AgdaPkt 2005-12-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�� 2006 LEGISLATtVE YEAR from page 2 .................................. tionists and others). The administration represen- SB 1024 also outlines proposed funding for tatives asked for advice and consultation on several other areas including: $2.3 billion to elements ihat they believe should be included in a improve the state's ports and trade corridors; $1.2 housing/planning reform package, including billion for flood protection; $1 billion for high-speed possible reforms to the California Environmental rail; $425 million for improvements to local streets Quality Act (CEQA). The administration represen- and roads for local governments that have hous- tatives said that while consensus was desirable, it ing elements that have been approved by the was not a requirement for a final package. State Department of Housing and Community Development, and met other requirements. As a follow-up to that meeting the League is working with other stakeholders to develop a Sen. Perata was joined this week by Sen. Tom package of financial incentives for communities Torlakson (Antioch) in a press conference at the that accept housing. This role is consistent with Port of Oakland, during which they talked about the concerns about funding for services and the need for this measure. infrastructure that the League has stressed in its discussions with the builders. The League is also working on SAFETEA-LU, the recently passed federal reauthorization for Conclusion distribution of the 18-cent federal gas tax to states for transportation. 2006 will be a year when numerous housing/ land use proposals are introduced. The League is Under this new act, California wiN receive a 34 committed to working toward meaningful solutions percent increase in revenues over TEA 21 (was — but will insist on proposals that preserve local the previous federal transportation authorization). decision-making and which address cities' critical This increase will result in approximately $5 billion need for funding to pay for services and infrastruc- more in revenues for California's transportation ture. needs, above those received in the six years of the previous federal act. INFRASTRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION SAFETEA-LU must now be implemented at There are several efforts at play to find more the state level through implementation legislation. money to pay for the state's infrastructure needs, The League is working with a statewide coalition particularly as they relate to transportation. The of transportation stakeholders to collaborate and League is participating in discussions with a provide input to ensure that an equitable approach coalition of transportation stakeholders to explore for distribution of the SAFETEA-LU revenues is the potential for a ballot measure or initiative that adopted. would permanently dedicate Prop. 42 funds — the sales tax on gasoline — to transportation. Such a We're just getting started in this process, but constitutional amendment would put an end to the can anticipate that SAFETEA-LU will be a focus of annual fight to make sure these transportation- our efforts next year. derived revenues are always directed to transpor- tation needs. REDEVELOPMENT AND EMINENT DOMAIN So far, however, the only proposed legislative Protection of redevelopment funds was a key measure in print is Senate Pro Tem Don Perata's priority for the League in 2005. While concerns SB 1024, a$10.2 billion package that includes about protecting this funding from possible legisla- $2.5 billion to repay Prop. 42 funds to projects that tive action remains high, concern has shifted lost Prop. 42 money in 2003 and 2004, when the since the Supreme Court decision in Ke/o v. City funds were transferred to other state needs. of New London to possible legislative action that Confinued on Page 5 PAGE 4- PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Website--www.cacities.org November 18, 2005 - Issue #45