California Proposition 116 (1990)

From Ballotpedia

California Proposition 116 was on the June 5, 1990 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved.

Proposition 116 authorized a bond of $1.99 billion for passenger and commuter rail administered through the Public Transportation Account (PTA). The PTA account had been created by the Transportation Development Act of 1971. Proposition 116 also "stated that certain revenues from gasoline sales taxes must be placed in the PTA for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes."^[1]

• Yes: 2,579,810 (53.26%)
• No: 2,263,573 (46.74%)

Ballot language

Proposition 116 was described as, "Authorizes general obligation bond issue of $1,990,000.000 to provide funds principally for passenger and commuter rail systems, with limited funds available for public mass transit guideways, paratransit vehicles, bicycle and ferry facilities, and railroad technology museum. Allocates certain amounts to specified state and local entities through a grant program administered by the California Transportation Commission. Program will require some matching funds from local entities. Appropriates money from state General Fund to pay off bonds."

Fiscal impact

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

"Direct Costs of Paying Off the Bonds. For these types of bonds, the state typically makes principal and interest payments from the state's General Fund over a period of about 20 years. If all of the bonds authorized by this measure are sold at an interest rate of 7.5 percent, the cost would be about $3.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($2 billion) and interest ($1.6 billion). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $180 million per year."

Lawsuit over diversion of funds

In 2005, the State of California stopped depositing transportation-earmarked funds into the PTA.

The California Transit Association (CTA) filed a lawsuit on October 10, 2007, seeking to halt the diversions in 2007 and to have funds that had been diverted restored to the PTA. A California state appeals court ruled unanimously in June 2009 that the state’s diversion of funds since 2007 was improper and denied the state’s contention that the recently created "Mass Transportation Fund" (MTF) was a proper recipient for PTA funds and further that PTA funds could not be diverted prior to placement in PTA accounts.^[1]

External links

• Hastings California I&R database
• Los Angeles Law Library, 1990 ballot propositions

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Bay Area Public Transportation Examiner, "Court affirms $4 billion transit raid to be returned", October 5, 2009

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Ballot Measures	History of I&R | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |
Ballot measures by year	1912 • 1914 • 1916 • 1920 • 1922 • 1978 • 1980 • 1982 • 1984 • 1986 • 1988 • 1990 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1996 • 1998 • 2000 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2006 (local) • 2007 • 2008 • 2008 (local) • 2009 • 2009 (local) • 2010
Government	California State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | State assembly | State senate |
Elections	Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Transparency Topics	Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |