California Ballot Propositions 3 & 4

 

California Ballot Propositions 3 & 4

 

By Ashlei Maihack

Follow Ashlei on Instagram and Snapchat, @ashleeeii3

 

 

PROP 3: PROJECTS FOR WATER SUPPLY & QUALITY IN CA

  • YES: Allows California to sell $8.9 billion in general obligation bonds (to investors) to fund for various water & environment related projects. These projects aim to increase water supply, quality, & use.
  • NO: California cannot sell $8.9 billion in general obligation bonds (to investors) to fund for various water & environment related projects.
  • WHERE DOES THE FUNDING FOR THE $8.9 BILLION COME FROM?:
    • General Obligation Bonds – A majority of California propositions are funded through bonds (think of Proposition 1 that is on the ballot)! Remember, these are bonds that California would sell to investors. California gets the funds upfront and when it comes time to repay, California uses the state’s General Fund to pay the bond + any interest accrued.
    • This does not raise taxes!
  • WHAT WILL THE $8.9 BILLION BE SPENT ON?:
    • $2.5 BILLION: Protect, restore, & improve the health of watershed lands (ex: forests, meadows, & wetlands) in specified areas of California. This would increase the amount of natural water available.
    • $2.1 BILLION: Projects that will increase the amount of water available for use (ex: recycling rainwater & wastewater for use). It would also allocate funds to help support water conservation efforts.
    • $1.4 BILLION: Improve the habitats of fish & wildlife. It has been proposed that this can happen from purchasing & protecting land that has waterways that feed into rivers & larger bodies of water, for example.
    • $1.2 BILLION: Improving existing water facilities in California which would in return improve the availability of water for the state. This targets specified areas & facilities in California.
    • $1.1 BILLION: Would support groundwater projects. The idea of groundwater is taking water literally from the ground. If it is desalinated (salt is removed) & cleaned properly, there would be many uses!
    • $500 MILLION: Support flood protection through funding projects such as expanding floodplains & repairing reservoirs throughout the state!
  • IMPORTANT NOTES:
    • Most funding for water related projects comes from local government entities. There is some state & federal involvement, but mostly supported by local government.
    • The money from this proposition would not be spent in the California Annual Budget. This would be separate and spent on it’s specific cause.
    • The money would be sent straight to specific government departments for their use. Most of the money would also be given in the form of grants. Some grants are required to be back by local money (for every $1 of grant funding, there needs to be $1 of local funding).
  • PRO: California has a water problem…hello California drought & water fines! This proposition would allocate funding to support more projects that would tackle the issue of not having enough water for our state!
  • CON: This will increase the state’s debt. Remember: General obligation bonds must be paid back before any other state programs. This will cost the state about $430 million a year for 40 years.

 

PROP 4: FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION AT/FOR CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS

  • YES: Allows California to sell $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds (to investors) for the funding of the “construction, expansion, renovation, & equipping” of specified children’s hospitals.
  • NO: California cannot sell $1.5 billion in general obligation bonds (to investors) for the funding of the “construction, expansion, renovation, & equipping” of specified children’s hospitals.
  • WHERE DOES THE FUNDING FOR THE $1.5 BILLION COME FROM?:
    • General Obligation Bonds – This is a popular funding source for California propositions!
    • This does not raise taxes!
  • WHICH HOSPITALS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BONDS?:
    • 72% of the funds will go to Private Nonprofit Children’s Hospitals
      • Children’s Hospital & Research Center, Oakland
      • Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles
      • Children’s Hospital of Orange County
      • Earl & Loraine Miller Children’s Hospital
      • Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital
      • Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford
      • Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego
      • Valley Children’s Hospital
    • 18% of the funds will go to University of California Children’s Hospitals
      • Mattel Children’s Hospital at UCLA
      • University Children’s Hospital at UC Irvine
      • UC Davis Children’s Hospital
      • UC San Diego Children’s Hospital
      • UC San Francisco Children’s Hospital
    • 10% of the funds will go to other hospitals
      • Approximately 150 public & private nonprofit hospitals can apply for funding. To be eligible they must provide services to children that are eligible for care under the CCS program.
    • IMPORTANT NOTES:
      • California Children’s Services (CCS) Program is a state-local healthcare coverage program. This pays for health services for severely ill children – these children have complex, chronic health conditions. Hospitals that provide these health services & treatments to children are approved by the state to partner with the program. In return, these hospitals receive funding.
    • PRO: This would allow the “construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, & financing/refinancing” of eligible hospitals.
    • CON: This will increase the state’s debt. This will cost the state about $80 million a year for 35 years.
Privacy Policy

Leave a Reply

Privacy Policy