HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07082008 - C.58 TO: Board of Supervisors �..._.
yd �' Contra
� f
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee a +'
(Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair) '' ` "'` Costa
DATE: June 16, 2008 Count
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 445 dq
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHANGE the County's position on Senate Bill 445 (SB 445) from "Support" to "Watch" as
recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee, and AUTHORIZE the
Chair to sign a letter communicating this position to the County's legislative delegation.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE from the recommended action. If the bill passes, regional transportation agencies would
be authorized to add to a vehicle registration fee or impose a new fee on gasoline purchases, to
pay for a variety of greenhouse gas-reduction projects (subject to voter approval). Should this
occur the County would face increased fuel costs or vehicle fleet costs in the long run.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors in 2007 adopted a position of "Support" for SB 445, introduced by
Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch). The bill would have created an 11-member task force to
study new ways of funding transportation improvements. The task force was to be paid for and
staffed by the State. In March 2008, Senator Torlakson amended the bill substantially. Instead
of creating a task force to study transportation funding, the bill now authorizes regional
transportation agencies to levy an additional fee on motor vehicle registration or a fee on
gasoline sales of up to ten cents per gallon, to pay for a variety of greenhouse gas-reduction
projects, including some types of transportation projects.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S): Su ervisor Gayle B. Uilkema S r a
e ho
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPRO RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AN!
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AN
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOAR
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS N THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: John Greitzer (925/335-1201) ATTESTED �6
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN CU EN, CLERK OF
L. Delaney, CAD's Office HE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
S. Kowalewski, PWD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY / , DEPUTY
G:\Transportation\Committees\TWIC\2008\Board OrdersWuly 8 BOS SB 445.doc
SB 445
JUNE 16, 2008
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
Both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority would have the authority to impose the fee. The bill provides that only one such fee
could be imposed in any given jurisdiction. There would have to be an expenditure plan and a
ballot measure for voters to approve the fee and expenditure plan.
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee reviewed the amended bill at its June
16 meeting and decided to recommend the Board of Supervisors change its position on the bill
to "Watch." The change is recommended because of several substantial issues and concerns
that were reviewed by the Committee, as described in the following paragraphs.
a. The wide range of eligible uses will impose burdensome oversight tasks on regional
transportation agencies. The eligible uses include education programs and green building
construction. This means MTC or CCTA would have to prioritize and fund projects in which
they have no expertise. This will be a time-consuming and costly exercise in a transportation
planning environment that is already heavy with regional, state and federal planning
mandates.
b. The bill could lead to plans that duplicate or conflict with greenhouse gas guidelines that are
still under development by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Under previous
legislation (Assembly Bill (AB) 32), CARB is responsible for developing guidelines on how
metropolitan areas in California should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as
emissions reduction targets. Those guidelines are not yet developed. If SB 445 is passed, it
would become law without the benefit of the CARB guidelines. CARB is charged with
developing guidelines and programs to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels, by the year 2020.
c. No allocation method is provided in the bill The bill requires that if the fee is a vehicle
registration fee add-on, it shall be collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles. If the fee is
a per-gallon fuel fee, the bill does not specify which agency shall collect the fee. In neither
case does the bill specify how the funds will be allocated to local jurisdictions or projects.
The CCTA has pointed out that local jurisdictions therefore are not guaranteed to receive the
funds in amounts that are proportional to the amounts they have generated.
d. SB 445 covers similar ground to AB 444 (Hancock D-Berkeley) but with some differences.
AB 444 would authorize congestion management agencies such as CCTA to put vehicle
registration fee increases of up to$10 on the ballot, with a simple-majority vote requirement.
The emphasis in AB 444 would be to fund congestion-relief projects and pollution-relief
projects. CCTA, which supports AB 444, has discussed the possibility of working with the
legislators to see if the two bills can be reconciled. Whereas SB 445 is statewide, AB 444
applies only to Contra Costa, Marin, Alameda, Solano and Santa Clara Counties.
Rather than opposing the bill or suggesting amendments, the Committee recommends the
County watch the bill for now and work through CSAC on the details.
Exhibit A is a letter recommended for the Chair's signature. The County ordinarily does not
inform legislators when a "Watch" position is taken, but a letter is suggested since this
represents a change from the County's adopted position on the earlier bill.
The full text of SB 445 is attached as Exhibit B.
EXHIBIT B
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 12, 2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 6, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 4, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 8, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 23, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 17, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 26, 2007
SENATE BILL No. 445
Introduced by Senator Torlakson
February 21, 2007
An act to add Article 7 (commencing with Section 9820)to Chapter
6 of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation
greenhouse gas mitigation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 445, as amended, Torlakson. Greenhouse gas mitigation fee.
Existing law provides various sources of revenue to fund
transportation operations and capital improvements, including certain
revenues derived from fees or taxes imposed at the local or regional
level at the option of the administering agency.
This bill would authorize specified regional transportation agencies
to impose a greenhouse gas mitigation fee. The fee would either be a
registration fee on vehicles subject to registration within the jurisdiction
of the agency implementing the fee, or a fee on motor vehicle fuel, not
91
SB 445 —2—
to
2—
to exceed$0.10 per gallon,that is sold within the agency's jurisdiction.
The bill would require the fee to be implemented pursuant to a plan,
which would be required to contain an expenditure plan describing
specifietraftspertat greenhouse gas mitigation projects and
programs to be funded from fee revenues.The fee would be subject to
majority approval of the governing board of the implementing agency
ander voter approval of a ballot measure containing the
expenditure plan and the proposed fee in the jurisdiction where the fee
is to be imposed. The fee would be collected by the Department of
Motor Vehicles or by another appropriate agency, as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2 following:
3 (a) An efficient transportation system is critical for California's
4 economy and quality of life.
5 (b) Per-gallon taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and truck weight
6 fees are the dominant sources of funding for highway system
7 maintenance and expansion.
8 (c) The revenues currently available for state highways and
9 local roads are inadequate to preserve and maintain existing
10 infrastructure and to provide funds for improvements that would
11 reduce congestion and improve mobility.
12 (d) State transit programs,including the State Transit Assistance
13 program that funds local transit services,as well as the state's own
14 intercity rail program, are directly dependent on the Public
15 Transportation Account, which derives revenues from sales taxes
16 on gasoline and diesel fuel. The revenues available for these
17 programs are also inadequate to preserve and maintain existing
18 transit infrastructure and to sustain current levels of transit
19 operations that both reduce congestion and serve the nonmotoring
20 public.
21 (e) Increased vehicle fuel efficiency provides valuable energy
22 conservation and environmental benefits. However, per-gallon
23 fuel taxes will steadily generate less revenue as vehicles become
24 more fuel efficient and alternative sources of fuel are identified.
25 Declining revenues per vehicle mile traveled,coupled with inflation
91
-3— SB 445
1 and increasing construction costs,cause this revenue source to fall
2 short of meeting the state's transportation revenue needs.
3 (f) Between 1994,when fuel taxes were last adjusted,and 2006,
4 travel on the state highway system increased by 27 percent, from
5 144.2 billion to 183.4 billion vehicle miles traveled. Similarly,
6 travel on the local street and road system over the same period
7 increased by 12 percent, from 127.6 billion to 143 billion vehicle
8 miles traveled. Collectively, both the state and local systems
9 support nearly 20 percent more traffic today than just 12 years
10 ago.
11 (g) Thus,the trend is not favorable and,over time,the per-gallon
12 fuel tax will become a less effective mechanism for meeting
13 California's long-term transportation needs.
14 SEC. 2. Article 7 (commencing with Section 9820) is added
15 to Chapter 6 of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, to read:
16
17 Article 7. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Fee
18
19 9820. As used in this article,"regional transportation agency"
20 means a transportation planning agency designated pursuant to
21 Section 29532 of the Government Code, an agency designated to
22 submit a county transportation plan pursuant to Section 66531 of
23 the Government Code,and,in an area with a county transportation
24 commission or authority created pursuant to Division 12
25 (commencing with Section 130000) of the Public Utilities
26 Commission, that commission or authority.
27 9821. (a) (1) Subject t� voter approval pursuant to
28 Section 9824, a regional transportation agency may adopt a
29 greenhouse gas mitigation and funding fee plan for transportation
30 and other purposes.The fee imposed pursuant to the plan shall be
31 imposed on each vehicle subject to registration under this code
32 within the jurisdiction of the implementing agency. An
33 implementing agency may impose the fee in a manner that varies
34 depending on the gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle, or the
35 miles per gallon rating of the vehicle, or both, and if it does so,
36 the agency shall consult with the department and other appropriate
37 state or federal agencies for applicable data to determine the
38 appropriate amount of the fee for each vehicle classification. In
39 the case of an area with more than one regional transportation
40 agency serving the same jurisdiction, in whole or in part, the fee
91
SB 445 —4-
1
4-
1 authorized by this article may only be imposed in that area to the
2 extent that a fee authorized by this article has not previously been
3 imposed.
4 (2) As an alternative to the vehicle registration fee described in
5 paragraph (1), an implementing agency may opt to impose the
6 greenhouse gas mitigation and funding fee authorized by this article
7 in the form of a fee on motor vehicle fuels sold in the implementing
8 agency's jurisdiction. The rate of the fee on motor vehicle fuels
9 shall be established by the authority,not to exceed 10 cents($0.10)
10 per gallon. As used in this paragraph, "motor vehicle" does not
11 include aircraft.
12 (b) The greenhouse gas mitigation and funding fee plan shall
13 include an expenditure plan describing the specific projects and
14 programs that will be eligible for funding from revenue from the
15 fee.Not more than 2 percent of the revenues from the fee shall be
16 used to administer the fee and the projects and programs funded
17 by fee revenues.
18 (c) The department shall collect the vehicle registration fee
19 described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) in the same manner
20 as all other vehicle registration fees, and shall be reimbursed for
21 its collection costs. If the implementing agency opts to impose a
22 motor vehicle fuel fee pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
23 (a), the implementing agency shall contract with an appropriate
24 agency for purposes of collection of that fee, with that agency to
25 be reimbursed from fee revenues for its collection costs. Fee
26 revenues shall be deposited in a greenhouse gas mitigation and
27 funding fee plan fund to be created by each implementing agency.
28 Revenues deposited in the fund shall be available to the agency to
29 fund projects and programs that advance the goals of the
30 expenditure plan.
31 9822. Net fee revenues shall be used to fundtranspeiea
32 greenhouse gas mitigation projects and programs, including, but
33 not limited to, the following:
34 (a) Public transit projects and programs.
35 (b) Congestion management projects and programs.
36 (c) Road maintenance and construction.
37 (d) Grants or other funding for educational institutions to
38 research ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributed to
39 motor vehicles.
91
-5— SB 445
1 (e) Conservation incentives for vehicle owners,including rebates
2 for the most fuel-efficient motor vehicles.
3 (f) Transit-oriented development.
4 (g) Career technical education classes for high schools and
5 community colleges to train students for green collar jobs that
6 support development and implementation of technologies to reduce
7 greenhouse gases related to transportation.
8 (h) Green building retrofits and new construction.
9 9823. To impose the fee authorized by this article, both of the
10 following shall be required:
11 (a) The expenditure plan and the proposed fee are approved by
12 a majority vote of the board of the implementing agency.
13 (b) A majority of the The voters in the jurisdiction of the
14 implementing agency approve a ballot measure containing the
15 expenditure plan and the proposed fee pursuant to Section 9824.
16 9824. The implementing agency may call a special election
17 for the purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 9823.The election
18 shall be consolidated with a statewide primary or general election
19 specified by the agency.
O
91
EXHIBIT A
The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
County Administration BuildingCosta Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street,Room 106 and
Martinez,California 94553 County Administrator
County (925)335-1900
John Gioia,V District
Gayle B.Uilkema,2°d District
Mary N.Piepho,3`d District
Susan A.Bonilla,4d'District
Federal D.Glover,5"District
July 8, 2008
The Honorable Tom Torlakson
Senate District 7
Capitol Building, Room 5050
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Torlakson:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors today shifted its position on your bill, SB 445, to "Watch." As
you know, the Board last year had adopted a"Support"position on the original version of the bill.
The Board supported the bill's original intent to establish a Road Users' Task Force which would study new
ways of funding transportation improvements. This would have provided a valuable contribution to all of our
efforts in the transportation field.
The amended bill authorizes regional transportation agencies to establish a greenhouse mitigation fee that could
be added to vehicle registration fees or applied to gasoline sales. While the Board supports efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases, and we appreciate your efforts in this regard, we have some reservations about adding more
transportation fees at this time. We also are concerned that the regional transportation agencies would be
responsible for funding programs in which they have no expertise, such as green construction techniques and
educational programs.
The Board of Supervisors believes it would be preferable to wait for the results of the California Air Resources
Board's work on developing AB 32 emissions guidelines before moving ahead with more legislation regarding
greenhouse gas reductions.
Nonetheless, we appreciate your interest in greenhouse gas reduction and your efforts to raise new funding
sources for transportation and air quality improvements. Thank you for your work in improving the quality of
life in Contra Costa County.
Sincerely, n
J
F deral D. Glover, C air
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
FDG\JG
G:\Transportation\Committees\TWIC\2008\Board Orders\July 8 BOS SB 445 Exhibit A.doc
C: J.Bueren,Public Works Director
S.Goetz,Conservation and Development Dept.
L.Delaney,County Administrator's Office