Informational Report on Statewide Ballot Propositions

The following report was provided to the Board of Supervisors for the September 24, 2024 meeting.

View the PDF of the Information Report here.

Proposition 2: School infrastructure bond
Recommended position: Support

Summary: Proposition 2 would provide $10 billion in general obligation bonds to finance needed capital facility improvements at California’s 10,000 public schools and 115 community colleges. Currently, the state pays half the cost of new construction at public schools (and 60% of renovations). School districts pay the remainder. Both state and local shares are typically financed by statewide and local bonds. Funding from the most recent school bond, passed by voters in 2016, is projected to be depleted by January 2025.

The $10 billion would be split between public school facilities and community colleges:

The $8.5 billion for Public School Facilities would be awarded on a first come, first served basis to school districts, with a small portion set aside for small districts. The $1.5 billion allocated for Community College Facilities would be distributed after the Governor and Legislature review prioritized facility plans submitted by individual colleges. For districts with lower assessed property values and a higher proportion of low-income students, English learners, or foster youth – the state would pay a higher share of the capital project costs (up to 55% for new construction, and 65% for renovation).

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates borrowing costs for Prop 2 would be $500 million/year for the next 35 years.

OCE Analysis: Although the Board of Supervisors does not oversee local school district administration, the County strives to be a strong partner to the Marin County Office of Education and Marin’s 18 school districts. Proposition 2 would bring critical state funding to educational facilities in Marin and across the state. Its focus on small and economically disadvantaged districts also aligns with equity goals in educational achievement. Your Board has consistently supported state and local investments in public school and community college facilities, sharing the state's commitment to equitable access and improved learning outcomes.

Proposition 3: Right to marry
Recommended position: Support

Summary: Proposition 3 was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature to codify in the California state constitution that same-sex couples may be legally married in California.

The California constitution currently states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This was added to the state constitution when Proposition 8 was approved by voters in 2008 – a measure that opponents of same-sex marriage added to the ballot via the voter initiative process. Prop 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010.

Proposition 3 would formally repeal Prop 8 language from the California constitution, essentially aligning the state constitution with existing law in California allowing same-sex marriage.

OCE Analysis: Race Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging are core principles of your Board’s Legislative Platform, providing strong support to Proposition 3. California voters and lawmakers in recent years have consistently supported equal rights for LGBTQ+ individuals. Consequently, this Proposition would seek to amend the state constitution to not only reflect the will of the voters but also to ensure constitutional protection to all residents in marriage, regardless of their gender or sexual identity.

Proposition 4: Climate bond
Recommended position: Support

Summary: Proposition 4 would provide the state $10 billion in General Obligation Bond funds to pay for a variety of high-priority projects combating climate change, increasing resiliency, and protecting California’s environment and natural areas. The measure was strongly supported by environmental groups, labor unions, social justice organizations, water agencies and renewable energy – and gained significant support in the Legislature after the Governor proposed to cut $59 billion in climate investment during this year’s state budget crisis.

The bond requires that at least 40% of the $10 billion support projects that aid disadvantaged communities that have lower median incomes, or are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Low-income is defined as communities where the median household income is less than 80% of the area average.

The LAO estimates borrowing costs for Proposition 4 would be $400 million/year for the next 40 years. The $10 billion in available bond funds from the initiative would be used in the following categories:

OCE Analysis: Environmental preservation and climate change adaptation are central to your Board’s Legislative Platform and one of the six top priorities in the annual County Budget.

Proposition 4 offers significant funding opportunities for Marin County and other organizations, supporting critical projects such as coastal resiliency, infrastructure to combat sea level rise, and environmental restoration, including restoring wetland habitats and wildfire resiliency efforts. Its inclusion of funding for agriculture also aligns with your Board’s commitment to sustainable local food systems. Input from the Agricultural Institute of Marin and other local agricultural stakeholders was provided to the Legislature during the process of shaping Prop 4, ensuring that Marin’s farms and ranches would be able to access funding from the bond to adapt to climate change and adopt more environmentally sustainable practices.

Prop 4’s focus on directing funds to low-income communities most vulnerable to climate change strongly aligns with your Board’s equity goals. In Marin, low-income communities particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding events include the low-lying San Rafael Canal neighborhood and Marin City. Low-income residents in Marin also face significant barriers to accessing healthy food.

A concern raised about the Climate Bond is its use of one-time funds for projects with short-term benefits, such as forest management and extreme heat operations. Traditionally, bonds finance long-term infrastructure projects like bridges, dams, and schools, with the useful life of the asset matching the bond's payback period. The Legislature’s response to this has been that these climate-related priorities, even those that provide short-term benefits, are urgently needed – and funding sources outside a dedicated statewide bond would otherwise be limited.

Proposition 5: Voter threshold for public infrastructure and housing bonds
Recommended position: Support

Summary: Proposition 5 would lower the voter approval threshold for local government general obligation bonds to fund public infrastructure and affordable housing projects from the current 2/3 requirement to 55%, aligning it with the threshold used for school bonds.

Projects that could be funded through Prop 5’s lower threshold include:

• Transportation infrastructure, including streets, roads and public transit.
• Local government facilities, including police and fire, public health, libraries and parks.
• Utilities, including water and wastewater, flood protection, and broadband expansion.
• Disaster recovery and resilience, including wildfire resilience, emergency response, interoperable communication systems, and sea-level rise infrastructure.
• Affordable housing, including low- and middle-income housing, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, first-time homebuyers.

Bonds approved through Prop 5’s lower threshold must be used for one-time capital expenses and cannot fund ongoing operations. Proposition 5 also mandates specific oversight activities, including independent audits and citizens' oversight committees to monitor the use of funds.

Initially introduced as Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 1 in 2023, the measure was amended in June 2024 to ACA 10 to narrow the scope of what taxes were allowable, and improve its chances of passing. ACA 10 removed ACA 1's provisions that extended the 55% threshold to special taxes (including parcel taxes), keeping the 2/3 requirement for those taxes.

If passed, Proposition 5 would impact both future and current bond campaigns, including those concurrently on the November 5 ballot. In Marin, the Town of Fairfax has proposed an ad valorem property tax bond to fund local road improvements, which would benefit from the lower voter approval threshold if the measure passes. Additionally, a future regional Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) measure to support affordable housing would also benefit from the reduced threshold.

OCE Analysis: Your Board issued a letter of support for ACA 1 in July 2023, citing that the proposal would “create a more democratic and viable financing tool, similar to what schools have, so that communities can fund resilient infrastructure and affordable and supportive homes.” Additionally, your Board included language in the 2024 Legislative Platform explicitly supporting such a proposition: “Support lowering the voter approval threshold for new revenue measures to support local public infrastructure and affordable housing from 67 percent to 55 percent, to align with voter thresholds already in place for school measures.”

Proposition 6: Eliminates involuntary servitude for incarcerated
Recommended position: Support

Summary: The California Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. As a result, incarcerated individuals in state prisons and county jails can currently be required to work involuntarily in roles that support the operation of these facilities or benefit other state or local programs. For example, San Quentin State Prison formerly operated a furniture factory that produced items for Cal State universities, though this facility was recently removed as part of the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center project. Incarcerated individuals may earn hourly wages (not subject to state minimum wage laws) and/or time credits that reduce their prison sentences.

Prop 6, authored by Assemblymember Lori Wilson as a priority bill for the Legislative Black Caucus, proposes several changes to prison and county jail labor practices: 

1. It would amend the California Constitution to ban any form of involuntary servitude, including as a punishment for crime.
2. Prison work would become voluntary.
3. Would prohibit discipling incarcerated individuals who refuse to work.
4. While Prop 6 has a stated aim of increasing wages for prison labor, it does not require higher wages nor prevent the granting of time credits in exchange for work.

The LAO notes that the fiscal impact of Proposition 6 is uncertain, but any potential increase in state and local criminal justice costs would likely not exceed tens of millions of dollars annually. 

