BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2147
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 2147 (V.M. Perez) - As Amended: April 5, 2010
SUBJECT : Safe Routes to School
SUMMARY : Modifies the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program to
result in increased participation from socio-economically
disadvantaged schools and communities. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the SR2S
program and its benefits and about the efforts of the
Administration to adapt the program so that there is increased
participation in it from socioeconomically disadvantaged
schools and communities.
2)Expands the list of factors to be used to rate SR2S grant
proposals to include benefits to a "disadvantaged community,"
as defined by reference to mean a community with an annual
median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide
annual median household income.
3)Further expands this list of factors to include the use of a
public participation process and the degree to which the
public's concerns are incorporated into the proposal,
including rural counties that evaluate their unmet transit
needs prior to using local transportation funds for local
streets and roads instead for transit.
4)Directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
to coordinate with regional transportation planning agencies
in rural counties and requires these counties to solicit
information through a community engagement process about local
safe routes to school needs if they are going to seek SR2S
grants.
5)Prohibits Caltrans from imposing a cap on the number of
applications that may be submitted on behalf of disadvantaged
communities.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 2147
Page 2
6)Provides two separate and distinct Safe Routes to School
programs-one federally funded and one state funded. The
federal program provides grants for infrastructure and
non-infrastructure projects (such as education and
enforcement). The state program provides grants only for
infrastructure projects. (This bill modifies the evaluation
criteria for state SR2S grants; hence, any further reference
to the "SR2S" program will be to the state program.)
7)Requires Caltrans to administer an SR2S construction program
for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic
calming projects.
8)Requires Caltrans to award grants to local governmental
agencies on a statewide, competitive basis using the following
factors:
a) Demonstrated needs of the applicant;
b) Potential of the proposal for reducing child injuries
and fatalities;
c) Potential of the proposal for encouraging increased
walking and bicycling among students;
d) Identification of safety hazards;
e) Identification of current and potential walking and
bicycling routes to school; and,
f) Consultation and support for projects by school-based
associations, local traffic engineers, local elected
officials, law enforcement agencies, school officials, and
other relevant community stakeholders.
9)Encourages Caltrans to coordinate with law enforcement
agencies' community policy efforts in establishing and
maintaining the SR2S program.
10)Exempts SR2S grants from traditional transportation
distribution formulae, commonly referred to as the north-south
split and county shares.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 2147
Page 3
COMMENTS : The goal of both Safe Routes to School programs
administered by Caltrans is to increase the number of children
that walk or bicycle to school by funding projects that remove
barriers that prevent or discourage them from doing so. In
1999, California was the first state in the country to legislate
its own SR2S program with dedicated funding (from the State
Highway Account) on the premise that encouraging more children
to walk and bicycle to school would result in healthier
children, improved air quality, reduced fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, and less traffic congestion near
schools. The state SR2S program was funded at $48.5 million in
the latest annual cycle (August 2009) and funds are distributed
on a statewide, competitive basis. Typical projects in these
programs include installing curbs, sidewalks, traffic signals,
crosswalks, warning signs, and bicycle paths.
According to guidelines that govern Caltrans administration of
the SR2S:
11)An applicant for SR2S grants must be an incorporated city or
a county within California.
12)SR2S funds are apportioned to each of 12 Caltrans districts
on a student enrollment basis, except that 3 rural,
low-student enrollment districts receive $1 million each for
each two-year cycle. Those districts are: Caltrans District
1 (Eureka), Caltrans District 2 (Redding), and Caltrans
District 9 (Bishop).
13)The maximum amount of SR2S funds allocated to any single
project is $900,000 and the maximum reimbursement rate allowed
for each project is 90%, with the remaining 10% to be matched
in local dollars. If the total project cost exceeds $1
million, the applicant must fund the balance of the project
with other funds.
14)Applicants are advised, but not prohibited, from submitting
more than three project applications.
The SR2S program has been hugely successful, with applications
exceeding available funds by a ratio of about 6:1. Further,
many perceive the program's outcomes as being equally successful
AB 2147
Page 4
in encouraging children to be more physically active, and SR2S
is considered a critical program in the fight against childhood
obesity.
With this in mind, Caltrans recently announced efforts underway,
along with the California Department of Public Health, the
California Department of Education, the Safe Routes to School
National Partnership, PolicyLink, and the California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation, to review and analyze SR2S funding
practices to assess participation of low-socioeconomic status
schools and communities. A primary reason for this emphasis is
that the epidemic of childhood obesity is especially prevalent
in low-income communities where 30% of children and youth are
overweight. The review of funding practices is scheduled to be
completed by July 1, 2010, and is expected to:
15)Determine the socioeconomic status of current and past SR2S
participants and determine the appropriate level of
participation among these schools and communities; and,
16)Identify funding practices in other programs that have been
effective in securing high participation levels from
low-socioeconomic status schools. Some practices to be
reviewed include:
a) Preferential or "priority points" for projects in
low-socioeconomic status schools;
b) Planning grants for communities to help them prepare
successful applications; and,
c) Guidelines, trainining, or other capacity-building
stratagies to help disadvantaged communities compete more
effectively for funding.
