Reindeerflame
Oct 2, 09, 11:30 am
The California Supreme Court acted on Sept. 30 to uphold the Court of Appeals decision of June 30, which decided that the Legislature and Governor acted illegally over the last several budget years when certain gasoline sales tax revenues were diverted from public transit purposes. This sets the stage for major increases in funding for the state's mass transit program, which funds not only urban transit but also the state's Amtrak program. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been improperly diverted over several years, including this year.
Why was the transit money protected against diversion? Because of the 1990 Proposition 116, the citizens' rail initiative. Prop. 116 is best known for its $1.99 billion rail bond component, which led to implementation of capital projects enabling the startup of the Capitol Corridor, Metrolink, etc. But another part of Prop. 116 placed certain gasoline sales tax revenues in a trust fund, now known as the Public Transportation Account. When the Legislature and the Governor ignored the trust fund, they acted improperly, per the Court of Appeal.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the Court of Appeal decision, now final, is at least an 11 for transit. Not only are diversions to the General Fund precluded, but the state may also not use the mass transit funds for schoolbuses or transportation for the developmentally disabled. Further, while the money may be used for current debt service payments on mass transit bonds (that would ordinarily be paid out of the General Fund), the court said that the Proposition 116 bond debt service may not be paid with transit funds, as the proposition contained a provision stating that existing funding sources for transit should not be reduced as a result of voter approval of those bonds.
It's likely that high-speed rail will also be a beneficiary of this decision, since the state could use some of the transit funds for high-speed rail, or to pay for the high-speed rail bonds approved by California voters in November 2008 as Proposition 1A.
Meanwhile, while other states struggle to find a dedicated funding source for Amtrak operations, this decision cements in place the availability of a steady funding source for Amtrak California operations. Even before the decision, while California faced huge spending cuts this past summer in its budget, not a penny was reduced by the Legislature and Governor from the state Amtrak operations budget.
The authors of Prop. 116 deserve a "job well done" from the rail and transit community.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_13465104?source=rss
Why was the transit money protected against diversion? Because of the 1990 Proposition 116, the citizens' rail initiative. Prop. 116 is best known for its $1.99 billion rail bond component, which led to implementation of capital projects enabling the startup of the Capitol Corridor, Metrolink, etc. But another part of Prop. 116 placed certain gasoline sales tax revenues in a trust fund, now known as the Public Transportation Account. When the Legislature and the Governor ignored the trust fund, they acted improperly, per the Court of Appeal.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the Court of Appeal decision, now final, is at least an 11 for transit. Not only are diversions to the General Fund precluded, but the state may also not use the mass transit funds for schoolbuses or transportation for the developmentally disabled. Further, while the money may be used for current debt service payments on mass transit bonds (that would ordinarily be paid out of the General Fund), the court said that the Proposition 116 bond debt service may not be paid with transit funds, as the proposition contained a provision stating that existing funding sources for transit should not be reduced as a result of voter approval of those bonds.
It's likely that high-speed rail will also be a beneficiary of this decision, since the state could use some of the transit funds for high-speed rail, or to pay for the high-speed rail bonds approved by California voters in November 2008 as Proposition 1A.
Meanwhile, while other states struggle to find a dedicated funding source for Amtrak operations, this decision cements in place the availability of a steady funding source for Amtrak California operations. Even before the decision, while California faced huge spending cuts this past summer in its budget, not a penny was reduced by the Legislature and Governor from the state Amtrak operations budget.
The authors of Prop. 116 deserve a "job well done" from the rail and transit community.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_13465104?source=rss