OCE Analysis: The carceral system disproportionately affects California’s communities of color. Black Californians are incarcerated at a rate more than five times higher than White Californians, and studies have repeatedly shown that Black and Latino defendants are more likely to receive harsher sentences compared to white defendants for similar crimes. Your Board recognizes the need to address these systemic injustices in the 2024 Legislative Platform: “Support efforts to ensure an equity approach toward policy, legislation, and administration of public programs that is anti-racist and acknowledges community members affected by systemic racism built into government systems.”

Proposition 6 is an important and necessary step in advancing racial equity in California by updating our state constitution to reflect our state’s modern, equitable values. While work and employment training programs are an important part of rehabilitation and reform of our criminal justice system, participation should be voluntary to maximize the benefit to the incarcerated individual and prevent the possibility for abuse.

Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage
Recommended position: Support

Summary: The current minimum wage in California is $16/hour, following a 2016 state law that raised the minimum wage from $10/hour to $15 over several years. Proposition 32 proposes increasing the state’s minimum wage to $18/hour over two years, with future adjustments based on inflation:

1. On January 1, 2025, On January 1, 2025, the minimum wage would rise to $18/hour for employers with 26 or more employees, while smaller employers (fewer than 26 employees) would have a minimum wage of $17/hour.
2. On January 1, 2026, the minimum wage for all employees would be $18/hour.
3. Starting January 1, 2027, the minimum wage would be adjusted annually based on inflation.

California’s high cost of living is well-documented. It is also important to note that California currently has several industry-specific minimum wage laws, and Prop 32 would not affect those existing laws. These include SB 525 (2023), which sets a $25 per hour minimum wage for healthcare workers starting in the 2024-2025 fiscal year, and AB 1228 (2023), which raised the minimum wage for fast food workers to $20 per hour in April 2024.

The LAO notes that Prop 32 could have varied economic impacts. Businesses may face higher costs, potentially leading to price increases, lower profits, or staffing reductions. For state and local governments, expenses could rise due to higher wages, but might decrease as fewer workers qualify for entitlement programs like Medi-Cal and CalFresh. Additionally, increased incomes for minimum wage workers could lead to increased spending in the local economy.

Overall, the net effect on state government costs is projected to stay within the high hundreds of millions annually. State and local revenues may decline in the short-term as some businesses experience profit reductions, but in the long-run may increase from the economic stimulus of more earnings for low-wage workers.

OCE Analysis: The Marin County Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) currently requires $18/hour for County employees and contractors while they are doing business for the County of Marin. This is set to increase January 1, 2025 based on inflation. Should Prop 32 pass, the County’s LWO rate will remain ahead of the statewide minimum wage.

The County of Marin does not have a local minimum wage ordinance – meaning that all private employers in unincorporated Marin adhere to the state minimum wage. Currently, the only jurisdiction in Marin that has a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage is Novato: $16.86/hour for businesses with 100 or more employees, $16.60/hour for 26-99 employees; and $16.04/hour for small businesses with 25 or fewer employees.

Earlier this year, County staff considered steps towards implementing an $18/hour minimum wage in unincorporated Marin, informed by the County’s Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP). In Marin, those receiving the minimum wage are disproportionately people of color, and the opportunity to raise the minimum wage to a rate closer to a livable wage is a REAP Economic Opportunity initiative to reduce inequities. However, work on a local $18/hour minimum wage was paused when Proposition 32 qualified for the ballot – since the statewide proposition would achieve the same goal, with the added benefit of applying beyond unincorporated boundaries.

It is important to note that Prop 32 could also have an immediate effect on wages for Marin’s 2,000 In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers. The IHSS program provides homecare services to Medi-Cal-eligible aged, blind, or individuals with disabilities – assisting them in their own homes as an alternative to out-of-home care. Marin IHSS providers currently earn $19/hour, which is set to increase to $19.75/hour February 1, 2025, per the current bargaining agreement approved by your Board on June 4, 2024 and the then-anticipated increase in the state minimum wage to $16.50/hour on January 1, 2025 (in the absence of Prop 32).

