Santa Maria Times Voter Guide

VOTER GUIDE

NOV. 6 GENERAL ELECTION WHAT’S INSIDE Page 2

Page 4

Page 9

Page 10

• Cunningham facing challenge from Ostrander in 35th Assembly District

State Ballot measures: Pros & Cons

Page 5

• 24th Congressional race pits Democrat incumbent, Republican challenger

• MEASURE E: Lompoc voters to decide on $79M school bond

Solvang hedging its bets at the polls

• Lompoc voters to consider a new cannabis tax

• Citizens have until Oct. 22 to register to vote

Page 3 • County voters face dueling redistricting proposals • Vote by Mail Process and Instructions

Page 6 Hancock College seeks $75M with Measure Y

• MEASURE U: Rate increase, extension to be decided by voters

Page 11 Two bonds, one tax and 13 board races

Cunningham facing challenge from Ostrander in 35th Assembly District elsewhere and whose top LEECENTRRALCOASTNEWS.COM‌ executives don’t live within the ‌In an Assembly district where 35th Assemthe percentage of registered bly District.

Republicans just barely exceeds “There’s a the percentage of registered conflict of interDemocrats, the key to winning est in individuals Ostrander the seat may lie in a candihaving to solicit date’s ability to sway the large donations from the wealthiest bloc of voters not aligned with among us to achieve an office either party. that represents all of us,” he Republican incumbent Jorsaid. “It skews the dialogue and dan Cunningham of San Luis choices. It means the legislative Obispo is being challenged outcomes are too often not in

by Democrat Bill Ostrander the community interest.” of Templeton for the right to But Ostrander said he is also represent the 35th Assembly running on what he describes District, which encompasses as a nonpartisan platform all of San Luis Obispo County that would improve the lives and northern Santa Barbara of everyone at the local and County, including the cities state levels. of Santa Maria, Guadalupe Among other things, and Lompoc.

Ostrander believes health Of the district’s 240,000 care should be a right, not registered voters, 36.5 percent a privilege. are Republicans and 35.6 perOstrander said he supports a cent are Democrats, with only 5 single-payer health insurance percent registered as members system because “it’s the ethical of a third party. That leaves 22.2 thing to do.” percent who decline to state He also believes the state an affiliation with any politimust provide a universal cal party. preschool, institute vocational So it’s likely that victory at studies in high schools as well the polls Nov. 6 may fall to as community colleges and the candidate whose platform improve access to affordable resonates the most with those post-secondary education. unaligned voters.

To deal with the increasing Here’s a brief look at what wildfire danger as a result of those platforms are: the ongoing drought, Ostrander said the state should train more Bill Ostrander‌ firefighting crews, conduct A 58-year-old hay farmer in more controlled burns, remove Los Osos Valley, Ostrander also more dead trees by issuing has experience as a legislative timber harvesting permits, consultant at the local, state enforce the defensible space and federal levels. requirements and revise He said he chose to run building codes to require firefor office to demonstrate the resistant materials. way he believes all campaigns Jordan Cunningham‌ should be run — without A former prosecutor and accepting large contributions member of the Templeton from major corporations.

Unified School District board “We must get money out of of trustees, Cunningham was politics because it’s tainting elected to the Assembly in the entire system,” he recently November 2016 after former told residents of a Santa Maria Republican Assemblyman mobile home park.

Ostrander claims the major- Katcho Achadjian termed out. ity of Cunningham’s contribuAs a first-term assemblyman, tors are oil companies, chemical Cunningham said he’s worked corporations, cigarette manuto promote local economic facturers and utility compadevelopment by supporting nies that are headquartered small-business owners, address Mike Hodgson

A2 | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | Lee Central Coast Newspapers

MHODGSON@

safety concerns on highways 41 and 46 and improve general public safety.

“We’ve made considerable progress in the time I’ve Cunningham been in office on issues that are important for the Central Coast, but more work needs to be done,” Cunningham said.

In the latest legislative session, Cunningham’s focus has been on addressing human trafficking and gang crimes, strengthening ride-sharing drivers’ background checks, and insulating the Central Coast economy from the planned closure of Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

As for health care, Cunningham said he does not support single-payer health insurance because of the cost, claiming a recently failed health care bill would have cost the state $400 billion a year when its entire budget is only about $140 billion.

Addressing education issues, Cunningham said he has co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to extend the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant program through 2021 to continue funding career technical education.

“It can really be a lifechanger for students who can and will take advantage of tremendous opportunity in the skilled trades,” Cunningham said.

“We need to build a large, diverse coalition to support local industry and change students’ lives.”

Cunningham agrees with clearing out dead trees and practicing better forest management to counter the rising risk of wildfire.

He also said the state must support firefighters with more equipment, better pay and better retirement benefits.

But he said that will require a dedicated funding source, and he favors tapping into the greenhouse gas cap-andtrade system.

Citizens have until Oct. 22 to register to vote Registrar of voters says process is easy, can be done online Staff Report

‌Citizens of Santa Barbara County still have time to register to vote in the Nov. 6 General Election.

County Registrar of Voters Joseph Holland said the deadline to register vote in the election is Monday, Oct. 22, and it can be done online or in-person.

Eligible citizens can complete an online form on the Secretary of State’s Office website at registertovote.ca.gov.

Holland said most libraries, post offices and Department of Motor Vehicle offices have voter registration forms citizens can fill out and file inperson at a County Registrar of Voters Office.

In the North County, citizens can register in the Registrar of Voters Office in Suite 134 of the Joseph Centeno Betteravia Government Administration Building at 511 E. Lakeside Parkway in Santa Maria.

In the South County, citizens can register in the

Registrar of Voters office at 4440‐A Calle Real at Honor Farm Road in Santa Barbara.

Holland noted that citizens who have had a name change or moved to a new address since they last registered must reregister to vote.

Registration status can be verified on the Registrar of Voters Office website at www.sbcvote.com by clicking the “Voter Registration Lookup” link.

To be eligible to vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of California, 18 years of age or older on Election Day, not currently imprisoned or on parole for a felony conviction of a felony and not currently found to be mentally incompetent by a court of law.

Individuals who have been incarcerated can find out more about their rights by visiting the Secretary of State’s Voting Rights for Californians with Criminal Convictions or Detained in Jail or Prison at www.sos. ca.gov/elections/votingresources/voting-california/ who-can-vote-california/ voting-rights-californians/.

County voters face dueling redistricting proposals The board also could have adopted the “You Draw the Lines” ordinance into the County Code or ordered it to be placed on the same ballot to let the voters choose which should be adopted.

At their July 17 meeting, where a general spirit of cooperation and mutual support prevailed, supervisors chose to put both on the ballot.

Robert Collector, one of the founders of the group calling itself Reason in Government that gathered the required signatures to put its initiative on the ballot, extended “great good wishes to the county.”

“I’ve come to say we intend to support you,” he said, adding the group would encourage citizens to vote “in favor of both measures” and he hoped the county would be the “bell weather” for governmentprivate partnerships to get rid of the “awful” practice of gerrymandering.

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino thought it would “be respectful” for the board to vote on the Reason in Government initiative before voting on the “You Draw the Lines” proposal, because whichever one the board voted on first would be listed first on the ballot.

“I think that’s a good thing to show some respect to the committee to go out and gather those signatures,” agreed 4th District Supervisor Peter Adam. “I don’t think we can lose as a community (regardless of) whichever one gets the most votes.”

Lavagnino agreed: “I’m in favor of both of them.”

Vote by Mail Process and Instructions ‌ oting by mail is a simple process.

V Ballots are mailed 29 days prior to the election.

Mark the ballot.

DO NOT use a felt tip pen or red ink.

Completely fill in the oval corresponding to the candidates and measures selected.

DO NOT mark the oval with an X. To vote for a qualified Write-In Candidate, write the person’s name on the blank provided and completely fill in the corresponding oval.

Remove the top stub from the ballot.

DO NOT cut along the perforated line.

Fold the ballot the same way it was folded when mailed and seal in the return envelope.

Sign and date the correct ballot envelope.

Make sure to sign the correct envelope.

Do not sign the ballot envelope of anyone else in your household.

Every voter MUST sign their own ballot envelope. Another person CANNOT sign for them even with power of attorney.

If unable to sign the ballot, a voter may make their mark in the signature box. A witness must sign next to the mark in

the signature box and print the voter’s name.

A signature stamp may also be used if the voter used a signature stamp when they registered to vote.

Failure to sign the back of the return ballot envelope will invalidate the ballot and the ballot will not be counted.

Return the ballot.

Return by Mail Green and White Envelopes require postage, Blue envelopes do not. All ballots must be postmarked by Election Day in order to be counted and must be

received no later than three days after the election.

Drop Off the Ballot to one of the Elections Office locations: 24-hour drive-up drop boxes are available in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Lompoc beginning 29 days before all federal and state elections through 8 p.m. on Election Day. Please visit the Upcoming Elections page for information on drive-up box locations for local or special elections.

Provided by Santa Barbara County Registrar of Voters.

