Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/06/12 Agenda ",;:afS under penalty of perjury that I am t\p1oyed by the City of Chula Vista in the ice of the City Clerk and that I posted this n the bulletin board according to uirements. .-16jf1SiQned ~ ~ f?. :-~- ::: <-!1f Ol~~:A Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember David R. Garcia, City Manager John McCann, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney Jerry R. Rindo"ne, Councilmember Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Councilmember June 12,2007 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . REPORT BY CHUCK COLE, PRESIDENT OF ADVOCATION, INC., ON STATE BUDGET AND FISCAL PROJECTIONS . PRESENTATION OF MASTER MUNICIPAL CLERK DESIGNATION TO LORI ANNE PEOPLES, SENIOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK, BY KAY VINSON, MMC, CITY CLERK'S ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR AND CITY CLERK OF MURRIETA . PRESENTATION OF "EXCELLENCE IN ENERGY SAVINGS" AWARDS TO LOCAL BUSINESSES FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE CHULA VISTNSDG&E BUSINESS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM . DID YOU KNOW...THAT THE NATURE CENTER IS CELEBRATING ITS 20TH ANNIVERSARY? Presented by Dan Beintema, Nature Center Director CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 5) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A $50,000 GRANT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO On April 17, 2007, the County of San Diego approved a Community Project award of $50,000 to the City of Chula Vista in order to provide for preliminary engineering services for the J Street to Stella Street segment of the Bayshore Bikeway. Adoption of the resolution accepts the funds and authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement required by the County. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 2. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD A GRANT BE A WARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT MAJOR INTERSECTION NUMBERS I THROUGH 16 B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE COMMITMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND SHOULD A GRANT BE A WARDED FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AT MAJOR INTERSECTION NUMBERS 17 THROUGH 31 As part of a citywide assessment program, "Major Intersection Safety Program," thirty- one street intersections have been identified for potential enhancements. As included in the March 27, 2007 citywide grant list report, an application for grant funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program, matched with Traffic Signal Fee funds, was submitted to fund a project that will enhance safety (pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular) and/or traffic flow at those intersections. (Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 3. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND A WARDING THE CONTRACT FOR PHASE I (AREA A FENCING) OF THE LAUDERBACH PARK. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PR-295) TO ATLAS FENCING, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN OF PHASE 2 (AREA B FENCING, RESTROOM CONSTRUCTION, LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND TOT LOT SURFACING) OF THE LAUDERBACH PARK. IMPROVEMENTS (pR- 295) AND RETURN TO COUNCIL IN JULY OF 2007 TO APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL STATE RECREATIONAL GRANT FUNDS AND RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TAX FUNDS FOR INCREASED COSTS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT Page 2 - Council Agenda htto:/lwww. chulavistaca. 2:QV June 12, 2007 On May 15,2007, the General Services Director received informal bids for this project, which is the flIst phase of the Lauderbach Park Improvement Project, funded through a State Recreation grant and the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program. Adoption of the resolutions awards the contract for Phase 1 of the Lauderbach Park Improvement Project, and directs staff to proceed with the design of Phase 2 of the project, and to return to Council for appropriations necessary for project completion. (General Services Director, Public Works Operations Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING JOINT OPERATION OF THE DYNAMIC AFTER SCHOOL HOURS (DASH) AFTER SCHOOL RECREATIONAL PROGRAM, AND THE SAFE TIME FOR RECREATION, ENRICHMENT, AND TUTORING FOR CHILDREN (STRETCH) EXTENDED SCHOOL DAY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Chula Vista Elementary School District, in effect until June 30, 2007, authorizes the operation of two after school programs at elementary school sites. The STRETCH program, with its emphasis on literacy and arts enrichment, is currently offered at seven district schools. The existing MOU also authorizes the operation of a structured sports and recreation program called DASH (Dynamic After School Hours), at 25 district schools. Adoption of the resolution approves the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 MOU, and includes expansion of the DASH program to one new site (Wolf Canyon Elementary). (Assistant City Manager/Library Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE MID-MANAGEMENT STUDY AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL NON-MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION STUDIES AND APPROVING THE CORRESPONDING COMPENSATION SCHEDULE (Continued from June 5, 2007) Human Resources staff conducted a comprehensive classification and compensation study of positions in the mid-management group, consisting of 131 employees in 67 classifications. The study included a review of the work performed, scope and complexity of assignments and overall responsibility of each position. In addition, department-initiated classification reviews were conducted on individual non- management positions represented by the Chula Vista Employees Association and Western Civil Engineers. (Human Resources Director) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. Page 3 - Council Agenda http://www .chulavistaca.gov June 12, 2007 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for fUture discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following item has been advertised as a public hearing as required by law. If you wish to speak on this item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 6. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER VII RECREATION PROGRAMSIF ACILITIES OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE The Recreation Department last updated fees in June 2003. Staff is proposing fee increases and new fees based upon the Consumer Price Index, informal surveys and assessments of what increases would be appropriate in the Chula Vista market, and City cost increases. The new fees andlor increases are proposed for facility rentals, athletics, aquatics, and miscellaneous services. (Recreation Director) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, and adopt the following resolutions: A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES TO EXISTING FEES AND THE ADDITION OF NEW FEES FOR RECREATION B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO EFFECT CHANGES TO EXISTING FEES AND THE ADDITION OF NEW FEES FOR AQUATICS OTHER BUSINESS 7. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 8. MAYOR'S REPORTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Page 4 - Council Agenda httn:!lwww.chulavistaca.QOV June ]2,2007 ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting, Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. with the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and Redevelopment Agency in the Council Chambers; and thence to the regular meeting of June 19,2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Decif (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 5 - Council Agenda http://www .chula vistacagov June 12,2007 S'pu"'(lL CI'Zll' fS cf tt'LL J)lll 10 -12- - ()" 7 hJ'i1[ik, IV1 eef/YI'j A ADVOCATION June 12, 2007 To: Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox, Members of the Chula Vista City Council From: Chuck Cole, Advocation, Inc. ~ ~ Subject: Status of 2007-08 Fiscal Year State Budget On Monday, May 14, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released his proposed May revision to the 2007-2008 state budget. The May Revise, generally is positive for cities, with the budget funding a number of critical programs. The following are some issues of importance to local governments: Transportation Proposition 18 Funds. The appropriation of Prop. 1 B funds increases from $7.7 billion to $11.5 billion on a three-year appropriation schedule. This includes $600 million for Local Streets and Roads in FY2007 -08 year ($300 million proposed for FY 08-09 and $150 million proposed for FY 2009-10 for a total of $1.05 billion in a three-year appropriation schedule). Spillover from Sales Tax on Gasoline. The May Revision increases take-away from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) by $200 million, for a total of $1.3 billion. This amount is proposed to offset General Fund (GF) expenditures for K- 12 home-to-school transportation, debt service on transportation-related General Obligation (GO) bonds and transportation services for regional development centers. PTA spillover revenues occur when growth in revenues from the sales tax on gasoline exceed the growth sales tax revenues from other taxable goods. Proposition 42: The May Revision contains no changes to the Prop. 42 allocations reported in January, which fully funds Prop. 42 as follows: . $684 million to the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) . $699 million to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) . $175 million to Public Transportation Account (PTA) 611212007 Page 2 of 8 Cities and counties will not receive any local streets and roads maintenance funds from Prop. 42 in FY 2007-08 pursuant to a formula in current law and under a longstanding agreement that provided cities and counties with local streets and roads funds in FY 2001-02 and FYI 2002-03. However, per the existing formula, cities and counties will receive approximately double their prior allocations beginning in FY 2008-09. Public Safety COPS / Juvenile Justice Grants. The Governor's May Revise proposes to continue the critical Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS)/Juvenile Justice Grants Program. The budget funds this program at $238 million, the same level as 2006-07. Booking Fees. In accordance with last year's AB 1805, the budget also includes $35 million for an alternative to traditional booking fees called "jail access fees." This is the same level of funding as last year. For an explanation of AB 1805. Anti-Gang Efforts. Under the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, $8.5 million is proposed in the budget for the Criminal Intelligence Analysis Unit; $3.3 for Regional Gang Task Forces, creating three pilot programs in Los Angeles, the Bay Area and the Inland Empire. In addition, under the Office of Emergency Services, the May Revision proposes using $4.9 million of federal funds to establish four new federal anti-gang grants as part of gang suppression efforts; $446,000 to support a State Anti-Gang Coordinator position; and $7 million in General Funds for Local Anti-Gang Programs. The details of these proposals will be released in the next few weeks. Resources and Environment Air Quality. The May Revise allocates $111 million from Prop. 1 B to fund air quality improvements along California's main highways and trade corridors (port electrification and diesel truck retrofits). Williamson Act. The $40 million Williamson Act local property tax backfill program to counties is eliminated in the May Revise. Debt Repavment and Local Government Finances Economic Recovery Bond Repayment. The May Revise includes a $1.6 billion increase in Economic Recovery Bonds (ERBs) prepayments, for a total of $3.1 billion prepayment in the 2007 budget. Prop. 57, the Economic Recovery Bond Act, authorized the state to issue ERBs and established the "triple-flip" mechanism for repayment of those bonds. 6/12/2007 Page 3 of 8 Triple-flip uses a quarter-cent of the local sales and use tax for debt service, replacing that money to cities and counties with additional property tax. The Administration plans to fully repay the ERBs by August 2009. Yacht Tax. The "Yacht Tax" loophole, which would result in GF revenue gains of $35 million in use-tax obligation, is being permanently closed by the May Revise. Mandate Claims. The budget has no funding for mandate claims for costs incurred by local governments in FY 2007-08. Payment of these claims would be deferred to FY 2008-09. This is the same proposal as released in the Governor's January 2007 Budget. Commission on State Mandates Process. The May Revise proposes changing the current process by which the Commission on State Mandates determines mandates and the reimbursement guidelines. The May revise also includes: . $654,000 for additional support to the Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission including contracts with an economist, health care experts, actuaries and other staff and operating resources. . A $950,000 appropriation and the creation of 10 new positions in the Public Utilities Commission to be used for implementation of the Video Competition Act, AB 2987 (Nunez/Levine) from 2006. General Notes on the Mav Revise Overall, the May Revise proposes to increase GF spending in FY 2007-08 by $1.5 billion or 1.5 percent above the level of spending in FY 2006-07. Gov. Schwarzenegger said "we got creative" when putting together the revised budget, which included several new ideas: . A proposal to sell Ed Fund - California's student loan guarantee agency -- which would account for a net one-time increase in state revenues of $980 million. . A proposal to consider selling a long-term license to operate the State Lottery. The Administration believes a competitively bid lease would provide billions of dollars in additional fiscal benefits to the state's GF. The Governor cited this as a potential source of revenue to payoff the Economic Recovery. Infrastructure Bond Implementation Update Proposition 1B: $19.92 billion on various transportation projects to rebuild California. Of this total amount, $1 billion is allocated for cities and $1 billion for counties for local streets and roads improvement projects. 6/12/2007 Page 4 of 8 . Siqnificant potential open issues: Allocation schedule of $1 billion for cities for local streets and roads; development of $2 billion State-Local Partnership Program; development of $3.1 billion "goods movement" and air quality programs; allocation schedule of $4 billion for public transit, intercity and commuter rail and waterborne transit. . Current update: The allocation of the Prop. 1 B local streets and road funds have been held as an open item in the Budget Conference Committee. This means that it will require further debate before a decision is made. The League is sponsoring SB 286 with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC). This legislation establishes accountability and oversight for the use of the bond money. SB 286 passed off the Senate floor with bipartisan support and is now heading to the Assembly. 