The state’s cost-share in local IHSS wages is based on a complicated formula that takes a number of factors into account. The most important factor is the statewide minimum wage. Increases in the state minimum wage trigger “automatic” increases to local IHSS providers – at no additional cost to the County. This is because individual counties negotiate a “wage supplement”: the amount the local IHSS wage will “float” above the state minimum wage. Should Prop 32 pass, IHSS providers will see wages of $21.25/hour by February 1, 2025 – as opposed to $19.75/hour should the proposition not pass. 

Since this increase would be driven by an increase in the state minimum wage (not a locally negotiated increase) – the County’s local Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for the IHSS program would not increase. Staff from the Office of the County Executive and Health and Human Services will be returning to your Board in November on the annual LWO increase, as well as any relevant increases to the IHSS provider rate.

Proposition 33: Allows expansion of rent control
Recommended position: Neutral

Summary: The scope of rent control policies that local governments in California can implement is currently limited by the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act, passed by the state Legislature and signed by Governor Pete Wilson. Costa-Hawkins was enacted due to concerns that rent control policies were discouraging new housing construction and landlords from maintaining existing properties. Proposition 33 proposes to repeal key provisions of Costa-Hawkins.

It’s important to note that Proposition 33 would change state law, allowing local governments to implement expanded rent control, but cities and counties would still need to pass their own ordinances for any changes to take effect. Proposition 33’s passage alone would not change any existing rent control laws without additional local action taken.

The LAO estimates that expanded rent control could reduce property values in areas that adopt these policies, potentially lowering property tax revenues. Local governments might also incur additional costs to administer and enforce new rent control measures.

OCE Analysis: This is the third statewide ballot measure since 2018 seeking to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act. In both previous statewide propositions, your Board took a neutral stance.

• Proposition 10 (2018) was rejected by 59.95% of voters.
• Proposition 21 (2020) was rejected by 59.89% of voters.

The County of Marin has not adopted rent control in unincorporated Marin; only state limitations currently apply. However, your Board has committed significant resources toward expanding and preserving Marin’s existing rental housing stock, local rental and utility assistance programs, and in tenant protections including legal assistance to vulnerable renters facing unlawful evictions.

If passed, Proposition 33 would not affect existing rent control laws in Marin cities like Larkspur, Fairfax, San Anselmo, and San Rafael, unless their City Councils vote to make changes.

Proposition 34: Restricts Health Care Provider spending
Recommended position: Neutral

Summary: Proposition 34 would limit how certain Health Care Providers are allowed to spend revenues earned from federal discounted drug programs under Med-Cal. Per state law, these providers receive federal discounts on medications prescribed to Medi-Cal patients but cannot profit from Medi-Cal due to state laws limiting charges to the discounted price. However, they may profit when charging private health plans or other government programs more than the discounted cost of the prescription drug.

Prop 34 would place strict limits on how certain Health Care Providers can spend the revenues earned from revenue from these federal drug discounts. Specifically, providers who have spent over $100 million in any 10-year period on expenses other than direct patient care and have operated multifamily housing with more than 500 “high severity health and safety violations” would be required to spend at least 98% of their revenue on direct patient care.

Additionally, the measure would make permanent California’s ability to negotiate statewide drug prices for Medi-Cal, a temporary policy initiated by the Newsom administration.

OCE Analysis: Prop 34 is sponsored by the California Apartment Association and targets the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which would be the only Health Care Provider that meets Prop 34’s eligibility and would be affected by the 98% direct patient care spending requirement. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has used revenue from discounted drugs to fund local and state advocacy efforts, including supporting multiple ballot measures aimed at repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act in 2018, 2020, and now 2024.

In previous elections, your Board has chosen not to take positions on special interest-funded statewide ballot measures that do not align directly with the County’s Legislative Platform.