Lee Central Coast Newspapers | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | A3

Government ordinance, the five commission members and alternates would be selected by a random drawing from all the qualified applications received.

Mike Hodgson Under the “You Draw MH O DGSON@ the Lines” ordinance, the LEECENTR ALCOASTN EWS.CO M‌ entire pool of applicants would be narrowed down ‌Competing proposals to the most-qualified 45 to create an independent candidates, who would redistricting committee then be divided into five to redraw supervisorial subpools — one for each district boundaries based supervisorial district. on the 2020 Census are on Five commission the Nov. 6 General Election members chosen by a ballot, one put forward by a random drawing from citizens committee and the each subpool would then other developed by a Santa review the remaining Barbara County supervisor. applications to select one Contributed Photo, Santa Barbara County‌ In July, the County Board A map shows the current Santa Barbara County supervisorial districts. After more member from each of Supervisors unanidistrict and another atthe 10-year census in 2020, the boundaries must be redrawn, and both county mously agreed to put both large member based on supervisors and a citizens group wants an independent commission to do that. proposals on the ballot the same criteria applied rather than choosing to when selecting the simply adopt one or the other as Citizens’ Independent Redisbut may not include more than other five. an ordinance. tricting Commission. two members of the same politiThose include relevant expeThe Initiative to Create a The Reason in Government cal party. rience, analytical skills, ability County of Santa Barbara Indeordinance, set forth in just over Alternates for each district to be impartial and racial, ethpendent Redistricting Comthree pages of text, calls for a representative must be regisnic, geographic, age and genmission was put together by a commission that would consist tered to the same political party der diversity. group called Reason in Govof five members and five alteras the commission member from According to a county staff ernment and submitted to the nates, while the nearly 11-page that district. report, Williams’ ordinance was board with a request to make it “You Draw the Lines” ordinance The only “You Draw the developed as his staff researched an ordinance. would establish a commission of Lines” references to politihow other counties dealt with It was initially reviewed by the 11 members. cal parties are that qualified redistricting after “many board July 3, when supervisors The makeup of the commisapplicants cannot have changed community organizations … asked the staff to research ques- sions and the qualifications parties within five years prior expressed concerns about some tions some of them had about its specified to be a member vary to being appointed and that the of the provisions of the initiaimpact on the county. considerably between the two final makeup of the commission tive” in the Reason in GovernAt the same time, supervisors proposed ordinances, and their should be as close as possible to ment petition. reviewed a proposed ordinance methods of selecting the mem- the same proportion of politiSupervisors had the option dubbed “You Draw the Lines” bers diverge even more widely. cal party members as that of of adopting the Reason in Govthat was prepared by the staff of Among the Reason in Govern- the county’s registered voters, ernment’s proposed ordinance Board Chairman and 1st District ment requirements, the combut the ratio does not have to with no changes as part of the Supervisor Das Williams to cre- mission must include a member be exact.

County Code or ordering that it ate the County of Santa Barbara from each of the five districts Under the Reason in be placed on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Both measures seek to eliminate gerrymandering from process

State Ballot measures: Pros & Cons ‌On Nov. 6 California voters will choose the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, controller, treasurer, attorney general, insurance commissioner, and superintendent of public instruction for the next four-year term, elect one of two U.S. senators to represent the state in Congress, and elect state and federal legislative representatives.

California voters will also be deciding on 11 state propositions that are explained in this Pros & Cons. Propositions 1, 2, and 7 were placed on the ballot by the state legislature and the others were placed on the ballot by supporters who gathered sufficient signatures and seek to make changes in state laws or the California Constitution.

One initiative, *Proposition 9, was removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court.

Visit VotersEdge.org/ca to see everything on your ballot, find your polling place, and get unbiased information on all your voting choices.

A4 | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | Lee Central Coast Newspapers

How to Evaluate Ballot Propositions‌

Examine what the measure seeks to accomplish. Do you agree with those goals?

Is the measure consistent with your ideas about government? Do you think the proposed changes will make things better?

Who are the real sponsors and opponents of the measure?

Check where the money is coming from on the Voter’s Edge California website: votersedge. org/ca Is the measure written well?

Will it create conflicts in law that may require court resolution or interpretation? Is it “good government,” or will it cause more problems than it will resolve?

Does the measure create its own revenue source? Does it earmark, restrict, or obligate government revenues? If so, weigh the benefit of securing funding for this measure against the cost of reducing overall flexibility in the budget.

Does the measure mandate a government program or service without addressing how it will be funded?

Does the measure deal with one issue that can be easily

Choosing YES or NO on a Proposition

Vote Requirement for State Propositions

A YES vote means that you approve of the change a proposition would make, and a NO vote means that you want to leave things as they are now.

Any state proposition passes if more than 50 percent of the votes cast on that proposition are YES.

decided by a YES or NO vote?

Or, is it a complex issue that should be thoroughly examined in the legislative arena?

If the measure amends the Constitution, consider whether it really belongs in the Constitution. Would a statute accomplish the same purpose?

All constitutional amendments require voter approval; what we put into the Constitution would have to come back to the ballot to be changed.

Be wary of distortion tactics and commercials that rely on image but tell nothing of substance about the measure.

Beware of half truths.

Proposition 1‌ Legislative Statute‌

Authorizes bonds to fund specified housing assistance programs.

THE QUESTION: Should the state issue $4 billion in bonds for housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, plus for mobile homes and transitoriented housing?

THE SITUATION: An average house in California cost 2.5 times the national average and average rent in California is about 50 percent higher than the national average. About 100,000 houses and apartments are constructed each year in California, most by private interests, and not by the government.

In some instances, the state provides assistance with grants or low-cost loans for construction of housing to be sold or rented to low income individuals. California also receives about $2 billion each year from the federal government to support housing projects.

General obligation bonds are sold to investors and repaid from the State’s General Fund.

The State repays the principal

Who can vote?

You may register to vote in California if: You are a U.S. citizen and California resident.

You will be at least 18 years old on election day.

You are not in prison or on parole for a felony.

You have not been judged mentally incompetent.

and interest over time, approximately 35 years for these bonds.

A general rule is that principal and interest payments usually are about twice the principal amount of the bonds.

Bonds used to fund home loans for veterans are repaid by the veterans through their mortgage payments.

THE PROPOSAL: Proposition 1 permits the state to issue $4 billion in new general obligation bonds for the following housing programs: $1.8 billion for building or renovating affordable multifamily housing (apartments) $450 million for infrastructure (parks, water, sewage and transportation) to support housing construction $450 million for down payment assistance to low and moderate-income home ownership $300 million for farmworker housing (rental and owner-occupied) $1 billion for home loans to eligible veterans.

This proposal would provide assistance to 30,000 multifamily and 7,500 farmworker households as well as home loans to about 3,000 veterans.

FISCAL EFFECTS The cost to taxpayers for $3 billion in bonds would be about $5.9 billion over a 35 year period or approximately $170 million a year in order to pay back both the principal and the interest on the general obligation bonds.

The $1 billion set aside for veterans’ assistance is repaid as the veterans pay off their loans.

SUPPORTERS SAY Proposition 1 provides relief from the housing crisis by building some housing and helping those who struggle to buy housing.

The measure honors veterans by helping them to buy a home.

OPPONENTS SAY Proposition 1 will help a very limited number of persons.

When must you re-register to vote?

You need to fill out a new voter registration form if: You change your residence address or mailing address.

You change your name.

You want to change your political party affiliation.

If you registered and your name does not appear on the voter list at your polling place, you have a right to cast a provisional ballot at any polling place in your county.

Californians are being asked to borrow more money through these bonds, which will end up costing everyone.

MORE INFORMATION Supporters: VetsAndAffordableHousingAct.org Opponents: At press time, there is no known campaign in opposition to this proposition.

Proposition 2‌ Legislative Statute‌

Authorizes bonds to fund existing housing program for individuals with mental illness.

THE QUESTION: Should $2 billion in bonds be issued and the Mental Health Services Act be amended to fund the No Place Like Home Program?

THE SITUATION In 2004, California voters approved Proposition 63 (Prop.

63) which was also called the Mental Health Services Act. It provided funding for county mental health services by increasing the income tax paid by people with an income over $1 million.

Counties are responsible for providing mental health care for people that lack private health insurance. Some counties also provide for other housing, substance abuse treatment and other services for those suffering mental illness The Legislature passed the No Place Like Home Act of 2016 (NPLHA). This Act authorizes $2 billion in bonds for use by counties for permanent

supportive housing to house people who are eligible for treatment under Prop. 63 and are homeless or at risk of chronic homelessness.

The bonds were to be paid off with interest over 30 years using money from the revenue raised by Prop. 63. A system for awarding the bond money to counties and for establishing programs to use it was also created by these bills.

No bonds were issued under the NPLHA because the state must ask for a court decision that the legislation is within the scope of Prop. 63 in extending housing to people with substance abuse and other issues rather than for severely mentally ill patients. The court is to determine if voters must approve the bond. The court decision is pending.

