BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 664|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 664
Author: Williams (D)
Amended: 4/19/13 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 11-0, 7/2/13
AYES: DeSaulnier, Gaines, Beall, Cannella, Galgiani, Hueso,
Lara, Liu, Pavley, Roth, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Gold Coast Transit District
SOURCE : Gold Coast Transit District
DIGEST : This bill dissolves the existing Gold Coast Transit
joint powers agency (JPA) in Ventura County and creates the Gold
Coast Transit District (District), succeeding to and vested with
the rights, powers, duties, and obligations of the former JPA.
ANALYSIS : In 1971, the Legislature enacted the Transportation
Development Act (TDA), SB 325 (Mills, Chapter 1400, Statutes of
1971), which dedicated a statewide 0.25% sales tax to local
transportation in order to ensure "the efficient and orderly
movement of people and goods in the urban areas of the state."
The focus of the law is the provision of transit services in
urban areas, although it recognizes that rural areas have a
CONTINUED
AB 664
Page
2
different mix of transportation needs and includes a process
that allows some local governments to use these funds for local
streets and roads. Existing law vests regional transportation
planning agencies with the responsibility to allocate these
funds generally to cities, counties, and transit districts by
population. In 2010, TDA generated $1.1 billion for
transportation, about 6% of which was used for local street and
road purposes in non-urbanized areas.
Existing law authorizes two or more public agencies to enter
into a joint powers agreement and exercise jointly any power
common to the contracting agencies. Nearly 40 years ago the
cities of Oxnard, Ventura, Port Hueneme, and Ojai, along with
Ventura County, formed a JPA called Gold Coast Transit to plan,
operate, and manage a public bus service in western Ventura
County.
This bill dissolves the existing Gold Coast Transit JPA in
Ventura County and creates the District, succeeding to and
vested with the rights, powers, duties, and obligations of the
former JPA. Specifically, this bill:
1. Includes in the District the cities of Oxnard, Ventura, Port
Hueneme, Ojai, and the unincorporated areas of Ventura
County.
2. Authorizes other cities in Ventura County to subsequently
join the District with a resolution approved by the city's
and the District's governing boards.
3. Provides for the transfer of assets from the dissolved JPA
to the District.
4. Specifies the voting procedures for the taking of various
actions by the District's governing board and provides for
weighted votes in specific cases.
5. Specifies the powers and duties of the District to operate
transit services and authorizes the District to seek voter
approval of tax measures and the issuance of revenue bonds.
6. Enacts provisions related to the operation of a public
transit service similar to those authorized for other transit
districts throughout the state.
CONTINUED
AB 664
Page
3
Comments
Purpose . Currently, Gold Coast Transit JPA members receive TDA
funds from the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC),
and then share them with the JPA to operate its transit
operation. This has led to the JPA assigning existing service
based on the source of funding instead of on what may make the
most sense for improving service and mobility region wide.
According to the author's office, one of the major benefits of
this bill is that, by dissolving the JPA and forming the
District, VCTC will allocate TDA funds directly to the District
and the District's governing board will be able to look beyond
jurisdictional boundaries and allocate services to meet the
needs and demands of the area at large.
Primarily, this bill converts an existing transit operator from
a JPA to a transit district. This transition should not change
the operations of the transit service, or its service area in
the near term. What the transition effects, primarily, is the
distribution of TDA funds in the transit area's jurisdiction.
The way VCTC distributes these funds is important for a variety
of reasons to the different entities in Ventura County. First,
as the author's office contends, distributing TDA funds directly
to the District instead of to the participants of the JPA
enables the District board to make the best decisions for the
service as a whole instead of worrying about an equitable return
of services for funds provided. This should lead to an overall
more effective service than might otherwise be obtainable for
those jurisdictions participating in the district. Second,
because the District boundaries include all unincorporated areas
of Ventura County, it provides a stark delineation between the
jurisdictions within and outside of the district's service area.
While this bill does not preclude the District from serving
areas outside its service area, the delineation will help the
District determine the best ways to serve Ventura County
residents. Further, jurisdictions not currently in the District
and therefore receiving their own allocation of TDA funds from
VCTC may find after time that joining the District will be more
efficient and effective than trying to address transit needs in
their areas alone.
Second part of a compromise . Ventura County faces myriad
transportation challenges because it encompasses both very urban
CONTINUED
AB 664
Page
4
and very rural communities as well as a varied geography. On
one hand, 10 different agencies provide public transportation in
Ventura County and, based on local funding policies and
perceived needs, operators offer different hours and levels of
service. This transit discontinuity creates challenges for the
public trying to navigate the fragmented system. On the other
hand, some communities in the county prefer to continue to use
TDA funds for local streets and roads and are resistant to any
increased public transportation services. This tension between
using TDA funding for transit or roads has created an ongoing
conflict between communities within Ventura County.
While VCTC has attempted to improve connections and mobility in
the county, progress toward truly integrated transit service and
consensus around the use of TDA funding has until recently been
minimal. In 2012, VCTC submitted to the Legislature a
statutorily-required report that included an analysis of
organizational options for expending TDA and providing public
transit in the county. In summary, the report made two
recommendations. First, the report recommended that the east
county cities, including Simi Valley, Moorpark, and Thousand
Oaks, continue to use TDA funds for either transit or streets
and roads. This recommendation is being pursued by SB 203
(Pavley, 2013), currently pending in the Assembly Transportation
Committee. The second recommendation from the VCTC report,
embodied by this bill, was that transit services currently being
provided by a JPA in western Ventura County be provided by a
special transit district. All TDA funds generated in the
transit district's area of jurisdiction would be committed to
public transit. This bill, along with SB 203, represents a
compromise between the interested parties in Ventura County that
will hopefully result in a more effective and efficient
transportation system.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/8/13)
Gold Coast Transit Distric (source)
Alliance for Sustainable Equitable Regional Transportation
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy
Cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and Ventura
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation
CONTINUED
AB 664
Page
5
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District
SEIU 721
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Ventura County Transportation Commission
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia,
Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Harkey,
Roger Hernández, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue,
Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea,
V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner,
Ting, Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Buchanan, Eggman, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Holden, Melendez, Morrell, Stone, Vacancy
JA:k 8/12/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED