Item 3 - Local Option Gas Tax Ballot Proposition Under SB 215 - Foran BillOUNCIL MEMBERS:
itus EMERY,. Mayor
'MAKY SHEPARDSON,Deputy Mayor
LINDA ORAVEC
CLYDE. RE.\RODE
BRUCE TARZY
.ITY OF t'OWA'
AGENDA REPORT
Honorable Mayor" and Members of the City Council
From: James L. Bowersox, City Man
Initiated by: R. W. Meissner, Acting Direct• 1 Public Services. Department !' 4
William E. " Stracker, 'TrafficEngineer -Iv
Date: February 25, 1982
Subject: Local Option Gas Tax Ballot Proposition under SB 215 (Foran Bill)
ABSTRACT:.
'The Council is requested to provide input to the County Department of Public Works
by' March 1, 1982.regarding a possible local option fuel tax election in San Diego
County, and how the proceeds should be allocated among the various transportation.
needs. ' 'Attached'. for. Council consideration are the responses to the County survey
which was prepared based upon staff recommendation (Exhibit "A") Also attached
is a synopsis. to Part 4 of SR 215: which provides for ; the local options gas tax
(Exhibit "B") .
BACKGROTJND
The recently
enacted Senate Bill 215 provided an increase in gas tax revenues
and fees on motor fuels and motor vehicle users. The bill also provided for con
sideration of a local option fuel tax. The various elements of the Bill are
discussed in the following sections.
Funding Authorized by SB 215
A. Two Cent Fuel Tax Increase. The City will receive a share of the
2
gasoline tax increase and a share of the existing diesel tax.
This .new Cig.y source of revenue will begin in July, 1983, although
the increase at the pump will be. in January, 1983.
$100 Minim- Transfer. Although the 2 'gas tax increase: will occur,
at the pump in January, 1983, the cities will -not begin -to receive
these revenues until July, 1983. SB 215 provides for a $100 million
transfer as a one time only compensation designed to compensate
cities and counties for this six month lag between the State's col-
lection of the additional revenue and our receiptof funds. We
estimate that the City will receive. $102,000 for fiscal year 1982
of this one time $100 million transfer.
ITEM
Administrative Offices' Located at I3325 Civic Center Dri e� i 8
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 785, Poway, California 92064 • (7 14} 748-6600, (t 14) 695-1400
Agenda Report
February 25, 1982
Page 2
Gasoline Sales Tax Spillover Funds. These funds will be allocated by
MTDB within their region and by SANDAG outside of the MTDB region.
This revenue is obtained from the 6% sales tax on gasoline being
redirected from the State's general fund to transportation purposes over
the five years from FY 1982 to FY 1986.
TABLE, I
FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 Total
Existing.
Gas Tax Revenue 251,000 249",000 248,000 246,000 246,000 1,240.000
SB 215
Increase 0 103,000 172-,000 177,000 185,000 637,00a -
Total 251,000 352,000 420,000 423,000 431,000 1,877,000
II. Local Option Fuel Tax. Senate Bill 215 includes a provision which permits
counties to iinpose a local fuel tax in 1 increments on a County -wide basis
for -highway and guideway purposes. To accomplish this, a proposition must
be approved` by two-thirds of the voters, by the Board of Supervisors and
by, a majority of- the. City Councils representing a majority of the popula
tion. in. the incorporated areas. The County and cities must also have a -
written agreement specifying the method for allocating the local option gas
tax revenues before the tax election. The public vote only needs to specify
the maximum additional fuel tax and may specify the period or duration of
the tax.
On October 31, 1981, the Board of Supervisors directed Countystaff to
make preparations for a local 2 fuel tax Ballot Proposition, to be used for
road construction purposes. Asa part of this effort 'a survey of the =various.
cities was commenced to determine their opinion regarding the fuel tax in-
crease and its potential use. The results of this survey will be summarized
in March and provided to the Board of Supervisors when they consider the.
Ballot Proposition.
According to Article XIX of. the. California Constitution, all revenue from
fuel taxes must be..psed for highway and mass transitguideway construction
projects. The local option fuel tax could be spent 100% on roads (local or
regional facilities) or could be split between roads and transit guideway
projects in accordance with Proposition 5 limits approved by the voters
several years ago.
A two cent gastax would generate about $16 million annually and would cost
each person about $8.50 per year.
FINDINGS
While the various provisions of SB 215 will provide some additional funds to cities
and counties, it is clear that additional revenues over and above SB 215 will be
needed to finance road construction and maintenance. Themonies available from the
Federal Government under the Federal Aid Urban Program may be phased out completely
over the next few years under the present administration which is placing a heavier
financial burden on local agencies. Requiring local agencies to shoulder more of
the financial burden of current programs results in keener competition between the
FEB 2 5 1982 ITEM_
1
Agenda Report
February 25, 1982
Page 3
agencies for available funds. A local pollconducted by Dr. Oscar Kaplan for. the
Construction Industry Federation recently found that 61% of those polled would
support a 2c local option gas tax increase. Subsequent responses in the poll
further revealed strong support for road maintenance, publictransit, and gap
closures of incomplete major routes.
San Diego County has developed three alternate proposals for expenditure of the
local option fuel tax revenues': To be placed on the ballot for Novembers 1982,
one of these options, or; another option agreeable to the County and cities within
_the County, must be approved by a written agreement between the County and cities
89 days prior to the date of the. election. The County's assumptions for these
optionswere based on the following
l`.._ Gasolineconsumption remains at 800million gallons per year
2. Localoption fuel tax is set at 2/gallon
3. Duration of tax is 10 years
Alternate One for distribution of local option fuel tax revenues involves specific.
freeway and expressway projects in the County. From the total need of $411 million,
projects amounting to $160 million would be specified on the ballot measure.. The
County's FAU Committee, which includes the City Engineer from each city, wouldmake
recommendations on a technical basis- to the Board of Supervisors for the various
projects to be funded under this alternative.
There is only oneproject on the $'411 million needs list (Route 125 from Mission
Gorge to. Poway). which directly benefits the City of Poway. If this project was
included in the ballot measure and then approved by the. necessary 2/3 vote County-
wide, then the benefit to Poway would be $39.3 millionfor construction of Route
125 between Mission Gorge Road and Poway.
Alternate Two would allocate the local option fuel tax revenues to all cities and
the County based upon a minimum guarantee of $100,000/year to each jurisdiction,
withthe remainder distributed on the basis of population of each jurisdiction to
the: total population of the County. This type of distribution is being used to
allocate FAU funds. Under this alternative, eachjurisdiction would choose their
own projects to be funded from this revenue. While having broader appeal to all
County residents, this alternative does not specify particular projects for which the
fundswould be used. If this alternative were approved by the 2/3 vote, Poway would
receive $3.45 million over 1O years. This would be a total of $7,204,000 over the
ten years with the 24"increase of SB 215 and a 2 local option gas tax increases.
Alternate Three is a combination of Alternatives One and Two, with 500 of the funds
allocated to specific freeway/expressway projects and 50% to the cities and. County
on the formula basis. If Route 125 is included in the list of specific projects, then
the benefit to Poway would be $41.0 million. While the above represents the best
return to the City, it would be the worst if Route 125 were not included in the
specific projects to be constructed. The construction of Route 125 would benefit the
City by having another roadway 'carrying_ significant volumes of traffic away from the
City streets. It is apparent that the cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, San Diego and
the County of San Diego would support the construction of SR 125.
The imposition of a 2 per gallon local option gas tax would be bestfor the City if
the City would receive 1000 of the City's allocation, rather than dividing the total
revenue among the other needs within the region. It is apparent that to meet both,
the needs of the City and the needs of the region in the construction of specific
FEB a 5 1982 ITEK
Agenda Report
February 25, 1982.,
Page 4
projects,that a 4 `local option gas. tax; .should be imposed. A 4 -local- option, gas;,
tax would provide_ enough revenue to the • City to ;meet. its = needs over- the next 1.0
years and enough to construct 'a very significant portion of the much needed regional
highways identified in the County's report. This proposal would be palatable be-.
cause of the ten: , year. sunset clause, and, provide for the region's needs., .The cost
would be about . $17.00per year per capita and would generate, about $32 million per
year " for all needs. < The County questionnaire is submitted with the City Engineer's
recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION:
la is recommended the City Council:
l.' Support a ten year local fuel tax ballot measure withthe following
conditions:
a. Support option two (100% to local agencies. with $100,000
guaranteed) with a 2.per gallon tax.
b. Support option three (50% to local agencies-; and 50% to"-r-.egiona]
projects) with. a .4 per gallon taxa_
attachments
Exhibit "A" - Responses to County Survey
Exhibit -"B" Synopsis to Part 4 of SB . 215
Exhibi
��t�VEiSTy�
Al
o;
A/
.3 D GCG ,$'g
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
R.. J. MASSMAN. Director
Offices of:
County Engineer
County Road :Commissioner
County Surveyor
County Airports
Flood Control-
Liquid
ontrolLiquid Waste
Soiid. Waste
Transportation Operations
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING 2 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE
SAN. DIEGO,; CALIFORNIA 92123
TELEPHONE: (7141.565-5177
December 18, 1981
E'EC 2 2 11331
TO: All City Managers and Public Works Directors
FROM: Director, Department of Public Works 565-5162
SUBJECT: Local Option. Fuel Tax Election
BOARD, OF SUPERVISORS
TOM HAMILTON
First District
PAUL W. FORDEM
Second District
ROGER HEDGECOCK
Third District
JIM BATES
Fourth. District
PAUL ECKERT
Fifth District
On September 16, 1981, Senate Bill 215. became law. SB215: provides additional
gas tax revenues to cities and counties. Additionally, it authorizes. any
County to impose a Local Option. Fuel Tax in one cent per gallon increments_
upon approval of the Board of Supervisors, specified city councils and a 2/3
majority vote of the voters. Revenues derived from this -tax must be. spent., on
highway and mass transit guideway construction projects in accordance with
Article XIX of. the California Constitution. Attached for your information is
a brief summary of SB215's Local Option. Fuel Tax provisions.
Regional Interest in Local Option Fuel Tax?
Since passage of SB 215, there have been numerous questions and discussions
on the possibility of submitting a local Option Fuel Tax* Bal Tot Proposition
to the voters of the San Diego Region. On. October 13, 1981, the Board of
Supervisors; di rected staff to investigate a Local Option Fuel Tax. Proposi-
tion. Beforeformally developing such a ballotproposition, it is essential
that we determine if the cities would be supportive of such a ballot
proposition.
The purpose of this letter is to explain the Local Option Fuel Tax and ballot
proposition process to you,and then ask for ` your opinions and ideas. Fol-
lowing
ol-lowing is a 'summary on how the Local Option_ Fuel Tax could be implemented:
within the San Diego Region, and an opinion survey form for your completion.
Need for New Revenue Source Apparent
The need for this additional revenue source to finance road construction is
apparent. Recently the County projected its road revenues and expenditures
for the next five year period. Assuming inflation rates beginning at 8.8%
and tapering down to 7.7%, it is projected that although we will now receive
essentially about six and one half years of pre -Senate Bill 215 revenue in
the next five years, this SB215 increased amount will fall approximately 50%
short of what we will need for a steady level of road maintenance by the
fifth year.
Exhibit "A" to Agenda Report
2/25/82
FEB 25 1982 ITEM
-2 -
Road Maintenance. Versus Road Construction Needs
Although maintenance is projected to reach a critical state within the next
five years, we are currently deferring essential road construction projects
to finance the County's maintenance program. Our road construction is cur-
rently dependent on Federal, State, and developer revenue sources, as our
road funds are only adequate to match grants and provide essential road main-
tenance services,
Federal proposals to reduceor eliminate financial assistance to local road
construction programs, the State's continuing financial probl ems, and the
increased reluctance of developers to shoulder an ever increasing financial
burden for public improvements strongly suggests that the County and cities
need a new source of revenue if we are to continue meeting San Diego's
growing transportation needs.
City. Problem Similar to County Problems
We have presented you, with the County's. problems only because it is likely
your city's revenue/expenditure projections are equally as, discouragi ng
Currently, the only feasible source of - additional revenue for the San Diego
region appears to be the Local. Option. Fuer. Tax.
Input Needed from Cities
Before =proceedi na. further in developing a Local Option Fuel Tax proposal,
however, it is our desireto receive input from all the cities. Your -opinion
is requested not only on "if" such . a tax should be considered ed at this time,.
but also "what" it should be spent on.
Written Agreement with Cities Needed for Ballot Proposition
According to SB215, a Local Option Fuel Tax proposition may be submitted to
the voters only if the County and the cities wi thi n- the County have a written
agreement on how'. the Local Option Fuel Tax will be allocated. Accordingly,
before a local Option Fuel Tax election, a written agreement would need to be
prepared and approved.
Revenue 'Distribution Proposal -s
Attached are three alternate form of agreements 'which could be the basis of.
a ballot proposition. Following is a brief description of the alternates
presented:
1. Local Option' Fuel Tax designated to construct specific regional highway
construction projects.
2. Local Opti on Fuel Tax distributed on a formula basis to ,all cities and:
the County.
• Local Option Fuel Tax oarti a11y distributed to cities and, County on. a
formula basis,and partially distributed on a project specific basis.
FEB 25 1982 Iir Ei
3-.
A Local Option Fuel Tax used to back a revenue bond to construct specific.
projects worth, for . example,ten years of revenue within the next five years
has also been considered. The legality of such a revenue bond is currently
being researched by our County Counsel.
Highway Versus Guideway Construction Projects
These alternates are only a suggested beginning. According to Article XIX of
the California . Constitution, all revenue rust: be used for ` highway and mass,
transit guideway construction projects. The Local Option Fuel Tax couldthus
be spent 100% on roads,or on a combination of 75% road, 25% transit projects
in accordance with the Proposition 5 limits approved by thevoters several
years. ago. None of the alternates, now presented, include guideway projects
at this ` time. This is because no guideway construction proposals- were avail-
able
vail---
abla within the shorttime span necessary to prepare this package. We wel-
come any other project or formula distribution suggestions you may have.