THE PROPOSAL This proposition approves the No Place Like Home Act of 2016 and approves the issuance of $2 billion in bonds to support the program. It also amends the provisions of Prop.

63 to allow use of the revenue for NPLHA. No more than $140 million each year can be used for this program.

FISCAL EFFECTS There is no direct impact on the state budget because the bonds would be paid back up to $140 million annually from the funds generated by Prop. 63 to repay up to $2 billion in bonds PLEASE SEE MEASURES, A7

Solvang hedging its bets at the polls Cannabis businesses banned in city except for medical dispensaries, deliveries Mike Hodgson MH OD GSON@ LEECE NTR ALCOAST N EWS.CO M‌

‌The city of Solvang is hedging its bets by putting a cannabis tax on the Nov. 6 ballot to fund general city services, even though the only businesses allowed by the city are medical marijuana deliveries and dispensaries.

Cultivation for personal use is allowed, but that’s limited to indoors. Outdoor growing as well as outdoor smoking of cannabis is prohibited.

City Manager Brad Vidro said the city isn’t placing an estimate on how much the tax could generate because the City Council has yet to place a limit on the number of dispensaries allowed and it’s uncertain how much any dispensaries might sell.

Ballot measure F2018 would set the initial cannabis tax rate at 5 percent on gross receipts, with a maximum annual increase of 1 percent up to a cap of 10 percent, and the tax would be in effect until voters decided to end it.

If approved in the Nov. 6 general election, the tax would become effective Jan. 1, 2019.

Earlier this year, a Goleta cannabis operator told the council he could sell $1.2 million worth of medical marijuana a year from a Solvang dispensary.

Vidro estimated a 5 percent tax could raise $60,000 in the first year of implementation.

The city has already approved an ordinance that limits cannabis operations to medical marijuana dispensaries in the C-3, or general commercial zone, and the delivery of medical marijuana to individual users — a service that’s been allowed for some time.

In July, the Planning Commission considered recommendations that also would have allowed dispensaries in

the C-2 retail commercial and P-O professional office zones but decided to limit them to the C-3 zone only.

Council members decided not to include the number of dispensaries allowed in the ordinance but rather will set that later by resolution, probably at the Monday, Sept. 24, regular meeting.

“I can’t imagine it would be much more than one or two (dispensaries), because there are only about two parcels in the C-3 zone,” Vidro said.

Currently, the only land zoned C-3 in the city is a strip parallel to Highway 246 at the western city limits, where Hope Thrift Store and Nielsen Building Materials are located.

But under Measure F2018, all businesses, nonprofit organizations and facilities, whether nonprofit or for profit, that sell retail or wholesale or even give away cannabis, cannabis products or devices for using cannabis or cannabis products would be subject to the tax.

It also would apply to any

operation that cultivates, processes, stores, tests, packages, labels, distributes, transports, sells, dispenses or delivers.

“The ordinance was written narrowly, but the tax measure was written broadly,” Vidro explained. “They did it pretty broadly so they wouldn’t have to come back and change it if the state law changes and says ‘you have to allow retail sales’ or something like that.”

He added that the city staff is currently developing the application process for dispensaries, which probably won’t be finalized until the cannabis tax is approved — if, in fact, it is.

“So I wouldn’t expect to see a dispensary (in Solvang) anytime before about December,” Vidro said.

Although during the discussion of the cannabis tax at least one member of the public recommended being specific about how the tax revenues would be spent, the City Council decided to be less specific, directing the revenues to the General Fund for use however

the council decides.

However, such purposes as street repair, police protection and public parks are mentioned in the argument in favor of the cannabis tax written by council members Karen Waite and Ryan Toussaint.

“Measure F2018 is designed to protect local control,” they wrote in the argument, adding, “Measure F2018 is fiscally responsible, timely and prudent.”

The argument notes the measure has five goals: Reduce and eliminate the black market in cannabis; Establish reasonable and comprehensive regulations to preserve the health and safety of the community; Provide access to medical cannabis for people who benefit from its use; Establish a new source of funding to benefit the entire community; and, Create a fair and reasonable tax that supports financially stable cannabis businesses.

RE-ELECT LARRY LAHR HANCOCK COLLEGE TRUSTEE

24 Years of service as YOUR trustee

• Recognized by the Aspen Institute - as one

• Record number of graduates and certificates

• Hancock Promise Program - local high school

• Strong Fiscal Management - balanced

of the top colleges in California and the Nation in 2011, 2014, 2016 and 2018 graduates get first year free at AHC

• Modernization of AHC’s campuses and Public Larry Lahr and Hilda Zacarias

“Larry Lahr is a thoughtful decision maker with a fiscally responsible perspective, who ALWAYS puts students and community first!”

Hilda Zacarias President, AHC Board of Trustees

Safety Facility—over $150 million in facility improvements

- 1,250 AA degrees and 1,200 certificates leading to good paying jobs in 2018 alone

budgets, fully funded pension liability and strong reserves

• Restructured General Obligation Bonds -

saving taxpayers over $12 million in property taxes

“AS YOUR TRUSTEE, I STILL HAVE WORK TO DO GOING FORWARD”

• Complete the modernization of our campuses for the 21st Century • Expand Promise Program to two years free tuition • Bring four year degrees to Hancock College • Community workforce integration into AHC Career Technical Education

Paid for by Lahr for Allan Hancock College Trustee 2018; ID #1409655, 2151 S. College Dr. Ste. 101, Santa Maria CA 93455

Lee Central Coast Newspapers | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | A5

SINCE 1994, Larry’s leadership has changed the odds for our students and our community. His service as a Hancock Trustee has seen incredible growth and change in our college, including:

Hancock College seeks $75M with Measure Y Funds to finance construction, improvement projects in Santa Maria, Lompoc and Solvang Mathew Burciaga

A6 | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | Lee Central Coast Newspapers

MBURCIAGA@LEECENTRALCOASTNEWS.COM‌

‌Hoping to upgrade and replace aging facilities, Hancock College is asking voters to approve Measure Y, a bond measure to construct a $48 million visual and performing arts center at its Santa Maria campus and improve sites in Lompoc and Santa Ynez.

Of the $75 million authorized by the bond measure, approximately $34 million will be used to pay off existing Measure I debt, leaving property owners with a single payment of $11 per $100,000 of assessed valuation over 30 years.

Proponents of the bond — largely comprised of educational and business leaders from Santa Maria, Lompoc and the Santa Ynez Valley — say the funds will address urgent and critical facility needs.

“Measure Y is an important part of what we’re doing for our community and the college,” said College President Kevin Walthers, who volunteers with Friends of Hancock College, the group created to campaign for the bond.

“We’ve been around town talking about how so many of our buildings are over 50 years old and it’s time to replace them. Measure Y is an important part of that.”

At the college’s Santa Maria campus, bond funds will be used to complete the longplanned Fine Arts Complex and renovate the site’s physical education facilities.

The 88,000-square-foot arts complex will span two stories and aims to consolidate visual, performing and other fine arts classes into a unified hub. The college was awarded $24 million in Proposition 58 bond funding by the state, offsetting roughly half of the estimated cost.

A 300-seat auditorium recital hall, financed by a $10 million gift from former piano instructor Patty Boyd, is also planned

Contributed photo, Hancock College‌

An artist’s conception shows how a new Fine Arts Complex might look at Hancock College in Santa Maria if voters in the Allan Hancock Joint Community College District approve Measure Y, a $75 million bond measure, in the Nov. 6 General Election.

for the project.

Outdated shower and locker facilities, cramped corridors and offices, and inadequate classroom facilities are the focus of improvements to the campus’ physical education building.

Built in 1962, only seven of the men’s shower heads currently work while women’s showers have no privacy. Staff offices offer improper ventilation and lack heating and air conditioning, natural light and secondary exits.

Bond money may also be used to complete the college’s Sports Pavilion, including adding field lights, bleachers and a press box to the football and track stadium.

In Lompoc, bond money will be used to fund improvements to the district’s Public Safety Training Complex — a campus used to train regional firefighters, law enforcement officers and other emergency response personnel.

Funds would go to expanding

the site’s scenario village, providing cadet restrooms in the training area, and adding an integrated traffic light system — a project that could cost as much as $1 million.

A $2 million investment in Solvang Theaterfest’s open-air Festival Theater will provide new lighting and sound equipment, bringing production quality up to match Santa Maria’s Marian Theater.

Though the college’s professional acting and technical theater program stages summer performances in the Festival Theater, the college does not own the site. As such, the college cannot spend bond funds on directly improving the structure.

In opposition, Santa Maria resident Dan Hilker, a critic of the bond who serves on the college’s board of trustees, says the bond language is “intentionally vague” and lacks accountability. Hilker voted twice against placing the bond on the ballot.

An argument against the bond measure submitted to the Santa Barbara County Elections Office authored by Hilker and four others asserts that the bond campaign is “funded by businesses that will likely benefit from bond money.”

A review of major contributions reported to the California Fair Political Practices Commission found four contributions, totaling $57,500, to Friends of Allan Hancock College—Yes on Measure Y committee.

