Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />INFRASTRUCTURE from page 4 . . . . . .. AB 2987 from page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30 <br /> <br />Orange County - Measure M <br /> <br />Originally approved in 1990, Orange County's <br />Measure M is set to expire in 2010 unless renewed <br />by voters. The renewal would extend the half-cent <br />sales tax for another 30 years, and provide $11.8 <br />billion for various transportation projects. <br /> <br />Further information on the measure is available <br />at www.octa.netlmeasure%20m.asp. <br /> <br />Tulare County - Measure R <br /> <br />Measure R is a 30-year half-cent saies tax in <br />Tulare County that would provide approximately <br />$653 million for regional road improvements and <br />transportation programs. <br /> <br />Details on Measure R are available at <br />www.tularecoQ.oro. <br /> <br />Madera County - Measure T <br /> <br />If passed in November, Measure T would <br />provide $213 million for transportation improve- <br />ments throughout Madera County, including the <br />extension of Routes 41,223, and 99. The measure <br />is a half-cent sales tax over 20 years. <br /> <br />More information on Measure T is located at <br />www.maderactc.orQ. <br /> <br />For a copy of CIC's Eye on Infrastructure <br />newsletter and information on infrastructure issues <br />statewide, visit WNW calinfrastructure or9. <br /> <br />Statewide Infrastructure Ballot Measures <br /> <br />There are a number of statewide infrastructure <br />measures on the November ballot this year. The <br />League supports Propositions 1A-1E, the package <br />of bond measures that will help fund infrastructure, <br />transportation, housing, and flood protection <br />projects throughout California. <br /> <br />For more information on these propositions and <br />other ballot measures, see "League Board Acts <br />on November 2006 Ballot Measures,. located at <br />www.cacities.orglballotmeasures. <br /> <br />Opening comments on the proposed rules <br />were due on October 25. The League elected not <br />to file separate comments, but instead signed on <br />to the comments submitted by the States of <br />California and Nevada Chapter National Associa- <br />tion of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors <br />(SCAN NATOA). In addition, Lea9ue staff has <br />been meeting with PUC staff to discuss the <br />rulemaking proceeding, and PUC has indicated an <br />interest in working cooperatively with the League <br />with respect to implementing AS 2987. <br /> <br />The League is also meeting with representa- <br />tives from AT&T and Verizon to discuss issues <br />related to implementing AB 2987. We expect that <br />this process will result in a form that will assist <br />cities in providing new video services entrants with <br />the information that cities are required to provide <br />under AS 2987, such as the amount of the existing <br />franchise fee, the number of activated PEG <br />channels, the amount of existing PEG fees, etc. <br /> <br />If you are interested in more information on AB <br />2987, you may want to visit the SCAN NATOA <br />website at www scannatoa.or9finfo docs html, <br />which has the materials for the AS 2987 seminar it <br />held earlier this month. <br /> <br /> <br />Visit the League's Official Website..WWW'.cacities.org <br /> <br />PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 <br />October 27, 2006 . Issue #42 <br />