BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1037 HEARING: 5/7/14
AUTHOR: Hernandez FISCAL: No
VERSION: 5/1/14 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Grinnell
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORTY
Requires the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority to update specific items of information.
Background and Existing Law
The California Constitution requires 2/3 voter approval
when a local agency wants to impose or increase a special
tax, or majority vote for a general tax (Proposition 13,
1978). The Legislature must authorize special districts to
impose taxes because these agencies have no plenary taxing
powers.
State law allows cities and counties to impose transactions
and use taxes, which are basically sales and use taxes, in
0.125% increments on top of the state's base rate if the
combined rate in the county doesn't exceed 2%. County
boards of supervisors also can create a countywide
transportation authority to plan and fund transportation
projects within the county, and impose local transactions
and use taxes to pay for projects. Counties that tax
themselves for transportation purposes call themselves
"self-help" counties because they have approved measures to
help themselves address their own transportation problems.
In rare cases, the Legislature allows local agencies to
exceed the 2% cap. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) had authority to levy a
half-cent transaction and use tax not subject to the 2%
countywide cap for six and a half years (SB 314, Murray,
2003). However, MTA didn't put the measure authorized by
that bill to the voters. In 2008, the Legislature
reauthorized MTA to place the half-cent transactions and
use tax for 30 years not subject to the cap; however, the
measure required MTA to adopt an expenditure plan prior to
SB 1037 - 3/24/14 -- Page 2
submitting the ordinance to the voters (AB 2321, Feuer,
2008). In November, 2008, Los Angeles County voters
approved the tax measure, Measure R.
Two years ago, the Legislature authorized MTA to impose a
permanent transactions and use tax (AB 1446, Feuer, 2012).
That measure required MTA to update its expenditure plan
prior to submitting the ordinance to the voters. However,
Los Angeles County voters didn't approve that tax.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 1037 provides that if MTA again places a
transactions and use tax on the ballot, it must update and
amend the expenditure plan to list:
Cost estimates for each project and program, using
a transparent process,
Accelerated costs of each of the plan's projects
and programs, if applicable,
A schedule for when MTA anticipates funds will be
available for each project and program,
Expected completion dates for each project and
program.
Additionally, the measure requires the revised and updated
Long Range Transportation Plan to include the expenditure
plan before placing the measure on the ballot. The Long
Range Transportation Plan also must list capital projects
and programs adopted by each subregion that are submitted
to MTA for inclusion. The bill also notes that including
cost estimates doesn't mean the project is guaranteed
funding.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comment
Purpose of the bill . According to the author, "Los Angeles
County voters are subjected to some of the worst traffic in
the nation. To help address the problem, they are willing
to pass taxes upon themselves, such as Measure R in 2008.
SB 1037 - 3/24/14 -- Page 3
Voters deserve to know where their tax dollars are being
spent, and how far they go in contributing towards the
various transportation projects in the county. SB 1037
will give voters comprehensive information on where their
tax money will go; how much and to what project; any
outstanding funding needs; and most importantly, will
solicit current figures on exact project outlays, prior to
any vote on extending taxes or approving new ones. This is
accomplished by requiring Metro to update its long range
transportation plan and Measure R expenditure plan, with
specified categories of information in conjunction with the
region's planning entities."
SB 1037 - 3/24/14 -- Page 4
Support and Opposition (04/30/14)
Support : None received.
Opposition : None received.