BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 1780
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: bonilla
VERSION: 3/29/12
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
SUBJECT:
Transportation project study reports
DESCRIPTION:
This bill prohibits the Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
from charging local or regional transportation agencies for the
cost of Caltrans' review and approval of certain project study
reports and requires these agencies to reimburse Caltrans for
its review and approval costs of other reports.
ANALYSIS:
Generally speaking, in order to add projects to the state's
programs of transportation projects (which are the schedules and
funding plans of future maintenance and expansion projects on
the state highway system), Caltrans needs a study for each
proposed project that generally outlines the project's expected
costs and timelines, as well as a rough idea of what challenges
or opportunities lie ahead for the project. To meet this
requirement, existing law requires Caltrans or a project
sponsoring agency to complete a project study report or
equivalent planning document (referred to collectively as a
project initiation document, or PID) before the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) can adopt a project into the
state's programs of transportation projects.
In addition, existing law limits the information required in a
PID to the description, scope, cost, and amount of time
necessary to initiate construction of a project. Finally,
existing law requires Caltrans to review and approve all PIDs
for projects on the state highway system that are prepared by
anyone other than Caltrans.
This bill :
Prohibits Caltrans from charging local or regional
AB 1780 (BONILLA) Page 2
transportation agencies for the cost of Caltrans' review and
approval of a PID related to a project contained in an adopted
regional transportation plan, voter-approved county sales tax
measure expenditure plan, or other voter-approved
transportation program. The bill allows Caltrans to charge
and requires an agency preparing the PID for any project
outside these particular plans to reimburse Caltrans for its
review and approval costs.
Expands the required information in PIDs to include all other
information deemed necessary to form a sound basis for the
commitment of future state funding and project delivery.
Permits local or regional transportation agencies to request
from Caltrans a PID for a project that might be proposed for
future state or local funding, with specific deadlines for
review and approval of any PID not completed by Caltrans.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, this bill directs Caltrans
to pay for the review and approval of locally-sponsored PIDs
in order to avoid delays and costs on state highway projects.
Currently, in order for Caltrans to seek reimbursement from
local agencies for oversight of locally-completed PIDs, both
parties must enter into a cooperative agreement, which can
take up to six months to negotiate and approve. The author
contends that removing the option for Caltrans to seek
reimbursement will streamline the process because it removes
the need for Caltrans and local agencies to enter into
cooperative agreements.
2.What is a PID ? Before potential projects can be developed and
constructed, Caltrans or project sponsors must complete
initial project plans. These PIDs contain specific
information such as the description of the problem to be
solved and preferred solution, as well as the estimated cost,
scope, and schedule of the project necessary to decide if,
how, and when to fund the project. It takes a significant
amount of time and resources to produce a PID, due in part to
the numerous studies and reports often included in the
document. PIDs generally take from one to three years to
complete and cost from tens of thousands to several millions
of dollars. Caltrans believes all this effort is necessary
simply to decide whether or not to include the project in
future development plans.
AB 1780 (BONILLA) Page 3
3.The Legislative Analyst's Office's analyses . Over the past
few years, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has
published in-depth analyses of Caltrans' pre-programming
planning efforts, including Caltrans development of PIDs.
These analyses have identified a number of issues with the
program. First, LAO found that Caltrans had significantly
over-produced PIDs, planning for projects that the state's
fiscal resources would never be able to afford to build, and
therefore had wasted a significant amount of money. In
addition, LAO analyses suggested that Caltrans had, over time,
increased the amount of work and information contained in many
PIDs, even though the reports were originally intended only to
serve as ballpark estimates for future planning purposes.
While it is not fully clear what led to these changes at
Caltrans, LAO suggested that pressure from local and regional
agencies might have resulted in Caltrans doing PIDs for more
projects than it otherwise would have and expanding the scope
of these reports to assist in the development of future local
funding initiatives. In order to address these issues, LAO
proposed that requiring local partners to reimburse Caltrans
for work on PIDs would put cost pressures on Caltrans and lead
to the development of only the most relevant PIDs with the
minimal amount of work necessary for the projects to fit into
future planning processes.
Caltrans responded to LAO's concerns and recommendations by
working with local agencies and CTC to streamline PIDs. These
efforts sought to ensure that PIDs did not include more
information than was prudent to collect at the beginning
stages of a project's development and that Caltrans was not
working on PIDs for more projects than could reasonably be
expected to be developed.
4.Recent history of the PIDs debate in the budget . Since the
2009-10 budget, the funding for Caltrans PIDs staffing has
been a contentious issue. The administration has proposed to
fund a portion of PIDs staffing with reimbursements from local
agencies in each of the last four years, while the Legislature
has removed the local funding in the budget and replaced it
with state highway funds. In response to this legislative
budget action, governors (both former and current) have vetoed
the increased state funding for the program each year, leaving
the program underfunded in the budget.
AB 1780 (BONILLA) Page 4
This yearly budget tug-of-war stems primarily from the
question of where the responsibility to fund state highway
projects ultimately rests. While the state maintains and is
ultimately liable if something goes wrong with the system,
local and regional transportation agencies control much of the
funding for expansion and improvement. This tension between
the state and local jurisdictions sometimes leads to
misaligned incentives and suboptimal outcomes. The
development and funding of PIDs has become a flashpoint of
this struggle between the administration and local
transportation agencies. This bill, to some degree, could
diminish the conflict involving PIDs, but the tension will
remain until the Legislature considers a holistic approach to
address the many issues involving transportation funding and
project development.
5.Administration's recent position on the issue . As mentioned
earlier, the administration has proposed to partially fund PID
development through reimbursements from locals in its budget,
and when the Legislature has tried to reverse the proposal the
governor has vetoed the legislative changes. In this year's
budget, the Legislature again replaced the proposed
reimbursement funding with state highway funds. It is unclear
whether the governor will again veto the legislative change to
the budget.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 75 - 1
Appr: 12 - 5
Trans: 11 - 1
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 27,
2012)
SUPPORT: California State Association of Counties
City of Murrieta
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Self-Help Counties Coalition
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
OPPOSED: None received.
AB 1780 (BONILLA) Page 5