HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Propositions 111 and 108 (2) CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
Council Meeting Date: May 29, 1990
SUBJECT: Propositions 111 and 108 (Report Prepared by: Lou Ann
Riera-Texeira)
EXHIBITS: eague of California Cities-Propositions 111 and 108 Update
RECOMMENDATION: Consider
FINANCIAL Failure of Propositions 111 and 108 would,result in decreased
STATEMENT: funding for various transportation improvement projects (e.g. ,
BART extension, 1-680 widening, street overlay projects).
DESCRIPTION: On the June 5, 1990 ballot, 17 measures will appear for voter
action. Two of those measures will have a direct and significant impact on
cities.
Proposition 111 (titled- "The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act
of 1990") contains the following elements:
-It revises the spending limit calculations for local government and the state.
The revisions will allow for appropriations limits to be adjusted annually at a
rate to keep pace with the economic growth of the city.
-It allows for increases in vehicle fuel taxes and truck weight fees to fund
state, county and city transportation improvements. These new funds, which will
come from increases in the gasoline and diesel fuel tax and commercial vehicle
weight fees, would be exempt from state and local appropriations limits.
-It revises the school funding initiative passed in 1988 to balance the state's
educational needs with the needs of other state services.
In addition to the above elements, Proposition 111 would require every county with
an urbanized area of 50,000 citizens or more to develop a Congestion Management
Plan (CMP) in order to compete for and receive funding. The CMP would have to be
developed and adopted annually in accordance with the following guidelines:
a) Would be prepared by a public agency (existing or newly created) designated by
the county board of supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority
of the incorporated population. The plan would be prepared in cooperation with
various regional agencies (i.e. , Caltrans, air pollution districts, etc.). In
addition, the designated agency would also be responsible for monitoring
implementation of the CMP.
b) Would contain specific elements including service standards for roads, trip
reduction efforts, programs to measure impacts of development on regional
transportation systems, etc.
c) The CMP would become the basis for the Regional Transportation Improvement
Program. .
d) Would be evaluated by the regional transportation planning agency for
consistency with regional transportation plans.
/oo
The companion measure Proposition 111 is Proposition 1 (titled "The Passenger
Rail and Clean Air Bond Act of 1990). Proposition 108 is a $1 billion bond
measure to pay for rail and transit projects (e.g. , BART, MetroRail and urban rail
projects). Specifically, Prop 108 would authorize the state to sell the first $1
billion in general obligation bonds to raise funding for passenger rail and
transportation. The second $1 billion will be placed on the November 1992 general
election ballot and the third on the November 1994 general election ballot. The
$3 billion is part of the total $18.5 billion transportation improvement package
(Prop 111 and Prop 108). The two measures are linked. If Proposition 111 does
not pass, and 108 does, 108 will not go into effect.
The attached information, provided by the League of California Cities, summarizes
the impacts Propositions 111 and 108 will have on state and local transportation
systems.
WHERE THE MONEY WILL COME FROM
Transportation tax revenue provided by Propositions 111 and 108 will come from the
following sources:
• Rail transit bonds $ 3.0 billion
• Sales tax revenues from increased fuel tax $ .5 billion
• Truck weight fee increase $ 2.0 billion
• Fuel tax increase $13.0 billion .
Total $18.5 billion
WHERE THE MONEY WILL GO
Funds from the above sources will go toward the following transportation
improvement projects:
• Funding the 1988 State Transportation Improvement program shortfall (e.g. ,
I-680 widening) ($3.5 billion)
• Subvention to cities and counties for local improvements (e.g. , street
overlay projects) ($3 billion)
• Flexible Congestion Relief Program for highways, local roads and transit
guideway projects ($3 billion)
• State-local partnership program ($2 billion)
• Inter-city rail, commuter rail and urban rail transit (e.g. , BART extension)
($3 billion)
• Inter-regional roads for state highway routes ($1.25 billion)
• Traffic system management ($1 billion)
• Retrofit soundwalls ($150 million)
• Environmental enhancement and mitigation ($100 million)
• Transit operation and/or capital ($500 million)
to Maintenance and rehabilitation of state highways ($1 billion)
In addition to the above projects and programs, funds generated through
Propositions 111 and 108 could also offset the 1990/91 Caltrans budget
shortfalls. The proposed Caltrans budget is expected to be down by 23% from the
current fiscal year and assumes no new revenues. In addition, expenditures for
the highway program will be off 22.4% and for the mass transit program they will
be off 29.9%.
