The August meeting will feature reviews and recommended positions on 2016 CA ballot propositions by subject matter experts.

1. MEETING AGENDA
Monday, August 15, 2016
Realtor House, 26529 Jefferson Ave, Murrieta
Presiding: Don Murray, Chair
2016 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
Legislative Report #8 2016 California Ballot Propositions Action
1. California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative, Proposition 51 (2016) Michael Garrison
2. California Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement Initiative, Proposition 52 (2016) Brad Neet
3. California Public Vote on Bonds Initiative, Proposition 53 (2016) Gene Wunderlich
4. California "Legislature Transparency Act" Amendment, Proposition 54 (2016) Dennis Frank
5. California Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare Initiative, Proposition 55 (2016) Alex B
6. California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Amendment, Proposition 56 (2016) NBR
7. California Parole and Juvenile Trial Opportunity Modification Initiative, Proposition 57 Dennis Frank
8. California Multilingual Education Act, Proposition 58 (2016) Denee Burns
9. California Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question, Proposition 59 (2016) Denee Burns
10. California Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, Proposition 60 (2016) NBR
11. California Proposition 61, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2016) Brad Neet
12. California Death Penalty Repeal, Proposition 62 (2016) NBR
13. California "Safety for All" Gun Control Initiative, Proposition 63 (2016) NBR
14. California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Proposition 64 (2016) Joan Sparkman
15. California Carry-Out Bag Revenue Initiative, Proposition 65 (2016) Ali Mazarei
16. California Death Penalty Procedure Regulation Initiative, Proposition 66 (2016) NBR
17. California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum, Proposition 67 (2016) Ali Mazarei
Guest Speaker/Presentation Mike Silva, C R & R, Project Manager, Anaerobic Digester Information
Speaker and Chamber Announcements Information
Our lunch sponsor Bella Pizza Villa Thank You
Adjourn – Next Meeting October 17, 2016
Follow us on :

2. Southwest California Legislative Council
2
The Southwest California Legislative Council Thanks Our 2016 Partners:
Southwest Riverside Country Association of Realtors
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Commerce Bank of Temecula Valley
California Apartment Association
CR&R Environmental Services
The Murrieta Temecula Group
Southwest Healthcare Systems
EDC of Southwest California
Paradise Chevrolet Cadillac
Temecula Valley Hospital
Abbott Vascular
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce
Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

3. Southwest California Legislative Council
Southwest California Legislative
Council
Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce
Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce
Meeting Minutes
Monday, July 18, 2016
2016 Chair: Don Murray, Chair
Legislative Consultant: Gene Wunderlich
Directors Attendance:
Adam Ruiz
 Alex Braicovich
Ali Mazarei
 Andy Morris
 Brad Neet
Carl Johnson
 Darci Castillejos
 Denne Burns
 Dennis Frank
 Don Murray
 Eric Cross
 Gene Wunderlich
Glen Daigle
Greg Morrison
 Joan Sparkman
John Kelliher
Judy Guglielmana
 Kassen Klein
 Matt Buck
Michael Garrison
Chamber Executives/Guest Attendance
 Alice Sullivan
 Arnold San Miguel
 Bobbi Woody
 Brenda Dennstedt
 Brian Burns
 Chris Gibson
 Cindy Espinoza
 ConnieLynch
 Danielle Coats
 Darlene Wetton
 Darrell Connerton
 Debbie Herrera
 Denie Horne
 Dennis Nermula
 Doug McAllister
 Esther Woody
 Happy Tatyana
 Izzy Merguia
 Jeff Bott
 Jennifer Ward
 Kim Cousins
 Kim Kelliher
 Kimberly Niebla
 Laura Turnbow
 Maryanne Edwards
 Michelle Runnells
 Nate Burns
 Patrick Ellis
 Rebekah Manning
 Roger Zimmer
 Shane Lesovsky
 Solomon Apodaca
 Tom Stinson
 Walter Wilson

