BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 231 (Gaines) - Transportation programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 20, 2015 |Policy Vote: T. & H. 11 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 18, 2015 |Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 231 would explicitly make water-borne transit
programs and projects eligible for funding under two specified
cap-and-trade programs, and would revise the State Transit
Assistance formulas to increase funding allocations to the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) at the expense of the state
share of funds.
Fiscal
Impact:
Additional allocation of approximately $233,000 in Public
Transportation Account (PTA) funds to TRPA, representing a
redirection of diesel fuel tax revenues from the state share
of PTA funds to TRPA.
SB 231 (Gaines) Page 1 of
?
No direct state costs, potential cost pressures to the extent
that cap-and-trade funds are used for water-borne transit,
rather than other eligible transit projects. (Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund)
Background: Existing law establishes the Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) under the Strategic
Growth Council. This program provides competitive grants to
local agencies for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through land use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land
preservation. Eligible projects include infill housing
development, transit projects to support ridership (including
transit and transit stations), and active transportation
projects. Qualifying transit includes various forms of rail
service, bus service, and "flexible transit" (vanpools and
shuttle bus feeder systems). Existing law continuously
appropriates 20% of cap-and-trade funds to AHSC beginning in
2015-16.
Existing law also establishes the Low Carbon Transit Operations
Program (LCTOP) under the California State Transportation
Agency. This program is administered by the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and provides operating and capital
assistance to transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve mobility, with a priority on serving
disadvantaged communities. Funds are distributed on a formulaic
basis to local agencies, rather than a competitive basis.
Eligible projects include expanded, new, or enhanced transit
services; conversion or retrofit of transit vehicles and
equipment to zero-emission; expanded intermodal transit
facilities; and infrastructure to support zero-emission or
plug-in hybrid vehicles. Existing law continuously appropriates
5% of cap-and-trade funds to LCTOP beginning in 2015-16.
The State Transit Assistance program (STA) provides funding for
local transit operations and capital improvements, and state
entities for transportation planning, mass transportation,
intercity rail programs, and transit improvement projects. This
program is funded by diesel sales tax revenues, which are
deposited into the Public Transportation Account, with a portion
of the funds allocated to local recipients (primarily transit
operators) through a statutory formula based on population and
SB 231 (Gaines) Page 2 of
?
operating revenues.
Proposed Law:
SB 231 would specify that water-borne transit capital projects
and programs are eligible for AHSC funding, and authorize
transit operating or capital assistance expenditures for new or
expanded water-borne transit are eligible for LCTOP funding. In
addition, the bill deems the population of the area under TRPAs
jurisdiction to be 145,000 for purposes of STA funding formulas,
and specifies that the additional allocations to TRPA would be
from the state portion of Public Transportation Account
revenues.
Staff
Comments: The Tahoe Basin has a resident population of
approximately 55,000, but the area's transportation system must
accommodate up to 350,000 visitors on a "peak" day due to its
popularity as a recreation destination and its proximity to
major urban areas. This bill establishes a TRPA population of
145,000, which the Tahoe Transportation District (within TRPA)
determined based on annualized visitor travel to the region.
The higher population level specified in SB 231 is intended to
provide additional transit funding for TRPA, considering the
annualized visitor travel. This bill also makes water-borne
transit systems explicitly eligible for AHSC competitive grants
and expenditures of LCTOP funds by local transit entities, which
is intended to provide a funding option for the Tahoe
Transportation District's north-south ferry project.
While the resident population of TRPA is about 55,000, the
methodology that the State Controller uses to calculate
statutorily-created transportation planning entity shares of STA
funds established TRPA's population at 98,733 in 2014-15. The
Controller's 2015-16 STA Allocation Estimate indicates that TRPA
is expected to receive an allocation of $499,327 in the coming
year. Under SB 231, TRPA's allocation will increase by
approximately $233,100 to $732,431. The bill requires the
additional allocation to come from the state share of STA
revenues which would otherwise be used to fund state
transportation planning, mass transportation, intercity rail
programs, and transit improvement projects. The fiscal impact
SB 231 (Gaines) Page 3 of
?
of the bill is technically a shift of the state share of
revenues to the TRPA, which leaves the potential for additional
expenditures of State Highway Account revenues to make up for
the lost PTA funds on the state side of STA allocations.
Staff notes that making water-borne transit projects and
programs explicitly eligible for AHSC and LCTOP funding would
not result in additional expenditures, but could create cost
pressures to the extent those programs and projects would not
have otherwise received an allocation absent the bill. Even if
using these funds for water transit projects is not explicitly
authorized under the letter of the law, it could be argued that
these expenditures follow the spirit of the law in that they
would meet the objectives of reducing air pollution, improving
connectivity, and increasing transit ridership. In addition,
water-borne transit projects would also need to meet all other
requirements of the respective programs to be eligible for
funding. For the AHSC, water transit projects would also have
to compete for funding with other transit projects. For the
LCTOP, water transit projects could be funded from the amount
allocated by formula to the local entity, but it would have to
compete with other local priorities. Staff notes that the
guidelines for the LCTOP currently authorize the expenditure of
funds by eligible recipients who operate ferry services for
support of new or expanded ferry services, but the AHSC
guidelines do not reference ferries or water transit.
-- END --