2009-06-16 Special CC Packet1.
~,,
~~~~~,
r`~~ '~<
' ~ ~~',
hS 1,t 3]
~`G ~ ~. 4~ 1 ~~
ir~ „':l~ 'pi's •.,Y~ a ~~i
...?
~: ~~ ,~~ CITY ~F A.LAMEDA ~ ~A.LIF~~.NIA
~r~f~1~6 w •Y",~" ~~r'~~~1
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY---JUNE 16, zoo9--~-7:31P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 16, ~OO9, 7:31 P.M.
Location: ~ ~:. ~, ~ :, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers Members may speak far a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council.
7~rrr~nr~a •
1. Roll Call - City Council
2. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to
Cooperate with the League of California Cities, Other Cities
and Counties in Litigation Challenging the Constitutionality
of Any Seizure by State Government of the City's Street
Maintenance Funds. City Manager?
3. Adjournment - City Council
c~TY of AL~I~E®~
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From; Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Dates June 16, 2009
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to Cooperate with the
League of California Cities, Other Cities, and ~ Counties in Litigation,
Challenging the Constitutionality of Any Seizure by State Government of the
Cit 's Street Maintenance Funds
BACKGROUND
The State of California is facing an estimated $24 billion budget deficit. Uvith the failure
of the May propositions, both Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature are turning
to local governments to help solve their problem. As such, Governor Schwarzenegger
has proposed seizing almost $1 billion in city and county shares of revenues in the
Highway Users Tax Account ~HUTA, or gas taxes to fund transportationrelated debt
service costs in FY 2009-10, and an additional $l50 million in FY 201011. Late last
week, the Joint Budget Conference Committee approved the Governor's
recommendation.
DISCUSSION
For FY 2009-10, the Administration proposes diverting $986 million in funds that cities
and counties rely upon to fund their public works programs, including staffing costs. This
redirection of funds would lead to thousands of job losses statewide and put an
immediate halt on local transportation improvements across the state. For the City of
Alameda, the loss is approximately $1.2 million FY 2009-1 o and an unknown amount in
FY 201011. The City's Public vUorks Department estimates that such a large reduction
in FY 2009-10 will result in:
® The loss of approximately 12.5 City jobs, including three maintenance
workers who are responsible for the ongoing operation and maintenance of
the City's traffic signals, streets, sidewalks, signage and striping.
• Increased potential for accidents due to malfunctioning signals, inadequate
signagelstriping, and defective sidewalk and street conditions.
• Increased calls to the Police, Fire and Public Ullorks Departments to handle
the accidents,
Insufficient funds to pay for the electrical cost of the City"s streetlights. The
City could be forced to significantly cut back on the number of lights
City Council
Agenda Item #2
06-16-09
Honorable Mayor and June ~ 5, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
energized. This would increase concerns for safety, vandalism and theft,
resulting in increased calls to the Police Department.
a Reduction in the funds available for the annual street resurfacing projects,
causing the City's aging infrastructure to continue to deteriorate,
In addition, the Alameda County Public Works Agency is considering closing or
significantly reducing the hours of operations for the three Estuary bridges Park,
Fruitvale, and High} that they own and operate should the State take the County's gas
taxes. This will result in increased congestion and gridlock in Alameda and Oakland, as
trips are diverted to the PoseylWebster Tubes.
Attorneys for the League of California Cities have determined that the Governor's
proposal is a violation of Article XIX of the California Constitution. According to the
League, both Proposition 5 X1974} and Proposition 2 ~~ 998} placed limitations on the
power of the Legislature to seize and use HUTA funds, allowing only loans to the
general fund on a limited basis. These limitations are contained in Article XIX, Sections
3, 5, and 6.
As part of its grassroots strategy to fight the Governor's proposal, the League of
California Cities has asked all cities to adopt resolutions directing their City Attorney to
cooperate with the League, other cities, and counties in planning litigation challenging
the constitutionality of the gas tax takeaway. This resolution does not commit the City
of Alameda to filing litigation orexpending City funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact from adoption of this resolution. The City is at risk of losing
approximately $1.2 million in gas tax funds should the Legislature approve the
Governor's proposal to seize almost $~ billion in city and. county shares of revenues in
the Highway Users Tax Account in FY 200910.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Attorney to cooperate with the League of
California cities, other cities, and counties in litigation challenging the constitutionality of
any seizure by state government of the City's street maintenance funds.