4. Southwest California Legislative Council
Meeting called to order at: 12:13 pm by Chair Don Murray
Approval of Minutes
Action
Motion was made to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded and carried
Legislative Items Action
1. AB 1869, as introduced (Melendez) Theft: Firearms. AB 1869 would call for a special election to amend Proposition
47 and make the theft of a firearm grand theft in all cases, punishable by a state prison term, as specified. Additionally,
this bill provides that every person who buys or receives a stolen firearm is guilty of an alternate felony/misdemeanor
offense punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by imprisonment in the county jail or state
prison for 16 months, two years, or three years, as specified. Bill has been vetoed.
2. AB 2438, as introduced (Waldron & Nazarian) California Environmental Quality Act: Exemption: Recycled
Water Pipelines This bill would, until January 1, 2020, additionally exempt from CEQA a project for the construction
and installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement,
removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline, not exceeding 8 miles in length, for the distribution of recycled water
within a public street, highway, or right-of-way and would require the lead agency to undertake specified activities,
including the filing of a notice of exemption for the project with the Office of Planning and Research and the office of
the county clerk of each county in which the project is located. According to the author, “Water recycling has the
greatest potential to provide much needed water resources in our state. The problem many communities face when
attempting to get the required infrastructure in the ground, even when there is not much of an impact on the environment,
is that the project must still comply with the cumbersome CEQA process. In most cases the recycled water pipelines are
going in the ground next to existing water pipelines, which are found on streets and roadways in public right-of-ways,
but the CEQA process requires a project to comply with numerous potential impacts creating extensive time delays and
costs. “AB 2438 would help increase the accessibility of recycled water for use by farms, industry or landscape
irrigators, including CalTrans; would reduce energy costs and environmental impacts from importing water.” Motion to
SUPPORT seconded and carried.
3. SB 1261, as amended, (Stone) Physicians and surgeons: Licensure Exemption. Fee Exemption: Residency.
Currently, it is prohibited for a licensed out of state doctor to practice in California for an extended period of time. This
bill seeks to allow licensed doctors, who are in good standing in their own state, and are visiting California, to volunteer
their services at free clinics with a two year limited license issued by the MBC. Removes the requirement from
application and renewal fee waivers that a physician and surgeon reside in California in order to provide voluntary and
unpaid services. Motion to SUPPORT seconded and carried.
4. AB 2220, as amended (Cooper). Elections in cities: By or from District. Existing law generally requires all elective
city offices, including the members of a city council, to be filled at large by the city electorate at a general municipal
election. Existing law, at any municipal election or special election held for this purpose, authorizes the legislative body
of a city to submit to the registered voters an ordinance providing for the election of members of the legislative body by
district or from district, as defined, and with or without an elective mayor. Existing law also authorizes the legislative
body of a city with a population of fewer than 100,000 people to adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the
legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor without being required to submit the
ordinance to the voters for approval.
This bill would delete the population limitation in that provision, thereby authorizing the legislative body of a city to
adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an
elective mayor without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters for approval. This bill allows the legislative
body of any city, regardless of its population, to adopt an ordinance that requires members of the city’s legislative body
to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor, without having to submit the ordinance to the city’s voters
for approval. The adopted ordinance must include a declaration that the change in the method of electing members of the
legislative body is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. Motion to
SUPPORT seconded and carried.
5. SB 867, as amended (Roth) Emergency medical Services. Existing law specifies that no person shall be a computer
security auditor or be granted secure access to an electronic recording delivery system if he or she has been convicted of
a felony, has been convicted of a misdemeanor related to theft, fraud, or a crime of moral turpitude, or if he or she has