Proposition 35: Permanent MCO tax
Board adopted position: Support

Summary: Since 2009, California has imposed a Managed Care Organization (MCO) Provider Tax on certain health plans, such as Kaiser Permanente. However, this tax is not permanent and requires periodic reapproval by the Legislature.

The MCO tax generates $7-8 billion annually and is charged to MCO providers for the Medi-Cal patients they serve. Although providers pay the tax, they are reimbursed with federal Medicaid dollars, effectively bringing additional federal funding into California to support the Medi-Cal program.

The MCO tax is used by the state for two main purposes:

1. Funding existing Medi-Cal costs: The tax helps offset the need for General Fund spending on Medi-Cal, freeing up state funds for other priorities such as public services, infrastructure, and education. In short, the MCO tax reduces pressure on the state’s General Fund by leveraging federal dollars.
2. Increasing Medi-Cal funding: The tax also helps increase overall Medi-Cal funding, including raising pay rates for doctors and other healthcare providers. For example, planned provider rate increases for the next two-years will cost $4 billion annually. Half of the funding will come from the MCO tax.

While Medi-Cal covers over a third of Californians, many struggle to find care due to the ongoing limited number of providers accepting Medi-Cal patients. While California lawmakers have steadily restored Medi-Cal services cut during the Great Recession, added new ones, and expanded eligibility to include all eligible Californians regardless of citizenship – many providers say these expansions have come without commensurate rate increases. As a result, the number of Medi-Cal providers has not kept pace with increased demand by patients.

Prop 35 seeks to address this issue by increasing pay rates for certain Medi-Cal providers, though not all. Specifically, Prop 35 would provide rate increases to:

• Behavioral health services, community hospital outpatient services, designated public hospitals, and graduate medical education.

However, the following providers, who received rate increases in the 2024-2025 State budget, would have their increases eliminated should Prop 35 pass:

• Continuous coverage for children ages 0-5, community-based adult services, community health workers, non-emergency medical transportation, pediatric day health centers, and private duty nursing.

The LAO estimates that Proposition 35 would increase state General Fund costs by $1-2 billion annually in 2025 and 2026. This is because the proposition mandates that MCO tax revenues be used exclusively for the prescribed rate increases – preventing using MCO tax revenues towards support existing Medi-Cal costs as some are in the current state budget.

OCE Analysis: Medi-Cal’s low provider pay rates are widely recognized as an issue, and both the Governor and Legislature agree that it needs to be addressed, especially as Medi-Cal coverage continues to expand in California. However, Prop 35 presents a difficult choice for voters, as it prioritizes rate increases for certain providers while excluding others.

Additionally, Prop 35 would limit the Legislature’s and Governor’s flexibility in using MCO tax revenues during budget crises or surpluses. For instance, in the most recent state budget, which faced a $75 billion deficit, MCO tax revenues were partially used to fund existing Medi-Cal program costs and ease pressure on the General Fund. If Proposition 35 passes, this flexibility for lawmakers would be lost, as the funds would be locked into rate increases, potentially impacting other General Fund-supported programs that counties rely on and routinely advocate for funding for.

Ultimately, Proposition 35 uses the rigid tool of a statewide ballot proposition to address a complex issue that could be more effectively handled through legislative negotiations, which can adapt to the state’s changing fiscal conditions. Our office does not recommend that your Board take a formal position on Proposition 35.

Update from September 24 meeting: The Board of Supervisors voted to Support Proposition 35.

Proposition 36: Increases penalties for drug and theft crimes 
Recommended position: Neutral

Summary: California voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014, a prison reform ballot measure aimed at reducing state prison populations. The measure reclassified certain nonviolent crimes, such as drug possession and petty theft under $950, from felonies to misdemeanors. It also redirected savings from reduced incarceration to grant programs to support mental health and drug treatment, reduce truancy in K-12 education, and victim services.

