HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.C 02/06/2017Agenda Item #3.0
� , T,
rs5$
DATE: February 6, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager�-�
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting Senate Bill SB1 (Beall) and Assembly Bill AB (Frazier)
Regarding Statewide Proposals on Transportation Funding
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the attached Resolution Supporting Senate Bill
SB 1 and Assembly Bill AB 1 which are statewide proposals on transportation funding and take
action as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
SB 1 and AB 1 are similar proposals that provide for comprehensive transportation reform and a
funding package to avoid systematic failure of the state's entire transportation infrastructure.
Included are reforms, increases to existing revenue sources, and infrastructure investment to
address the overwhelming backlog of repair and deferred maintenance as well as other
transportation needs.
DISCUSSION
The proposed legislation addresses the $73 billion unmet funding needed for local streets and
roads and the $72 billion backlog to the State's Highway System. When frilly phased in, it is
estimated that $6 billion would be generated annually to provide needed funding for the state and
local transportation network.
The legislation proposes to raise revenue over a variety of sources, such as increases to the gas
tax, vehicle registration fees including a fee on zero emissions vehicles, monies from existing
cap and trade funds, and returning the vehicle weight fees phased in over five years.
In addition to raising revenue, the proposals include a series of reforms to improve efficiency,
transparency, and accountability; to streamline roadwork; and permanently extend and expand on
the limited exemptions to California's Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) and create an
advanced mitigation program.
Draft letters of support are attached for the City Council's review and approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts beyond the staff time associated with preparing this report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Draft Letters
3. League Analysis of AB 1 (Frazier) /SB 1 (Beall)
4. Local Streets & Roads Funding
�/
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SENATE BILL SB 1 (BEALL) AND
ASSEMBLY BILL AB 1 (FRAZIER) REGARDING STATEWIDE PROPOSALS ON
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
WHEREAS, as the first order of business on December 5, 2016 in the new legislative
session, Senator Beall and Assembly Member Frazier introduced similar transportation funding
proposals; and
WHEREAS, under SB I (Beall) and AB 1 (Frazier), each proposal will generate
approximately $6 billion annually, with approximately $2.2 billion going to local streets and
roads; and
WHEREAS, these proposals, supported by the League of California Cities, present an
opportunity for all sides to negotiate on a comprehensive package to send to the Governor; and
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation addresses the $73 billion unmet funding needed for
local streets and roads and the $72 billion backlog to the State's Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the legislation proposes to raise revenue over a variety of sources, such as
increases to the gas tax, vehicle registration fees including a fee on zero emissions vehicles,
monies from existing cap and trade funds, and returning the vehicle weight fees phased in over
five years; and
WHEREAS, in addition to raising revenue, the proposals include a series of reforms to
improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability; to streamline roadwork; and would
permanently extend and expand on the limited exemptions to California's Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and create an advanced mitigation program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council supports
Senate Bill SB 1 and Assembly Bill AB 1 to address needed transportation funding for cities,
counties, and the State of California and authorizes the Mayor to sign letters of support on behalf
of the Petaluma City Council.
ATTACHMENT 2
February 6, 2017
The Honorable Jim Beall
Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
California State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 651 -4915
RE: Support for SB 1 (Beall) - Transportation Funding
Dear Senator Beall:
I write on behalf of the City Council of the City of Petaluma, to convey our support for SB 1(as
introduced December 5, 2016). SB 1 represents a comprehensive transportation proposal
which includes sensible reforms, modest increases to existing revenue sources, and robust
investment in infrastructure. The bill presents an opportunity for the Legislature to advance a
comprehensive framework to address an overwhelming backlog of repair and deferred
maintenance, and other transportation needs.
It is urgent that the Legislature act, to address the $73 billion unmet funding need for
local streets and roads, statewide, and $72 billion backlog to the. State's Highway System.
For local streets and roads alone, the funding need grows by an additional $20 billion in
just ten years. With the expressed commitment of Legislative Leadership and this
Administration to getting this done in early 2017, we urge this legislature's immediate
attention to this proposal as the vehicle to deliver this victory for California's streets and
roads, and highways.
Petaluma's streets rank at the bottom of street condition ratings for Sonoma County
cities. In the Metropolitan Planning Commission's most recent report on pavement
condition, an overall score of "good" is 82. Petaluma's overall score is 46, a rating given
to poor or failed streets. Petaluma recently completed a Streets Plan that identifies the
least cost alternative needed to bring our streets up to the "good" rating of 82. Doing so
requires an investment of $167.5 million, performed over 20 years. Petaluma currently
receives about $3 million in annual Streets funding. Our chances of filling this gap
locally are slim. Without the critical funding SB 1 provides, our street ratings, and
pavement condition will only continue to worsen.
