Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10282003 - C44 G. • fol TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i Centra FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP ,, Costa Community Development Director County x DATE: October 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Reauthorization of the Measure C Transportation Sales Tax SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT report from the Community Development Department on the status of activities to reauthorize the Measure C Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program; and REQUEST the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee to review the Draft EIR on the reauthorization of the Measure C transportation sales tax when it is made available by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and consider whether the Board should schedule a workshop on this subject. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On April 15, 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution 2003/220 supporting the process to place the reauthorization of Measure C transportation sales tax(Measure C-88)on future ballots. At that time the Board also directed the Community Development Department to provide the Board of Supervisors with quarterly reports on the activities in support of reauthorizing the measure. This status report responds to that direction. \J� - CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITItE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Extober 28, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS _XUNANIMC3U5 ABSENT Nene I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ( ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Steven Goetz (9251335-1240) cc: Community Development ATTESTED October 28,2003 Public Warks JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P. Branson, EHSD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contra Costa Transportation Authority (via CDD) , , DEPUTY a:\transportation\steve\bo\sent\measurec.10.doc Reauthorizing the Measure C Transportation Sales Tax October 28, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) Since the last report to the Board on July 8t", the following progress has occurred: • Cities continue to review the proposed process for putting a new expenditure plan on the ballot. Ten cities have joined the Board and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) in supporting the process to place the reauthorization of Measure C-88 on future ballots (Clayton, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Oakley, Pinole, Pleasant dill,San Pablo and San Ramon). This process establishes the policy that, before the new Measure C-88 is placed on the November 2004 ballot, the measure must obtain the support of two- thirds of the members of the Authority, a majority of the Board of Supervisors, and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population of the incorporated areas of Contra Costa. The city councils from Walnut Creek and Moraga have rejected this process. • Various Groups Submitted Expenditure Plan Proposals to the Authority The Authority requested that by June 30,the Regional Committees and the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee submit their priorities for projects and programs to include in the Expenditure Plan using three funding scenarios. Exhibit 1 is a summary of the Expenditure Plan proposals submitted by these groups, as well as two special interest groups. In addition, the Authority`s Technical Coordinating Committee recommended a list of regionally significant projects that should be evaluated in the EIR for the Expenditure Plan. That recommendation is described in Exhibit 2. • The Beard and the OCTA hosted a workshop for elected officials on the reauthorization of Measure C-88. The workshop was held on July 12. It was well attended. Elected officials discussed potential transportation investments, growth management strategies and countywide governance issues. • Adoption of Alternatives for Evaluation in the EIR for the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). The alternatives for the Expenditure Plan were adopted at the Authority's meeting on July 23, (see Exhibit 3). These alternatives focus on three different policy approaches. Alternative A focuses on projects of countywide significance. Alternative B focuses on the priorities of the Regional Committees. Alternative C focuses on funding on-going transportation programs. When combined, these alternatives address every project and program submitted to the Authority, except for modifications to the I-80/State Route 4 interchange and construction of BART. The EIR will also include an evaluation of three options forthe Growth Management Program component of the Expenditure Plan (see Exhibit 4). • Preparation of the E1 R on the 2004 Update of the CTP has begun The Notice of Preparation for an EIR (NOP)was circulated on June 20, and recirculated on September 4. The County responded to both notices(See Exhibits 5 and 6). At this point,Authority staff has indicated that it would perform a qualitative analysis of the range of impacts associated with linking the new Expenditure Plan with land use strategies such as Shaping Our Future. They also indicated that the scope of the alternatives under evaluation is sufficient to cover an Expenditure Plan designed for a 30-year sales tax instead of a 20-year sales tax. • Attorney General is reviewing the statutory authority for renewing Measure C-88 On March 17, Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority submitted a joint request for an opinion from the Attorney General on the appropriate statute to use for renewing or continuing Measure C-88. In December,the Authority took action to renew the sales tax as an amendment to the existing ordinance,which requires a vote of two-thirds of the Authority. The County believes renewal of the sales tax requires a new ordinance, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population in Contra Costa. The Attorney General requested both parties to submit supplemental material. This supplemental material is included in Exhibits 7 and 8. In the next few months, the Authority will release a draft of the Countywide Transportation Plan and the EIR of this Plan and the new Expenditure Plan. County staff proposes to report on these draft documents to the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee. The Committee will help determine the substance of the next progress report to the Board, including whether a workshop should be schedule to prepare comments on these draft documents. Exhibit 1: Summary of Financially Constrained Proposals Exhibit 2: TCC's Recommended List of Regionally Significant Projects Exhibit 3: Proposed EIR Alternatives Exhibit 4: Options for the Growth Management Program Exhibit 5: CDUs August 6,2003 Response to the Notice of Preparation Exhibit 6: CDD's September 16,2003 Response to the Recirculated Notice of Preparation Exhibit 7: County Counsel's October 2,2003 correspondence to the Attorney General's Office Exhibit 8: CCTA Counsel's October 7, 2003 correspondence to the Attorney General's Office �" r•-y 9. '6 r ,? N r+ try us _ '.,ate: M F' CZ •`�� � t � � � iR � w w .9 c vN�� rppw � pw r+ at: y W W 5 C� Ob W d 4 t r+ *" 79 :. . . (�j.. � 0� � '�+ In rte+ ' tJ �D � r�•i � M � � uh'S d th ' � ems-+ �: C. N N � ' � W O O � � N � ''ids. in'+S � � � 06 007 � � 1fY u7 N � rh �.� '. . N O In ' 0 `C M OND l� ' h : - rM 66 �.. e�"� Fes•+ !'r; ' h h" '. b t'�.s " ,.{y:. Ci u`S er1: Ki iV_ w rA tn C h Opj rostv).r � a w U A4 c� p ty Ch ry pp v3 yyy t+; N7 4�0 60 N N w�+ Lri3 YS M M..jl�. Ci Ch 00 w y�' [� � t � ur �;I �. in rr <n � us - N N Ir5 R - rw ti t�• ��, Xy fV N M O` ywt W 1"y � e`+ CY M � w �'+ �:. tib If'I w � W �: *�,•'. '.i py _�:. � ! raw In � M eel tn N o' h l� of N7 on O F to +1f M W 6 jo y� n iri in rri oto yam" - � be in to OD rt rt rl t An th o �U vv► " d eoen us to o W 06 JI N d > f w tz A40. b " p � C a �' a (� p y d fl C F O sd �jP. 16 v ba � O � c ° pauti ° ¢ � a 5buSa n E mJ ,F Uw ., cuiv ffi a Ocra caUW � vsU FF ,pd� cna th pitsth ��giiL7v cn dt y ri vs r+ Vs tl� t1S us 0 til K VS 00 o sh r�i V3 m a o u ro m n o m `o yfl a E c v i cyryy G G. D L en oA ❑ p "' ,c e S v' 3 ,� cn U :� m '. ';� N s ro -d u `. z, c _ ¢ u a c E`t' a; y•° a, o v o `u c o U ,� o� .. '.� �ro 'a v; °o ... u .ra U .d c a� m y ro E C rn z u �v u ° ❑ �, G1 ;; -o o � ^c c �. � � c E c �'c' ° o o '� N o y c � rEa S, 5 i ,a, •., �, m y; Q)c R.. a a u. cL�o v "�'W..c v•'o t0 ° •; a •°.a E .E E '^ '" c ,uJ o .. 'C ro o -° F .° E a v» a .`W c `t o o�Go c :.7 @ c cq v $v`E 7 W z a y • roc� >Lli a e cn .� eA er, ^p C% 3 `tel d C. C C O N y M .0 �¢ _ N t1 c o ✓y c y a c a o a p 7 y L2 ro .d C r✓ a m � � _ Y 3 O o � � c � .. o. -- .^w � �.�^c y tc o ° y � rn � °' 'Su m c� �' LU 0 0 � E^ � cn E E .� ""- � ��-� m c u ,�% E�.�� au, �^��„ •'�o � ° .,° ' U� .c d C ro °c. �; us.. °� aa° m ° o u G E L m N t o y �` V b ° c Z •o d a N Q c �' a i o o c v E �: "" v tY •� 25 y b ° C t>ti H e ''� G H v C.. ° °•'m n�i .O C "7 N a O '" h � ° > ° o d o= E " ° ? b E a c U o cL o o d u o h v U u o c a �t c� - v y `u ac a y d =- c ° .d ro E m r o W LIJ - ° ' °q o F- v J ? c n C E ro •a?ati ° h ` ° c > Sc .o sE m ° d a.• 2;n U o U w�'Ui-yup C� a 'u` ^a 7 L C L; c .0 C C. `✓ �i a �,d •`fir o � y �' a m tt m o o o - u d v _ ro x, 8 y o; E ro o .n a h,w..a C. ro y a 7 U y c f-• q.6. E ti y> .� U ,o, •� a. m o y c a c d ✓ c a E E o in o u c o o Q Wes v C o o ro E o c E d a� i U x a` u E U '� a fD ro.E ro u tG o ro o b� "" 0 0 0. a. cn a' cC p,p v F� E a u Z v •L cam, y d a o E3 c a m 3 a n E 'r ° c E r a ri a w ° U 3 w �12 c A c 6 O O C.J G] >` Y• u+ V7 h a0 'J� t t CU`: t cot t t z t z z t t z z t t z t i z i z i z t t t i z v t t z i t t t t z t z t t t t t t i t t z t z EA t t '.EH: t z CIrl t t t t z t t 0,0 t t ka. Q0 t t t t t z bo z z i fp,:, tvj". z z t t t t t z tq z z t % . I : : t z z . . . . . t tt. eCD t 10 z 6q z z z t I z Ot t t t z t z z t t t n t z t t tk kw t t t t t a t t t to 6')t z t t t t t t t t 101 z t t l.cl z t t z z 4LP) 0)t to co N �T t t zNt z t 1 1 zN' t t t t z1-0 q)• z z l�z - z t t t t z t i t I. b') ,i t cc 1 N 'r c4q 6q z z z z t z 4LO' Ln t t z t t z C.D cr)I z it 't i z t t U) t t I t 4v z VIA 60 Lot -t t t t z z "q.6-rz t • t z t t z t t t t to'.ka Lo' '�o t t z 6'�'z ko'. (v co 4�0 cq:*C'I t t t z t t z • t t t"'r t t t t z t t.6qt 1-01 1 i. t'y�tket 1 t t t t toi z kf� VIA t t i t z z z • t ka (n 00 I z z z z z z slot. . . t t z t t z Emst t z z t t z t z t t z z z t t z t z z z t t t t t t i t t t t tol z C7 t t t t t t t t t t z cot t t t t t z t t t t t t z Cl t t t z z I z (n t t t t I t t t t t z z z 1 z I t t t 0 t t vSC: E, . . . . . . . . .. . Ctl_ z z t z I z ti iill i t z z t t " 'i * . . ,o--,W' z . t . t t t z t z z t t S.'.rz t I z i t z t 1 t t t t al z 1 z t z z t Ski z Ot z t t t z t z t LU t tot t . I I I . � t t t 81 t t z z t 1 t z ot t t t z z z t z t t t I z z C)t t t t t t z t t t t Cz t z . . . . . t t t z z t ce)t t z z z I t I t t t ttt ot• z tom: rz z R, I z z t t t Cv tats z t t z t z t t i z - - C� — t tODI 4)t i t z I t . I t t t z ztv z i t t z -p-, z zipt CIA cis ClC C' e-i r-". . . . z z —-r-z t i z 0 1 ot z-0 z t z z ot z t t t t 1 0; t t I zcDt i t z o' (16, z 1 z t 21 1 El 101 C' C)'rl I t r- cc t z I jo zfir+ lu�z . . . . . .G>z t d�7 isz t 3� t pi fp-.—t M z Q) z z 4% C�" I sz M I ot CO 0 t z et o)z X, ot 4) ml cl col 1p'� z ri uj t la)'. cz t 3� 'n tt z z z ca:.0 z t ` 0 t E I I ot C:t z. b 0 —z. I I W It CD (DO In z>1 0 7-z U)'� 0 z t t t I z st C�4 z ox tco�C�' —*.=".—z z d 4)t� z Z i—t I S� ".r 0 1(p 0)t 01 0 0 t 0 z. t z t i 45, -0 t t 0 IZ z co I co z I '.e71Shy tL1 z . .0 z * ot -wio4'v3to' cr .0zOz— _0, —z ` C i S-- ' r-t-0: o .0;. cc 0...0 t 0'. =1 C)t 0 1 t o'. t ulz t n t—t °'•', 4� t Y•< t (D j:z(-)z ml I E5 z 1:'ll 0. . .T 4 'o 0' 0 z ';{f};::j:: ce) i J)t t o z m,(A.0" -1 z—; 0 z cd-- z t to C'j Cl-t(�o t 'i z I Luz(); !V)z(D� I z z t M.col col CLr;cis: , z t t z t 0 1 1 t z t 0 1 t t t z ' ;tJ- tt t t z t co IM t t (r t t t t i t z z t ATTACtiMENT 1 OC7 O © O O b O O 6 G O O O O 6 O. O b O O OR ICIR U-)-, 6 L7 C? M C6 in, co, _ C7 C5 d d d d d C7 O C7 d O G1 C7 d d cJ d d 00 d 00 0 Xo N cc C7 tt co d GO cD tY It Do til Ln d ro It1' M ^' O - GV •• N N N {V tD C ,-a 0 0 0 0 0 c o o c o 0 0 0 o G o b o G b a G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` c o 0 \ \ o o c o o c c \ o p M 11 07 CO tD M d7 Lo n o d d d d d d U-) d d d eN J c7 d Q t9 07 M - d d ^] C7 C7 CCI o0 N d ti i CV i0.4 fi M N U C d O t17 d CD LO m d n m z 0 c0 N d d C7 d d 7J N b cD N cS7 C C� rf-� � N Its N •-� ,-+ er r, ,-• � er NtO M S7 CO M �t' U7 d� M CA -•^ M -+ G t Gly •-� Ln -.-a\ \ \ \ R `-0O p° F R` \ \ \ `O\ O O O\ O\ G O d O O O O O O O O O O\ 6 O p O O G O _ 00 Cri d- M 1' 0 P-+ M 0) r, p O d d d d dr� d C7 c 3 t� d d C7 Q C d (J1 dt 00 't �+ d' CD d CD eta � c0 d L6 d d V M d N - fa d ` + u7 d d d O d Ets C7 t�7 d L7 et crJ O d d C7 d 07 0 co N m N (D a bu N V") h M cD 0 P+ C7 Cil p 00 co x W �. s.. O y � N W � � w -I el G1 O C 4 >41 E U I > u bA :� cn U n ; cd y p , cry � � � � �' � � � •. ed � C C � m V) 8 :1 .r " a Lla u C d C y C7 tt�S N ({6V 41n c� ct i� U 17 U W C c< ��' tl7 0.1 u^, W G� dam., o). V1 U E+ 3.t-`7 i 4 co to m cU i In a 3 tr1 tai u3 €, 't�► _ int 1 =m ,; E CQ 75 ni i 1 t CJ j c00 Q\ 7 I 96 '2 uy Ccs Ups I (.7 CCS m-2 G © i '6 i m C'0 C 6 LU t�t1 I 'L7 i .0` I 0 2 -o co O w O 6 cu1 coo ' m roI ro c c ; in �03 CD a a; cL lu n Nil 14 ` d 08, ti tc7 ; cs aNa tai c c j U r � o -' i ra co ; c _ I �.. c c c3 � I c I cd :3 Co c 43 v 4v ell co CJ a tiscz Itt G5 � tom-- ! 0Lu i C7 EXHIBIT 5 Community ontr� Comic t gamy,Atm Cmmuniq Development Director Development Costa Department County intyAdministration Building i '` °:.` r 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 925 335-1240 " L August 6, 2003 Brad Beck Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 1000 .Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Mr. BA e This letter responds to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and proposed Sales Tax .Reauthorization, which we received in a facsimile on July 29, 2003. The Conununity Development Department is responding on behalf of the County, and we agree that an EIR should be prepared. I understand that you marled the NOP to individuals on the attached mailing list. Please be aware that none of the three individuals representing the County from this list received a copy. Unfortunately, the staff reports authorizing release of the NOP at the Junel8 Authority meeting did not include a copy of the NOP. Based on a conversation with Martin Engelmann on July 31, the Authority may not have received any responses to the NOP. You may wish to check with some of the other individuals on this list to see if the notice was received, or determine if confirmation exists for the notices sent to responsible agencies (CEQA Guidelines §15082). Lack of adequate consultation could be a problem for responsible agencies using this EIR(§15231). It is also unfortunate that the distribution list for the NOP did not include the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, members o f t he E xpenditure P Ian A dvisory C ommittee o r i ndividuals w ho attended the public workshops and requested to be notified of future activities concerning the reauthorization of Measure C-88. Many public agencies have found such consultation efforts solve many potential problems that would arise in more serious forms later in the environmental review process. As you may be aware, the Board has been advised by County Counsel that the County is a responsible agency in its decision to approve the proposed Sales Tax Reauthorization. The following comments are offered to assist the Authority in preparing a complete and adequate EIR. + The EIR should include an alternative that reflects implementation of the land use strategy proposed in the Shaping Our Future Project. The cumulative impact of this land use strategy could be significant if all jurisdictions agree to adopt the strategy as local policy. Evaluation of this alternative would be critical in helping identify the Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month 01. 13. 3-17 range of impacts from the proposed project's efforts to strengthen links between land use decisions and transportation as described in the NOP. • The EIR should evaluate the potential impacts of a Smart Growth Program, assuming that it is designed to complement proposed transit investments. S uch an evaluation with help determine the potential impact on transit ridership and vehicle-miles traveled. • The County presumes the No Project alternative in this EIR will assume the transportation sales tax is not reauthorized after 2009. • In addition to developing information on adverse environmental impacts such as congestion levels, it would be important for the Authority to develop information on performance indicators that measure how well the various alternatives achieve the vision and goals of the Countywide Transportation Plan. We understand the vision and goals to include: 1) providing travel options to as many people as possible, 2) improving travel to key destinations, 3) improving the cost-effectiveness of our transportation investments, and 4) greater use of ridesharing, transit, bicycling and walking. Incorporating these comments in the EIR will help disclose the full range of potential environmental impacts from the projects and programs under consideration by the Authority as well as related projects under consideration by others. Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Preparation. Let me know if you have any comments on this letter, if any meetings are proposed to consult further with responsible agencies, or when the draft EIR is available for review. Sincerely, St en L. Goetz Deputy Director—Transportation Planning Division attachment cc: Members, Board of Supervisors J. Sweeten, CAO D. Barry, CD Director M. Shiu, PWD TPD Staff G:\TT-ansportation\Steve\letter\sent\beck.8.doc ,�,Q•6. "� EXHIBIT' 6 Co Coom unity ContraDennis M. Barry,AICP Community Development Director Development Costa DepartmenttUn / EF ► t : t,,,, my Administration Building 6151 Pine Street% '_ °� ;`+ ; SEP 2 9 2003 ; 4th Floor,North Wing r...w Martinez,California 94553-0095 JTA Phone: (925) 335-1240 September 16, 2003 Brad Beck Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 1000 Pleasant Hill, CA 9 Dear Mr. This ietier responds to the recirculated Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and proposed Sales Tax Reauthorization. The Community Development Department is responding on behalf of the County. This response supplements the response provided to you in our letter dated August 6, 2003. The Authority's September 4"' report to your Administration and Projects Committee indicated that AB427, which was supported by the Authority, became law on July 28, 2003. This law removes the 20-year time limit on local transportation sales tax measures and instead allows them to remain in effect for the period of time specified in the respective local sales tax ordinance as approved by the voters. The Draft EIR should evaluate an alternative that includes a 30-year time limit for the new Expenditure Plan. This would enable the Authority to consider adopting a 30-year Expenditure Flan if it would help achieve the objectives of the County Transportation Pian and is supported by the Authority's future polling activities. On July 9", the Metropolitan Transportation Commission issued a notice to Congestion Management Agencies requesting they submit projects for MTC to consider in its preparation of their Transportation 2030 Pian. Authority staff subsequently announced that the 2030 Plan could provide a net of approximately $300 million for new or enhanced investments for Contra Costa County beyond what is provided by the current Regional Transportation Plan. The Draft EIR should evaluate an alternative that includes this additional revenue for the new Expenditure Plan. Thanks for the opportunity to supplement the County's response to the earlier Notice of Preparation. Let me know if you have any comments on this letter. Sincerely, even L. Goetz Deputy Director— Transportation Planning Division c: Members, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board J. Sweeten, CAO D. Barry, CD Director M. Shiu, PWD TPD Staff G:\Transportation\Tw#C\Board orders\2003\measurec.exhibitB.doc Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month EXHIBIT 7 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL SILVANO B. MARCHESi COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA � �� -s =�?�, COUNTY COUNSEL Administration Building r �'•� 651 Pine Street, 9" Floor x, �! `�{� S.�ARoN L. ANDERSON CHIEF ASSISTANT Martinez,z, California 94553-1229 E 9 I GREGORY C.HARVEY(925) 335-1800 ( VALERIE J. 7 ( ) �ANCHE ASSISTANTS Octo , 003 Clan Stone California State Attorney General's Office 1300 1 Street, #1101 P.O. Dox 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Re: Your File #03-401 Dear Mr. Stone: On March 17, 2003, Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority submitted a joint request for an opinion on the following question: For a county transportation authority to reimpose or continue in effect for an additional 20-year period a local sales tax previously approved by county voters, is the authority required to prepare a transportation expenditure plan pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180206, or can the authority amend the existing plan pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180207? To assist your office in researching this issue and preparing the requested opinion, we submit the following legal analysis for your consideration. Summary Before an election can be held for a long-term renewal of Measure C, the half-cent transportation sales tax approved by county voters in 1908, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority' must prepare a new or revised transportation expenditure plan and have it approved by the county board of supervisors and a majority of the city councils, as required by Public Utilities Code Section 180206. The summary procedure in Section 180207, which is used for annual amendments and only requires approval by the CCTA board, dof­' not apply to planned, long-term renewals of sales t9x measures, like the renewal of Measure C. As discussed in the following analysis, this concluslon is supported 1The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is referred to as the"OCTA." Ail statutes cited in this legal analysis are in the Public Utilities Code unless indicated otherwise. Dan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 2 by the plain language of Sections 180201, 180206, and 180207, as well as the statutory scheme and legislative history of those statutes. CCTA's attempt to avoid board of supervisors approval for renewal of Measure C ignores the statutory scheme, which is intended to ensure that long-term sales tax measures have broad county and city support and which applies equally to the renewal of tax measures like Measure C. CCTA's position also is inconsistent with the special acts and the renewal procedure used by other county transportation authorities, which obtained board of supervisors approval before renewing local sales tax measures. Background In 1988, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, which levies a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in Contra Costa County. The measure was approved for twenty years and is scheduled to expire in 2009. Before the measure was put on the ballot in 1988, the CCTA prepared a transportation expenditure plan listing the various projects and estimated costs for which the tax revenues would be used. The CCTA then submitted the plan to the County and the cities for approval, as required by Section 180206, which provides: "(a) A county transportation expenditure plan shall be prepared for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal, state, and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period during which the tax is to be imposed. "(b) A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has received the approval of the board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county. "(c) The plan shall be adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section 180201." After the plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors and city councils representing both a majority of the cities and a majority of the incorporated population, the CCTA board approved the plan and asked the Board of Supervisors to place the measure on the ballot for voter approval. This is the procedure described in Sections 180201 and 180206. As stated earlier, the measure was approved by the voters. With Measure C scheduled to expire in April 2009, the CCTA has begun early work to reauthorize the measure for an additional 20-year period, hoping to put a measure on Dan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 3 the November 2004 ballot. However, instead of using the Section 180206 procedure for app:mval of the new expenditure plan, the CCTA board has voted to use the procedure described in Section 180207, which provides: "(a) The authority may annually review and propose amendments to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 180206 to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. `(b) The authority shall notify the board of supervisors and the city council of each city in the county and provide them with a copy of the proposed amendments. "(c) The proposed amendments shall become effective 46 days after notice is given." The Section 180207 summary procedure has been used occasionally during the life of Measure C to make adjustments to the maintenance of effort and growth management program requirements listed in the transportation expenditure plan. Unlike the Section 180206 procedure used to initially develop the plan, the Section 180207 procedure does not require approval by the Board of Supervisors and a majority of the city councils. It requires only a two-thirds' vote of the OCTA board. Thus, if the OCTA uses the Section 180207 procedure to reauthorize Measure C, the Board of Supervisors would not have an opportunity to vote directly on the new transportation expenditure plan. The Board of Supervisors' only opportunity to vote on the plan would be through its two representatives on the eleven-member OCTA board. Legal An lysis Beforean Election Can Be Held to Renew Measure C, the Plain Language of Sections 180201 and 180206 Requires That CCTA Adopt a New or Reviser/ Transportation Expenditure Plan and Have the Plan Approved by the County Board of Supervisors and a Majority of City Councils. The Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, which appears in Public Utilities Code Sections 180000-180264, was enacted by the Legislature in 1087 (Stats. 1987, ch. 129; Senate Bill 142). Section 180201 describes the procedure for initially adopting and renewing (i.e., continuing or reimposing) a local transportation sales tax measure. Both for initial adoption and renewal of the tax measure, an election is required: Dan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 4 "A retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable in the incoq orated and unincorporated territory of a county may be imposed by the authority . . , if the tax ordinance is adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and imposition of the tax is subsequently approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure, or by any otherwise applicable voter approval requirement,3 at a special election called for that purpose by the board of supervisors, at the request of the authority, and a county transportation expenditure plan is adopted pursuant to Section 180206. "A retail transactions and use tax approved by the electors shall remain in effect for the period of time specified in the tax ordinance.4 The tax may be continued in effect, or reimposed, by a tax ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote of the authority and the reimposition of the tax is approved by any applicable majority of the electors." Section 180206 describes the procedure for preparing and approving a transportation expenditure plan before an election is called under Section 180201: "(a) A county transportation expenditure plan shall be prepared for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal, state, and local funds exoected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period during which the tax is to be imposed. "(b) A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has received the approval of the board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county. 