BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 716|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 716
Author: Wolk (D)
Amended: 9/3/09
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
SENATE FLOOR : 24-14, 5/26/09
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa,
DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,
Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla,
Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Cox, Denham,
Dutton, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner, Strickland,
Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-29, 9/8/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local transportation funds
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
DIGEST : This bill 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
CONTINUED
SB 716
Page
2
claims from its local transportation fund (LTF), and
requires a regional transportation planning agency, as part
of it unmet transit needs determination process, to
consider funding farm worker vanpool programs, under
certain circumstances.
Assembly Amendments recast the provisions requiring each
county with a population of less than 500,000 as of the
1970 federal census but more than 500,000 as of the 2000
(or subsequent) federal census to use its LTF funds for
transit, and provide that for counties impacted by this
change, the new requirement will not become operative until
July 1, 2014. In addition, the amendments provide that the
Ventura County Transportation Commission may submit to the
legislative policy committees a report analyzing options
for organizing public mass transportation services in
Ventura County and expending LTF revenues, and modify the
unmet transit needs determination process.
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
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.
SB 716
Page
3
TDA funds are allocated by regional transportation planning
agencies (RTPAs), 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 RTPA 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. Generally requires each county with a population of less
than 500,000 as of the 1970 federal census but more than
500,000 as of the 2000 (or subsequent) federal census to
use its LTF funds for transit. (For purposes of
administering LTF funds, transit includes public
transportation systems, specialized transportation
services, or pedestrian or bicycle facilities.) Exempts
Ventura County from these provisions.
2. Provides that, for counties that would be impacted by
this change, the requirement to use LTF funds for
transit will not become operative until July 1, 2014.
3. Also provides for these counties, that the requirement
to use LTF funds for transit applies to urbanized areas
of a county. LTF funds can be used in non-urbanized
areas of a county for local streets and roads, provided
that there are no unmet transit needs in the area.
Provides for the apportionment of LTF between urban and
rural areas within these counties.
4. Requires that, for cities of 100,000 or less within
counties that become classified as urban under this
bill, LTF funds are not required to be used for public
transit or community transit service purposes. This
provision will also become effective July 1, 2014.
SB 716
Page
4
5. Provides that the Ventura County Transportation
Commission (VCTC) may submit to the legislative policy
committees a report analyzing options for organizing
public mass transportation services in Ventura County
and expending LTF revenues. VCTC may also submit a
legislative proposal to implement a plan based on
recommendations of the report.
6. Provides that, if VCTC does not secure legislation to
implement their proposed plan by the end of the 2011-12
legislative session, its LTF revenues would be available
solely for public transportation or community transit
services, even in the county's rural areas, beginning
July 1, 2014.
7. Makes the acquisition or lease of vans and related
equipment for a farm worker vanpool program an eligible
expense of LTF funds for rural counties or for rural
areas within a county that would change from rural to
urban as a result of this bill, provided that the
vanpool program adheres to applicable federal
definitions for vanpools and requirements for inclusion
of private enterprise participation in metropolitan
planning and transportation improvement programs.
8. Modifies the unmet transit needs determination process
by:
A. Requiring an analysis of the need to acquire or
lease vans for farm worker vanpools; this analysis
will only be required if the RTPA receives a request
from an interested party identifying a potential
need.
B. Prohibiting any allocations of LTF funds to local
streets and roads until consideration is given to
funding the acquisition or lease of vans for farm
worker vanpools.
C. Providing that allocations for farm worker
vanpools cannot be made until all reasonable transit
needs are met.
D. Prohibiting an RTPA from reducing funding to
SB 716
Page
5
existing transit services in order to fund farm
worker vanpools.
E. Prohibiting an RTPA from funding farm worker
vanpools at the expense of other commuter vanpool
programs.
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 (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
SB 716
Page
6
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 ?
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
SB 716
Page
7
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
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.
SB 716
Page
8
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/09)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (source)
California Institute for Rural Studies
Catholic Charities
Center on Race Poverty and the Environment
Clean Water Action California
Coalition for Clean Air
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Environmental Defense Fund
Green California
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Raisin Bargaining Association
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Yolo County Transportation District
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/9/09) (prior version of the
bill)
Cities of Camarillo, Modesto, and Turlock
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
Stanislaus County
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada,
Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande,
SB 716
Page
9
Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Galgiani, Vacancy
JJA:mw 9/9/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****