ATTACHMENT 1A

MEMORANDUM

To: North County Transit District Board of Directors Matthew O. Tucker, Executive Director

From: Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Christopher Townsend, President Richard Harmon, Senior Director

Date: December 3, 2018

Subject: Monthly Report—November 2018

SUMMARY

This memorandum is an overview of activities undertaken by Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) over the last month, working on behalf of the North County Transit District, including the following subjects:

• Legislative Activity and Updates o State Update ▪ Legislative Activity ▪ State Budget Update ▪ Wildfire Legislation

o Tracked Legislation

• Administrative Action and Updates o Newsom Administration o High-Speed Rail Hearing o November 2018 General Election Results

• Potential Funding Opportunities

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY AND UPDATES

State Update

Legislative Activity

The Legislature will hold its swearing-in Session on December 3. Members will be administered the oath of office and some will introduce their first pieces of legislation. If the current election

State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Central Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030

results hold (there is still one Assembly District that is very close with a Republican currently in the lead by 700 votes), Democrats will hold 60 seats in the Assembly and 29 in the Senate.

Legislators are able to introduce bills on December 3 and we are expecting several Members to make statements about their policy priorities. This will include legislation bringing back redevelopment in some form, as well as additional bills addressing the housing crisis.

The Senate will also be voting on a new Secretary following the retirement of Danny Alvarez. The Secretary of the Senate is the chief parliamentarian and keeper of legislative records, overseeing the drafting of bills and their presentation to the governor. The new Secretary will be Erika Contreras who currently serves as the Chief of Staff for Senator (D-Bell Gardens) and is someone we have worked with quite extensively.

In January, two current Senators (Ricardo Lara and Ted Gaines) will be sworn in to their new offices as the State’s Insurance Commissioner and Board of Equalization Member, respectively. With several Assembly Members likely to compete for the vacant Senate seats, there will be a domino effect of other special elections for whichever Assembly Member wins election.

State Budget Outlook

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) recently commented, “It is difficult to overstate how good the budget’s condition is today.” Unless the Legislator and incoming Governor choose to spend the surplus, the LAO estimates a $14.8 billion surplus this year. In fact, they also estimate if the Governor-Elect follows the fiscal track record of Governor Brown, there could be as much as $30 billion in a reserve fund by mid-2020.

While the size of the General Fund budget grew by approximately $70 billion during Governor Brown’s current term, he was generally conservative in creating new programs that could experience cuts in a future recession. Governor Brown—and many economic analysts—believe a recession could come by 2021.

Governor-Elect Newsom—in his June Primary victory speech—argued for universal health care, a “Marshall Plan” for affordable housing, and an emphasis on resources for aging, child poverty, college assistance and middle-class workforce efforts. Newsom has also expressed a desire to change the State’s tax structure to create less volatility based on high-income earners and the potential for expanding taxes to services.

Newsom’s transition team is currently working with Governor Brown’s Department of Finance to craft the proposed 2019-20 State Budget. The proposal is due by January 10, just after the inauguration.

Wildfire Legislation

This year, the Legislature and Governor approved Senate Bill 901 to provide funding for forest health and fire prevention activities, as well as options for utilities as they handle the liability of damages from devastating fires. The legislation, however, did not apply to fires in 2018.

2

Utilities such as PG&E have already seen stock prices plummet in the wake of the recent fires, risking their financial viability. Some lawmakers believe without stable utilities residents and ratepayers will see increased costs and uncertainty in energy availability.

Assembly Member Chris Holden, who chairs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, will be proposing legislation as early as the first week of December to provide some protection for at least PG&E following the Camp Fire in Butte County. Ultimately, the legislation appears designed to prevent a utility from going bankrupt in connection with the current wildfires, also protecting customers.

The proposal is likely to face stiff opposition from lawmakers and groups who argue utilities should be doing more to prevent their systems from causing devastating fires.

Tracked Legislation

Once the Legislature reconvenes in December, we will include legislation relevant to the District.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND UPDATES

Newsom Administration

Governor-Elect began the effort to transition into his Administration following the results on Election Day. The gubernatorial transition process involves a couple of key processes—bringing in new staff members and being brought up to speed on current activities and issues.

On November 9, Newsom appointed Ann O’Leary as Chief of Staff and Ana Matosantos as Cabinet Secretary. O’Leary was a policy advisor and legislative director for Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign and time in the U.S. Senate. Matosantos worked as the Director of the Department of Finance for both Governor Brown and Schwarzenegger. She is largely in charge of the transition process and, as Cabinet Secretary, will coordinate activities between the Governor’s Office and all of the agencies and department.

There are approximately 3,100 governor-appointed positions in State government. While not all of these will be filled at once, many of the key policy and agency positions will begin to be announced starting in December as the new Administration prepares for taking over in January.

In mid-November, Governor Brown filled a final vacancy on the California Supreme Court. He appointed Joshua Groban, who has served as Brown’s legal counsel and advisor on judicial appointments.

High-Speed Rail Hearing

On November 29, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) and Assembly Transportation Committee conducted a hearing to discuss the recent audit from the California State Auditor regarding the High-Speed Rail Authority’s (Authority) contracting and cost control practices. The recently-released report concluded that the Authority's flawed decision making regarding the start

3

of high-speed rail system construction in the Central Valley and its ongoing poor contract management for a wide range of high-value contracts have contributed to billions of dollars in cost overruns for completing the system.

According to the report, the Authority began construction in the Central Valley in October 2013 despite being aware of the risks associated with beginning construction early—the fact that the Authority had not acquired sufficient land for building, had not determined how it would relocate utility systems, and had not obtained agreements with external stakeholders. These unmitigated risks have contributed to $600 million in costs overruns thus far for the three active Central Valley construction projects, with another $1.6 billion in additional costs needed to complete the projects. The Authority has cited the terms of a 2010 federal grant—which originally required construction to be complete by 2017—as the primary factor in its decision to begin construction when it did. However, the Auditor determined that even with a grant deadline extension until December 2022, the Authority could miss the new deadline unless Central Valley construction progresses twice as fast as it has to date. Missing the deadline could expose the State to the risk of having to pay back as much as $3.5 billion in federal funds.

The Authority has partially offset Central Valley cost overruns, as well as those projected elsewhere in the system, by planning to share existing rail infrastructure where possible. However, the Authority acknowledges that it has identified every feasible option to do so and therefore cannot continue to use this approach to offset costs. Moreover, despite its challenging financial situation, we determined that the Authority has failed to implement sound contract management practices. As a result, it cannot demonstrate that the large amounts it has spent on its contracts have been necessary or appropriate.

