My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2002-04-22
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2002
>
AgdaPkt 2002-04-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:52:23 PM
Creation date
4/18/2002 8:50:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
4/22/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Legislative Bill Action <br /> <br /> SB 1466 (Alarcon). Contracts for Labor or in the U.S. economy by providing.jobs and support- <br />Services. SB 1466 Provides that any entity that lng commerce across the nation. In an already <br />enters into a labor contract for construction or Slowing economy, a $620 million transportation <br />janitorial services, when the entity knows, or should funding cut would further aggravate the unemploy- <br />know, that the contract does not provide funds merit rate. Furthermore, the California Department of <br />sufficient to allow the contractor to comply with all Transportation estimates that a funding decrease of <br />labor laws and regulations, is guilty of a misde- this magnitude would likely result in nearly 20,000 <br />meanor and subject to civil penalties. Additionally, layoffs in California alone. It is imperative that all <br />SB 1466 establishes a rebuttable presumption that measures are taken to prevent these cuts from <br />the entity entering into a contract for labor or occurring. Staff: Natasha Fooman, Status: SenApps, <br />services does not violate the provisions of this bill if Position: Support. <br />the contract contains comprehensive information <br />about the contractor and it's workforce. SB 1446 AB 2275 (Aanestad). Transportation. AB 2275 <br />exposes public agencies to civil and criminal penal- would place restrictions on the flexibility to expend <br />ties and undermines an agency's confidence in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) <br />determining the Iowerst responsible bidder. While monies on rehabilitation projects for local streets <br />SB 1466 allows for a rebuttable presumption, an and roads. This flexibility granted local elected <br />agency would have to require highly specific infor- officials is Critical to preserving the public's invest- <br />marion, which is not usually known at the time of ment in the local system. Although only 7 percent <br />contracting, be included in it's contracts in order forof the 75 percent programmed by regional agencies <br />the agency to successfully assert a rebuttable is currently programmed for rehabilitation projects, <br />presumption. This requirement makes obtaining the the flexibility remains critical for several reasons. <br />rebuttable presumption exceptionally difficult, First, California is losing its investment in the local <br />hence unnecessarily exposing public agencies to system. The backlog on the local system for reha- <br />criminal and civil liability. We need your input! bilitation has grown to an $11 billion problem that <br />Contact League staff if you have any concerns with is increasing by $400 million annually. Second, an <br />SB 1466. Staff: Amy Brown/Natasha Fooman, Status: efficient use of all transportation monies is critical. <br />SenLbr&lndRehHrg: 4/24, Position: Review and Allowing rehabilitation projects will save taxpayers 5 <br />Comment. . to 10 times as much should a road deteriorate to the <br /> point of requiring reconstruction, which is an uncon- <br /> S JR 36 (Murray). Federal Highway Funding. tested eligible project within the STI P. Further, <br />President Bush's recently released 2003 Federal should project delivery problems continue for <br />budget proposes to reduce Federal transportation expansion projects rehabilitation pro~ects should <br />infrastructure funding by $8.5 billion. Specifically, remain an option to put these taxpayer dollars to <br />California's highway funding would decrease by work without delay. Third, Proposition 42 will not <br />approximately $620 million from last year's level -- ~,rovide significant r~,w revenues to cities and <br />an amount which exceeds that of any other state, counties to address this need until 2008-09, and in <br />This reduction in spending would severely impact fact cities and counties will actually receive no <br />California's cities. S JR 36 supports the efforts of the revenue in 2006-07 and 2007-08. The projected <br />House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to revenue stream under Proposition 42 is not nearly <br />restore 2003,federal highway funding to the levels enough to declare victory over the local maintenance <br />anticipated in the Transportation Equity Act for the and rehabilitation problem or to retire the backlog <br />Twenty-First Century (TEA-21). As you know, outlined above. The League opposes placing any <br />California's highway network plays an important role restrictions on the current flexibility of local elected <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Web Site--www. cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.