5B 286: League-sponsored SB 286 (Lowenthal and Dutton) sets forth specific accountability, transparency and deliverability requirements for Prop. 1 B funds to ensure public funds are spent responsibly and on projects the voters were promised. In addition, the measure stipulates that the funds must be spent within three years, allowing the public to benefit from the projects sooner rather than later. The League has asked city officials to contact their legislators, urging them to support the full $1 billion to cities immediately. In the next 10 days, let them know that supporting the full funding to cities keeps faith with the voters intent when they passed Prop. 1 B last November. It is important that they know that transportation-related projects are ready to go. . Earlier today, the League of California Cities sponsored a series of news conferences on Proposition 1 B funding implementation, beginning in Elk Grove. They received extensive coverage in the electronic media; providing members of the public with a better understanding of what cities are attempting to do. Why Full Funding of Prop. 1 B to Cities is Important Every trip starts and ends on our local streets and roads which is why voters overwhelmingly supported Prop. 1 B last November at the polls. They voted to allocate $1 billion of the total $19.9 billion state transportation bond money for city needs. Solid streets and roads, and efficient transit systems are vital to both quality of life and economic vitality. A survey conducted earlier this year by the League found that every city in California has local transportation-related projects on the drawing board, waiting for funds to improve local traffic conditions and make street and road repairs. Cities are requesting the allocation of the full $1 billion this fiscal year. Because cities will not receive any Proposition 42 funds (gasoline sales tax) this year, the full allocation of Prop. 1 B funds will enable cities to continue funding projects already underway without interruption. 611212007 Page 5 of 8 Proposition 1C: This measure allocates $2.85 billion for housing projects. Approximately half of the bond ($1.45 billion) is going out through existing programs such as the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP), and the Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods program (BEGIN). The remaining funds ($1.4 billion) are designated for infill infrastructure ($850 million), parks ($200 million), transit- oriented development ($300 million), and innovative programs ($100 million). . Siqnificant potential open issues: One of the most significant issues outstanding is who will be eligible to apply for infill infrastructure funding. . Current update: The infill infrastructure fund has attracted the most legislative attention, where two bills have emerged as the front runners. AB 1053 (Nunez) distributes $450 million to a competitive infrastructure program administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). . The remaining $400 million is split evenly between the Infrastructure Bank, a workforce housing program administered by HCD, MHP, and the Cal- Reuse Brownfields program. As a result, a total $750 million will go directly to local agencies for infrastructure related to housing. . SB 46 (Perata) on the other hand creates a single competitive grant program for infill infrastructure and affordable housing that can be applied for by local governments and nonprofit housing developers. Proposition 10: $10.5 billion for performing school building repairs and providing innovative learning facilities for California students, including seismic retrofitting and classroom repairs. . Siqnificant potential open issues: Allocation of $29 million to fund joint-use projects for construction of K-12 school facilities. Proposition 1E: $4.09 billion for critical river levee repair and construction, flood control projects and the updating and repair of old water mains and sewage systems. The allocation also includes $290 million for the creation of flood protection corridors and floodplain mapping. . Siqnificant potential open issues: Effort to include water storage into funding categories; addition of liability link to allocation of levee improvement funds. . Current update: The Budget Conference Committee has created a Water Working Group that will address most, if not all of the Prop. 1 E and Prop. 84 flood and water issues in the budget process. This group may also address flood management issues. 611212007 Page 6 of 8 Proposition 84 : $5.4 billion for improving natural resources and water programs including state projects and flood control, safe drinking water, water quality improvement, integrated water management, water planning and sustainable communities. . Sianificant potential open issues: Further definition of elements of the $580 million for climate change, including $90 million for incentives for planning; how the $1 billion for local agencies to meet local water needs will be spent and anticipation of a possible effort to redirect $400 million in park funds to create a per capita grant program for grant funds. . Current update: There are several legislative proposals to further refine the allocation of dollars under Prop. 84. The most significant of these proposals is SB 732 (Steinberg). Proposition 42 Funding Again at Risk Last November, when voters passed Proposition 1A, it was with the belief that funding for transportation through the sales tax on gasoline (Proposition 42, passed in 2002) was protected. This is not the case. Due to a significant increase in spillover funds recently, these funds continue to be a target in