-Cities Requested to Complete Opinion Survey
Attached for your completion is a brief opinion survey we have designedto
measure regional interest in proceeding with a Local Option... Fuel Tax ballot
proposition. Any additional comments or suggestions you have beyond the
survey form would be appreciated.
Your Response Needed by March 1, 1982
Your response to the survey form is requested as soon as possible, but- in no
event later than March 1, 1982.
Please return your survey form and any additional comments or suggestions you
may have to this Department, at the letterhead. address, attention Mr. Ken
Karnes. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Karnes at
565-5811.
Very truly yours,
.,. MASSMAN, Di rector
artrnent of Public Works
?JTI: KCK:sn.
Attachment
Cc: FAU Committee
FEB Z 5 1982 ITEM 3
tO
za
1.114
LOCAL OPTION FUR TAX SURVEY
City Co s. A.'. Date 1...
Contact Person's Name -.ea a. e.re Mei
Title
Phone .5'6P �03C?
Please return. to County Department of Plithl is Works
ATTN: Ken Karnes by ',larch 1, 1902: or sooner if, possible.
1 Does your City Council support the concept of a Local Option. Fuel Tax?
2. Would your City be interested 1n proceeding with a.aLocal Option Fuel Tax within the next year?
3. Do you believe more time is needed to prepare the appropriate form of agreement and ballot proposition?
4. Do you believe more time is needed to educate the public and local politicians on the need for a local
Option Fuel Tax?
ATTACIUMGNT 2
5. Are other election activities likely to conflict for, your City, so that your City Council does not want to
proceed in the near future?
f . Weal your City .be interested in supporting a local Optlon 'Fuel `Tax Proposition on the June 1903 ballet?'
7, Would your City he interested in supporting a local -Option Fuel Tax Proposition in 1904 or later?
Would your City. Council support .the• concept of.an advisory (straws.vote rather than a ballot proposition
for Nvvemher 1902, or June 1983 election?
9. Do you support the concept of the Local Option Fuel Tax being used to finance -a, revonne hoed to construct
needed projects now?
10. Should a public,: opinion survey be undertaken to determine what;. combination of projects/fuel tax increase
would host . likely receive voter approval a.
11. Should local general fund conatrihutions currently assigned to `local street road programs he continued at
their current level?
12. Check One: If project speclflc should the •ballot proposition include only; road projects .jf'guideway
Projects combs natl. on
13. Check One: Should the ballo o be; project specific , formula pay, back to Cities and County
cr�mbl��ti
14. Check One: The noximum r gallon tax lnc:rease the public o ould support' nest likoiyweuld he. A ,, 1¢
•2t.•
15.. Check One: The maxlrnum duration Qf
•5 years .._.� 0 yearsj
1 f Check One:
err
Of the four alternatives
Other.
uch as tax the public would support most likely woi,ld he 1 year
Other
presented we would most likely support; Alt .1
•. Alt 2 . Alt
to w
cr,
03
.-4
Q1 w
C .
o c
't 0 0
•r N t-
0. at fa
o L- ,'r
✓Lif 44 }ax-
THREE ALTERNATE PROPOSALS FOR EXPENDITURE"
OF. LOCAL. OPTION_ FUEL TAX
The following three proposals are based on the following assumptions:
1. Gasol i ne consumption remains at 800 mi:.l l ion gallons per year.
2. Local Option Fuel Tax is set at 2ct per gallon..
3. Durationof tax is for 10 years.
4. Total amount of revenue generated, is $160 million over 10 years. (800:
million ,gallons ,' annually X 2 , per gallon X 10 years. $160 .million)..
I. ALTERNATE ONE. Agreement with cities and County, resulting i n a ballot
proposition to spend Local ' Option- Fuel_ Tax on a $160 million listof
specific regional highway projects chosen from the following $411 mil-
lion
il-lion; needs, list. All Project costs are estimated in 1981 dollars and
assume .construction : to four lane expressway standards, with the excep-
tion: of two projects; jects; Route 54 1-5 to 1-805 and Route 15 I-8, "to I -8 0s -805
which are .al. ready being designed. by CALTRANS to- freeway standards.
ROUTE
PROJECT
76
LIMITS
EXIST. LOCAL.
_ COST IN. M 81 $ . FAU & OPTION -
STATE FUEL TAX
R=/'4: CONSTR. FUNDS NEEDED.
1-5 to Frontier
52 =1=805 to Santo Rd.
52 Santo Rd. to Mission Gorge
52 "last sl vd.: Interchange
*54 1-5 to 1-805
54 I-805 to Rte. 125
56 I-5 to. 1-15
125 Rte- 54 to Rte 94-
125
4125 1-8 to Piissi on,Gorge
125 Mission Gorge to Poway
*15 1-8 to 1-805 (40th St.)
117 1-805 to . 8 r . X -i ng
117 Local City/Co Short. Fall
2.5 6.0 . 0., 0 J 8.5
1. f
3.0 21.0 0 , 10.78 13.22
15.0 25.0 0.0 40.. 0
0.0 5.'0` 0.,0 5.0
0.0 16.6 10.6 6.0
0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5
19.8 55.3 0.0 75.1
28.0. 53..0 0.0` 81.0
18.5 28.0 0.0 46.5
14.3 25.0 0.0 39.3
31.0 21.0 0.0 52.0
17.0 22.0 0.0 39.0
4.0 0.0 4.0.
TOTAL: S411.12
Costs are Shown in 1981 dollars (Millions)`
*C ons tructed to Freeway Standards
FEB251982 ITE
II. ALTERNATE TWO. Agreement with Cities and. County, resulting in a ballot
proposition to distribute Local Option Fuel Tax ona minimum guarantee
and population formula : basis. By law, the cities and County would have
to spend thisrevenue on road or Guideway construction projects.
6
Juri sdiction
1980
Census
Pop.
Percent.
of total
Pop.
$100,:000 Dollars
+ Based on
Guarantee, Population
3+4=5
Projected
Annual
Total
5x10yr. s=5
Projected
10 yr.
Total In
Mill ions
Carlsbad. 35, 490
Chula Vista 83,927
Coronado 18,806
Del± . Mar 5,017
El Cajon 73,892
.Escondido 64,355
Imperial "Beach 22,689
La Mesa -50,342
Lemon Grove 20,780
National, City 48,772
Oceanside
Poway '... 33,257
San Diego 875,504
San Marcos 17,479
Santee 41,688
Vista 35,834
;County 436 ,.083
1.83 %
432
0.97 %.
0.26- %.
3-.81: - %
3.32 %
1.17 %
2.59
1.07 %
2.51. ;b
3.95 %
1.71 %
45.11 %
.90
2..15
1.85
22.50
100,000
100,000-
100:,.0.00.
100,000
100,000
100,.000
100,000
100;.000.
