BILL ANALYSIS
AB 949
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mike Eng, Chair
AB 949 (Logue) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
SUBJECT : State-Local partnership: eligible matching funds
SUMMARY : This bill expands the definition of eligible local
matching funds for purposes of participating in the State-Local
Partnership Program (SLPP). Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds mineral or resource extraction fees or taxes to the list
of local matching fund sources eligible for the 95%-portion of
the SLPP that is to be distributed by formula to self-help
counties.
2)Strikes the requirement that developer fees must be uniform to
be eligible as local matching funds for the 5%-portion of the
SLPP that is to be competitively distributed.
3)Provides that, in addition to developer fees and mineral or
resource extraction fees, eligible local matching funds can
include a local or regional tax or fee, including a fee or tax
imposed within a county or any part thereof, by voter approval
or by action of the board of supervisors.
EXISTING LAW : In November 2006, voters passed the Highway
Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond
Act of 2006 (bond act) that provides $19.925 billion in bonds,
including $1 billion in the SLPP Account. The bond act provides
that funds in the account are to be appropriated by the
Legislature and subject to conditions prescribed by the
Legislature in statute. Funds are to be allocated by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) over a five-year
period and must be matched on a one-to-one basis with local
funds.
Subsequent legislation AB 268 (Committee on Budget), Chapter
756, Statutes of 2008 set forth criteria and conditions
governing the use of SLPP funds. That legislation:
4)Declares that the purpose of the SLPP is to:
a) Reward "self-help" counties (those in which voters have
AB 949
Page 2
approved fees or taxes solely dedicated to transportation
improvements); and,
b) Provide funds for a wide variety of capital projects.
5)Defines an eligible applicant under the program to be a local
or regional transportation agency that has responsibility for
funding, procuring, or constructing transportation
improvements within its jurisdiction and that has sought and
received voter approval for transportation fees or taxes or
has imposed uniform developer fees.
6)Specifies that eligible local matching funds required to
obtain SLPP funding must come from one of the following
sources:
a) Any voter-approved local or regional tax or fee (defined
as a countywide or citywide sales tax, property or parcel
tax, voter-approved bridge tolls, or voter-approved fees
dedicated solely to transportation improvements); or,
b) Uniform developer fees.
7)Specifies that eligible projects include all of the following:
a) State highway system improvements;
b) Transit facility improvements;
c) Acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling
stock, buses, or other transit equipment;
d) Improvements to the local road system;
e) Improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or
mobility; and,
f) Environmental mitigation.
8)Prescribes the distribution of the $1 billion in SLPP bond
funds, per the following:
a) 95% of the funds for use in "self-help" areas,
distributed by formula; and,
AB 949
Page 3
b) 5% of the funds for use in areas with uniform developer
fees, distributed by competitive grants.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, criteria established by the
CTC and the Legislature for implementation of the SLPP failed to
recognize contributions from unique revenue sources in either
Yuba or Nevada Counties. This bill is intended to remedy that
situation and allow these alternative sources of funds to be
eligible as matching dollars for the SLPP.
In Yuba County, voters approved Measure D, a resource depletion
tax dedicated solely to transportation. The measure imposes a
15-cent per ton surcharge on businesses engaged in sand and
gravel mining and concrete manufacturing within the county. The
author asserts that as a result of the measure, Yuba County
should qualify for its rightful share of SLPP dollars just as
any other "self-help" county.
In Nevada County, voters approved Measure F in 1996, which
requires that 50% of the county's total annual allocation of VLF
revenue be allocated for "maintenance, repair, circulation
enhancement, general road safety and fire access." According to
the author, "Nevada County uses these funds exactly like
self-help counties use their sales tax funds? [These] funds are
the second largest source of "transportation dedicated" revenues
and the County would like to be able to leverage those funds in
the same way other self-help counties will."
Previous legislation : AB 268 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 756,
Statutes of 2008, set forth criteria and conditions governing
the use of SLPP funds.
AB 1351 (Levine) of 2007 would have set forth provisions to
govern the SLPP. That bill stated legislative intent that $200
million be allocated each year for five years, beginning the
2010-2011 fiscal year. The delayed start date was intended to
provide an incentive for counties to pass self-help measures.
That bill died in Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 748 (Corbett) of 2007 would have set forth provisions to
govern the SLPP. That bill stated the intent of the Legislature
to appropriate $200 million for the program from bond funds in
AB 949
Page 4
each of five fiscal years beginning in the 2007-08 fiscal year.
That bill died in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Other significant differences between AB 1351 and SB 748 are
notable and relevant to discussions of AB 949. SB 748 included
uniform developer fees within the types of eligible local
matching funds. AB 1351, on the other hand, limited eligible
matching funds to locally imposed sales tax revenues. This point
was perhaps the most contentious regarding implementation of
SLPP.
According to the State Controller's report entitled, "Counties
Annual Report" published May 2007, in 2004 there were 19
self-help counties that would be eligible to participate in the
SLPP to be established under either SB 748 or AB 1351. These
counties impose sales taxes dedicated to transportation, which
raised $2.563 billion in sales tax revenue. An additional six
agencies would be allowed to participate in the SLPP under SB
748 on the basis of having imposed uniform developer fees for
transportation. (Uniform developer fees brought in $139 million
in 2004.) These agencies would not be eligible to participate
under AB 1351.
Supporters of the ability to use developer fees noted that SB
748 recognized that different communities have different
transportation needs by providing that funds can be used for a
variety of capital projects that are typically funded in local
or regional voter-approved expenditure plans and that result in
mobility, accessibility, system connectivity, safety, or air
quality benefits.
Opponents of this approach objected to the expansion of
"self-help counties." For example, in reference to last year's
SB 748, Imperial County wrote, "Sometime in the very near
future, Imperial County will be asking voters of the county to
renew its commitment to local support of transportation funding.
How will this affect the ability of Imperial, or any other
county, to ask the voters to approve such a measure when the
Legislature moves to diminish the very special commitment to
transportation that these self-help counties have demonstrated
in the past?"
Committee concerns : The main purpose of the SLPP, according to
last year's AB 268, is to reward counties that have imposed a
sales tax on themselves to fund transportation. This bill would
AB 949
Page 5
make Yuba County, and any other county with mineral extraction
fees and taxes, eligible for the largest portion of the SLPP,
the 95% dedicated to self-help counties. Arguably, this is
inconsistent with the intent of the agreement struck last year
and represented in AB 268.
Author's amendments : The author intends to take the following
clarifying amendments in committee and to strike provisions in
the bill intended to accommodate Nevada County's request that
VLF revenue be eligible as local matching funds, with respect to
the SLPP. (These amendments do not address the committee's
concerns):
On page 2, beginning with line 3, replace lines 3 through 13
with the following:
8879.69. (a) Eligible local matching funds required to obtain
funding under the program shall be obtained from revenues from
any voter-approved a local or regional tax or fee solely
dedicated to transportation improvements, or from developer
fees, or from mineral or resource extraction fees or taxes.
Tax or fee, for purposes of this section, means a countywide
or citywide sales tax, a property or parcel tax in a county or
counties or district, any voter-approved mineral or resource
extraction fees or taxes and voter-approved bridge tolls or
voter-approved fees dedicated to specific transportation
improvements.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Nevada County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
Yuba County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093