The committees spent more than an hour and a half hearing testimony from the State Auditor and her staff, as well as asking questions about the audit. Most legislators expressed disappointment with the status of the project and shared the concerns about the timeline for completion and potential for clawback of funding by the federal government.

The Authority was represented by Vice Chair Tom Richards and Chief Operating Officer Joe Hedges. Their testimony focused on acknowledging there were risks associated with the project from the outset and pointing to examples of working to managing those risks. They disagreed with the characterization of increased costs as “overruns”, instead arguing they represented the true cost of the unknown elements of the project. Vice Chair Richards also recognized they may prepare a Plan B and ask the Federal Railroad Administration for an extension.

Legislators did not appear to be satisfied with the responses from the Authority representatives and spent nearly two hours asking further questions. After the hearing, Assembly Member Jim Frazier—who chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee—called for the resignation of Authority Chair Dan Richard.

4

November 2018 General Election Results

On Tuesday, November 6th, millions of Californians cast their ballot in the State’s General Election. By the morning after the election, over 7.6 million ballots had been cast in races across the State, with hundreds of thousands of provisional, damaged, and late absentee ballots to be tabulated prior to the election being certified on December 14.

State Outcomes

As most polls predicted, the race for Governor was not a close contest and Gavin Newsom was elected by a double-digit margin. On January 7th, Governor-Elect Newsom will be sworn into office as the 40th , but he will begin working with Governor Brown immediately to help ensure a smooth transition. Prior to his swearing in, Newsom will put his key staff into place, begin the process of installing personnel in State agencies and departments, as well as work to provide details for the policy agenda that he will pursue in 2019. It is unlikely that the Governor-Elect will look to unwind many of the policies put into place by his predecessor, but instead he will likely look to craft new policies to address issues of affordable housing, homelessness, and income inequality.

In addition to the race for Governor, voters cast ballots for the seven other State Constitutional offices. Going into Election Day, two races that were anticipated to be close contests were the offices of Insurance Commissioner and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Insurance Commissioner race attracted significant attention, as it represented the first time that a candidate with a No Party Preference designation had advanced through the top two primary for statewide office. As of this writing, State Senator Ricardo Lara is leading Steve Poizner 52.7% - 40.3%. If this lead holds, Lara will represent the first openly gay candidate to be elected to statewide office. Lara received strong backing from traditional Democratic supporters, including organized labor who have been supportive of Lara’s efforts to advance single-payer health care in California.

The contest for State Superintendent of Public Instruction also garnered substantial attention, as the race is a key part of the ongoing power struggle between school reform advocates and public teacher unions. It is also likely to be the second most costly statewide race, just behind the contest for Governor. Former Los Angeles charter school executive Marshall Tuck, who also ran for the Superintendent position in 2014, initially maintained a lead over Assembly Member . Tuck’s support from charter school advocates and endorsements from such national education figures as former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan almost proved to be enough to overcome Thurmond’s strong union support, but currently Thurmond leads 50.8% - 49.2%.

Federal Outcomes

United States Senate contests in other states provided Republicans with continued control of the chamber and, with the special election of Cindy Hyde-Smith last week, a six-seat advantage. Although Republican control was expected, Senate Republicans can consider this election a win given the number of seats flipped away from incumbent Democrats.

Senate Republicans picked up four seats after defeating embattled incumbents Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND, losing to Kevin Cramer) Claire McCaskill (D-MO, losing to Josh Hawley), Joe Donnelly (D-IN, losing to Mike Braun), and Ben Nelson (D-FL, losing to Rick Scott). Joe Manchin (D-WV)

5

and Jon Tester (D-MT) held onto their seats in tight races in red states. Republicans lost two seats —Dean Heller (R-NV), who lost his seat by a wider margin than predicted to Jackie Rosen, and the seat previously held by retiring Jeff Flake (R-AZ), which was won in an upset by Democrat Kyrsten Sinema. Although the Republican pickup was significant, the two Democratic seat flips brings the GOP’s net gain to two seats in the Senate.

The increased Republican majority in the Senate will ensure that President Trump’s nominees will continue to get a friendly reception in Congress, since the Senate is the only chamber that must approve Presidential nominees. Further, a larger majority means that Republicans can afford to lose more of their own party’s votes on crucial items like judicial nominations—before they must try to get votes from Democrats crossing the aisle. Over the next two years, expect to see President Trump announce more nominations, including nominees who are more conservative or controversial. In the coming weeks and months, expect to see changes in the Cabinet—rumors have circulated of imminent Trump Administration departures, which may be more numerous now that President Trump now has more control over their replacements.

Now that all races have been tallied, Democrats have flipped 40 seats in the House of Representatives, 17 more than the 23 seats they needed to take control of the House of Representatives. The implications of the change in House majority are significant and will be evident next year.

Statewide Ballot Measures

• Proposition 1: Affordable Housing Bond o Yes—56.1% o No—43.9%

• Proposition 2: Mental Health Funds for Housing (No Place Like Home) o Yes—63.3% o No—36.7%

• Proposition 3: Water Bond o Yes—49.2% o No—50.8%

• Proposition 4: Children’s Hospital Bond o Yes—62.6% o No—37.4%

• Proposition 5: Change to Proposition 13 for Older/Disabled Homeowners o Yes—40.3% o No—59.7%

• Proposition 6: Gas Tax Repeal o Yes—43.2% o No—56.8%

6

• Proposition 7: Daylight Savings Time o Yes—59.8% o No—40.2%

• Proposition 8: Dialysis Clinic Profit Changes o Yes—40.0% o No—60.0%

• Proposition 10: Costa-Hawkins Repeal o Yes—40.5% o No—59.5%

• Proposition 11: Paramedic Break Time o Yes—59.7% o No—40.3%

• Proposition 12: Bigger Cages for Farm Animals o Yes—62.4% o No—37.6%

State Constitutional Officers

• Governor o Gavin Newsom (D)—61.9% o John Cox (R)—38.1%

• Lieutenant Governor o (D)—56.5% o Ed Hernandez (D)—43.5%

• Secretary of State o (D)—64.3% o Mark Meuser (R)—35.7%

• Controller o (D)—65.4% o Konstantinos Roditis (R)—34.6%

• Treasurer o (D)—64.0% o Greg Conlon (R)—36.0%

• Attorney General o (D)—63.5% o Steven Bailey (R)—36.5%

7

• Insurance Commissioner o Ricardo Lara (D)—52.7% o Steve Poizner (NPP)—47.3%

• Superintendent of Public Instruction (Non-partisan Office) o Marshall Tuck—49.2% o Tony Thurmond—50.8%