Proposition 111 will also impact local spending limits. Currently, cities adjust
their spending limits based on changes in cost-of-living or per capita income and
increased population. If Proposition 111 passes, a city could adjust its spending
limit or "Gann Limit" by either 1) the change in California's per capita personal
income, or 2) the percentage change of growth in total assessed value due to
non-residential construction.
Prop 111 would also exclude from the spending limit any appropriations for certain
capital expenses, defined as land, capital improvements or equipment that exceed
$100,000 and have a life expectancy of ten years or more. Lastly, Prop 111 would
exclude gas taxes from the state Gann Limit, which consequently would allow the
state to raise new gas tax money. Without Prop 111, there will be no increase in
the state gas tax.
With regard to the Gann Limit, while not all cities have reached their Gann Limit,
it is expected that many will in just a few years. As indicated above, the limit
is based on population and the state per capita.income level or COL. For example,
the appropriations limit for the City of Dublin for Fiscal year 1989-90 is
calculated at $14,436,706. The amount of proceeds of taxes for FY 1989-90 is
budgeted at $11,010,270. Thus, the City of Dublin is currently within its
appropriations limit.. With the passage of. Proposition 111, appropriations for
certain capital expenses, as well as gas taxes would be excluded from the Gann
Limit. Consequently, the expenditures subject to the appropriations limit for the
City would decrease, resulting in a greater gap between expenditures and
expenditures subject to the appropriations limit.
In addition to increasing the City's Gann Limit, Propositions 111 and 108 would
have a -number of other impacts on the City of Dublin, including:
•` Increase funding for the 1988 State Transportation Improvement Program
activities, such as the 1-680 widening project.
• Increase Subvention to cities for local improvements, such as street overlay
projects.
• Increase funding for inter-city rail, commuter rail and urban rail transit
projects, such as the BART extension project.
• Require the City to comply with the county Congestion Management Plan. If the
City does not comply, the City would lose these new revenues.
The League of California Cities urges all cities to educate their citizens and
employees about the impacts of Propositions 111 and 108. The League, along with
numerous other state, local government and private sector organizations have
publicly announced their support for Prop 111 and Prop 108. Accordingly, the
League encourages all cities to indicate their support in one or more of the
following ways: .
1. Take a position on the measures (Council can do this by motion)
2. Issue a news release
3. Editorials or Op-Ed Stories
4. Presentations at service club meetings
5. Articles for local publications
6. Employee education efforts, .
Staff recommends that the Council review the League's Update on Propositions 111
and 108, consider the League's request and take the appropriate action.
In Er
Mil" League of California Cities
;111IM® 1400KSTREET • SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 • (916)444-5790
California Cities
Work Together
YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO
PwAPPOSrn; . S 111 A # 10:
June 1990 Ballot
Appearing on the dune 1990 ballot will be a measure,titled Proposition i i i titled"The
Traffic Congestion 1Relief and Spending Limitation;Act of 1990" and formerly known as
SCA1) contains threeIements
It revises the spending limit calcul�tao�s for local government_and the state The revisions
will allow for your appropriations limit to be adjusted annuallyat a rate to keep i ace with the>
economic growth inyour city
It allows for increases m vehicle',fuel taxes and truck weight fees to fund State, countyand
city transportation improvements These new funds,whack come frori�increases in the gas
and diesel tax and commercial vehicle weight fees,would be exempt from state and Local ap
propriations limits.
It:revises the school:funding initiafiive passed in 1988 to balance the+state's educational:needs
with the needs<of other state services.
J
Impact on: Spending Limit within the city. Legislation passed (Senate Bill, .
88) to implement Proposition 111 would allow Q. How would setting my city's limit be for one of two methods to change the limit
different? . based on population increases: either 1)
changes in population in the city, or 2) the
A. Currently, cities adjust their limits based on percentage increase in population for the entire
the change in the cost-of-living only. If Prop. county.
111 is passed, a city would adjust its"Gann
Limit," or spending limit, by either 1) the Finally, Prop. 111 would exclude from the
- change in California's per capita personal spending limit any appropriations for certain
income or 2) the percentage change of growth capital expenses, defined as land, capital im-
in total assessed value due to non-residential provements or equipment that exceed$100,000
construction. and have a life expectancy of ten years or more.
In addition, cities currently may adjust their It would also exclude from the state limit any
spending limits based on changes in population future increases in the gas tax or truck weight
fees.
Q. What if my city has an emergency Impact on: Transportation
and needs any surpluses it might
have? Q. What does Prop. 111 do to relieve
congestion?
A. Prop. 111 allows for funds to be spent in
excess of the limit for emergencies declared by A. In conjunction with Prop. 108, a rail bonds
the governor without reducing subsequent years' measure, $18.5 billion will be provided over the
limits. next ten years to do the following:
Q. How is the spending limit checked? - Funding the 1988 State Transportation Im-
provement Program (STIP) shortfall-$3.5
A. The annual calculation of the appropriation billion. Projects to be funded are in the cur-
limit will be reviewed as part of an annual audit. rent 1988 plan.
The nature of this review will be defined by . Subvention to cities and counties $3 bil-
statute, and it is intended that cities will be
involved in the drafting of this statute. lion. Half the fund is for cities and half for
counties, to be distributed to cities based on
Q. If it posses, when would the population. Cities will have to maintain their
provisions go into effect? local contributions to the transportation
system and in counties with an urbanized area
A. The base year for determining a city's limit of 50,000 or more, develop a Congestion
would be the 1986/87 year. The provisions will Management Plan in order to receive the
go into effect on July 1, 1990. funds.
Q. What is the impact of Proposition Cities can expect to receive an average of
111 if our city is not at its Gann $6.68 per capita annually once the full tax
Limit? increase is in place. The first year will result in
about half that amount, with the subvention
A. First, it is expected that many cities not at increasing each year until it reaches the full
their. Gann limit will reach the limit in just a few amount in five years.
years.
• Flexible Congestion Relief Program-$3
Second, Proposition 111 excludes gas taxes from billion. Highways, local roads and transit
the State Gann Limit which is the only way to guideway projects are eligible for funds under
provide the opportunity for the state to raise this program. Funds would be spent on the
new gas tax money. Without this Proposition, most cost-effective project designed to reduce
there will be no increases in the state gas tax. congestion as determined by the California
Transportation Commission.
Third, the passage of Proposition 111 provides . State-local transportation partnership pro-
direct money for the local transportation system gram-$2 billion. The money in this fund can
as well as providing new money for which local
governments can compete. be used entirely by local government for local
highway, local road or transit guideway proj-
ects, and must be matched at least on a dollar-
for-dollar basis with local funds.
• Intercity rail,commuter rail and urban rail
transit-$3 billion. Also on the June ballot is
2
e
Proposition 108,which authorizes the sale of annual increases of one cent per gallon until the
$1 billion in general obligation bonds to be total reaches nine cents per gallon. In addition,
used for mass transit guideways, on specified it will come from an increase of 40 percent in
rail corridors, including urban rail, commuter weight fees for trucks over 4,000 pounds starting
rail and intercity rail. Two additional $1 Aug. 1, 1990 and another 10 percent increase on
billion bond measures for the same purposes Jan. 1, 1995.
are scheduled to go before the voters in No-
vember, 1992 and November, 1994. Fifteen Net revenues from the tax and fee increases will
percent of the $3 billion is specifically allo- generate an estimated $15.5 billion during the
cated for intercity rail projects. ten-year period from July 1, 1990 to June 30,
2000.
• Inter-regional roads-$1.25 billion. This
would be for specified state highway routes Q. Where does the additional$3 billion
primarily outside urban areas. come from?
