HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-23; City Council; 8153; Support of Senate Bill 290 Modifying State Gas TaxCIT~,-JF CARLSBAD -AGEND~ILL
AB# 8'}53 TITLE: SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 290
MODIFYING STATE GAS TAX
DEPT. HD~J '6IL:-.J
CITYATTY\,FA
MTG. 4/23/85
DEPT. ENG CITY MGR.~
0
UJ
~ a::
0.. a..
<(
z
0
ti -c _.
0 z ::,
0
CJ
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 'J. 'l'f'Y supporting Senate Bill 290 and
urging the Governor and Legislature to support and approve the
bill.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The two major elements of Senate Bill 290 of interest to
Carlsbad are the five cent raise in gas tax and the raise in
truck weight fees.
The gas tax increase is earmarked to go to the state (2i) and
to cities and counties (3i). The proposed distribution would
change the historical advantage that counties have had and
result in an even split between cities and counties on all
highway user revenues.
The truck weight fee increase will result in additional revenue
to help offset the inordinate amount of damage that heavy
trucks do to pavement.
While the increased gas tax revenue would not fund the whole
Carlsbad street maintenance program, it would fund the newly
established pavement management program. It is important to
act now. If Senate Bill 290 passes, we could be receiving
additional revenue by 1986. If Senate Bill 290 is not
successful, another attempt will not be made until 1987 because
1986 is an election year. This means that revenues would not
be received until 1989.
FISCAL IMPACT:
With Carlsbad's' current population, our gas tax revenue is
$512,329.00. If Senate Bill 290 is passed, the revenue for the
same population would be $903,486.00.
EXHIBITS:
1 •
2.
Resolution No. 7 o/o/Y supporting Senate Bill 290.
League of California Cities Bulletin supporting Senate Bill
290.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RE SOL UT ION NO. 7998
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING SENATE BILL
290 (FORAN) AND URGING THE GOVERNOR AND THE
STATE LEGISLATURE TO SUPPORT AND APPROVE THE BILL.
WHEREAS, The City of Carlsbad has found it nec::ssary to
budget funds in excess of three times its 1984-85 gas tax
allocation in order to fund its street maintenance program at a
deferred maintenance level; and
WHEREAS, The City has fou~d it necessary to budget funds in
excess of four times its 1984-85 gas tax allocation in order to
fund a program to bring its streets up to an acceptable level
of maintenance; and
WHEREAS, local governments and transit districts are facing
major funding shortfalls; and
WHEREAS, elimination of Federal Revenue Sharing will have
further negative impacts or, "n already underfunded program;
and
WHEREAS, deferral of maintenance will result in
accelerating deterioration costing three to four times as much
to repair in the future; and
WHEREAS, a stable and predictable source of income is
important to the development of a systematic transportation
maintenance program; and
WHEREAS, the economy of the State of California is directly
linked to its transportation system; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 290, introduced by Senator John Foran,
provides a comprehensive transportation package for both state
and local government;
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
i' 9
t
i 10 r •
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, B£ IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, supports Senate Bill 290 and
urges the Governor and Stat~ Legislature to support and approve
Senate Bill 290.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd day of _Ap;;..r_i_l __ _
1985 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Co\.Illcil Members casler, Iewis, Olick and Pettine
NJne
Council Mem:::,er Kulchin
~;/~
MARYH.SLER, Mayor
{/.IL~-£ f<au~,,__
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit;Jc1erk
(SEAL)
Sacramento, CA
March 25, 1985
{111-1985
----------------------------------------------
URGENr URGENT URGJ:Nl'
---------------·--------------·
RE: Transportation Finance. SB 290 (Foran) . DlmDIATE AC:rIOO NEEDED
No further hearings will be scheduled on SB 290 until the solid, bipartisan
votes necessary to get the bill out of the Senate Transportation Conmittee can
be counted. To translate, SB 290 is dead unless the interest groups support-
ing the bill can change the minds of certain merri:)ers of the Catmittee.
The fi10st imnediate political problam with SB 290 is the Governor's opposition
to the bill. His strong, unbending opposition to the tax increase in SB 290
results in several key Republican Conmittee merrbers not wanting to "vote
against" the Governor. This also is causing the Governor and Republican mem-
bers of the Senate Transportation Conrnittee to search for "alternatives" to a
gas tax. There have been no specific alternatives offered. There have only
been general references to the state "surplus" as an alternative to address.
the transportation funding gap. What are the realities of a state general
fund alternative to SB 290? There are several important policy questions
which must be addressed to answer this question.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Is there a "surplus" and how much is that surplus?
