AgdaPkt 2007-06-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 9 use of the bond maney. SB 286 passed off the Senate floor with bipartisan support artd is now heading to the Assembly. Proposition 1C: This measure aliocates$2.85 billion for housing projecfs. Appraximately half of the bond ($9.45 billion� is going out through existing programs such as the Muitifamily Housing Program(MHP), Emergency Housing Assistance Program {EHAP), and the Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoocls program {BEGIN). The remaining funds($'i.4 billion}are designated for infill infrastructure($850 million}, parks($200 miflion),transit-oriented development($300 million), and innovative programs($104 million). Sipnificant noten#ial open issues: One of the most significant issues outstanding is who will be eligible to app(y for infill infrastructure funding, Current update: The infill infrastructure fund has attracted the most legislative atfention,where two bills have emerged as the frant runners. AB 1053 (IVunez)distributes$450 million to a ccmpetitive infrastructure program administered by the Californ�a De�artment of Hcusirg and Community Develooment(HCD). 7he remaining$400 million is split evenly between the Infrastructure Bank, a workforce housing program administered by HCD, MHP, and the Cal-Reuse Brownfields program. As a result,a totai$75d mi!lion will go directly#o(ocal agencies fior infrastructure reiated to housing. 56 46 (Perata}on the other hand creates a single competitive grant program for infill infrastructure and affordable housing that can be applied for by lacal governments and nonprofit housing developers. Proposition 84: $5.4 billion for improving natural resources and water programs including stafe projects and flaod control,safe drinking water,water quality improvemen#, integrated water management, water p(anning and sustainable communities. Si�nificant qotential ooen issues: Further definition of elements of the$580 million for climate change, including $90 mil(ion for incentives for planning; how the$1 billion for local agencies to meet local water needs will be spent and anticipation of a possib(e effort to redirect$400 million in park funds to create a per capifa grant program for grant funds. Current update:There are several iegisla#ive proposals to further refine the allocation of doAars under Prop. 84. 7he most significant of these proposals is SB 732{Steinberg). Proposition 1 E: $4.09 billion for critica! river levee repair and construction, flood control projects and the updating and repair of old water mains and sewage systems. The alloca#ion also includes$290 miflion for the creation of flood protection corridors and floodplain mapping. Sianificant potential open issues: Effort to incfude water storage into funding categories; addition of liabifity link to allocation of levee improvement funds. Current update: The Budget Conference Committee has created a Water Working Group that will address most, if not all of fhe Prop. 1 E and Prop. 84 flood and water issues in the budget process. This group may also address flood management issues. �roposition 1D: $10.5 billion for performing school building repairs and providing innovative learning facilities for Caiifornia students, including seismic retrofitting and classraom repairs. Sianificant potential open issues: Allocation of$29 million to fund joint-use projects for construction of K-12 schooi facilities. Court Holds Public Employee Relations Board Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Labor Disputes 7he ist District Court of Appeal recentEy issued a decision important for cities that negotiate with labor unions. The court held that the Public Employee Relations Board (PERS)—the state 5