CaliforniaCityNews.org

San Jose to Hit the Brakes on Bicycle Licensing, Adding to Cities Abandoning the Practice

During the 2008-2009 budget year, the city of San Jose collected $636 in bike license fees. For many residents, even the existence of such a fee may be unheard of, as an increasing number of cities have long since abandoned bicycle fees, which were first implemented to help authorities recover stolen bikes. And now it appears San Jose will also add its name to the list of cities that are doing away with bicycle license fees in light of few people actually observing the mandate. A recent audit recommended that the city should either actually enforce the provision or drop it altogether, so it appears the council will favor the latter by striking the requirement from the municipal code. Mercury reports:

“Neither station kept a locked cash box to store the fee receipts, the audit found. And although police were supposed to establish a license database where the information could be accessed to aid in recovering stolen bikes, they had not done so, telling the auditors they were too short-staffed. Other cities have had similar experiences. Los Angeles abandoned its bicycle licensing program last year.”

Seattle and San Francisco’s programs are also no longer in place and LA’s Department of Transportation noted that revenue was far too low to fund a database for authorities to recover stolen bikes. According to the DMV, a city cannot charge more than $4 a year for a new bicycle license and $2 a year for renewal. For more, see here.

Palo Alto Takes a Stance Against High-Speed Rail Station; Federal Funds Boost Project

It appears there won’t be any boarding of trains in the city of Palo Alto, as the City Council recently voted unanimously against allowing a stop for High-Speed Rail in its city. Council members decided to inform the California High-Speed Rail Authority that they don’t want a train station in Palo Alto to be part of the rail’s route up in the Bay. Palo Alto, along with Mountain View and Redwood, were being considered for a 67,000-square-foot mid-Peninsula station, but officials voted against it due to concerns about traffic and the costs of building a large parking structure for it. The station would have been along the route from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Mercury News reports:

“The council fell short Monday night of taking a formal stance against a station anywhere along the mid-Peninsula, saying it doesn't want to speak for other cities. ‘I'm a little uncomfortable with telling Redwood City what to do,’ Councilman Larry Klein said as the council considered a recommendation by Councilman Greg Scharff to expand the letter to express opposition to a station anywhere on the mid-Peninsula. Though the council rejected Scharff's suggestion, it agreed to include in its letter that most of the reasons it opposes the station would apply to other potential locations along the mid-Peninsula.”

In other rail-related news, the project has gotten a big financial boost from the federal government, thanks to a $902-million grant that was awarded for rail improvements throughout the Golden State. The high-speed rail system is slated to receive at least $731 million. Much of the money has been specifically tagged for the Central Valley, as $715 million will help pay for the design and construction of a section of the planned bullet train in that region; in addition, around $16 million will go toward a route between San Francisco and San Jose. Gov. Schwarzenegger said the following of the grant: “These additional funds are a tremendous vote of confidence for California's high-speed rail project. I thank the federal government for recognizing the value of accelerating the pace of our project and look forward to the many groundbreakings sure to follow." Overall, the federal government is dishing out $2.5 billion for rail projects throughout the nation. Read more here.

Proposition 22: The Last Push for the Save Local Services Initiative

As Election Day draws increasingly near, it’s now the final push to get Proposition 22 passed this November, and local government officials have united this campaign season under the motto “Fight Back” to encourage voter support against state raids. The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act, which would block the state from taking, borrowing or diverting local government revenues, has proven to be all the more imperative in light of the economic downturn, as state raids of local funds have exacerbated the plight of cities and counties along with the decrease in sales and property tax revenues. All of which has resulted in severe cutbacks for cash-strapped local governments across the state when it comes to local police, fire, parks, libraries, street and road repair. Taxable sales have dropped significantly due to the recession and with fewer homes being built, new property tax revenue has diminished for cities. At a recent press conference, Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado noted the importance of keeping local funds local, stating “Sacramento, do your job, balance your books and leave local government alone.” 