3The majority vote requirement in Section 180201 has been superseded by Proposition 213 (California Constitution, article XIIID), a constitutional amendment approved by state voters in 1996. Under Proposition 218, a two-thirds vote is required to approve special taxes, like a transportation sales tax.. (California Constitution, article XIIIA, Section 4; California Constitution, article XII ID, Section 3: Rider v. County of San Diego(1991) 1 CalAth 1.) 4Under Assembly Sill 427(Stats. 2003, ch. 129),which was signed by Governor Davis on July 27, 2003, Section 180201 was amended to remove the 20-year limitation for local transportation sales tax measures. Previously, Section 180201 contained a 20-year limitation both for the original tax measure and for any renewal. Under the new amendment, a renew@! of Measure C could last even longer thar, the original measure,which was limited to twenty years under the previous version of Section 180201. Dan Stone October 2, 2403 Page 5 "(c) The plan shall be adopted prior to the Cali of the election provided for in Section 180201." In interpreting statutes, the plain language of the statutes is accorded great weight-5 Under Section 180201, a local transportation sales tax measure must be approved by an election of county voters and can be valid for any period specified in the measure, which may be twenty years or more. The election requirement applies both to initial adaption of the measure as well as to renewal of the measure. However, under the plain language of Section 180206, before an erection can be held under Section 180241, a transportation expenditure plan must be adopted6 and approved by the county board of supervisors and a majority of the city councils.' (Moreover, Section 180206 indicates that a transportation expenditure plan is valid for the period during which the tax is to be imposed." Before Measure C was approved by Contra Costa County voters in 1088, an expenditure plan was prepared to cover the 20-year life of the sales tax. Under the former version of Section 180201 and Section 180206(a), that plan is valid for the same period as the tax (i.e., twenty years). To renew Measure C for another twenty years or longer, Section 180201 requires another election of county voters. However, under the plain language of Section 180206(b) and (c), before an election can be held under Section 180201, OCTA must adopt a new or revised transportation expenditure plan covering the additional period and must have the plan approved by the county board of supervisors and a majority of city councils. Thus, to renew Measure C, the plain language of Sections 180261 and 180206 indicates that CCTA must follow the Section 180206 procedure and have a new or revised expenditure plan approved by the board of supervisors and a majority of city councils. The Plain Language of Section 180207 Indicates That Its Summary Amendment Procedure Is Intended for Minor, Annual Adjustments to an Expenditure Plan to Accommodate Additional Revenues or Unforeseen Circumstances, Not to a Manned Long-Term Renewal of Measure C. 67 witkin, Summary of California Law(94r ed. 1988)Constitutional Law, Section 94, pp. 14 5-1AT 6Section 180206(c). 'Section 180206(b). 6Section 180206(x). Dan Stene October 2, 2008 Page 6 In support of its position, OCTA relies on Section 180207, which provides a summary procedure for amending adopted transportation expenditure plans- "(a) The authority may annually review and propose amendments to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 1803206 to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. "(b) The authority shall notify.the board of supervisors and the city council of each city in the county and provide them with a copy of the proposed amendments. "(c) The proposed amendments shall be come effective 45 days after notice ;s given." Several things appear from the plain language of Section 180207. First, the section applies to annual review and amendments to a transportation expenditure plan that already has been adopted and approved under Section 180206. Second, the amendments are intended to accommodate additional or unexpected revenues or unforeseen circumstances. Finally, for amendments covered by that section, Section 180207 provides a summary procedure that involves only notice to the board of supervisors and city councils. That procedure is quite different from that of Section 180206,which requires that a transportation expenditure plan be approved by the county board of supervisors and a majority of city councils. Judging from Section 180207's language, the summary amendment procedure is intended for minor, annual adjustments to an expenditure plan, the basics of which already have been approved by the board of supervisors and the majority of city councils under Section 180206. Moreover, by its own terms, Section 180207 applies only to changes required to accommodate additional or unexpected revenues or unforeseen circumstances. bone of these criteria would apply to a longterm renewal of Measure C. First, the amendments that OCTA has in mind are not minor, annual adjustments. Instead, they are longterm (i.e., 20-year or longer) adjustments. Second, CCTA's purpose in amending the pleasure C expenditure plan is not to accomodate additional or unexpected revenues or unforeseen circumstances. Instead, the proposed amendments are to accommodate expected, planned tax revenues. There is no indication in the plain language of Section 180207 that it would cover CCTA's adoption of a new or revised expenditure plan for a longterm renewal of Measure C. Clan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 7 CCTA's Position Ignores the Statutory Scheme of Sections 180201, 180206, and 180207' Which Is 'ntenrled to Ensure That Long-Terre Sales Tax Measures Have Broad County and City Support and Which Applies Equally to the renewal of Measure C. In interpreting statutes, the following important rules generally apply: (1) Ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (2) Give a provision a reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the apparent purpose, which will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. (3) Given significance, if possible, to every word or part, and harmonize the parts by considering a particular clause or section in the context of the whole. (4) Take into account matters such as context, object in view, evils to be remedied; legislation on the same subject, public policy, and contemporaneous construction. (5) Give great weight to consistent administrative construction.9 The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.'D The legislative intent should' be gathered from the whole act rather than from isolated parts or words." Considering Sections 180201, 180206, and 180207 together in context, the apparent legislative scheme or purpose is to ensure that long-term transportation sales tax measures, which can last twenty years or more,'` have broad county and city support. This scheme or purpose is seen in Section 180201, which requires voter approval both for initial adoption of a sales tax measure and for renewal of the measure. It also is evident in 97 Witkin, supra, Constitutional Law, Section 94, pp. 146-147. 10 People v. Aston(1965)39 Cal.3d 481, 489. $55.. 'l Calif,,-nia State Psycholopfccl Assn v. County of San Diego(1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 849, ''Under Assembly Sill No. 427 (Stats. 2003; ch. 129), which was signed by Governor Davis on, July 27,2003, Public Utilities Code Section 180201 has been amended to remove the 20-year limitation for local transportation sales tax measures, Previously, Section 180201 contained a 20-year 'imitation, both for the original tax measure and for any renewal. Under the new legislation, a renewal of Measure C could last even longer than the original measure, which was limited to twenty years under the previous version of Section 180201. Dan Steno October 2, 2008 Page 8 Section 180206, which requires, before a sales tax measure is submitted to the voters, that an expenditure plan coverif og use of the tax revenues be approved by the county board of supervisors and a majority of the city councils. It even is evident in Section 180267, which allows summary, annual amendments to a previously-approved expenditure plan to accommodate additional or unexpected revenues or unforeseen circumstances. As a matter of public policy, it makes sense for the Legislature to develop a statutory scheme that ensures broad county and city support for local transportation sales tax measures before they are submitted to the voters. Without such support, it would be very difficult to achieve the two-thirds' vote necessary to approve such tax measures. Also, since local transportation improvements by their very nature have a profound effect on the county and cities, it makes sense that the board of supervisors and city councils have an opportunity to approve an expenditure plan covering the improvements to be made with the. tax revenues. And since a renewed tax measure can run for more than twenty years, even longer than the original measure,9 it makes common sense that the statutory scheme requiring county and city approval of expenditure plans would apply to renewal of a sales tax measure the same as to the original adoption of the measure. Given the above statutory scheme, it is logical to interpret Sections 180201 and 180206 in a way that requires CCTA to have a new or revised expenditure plan approved by the county board of supervisors and a majority of the city councils before submitting the renewal of Measure C to the voters. That is the procedure that was used when Measure C was adopted in 1088 for a 20-year period. Considering that a renewed Measure C would last for another twenty years or longer and that the new or revised expenditure plan would direct the use of even more tax revenues than the original measure, it makes sense to interpret the above statutes to require a standard approval procedure (i.e., board or supervisors and city council approval under Section 180206) any time that a local sales tax measure is initially adopted or renewed. Any other interpretation would not carry out the statutory scheme and does not make sense. When the statutes so clearly require board of supervisors and city council approval for an initial sales tax measure, it is illogical to interpret those same statutes to allow the approval process to be circumvented when the measure later is renewed for a similarly-long period and a new set of projects. In support of its position, CCTA evidently relies on certain isolated language in Sections 180201 and 180207. Looking just at the second paragraph of Section 18`0201, CCTA argues that the only approval required to renew a sales tax measure is a vote by the authority board and an election of county voters. Similarly, CCTA cites the isolated language of Section 180207 as if that section provides an equally-viable alternative to Section 180206's normal procedure for the adoption and approval of expenditure plans. However, CCTA's interpretation ignores the Legislature's statutory scheme to require broad county and city support. It also ignore the plain language of Section 180206, which Dan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 9 requires county and city approval of an expenditure plan before an election of county voters is scheduled under Section 180201. Not only would CCTA's interpretation fail to give effect to the language in Section 180206, but it also would male a mockery of the original reason for requiring board of supervisors and city council approval of the expenditure plan. If Measure C can be renewed for another long period without board of supervisors and city council approval, this calls into question the entire legislative rationale for originally requiring such approval. If boardof supervisors approval is required for the original 20-year expenditure plan, how would it mace sense that similar approval is not required for another expenditure plan that could runt another twenty years or longer and that undoubtedly would involve more tax money than the original measure. CCTA's focus on isolated language, which is a disfavored approach in statutory interpretation, would lead to such inconsistent, illogical results.13 The Legislative History Materials for the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act Consistently Indicate That the Board of Supervisors Must Approve an Expenditure Plan Each Time Before the Voters Vote at a Tax Election, Including a Renewal Election. In interpreting legislation, the legislative history often is relevant. The Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, of which Sections 180201, 180206, and 180206 are a part, was passed by the Legislature in 1987.' The legislative history for the -Act shows the following: (1) The second paragraph of Section 180201, which limits local transportation sales tax measures to twenty years and authorizes the renewal of such measures, was added by an July 14, 1987 amendment in the Assembly. (See Exhibit A.) (2) Both the Author's Statement and The Assembly Floor Statement included the fallowing description of the bill: "THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT EACH PARTICIPATING COUNTY ADOPT AN EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR USING THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES, AND TAKE OTHER STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE BROAD SPECTRUM 13 California State Psychological Assn. v. County of San Diego(1983) 148 Cai.App.3d 849, 855, ' See Stats. 