100 , 000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
257,400 357,400
617,800 717,800
138,700 238,700
37,200 137,200
544,800 644,800
474,800 574,800
167, 30.0` 267,300
370, 400. 470,`400
153., 000 253,000
358,900 458,900
564,900 664,`900
244,500 344,500
6,450,700 6=,550,700
12,870 112,870
307,500 407,500
264,600 364,600
3,217,500 3,317,500
3.57 M
7.18 M
2.39 M
1.37 M
6.45 M
5.75 M
2. 67 M
4.70 'M
2.53 M
4.59 M
6..65 M
3.45 M
65._51M
1.13 M,
4.08 M
3.65 M
33.18 M
1,940,.613
100
S1.7M
S14.3 ?1
$16M
$ 160 M,
II:. ALTERNATE THREE. Agreement with the Cities and County resulting in a
ballot proposition to -spend 50% of the Local Option Fuel Tax on a S80
million listof specific regional transportation projectschosen from
the projectlist in ALTERNATE ONE and to distribute the remaining 50%
to the Cities and County on the formula basis as described. in ALTERNATE
TWO.
FEB 25 1982 ITEM
BRIEF SUMMARY OF SB215's LOCAL OPTION FI TAX PROVISIONS
SEC. 14. Part 4 (commercing with. Section 9501) is added to Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:
PART 4. LOCAL MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL:
TAXATION
9501. (a) Except as specified a tax may be imposed by a county on a countywide
basis in accordance withthis part.
(b) The tax shallbe imposed in increments of one cent per gallon or, in t.
case -of compressed natural gas, one cent per 100 cubic feet.
9501. (a) Prior to imposition and collection of any tax under this part, the tax
shah ,be submitted to and approved by the voters at an election. by a 2/3 majority
vote. The proposition shall specify the maximum tax to be imposed and may specify
the period for which the tax will be imposed.
(b) A proposition may be submitted to the voters only if
(1) it is approved by the board of .supervisors and a majority of the
city councils of the cities having' a majority. of` the;; population
in the_ incorporated`. areas' of the countyf
(2) the county and the cities within the county' have a written
agreement with respect to allocation of the revenues between
the county and the cities.
(c} If the board of supervisors approved the proposition_ priorto the approval.
of a majority of, the city councils of the cities having a.majority of the- population
in the: incorporated area of the county, the approval of the other city counc is.to
secure both of those majorities shall be. secured within one year.of'the approval. of
the board of supervisors.. if the board of supervisors approves the proposition
after the, approval of the city councils with both. of those majorities, the approval
of the board. of supervisors shall be: made within one year of thedate of the approval.
of the city council which. results in the proposition being approved bythe city
councils' with both of those majorities.
9503. (a) The county shall contract with. the' State Board of Equalization for the
administration of any tax .imposed under this -part.
(b)
(b) The county shall also reimburse the state board for its cost of pre_
paration to adminster the tax.
9505. After deducting its cost is administering the tax, the State''Board of Equal -
ization shall transmit the net revenues to the county and cities per'iod'ically` in
accordance `with the allocation agreement between the county and cities. The trans-
mittals shall be made at least twice in each calendar.quartcr.
9507. The net revenues received by counties and cities from taxes imposed under this
part shall be expended only for the Purposes authorized by Article XIX of the: Ca1ifor-
nia Constitution.
E N
Exhibit "B" to Agenda Report
2/25/82
FEB
a 1982 ITEMi,
- �.��-�.c.-—,•.raa.Sa'-rv-v.:r:.�.it�.�LM4:d: a
Prepared by the
California Department of Transportation
Exhibit "C" to Agenda Report
.z 2/25/82
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUSINESS,. TRANSPORTATION ANO HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR
U20 N STREET
SACRAME 4tO. CALIFORNIA 9S314
(916) 445-22,01
October 30 , 19.81
EDMUND; G. BROWN JR:, Gosamor
Members, California State Legislature
Chairmen, County Boards of Supervisors
Mayor's,. California Cities
Executive Directors, Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies
General Managers,Public Transit Operators
Dear Sir
/Madam:
Iwould like -.to share with you the attached paper regarding
Senator Foran's recently enacted Senate Bill 215,. Chapter 541. ,
Statutes of 1981. This paper,. which was prepared by the staff
.
of the Department,: includes an . explanation of each section' of
the bill. It also' contains a subject :index and a listing o
f
the effective dates for the bill's most significant actions.
In November, the e California Transportation Commission will
adopt 'the 1982 Fund Estimate.- The Fund Estimate,. along ,with
the Department's 1982.Proposed State Transportati_on. Improvement
Program. (PSTIP), will be used in developing the 1982 Regional
Transportation Improvement Programs. Both the Fund Estimate
and. the PSTIP will reflect the new revenue and capital outlay
al location provisions of SB 215. •
Sincerely,
ADRIANA GIANTURCO
Director of Transportation
Attachment
FEB 2 5 1982 ITEM
SENATE BILL 215 (FORAN) -- WHAT DOES - IT I)0?
SECTION 1 (Amends Govt. Code Sec. 14523. Changed law is
effective on 9-17-81.)
Prior law required an annual evaluation of Caltrans! proposed
budget by the California Transportation Commission. - From
this evaluation, the CTC was required tomake its recommen--
dation to the Legislature: by February 15of each year.
SB 215 retains the above and adds the requirementthat each
year the CTC include in thebove actions an evaluation and
recommended- adjustments in the state motor vehicle fuel tax
rates and the state_ weight fees for commercial vehicles- in
order to finance the State Highway Program.
SECTION 2 (Adds Govt. Code Sec. 14529.5. , New law is effective
on 9-17.81.)
The new statute places the following points in law.
Because of inflation, transportation funds should, be spent
as soon as possible.
Caltrans shall expedite project < development
• Caltrans shall keep the cash balance in the State Highway
Account to the minimum amount necessary for contractural
obligations.
• User charges are the preferred way to finance transportation
services. User charges should be adjusted when the trans—
portation services are not at an adequate level because the
user generated revenues did not grow or did notkeep pace
with inflation.
• The appropriation of fundsby the Legislature from the
State Highway Account shall "recognize" the new priorities
established in Sec. 14529.6 of the Government Code (see
Section 3 below).
FEB 2 5 1982 ITEM
SECTION
(Adds Govt. Code Sec. 14529.6.
on 9-17-$1)
e State Highway Account funds are to be programmed, budgeted
and expended (i. e . ,. encumbered );, by the CTC and Caltrans in
the following order ' of priority
(1) Maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction: of
the existing state highway system.
(2) Safety improvements.
(3)
ew law is effective
(4)
Operational improvements.
New construction projects in the
priority:
(a) Gap closures or uncompleted
facility projects that meet
ing conditions:
Project waslisted in the State Dept.
of Public .Works' 1972."Highway Program'
(the multi-year highway planning program)
as endorsed, by the California . Highway
Commission.
following: order of
segments of new
all of thefollow—
Project was delayed or dropped: as a result
of .. the ° 1975 construction moratoriumand
it remained so under the new programming:
method thatbegan in 1977 (AB 402 --
STIP 'process).