• Traffic system management-$1 billion. For A. Prop. 108 would authorize the state to sell
use on transportation systems management the first$1 billion of a total of$3 billion in
projects on state highways and local roads general obligation bonds to raise funding for
designed to increase carrying capacity without passenger rail transportation. The second $1
increasing lanes, as determined by the CTC. billion bond authorization will be placed on the
November 1992 general election ballot and the
• Retrofit soundwalls-$150 million. To third on the November 1994 general election
complete all remaining soundwalls designated ballot.
in the current soundwall program.
• Environmental enhancement and mitigation Q. What's the Congestion Management
-$100 million. For use on urban reforestation Plan?
and other environmental mitigation measures A. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
to ease the environmental effects of transpor- would be required in every county with an
tation facilities. urbanized area of 50,000 citizens or more as a
• Transit operation and/or capital -$500 mil- condition to compete for and receive the funds.
lion. This would fund the State Transit Assis- The CMP would have to be developed and
tance Program and would be apportioned to adopted annually and must contain the follow-
all areas of the state with half the apportion- ing:
ment based on population and half on transit a) The CMP would be prepared by a public
operator revenues. agency designated by the county board of
• Maintenance and rehabilitation of state supervisors and a majority of cities repre-
highways-$1 billion. To be used on additional stinting a majority of the incorporated popu-
state highway maintenance and rehabilitation lation in the county. This could either be an
costs. existing agency or the local governments
could create a new agency. The CMP would
Q here does the money come from? be prepared in cooperation with regional
transportation planning agencies, Caltrans,
A. The money will come from an increase in air pollution districts, and other local govern-
the gasoline and diesel user tax rate of five cents ments.
per gallon effective Aug. 1, 1990 and additional
3
•
'a
The agency that will produce the CMP must nance, safety, state-local partnership monies,
be designated by a vote of the county and a transportation systems management monies,
majority of the cities representing a majority intercity rail, and expenditures for the Transpor-
of the population. tation Planning and Development Account.
Counties not receiving their minimums during
b) CMP elements would include service the 1988-93 period would have these minimums
standards for roads, highways and public carried forward to the 1993-1998 period of the
transit, trip reduction efforts to promote funding proposal. After adopting the 1992
alternative transportation methods, pro- STIP, the California Transportation Commis-
grams to measure impacts of development sion is prohibited from allocating any funds for
on regional transportation systems, and a any project if the STIP is not programmed in a
seven-year capital improvement program manner that guarantees every county its county
that maintains or improves service Stan- minimum.
dards, mitigates transportation impacts of
development, and conforms vehicle emis- Impact on: Schools
lions reductions and mitigation measures.
c) The CMP capital program would become Q. How does Prop. 111 change funding
the basis for the Regional Transportation for schools approved by Prop. 98?
Improvement Program (RTIP) adopted for A. Prop. 98, approved by voters in 1988, guar-
the region by the regional transportation anteed K-14 schools would receive a share of
planning agency. the state general fund and determined what
portion of the state's annual surplus, if any,
d) The regional transportation planning would go to schools. Implementing legislation
agency would evaluate the CMP for consis- currently being negotiated will further define
tency with regional transportation plans and the schools provision of Proposition 111. Prop.
could exclude inconsistent projects from the 111 provides that 50 percent of any state surplus
RTIP. over the state's limit will go to schools, but this
amount will not become a part of the school's
e) The agency responsible for developing base funding. The remainder of any surplus
the CMP would monitor implementation of would be returned to the taxpayers.
the CMP by cities and counties and could
recommend that the new gas tax subventions
for local entities be withheld if cities are not
in compliance. - For Copies of
Propositions 111 and 108
f) Authorizes the California Transportation contact the
Commission to give priority projects to cities Secretary of State
and counties in compliance with their CMP.
Elections and Political
Q. How is the northlsouth split handled? Reform Division
916/445-0820
A. All of the expenditures in the transportation
package would be subject to the current method
for determining the "north/south split" and
"county minimums," except highway mainte- APRIL 1990
4