1987, ch. 129(Senate Bill 142). Dan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 10 OF COMMUNITY INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED PRIOR TO AN AUTHORIZING VOTE BY TIME COUNTY'S ELECTORATE, IN THIS WAY, EACH COUNTY WOULD DETERMINE ITS OWN TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PRIORITIES." (See Exhibit B.) (3) According to the February 12, 1087 report for the Senate Transportation Committee, which was chaired by the bill's author (VtWadie Deddeh), the bill specifically would: "Require the preparation of a county transportation expenditure plan, which must be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities (and papulation) within the county prior to the vote on a sales tax proposition." (See Exhibit C.) The same language appeared in two Senate Flour Analyses dated March 17 and April 3, 1987, as well as in the June 3, 1987 report for the Assembly Committee on Transportation. (See Exhibit D.) (4) The July 8, 1987 Assembly Mays and Means Committee Analysis, which analyzed the July 14, 1987 amendment (see #1 above), described the amendment as follows: "The amendments would also require a 20-year sunset on any local sales tax increased pursuant to this legislation, provided that the electorate may vote to reauthorize a tax at the end of the 20 years." (See Exhibit E.) (5) After the bill was amended on July 14, 1987 (see #1 above), two other Senate Floor Analyses dated July 18 and August 24, 1987 described the bill as follows: "Requires the preparation of a county transportation expenditure plan which must be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population, prior to the election at which the sales tax measure will be considered. "Limits to 20 years the term of any sales tax imposed .ander this article." (See Exhibit F.) In the legislative history materials cited above, voter approval (i.e., an election) was consistently linked to adoption of an expenditure plan. Adoption of an expenditure plan, in tura, was consistently linked to approval by the board of supervisors and a majority of city councils (i.e., broad-based community support). Thus, a consistent pattern emerges from Ilan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 11 the legislative history. Before the voters vete, an expenditure plan must be approved by the board of supervisors and a majority of city coun,dis. This step is a prerequisite to arf election by county voters. And since an expenditure plan is valid only for the length of the tax measure, the longest that an expenditure plan could be valid would be twenty years (i.e., the time limit originally contained in Section 180201). This shows that the Legislature intended that a new expenditure plan be adopted each time before the voters voted on a tax measure. Since renewal of a tax measure also requires voter approval, the legislative history also shows that the Legislature intended that an expenditure plan, with normal board of supervisors and city council approval, be adopted for a renewed tax measure. It is significant that there is nothing in the SB 142 legislative history that supports CCTA's position that a tax measure can be renewed without board of supervisors approval of an expenditure pian. Where renewal of a measure is mentioned in the legislative materials (see Exhibit E), the need for voter approval is mentioned. Since the voters can vote on a tax measure only after an expenditure plan has been prepared and approved by the board of supervisors and a majority of city councils, the mention of a renewal election implies that the same procedure will be followed for renewal elections. Nowhere in the legislative materials does it state that a renewal election can involve a different procedure, such as approval by the transportation authority board and the voters, or that the summary procedure of Section 180207 applies to renewal elections. The Special Acts That Apply to Other Transportation Authorities and Commissions Consistently Rewire Board of Supervisors Approval for Adoption and Amendment of Transportation Expenditure Plans, Which implies That the Legislature Intended the Same Process to Apply to Long-Term Renewal of a Tax Measure and Expenditure Plan Under Section 180201. In the special acts that are applicable to certain transportation authorities, one can see a common thread that adoption, amendment, or renewal of a tax measure and expenditure plan requires board of supervisors approval: (1) Under the special act that applies to the Orange County Transportation Commission, two steps must occur before a tax measure is submitted to the voters-the board of supervisors and a majority of city c)uncils must approve an expenditure plan, and the commission must adopt the approved expenditure plan." The act contains a procedure for annual review and amendment of an adopted 15 Public Utilities Code Section 130466(d)and (e). Dan Stone October 2, 2003. Page 12 expenditure plan., but deletion of any project in the unincorporated area requires board of supervisors approval.16 (2) Under the Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act, which authorizes the formation of transportation authorities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area, before the voters vote on a tax measure, an expenditure plan must undergo an adoption and approval process. The process includes: a) review and approval by the expenditure plan advisory committee, if any, b) public hearings before, and review and approval by, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; c) approval by the county board of supervisors; and d) approval by a majority of city councils.17 Any amendment to an adopted expenditure plan that adds or deletes a project or is of major significance must by approved by the same process as the original expenditure plan (i.e., with board of supervisors approval)."' (3) Under the special act that formerly applied to the Santa Clara Traffic Authority, the board of supervisors had to prepare and adopt an expenditure plan before the voters voted on a tax measure.'9 Amendments to an adopted expenditure plan were subject to stringent requirements.20 (4) Under the special act that applies to the Fresno County Transportation Authority, an expenditure plan cannot be adopted by the authority until it has been approved by the board of supervisors and a majority of the city councilS.21 Amendments to an adopted expenditure plan are handled by the Fresno Council of Governments, which includes the board of supervisors, and are subject to stringent requirements.21 16 Public Utilities Code Section 130407(c). 17 Hayward Area Planning Assn. v.Alameda County Transportation Authority(1999)72 IC'al.AppAth 95, 99-100; Public Utilities Code Sections 131050-131055. 13 Public Utilities Code Section 131304; Hayward Area Planning Assn. v. Alameda County Transportation Authority, supra, 72 Cal.App,4th at 110. 19 Public Utilities Code Section 140256. 20 Public Utilities Code Section 140257. 21 Public Utilities Code Section 142256. 22 Public Utilities Code Sections 142008 and 142258. Chan Stone October z. 2003 Page 13 (5) Under the special act that applies to the San Bernardino Transportation Commission, each tax measure that is Y•oted or,, ;riust contain an expenditure plan. Once a tax measure is approved by the voters, any subsequent change to the expenditure plan requires approval by the board of supervisors and a majority of city councils.-- (6) Under the special act that applies to the Riverside County Transportation Commission, each tax measure that is voted on must contain an expenditure plan. Once a tax measure is approved by the voters, any subsequent change to the expenditure plan requires approval by the board of supervisors and a majority of city councils.24 As can been seen from the above provisions, the special acts that govern other county transportation authorities and commissions, consistently provide for board of supervisors approval bath for the initial adoption of an expenditure plan and any significant amendment to an adopted expenditure plan. This supports the interpretation of Sections 180201 and 180206 to similarly require board of supervisors approval of a long-term renewal of a tax measure. Since those special acts already were in effect when the Legislature enacted the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act (1987 Stats., ch. 786; Senate Bill 142), one can infer that the Legislature intended that a similar process (i.e., board of supervisors approval)would apply to county transportation authorities, like OCTA, formed under the Act. CCTA's Attempt to Avoid Board of Supervisors and City Council Approval of Renewed Measure C is Inconsistent with the Procedure Used by Other Transportation Authorities for Renewal of Their Sales Tax Measures. According to information we have gathered, transportation sales tax measures previously were renewed in Madera and Alameda Counties, and the transportation authorities in those counties used the Section 180206 procedure to approve new expenditure plans. Thus, the Madera. and Alameda transportation authorities obtained board of supervisors and city council approval before submitting the renewal measures to the voters at an election. The procedure used by these other transportation authorities indicates that board of supervisors approval of an expenditure plan is required for a renewal tax measure the same as it was required for the original tax measure. As such, 23PublicUtilities Code Section 190302(c). 24 Public Utilities Code Section 240302(c) and (d). Dan Stone October 2, 2003 Page 14 the experience in these other counties amounts to a consistent administrative construction of the statutory language analyzed above. For some reason, OCTA claims that its proposed renewal of Measure C would be the first reauthorization of a focal transportation sales tax measure in the state. This is incorrect. The fact is that renewals (i.e., reauthorizations) have occurred in other counties and have involved board of supervisors approval of a new or revised expenditure plan. CCTA does not mention the previous renewals in Madera County and Alameda County, evidently ignoring the renewal experience and procedure of those two counties. Moreover, CCTA's position that the summary procedure of Section 180207 can be used for long- term renewals of sales tax measures is inconsistent with the procedure used in Madera County and Alameda County. CCTA has not cited anywhere in the state where the Section 180207 summary procedure has been used for a long-term renewal of a sales tax measure. Very truly yours, SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL � � n d By: David F. Schmidt Deputy County Counsel DFS/ cc: Board of Supervisors John Sweeten, County Administrator Dennis Barry, Director of Community Development Steve Goetz, Community Development Department Stan Taylor, Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliot Robert McCleary, Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority IIZA C? Q to pA o Cs cl ca PA .00 Aj low wr"+ EX �+ is oA 0 C ... vs . ✓ �.. c� 'C ren 'tl, - .+ ^J rt+ p + rrs 6�3+ ` " H tom S Z G'+ w dl Cd ..+ C3 Cd j a: �+ �.+ e3 .t v } �"r C3 cls C33 0 � �i 21 CU q� L5 0 (il ` rn o.+ «3 r+ Ci C7 r+„ •. .w ► -. �? _ C? .i..+ © ,. .+ 3 'C.1+ R,-! " 3m ap ty> cn .^4� "8� C,y " ., -..sr,•`+ �1 CEJ �r- + -.- z to p. .J .+.61 ., . . *' 3 �+ cd n •*' ..+ "C: "$ 4.4 VI � 4S,: t11 q u :.. � O W �+` � �• � b' '.' 3 44 41A44 C": s Ga+ 0 C� q ,^' ` J e5 .0 cd SSI i�`+ © ++ us , .4.A � a cs tm > �. :.t + 0-4 " VIt.4.Acr- 4.4 4.0 �+ C' m W va �' d W fl J = 4i tn cr 4�7 tll Q q rr7 .r (5 o7 CZ Oma. v, �'• q ,` �.+ pj + : ' " C} vii` lo. IOIA w uz '.ltd fi7 q c3 n O y fl} fi �, C7 Ccs d • s, .s C2 ';.x 'GIra '> id td z" V' " ; : v > 0 w ty? G.3 a .rcd ..6 ' tm Sr ..,, C7 ' ""l,r ri•+b3 C+9 5.+•1 >� + p -S 0 a3 `" .,z 'j. �r a .Ca to , WA .. C"3 tP7 Gt` :. •.r w �" tL} "' yi s+ + "a C'7 r1 C� ., rrq�� rye -,r�� G rA �' d} > . cin �' *"�p � ,� `�"� � � Cqy 'i+ y' '��p`, y�.��s-- � i � � 'moi .✓'Rj � �°+ � %S� '�� '��� � �+ �u'a iw qSi3wl es r� tD CIA tl- .. „ ,�,• y,,� � rfl '"'° ,tea' � ��'+ .� � � .�✓ �`� � � � Uhl rn � fly ��� � a' C5 :S 0 i:.- A 67 4.4 ' �' ..aC) ,, « w Yl ' ? A ►+ J v1 'rtel ►�-�;+ �",� ,,flr,, ��+ S�� � '� '�,� `�'` � ,y;�C'? U � � suers i� nG� fl �� �'"�'•' '�, G�"`�. � , ,�.+ :.+ vw 4� ,..i ,.,.� t3 !,� ?'• � �':3 LAS ".�,.� y. ' �. a»+s cd +� C� H� .«.1 rJ ;�:`�'` �• � w 67 ti? y+ to � �` ..+ ��. •y, wR C+ V� 4i � � C5 . Cd ..,.� �,,,,, ctS :3• �°'' "� It Ln le- Ir '`� .i,+ �+ �S � � � rte,^'� � � �."`�"',., � �i +1� �•� y'�+ r�j s.t y7 .`� i' � *� *t+ �"� -5.�"., rte+ tb ...+ if: �-,..� r O�"`t3 � da � •� � � ..+ �+ ;.� {� � }'"L+�` � � 1a � Gl .:�+ q .�" �., fl`'°" cd �'r+a �+ � P" tCs Sr- .,3r, ,.a v �} r� , CS ` 5 73 ta 01 tn ,� . 0 vs ,rj � .� .a � 'y �J �+ ..* �+ � ✓ � �.j r-- ce) to �X ti o 05 - r'+ tz lz ¢ w tU y b +� "'+ y' 4� 0 pi C fl" JAA". 4 4s`J N . + fl , fl CJ 'a U w+ w a cl ' th + fir, {�:, "; :, " rwin (� .% � �; � ',?•,...+ �'t3 Cd t� �,,, '�+ r•+ ,�..+ y*�,,, �°' �»+ ,.S.Z. r�r"'` ' � '� A'� 4� y' Tib p ,:.i �AC�` 0.� � G�3 � r' rrs �,,� �G �� 6�y '' P LA C3 J � G, CC cs PA 4 ' rix �, rs c fl r3� •- rr+ cd O 63 D0 6) Al flCAfl » ;: 6} '-t It tD tt cPa CA ., ,"�`+ """` � �+ �'' � �.� � � t`�ri � H �` � m `p�•^"" �' U is �" � '� t'3 � "d .+� �.�' tN � � t7 '" w �, d vs ,�+, `•+ w ' Cil uy Ki C3*d ct3 C tz r3 to ?I� 'F " *" d t3 ,•, ,.,..+ Al y en Q �* t1) O 'r'1+ �+ C3 C.' "�' uy ("�, bIS�. � *' ` d) ' "sa .,-i `.;.i .AIt ID C elt t't3 C3 �3 sj ? C A..4 Sr :A ty'y ' rt y�•t �y r+ r i t • 'a, .�r�+ r�y ted Z ;A , •�Vt r+',".++ lQ J bD y y ' r •� x r 034.A .64 ""5 " •�,a " Ly,a �„s '" C� {y�jGp �,, �"L� � r+ k `� Cly � "'� r'''',+''� �c .�+�+' t1� .w+' � '` "` •�..� +w '�'' th � �"' � r'�"'" `1a+ C't ,'�'j.w tCS t� C n Cs� C7 J 1•+ -)JA ED ca lk C ' n '1.+ w 01U .t3 CD "� � bfl - 4 7 0 0 C7 .t* "•• t} r rL` tk 47 f'C� �+ � v rc �;•r,� �-' `�� v �+ � �" "+.� "...r� +�•� y+"CS` � �} ,� C) � "�' � �O 7-+wt d, ^� � �w y,. � � � � � �` � C11�t1' �U ',�",� � � �"+ C � �7 s.+ •�,,r„ � cjtt� � t� ��'" �.•,,, � � �+ � .:� 's.+ us ,�",, w �:+ v"'� O v ,G ;3 :1 '�'. tL1 p t3 � �+ t:� ..• •,.+ Com? $3 �'" ""`� �"t1 u�'s �, - � y 4? '� & R t4 U N J v ZA U + ` e ..• �.i r„;y '"'` r� y� tis Cy �' �"` .� �, �t' y, ✓�, �; '�.,,.+ ,.s �i v '�+"'3` N} C �+ 4) b o H cs w t. ft .w+ � � ems•+ 7"+ C? � �` � �rG3 'La � {y� �,. � "� �+„� t2' s^•�"'� �N � rh� �.� G u�+ � p Gr), ��° �'•.•�^' c r F• ��+' v., G+ 7� a} till "� C7 > C3 v �: t 5, R C e!" t "+ .t. 7 ,, •'a �.^` p t r{ 7 r Cita .� "8 `U c'j u :,a•�:�+ t3 r-� C3 snUAs p 0 � �+ � to t3 . "' vi C3 r^t.OA CIA L.+ et U uIIA �A n ty %+ ` U s. % O & a.+ t+ y ` y (� .• til VA eA � C3 y, + mak+ y C} :. O w " µ 4' :+ + rti + U 43 r* aCS �`" •� ,• :d y '' 61 ty C3 .ri t••{ � ...+ G7 ry7 C3 ,:.. ;+ �+ "� � '�� ^� 4.4 AlO 4-4 ta w+ ty7 C? G C� G, �, F+ "� :,+ r4 {� 1 C� *' �+ ✓ + ' � o MS fJ O "' r+ �+ 0 � 7 •�, w+� ��•�' ✓� a �y p �� � ce4 ;, F-0, Gc4 sU sn ° r5A 'T :d A r " PIS .++ ­A Poll 0- t�) ,f� & . . e000�. t) d tt Ln -75cd tol tn t p r* .. c3 ,moi C� ' .+{ `"" vs F� N •y U � tU :+ 83 U JOtZ 45 clt t)A 'L1 w snr Qa q " , •,. *'` , + -� ct ' ..I ( +` Cf+*'C „ ` A.4 "stn ,Y' '� �` '" ,a► ��.+ tai ' r to p etj —CJ '.-' "' 1,4 t4 u b °" %� .i. �" r�" y ct� G ,sI ttict ,i+ *,1 C✓ err 'tC� to .+ tk'vs rw Y } 41 V O + dci P` �+ '^ rpt°" c�,�.y S✓ t��} rte) G1 W try " ? .*5 �, uy cd G� „ ✓ ;, C,r. ' Vt rte' 7� e ..` R! p j rn Q � �4} G C� w Gr r{ r v+ ., its r�" C3 ;n 0 v✓ J IR ttS UA 6.4 ct t� ca tA kn v, tw r A u. t) "�"+A Z4 .� '"" � xF � d) 0 tz ci C C O n " oz td xr U .10 fl-" '3 SCS ``ter+ y. r"'+ L� iy3 us • '"" 43 r'n �? fl +yfl y ? .�" ✓ * " �, G7 ` ' C5 r r+y W w t) U .J �' * w dl ct1 0 i y,ti,.,, � `y �' + % rc tA to - acs fl a7 fl w` S "8 y0 °.� :1 t 1 r ..� � sn .-+ u•,+ w` �' 6) • C4 pez +� +``�` "' ,-" v. ' `� �.rte '•, a' tz cs tz . fl � -ti "' 47� N ' ✓ y` flay sn cats C6 Gy 4, sa Cr . ✓� C , wrr VI tA tn Qc 0 tZ VA It .+'A ua 16 r-{ c,a- Cti 1a r„3 « + 'i�"�`, �„ Lri ci ::IS7 ;r sn u en afintnrA ° acs '�.. y. ✓ 47 N ? 3R a. ra p ur Z5 OA OR W IA * A. N K a� *' �: Cl ' O + 13 u+ .+ J 4 t-A pa t .w Cl fl '�: „ `" ` • �+ C� •{ �A fj y y {�' Yic4 , �' j'-+ u��' ,fir • r` 0 ''� . CS . s y � 1.4 Get} I,rdar C2e + +-+ �", +-+ a3 t�7 + �g "' a1 O O "' °'` L., © M+ •+ crs : � � CC% � ;,;. cti '•�',.� C.:, .� �" ttS ;`3 •.�.'' Q) �+ ; � 4•" - � U '''� '''Y O c�•.S � 'tc a) rte.+ �'' tl) a) "' .=i t4" x O ,. d •... Q ta., d1 ... ... � � .0 R+ d7 � � Cts �� � � � �'•+ � � �„� � � d � � � � �� "r O."�� ,�! ��"' � �. � "�� "' � C) a rca) ;Z4 ZI ah cam, ° nz a cm`�E4 `� C7 p - � � � � u9. „s.., :»=' � tw �" +•�.0�"] � 9-' � �? '~� cam, .0 ' '� � a-+ a} � w � � 'n`�, i .,�.� ,.� +�•+ ✓•. `� c�S '� vs ��'", �+ !.' �''". � � O O .64 -•a .Lu a3 O C3 O .=1 a' + :r � �.+ y, O.5L'+ w v w �" �" 0 c3 Sip + a) cer d O uy C3. Cs u u ... -� .-• � ,�� a) *+ V rr "'d :S -'•`•+ � C" � � � � �'+ Cu 3} �r-.+ ;n a} � m �r •.fir � .� � �+ ,—� ,t-, ,�,,, � a7 C7 't"'. q; p ` y, C .w � `+ + ,,c" �.""3` ��� C`✓7 w (� Cdr �-+ '" .fir p � .1 � "w r "MC�M31 v�}?('V^.��{,"C! a.. ,••t �+ . �M.,./t "�fd. �'; vcs� J.- ar n1� r/? az Ct' � Q7"�'' d1 n� �"`" � � C.�] '`�`� N '� c� td ;d w s•. � ,'"., t•s •^ C). tD ", wr ww CI S:i ups. w !! " �` i s+ 'r u �•+. CCt rr + u, N 44 yy �, d t c+, a ._. 3 d� .. f-r V•+ ray C + � -4 d Ci` "1 C•+ * d7 c4 cC,_,j ct 0 ...•.i +; t� d r •-� C� !f3 Ct5 L`- �.C3S C7 -; C3 C] cD t- CO CA C7 -d M �j tD t`- Ch C7 *ot CSI tw7 C' tf5 CG7 C- x) Cs .J ..-r ,--t '-t•-d -•i ,-; +-+ .--+ •� •-K � C:`1 � G�7 � C�7 C7 G�7 GQ C3 C'S C'� C"5 C"'� C") C7 C',7 C� c7 CrS "�!' rvp 14W >" cJ v ^C3 t13 y,}C3 g U,„ d W .:�.,. W E.' .�, � rL7 d .Gi.�� U II3 •.7�," � �' � .m• ,�, yd e4 C'+ ^'+ cn C. :�S r.r iLl y C co �U,r '�'� ,y.,,'k'n L 4 '..". � •'y � .... O �.+ �. � ,-•,. 40 C f i.+ �} a7 r.+ v:ur :► 33� ttl " w "0 + t•. � .64ro d w bks CA u O O j 3t3 "� G: #„ a3 5. Ey r1 a3 ��.+ w 4 d7- u, C7. cz c 'T� -0t7 p dr7 •4 ,�c ar *CS ..+� .0*Zf C� v�• w, + -Z U Lp �,,vs "t� Cti 'G "d ,cz aS^ p�� 40 d �:,..�..'U • . cl � �L - � CU L70 lz � � �-, .,..`�•� �" � i~ � p± dl � �+ as �" �•,` aZ'C �+, v �•. a) N "' .w off•- C� •� � cQ t-� ,� rte. �ll +b �+ � � f.� C3 "� p„ Q7 G � s� O z. � aJ C7' � �' � � .�; ris r`w' Zj d Ri '`] �. ;� ,� d) F, N .,., I� �+ SU CS :.► cls .,� .}y..� '..5 `r�' �+�:r a.7 4•. U9 " F+ �+ aJ^0 .4' ',►! 'U a) '�" tt! G d ., d ,� a cd C3 .44 0 9 }"d srs gj � .°s'`.r .,�.,_,,. ..r � '�$ �•+" xr �,r""'r � '� C O �''� .0 � Cy � � k '� p �..�' .W •c�.Li'"�.� .CS d �° � f "C7 ..�o, � .�..+ ctS .'.�. tti �" d � �, L) �•++ � �� �p c4 'crt � fir" '+. RS •+�+ �` •.r "h y,,. �° .:., Gt+ "CS i Ci •(Z4 u O Qy it Ca v9 „u� w7 iD �+ d"CS'L1 b Q a3 .- .Q (D 4 ` d � C . •w it v d a: u d _m d d• O ¢+ ++ �' C; ,u �i � C,7 ...i � aJ ar y P... C) .ti+ .:`' tSt - �' c� > "C d � �? �{ � dJ '� _ •.�r � .^3 �-• ZZ + G} w C7 L7 ° Cr' :r u b tr u7 O "" a3 ' at=s `u rs " 'U s., C d .t� ;►. r� v u� C7 C7 0 LG7 .� e P... ot LL'� .:., � •^' .i., G.' :L� U ,,..� C,- �'" •�•"" c��l "� d "" .r '"� CX,7 .�..:'� CTs� cti � si.� c+3 � .i+ y :4 � �" .�. 't'�. '^' Ci 21'] a.7 tr• kS. 'Z !:e 'rr y..., � „� �+ .rs i••i. r-s,.Ce �.,.- •.i to O CC7 d 0C7 `- r ... c5 �s C3 s•. •U. .ta 'E7 •W d v .d� d ~ Ow � �=� .-rt d vis . s c3 ci G u5 cn i� C "J •. r.,. w vs C) +.+ "Cr td d cl r-i GSI C? -,zr L^J CD r-, C4 :�5,.-i C�7 C� ` ti? r Q^ C7S Cy .•d Gni [`• CQ G5 G �-t Cil C'S ! std CS t` C9 C? ( r� -.4 ,•-.1 r� -C +-d —4 r-4 -y.� LV C4I 411.LV G�7 m C`7•^3 ��S C'7 CS m m In C'S 1�14 U tD "', Q I.- 40 .+ ` b un r� ClAtt crs C� H ) tip , % d YS . v ;a r, o� Pa ca m' v ? ' Zn tz Ga } ."' ,• t- + �, ; „"'"+o � U -.; c� �: r O a.+ tAv !ct Ul y t3 + vh u k+ + vg• U yj tr O U w 07 r v V ct " , y •" o �,. y" , ,; + ui y ct� tt til •^� {S3 r C7 ' ✓ U v 4? fl 4d *n.w i+ ' �Ci + "�« td �CS Ca r+ cid b t r, •�•*� w 0 "" y, r+ 4�31.4 to F+ rad•+ w C + N DC7' �'� cn w w + '' td e,w Sj , .�+ tn "CS sn C1 CS O t? ci7 + O (1) �+ ✓*L3 cd r vs `rrj & a3 " 'En e3 + d7 'trCS Sfi:+ !'1 Q V w v+ y '✓� y ✓� `y�> od r° y ras t1) .rte }" ,$ �. tL� t�. zs W 'd '�d 63 QZet t-14 + + ,�^*, r *„ i+ a•+ '✓ d} C? to r q7 0tt SENATE BILL ?4? -- AUTHOR'S STATEMENT rEMBERS OF THF COMMITTEE AS YOU KNOW, CITIES AND COUNTIES FACE A SEVERE FUNDING SHORTAGE FOR THE PROPER MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR STREETS AND ROADS , TODAY, I AM OFFERING S3 14AS A MEANS OF PROVIDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE FINANCIAL TOOLS TO ADDRESS THEIR IMMENSE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS , SB 142 WOULD ENACT THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND IMPROVEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE A PROCESS WHEREBY INDIVIDUAL -COUNTIES COULD SET UP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES , A LOCAL AUTHORITY, UPON VOTER APPROVAL, COULD IMPOSE A i PERCENT OR PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE COUNTY, THIS SILL REQUIRES THAT EACH COMMUNITY ADOP"' AN EXPENDITURE FLAN FOR USING THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES , AND TAKE OTHER STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF COMMUNITY INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED , IN THIS WAY, EACH COUNTY WOULD DETERMINE ITS OWN EXPENDITURE PRIORITIES , THE BILL CLEARLY STATES THAT THE NEW MONIES ARE- INTEv1ED TO SUPPLEMENT, AND NOT REPLACE , EXISTING LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS , FURTHER , THIS MONEY COULD BE USED TO MATCH INCREASED STATE FUNDS PROVIDED THROUGH MY COMPANION BILLS--S$ i40 AND SB 176 , EXHIBIT **8 SENATE BILL 1- 42`-- ASSEMBLY FLOOR STATE�,1ENT MR , SPEAKER AND MEMBERS : As YOU KNOW, CITIES AND COUNTIES PACE A SEVERE FUNDING SHORTAGE FOR T.fE PROPER MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR STREETS , ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES THEIR NEEDS ARE FAR BEYOND WHAT ASSISTANCE THE STATE ALONE CAN PROVIDE, HOWEVER , SB 142- IS A MEANS OF PROVIDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE FINANCIAL TOOLS TO ADDRESS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THEIR IMMENSE 7RANSPOR7A7ION NEEDS , SB 142 WOULD ENACT THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND IMPROVEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE A GENERIC PROCESS WHEREBY rNDIVIDUAL COUNTIES COULD SET UP LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES LOCAL Is TRANSPORTATION AJTHCRITY, UPON VOTER APPROVAL , COULD IMPOSE A 1/2 PERCENT OR 1 PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE COUNTY, THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT EACH PARTICIPATING COUNTY ADOPT AN EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR USING THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES , AND TAKE OTHER STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF COMMUNITY INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED PRIOR TO AN AUTHORIZING VOTE BY THE COUNTY 'S ELECTORATE , IN THIS WAY, EACH COUNTY WOULD DETERMINE ITS OWN TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PRIORITIES , THE BILL REQUIRES THATLOCAL SALES TAX HAVE ASUNSET CLAUSE `AND THAT COSTS TO ADMINISTER THE TAX BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 1 PERCENT OF REVENUES , I SB 142 -2- THE BILL CLEARLY .STATES THAT THE NEVA MONIES ARE TO SUPPLEMENT, AN NOT REPLACE, EXISTING LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS , FURTHER, THIS MONEY COULD BE USED TO MATCH INCREASED STATE FUNDS PROPOSED IN OTHER PENDING LEGISLATION , THERE ARE RELATED ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL , ALONG WITH AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BLINDS FOR _CAPITAL fi I EXPENDITURES, BACKED BY THE SALES TAX REVENUES , WHEN PAY-AS--YOU-GO FINANCING PROVES UNFEASIBLE , i 1 BELIEVE S$ 142 IS VERY MUCH NEEDED AND ALSO WORTHY OF YOUR SUPPORT, SUPPORT: GOVERNOR 'S OFFICE 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA AssOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF SAN DIEGO I CATERPILLAR, INC , CALIFORNIA DUMP TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA. TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC I ATI ON OF CALIFORNIA E, F , MUTTON & COMPANY, lNC, CITY OF FREMONT LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORT - CONTINUED: SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE :BILL NO. : . . . . .. . . . . .SB 142 Senator Wadie P. Oeddeh, Chairman AUTHOR: . . . . . . . . . . . .DEDDEE VERSION: (crig.) . (As Amend. ) .- . . .02/10/87 FISCAL: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .YES SUBJECT: Local transportation authorities . DESCRIPTION: This urgency bill would authorize a county to create a local transportation authority. The bili would allow an authority, upon voter approval, to impose a local :ales and use tax of up to percent for transportation purposes . BACKGROUND: Currently there exists a severe funding shortage among cities and count-Les for the maintenance and improvement of their 223 , 000 miles of roads . Comprehensive studies by the Assembly Office of Research, Department of Transportation, California .Business Roundtable and. the Governor ' s Task Force on infrastructure have concluded that local governments need between $400 Trillion and $1 . 7 billion annually in additional revenue to adequatew.y maintain and improve the existing local street and road system. The funding shortfall has developed because maintenance, rehabilitation and construction costs have risen several-fold over the past 20 years while revenues have increased only modestly. Local transit systems too have encountered a severe funding saueeze. As the demand for service has increased, both state and federal transit funds have declined. Federal operating subsidies have been frozen at their 1981 level and are expected to be reduced further while federal funding of capital projects has also diminished substantially. State funds for transit have all but been eiini,nated with the decline in gasoline prices . Local read and transit funding needs vary greatly a:rong cozrkmunities and regions. Therefore, any across-the-board ass-stance would achieve varying results, depending on each local. financial situation and transportation program needs . Several counties already have sought authorization .for a local transportation authority and the option of seeking add4t-ional local sales tax revenues for transportation. Such taxes have been approved in Los Angeles, Alameda, Fresno and Santa Clara counties . Santa wruz, San Mateo, San Francisco and Contra Costa counties also have transportation-dedicated sales tax-es with still others contemplating similar proposals . more. . . . . . . EXHIBIT SP` 142 (DEDDEE) page 2 ANALYSIS: This hill would provide a generic process for the creation of 'tical transportation authorities and voter approval of local sales taxes to fundi transportation services and imprcve.ments. Specifically, the bill- would: 1 . Give individual counties the option of seeking local voter ' approval of a �, or 1 percent sales tax to fund local transportation programs . Upon majority approval of such a ballot measure, a hoard of supervisors could create a new local transportation authority, with cities ' approval , or designate an existing transportation planning authority or local, transportation commission to serve as an authority. 2 . Require the preparation of a counter transportation expendi-rure plan, which must be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities (and population) within the county prior to the vote on a sales tax proposit—ion. 3 . Authorize the use of the new local sales tax revenues for capital and operating expenditures for local streets, roads , highways and transit and the construction and imp:-ovement of state highways . The actual mix of these expenditures would be deter:nined within each county, according to its expenditure clan:. 