Project was contained in the adopted
regional transportation improvement pro-
gram (RTIP) for three consecutiveyears
during the period from the 77-75 FY through
the $0-$1. FY.
Pro j:ect is in conformance with the new
county -minimum allocation requirements
of Section 188.8 of the Streets and High-
ways Code.
Project has first priority in the adopted
RTIP for the 19$2. STIP andany subsequent
STIPs as needed. Only one project in. an
RTIP shall be designated #i priority.
SECTION 3 (Cont 'd
For these projects above, when directed to
do so by the CTC, Caltrans is to recommend
to. the CTC the most cost-effective project
design alternative that retains the original
purpose of the proposed project.
(b )' New construction projects that were either
not covered by the criteria for "gap closures
or uncompleted segments" described above or
not included in the l980 . STIP.
(5) Other purposes including landscape planting, litter
pick-up, and compatabilty improvements.
• The above priorities do not apply to the. programming, of funds
for mass transit guidewaysfrom the state revenue in. the State
Highway Account that . is covered by Article XIX of the
Constitution.
Prior to its annual STIP adoption, the ; CTC shall:
(1) Review Caltrans' `project delivery performance.
Publish its findings and hold ;at. least one public
hearing on Caltrans' project ject delivery performance.
• Basedon the above findings,- `` the CTC ma
C1) Make a determination that Caltrans has not made "ree-
sonable progress" with the ,project delivery schedule
and -that. Caltrans is not likely to be able to make
enough progress to "reasonably accommodate" the
adopted STIP.
Allocate State Highway Account funds for expenditure
by countie§.. in developing specifiedstate highway
system projects that are in the . adopted STIP.
FEB2 5 1982
IT E d1
•
SECTION 4 (Amends. Govt. Code Sec. 650$2'.. Changed law is
effective on 9-17-$1.-)
Adds a new paragraph to the existing statute on the preparation.
of the, RTIP. The added language excludes maintenance, rehabili-
tation andreconstruction projects from. the RTIP..
SECTION 5 (Adds Pub. Utilities Code Sec. 993 -3.4. New law is
effective on 9-17=$1. )
Under the revision to the l Revenue and Taxation Code's Section 7102
(see Section 6 below), sub -section. (a) (3) provides additional
funds for local. transportation. This comes from a specific
portion of the "spillover"`' revenue from the state sales tax
ong. as"oline that is currently transferred to the State Genera
Fund. With reference only to these"particular added funds -for
local transportation, the new statute requires that:
The regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs)
designated for reallocating these funds to local agencies
are required to create a special "unified transportation
fund" in which this money is to be held until it is real-
located by them to their area -'s local agencies.
A designated RTPA can assignall, none, or any part of these
particular i.cular funds to the 'city and county governments in its
area for their use on local streets - and roads and, unlike
other allocations of "spillover" funds fr om'the State TP&D
Account, the expenditure purposes of these particular ` funds
are unconstrained by the provisions of the Transportation
Development Act when these funds are used for streets and.
roads purposes.
A designated RTPA can reallocate all, none, or any part of
these same funds to public mass transit operators in its area.
But, unlike: the reallocations for streets and roads purposes,
these reallocations will be constrained in their use by the
provisions of the Transportation Development Act.
Allocations of these funds to the designated RTPAs are to be
made by the Secretary of Business,. Transportation and. Housing.
These allocations shall be in the same proportion that the
population of the RTPAs area has to California as a whole.
SECTION 6 (Amends Revenue and. Taxation Code Sec. 7102. Changed
law is effective on 9-17-$1.. )
�► Prior law on the state sales tax on gasoline revenue provided
for the following
(1) State General Fund received quarterly the sum. of money
from this revenue that is equal to- what a sales tax
rate of IA f would have produced if applied to all
taxable sales that occurred except gasoline. This
is replacement revenue to crake up for revenue the
General Fund lost (and continues to lose) as a result
of a changein the state and localsales tax rates
that occurred when the state and local sales taxes
were extended to gasoline and the 'Local Transportation
Funds were established.
(2) State Transportation Fund's TP&D Account received
quarterly any revenue that is left over up to .a limit
establishedby late for an annually adjusted ceiling.
This transfer is known informally as the "spillover"
transfer.
(3;) State: General Fund received ` the balance of the °'spill
"spill-
over,- the ceiling set for the State Transpor-
tation
tation Hind if there is any revenue left. over.
SB 215 alters the . aboveas follows:
State. General Fund 1/4% replacement revenue quarterly
Transfer -- no : change.
State Transportation Fund's TP&D Account "spillover'�f`
quarterly transfer with adjusted ceiling. -- no, change.
(3 )
The balance of the "spillover" revenue will be trans-
ferred during. the fourth quarter of . each fiscal year
as follows:
(a) State: General Fund
1-82 FY $127, 000, 000
$2-$3 FY -- $141, 000, 000'
83-4 FY -- $106;000,000
84-85 Fy $ 71, 000,000
$5-86 FY -- $ 35,000,000
$6-87 FY et seq.
IIMIN
No further transfers of "'spill-
over" revenue to the General
Fund.
FEB 251982 ITEM
3
SECTION 6'(Cont 'd
(b) State Transportation ; Fund
Fiftypercent of. the. remaining balance of "spill -
over" revenue, if any,. to the St at a Highway Account.
Fifty percent of the remaining balance of "spill
over" revenue, if any, to the State TP&D Account
(with these particular funds constrained in use
.by the provisions described in. Section 5 above.).
If there -is insufficient revenue from the state . sales
tax on gasoline for -all of the . above , the following
is the order of applying. the ;_revenue available:
1st call -- General Fund's 1/4% quarterly replacement
revenue.
2nd call. -- Transportation Fund's TP&D Account quarterly
"spillover:" t ransf erg` with adjusted ceiling.
3rd. call -- General Fund'sannual "spillover" transrfer
with ad just ed c°ening.
4th call -- TransportationF.nd.'s TP&D ''Account and
Highway Account. annual "spillover" transfer
of any remaining balance.
S EC I ION 7 (Amends Revenue and Taxation Code Sec . 7210. Charged.
law is effective on 9-17-81.)
This is a minor technical amendment concerning the Board of Equali-
zation's collection of the local sales tax on gasoline.
SECTION .a. (Amends Revenue and.. Taxation Code Sec. 1351.: Changed
law is effective on 1-1-83.)
Increases the state excise tax on gasoline that is to
be used for motor vehicles. The increase is 2ft' per
gallon for a total tax rate of 90 per gallon.
(It should be noted that this excise tax is paidby the
wholesale distributor of gasoline. It is not paid
directly by either the retailer or the consumer. This
is different from the excise tax on dieselfuelwhich is
paid directly by the consumer at the time of purchase
from'. a retail outlet and. is not paid by the wholesale
distributor.) 4'
SECTION $ (Contd)
Provides that should the federal tax rate of 40 per
gallon on gasoline be reduced: at any time in the future,
the state's Max rate of 90 per gallon will be automati-
cally increasedby a corresponding amount andthis will
be effective on the same day as the federal reduction.
