Napa County, CA Ballot

Proposition 1 Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs
Pass: 6,751,018 / 56.2% Yes votes ...... 5,258,157 / 43.8% No votes: Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for existing affordable housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, manufactured and mobile homes, infill, and transit-oriented housing. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $170 million annually over the next 35 years.
Proposition 2 Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness
Pass: 7,662,528 / 63.4% Yes votes ...... 4,417,327 / 36.6% No votes: Amends Mental Health Services Act to fund No Place Like Home Program, which finances housing for individuals with mental illness. Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program. Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.
Proposition 3 Authorizes Bonds To Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage
Fail: 5,879,836 / 49.3% Yes votes ...... 6,034,991 / 50.7% No votes: Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging $430 million per year over 40 years. Local government savings for water-related projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.
Proposition 4 Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children's Health Care
Pass: 7,551,298 / 62.7% Yes votes ...... 4,494,143 / 37.3% No votes: Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children's hospitals. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $80 million annually over the next 35 years.
Proposition 5 Changes Requirements For Certain Property Owners to Transfer Their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property
Fail: 4,813,251 / 40.2% Yes votes ...... 7,152,993 / 59.8% No votes: Removes certain transfer requirements for homeowners over 55, severely disabled homeowners, and contaminated or disaster-destroyed property. Fiscal Impact: Schools and local governments each would lose over $100 million in annual property taxes early on, growing to about $1 billion per year. Similar increase in state costs to backfill school property tax losses.
Proposition 6 Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees Be Approved By the Electorate
Fail: 5,283,222 / 43.2% Yes votes ...... 6,952,081 / 56.8% No votes: Repeals a 2017 transportation law's taxes and fees designated for road repairs and public transportation. Fiscal Impact: Reduced ongoing revenues of $5.1 billion from state fuel and vehicle taxes that mainly would have paid for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs.
Proposition 7 Confirms California Daylight Saving Time to Federal Law. Allows Legislature to Change Daylight Saving Time Period
Pass: 7,167,315 / 59.7% Yes votes ...... 4,828,564 / 40.3% No votes: Gives Legislature ability to change daylight saving time period by two-thirds vote, if changes are consistent with federal law. Fiscal Impact: This measure has no direct fiscal effect because changes to daylight saving time would depend on future actions by the Legislature and potentially the federal government.
Proposition 8 Regulates Amounts Outpatient Kindney Dialysis Clinics Charge For Dialysis Treatment
Fail: 4,845,264 / 40.1% Yes votes ...... 7,247,917 / 59.9% No votes: Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed limit. Requires annual reporting to the state. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source. Fiscal Impact: Overall annual effect on state and local governments ranging from net positive impact in the low tens of millions of dollars to net negative impact in the tens of millions of dollars.
Proposition 10 Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control
Fail: 4,949,543 / 40.6% Yes votes ...... 7,251,443 / 59.4% No votes: Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. Fiscal Impact: Potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.
Proposition 11 Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain On-Call During Work Breaks. Eliminates Certain Employer Liability
Pass: 7,181,116 / 59.6% Yes votes ...... 4,861,831 / 40.4% No votes: Law entitling hourly employees to breaks without being on-call would not apply to private-sector ambulance employees. Fiscal Impact: Likely fiscal benefit to local governments (in the form of lower costs and higher revenues), potentially in the tens of millions of dollars each year.
Proposition 12 Establishes New Standards For Confinement of Specified Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Noncomplying Products
Pass: 7,551,434 / 62.7% Yes votes ...... 4,499,702 / 37.3% No votes: Establishes minimum requirements for confining certain farm animals. Prohibits sales of meat and egg products from animals confined in noncomplying manner. Fiscal Impact: Potential decrease in state income tax revenues from farm businesses, likely not more than several million dollars annually. State costs up to $10 million annually to enforce the measure.

