Prohibits retention of funds earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund in the General Fund for use unrelated to transportation after 7/1/08. Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of transportation funds retained in the General Fund in years prior to 2007-08. Eliminates General Fund borrowing of specified transportation funds, except for cash-flow purposes (repayment required within 30 days of adoption of budget); current law allows borrowing for three years where Governor declares transfer would cause significant negative fiscal impact on governmental functions and Legislature enacts authorizing statute. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: No revenue or cost effects. Increases stability of funding to transportation in 2007-08 and thereafter; reduces somewhat the state’s flexibility to use specified transportation funds for other (non transportation) activities.

Establishes in state constitution a system of independent public community college districts and Board of Governors. Generally, requires minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts to be calculated separately, using different criteria and separately appropriated. Allocates 10.46 percent of current Proposition 98 school funding maintenance factor to community colleges. Sets community college fees at $15/unit per semester; limits future fee increases. Provides formula for allocation by Legislature to community college districts that would not otherwise receive general fund revenues through community college apportionment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential increases in state spending on K-14 education of about $135 million in 2007-08, $275 million in 2008-09, and $470 million in 2009-2010, with unknown impact annually thereafter. Annual loss of fee revenues to community colleges of about $71 million in 2007-08, with unknown impacts annually thereafter.

Proposition 93:

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments

This is the run down I have on the propositions from my sources:

Prop 91- The group that was originally hired to put this on the ballot is now asking people to vote no on it. The original effort was done in case Prop 1B was not passed by the voters to allocate transportation funds. Since it did pass, this proposition is now obsolete.

Prop 92 – I originally wasn’t looking at this one too closely, but after speaking with the CA Chamber it seems businesses are interested because it takes funding away from K-12 programs to put them at the college level. The measure would in effect split the existing Proposition 98 funding guarantee for K-14 schools into one guarantee for K-12 and a separate guarantee for community colleges. The potential increase in state spending on K-14 education is about $135 million in 2007-08, $275 million in 2008-09 and $470 million in 2009-10, with unknown impact annually thereafter. Essentially, the California Community Colleges would maintain the benefit of a minimum funding guarantee under Proposition 98 without assuming the risk, like other public institutions of higher education, of being a separately funded public entity.

Proposition 92 would further aggravate the state’s budget crisis and threaten California’s ability to address other pressing needs, like funding health care, public safety and education. Proposition 92 seeks to lock into California’s constitution a new spending mandate for community colleges, but includes no way to pay for it. The measure also requires no public audits, contains no penalties for misuse of funds, and includes no guarantee money will be spent on students. While the initiative mandates new spending--almost a billion dollars in just the first three years, according to California Legislative Analyst’s Office-- it does not identify a way to pay for it.

Prop 93 – Who knows! I couldn’t find many people in support of this proposition until Hannah Beth Jackson announced that she is running for Senate District 19. Most aren’t convinced that the amount of time to in office needs to be reduced, but that the people currently in office need to be moved out while offering an opportunity to change the mix, which involves redistricting, not term limits.  

Please reserve the following dates that fit in with your calendar for more information on the implementation of AB 32. This information was provided by the AB 32 Implementation Group, of which the RLA is a member.

On November 30, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will hold a public workshop to explain the Scoping Plan process and schedule, and to initiate a discussion about the structure of the Scoping Plan such as how commitments should be designed, cost-effectiveness methodologies, and other basic elements of the Plan. This workshop will be held at the South Coast Air Quality Management District offices in Diamond Bar and will be web cast.

On December 14, 2007, ARB will hold a Sector-Based Workshop. Staff will provide an overview of the sectors responsible for the largest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, and provide an overview of the staff's current thinking about potential emission reduction measures for the Scoping Plan. This workshop will be held at the Cal/EPA Headquarters Building in Sacramento and will be web cast.

In mid-January 2008, ARB will hold a Tools Workshop to discuss the various mechanisms that are available to achieve the 2020 emission reduction targets. The location for this workshop has not yet been finalized. In late-March 2008, ARB plans to hold a Scenario Workshop to explore emission reduction strategies. The staff will present different combinations of potential emission reduction measures and discuss preliminary analyses of the scenarios.

In October 2008, ARB staff plans to release its proposed Scoping Plan. In November 2008, the ARB is scheduled to consider the Scoping Plan.

The same day as he announced committee members, Speaker Nunez and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata unveiled a variation on the health care tax plan. We responded with a statement pointing out that just like the Speaker’s AB 8, the latest proposal creates an employer mandate that violates the federal ERISA law. Just like AB 8, this proposal creates the first step to government-run health care.In addition, what the Speaker and Pro Tempore outlined will establish a growing entitlement program to be funded by a declining revenue stream — tobacco taxes (rejected by voters during the last election).

Creating a new under funded health care entitlement program will deepen an already-gaping hole in the state’s budget. Estimates of the magnitude of the under funding depend on numerous assumptions, but some preliminary calculations indicate the state subsidy required will be huge and could even apply to all but a small percentage of Californians.The plan introduced by Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines emphasizes the use of health savings accounts and tax credits to help employees and businesses save for or provide health care. The Governor’s plan (as outlined in the bill amended on November 8) includes the mandate for individuals to purchase coverage and insurers to offer it, but states only the intent that the requirements be financed from public and private sources, including fees by acute care hospitals and employers. Discussions are continuing and specifics of the funding mechanism are very fluid. Some observers have predicted the Legislature will vote on a health care plan around Thanksgiving.

I am including a link (Calhealthreform.org) to the California HealthCare Foundation that has a comparison of the health care proposals currently under consideration. In addition, please access the Cal Chamber website to get a copy of our opposition letter to the Democratic leadership proposal.

Finally, we will schedule a call after the Assembly Health Committee hearing and once we get a better sense on where the negotiations are going.