BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






            SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: SB 716
           SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN               AUTHOR:  Wolk
                                                          VERSION: 4/30/09
           Analysis by: Art Bauer                         FISCAL:  No
           Hearing date: May 12, 2009







           SUBJECT:

           Local transportation funds

           DESCRIPTION:

           This bill would authorize the use of Transportation Development  
           Act (TDA) funds to acquire vans for farm worker vanpools. 

           ANALYSIS:

           The Legislature enacted the Transportation Development Act  
           (TDA), Senate Bill 325, Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971, in  
           order to ensure "the efficient and orderly movement of people  
           and goods in the urban areas of the state." The TDA authorized  
           the boards of supervisors in each county to impose a -percent  
           local sales tax for transportation purposes. All counties  
           imposed the tax in 1972, because if they had not, the state,  
           under California's uniform tax law would not have collected the  
           one-percent local sales that supports the general funds of  
           cities and counties. Although the focus of the law is the  
           provision of transit services in urban areas, it recognizes  
           that rural areas have a different mix of transportation needs.  
           To this end, revenues from the tax must be used for public  
           transit purposes in counties with a population greater than  
           500,000 as of the 1970 census. Counties with a population under  
           500,000 as of 1970 may use the revenues for transit and for  
           local streets and roads. In 2007, $1.4 billion was generated by  
           the statewide local -percent sales tax for transportation.  
           About 11 percent of the funds were used for local street and  
           road purposes. California's TDA program is the only permanent,  
           statewide transit funding program in the country. 

           TDA funds are allocated by regional transportation planning  




           SB 716 (WOLK)                                            Page 2

                                                                        


           agencies, which in the urban areas are often multicounty  
           entities, but in rural areas are generally single counties.  
           Before funds can be used for local streets and roads, the  
           regional transportation planning agency in a rural county must  
           hold public hearings and make one of three findings:

                            There are no unmet transit needs.

                            There are no unmet transit needs that are  
                     reasonable to meet.

                            There are unmet transit needs, including  
                     needs that are reasonable to meet. 

            This bill  :

              1.   Authorizes an allocation of TDA funds in counties under  
                500,000 persons as of the 1970 census for the acquisition  
                or lease of vans to be used to transport agricultural  
                workers to and from work, after a finding had been made  
                that there are no unmet transit needs. 

              2.   Precludes the use of TDA funds to pay for the operating  
                cost of vans used to transport agricultural workers.

           COMMENTS:

            1.Purpose  . The purpose of this bill is to provide safe and  
             reliable vanpool services to agricultural workers employed in  
             the fields and in food processing plants.

            2.Background  . In 1999, a van transporting agricultural workers  
             collided with a tractor semi-trailer at Five Points, a rural  
             community in Fresno County, resulting in the loss of 13  
             lives.  Several reforms were enacted almost immediately after  
             the accident regarding the process for inspecting farm worker  
             vans. In addition, in 2000 a federal demonstration program  
             was established to underwrite farm worker transportation  
             projects. The most significant program was established in  
             2006 with the enactment of SB 1135 (Budget and Fiscal Review  
             Committee Bill), Chapter 516. 
           
             SB 1135 established the Agricultural Worker Transportation  
             Program (AWTP) to be administered by the Department of  
             Transportation (Caltrans). The Legislature funded the program  
             with an appropriation of $20 million from the Public Transit  




           SB 716 (WOLK)                                            Page 3

                                                                        


             Account (PTA). Recipients of the funds had to encumbered  
             these funds by June 30, 2009 and expend them by January 1,  
             2011, when the AWTP sunsets. According to Caltrans, the  
             intent of the AWTP "is to provide safe, efficient, reliable  
             and affordable transportation services, utilizing vans and  
             buses, to agricultural workers commuting to/from worksites in  
             rural areas statewide."

            After three rounds of AWTP funding, Caltrans has awarded  
             $605,552 for planning grants and $19 million for in-service  
             implementation grants to 10 agencies. Among the 10 agencies  
             are the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency, the City of  
             Greenfield, the Santa Barbara County Department of Public  
             Works, the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments, the  
             Napa County Transportation Planning Agency, the Ventura  
             County Transportation Commission, and the Sacramento Area  
             Council of Governments. 

            The AWTP is modeled on the Agricultural Industries  
             Transportation Services (AITS) program operated by the Kings  
             Area Rural Transit, the transit provider for Kings County.  
             The AITS is a vanpool program for agricultural workers,  
             established using federal, state, and local funds in 2002  
             when 123 fifteen-passenger vans were deployed. The program  
             now operates approximately 200 vans throughout the southern  
             San Joaquin Valley and is widely considered a success. 

            3.Why are the vanpools being organized by public agencies  ?   
             Vans used in providing vanpool services may not have more  
             than fifteen seats; otherwise they would come under the  
             regulatory jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.  
             In urban settings, vanpools are usually organized by one of  
             two national firms that market this service across the  
             country. The vehicles are leased, a member of the vanpool  
             drives the vehicle, and the charge to the riders covers the  
             leasing cost, insurance, fuel, and other costs. Public  
             agencies or large employers may provide services that find  
             riders who live in close proximity that desire to participate  
             in a vanpool. 
           
            Agricultural vanpools operate in a different environment where  
             market rate services appear to be difficult to provide. To  
             begin with, the vans are purchased and maintained by public  
             agencies. Because the workers are very low paid, they are  
             charged only for the cost of fuel and maintenance. The cost  
             of vehicle acquisition or lease is not included in the charge  




           SB 716 (WOLK)                                            Page 4

                                                                        


             to users. The driver is a volunteer and is legally an  
             independent contractor who collects the weekly payments from  
             the riders. (All drivers must have a good driving record and  
             pass an alcohol and drug test.) In the case of AITS, the  
             drivers do not have to pay for using the van and can use the  
             van for incidental trips such as taking their children to and  
             from child care. The use of the van is monitored via a GPS  
             system. AITS establishes a fee schedule based on miles  
             traveled during the week. For example, under 300 miles, the  
             fee to the rider is $25 per week. Between 601 and 700 miles,  
             the weekly fee is $40. Its top fee for weekly miles of  
             between 901 and 1,000 miles is $55. According to the general  
             manager of the service, there is no operating subsidy for the  
             service, as the fee revenues cover the operating cost. The  
             only direct public cost is for the vans.
           
           4.TDA is stable and predictable/state transit assistance is  
             exactly the opposite  . The TDA program has been a stable  
             program over its nearly forty years of existence. It is the  
             foundation of all transit funding in the state. Because the  
             revenue is derived from the sales tax, the growth of funds  
             mirrors the performance of the economy. While the Legislature  
             has amended the law to adjust to changing circumstances, it  
             has not tampered with the funds, or redirected them to other  
             local purposes. With the expenditure of the $20 million in  
             the state grant program for farm worker vanpools having been  
             exhausted, the TDA program is a potential source of revenue  
             to continue funding the program. 

            Over many years the state has endeavored to create its own  
             transit assistance program to complement the TDA by using  
             sales tax derived from gasoline sales. The state's efforts  
             have been unreliable from the perspective of the public  
             transit sector.  For example, over the last three fiscal  
             years, approximately $4.3 billion have been diverted to the  
             General Fund from the state programs that assist public  
             transit. In fiscal year 2008, public transit received $306  
             million for operations and in fiscal year 2009, the amount of  
             state assistance was reduced to $150 million. In the next  
             fiscal year, no state funds are available for transit and  
             under existing law no funds may be made available until after  
             2013.
           
           5.Farm worker vanpools and the TDA program  . To date, the farm  
             worker transportation program has been operating as a pilot  
             program and relying on the $20 million dedicated stream of  




           SB 716 (WOLK)                                            Page 5

                                                                        


             revenue established in the 2006 budget process. The purpose  
             of this bill is to take advantage of the TDA program to  
             continue the services created by the demonstration efforts.  
             The TDA funds, though, are fully subscribed. In the urban  
             counties, the allocation of the revenues is essentially done  
             by formula to well-established transit providers, and serves  
             as their baseline revenue. In rural counties, if the revenues  
             are not entirely committed to public transit services, there  
             is competition between transit and local street and road  
             needs, which is resolved through the unmet needs process. 
           
            
           POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the committee before noon on  
           Wednesday,
                           May 6, 2009)

                  SUPPORT:  California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation  
           (Sponsor)
                          Environmental Defense Fund

                OPPOSED:  California Transit Association 
                          California State Association of Counties
                          California Association for Coordinate  
           Transportation 
                          Long Beach Transit
                          Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
                          Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation  
           District
                          The County Connection
                          Riverside Transit Agency
                          City of Torrance Transit System
                          Victor Valley Transit Authority 
                          United Transportation Union
                          Amalgamated Transit Union