BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 516| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 516 Author: V. Manuel Pérez (D), et al. Amended: 7/14/11 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 6-1, 6/28/11 AYES: DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley, Rubio, Simitian NOES: Gaines NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman, Huff SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-20, 6/2/11 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Safe routes to school SOURCE : PolicyLink DIGEST : This bill modifies the state Safe Routes to School program to help ensure increased participation from low-income communities. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Requires the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to establish and administer a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. CONTINUED AB 516 Page 2 2.Requires Caltrans to award grants under this program to "local government agencies" based on the results of a statewide competition. (Caltrans program guidelines define an eligible applicant as "an incorporated city or county within the State of California.") The competition requires local agencies to submit proposals for funding, which Caltrans rates based on all of the following factors: Demonstrated needs of the applicant. Potential of the proposal to reduce child injuries and fatalities. Potential of the proposal to encourage increased walking and bicycling among students. Identification of safety hazards. Identification of current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school. Consultation and support for projects by school-based associations, local traffic engineers, local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, school officials, and other relevant community stakeholders. 1.Provides that any annual budget allocation to fund SRTS grants shall be in addition to any federal funding received by the state that is designated for this program. 2.Provides that Caltrans shall distribute any federal funding received by the state for SRTS under the competitive grant process, consistent with federal requirements. 3.Requires Caltrans to consult with and obtain approval from the CHP prior to awarding any construction grant or using any funds for an SRTS construction project encompassing a freeway, state highway, or county road to ensure that the project does not conflict with the CHP's Pedestrian Corridor Safety Program and that the project is consistent with its statewide pedestrian safety statistical analysis. 4.Encourages Caltrans to coordinate with law enforcement CONTINUED AB 516 Page 3 agencies' community policing efforts in establishing and maintaining the SRTS program. This bill: 1.Adds the following factors to those that must be evaluated by Caltrans when awarding SRTS grants: Use of a public participation process, including a public meeting that involves the public, schools, parents, teachers, local agencies, the business community, key professionals, and others; identifies community priorities and gathers community input to guide the development of projects included in the proposal; and ensures that community priorities are reflected in the proposal. Benefit to a low-income school, defined as a school where at least 75 percent of the students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. 2.Requires Caltrans, when developing SRTS program guidelines, to consider fully the needs of low-income schools. Background In 1999, AB 1475 (Soto), Chapter 663, established the state SRTS program, the first in the nation, for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects that improve safety and promote walking and bicycling to school. In 2005, the federal transportation funding bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, established a federal SRTS program. Caltrans administers both the state and federal programs, but administers them as distinct programs because they are subject to different requirements under state and federal laws. This bill makes changes only to the state program. In administering the state SRTS program, Caltrans determines how much will be made available to each of Caltrans' 12 districts in proportion to the number of CONTINUED AB 516 Page 4 students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade, with no district receiving less than $500,000 per funding cycle. State law permits "local government agencies" to submit applications, though Caltrans restricts applicants to cities and counties. Cities and counties must work collaboratively with other local partners, including school officials and community stakeholders, to develop project proposals. Each Caltrans district office ranks each proposal it receives, based on the criteria outlined in statute, and forwards the top ranked proposals to Caltrans headquarters for final approval. TARC report . In February 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger directed Caltrans and the Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center (TARC) to study the socio-economic status of federal and state SRTS grantees and to research ways to increase low-income schools' and communities' access to these programs. TARC is a joint project of the California Department of Public Health and the University of California, San Francisco. In June 2010, TARC released an analysis which found that low-income schools, defined as those with 75 percent or more of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals, receive more federal and state SRTS grants than schools in middle- or high-income categories. Specifically, low-income schools, which represented about 33 percent of California schools, received 44 percent of all federal infrastructure grants compared to 30 percent and 26 percent of middle- or high-income schools, respectively. In addition, low-income schools received 36 percent of federal non-infrastructure grants, compared to 32 percent each for middle- and high-income schools. Finally, low-income schools received 35 percent of state SRTS grants, compared to 32 percent and 33 percent of middle- and high-income schools, respectively. The TARC analysis noted that the low-income schools did not submit more applications than the middle- or high-income schools. According to the TARC report, "low-income communities continue to suffer disproportionately higher rates of obesity and pedestrian/bicycle injury than their higher-income counterparts." The report noted, however, that Caltrans had already taken steps to encourage the participation of low-income communities in SRTS, such as CONTINUED AB 516 Page 5 adding free and reduced-price meal eligibility data from schools in application requirements and directing Caltrans district staff to meet with unsuccessful applicants to review applications and provide recommendations for future applications. TARC recommended that "Caltrans continue the excellent steps it has already begun and place a special focus on providing training and technical assistance to low-income communities." The report also recommended setting a goal to increase the number of low-income schools that participate in the SRTS programs by at least five percent in future funding cycles, which could be achieved through measures such as additional technical assistance and involving low-income and other community advocates in the local review process. Related Legislation Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2147 (V. Manuel Pérez), which was largely the same as this bill. The Governor's veto message noted that: "While this bill is intended to enhance the position of low-income communities to compete for SRTS funds, based on the recent success of those communities receiving SRTS program funding, this bill may be unnecessary. A recent review of the SRTS Program determined that low-income schools, which comprise approximately one-third of California schools, have received 35 percent and 44 percent of all SRTS grants awarded over the past five years through the state and federal programs, respectively. Additionally, to the extent funding is provided to weaker proposals receiving additional credits by benefitting low-income schools, this bill could have a negative impact on project delivery and may not result in the intended long-term increases in walking and biking that the program funds are intended to encourage." FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/9/11) PolicyLink (source) CONTINUED AB 516 Page 6 Advancement Project American Cancer Society American Diabetes Association Calexico Unified School District California Association of School Transportation Officials California Pan-Ethnic Health Network California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation California State PTA California WALKS City of Westmorland Heber Elementary School District IBEW Local 569 San Diego Imperial County Board of Supervisors Imperial County Office of Education Imperial Unified School District Imperial Valley College Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program Latino Coalition for a Healthy California Los Angeles WALKS San Francisco Bay WALKS Sierra Club California The City Project TransForm WalkSanDiego OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/9/11) WALKSacramento ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, many child pedestrians are hit each year by motorists due to lack of clearly delineated school zones and an excessive number of vehicles speeding near schools. Disadvantaged and rural communities often lack the necessary infrastructure, such as sidewalks, storm drains, and stoplights, to keep these children safe. While SRTS has been a popular and effective program in ensuring that schoolchildren are safe when walking or biking to and from school, it is unclear whether the program targets those communities most in need of safe routes. In addition, the author notes the lack of an established public participation process in the development of SRTS grant applications. Finally, the author notes that a lack of safe routes to schools has been linked to health problems: CONTINUED AB 516 Page 7 less than 15 percent of children walk or bicycle to school, and 20 percent of children are considered overweight or obese. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : WALKSacramento is concerned with the provision adding the criterion of use of a public participation process, including a public meeting. WALKSacramento argues that it is unclear what entity is supposed to convene the meeting, when in the process must occur, and what entity pays the costs. According to WALKSacramento, "Several local jurisdictions have informed us off the record that this unfunded and unclear burden might cause them to reconsider even applying for Safe Routes grants." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-20, 6/2/11 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Bill Berryhill, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell, Hall, Miller JJA:nl 8/9/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED