BILL ANALYSIS
SB 716
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mike Eng, Chair
SB 716 (Wolk) - As Amended: May 19, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 24-14
SUBJECT : Transportation Development Act: local transportation
funds
SUMMARY : Authorizes, under certain circumstances, the use of
local transportation funds (LTF) for farm worker vanpool
programs; updates reference to the federal decennial census that
is to be used to determine if a county is rural or urban for
purposes of administering LTF funds. Specifically, this bill :
1)Updates the reference to the federal decennial census, from
the 1970 census to the 2000 census (and each decennial census
thereafter), upon which the determination is made whether a
county is urban or rural for purposes administering LTF funds;
urban counties are those with a population over 500,000.
2)Provides that the acquisition or lease of vans and related
equipment, but not for operating costs, for farm worker
vanpool programs is eligible for funding from LTF funds for
rural counties, provided that a county has determined there
are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.
EXISTING LAW:
3)Earmarks percent of the state sales tax for transit and
created a local transportation fund in each county to receive
the money.
4)Vests regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs), which
in the urban areas are often multi-county entities, but in
rural areas are generally single counties, with the
responsibility to allocate LTF funds.
5)Authorizes the use of LTF funds for a wide variety of
transportation programs, including planning and program
activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community
transit services, public transportation, and bus and rail
projects.
SB 716
Page 2
6)Limits the use of LTF funds in counties with a population
greater than 500,000 (according to the 1970 federal census)
for the support of public transportation or for community
transit services (including such services for those, such as
the disabled, who cannot use conventional transit services);
funds not allocated by a county in any year are available to
that county in subsequent years.
7)Authorizes rural counties (those with a population under
500,000 according to the 1970 federal census) also to use
their LTF for local streets and roads, under certain
conditions and only after following prescribed procedures.
8)Provides that, before funds can be used for local streets and
roads, the RTPA in a rural county must hold public hearings
and make a finding that all reasonable unmet transit needs
have been met.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is
to remedy the overwhelming lack of safe transit options
available to agricultural workers. The author contends,
"Agricultural workers continue to face dangerous conditions on
their way to work everyday because of the limited transit
options that are currently available to them."
The model farm worker vanpool program is Agricultural Industries
Transportation Services (AITS), sponsored by the Kings County
Area Public Transit Agency. AITS vanpool drivers must have a
Class C license, pass a required physical, and provide a
Department of Motor Vehicle printout showing proof of a clean
driving record. Vans are equipped for safety--each one is
outfitted with a global positioning system and each one carries
first aid kits, fire extinguishers and roadside safety items. A
one-time start-up grant provided money to set-up the AITS
program and purchase the 15-passenger vans. The money to
sustain and expand the program comes from the riders themselves.
Workers pay a modest fee to ride an AITS vanpool and the
payments cover the cost of maintaining and insuring the vans, as
well as the cost of replacing them when they wear out. The
drivers are typically workers themselves and receive no pay.
A 2003 study by the California Department of Transportation
SB 716
Page 3
(Caltrans) entitled, "Agricultural Worker Transportation Needs
Assessment: Final Report (May 2003)," reported, "The tragic 1999
collision of a van transporting field laborers with a semi truck
at Five Points, a rural intersection near Fresno, California,
caused thirteen farm workers fatalities and became an
unfortunate landmark in the history of transportation for
agricultural workers in the State of California. This
event?resulted in? the AITS Project?Its purpose was to address
the pervasive absence of safe and viable options for traveling
to and from the agricultural worksite for thousands of workers
who sustain California's agricultural industry.
"Inadequate transportation services for agricultural workers
within California limit their ability to obtain and continue
employment. In some areas, transportation services for field
workers are unavailable, inadequate, unsafe, and unreliable.
Limited transportation options in many cases promote a
transportation system in which users are exploited and
harassed."
Hoping to build on the success of AITS, the Legislature passed,
and the Governor signed, legislation (SB 1135, Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2006)
establishing a similar Agricultural Worker Transportation
Program (AWTP) to be administered by Caltrans. The Legislature
funded the program with an appropriation of $20 million from the
Public Transit 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. Caltrans reports that
it has awarded $600,000 in planning grants and $19.4 million in
service implementation grants within in the AWTP.
Other counties have also followed suit, using a variety of
funding sources to fund farm worker vanpool programs. For
example, Fresno County uses funds from Measure C, its half-cent
sales tax dedicated to transportation purposes, to subsidize
farm work vanpool programs that originate in Fresno County.
No longer rural. According to the 1970 federal census, 9
counties in California had populations over 500,000: Alameda,
Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San
Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. These
counties must use their LTF funds for public transportation or
community transit services. As a result of the 2000 federal
census, 6 additional counties will now be deemed urban for
SB 716
Page 4
purposes of administering LTF funds: Fresno, Kern, Orange,
Riverside, San Joaquin, and Ventura.
Author's amendments : The author intends to take a number of
amendments during the committee hearing:
9)Cross-reference existing definition. At the request of rental
car companies, the author intends to add a cross-reference to
an existing definition of "farm labor vehicle," as provided
for in the Vehicle Code, to mean: any motor vehicle designed,
used, or maintained for the transportation of nine or more
farm workers, in addition to the driver, to or from a place of
employment or employment-related activities. By providing the
cross-reference, the author intends to ensure that funds
authorized for expenditure under this bill are used
exclusively for specified farm worker vanpool purposes.
10)The transition : Counties such as Fresno, Kern, and San
Joaquin have voiced opposition to this bill because it would
essentially re-classify them as urban counties, thereby
eliminating their option to use any LTF funds for local
streets and roads (once reasonable transit needs are met).
Furthermore, these counties argue that, despite the size of
their population, they are largely rural agricultural counties
and, except for a few cities, not densely populated;
therefore, public transportation services are not appropriate
for all areas of the county.
The author intends to take amendments that would require a
county to use its LTF funds in more densely populated, urban
areas of the county and continue to use LTF for local streets
and roads (upon an determination of no unmet transit needs) in
the more rural areas of the county. The author also intends
to provide a phase-in period for the 6 re-classified counties
by delaying the application of this bill's provisions related
to the updated census reference until July 1, 2013.
11)Unmet transit needs determination. This bill's sponsor, the
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., is
concerned that decisions regarding funding for local streets
and roads and farm worker vanpool programs will be made
without the benefit of the same type of public hearing that is
required under the unmet transit needs determination process.
The sponsor is also concerned that counties are reluctant to
fund farm worker transportation programs over local streets
SB 716
Page 5
and roads construction and maintenance.
In response, the author intends to take amendments that will
require a county to include consideration for funding farm
worker vanpool programs as part of its unmet transit needs
determination process. In this way, the county's
deliberations will be made public at required public hearings.
Because counties will have to certify that there are no unmet
transit needs, including farm worker transportation needs,
farm worker vanpool programs will be given greater weight and
higher priority then local streets and roads projects. RTPAs
will be prohibited, however, from diminishing funds to
existing public transportation services, specialized
transportation services, or facilities for the exclusive use
of pedestrians and bicycles in order to fund farm worker
vanpool needs.
12)Operating costs. The author is concerned that, by
specifically excluding operating costs as an eligible expense,
the bill could set a precedent that would lead to operating
costs being generally precluded for this and other transit
programs. Hoping to avoid that, she intends to take
amendments striking the phrase that specifically excludes
operating costs from LTF eligibility.
Committee concerns :
Is the bill ready for enactment? In reports of pilot programs
that provide farm worker vanpools, the programs' benefits are
substantial and clearly merit the Legislature's further
deliberation. However, these programs are not without
obstacles, including funding.
This bill arguably imposes requirements on counties yet the
committee is being asked to consider substantive amendments
without the benefit of them being publicly reviewed and
evaluated. The committee may wish to ascertain from the author
why making this a two-year bill, thereby allowing for adequate
public review and input, is not a preferred option.
Imposing new program requirements in tough budget times. This
bill makes acquisition or lease of vans and related equipment
for a farm worker vanpool program eligible LTF expenses. As
proposed to be amended, however, the bill requires counties to
make a determination that there are no unmet, reasonable farm
SB 716
Page 6
worker transportation needs before the county can use its LTF
funds for local streets and roads.
The Legislature is right now deliberating a budget conference
committee report that includes the use of cities' and
counties' gas tax subvention for General Fund relief. These
funds are used by cities and counties for their local streets
and roads construction and maintenance. At a time when cities
and counties are facing unprecedented backlogs of deferred
local streets and roads maintenance and are on the verge of
losing one of their only remaining sources of funds for these
activities, this bill would give statutory priority to
creation of new programs over maintenance of existing roads.
Farm worker buses? The definition proposed by the author refers
to a vehicle "designed to carry nine or more farm workers, in
addition to the driver." This definition will allow the use
of vehicles much larger than a traditional 15-person van.
Given documented problems with ensuring appropriate licensure
of the worker-driver and the more strenuous requirements
imposed in law to operate a bus, the proposed definition of a
farm worker van is inadequate and could have dangerous
results.
Is this bill necessary? Rural counties may use LTF funds for
specified types of activities, including "payment to any entity,
which is under contract with a county, city, or transit district
for public transportation or for transportation services for any
group, as determined by the transportation-planning agency,
requiring special transportation assistance." Although these
provisions have commonly been interpreted to refer to groups
that use paratransit-like services, it is unclear why these
provisions would not include groups such as farm workers. The
committee has been unable to ascertain any actual prohibitions
that would preclude the use of LTF funds for farm worker vanpool
programs under these provisions.
Support and opposition arguments. Supporters of this bill tout
the benefits of the farm worker vanpool programs in providing
innovative and flexible public transportation services to a
hard-to-serve population. Additionally, supporters cite air
quality benefits of vanpooling-that is, vans used in vanpools
tend to be newer models and hold up to 15 people, thereby
removing older model, less fuel efficient cars from the
roadways.
SB 716
Page 7
Moreover, supporters point to the tragic accidents of 1999 to
illustrate the serious safety need for adequate, safe farm
worker transportation services.
Opponents argue that this bill would place upward political
pressure on RTPAs to find that there are no unmet transit needs
that are reasonable to make, thereby facilitating the diversion
of LTF revenues from public transportation to farm worker
vanpool services. This concern is all the more heightened with
the state's latest budget cuts to transit.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alamo
California Institute for Rural Studies
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation of Santa Barbara County
Enterprise Rent-a-Car
Environmental Defense
Green California
National
Raisin Bargaining Association
Opposition
City of Kingsburg
County of Fresno
Kern Council of Governments (unless amended)
Long Beach Transit
San Joaquin County
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
United Transportation Union
Ventura County Transportation Commission (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093