BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 881
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 20, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                                   Mike Eng, Chair
                    AB 881 (Huffman) - As Amended:  April 13, 2009
           
          SUBJECT  :  Sonoma County Transportation Authority

           SUMMARY  :  Expands the authority of the Sonoma County  
          Transportation Authority (SCTA) to coordinate county activities  
          related to compliance with greenhouse gas emission activities.  
           
          EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Pursuant to the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement  
            Act (Section 180000 of the California Public Utilities Code),  
            creates the SCTA.  The statute makes findings and declarations  
            "that it is in the public interest to allow the voters of each  
            county to establish local transportation authorities and raise  
            additional local revenues to provide highway capital  
            improvements and maintenance and to meet local transportation  
            needs in a timely manner.  Local highway and transportation  
            improvements and services are an immediate high priority  
            needed to resolve local and regional transportation problems  
            that threaten the economic viability and development potential  
            of counties and cities and adversely impact the quality of  
            life therein."  

          2)Passed by the voters in November 2004, the Measure M, Traffic  
            Relief Act (Act), provides for a  cent county sales tax to be  
            used to maintain local streets, fix potholes, accelerate  
            widening Highway 101, improve interchanges, restore and  
            enhance transit, support development of passenger rail, and  
            build safe bicycle and pedestrian routes.  The funds are  
            dedicated towards the specific programs and projects specified  
            in the expenditure plan as required by the Act.  Measure M  
            provides Sonoma County and its nine cities with a new and  
            reliable fund source for on-going local street maintenance and  
            public transit operational needs.  

          3)Pursuant to AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley) Chapter 488, Statutes of  
            2006, enacts the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, that  
            directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement  
            a statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy that  
            would reduce emissions by 25% by 2020.  Requires CARB to adopt  








                                                                  AB 881
                                                                  Page  2

            an AB 32 Scoping Plan among other mandated activities.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

           COMMENTS  :  The author contends that all of the current powers of  
          SCTA relate to transportation maintenance and improvement  
          funding and satisfying local transportation needs.  All the nine  
          cities within Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Water Agency  
          (SCWA) and the County, have passed resolutions that support  
          expanding the operational authority of SCTA to allow it to  
          coordinate a broader climate change initiative beyond the  
          transportation sector.  With this newly expanded authority, SCTA  
          would manage and participate in a countywide effort to implement  
          the recently adopted Climate Action Plan.  

          Further, the author indicates that the AB 32 Scoping Plan  
          recognizes the critical role local governments will play in the  
          successful implementation of AB 32.  The AB 32 Scoping Plan  
          specifically states that, "Local governments are essential  
          partners in achieving California's goals to reduce greenhouse  
          gas emissions (GHG).  They have broad influence and, in some  
          cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to  
          significant direct and indirect GHG emissions through their  
          planning and permitting processes, local ordinances, outreach  
          and education efforts, and municipal operations.  Many of the  
          proposed measures to reduce GHG emissions rely on local  
          government actions."  

          This bill would enable SCTA to serve as the regional  
          coordinating body for the countywide climate change effort.  
          Accordingly, the SCTA would lead the implementation of the  
          Climate Action Plan for all regional stakeholders that have an  
          active role in the production, reduction, and measurement of GHG  
          emissions.  

           Arguments in support of the bill  :  

          1)The nine cities that represent SCTA are supportive of this  
            bill.  In addition, according to the author, CARB encourages  
            local governments to adopt a GHG reduction goal for municipal  
            operations emissions and move toward establishing similar  
            goals for community emissions that parallel the state  
            commitment to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent  
            from current levels by 2020.  Sonoma County, SCTA, SCWA and  
            all cities in Sonoma have adopted a more aggressive goal to  








                                                                  AB 881
                                                                  Page  3

            reduce 25% below the 1990 level by 2015.  

          2)The author contends that, under current law, SCTA is limited  
            in participating in a countywide joint power authority (JPA)  
            set up to address climate change, because a JPA can only exert  
            the powers held in common by all members.  Specifically, the  
            Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6502)  
            authorizes two or more public agencies by agreement to jointly  
            exercise any power common to the contracting parties - each  
            member of the JPA must be able to independently exercise the  
            power that is exercised by the JPA.  A JPA grants no new  
            powers but merely sets up a new procedure for the exercise of  
            existing powers.  

           Arguments against the bill  :

          1)Expanding the scope and responsibilities of a local  
            transportation authority beyond its original mandate and  
            reasons for creation is unnecessary and inappropriate.  The  
            SCTA was established to coordinate and improve the  
            transportation maintenance and funding needs of the county.   
            It was specifically created to administer and manage the   
            cent sales tax revenues accruing from the passage of local  
            Measure M.  Accordingly. the SCTA should not be expanded to  
            coordinate programs that is non-transportation related, such  
            as reviewing or implementing renewable energy and energy  
            efficiency projects; developing renewable energy and waste  
            reduction projects or efforts, review of household appliance  
            energy standards, review of building energy efficiency  
            standards, etc.. 

          2)Funds from Measure M pay for the administration of SCTA to  
            oversee the expenditures of the dedicated sales tax funds  
            towards the specific programs and projects specified in the  
            expenditure plan as approved by the local voters.   
            Accordingly, diversion of SCTA Measure M resources and  
            revenues for non-transportation purposes would appear to be in  
            direct violation of Measure M purposes, is contrary to the  
            will of the local voters who endorsed Measure M, and could  
            jeopardize completion of projects as approved in the Measure M  
            expenditure plan.  The non-commingling of Measure M  
            administrative funds with non-measure funds would be  
            problematic.  

          3)SCTA, as the local transportation entity, could be exposed to  








                                                                  AB 881
                                                                  Page  4

            lawsuits from members of the general public or other members  
            of the SCTA should Measure M commitments not be met due to  
            SCTA's diversionary role as the county's climate change  
            coordinator.  

          4)The Office of the Legislative Counsel (Leg Counsel) has  
            drafted bill language that would allay Sonoma County counsel's  
            concern that the general construct of a JPA is too restrictive  
            and would not allow it to implement AB 32 GHG mitigation  
            efforts.  The language as drafted by Leg Counsel would allow  
            the JPA to implement such efforts.  

          5)Although the author's office and sponsor have been informed  
            that there is an alternative approach more favorable to the  
            legislative committees reviewing this bill (the establishment  
            of a JPA with special climate change/GHG powers to coordinate  
            implementation of the Climate Action Plan and the development  
            of the RCPCP), they have not conveyed any clear or compelling  
            reasons why the formation of a JPA is inadequate.  For the  
            reasons stated above, especially as an alternative approach  
            for the county is available, the use of an expanded SCTA  
            beyond transportation-related purposes is unjustified and  
            unwarranted.  Furthermore, as all nine cities and the county  
            have committed to reducing GHG emissions, transitioning the  
            governance structure from that of the SCTA to the  
            establishment of the JPA would be smooth and relatively  
            effortless.    
           
          Suggested Committee Amendment  :  Consistent with the above  
          arguments against the bill, the committee recommends that the  
          bill be amended to authorize the establishment of a JPA with  
          special authority to address AB 32 climate change and GHG  
          reduction measures.   

          Double referral  :  This bill is double-referred to the Assembly  
          Natural Resources Committee.  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           Sonoma County Transportation Authority (co-sponsor)
          County of Sonoma (co-sponsor)
          City of Healdsburg  
          City of Rohnert Park
          Climate Protection Campaign








                                                                  AB 881
                                                                  Page  5


           Opposition 
           None on file
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093