Proposition 36 proposes to make several key changes to Prop 47’s 2014 reforms:

The California District Attorney Association sponsored Prop 36, citing concerns that Prop 47 led to fewer arrests and decreased accountability for theft. Property theft spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the high visibility of retail theft including viral videos also fueled public sentiment there was insufficient accountability for these types of crimes. The initiative also seeks to provide criminal justice partners with a stronger “stick” to approach addressing the state’s fentanyl crisis. In 2021, fentanyl contributed to more than 5,900 overdose deaths in California. In 2012, the figure was just several hundred (source: CDPH).

The proponent-titled “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act” was placed on the November ballot via the voter signature initiative process, with support from retail groups in California. It is important to note that the proposition does not include any specific provisions to address homelessness despite its title.

Democrats in the Legislature have been largely (though not unanimously) opposed to Prop 36. As an explicit alternative to Prop 36 – the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a 10-bill bipartisan “Property Crime and Retail Theft Crackdown” package in August. The new laws create stricter penalties on retail theft without repealing Prop 47, including:

• Making repeat thefts a felony;
• Allowing prosecutors to stack theft charges across jurisdictions so they can be charged as a felony; and
• Allowing law enforcement to arrest someone on suspicion of theft even if the offer did not witness it.

Opponents of Prop 36 argues that these retail theft bills—in addition to additional state resources committed to retail theft since the pandemic—will have a meaningful impact on reducing retail theft without repealing Prop 47 and increasing incarceration.

On addressing California’s substance use crisis and homelessness, the Governor and some lawmakers point to expanded treatment facilities and permanent supportive housing funded by Proposition 1 (passed in March 2024), which allocated $6.4 billion to build 6,800 new mental health and substance use treatment beds, and 4,350 new residential supportive housing units.

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) estimates that Prop 36 could cost the state and counties hundreds of millions of dollars annually due to increased prison and jail populations. The Legislature narrowly passed a prison bed-reduction bill AB 2178 (Ting) during the final week of session, noting that Prop 36 could reverse the LAO’s current projected trends showing 15,000 empty prison beds by 2025, and 19,000 by 2028.

The measure would also reduce funding for Prop 47-supported grant programs, such as treatment and victim services, as fewer savings would be available from reduced incarceration. Additionally, there would be increased costs for courts, county jails, and community supervision services.

OCE Analysis: Prop 36 seeks to respond to widespread concerns among Californians about public safety and retail theft. It also seeks to address the acute nature of the state’s fentanyl crisis—addressing which remains an issue of local importance in Marin and a high priority for your Board and County Health and Human Services. While many lawmakers agree that these issues require stronger deterrents, some—including Governor Newsom—argue that Proposition 36 goes too far, returning California to tough-on-crime policies that disproportionately affected communities of color, overcrowded state prisons, and failed to reduce recidivism.

It is important to note that should Prop 36 pass, County Departments anticipate an increased fiscal impact:

1. Increased workload and costs for criminal justice departments and courts: Marin County will likely see a rise in felony cases, longer sentences, and additional post-conviction services, including Probation. While Marin does not experience retail theft rates as high as some other counties, local law enforcement agencies generally agree with Proposition 36 proponents that stricter punishments are necessary to deter retail theft and reduce recidivism. Marin law enforcement anticipates that Prop 36 would require more resources for prosecution and defense, lead to an increase in felony convictions, raise the population in the county jail, and place more individuals on community supervision. Prop 36 does not provide any additional funding to local agencies to support increased staffing and resource needs to implement the new laws.
2. Reduced state grant funding from Prop 47 sources: As more individuals would be incarcerated under Prop 36, the state would realize fewer savings from incarceration reductions, which would result in fewer available funds for Prop 47 grants. Marin County has previously received Prop 47 grant funds for various programs, including a recent $1 million grant from the BSCC Cohort 3 to support a Sober Living Residence and supportive services for individuals with behavioral health issues within the criminal justice system.

Given the competing priorities in the Legislative Platform that support both the issues Prop 36 seeks to address, but also recognize the concerns raised by opponents as well as the fiscal impact anticipated to the County, our office does not recommend your Board take a formal position on Proposition 36.