Corona Chamber of Commerce wwwcoronaadvocacybiz

By Michelle Gonzalez,2014-05-13 14:31
9 views 0
Corona Chamber of Commerce wwwcoronaadvocacybiz


    Corona Chamber of Commerce

    904 East Sixth Street, Corona, 92879

     (951) 737-3350

    Tuesday, August 15, 2006



    Tom Kenney, Chair

Call to Order and Roll Call

Chair’s Report

    ? Presentation of

President & CEO’s Report

    ? Presentation of

New Business

    1. July 2006 Minutes ACTION

    2. Propositions 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89 ACTION

Old Business

Local, State, Federal Legislative Staff Updates


    ? Reminder: LAC Retreat, September 27, 2006 9:00am 1:00pm





    Legislative Action Committee

    August 15, 2006 JULY 2006 MEETING MINUTES


    Corona Chamber of Commerce

    904 East Sixth Street, Corona, 92879

     (951) 737-3350

    Tuesday, July 18, 2006


    Presiding: Tom Kenney, Chair


     Attended Chair Tom Kenney Key, Freeman and Kenney Agency Chamber Cynthia Schneider American Security Bank X Chairman of the


     Alex Braicovich Waste Management X

     Dick Campbell RC Product Development X

     John Couts Couts Heating and Cooling, Inc. X

     Frank Emerson Dos Lagos X

     Sandy Klein Re/Max All Stars X

     Chad Miller Plas-Tech Sealing Tech

     Chris Miller Thomas Miller Mortuary X

     Jay Murphy Transglobal Consulting LLC

     Ann Poloko Financial Investors Group X

     Javier Vasquez Miguel’s Restaurants X

     CC Vest Midpoint Bearing

     Sue Wakefield ASJ Industrial Hose and Fittings X Chamber President Bobby Spiegel Corona Chamber of Commerce X Chamber Shaun Lumachi Corona Chamber of Commerce X Chamber Hope Andrews Corona Chamber of Commerce X Chamber Tami Diaz Corona Chamber of Commerce Guests: Board Member Mark Krakower Kraktronix Laser Craft X Board Member/Chair Linda Wilson Countrywide Home Mortgage X of Economic


    Representative Anne Stephens Supervisor John Tavaglione Representative Whitney Secor Assemblyman Todd Spitzer X Representative Clint Lorimore Assemblyman Russ Bogh

     Kym White AQMD X

     Brian Lenning Countrywide /Team Wilson X

Presentation of Advocacy-based Web site


    Shaun Lumachi presented the Web site for the LAC member’s review

    and comment.

June 2006 Minutes

     M/S Approved

Strategic Growth Plan Initiatives

Proposition 1B: Transportation

     M/S Approved position of SUPPORT

Proposition 1C: Housing

     M/S Approved position of SUPPORT

Proposition 1D: Education

     M/S Approved position of SUPPORT

Proposition 1E: Levees/Flood Control

     M/S Approved position of SUPPORT

Legislative Report #5

    Shaun Lumachi informed the LAC members of the current status of all legislation tracked by the

    Corona Chamber. All legislation was included in the agenda for their review and comment.


     Chair Kenney adjourned the meeting at 9:45am




    Legislative Action Committee

    August 15, 2006

    PROPOSITIONS 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90


Shaun Lumachi

    Director of Government Affairs


Proposition 83: Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and

    Monitoring. Initiative Statute.

Recommended Position: NO POSITION

    1. Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters.

    2. Prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park, and

    requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.

    3. Expands the definition of a sexually violent predator, and changes the current two-year

    involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment,

    subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and petition by the sexually violent

    predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.

Proposition 84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park

    Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Recommended Position: SUPPORT


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

    Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce


Unknown at this time


    ? Proposition 84 will help preserve California's coastline and natural resources for generations to


    ? This measure also provides essential funding to help ensure our water supply is clean, reliable, and

    safe and will help protect our communities from flooding.

