BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: Sb 203
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: pavley
VERSION: 2/7/13
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: no
Hearing date: April 23, 2013
SUBJECT:
Local transportation funds in Ventura County
DESCRIPTION:
This bill eliminates a special provision of the Transportation
Development Act for Ventura County and instead aligns Ventura
with the way existing law treats all other California counties.
ANALYSIS:
In 1971, the Legislature enacted the Transportation Development
Act (TDA), SB 325 (Mills), Chapter 1400, which dedicated a
statewide percent 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." Although the focus of
the law is the provision of transit services in urban areas, it
recognizes that rural areas have a different mix of
transportation needs. To this end, TDA required revenues
collected in counties with a population greater than 500,000 as
of the 1970 census to be used exclusively for public transit
purposes. Alternatively, a community in any county with a
population under 500,000 as of 1970 could use the revenues for
local streets and roads if able to demonstrate through a
prescribed process that all transit needs in that community are
met.
In 2010, TDA generated $1.1 billion for transportation, about 6
percent of which was used for local street and road purposes in
non-urbanized areas.
SB 716 (Wolk), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2009, applied
alternative restrictions on TDA funds in all counties not
considered urban in the original TDA statute but with
populations over 500,000 as of the 2000 decennial census and
each subsequent decennial census. Urbanized areas within these
SB 203 (PAVLEY) Page 2
counties must now use TDA funds exclusively for public transit,
while non-urbanized areas may use TDA funds for either public
transit or local roads. In addition, a city in an urbanized
area but not within a transit district that has a population of
less than 100,000 may use its funds for either transit or roads.
SB 716 requires affected counties to comply by July 1, 2014.
In the case of Ventura County, SB 716 granted a temporary
exemption to the new restrictions and required that Ventura
County Transportation Commission (VCTC) prepare a report
analyzing options for organizing Ventura's public transit
services and then recommend a legislative proposal to implement
the plan. SB 716 required VCTC to submit a report to the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee and the Assembly
Transportation Committee by December 31, 2011. If the
legislature did not enact the recommended proposal during the
2011-2012 session, then SB 716 dedicated all TDA funds in
Ventura County exclusively to public mass transit purposes.
While VCTC submitted the required report, the Legislature did
not enact a solution within the 2011-2012 session.
This bill eliminates the requirement that all TDA funds in
Ventura County be used exclusively for public mass transit
purposes, in effect aligning Ventura with the way existing law
treats all other California counties.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, this bill is necessary to
give Ventura County the same local funding flexibility
afforded other counties in the state. Existing law includes a
temporary exemption to recent changes to the TDA for Ventura
County in order to give the county additional time to address
current transportation challenges and develop its Countywide
Transit Plan. VCTC has since adopted the required transit
plan; this bill aligns with that plan's recommendations and
grants Ventura County parity with the rest of the state.
2.Background . When the TDA was enacted in 1971, ten urban
counties in California exceeded the 500,000 population
threshold: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara. Existing law requires these counties
to use TDA funds exclusively for public transportation.
California has become substantially more urbanized since 1970,
SB 203 (PAVLEY) Page 3
and by the 2000 census, five additional counties exceeded
500,000 in population: Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, Riverside,
and Ventura. By 2020, another six or seven counties will
exceed 500,000 people according to state estimates. As stated
above, SB 716 updated existing law to apply TDA transit
provisions to counties as they become more urban.
Of all the counties affected by SB 716, only Ventura County
strongly opposed its provisions. Ventura faces myriad
transportation challenges with both very urban and very rural
communities as well as a varied geography. On one hand, ten
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 discontinuity creates challenges for the public trying to
navigate the fragmented system. In addition, some communities
in the county prefer to continue to use TDA funds for local
streets and roads as was allowed before SB 716 and are
resistant to any increased public transportation. The tension
between using TDA funding for transit or roads has created
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 been
minimal. In response to Ventura's opposition, SB 716 allowed
VCTC to prepare an analysis of organizational options for
expending TDA and providing public transit in the county that
was submitted to the Legislature in 2012. In summary, the
report recommends:
That transit services currently being provided by a
joint powers agency in western Ventura County, including
the cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and Ventura, be
recreated as a special transit district. All TDA funds
generated in the district's area of jurisdiction would be
committed to public transit.
That the east county cities, including Simi Valley,
Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks, continue to use TDA funds for
either transit or streets and roads.
In March 2013, VCTC further refined its recommendations to,
among other things, seek parity with other counties pursuant
to SB 716. While retaining the SB 716 requirement that cities
with populations over 100,000 be required to use all TDA funds
SB 203 (PAVLEY) Page 4
for transit purposes, this would allow cities in the county
under 100,000 in population to use TDA funds for local streets
and roads as long as transit needs were addressed.
This bill accomplishes VCTC's recommendation of treating
Ventura County the same way all other counties are treated
under existing law. Without this bill, existing law treats
Ventura County the way it does the ten urban counties in the
original TDA legislation: namely, it requires that all TDA
funds be available exclusively for public transportation
purposes.
1.Require reporting . The refined VCTC recommendations included
a proposal that VCTC provide a report to the Legislature
annually for five years in order to address legislative
concerns and demonstrate the county's commitment to the TDA
purpose. The report would include, but not be limited to, all
route changes/service changes/ridership numbers for all
routes, and annual budgets of all transit operators in the
county. The committee may wish to amend the bill to reflect
the VCTC recommendation and require this report.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 664 (Williams) adopts another VCTC report recommendation by
dissolving the existing joint powers agency known as Gold Coast
Transit and creating a new Gold Coast Transit District. The
district would initially include the Cities of Oxnard, Ventura,
Port Hueneme, and Ojai, and would authorize other cities in
Ventura County to subsequently join should they so choose.
Pending in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 17,
2013.)
SUPPORT: Ventura County Transportation Commission
(sponsor)
OPPOSED: None received.