BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 508 Hearing Date: 5/5/2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Beall | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |4/27/2015 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Eric Thronson | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Transportation funds: transit operators: pedestrian safety. DIGEST: This bill makes changes to performance metrics tied to state grants for transit operators. ANALYSIS: In 1971, the Legislature enacted the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Senate Bill 325, Chapter 1400, which dedicated a statewide percent sales tax to local transportation in order to ensure "the efficient and orderly movement of people and goods in the urban areas of the state." That percent sales tax, now known as the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), generates over $1 billion primarily for public transit. Later, the Legislature created a second state funding source for public transit under the TDA called the State Transit Assistance (STA). The STA, generating more than $400 million annually, is derived from the sales tax on diesel and is distributed to local agencies based on population and transit operator revenues. LTF To be eligible to receive its full share of LTF, existing law requires a transit operator to meet a specified ratio of fare revenues to operating cost, called the farebox recovery ratio. Generally, existing law defines the minimum ratio necessary to receive all LTF funding as the higher of either: SB 508 (Beall) Page 2 of ? What the ratio was for any given operator in the 1978-79 fiscal year, or 20% for urban operators, or 10% for operators in a non-urbanized area In addition, if an operator receives funds from some other local revenue sources, it may be able to meet its farebox recovery ratio by combining fare revenues with that local support. If a transit operator fails to meet its specified farebox recovery ratio, existing law requires the regional transportation planning agency to withhold a percentage of the LTF equal to the percentage by which the operator missed its expected ratio. STA Existing law defines a transit operator's total "revenue vehicle-hours" as the sum of all hours in which all transit vehicles in the system are making money for transporting customers. In order to use STA funding for operation of its system, a transit operator must meet qualifying criteria based on a calculation dividing total operating cost by total revenue vehicle-hours in the previous year, taking into consideration the change in the region's Consumer Price Index (CPI). If an operator does not meet this qualifying criteria, it still receives all STA funds it is due, but can only spend the funds on capital expenditures. SB 565 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 341, Statutes of 2011, removed the qualifying criteria on STA funds until June 30, 2015. Exemptions from the definition of operating costs A transit operator's total operating costs is a critical component in the formulas calculating both performance metrics. The State Controller's Office requires transit operators to report annually on their revenues and expenditures, and adopts a uniform system of accounts and records for these reports. Existing law defines operating cost for calculating a transit operator's farebox recovery ratio as all costs in the Controller's uniform system, excluding: Depreciation and amortization expenses All subsidies for commuter rail services All direct costs for providing charter services All vehicle lease costs SB 508 (Beall) Page 3 of ? Separately, existing law excludes from the calculation determining STA qualifying criteria both the startup costs for new services and any cost increases beyond the change in CPI for: Fuel, alternative fuel programs, and power, including electricity Insurance premiums and settlement payments State and federal mandates This bill: 1)Excludes from the definition of operating costs when calculating a transit operator's farebox recovery ratio the following costs: Fuel, alternative fuel programs, and power, including electricity Insurance premiums and settlement payments State and federal mandates 1)Allows transit operators to use STA funds for operations even if they do not meet existing qualifying criteria, but reduces the amount available for operations proportionally by the% an operator fails to meet that criteria. 2)Eliminates the requirement for operators to meet the farebox recovery ratio they maintained during the 1978-79 fiscal year, leaving only the requirement that operators in urbanized areas maintain a 20% ratio and operators in nonurbanized areas maintain a 10% ratio. 3)Excludes the principal and interest payments on all capital projects funded with certificates of participation (COPs) from the definition of operating cost used to calculate a transit operator's farebox recovery ratio. 4)Clarifies that local funds, when used to meet a transit operator's farebox recovery ratio, includes any nonfederal or nonstate grants or other revenues generated by an operator. SB 508 (Beall) Page 4 of ? 5)Clarifies that a portion of LTF funds is available for education programs related to not only bicycle but also pedestrian safety. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, cost increases over the years - sudden, unplanned and unavoidable - have threatened the continued receipt of transit operators' TDA and STA funding. Local economic conditions, operating environments, the various built landscapes, and even political preferences with regard to transit affordability: all these factors change dynamically year to year. A more predictable, flexible system of accountability is needed with regard to the eligibility criteria for transit operators to receive funding. This bill is intended to amend existing accountability measures to create that more predictable, flexible system for local transit systems. 2)What is going on here? As described in the existing law section, the state calculates two relatively ineffective performance metrics against which transit operators are judged to determine state funding eligibility. The farebox recovery ratio is essentially based on the percentage of operating costs that are borne by the transit riders, while the STA eligibility criteria is intended to force operators to keep operating costs from growing more quickly than general inflation. Over time, these performance metrics have been diluted due to changes in existing law to allow for exemptions from what can be included in operating costs. They are, however, the closest thing the state has to holding transit operators accountable for effectively spending state dollars. In many ways, this bill seeks to rationalize these performance metrics, for example, by attempting to apply the same operating cost exemptions to both of them. In addition, this bill clarifies a few terms that should help ensure expectations are applied uniformly to transit operators across the state. These seem like relatively responsible changes to existing law. Ultimately, however, the committee and the administration need to reevaluate how the state should hold transit grant recipients accountable for managing their costs. Some argue that it may be irresponsible of the state to provide SB 508 (Beall) Page 5 of ? ever-increasing subsidies to operators simply to fund higher pay for transit operators who already earn fair wages. 