Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Tulare Healthcare District Regional Medical Center, California, Measure I, Bond Issue (August 2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Measure I: Tulare Healthcare District Bond Issue
LocalBallotMeasures Final.png
The basics
Election date:
August 30, 2016
Status:
Defeatedd Defeated
Majority required:
66.67%
Topic:
District bonds
Amount: $55 million
Tax: $29.88 per $100,000 in value
Matures in: Legal limit
Related articles
District bonds on the ballot
August 30, 2016 ballot measures in California
Tulare County, California ballot measures
See also

A Tulare Healthcare District Regional Medical Center bond issue measure was on the ballot for Tulare Healthcare District voters in Tulare County, California, on in August 30, 2016. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of increasing the district's debt by $55 million through issuing general obligation bonds in order to fund the completion of the hospital's tower project.
A "no" vote was a vote against increasing the district's debt by $55 million through issuing general obligation bonds in order to fund the completion of the hospital's tower project.

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for the approval of this measure.[1]

Election results

Tulare Healthcare District Measure I
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No7,16666.17%
Yes 3,663 33.83%
Election results from Tulare COunty Elections Office

Background

Using an $85 million bond issue, the hospital began construction of the tower in 2010, with the project set to be completed by June 2012. Complexities, including contractor lawsuits, set the project back, and the tower's funding ran dry in 2014. Hospital officials say that the hospital will be shut down by the state if the tower is not completed. The state is expected to enforce strict earthquake standards beginning in 2030, requiring the hospital to close if it continued to operate in its current facilities.[2]

Parcel tax proposals

Initial proposals for this financing measure were designed to authorize the district to impose an annual parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—to provide an estimated $55 million in revenue for the district. Proposals for the amount of the parcel tax ranged from $180 per parcel to $216 per parcel. The revenue would be used to finish the four-story medical tower that has been under construction since 2010. The $55 million in tax revenue would have given the hospital's tower project wiggle room amounting to about 10 percent of the estimated $49,788,100 needed to finish construction.[2]

Support

Sherrie Bell, the chair of the hospital's board of directors, said, "It will be up to the voters. We had no choice. We had no collateral. We couldn't get a loan. This was the only funding source. It's the only way left."[2]

Bell also said, "We either finish the tower or we don't have a hospital." Concerning the proposed tax increase, she concluded, “I hate it, but I hate worse the idea of not having a hospital.”[2]

Laura Gadke, head of the board committee that proposed the parcel tax, said, "We have to do it. If we don't do it, we will be closed by the state."[2]

Mayor David Macedo announced support for the parcel tax. He said, "I will gladly put my name on a parcel tax; a parcel tax makes great sense to me. Fifteen years from now, I think we’ll be very proud.”[3]

Former City Manager Lynn Dredge said, “We have no choice in the matter of the future of the hospital … our people cannot be without a hospital."[3]

Path to the ballot

2015 parcel tax proposal

The hospital's board of directors voted unanimously to ask voters for a parcel tax.[3]

Although the board voted unanimously to present a parcel tax to voters, as of June 22, 2015, the details concerning this measure were still being discussed, including potential election dates. August 25, 2015, was one of the dates allowed by California elections law for all-mail ballot elections in 2015. At the time the parcel tax was originally proposed, it was the earliest election day allowed that would permit for the minimum 88-day period between putting a measure on the ballot and the election day. The deadline for getting the measure on that ballot passed, however.[3][4]

See also


External links

Footnotes