|Back To Agenda||Print Page|
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 15, 2003
SUBJECT: AB 496 (CORREA) SANTA ANA RIVER CONSERVANCY AND PROPOSAL TO DIVERT PROPOSITION 42 TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
Consider legislative issues as requested to be placed on the agenda by Councilmember John McTaggart.
In accordance with City Council policy, Councilmember John McTaggart has requested these legislative items be reviewed and considered by the entire Council. Below is a summary of each legislative item of interest. Should Council wish to support or oppose a legislative bill, staff will prepare the appropriate letters for the mayor’s signature. A motion for a neutral position on any legislative bill will result in no action by staff, although individual Council-members may personally prepare and send letters of support or opposition at anytime.
AB 496 (CORREA) Santa Ana River Conservancy
The City of Diamond Bar has requested the City to send a letter opposing AB 496. AB 496 would, until January 2011, establish the Santa Ana River Conservancy (SARC) to acquire and direct the management of specified public lands in the Santa Ana River watershed area and would prescribe the management, powers, and duties of the conservancy. The bill would also create the SARC Fund, but would prohibit the conservancy from implementing the funding authorization until the Legislature appropriates, from other than General Fund moneys, or a bond act approved by voters allocates, the necessary funds.
According to correspondence from Diamond Bar’s Mayor Carol Herrera, AB 496 lacks features that would protect individual city rights with regard to land use decisions. "Namely, the bill would still allow the proposed conservancy to invoke the power of eminent domain through a Joint Powers Authority and make land acquisitions for projects which would not have to be ratified by the local city council(s) wherein the said acquisition lies. Also, the bill does not allocate any representation from Los Angeles County which is part of the proposed conservancy territory."
The League of California Cities and Contract Cities have not taken any formal positions on AB 496 at this time. AB 496 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife for a hearing on July 8th. Attached is AB 496 text.
Legislature’s Proposal to Divert Proposition 42 (Transportation Funds)
The Automobile Club of Southern California has requested the City to oppose any proposals by the Governor or State Legislature to take or loan away part or all of Proposition 42 transportation funds to help solve the State’s budget deficit. In 2002, voters approved Prop 42 dedicating over $1 billion in gasoline sales tax to be used to improve highways, local roads and mass transit.
Opponents argue diverting Proposition 42 funds will do in the following:
On the other hand, Proposition 42 contains flexibility for the Governor to suspend the shift to transportation for a fiscal year if both of the following conditions are met: 1) The Governor issues a proclamation that "declares that the transfer of revenues will result in a significant negative fiscal impact on the range of functions of government funded by the General Fund of the State." 2) The Legislature by a two-thirds vote in a stand-alone bill concurs with the suspension.
California Contract Cities Association has not taken a formal position on this, however the California League of Cities opposes the proposal to divert Proposition 42 funds.
Should City Council decide to oppose either legislative item, staff will prepare the appropriate letter(s) indicating the Council’s action for the Mayor’s signature.
None associated with this report.
Sr. Administrative Analyst