• Board of Equalization Member, District One o Ted Gaines (R)—51.5% o Tom Hallinan (D)—48.5%

• Board of Equalization Member, District Two o Malia Cohen (D)—72.7% o Mark Burns (R)—27.3%

• Board of Equalization Member, District Three o Tony Vazquez (D)—69.9% o Rick Marshall (R)—30.1%

• Board of Equalization Member, District Four o Joel Anderson (R)—48.1% o Mike Schaefer (D)—51.9%

State Senate

In the State Senate, the Democrats went into the election needing to pick up one seat to secure a ⅔ super-majority. Both the Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans have focused most of their efforts on three seats: SD 12, SD 14, and SD 34. Senate District 12, currently held by termed- out Senator Anthony Cannella, was viewed by many as the Democrats best chance to pick up the seat they needed for the super majority. In neighboring SD 14, Democrat appears to have beaten incumbent Republican Senator Andy Vidak. If the Democrats are able to hold this lead, they will hold a super-majority in both the Senate and the Assembly and will be able to approve tax measures, bills with urgency clauses, and place measures on the ballot without any Republican support.

In Southern California, SD 34 took longer for results to come in for Senate Democrats. Incumbent Senator Janet Nguyen appears to have lost to . If all of these results hold, the makeup of the State Senate heading into 2019 will be 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans.

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE (pending certification of election results)

Senate District 2 Senate District 4 Mike McGuire (D)* – 68.2% (R)* – 57.1% Veronica Jacobi (D) – 31.8% Phillip Kim (D) – 42.9%

8

Senate District 6 Senate District 8 (D)* – 69.5% (R) – 59.6% Eric Frame (NPP) – 30.5% Paulina Miranda (D) – 40.4%

Senate District 10 Senate District 12 (D)* – 75.6% (D) – 54.1% Victor San Vicente (R) – 24.4% Rob Poythress (R) – 45.9%

Senate District 14 Senate District 16 Andy Vidak (R)* – 44.3% (R) – 64.3% Melissa Hurtado (D) – 55.7% Ruth Musser-Lopez (D) – 35.7%

Senate District 18 Senate District 20 Bob Hertzberg (D)* – 78.1% (D)* – 69.4% Rudy Melendez (R) – 21.9% Matthew Munson (R) – 30.6%

Senate District 22 Senate District 24 Mike Eng (D) – 47.7% (D) – 66.9% (D) – 52.3% Peter Choi (D) – 33.1%

Senate District 26 Senate District 28 Ben Allen (D)* – 77.2% Jeff Stone (R)* – 52.0% Baron Bruno (NPP) – 22.8% Joy Silver (D) – 48.0%

Senate District 30 Senate District 32 Holly Mitchell (D)* – 100% Rita Topalian (R) – 33.1% (D) – 66.9%

Senate District 34 Senate District 36 Janet Nguyen (R)* – 49.4% (R)* – 51.9% Tom Umberg (D) – 50.6% Marggie Castellano (D) – 48.1%

Senate District 38 Senate District 40 (R) – 53.3% (D)* – 65.4% Jeff Griffith (D) – 46.7% Luis Vargas (R) – 34.6%

* Indicates incumbent

9

State Assembly

Going into Election Day, Assembly Democrats already held a ⅔ super-majority and it appears that they are poised to gain several additional seats. If the current results hold, the makeup of the Assembly going into 2019 will be 60 Democrats and 20 Republicans. The new seats that were picked up by the Democrats include a win by Tasha Boerner Horvath in AD 76, which was not a surprise, as she was one of two Democrats advanced to the General Election for the seat currently held by Republican Rocky Chavez. In AD 40, current San Bernardino County Supervisor James Ramos captured a victory in the seat that was being vacated by Assembly Member Steinorth.

Two additional seats held by incumbent Republican Assembly Members Dante Acosta and Matt Harper ultimately appear to be leading by Democrats.

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY (pending certification of election results)

Assembly District 1 Assembly District 2 (R)* – 63.1% Jim Wood (D)* – 67.5% Caleen Sisk (D) – 36.9% Matt Heath (R) – 32.5%

Assembly District 3 Assembly District 4 James Gallagher (R)* – 60.2% Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D)* – 75.0% Sonia Aery (D) – 39.8% Brandon Nelson (L) – 25.0%

Assembly District 5 Assembly District 6 Frank Bigelow (R)* – 59.9% (R)* – 58.0% Carla Neal (D) – 40.1% Jacalyn Smith (D) – 42.0%

Assembly District 7 Assembly District 8 Kevin McCarty (D)* – 71.3% Ken Cooley (D)* – 55.8% Scott Schmidt (R) – 28.7% Melinda Avey (R) – 44.2%

Assembly District 9 Assembly District 10 Jim Cooper (D)* – 68.3% Marc Levine (D)* – 73.0% Harry He (D) – 31.7% Dan Monte (D) – 27.0%

Assembly District 11 Assembly District 12 Jim Frazier (D)* – 61.5% Heath Flora (R)* – 60.1% Lisa Romero (R) – 38.5% Robert Chase (D) – 39.9%

Assembly District 13 Assembly District 14 (D)* – 65.3% Tim Grayson (D)* – 71.6% Antonio Garcia (R) – 34.7% Aasim Yahya (D) – 28.4%

10

Assembly District 15 Assembly District 16 Buffy Wicks (D) – 53.6% Catherine Baker (R)* – 51.0% Jovanka Beckles (D) – 46.4% Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D) – 49.0%

Assembly District 17 Assembly District 18 David Chiu (D)* – 75.5% (D)* – 88.9% Alejandro Fernandez (D) – 24.5% Stephen Slauson (R) – 11.1%

Assembly District 19 Assembly District 20 Phil Ting (D)* – 83.7% Bill Quirk (D)* – 77.4% Keith Bogdon (R) – 16.3% Joseph Grcar (R) – 22.6%

Assembly District 21 Assembly District 22 Adam Gray (D)* – 71.3% (D)* – 76.8% Justin Quigley (L) - 28.7% Christina Laskowski (R) – 23.2%

Assembly District 23 Assembly District 24 Jim Patterson (R)* – 59.4% Marc Berman (D)* – 76.6% Aileen Rizo (D) – 40.6% Alex Glew (R) – 23.4%

Assembly District 25 Assembly District 26 Kansen Chu (D)* – 74.3% Devon Mathis (R)* – 58.1% Bob Brunton (R) – 25.7% Jose Sigala (D) – 41.9%

Assembly District 27 Assembly District 28 Ash Kalra (D)* – 76.3% Evan Low (D)* – 71.1% G. Burt Lancaster (R) – 23.7% Michael Snyder (R) – 28.9%

Assembly District 29 Assembly District 30 Mark Stone (D)* – 71.6% Robert Rivas (D) – 68.1% Vicki Nohrden (R) – 28.4% Neil Kitchens (R) – 31.9%

Assembly District 31 Assembly District 32 Joaquin Arambula (D)* – 64.8% Justin Mendes (R) – 43.5% Lupe Espinoza (R) – 35.2% Rudy Salas (D)* – 56.5%

Assembly District 33 Assembly District 34 Jay Obernolte (R)* – 60.3% Vince Fong (R)* – 70.7% Socorro Cisneros (D) – 39.7% Nick Nicita (D) – 29.3%

Assembly District 35 Assembly District 36 Jordan Cunningham (R)* – 56.1% Tom Lackey (R)* – 52.1% Bill Ostrander (D) – 43.9% Steve Fox (D) – 47.9%

11

Assembly District 37 Assembly District 38 Monique Limon (D)* – 80.3% Dante Acosta (R)* – 48.5% David Norrdin (D) – 19.7% Christy Smith (D) – 51.5%

Assembly District 39 Assembly District 40 Luz Maria Rivas (D)* – 77.7% Henry Gomez Nickel (R) – 40.6% Ricardo Antonio Benitez (R) – 22.3% James Ramos (D) – 59.4%

Assembly District 41 Assembly District 42 Chris Holden (D)* – 64.2% DeniAntionette Mazingo (D) – 44.4% Alan Reynolds (NPP) – 35.8% Chad Mayes (R)* – 55.6%

Assembly District 43 Assembly District 44 Laura Friedman (D)* – 100% Jacqui Irwin (D)* – 58.7% Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy (R) – 41.3%

Assembly District 45 Assembly District 46 Jesse Gabriel (D)* – 70.3% Adrin Nazarian (D)* – 79.3% Justin Clark (R) – 29.7% Roxanne Beckford Hoge (R) – 20.7%

Assembly District 47 Assembly District 48 (D)* – 100% Blanco Rubio (D)* – 100%

Assembly District 49 Assembly District 50 Ed Chau (D)* – 71.2% Richard Bloom (D)* – 100% Burton Brink (R) – 28.8%

Assembly District 51 Assembly District 52 Wendy Carrillo (D)* – 86.6% Freddie Rodriguez (D)* – 68.6% Christopher Stare (L) - 13.4% Toni Holle (R) – 31.4%

Assembly District 53 Assembly District 54 Miguel Santiago (D)* – 71.4% -Dove (D)* – 62.3% Kevin Hee Young Jang (D) – 28.6% Tepring Piquado (D) – 37.7%

Assembly District 55 Assembly District 56 Phillip Chen (R)* – 54.9% Eduardo Garcia (D)* – 64.3% Gregg Fritchle (D) – 45.1% Jeff Gonzalez (R) – 35.7%

Assembly District 57 Assembly District 58 Ian Calderon (D)* – 64.9% Cristina Garcia (D)* – 70.4% Jessica Martinez (R) – 35.1% Mike Simpfederfer (R) – 29.6%

Assembly District 59 Assembly District 60 Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D)* – 66.9% Bill Essayli (R) – 46.5% Leslie Hagan-Morgan (D) – 33.1% Sabrina Cervantes (D)* – 53.5%

12

Assembly District 61 Assembly District 62 Jose Medina (D)* – 66.9% Autumn Burke (D)* – 82.9% Mohammad-Ali Mazarei (R) – 33.1% Al Hernandez (R) – 17.1%

Assembly District 63 Assembly District 64 Anthony Rendon (D)* – 54.3% Mike Gipson (D)* – 84.7% Maria Estrada (D) – 45.7% Theresa Sanford (R) - 15.3%

Assembly District 65 Assembly District 66 Sharon Quirk-Silva (D)* – 57.2% Al Muratsuchi (D)* – 60.5% Alexandria Coronado (R) – 42.8% Frank Scotto (R) – 39.5%

Assembly District 67 Assembly District 68 (R)* – 61.3% Steven Choi (R)* – 53.1% Michelle Singleton (D) – 38.7% Michelle Duman (D) – 46.9%

Assembly District 69 Assembly District 70 Tom Daly (D)* – 75.2% Patrick O’Donnell (D)* – 72.9% Autumn Browne (L) – 24.8% Honor Robson (LIB) – 27.1%

Assembly District 71 Assembly District 72 Randy Voepel (R)* – 61.0% Josh Lowenthal (D) – 48.4% James Elia (D) – 39.0% Tyler Diep (R) – 51.6%

Assembly District 73 Assembly District 74 William Brough (R)* – 56.2% Matthew Harper (R)* – 47.3% Scott Rhinehart (D) – 43.8% Cottie Petrie-Norris (D) – 52.7%

Assembly District 75 Assembly District 76 (R)* – 56.5% Elizabeth Warren (D) – 44.9% Alan Geraci (D) – 43.5% Tasha Boerner Horvath (D) – 55.1%

Assembly District 77 Assembly District 78 Brian Maienschein (R)* – 50.2% Todd Gloria (D)* – 71.1% Sunday Gover (D) – 49.8% Maggie Campbell (R) – 28.9%

Assembly District 79 Assembly District 80 Shirley Webber (D)* – 66.4% Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher (D)* – 74.5% John Moore (R) – 33.6% Lincoln Pickard (R) – 25.5%

* Indicates incumbent

13

United States Senate

As expected, U.S. Senator defeated State Senator Kevin De Leon, though by a slimmer voting majority than expected (54.3% - 45.7%). This will likely be Senator Feinstein’s final six-year term, having served since her first election in 1992. While this race did not impact the overall balance of the U.S. Senate, it solidifies the Democratic hold on the seat and retains Feinstein’s seniority, which is crucial for impactful action in that chamber.

House of Representatives

Democrats will now comprise all House leadership, including Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and appropriate deputies. After the Democratic Caucus selected current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as their nominee for Speaker, it is likely she will return to hold the Speaker’s gavel once again after a full House vote on the floor.

House leadership also controls what legislation receives floor votes and when. Although Republicans will still control the Senate, Democrats will be able to control the ideological perspective of bills they send to the Senate for consideration, and whether Senate-approved bills receive a vote on the House floor. Expect this to manifest as a slew of liberal House-approved bills that die in the Senate, but will have the most effect on the appropriations process, where the Democrats will have a better negotiating position for higher funding for their priorities.

