BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 906
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Brian Maienschein, Chair
AB 906
(Cooper) - As Introduced February 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Sacramento Regional Transit District.
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the proportionate share payment in
existing law that the
City of Elk Grove must fulfill to maintain an appointment of a
director to Sacramento Regional Transit District's Board of
Directors. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes changes to the proportionate share payment in existing
law that the City of Elk Grove must fulfill to become a
participating entity and maintain a seat on Sacramento
Regional Transit District's (RT) governing body.
2)Requires the proportionate share for the City of Elk Grove to
be deemed fully satisfied through RT's receipt from the
Sacramento Transportation Authority of transaction and use tax
revenues from Measure A, as approved by the voters in November
2004, and effective as of April 2009.
3)Repeals existing law, which requires the City of Elk Grove's
proportionate share to be determined in the manner provided in
Section 4B(2) of the First Amendment to Interim Agreement for
AB 906
Page 2
Elk Grove Bus Service, dated March 17, 2004, between RT and
Elk Grove.
4)Provides that no further agreement between the City of Elk
Grove and RT is required.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the Sacramento Regional Transit District Act which
governs the powers and functions of RT, and establishes RT's
territory and board of directors (Board).
2)Authorizes RT to comprise of the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk
Grove, Davis, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento,
West Sacramento, and Woodland, and specified territory in
Sacramento and Yolo counties to the extent they are not
included in the above-mentioned cities.
3)Provides any city or county may annex to and become part of
RT, upon approval by the Board, following a written request by
that city or county and approval of the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments.
4)Authorizes a city or county that is not annexed to RT to
become a participating entity entitled to make at least one
appointment to the Board, if the participating entity enters
into an agreement with RT that provides for all of the
following:
a) The participating entity agrees to pay its proportionate
share of RT's cost to provide rail or other districtwide
transit services;
AB 906
Page 3
b) RT agrees to maintain a specified level of rail or other
districtwide transit services; and,
c) RT is not obligated to provide transit services to any
particular location or along any particular route.
5)Requires the City of Elk Grove's proportionate share, for the
purposes of 4) above, to be determined in the manner provided
in Section 4B (2) of the First Amendment to Interim Agreement
for Elk Grove Bus Service, dated March 17, 2004, between RT
and Elk Grove.
6)Provides that a participating entity's seat on the Board shall
terminate upon termination or cancellation of the agreement in
4), above.
7)Establishes a weighted voting procedure for RT's Board.
8)Defines a member entity to mean a city or county that is
annexed to RT pursuant to 2), and 3), above.
9)Defines a participating entity to mean a city or county that
is not annexed to RT, but has entered into a specified
agreement pursuant to 4), above.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
AB 906
Page 4
1)RT. The Legislature authorized the creation of the Sacramento
Regional Transit District in 1971 to operate a comprehensive
public transportation system for the Sacramento region. RT
serves an area encompassing 418 square miles and 1.4 million
people; it operates 67 bus routes and 38.6 miles of light rail
service. RT is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors
comprised of eight directors that are appointed by the annexed
jurisdictions, which are "member entities," including
Sacramento County, and the cities of Sacramento and Rancho
Cordova. Additionally, three directors are appointed by
non-annexed jurisdictions, which are "participating entities,"
including the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Folsom.
2)City of Elk Grove. The City of Elk Grove incorporated as a
city in 2001; prior to that time,
RT provided transit services to areas within Sacramento County
that were included within Elk Grove's boundaries. Following
incorporation, Elk Grove opted to not activate membership as
an annexed part of RT, and instead, entered into a service
agreement, from 2001 to 2004, so that RT would continue
providing transit services. Upon further study, Elk Grove
decided to operate its own bus service within the city and to
contract with RT for regional transit services.
RT's enabling act did not allow Elk Grove to have a seat on
the Board, therefore, SB 466 (Steinberg), Chapter 620,
Statutes of 2004, made several changes to RT's governance
structure. SB 466 enabled Elk Grove to have a seat on the
Board to vote on regional matters and allowed RT to recover
operating costs from providing regional transit services to
Elk Grove. SB 466 required that the City of Elk Grove's
proportionate share be determined by Section 4B (2) of the
First Amendment to Interim Agreement for Elk Grove Bus
Service, dated March 17, 2004, an agreement that RT and Elk
Grove entered into. An analysis of
AB 906
Page 5
AB 466, which listed both RT and Elk Grove in support, stated,
"Proponents state that the bill represents a consensus among
RT, Elk Grove, and transit labor representatives."
AB 2137 (Niello), Chapter 227, Statutes of 2008, created a
weighted voting system for RT based on membership status and
each voting entity's financial contribution. AB 2137 was also
supported by RT, Elk Grove, and several other cities,
including both member and participating entities.
