AgdaPkt 2005-07-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ð:I- /d PROP 42 from page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eligible for the allocation of these funds. To find out how much your city will receive visit 'MNW.califomiacitvfinance .com. Use of these Prop 42 Funds: Prop 42 funds must be used only for street and highway pave- ment maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction and storm damage repair. For Proposition 42 purposes, maintenance means patching and overlay, and sealing. Reconstruction includes overlay, sealing or widening of the roadway to bring the roadway width to the desirable minimum pavement width consistent with accepted design standards for local streets and roads, but does not include widening for increasing the traffic capacity of a street or road. Maintenance of Effort (MaE) Requirement: In order to receive Prop 42 allocations, cities must be in compliance with the MOE provision. The MOE provision requires cities to expend from their general fund, in the budget year in which Prop 42 monies are allocated, a defined amount of funds for transportation purposes. This amount is equal to or greater than the average transportation expendi- tures for the fiscal years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. At the end of each fiscal year in which a city has received Proposition 42 funding, the city must prove to the State Controller that they have spent the required MOE monies. Any that city fails to do so must reimburse the state for the funds it re- ceived during that fiscal year. (For specific detail on Proposition 42, look up Section 7104 of the Rev- enue and Taxation code.) .. . . . .... .. . .... . . ..... . HOMELAND SECURITY from page 1 H.R. 2360 proposes to change the distribution formula for allocating federal homeland security funding to state and local first responder agencies. During the debate on H.R. 2360, Senators Susan Collins (Maine) and Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), both members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Govemment Affairs, proposed an amendment that would set the minimum percentage for states at 0.55 percent of all funds spent. The current percentage is 0.75 percent, but the amendment would be applied to more funding. As a result, a smaller proportion of the nation's homeland security funding resources would be distributed without taking into account identified risk or threat under the proposed Senate approach. Senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and John Comyn (Texas) proposed an altemative plan to set 0.25 percent as a minimum for states for four programs: The State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) and Citizens Corps. If ap- proved and enacted, the Feinstein-Comyn amendment would have distributed nearly 90 percent of homeland security grant dollars according to identified risk and threat information In the end, large, high-threat states were defeated. Sen. Collins argued that 43 states would get more money under the Collins- Lieberman amendment as opposed to the Feinstein-Comyn amendment. The Senate voted to adopt the Collins- Lieberman amendment, 71-26, and rejected the Feinstein-Comyn amendment, 32-65. The result is that high-risk areas in Califomia and other states will continue to suffer from a lack of federal funding to defend against and prepare for the risk of terrorist actions. Commenting on the story, The New York Times had this to say in an editorial on July 14: "Rather than dole out homeland security money according to a system based entirely on risk, Congress builds in guaranteed state mini- mums - money that goes to a state regardless of the risks and threats it faces...Senators had a chance to fix next year's formula, but they voted to make it worse." The Senate appropriations bill will soon move to conference with the House. PAGE 6/PRIORITV FOCUS Visit the League's Official Website u www.cacities.org .~.. lr.