BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1472 (Mendoza) - Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 11, 2016 |Policy Vote: T. & H. 6 - 3 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 23, 2016 |Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 1472 would add two appointed members to the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) governing
board, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact: Unknown local costs, some of which may be reimbursable
by the state General Fund. Potentially reimbursable costs are
not likely to exceed $50,000 in a given year. If MTA were to
submit a reimbursement claim, actual costs would depend upon a
determination by the Commission on State Mandates (Commission)
regarding what expenses incurred by MTA are deemed to be subject
to state reimbursement. See staff comments.
Background: Existing law provides for the creation of county
SB 1472 (Mendoza) Page 1 of
?
transportation commissions in the Counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura, and vests the
commissions with various powers and duties relative to
transportation planning and funding. The MTA was established in
1992 as the successor agency to the Southern California Rapid
Transit District and the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission to consolidate transportation services and functions
in the county, including transportation planning, bus and rail
transit services, capital construction, and administering local
transportation sales tax measures.
The MTA governing board consists of the following 14 members,
each of whom serves four-year terms, except as specified:
Five members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles.
Two public members appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles.
One Los Angeles City Council member appointed by the Mayor.
Four members selected by the Los Angeles County City Selection
Committee, as specified.
One non-voting member appointed by the Governor.
The four City Selection Committee members are mayors or city
council members selected from each of the following four regions
of the county, excluding the City of Los Angeles: (1) North
County/San Fernando Valley; (2) Southwest Corridor; (3) San
Gabriel Valley; and (4) Southeast Long Beach. Every city in
each of the four regions is entitled to vote to nominate one or
more candidates from that region for consideration by the City
Selection Committee. A city's vote is weighted in proportion to
its population relative to the populations of all cities in the
region.
The membership of county transportation agencies' governing
boards in the state varies: Los Angeles County (14 members),
Orange County (18 members), Riverside County (36 members), San
Bernardino County (31 members), San Diego (23 members), and
Ventura County (18 members). The composition of those boards
varies as well; all have some representation by the board of
supervisors and non-voting Governor appointees, while city
representation varies, with some having representation by each
city in the county.
SB 1472 (Mendoza) Page 2 of
?
Proposed Law:
SB 1472 would expand the MTA governing board from 14 to 16
members, and require the two new members to reside in Los
Angeles County, but not in the same city as another member at
the time of the appointment. The new board members would be
appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Rules
Committee, respectively.
Staff
Comments: This bill would expand the size of the MTA board in
an attempt to diversify representation by ensuring the new board
members are not from cities that are currently represented on
the board. Specifically, SB 1472 would expand the size of MTA's
board of directors from 14 to 16 members, and require the two
new board members to be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly
and Senate Rules Committee, respectively. The MTA indicates
that it expects to incur annual expenses related to each new
board member for per diem compensation, reimbursements for
actual and necessary expenses incurred by each board member,
partial funding for staff of the new board members, as well as
additional administrative costs for enforcing ethics provisions
and potential one-time costs to reconfigure board room space to
accommodate the new members.
Under the mandate determination process, local governments may
file test claims with the Commission on State Mandates alleging
that statutes, regulations, and executive orders impose new
programs or increased levels of service upon local entities.
The Commission primarily relies on Article XIII of the
California Constitution and related case law to make
determinations. Reimbursement is required under Article XIII B,
section 6 only when the local agency is subject to
constitutional tax and spend limitations. An eligible local
agency may file a test claim if mandated costs exceed $1,000.
To the extent the MTA files a test claim alleging that SB 1472
imposes a higher level of service, and the Commission on State
Mandates finds that MTA is an eligible claimant and determines
that certain costs are subject to state reimbursement, this bill
SB 1472 (Mendoza) Page 3 of
?
could result in state General Fund costs. Staff notes that some
of the costs cited by MTA above are not likely to be found
reimbursable since they are not mandated in statute. The
imposition of additional costs alone is not grounds for
reimbursement. The California Supreme Court has opined that
"simply because a state law or order may increase the costs
borne by local government in providing services, this does not
necessarily establish that the law or order constitutes an
increased or higher level of the resulting service to the public
under article XIII B, section 6, and Government Code section
17514." (San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on State
Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859, 877). Staff estimates any
reimbursable costs would be minor. Actual costs would be
dependent upon what the Commission determines are eligible
mandated costs subject to reimbursement, if MTA files a
successful claim.
-- END --