At their meeting Tuesday, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors received a presentation and report on how the statewide measures on the November ballot will affect the county from a fiscal standpoint.
County staff analyzed each measure to determine whether it would have a negative fiscal impact on the county by taking away funding from county programs and services, according to the report.
The county has struggled to preserve services in the face of significant cuts coming from the state.
“Staff recommends supporting only new programs with a dedicated revenue source,” said deputy county administrator Dirk Brazil in a memo to the board.
The following is a summary of the staff findings.
Prop 1A: Safe, reliable high-speed passenger train bond act
Staff recommendation was for the board to take a neutral position. The measure could benefit the county by expanding Bay Area commuting connections and creating new construction jobs. However, since the measure will cost the state money, the legislature could take money away from county programs and services to pay for high-speed rail.
Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act
Staff recommendation was to oppose the measure because although it would expand the UC Davis Children’s Center, the measure would add $67 million per year to the state’s debt service without identifying a corresponding revenue source.
Prop 5: Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act
Staff recommendation was to oppose the measure because the county would be required to expand its drug treatment and diversion programs. Though the cost to jail drug offenders would be reduced, the net fiscal impact on the county is unclear, the report said. Additionally, there is the potential that the added cost of Prop 5 would divert money in the General Fund from other county programs.
Prop 6: Safe Neighborhoods Act
Staff recommendation was to oppose the measure because it would increase the caseload at the Public Defender’s office without allocating more money for the Public Defender, as well as putting additional pressure on the state General Fund. On the positive side, the measure would result in at least $600,000 for adult and juvenile probation services.
Prop 7: Solar and Clean Energy Act
Staff recommendation was to oppose the measure because of its unknown impact on electricity rates and a transfer of power from the county to the state.
Prop 9: Victims‘ Bill of Rights Act
Staff recommendation was to oppose the measure because it could increase operating costs at the county jail and result in a loss of funding to law enforcement agencies.
Prop 10: Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act
Staff recommendation was to oppose the measure because it would put additional pressure on the state’s General Fund, potentially jeopardizing funding for other county programs, and because it is not clearly a legislative priority.
Prop 12: Veterans‘ Bond Act
Staff recommendation was to take a neutral position because it was approved by the legislature without any “no” votes, but also lacks a dedicated source of revenue.
Propositions 2, 4, 8 and 11 were determined to have no fiscal impact on the county.
JEREMY OGUL can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.