AgdaPkt 2009-05-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SA Page 6 reviews, and will help locals develop a more predictable budget. Many legislators haven't had to manage a budget ever, they don't know" Cynthia Bryant: "He (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) has spoken favorably (about the possibility of a constitutional convention) but more so for reform. For accountability, controlled budget, he's always looking for the next big idea." Jim Wunderman: "We need to bring back the trust. Constituents don't feel they are being represented. In 1859 they held a constitUtional convention and 500 plus amendments later Ifs a mixed up,system. We used to be leaders In California, now we're at the bottom with infrastructure, schools, prisons, transportation. We need a fix. We need a holistic look at government. It's been 140 years. There's a better way to lead this state and reclaim the greatness of California. II Prop_ 1 S Local Streets and Roads Payments to Cities Restart, Next Allocation Still Uncertain The Department of Finance (POF) authorized the State Controller's Office to release $35.9 million dollars to cities for PropOSition 1 B Local streets and Roads funding on April 15. The 30 cities that received funding were part of a group of local agencies who were notified by the DOF In December that their projects were approved. However, the majority of these payments were caught by the state's freeze on all bond dollars, halting the scheduled January funding release date. The DOF stated that additional payments to Gitles are pending for May 15, following the recent round of successful bond sales that totaled $6.85 billion in general obligation bonds. This pending distribution will follow the same *first come, first serve" standards put In place by the 2008-09 Budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger In September 2008. Cities are strongly encouraged to submit their Prop. 1 B project list so that they may receive funds as soon as additional bond dollars are released. Those guidelines are available at: htto://www.dof.ca.aov/bonds/orooositlon 1 b dlsbursementsl2008-09 aoorooriation/. Supreme Court Weighs In on Local Agency Sallot Measure Activities The California Supreme Court shed some light on an increasingly Important issue for local officials on Monday, April 20. The question is when It comes to local ballot measures, what can one do lawfully with public resources and what Is forbidden? Specifically, what Is the dividing line between permissible informational activities and Impermissible campaign activities? Local government advocates argued for a bright line standard that would allow local agencies to engage In activities as long as those activities did not involve expressly advocating that voters vote yes or no on a ballot measure. The Supreme Court rejected that request, finding that such a standard would be too permissive. Instead, the Court reaffirmed its position in earlier cases that the permissibility of communications turns on their "style. tenor and timing. II The case involved the city of Salinas' activities relating to a ballot measure that would have repealed the city's utility users tax. In anticipation of the nearly 13 percent revenue loss, the city held a series of workshops (during city council meetings) that described the cut$ to services and programs that would occur if the ballot measure passed. The city council also adopted a provisional budget detailing where cuts would occur If the ballot measure passed. Meeting minutes were posted on the city's Web site (Which included the position of ballot measure proponents articulated at the workshops). The city also prepared a one-page summary of the cuts and included the Information on what would be cut in Its regular city newsletter. Proponents of the ballot measure argued that these activities violated the prohibition against using public resources for campaign purposes. The Court disagreed and took Into account a number of factors In reaching this conclusion Including the fact that the city had not spent extra 6