At full phase -in, SB 1 would generate an additional $6 billion annually, to provide
desperately needed funding for the state and local transportation network. To repair and
maintain existing transportation infrastructure, the proposal would generate up to $2.4
billion and $2.2 billion annually for the state's highway system and local streets and
roads, respectively. The bill also provides nearly $600 million for freight and the state's
trade corridors, over a half billion for transit and intercity rail, and up to $150 million to
support active transportation programs throughout the state.
The proposal would raise revenue across a variety of sources, such as a 12 cent increase to the gas tax
phased in over three years, ending the Board of Equalization's "true up" process on the price based excise
tax on gas, a $38 increase to the vehicle registration fee, a $100 vehicle registration fee on zero emission
vehicles, a 20 cent increase to the diesel excise tax, $300 million from existing cap and trade fiends, and
returning $500 million in vehicle weight fees phased in over five years.
In addition to raising revenue, the proposal includes a series of reforms to improve efficiency,
transparency, and accountability, such as restoring independence to the California Transportation
Commission, creating the Office of the Transportation Inspection General with audit and investigation
authority over the state's transportation spending, and establishing local reporting requirements on local
transportation spending. To streamline roadwork, the bill permanently extends and expands on the limited
exemptions to California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for repair, maintenance, and minor
alteration projects on existing roadways to cities and counties with populations greater than 100,000 and
state roadways. The proposal also creates an advanced mitigation program which authorizes the Natural
Resources Agency to establish state and regional transportation mitigation plans and mitigation banks to
allow transportation projects to fulfill their environmental requirements in advance.
Overall, this proposal provides a comprehensive transportation reform and funding package that picks up
where we left off at the end of the special session, while giving this legislature an opportunity for early
action. While the legislature has had success in recent years in balancing the state budget, we can no
longer afford to ignore our most basic repair and maintenance needs if we wish to avoid systematic failure
of the state's entire transportation infrastructure. There may be no better way to put Californians back to
work and stimulate our economy than making the roads we and our children rely on everyday safe again.
For these reasons, the City of Petaluma Supports SB 1 (Beall).
Sincerely,
David Glass
Mayor
City of Petaluma
cc: Senator Bill Dodd, 3rd District; senator. dodd @senate.ca.gov
Assembly Member Marc Levine, 10`x' District; assemblymember .levine2assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Bennett, nbennett2cacities.org
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmondgcacities.org
February 6, 2017
The Honorable Jim Frazier
Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee
California State Capitol, Room 3091
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 319 -2111
RE: Support for AB 1 (Frazier) - Transportation Fundin
Dear Assembly Member Frazier:
I write on behalf of the City Council of the City of Petaluma, to convey our support for AB 1(as
introduced Deceinber 5, 2016). AB 1 represents a comprehensive transportation proposal
which includes sensible reforms, modest increases to existing revenue sources, and robust
investment in infrastructure. The bill presents an opportunity for the Legislature to advance a
comprehensive framework to address an overwhelming backlog of repair and deferred
maintenance, and other transportation needs.
It is urgent that the Legislature act, to address the $73 billion unmet funding need for
local streets and roads, statewide, and $72 billion backlog to the State's Highway System.
For local streets and roads alone, the funding need grows by an additional $20 billion in
just ten years. With the expressed commitment of Legislative Leadership and this
Administration to getting this done in early 2017, we urge this legislature's immediate
attention to this proposal as the vehicle to deliver this victory for California's streets and
roads, and highways.
Petaluma's streets rank at the bottom of street condition ratings for Sonoma County
cities. In the Metropolitan Planning Commission's most recent report on pavement
condition, an overall score of "good" is 82. Petaluma's overall score is 46, a rating given
to poor or failed streets. Petaluma recently completed a Streets Plan that identifies the
least cost alternative needed to bring our streets up to the "good" rating of 82. Doing so
requires an investment of $167.5 million, performed over 20 years. Petaluma currently
receives about $3 million in annual Streets funding. Our chances of filling this gap
locally are slim. Without the critical funding AB 1 provides, our street ratings, and
pavement condition will only continue to worsen.
At full phase -in, AB 1 would generate an additional $6 billion annually, to provide
desperately needed funding for the state and local transportation network. To repair and
maintain existing transportation infrastructure, the proposal would generate trp to $2.4
billion and $2.2 billion annually for the state's highway system and local streets and
roads, respectively. The bill also provides nearly $600 million for freight and the state's
trade corridors, over a half billion for transit and intercity rail, and up to $150 million to
support active transportation programs throughout the state.
i<
The proposal would raise revenue across a variety of sources, such as a 12 cent increase to the gas tax
phased in over three years, ending the Board of Equalization's "true up" process on the price based excise
tax on gas, a $38 increase to the vehicle registration fee, a $100 vehicle registration fee on zero emission
vehicles, a 20 cent increase to the diesel excise tax, $300 million from existing cap and trade funds, and
returning $500 million in vehicle weight fees phased in over five years.
In addition to raising revenue, the proposal includes a series of reforms to improve efficiency,
transparency, and accountability, such as restoring independence to the California Transportation
Commission, creating the Office of the Transportation Inspection General with audit and investigation
authority over the state's transportation spending, and establishing local reporting requirements on local
transportation spending. To streamline roadwork, the bill permanently extends and expands on the limited
exemptions to California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for repair, maintenance, and minor
alteration projects on existing roadways to cities and counties with populations greater than 100,000 and
state roadways. The proposal also creates an advanced mitigation program which authorizes the Natural
Resources Agency to establish state and regional transportation mitigation plans and mitigation banks to
allow transportation projects to fulfill their environmental requirements in advance.
Overall, this proposal provides a comprehensive transportation reform and funding package that picks up
where we left off at the end of the special session, while giving this legislature an opportunity for early
action. While the legislature has had success in recent years in balancing the state budget, we can no
longer afford to ignore our most basic repair and maintenance needs if we wish to avoid systematic failure
of the state's entire transportation infrastructure. There may be no better way to put Californians back to
work and stimulate our economy than making the roads we and our children rely on everyday safe again.
For these reasons, the City of Petaluma Supports AB 1 (Frazier).
Sincerely,
David Glass
Mayor
City of Petaluma
cc: Senator Bill Dodd, 3rd District; senator.doddasenate.ca.gov
Assembly Member Marc Levine, 10°' District; assemblymember .levine(�cbassembly•ca•gov
Nancy Bennett, nbennett @cacities.org
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond2cacities.org
ATTACHMENT 3
$6 Billion Transportation Funding Proposals Introduced, including $2.2 Billion for Local Streets and
Roads
As the first order of business in the new legislative session, Senator Beall and Assembly Member Frazier
introduced similar transportation funding proposals on December 5, 2016, under SB 1 and AB 1,
respectively. Upon full implementation, each proposal will generate approximately $6 billion annually,
with about $2.2 billion going to local streets and roads.
These proposals present an opportunity in the new legislative session for all sides to negotiate on a
comprehensive package to send to the Governor. The League of California Cities supports these
proposals as a starting place for negotiations, but also understands that there is still work needed to get
the necessary two - thirds vote in each legislative chamber. The League will continue to help advance the
discussion and will provide cities with the tools it needs to advocate when the legislature is closer to
reaching a deal.
Below, the League has summarized the key provisions in each of these proposals, as well as highlight the
key differences under specific provisions:
Reforms
• Establishes local reporting requirements. Cities and counties would be required to send the CTC
a list of projects they propose to fund with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA) funds, specifying the location, description, proposed schedule, and estimated useful life
for each project each fiscal year.
• Requires cities and counties to maintain existing general fund levels for transportation
funding. The bills require cities and counties to maintain their general fund transportation levels
at equal to or greater than their annual average expenditures during the 2009 -10, 2010 -11,
2011 -12 fiscal years, which is known as a maintenance of effort requirement. The bill authorizes
the State Controller's Office to audit local governments for compliance and subject local
governments to reimbursing the state for non - compliance.
• Makes permanent the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) delegation authority.
Permanently extends the authority for CalTrans to participate in the federal NEPA delegation
pilot program, which allows projects involving federal funds to be delivered faster.
• Promotes employment and training opportunities through preapprenticeship. Requires state
and local agencies to create programs that promote employment in advanced construction
through preapprenticeship as a condition of receiving RMRA funds.
• Incorporates "complete streets" design concept into the Highway Design Manual. Requires
Caltrans to incorporate the "complete streets" design concept into the Highway Design Manual.
• Restores independence to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The bills move the
CTC out from under the California State Transportation Agency, establishing it as its own entity
within state government to help it fulfill its oversight role.
t
• Creates the Office of Transportation Inspector General as an independent entity and office
within state government. Its role will be to ensure that all other state agencies that receive
state transportation funds are operating efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with federal
and state laws. The Inspector General would be appointed by the Governor to a six -year term
and would have the authority to conduct audits and investigations involving state transportation
funds with all affected state agencies.