According to a report released by the National League of Cities, as it currently stands, cities have made their deepest cuts in at least a quarter of a century. The fiscal health of local governments is apparent in the stat that 87% of city finance officers said their cities were worse off financially this year than last year. Just last month alone, government agencies in California shed 37,300 workers, which is reportedly the biggest payroll cutback for cities and counties since at least 1990. And experts and officials contend that even more cuts are ahead for the Golden State. The LA Times reports:

“Cities across the state have taken stringent measures to balance their budgets, said Eva Spiegel, a spokeswoman with the League of California Cities. Oakland laid off 80 police officers and delayed pothole repairs. Fullerton laid off 14 police officers and three firefighters, cut library hours and closed restrooms at several parks. Oceanside laid off 28 police officers and three firefighters, closed a swimming pool and a recreation center and eliminated the city Bookmobile. ‘Decreasing sales tax revenues and decreasing property tax revenues mean that a lot of cities have had to do some belt tightening,’ Spiegel said.”

While critics of the initiative have dismissed it as another case of “budgeting by ballot box,” supporters have pointed out that such fiscal reform is needed specifically because trust in state government’s fiscal prudence has been eroded. We recently featured a guest piece at CityNews from San Pablo Council Member Leonard McNeil, who succinctly wrote that “Opponents to Prop 22 ignore the impending disaster for major community revitalization projects in California, are blind to the undermining of future borrowing ability because redevelopment agencies would forever be vulnerable to state legislative actions, and turn a deaf ear to blight continuing unabated, driving down property values on top of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. The state legislature has made fiscal decisions that erode voter confidence in state government and undermined the relationship between levels of government.  There are myriad ways to effectively address the state budget crisis. However, taking funds that are legally obligated to local government cannot be included as a viable and responsible alternative.”

For more on Proposition 22, see here.

(Cross-posted at CaliforniaPropositions.org)

‘Yes on Prop 22’ Radio Ad Funded by Ridgecrest Councilman

The following radio ad for Proposition 22 was cut and paid for by Ridgecrest Councilmember Jerry Taylor. The ad was placed on local radio and urges voters to protect local revenues by supporting Prop 22:

 

Derailed: Peninsula Cities File Lawsuit Against High-Speed Rail Authority

The cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton are looking to throw the high-speed rail project off its tracks, as they have filed a lawsuit against the California High-Speed Rail Authority. These Peninsula cities, along with three environmental groups, two citizens groups and a San Mateo resident, are responsible for the litigation and are arguing that those in charge of the project have failed to properly account for the train’s negative impacts in the region. Specifically, there are concerns about noise, eminent domain, and tracks dividing neighborhoods. Also, the suit is alleging that the rail authority has not considered enough other options for how the tracks will run in these cities. High-speed rail has been controversial in many cities, but especially so in this Peninsula region, as two of the involved cities also filed a similar suit back in 2008, but it was eventually dismissed. The suit alleges the following:

“The project description in the FRPEIR (final revised programmatic environmental impact report) was inadequate because it included inaccurate ridership and revenue figures that were derived using a defective and previously-undisclosed ridership/revenue model. The defective and inaccurate ridership and revenue information ... resulted in the (California High-Speed Rail Authority) not being able to make accurate and informed choices among various project alternatives and in not being able to properly or accurately determine the financial feasibility of various project alternatives and mitigation measures.”

The authority’s ridership projections and environmental impacts are also attacked in the suit. For more on the litigation, see here.