Respectfully submitted,
~~, e~
~~~ ~~~~
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
~ AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CaOPERATE WITH THE LEAGUE
~ OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, OTHER CITIES, AND COUNTIES IN LITIGATION
~ CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OFANY SEIZURE BY STATE
GO1fERNMENT OF THE CITY'S STREET MAINTENANCE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the current economic crisis has placed cities under incredible
financial pressure and caused them to make sinful bud et cuts includin la offs
p g ~ 9 y
~' and furloughs of city workers, decreasing maintenance and operations of public
facilities, and reductions in direct services to keep spending in line with declining
revenues; and
WHEREAS, since the early 199gs the state government of California has
seized over $1 o billion of city property tax revenues statewide, now amounting to
over $99o million each year, to fund the state budget even after deducting public
safety program payments to cities by the state; and
WHEREAS, in his proposed FY 2009-1 D budget, the Governor has
proposed transferring $1 bil[ion of local gas taxes and weight fees to the state
general fund to balance the state budget, and over $700 million in local gas taxes
permanently in future years, immediately jeopardizing the ability of the City to
maintain the City's streets, bridges, traffic signals, streetlights, sidewalks and
related traffic safety facilities for the use of the motoring public; and
WHEREAS, the loss of almost all of the Gity's gas tax funds will seriously
compromise the City's ability to perform critical traffic safety related street
maintenance, including, but not limited to, drastically curtailing patching,
resurfacing, street lightingltrafficslgnal maintenance, payment of electricity costs
for street lights and signals, bridge maintenance and repair, sidewalk and curb
ramp maintenance and repair, and more; and
'WHEREAS, some cities report to the League of California Cities that they
will be forced to eliminate part oral! of their street maintenance operations while
others will be forced to cut. back in other areas including public safety staffing
levels to use city general funds for basic street repair and maintenance.
Furthermore, cities expect that liability damage awards will mount as basic
maintenance is ignored and traffic accidents, injuries and deaths increase; and
IIVHEREAS, in both Proposition 5 in 19?4 and Proposition 2 in 1.998 the
voters of California overwhelmingly imposed restriction an the state's ability to do
what the Governor has proposed, and any effort to permanently divert the local
share of the gas tax would violate the state constitution and the will o~f the voters;
and
Resolution #2
Special City Council Meeting
~fi-1~~o9
WHEREAS, cities and counties maintain 81 °/° of the state road network,
while the state directly maintains just 8°/0; and
WHEREAS, ongoing street maintenance is a significant public safety
concern, and a city's failure to maintain its street pavement potholes filling,
sealing, overlays, etc}, traffic signals, signs, and street lights has a direct
correlation to traffic accidents, injuries and deaths; and
WHEREAS, according to a recent statewide needs assessment, on a scale of
zero failed} to 1QQ excellent}, the statewide average pavement condition index
~PCI} is ~8, or "at risk," and local streets and roads will fall to "poor" condition
score of 48} by ZQ33 based on existing funding levels available to cities and
counties,
NGW, THEREFGRE, ~E IT RESGLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby directs the City Attorney to fake all necessary steps to
cooperate with the League of California Cities, other cities, and counties in
supporting litigation against the state of California if the Legislature enacts and
the Governer signs rota law legislation that unconstitutionally diverts the City's
share of funding from the Highway Users Tax Account ~HUTA}, also known as
the "gas tax," to fund the state general fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESGLVED, that the City Manager shall send this
resolution with an accompanying letter from the Mayor to the Governor and the
City's legislative delegation, informing them in the clearest of terms of the City's
adamant resolve to oppose any effort to frustrate the will of the electorate as
expressed in Proposition 5 X1974} and Proposition ~ X1998} concerning the
proper use and allocation ofthe gas tax; and
ANA BE IT FURTHER RESGLVED, that a copy of this Resolution shall be
sent by the City Manager to the League of California Cities, the Alameda
Chamber of Commerce, and other community groups whose members are
affected by this proposal to create unsafe conditions on the streets of our City for
pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists,
I, the undersigned, hereby cerfiify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the City Councii of the City of Alameda during
the Speciai Joint Meeting of the Cifiy Councii and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority on the 1 nth day of June X409, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
ABSTENTIONS:
IN v11iTNESS, WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed fibs official
seal ofsaid City this 17th day ofJune X009.
Lora vveisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda