Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Election 2020: Proposition 19 is latest assault on taxpayers

By Leave a Comment

OPINION

By Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

The assaults on California property owners and taxpayers never stop. And once again the California Legislature has advanced a massive tax increase at the last possible moment when they thought no one was paying attention.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA11), approved by the California Legislature, takes away Proposition 13 protections that California families have under current law and replaces them with a billion-dollar tax increase. Voters will have an opportunity to reject this scheme come November, as ACA11 will appear on the ballot as Proposition 19.

After the historic passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians finally had certainty about their future property tax liability because increases in the “taxable value” of property were limited to 2 percent per year. Property would be reassessed to market value only when it changed hands. To prevent families from getting hit with huge tax increases, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 58 in 1986, changing the state constitution to ensure that transfers of certain property between parents and children could occur without triggering the sticker shock of reassessment.

Under Prop. 58, a home of any value and up to a million dollars of assessed value of other property may be transferred between parents and children without reassessment. Proposition 19 (2020) would repeal Proposition 58 (1986) and force the reassessment of inherited or transferred property within families. The only exception is if the property is used as the principal residence of the person to whom it was transferred, and even that exclusion is capped.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the repeal of the “intergenerational transfer protections” guaranteed by Props. 58 and 193 will result in 40,000 to 60,000 families getting hit with higher property taxes every year. Prop. 19’s massive tax increase has been included in this initiative to offset another proposed constitutional change: the expansion of the ability for older homeowners to move to a replacement home and transfer their base-year property tax assessment from their previous home to the new property. While this “portability” expansion has some merit, voters rejected this idea in 2018. Oddly, the backers of the proposal think they can sell it again by adding a tax increase.

As ill-advised as Proposition 19 is as matter of policy, the contortions executed by the California Legislature to place it on the ballot were nothing short of bizarre. The primary sponsor of ACA11 was the California Association of Realtors (CAR) which first wrote a similar proposal as an initiative and gathered signatures to put it on the ballot. It appears CAR is motivated by the desire to churn more home sales, even at the expense of a multi-billion-dollar tax increase.

For reasons related to placating progressive Democrats in the Legislature as well as labor unions, CAR wanted to withdraw its previously qualified initiative and have the Legislature replace it with a similar tax increase proposal.

But something funny happened on the way to the ballot. CAR missed the constitutional deadline for withdrawing its initiative, so as a matter of law, it appeared that there would be two nearly identical measures on the ballot, causing confusion, not to mention additional costs. So, Secretary of State Padilla dutifully took the CAR measure off the ballot even though he had already certified it under the procedures set forth in the California Constitution.

Our current political establishment ignores all rules and laws when it comes to achieving a desired political end. And, as usual, the desired end here is billions of dollars in higher property taxes.

Sen. Glazer touts latest legislative accomplishments, including placing $1 billion tax increase on November ballot

By 1 Comment

State Senator Steve Glazer (D-7-Orinda)

SACRAMENTO – Sen. Steve Glazer’s legislative agenda – including a three-bill package to help residents survive power outages – cleared the Senate this spring and moved to the Assembly despite challenging conditions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to the power outage bills, Glazer carried measures to deter unsafe house parties in short-term rentals – prompted by an Orinda tragedy in which five people were killed – and another to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products, which have been used to lure kids into the nicotine habit.

Behind the scenes, the senator also played a key role in passing a constitutional amendment (ACA 11) that could make it easier for seniors to sell their house and buy another without incurring huge increases in their property tax bills. That measure would increase taxes in the state by $1 billion per  year, raising money for fire protection by closing a loophole that has allowed out of state investors and absentee landlords to take advantage of a law meant to help people pass on their family home to their children.

The power outage package was intended to address issues with cell phone service, medical devices and hospitals during shutdowns triggered by utilities trying to avoid sparking a fire during high-wind events.

The bills were:

SB 431– (co-authored with Sen. Mike McGuire) to require a 72-hour backup power for cell towers to ensure people have access to cellphone communications during a wildfire power shutdown;

SB 801 – to require utilities to provide backup power sources to protect residents who rely on electricity to power life-saving medical devices;

SB 1099 (co-authored with Sen. Bill Dodd) – to allow hospitals to use backup power without facing local penalties.

“Senator Glazer has truly been a champion of persons with disabilities, older adults and wildfire victims and we commend his work in carrying legislation to ensure that power companies are required to provide backup power to many of them during Public Safety Power Shutoff events,” said Curtis Child, legislative director for Disability Rights California, referring to SB 1099. “This legislation will save lives.”

The Senate also approved Senator Glazer’s bill, SB 1049, increasing penalties for short-term rentals that allow disruptive and dangerous events. Last Halloween in Orinda a mass shooting left five people dead at a party hosted at an AirBnB property.

“In a few short months amidst a deadly crisis, lawmakers were asked to scale back their legislative agendas,” Senator Glazer said. “So, I am thrilled with how much important work we were able to get done, and am especially glad I could address some critical issues for residents in my district.”