    ? The measure will dedicate funds to protect the water quality of the Sacramento-San Joaquin

    Delta the source of drinking water for 23 million Californians. Con

    ? Unknown costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars per year, to state and local governments to

    operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds.


    ? Reduction in local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually, about one-half of

    which would be offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss.


The state operates a variety of programs to conserve natural resources, protect the environment, provide

    flood control, and offer recreational opportunities for the public. The state also operates a program to plan

    for future water supplies, flood control, and other water-related requirements of a growing population. In

    addition to direct state expenditures, the state also provides grants and loans to local governments and

    nonprofit organizations for similar purposes. These programs support a variety of specific purposes,


    ? Natural Resource Conservation. The state has provided funds to purchase, protect, and improve

    natural areasincluding wilderness and open-space areas; wildlife habitat; coastal wetlands;

    forests; and rivers, lakes, streams, and their watersheds.

    ? Safe Drinking Water. The state has made loans and grants to public water systems for facility

    improvements to meet state and federal safe drinking water standards.

    ? Flood Control. The state has funded the construction and repair of flood control projects in the

    state Central Valley flood control system. The state has also provided financial assistance to local

    agencies for local flood control projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and in other

    areas outside the Central Valley.

    ? Other Water Quality and Water Supply Projects. The state has made available funds for

    various other projects throughout the state that improve water quality and/or the reliability of

    water supplies. For example, the state has provided loans and grants to local agencies for the

    construction and implementation of wastewater treatment, water conservation, and water pollution

    reduction projects.

    ? State and Local Parks. The state operates the state park system, and has provided funds to local

    governments for the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of local and regional parks.

    ? Funding for Resources Programs. Funding for these various programs has traditionally come

    from General Fund revenues, federal funds, and general obligation bonds. Since 1996, voters have

    authorized approximately $11 billion in general obligation bonds for various resources purposes.

    Of this amount, approximately $1.4 billion is projected to remain available for new projects as of

    June 30, 2006, primarily for water-related purposes. Legislation enacted earlier this year provides

    $500 million from the General Fund for emergency levee repairs and other flood control-related



This initiative allows the state to sell $5.4 billion in general obligation bonds for safe drinking water, water

    quality, and water supply; flood control; natural resource protection; and park improvements.

    1. Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds, payable from the state’s General Fund, to

    fund projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway

    and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park

    improvements, public access to natural resources, and conservation efforts.

    2. Provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public

    contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety.


    3. State cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion) and

    interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $350 million per year.

    4. Reduction in local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually, about one-half of

    which would be offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss.

    5. Unknown costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars per year, to state and local governments to

    operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds.

Proposition 85:Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy.

    Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Recommended Position: NO POSITION

    1. Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after

    physician notifies minor's parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental


    2. Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear and convincing evidence of

    minor's maturity or best interests.

    3. Mandates various reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions

    performed on minors. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.

    4. Requires minor's consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.

Proposition 86 : Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Recommended Position: OPPOSE

California Chamber Position: OPPOSE


Brandon Stephenson

    No on Proposition 86


    Yes on Proposition 86


American Cancer Society

    California Hospital Association

    American Heart Association

    The Children’s Partnership


California Chamber of Commerce


     Increase of new state tobacco revenues by $2.1 billion annually

     The measure is likely to result in a decrease in the consumption of tobacco products because of its

    provisions increasing the cost of these products and curbing tobacco use.


     Unknown but potentially significant savings in state and local government public health care costs

    over time due to expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.


     Increases the state’s excise tax by 300%

     The majority of revenue collected will go directly to health care

     It is a possibility, customers will go outside of the state to purchase in bulk, which will ultimately

    take away from California’s economy.


Current state law imposes certain taxes directly on cigarettes and other tobacco products that are known as

    excise taxes. Excise taxes are taxes collected on selected goods or services. Currently, the excise taxes total

    87 cents per pack of cigarettes (with a similar tax on other types of tobacco products). The total tax of 87

    cents per pack consists of:

    ? 50 cents to support early childhood development programs, enacted by the voters as

    Proposition 10 in 1998.

