Advocacy Updates

Prop 68 Roll Out

Notwithstanding the fact that Proposition 68 had not yet been ratified by the voters of this state in June, in anticipation of its approval, Governor Brown budgeted proceeds from this act in his 2018-19 budget. In fact, more than $1 billion in Proposition 68 proceeds were part of this year’s budget. More specific to CPRS membership, $185 million in Per Capita funds, $254 million for the Statewide Park Program (SPP… AB 31 Park-Poor Communities Program), nearly $40 million from the Cultural, Community and Natural Resources Program (otherwise referred to as the “Kitchen Sink” Program), and $17 million for “Urban Green Infrastructure” projects, have been appropriated. Additionally, tens of millions of dollars in Proposition 68 proceeds have been allocated to the state’s conservancies (pass through entities for locals). As for the projected roll-out of these funds, the Department of Parks and Recreation is currently asking for public comment on the new draft application of the SPP and CPRS encourages your review and feedback. Send to Comment deadline is November 9th. After the close of public review, three public hearings (northern, central and southern CA) will be scheduled for mid-November. Fifteen application workshops will be conducted through early 2019 and applications will be due sometime in the summer 2019. As for Per Capita, the Department of Parks and Recreation will begin to determine allocations this fall, schedule public hearings in spring of 2019, and announce allocations and final guidelines during late spring 2019. For the Cultural, Community and Natural Resources Program, as well as the Urban Greening Infrastructure pots, the California Natural Resources Agency anticipates soliciting guideline input during the winter of this year.


Start planning now for funding opportunities via Prop 68!  While we don't have a definite release date for programs appropriated in the 2018/19 State budget, we do have a rollout schedule for the following programs:

Statewide Park Program - Round 3:  $254,942,000 to be awarded

Fall/Winter 2018 - Public Hearings, Application Workshops
Spring 2019 - Applications Due

Per Capita Program:  $185,000,000

Fall 2018 - Public Hearings, begin determining allocations
Spring/Summer 2019 - Announce allocations, release final guide

Current Funding Opportunities, Natural Resources Agency
Proposition 68 full Text
Funding Allocation Chart

SB 946 (Lara) - Sidewalk Vending

As predicted by most, the Governor elected to sign SB 946 (Lara) into law despite CPRS’ rigorous objections. SB 946 expands sidewalk vendor operation on public lands with minimal local government regulatory oversight. The new law will take effect January 1, 2019. CPRS and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) were ultimately joined by the League of California Cities later in the process and only three cities joined in opposing this measure. This bill was particularly vexing to CPRS since it was driven more by emotion and less by policy in the wake of new federal deportation practices. Early in the process, CPRS and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) were the only two entities in opposition. The absence of the League of California Cities in the beginning was noteworthy. Complicating matters was the fact that SB 946 does not apply to special districts (park districts and regionals). Hence, CPRS had to perform a tightrope walk, opposing without implicating special districts. An additional wrinkle was that the author of this bill, Senator Ricardo Lara, is the second ranking Democrat in the upper house and is running for statewide office (California Insurance Commissioner). During negotiations on SB 946, CPRS emphatically asked that the provisions contained in the bill allowing sidewalk vendors unlimited access to procure sales in all corners of park lands be struck. Both the bill sponsors and author refused to strike this provision. As an alternative, the following language was drafted in an effort to assuage CPRS and its membership:


(a) A local authority may adopt a program to regulate sidewalk vendors in compliance with this section.

(b) A local authority’s sidewalk vending program shall comply with all of the following standards:

(1) A local authority shall not require a sidewalk vendor to operate within specific parts of the public right-of-way, except when that restriction is directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns.

(2) (A) A local authority shall not prohibit a sidewalk vendor from selling food or merchandise in a park owned or operated by the local authority, except the local authority may prohibit stationary sidewalk vendors from vending in the park only if the operator of the park has signed an agreement for concessions that exclusively permits the sale of food or merchandise by the concessionaire.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local authority may adopt additional requirements regulating the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending in a park owned or operated by the local authority if the requirements are any of the following:

(i) Directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns.

(ii) Necessary to ensure the public’s use and enjoyment of natural resources and recreational opportunities.

(iii) Necessary to prevent an undue concentration of commercial activity that unreasonably interferes with the scenic and natural character of the park.

CPRS is encouraging member agencies to discuss this bill and implementation scenarios with your city or county legal counsel. Both the League and CSAC have resources dedicated to the roll-out of this measure and CPRS urges your agency to engage to ensure compliance. 

Proposition 5 … The Property Tax Transfer Initiative

CPRS joined CSAC, the California Teachers Association, SEIU, and a host of newspapers across the state (Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, et al) in lending its opposition to the California Realtors Association sponsored initiative that falsely claims to make housing more affordable. In essence, Proposition 5 would allow homeowners that are age fifty-five and older to transfer his/her property tax base to a new home regardless of the value of the new home. In other words, California assesses property taxes at 1% appraised/assessed value. Property taxes, in theory, cannot increase by more than 2% of the base assessment annually. Therefore, given the rapid increase in housing values in California, homes purchased in the 1980’s have a depressed property tax base. Some homes purchased during this time, particularly in the SF Bay Area, have appreciated by several hundred percent. Yet property taxes remain assessed at the original purchase price. This proposition would permit a homeowner from the SF Bay Area to transfer the depressed property tax assessed value of his or her current home to a newly acquired home that could be valued at twice the price of their original home. The net result of this new law would lead to losses in local property taxes which, is estimated by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to exceed over $1 billion within the next several years. Fewer property tax revenues translates into fewer revenues for park and recreation services. The realtors are advancing this under the guise that it would result in greater home availability when in fact it would simply lead to more sales among those that have elected to stay put because of low property tax assessments and more realtor commissions.   

If you have any questions, concerns or comments, feel free to contact any one of us:

Doug Houston, CPRS Advocate, Houston Magnani
Pilar Alcivar-McCoy, CPRS Legislative Committee Chair
Stephanie Stephens, CPRS Executive Director