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 ****