The Allan Hancock College Foundation, the non-profit arm that raises funds and builds community support for college scholarships, programs and capital/infrastructure projects, contributed $49,000 to the pro-bond group.

Omaha, Nebraska-based architectural design firm DLR Group, which has offices in Los Angeles, donated $5,000 to the campaign on Sept. 10. Trustees in November 2017 awarded the

architectural contract for the Fine Arts Complex to DLR. Cerritos law firm Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo and Diani-Ward-Diani, LLC (a member of the Diani Companies family, a Santa Maria construction group) contributed $2,500 and $1,000, respectively, to the campaign.

The bond requires approval from 55 percent of district voters to pass. No portion of the money can be used as salaries or pensions for college administrators, faculty or staff.

An independent citizens’ oversight committee comprised of local taxpayers (excluding district employees and vendors) will monitor all bond expenditures. As part of the oversight process, the bond requires yearly audits to ensure the funds are properly spent.

Mathew Burciaga covers education in Santa Maria and the surrounding area for Lee Central Coast Newspapers. Follow him on Twitter @math_burciaga

Measures

for homeowners over the age of 55 or who have a severe disability. They may transfer the assessed value of a prior home to a replacement residence of equal or lesser market value. The new home must have been purchased within two years of selling the prior home and be located within the same county or in another that permits inter-county transfers. This exemption can be used only once.

THE PROPOSAL Prop. 5 would expand a homeowner’s ability to transfer assessed value to a new home.

The market value of the replacement home could be greater or lesser than that of the prior home. The transferred value will be adjusted through the use of a formula. It would be increased if the new home is worth more, or decreased if it is worth less.

Proposition 4‌ An increased value will still be less than that based on the Initiative Statute‌ current market value. The house Authorizes bonds funding could be anywhere in California construction at hospitals providand the homeowner is not liming childrens’ health care. ited to a single exemption. The THE QUESTION: Should new home still must be the ownthe State of California issue er’s principal residence and be $1.5 billion in general obligation acquired within two years of the bonds to expand and improve original home’s sale. Prop. 5 also the buildings and equipment at applies to situations in which the children’s hospitals? original property is damaged by a THE SITUATION declared disaster or made unusChildren’s hospitals provide able by contamination. specialized physical and mental Proposition 5‌ FISCAL EFFECTS healthcare services to infants and Local governments. Prop. 5 children. There are eight private Initiative Constitutional would have a net effect of reducnonprofit hospitals, five Univer- Amendment and Statute‌ ing local revenue by about $100 sity of California children’s hosChanges requirements for million per year at first, growing pitals, and more than 100 other certain property owners to to $1 billion over time. Increased nonprofit hospitals that serve transfer their property tax base to sales would generate property children with complex chronic replacement property. transfer taxes of tens of millions health conditions eligible for the THE QUESTION: Should of dollars, while county adminisCalifornia Children’s Services the California constitution be trative costs would rise by tens of program. Over half the patients amended to increase the ability millions of dollars at first. receive Medi-Cal benefits. of certain homeowners to obtain Schools. Annual reduction Only a small amount of fund- tax relief by transferring their in school revenue would begin Prop. 13-related tax base to a ing remains from the previous at about $100 million and grow bonds and is expected to be used replacement property? to $1 billion. Most school losses THE SITUATION by mid 2018. would be offset by equivalent Taxes based on the value of THE PROPOSAL increases in state funding, Prop. 4 would raise $1.5 billion real property provide a major thereby increasing State spendrevenue source for local govern- ing by the same amounts. through the sale of general obliments, schools, and special disgation bonds and use the funds SUPPORTERS SAY to improve and expand children’s tricts. Such taxes equal a prop Older adults on fixed erty’s assessed value times the hospitals. The money could be incomes need this protection. applicable tax rate. Proposition used to build new facilities, to More houses will become 13, as amended, limits property improve and expand current available for younger families. taxes by limiting both value and facilities, and to purchase new Prop. 5 will protect Prop. 13 rates. The tax rate is capped at equipment. To obtain funding a tax reductions. hospital would apply to the Cali- 1 percent of the assessed value, OPPONENTS SAY fornia Health Facilities Financing which can grow annually by no Essential local services and Authority of the State Treasurer’s more than 2 percent. schools will be affected.

Reassessment to market value Office which would award the Loss of local revenue will become worse every year. is required for newly purchased grants based on factors such as Seniors already receive improving healthcare access and or newly constructed property, or Prop. 13 protection. if ownership changes. patient outcomes.

Exemptions from these The eight private nonprofit reassessment triggers are allowed children’s hospitals would be PLEASE SEE MEASURES, Page A8 safe drinking water.

Watershed restoration will improve water quality and protect agricultural interests.

OPPONENTS SAY We need more dams to collect rain and snow melt from the Sierras. Proposition 3 provides no money for new dams.

It panders to special interests by making recreation and wildlife a priority over farmers.

Paying back these new bonds will result in raised taxes.

MORE INFORMATION Supporters: Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply WaterBond.org Opponents: At press time, there is no known formal campaign in opposition to this Proposition.

eligible for 72 percent of the funds. The rest of the funds would go to University of California children’s acute care centers and to nonprofit hospitals that care for children eligible for governmental programs.

FISCAL EFFECTS The State would need to repay a total of $2.9 billion. The $2.9 billion is made up of the original $1.5 billion bond and $1.4 billion in interest to be paid back over 35 years. The yearly repayment amount is approximately $80 million.

SUPPORTERS SAY Prop. 4 helps over 2 million sick children each year and leads to better health outcomes.

Previous bonds have been used to add more beds and purchase new technology.

OPPONENTS SAY The bond would need to be repaid, potentially through higher taxes.

We should first look at improving the entire healthcare system including lowering costs MORE INFORMATION Supporters: YesOnProposition4.org Opponents: At press time, there is no known formal campaign in opposition to this Proposition.

Lee Central Coast Newspapers | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | A7

in California spend about $30 billion annually in the water sector. Over three-quarters of that is From A4 spent locally and largely paid for by individual ratepayers for water funds generated by Prop. 63 to and sewage treatment plants and repay up to $2 billion in bonds cleanup of storm runoff. The used to pay for the No Place Like State and Federal government Home programs. It is estimated play a role by creating regional that the bonds would be paid off water supply infrastructure and in 30 years at 4.2 percent interest by setting and enforcing water for approximately $120 million quality standards.

Over the past 17 years voters each year. have approved $31 billion in genSUPPORTERS SAY eral obligation bonds for various Prop. 2 alleviates the problem of homelessness complicated natural resource projects, including $4.1 billion from Prop. 68 in by mental illness.

June 2018.

Supportive housing allows The State has several billion coordinated care of individuals dollars available from those meawho need treatment and houssures, mostly to be used for water ing stability. quality, supply and infrastructure This uses funds already purposes authorized by Proposiearmarked for mental tion 1 in 2014. health services.

The principal and interest OPPONENTS SAY on general obligation bonds are Prop. 2 spends money on repaid from the State’s General buildings instead of on badly Fund, usually over 40 years. needed treatment.

THE PROPOSAL Counties already use Prop.

This measure authorizes $8.9 63 revenue to offer housing to billion in general obligation severely mentally ill patients.

Restrictive zoning laws that bonds for various water-related make it difficult to build housing programs and projects. The proposition’s broad spending is not addressed. categories include: MORE INFORMATION Water supply and quality—$ Supporters: Yes on Props 2.1 billion; 1&2 Coalition Fish and wildlife habitat This proposition is on the bal$1.4 billion; lot by action of the Legislature Water facility upgrades for and the Governor. At press time, there is no active website in sup- specific projects in the Central Valley, Bay Area, and port of Prop. 2.

Oroville Dam,—$1.2 billion; Opponents: At press time, Groundwater recharge and there is no known formal storage projects—$1.1 billion. campaign in opposition to this Most funds will be distributed Proposition. as grants to agencies that must provide equal matching funds.

Proposition 3‌ The measure provides reduced cost-sharing requirements for Initiative Statute‌ projects benefiting disadvanAuthorizes bonds to fund proj- taged communities. ects for water supply and quality, FISCAL EFFECTS watershed, fish, wildlife, water Bond repayment is expected to conveyance, and groundwater cost the State an estimated $17.3 sustainability and storage. billion over 40 years. The effect THE QUESTION: Should the on local governments will depend State sell $8.9 billion in bonds on the size of any grant received. to fund projects related to water Savings are recognized because a supply and quality, watershed grant reduces the local share of a and fisheries restoration, habitat project’s cost. However, a project protection, water conveyance could also increase future operatand groundwater sustainability ing costs, such as for a new desaland storage? ination facility. The annual net THE SITUATION effect on local governments and California’s water supply faces ratepayers is likely to be small. challenges. The amount and SUPPORTERS SAY location of available water varies Proposition 3 will fund widely from year to year. Unusu- projects to help increase water ally wet or dry years can result supply from a variety of sources in local flooding or water shortsuch as storm water capture and ages. Water may be polluted and desalination. unsuitable for any use.

