Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-056 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 90-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN SUPPORT OF SCA 1, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990. WHEREAS, the State of California faces serious problems in its fiscal policy which threaten the critical areas of education, transportation, health services, law enforcement and other taxpayer services, thereby endangering the state's current and future economic health; WHEREAS, SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to allow the state greater flexibility in making use of all available revenues generated by California's strong economy; WHEREAS, it would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax to provide increased funding for maintenance and improvement of highway and mass transit projects without reducing funds for other state programs; WHEREAS, it would continue the guarantees of Proposition 98 that grades Kindergarten through 12th and the community colleges receive 40 % of the state budget; WltEREAS, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it will be impossible to maintain the generally high level of education, transportation, health, law enforcement and other vital services to the residents of California; WHEREAS, SCA 1 is supported by a broad coalition including the Governor of California, State Superintendent of Schools, California Taxpayers Association, League of Women Voters of California, California School Boards Association, California Chamber of Commerce, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Retired Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters, California State Automobile Association, California Business Roundtable, University of California board of Regents, California State University Board of Trustees, and many others; Reso 90-56 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve as follows: Section 1. That the City of Temecula does support passage of the traffic congestion relief and spending limitation act of 1990 (SCA 1). Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEALI Reso 90-56 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-56 was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following roll call vote. AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans Reso 90-56 FMt~14 Theel .... I.(toeee · SunOlv. Mi¥6.1glO Yes on transportation There are three measures on the June ballot - Propositions 108, 111 and 116 - designed to confront Califorma's massive t~ansportauon problems. Two, Propositions 108 and 116, authorize bonds for major raft projects: the third, i 11, confronts the state's badly deteriorating streets and highways, The Bee recommends a Yes vote on all three. Proposition 111 must pass. Because it loos- ens California's increasingly unmanageable §overnment spending limits, it is crucial to the maintenance of all state services. from health to higher educanon. In addition, Prop- osition 111 authorizes the state to increase gasoline taxes - currently among the lowest in the country. - from 9 cents to 18 cents a gallon. The new taxes vail raise $18.5 billion over the next 10 years, primarily to upgrade and build state and local roads - needs that have been neglected for more than a decade. ~ The gas-tax measure is oriented toward full funding for the State Transportation Im- provement Plan, an extensive list of highway projects approved in 1988 that includes road improvements in virtually every community. Its critics say that some of those projects no longer make environmental sense, or even relieve congesuon. Where that's true, every effort must made by state and local officials to substitute better plans. But in most cases. it seems not to be true. The bulk of the gas- tax money will go to a long list of traffic rmti- gation measures - diamond lanes, traffic- management systems, sound walls; to ur- gertfly neetied improvements in local streets: and to expansion of local transit systems. For commuters stuck in traffic and confronted with a network of rapidly deteriorating roads. those needs should be obvious. proposition 111 also makes possible the implementanon of Proposition 108, a $1 billion raft and light-rail bond measure. if the voters approve it on .June 5, Along vath Prop- osition 116. a $1.9 billion rail-bond initiative, 108 would give the state an opportunity to in- vest in mass translt alternatives that will be- gin to give Californians some real alterna- tives to cars and be? n to restore t~alance to the state's highway dependent transporta- tion system. The two measures identi~ rail corridors. including Sacramento light-rail extensions, San Joaquin Valley rail improve- ments and Bay Area to Sacramento intermr,.' rail lines, as places where bona money vail be spent - on roiling stock and improved tracks, roadbeds and stations - to expand rail passenger service. The reasons for 108 and 116 should like- wise be obvious. In many of the most con- gested parts of Los Angeles and the Bay Area - as well as in Sacramento - the cost of ex- panding freeways is prohibitive and likely to produce more air pollution and generate more traffic. The two bonci measures are thus companions, both politically and in the development of a balanced transportation policy, to the highway improvements that Proposition 111 makes possible. They, too. deserve to pass. There is one troubling aspect about Proposition 116, which was placed on the ballot by im-tta~ve and was thus subject to no overall fiscal planning. Planning trans- portation systems and issuing bonds by. ini- tiative is never ideal; it becomes pamctdArly problematic at a time when California is ap- proaching a limit on the amount of new debt it can prudently absorb in each election cy- cle. Indeed, if Proposition 111 does not pass. and the Gann limit on spending therefore re- mains unchanged - or if any other serious fiscal crisis should occur - issuance of rai~. bonds approved under Proposition i08 or 116, or both, will have to be postponed in fa- vor of other, even more pressing state needs. If necessary, rail bonds tentatively scheduled by the Legislature for 1992 and 1994 may al- so have to be delayed. Nonet:.eless, given the urgency of the state's transit needs and the fact that the in- frastructure funded by 108 and 116 is likely to generate far more in economic grovah - and the tax revenues to pay off the bonds - than it costs, both raft measures should be approved now. Without them. the state's gridlocked roads and its dirty. air can only get worse. All three major party candidates for governor. John Van de Karnp, Dianne Fein- stein and Pete Wilson. have signed ballot ar- guments in favor of Proposition 116. All sup- port all three transportation mitiauves. Yes on 108. 