Local Measures

Measure D Transient occupancy tax -- City of Calistoga (2/3 Approval Required)
Pass: 1,389 / 79.64% Yes votes ...... 355 / 20.36% No votes: To increase, improve and preserve affordable and workforce housing in the City of Calistoga, shall an ordinance be adopted to levy an ongoing transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) of 1% on hotel charges to visitors of 30 days or less, increasing the maximum hotel rate from twelve percent (12%) to thirteen percent (13%), with all revenue from the new tax (estimated: $512,325 annually) to be restricted to providing programs and services for affordable and workforce housing?
Measure E Transient occupancy tax -- City of Saint Helena (2/3 Approval Required)
Pass: 2,112 / 80.83% Yes votes ...... 501 / 19.17% No votes: To increase, improve, and preserve affordable and workforce housing in the City of St. Helena, shall an ordinance be adopted to levy an ongoing transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) of 1% on hotel charges to visitors of 30 days or less, increasing the maximum hotel tax rate from 12% to 13%, with all revenue from the new tax (estimated: $279,000 annually) to be restricted to providing programs and services for affordable and workforce housing?
Measure F Transient occupancy tax -- City of Napa (2/3 Approval Required)
Pass: 21,263 / 72.07% Yes votes ...... 8,241 / 27.93% No votes: To increase, improve, and preserve affordable and workforce housing in the City of Napa, shall an ordinance be adopted to levy an ongoing transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) of 1% on hotel charges to visitors of 30 days or less, increasing the maximum hotel tax rate from 12% to 13%, with all revenue from the new tax (estimated: $2,100,000 annually) to be restricted to providing programs and services for affordable and workforce housing?
Measure H Transient occupancy tax -- City of American Canyon (2/3 Approval Required)
Fail: 4,322 / 66.41% Yes votes ...... 2,186 / 33.59% No votes: To increase, improve, and preserve affordable and workforce housing in the City of American Canyon, shall an ordinance be adopted to levy an ongoing transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) of 1% on hotel charges, increasing the maximum hotel tax rate from 12% to 13%, with all revenue from the new tax (estimated: $140,000 annually) to be restricted to providing programs and services for affordable workforce housing?
Measure I Transient occupancy tax -- County of Napa (2/3 Approval Required)
Pass: 37,767 / 70.10% Yes votes ...... 16,112 / 29.90% No votes: Shall Ordinance No. 2018-__ be enacted? (To increase, improve, and preserve affordable and workforce housing in Napa County, the Ordinance would increase the existing transient occupancy tax on hotel charges to visitors of 30 days or less in the unincorporated area from 12% to 13%, with all revenue from the 1% increase (estimated: $1.1 million annually) to be restricted to providing programs and services for affordable and workforce housing.)
Measure R Adjust appropriations limit -- Town of Yountville (Majority Approval Required)
Pass: 1,044 / 79.03% Yes votes ...... 277 / 20.97% No votes: In order to fully utilize TOT and sales tax generated from visitors for public services, parks & recreation, police and fire emergency programs, shall the appropriations limit set by Article 13B of the California Constitution be increased by $3,000,000 and increase annually by the growth in TOT each year for a four year period commencing fiscal year 2018/19? By approving this appropriation limit, no new taxes are created nor will any existing tax be increased.
Measure S Transient occupancy tax -- Town of Yountville (2/3 Approval Required)
Pass: 1,003 / 74.24% Yes votes ...... 348 / 25.76% No votes: To increase, improve, and preserve affordable and workforce housing that benefits Yountville, shall an ordinance be adopted to levy an ongoing transient occupancy tax (hotel tax) of 1% on hotel charges to visitors of 30 days or less, increasing the maximum hotel tax rate from 12% to 13%, with all revenue from the new tax (estimated: $650,000 annually) to be restricted to providing programs and services for affordable and workforce housing?

The order of the contests and candidates on this ballot representation is NOT necessarily the same as your county's official ballot.
If you print and mark your choices on this page and take it to the polls instead of an official sample ballot, be very careful.

Home || Napa Home Page || About Smart Voter || Feedback || Donate to Us

Data Created: February 13, 2019 13:50 PST
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund http://cavotes.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.