Democrats will also have control over committees, allowing them to choose hearing topics and decide which bills receive markups. Although the Senate can still kill any House legislation, committee leadership gives Democrats the power, budget, staff time, and resources to set the narrative on a variety of topics, putting Republicans on the defensive. Possibly most influential, Democrats on relevant committees will also have investigative power, which they will almost certainly use to investigate Trump Administration officials and try to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Although Republicans lost the House, President Trump has already said that he sees the midterm elections as a “big win” and a national vote of confidence because of the Senate outcome. Although there will be roadblocks, expect the President to continue to pursue the policy priorities Republicans were not able to pass in the last Congress, including additional tax cuts for the middle class, stricter immigration laws, and increased funding for a wall along the southern border with Mexico.

In California, several districts were targeted as key races by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, ratcheting up the national spotlight and campaign spending. Ultimately, results are showing losses for Republican incumbents, including Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Steve Knight, Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher, as well as three former Republican districts.

14

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – CALIFORNIA DELEGATION (pending certification of election results)

Congressional District 1 Congressional District 2 Doug La Malfa (R)* – 54.9% Jared Huffman (D)* – 76.7% Audrey Denney (D) – 45.1% Dale Mensing (R) – 23.3%

Congressional District 3 Congressional District 4 John Garamendi (D)* – 58.0% Tom McClintock (R)* – 54.2% Charlie Schaupp (R) – 42.0% Jessica Morse (D) – 45.8%

Congressional District 5 Congressional District 6 Mike Thompson (D)* – 78.4% Doris Matsui (D)* – 80.4% Anthony Mills (NPP) – 21.6% Jrmar Jefferson (D) – 19.6%

Congressional District 7 Congressional District 8 Ami Bera (D)* – 55.0% Paul Cook (R)* – 60.0% Andrew Grant (R) – 45.0% Tim Donnelly (R) – 40.0%

Congressional District 9 Congressional District 10 Jerry McNerney (D)* – 56.4% Jeff Denham (R)* – 47.8% Marla Livengood (R) – 43.6% Josh Harder (D) – 52.2%

Congressional District 11 Congressional District 12 Mark DeSaulnier (D)* – 74.1% Nancy Pelosi (D)* – 86.8% John Fitzgerald (R) – 25.9% Lisa Remmer (R) – 13.2%

Congressional District 13 Congressional District 14 Barbara Lee (D)* – 88.4% Jackie Speier (D)* – 79.2% Laura Wells (G) – 11.6% Cristina Osmena (R) – 20.8%

Congressional District 15 Congressional District 16 Eric Swalwell (D)* – 73.0% Jim Costa (D)* – 57.5% Rudy Peters (R) – 27.0% Elizabeth Heng (R) – 42.5%

Congressional District 17 Congressional District 18 Ro Khanna (D)* – 75.3% Anna Eshoo (D)* – 74.5% Ron Cohen (R) – 24.7% Christine Russell (R) – 25.5%

Congressional District 19 Congressional District 20 Zoe Lofgren (D)* – 73.7% Jimmy Panetta (D)* – 81.3% Justin James Aguilera (R) – 26.3% Ronald Paul Kabat (R) – 18.7%

Congressional District 21 Congressional District 22 David Valadao (R)* – 49.7% Devin Nunes (R)* – 52.8% TJ Cox (D) – 50.3% Andrew Janz (D) – 47.2%

15

Congressional District 23 Congressional District 24 Kevin McCarthy (R)* – 63.8% Salud Carbajal (D)* – 58.1% Tatiana Matta (D) – 36.2% Justin Fareed (R) – 41.9%

Congressional District 25 Congressional District 26 Steve Knight (R)* – 45.6% Julia Brownley (D)* – 61.8% Katie Hill (D) – 54.4% Antonio Sabato Jr. (R) – 38.2%

Congressional District 27 Congressional District 28 Judy Chu (D)* – 79.2% Adam Schiff (D)* – 78.4% Bryan Witt (D) – 20.8% Johnny Nalbandian (R) – 21.6%

Congressional District 29 Congressional District 30 Tony Cardenas (D)* – 80.6% Brad Sherman (D)* – 73.4% Benito Benny Bernal (R) – 19.4% Mark Reed (R) – 26.6%

Congressional District 31 Congressional District 32 Sean Flynn (R) – 41.4% Grace Napolitano (D)* – 68.8% Pete Aguilar (D)* – 58.6% Joshua Scott (R) – 31.2%

Congressional District 33 Congressional District 34 Ted Lieu (D)* – 70.0% Jimmy Gomez (D)* – 72.5% Kenneth Weston Wright (R) – 30.0% Kenneth Mejia (GRN) – 27.5%

Congressional District 35 Congressional District 36 Norma Torres (D)* – 69.4% Raul Ruiz (D)* – 58.6% Christian Valiente (R) – 30.6% Kimberlin Brown Pelzer (R) – 41.4%

Congressional District 37 Congressional District 38 Karen Bass (D)* – 89.1% Linda Sanchez (D)* – 68.9% Ron Bassilian (R) – 10.9% Ryan Downing (R) – 31.1%

Congressional District 39 Congressional District 40 Young Kim (R) – 48.4% Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)* – 77.3% Gil Cisneros (D) – 51.6% Rodolfo Cortes Barragan (GRN) – 22.7%

Congressional District 41 Congressional District 42 Mark Takano (D)* – 64.3% Ken Calvert (R)* – 56.9% Aja Smith (R) – 35.7% Julia Peacock (D) – 43.1%

Congressional District 43 Congressional District 44 Maxine Waters (D) – 77.7% Nanette Barragan (D)* – 68.3% Omar Navarro (R) – 22.3% Aja Brown (D) – 31.7%

16

Congressional District 45 Congressional District 46 Mimi Walters (R)* – 47.9% Lou Correa (D)* – 69.1% Katie Porter (D) – 52.1% Russell Rene Lambert (R) – 30.9%

Congressional District 47 Congressional District 48 Alan Lowenthal (D)* – 64.9% Dana Rohrabacher (R)* – 46.4% John Briscoe (R) – 35.1% Harley Rouda (D) – 53.6%

Congressional District 49 Congressional District 50 Diane Harkey (R) – 43.9% Duncan Hunter (R)* – 51.8% Mike Levin (D) – 56.1% Ammar Campa-Najjar (D) – 48.2%

Congressional District 51 Congressional District 52 Juan Vargas (D)* – 70.8% Scott Peters (D)* – 63.8% Juan Hidalgo, Jr. (R) – 29.2% Omar Qudrat (R) – 36.2%

Congressional District 53 Susan Davis (D)* – 68.9% Morgan Murtaugh (R) – 31.1%

* Indicates incumbent

17

Local Tax Measures

The following is an overview of the local tax measures on the November 6, 2018 General Election ballot and is intended to provide a broad picture of the various measures. In most cases, the description provides a snapshot of the proposed tax increase, but it should be noted that many taxes—particularly parcel and marijuana taxes—are more complicated in their implementation.