3)Fixing the STA eligibility criteria. As mentioned earlier, the STA performance criteria require operators to keep operating costs from growing more quickly than CPI, a measure of inflation. Of significance, this bill eliminates the yes/no test of STA eligibility criteria, allowing transit operators who miss the criteria by an insignificant margin to continue to use most of their funds for operations. This seems like a reasonable aim, as it may be unfair to make all STA funds unavailable for operations if an operator does a good job of controlling costs but can't quite keep costs in line with inflation. There may be some new challenges created by the way this bill addresses this issue, however. Currently, this bill reduces the amount of STA funds available for operation by the percentage an operator allows costs to grow beyond CPI. For example, let's assume this year's CPI growth is 2 percent. If a transit operator's costs grow 3% this year, then 99% of STA funds would still be available for operations. That might seem reasonable, as 3% isn't much more than 2% and therefore the operator has done a relatively good job of controlling costs. Let's assume, instead, that an operator does a poor job of controlling costs and its operating budget grows 10% in one year. That operator would still be able to use 92% of its STA funds for operations, which doesn't seem like much of a penalty for not complying with the intent of the law. Another concern which arises from this bill's current proposal for changing the STA performance criteria is its potential long-term ramifications. This metric is based on annual growth; therefore, if every year an operator is allowing its operating cost growth to exceed CPI, then over time these costs compound to potentially become grossly out of line with what they are today. This could also potentially encourage behavior that might not hold true to the intent of the metric. To go back to a previous example, let's say an operator is having trouble keeping cost growth within CPI growth, so in one year that operator just allows costs to grow 10%. In this bill's current scheme, that operator would lose 10% of its STA funds for operations in one year, but for the next several years may have no trouble keeping cost growth down because it inflated growth in one year. It was penalized once, but had SB 508 (Beall) Page 6 of ? little incentive over the following years to manage cost growth because of the "room" it created in the one year it suffered the penalty. At some point, the Legislature may need to consider whether this is the best approach to require transit operators to control cost growth, and whether there might be unintended consequences to the changes proposed in this bill. 4)Certificates of participation. COPs are defined as lease financing agreements in the form of tax-exempt securities, similar to bonds. In COP financing, title to a leased asset is assigned by the lessor to a trustee (non-profit corporation) that holds it for the benefit of the investors, the certificate holders. This financing technique provides long-term financing through a lease or lease-purchase agreement that legally does not constitute indebtedness under the state constitutional debt limitation. It is not subject to other statutory requirements applicable to bonds, including the requirement of a vote of citizens. In many ways, COPs payments are similar to an individual's mortgage payments: The debt is securitized against the property, but still requires payment in order to guarantee use of the property. A key characteristic of using COPs that distinguishes it from bond indebtedness is a nonappropriation clause. The nonappropriation or fiscal funding clause means that payments of the lease are dependent upon an annual appropriation by the governing body. This differentiates the lease from indebtedness such as that created by the sale of bonds because, with the nonappropriation provision, the present-year government's action does not bind succeeding ones to pay the obligation. However, the non-debt classification of lease-purchase financing does not eliminate the need to fund lease payment expenditures nor does it eliminate the responsibility of the government to disclose the obligation in its financial statements. This bill excludes principal and interest costs for COPs from the definition of operating costs when calculating a transit operator's farebox recovery ratio. In some ways this is reasonable; if you consider COPs a debt instrument applicable to financing capital projects, then some accountants wouldn't consider the debt service as a general operating cost and instead consider it a capital cost. Some may argue otherwise, SB 508 (Beall) Page 7 of ? however. For example, in the case where COPs might have been used to construct a building, and that building is occupied by the transit operator's administration, replacing a cost to rent space an operator might have otherwise incurred, it seems reasonable to count COP payments as a general operating cost. Because it is unknown what types of projects transit operators are using COPs to fund, it is unclear what impact this bill will have on how the state ultimately holds transit operators accountable for the expenditure of state funds. 5)Drafting error. This bill attempts to harmonize the various exclusions from the definition of operating costs. Unfortunately, it appears that a drafting error mischaracterizes the harmonization of existing law. The author has agreed to make the following change to appropriately apply one set of exclusions to another section of existing law: On page 7, strike lines 32 through 40 On page 8, strike lines 1 through 2 Insert the following: (2) cost increases beyond the change in the Consumer Price Index for: (i) Fuel. (ii) Alternative fuel programs. (iii) Insurance premiums and payments in settlement of claims arising out of the operator's liability. (iv) State and federal mandates. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 29, 2015.) SUPPORT: California Transit Association (sponsor) Monterey-Salinas Transit United Transportation Union Ventura County Transportation Commission OPPOSITION: SB 508 (Beall) Page 8 of ? None received -- END --