times of state budget shortfalls. There are a number of proposals on the table that seek to protect the spillover funds so they remain dedicated to transit funding as originally intended. This year, Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed to divert spillover funds away from transit, leading to discussions about long term protection of spillover funds dedicated to transit. A proposal has circulated around Sacramento that would change the Prop. 42 formula funding, giving cities a lower percentage. The current Prop. 42 formula consists of 40 percent for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 20 percent for cities, 20 percent for counties and 20 percent to transit. The new proposal reduces STIP to 35 percent, cities to 15 percent, counties to 15 percent and increases transit to 35 percent. The new proposal, which passed out of Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 last week, bases the changes on increased "spillover" funds. Supporters argue that the proposal would capture these funds and put them into Prop. 42, thus increasing the amount of funding cities receive, despite the decrease in overall percentage. A key sticking point, however, is that projections have only been done for three years and spillover funds are subject to numerous changes. This would make any alteration of the funding formula a risky proposition for cities, because there is no guarantee that cities would be allocated a consistent amount of money. 6/12/2007 Page 7 of 8 What this Means for Cities On its face, the change appears positive because it includes the addition of spillover funds to Prop. 42, so lowering cities' percentage share may result in increased funding for the foreseeable future. In the long term, however it is impossible to project spillover accurately. The spillover money is, by its nature, highly volatile and unpredictable. If there is a leveling-out of gas prices, and cities have a lower percentage of the spillover funds, this change could sacrifice the long term stability in favor of a short term gain. There were 13 years within a 17-year period from 1986-2003 with no spillover. In addition, although Prop. 42 funds have achieved Constitutional protection; the same is not true for spillover funds. Spillover funds are still vulnerable. During any budget cycle, the state has the ability to divert the funds for other purposes, leaving less money available for cities, counties and the STIP under the proposed formula change. In a year when the spillover funds go to Prop. 42, per the proposed formula, cities will share a smaller portion of a larger pot of money. The concern arises in years when the state attempts to use spillover monies for other purposes because this means that cities are now sharing a smaller percentage of a smaller pot of money. Consequently, cities face significant risk being at the whim of the state. Any reliance on funding with this sort of turbulence will create uncertainty, confusion and distress in local budgets. Cities also need to consider that in the long term there are other, better options to provide increased funding to transit. The League of California Cities has proposed the following suggested talking points with respect to the proposed formula revision: . Cities were recently made aware of a proposal to change the Proposition 42 formula. . The Legislature should not change the existing formula. Cities counties worked hard to pass state ballot measures protecting these funds for our local streets and roads. . Changing the existing Prop. 42 formula goes against the intent of voters when they supported Proposition 1A in 2006. . Current ProP. 42 formula: 40 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 20 percent to cities, 20 percent to counties and 20 percent to transit. . Proposed ProP. 42 formula: 35 percent to STIP, 15 percent to cities, 15 percent to counties and 35 percent to transit. . While some may say that the addition of "spillover" funds to this formula means more money in the short term for cities, we see no stability in the long term. 6/12/2007 Page 8 of 8 . Spillover is by its nature extremely volatile and unpredictable. There was no spillover in 13 of the 17 years between 1986 and 2003. . Any reliance on spillover funding with this sort of turbulence creates uncertainty, confusion, and distress in local budgets. . Cities deserve the stability of being able to rely on these funds in the future as promised to us. Cities clearly support transit funding. But the proposed change Prop. 42 destabilizes local street and road funds may not be the way to go. Budget Conference Committee Budget Conference Committee is continuing to meet and it is expected that they will present a budget to the Floor shortly which when rejected will require the Big Five to meet and negotiate the final open budget issues. Three of the biggest issues remaining are the social service issues including the CalWORKS funding, the issues relating to the Global Warming measure, AB 32 (Nunez), and the Proposition 1B funding for local government. i * The sources for this memo include the League of California Cities, Governor's Department of Finance, the Legislative Analysts Office and numerous new articles concerning the budget.