4 . Authorize the issuance of bonds backed by, sales tax revenues to finance the local transportation capital outlay expenditures . Related bonding procedures and requirements .also would be prescribed. 5 . Specify administrative procedures and operating requirements for a transportation authority, including staffing, budgeting; coordination with other agencies, contracting, and management of the local expenditure plan. 6 . State the Legislature ' s intent that new local sales tax revenues should supplement, and not replace, existing local transportation revenues. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Mondav, February 9 , 1987. ) SUPPORT: California Transportation Commission OPPOSED: 02/12/67 LHIRD READING ' Bill No. SE 142 j SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ! Author: l7eddeh (D) , et al Office of Sedate Floor Analyses Amended: 3/10/87 � 1100 j Street, Suite 120 a 445-66:4 �e�te Required. 2/3 Urgency Corm mlttee Votes: Senate Floor Vote: 4 x Wala All, yeddeh _ u Dills Ma* ar, Keene u yc �r•auoda- a Ata v R �=ns Beverly [V � sse"1 Fre�icv 'Ch' Gymour V '7¢S rye. ddeh lCht Assembly Floor Vote: SUBJECT: Local Transportation Authoritias SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill would authorize any county board of supervisors to create or designate a local transportation authority. The bill, would allow an authority, upon voter approval, to impose a local sales and use tax of up to l percent for transportation purposes. ANALYSIS: According to the Senate Transportation Committee analysis, there currently exists a severe funding shortage among cities and counties for the maintenance and improvement of their 123,000 miles of roads. Comprehensive studies by the Assembly Office of Research, Department of Transportation, California Business Roundtable and the Governor's Task Force on Infrastructure have concluded that local governments need between $400 million and $1.7 billion annually in additional revenue to adequately maintain and improve the existing local street and road system. The funding shortfall has developed because maintenance, rehabilitation and construction costs have risen several--fold over the past 20 years while revenues have increased only modestly. Several counties already have sought authorization for a local transportation authority and the option of seeking additional local sales tax revenues for transportation,. Such taxes have been approved in Los Angeles, Alameda, Fresno and Santa Clara counties. Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco and Contra Costa counties also have ranspr�rtation—dedicated sales taxes with still or-hers contemplating similar: proposals. EXHIBIT D C0N_i Lia SB 142 Rage 2 This session, bills have been introduced to seek authorization for Sacramento County (AB 89, Connelly) , :Monterey County {AB 1973, Areias) , and Santa Barbara County (SB 973, Fart) . This bill would provide a generic process for the creation of local transportation authorities and voter approval of local sales taxes to fund transportation services and improvements. Specifically, the bili would: 1. Give individual counties the option of seeking local voter approval of a � or 1 percent sales ta.x to fund local transportation programs. Upon maiority approval of such a ballot Treasure, a board of supervisors could create a new local transportation authority, with cities' approval, or dasignate an existing transportation planning authority or local transportation co=missio to serve as an authority. 2. Require the preparation of a county transportation expenditure plan, which :oust be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities (and population) within the county prier to the vote on a sales tax proposition. 3. Authorize the use of the new local sales tax revenues for capital and operating expenditures for local streets, roads, highways and transit and the construction and improvement of state highways. The actual mix of chase expenditures would be determined within each county, according to its expenditure pian. 4. Authorize the issuance of bonds backed by sales tax revenues to finance the local transportation capital outlay expenditures, Related bonding procedures and requirements also would be prescribed. 5. Specify administrative procedures and operating requirements for a transportation authority, including staffing, budgeting, coordination with other agencies, contracting, and m,anagetrert of the local expenditure plan. 6.- State the Legislature's intent that new local sales tax revenues should supplement, and not replace, existing local transportation. revenues. I FISCAL EFFECT, Appropriation No Fiscal Co=ittee: Yes Local No t i According to the Legislative Analyst, if all eligible counties in the State of California established local transportation authorities by January 1, 1988, and if voters approved the imposition of special sales taxes under such plans, up to $500 million in additional ravenues could be made available in 1967-68, up to $1.3 billion in 1968-89, and increased amounts in subsequent years, at the maximum rate authorized in the bill. No more than. 1 percent of the tax proceeds could be used to fund the expenses of administering the transportation projects. o the extent that counties adopted retail transaction and use taxes, the Beard of Equalization's (BOE) casts of administering the tax could increase. The transportation authorities would be required to reimburse the BCE for these costs, as under existing law. State agencies would be subject to the increased sales tax authorized under this bill. If the maximum tax rate is adopted in each eligible county, we estimate that the state might pay additional sales taxes or up to $2.i miilioz� fro:r the SB 142 Page 3 General Fund and special funds in 1987--88, up to $7.5 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in subsequent years. To the extent that the increased sales taxes are deducted on state tax returns, revenues to the state's General Fund would be reduced. The Legislative Analyst estimates that, if the maximum tax rate is adopted in each eligible county, there could be a loss to the General Fund Of up to $42 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in subsequent years. SUPPORT- (Verified 3/17/87) California Transportation Commission League of California Cities ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "Cost estimates by the Legislative Analyst assume a worst-case and unlikely scenario. Not every county would choose to exercise the sales tax option, nor would implemer. ing counties all exercise the full 1% option. Moreover, the local sales taxes would likely be phased in over a period of years and would not all be implemented simulta.neousIy." The author also points out that "currently, San Francisco, Los Angeles , Fresno, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, Contra. Costa and Santa Cruz counties collect a local., transportation sales tax. These local sales taxes provide $737 million annually for local transportation. Thera is a fiscal impact on the General Puna from these existing sales taxes, but this has proved acceptable to the Legislature by its approval of the prior local saves tax authorizations." RJG:lm 3/i71187 Senate Floor Analyses THIRD READING Bill tato. SE 142 « � COMMMEE Author: Baddeh (D), et al. Office of 4/2/87 Senate Floor Analymw Amended: : 110 0 J StmK Suite 123 Majority 44.54614• Votes Required: Committee Voter. Son at&Floor Vote. Page 689 (4/2187) . .. .. W1 reed t rima� searxibed b"! r "W'.4-t-7 Uri cda rased and rePtwed atdo eat by the glowing vc AYES � tarxe '. may`. Bow .M�,�� ltol M ,Tortes, rNOES } Ayala, 66 DocklIdei GG,WMMMA _LM 309 U0 a e our R! Assembly Floor Vote: Local Transportation Authorities -� SOURCE: Author DI Ts This bill would authorize any county board of supervisors to create or designate a local transportation authority. The bill could allow an authority, upon voter approval,, to impose a local sales and use tax of up to 1 percent for transportation purposes. Senate Floor amendments of 4/2/87 87 deleted the urgency clause from the bill. AP,MYSIS» According to the Senate Transportation Committee analysis, there currently exists a severe. Banding shortage among cities and counties for the maintenance and improvement of their 123,€00 miles of roads. Comprehensive studies by the Assembly {office of Research, Department of Transportation, California Business Roundtable and the Governor's Task Force on Infrastructure have concluded that local governments need between $404 million and $1.7 billion; annually in additional revenue to adequately maintain and improve the existing local street and road system. The funding shortfall has developed because maintenance, rehabilitation and construction costs have risen several.-fold over the past 21) years while revenues have increased only modestly. Several counties already have sought authorization for a local transportation authority and the option of seeking additional local sales tax revenues for transportation. Such taxes have been approved in leas A gil„as, Alameda, Fresna. and Santa Clan counties. Sz,-San Mateo, S n Francisco aid-Contra Costa: counties also have transportation-dedicated sales taxeT4g-till others contemplating similar proposals. CONTlNUEn y $ S3' 142 Was 2 This session, Mlle have been introduced to seek authorization for Wrasumto County (AB 89, Connelly). Monteer>el Co my (AB 1973. Areias), and Sema Barrbaf'u County (SB 973, Hart). This bill would provide a generic process for the creation of local transportation authorities and voter approval of local sales taxes to fund transportation services and improvements- Specifically, the bill would: 1. Give individual counties the option of seeking local votes approval of a h Or I percent sales tax to fund local transportation programs. Upon ftajoritY approval of such a ballot measure, a hoard of supervisors could create a new local transportation authority; with cities" approval, or designate an existing transportation planning authority or local transportation commission to serve as an authority. 2. Require the preparation of a county transportation expenditure plat, which must be adapted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities (and population) within the county pricer to the vote can a sales tax proposition. 3. Authorize the use of the new local sales tax revenues for capital and operating expenditures for local streets, roads, highways ,and transit and the coustr-,,tion and improvement of state highways. The actual mix of these: expenditures would be determined within each county, according to its expenditure plain. 4. Authorize the issuance of bonds backed by :sales tax revenues to finance the local transportation capital outlay expenditures. Related bonding procedures and requirements also would be prescribed. 5. Specify administrative procedures and operating requirements for a transportation authority, including staffing, budgeting, coordination with ether agencies, contracting, and management of the local expenditure plan. 6. State they Legislaturets intent that new local sales tans revenues should supe esrt%tit, and not replace, existing local transporta.tion. revenues. FISCAL_ "t: Appropriation No fiscal Committee: Yes Laical No According tt, the Legislative Analyst, if all eligible counties in the State of California established local transportation authorities by January 1, 1988, and if voters approved the imposition of special sales taxes under such plans, up to $500 million in additional revenues could be made available in 1987-88, up to $1.3 billi0h in 1988-89, and increased amounts in subsequent years, at the maximum rata authorized in the bills No more than 1 percent of the tars proceeds could be uaad to fund the expenses of administering the transportation projects. To the esctoat,r_ that counties adapted retail transaction and use taxes, the Board sof Equalizas ton's (BOE) costs of administering the tax could increase. The trsnspertattvn authorities would be required to reimburse the BOE for these coasts, as raider existing law. State agencies would be subject to the increased sales tax authorised under this bill. if the maximum tars rate is adopted in each eligible county, we estimate that the state might gay* additional sales taxes of up to $2,7 million from the CONTINUED sB 142 Page 3 General Fund and special funds in 1987-98, up to $7.5 million in 1988-89, 40d increasing, amounts in subsequent pears. To the extent that. the increased sales tames are deducted an states tax retarnsp revenues to the state's- General Fund would be reduced. The Legislative Analyst estimates that, if the w ximuz tax rate is adopted in each eligible: cot! ty, there could be a loss to the General Furcal of up to $42 ei2.lion in 1988-89, and increasing amounts in subsequent years. SVPP (Verified 3/17/87) California Transportation Commission League of California Cities Department of Transporation Cal Tax California Dump Truck Owners' Association Santa Barbara County--Cities Planning Council ABGW IN SUPPORT: According to the- author, "Cost estimates by the Legislative Analyst assume a worst-case and unlikely scenario. Not every county would choose to exe=rcise the sales tax option, nor would implementing counties all exercise the full 12 option. 'Moreover, the local sales taxes would Likely be phased in over a period of years and skald not all be implemented simultaneously." The author also points out that "currently, Sana Francisca, Los Angeles, Fresno, Saha Clara, Alameda, San Maters, Contra Costa and Santa Cruz counties collect a local transportation sales tax. These local sales taxes provide $737 million annually for local, transportation. There is a fiscal impact on the: General Fund from these existing sales taxes, but this has proved acceptable to the Legislature by its approval of the prior local sales tax authorizations." RJG:Im 4!3/81 Senate Floor Analyses Cate of Nearing. June 3, 1987 SB 142 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION RICHARD KATZ, Chairman SB 142 (Deddeh) - As Amended: May 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Local transportation authorities DIGEST Existing law: I,) Authorizes certain local agencies , with voter approval , to levy additional sales and use tax increments to be used for specified transportation purposes. 