BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 716|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 716
Author: Wolk (D)
Amended: 5/19/09
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 6-3, 5/12/09
AYES: Lowenthal, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Oropeza, Simitian,
Wolk
NOES: Ashburn, Harman, Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Huff, Pavley
SUBJECT : Local transportation funds
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the use of Transportation
Development Act funds to acquire vans for farmworker
vanpools.
ANALYSIS : The Legislature enacted the Transportation
Development Act (TDA), SB 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 one-quarter-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
CONTINUED
SB 716
Page
2
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
one-quarter-percent sales tax for transportation.
Approximately 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
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:
1. There are no unmet transit needs.
2. There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to
meet.
3. 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 2000 census and each
decennial census thereafter, 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.
Background
In 1999, a van transporting agricultural workers collided
SB 716
Page
3
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 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter
516, Statutes of 2006.
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 Account (PTA). Recipients of the funds had
to encumber 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.
AWTP is modeled on the Agricultural Industries
Transportation Services (AITS) program operated by the
Kings Area Rural Transit, the transit provider for Kings
County. AITS is a vanpool program for agricultural
workers, established using federal, state, and local funds
in 2002 when 123 15-passenger vans were deployed. The
program now operates approximately 200 vans throughout the
southern San Joaquin Valley and is widely considered a
success.
Why are the vanpools being organized by public agencies ?
SB 716
Page
4
Vans used in providing vanpool services may not have more
than 15 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 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 GPS [global
positioning 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.
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. Since
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
SB 716
Page
5
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.
Farm worker vanpools and the TDA program . To date, the
farmworker transportation program has been operating as a
pilot program and relying on the $20 million dedicated
stream of 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/20/09)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (source)
Environmental Defense Fund
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/20/09) (prior version of the
SB 716
Page
6
bill)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Amalgamated Transit Union
California Association for Coordinate Transportation
California State Association of Counties
California Transit Association
City of Torrance Transit System
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
Long Beach Transit
Riverside Transit Agency
The County Connection
United Transportation Union
Victor Valley Transit Authority
JJA:mw 5/20/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****