It will help insure that disadvantaged communities can access Various government agencies

Measures From A7

MORE INFORMATION Supporters: Homeownership for Families and Tax Saving for Seniors. At press time, there is no active website.

Opponents: No on Prop. 5 At press time, there is no active website.

Proposition 6‌

A8 | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | Lee Central Coast Newspapers

Initiative Constitutional Amendment‌

Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding.

Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate.

THE QUESTION: Should the increase in vehicle fuel taxes and fees enacted by the Legislature in 2017 be reversed and should the Constitution be amended to require voter approval of any transportation related taxes and fees?

THE SITUATION In 2017 lawmakers passed the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB 1) increasing state funding for transportation purposes from $6.6 billion in 2016-17 to $12.1 billion in 2018-19. By 2020-21 when all the taxes will have been in effect, SB 1 revenue is estimated to total $5.1 billion annually.

On Nov. 1, 2017 State fuel excise taxes per gallon increased 12 cents for gasoline and 20 cents for diesel. Diesel State sales tax increased by 4 percent.

A new transportation fee was added to the cost of registering a vehicle, including a fee for electric cars starting in 2020.

After July 1, 2020, fuel excise taxes will be adjusted for inflation. Voters restricted the new SB 1 tax revenues to transportation purposes by approving Prop. 69 in June 2018. In March 2018 US News & World Report rated California 49th in road quality, 11th in bridge quality, and 46th in commute times among the 50 states.

THE PROPOSAL Prop. 6 would: Repeal the fuel tax increases and vehicle fees enacted by SB 1.

Amend the State Constitution to require any future legislatively-imposed taxes on fuels and vehicles to take effect only if the voters of the state vote to approve it.

FISCAL EFFECTS

If Prop. 6 is approved, SB 1 transportation tax revenues will be reduced in 2018-19 from $4.4 billion to $2 billion. After that time SB 1 will no longer exist and transportation tax revenue will be reduced by $5.1 annually.

According to the Legislative Analyst, the loss of funding will affect state highway maintenance and rehabilitation, local streets and roads, and mass transit.

Adding the requirement that most transportation-related taxes must also be approved by the voters will make it more difficult to impose such changes in the future.

SUPPORTERS SAY Gas taxes and fees are too high, fall the hardest on hardworking families, and are unnecessary in a state that has a budget surplus.

One third of the gas tax increase will be diverted to nonroad related pet projects including building parks and training for formerly incarcerated felons through the Workforce Development Board.

Tax increases on gasoline that directly affect people’s lives are “too big” for just the governor and Legislature to decide.

OPPONENTS SAY Cracked, potholed roads pose a major safety threat to California drivers; 89 percent of counties have roads in poor or at-risk condition and more than 1,600 bridges and overpasses are structurally unsafe.

Reliable transportation infrastructure is critical to get Californians to work, move goods and services to the market, and support our economy.

Requiring voter approval of fuel taxes or vehicles fees already passed by a supermajority in the Legislature risks the unintended consequences of ballot box budgeting.

MORE INFORMATION Supporters: Give Voters a Voice GiveVotersAVoice.com Opponents: No on Prop. 6 NoProp6.com

Proposition 7‌ Legislative Statute‌

Conforms California Daylight Savings Time to federal law.

Allows Legislature to change Daylight Savings Time period.

THE QUESTION: Should the legislature be allowed to change Daylight Savings Time by a two-thirds vote if federal law authorizes it?

THE SITUATION Part-year Daylight Savings Time was started during World War II in order to save energy.

California voters approved it in 1949 and for that reason, the voters would have to vote to authorize the legislature to change it to year-round.

Federal law requires states to have Daylight Savings Time from early March to early November and standard time the rest of the year (about four months). However, states are permitted to have standard time all year, without federal approval. Hawaii and Arizona stay on standard time all year.

In order for a state to switch to year-round Daylight Savings Time, Congress and the President must approve the proposal.

THE PROPOSAL Prop. 7 is both an advisory measure and a change in law.

It encourages the legislature to consider instituting year-round Daylight Savings Time. It would change current law by requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change the period of Daylight Savings Time, to make it year round, or to stay on standard time.

However, even if two-thirds of the legislature passes such a bill, the change to year-round Daylight Savings Time would still have to approved by a vote of Congress and a Presidential signature.

FISCAL EFFECTS The proposition has no direct fiscal impact on state and local government because the legislature and the federal government still must act on it. If the change is made, there could be a minor fiscal impact that is unknown at this time.

SUPPORTERS SAY Medical studies show that the risk of heart attacks and strokes increases during the days following a time change.

Changing clocks twice a year increases our use of electricity by 4 percent, increases the amount of fuel used by cars and costs $434 million.

OPPONENTS SAY The United States tried year-round Daylight Savings Time in 1974 because of the energy crisis. People hated getting up in the dark in the morning.

There are no conclusive studies that having Daylight Savings Time year-round saves energy or money.

MORE INFORMATION Supporters: This proposition

is on the ballot by action of the Legislature and the Governor.

At press time, there is no known formal campaign in support.

Opponents: At press time, there is no known formal campaign in opposition.

Proposition 8‌ Initiative Statute‌

Regulates amounts outpatient kidney dialysis clinics charge for dialysis treatment THE QUESTION: Should outpatient dialysis clinics be required to rebate money to private insurers if their revenue exceeds allowable costs by more than 15 percent?

THE SITUATION People suffering from End Stage Renal Disease, the final stage of kidney disease, must receive dialysis to survive.

Dialysis filters out waste and toxins from blood. It is typically done in a chronic dialysis clinic three times a week with each treatment lasting up to four hours each time. These clinics are licensed by the California Department of Public Health (DPH) using federal certification standards.

Approximately 588 licensed clinics operate in California.

The majority of the clinics are owned and run by one of two private for-profit companies.

Estimated annual revenue of the private companies is $3 billion. Most dialysis is paid for by Medicare and Medi-Cal. These programs pay a fixed rate established by the regulations and are close to the average cost of treatment.

Private insurance also covers dialysis with payment rates fixed by negotiation with the providers. On average those rates are multiple times higher than that paid by the government programs.

THE PROPOSAL This proposition requires the companies that own clinics to rebate certain payers, mostly private insurance companies, if the clinic chains’ corporate annual revenues are more than 15 percent higher than a cap defined in the proposition. The cap is based on the total allowable costs of “direct patient services care” and “health care quality improvement costs.”

The costs of non-managerial staff salary and benefits, drugs and medical supplies, staff training, patient education, and electronic health information

systems fall within the cap. Certain staff such as medical directors and nurse managers are required by federal law. It is not clear if such staff falls within the allowable cost category.

Adjustments to the amount of the cap are allowed if the clinic owner operators prove to a court that the revenue cap is so low that it is an unconstitutional taking of the value of the business. The challenger bears the burden of proving what cap would be appropriate.

FISCAL EFFECTS The fiscal impacts of this proposition are dependent upon the response of the clinics to it and on interpretations of what allowable costs are by the DPH and the courts. It appears that initially rebates will be paid which reduces the profits of the clinics. The impact on state and local governments varies from a net savings of tens of millions of dollars to a similar net cost.

SUPPORTERS SAY Prop. 8 provides incentive for dialysis clinic companies to lower their costs and improve the quality of patient care.

When insurance companies are charged less for dialysis the overall cost of insurance will decrease for everyone.

OPPONENTS SAY Prop. 8 sets arbitrary limits on what insurance companies pay for dialysis treatment will not cover the complete cost of running a clinic.

Clinics will reduce operations or close, depriving patients of access and increasing the risk of poor medical outcomes.

MORE INFORMATION Supporters: Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection YesOn8.com Opponents: No on Prop. 8: Stop the Dangerous Dialysis Proposition NoProp8.com * Prop. 9 was removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court.

Proposition 10‌ Initiative Statute‌

Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property.

THE QUESTION: Should the current state law that limits the scope of city and county rent-control ordinances be PLEASE SEE MEASURES, Page A12

24th Congressional race pits Democrat incumbent, Republican challenger Fareed hopes to oust Carbajal in third bid to win seat Mike Hodgson M H OD GSO N@ LEECENT RALCOAST NEWS.COM‌

‌ he race for the 24th ConT gressional District seat pits a Republican challenger who says it’s time for a new attitude in the House of Representatives against a Democratic incumbent who is running on his accomplishments during his two years in office.

Incumbent Santa Barbara Democrat Salud Carbajal will try to fend off Santa Barbara Republican challenger Justin Fareed, who is making his third bid for the seat in the Nov. 6 General Election.

Carbajal and Fareed went head-to-head in the 2016 General Election, which Carbajal won. The 24th Congressional District includes Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, and the Los Padres National Forest area of Ventura County.

The two wound up facing each other again on this year’s

November ballot after eliminating Republican candidate Michael Erin Woody of Morro Bay in the June 8 primary.

Here’s a brief look at the two candidates and their platforms:

Justin Fareed‌

Fareed, 30, ran for the 24th District seat as the youngest candidate in 2014 and was eliminated by a narrow margin in the June primary.

