HSR Hits a Roadblock
by Larry Gilbert

 Some good news for those of us who are fighting to stop the proposed high-speed rail (HSR).

I've just received a copy of the Superior Court of CA, County of SAC, first phase Ruling by Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny. Judge Kenny said the CA HSRA "abused its discretion by approving funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law." Ref Case No 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS. The plaintiffs and Petitioners being John Tos and Aaron Fukuda, County of Kings.

The Petitioners challenge the validity of the funding plan the Authority approved back in Nov. 2011. They also assert and Judge Kenny stated that the "Authority abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of law. Specifically, the identification of the sources of all funds to be invested in the IOS and the certification regarding completion of necessary project level environmental clearances did not comply with the requirements set forth in the plain language of Section 2704.08(c)(2), subsections (D) and (K)." Source. Page 7.

The Authority "failed to comply with certain statutory requirements governing the content of the funding plan." Without going into all the ruling legalese, the Petitioner states that "the HSRA violates Section 2704.08(c)(2) of the funding plan including the requirement to complete all necessary project level environmental clearances necessary to proceed."

Reading further on Page 14 of the Ruling, it states: The Court further notes that Section 2704.08(d) requires the Authority, prior to committing any proceeds of bonds for the project, to prepare and approve a second funding plan and submit it to the Director of Finance and the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, along with a report prepared by independent parties. That subdivision also provides that the Authority may not enter into commitments to expend bond funds and accept offered commitments from private parties until the Director of Finance finds that the plan is likely to be successfully implemented as proposed.

Proposition 1A thus appears to preclude the Authority from committing or spending bond proceeds on the high-speed rail project until a second funding plan is prepared and approved, except for expenditures falling within the terms of subdivision (g).

The Court cannot determine whether a writ should issue to invalidate subsequent approvals by the Authority or other respondents (and thus, whether a writ should issue to invalidate the funding plan) until it is able to determine what subsequent approvals have been made, and whether such approvals involve the commitment of proceeds of bonds or expenditures of bond proceeds within the scope of Section 2704.08".

What is the next step? "The parties are directed to meet and confer and contact the Clerk of this Department to set a date for a hearing on the remedy issues addressed in the supplemental briefing, and to meet and confer to arrange a briefing schedule."

Folks. This is a complex Case in that we have both Prop 1A overlapped by SB1029 that was approved on July 18, 2012, where the state appropriated State Bond Funds. Let's not forget this is Gov. Brown's legacy that could cost the taxpayers billions of dollars that should be designated to fixing our crumbling roads and bridges. We just heard that the Feds are not ponying up any additional funds for high-speed rail in California.