Palo Alto Not on Board with High-Speed Rail; Cmte Declares ‘No Confidence’ in Project

We recently relayed that a study out of UC Irvine concluded that high-speed rail would boost the economy in Southern California by providing over 100,000 permanent jobs and would continue to expand the state’s green economy. As for up north, one city isn’t too keen on the transportation plans that have been released for the rail project thus far and is making its opposition known. The high-speed rail committee for Palo Alto’s City Council recently voted to declare “No Confidence” in the plan and its governing body. As a result, the resolution will be voted on by the entire City Council on September 13th. The committee’s vote of “No Confidence” was unanimous. Opposition stems from views that the current rail plan is not viable, is not responsive to local communities, funding issues, and is based on a problematic business plan. Councilman Larry Klein, chair of the High-Speed Rail Committee, wrote the resolution and said the following:

“It's time for us to recognize what the facts of life are and to act accordingly. We need to be proactive in defense of our community and our region, or else this will be just rammed down our throat and all the studies and alternative designs won't make a bit of difference.”

Klein also expressed concerns that the project’s true costs would be imposed on local communities and was the only forceful voice in suggesting the possibility that the project should be stopped all together. Based on how the council votes later in September, Palo Alto could join both Atherton and Orange in formally opposing the project. The committee’s resolution calls for the California High-Speed Rail Authority to be replaced and for pressuring lawmakers and the governor to pull funding. Mercury News reports that Mayor Pat Burt stated, “It's a difficult decision because we've been attempting, as many cities up and down the state have been attempting, to work in a collaborative manner.” Read more here and here.

Study: High-Speed Rail to Bring 127,000 Jobs to SoCal and Expand Green Economy

According to a new study by UC Irvine, the Los Angeles-Orange County area would benefit from the creation of 127,000 permanent jobs by 2035 through the construction of high speed rail in the region. The study was conducted by UCI’s Institute for Transportation Studies and was presented before 100 elected officials, business leaders, transportation experts and academics and was partly sponsored by the by the Orange County Transportation Assn. Reportedly incomes would increase by $701 million for workers in the area. The LA Times reports:

“Plans call for one of the initial phases to be built between Los Angeles and Anaheim. During construction, the report states, the Anaheim to Los Angeles segment would provide more than $700 million in wages for workers who would have otherwise been unemployed. The study estimates that the project would create more than 57,000 fulltime construction jobs that would last a year. By 2035, the reports states, the enhanced transportation network and increased mobility created by high-speed rail would attract more than 127,000 permanent jobs to the region.”

However, the study’s findings were based on a more costly approach that would not involve sharing existing tracks between L.A. and Anaheim. Thus, elevated structures would have to be built and existing homes and businesses would have to be condemned. Another focus of the study was the economic benefits that high-speed rail could bring to the state, namely preventing the release of about half a billion pounds of greenhouse gases each year. The study notes that the transportation system could spearhead the expanding green economy by providing an alternative to cars. You can read more here.

State Law Gives the Green Light to Reducing Fines for Red Light Infractions

In the past we’ve relayed that while the city of Anaheim has been in favor of banning red light cameras, plenty of other cities argue that they keep drivers from running red lights that could possibly cause accidents. However, plenty of critics of such cameras argue that local governments aren’t so concerned with public safety and are far more focused on the revenue that the cameras can provide for cities. Even the mayor of Anaheim has stated he believes the systems are favored by local governments as a way to generate funds. The issue is playing out at the capital as Assembly Bill 909 would reduce the fine for running a red light or turning right on red and many local officials aren’t too pleased. If passed, the fine would be reduced from $100 to $35. While local officials say a reduction would hamper the effectiveness of such fines, the cut to local traffic revenue is probably a concern as well. Leaders in the Assembly had the bill bypass the Assembly Appropriations Committee because in the past a similar bill was blocked.

Update: AB 909 did indeed pass on Wednesday with a vote of 48-8 and has now been sent to the governor’s desk.

In a column for the Bee, Dan Walters writes:

“Earlier in the year, Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, raised the hackles of local government officials when he proposed a major overhaul of the rules governing the use of automatic cameras at intersections to ticket drivers who disobey red lights. Simitian's bill would have tightened up rules for installing red-light cameras, most of whose tickets are for failure to come to a full stop before making a right turn (or a left turn onto a one-way street). […] Simitian's bill made it through the Senate but was stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee when local officials, police and red-light camera operators turned up the political heat.”