In addition to this review of funding practices, Caltrans and
its partners have created the Safe Routes to School Technical
Assistance Resources Center to help communities apply for and
implement SR2S grants.
According to the author, AB 2147 is intended to ensure
disadvantaged communities receive equitable access to SR2S funds
by requiring Caltrans to give priority to proposals that benefit
these communities, provide community residents with a stronger
role in development of SR2S project proposals, and remove the
AB 2147
Page 5
cap on the number of applicants that can submit SR2S
applications on behalf of disadvantaged communities.
Committee concerns:
17)AB 2147 requires that consideration for SR2S funding be given
to applicants that indicate a "use of public participation
process and the degree to which the public's concerns are
incorporated into the proposal, including those counties that
participate in the unmet-needs process." The bill also
directs Caltrans to coordinate with regional transportation
planning agencies in rural counties and, using the unmet-needs
process, to solicit information through a community engagement
process about safe routes to school needs.
Presumably, the author intends to reference the process by
which rural counties review their unmet transit needs and, if
appropriate, determine that there are no unmet transit needs
and proceed to use their local transportation funds for local
streets and roads, rather than for transit. However, "unmet
needs process" is not defined in existing law except as it
relates to rural counties and transit in the Public Utilities
Code. This reference to a process involving rural (but not
necessarily "disadvantaged") counties and transit is confusing
and the intent is unclear.
18)This bill prohibits Caltrans from limiting the number of
applications that may be submitted on behalf of disadvantaged
communities. Apparently, because the SR2S guidelines require
an eligible applicant to be an incorporated city or a county,
the intent of this provision is to ensure that an applicant
can submit ample applications for multiple communities within
the applicant's jurisdiction. This provision is problematic
for the following reasons:
a) Caltrans' SR2S guidelines do not currently limit the
number of applications any one applicant can submit;
thefore this provision is unnecessary; and,
b) The guidelines encourage applicants to prioritize their
applications and suggest that they submit no more than
three proposals. Because applicants typcially do not get
multiple SR2S awards in any one grant cycle and because the
demand for SR2S grants far exceeds available funding,
prioritizing grant proposals helps ensure an applicant's
AB 2147
Page 6
highest-priority grants are appropriately considered.
19)This bill adds to the application evaluation criteria the
"use of public participation and the degree to which the
public's concerns are incorporated into the proposal."
Existing law already provides that applications should be
ranked based in part on:
"Consultation and support for projects by school-based
associations, local traffic engineers, local elected
officials, law enforcement agencies, school officials, and
other relevant community stakeholders."
Although the author's intent is to encourage outreach to
communities to help develop community priorities for SR2S
grant applications, it is not clear how the proposed
consultation process would be integrated with the existing
process. These two provisions should be combined to provide
clear direction to Caltrans as it evaluates SR2S applications.
Suggested amendments:
20)AB 2147 defines "disadvantaged community" by referencing
provisions of the Water Code used for implementing Proposition
50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and
Beach Protection Act of 2002. This act allows local matching
funds to be waived for disadvantaged communities. According
to the author, it is not his intent to provide for a similar
waiving of local matching fund requirements. Furthermore, the
Water Code is rarely (i.e., twice) referenced in the Streets
and Highways Code. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the
Committee suggests that "disadvantaged community" be defined
directly, rather than by reference, as follows:
"A community with an annual median household income that is
less than 80% of the statewide annual median household
income."
The author intends to take in committee the suggested amendment,
above, as well as the following additional amendments to address
the committee's concerns:
21)Modify the application rating factor related to community
participation to not only advantage those applications that
AB 2147
Page 7
have community stakeholder support but also those that,
through community outreach and engagement, have involved
stakeholders in developing communities priorities for meeting
safe routes to school needs.
22)Strike references to the transit-related unmet-needs process.
23)Strike provisions prohibiting Caltrans from limiting the
number of applications that an applicant can submit.
Previous legislation: AB 1475 (Soto), Chapter 663, Statutes of
1999 established the first Safe Route to School Program, on a
limited-term basis. The program was extended twice: SB 10
(Soto), Chapter 600, Statutes of 200, and SB 1087 (Soto),
Chapter 392, Statutes of 2004. This legislation was finally
amended to strike the sunset date and continue the program
indefinitely (AB 57 (Soto), Chapter 673, Statutes of 2007).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-sponsor)
PolicyLink (co-sponsor)
Binational Center for the Development of Oaxacan Indigenous
Communities
California Food Policy Advocates
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
Central Valley Partnership for Citizenship
Ceres Partnership for Healthy Children
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
Fresno Metro Ministry
Latino Environmental Advancement Project
Organization of Farmworker Women Leaders in California
Planning and Conservation League
Prevention Institute
Poder Popular of the Coachella Valley
Student Dietetic Association, California State University Los
Angeles
The City Project
The Strategic Alliance
TransForm
Urban Habitat
AB 2147
Page 8
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093