5. Southwest California Legislative Council
pending criminal charges for any of these crimes. (Gov.Code Sec. 27395.) This bill would, until January 1, 2027,
authorize a county recorder to enter into a contract with an authorized submitter not otherwise authorized for the delivery
for recording, and return to the party requesting recording, of an electronic record that is an instrument to be recorded.
This bill would specify that an authorized submitter and any agent submitting documents on behalf of an authorized
submitter shall provide proof of financial responsibility by providing a certificate of insurance evidencing an amount of
general liability coverage of at least $1,000,000. This bill would expand the scope of documents that may be delivered
via an electronic recording delivery system to include “digital” electronic records. Motion to SUPPORT seconded and
carried.
Assignment of Qualified Ballot Propositions Action
 Prop 51- Education: Michael Garrison
 Prop 52- Healthcare: Brad Neet
 Prop 53- Elections and Campaigns: Gene Wunderlich
 Prop 54- Government Accountability: Dennis Frank
 Prop 55- Tobacco: Alex Braicovich
 Prop 58- Education: Denee Burns
 Prop 59- Campaign Finance and Federal Issues: Denee Burns
 Prop 61- Healthcare: Brad Neet
 Prop 64- Marijuana: Joan Sparkman
 Prop 65- Environment: Ali Mazaeri
 Prop 67- Business Regulation: Ali Mazaeri
Ontario Airport Update Information
Federal legislation facilitating transfer of Ontario International Airport to local control wins final approval- Passed House & Senate,
President signed.
Guest Speaker Information
Cathy Mesch, Cal Chamber: 22 local Chambers recognized and awarded, including Temecula, Lake Elsinore and Murrieta. SWCLC
has opposed 23 job killers.
Speaker and Chamber Announcements Information
Congressman Ken Calvert
Reported by Brenda Dennstedt: Legislative and update
Senator Jeff Stone
Reported by Maryanne Edwards: Legislative update
Assemblymember Melissa Melendez
Reported by Deni Horne: Legislative and update
Assemblymember Marie Waldron
Reported by Tom Stinson: Legislative update
Supervisor Ken Jeffries
Reported by Jeff Greene: Budget reform update
Southern CA Association of Governments:
Reported by Arnold San Miguel: Looking into solutions for the development of housing
Murrieta Valley Unified School District
Reported by Ken Dickson: Board is up for re-election
Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce
Report on the IE Commerce Magazine, an informational magazine distributed to the San Bernardino and Riverside chambers.
Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce
Report by Kim Cousins on upcoming events
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Report by Patrick Ellis on upcoming events
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Report by Alice Sullivan on upcoming events
Today's Lunch Sponsor
Buffalo Wild Wings
Adjournment – Next Meeting August 15, 2016
Motion to adjourn at 1:27 pm

6. Southwest California Legislative Council
How To Evaluate Ballot Propositions
 Examine what the measure seeks to accomplish. Do you agree with those goals? Is the measure seeking
changes that are consistent with your ideas about government? Do you think the proposed changes will
make things better?
 Who are the real sponsors and opponents of the measure? Check where the money is coming from with
Maplight's VotersEdge campaign finance website.
 Is the measure written well? Will it create conflicts in law that may require court resolution or
interpretation? Is it “good government,” or will it cause more problems than it will resolve?
 Does the measure create its own revenue source? Does it earmark, restrict or obligate government
revenues? If so, weigh the benefit of securing funding for the measure’s program against the cost of
reducing overall flexibility in the budget.
 Does the measure mandate a government program or service without addressing how it will be funded?
 Does the measure deal with one issue that can be easily decided by a YES or NO vote? Or, is it a complex
issue that should be thoroughly examined in the legislative arena?
 If the measure amends the Constitution, consider whether it really belongs in the Constitution. Would a
statute accomplish the same purpose? Remember that all constitutional amendments require voter
approval: what we put into the Constitution would have to come back to the ballot to be changed.
 Be wary of distortion tactics and commercials that rely on image but tell nothing of substance about the
measure. Beware of half truths.
Proposition 51 Action
California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative
Presentation: Michael Garrison
CalChamber Position: Support
Recommended action:
Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-
12 public school facilities; $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities; and $2 billion for California
Community Colleges facilities. Bars amendment to existing authority to levy developer fees to fund school facilities,
until new construction bond proceeds are spent or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Bars amendment to
existing State Allocation Board process for allocating school construction funding, as to these bonds. Appropriates
money from the General Fund to pay off bonds. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local government: State General Fund costs of $17.6 billion to pay off principal ($9
billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on bonds over a period of 35 years. Annual payments would average $500
million. Annual payments would be relatively low in the initial and final few years and somewhat higher in the
intervening years.
A "yes" vote would be a vote in favor of the state issuing $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and
construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.
A "no" vote would be a vote against the state issuing $9 billion in new debt to fund the
improvement and construction of education facilities.