The Senate also approved SB 793, which Glazer co-authored with Sen. Jerry Hill, to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products. This bill is similar to previous legislation Glazer has co-authored with Hill banning tobacco and e-cigarette companies from marketing flavored products to children.

The Senate also approved Senator Glazer’s bill, SB 1232, to help student parents pay for books and college supplies with a Cal-WORKS grant. It would also exempt these students from having to meet work requirements.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11, which Glazer helped push through the Senate, allow seniors and disabled people to sell their home and buy another one without having to pay the substantially higher property taxes that would typically be assessed on the new purchase. This will allow more empty-nesters to move out of larger homes that have more space than they need while freeing up homes for young families who have been squeezed out by the housing shortage. It appears on the November ballot as Proposition 19.

The constitutional amendment, if approved by voters in November, would also close a loophole that gives people a property tax break when they inherit a home from their parents. People who live in the home they inherit would still get the benefit but it would no longer be available to landlords.

According to the California Board of Equalization, “Proposition 58, effective November 6, 1986, is a constitutional amendment approved by the voters of California which excludes from reassessment transfers of real property between parents and children.

Proposition 193, effective March 27, 1996, is a constitutional amendment approved by the voters of California which excludes from reassessment transfers of real property from grandparents to grandchildren, providing that all the parents of the grandchildren who qualify as children of the grandparents are deceased as of the date of transfer.”

According to Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in his latest California Commentary, “the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the repeal of the ‘intergenerational transfer protections’ guaranteed by Props. 58 and 193 will result in 40,000 to 60,000 families getting hit with higher property taxes every year.”

The two changes could eventually raise $1 billion a year in new revenue that would be dedicated to fire protection.

“Senator Glazer’s efforts to create a dedicated fund to support underfunded fire districts in California show how effective a resourceful and persistent lawmaker can be in delivering much needed funds to his fire districts,” said Brian K. Rice President, California Professional Firefighters. “We are grateful for the support Senator Glazer has provided us and should ACA 11 (Proposition 19) be passed by the voters, we look forward to working with him to secure funds for his district.”

Glazer worked with the authors of the measure to ensure that a portion of the revenue would be available to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, which has been forced to reduce services and close a number of stations because state funding formulas gave it far less property tax revenue than a typical fire district.

“This fire district has never had the revenue it needs to serve the fast-growing East County,” Glazer said. “ACA 11 is a smart, fair tax reform that will help seniors while generating more resources for fighting fires. If it passes, I will work with my fellow legislators to make sure that the East County district gets its fair share.”

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Secretary of State Padilla assigns numbers to November ballot measures, invites ballot arguments

By Leave a Comment

Two tax increases included in Props 15 and 19; Prop 18 lowers voting age to 17

SACRAMENTO, CA – Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Wednesday, July 1, assigned proposition numbers to the legislative, initiative, and referendum measures set to appear on the November 3, 2020 General Election ballot. Secretary Padilla also invited interested Californians to submit arguments to be considered for inclusion in the Official Voter Information Guide. The guide is mailed to every voting household in California and posted on the Secretary of State’s website.

The propositions are listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel’s digest or the Attorney General’s official circulating title and summary.

Proposition 14

AUTHORIZES BONDS TO CONTINUE FUNDING STEM CELL AND OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions. Limits bond issuance to $540 million annually. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bond debt, but postpones repayment for first five years. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds. Associated average annual debt payments of about $310 million for 25 years. The costs could be higher or lower than these estimates depending on factors such as the interest rate and the period of time over which the bonds are repaid. The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds. (19-0022A1.)

Proposition 15

INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, exempts $500,000 worth of personal property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $7.5 billion to $12 billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent). (19-0008.)

Proposition 16

ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 23), Weber. Government preferences.

The California Constitution, pursuant to provisions enacted by the initiative Proposition 209 in 1996, prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Constitution defines the state for these purposes to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.

This measure would repeal these provisions. The measure would also make a statement of legislative findings in this regard.

WHEREAS, Equal opportunity is deeply rooted in the American ideals of fairness, justice, and equality. Programs to meet the goals of equal opportunity seek to realize these basic values. Equal opportunity not only helps individuals, but also helps communities in need and benefits our larger society. California’s equal opportunity program was upended by the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209, entitled the California Civil Rights Initiative, amended Article I of the California Constitution to prohibit race- and gender-conscious remedies to rectify the underutilization of women and people of color in public employment, as well as public contracting and education; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 invalidated a series of laws that had been enacted by the California Legislature over the 20 years prior to it that required state agencies to eliminate traditional patterns of segregation and exclusion in the workforce, to increase the representation of women and minorities in the state service by identifying jobs for which their employment was underrepresented due to discrimination, and to develop action plans to remedy such underrepresentation without effectuating quota systems; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 also overshadowed other landmark civil rights and antidiscrimination laws. In 1959, after a 37-year campaign by labor and civil rights groups, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was passed, which was the forerunner of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

WHEREAS, As a result of the passage of Proposition 209, women and people of color continue to face discrimination and disparity in opportunities to participate in numerous forms of association and work that are crucial to the development of talents and capabilities that enable people to contribute meaningfully to, and benefit from, the collective possibilities of national life; and

