United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) union, with a long history of pushing controversial ballot initiatives to leverage its political agenda, is behind a deeply-flawed dialysis proposition aimed for the November 2018 statewide ballot. The proposition limits what private health insurance companies pay for dialysis treatment in California. In doing so, this measure would dangerously reduce access to care for Californians with kidney failure who need dialysis treatments three days a week, three to four hours at a time, to survive. ... Sets artificially low limits on what insurance companies pay for dialysis treatments. These arbitrary limits fail to cover all costs necessary to provide high quality patient care. Specifically, the measure requires community dialysis clinics to issue annual rebates to private health insurance companies if any fee for treatment exceeds 115% of what the initiative defines as “patient care services costs.” Nothing in the initiative requires one dollar of these potential rebates to be passed along to consumers. ... Reduces access for California’s most vulnerable patients. Dialysis patients need treatment three days a week, for three to four hours at a time to survive. With demand for dialysis growing at about five percent a year in California, patients already have difficulty finding appointment times convenient and close to home. This proposition would result in clinic closures, and cutbacks in services forcing patients to travel further distances or seek treatment in a hospital, increasing the likelihood that they might miss a treatment. Research shows that missing even one dialysis appointment increases the risk of death for dialysis patients by 30%.
  26. 26. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative Item #9 Action California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative Presentation: Adam Bouvet Recommended action:
  27. 27. Southwest California Legislative Council A yes vote supports allowing local governments to adopt rent control, repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. A no vote opposes the initiative, thus keeping the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and continuing to prohibit local governments from enacting rent control on certain buildings. Overview Proposition 10 is an initiated state statute that would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa- Hawkins), thus allowing local governments to adopt rent control ordinances—regulations that govern how much landlords can charge tenants for renting apartments and houses. Proposition 10 would also state that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords. What is the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act? Costa-Hawkins is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provides that cities cannot enact rent control on (a) housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units where the title is separate from connected units, such as condominiums and townhouses. Costa-Hawkins also provided that landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995.
  28. 28. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative Item #10 Action California Proposition 11, the Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative Presentation: Last meeting Adopted action: SUPPORT A yes vote supports:  allowing ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular rate;  requiring employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and  requiring employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services. A no vote opposes:  allowing ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular rate;  requiring employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and  requiring employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services.
  29. 29. Southwest California Legislative Council Legislative Item #11 Action California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative Presentation: Erik McLeod Adopted action: A yes vote supports banning the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet. A no vote opposes banning the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet. Overview In 2008, the Humane Society developed a ballot initiative, titled Proposition 2, to ban 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. Proposition 2 did not provide specific square feet when defining prohibited confinement. Rather, the size restrictions were based on animal behavior. Opponents, such as the Association of California Egg Farmers, claimed this was too vague. Voters approved Proposition 2, and the law went into effect in 2015.
  30. 30. Southwest California Legislative Council
  31. 31. Southwest California Legislative Council SWCLC 2018 Bill Tracker - 9/06 Legislative Final Senate Assembly Gov Win/ Bill # Author Party Intent Stone Roth Morrell Melendez Waldron Medina Cervantes Brown Loss AB1065 Jones- Sawyer D Aggregated theft Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB1804 Berman D CEQA exemption infill Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB1954 Patterson R Timber harvest Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W AB2061 Frazier D Clean trucks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB2281 Irwin D Med tech's Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W AB2341 Mathis R CEQA aesthetics Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB2474 Quirk D Haz waste testing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB2770 Irwin D Privileged communication Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W AB2775 Kalra D Cosmetic labels Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB2832 Dahle R LiO battery recycle Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB3178 Rubio D Waste diversion Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB3188 Thurmond D School accountability Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB3194 Daly D Housing proj approval Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y W SB1080 Roth D Uber for Vets Y Y Y Y Y Y Y AB1870 Reyes D Discrimination extension N Y N N Y Y Y AB2079 Gonzalez- Fletcher D Janitorial workers N Y N N N Y Y AB2447 Reyes D CEQA environmental justice N Y N N N Y Y AB2455 Kalra D Healthcare registry N Y N N N Y Y AB2732 Gonzalez- Fletcher D Unfair immigration N NVR N Y N Y Y AB3075 Berman D Elections cybersecurity N Y N N N Y Y Y L AB3080 Gonzalez- Fletcher D Employment discrimination N Y N N N Y NVR AB3081 Gonzalez- Fletcher D Sexual harassment N Y N N N Y Y AB3138 Muratsuchi D Hazardous materials N Y N N N Y N AB3232 Friedman D 0-E buildings N Y N N N Y Y SB100 deLeon D 100% Greenhouse gas N NVR N N N Y NVR SB822 Wiener D Internet access N Y N N N Y Y SB826 Jackson D Female BOD N Y N N N NVR Y
  32. 32. Southwest California Legislative Council SB834 Jackson D Oil & gas leases N Y N N N NVR NVR SB937 Wiener D Lactation accommodation N Y N N N Y Y SB946 Lara D Sidewalk vendors N Y N N N Y Y SB998 Dodd D Water shutoff N NVR N N N NVR N SB1014 Skinner D Zero E vehicles N NVR N N N NVR Y SB1300 Jackson D Employment practices N NVR N N N Y N Votes Cast / No Vote Recorded 33/33 14/28 33/33 32/33 32/33 7/28 17/30 Vote Record 100% 50% 100% 97% 97% 25% 57% Supported Opposed Non-conforming votes  During this 2018 session, the SWCLC adopted positions on 98 measures. o The Council SUPPORTED 44 bills and o OPPOSED 54.  Of those, 33 bills survived the process with substantially the same intent as when the SWCLC evaluated it. o 14 of these were SUPPORTED and o 19 were OPPOSED.  The Governor has until the end of the month to render his opinion on these bills.

×