Taxation Committee
Legislative Committee
The following is for study only and has NOT been approved by the Taxation Committee,Legislative Committee,Executive Committee,or Board of Directors.
Issue:
What position should C.A.R. take on the
ballot propositions on the June 8, 2010 ballot?
Action:
Necessary, if C.A.R. wishes to take positions
on the 6 propositions scheduled to appear on the June 8, 2010 ballot.
(Note: It is expected that the Governor will call a Special Election sometime during 2009. If a Special Election is called, all previously qualified ballot measures will appear on that ballot, instead of appearing on the 2010 Primary Election Ballot.)
Option:
C.A.R. Ballot Position Options:
1. FOR: This ballot measure is consistent with C.A.R. policy and its
passage would be beneficial to the real estate industry.
2. AGAINST: This ballot measure conflicts with C.A.R. policy and its
passage could have a harmful effect on the real estate industry.
3. NEUTRAL: This ballot measure may be real estate related, but C.A.R. has
chosen not to take a position.
4. NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED: This ballot measure may be significant, but is
deemed to not be related to property or real estate transactions.
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Property Tax: New Construction Exclusion: Seismic Retrofitting. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Taxation Committee
Summary: This measure was placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature in 2008. Originally identified as SCA 4 (Ashburn), this proposition proposes to provide a property tax reassessment exclusion for all seismic retrofitting components made to an existing structure, and deletes the 15-year time limit for exclusions under Proposition 23. Put simply, property owners would use the broader exclusion provided by Proposition 127, which was approved by the voters in 1990, instead of the more limited exclusion provided under Proposition 23, which was approved by the voters in 1984, for any new seismic safety improvements.
Pro: Proponents argue that the proposition will promote equity among taxpayers who reconstruct or improve structures to comply with local ordinances relating to seismic safety. Excluding seismic retrofits from property tax valuation will provide a financial incentive for property owners to upgrade their unreinforced masonry structures for seismic safety and will eliminate the disparate treatment between seismic safety improvements made under Proposition 23 vs. Proposition 127. Additionally, proponents point out that buildings upgraded under Proposition 23 have rarely been reassessed after the 15-year period expires.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
NOTE: C.A.R.'s Board of Directors, at its March 1984
meetings, adopted a "FOR" position on Proposition 23, which provides a 15
-year property tax reassessment exclusion for locally mandated seismic
safety improvements made to buildings with “unreinforced masonry bearing
walls.” In October 1990, C.A.R.'s Board of Directors also adopted a "FOR"
position on Proposition 127, which authorized the Legislature to exclude
from the definition of "new construction," for property tax purposes, the
construction or installation of earthquake safety improvements to all
existing structures, however, unreinforced masonry buildings covered under
Proposition 23 are not included in the exemption.
Position: ___
FOR ___AGAINST
___NEUTRAL __NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: California State Lottery. Legislative
Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: Placed on the ballot by SCA 12 (Perata) in 2008, this
proposition authorizes the Legislature to sell the future revenues of the
California State Lottery to a designated a third-party that will be
authorized, by the Legislature, to carry out the securitization and to
issue the debt obligations. Under this measure, the purpose of the state
lottery is to increase revenues and provide funds for the support of public
education and other public purposes.
Pro: Proponents of this measure argue that it is necessary to balance the state budget.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Position: ___
FOR ___AGAINST
___NEUTRAL __NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: State Finance. Legislative
Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: SCA 13 (Ashburn), which was approved by the Legislature and Governor in 2008, places a resolution regarding state finance on the ballot for voter approval. The measure would require the Governor's proposed budget to identify all one time revenues and an estimated total of state resources available to meet the recommended state expenditures. The Director of Finance would be required to report to the Legislature and the Governor on the availably of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year on or before May 29 of each year. The proposition would prohibit the passage of a Budget Bill that appropriates funds exceeding the General Fund revenue estimate and increase the size of the Budget Stabilization Account from 5% of General Fund revenue to 12.5%. General Fund transfers to the Budget Stabilization Fund would not be required if the balance in the fund exceeds 12.5% of the General Fund revenue estimate. Beginning with the 2010-11 fiscal year, General Fund transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account may only be suspended or reduced by an executive order when the estimated General Fund revenues from the prior fiscal year are less than the total General Fund expenditures. Lastly, transfers from the Budget Stabilization Fund back to the General Fund must be contained in a stand-alone bill with no unrelated provisions.