7. Southwest California Legislative Council
Proposition 52 Action
California Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement Initiative
Presentation: Brad Neet
CalChamber Position: Support
Recommended action:
Increases required vote to two-thirds for the Legislature to amend a certain existing law that imposes fees on hospitals
(for purpose of obtaining federal Medi-Cal matching funds) and that directs those fees and federal matching funds to
hospital-provided Medi-Cal health care services, to uncompensated care provided by hospitals to uninsured patients,
and to children's health coverage. Eliminates law's ending date. Declares that law's fee proceeds shall not be
considered revenues for purposes of applying state spending limit or determining required education funding.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local
government: State savings from increased revenues that offset state costs for children's health coverage of
around $500 million beginning in 2016-17 (half-year savings) to over $1 billion annually by 2019-20, likely
growing between 5 percent to 10 percent annually thereafter. Increased revenues to support state and local
public hospitals of around $90 million beginning in 2016-17 (half-year) to $250 million annually by 2019-20,
likely growing between 5 percent to 10 percent annually thereafter.
A "yes" vote would ensure that Medi-Cal fees would be directed to children's health services, Medi-
Cal health care services, and uninsured patient care by increasing the vote required for changing fee
allocation to a two-thirds majority.
A "no" vote would not ensure that Medi-Cal fees would be directed to children's health services,
Medi-Cal health care services, and uninsured patient care by increasing the vote required for
changing fee allocation to a two-thirds majority.
The California Legislature would be permitted to amend the hospital fee program via a two-thirds vote, but only
when the proposed changes "amend or add provisions that further the purposes of the Act."
Proposition 53 Action
California Public Vote on Bonds Initiative
Presentation: Gene Wunderlich
CalChamber Position: Oppose
Recommended action:
Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for projects that are
financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state or any joint agency created by or including the state, if the bond
amount exceeds $2 billion. Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval
requirement. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local
government: The fiscal effect on state and local governments is unknown and would vary by project. It would
depend on (1) the outcome of projects brought before voters, (2) the extent to which the state relied on
alternative approaches to the projects or alternative financing methods for affected projects, and (3) whether
those methods have higher or lower costs than revenue bonds.
A "yes" vote will be a vote in favor of requiring voter approval before the state could issue more
than $2 billion in public infrastructure bonds that would require an increase in taxes or fees for
repayment.
A "no" vote will be a vote against the voter approval requirement and in favor of continuing to allow
the state to issue new debt without voter approval.
Supporters of the initiative refer to it as the "No Blank Checks Initiative."

8. Southwest California Legislative Council
Proposition 54 Action
California "Legislature Transparency Act" Amendment
Presentation: Dennis Frank
CalChamber Position: Support
Recommended action:
Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours
before the vote, except in cases of public emergency. Requires the Legislature to make audiovisual recordings of all its
proceedings, except closed session proceedings, and post them on the Internet. Authorizes any person to record
legislative proceedings by audio or video means, except closed session proceedings. Allows recordings of legislative
proceedings to be used for any legitimate purpose, without payment of any fee to the State. Summary of estimate by
Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to state
government of potentially $1 million to $2 million initially and about $1 million annually for making additional
legislative proceedings available in audiovisual form on the Internet.
A "yes" vote will be a vote in favor of prohibiting the legislature from passing any bill until it has been
in print and published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.
A "no" vote will be a vote against prohibiting the legislature from passing any bill until it has been in
print and published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.
Proposition 55 Action
California Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare Initiative
Presentation: Alex Braicovich
CalChamber Position: Oppose
Recommended action:
Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000 (for
single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household). Allocates these tax revenues 89% to
K-12 schools and 11% to California Community Colleges. Allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for
healthcare programs. Bars use of education revenues for administrative costs, but provides local school governing
boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenues are to be spent. Summary of
estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased
state revenues annually from 2019 through 2030—likely in the $5 billion to $11 billion range initially—with
amounts varying based on stock market and economic trends. Increased revenues would be allocated under
constitutional formulas to schools and community colleges, budget reserves and debt payments, and health
programs, with remaining funds available for these or other state purposes.
A YES vote on this measure means: Income tax increases on high-income taxpayers, which are
scheduled to end after 2018, would instead be extended through 2030.
A NO vote on this measure means: Income tax increases on high-income taxpayers would expire
as scheduled at the end of 2018.

9. Southwest California Legislative Council
Proposition 57 Action
California Parole and Juvenile Trial Opportunity Modification Initiative
Presentation: Dennis Frank
Recommended action:
Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary
offense, as defined. Authorizes Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for
rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. Requires Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
adopt regulations to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions and certify they enhance public safety.
Provides juvenile court judges shall make determination, upon prosecutor motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older
should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local government: Net state savings that could range from the tens of millions of
dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually primarily due to a reduction in the prison population
from additional paroles granted and credits earned. Net county costs that could range from the millions to
tens of millions of dollars annually, declining to a few million dollars after initial implementation of the
measure.
Proposition 58 Action
California Multilingual Education Act
Presentation: Denee Burns
Recommended action:
The proposed measure was sponsored in the California State Legislature by State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-33) as
Senate Bill 1174, or the Multilingual Education for a 21st Century Economy Act.
The bill passed through the legislature largely along party lines. In the House, all "aye" votes came from Democratic
legislators and all but two "nay" votes came from Republican legislators. In the Senate, all "nay" votes came from
Republican legislators while all but three "aye" votes came from Democratic legislators.
[2]
A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of repealing most of the 1998 Proposition 227, the "English in Public
Schools" Initiative, thus effectively allowing non-English languages to be used in public educational
instruction.
A "no" vote is a vote against repealing most of the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, which was
designed to prohibit non-English languages from being used in public schools.
Proposition 59 Action
California Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question
Presentation: Denee Burns
Recommended action:
Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and
ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of
campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one
another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?