He sought the seat again in 2016, when he lost to Carbajal in the November election.

Although he has not yet held a public office, Fareed has served as a legislative Fareed aide to Kentucky Congressman Ed Whitfield, who served as chairman of the Energy & Power Subcommittee, and was involved in drafting several bills.

Fareed has said he believes it’s time for congressional leadership with a new attitude for getting things done.

“It is time to hold Congress accountable,” he said.

The focal points of his campaign include strong support for local law enforcement agencies, including improving communication between local and federal agencies.

He also has pledged to strengthen the economy by encouraging businesses to stay in the region, drawing back those that have left and preventing the exodus of more by reducing onerous regulations.

“As president of my family’s business, I understand how difficult it is for businesses to help grow the economy and create jobs,” said Fareed, who was born and raised on the Central Coast.

“Young people who were born here and grew up here can’t afford to stay on the Central Coast because of the lack of jobs, high cost of living and skyrocketing tuition.”

He added, “I’ve seen businesses pick up and leave, and increased burdens on the middle class that will only become worse with Carbajal in office — not to mention the numerous votes Carbajal has taken against our law enforcement, weakening their ability to keep crime out of our neighborhoods and keep us safe.”

and accessible to students from a wider range of backgrounds The son of a farmworker, Car- “without the crushing burden of bajal, 53, was born in Moroleón, student loan debt.”

Mexico, and immigrated to AriCarbajal said he is opposed zona with his family, who later to additional offshore oil drillmoved to California. ing, favoring environmental He served eight years in the protection, and opposed to U.S. Marine Corps Reserve laws to increase gun ownership, and was first elected to the although he also wants reasonSanta Barbara County Board of able measures that support the Supervisors as the 1st District 2nd Amendment. representative in 2004 and was As for health care, he said it’s re-elected in 2008 and 2012. important to keep prescription Carbajal sits drug prices low and he wants to on the House find bipartisan solutions to issues Committee on with the Affordable Care Act. the Budget and “Moving forward, it’s our on the Armed responsibility to protect people’s right to accessible, affordServices Committee as a able and nondiscriminatory member of the health care,” he said.

Subcommittee Carbajal said he supports Carbajal on Readiness Deferred Action for Childhood and the SubArrivals, or DACA, but he said committee on Tactical Air and the current immigration system Land Forces. needs an overhaul.

He also is a member of “As a son of immigrants and the bipartisan Climate Solu(an) immigrant myself to the tions Caucus.

United States, I believe that it Issues he’s concerned about is important that we have a fair include wasteful spending in immigration system that works, the military and the size of and unfortunately our current the defense budget, making system is seriously flawed,” higher education affordable he said.

Salud Carbajal‌

Lompoc voters to consider a new cannabis tax Willis Jacobson WJACOBSON@ LEECENTRALCOASTNEWS.COM‌

trust that you’re looking for to be normalized,” she added.

The measure itself calls for the following: Six-percent gross receipt tax for retail businesses; A total cap of 6-percent of all gross receipts for microbusinesses for all functions; A flat rate of $15,000 on manufacturing and distribution businesses that generate less than $2 million in net income annually, and a flat rate of $30,000 for those that generate more than $2 million annually; One-percent taxes on nurseries and cultivators; and No additional taxes on testing facilities.

The measure will also include language that would allow the council to reduce those taxes if and when it deems doing so is appropriate.

The amount of revenue that could potentially be generated by those taxes is largely

unknown. A lot will depend on the number of operators — the city had approved four licenses out of 17 applications as of Aug. 28 — and the size of the consumer market.

The Lompoc Valley Cannabis Association (LVCA), a trade organization that was formed this year to advocate for the industry, is among those supportive of the measure.

“The LVCA is in support of the tax measure, and the local industry is excited about creating jobs and generating revenues for the entire city,” LVCA president John De Friel said.

While there is no argument that the taxes will produce some revenue, those opposed to the taxes have suggested that it is in the best interest of the industry and the city — through job growth and economic impact — to allow the industry to establish itself before imposing fees and taxes that could potentially

stymie growth.

That latter argument was championed by the majority of the Lompoc City Council, led by Councilman Jim Mosby, when the council first declined to put a tax measure on the ballot at its March 20 meeting. That night the council voted 3-2 — with support from Mosby, Dirk Starbuck and Victor Vega — to not impose any city taxes on top of the taxes that will be collected from the state.

Osborne, however, pushed to have the issue brought back after the council received a report that showed declining city revenue.

It was at the follow-up discussion, on May 15, that the council unanimously voted to put the tax issue before the voters.

Despite the LVCA’s protax stance, some within the industry do not view the measure favorably.

Lee Central Coast Newspapers | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | A9

‌When Lompoc voters fill out their ballots for the Nov. 6 general election, their decisions could have a significant impact on one of the city’s budding industries.

Among the many candidates and measures that will be included on the ballot is a tax schedule that would be imposed by the city on local cannabis operators. The placement of the measure on the ballot was not without controversy — its addition was first voted down by the Lompoc City Council this year and then resurrected and approved two months later — and its terms have drawn mixed reactions from people in and outside the cannabis industry.

Several cannabis business owners pushed for no, or extremely low taxes as a

way to encourage growth and help jump-start a fledgling industry, while others in the community, including some elected leaders, have pushed for the taxes as a way to increase general fund revenue and potentially fill some of the budget gaps the city is facing in areas like public safety.

“If we waited to consider taxes later, it would be until 2020 or 2022 and that’s not fair to our community,” Lompoc City Councilwoman Jenelle Osborne said to some of the industry representatives at the council’s May 15 meeting, at which the tax measure was unanimously approved for the ballot. “If you really want to be respected and trusted in this industry, it’s being part of the community.

“This is about setting up a respectful revenue source that allows you to function in the community and helps protect the community and build that

»»MEASURE E

»»MEASURE U

Lompoc voters to decide again on $79M school bond

Rate increase, extension to be decided by voters

Willis Jacobson WJACOBSON@LEECENTRAL-

A10 | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | Lee Central Coast Newspapers

COASTNEWS.COM‌

‌For the third time in the past two years, Lompoc voters will be tasked with deciding the fate of a bond measure that could spur significant upgrades to Lompoc-area schools.

Measure E, a $79 million schools improvement bond, will be among the many choices Lompoc voters will face on the Nov. 6 ballot. The bond is the latest to be placed on the ballot by Lompoc Unified School District leaders, who have outlined dozens of projects that will be undertaken at 18 district sites if the measure proves successful.

The bond, which will be put before voters for a “yes” or “no” vote, will need 55-percent approval to pass.

Two similar bond measures have failed at the polls over the past two years. Measure L received 58-percent approval from voters in November 2016, but needed 67-percent due to the manner in which it was placed on the ballot.

Measure Q, which needed 55-percent approval in this June’s primary election, fell just short after receiving support from 50 percent of voters.

Those previous bond measures were essentially the same as Measure E, but suffered in part from criticism that the district didn’t effectively outline a spending plan.

This time around, LUSD officials have identified about $221 million in site needs throughout the district. The money brought in by Measure E would be used to tackle a large chunk of those needs, according to the district.

LUSD leaders have outlined several types of projects that they intend to fund with the bond money if Measure E

passes. Information about those projects has been disseminated in various outlets, both online and during several community forums, and large signs have been posted at each school site with lists, along with projected timelines, of the work that will be done at each respective campus.

Among some of the specific projects that will be performed at most or all of LUSD’s campuses, according to district leaders, is the installation of security fencing, turf/landscape upgrades, the addition of exterior signage and security cameras in public places, as well as ceiling tile and door replacements, repainting, and upgrades to windows, restrooms, security alarms and intercom systems.

Also listed are upgrades to technology, heating, ventilation and air systems, fire alarms and classroom furniture.

The work is slated to be performed in five stages, with the “first strike” projects set to begin in February 2019, and phases one through four running from June 2019 through June 2022.

LUSD administrators have said that the district could be eligible for up to $40 million more in state matching funds if Measure E passes.

That could bring the total haul of the bond to nearly $120 million.

None of the money, according to the district, would be used on administrative salaries.

“We have some significant challenges, and those challenges have to do with our schools being 50 and 60 years old,” LUSD Superintendent Trevor McDonald said at a recent forum focused on the bond measure. “It’s very similar to a house; there has to be some upgrades in time.”

If Measure E passes, it would be paid off through

property taxes. Rather than imposing new taxes, though, it would instead extend the payments for Measure N, a $38 million bond that was passed in 2002 and remains as the most recent successful schools improvement bond in Lompoc.

According to the Measure E ballot text, the tax would be imposed on property owners at a rate of about 6 cents per $100 of assessed value, or $60 per $100,000.

Measure E includes a Citizens’ Oversight Committee that would be formed to monitor how the money is used, if the measure is successful. That independent committee would be required to perform regular audits.

Applications for the committee are currently available at lusd.org and at the district headquarters at 1301 North A St. LUSD leaders and Measure E supporters have arranged several informational sessions for community members who would like to ask questions or learn more about the bond. Among those are campus tours, at which attendees can get upclose views of the state of the schools.