111 and 116. STATEMENT TO THE WAYS & MEANS TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING PROPOSITIONS 111 AND 108 AND THE CALTRANS 1990-91 BUDGET Submitted by Arti~ur 8auer Executive Vice Presiclent Californians for Better Transportation April 25, 1990 Mr. Chairman and members, Californians for Better Transportation is pleased to have this opportunity to testify at the hearing regarding the overview of the governor's proposed 1990- 91 Caltrans budget. As has been pointed out to you by Mr. Leonard, chairman of the California Transportation. Commission and Caltrans' very able director Bob Best, the state's transportation program ~s terminally ill unless Propositions 111 and 108 are approved by the voters in June. The lack of funding has caused Caltrans to propose a budget that is 23 percent less than the current budget for next fiscal year. This proposed budget is a precursor of future budgets. The cuts often represent Hobbsian choices which are really acts of desperation. For example, the Transportation Planning & Development Account is reduced by $40 mill. ion from the State Transit Assistance Program to sustain elements of the highway program which itself is reduced 22 percent. A transportation budget that reflects decisions of this sort is unfortunately not a broad based transportation program, but rather a group of expenditure categories with very limited goals and objectives. It is for this reason that CBT and other groups have been seeking the passage of Propositions 1 I1 and 108. In regard to the campaign efforts, one of the questions that members of CBT's board of directors has repeatedly heard during meetings with service clubs and with newspaper editorial boards around the state relates to exactly how the Proposition l 11 and 108 funds will be used. The public needs the confidence that funds will be spent as intended. Therefore, we strongly support your staff recommendation to essentially adopt a dual budget--the proposed budget, which assumes no new revenues, and an alternative budget that assumes the additional $718 million that the passage of Proposition 111 will make available to the highway program next year. This action will communicate to Californians what thev can expect in the first year after both propositions are enacted. CALIFORNIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES COMMITTEE I,D. 891955 Jack D. Maltester Prt, s~aen t Arthur E. Bauer Treasurer CAMPAIGN UPDATE PROPOSITIONS 108, 111 and 116 Why Vote for Propositions 111 and 1087 Take A Lool( at Caltrans' Proposed 1990-1991 Budget California's transportation budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year was the subject of a recent hearmgof the Assembly Ways & Means Transportation Subcomittee. Tl~e subcomittee. chaired bv Assemb[wnan Steve Clute (D-Riverside) was told that the governor's proposed budget assumes no new revenues. Consequently, it presents a stark picture of the conditions that California's transportation program will face if Propositions 111 and 108 are not approved by the voters. The teDstature's budget arm, the highly regarded non-partisan, Office of the LeDslative Analyst, concluded the following regarding the Caltrans budget: o Caltrans' total budget will be down by 23 percent from the current fiscal year. o Expenditures for the highway program will be off 22.4 percent and for the mass transit program they will be off 29.9 percent. o Over 765 positions will be cut, including 513 dedicated to the design and en_mneering of state highway projects. California will be unable to match federal highway funds anticipated to be made available during the 1988 State Transportation Improvement Program period, which ends in 1993. O California's transit assistance program is eviscerated with Caltrans proposing to transfer $104 from transit projects to offset diminished highway funds. Essentially, this will be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Californians for Better Transportation also presented testimony to the subcommittee. The statement is attached. California Transportation Commission Cuts Contracts to I~e Awarded In a budget balancing action, the California Transportation Commission postponed going to contract for the construction of 29 state highway projects having a value of $280 million due to lack of funding. This brings the total contracts postponed this year to $230 million. Among the projects postponed included $85 million on the Century Freeway in Los Angeles. $83 million on 1-215 in Riverside County, $51 million on Route 30 between San Bernardino and Redlands. and $I5 million on 1-880 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. These projects are assured of funding if Propositions 111 and 108 are enacted in June. Should Propositions 111 and 108 not b~ enacted. the construction time for these projects wilt be extended over the next decade. Opposition Emerges to Propositions 111 anc1108 Remnants of Paul Gann's tax reform group, Arthur Laffer. a gadfly economist. San Diego and Orange County. no growth advocates. and others have formed Citizens Against Urffair Taxation to oppose Propositions 111 and 108. The major elements of their argument is that voting for these measures will do away with the Oann expenditure limit. cause inflation and trigger a recession, and will not address congestion. None of these assertions are true, but since when are people constrained by the truth? Sacramento Bee Endorses Propositions 108, 111 and 116 The "newspaper of record" for state government endorsed the three transportation propositions in its icad editorial Sunday, May 6. A copy of this editorial is enclosed.