|
Return
|
| |
Regular-General Government # 28.
|
| Board of Supervisors |
County Administrator |
|
|
|
| Subject |
| Consider positions on Propositions 51, 65, and 67. (No general fund impact) (Blacklock/Cook) |
| Recommended Action |
| Consider positions on Propositions 51, 65, and 67. |
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Thriving Residents
Sustainable Environment
|
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
Pursuant to Board direction at the September 27 Board meeting, staff has compiled the ballot arguments and other related materials related to Propositions 51, 65, and 67. Also attached is the Board report from the September 27 Board meeting for reference (Att. A).
Proposition 51
Summary from California Secretary of State: Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K–12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.
A full summary from the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is attached (Att. B) as well as arguments and rebuttals (Att. C). RCRC supports the initiative. Issues related to education, education funding, or state debt capacity are not included in the County's advocacy policy and there is no Board policy on the issue. The last school bond was in 2006 and there is no remaining bond funding.
Proposition 65
Summary from California Secretary of State: Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.
A full summary from the LAO is attached (Att. D) as well as arguments and rebuttals (Att. E). CSAC opposes the initiative. The County does not currently have a single-use plastic bag ban and this issue is not included in the County's Advocacy Policy.
Proposition 67
Summary from California Secretary of State: A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, a statute that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single–use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags. Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.
A full summary from the LAO is attached (Att. F) as well as arguments and rebuttals (Att. G). CSAC supports the initiative. As with Proposition 65, the County does not currently have a single-use plastic bag ban and this issue is not included in the County's Advocacy Policy. However, Landfill staff does anticipate that if the ban is upheld, fewer single-use plastic bags will be transported to the landfill as waste which subsequently will reduce single-use bag litter on the roads in proximity to the landfill. |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
| WIP |
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|