10. Southwest California Legislative Council
A yes vote is a vote in favor of overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission decision.
A no vote is a vote against overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
Proposition 61 Action
California Proposition 61, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2016)
Presentation: Brad Neet
CalChamber Position: Oppose
Recommended action:
Prohibits state agencies from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Applies to any program where the state is the ultimate payer for a drug,
even if the state does not purchase the drug directly. Exempts certain purchases of prescription drugs funded through
Medi-Cal. Fiscal impact: It is the opinion of the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance that the measure, if
adopted, may result in a substantial net change in state or local finances.
A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay the same
prices that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays for prescription drugs.
A "no" vote is a vote against regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay the same
prices that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays for prescription drugs
Proposition 64 Action
California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Proposition 64 (2016)
Presentation: Joan Sparkman
Recommended action:
Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law. Designates state agencies to license and regulate marijuana industry.
Imposes state excise tax on retail sales of marijuana equal to 15% of sales price, and state cultivation taxes on
marijuana of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Exempts medical marijuana from some
taxation. Establishes packaging, labeling, advertising, and marketing standards and restrictions for marijuana products.
Allows local regulation and taxation of marijuana. Prohibits marketing and advertising marijuana to minors. Authorizes
resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst
and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Net reduced costs ranging from tens of
millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to
enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and
incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues
potentially ranging from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually related to the
production and sale of marijuana. Most of these funds would be required to be spent for specific purposes
such as substance use disorder education, prevention, and treatment.
A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of legalizing marijuana and hemp under state law and enacting certain
sales and cultivation taxes.

11. Southwest California Legislative Council
A "no" vote is a vote against legalizing marijuana and hemp under state law and enacting certain
sales and cultivation taxes.
Proposition 65 Action
California Carry-Out Bag Revenue Initiative
Presentation: Ali Mazarei
Recommended action:
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through sale of carry-out bags, whenever any
state law bans free distribution of a particular kind of carry-out bag and mandates the sale of any other kind of carry-
out bag. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation
Board to support specified categories of environmental projects. Provides for Board to develop regulations
implementing law. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and
local government: If voters uphold the state’s current carryout bag law, redirected revenues from retailers to
the state, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually. Revenues would be used for grants for
certain environmental and natural resources purposes. If voters reject the state’s current carryout bag law,
likely minor fiscal effects.
A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by
grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
A "no" vote is a vote against redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery
or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
Revenue would be used for specific categories of environmental projects.
Proposition 67 Action
California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum
Presentation: Ali Mazarei
Recommended action:
This petition will place on the statewide ballot a challenge to a state law previously approved by the Legislature and the
Governor. The challenged law must then be approved by a majority of voters at the next statewide election to go into
effect. The law prohibits grocery and certain other retail stores from providing single-use bags but permits sale of
recycled paper bags and reusable bags.
A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of upholding or ratifying the contested legislation banning plastic bags
that was enacted by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.
A "no" vote is a vote in favor of overturning Senate Bill 270.