Included below are various taxes, including utility user taxes, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, parcel taxes, businesses taxes, and marijuana taxes. Bond measures and school-related measures are not included. Measures currently passing are noted in green and those currently failing are in red.

Utility User Tax Measures

Utility user taxes (UUTs) are taxes that cities and counties impose on the consumption of certain utility services, including electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone, sanitation and cable television. In the table below, the Impact reflects the new or increased level of the UUT, or in the cases of a transfer, the amount being requested for transfer to a general fund.

Jurisdiction Name Type Impact City of Arvin Measure L Utility User Tax 7% City of Canyon Lake Measure S Utility User Tax Renewal 3.95% City of Colton Measure V Utility Revenue Transfer 20% City of McFarland Measure P Utility User Tax 5% City of Parlier Measure K Utility User Tax 4% City of Pinole Measure C Utility User Tax Extension 8%

Sales Tax Measures

A significant number of jurisdictions are proposing increases and/or renewals and extensions to their sales taxes. Faced with increasing costs of services and employee benefits, sales taxes are viewed as the most direct route for revenues. General sales taxes only require a simple majority approval by voters, but are often difficult to pass.

The Impact column below reflects the proposed percent increase to the existing sales tax level, although many of the renewal and extension measures are proposing the same rate.

GENERAL SALES TAX Jurisdiction Name Type Impact City of Alameda Measure F Sales Tax 0.5% City of Albany Measure L Sales Tax Renewal 0.5% City of Alturas Measure L Sales Tax 0.5% City of Antioch Measure W Sales Tax Renewal 1% City of Bakersfield Measure N Sales Tax 1% City of Barstow Measure Q Sales Tax 1% City of Burbank Measure P Sales Tax 0.75%

18

City of Carpinteria Measure X Sales Tax 1.25% City of Coalinga Measure J Sales Tax 1% City of Covina Measure CC Sales Tax 0.75% City of Cudahy Measure R Sales Tax 0.75% City of Culver City Measure C Sales Tax 0.25% City of Dixon Measure N Sales Tax 0.5% City of Folsom Measure E Sales Tax 0.5% City of Fort Bragg Measure H Sales Tax 0.375% City of Fowler Measure N Sales Tax 1% City of Garden Grove Measure O Sales Tax 1% City of Glendale Measure S Sales Tax 0.75% City of Gonzales Measure O Sales Tax 0.5% County of Humboldt Measure O Sales Tax Renewal 0.5% City of Kerman Measure M Sales Tax 1% County of Kern (Unincorporated) Measure I Sales Tax 1% City of King City Measure K Sales Tax 0.5% City of La Puente Measure LP Sales Tax 0.5% City of Lawndale Measure L Sales Tax 0.75% City of Lodi Measure L Sales Tax 0.5% City of Los Banos Measure H Sales Tax 0.5% City of Los Gatos Measure G Sales Tax 0.125% City of Marina Measure N Sales Tax 0.5% City of Martinez Measure X Sales Tax 0.5% City of Mendota Measure C Sales Tax 1% City of Murrieta Measure T Sales Tax 1% City of Norco Measure R Sales Tax 1% City of Oceanside Measure X Sales Tax 0.5% City of Oroville Measure U Sales Tax 1% City of Paradise Measure V Sales Tax Renewal 0.5% City of Pasadena Measure I Sales Tax 0.75% City of Placentia Measure U Sales Tax 1% City of Pomona Measure PG Sales Tax 0.75% City of Port Hueneme Measure U Sales Tax 1% City of Porterville Measure I Sales Tax 1% City of Red Bluff Measure A Sales Tax 0.25% City of Redwood City Measure RR Sales Tax 0.5% City of Rio Dell Measure J Sales Tax 1% City of Roseville Measure B Sales Tax 0.5% City of San Fernando Measure A Sales Tax Renewal 0.5% City of Santa Ana Measure X Sales Tax 1.5% County of Santa Clara Measure A Sales Tax Renewal 0.125% County of Santa Cruz Measure G Sales Tax 0.5% City of Santa Fe Springs Measure Y Sales Tax 1% City of Santa Maria Measure U Sales Tax Renewal 1%

19

City of Seal Beach Measure BB Sales Tax 1% City of Sebastopol Measure Q Sales Tax Renewal 0.5% City of West Sacramento Measure N Sales Tax 0.25% City of Wildomar Measure AA Sales Tax 1% County of Yuba Measure K Sales Tax 1%

The proposed measures in the table below are sales taxes for specific services and uses, including public safety and transportation. By specifying the use of the sales tax, voters often are more supportive of the tax, however they must be approved by 2/3rds of the electorate.

SALES TAXES FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Jurisdiction Name Type Impact City of Angels Measure C City Facility and Services Sales Tax 0.5% City of Chowchilla Measure N Public Safety Sales Tax 1% City of Eureka Measure I Road Repair Sales Tax 0.25% City of Fresno Measure P Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts 0.375% City of Laguna Beach Measure P Emergency Response and Fire 1% Safety Sales Tax County of Marin Measure AA Transportation Sales Tax Renewal 0.5% City of Monterey Measure S Street and Infrastructure Sales Tax 1% Renewal County of San Benito Measure G Transportation Sales Tax 1% County of San Mateo Measure W Roads and Transit Sales Tax 0.5% City of Santa Rosa Measure O Fire Recovery Sales Tax 0.25% County of Sonoma Measure M Parks and Conservation Sales Tax 0.125%

Transient Occupancy Tax Measures

Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is charged to travelers when they rent accommodations (a room, rooms, entire home, or other living space) in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging unless the stay is for a period of 30 days or more.

The Impact column below reflects either the initial establishment percentage of the TOT, or, in most cases, the current and proposed increased level of the tax.

