BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 254| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 254 Author: Allen (D) Amended: 6/2/15 Vote: 21 SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/28/15 AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen SUBJECT: Streamlining highway relinquishments State highways: relinquishment. SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish portions of the state highway system to a county or city without legislative action. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Identifies the California state highway system (SHS) through a description of segments of the state's regional and interregional roads that are owned and operated by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technically, a state highway is any roadway that Caltrans is legislatively authorized to acquire, lay out, construct, improve, or maintain. SB 254 Page 2 2)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature for the routes of the SHS to connect the communities and regions of the state and that they serve the state's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation. 3)Provides a two-step process for the state to expand or delete a section of the state highway system that begins with the Legislature amending existing law and then the CTC making findings that it is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a specified portion of roadway from the system. This is known as the state highway relinquishment process. This bill: 1)Authorizes CTC, absent legislative action, to relinquish to a county or city a portion of the SHS within that county or city, as long as it is not part of the interregional road system as defined in existing law. 2)Restricts CTC from relinquishing any portion of the SHS until Caltrans has placed the highway in a state of good repair. 3)Requires Caltrans, by April 1, 2016, and every two years thereafter, to report to CTC on which highway segments primarily serve regional travel versus facilitating interregional movement of people and goods. From this report Caltrans must identify which routes and segments are the best candidates for future relinquishment. CTC must develop guidelines for this report in consultation with Caltrans. 4)Requires CTC to compile a list of relinquished highway routes and segments in the previous 12 months and include this information in its annual report to the Legislature. Comments Purpose. According to the author, there appear to be a number of state highways defined in existing law that no longer serve the purpose of a typical highway. They may be urban routes SB 254 Page 3 through heavily populated areas, or main streets for burgeoning suburbs. It doesn't make sense for the state to bear the cost of maintaining these roads, nor is it practicable for local governments to have to work through the state bureaucracy to make important changes like adding parking or turning a thoroughfare into a "complete street." This bill makes it easier for relinquishments to take place, but only when both the state and the local government agree that it is in everyone's best interest. Why streamline relinquishments? Each session, the Legislature passes and the governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by a negotiation of terms and conditions between the local jurisdiction and Caltrans. Once an agreement has been established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and verifies its approval via a resolution. In January of this year, the administration proposed budget trailer bill language intending to streamline the state's relinquishment process. According to the governor's budget summary, a number of routes are still part of the SHS that serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable real estate to support transit-oriented development. Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the state's long-term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system. There is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered through the policy bill process and not as an add-on to the state's annual budget. This bill essentially mirrors the administration's proposal in a policy bill for just this purpose. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No SB 254 Page 4 According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill has the following costs: 1)Unknown costs to Caltrans, from minor to low millions for each relinquishment, depending on the terms of agreements with local agencies. Any one-time costs for each relinquishment would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance costs on the relinquished segment. (State Highway Account) 2)Caltrans staffing costs: approximately $90,000 in ongoing staff time to develop additional cost-benefit analyses, and an additional $96,000 in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to conduct a thorough assessment of relinquishment candidates and estimate future maintenance costs. These limited-term costs may be extended depending on requirements specified in guidelines. (State Highway Account) 3)CTC costs of approximately $120,000 annually to adopt guidelines, review and evaluate more relinquishment proposals, and adopt those proposals in a public hearing. (State Highway Account) SUPPORT: (Verified5/29/15) City of Lomita League of California Cities Rural County Representatives of California OPPOSITION: (Verified5/29/15) None received Prepared by:Eric Thronson / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121 SB 254 Page 5 6/2/15 21:28:32 **** END ****