2) Authorizes the San Francisco-Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, and the San Mateo County Transit District to levy a 1/2l sales tax for transit systems. 3) Authorizes local agencies in Alameda, Fresno, and Santa Clara counties, with voter approval, to Impose a .1/2% sales tax to finance highway and other transportation improvements. This bill : 1) Authorizes any beard of supervisors to create a new local transportation authority, with city approval , or to designate an existing transportation planning authority or commission, to serve as an authority, and authorizes the authority to impose a sales and use tax of 1/2% or 1% for transportation purposes , if approved by a majority of the voters in the county. 2, Requires the preparation of a county transportation expenditure plan which must be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population, prior to the election at which the sales tax measure will be considered. 3) Authorizes the use of the local sales tax revenues for capital and operating expenditures for local streets, highways and transit, and for the improvement of state highways, as specified in the county transportation expenditure plan. 4) States legislative intent that revenues derived from the sales tax not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes. continued - SE 142 SB 142 Page 2 5) Specifies administrative procedures, and limits administrative expenditures to 1% of the sales tax revenues for salarleE and benefits, 6j AuthorlzaS the issuance of bonds backed by sales tax revenues to finance local transportation capital outlay expenditures. FISCAL EFFEC7 Should every county In the state authorize the creation of a transportation authority and impose the maximum 1% additional local sales tax, the Legislative Analyst estimates direct state costs of $2.7 million for the first half year, and $7.; million for the 1988-89 fiscal year. Additionally, the loss to the General Fund due to deductions taken for local sales taxes could total $42 million in fiscal year 1988-89. Potential revenues could reach 200 million for the first half year, and $1.3 billion in 1988-89. COMMENTS 1) According to various studies conducted by the Assembly Office of Research, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Business Round Table and the Governor's Task Force on Infrastructure, local governments need between $400 million and $1.7 billion annually, above what is being spent how, to adequately maintain and improve existing local streets and highways. 2) A number of counties have already authorized local sales tax measures to finance transportation improvements as noted in the digest. This session, several bills have been introduced to seek Similar authorization in San Bernardino, San Benito, Sacramento, Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties. 3) This bill would provide a generic process for the creation of local transportation authorities and voter approval Of local sales taxes to fund transportation services and improvements. Su2port Opposition Automobile Club of Southern California Transit League California . Associated General Contractors of California. Associated General 'Contractors of San Diego Caterpillar TnC. continued S8 142 Page 2 SB 142 Page 3 California Dump Truck Owners Association California Taxpayers Association California Transportation Commission E F. Hutton & Company, Inc. City of Fremont. League of Californ=a Cities Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff, City of Redding San Joaquin County Council of Governments Santa Barbara County-Cities Area Planning Council Southern California Contractors Association Department of Transportation (Caltrans) John Stevens SS 142 445-16i6 Page 3 atrans ATAYS AIM MEAS S COMMITTEE AMLYSIS Author: Dedseh Amended: 06/22/87 Bill. No.: SS 142 Polio Committees Transport-ation Votes 10-0 Urgency: no Hearing nate: 07/03/87 State Mandated Local Program: Cao Staff Comments by: Lisch xr : Allan Lind Subcommittee Reports: Subcomittee 45 reviewed the bill for bond-related issues and vot-c3 4-0 to reca,rnend Do PASS. Su!Dcowmx ittee #6 reviewed the bill for transportation-related issues and voted 3-0 to recommend DO PASS with author' s aiendments. The amendments would prevent the Board of Equalization (EOE) from double-dipping on f,ee charges for the administration of local sales tax increases when counties assess two 1/2,�6 taxes. The amendments would also require WE to report on the costs of administering local transportation sales taxes. The amendments would also require a 20--year sunset on any local sales -tax increased pursuant to this i legislation, provided that the electorate may vete to reauthorize a tax at the and of the 20 years. The amendments would also rewire the local authority authorized under this bili to be made up of locally elected officials. Finally, the amendments would also express legislative yntenv that counties rely on a pay--as-you-go financing program. Sui._-m 3.r This bill is the generic version of a local sales tax option for raising local sales tars revenue to fund trans portation services and improvements. The bill would authorize any county to create or designate a local transportation authority. The bill would authorize the local transportation authority to impose a rattail transactions and use tax of up to 1% for specified transportation purposes, provided the authority approves the measure by a 2/3 vote and the local electorate approves the measure by a simple majority. The 'local. ballot :measure would be required to specify the purposes fcr which the revenl.)e derived free the tax would be used. The local ballot measure would also be requires to establish an appronriatior: limit pursuant. to Article XII.IB of the California Constitution. The bill would also authorize the local ballot measure to include proposals to issue lin.ited tax bonds, refunding bonds, and/or bond antic:Lpat on notes to financ` the planned capital outlay expenditures. EAHIBIT «► SB 142' SENAT IE THIRD READING SB 142 (Deddeh) As Amended: July 14, 1987 SENATE VOTE: 22-8 ASSEMBI.Y AC'T TONS : COMMITTEE TRANS, VOTE 1O-0_%r10MM17TEE _ W, & M. 'COTE 1.6-6 Ayes : A,�,e s Vai;concel los, Baker, Bron_,an, Calderon, Camphal 1 , Eaves, Fergf.,tson, 11anninan, Kavdan , Hil'i Isenberg , Johnson, Peace, M. Water,,- Nays Nays : D. Brown, Jones, Leonard, Lewis , McClin. -cock, Seas trand DIGEST Existing law: 1 ) Authorizes rertair local agencies, with voter, approval , to levy additional sales and use tax increments to be used for s:)ecifled transportation purposes. 2) Authorizes -tie 'San Francisco-Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, thcLos Angeles County Transportation Commission , and the San Mateo County Transit District to levy a I/Z% sales tax for transit systems . 3) Authorizes local agencies in Alauleda, Fresno , and Santa Clara counties , with voter approval , to impose, a 1/21 sales tax to finance highway and ether .the,- transportation improvements . This bill - I Authorizes any beard of supervisors to cr,!a*te_ a new 'local transportation authority, with city approval , or to dtasignate an existing transportation planning authority or commission to serve as an authority. Authorizes the authority to impose a sales and use tax of 1/2% or 1% for transportation purp,�ses, if approved by 2/3 of the members of the authorit.y and by a F,'Z'Jorilty of the voters in the county. continued 4 EXHIBIT rt F SJ 142 Frage 2 2' Requires that local elected officials serge as members of the authority. 3j Requires the p,rep.; ration of a county transportation expenditure plan which muss be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population, prior to the election at which the sales tax measure will be considered . 4) Authorizes the use of the local sales tax revenues for capital and operating expenditures for local streets , highways and transit, ani? for the improvement of state higWays , as specified in the county transportation expenditure plan. 5? States legislative intent that revenues derived from the sales tax not replace e=xisting local revenues used for transportation purposes , and that bond financing be implemented only when "pay-as-you-go;' financing is unfeasible. "} Limits to 20 years the term of any sales tax imposed under, thi=-, article. 7) Specifies administrativ=e procedures and limits administrative expenditures to % of the sales tax revenues for salaries and benefits . 8) Authorizes the issuance of bonds backed by sales tax revenues to finance local transportation capital outlay expenditures. 9equiresthe authority to prepare an annual financial report . FISCAL EFFECT If every county in the state authorizes the creation of a transportation authority and imposes the maximum 1% additional local sales tax, the Legislative Analyst estimates direct state casts of $2 .7 trillion for the first half-year, and $7.5 million for the 1953-99 fiscal year. Loss to the General Fund due to deductions taken for local sales taxes could total $42 million in fiscal year 1988-89. Potential revenues could reach $590 million for the first half-year, and $1 .3 bill'. ion in 1988-59. COMMENTS 1) AccUrding to studies conducted by the Assembly Office of Research, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) , the California Business Round Table and the Governor's Task; Force on Infrastructure , local governments need between $400 million and $1,7 billion annually, above current continued - 5B 142 Page 2 SW 142 Page 3 expenditures, to adequately maintain and improve existing local streets and highways . 2) A number of counties have authorized local sales tax measures to finance transportation improvements. This session, bills have been introduced to seek similar authorization in San Bernardino, San Benito , Sacramento, Monterey and Santa Barbara counties . 3i This bill provides procedures for the creation of local transportation authorities and voter approval of local sales taxes to fund transportation cervi es and improvements. John Stevens SB. 142 415-161.6 Page: 3, 7/16/87:atrans Revised - as amended 5120{8T SS 142 SENATE THIRD READING SS 142 (Deddeh) - As Amended: August 20, 1987 SEDATE VOTE: 22-8 ASSEMBLY ACTIONS: COMMITTEE TRANS. VOTE 10.0 COMMITTEE W. & M. VOTE 16.6 Ayes: Ayes: Vasconcellos, Baker, Bronzan, Calderon, Campbell, Eaves, Ferguson, Hannigan, Hayden, Bill , Isenberg, Johnson, Margolin, O'Connell, Peace, M. Maters Nays: Nays: D. Brown, Jones, Leonard., Lewis, McClintock, Seastrand DIGEST Existing law- 1) Authorizes certain local agencies, with voter approval , to levy additional sales and use tax increments to be used for specified transportation purposes. 2) Authorizes the San Francisco-Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, the Las Angeles County Transportation Co:m+ission, and the San: Mzteo County Transit District to levy a 1/2% sales tax for transit systems. 3) Authorizes local agencies in Alameda, Fresno, and Santa Clara counties, with voter approval, to impose a 1/2% sales tax to finance highway and other transportation improvements. This hilt : 1) Authorizes any hoard of supervisors to create a new local transportation authority, with city approval , or to designate an existing transportation planning authority or commission to serve as an authority. Authorizes the authority to impose a sales and use tax of 1/2% or 1% for transportation purposes, if approved by 2/3 of the members of the authority and by a majority of the voters in the county. continued. S8 142 S8 142 Pagel 2') Limits the collective total sales and use taxes imposed under the act by an authority for transportation purposes to 1%. 3) Rewires that local elected officials serve as members of the authority. 4) Requires the preparation of a county transportation expenditure plan which must be adopted by the board of supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of tate population, prior to the election at which the sales tax measure will be considered. 5) Authorizes the use of the local sales tax revenues for capital and operating expenditures for local streets, highways and transit, and for the improvement of state highways, as specified in the county transportation expenditure plan. 6) States legislative intent that revenues derived from the sales tax not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes, and that band financing be implemented only when *pay-as-you-go' fi S8 142 Page CENTS 1) According to studies conducted by the Assembly Office of Research, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Business Round Table and the Governor's Task Force on Infrastructure, local governments need between $400 million and $1.7 billion annually, above current expenditures, to adequately maintain and improve existing local streets and highways. 2} A number of counties have authorized local sales tax measures to finance transportation improvements. This session, bills have been introduced to seek similar authorization in San Reriardino, San Beniio, Sacraftnto, Monterey and Santa Barbara counties. John Stevens 445-1616 SB 1' 8/24/87catrans Page'` OT-Oe-2003 17:29 NOSSAMAN SF P.02/06 EXHIBIT 8 LAW OFFICES NOSSAIMAN, GUTHNER, KNNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP JOHN T. KNOX WALTER L. NOISAMAN THIRTY.FOVRTH FLOOR WARREN G. ELLIOTTLLI(ID$$•124A) SO CALIFORNIA STREET OF COUN5EL WILLIAM 1OL`THNER, JR, SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111.4799 (1422.1$99) TELEPHONE (411)) 19$.9540 FACSIMILE (415) 099-2438 t A5 aNCFi S �;$,tsaNt�Y�N�D jt�,(YtF1�7?t.2A CUIrp$00 TN;R1Y-F1AST FLOOR 445 SOUTH Ftr.UEACA $TAEFT SYANLEY S. TAYLOR III ASSN CTONWILS)NA 22201.305 LOS ANCELEE,CA $0071.1002 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER ARLiN(702)VA Y22aS.06'�2 (7aa)2st.5ota (A15) 438-7224 EMAIL st8yiat($Itazsam3n.COM $AUANENTa 1RVSi3 . sUYE Igoe 915 L STREET 16101 VON RARMAH AVENUE October 7,2003 95 IRVINB, CA 621112.0177 SACRAMENTO, 2. 