Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-16; City Council; 8247; Legislation SB 300 Street Maintenance Fund Match0 UJ ~ 0.::: a.. Q. c( z 0 ~ ..J 0 z :) 0 CJ --. ,,,.._ ' . . i er. -OF CARLSBAD -AGEND~ BILL (J) AB# d' !J. 'I 1 Ill!...E; MTG. 7 /16/85 ----H=-:i 40:::J __ uc~, . ..,. -~ CITYATTYV.§:S CITY MGR.jet__. LEGISLATION -SB 300 DEPT. CM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Support SB 300. Direct staff to send letter of support ·to appropriate legislators. ITEM EXPLANATION: SB 300 authored by Senator Foran would provide an additional $125 million to local agencies for street maintenance in fiscal 1985-86. The bill has passed the State Senate and will next be considered by the State Assembly. The bill currentiy requires a dollar for dollar local fund match. The League of California Cities is seeking to reduce or eliminate this matching requirement. FISCAL IMPACT:- The amount of additional funds available to Carlsbad from this legislation has not yet been determined. EXHIBITS: l. Excerpt of League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin #22, dated 6/14/85 and Bulletin #2~, dated 6/28/85. I 1. LCC Leg. Bul ~tin 6/14/85 EXHIBIT #1 SUPPORT/SEEK AMENDMENTS Transportation Finance. SB 300 (Foranj. Bill Amended and Passed by Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Ai;:propriations Conmittee on Monday of this week passed SB 300 to the floor of the Senate. The bill has been amended and now contains the following: 1. $125 million for city and county streets and roads. Cities receive 60% of the money and counties receive 40%. The revenue source for this $125 million is settlement money from a lawsuit regarding tidelands oil. While this money has not yet been received by the state, there is good indication that the money will be available by october of this year. 2. In order to receive the street and road money, cities and counties must expend an arrount fo~ maintenance, repair or rec~nstruction of its local street system during the 1985-86 fiscal year not less than the amount exrended for maintenance, repair and reconstruction during the 1984-85 fiscal y, -• 3. SB 300 still requires a dollar-for-dollar match to receive the new revenues. 4. The bill changes the current 9 cent a gallon gasoline tax to 9% on the price of gasoline. This provision, however, has net with considerable opposition from a nunber of groups and it is rumored the Governor and many Republicans will object. While it remains in the bill, we fully expect this provision to be evenutually removed. It has been estimated tnat this switch in the comi;:,utation of fuel taxes would result in approximately $30 million extra on a statewide basis. As you will remember, SB 300 originally contained $125 million for local streets and roads from revenues received by repealing a portion of the alternative energy tax credit. This particular revPnue source was reiooved from the bill because of opposition in the DemocraLc Caucus. The revenue source in the bill is consistent with the Governor' 3 original bu03et which included $100 million for local streets and roads frorr this same tidelands oil lawsuit settlement. SB 300 should be supported by cities. While the preferable route to a solution of local transportation problems is a gasoline tax which provides a stable, on-going source of revanue, the Governor will not sign such legislation. It appears that SB 300 and/or any Asserrbly proposal are the only vehicles available to provide transportation financing for local governments this session. While some claims are made that the proposals are more than a one-year solution, they are not. Any "general fund" revenues for transportation purposes, such as SB 300 now contains, will be renegotiated next session in the bu03et process. Cities will hc>ve to lobby legislators hard to secure passage of SB 300. One of the objectionable provisions of SB 300 is the dollar-for-dollar match requirement. The author of the bill does not support that provision. Ttie match requirement was placed in the bill at the request of Republican S nators who indicated that this was viewed favorably by the Governor's office~ While SB 300 should be supported, cities must lobby to lower the match requirement. This should be done directly with Republican Se1iators. C01tT11unications by city offi~ials should indicate the difficulties in meeting the match requirem:nts. The Republican Senators and Sacramento office phone nurrbers (area code 916) -2 - LEGISLATIVE lsdLLETIN League of California Cities 1400 K Str~t • Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444.5790 #24-19t35 June 28, 1985 LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIE.S 1. SUPPORT Transportati~n Finance. SB 300 (Foran) . Passes Senate on 34-1 Vote. The meat>ers of the california Senate could find very little wrong with SB 300 oo Wednesday of this week and passed the measure by an overwhelming 34-1 vote. A certain amount of the debate cent~red on the matching requirements, about which the author indicated his distaste, but recognized that the Jldninistration was coarnitted to a concept of local matching dollars for any new mney in the bill. SB 300 continues to contain $125 million for local streets and roads. The $125 million will be split between cities and counties with cities receiving 55% of the lt00ey and counties 45%. The provision which changes the current 9 cent a gallon gasoline tax to 9% on the price of gasoline remains in the bill. The author indicated that he doubts this provision will remain since it meets with opposition from the Administration and other interest groups. SB 300 will be heard next in the Assel'li:>ly Transpot·tation Coolnittee sometime before the July 19 recess date. Cities should contact the members of the Assel'li:>ly Transportation Corrrr.ittee and urge a "Yes" vote and a reduction in the dollar-for-dollar matching requirement. As you will remoni>er, the Asseltbly Transportation COfflnittee in its transportation finance package, AB 2341, required ;mly a 25% local match. This is a much more reasonable proposal and one which most local officials appear resigned to accept. The ment>ers of the Assel'li:>ly Transportation catmittee are: Katz, Chair; Frizzelle, Vice Chair; Allen, Areias, Eaves, Ferguson, Grisham, Harris, Kil lea, Lancaster, Papan, Robinson, Tanner, Vicencia and Wjman. (Referred to previously in Bulletins #19-1985, #22-1985, #23-1985.) ---·------------------ -3 Ii ! !