Pro: Proponents to the measure have yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Position: ___
FOR ___AGAINST
___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: Political Reform Act of 1974:
California Fair Elections Act of 2008. Legislative Statutory
Amendment.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: Placed on the ballot by AB 583 (Hancock) in 2008,
this measure proposes to create a pilot project of public financing for
candidates for Secretary of State during the 2014 and 2018 elections. The
Fair Political Practices Commission would primarily be responsible for the
administration of the Fair Elections Fund, which will maintain all public
campaign funds. Candidates opting to participate in public campaign
financing will not be permitted to collect private contributions, except
from the candidate's political party. Eligible candidates for Secretary of
State may only obtain public funds if they collect 7,500 five dollar
contributions from registered voters during the exploratory period that,
after verification by the county recorder, will be deposited into the Fair
Elections Fund. Prior to the end of a candidate's qualifying period, which
concludes 90 days before the primary elections, candidates for Secretary of
State would be permitted to accept "seed money" contributions that may not
exceed $100 per donor, with a maximum aggregate total of $75,000. Seed
money contributions may only be spent prior to the close of the qualifying,
or exploratory, period at which point all remaining funds would be
transferred into the Fair Elections Fund. The Fair Elections Fund would
receive additional funding from voluntary contributions made through
individual tax returns and from a $350 annual fee placed on lobbyists,
lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers (adjusted biennially based upon the
Consumer Price Index). The fund could also receive funding from the
Legislature and any source of revenue associated with the General Fund.
Candidates accepting public financing will receive 1 million dollars for
the primary election, 1.3 million dollars for the general election, and
will be required to participate in one public debate during a primary
election and two during a general election.
Pro: Proponents argue that public financing will reduce the perception of special interest influence on candidates, provide greater candidate diversity and permit candidates to focus on policy issues instead of fundraising.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Position: ___
FOR ___AGAINST
___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: California State Lottery. Legislative
Statutory Amendment.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: Amended in 2008, AB 1654 (Committee on Budget) was placed on the ballot to make technical and statutory changes to the California State Lottery. The proposition authorizes the lottery to modernize its operations in order to improve its financial performance and permits the Lottery Commission to determine prize payouts and approve all lottery-related expenditures. This proposition would reallocate lottery revenues beginning with the 2009-10 fiscal year. Instead of capping payouts at 50%, at least 50% of total annual revenues will be returned to the public as prizes. Revenues allocated to public education would increase from 34% to 37%, while revenues available for administrative expenses will be reduced from 16% to 13%. Annually, one million dollars would be allocated to the Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling within the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. The proposition would establish both the Lottery Assets Fund and the Debt Retirement Fund within the State Treasury. The Lottery Assets Fund would receive a portion of the net lottery revenues for subsequent securitization and sale to the bond market. Net revenues remaining after prize payouts, administrative expenses, gambling programs, and revenue securitization would be transferred to the Debt Retirement Fund, which is used to repay General Fund budgetary debts, infrastructure bond debts, and Economic Recovery Bonds. Lastly, the proposition would require future lottery modernization measures to be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. This proposition will only go into effect if all three measures on this ballot that pertain to the State Lottery are approved by the voters.
Pro: Proponents to the measure have yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Position: ___
FOR ___AGAINST
___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITION NUMBER PENDING: California State Lottery. Legislative
Statutory Amendment.
Committee: Legislative Committee
Summary: Approved by the Legislature and Governor in 2008, AB 1741 (Committee on Budget) was placed on the ballot to authorize the securitization of lottery revenues and permits the Director of Finance to designate a portion of lottery revenue assets for securitization and sale in order to generate additional funds that will be deposited in the Debt Retirement Fund. The proposition would allow the Director of Finance to authorize a short-term cash flow loan of three million dollars from the General Fund to obtain financial, operational, and valuation advice in relation to the designation of lottery revenue assets to be sold in the bond market. The Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank would be permitted to then sell the lottery revenue assets to a special purpose trust that will issue bonds, utilizing the lottery assets as collateral to secure the bonds. The directors of the special purpose trust would include 5 members of the State Public Works Board and the Director of Finance, who will serve as the trusts chair. This proposition will only go into effect if all three measures on this ballot that pertain to the State Lottery are approved by the voters.
Pro: Proponents to the measure have yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Con: Opposition to the measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