12. Southwest California Legislative Council
Proposition 53 Action
Closing the billion-dollar revenue bond loophole
By CHRIS MANN / Contributing writer
Published: July 21, 2016 Updated: 9:55 a.m.
While Gov. Jerry Brown and the state Legislature negotiated and passed another year’s budget, Californians will be asked
to to pay for more pet projects, even as our state debt continues to grow at an unsustainable rate.
Right now, California state government is more than $330 billion in debt (and that’s a conservative estimate). A staggering
$157 billion is from general obligation and revenue bond debt alone. Sadly, these numbers are so massive that they have
lost all meaning to many Californians.
What’s worse, in the last 20 years the state of California has issued more than $50 billion in revenue bond debt without
ever asking voters for approval. That’s because voter approval is required for all state bonds except for revenue bonds.
Sneaky politicians and unelected state bureaucrats have discovered this loophole and are using revenue bonds to fund
their pet projects while sidestepping voters. These huge state projects affect millions of Californians who currently have no
voice in how their dollars are spent.
Luckily, we can close this loophole and return power to the people by supporting Proposition 53, which will be on the
November ballot. This commonsense initiative requires a public vote for state revenue bond mega-projects costing more
than $2 billion – before we have to pay higher rates and fees.
While we can all agree that taking on debt in order to pay for important and necessary projects is sometimes unavoidable,
it should be done responsibly.
Our state government should operate just like a family would: Only taking on debt when absolutely necessary and only in
amounts that can reasonably be paid back.
All too often, though, California politicians knowingly underestimate project costs to gain initial support. Then they let costs
balloon, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.
As former speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown famously said, “In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just
a down payment.”
The best example of underestimating budgets, overspending and using the revenue bond loophole is California’s High-
Speed Rail project. Voters originally authorized $10 billion in general obligation bonds after the Legislature promised that
was all it would cost them. But now the estimated costs have risen to over $64 billion. State legislators know that voters
would probably not approve another $50 billion in general obligation bonds, so they have found a way to circumvent voter
approval – revenue bonds.
As the founder of the Inland Empire Taxpayers Association, I am a proponent of giving taxpayers a voice on how their
money is spent. Politicians and unelected state bureaucrats should not be able to write unlimited blank checks on voters’
accounts. It’s time to hold politicians accountable and bring transparency to the state revenue bond loophole.
I urge you to join me in supporting Prop. 53 on the November ballot.

13. Southwest California Legislative Council
Click here for a 5 page Myth vs Fact Checklist

14. Southwest California Legislative Council
MORE THAN 170 DIVERSE, BIPARTISAN ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE
PROPOSITION 53
Measure will undermine local control and threaten vital infrastructure projects
SACRAMENTO – A bipartisan, wide-ranging coalition of public safety, water, local government, business, labor, agriculture,
educators and more is opposing Proposition 53, the ballot measure that would erode local control and jeopardize some local
infrastructure projects.
Organizations representing nearly every sector oppose Prop 53, including the California Professional Firefighters, California
Chamber of Commerce, California Hospital Association, California State Sheriffs Association, firefighters, paramedics, family
farmers, environmentalists, law enforcement, and local governments.
In an editorial opposing Prop 53, the East Bay Times noted that "practically every major player in state politics is also opposed.
The California Chamber of Commerce and state labor leaders, who seldom agree on anything, are aligned in opposition to Prop
53."
That’s because the measure would take away local control by requiring a statewide vote even for some local infrastructure
projects. It also would add new layers of bureaucracy and red tape that will delay or derail needed improvements to critical
infrastructure, including after emergencies and natural disasters.
Here is what opponents are saying:
 “It could impair our state’s ability to rebuild critical infrastructure following earthquakes, wildfires, floods or other
natural or man-made disasters."
-- Lou Paulson, president of California Professional Firefighters, which represents 30,000 firefighters and paramedics.
 “The measure gives voters in distant regions the power to block major projects in other parts of the state that many of
our city residents need. This burdensome measure is bad news for local governments and citizens who deserve
responsible infrastructure investment."
-- Chris McKenzie, executive director, League of California Cities.
 “Prop 53 could threaten a wide range of local water projects including storage, desalination, recycling and other vital
projects to protect our water supply and access to clean, safe drinking water. Prop 53 will definitely impede our ability
to prepare for future droughts.”
--Tim Quinn, Association of California Water Agencies
Prop 53 is financed entirely by one multi-millionaire and his family, who are spending millions in an attempt to disrupt a single
water infrastructure project. Irrespective of one’s position on that single project, his initiative has far-reaching, negative
implications for other infrastructure projects throughout California.