3)Bill Summary. Current law allows a city or county that is not
annexed to RT to have a seat on RT's Board, if they enter into
a specified agreement with RT to pay their proportional share
of RT's costs to provide rail or other districtwide transit
services. Additionally, existing law requires that Elk
Grove's proportionate share is determined in the manner
provided by an Interim Agreement between the City of Elk Grove
and RT. This bill deletes the reference to the interim
agreement, and instead, deems that the City of Elk Grove's
proportionate share is satisfied through RT's receipt of
transactions and use tax revenues generated from Measure A
(2004) and provides that no further agreement between the City
of Elk Grove and RT is required.
Measure A was approved by over two-thirds of the voters in
Sacramento County to extend an existing transactions and use
tax. RT receives Measure A revenue for operation and
maintenance of transit capital and rail transit improvements,
as specified in the expenditure plan. Revenue generated by
Measure A also provides funding for things like pedestrian and
bike facilities, traffic control and safety programs, and city
street road maintenance programs, which are distributed
proportionality to cities, including the City of Elk Grove.
Since RT is already in receipt of Measure A revenues, this
bill would not result in an additional allocation of funding
for RT.
AB 906
Page 6
This bill is sponsored by the City of Elk Grove.
4)Author's Statement. According to the author, "This bill
updates the city of Elk Grove's proportionate share payment to
RT to reflect changes since Elk Grove incorporated as a city
in 2000. Currently, Elk Grove's proportionate share payment
is based on outdated state law and does not take into account
Measure A contributions by Elk Grove residents.
"The proportionate share payment Elk Grove pays to RT reflects
a time when the city did not operate its own transit service
and is not equitable to the city and its residents. Outdated
state law requires Elk Grove to pay twice in order to have one
seat on the RT Board. The proportionate share payment paid by
Elk Grove is determined solely by RT. However, RT also
receives nearly $35 million in annual Measure A revenues
dedicated for transit purposes from STA while Elk Grove
receives none of the Measure A revenues dedicated for transit
because Measure A was enacted before Elk Grove incorporated in
(2000) and before the city assumed local control over transit
services (2010). Since approximately 10% of all Measure A
revenues come from Elk Grove generated taxes, Elk Grove is
already contributing 10% of the annual $35 million
(approximately $3.5 million annually) to RT for transit
services. This $3.5 million annual contribution from Elk
Grove to RT through the STA Measure is in addition to the fair
share payment to RT to participate on the Board in the amount
of $797,000 in FY2015-16. No other city in the region pays
twice for its regional transit use. In spite of this double
payment of $4.3 million dollars to RT, Elk Grove residents
still pay regular fare when boarding RT buses and light rail."
AB 906
Page 7
5)Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the
following:
a) No Regional Consensus. The Committee has supported
prior bills that revised RT's board membership to allow
non-annexed cities to have a seat on the Board and created
weighted voting, all of which were brought forward with
consensus. Without consensus, this bill creates winners
and losers in a district-specific issue.
b) Measure A. This bill allows Elk Grove to maintain their
seat on RT's Board at no cost to the City, except what
their residents are already contributing via countywide
transactions and use tax. Proponents argue that RT already
receives a large contribution from Elk Grove in annual
Measure A revenues that are dedicated for transit purposes,
while Elk Grove receives none of that revenue. If the core
policy issue is with the allocation of Measure A funds for
transit in Sacramento County, which was established in an
expenditure plan and passed by the voters in 2004, then the
Committee may wish to consider if this bill is an
appropriate avenue to address those concerns.
c) Who Will Pay? The Committee may wish to consider,
absent a proportionate share payment from Elk Grove, what
the potential impacts on services will be. Proponents
argue that the City may have to reduce its own bus services
due to lack of funding. However, this bill may require RT
to reduce services to other cities and counties that do
fulfill their payments to RTs. Additionally, the Committee
may wish to consider if those who will be impacted the most
are individuals that may not have other resources and rely
on public transportation.
AB 906
Page 8
6)Arguments in Support. Elk Grove argues, "Existing law
requires the City of Elk Grove to pay twice in order to have 1
seat on the RT Board by having the City pay a proportionate
share payment determined solely by RT. Currently, RT receives
nearly $35 million in annual Measure A revenues (Elk Grove's
contribution is 10% to these revenue funds which equate to
$3.5 million annually) dedicated for transit purposes from the
Sacramento Transportation Authority while the city of Elk
Grove receives none."
7)Arguments in Opposition. RT argues, "This bill would relieve
the City from its contractual proportionate share obligation
under our joint agreement for the services provided by deeming
the obligation satisfied by revenues already available to RT
in the form of tax revenues under Sacramento County Measure A.
The practical effect of this would be to reallocate the
City's proportionate costs for regional transit services
provided by RT among the other participating entities or RT
and result in reduced services to full member entities
of RT."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
City of Elk Grove [SPONSOR]
Opposition
AB 906
Page 9
Sacramento Regional Transit District
Analysis Prepared by:Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958