SECTION 9 (Adds Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. 7351.5. New
law is effective on 1-1-83.)
Levies a one-time 2¢ per gallon excise tax on the gasoline that
is stored on 1-1-$3. This one-time tax applies to non-governmental
holders of 1,000 gallons or more of gas, on that date, that is
intended for motor vehicle use. It does not apply to the wholesale
distritutors. (This is primarily directed at, the retail gasoline
service stations in order to get the tax change reflected in the
retail price uniformly throughout. California. on 1-1-83. Without
this, the effect of the tax increase on retai]prices would vary
inits timing from station to station since the tax is paid by
the -wholesale distributor. It should also be noted that this
one-time tax does not apply to diesel. Since the excise .tax on
diesel is paid directly. by the consumer, there is no lag problem
in reflecting the tax uniformly inthe retail price.)
•
SECTION 10 (Deletes Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. 7351.6.
Repeal of law is effective on 9-17-81.)
Deletes from law an obsolete special provision that concerned an
emergency condition in the 1960s.affecting the State Department
of Public Works.
SECTION 11 (Adds Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. /653.. New law
is effective on 1-1-83.)
For persons and firms impacted by the provisions described in
Section 9 above, this section spells out their reporting require-
ments to the Boardof Equalization for the one-time 20 tax on
stored gasoline.
SECTION, 12 (Amends Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. 8651. Changed
law is effective on 1-1-83.)
Increases the state excise tax ondiesel fuel that is to
be usedfor motor vehicles. The increase is 2¢ per gallon
for a total tax rate of 9¢ per gallon.
(A revenue estimate for this change is in a separate
paper issued by this division.)
t Provides the same state tax increase provision for the
diesel tax should the federal tax on diesel be reduced
as is described for gasoline in Section 8 above, 1
-7_ FEB1982 TEM
SECTION 13 (Deletes Revenue and Taxation Code Sec.
$61.4.
Repeal of law:is effective on 9-17--81.) )
Same matter as Section 10 above.
SECTION 14 (Adds Part 1 to Div. 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code. New laws are effective 9-17-$1.
)
Seven statutes which enable a county to place a local,- countywide
excise tax on each gallon of gasoline to be used
sfor
o tootor io vehic.: es.
The proposed tax rate, and any . subsequent incre.
be in cents per gallon. Percentages and fractions of 'a cent may
not be used for this tax rate. Otherwise the initiatax ate,
and. any subsequent increases to it, may be any amount
but the
tax must be approved by the voters in a countywide election.
SECTION 15 (Amends Streets & Highways Code Sec.1��
.$ This
amendment is effective on 9-17—$1 nevertheless,
the changes are not effective for the purpose
of
actual allocations, encumbrances and expenditures
until 7-1—a3. The changes are effective for pro—
gramming these allocations and expenditures start—
ing. with the 2nd year of the 19$2 STIP and RTIPs.
• Under the prior law, most* of the budgeted capital—outlay
funds in the State Highway Account (both federal and state)
were required to be allocated and. expended (i. e e 'encumbered )
ina manner that resulted in:
of the
(1) One hundred percent of these funds meeting: thetest
4,00.-.60% "north -south" split of counties- on a continuous
basis.
{ 2) At least 70% of : these funds meeting the test of the dis—
trict minimums that were established by action of the
Legislature (based on. the relative highway needs of these
districts' within the northern group, of counties and
within the southern group). This 70% requirement called
for an average result over each four—year period rather
than a continuous one. The bala nce- of the capital—
outlay funds were discretionary for the CTC as to geo—
graphic raphic location within the "north—south" split of
counties
• *NOTE: The statute does not cover allocations and
xBenditures
of budgeted c apit a1—outlay funds for Federal
construction and Replacement Act projects, and for most
local assistance funds that are for local streets and
roads systems.
SECTION 15 (Cont 'd
Prior law also required a quadrennial needs study of each
district's portions of the state highway system and mass
transit guideway needs the result of which, when it was
published in the Legislature's Journals, formed thebasis
of the former district minimum porportions.
• Under the amended law, most* of the budgeted capital -outlay
funds in the State Highway Account (both federaland state)
must be allocated and expended. (i.e., encumbered) in a manner
which will result in:
1) One hundred percent of these funds meeting the
test of the 40%-60% "north -south" split of counties
on a continuous basis.
2:) At least 70% of these funds meeting the test of
the designated county minimums within the "north -
south" split which will be based on the following
factors:
(a) Seventy-five percent
proportion that each
to that of the total
north or south group
based on the population
county -wide area has
counties within its
of counties.
(b) Twenty-five percent based on the proportion
of state highway system miles that each county-
wide area has open to travel to that of the .
total counties within its north or south
group of counties.
This 70% requirement is to represent the average
result over a four-year period rather than a con-
tinuous one. The remaining balance of the capital-
outlay funds will be discretionary with. the. CTC as.
to geographic location within. the "north -south"
split.
Eliminated through this change are the district minimums and
the district "needs" basis for establishing these district
minimum. proportions.
Under this change, population is to be that of the last federal
census preceding the four-year programming period. , A special
census result, subsequent to the federal census, is to be used
if it, has been validated by the Department of Finance.
NOTE: See footnote on page $
FEB 2 5 1982 ITE
SECTION 15 (Cont'd
s Under this change, state highway system miles are to be those
that are open to traffic at the- beginning, of each four-year
. period.
Projects will normally be credited for geographic expenditure
purposes during the fiscal year in which the project contract
is awarded. In those cases where the project is budgeted.
with separate amounts in more than one fiscal. year, the amount
budgeted in, each fiscal. year will be taken separately for
crediting the geographicexpenditurerequirements.
s An c p Y g
a com an in requirement to the above changes is that the
CTC. shall program and allocate funds for projects for which
funds yet not encumbered that were in the adopted 1980
STIP. The funding of these 1980 -STIP projects under this new
sub -provision rovision is- rot to include any cost increases caused by
changing
"the scope e or nature of the project"but, cost increases
� � P ;
caused by inflation only will be 0.1C. �Durir� g 'the four-year
period.. that begins 7-1-$3, the CTC may depart from the new county
1$$. $ to the ext
minimum. allocation requirements of Sec.
t
necessary to a.ccommodate the eligible 1980 STIP projects.
SECTION 16 (Amends Streets and Highways Code Sec. 189.1. Change
is effective 7-1-83. )
Recreates the sole statutory Caltrans' district (District 12—
Orange County) but it is given no purpose either administratively
or in the, programming allocation process.
SECTION 17 (Amends. Streets and Highways Code Sec.2104. Change
8
is effective on 7-1-82. Statute expires:. on. 6-30 - 3.
Adds to the existing Sec. 2104 distribution of thestate excise
tax on gasoline revenues to the counties, a provision for an
additional nal $41 million to be distributed during. the 82-83
FY
only. This will -be replaced by a new Section. 2104 on 7-1-83
(see Section i$ below)..
SECTION 1$ (Adds new Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2104. New
law is effective on 7-1-83.)
�
Increases the funds for distribution to the counties as follows.
