What’s on the ballot? A closer look at the June 2018 ballot measures

PROP 68 California Parks and Water Bond

Proposition 68 Issues $4 billion in bonds for parks, environmental protection, and water infrastructure.

Proposition 68 Specific Parks Funding for the Bay Area • $200 million formula allocation to park districts and counties for local and regional parks on a per capita basis • $21.25m for the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program • $20 million for restoration grants to augment San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority’s Measure AA • $14 million for climate adaptation and mitigation

Proposition 68 Competitive Parks Funding Opportunities • $725 million for parks in park-poor neighborhoods • $30 million for grants to create, expand, or restore parks • $40 million for grants to local agencies that have approved local park revenue measures between November 1, 2012 through November 2018 • $218 million for existing state parks and improving public access

Proposition 68 Competitive Parks Funding Opportunities (cont’d) • $30 million for trails and greenway investments • $48 million for wildlife corridors and increased climate resilience of natural systems • $50 million for forest restoration, including urban forests • $60 million for restoration and protection of natural, cultural & historic resources

Proposition 68 Specific Water Funding Opportunities • $14 million for the Ocean Protection Trust Fund $3 million for Los Gatos Creek and Upper Guadalupe River $3 million for Russian River

Proposition 68 Competitive Water Funding Opportunities $540 million to ensuring safe drinking water $180 million for groundwater cleanup and water recycling $550 million for flood protection $367 million to protect and restore our rivers, lakes, and streams

Argument in favor Water infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle current demand and stress of erratic weather, drought, and rising seas There are communities across the state that have been denied access to open space and recreation areas Open space also plays as an important role in the watershed These projects benefit from funding certainty

Argument opposed Since 2002, the state has borrowed over $15 billion on water projects Future taxpayers already have the state’s public pension obligations to worry about Wrong funding mechanism. Need to prioritize our spending and pay as we go

Supporters Governor Jerry Brown California Democratic Party California Chamber of Commerce Nature Conservancy American Lung Association California Labor Federation

Opposition Sen. John Moorlach Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

PROP 69 Transportation Funding Lockbox

Proposition 69 Would require revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law (SB 1) be used only for transportation purposes, including public transportation.

Argument in favor Gas tax money should ONLY be used on transportation related projects. Guaranteeing that funds are used as they were promised is important for building taxpayer trust.

Argument opposed Gas taxes should never have been raised in the first place. We need to make state agencies more efficient and reduce reduction costs to fix our roads and restore taxpayer trust.

Supporters California Democratic Party California Chamber of Commerce AFSCME California League of California Cities

Opposition Sen. John Moorlach Asm. Frank Bigelow

PROP 70 2/3 vote for cap-and-trade extension

Proposition 70 Requires a one-time two-thirds vote to use revenue from the cap-and-trade program starting in 2024

Argument in favor Requiring a 2/3 vote ensure that oversight of cap-and-trade is bipartisan Gives minority party a say in how millions of auction revenue are spent

Argument opposed Requiring a 2/3 will only create gridlock Would hold up projects that will help the environment Increase the chance of bipartisanship, but also the role of cap and trade opponents

Supporters Governor Jerry Brown Assemblyman Chad Mayes California Chamber of Commerce California State Firefighters Association

Opposition California Democratic Party League of Women Voter’s of California California League of Conservation Voters Tom Steyer

PROP 71 When ballot measure take effect

Proposition 71 Delay the enactment of new voter-approved laws until at least five days after the Secretary of State has certified the result. This is done over a month after election day.

Argument in favor This is a bipartisan, low-cost, easy tweak to our electoral system that will avoid unnecessary confusion in the event of a very close race. There is no real downside to making this change.

Argument opposed Current law just means that the successful proposition will go into effect retroactively the day after election day. In practice, props never go into effect before vote certification. Solution in search of a problem.

Supporters League of Women Voter’s of California California Democratic Party

Opposition Gary Wesley, Attorney

PROP 72 Rainwater capture systems and property taxes

Proposition 72 Exempt the addition of rainwater capture system from the list of home improvements that would trigger a property tax reassessment.

Argument in favor This law encourages residents to conserve water and expands state’s water storage Current state property tax rules actively discourage this type of conservation

Argument opposed Reassessing property taxes is an important revenue source. This solution ignores the state’s three million rental households. Owners already pay too little tax

Supporters League of Women Voter’s of California California Democratic Party California Chamber of Commerce Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association League of California Cities Save the Bay

Opposition None

Regional Measure 3 Bay Area bridge toll increase for transportation improvements

Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Would raise bridge tolls in the Bay Area—excluding tolls for the Golden Gate Bridge—by $3 over six years to fund the Bay Area Traffic Relief Plan, including a $4.5 billion slate of transportation projects.

Regional Measure 3 (RM3) BART cars/ capacity improvements BART to Silicon Valley Expand ferry service Express lanes Caltrain downtown expansion

Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Improve highway interchanges/ bottlenecks MUNI vehicles Study new transbay tube Bus rapid transit Dumbarton rail Miscellany

Regional Measure 3 (RM3) Creates oversight committee, appointed by counties Approximately two-thirds of funding goes to transit Broad support from elected officials, business & community groups

FUNDING BY COUNTY (BEFORE)

FUNDING BY COUNTY (AFTER)

WINS FOR CONTRA COSTA I-680 / Highway 4 interchange New BART cars I-680 Express lane completion Pedestrian trails and parks

SMALL $ WINS FOR CONTRA COSTA Capitol Corridor I-680 transit Richmond / San Rafael Bridge Byron Airport connector East Contra Costa Intermodal Center Vasco Road

WINS FOR ALAMEDA BART to San Jose Dumbarton Bridge AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit Goods movement New BART cars Pedestrian trails and parks

SMALL $ WINS FOR ALAMEDA Capitol Corridor Tri-Valley transit access I-680 / Highway 84 interchange Vasco Road

Arguments in favor Traffic is terrible and without significant investment it will only get worse All commutes in the Bay Area have a nexus to a bridge

Arguments opposed Disproportionately benefits counties with few toll payers Hurts those who can least afford it Bridge tolls should only be used to make it easier to cross the Bay

Questions. Josh Huber, Policy Director josh@eblcmail Questions? Josh Huber, Policy Director josh@eblcmail.org (925) 246-1880