WHEREAS, The State of California has provided employment opportunities for people of color and women of all races. However, lingering, and even increasing, disparity still exists, particularly for Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Black Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and women, and should be rectified; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 has impeded California’s continuing interest in supporting the equal participation of women in the workforce and in public works projects, in addressing the historical and present manifestations of gender bias, and in promulgating policies to enforce antidiscrimination in the workplace and on public projects; and

WHEREAS, In the wake of Proposition 209, California saw stark workforce diversity reductions for people of color and women in public contracting and in public education. Studies show that more diverse workforces perform better financially and are significantly more productive and focused; and

WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 209, the state’s minority-owned and women-owned business enterprise programs have been decimated. A 2016 study conservatively estimates that the implementation of Proposition 209 cost women and people of color over $1,000,000,000 annually in lost contract awards. Most procurement and subcontracting processes remain effectively closed to these groups due to the changes brought on by Proposition 209; and

WHEREAS, Women are vastly underrepresented among firms receiving public contracts and the dollars awarded to certified women-owned business enterprises fell by roughly 40 percent, compared to levels before Proposition 209. In addition, only one-third of certified minority business enterprises in California’s transportation construction industry are still in operation today, compared to 20 years ago; and

WHEREAS, Women, particularly women of color, continue to face unequal pay for equal work. White women are paid 80 cents to every dollar paid to white men doing the same work. Black women are paid 60 cents for every dollar paid to white men doing the same work and would theoretically have to work an extra seven months every year to overcome that differential. This persistent gender wage gap continues to harm women, their families, and communities; and

WHEREAS, Despite a booming economy with almost full employment, a persistent racial wealth gap remains rooted in income inequality. Improving minority access to educational and labor market opportunity reduces the wealth gap and strengthens the economy; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 209 has had a devastating impact on minority equal opportunity and access to California’s publicly funded institutions of higher education. This violates the spirit of the California Master Plan for Higher Education by making it more difficult for many students to obtain an affordable and accessible high quality public education. While federal law allows schools to use race as a factor when making admissions decisions, California universities are prohibited by Proposition 209 from engaging in targeted outreach and extra efforts to matriculate high-performing minority students. This reduces .the graduation rates of students of color and, in turn, contributes to the diminution of the “pipeline” of candidates of color for faculty positions; and

WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 209, diversity within public educational institutions has been stymied. Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in admissions policy at the University of California, with underrepresented group enrollment at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses of the University of California immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide underrepresented group enrollment falling by at least 12 percent. Underrepresented group high school graduates faced substantial long-term declines in educational and employment outcomes as a result of these changes; and

WHEREAS, Among California high school graduates who apply to the University of California, passage of Proposition 209 has led to a decreased likelihood of earning a college degree within six years, a decreased likelihood of ever earning a graduate degree, and long-run declines in average wages and the likelihood of earning high wages measured by California standards. The University of California has never recovered the same level of diversity that it had before the loss of affirmative action nearly 20 years ago, a level that, at the time, was widely considered to be inadequate to meet the needs of the state and its young people because it did not achieve parity with the state’s ethnic demographics; and

WHEREAS, The importance of diversity in educational settings cannot be overstated. The Supreme Court of the United States outlined the benefits that arise from diversity, as follows, “the destruction of stereotypes, the promotion of cross-racial understanding, the preparation of a student body for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and the cultivation of a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”; and

WHEREAS, Federal courts continue to reaffirm the value of diversity in favor of race conscious admissions, as exemplified by United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs who stated, “race conscious admissions programs that survive strict scrutiny have an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning, improves scholarship, and encourages mutual respect and understanding. Further, Judge Burroughs recognized that there are no race-neutral alternatives that would allow a university to achieve an adequately diverse student body while still perpetuating its standards for academic and other forms of excellence; and

WHEREAS, It is the intent of the Legislature that California remedy discrimination against, and underrepresentation of, certain disadvantaged groups in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and allow gender, racial, and ethnic diversity to be considered among the factors used to decide college admissions and hiring and contracting by government institutions; and

WHEREAS, It is further the intent of the Legislature that California transcend a legacy of unequal treatment of marginalized groups and promote fairness and equal citizenship by affording the members of marginalized groups a fair and full opportunity to be integrated into state public institutions that advance upward mobility, pay equity, and racial wealth gap reduction; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2019-20 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 2018, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

That Section 31 of Article I thereof is repealed.

Proposition 17

ACA 6 (Resolution Chapter 24), McCarty. Elections: disqualification of electors.

The California Constitution requires the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony. Existing statutory law, for purposes of determining who is entitled to register to vote, defines imprisoned as currently serving a state or federal prison sentence.

This measure would instead direct the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors who are serving a state or federal prison sentence for the conviction of a felony. This measure would also delete the requirement that the Legislature provide for the disqualification of electors while on parole for the conviction of a felony. The measure would provide for the restoration of voting rights upon completion of the prison term.

Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2019-20 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 2018, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

First-That Section 2 of Article II thereof is amended to read:

SEC. 2. (a) A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

(b) An elector disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term, as described in Section 4, shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

Second-That Section 4 of Article II thereof is amended to read:

SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.

Proposition 18

ACA 4 (Resolution Chapter 30), Mullin. Elections: voting age.

The California Constitution authorizes any person who is a United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the state to vote.

This measure, in addition, would authorize a United States citizen who is 17 years of age, is a resident of the state, and will be at least 18 years of age at the time of the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election in which the citizen would be eligible to vote if at least 18 years of age.

Proposition 19

ACA 11 (Resolution Chapter 31), Mullin. The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act.

The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to authorize a person over 55 years of age or any severely and permanently disabled person residing in property eligible for the homeowner’s exemption to transfer the base year value of that property to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county, or another county that has adopted an ordinance allowing base years value transfers from other counties, as provided. The California Constitution also provides that the purchase or transfer of the principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, of a transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, is not a “purchase” or “change in ownership” for purposes of determining the “full cash value” of property for taxation.

This measure, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, would authorize an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster, as defined, to transfer the taxable value, defined as the base year value plus inflation adjustments, of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in the state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that person’s principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original primary residence. The measure would limit a person who is over 55 years of age or severely disabled to 3 transfers under these provisions.

The measure, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, would exclude from the terms “purchase” and “change in ownership” for purposes of determining the “full cash value” of property the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased. In the case of a transfer of a family home, the measure would require that the property continue as the family home of the transferee. The measure would require that the taxable value of the property be determined as provided. In the case of property tax benefits provided to a family home under these provisions, the bill would require the transferee to claim the homeowner’s or disabled veteran’s exemption within one year of the transfer. The measure would specify that the above-described provisions relating to transfers between parents or grandparents and children or grandchildren would apply to transfers occurring on or before February 15, 2021.

The measure would establish the California Fire Response Fund in the State Treasury. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on calculations by the Director of Finance, of the additional revenues and savings that accrued to the state from the implementation of this measure’s provisions from the General Fund to that fund. However, the measure would provide that, if the amount required to be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund exceeds the amount transferred for the previous fiscal year by more than 10%, that excess amount would not be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund. The measure would require the Legislature to appropriate moneys in the fund solely for the purpose of funding fire suppression staffing by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and underfunded special districts that provide fire protection services, as provided.

The measure would also establish the County Revenue Protection Fund and continuously appropriate moneys in that fund for the purpose of reimbursing eligible local agencies, as provided. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on the above-described calculations by the Director of Finance, from the General Fund to that fund. The measure would require each county to annually determine the gain of the county and any local agency within the county resulting from the implementation of this measure and, if that amount of gain is negative, provide that specified eligible local agencies may receive a reimbursement from the County Revenue Protection Fund. The measure would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to provide a reimbursement to each eligible local agency that has a negative gain, determined every 3 years based on the aggregate gain of the eligible local agency, as provided, and require the Controller to transfer any remaining balance in the County Revenue Protection Fund to the General Fund at the end of each 3-year period, to be available for appropriation for any purpose.

Proposition 20

RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes restrictions on parole program for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term for their primary offense. Expands list of offenses that disqualify an inmate from this parole program. Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in penalties for certain theft-related crimes and the changes to the nonviolent offender release consideration process. Increased state and local court-related costs of around a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and additional felony theft filings. Increased state and local law enforcement costs not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually related to collecting and processing DNA samples from additional offenders. (17-0044.)

Proposition 21

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies. In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more. (19-0001.)

Proposition 22

CHANGES EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION RULES FOR APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY DRIVERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies. Restricts local regulation of app-based drivers; criminalizes impersonation of such drivers; requires background checks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increase in state personal income tax revenue of an unknown amount. (19-0026A1)

Proposition 23

AUTHORIZES STATE REGULATION OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STAFFING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatientkidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from thisrequirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner orphysician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state andfederal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibitsclinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care. Summaryof estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state and local health care costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs. (19-0025A1.)

Proposition 24

AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—such as precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; union membership; private communications; and certain sexual orientation, health, and biometric information. Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with these laws. Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary. Triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce and implement consumer privacy laws, and impose administrative fines. Requires adoption of substantive regulations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer privacy laws. Increased state costs, potentially reaching the low millions of dollars annually, from increased workload to DOJ and the state courts, some or all of which would be offset by penalty revenues. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer information. (19-0021A1.)

Proposition 25

REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN A 2018 LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY RISK. If this petition is signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed, a referendum will be placed on the next statewide ballot requiring a majority of voters to approve a 2018 state law before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors. (18-0009.)

Ballot Arguments

Arguments may be submitted for or against the measures. Arguments selected for the Official Voter Information Guide will be on public display between July 21 and August 10. If multiple arguments are submitted for a proposition, state law gives first priority to arguments written by legislators in the case of legislative measures and to proponents of an initiative or referendum; subsequent priority goes to bona fide citizen associations and then to individuals. No more than three signers are allowed to appear on an argument or rebuttal to an argument.

