Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8A <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />could be &xpedited for tM remaining Local Street and Road funds. Citi&s oan put. this monay to <br />work immediately since there is a tremendous unmet need in the local transportation system. <br /> <br />The state should authorize the balance of the funding to be committed ($1.05 billion) and authorize <br />an additional $2 billion to cities.andcounties. <br /> <br />Greenllnfill Infrastructure. The intill infrastructure program in the Prop. 1 C housing bond <br />successfully responds to infilT housing and infrastructure needs of local communities. This money <br />enables local governments to approve transit-oriented development and the infrastructure to <br />support development such as: transit capital projects, storm water mallag&ment and treatment <br />systems, and wastewater management systems. These projects tie directly to the goal of AB 32 <br />(2006} to lower green house gases. <br /> <br />The League supports a bold financing plan with voter approval of a bond for green/infitl <br />infrastructure, including schools served by transit and other infrastructure to better connect jobs <br />and housing. Possible Cost: $10 billion. <br /> <br />Water Quality Infrastructure Investments. Cities and counties across California are confronting a <br />dramatic need to upgrade wastewater and storm water Infrastructure to meet new treatment <br />requirements. <br /> <br />There is a rapidly growing need for the state to issue a bond to finance loans and grants to urban <br />and rural cities, large and small, to upgrade their -existing wastewater collection and treatment <br />infrastructure and to finance new storm water management and treatment infrastructure to prevent <br />continued poHutionof our streams, rivers and ocean. Possible Cost: $5 billion. <br /> <br />Reduce Voter Threshold for Infrastructure Projects. The League recognizes that it is not <br />feasible for the state to be fhe only source for infrastructure funding. <br /> <br />A proposat to give Iocat governments the same~ percent votefI-approvaf thr&shofd that has been <br />given to schools for capital projects would help effectively address California's infrastructure n&ads. <br />Th.is will also engage Iocat residents in the civic dialogue about the urban deve/opmentof their <br />community. <br /> <br />Stabilize Transit Operations. Construction of transit-oriented development is a goal that is <br />c.onsistent with the parameters of AS 32 (2006), but it can't be done unless transit has sufficient <br />operating funding. <br /> <br />Some r&COgnition of the need for transit operations revenues is an important piece of a <br />comprehensive transportation financing plan. <br /> <br />Caltrans/Local Project Streamlining Task Force. Create a state and local task force to develop a <br />recommendation to streamline the CaITrans project permit process. This is currently a very <br />cumbersome process which adds delays to worthwhile projects as well as significant cost <br />increases as construction costs rise. <br /> <br />Next Step <br /> <br />The March 12 meeting was part of an on...going effort by the Schwarzenegger Administration to <br />begin a serious, comprehensive infrastructure program for California to handle th& tremern:ious <br />backlog in public facility maintenance and the reality thatthose facilities must accommodate a <br />constantly growing population. <br /> <br />The League expects to be engaged with the Administration in future discussions about California's <br />infrastructure needs and will provide updates on its Web site at www.cacities.orQ/infrastructure. <br /> <br />3 <br />