Posted on 02/15/2006 6:27:21 PM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - Assembly Republicans proposed legislation Wednesday that they said would streamline public works projects, but Democrats quickly criticized the bills as unnecessary obstacles to a series of bond measures being debated in the Legislature.
The infighting raised doubts about whether lawmakers can agree this year on a major spending package to build and strengthen highways, levees, dams, schools, prisons and government buildings. Passing such a program is the centerpiece of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election year policy goals.
The GOP legislation includes a bill by Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, that would allow the Department of Transportation to use so-called design-build contracts under which the same contractor would design and build a highway or rail project.
"It's a technique that's been proven to deliver projects faster and cheaper," Niello said.
The package also includes bills that would remove restrictions on school districts hiring private companies to provide bus, maintenance and cafeteria services, allow flood-control projects that result in the loss of wildlife habitat and exempt levee maintenance projects from environmental review.
Republicans also are pushing constitutional amendments that would bar the state from using motor vehicle sales tax revenue for non-transportation programs and earmark a portion of the state's annual budget for public works projects.
Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, called the legislation "an infrastructure reform package that brings accountability to the plan (and) will help us build now, build more and pay less."
But Democrats and a union representing state engineers questioned whether the legislation would save money.
Professional Engineers in California Government said the design-build bill could lead to a "highly subjective contract-selection procedure which results in favoritism, waste and delay."
Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said the pay-as-you-go constitutional amendment would force cuts in other programs and cost more than borrowing by selling state bonds to pay for public works projects.
He called the levee legislation an attempt to "rollback state environmental laws in the guise of flood protection."
He also questioned why Republicans had included the school contracting bill in their proposals, saying it had nothing to do with the public works spending plan Schwarzenegger proposed during his State of the State address in January.
The GOP proposals, he said, could make it more difficult to reach agreement on a package of public works bonds to put on the ballot in June or November.
"If this is their starting point, we are a long way off," Maviglio said. "If they're willing to be more realistic in their negotiations with something closer to where the governor and Democrats are, we will be able to get it done. They have to decide if they are going to be obstructionists or real players in this debate."
Schwarzenegger has asked lawmakers to approve a $222.6 billion public works spending plan that includes $68 billion in bonds. The money would pay for a variety of projects, including highways, intercity rail, new schools, levee improvements, jails and prisons.
He wants the bond proposals to go before voters in a series of elections through 2014.
While they differ on some of the details, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature's Democratic leaders have said they want to work together to approve some type of public works plan this year.
It is Schwarzenegger's own party that has offered some of the stiffest resistance, with Republican leaders saying they are concerned about the amount of projected borrowing.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger, H.D. Palmer, called the Assembly Republican proposals "another constructive chapter" in the debate over how to deal with the state's infrastructure problems.
He said Schwarzenegger agreed with several of the GOP proposals, including greater use of design-build contracts, saying they would "speed up construction and reduce costs."
Democrats are talking about approving a smaller package of bonds that would include money for housing, parks, schools, port improvements, highways, transit and to make hospitals safer during earthquakes.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, warned Monday that efforts to reach a compromise could fall apart if an agreement isn't reached in the next few weeks.
SAN FRANCISCO - The top Republican lawmaker in California‘s Assembly said on Wednesday his caucus prefers the state pay for public works projects in cash instead of issuing $68 billion in debt to fund them as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has urged.Schwarzenegger has proposed California issue the debt as part of his $222.6 billion public works plan.
Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said his caucus wants a "fiscally responsible" way to pay for infrastructure expansion that lawmakers from both parties and Schwarzenegger agree are long overdue.
McCarthy said Assembly Republicans back a "pay-as-you-go" way to finance infrastructure spending based on a dedicated percentage of the state budget.
By contrast, California‘s Republican governor has proposed the state issue general obligation debt over a decade to raise money to augment general-fund spending on upgrades to such public works as levees, highways, schools and prisons.
"Our proposals will stretch infrastructure dollars to the fullest, and eliminate the roadblocks that have hindered vital project for far too long," McCarthy said in a statement.
The "pay as you go plan" has been embraced by Republicans in the state Senate, said Republican Sen. Chuck Poochigian.
"It gets right to the point of getting a dollar‘s value for a dollar spent," Poochigian said.
Republicans and Democratic colleagues who control California‘s legislature are returning to the state capital after holding retreats to form plans for talks with Schwarzenegger on his infrastructure plan.
The Hollywood icon last month unveiled his plan and has said he is open to lawmakers‘ proposals as he wants them to pass a bill to place a measure on the June ballot that would ask voters to approve $25.2 billion in bonds to jump-start infrastructure spending.
Top Democrats initially said they would work toward a June measure, which would require them to shepherd a bill to Schwarzenegger‘s desk for his signature by mid-March.
However, they want any infrastructure plan to go beyond brick-and-mortar projects to include financing for parks, housing and public transportation systems.
Additionally, they are concerned about costs from issuing $68 billion in debt. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez said on Tuesday his caucus could not support issuing that much debt.
Schwarzenegger spokesman H.D. Palmer said the governor and Republican lawmakers are in sync on many infrastructure issues despite differences over financing.
"There are a number of items in their agenda that dovetail with the governor‘s plan," Palmer said, adding that Democrats‘ criticism is "part of the ongoing positive dialogue that‘s been occurring."
Will the freeway users be willing to pay for them? Those folks already pay state income taxes, gas taxes and property taxes on their vehicles. Will these same folks be willing to pay an additional $8 -$12 per day for the new infrastructure?
It is Schwarzenegger's own party that has offered some of the stiffest resistance, with Republican leaders saying they are concerned about the amount of projected borrowing.
More "bipartisanship" at work. Arnold and the Dems striving for a borrow-and-spend future.
I'm wondering if they will patch up a couple of potholes on existing roads, put up the toll booths,
and charge tolls for driving on the roads we have now.
Yeah, a real sight to behold as the spenders and borrowers go thru the act of letting the assy repubs have their say, for all the good it will do in the end.
The Gub and dems are marching lock step towards more debt, and could care kess who raises valid concerns or offers sane proposals as to how much we can afford and then demand accountability to keep the costs within the targets from the gitgo.
At this rate, the bonds will be a windfall for the nature conservancy and the other State Conservancies, not to mention select contractors that build usefull things like "light rail systems, bike lanes and pedestrian overpasses".
I still believe that they will rip out a freeway and make it into a park with this money.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
The freways benefit everyone. Not just those who drive on them.
A person may live above their antique store but her customers will get to her by driving the freeway.
Not today. Today freeways are chiefly a benefit to automobile drivers in their local area. Most are no longer inter county highways but rather local commuter corridors. Local commutators clog these arterioles to the detriment of inter county traffic substantially increasing the cost of transportation to the rest of society.
Freeways can benefit all of California's citizens but how they are built determines their benefits. Freeways built with general obligations bond should have a limited number of on/off ramps, better serving the needs of inter county traffic, by discouraging local commuters. Freeways serving the needs of local commuters, with numerous on/off ramps, should be built with revenue bonds. Local commuters, who enjoy the benefits, would pay for their individual use.
The point is that a majority of Californians being coned into paying for freeways for only select few in southern California is coming to and end. People are a lot wiser now about taxes. That's why the Wilsonegger gang has been so vague about enumerating the projects these bonds will finance. Placing a new, Los Angeles, freeway project at the center of a campaign to approve a new, general obligation bond would doom it on the ballot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.