15. Southwest California Legislative Council
LEAGUE OF CITIES JOINS OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT GROUPS IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO "CORTOPASSI" INITIATIVE THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE LOCAL
AND REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO – The League of California Cities, representing 474 California cities, announced today that its board of directors
voted unanimously to oppose the “Cortopassi” ballot measure on November’s ballot because it would undermine the ability of
cities, counties and other local agencies and the state to form partnerships to finance the construction of critical public
infrastructure projects.
By requiring a statewide vote, even on some local infrastructure projects, the measure could erode local control by allowing
voters in one part of the state to block funding for needed infrastructure projects in another part of the state – even though they
would not be paying for them.
“This measure would threaten the ability of cities to partner with other local governments and the state to invest in needed
infrastructure priorities,” said Chris McKenzie, Executive Director, League of California Cities. “The measure gives voters in
distant regions the power to block major projects in other parts of the state that many of our city residents need. This
burdensome measure is bad news for local governments and citizens who deserve responsible infrastructure investment.”
The League of California Cities, which advocates for the expansion and protection of local control and responsible infrastructure
investment, is joined in its opposition by other local government organizations including the California State Sheriffs’ Association,
California Association of Councils of Government, the Association of California Water Agencies, Northern California Water
Association, Self-Help Counties, Association of California Cities – Orange County and individual local governments.
“Reliable infrastructure is critical to public safety,” said Sheriff Donny Youngblood, President, California State Sheriffs’
Association. “This measure erodes local control and creates new hurdles that could block communities from upgrading critical
infrastructure such as bridges, water systems and hospitals. That’s why the California State Sheriffs’ Association strongly
opposes this initiative.”
More than 150 public safety, local government, business, labor, healthcare, agriculture, water, education and other organizations
have come out in opposition to the initiative.
CalChamber Underscores Broad Negative Impact of November
Infrastructure Initiative
March 3, 2016 Loren Kaye Ballot, Loren Kaye, No Blank Checks, November 2016 Ballot, Top Stories
Less investment in much-needed infrastructure, increased costs and more litigation are just some of the negative
ramifications of the “No Blank Checks Initiative” on the November ballot, according to testimony at a legislative hearing
yesterday.
Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education, a think tank affiliated with the California
Chamber of Commerce, emphasized those points at a joint informational hearing of the Senate Governance and Finance
and the Assembly Appropriations committees.
The CalChamber opposes the measure, which requires a statewide election each and every time the state or a state-
local partnership seeks to issue revenue bonds exceeding $2 billion to pay for infrastructure projects.
General obligation bonds appropriately require a vote of the people, because the risk of default is on the taxpayers. But
the risk for default of revenue bonds is on the bondholders, which makes a statewide vote unsuitable, the CalChamber
argues.
Among testifiers outlining problems with the initiative at the hearing were State Treasurer John Chiang, Transportation
Secretary Brian Kelly, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird and representatives from the Department of Finance and
University of California.
Kaye added that other opponents of the initiative include Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Lieutenant Governor Gavin
Newsom, State Controller Betty T. Yee and former State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

16. Southwest California Legislative Council
Testimony at the hearing pointed to the same problems the CalChamber Board identified with the “No Blank Checks”
initiative when voting to oppose it:
The initiative would harm major infrastructure projects by adding an unnecessary level of cost, bureaucracy and delay to a
process already bogged down with delays and bureaucracy. If passed, the measure will take a widely used and fiscally
responsible financing mechanism off the table.
In addition, the measure would encourage litigation and increase the ability of special interests to leverage major
infrastructure projects for their own purposes.
Although the measure has been linked to water infrastructure, it also would have an impact on transportation, local school
construction, UC and California State University projects, and impede the ability for emergency repairs to be made in the
wake of a natural disaster.
Senator Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), chair of Senate Governance and Finance, commented that the “tremendous
uncertainty” created by the initiative and its vagueness on key points is going to have “a chilling effect” on efforts to
finance projects.
Initiative proponents have “taken an entire sector of finance that has worked elegantly as an important tool and…basically
thrown it into disarray,” Hertzberg said.
Key problems with the initiative, which is opposed by a broad, bipartisan coalition of business, labor, local governments
and water agencies, include:
 Deceptive abuse of the system. The initiative was placed on the ballot to try to disrupt a specific project—the plan to
repair California’s statewide water distribution system through the Delta. Irrespective of one’s position on that single
project, the measure has far broader implications—it would delay or even stop much-needed repairs to roads, bridges,
water supply and delivery systems, hospitals and universities all over the state.
 Erodes local control. The measure takes away local control by requiring statewide voter approval even for some local
infrastructure projects. Under this measure, cities and towns that want to come together with the state and form a Joint
Powers Authority to issue revenue bonds to upgrade local water systems, roads, bridges, ports and universities would
have to put their project on a statewide ballot. That means voters in faraway regions would have the authority to deny
funding for local projects outside of their community.
 Disrupts vital infrastructure development. California and its local communities already suffer from a massive backlog
of essential infrastructure needs, including outdated water systems that cannot withstand earthquakes, crumbling roads
and bridges, and overcrowded hospitals and universities. This measure would worsen infrastructure problems by denying
the use of revenue bonds to finance these much-needed projects.
 Contains NO exemptions for emergencies or a major disaster. Following an earthquake or flood, local governments
may need to wait as long as two years in order to get voter approval to begin rebuilding damaged or destroyed roads,
freeways, bridges, hospitals and water delivery systems.
 Unnecessary. Private investors bear the financial risk for revenue bonds, not the state or its general fund. Revenue
bonds are repaid by project users who directly benefit, not taxpayers. For instance, repairs to a bridge would be paid by
tolls on the bridge, or customers (not taxpayers), in a specific water district would pay to build a water recycling plant. It
makes no sense to have a statewide election on projects not financed by taxpayers for which the state and local
governments bear none of the financial risk.
In closing, Kaye reiterated that the definition of the word “project,” which is central to the initiative, is unclear.
“In fact, as it is clumsily written, nobody really knows what a project is,” Kaye said. “But both the intended and unintended
but clearly foreseeable consequences of this measure will harm our ability to accommodate growth and economic
development for decades to come.”
PROP 53 ERODES LOCAL CONTROL BY
REQUIRING STATEWIDE VOTE FOR SOME
LOCAL PROJECTS.
Under this measure, cities and towns that want to come together with the state and form a JPA to issue revenue bonds to
upgrade local water systems, roads, bridges, and universities would have to put their project on a statewide ballot.
That means voters in faraway regions could veto some local projects your community needs and supports – even though those
distant voters don’t use, won’t pay for, and don’t care about your local community improvements.