Ballot arguments cannot exceed 500 words and rebuttals to ballot arguments cannot exceed 250 words. All submissions should be typed and double-spaced.  Arguments may be hand-delivered to the Secretary of State’s Elections Division at 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814; faxed to (916) 653-3214; or emailed to VIGarguments@sos.ca.gov. If faxed or emailed, the original documents must be received within 72 hours.  The deadline to submit ballot arguments is July 7 by 5:00 p.m. The deadline to submit rebuttals to the ballot arguments is July 16 by 5:00 p.m.

Candidate Statements in the County Voter Information Guide

Candidates for the United States House of Representatives, California State Senate, and California State Assembly have until August 7 to submit candidate statements to their county elections official for the local sample ballot in the county or counties in which the district lies.

For more information on ballot measures, candidate filing requirements, and election deadlines, please visit: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/general-election-november-3-2020/

 

Who wants to run for office? Candidate filing for November elections begins July 13th

By Leave a Comment

For school, community college and special districts in Contra Costa County

By Scott O. Konopasek, Assistant Registrar of Voters, Contra Costa County Elections Division

The candidate filing period for offices in school, community college and special districts is from July 13 to August 7, 2020 in order to appear on the November 2020 ballot. If an incumbent does not file by the August 7 nomination deadline, the seat is extended five calendar days until August 12, to non-incumbents only. The same dates apply to candidates for city offices who will file in their respective city, as usual.

In the past, filing for office has been conducted in the Elections Division office. This election however, as a result of COVID and social distancing requirements, filing for office will be conducted at the County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors.

Elections staff will issue documents and accept filings from 8:30 am – 4:30 pm daily. Appointments for filing the Declaration of Candidacy will be made at the time papers are issued.

“This is a safety measure to protect our staff and the public as the November election gets into gear. It is an example of the types of common sense protective measures we will employ throughout this election cycle.” said Debi Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar.

To ensure the safety of all, candidates will wear face coverings and abide by social distancing protocols. Entourages will not be permitted into the Board Chambers, but may congregate outside or in the lobby of the Admin Building as long as public health rules are respected.

Download and view the Candidate’s Guide which gives you vital information on running for office, filing requirements, qualifications, deadlines, and more. The guide is for general information only and does not have the force and effect of law, regulation or rule.

To see the list of all offices up for election in November, including mayors, council members, city clerks and city treasurers, click here. Lists of candidates filing for office will be published twice daily at www.cocovote.us, at noon and at the end of each day. For more details on the November election schedule click, here.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

DA charges former Contra Costa County Clerk Canciamilla with 34 felonies for perjury & grand theft related to campaign accounts

By 2 Comments

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Joe Canciamilla

Martinez, Calif. — Today, Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint of 34 felonies against defendant Joseph Canciamilla of Pittsburg. Canciamilla is the former Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder and a former county supervisor and assemblymember. He also created a campaign account for Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge. Canciamilla is also a licensed member of the California State Bar. Canciamilla’s first court appearance will be on July 27 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31.

Canciamilla is accused of 30 felony counts of perjury for his alleged misstatements on 30 separate campaign disclosure statements (Form 460s). Canciamilla signed these campaign finance statements under the penalty of perjury. The additional four felony counts relate to personal grand theft of campaign funds for his personal use, totaling $261,800.68. The allegations span conduct from 2010 to 2016.

The personal expenditures made by Canciamilla’s campaign committees for the defendant’s own use were for various purposes, such as:

  • Personal vacation to Asia
  • Restaurants
  • Airfare via Southwest Airlines and American Airlines
  • Repayment of a Personal Loan
  • Transfers from his Campaign Bank Accounts to his Personal Accounts

All of these campaign statements started initially in 2010 with Canciamilla not reporting investment gains in a campaign bank account. While this practice is permissible, using the proceeds of any stock gains for personal use is prohibited. Canciamilla concealed from his Form 460s the gains and losses associated with this investment account. Ultimately, Canciamilla spent more on personal expenses than the unreported investment gains. He therefore had to then transfer personal funds into this campaign bank account to make up the difference.

“In total, the false statements signed by Canciamilla omitted critical information from the campaign finance disclosures. The information left off these forms left the public in the dark about how a candidate and then county-wide elected official spent campaign funds. Given the recent history of misconduct by various elected officials in Contra Costa County, Canciamilla’s behavior is troubling and he must be held accountable,” stated Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton.

The DA’s Office was notified of possible criminal activity associated with Canciamilla’s campaign accounts in early 2017 by the Franchise Tax Board. The criminal investigation by the DA’s Office included hundreds of hours examining seven different bank accounts held by the defendant. The two primary financial institutions Canciamilla used were Contra Costa Federal Credit Union and Charles Schwab.

Ultimately, Canciamilla was fined $150,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission in a civil stipulation for the multiple errors in his campaign finance statements, which concealed the personal use of campaign funds for his own benefit.

The statements signed by Canciamilla included various campaign accounts, such as his campaign account for judge (“Friends of Joe Canciamilla for Judge 2012” and campaign account for clerk-recorder (“Joe Canciamilla Canciamilla for Contra Costa County Clerk/Recorder”). See related articles on this matter, here and here.