(1 } From the state excise tax on gasoline revenue,
a 2.0350 per gallon share of the 90 per gallon
tax. This is an increase of 0.410 per gallon.
-10--
SECTION 1$. (Contd)
(2 } From the. State excise tax on diesel revenue, a
1. $0 per gallon share of the 9'¢ per gallon. tax.
(Currently county governments do notreceive any
revenue from this tax. )
(3 } From the state excise tax on gasoline revenue,
the monthlyceiling for snow removal reimburse-
ments
from
to eligible counties will be increased
.$2 million to $3 million.
(4) For the ap ortionments between counties., approxi
mately 25 0 of the fuel tax revenue payable is appor-
tioned by the number of miles ofmaintained county
roads multiplied b;- $42. This is to be increased
to $60.
Far the apportionments between counties, 75'i° of the fuel..
tax revenue payable is apportioned by each county's pro
ortion of registered vehicles. This remains unchanged.}
SECTION 19 (Amends Streets and Highways- Code 'Sec. 2106. Change
is effective on 9-17-81.)
This is. the existing Section 2106 distribt.tion of thestate.
excise tax on gasoline revenue to each city and each county.
The revenue distribution remains unchanged by this amen
The -amendment' is of a minor technical nature:
Che
SECTION 20 (Amends Streets and Highways Code Sec • 2107. an
6Change .
is effective on 7-1-$2. _Statute expires
.Adds to the existing.Section 2107 distribution of the'state excise
rov�.s•
ion for an "adds--
tax' on gasoline revenue: to the cities, a p
ti --
onal $59 million to be distributed during the $2--53 FY only.
Thie willbe replaced by a new vection 2101 on (-1-$3 (see
Section 21 below).
-1a-
FEB 2 5 1982 ITEM
SECTION 21 (Adds new Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2107.
New law is effective on 7--1--83.)
�► Increases the funds for distribution to the cities as follows:.
(1) From the state excise tax on gasclne revenue,
a 1.3150 per gallon share of the 90 per gallon
tax. This is an increase of 0.590 per gallon.
From the state excise tax on diesel. revenue, °a
2.590 per gallon share of the 9¢ per gallon tax..
Currently, city governments do not receive any
revenue from. this . tax.
(For the apportionrnents between cities, .the fuel tax revenue
payable is apportioned by each city's proportion of population.
.to the total :population for all cities in California. This
remains unchanged.)
(
SECTION 22 (Adds Streets ;and. Highways .Code Sec. 2107..9.` New
law is effective on 9-17-$1.)
This provision isan intent statementindicating that the. Legis-
lature doesn't want the local governments to lower the amount of
local ; general fund money that they have been allocating for trans-
portation purposes as a result . of the increase in funds they will
receive from the state gas and diesel tax.
SECTION 23 . (Adds Streets and Highways Code Sec. 2107.10. New
law is effective on 9-17-81.)
If the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, does riot. adopt a
resolution supporting. the .increase to the states gas and diesel
excise tax (see Section 41 below), the increased portion of this
revenue that would otherwise be apportioned to. Los Angeles County
(under the new provisions of Section 2104 of the Streets and High-
ways Code), willbe apportioned instead to those cities within
LA County that did adopt such a resolution .of support.
SECTION 24 (There. `is no Section 24 in this. bill.)
SECTION 25 (Amends Vehicle Code Section 9250. Change is
effective on 1-1-82.)
-12-
SECTION 25 (Cont d)
Amendment increases by $11 the State's annual vehicle registration
fee. The new fee will be $22•
*
SECTION 26 (Amends Vehicle Code Section 9252. Change is effective
on 1-1-$2.. )
Amendment increases by $4 the state fee that is added to the
registration fee for cars that were either registered pre-
viously in another state or which were purchased new in.
another state. The new fee will be "$10.
Amendment increases by $3 the State fee thatis added when the
vehicle "has been registered andoperated inthis state 4 during
the same ` registration year in which application" for registration
is made." The new fee will be $6.
SECTION 27 (Amends Vehicle Code Section 9255 • Change is
effective on 1-1-$2. )
Amendment increases by $4 the state
ownership. The new fee will be $7.:
fee for transferring vehicle
SECTION 2 (Amends Vehicle Code Section 9258. Change is
effective on 1-1-82.)
Amendment increases by $5 the state fee for a one -trip permit to
operate a vehicle in California on public streets and highways.
Thenew fee will be -$10.
SECTION 29 (There is no Section 29 in -this bill.
SECTION 30 ( Amends Vehicle Code Section 9265. Change i
effective on 1-1-82.)
Amendment increases by $4- the state fee for issuing duplicate
license plates, registration cards or certificates of owner
sL.ip. The new fee will be $7 •
NOT
AB 202 (Chapter .933, Statutes of 19$1 ) has added an
additional $1 to this fee to finance expansion of the
CHP staff. This will make the total new fee $23.
-13-
FEB 251982 ITEM
•
SECTION 31
(Repeals Vehicle Code Section 94.00. Deletion is
effective on 1-1-82.)
Repeals existing istin law covering commercial vehicle weight fees to
be replaced by the new law in Section 32 below.
law is
SECTION 32 (Adds new Vehicle Code Section 94.00. ire on New law1g5.)
effective on ,1-1-$2- and it will p
existing State weight fees for commercial vehicles
Increases the g type
approximately 50/ . The fees varyby of vehicle and by
weightcategory within type. There is no change to these vehicle
.
types and weight categories.
SECTION 33 (Adds a new Vehicle Code Section 94Q0 s bseequenn 2
t
to the new Section 9400 of 1 1 $2
above. New law is effective on 1-1-85.)
increases I
• s the state weight fees for commercial vehicles.
It increases those feesthat are to be established on 1-1-82
by approxi.
matY ei 7 to $ percent.. The vehicle types and weight
categories remain unchanged.
SECTION 34 (AmendsVehicle Cocie Section 12814.5.:. Change is
effective on. ` 1-1-82..)
Amend
merit increases by $6,75 the state fee for extending a driver's license four years when there has been. no traffic
vio-
lations. The new fee will be $10..
SECTION 35 (,
Amerids Vehicle Code Section 14.900. Change is
effective " on 1-1-82.)
Amendment increases b $6.75 the state fee for a new driver's
lic•
ense, renewal of. a driver's license, or a drivers license
to operate a different `class of vehicle. The new fee will be
$10.
SECTION 36 (Amends Vehicle Code Section 14901., Change is
effective on 1-1-82.)
Amendment increasesby
$$.75 the state fee for issuing. a dupli-
cate
driver's license The new fee will be $10..
cr f
SECTION 37 (Amends Vehicle Code Section 14902. Change is
effective on. 1-1--82.)
For those who are not senior citizens, the amendment increases
by $2.75 the state fee for issuing a non -driver's I.D. card.
The new fee will be $6.
SECTION3 8 ( Adds Vehicle Code Section 42205. New law is
effective on 8-1-82.)
