HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - SB 1276 OPPOSITION (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: July 13, 1999
City Manager Appro-,
Item to be presented
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1276
DEPARTMENT: Transportation & Engineering Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
I
City Council oppose California Senate Bill 1276 and authorize the Mayor and City Manager
to transmit letters of opposition to all necessary State Legislators.
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill (SB) 1276, a bill introduced by State Senators Tom Hayden and Kevin Murray,
would prohibit the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) from
spending funds for any programs other than bus purchases and street repairs until the
federal court-appointed Special Master agrees that sufficient funding exists to meet
requirements of the Consent Decree to improve bus service.
If adopted into law, SB 1276 would raise serious financial, legal, and technical issues
regarding how the MTA disburses transportation funding. It would appear to direct how
federal funds, over which the state has no control, are spent. Other effects of such a law
include the following:
• Prohibit expenditures for operating the Metro Bus and Metro Rail fleets.
• Stop all subsidies to local transit operators, including Santa Clarita Transit, and to
Metrolink.
• Curtail subsidies for the Freeway Service Patrol and Freeway Call Box program.
• Interfere with transit services for the disabled.
• Halt work on many freeway improvements, including soundwalls, funded by the MTA.
• Stop all MTA wages, including those of bus operators and maintenance personnel,
creating a violation of union agreements for wages and benefits.
• Stop payments to the LAPD and Sheriffs Department for bus and rail security.
• Violate vendor contracts by stopping payments for contracted work and materials.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
o
"gen" Item:.
CITY COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO SB 1276
July 13, 1999 - Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
This bill would prohibit the MTA from disbursing transit operation subsidies, as well as
Proposition A and Proposition C local return funds to the City.
ATTACHMENT
California Senate Bill 1276
AJN:MY.dis
council\trfund.doc
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 9, 1999
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 11, 1999
SENATE BILL No. 1276
Introduced by Senators Hayden and Murray
February 26, 1999
An act to add Section 130051.3 to the Public Utilities Code,
relating to transportation, and declaring the urgency thereof,
to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST
SB 1276, as amended, Hayden. Transportation: Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(1) Existing law creates the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority as the successor
agency to the Southern California Rapid Transit District and
the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
This bill would require the authority to seek an
independent fiscal analysis in developing options to fund the
purchase of 532 additional buses and the hiring of additional
drivers and maintenance personnel to support those buses, as
required under a specified court order.
The bill would require the State Auditor to conduct a fiscal
analysis to develop the specified funding options and submit
that analysis to the Legislature not later than March 15, 2000.
The bill would prohibit the authority from expending any
funds, except as specified, until the authority has identified,
with the concurrence of the special master for the consent
decree in a specified case, a guaranteed and sufficient source
97
SB 1276 —2—
of
2—
of funding to meet the mandates of the consent decree and
the special master's rulings under that consent decree.
The bill would prohibit the authority from transferring,
expending, encumbering, or otherwise using funds from the
funding source identified as specified for any purpose other
than implementing the consent decree and the special
master's rulings under the consent decree, except as specified,
until the court has ruled that all requirements under both of
those things have been met.
To the extent that these requirements would impose
additional duties upon the authority, the bill would create a
state -mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other
procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to these statutory provisions.
The bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute.
Vote: majeeity z/j. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:
yes. State -mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of
2 the following:
3 (a) In the case of Labor/Community Strategy Center,
4 et al. v. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
5 Transportation Authority, et al. (Case No. CV 94-5936),
6 the United States District Court in the Central District of
7 California, Western Division, ruled on March 8, 1999, that
8 low-income bus riders in Los Angeles County were
9 impacted unfairly, disproportionately, and
97
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
-3— SB 1276
unconstitutionally in the allocation of public funds for
transit systems operated by the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
(b) This extensive pattern of de facto discrimination
against the low-income and minority residents of Los
Angeles County, as identified by the federal court, is
morally unjustifiable and should not be subsidized with
state funds generated by the taxpaying public.
(c) The court-appointed special master in the case
cited in subdivision (a) has ruled that the agency must
purchase 532 natural gas powered buses, and hire drivers
and mechanics to operate and support those buses, in
order to meet the requirements of the federal consent
decree issued by the court in that case.
(d) The formulas concerning overcrowding and load
factors used by the special master to determine how to
implement the consent decree were agreed to by all
parties.
(e) The authority at present is unlikely to have
sufficient resources to fund the requirements of the court
order while at the same time pursuing other major transit
projects.
(f) The legal, prudent and proper course for the
authority is to meet the terms of the federal consent
decree and the special master's order and thereby bring
closure and justice to this prolonged conflict.
SEC. 2. Section 130051.3 is added to the Public
Utilities Code, to read:
130051.3. (a) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority shall seek an independent fiscal
analysis in developing options to fund the purchase of 532
additional buses and the hiring of additional drivers and
maintenance personnel to support those buses, as
required under the court order issued by the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Western Division, on March 8, 1999, in the case of
Labor/Community Strategy Center, et al. v. The Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
et al. (Case No. CV 94-5936).
97
F
SB 1276 —4
1 (b) The State Auditor shall conduct a fiscal analysis to
2 develop the options described in subdivision (a) and,
3 notwithstanding Section 7550.5 of the Government Code,
4 shall submit that analysis to the Legislature not later than
5 March 15, 2000.
6 (c) (1) The authority may not expend any funds,
7 except as authorized under subdivision (d), until the
8 authority has identified, with the concurrence of the
9 special master for the consent decree issued by the court
10 in the case cited under subdivision (a), a guaranteed and
11 sufficient source of funding to meet the mandates of the
12 consent decree and the special master's rulings under
13 that consent decree.
14 (2) The authority may not transfer, expend,
15 encumber, or otherwise use funds from the funding
16 source identified under paragraph (1) for any purpose
17 other than implementing the consent decree and the
18 special master's rulings under the consent decree until
19 the court has ruled that all requirements under both of
20 those things have been met.
21 (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the authority
22 may expend funds for the purchase of buses and for
23 highway repairs.
24 SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the
25 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
26 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
27 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
28 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
29 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
30 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
31 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million
32 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from
33 the State Mandates Claims Fund.
34 SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for
35 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
36 or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the
37 Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts
38 constituting the necessity are:
39 In order to comply with the order of the United States
40 District Court in the Central District of California,
97
-5— SB 1276
1 Western Division, issued on March 8, 1999, in the case of
2 Labor/Community Strategy Center, et al. v. The Los
3 Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
4 et al. (Case No. CV 94-5936), at the earliest possible time,
5 it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
107
Cil