• Permanently extends and expands the limited CEQA exemption for transportation repair' '
maintenance, and minor alteration projects to existing roadways. The bills delete the January
1, 2020 sunset of the existing law and expand the exemption to cities and counties with
populations greater than 100,000 and apply the exemption to state roadways.
• Creates an Advanced Mitigation program for transportation projects. The bills authorize the
Natural Resources Agency to prepare, approve, and implement advance mitigation plans for one
or more planned transportation projects. An advanced mitigation plan is defined as a regional or
statewide plan that estimates the potential future mitigation requirements for one or more
transportation projects and identifies mitigation projects, sites, or credits that would fulfill some
or all of those requirements. The Agency would be authorized to administer the program,
establish mitigation banks, secure areas for the purpose of providing mitigation, and allow
transportation agencies to use mitigation credits to fulfill mitigation requirements. The
program's intention is to supplant existing CEQA requirements, not substitute for them.
Additional Revenues (Approximate)
• $1.8 billion from a 12 cent increase to the gasoline excise tax, adjusted every 3 years for
inflation. The revenue generated from this particular increase would help restore the gas tax'
lost purchasing power due to inflation. The funds attributable to the 12 cent increase would be
transferred to the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) for
distribution.
o Key Difference: SB 1 (Beall) phases in the 12 cent increase over 3 years, while AB 1
(Frazier) does not include a phase in period.
• $1.1 billion from ending the Board of Equalization (BOE) "true up" and resetting the rate to
the historical average of 17.3 cents per gallon, adjusted every 3 years for inflation. This
provision would "reset" the priced based excise tax on gasoline to its original rate of 17.3 cents.
Funds would be distributed using current formulas.
• $1.3 billion from a $38 increase to the Vehicle Registration Fee, adjusted every 3 years for
inflation. After the California Department of Motor Vehicles deducts their administrative costs
from imposing and collecting the fee, the funds from the increase would be deposited into the
RMRA for distribution.
• $500 million from restoration of half the truck weight fees to transportation projects.
Restoration of truck weight fee revenue would be phased -in over a five -year period and half
would no longer be allowed to be transferred out of the state highway account (SHA) after the
2020 -21 fiscal years. The funds would remain in the SHA, which would prevent HUTA funds from
the variable gas tax from having to offset the SHA weight fee transfer.
o Key Difference: SB 1 (Beall) phases in a percentage of the truck weight fees back to
transportation projects, while AB 1 (Frazier) phases in specific weight fee amounts every
year. SB 1 caps the weight fee transfer at 50% in FY 2020 -21, while AB caps the weight
fee transfer at $500,000,000 in FY 2020 -21.
• $600 million from a 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel excise tax, adjusted every 3 years
for inflation. The funds attributable to the 20 cent increase to the diesel excise tax would be
transferred to the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF). Federal FAST Act funds for freight
would also be deposited into the TCIF.
• $300 million from unallocated cap and trade funds. This continuous appropriation of cap and
trade funds would essentially double the amount going towards the Transit and Intercity Rail
Capital Program (TIRCP) and the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP).
• $263 million from 3.5 Percent Increase to the diesel sales tax. The funds generated through the
additional 3.5 percent increase to the diesel sales tax would deposit $263 million into the State
Transportation Account for transit and intercity rail purposes.
o Key Difference: SB 1 (Beall) would impose an additional 0.5 percent to this sales tax
which would generate a $40 million set aside for intercity rail and commuter rail.
• $60 million from miscellaneous transportation revenues. The bills delete the transfer of
miscellaneous revenues to the Transportation Debt Service Fund and instead redirect the funds
to the RMRA.
• $20 million from Vehicle Registration Fee on zero emission vehicles, starting in the 2 "d year of
ownership, adjusted every 3 years for inflation. Per the authors, this provision will help make
up for the fact that owners of zero emission vehicles do not pay any gas tax to maintain the
roads they drive on. Revenues would be deposited into the RMRA for distribution.
o Key Difference: SB 1 (Beall) imposes a $100 Vehicle Registration Fee on zero emission
vehicles generating, while AB 1 (Frazier) imposes a $165 Vehicle Registration Fee
The revenues generated from these proposals, would provide the following allocations:
From the $3.2 billion in the RMRA:
• State Highway System - $1.45 billion annually for maintenance and rehabilitation of the state
highway system.
• Local Streets and Roads — $1.45 billion annually for maintenance and rehabilitation of local
streets and roads.
• Self -help counties — $200 million for existing and aspiring self -help counties.