 

Contra Costa District Attorney, others want to prevent police unions from contributing to DA candidates during elections

By 2 Comments

Call on state bar to create a new ethics rule claiming it “would help restore the independence, integrity, and trust of elected prosecutors by preventing them from taking donations from police unions.”

“They’re trying to hamper pro-law enforcement candidates who will run against them” – law enforcement official (who chose to remain anonymous)

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

SAN FRANCISCO – Today, Monday, June 1, 2020, in the wake of mass protests following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, a coalition of current and former elected prosecutors representing millions of Californians in diverse counties banded together to call on the California State Bar to cure the conflict of interest created by police unions’ outsized influence in local elections.  The new rule would explicitly preclude elected prosecutors – or prosecutors seeking election – from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions. (Read letter, here).

“The legal representation of an accused officer is generally financed by their law enforcement union,” said Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton.  “It is illogical that the rules prohibit prosecutors from soliciting and benefiting from financial and political support from an accused officer’s advocate in court, while enabling the prosecutor to benefit financially and politically from the accused’s advocate in public.”

“District Attorneys will undoubtedly review use of force incidents involving police officers,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. “When they do, the financial and political support of these unions should not be allowed to influence that decision making.”

“When videos emerge like the one depicting the killing of George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery, the damage it does to the entire criminal justice system cannot be overstated,” said former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón. “That damage, however, is further compounded by delays in the condemnation, arrest, and charging of the involved law enforcement officers. These feelings, these protests, and the pain we’re seeing, would not be as raw and widespread if we had seen police held accountable by local prosecutors quickly and with regularity.  An important step in curing this pain is curing the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police do not face consequences swiftly – or at all – due to the proximity and political influence of their union.”

“We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us to restore trust in our profession, but trust must be earned, it cannot be demanded,” said San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar.  “The first step to earning that trust back is ensuring the independence of county prosecutors is beyond reproach.”

Prosecutors are in a unique position of having to work closely with law enforcement and simultaneously evaluate whether crimes have been committed by these same officers.  Recent events involving police misconduct in which prosecutors either delayed or failed to file charges have shined a light on the importance of prosecutors making decisions regarding law enforcement officers’ conduct without any undue influence or bias.  Yet when prosecutors initiate an investigation or prosecution of an officer, the law enforcement unions often finance the legal representation of the accused officer. Prosecutors who have received an endorsement from the entity that is funding the defense of the officers being investigated or prosecuted creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest for elected prosecutors.

By precluding elected prosecutors—or prosecutors seeking election—from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions, the State Bar will reduce the presence of conflicts of interest and ensure independence on the part of elected prosecutors.  This proposal also aspires to help reestablish community trust in the integrity of prosecutors at a time when national events have damaged that trust.

For more information, follow #CureTheConflict.

In response, the following questions were sent to Becton’s public information officer, Scott Alonso:

“Is she saying that currently a prosecutor cannot solicit and benefit from financial and political support from an attorney representing a police officer accused of a crime while in court or during the court case? But the police officer’s attorney can support the prosecutor financially and politically when not in court or during the court case?

Please clarify who the accused is in her comment about the ‘accused’s advocate’. I assume it’s the same accused officer she refers to twice before in her comment. But, not sure.

Also, are she and the rest of the DA’s willing to forgo any financial contributions from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? How about no financial support from any organization and only from individuals who live within their counties? How far should this go to ensure fairness in prosecutions? Isn’t this really one-sided? Also, if the police unions have so much influence in our county and they all backed Becton’s opponent in the last election how did she still win? Isn’t she in effect attempting to violate the free speech rights – which political campaign contributions have been defined as by the courts – of the police unions?

June 2 UPDATE: Alonso responded with, “Any questions about political contributions I cannot answer as a public employee. You would need to direct those to DA Becton’s campaign.”

This reporter then emailed him, “Please pass on my questions to DA Becton. I’m not asking you to answer them. I’m asking for her to.”

Alonso responded, “Her statement speaks for itself. Not sure what else to provide. Her reference to the advocate is the law enforcement union.”

A further email was sent to him with, “Her statement and the effort is clearly one sided and doesn’t answer my questions that I emailed you. Did you pass on my questions to her?  If not can you, please? I really don’t want to have to write that she’s refusing to answer them. Surely neither you nor she expects the media to just run press releases on controversial matters unchallenged and without question.

Thanks for the partial answer to my one question. But it still doesn’t clarify what she’s saying in that quote. How would a prosecutor solicit and benefit from financial and political support of a law enforcement union in court? I seriously don’t understand that.

I really need to hear back from her on the questions I sent. I don’t want to just write she refused to respond.”

Alonso responded with, “With all respect we do answer your questions. Your comment that this ‘effort is one side’ is odd. Not sure what you mean by that. There are standards in place for prosecutors in terms of receiving or benefitting from opposing defense counsel. This is outlined in the letter that you were provided. In terms of any questions on donations I cannot answer that as I have said.”

