BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1141 Hearing Date: 4/19/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Moorlach |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/5/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Manny Leon |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: State highways: transfer to local agencies: pilot
program
DIGEST: This bill establishes a pilot program administered by
the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to allow two
counties to operate, maintain, and make improvements to the
state highway system within their jurisdictions.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that the State Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) has full possession and control of all state
highways and associated property and further sets forth the
powers and duties with respect to operation, maintenance, and
improvement of state highways.
2)Authorizes the CTC to exercise various powers and duties on
transportation matters, including the allocation of certain
transportation capital improvement funds available to the
state.
3)Provides that county boards of supervisors have general
supervision, management, and control of county highways within
their jurisdictions.
This bill:
SB 1141 (Moorlach) Page 2 of ?
1)Establishes a pilot program administered by the CTC to allow
two counties, one northern and one southern, to operate,
maintain, and make improvements to the state highway system
within their jurisdictions, and additionally allows any cost
savings generated under the pilot program to be used for other
transportation projects, as specified.
2)Requires Caltrans to release all of its authority and
responsibility over the state highway system within the
selected counties' jurisdictions, as specified.
3)Specifies that if no counties apply by January 1, 2018, the
pilot program shall not go into effect.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author notes, "The earliest predecessor of
Caltrans was intended to create a state-wide system of roads,
a responsibility deemed too daunting for an ad hoc coalition
of local agencies. Now that California has a complete highway
system, with no new state-wide traditional road projects
underway, it is reasonable that some authority could be handed
back to local agencies." The author further asserts that
"within Caltrans districts, the spread of funding and other
resources may be inequitable. Handing control of and funding
back to smaller agencies would ensure that local agencies are
able to best serve their respective populations."
2)Is there a demand for local control? This bill allows a local
county to participate in a pilot program to take over the
state highway system within its jurisdictional boundaries.
However, it is unclear whether, in a period of declining
transportation revenues for both state and local programs
coupled with an ongoing increase in transportation
infrastructure and maintenance needs, that a local agency
would willingly take on the additional responsibility of
managing a portion of the state highway system. Additionally,
county agencies lack the legal, programming, and engineering
resources and expertise to effectively manage the state
highway system. If a county was to participate in the pilot
program, it is unclear whether the county would have to hire
additional employees and/or purchase additional equipment to
carry out the abovementioned functions. At the writing of
this analysis, no county had provided the committee with an
jexpressed interest in participating in this pilot program.
SB 1141 (Moorlach) Page 3 of ?
3)Contracting out squared. This bill, in its current form,
specifies that a county is required to apply to the pilot
program, then subsequently authorizes a county or regional
transportation agency (RTPA) to manage the state highway
system over the five-year duration of the program. Being that
RTPAs are responsible for programming a portion of state
transportation revenues and many administer local sales tax
measures that provide funding for highway improvements, RTPAs
may arguably be better equipped to manage the state highway
system. However, it is unclear whether a county entering into
the pilot program - then turning around and contracting out
responsibilities to an RTPA - is more efficient than the
existing process. Furthermore, it is unclear if an RTPA would
have the resources to take on additional responsibilities on
top of administering its existing local transportation
programs.
4)Cost savings? This bill requires CTC, in consultation with
Caltrans, to determine the necessary amount of funds to be
allocated to a participating county in the form of an annual
block grant. This bill also specifies that a participating
county may use any generated cost savings for other relevant
transportation priorities. However, the resources required to
develop and administer this specific block grant, the
potential need by a local agency to employ additional staff,
and the potential need to purchase additional equipment are
all unknown. Moreover, this bill is unclear on what becomes
of state employees if a county elects to participate in the
pilot program. Presumably, at the very minimum, the state
would be responsible for the employment and salaries of
Caltrans employees for a period of time during the pilot
program's implementation. Furthermore, federal law identifies
Caltrans as the designated recipient of federal transportation
funds. Yet, if a county was to participate in the pilot
program specified in this bill, it is unclear how federal
funds would be allocated to highway projects in that region.
Would Caltrans still be responsible for administering funds
from federal programs while the county would be managing the
state highways?
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
SB 1141 (Moorlach) Page 4 of ?
April 13, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
Orange County Employees Association
Professional Engineers in California Government
-- END --