    ? 25 cents to support tobacco education and prevention efforts, tobacco-related disease research

    programs, health care services for low-income uninsured persons, and environmental protection

    and recreational programs, enacted by the voters as Proposition 99 in 1988.

    ? 10 cents for the state General Fund.

    ? 2 cents to support research related to breast cancer and breast cancer screening programs for

    uninsured women.

Current taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products are estimated to raise about $1.1 billion in 2006-07.

Children’s Health Care Coverage

    Medi-Cal. The Medi-Cal Program (the federal Medicaid Program in California) provides health care services to low-income persons, including eligible children (depending on the age of the child). Families

    with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) (about $27,000 per year for a family for

    four) are generally eligible for coverage. The program is administered by the state Department of Health

    Services (DHS).

Under the Medicaid Program, matching federal funds are available for the support of comprehensive

    medical services for United States citizens and to “qualified aliens”—that is, immigrants who are

    permanent residents, refugees, or a member of certain other groups granted the legal right to remain in the

    United States. Federal matching funds are also available for nonqualified aliens, but only for emergency

    medical services. The Medi-Cal Program currently serves about 3.2 million adults and 3.2 million children.

Healthy Families. The Healthy Families Program (HFP) offers health insurance to eligible children in

    families who generally have incomes below 250 percent of FPL (about $50,000 per year for a family of

    four) who do not qualify for Medi-Cal. (Children in some families with higher incomes are also eligible.)

    Funding is generally on a two-to-one federal/state matching basis. Children in HFP must be eligible United

    States citizens or qualified aliens. The HFP is administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board

    (MRMIB). The HFP provides medical coverage for about 781,000 children.

Local Health Coverage Programs.

The County Health Initiative Matching (CHIM) Fund program, which is administered by MRMIB and

    counties, provides health coverage for children in families with an income between 250 percent and

    300 percent of FPL (between $50,000 and $60,000 per year for a family of four). The CHIM program relies

    on county funds as the match required to draw down federal funds to pay for this health coverage. This

    program has a caseload of about 3,000 children.


In addition to the CHIM program, some counties have established their own health coverage programs for

    children that are ineligible for Medi-Cal or HFP. These programs are primarily supported with local

    funding. These programs serve about 69,000 children.

Potential State and Local Savings on Public Health Costs

Currently, the state and local governments incur costs for providing (1) health care for low-income persons

    and (2) health insurance coverage for state and local government employees. Consequently, changes in

    state law that affect the health of the general populace would affect publicly funded health care costs.

    Because this measure is likely to result in a decrease in the consumption of tobacco products which have

    been linked to various adverse health effects, it would probably reduce state and local health care costs over

    the long term.

Some of the health programs funded in this measure are intended to prevent individuals from experiencing

    serious health problems that could be costly to treat. To the extent that these prevention efforts are

    successful and affect publicly funded health care programs, they are likely to reduce state and local

    government health care costs over time. In addition, the proposed expansion of these state health programs

    could reduce county costs for providing health care for adults and children in low-income families.

The magnitude of state and local savings from these factors is unknown but would likely be significant.


This measure increases excise taxes on cigarettes (and, as discussed below, indirectly on other tobacco

    products) to provide funding for hospitals for emergency services as well as programs to increase access to

    health insurance for children, expand nursing education, support various new and existing health and

    education activities, curb tobacco use and regulate tobacco sales. Major provisions of the measure are

    described below.

    1. Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly

    increases tax on other tobacco products.

    2. Provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health

    insurance to eligible children.

    3. Revenue also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco use prevention programs,

    enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention and treatment of various conditions

    including cancers (breast, cervical, prostate and colorectal), heart disease, stroke, asthma and


    4. Exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws in certain circumstances.

    5. Increase in new state tobacco tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007-08, declining

    slightly annually thereafter.

    6. Those revenues would be used for various health and tobacco-related programs and for children’s

    health coverage.

    7. Unknown net state costs potentially reaching the low hundreds of millions annually after a few

    years due to provisions for streamlining enrollment in the Medi-Cal and HFP.