17. Southwest California Legislative Council
That’s why groups representing California’s cities, counties and local water agencies, including the League of California Cities
and Association of California Water Agencies, all oppose Prop 53.
PROP 53 JEOPARDIZES ABILITY TO REPAIR
OUTDATED INFRASTRUCTURE.
Our communities already suffer from a massive backlog of local infrastructure needs, including outdated water supply and
delivery systems, unsafe bridges, overpasses and freeways, and community hospitals that need to be upgraded to make them
earthquake safe.
Reliable Infrastructure is critical to public safety. This measure erodes local control and creates new hurdles that could block
communities from upgrading critical infrastructure such as bridges, water systems and hospitals.” - Sheriff Donny Youngblood,
President, California State Sheriffs’ Association
PROP 53 THREATENS WATER SUPPLY
AND DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS.
The Association of California Water Agencies says: “Prop 53 could threaten a wide range of local water projects including
storage, desalination, recycling and other vital projects to protect our water supply and access to clean, safe drinking water.
Prop 53 will definitely impede our ability to prepare for future droughts.”
PROP 53 CONTAINS NO EXEMPTIONS FOR
EMERGENCIES OR NATURAL DISASTERS.
Because Prop 53 fails to contain an exemption for emergencies, in cases of an earthquake or flood, the state and local
governments may need to wait as long as two years in order to get voter approval to begin rebuilding damaged or destroyed
roads, freeways, bridges, hospitals and water delivery systems.
California Professional Firefighters, representing 30,000 firefighters and paramedics, warns: “Prop 53 irresponsibly fails to
contain an exemption for natural disasters or major emergencies. That flaw could delay our state’s ability to rebuild critical
infrastructure following earthquakes, wildfires, floods or other natural or man-made disasters.
PROP 53 MAKES NO FISCAL SENSE.
Private investors bear the financial risk for revenue bonds, not the state or its general fund. And revenue bonds are repaid by
users of a project who directly benefit, not taxpayers. For instance, repairs to a bridge would be paid by tolls on the bridge, or
customers in a specific water district would pay to build a water recycling plant, not taxpayers. It makes no sense to have a
statewide election on projects not financed by taxpayers for which the state and local governments bear none of the financial
risk.
PROP 53 IS FINANCED AND PROMOTED BY
MULTI-MILLIONAIRE WITH A PERSONAL AGENDA.
This measure is financed entirely by one multi-millionaire and his family, who are spending millions in an attempt to disrupt a
single water infrastructure project. Irrespective of one’s position on that single project, his initiative has far-reaching, negative
implications for other infrastructure projects throughout California. We cannot allow one wealthy person to abuse the initiative
system to push his narrow personal agenda.