In other red-camera battle news, a lawsuit has been filed in San Mateo County. Mercury News reports that attorney Bruce Simon, who is suing two major traffic camera vendors, said the following of litigation: “We're going after the private companies that induce these municipalities to get into these contracts as revenue enhancing vehicles. If it's supposed to be about safety and preventing accidents, the revenue aspect shouldn't be as important.” Read more here. Red-light camera use has also been subject to scrutiny in Redwood City, as discussed in this report:

The Crash Tax Theory: Sacramento to Vote on Accident Fee; Insurance Companies Oppose

Back in February we relayed that an increasing number of municipalities were considering a crash tax, which bills out-of-area drivers for the costs that locals accrue from clearing up traffic crashes. While historically speaking it has not been used by a lot of cities, the recession has caused more fire protection districts and local governments to consider such an accident fee, including Sacramento. On Tuesday night, Sacramento’s City Council is set to vote on the matter and insurance groups and businesses have made it known they are against such an ordinance. According to the Bee, potential fees would range from $435 for a basic response to $2,275 for crashes involving hazardous waste leaks, driver extrication and helicopter transports. Assistant City Manager Cassandra Jennings stated of the fees:

“It has proven to be a successful program in other jurisdictions, and our major concern was looking at ways that we can maintain the level of service and be responsive to emergencies.”

In light of poor economic conditions, handling the costs for accidents caused by out-of-area drivers is a price many locals believe should not be covered at the expense of local services. However, insurance companies argue it adds insult to injury and the president of the Association of California Insurance Companies will be testifying against the ordinance’s adoption at Tuesday’s council meeting for gouging unwary drivers. Reportedly the proposal is supported by Mayor Kevin Johnson. Read more here and here.

Drastic Measures: Reports on Local Government Woes Detail Extreme Cases of Service Cuts

A spate of recent articles have detailed the hits that local governments are taking in light of budget deficits, furloughs, pay cuts, and layoffs. Take the Northern San Joaquin Valley, which the Modesto Bee reports has lost 2,300 city and county employees from the effects of the recession. Reportedly San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced counties will spend $618 million less on services this year than they did two years ago. And residents are noticing the effects, whether its multiple days that libraries are closed, longer lines at government counters with shorter days, or less maintenance of community parks. The three counties in this region have also reduced their staff by more than 12 percent and more layoffs are possibly on the table. The Bee reports:

“A few agencies are saving money in the long term by offering early retirement buyouts, with 118 leaving Stockton, 59 pulling out of Modesto and 48 quitting Stanislaus County. [Professor Bob] Benedetti said higher-level observers warn that a brain drain is coming, leaving less experienced people to run things. Most painful, many say, are layoffs. North valley cities and counties have shed at least 675 workers, The Bee review shows, and Stanislaus County expects to show the door to 38 more this year.”

Want an extreme case of a local government facing a sharp decline in revenues? Take Los Banos, as income has dropped 35 percent in two years, from $59.6 million to $39 million. Yikes. Read more here. Next, Mercury News reports on local governments turning to new taxes and ballot measures to raise revenue for cash-strapped services. Take the Santa Clara County ballot in November, which will have 21 local measures and 13 of those are asking for money. The article states, “Still, the bottom line is that voters are being asked to carry a heavier load than ever to support their schools, parks, roads and other services once paid for by government. ’What we're really seeing is a shift in funding, as the state pulls back and the local governments find themselves without revenue,’ said Larry Gerston, a political-science professor at San Jose State University.” Read more here.

Finally, the New York Times reported on actions by states and local governments across the country, such as Hawaii, which has furloughed public schools. In Colorado Springs, a third of the city’s street lights have been turned off to save money. Clayton County, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta, was forced to shut down its entire public bus system. Read more about the drastic cuts here.