The tours are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. each Saturday through Oct. 27 in the parking lot at La Honda STEAM Academy, 1213 North A St. Participants can ride on a school bus to each campus or drive their own vehicles.

Only adults will be allowed on the buses.

For information on polling locations or other electionrelated information, visit Santa Barbara County’s election website at www.sbcvote. com/elections/elections. aspx.

Willis Jacobson covers the city of Lompoc for Lee Central Coast Newspapers.

Follow him on Twitter @ WJacobsonLR.

2017-18, around 91 percent went public safety services. Around 52 percent of the raised funds went to ‌With Santa Maria facing what police and 39 percent went to fire. are expected to be multimillionPart of the remaining 9 percent dollar budget deficits for the next of Measure U money raised in the few years, Santa Marians will past fiscal year went to the Santa decide in November whether to Maria Public Library, providing the funds to keep the library approve an extension and rate open an additional eight hours increase of Measure U. per week, van de Kamp said. The First passed in 2012, Measure remaining funds went toward the U added a quarter-cent sales tax Recreation and Parks Departto fund public safety services in ment’s graffiti removal and code the city. The measure — which compliance efforts. provided around $4.6 million in Van de Kamp said if the measure funding last year — pays for 10 is enacted by voters, around 90 percent of the personnel in the percent of the tax proceeds will go Police Department and the staff towards public safety, though the of one of the city’s five fire stations. The measure is set to expire funding breakdown between the in 2021. fire and police departments may The 2018 version of Measure change as needs arise. The other U — which the City Council voted 10 percent would go to youth and to put on the ballot in July — other quality of life services. increases the tax rate from a quarWithout the measure, the city’s ter-cent to one-cent and remains General Fund deficits — which in place until voters choose to end have been covered with the use of it. City staff estimates it would “rainy day funds” — would result raise around $18 million per year in reduced staffing and program for the General Fund. reductions, Van de Kamp said.

City spokesman Mark van de During a League of Women Kamp said Measure U is necessary Voters-sponsored Measure U to keep critical public safety serforum earlier this month, community activist Gale McNeeley vices funded in the midst of large said the city was too fixated on budget shortfalls. The budget shortfalls have largely been driven public safety services, leaving too little money for quality of life and by rising pension costs. youth projects.

The funding priorities for the McNeeley also took issue with 2018 version of Measure U include graffiti and vandalism prevention, the lack of a sunset clause, arguing citizens would be the position of gang suppression and enforcement, firefighter staffing and having to ask their council memmaintaining 911 medical response bers to put a measure on the ballot to end the tax. times. Additionally, the Measure Yes on Measure U 2018 comU extension calls for increased mittee member Russ Mengel said spending on library services, recreation, homelessness and pro- during the forum that Measure U would protect crucial services in grams for at-risk youth. the midst of large budget deficits.

The funding priorities for the “We have an $8.5 million budget 2018 Measure U are modified from shortfall that’s being covered by the 2012 version in two ways. one-time expenditures — essenFirst, homelessness was added as tially a savings account for the a priority, in response to public input received by the city. Second, community — when those monies are gone, critical public safety there will be a wider variety of services are going to be cut,” Menpublic safety services provided gel said. “That’s a fire station for with funding, like non-sworn this community, that’s going to be staff, vehicles, and equipment. police officers.”

If the measure is passed by voters, the city’s overall sales tax Razi Syed covers Santa Maria rate would rise from 8 percent to City Government for Lee Central 8.75 percent.

Coast Newspapers. Follow him on Of the roughly $4.6 million in Twitter @razisyed Measure U funding raised during

Razi Syed

RSYE D @ LE EC E N T RALCOAST NEWS.COM‌

Two bonds, one tax and 13 board races on the ballot. Measure Q, a similar bond placed on the June 2018 ballot, narrowly failed earlier this year, unable to attract support from 55 percent of district voters. Measure E requires 55-percent approval to pass.

Mathew Burciaga MBURCIAGA@L E ECE NT R ALCOAST NEWS.CO M‌

‌In addition to weighing in on several local, state and federal elections, northern Santa Barbara County voters will decide on more than a dozen school board races and several local bonds when they cast their vote in the Nov. 6 election.

An official candidate list published at the start of September by the Santa Barbara County Elections Office shows longtime incumbents and political newcomers vying for votes in November.

Santa Ynez Valley

Hancock College

Orcutt, Santa Maria and Guadalupe

Voters in four at-large school districts — Santa Maria-Bonita, Orcutt Union, Guadalupe Union and Santa Maria Joint Union — will decide the fate of nine spots on local school boards this fall.

Santa Maria Public Airport District Director David Baskett will challenge Santa Maria Joint Union High School District incumbents Carol Karamitsos, Dominick Palera and Diana M Perez.

Shannon Clay and Daniella “Dani”

Pearce have filed to run for re-election to the Blochman Union School District board. They face a challenge from Thomas C. Gibbons, who filed election papers at the end of July.

Guadalupe Union School District resident Raul Rodriguez Jr. has filed to challenge incumbents Sheila Marie Costa Cepeda, Mary Lou Sabedra-Cuello and Diana Arriola for a seat on the board.

Orcutt Union School District board members Rob Buchanan, James Peterson and Robert Hatch did not file for re-election, leaving three open seats available for challengers. Five district residents — Shaun Handerson, Laurel Ciervo, Mark Steller, Eric Melsheimer and Melanie Waffle — are all running for the open seats.

Two challengers, Abraham Malendrez and Gary Michaels, have filed to run against Santa Maria-Bonita School District incumbents Ricky Lara and Vedamarie Alvarez-Flores.

Lompoc

Lompoc Unified School District voters will decide this fall on who will fill two four-year terms on the district’s board of education.

Incumbents Steve Straight, William “Bill” Heath and Gloria Grijalva have mounted re-election campaigns, prompting challenges from district residents Deb Andrews, Alan Skinner and Nancy Schuler-Jones.

Voters will also decide on Measure E, a $79 million school bond, after trustees voted 4-0 in June to place another bond

Mathew Burciaga covers education in Santa Maria and the surrounding area for Lee Central Coast Newspapers. Follow him on Twitter @math_burciaga

VOTE FOR Karen Waite Appointed Incumbent

Karen is a 23 Year Resident of the Santa Ynez Valley. She is a Full-time Business Woman. She is Committed to Preserving the Historic Heritage of Solvang while acknowledging the Santa Ynez Valley’s changing demographic. She will improve the Balance between the Needs of the Residents, and Businesses and the Interests of Tourism. She will continue to keep you Openly Informed of what your local Government is doing for you; Karen initiated the push for tasking the city with publishing all public records requests in an effort to support transparency in government.

To view Karen’s professional experience visit her website:

www.karenwaiteforsolvangcitycouncil.com

KAREN’S PLATFORM-ROLL WITH THE CHANGES Innovation Arts and Culture • Initiated the concept of placing authentic Danish art sculpture near the historic fallen oak tree on First Street • Directed City grant funding to our local museums, music programs, seniors and non-profits Tourism • At the request of our active local cycling community and with the cooperation of our local Chamber and Visitor’s Bureau successfully engaged the City in bringing back the Amgen event to Solvang (looking at a start in 2020) Paid for by Karen M. Waite

Transportation • Collaborated with Santa Barbara County Association of Governments to access funding to improve our bicycle infrastructure Council Committees • City of Solvang Representative for the newly formed Central Coast Ground Water Basin Management Agency State Regulations and Business • Refined and adopted the City ordinance permitting medical cannabis dispensaries to include the implementation of a ballot measure to impose a local tax on all cannabis related revenues F2018 KarenWaiteforSolvangCityCouncil.com

Lee Central Coast Newspapers | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | A11

Two seats on the Hancock College board of trustees are up for grabs this fall, attracting interest from both incumbents and a newcomer. Spanning five trustee areas across the Lompoc, Santa Maria, Santa Ynez and Cuyama valleys, each member is elected to fouryear terms on the college district’s governing board.

Area 5 trustee Greg Pensa, first elected in November 2010 for a four-year term, is running unopposed to represent voters in the Santa Ynez Valley and northern Lompoc Valley.

Area 3 Trustee Larry Lahr was elected to the board more than two decades ago, and is seeking re-election. Lahr, who represents southern Santa Maria and Guadalupe, faces a challenge from Guadalupe resident Jesse Ramirez.

Voters will also decide whether to support Measure Y, a $75 million facilities construction bond, placed on the ballot by Hancock College trustees.

College staff say the bond will help finance construction of the forthcoming Fine Arts Complex and improvements to physical education and athletics facilities on the Santa Maria campus, the Public Safety Training Complex in Lompoc and technical theater program facilities in Solvang.

