HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04171990 - 2.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
rte: :
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator g' _ ,; � _
Costa
Count
. , y
C}�\ •�}r
DATE: April 12, 1990 __-,fir
cuu.
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 116, The Clean Air and Transportation Improvement
Act of 1990
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)S BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REC0194 NDATION
Consider what position the Board wishes to take on Proposition
116 on the June 5, 1990 ballot, the Clean Air and Transportation
Improvement Act of 1990 .
BACKGROUND:
On April 10, 1990 the Board of Supervisors asked the County
Administrator to prepare a summary and analysis of Proposition
116 for the Board' s review and consideration.
Proposition 116 is an initiative statute which, if approved by
the voters, would approve the sale of general obligation bonds in
the amount of $1 ,990,000,000 ( $1. 99 billion) to provide funds
principally for passenger and commuter rail systems, with limited
funds available for public mass transit guideways, paratransit
vehicles, bicycle and ferry facilities and railroad technology
museum.
The measure provides grants to local agencies for capital
expenditures for intercity rail projects, commuter rail service
and urban rail transit.
The measure allocates $1. 033 billion for commuter and intercity
rail projects, including $140 million for the Los
Angeles-Fresno-San Francisco Bay Area rail corridor and extension
of the corridor to Sacramento and $85 million to implement
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:Ye S YES SIGNATURE:
1RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE OOO��f
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): ce�
ACTION OF BOARD ON April , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
The Board adopted a position in support of Proposition 116 ,
the Rail Initiative Bond Act of 1990.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
, DATE SHOWN. O/
CC: ATTESTED a it tzz //) /7/O
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Please see Page 2. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88)
BY DEPUTY
A
intercity rail service from Placer County to Santa :Clara County,
$75 million for specified projects and engineering studies to
provide commuter and intercity rail service and $100 million for
the acquisition of rail cars and locomotives.
The measure also provides $728 million for urban rail transit and
local rail projects, including $37 million which is allocated to
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for expenditure on rail
projects of BART and other rail projects within the County, as
determined by the authority. Projects funded pursuant to this
section must be consistent with the new rail starts and
extensions plan of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
In addition, $61 million is allocated to the Alameda County
Transportation Authority for BART and other rail projects and $10
million is allocated to the San Mateo County Transit District for
BART extensions within San Mateo County.
The measure provides $229 million for other projects, including
an allocation of $1 ,000,000 to CalTrans to complete a survey of
all rail rights-of-way in the state. The study is to be
completed by December 31, 1991 and is to identify the status of
all the rail corridors in the state and evaluate their relative
importance and potential for future rail passenger service.
Includes within these other projects are $30 million for
water-borne ferry systems and $20 million to improve bicycle
commuter facilities.
The $37 million grant to the Contra Costa Transportation
Commission (and a number of the other grants) require a
dollar-for-dollar match.
The measure can only be amended by a 4/5 vote of each house of
the Legislature and only then if the amendment is consistent with
and furthers the purpose of the Proposition. The Legislature is
specifically prohibited from changing any of the allocated
amounts provided for in the Proposition unless an agency fails to
spend the funds by July 1, 2000 or unless a project proves to be
economically infeasible.
The argument in support of Proposition 116 is signed by Attorney
General Van De Kamp, Senator Wilson and the President of the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
cc: Each Board Member
County Administrator
Larry Naake, Executive Director, CSAC
Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates
D.J. Smith, D.J. Smith Associates
Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Public Works Director
Community Development Director
Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority