AgdaPkt 2006-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SA Page S LEG HEARINGS from page 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . League legislative representatives were among the witnesses in several of the hearings, offering comments, but no formal positions on any of the measures. (See "League Comments at Transportation and Housing Hearings" and "League Testifies at Assembly Hearing on Flood Control Bond Bills.") The League has formed a new Infrastructure Task Force to analyze the proposals and provide specific recommendations to the League board of directors, in time for the board's February 10-11 meeting. (See "League Task Force Reviews Infrastructure Proposals.") Legislators Raise Questions, Concerns While legislators on the various policy com- ments had many specific comments and con- cerns about each of the bond proposals, a few themes arose in all of the hearings. These in- cluded the following: Lack of Legislative Oversight for Bond Programs. The Strategic Growth Plan assumes the passage of large, multi-billion dollar bond packages over several years, with little opportunity for legislative oversight to shape the funding package, ensure that funds are being spent effectively, and make course corrections if new funding priorities arise. Bond Package Obligations Narrow Future Bonding Options. A number of legislators have raised concerns about committing too much of the state's bonding capacity to infrastructure bonds, and possibly threatening the ability of future policy makers to present bonds to respond to possible future crises, such as a major earthquake, or for other priority needs. (The governor's budget package also proposes a constitutional measure that would cap the state's bond obligations to 6 percent ofthe state general fund. If passed by the voters, the cap could further constrain future options.) Concerns about Over-reliance on Bonds. While there is strong support for major invest- ments in infrastructure, both Democrats and Republicans have raised questions about relying primarily upon state bonds to fund the state infrastructure programs. (Local bonds are antici- pated to fund local education, transportation and water resources/flood control projects.) Demo- crats have expressed interest in special taxes to raise revenues for infrastructure. The Assembly Republicans have introduced a constitutional amendment (ACA 27 - McCarthy) that would dedicate 1.5 percent or more of current general fund revenues to infrastructure on an ongoing basis, arguing that this "pay as you go approach" would be cheaper for the state than paying the interest on bonds. Conclusion: The hearings demonstrated that, while there may be different ideas among legislators about how to craft an infrastructure bond package, there appears to be strong concensus that a package must be developed, and soon. Legislative leaders appear to strongly support developing a proposal in time for the June 2006 statewide ballot. Legislative policy commit- tees will continue their overview hearings next week, with the goal of getting closer to agreement on specific proposals that can be moved to a conference committee. For more information please see the following: The Senate Budget Committee's Budget analysis at www.senate.ca.gov. The Senate Republican Caucus analysis at www.reDublican.sen.ca.Qov. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) will have their official analysis out on February 23. Until then, here's the preliminary analysis on the LAO website at www.lao.ca.cov. PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS January 27, 2006 - Issue #4 Visit the League's Official Website--www.cacities.org , .., '--'" ..",. .._,-~'_...,._--"_..-._...._,----_..