Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "proposition 1a"

California High-Speed Rail Authority Scoping Meeting

2010-01-29T01:53:12Z

Thursday morning, the Federal Department of Transportation is expected to announce it’s decision on how roughly $8 billion of federal stimulus funding will be allocated.

California hopefully awaits a response to it's application for $4.7 billion of the stimulus funds in order to proceed with a high-speed rail project that has long awaited realization.

California High-Speed Rail Authority Board Chairman Curt Pringle believes California is a strong contender.

“We can double the value of the federal government’s dollars by matching them with state bond funds approved by California voters last year.” He said.

By this, he referred to the narrow passage in November 2008 of Proposition 1A, allowing for a bond measure approval of nearly $10 billion in bonds to partially fund an 800-miles high-speed rail network between Northern and Southern California.

The bond act’s proponents include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Alliance For Jobs, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority, who argue that the project will create jobs and boost California’s economy while relieving auto traffic and oil dependency.

Opposition campaigns were waged by tax-payer groups like Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee. They argue that the project’s cost is ballooning to prices higher than what the state can afford.

Preceding the vote, in November 2008, the Sacramento Bee denounced the act, stating:

"Until California fixes its chronic budget deficits, it can't afford to increase its debt for projects that, while desirable, are not of vital necessity.”

Nevertheless, Californian voters pushed the proposition through, enabling the California High-Speed Rail Authority to initialize project development.

Yesterday, the California High Speed Rail Authority hosted a scoping meeting at the Amtrak Depot in Sacramento in an effort to collect public input towards the early stages of project planning.

“Anyone that comes to something like this or offers comments, either through this type of meeting or through the website or by submitting a letter, they’re doing so at a time when we still have a lot of decisions to be made,” said spokesman Gene Endicott.

“We’re trying to reach as many people as we can with an interest in the project, whether they’re elected officials, community groups, people who live near the proposed alignments, businesses organizations…we’re trying as best we can to broadly communicate about the opportunity to be engaged in this process.”

In order to comply with state and federal laws, the California High-Speed Rail Authority must prepare a Project Environmental Impact Report, detailing project impacts and recommended mitigation measures. This scoping meeting was one of a series of public input sessions through the Central Valley; the state-wide rail project is split into eleven sections, each with its own project-level EIR.

“What we’re working on here today is the EIR specific to the section of the project from Merced to Sacramento,” said Endicott. “It’ll be a couple of years before we even have a draft of the Environmental Impact Report. The entire process will take about three years.”

In a revised business plan submitted by the High-Speed Rail Authority to the Legislature last month, three categories of major milestones are outlined: planning, implementation, and revenue services. According to the report, the completion of environmental reviews is scheduled for 2011, with construction scheduled the following year.

If implementation continues as planned, the plan’s projected passenger service date is 2017, with the completed system running from Anaheim to San Francisco by 2020.

Despite this projected time-line, uncertainty over what federal funding will be made available to the project and what Californian taxpayers are able to pay seems to have tempered the emotional campaigns waged over Prop 1A’s passage.

Attendees at the public input session seemed more curious about where the project stands than antagonistic to its existence.

City resident, Brian Hussey, was a proponent of the ambitious project and voted yes on Prop 1A. He came to learn about the progress being made towards realizing the train line.

“It’s a question whether it’s really going to get done or not. I’d really like to see them come up with a solid plan,” he said. “Right now it seems like a real political football.”

According to Endicott, disseminating information and collecting input is especially important at this stage of development, because decisions made during the stage of implementation are inevitably contentious. He named a number of issues the California High-Speed Rail Authority anticipates addressing when track alignments are finalized.

“Noise pollution is a big one for people,” he said.

But the project has not yet reached a point where these issues are addressed directly. It is unclear what California can afford to contribute to the project; Thursday's announcement of federal stimulus allocation could give project hopefuls a better idea.

County fears state may take local social services, public safety funds

2009-06-05T04:36:11Z

Sacramento County’s public safety and social service programs will be harmed if the state advances a proposal to borrow $2 billion from local governments, according to county spokesman Zeke Holst.

The county is planning cuts to close its own $180 million budget gap.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed borrowing property tax revenues from local governments as one of many ways to address the state’s $24.3 billion deficit. Holst noted that Sacramento County’s portion of the $2 billion would be $32 million.

Lending $32 million in county revenues to the state “would directly impact public safety and social programs,” Holst said. “We are watching the state very closely to see what they are planning to do so that we can be better prepared to adjust our services to our communities and minimize the impact of the loss of services.”

In order for Schwarzenegger’s proposal to be enacted, the state Legislature must approve it with a two-thirds vote. California Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said it gives Schwarzenegger "no pleasure" to propose to borrow from local governments.

Palmer noted that Schwarzenegger supported local government authority and the 2004 initiative Proposition 1A, which voters approved. That proposition ensures that local governments maintain control over their property and sales tax revenues.

However, the proposition enables the state to borrow the local government funds in a fiscal crisis. The proposition says the state must reimburse local governments with interest within three years.

The governor made the proposal because of the “severe recession,” Palmer said.

The city of Sacramento would also be affected by Schwarzenegger’s plan. Mayor Kevin Johnson said recently that the city could dedicate up to $12 million in “risk funds” to the state. City staffers wrote in a May 22 report that these funds “are reserved to cover city liability settlements over the life of a claimant.”

Sacramento County expects to release its proposed budget Friday, June 5.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

More than just a sales tax increase

2009-03-13T00:53:40Z

Back in February Gov. Schwarzenegger and the legislature passed a state budget that included a temporary one-cent hike in the state sales tax, well now the time has come to pay up. On April 1st the one-cent-on-the-dollar increase will take effect and will expire on either July 1, 2011, or July 1, 2012 depending on voter’s approval of the proposed Budget Stabilization constitutional amendment in a statewide election to be held on May 19, 2009.

If Proposition 1A, also known as the Spending Cap Amendment passes on May 19th, more than sales taxes will be raised. Expect to see an additional 5% surcharge on state income taxes, an increase in the vehicle-license fee from 0.65% to 1.15%, $15 billion reduction in government spending, including $8.6 billion from education, and an elimination of two state holidays for state workers to enjoy. The deal also includes automatic spending restraints and new powers for governors to cut programs whenever the state falls into the red. If passed it would raise more than $5 billion per year. So far, no coordinated opposition has formed against 1A, but labor unions are discussing whether to mount an attack against the proposition.

Now we all get to pay for the mistakes our legislators have been making over the years. For years and years out state legislators have tried to fill budget gaps buy borrowing money in bonds, but now the state is in such a financial mess with lots of debt and a downgraded bond rating to the lowest in the nation that they have no choice but to get their house in order to attract investors.