• Active Transportation Programs — $80 million annually for Active Transportation and up to an
additional $70 million through Caltrans efficiencies.
• Advanced Mitigation — $120 million one -time funds for implementation of the Advanced
Mitigation program over the first four years.
• California State University — $2 million for transportation research and workforce training.
o Key Difference: University of California — $3 million under AB 1 (Frazier) for the
Institutes for Transportation Studies.
From restoration /returned revenue from the HUTA:
• State Transportation Improvement Program - $770 million annually for capital projects and
improvements on the state's highway system.
• State Highway Operation and Protection Program — $210 million annually for maintenance and
rehabilitation of the state highway system.
• Local Streets and Roads - $770 million annually for local streets and roads.
From Cap and Trade revenues and diesel tax increase:
• Transit and Intercity Rail — $563 million annually for transit and intercity rail capital projects and
operations, $40 million additionally set aside for intercity and commuter rail under SB 1(Beall).
From the TCIF:
• Freight, trade corridors, and goods movement — $600 million annually for freight, trade
corridors, and goods movement.
From loan Repayments:
• $706 million one -time funds for transportation loan repayment.
While not yet introduced, the League of California Cities will continue to advocate for constitutionally
protecting the additional revenue for transportation purposes.
The League has prepared preliminary estimates (insert link) of the revenues each city could receive for
transportation maintenance and repair under the proposal. The time for the legislature and Governor to
act is now and these proposals provide a solid framework to move the discussion forward.
EXCERPT ATTACHNIENT 4
Local Streets & Roads Funding
AB1 (Frazier) and SB1 (Beall) — 12Dec2016 versions
Annual at full Phase-in One-time Loan Repay
Estimated 15 December 2016 $2.2 Billion* $352 Million
........... .................... .............
Vil0 1 C141 :11,K014111 0 1 ...... ..... . .... ... ........... ......... ... ...... . .. ...... .... ...... ... ..... ........... 8_,p,� 1. 9 4 9,.9,, . ...... .......... ... ...... ... ....................... ... ....... ...... 1_,,,4., 1 4_,.,2 6 3
CAPITOLA 345,796 54,829
2,194,387 347,939
SCOTTS VALLEY ........... ... ...... ... 410,332 ................ .. ........... ... ...... 6 ............... ........... . . . . 062 . . . . . . . . ............. .......... .
5,
....... . ... .. ......... . ........... ... ... ..... ... . ...... .... ........ ...... ....... . ...................
349,649 55,440
...... .... .... .... .... .... . .... .... . .... ... . ...... .... ...... ... - ........ .... . .... f,-8. 0,.6., 6-2-9, ....... ...... .... .......... .......... 2.
86,456
...,...._,._._ .. . .... ... - .......... . .... ............ ....... ........ . ....... ........... ............... ..... ..
LOYALTON 26,454 4,195
. ...... .... ...... ...... ....... .......... . . ...... .... ...................... ..... ..... ........... ...........
mi'me 7,460,749 1,182,966
DORRIS 32,302 ........... .... ... I - 2 . 2 .......... ....... .... .. ... ...........
.. . . I MIA11--.1-1-1,11, -I.-I.."......"....- ......
".." ..., 1.1.1-11.1.1 1.1-.1- 1.11'..... , 1-11'...1.1. 11111.11.1, 1.1-1-111.
376,103
- I-.. ........ I., I.I.-I-II.-II.I....I.I. ... ..1-111.1 . ... ... ...
59,634
940,343
149,099
18,456,241 - .. ... .. ... ... .. . .... .... . ... .... - ... .. ... .. 2,9.,2.6,.3, 95.
CERES
... ... ...... ... .... ..... ... ..
1,616,455
........ . ............. ........ . .......... ....... ..... .......... ... .. ... ... ... .......... ... ...... ........ ..... .................
256,303
"HU H'96N''
248,442
39,393
"M WE TU
7,196,147
1,141,011
NEWMAN
369,911
58,653
OAKDALE
749,007
118,761
.. .. . .. .. .....
"PATTEROU "' " " �" ''
. .. .. ... ..... ... ..... ..... . ... .... .. . ........... �, -
725,649
.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... ....... .. - .. .... ......... .. - .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ....
115,058
RIVERBANK . . ... ...... .. ..
. .. ...... .... ... .. ... .. . . ...... . . ...... ... ...... ..... .
807,901
.. .. . ... .. ...... . .. .... ... .. ...
128,100
TUREbUK
2,443,930
387,506
1 . 1 .
298,805
4 11 7 1. 3 1 7 1. 8
15 December 2016
Page 10 of 11