Corrrnent: The existence and size of any surplus is only speculation at
this time.
2. If there is a surplus, what is the likelihood that transportation will
have the first call on the surplus?
Conment: There will be many canpeting demands for any possible surplus.
Imnediately, transportation interests will begin to c01npete with a li~t
of demands from the following organizations or programs:
(a) Abused, neglected and abandoned children
(b) Un~tary tax enactment which seems to be gaining support
(c) F.ducation (K-12, conmunity colleges, UC system)
(d) Hwnan resou~ce programs {welfare, aging, mental health, alcohol etc.)
(e) Prison construction and other criminal justice issues
EXHIBIT 2
3. Can the proEX)nents of state general fund surplus secure the votes for
transportation funding?
ConTOent: With the above constituencies competing for any surplus, the
priorities of proponents for transportation will have a f;:iff, if not
impossible, battle with proponents of other interests.
4. If transe?rtation funding can be secured from the general fund, what
does that mean for future corrmitments?
COmnent: There is, and can be no, corrmitment of the state beyond one year
on state general fund monies. As long as there is a surplus, C00111itments
are easier to keep. When there is no surplus, there will ce no COlllllit-
ments to help local government transportation· problems. SB 290 is a per-
•tnanent and stable source of revenue for a problem that needs a constant
and stable source of revenue.
5. Do cities want to again face the year-to-year or perhaP! themonth-to-
month revisions and cutbacks connected with state general fund bailouts? •
Conrnent: For the first time in the six years since passage of Proposition
13, cities can plan public ~rvices because there is a stable and pre-
dictable source of revenues. We should not have to subject our transpor-
tation sys~em to that sarre unpredictable revenue picture which plagued·
city general services for the past six years.
IMPORTANr ISSUE.S
..
The debate on SB 290 has lost its focus. The following issues are the impor-
tant ones:
l. There is an overwhelming need on the local street and road system in
the scale of $400 to $800 million annually. A financial solution with
stability is needed nowt
2. SB 290 is a user tax. What can be a more equitable means of paying
for our street and road system than through a tax paid by the users of
that system.
3. The state and local transportation system is one system. Financial
responsibility is split, but the ~-stem is, of necessity, integrated to
acconrnodate statewide travel. It requires a statewide funding source.
4. A state gasoline tax increase is the only way to guarantee a consis-
tent level of transportation services on a statewide basis. Only the
Legislature and the Governor can pass a tax which distributes the
revenues on an equitable, statewide basiso
-2 -
'
'I
l
-.s
5. SB 290 is a stable and predictable revenue source ~hich can be usP.d to
properly plan and maintain ~he transportation system. The bill meets
shortfalls in funding which extend 10 to 20 years into the future.
General fund alternatives are unpredictable at best and non-existent to
date.
6. The economic health of california is directly tied to its transporta-
tion system. The investment in that system is too great to play games.
7. SB 290 is intrC(.l:.ir;-~ at a critical time in terms of the transportation
system's maintenance. If adequate revenues are not put into the system
now, it will cost 3 to 4 times more to repair that system in the future.
Is it a prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars to ignore this problem?
roNCWSION
'Any alternative solutions to SB 290 mentioned to date have been non-solutions •
. SB 290 is the ioost important transportation financing package in 20 years. It
is in trouble in the Legislature because of political questions which have
little or nothing to do with the undeniable financial crisis in our transpor-
tation system. ~ -
SB 290 is ours to win our lose. Start by contacting the offices of each of
the Senators on the Senate Transportation Comnittee. A list of their tele-
phone nurrbers and a contact person in Sacramento is attached.
May 3 is the deadline date to move SB 290 out of the Senate Transportation
Conwittee. If we cannot make a difference before that date, the bill is dead
and the alternatives are questionable. ACr ~l
Ask Senate Transportation Conrnittee Ment>ers for an "AYE" vote on SB 290. When
contacting your Senator, point out the following:
1. The ten streets in the worst condition in your c011'111unity and the dol-
lars needed to bring those streets up to standard.
2. The direct effect which the ten worst street conditions have on the
citizens in your coomunity, i.e., conmute, time delay, auto damage, etc.
3. •.roe projected problems or c~ts if the problem is not addressed now.
4. The effect on economic development, job creation, etc.
5. The business and media support in your c011111unity for increased
transportation funding.
-3 -