Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~+t \ <br /> <br /> <br />February 14, 2000 <br /> <br />Subject <br />Proposition 12, Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Act, and Proposition 13, Safe Drinking Water <br />Bond Act. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Adopt Resolutions endorsing passage of Proposition 12 Safe Neiahborhood Parks, Clean <br />Water. Clean Water. And Coastal Protection Bond Act, and Proposition 13, Safe Drinkina <br />Water. Clean Water. Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act. <br /> <br />Background <br />At its February 1, 2000 meeting the City Council Utilities Committee unanimously directed staff <br />to draft a resolution and staff report for the City Council recommending endorsement of <br />Propositions 12 and 13. Both propositions will be on the state ballot on March 7,2000, seeking <br />voter approval to proceed with state general obligation bonds to fund much needed <br />infrastructure improvements and protections for California's many parks, recreational facilities <br />and open space. AB 18, the Proposition 12 ballot measure would provide $2.1 billion to fund <br />neighborhood parks and recreational facilities, and is focussed primarily on urban areas. AB <br />1584, Proposition 13, would provide $1.9 billion to fund safe drinking water projects and <br />programs, water conservation and flood protection. Both measures call for funding by the <br />issuance of State general obligation bonds. The City has many parks and infrastructure projects <br />that could compete well for grant funding under both propositions. Proposition 12 includes $388 <br />million in per-capita grants to fund capital improvement and restoration projects with Redwood <br />City's estimated share is $938,350. The actual amount available will be based on the 2000 <br />census. <br /> <br />Alternative <br />There is no alternative. Both propositions provide for grant program funds not now available <br />through existing programs at the state level. <br /> <br />Fiscal Impact <br />The specific amount of funding that may come directly to Redwood City can not be determined <br />at this time. The fiscal impact could provide modest to substantial benefit to the City. If the <br />voters pass these measures, the City may need to pro re grant writing and administration <br />se~./ices.in order,to..compete effectively for funds and m et admin:st,:"tive reqUir~ <br /> <br />- -:(V¡,¿¿ ,- f4 !tin . <br /> <br />Marilyn/ . Harang Peter Ingram eter r' it Ed Everett <br />Spec Proj PWS Director PRC rec or City Manager <br />Coordinator <br /> <br />Attachments <br />1 . Description of Proposition 12 <br />2. Description of Proposition 13 <br />3. List of Potential Projects in Redwood City <br /> <br />""-"-"-' ..'-"Y <br />