Jurisdiction Name Type Impact City of American Canyon Measure H Hotel Tax for Housing 12-13% City of Atwater Measure C Hotel Tax 8-10% City of Belmont Measure KK Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Blue Lake Measure H Hotel Tax 10% County of Calaveras Measure G Hotel Tax 6-12% City of Calexico Measure J Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Capitola Measure J Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Colma Measure PP Hotel Tax 12% City of Daly City Measure VV Hotel Tax 10-13%

20

County of Del Norte Measure C Hotel Tax for Crescent City Harbor 8-10% City of Foster City Measure TT Hotel Tax 9.5-12% City of Indian Wells Measure K Hotel Tax 11.25-12.25% City of Los Altos Measure D Hotel Tax 11-14% City of Manteca Measure J Hotel Tax 9-12% City of Marina Measure P Hotel Tax 12-14% County of Mariposa Measure M Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Milpitas Measure R Hotel Tax 10-14% City of Morgan Hill Measure H Hotel Tax 10-11% City of Napa Measure F Hotel Tax for Housing 12-13% City of Orland Measure E Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Pacific Grove Measure U Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Palo Alto Measure E Hotel Tax 14-15.5% City of San Carlos Measure QQ Hotel Tax 10-14% City of San Clemente Measure W Hotel Tax Increase and Expansion 10-12.5% City of Sausalito Measure L Hotel Tax 12-14% City of Scotts Valley Measure N Hotel Tax 10-11% City of Sebastopol Measure R Hotel Tax 10-12% City of Sonoma Measure S Hotel Tax 10-13% City of South San Francisco Measure FF Hotel Tax 10-14% City of St. Helena Measure E Hotel Tax for Housing 12-13% City of Sunnyvale Measure K Hotel Tax 10.5-12.5% City of Tustin Measure CC Hotel Tax 10-13% City of Watsonville Measure O Hotel Tax 11-12% City of West Marin Measure W Hotel Tax 10-14% City of Yountville Measure S Hotel Tax for Housing 12-13%

Parcel, Real Estate and Other Tax Measures (Non-School)

Parcel taxes are a form of special property tax, which must be paid by the owners of parcels, or units, of real estate. However, unlike standard property taxes, which are based on the value of the property, a parcel tax is an assessment based on the characteristics of the parcel. These assessments can include taxing a parcel based on square footage or by dwelling unit, or the tax may be a flat rate per parcel. If approved by voters, parcel taxes can be imposed on public school districts and on other local units of government, including cities, counties, and special districts.

In addition to parcel taxes, the following table also includes other real estate-related measures, as well as various business-related taxes.

The Impact column is more difficult to follow as it can reflect a flat, per parcel (or square foot) assessment, a percentage of the dollar amount of a transaction, and often involves a much more complicated sliding scale of amounts not necessarily reflected in the cell. More information can be made available as needed.

21

Jurisdiction Name Type Impact City of Albany Measure M Parks and Open Space Parcel Tax $69 City of Berkeley Measure P Real Property Transfer Tax 1% Borrego Springs Fire Protection Measure PP Parcel Tax $225 District Cambria Community Healthcare Measure C Ambulance Transport Services and $35.04 District Equipment Parcel Tax Cameron Estates Community Measure H Parcel Tax $595 Services District Cameron Park Airport District Measure L Parcel Tax $600 Central Calaveras Fire and Measure D Parcel Tax $150 Rescue Protection District City of Corte Madera Measure N Tax for Paramedic Services $75 County of Marin Service Area 27 Measure R Tax for Paramedic Services $79.50+ City of Cudahy Measure CS Public Safety Parcel Tax $343+ City of Cudahy Measure U Casino Tax 15% City of Daly City Measure BB Business License Tax $110 East Bay Regional Park District Measure FF Parcel Tax Renewal $12 City of East Palo Alto Measure HH Commercial Office Space Parcel Tax $2.50 City of Fairfax Measure O Tax for Paramedic Services $79.50+ Glen Ellen Fire Protection District Measure T Parcel Tax $200 City of Hayward Measure T Real Property Transfer Tax $8.50 Hickok Road Community Measure K Parcel Tax $400 Services District Holiday Lake Community Measure G Parcel Tax Consolidation and $300 Services District Increase Kentfield Fire District Measure S Tax for Paramedic Services $79.50+ Kern Valley Health Care District Measure Q Parcel Tax $82 La Selva Beach Park District Measure P Parcel Tax $50 City of Larkspur Measure K Tax for Paramedic Services Renewal $79.50+ Little Lake Fire Protection District Measure J New Fire Station Parcel Tax $39 Los Angeles County Flood Measure W Parcel Tax (square foot) $0.025 Control District Monte Rio Fire Protection District Measure U Parcel Tax $200+ Mount Shasta Recreation and Measure P Parcel Tax $40-75 Parks District City of Mountain View Measure P Per-Employee Business Tax $100+ North County Fire Protection Measure T Emergency Response and Fire $39+ District Prevention Parcel Tax City of Oakland Measure W Vacant Property Tax $3,000+ City of Oakland Measure X Graduated Real Estate Transfer Tax 1-2.5% Orland Fire Protection District Measure D Parcel Tax $30+ Rancho Adobe Fire Protection Measure W Parcel Tax Repeal and Replacement $10+ District

22

City of Richmond Measure H Real Estate Transfer Tax 0.7-3% Rincon Ranch Community Measure RR Parcel Tax $6.92- Services District 199.50 City of Rocklin Measure A Parcel Tax $10-30 City of Ross Measure P Tax for Paramedic Services $79.50+ City of San Anselmo Measure Q Tax for Paramedic Services $79.50+ County of San Benito Measure H Business Tax $118+ City and County of San Francisco Measure C Gross Receipts Tax for 0.175- Homelessness Services 1.5% City of Sausalito Measure M Business License Tax $125+ Schell-Vista Fire Protection Measure X Parcel Tax $200 District Shasta Lake Fire Protection Measure D Parcel Tax $50+ District Shasta Valley Cemetery District Measure L Parcel Tax $7 Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection Measure T Tax for Paramedic Services $79.50+ District South Lake County Fire Measure L Special Tax and Gann Override $10 Protection District Southern Marin Fire Protection Measure U Emergency Services Parcel Tax $200 District City of Union City Measure EE Real Property Transfer Tax $10 Valley Center Fire Protection Measure SS Parcel Tax $180 District Valley of the Moon Fire Protection Measure Y Parcel Tax $200 District

Marijuana Tax Measures

Excise taxes, also known as selective sales or differential commodity taxes, are levied for the sales of specific goods or services, including marijuana. Excise taxes are considered indirect taxes because they are not charged directly to individuals. In most cases, the excise tax is paid by the producer or seller of an item. The cost of the tax is then included in the sale price of the item and passed on to the consumer.