This reporter further responded by email with, “Yes, in the past you’ve answered my questions and I appreciate that. But I’m talking about this press release on a very controversial, political issue, which is rare if not the only one I recall ever receiving from you.

About the effort being one sided, that’s because all the DA’s and former DA quoted in the press release are attempting to silence one side in the political battle for who should be elected DA. Diana wasn’t backed by any of the police unions in the county, if I recall. They backed her opponent, DDA Paul Graves. Now she’s trying to prevent police unions from contributing to her potential opponents in future elections in effectively silencing their voice during a political campaign. Yet, I don’t see anything in the press release in which she or the other DA’s call for limiting the contributions to candidates from those on the criminal defense side.

Again, I’m not asking you to answer my questions. I’m asking you to pass along my questions to DA Becton, who as an elected official can answer them and should. You sent out on official CCDA letterhead a press release about a political matter. Frankly, that should have gone out on her campaign letterhead if you or she aren’t going to answer questions about it.

Now, please quit being a gatekeeper for her and pass on my questions to her. Another day has passed since you sent me the press release and I still don’t have but one question answered.

I’m trying not to go around you. I do have her cell phone number and have called her before when it was after hours. But I am avoiding calling her. I guess I’ll have to if I can’t get you to simply forward my questions to her.

So, let’s please stop the back and forth. I’m not asking you any questions about a political matter. I’m asking her.”

No response to that email was received.

When reached for comment, Becton said she was in a meeting and to “send questions to Scott.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report and responses from the DA.

Gov. Newsom signs order to expand vote-by-mail options and extend deadlines for Presidential Primary canvass

By Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday issued an executive order to permit vote-by-mail procedures to be used in three upcoming special elections, protecting public health and safety during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The order also extends the deadlines for ballot counting, tabulation, and other responsibilities related to the official canvass of California’s Presidential Primary Election that could risk undermining social distancing measures, and suspends the timeframes for public hearings required by political subdivisions that are in the process of changing from an at-large method of election to district elections.

A copy of the Governor’s executive order can be found here and the text of the order can also be found here.

By just 54 votes Supervisor Glover to face Assessor Kramer in November run off for District 5

By Leave a Comment

By Allen Payton

With the final results in for the March 3rd Presidential Primary from the Contra Costa Elections Division on Friday afternoon, District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover missed winning the election outright by just 54 votes. He will face County Assessor Gus Kramer in a November General Election runoff. (See results here.)

Had any candidate received 50% plus one vote they would have won in the Primary.

With all the votes counted Glover garnered 22,142 votes or 49.88% of the vote. Kramer placed a distant second out of the three candidates, with 11,441 votes or 25.78% of the vote. He was trailed by Martinez Planning Commissioner and first-time candidate for public office, Sean Trambley, by just 637 votes, with 10,804 votes or 24.34%.

The fall campaign has already begun as Kramer wasted no time in attacking the incumbent.

“I’m looking forward to the run-off. It will give me the chance to show the electorate who I really am and who my opponent really is,” he said when reached for comment, while social distancing at his cabin for the next three weeks. “Glover said four years ago and eight years ago that would be his last time running. It’s one of the reasons I’m running against him. He’s not a man of his word.”

“The citizens of Contra Costa deserve a supervisor they can trust,” Kramer saiud.

“I want to thank all the voters who voted and supported me,” he stated. “And all those who didn’t believe the political hit pieces that were mailed out and the campaign the East Bay Times has mounted against me for the past eight years but, continued to show faith in me. We’re hoping, and will be working to build on that support for November.”

“He doesn’t plan on fulfilling this term, is what I’ve been told by those who are close to Federal,” Kramer added. “Then he will lobby the governor to appoint someone who he supports, to replace him.”

Glover wasn’t ready to engage at this point, but just thanked his supporters and encouraged people to comply with the coronavirus orders.

“It’s interesting, but we’ll gear up for November,” he said. “I really just want to thank the voters for their continued support of my candidacy. Going into November we’re going to continue to ask their support of our efforts. I look forward to continuing to represent the district.”

He is focused on the coronavirus, for now.

“While I’m very thrilled with the election results and the voters who supported me, my major concentration, now is this coronavirus,” Glover stated. “The county as a whole, and my district, it’s really important that we follow the rules, now so that we can flatten the curve to be able to get on with our routine services.”

“But, if everyone does not follow the orders that have been put out there, it’s going to take us just that much longer,” he said. “So, please be obedient to the rules as we’re all in this together.”

“Be safe and stay healthy,” Glover added.

Other Election Results – Four of Seven Measures Pass

Measure J fails countywide. While a majority of voters supported it, the countywide, half-cent sales tax measure for transportation needed a two-thirds vote to pass, meaning 66.7% of the vote. But it only received 51.59%. So, the $3.4 billion measure failed. It would have meant an additional half-cent in sales tax would have overlapped the current Measure J half-cent sales tax for 14 years.

Measure A fails in Pleasant Hill. The bond measure for the Pleasant Hill Park & Recreation District needed a two-thirds vote to pass, but only received 60.15%.