Santa Ynez Joint Union High School District incumbent Jan Clevenger will vie for one of three seats on the board this fall, as Kyle Abello and Jerry L. Swanitz have opted against a re-election campaign. Clevenger faces a challenge from retired financial counselor Eileen Preston, freelance writer Lori Parker, retired teacher Tory Babcock, doctor John L. Baeke, association executive Elizabeth S. Breen, and district residents Carl Johnson, Jessica Yacoub, Eric J. Zivic and Tyler Sprague.

Christina Kazali and Stephen R. Jacobs are running unopposed for the Ballard Union School District board after Sandra Knight opted against running again.

Buellton Union School District board members Marcilo Sarquilla and Elaine

Alvarado, and challenger Jessie Skidmore, are running unopposed this fall after incumbent Joyce Ann Azevedo did not file. Appointed school board member Andrew Morgan will run unopposed for the remainder of his two-year term.

Voters in Buellton Union also will decide whether to approve an annual $99-perparcel tax for eight years.

College School District board members Debbie Goldsmith, Molly Carrillo-Walker and Craig Litle face no re-election challenge.

Appointee Demory Brown-Fordyce is running for one seat on the Los Olivos School District board. She faces no challenge after incumbent James R Lohnas chose not to seek re-election.

Benjamin Olmedo, appointed member of the Solvang School District board of education, and Meghan Steed Garvey are unopposed in their bid for one of three seats on the district’s board.

John Winckler, who was appointed to a vacancy on the district’s board, has filed to run for the remainder of his term.

A12 | Sunday, October 7, 2018 | Lee Central Coast Newspapers

Measures

likely that landlords will reduce the amount of rental housing offered, the value of rental housFrom A8 ing decreases, some renters will pay less for rent, and landlords repealed, thereby allowing cithave less income from rental ies and counties more authority housing. There will be impact on to limit the rental rates that property, sales, and income tax residential property owners revenues. Overall, the impact on may charge for new tenants, state and local governments will new construction, and singlebe reduced revenue in the tens to family homes? hundreds of millions of dollars THE SITUATION each year. The losses could be Thirty years ago 14 cities, less or more. mostly in the highly populated SUPPORTERS SAY parts of California, adopted rent The high cost of rent hurts control ordinances designed to seniors, families and anyone limit the amounts and frequency with a low or fixed income. This with which landlords could proposition will protect them. increase rents to their exist This proposition will allow ing tenants. local communities to decide In 1995 the state legislature whatever makes sense for their adopted the Costa Hawkins rental housing issues.

Rental Housing Act. This law OPPONENTS SAY limited the ordinances so that Rent control laws reduce the rent on single family homes the amount of rental property and buildings first rented out in available because landlords 1995 or later could not be conwill stop renting and does not trolled. Landlords could raise encourage more building. rent to market rates if a tenant This proposition allows the left the rental property. creation of new local bureauCourt decisions determined cracies with power to regulate that limits on rent increases rents on all types of residenmust not be so low that landtial property. lords do not receive a “fair rate MORE INFORMATION of return” on their investments.

Supporters: Yes on 10 In other words, the landlords AffordableHousingAct.org must be allowed to raise rent Opponents: No on Prop. 10 enough to receive some profit NoProp10.org each year.

Renters in California pay 50 Proposition 11‌ percent more than the national average. About 20 percent of Initiative Statute‌ Californians live in cities that Requires private-sector emerhave rent control. In the last two gency ambulance employees years more cities are seeking to remain on call during work to establish rent control ordinances. So far two have done so. breaks. Changes other conditions of employment.

Other cities placed rent control THE QUESTION: Should initiatives on their local ballots the Labor Code be amended that did not pass. to allow private ambulance THE PROPOSAL employees to remain on call This proposition repeals the during work breaks and to Costa Hawkins Rental Act. It exempt their employers from allows cities and counties to potential liability for violaregulate rents for whatever tions of existing law regarding type of housing property they work breaks? choose, no matter when it was THE SITUATION built or what type of building it California counties oversee is. It does not change existing local Emergency Medical Serrent control laws. It does not vices (EMS). Private ambulance create rent control laws. The providers (Providers) enter into proposition retains the landlord’s right to a fair rate of return contracts to perform EMS in a specific area, subject to perforon their investment. mance requirements. Periodic FISCAL EFFECTS contract renegotiations address The fiscal impact of this changes in Providers’ costs. proposition is difficult to Ambulances are geographically predict because it depends positioned based on service upon the content of any rent demand. When an ambulance control ordinances adopted is dispatched, other area ambuand upon the reaction of landlances are repositioned. lords and tenants to them. If Historically EMS personnel rent control is expanded it is

remain “on call” during work breaks, which are often interrupted by 911 calls or repositioning. In a 2016 case (Augustus) involving private security guards required to remain “on call” during rest breaks, the California Supreme Court held that such breaks do not comply with state labor law; rather they must be off-duty and uninterruptible (even in an emergency). The security guards were awarded penalties and damages.

Given the similarity between EMS personnel and Augustus, it appears probable that Provider personnel practices must change. Providers estimate that, relative to current practice, 25 percent more ambulances would be required to meet the requirements of Augustus.

THE PROPOSAL Prop. 11 would amend state labor laws applicable to Providers’ personnel, allowing them to remain on call throughout their breaks. It also would change several other rules regarding meal and rest breaks, while requiring Providers to operate enough ambulances to meet performance requirements.

Prop.11 would limit legal liability that Providers might face if the Augustus decision is applied to Providers’ personnel. Several lawsuits regarding the work break practices for ambulance employees are in the court system. The on call rules established by this proposition would be applied retroactively to such lawsuits. The measure also requires ambulance providers to offer EMS personnel additional training, education, counseling and services.

FISCAL EFFECTS The fiscal effects of Prop.11 are calculated on the assumption that Augustus will be held to apply to Provider personnel, including past period legal liability.

Prop. 11 would relieve Providers of the cost of operating more ambulances to cover off-duty breaks — potentially over $100 million annually. Other provisions might require Providers to ensure that there are more ambulances in an area. Providers that do not offer training and education at the levels required under Prop. 11 would have new costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.

Prop. 11 will result in local government net savings, likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, due to lower emergency ambulance contract costs.

SUPPORTERS SAY Prop. 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying medical personnel to be on call during their work breaks.

It is essential that emergency personnel are able to respond quickly and deliver lifesaving medical care during mass casualty events. Prop. 11 mandates that such personnel receive additional training to meet emergency standards.

OPPONENTS SAY No arguments have been filed against Prop. 11 MORE INFORMATION Supporters: Yes on 11—Californians for Emergency Preparedness & Safety YesOn11.org Opponents: At press time, there is no known campaign in opposition to this proposition.

whether produced within California or originating in other states.

By 2022, require that egg-laying hens in California be housed in cage-free housing systems, and that eggs from other states conform to California’s confinement standards in order to be sold in California.

Designate the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health jointly responsible for the measure’s implementation.

FISCAL EFFECTS Potential decrease in state income tax revenues from farm businesses due to expenses incurred to meet the space requirements, likely not more than several million dollars annually costs up to $10 million annually to enforce the measure.

State costs up to $10 million annually to enforce the measure.

Proposition 12‌ Consumer prices likely to INITIATIVE STATUTE‌ increase for eggs, pork, and Establishes new standards veal while farmers in Califorfor confinement of certain nia and other states change farm animals. their housing systems to meet Bans sale of certain nonthe measure. complying products.

SUPPORTERS SAY THE QUESTION: Should Proposition 12 would: the State revise its current Strengthen and clarify Califarm animal confinement laws fornia’s decade-old farm animal with new confinement space anti-cruelty law. standards for egg-laying hens, Prevent egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs, and calves raised breeding pigs, and veal calves for veal, and prohibit the sale from being housed inhuof eggs and meat that do not manely in small cages for their comply with these standards, entire lives. including those produced in Reduce the risk of people other states? being sickened by food poisonTHE SITUATION ing and factory farm pollution In 2008 California voters by preventing overcrowding of approved a ballot initiative to animals in small spaces. ban the confinement of eggOPPONENTS SAY laying hens, pregnant pigs, and Proposition 12: calves raised for veal in a manner Is not a truly cruelty-free that did not allow them to “turn alternative to current factory around freely, lie down, stand farm practices. up, and fully extend their wings Would face court or legislaor limbs.” The law took effect tive challenges from other states in 2015, but problems arose, regarding the ban on selling including complaints that the non-conforming eggs and meat. description of approved confineMandates full compliance by ment space was too vague, and a 2022, a too-narrow time frame lack of clarity about implemen- that could result in supply tation and enforcement. disruptions, price spikes, and THE PROPOSAL shortages of eggs, pork prodProposition 12 would: ucts, and veal.

By 2020, comply with the MORE INFORMATION specific standard measurements Supporters: Prevent Cruset out in the proposition for elty California cages of egg-laying hens, and PreventCrueltyCA.com calves raised for veal.

Opponents: Californians By 2020, ban the sale of eggs Against Cruelty, Cages, and meat in which egg-laying and Fraud hens, breeding pigs, and calves NoOnProposition12.org raised for veal are confined in areas smaller than a specific This information is provided by measurement by square feet, the League of Women Voters.