BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 906 Hearing Date: 7/14/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooper |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |2/26/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Eric Thronson |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Sacramento Regional Transit District.
DIGEST: This bill specifies that the City of Elk Grove's
obligation to pay its proportionate share for transit service
provided by Sacramento Regional Transit District (Sacramento RT)
is fully satisfied by the District's receipt of revenues from a
countywide sales tax measure dedicated to transit service.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Establishes the Sacramento RT to operate a single unified
public transportation system in the Sacramento region in order
to meet the present and future public transportation, and mass
and rapid transit, needs of the region.
2)Defines member entities of the Sacramento RT as cities or
counties that are annexed to the district.
3)Defines participating entities of the Sacramento RT as cities
or counties that are not annexed to the district, but that
enter into an agreement with Sacramento RT that includes
appointing a member to the board of directors.
4)Authorizes a participating entity to appoint at least one
member to the Sacramento RT board of directors if it enters
into an agreement providing for the following:
AB 906 (Cooper) Page 2 of ?
a) The participating entity agrees to pay its proportionate
share of costs to provide rail or other districtwide
transit services.
b) Sacramento RT agrees to maintain a specified level of
service.
c) Sacramento RT is not obligated to provide transit
services to any particular location or along any particular
route.
1)Specifies that the City of Elk Grove's proportionate share is
to be determined in the manner provided by an agreement
between the city and Sacramento RT dated March 17, 2004.
This bill specifies that the City of Elk Grove's obligation to
pay its proportionate share for transit service provided by
Sacramento RT is fully satisfied by Sacramento RT's receipt of
revenues from a countywide sales tax measure that provides funds
for transit service.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, Elk Grove's proportionate
share payment is based on outdated state law and does not take
into account fiscal contributions from Elk Grove residents
through measure A, a countywide sales tax measure that
provides roughly $35 million per year for transit service
throughout the county. The author suggests that existing law
makes Elk Grove pay twice for a seat on the Sacramento RT
board and that no other city in the region pays twice for its
regional transit use. This bill seeks to remedy this problem.
2)Opposition. Sacramento RT opposes this bill for a few
reasons. First, this bill determines that Elk Grove's share
of the costs to operate a regional transit service should be
covered in full through its residents' contribution toward the
countywide sales tax measure. If that were true, then Elk
Grove would be the only entity in Sacramento County for which
that would be the case. A countywide sales tax measure that
dedicates some funds to transit service was passed by the
voters with the understanding that the revenue would support
transit whether or not a resident paying the tax ever takes
advantage of the system, because the majority of the voters
believed that transit service benefited them and the region
regardless of whether they used the system. Everyone pays
toward the countywide sales tax measure and everyone benefits.
AB 906 (Cooper) Page 3 of ?
This is a fact regardless of any other funding mechanisms
established to support the operation of Sacramento RT, and
should not supplant other funds individuals or local entities
owe Sacramento RT.
Another issue raised by the opponents is that the author
states that no city in the region "pays twice for a seat on
the Sacramento RT board." The fact is every city in the
region with a seat on the board, and the county, "pays twice"
to participate in the regional transit system. All entities
contribute through Measure A, and they also contribute in
other ways. Member entities of Sacramento RT contribute all
of their allocated state funding, while participating entities
(specifically Elk Grove, Folsom, and Citrus Heights) all
contribute their proportionate share as required in existing
law.
If this bill became law, it would exempt the City of Elk Grove
from the requirement to pay its proportionate share for which
every other entity participating in Sacramento RT is
responsible. Further, it would set a dangerous precedent,
suggesting that countywide tax measures should somehow be
return-to-source revenues despite the regional benefits
attained through broad countywide programs or services.
3)Compromise. Given the disagreement on some of the facts upon
which this bill is based, it seems there may be room for a
compromise. Existing law specifies how Elk Grove's
proportionate share is to be determined, and bases it on an
agreement from 2004. At the time, Elk Grove was much smaller
and Sacramento RT provided all transit service to the city.
Today, Elk Grove is the second largest city in the county and
operates its own transit system. In fact, after September
2015, Sacramento RT will not operate any service to or in Elk
Grove. It might be reasonable, at this point, to delete the
reference in existing law to how Elk Grove's proportionate
share is determined and instead allow them to negotiate their
contribution to the Sacramento RT the same way the other
participating entities do. To accomplish this, the committee
may wish to amend the bill to delete the reference in existing
law to how Elk Grove's proportionate share is determined.
Related Legislation:
AB 738 (Beth Gaines, 2015) - recasts membership in the
Sacramento Regional Transit District and redefines the
AB 906 (Cooper) Page 4 of ?
boundaries of the District. This bill is also being heard in
this committee today.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 57-17
LGov: 6-3
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
July 8, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
City of Elk Grove
OPPOSITION:
Sacramento Regional Transit District
-- END --