BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: AB 726
          SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN               AUTHOR:  Nielsen
                                                         VERSION: 2/26/09
          Analysis by: Art Bauer                         FISCAL:  No
          Hearing date: June 16, 2009







          SUBJECT:

          State Transportation Improvement Program and local roads

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill clarifies that local road rehabilitation projects are  
          eligible for funding through the State Transportation  
          Improvement Program (STIP) process. 

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law provides for the STIP, the state's five-year  
          transportation capital outlay program, which is adopted by the  
          California Transportation Commission (CTC) and updated every two  
          years. The STIP process is very elaborate. The CTC prepares a  
          fund estimate. The fund estimate determines the amount of  
          revenues for the two-year STIP cycle required for the Department  
          of Transportation's (Caltrans') operations and maintenance and  
          for the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).  
          The remaining funds are available for funding capital outlay. Of  
          the remaining funds, 75% are programmed by the regional  
          transportation planning agencies (RTPAs), and 25% are programmed  
          by Caltrans for the interregional highway program and intercity  
          rail projects. The CTC is authorized to adopt guidelines  
          governing the preparation of the STIP.

          RTPAs program projects for their regional transportation  
          improvement programs. Under existing law these projects may  
          include, but are not be limited to, improving state highways,  
          local roads, public transit, intercity rail, pedestrian, and  
          bicycle facilities, as well as  grade separations,  
          transportation system management, transportation demand  
          management, soundwall projects, intermodal facilities, safety  




          AB 726 (NIELSEN)                                          Page 2

                                                                       


          projects, and providing funds to match federal funds. 

           This bill  authorizes the CTC to include in its guidelines  
          rehabilitation projects on local roads as eligible for STIP  
          funding
          
          COMMENTS:

              1.   Purpose  . Road rehabilitation is the reconstruction of  
               deteriorated roadway infrastructure and does not involve  
               adding road capacity for additional vehicles. The  
               rehabilitation of state highways is funded through the  
               SHOPP. On the basis of existing law, the CTC regularly  
               includes projects in the STIP that rehabilitate or increase  
               the capacity of local streets and roads.  According to the  
               CTC staff, the $5.6 billion 2006 STIP includes 146 local  
               street and road rehabilitation projects with a value of  
               $103 million. In addition, there are another 102 local road  
               improvement projects that increase capacity valued at $459  
               million.  

               The author is concerned that CTC's policy regarding the use  
               of STIP funds to rehabilitate local streets and roads is  
               discretionary and could change. Because cities and  
               counties, especially in rural areas, have come to rely on  
               STIP revenues for local road rehabilitation, the author  
               believes it is necessary to codify this policy and is  
               carrying this bill to do so.

              2.   CTC guidelines are confusing  . According to its staff,  
               the CTC has always believed existing law authorizes the  
               programming of rehabilitation of local streets and roads in  
               the STIP. Indeed, the guidelines for the 2004 and the 2006  
               STIPs included the following language: "It is the  
               continuing intent of the Commission that rehabilitation  
               projects, excluding maintenance, on the local street and  
               road systems remain eligible for funding in the STIP."

               This language was removed from the adopted guidelines  
               for the 2008 STIP and there is no substitute or  
               equivalent language in the guidelines. This bill would  
               ensure that maintenance and rehabilitation are placed  
               in statute as an authorized use of STIP funds for  
               local agencies. 

              3.   Related legislation  . Last year, Assemblymenber Arambula  




          AB 726 (NIELSEN)                                          Page 3

                                                                       


               authored an identical bill, 
               AB 2295, which the governor vetoed. This was Assembymember  
               Arambula's second effort at getting the bill enacted. In  
               his veto message, the Governor wrote:  

                    This is the second time I have vetoed similar  
                    legislation.  Current California Transportation  
                    Commission (CTC) policy guidelines already  
                    provide that local road rehabilitation projects  
                    are eligible for State Transportation Improvement  
                    Projects (sic) funding.  This bill is duplicative  
                    of existing guidelines and unnecessarily reduces  
                    the ability of the CTC to modify its guidelines  
                    to reflect future changes in available funding  
                    and transportation policy.  
          
          Assembly Votes:
               Floor:    77-0
               Trans:    12-0

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the Committee before noon on  
          Wednesday, 
                     June 10, 2009)

               SUPPORT:  California State Association of Counties  
          (co-sponsor)
                              Regional Council of Rural Counties  
          (co-sponsor)
                         League of California Cities
          
               OPPOSED:  None received.