Measure L passes in the Lafayette School District. The parcel tax election, which required a 2/3’s vote to pass, received 73.07% of the vote.

Measure M passes in the Moraga School District. The parcel tax election, which also required a 2/3’s vote to pass, with 70.74% of the vote.

Measure R passes in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The school bond election required 55% of the vote to pass and garnered more than enough with 58.59%.

Measure T fails in Antioch. The $105 million school improvement bond covering the former Mello-Roos District 89-1 required 55% of the vote. It barely lost at just 43 votes shy of passing with 54.53% of the vote.

Measure Y passes in Danville. The voters of the Town of Danville approved the development of 69 homes on 410 acres. It required a simple majority to pass and received 54.23% of the vote.

County Clerk-Recorder and Elections continue ballot count but limit public access due to COVID-19

By Leave a Comment

From Deborah Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters

The Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department remains open to provide essential services, but access to buildings and in-person services is limited. The counting of remaining ballots from the March 3 Presidential Primary election will continue until complete.

Those who want to observe the count are still welcome, but they need to call to make an appointment. The Elections Division is hoping to certify the election, this week. As of last Friday’s update, there were still 30,500 ballots remaining to be counted in the county.

The Department is urging customers to use online services in an effort to help reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission. In-person services are currently limited to transactions that cannot be done online, over the phone or through the mail.

Elections Division: Most information and election services are available online at https://www.cocovote.us/

For any necessary in-person visits please call and arrange an appointment. Contact the Elections Division for assistance with voting or election information, state or local petition delivery, or other needs at 925-335-7800.

Clerk- Recorder Division: Customer assistance for Clerk or Recording services is available by calling (925) 335-7900. Normal hours of operation are 8 am to 4:30 pm (subject to change).

Clerk Services: Most Clerk services are available online, with few exceptions. Civil marriage ceremonies will not be performed in the office until further notice. County Clerk services information is available on the department website at https://www.contracostacore.us/

Recording Services: Customers are encouraged to mail documents for recording to Contra Costa County Recorder at 555 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 92553 or place documents in the drop box at the building entrance. Prior to mailing documents for recording, documents may be emailed for review and fee information to crwebmaster@cr.cccounty.us.

Recording information is available at www.contracostacore.us/

For updates related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), visit www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/.

County elections update: Glover inches closer to victory, 30,500 ballots remaining to be counted

By Leave a Comment

Manual tally to begin Monday, four of six tax measures in county passing, Danville development referendum successful

By Allen Payton

With the latest, Interim Update 3 from the Contra Costa County Elections Division from the March 3rd Presidential Primary posted Friday, March 13, there are still approximately 30,500 votes remaining to be counted in the county.

Supervisor Federal Glover gained on his two opponents and is now less than 0.12% from winning re-election outright. He now has 49.89% of the vote for a total of 20,330 votes. His next closest opponent, County Assessor Gus Kramer has 25.62% of the vote or 10,440 votes, followed closely by Martinez Planning Commissioner Sean Trambley with 24.49% or 9,981 votes.

If Glover doesn’t end up having 50% plus one vote, he will face the second-place finisher in a November General Election run-off.

Four of Six Tax Measures Passing

Four of the six tax measures on the ballot in Contra Costa are passing, as of the latest update.

In the Lafayette Measure L school district parcel tax election, which requires a 2/3’s vote to pass, it’s succeeding with 72.6% of the vote and a lead of 4,589 votes.

In the Moraga School District, the Measure M parcel tax election, which also requires a 2/3’s vote to pass, is succeeding with 70.27% of the vote and a margin of 2,731 votes.

In the West Contra Costa Unified School District Measure R school bond election, which requires a 55% vote to succeed, it is passing with 57.3% of the vote and leading the No votes by 8,009 votes.

The election for the Antioch Unified School District’s Measure T school improvement bond, is still too close to call. It needs 55% of the vote to pass and currently has 53.13% with a margin of 1,511 votes.In the Lafayette Measure L school district parcel tax election, which requires a 2/3’s vote to pass, it’s succeeding with 72.6% of the vote and a lead of 4,589 votes.

The Pleasant Hill Park and Recreation Department’s Measure A bond measure, which requires a 2/3’s vote to pass, is failing with only 59.55% of the vote, but leading by 2,463 votes. It needs an increase of 6.12% from the remaining votes.

The countywide Measure J half-cent sales tax for transportation, which requires a 2/3’s vote to pass, was also failing with just 50.6% of the vote, and barely leading by 3,472 votes out of 288,644 counted so far.

Danville Development Referendum Passing

In the Town of Danville’s Measure Y referendum, which will approve the development of 69 homes on 410 acres and requires a simple majority to pass, is winning with 54.26% of the vote and a margin of 1,477 votes.

Following are the estimated number of ballots that remain to be counted as of Friday, March 13.

500          Other

29,200     Provisional

800          Conditional Voter Registration

30,500     Total Estimate

Manual Tally

Beginning Monday, March 16 the Elections Division will conduct a manual audit of ballots cast in the March 3rd Presidential Primary. The public is invited to observe the count.