Many of the jurisdictions proposing taxes on marijuana are planning a straightforward structure that includes a fee per square foot of space, as well as a percentage of receipts, while others break down those into various tiers and categories. Most of the data in the Impact column below reflects the square foot fee and percent of receipts model.

Jurisdiction Name Type Impact City of Adelanto Measure S Marijuana Business Tax $5; 5% City of Arvin Measure M Marijuana Business Tax $4-6; 2-6% City of Atwater Measure A Marijuana Business Tax 15%

23

City of Bakersfield Measure O Medical Marijuana Business 7.5% Authorization and Tax City of Banning Measure N Cultivation, Manufacturing, $15-25; 10% and Testing Marijuana Business Tax City of Banning Measure O Retail Marijuana Business Tax 10% City of Benicia Measure E Marijuana Business Tax $10; 6% City of Calexico Measure K Marijuana Business Tax $25; 15% City of Capitola Measure I Marijuana Business Tax 7% City of Ceres Measure W Marijuana Business Tax 15% City of Chula Vista Measure Q Marijuana Business Tax $5-25; 5-15% City of Colton Measure U Marijuana Business Tax $25; 10% County of Contra Costa Measure R Marijuana Business Tax $7; 4% City of Daly City Measure UU Marijuana Business Tax 10% County of Del Norte Measure B Marijuana Business Tax $1-2; 1-6% City of Dunsmuir Measure T Marijuana Business Tax 10% County of El Dorado Measure N Marijuana Business Tax $30; 5-15% City of Emeryville Measure S Marijuana Business Tax 6% City of Fresno Measure A Marijuana Business Tax $12; 10% City of Goleta Measure Z Marijuana Business Tax 10% City of Half Moon Bay Measure AA Marijuana Business Tax $2-10; 2.5-6% City of Hemet Measure Y Marijuana Business $10 Authorization and Tax Initiative City of Hemet Measure Z Marijuana Business Prohibition $30; 25% and Tax City Council Alternative City of Hesperia Measure T Marijuana Business Tax $15; 6% County of Imperial Measure I Marijuana Business Tax $10; 4-6% City of Jurupa Valley Measure L Marijuana Legalization/Tax $3-25 County of Kern Measure J Recreational Marijuana Ban 7.5% and Medical Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Initiative County of Kern Measure K Recreational Marijuana 5% Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation Initiative City of La Mesa Measure V Marijuana Business Tax $10; 6% County of Lake Measure K Marijuana Business Tax $1; 2.5-4% County of Lassen Measure M Commercial Marijuana Tax $0.50-3; 2.5-8% City of Lindsay Measure G Marijuana Business Tax $25; 10% City of Lompoc Measure D Marijuana Business Tax Various City of Malibu Measure G Marijuana Business 2.5% Authorization and Tax City of Marina Measure V Marijuana Business Tax 5%

24

City of Maywood Measure CT Marijuana Business Tax 10% City of Moreno Valley Measure M Marijuana Business Tax $15; 8% City of Morgan Hill Measure I Marijuana Business Tax $15; 10% City of Mount Shasta Measure S Marijuana Business Tax TBD City of Mountain View Measure Q Marijuana Business Tax 9% County of Nevada Measure G Marijuana Business Tax $10; 10% City of Oakdale Measure C Marijuana Business Tax 15% City of Oroville Measure T Marijuana Business Tax 10% City of Oxnard Measure G Marijuana Business Tax $10; 6% City of Palm Desert Measure Q Marijuana Business Tax $20; 15% City of Patterson Measure Y Marijuana Business Tax 15% City of Perris Measure G Marijuana Business Tax 10% City of Placerville Measure M Marijuana Business Tax $10; 8% City of Pomona Measure PC Marijuana Business Tax $10; 6% City of Redding Measure C Marijuana Business Tax $25; 10% City of Redwood City Measure DD Marijuana Business Tax 1-10% City of Riverbank Measure B Marijuana Business Tax 10% City of San Bernardino Measure W Marijuana Business Tax $10; 6% City of San Carlos Measure NN Marijuana Business Tax 10% City and County of San Francisco Measure D Marijuana Business Tax 1-5% County of San Joaquin Measure B Marijuana Business Tax $2; 3.5-8% City of San Juan Bautista Measure I Marijuana Business Tax $3-12; 0.5-10% City of Santa Ana Measure Y Recreational Marijuana $0.25-35; 10% Business Tax City of Santa Clara Measure M Marijuana Business Tax $25; 10% City of Santa Paula Measure N Marijuana Business Tax $25; 10% City of Simi Valley Measure Q Marijuana Business Tax $10; 4-6% City of Solvang Measure F Marijuana Business Tax 5-10% City of South San Francisco Measure LL Marijuana Business Tax 5% City of Suisun City Measure C Marijuana Business Tax $25; 15% City of Thousand Oaks Measure P Marijuana Business Tax $10; 4-6% City of Tracy Measure D Marijuana Business Tax $12; 6% City of Union City Measure DD Marijuana Business Tax $12; 6% City of Vista Measure AA City Council Marijuana $14; 3.5-12% Business Tax Measure City of Vista Measure Z Retail Medical Marijuana Sales 7% and Tax Initiative City of Willits Measure I Marijuana Business Tax $10; 4-6%

25

POTENTIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Included below is a list of several upcoming grant programs, descriptions and due dates:

• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grant Program (February 11)— AHSC provides funding for affordable housing developments (new construction or renovation) and transportation infrastructure. This may include sustainable transportation infrastructure, such as new transit vehicles, sidewalks, and bike lanes; transportation- related amenities, such as bus shelters, benches, or shade trees; and other programs that encourage residents to walk, bike, and use public transit.

• Urban Green Infrastructure Program (Spring 2019)—$20,000,000 from Proposition 68 shall be available for multi-benefit green infrastructure investments in or benefiting disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged communities.

• Urban Greening Grant Program (Spring 2019)—This program will fund projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing energy consumption and reducing vehicle miles traveled, while also transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and vibrant communities. These projects will establish and enhance parks and open space, using natural solutions to improving air and water quality and reducing energy consumption, and creating more walkable and bike-able trails.

• Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEMP) Program (Summer 2019)—The EEM Program funds projects that contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The EEM Program encourages projects that produce multiple benefits which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase water use efficiency, reduce risks from climate change impacts, and demonstrate collaboration with local, state and community entities. Eligible projects must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility.

26