95l7S+•5705 MSO)t4A•)b88 (644) >I21=7600 REFER TO FILE NUN$EA 030610 - 0915 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Dan Stone California Attorney General's Office 13001 Street#I 101 P.O.Box 944255 Sacramento,CA 94224-2550 Re: Your Pile#03-401 Dear Mr. Stone This firm represents the Centra Costa Transportation Authority(the "Authority"). On April 10, 2003 we submitted our comments with reference to the above captioned opinion request'. By letter dated October 2, 2003,the County of Contra Costa submitted its comments. This letter addresses certain issues raised in the County's letter and corrects certain misstatements of fast. First,we want to correct the statement in the last section of the County's comment letter to the effect that the process advocated by the Authority is inconsistent with procedures used by other transportation authorities under the sante circumstances. As outlined in great detail in our original';comment letter(please! see fn. l thereof),procedures vary.from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on,the applicable statutory authorization. However, to dente no transportation authority Frau sought reauthorization,of its sales tax program under the provisions of the Local Transportation Authority and Improvements Act(Public Utilities Code Sections 180000 et seq) ("LTAIA"). Accordingly there is no "consistent procedure" related to the continuation of an existing'sales tax program under LT4]A and, as indicated below, statutory requirements vary. Specifically, in the case of Alameda County(mentioned by the County),the original sales tax program was created under the provisions of a different statutory scheme,the County Transportation Authority statutes("CTA") (California Public Utilities Cade Sections 131000 et sett.) In 2000, the Alameda authority was sunsetted and a new authority was formed under the LTAIA. The process followed in Alameda County was accordingly the process for the I58026-I.DOC OCT-09-2003 17:25 NOSSAMAN SF P.03r'0 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER,KNOX&ELLIOTT, LLP Dan Stone October 7,2003 Page 2 organization of a new entity,not the continuation or reauthorization of an existing program. It is not our position that under such circumstances,the process for approval by the cities and the county of the transportation expenditure plan("TEP")should not be followed. Madera County,also mentioned by the County as an example of a reauthorization of a sales tax program,has sought voter approval of a local transportation sales tax authority more than once;however the voters have rejected each attempt to establish a program. In 2002 the Madera cities and county formed a neer LTAIA in order to seek voter approval of a neer sales tax program. The voters unfortunately rejected the sales tax measure. The process for approval of the transportation expenditure plan accordingly followed the process for a newly established agency. In the case of Santa.Clara County,that county has had three separate transportation sales takes approved by the voters,most recently in November 2000,when the Santa Clara.Valley Transportation Authority placed a sales tax measure on the ballot and the voters approved it. However in each instance, the sponsoring agency was a different entity and the relevant entity followed applicable legal procedures for the establishment of a new sales tax program by it.1. The reference in the County's comment letter to"reauthorization"by the Santa Clara Traffic Authority is simply in error. In the case of Fresno County,an extension of the current sales tax program was submitted to the voters in November 2002 and rejected. Fresno operates tinder a separate statutory scheme (PublicUtilities Code Sections 142000 et seq.)and is not subject to the LTAIA. In 2001, the Fresno statutes were substantially amended to specifically authorize an election in 2002 or thereafter to reauthorize the sales tax program(Section 142250). The 2001 amendments made the requirement for board of supervisor and city approval of the TEP expressly applicable to the 2002 reauthorization(Section 142255(b)). To date the Legislature has not seen fit to enact a similar amendment to the LTAIA. t A.portion of fn. 1 from our April 10 comment letter, reproduced below,made the foregoing clear: Santa Clara County has had three different transportation sales tax programs approved,the first under a specific statute authorizing the Traffic Authority(California Public Utilities Code Sections 140400 et seg. (repealed by its own terms on April 1, 1997) (hereinafter references to the California.Public Utilities Code are referred to as"Pub. Util. Code")),the second under an"A plus B"arrangement whereby the county imposed and collected a general sales tax(Measure B) approved by the voters of the county together with an advisory expenditure plan(Measure A), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority("VTA.") managed the program pursuant to a funding agreement between the VTA and the County, and the third which is a sales tax program imposed and administered by the VTA which has separate statutory authority(Pub. Util. Code Sections 100000 et seq.). 158026i.DOC OCT-08-2003 17:29 NOSSAMAN SF P.04/06 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNIEF, KNOX&ELLIOTT, LLP Dan Stone October 7, 2003 Page 3 Los Angeles County has two permanent one-half cent increment sales taxes and a detailed process spelled out in its.statutes for the development of transportation plans and updates. Please see fn.I to our previous comment letter for more information. With respect to San Bernardino County, the transportation commission adopts the sales tax ordinance that includes the TEP. (Public Utilities Code Section 190302.) As in the case of Riverside County, discussed in the next paragraph,no board vfsupervisors or city approval is regUired 2 To date, Riverside County has not taken steps to put a reauthorization of its sales tax on the ballot. In fact. the only transportation sales tax agency to date to successfully reauthorize or continue in effect an existing sales tax program is the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"'). In November 2002,the extension of its sales tax was approved by the voters, the only successful sales tax measure of five attempts statewide at that election. In the case of the RCTC,the Commission operated under a specific statutory scheme(Pub. Util. Code Sections 240000 et seq.) that requires that the TEP be included in the sales tax ordinance submitted to the voters (Section 240302). Some generic provisions from the County Transportation Commissions Act(Pub. Util. Code Sections 130000 et seq.) also apply to R.CTC. There is no provision in R.CTC's statute similar to the reauthorization language in Section 1802011 and effectively what the Commission did was to adapt a new sales tax and TEP under the aegis of the existing Commission without reference to any specific statutory authority. Under the provisions of RCTC's statute, the continuation of the sales tax ordinance (including the TEP) was adapted by the Commission acrdplaced on the ballot by the board of supervisors (Pub. UhL Code Section.240301), and was not subject to the approval of either the board of supervisors or the cities. Since the date of our previous comment letter,one other local sales tare agency has sought reauthorization or continuation of an existing sales tax program., the San Francisco County Transportation Authority("Sl"CTA"),which has a measure to extend the current sales tax for a thirty-year period from the effective date of the new tare. That measure is on the November 2003 ballot in San Francisco County. SFCTA is organized under the provisions of the CTA mentioned above. We concur with the County in its conclusion Haat under the provisions of the CTA statute,the requirement for board and city approval is specific3 and accordingly approval of The County correctly notes that amendment of the TEP requires approval of the board of supervisors and the cities in the case of both Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The CTA addresses the process for the preparation of a new draft TEP as follows: "Not less than one year prior to the date of the last general election in which a retail transactions and use tax ordinance is in effect pursuant to this division,the commission or the county transportation authority administering the adopted county expenditure transportation plan(SIC) shall prepare a new draft county transportation expenditure plan for approval pursuant to this chapter." Section I31056(a). (Emphasis added.) 158026_1.DOC OC`i�O9-2003 17:29 N099AMAN 5F P.05/06 NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER,KNOX&ELLIOTT,LLP Dan Stone October 7,2003 Page 4 the board of supervisors of the city and county was sought and obtained. Notwithstanding arguments to the contrary by the County, the LTAIA contains no similar specific direction to obtain board approval. In fact,the provisions of the LTAIA suggest to the contrary,that is, that continuation or reimposition of the sales tax can be achieved with the approval exclusively of the Authority and the voters. Section 180210, second paragraph. The remaining arguments raised by the County cover old ground. With respect to the "plain language" arguments raised by the County,we suggest that the guidance given by the LTAIA is anything but clear. As noted in the previous paragraphs,other statutory schemes have clearly charted the course to be followed in connection with the continuation of an:existing sales tax program. In the case of the LTAIA,we suggest that the path has not been clearly charted and that amendment of the existing TEP is an option that can be considered.4 The County's argument that the Authority's position ignores the"statutory scheme" intended to"ensure that long-term sales tax measures have broad [support]"is likewise inconsistent with the facts. First,nothing in the LTAIA expressly says anything about any "statutory scheme"requiring"broad support"for the previsions of the TEP. That observation notwithstanding,the Authority recognizes the need for"buy-in"from all the critical constituencies within the county if the sales tax reauthorization is to be successful. In that regard,the Authority has initiated and is undertaking a process for the development of the amended TEP which calls for participation not only by all the local governments within the county,but also by other critical interest groups.s While beyond the scope of this comment letter, we urge the Attorney General to go to the Authority's web site(w ww.ecta..net)to learn more about the extensive outreach that is being conducted. Finally,the summary of the various statutory schemes outlined above,in our previous comment letter and in the County's comment letter in fact indicate the opposite,that is,that there In accordance with the CTA,the draft TEP is required to be submitted to the board of supervisors and"local governments"for their approval. Section 131055. a As noted in our previous comment letter,the LTAIA contemplates use of the amendment process in Section 180207 to,among other things, "to provide for the use of additional federal,state ,and local funds." We posit that new sales tax revenues from extension of the existing sales tax is precisely the kind of additional local revenues the Legislature may have contemplated as consistent with the use of the amendment process. The legislative history cited by the:County in its comment letter lends credence to the conclusion that it was broad community support that the Legislature intended to build into the process: "The Bill requires that each participating county adopt an expenditure plan for using the additional revenues, and take other steps to ensure that the broad spectrum of community interests are represented prior to ars authorizing vete by the county's electorate." County comment letter,p. 9-10. 158026_I.DDC , 7:30 NOSSP�1AN F P.06/06 OCT-08-2003 ' NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX& ELLIOTT,LLP Dan Stone October 7,2003 Page 5 is no consistent Legislative "public policy"on the issue. Some schemes expressly require board of supervisor and city approval (e.g., CTA provisions and provisions applicable to Fresno County.) Others expressly allow the transportation agency to develop and adopt a TEP without approval rights for the board of supervisors or the cities(e.g. San Bernardino and Riverside.) In some cases, e.g. the LTAIA,the Legislature expressed no preference. Despite efforts by the County to establish the contrary,the legislative history of the LTAIA is inconclusive as to the relevant intent of the Legislature. The County puts forth a variety of source material indicating a legislative intent that the initial adaption of a TIP under LTAIA requires approval of the board of supervisors and the cities. This conclusion is,not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the amendment process authorized by the LTAIA can be employed in connection with the extension of a sales tax program. None of the legislative materials cited by the County acid definitive clarification to this issue. In fact we would assert that under the provisions of the LTAIA, use of the.amendment process is the most likely and feasible alternative to adopt a revised TEP. Nothing in the legislative history or the statute itself conflicts with this conclusion. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on these important issues. Please address any questions to the undersigned. Sincerely, Stanley S. ayl ofNOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP SST cc: Commissioners, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Robert McCleary,Executive Director David F. Schmidt, Deputy County Counsel Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors John Sweeten, County Administrator Dennis Barry,Director of Community Development Steve Goetz, Community Development Department 15$025 1.DOC TOTAL P.06