Proposition 88: Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment

    and Statute.


Recommended Position: OPPOSE


    State and local governments in California impose several types of taxes and use the resulting revenue to support a variety of government activities. The most significant state taxes are on personal income, the sale of most types of goods (such as cars, appliances, and furniture), and corporate profits. At the local level, the most significant tax is on the assessed value of property (such as family-owned land and houses, retail stores, and industrial facilities). In California, the revenue generated from these various taxes is used to fund many types of government programs, including education, health, social, and environmental programs.

Local Property Taxes

    Local governments in California impose a tax based on the assessed value of property. Under such a tax, the amount owed increases as the value of the property increases. Some local governments also impose a type of property tax known as a parcel tax. Under this type of tax, the amount owed is typically the same for each parcelor unitof land. (Currently, state government does not impose either type of property-

    related tax.)

Use of Local Parcel Tax Revenue

    Local parcel tax revenue may be used for virtually any designated purpose. In recent years, for example, parcel taxes have been approved by voters in several school districts and used to fund class size reduction (CSR), school libraries, education technology, and other education programs. In those school districts that have a parcel tax, this revenue can be a significant source of funding for kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) education programs. Statewide, however, the parcel tax is a minor source of funding for school districts.


    Proposition 88 creates a statewide parcel tax and uses the resulting revenue to fund specific K-12 education programs. It would take effect July 1, 2007.

Creates a Statewide $50 Parcel Tax

    The measure adds a new section to the State Constitution that establishes an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California. (This dollar amount would not change over time.) For purposes of the measure, a “parcel” is defined as any unit of real property in the state that currently receives a separate local property tax bill. This definition would result in the vast majority of individuals and businesses that currently pay property taxes being subject to the new parcel tax. The measure exempts from the new tax any parcel owner who: (1) resides on the parcel, (2) is eligible for the state’s existing homeowner’s property tax exemption, and (3) is either 65 years of age or older or a severely and permanently disabled person.

    The measure also includes a provision that ensures funding for other government programs is not affected. Specifically, the measure authorizes a transfer of parcel tax revenue to the state General Fund to offset any loss in state income tax revenue. A loss would occur because of additional property-related deductions resulting from the state parcel tax.

Funds Specific K-12 Education Programs With Tax Proceeds

    Most of the revenue generated by the statewide parcel tax would be transferred to a new state special fund. Of the monies initially deposited in this fund, the measure allocates $470 million for various K-12 education programs and initiatives. The annual allocation of funding would be adjusted on a proportional basisup or downto reflect actual revenues received. These monies would have to supplement existing

    monies provided for these programs.


    1. Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12 by imposing a $50

    tax on each real property parcel; exempts certain elderly and disabled homeowners.

    2. Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility

    grants, and a data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness.

    3. Provides for reimbursement to government entities to offset anticipated decrease in other tax


    4. Prohibits fund use for school administrative overhead.

    5. Requires school district audits and penalties for fund misuse.

    6. Annual revenue of up to $500 million from a new, statewide parcel tax with the revenue dedicated

    to specific K-12 education programs (such as class size reduction, instructional materials, school

    safety, and facility grants).

Proposition 89: Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contribution and

    Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.

Recommended Position: OPPOSE

California Chamber Position: OPPOSE


California Nurses Association

    California Common Cause

    League of Women Voters


California Chamber of Commerce

    California Taxpayers Association


     Prop 89 helps level the playing field and makes our elections more fair and competitive through

    public financing

     It is suggested that special interests receive special favors from those campaigns they fund. By

    putting limitations on those campaigns, many believe the favors will cease

     Limit the amount of negative campaigning advertising


     Prop 89 will limit their ability to conduct a successful campaign when it comes to propositions

    that help commerce.

     The measure places practically no limits on how politicians can spend tax dollars.

     Candidates for office would be able to tap taxpayers to fund their campaigns, including paying for

    negative television ads and hit-piece direct mailers


Current Limits on Political Contributions


Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email