Requires that all revenue collected by the Department. of Motor
Vehicles from the state weight fee on commercial vehicles be
reported monthly and transferred to the State Treasurer who shall
_put all of this revenue into the State Highway Account. DMV
retains the cost of collection from this revenue. The .first
report and transfer is due on id -1-$2. (See Sections 32 and
33 above.)
SECTION 39 ( Adds: Vehicle Code Section 42276. New law is effec-
tive on : 9-17-81.)
The Secretary of Business, Transportation :and Housing must report
to the Legislature on the adequacy of the revenues generated by
Vehicle Code fees to .support state operations financedthrough
the Motor Vehicle Account with appropriate recommendations for
changes to any or all relevant fees First report is due no
later . than 1-10-55. Subsequent reports aredue at four-year
intervals by January ' 10th .
SECTION 40 (An uncodified section.
Effective. '9-17-$1, this section requires the ,CTCV to study and
evaluate alternate possibilitiesfor a system of geographic alto-
cations for the State Highway Account's capital outlay funds
(Sec.' 188.8 of the Streets and Highways Code). The CTC's report
is due to the Legislature not later than 1-31-52. Public. hear-
ings'
are required of the CTC prior to adopting a report.
'SECTION 41
(An
uncodified section
Effective 9-17-$1, this section provides for the following::
(1) Each county board of supervisors may adopt a resolution
of support for increasing the state excise taxes on
gasoline and diesel. (The required wording of this
resolution is stated in this section.)
FEB 251982 ITEC
SECTION 41 (Cant d)
(2) If a resolution of support is adopted, it is to be submitted
to the Governor by 11-15-$1. If the Governor receives
resolutions of support from boards of supervisors who
collectively represent at least two-thirds of the Popu-
lation of Californias he will so ,notify the Board of
Equalization. Then, in accordance with the amended
statutes that ..increase these taxes, the Board will
implement the tax increase.
An exception to the above is Los Angeles County where
the cities of that county may adopt a. resolution of
support and submit it in the same manner as for counties
if the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors fails to
take action in support of increasing these taxes- n
this case, the ' population of the individual cities will
be counted toward the two-thirds population requirement.
(4) ' The 198O federal census results will be used for deter-
mining population.
(3)
SECTION 42 (An uncodified section)
A statement . of intent which suggests that the State Supreme
Court 'should give priority to hearing. any eases attacking the
provisions of'' SB 21.5 and should consider allowing a bypass of
the state appeals court for such cases - when requested.
SB 395 (Foran) is a companion measure, to SB 215. It provides
that the additional revenue from the state .excise tax on
gasoline and the revenue from the 'state excise tax on die el
that are to be provided to the local governments through the
amended Sections 210: and 2107 of. theStreets and. Highways
Code (see Sections 17, 1.$, 20 and 21. above ) will not be dis
tributed to the local governments- if` the tax increases are not
endorsed by .the 'county boards of supervisors as provided for
in Section 41 above.
SB 411 (Foran) contains a section. that will apply at such time.
as Los Angeles County adopts the voter -approved local, excise
tax on gasoline -provided. for..in Section- 215 (see. above).
-- This section in SB 411 requires that the f uhds ' s8 rai.s ed be
allocated and expended in such a manner.. that the San Fernando
Valley Statistical Area receives a share ,that is proportionate.
to its population v .s -a -vis Los AngelesCounty as a whole.
However, the most important provision of this :;bill extends
the present federal regulations regarding Minority :Business
Enterprise pa.rticinat.ion in Federal -Aid highway construction
projects to. state highway contracts that are solely state funded
_16
SUBJECT
INDEX
Aeronautics Account Revenue (State
Allocations,
Apportionments to Cities & Counties
A ro p riation Priorities (Highway Account
PP s F Funds)
Board of Equalization (State)
Calif.. Transportation Commission
Caltrans
Cash Balance
City Governments
Compatibility Improvements (Highway Program)
Construction Projects (Highway Program
Construction. Moratorium (1975)
County Board of Supervisors.
County Governments
County Minimum Allocations (Highway
Funds
Dept. of Finance (State)
Dept. of Motor Vehicles (State
Dept. of Public Works (State)
Diesel Excise Tax (State)
Account
District Minimum Allocations (Highway Account
Funds)
District
river
12;
(Orange
County)
s License Fee (State)
Encumber Funds (Highway Account Funds..
Expenditures (Highway Account
Gap Closures (Highway Program)
Gasoline Excise Tax (Local)
Gasoline Excuse Tax
(State)
Funds
-17--
BILL SECTION
3,5,15,40
17, 18, 20, 21,
23
6, 41
1, 3 , 1'5,4
2, 3
5, 20, 21, 22,
23
3
39 5, 14, 17,
18, 22, 23, 41
3,15,E
6
38-
3
1, 12, 1$, 21 22
23, , 41
15, 40
16
34, 359 36
3, 15
3, 15
3
14
1, 8, 9, 179 18,
20, 21, 22, 23,
41
FL -13 2 5 1,982 ITEM 3
SUBJECT BILL SECTION #
Gasoline Sales Tax (Local). 7
Gasoline Sales Tax (State) 5, b
Gas Tax (see Gasoline Excise Tax) --
Gas Tax Increase Resolution 23, 41
General Fund; (State) 5, 6
Geographic Allocations (Highway Account 3p 5,..40
Funds)
Governor 41
Guideways 3
Highway Account ' (State 2, 3, 6, 15
34, 40 -
Highway Needs Study 15
Highway Planning Program (1972 multi --year 3
Highway System , (State) 3 5
I.D. Card Fee (State --. Non -driver) 3
Landscape Planting (Highway Programs 3`
Legislative Intent Statements 2, 22, 42
Utter. Pink -ug (Highway Programs 3
Los Angeles County Tax '.Increase Resolution 23, 41
Maintenance (Highway Program) 3,- �+
Mass Transit 3, 5.
Motor , Vehicle Fees. (see Vehicle Fees) -
New Construction Projects (Highway Programs) 3
North-South Split Allocations (Highway Program) 15
Operational Improvements (Highway Program) 3'
Population` 5, 15, 21, 41
Priorities 2, 3
Progr. armning (Highway Account Funds } 3, 15
Project .Delivery (Highway Program) 3
Project Development 2
Reallocating Bodies (TP&D °Account subventions) 5
i
Reallocations (TP&D Account subventions) 5
Reconstruction Projects (Highway Program) 3, 4.
Regional Bodies (see Reallocating Bodies --
-18-
SUBJECT
BILL SECTION
Rehabilitation Projects (Highway Program) 3, 4
Reports to -the Legislature 1, 39, 0
Revenue Distribution to Cities & Counties l7,-` la, 20,
21, 23
R.T.I.P. 3, 4
Safety Improvements (Highway Program) 3
Secretary for Business, Transportation & 5, 39
Housing
Section 3.88 .8 (S&HCode) 3, 15
Snow Removal Reimbursement (Local) 18
Spillover. Transfer ; Revenue (Gas :Sales Tax) 5, 6
ST.I. P.--1980 projects 15
S.T.I. P.--1982 et seq. 3, 15
Streets & Roads (Local) 5
Supreme Court (State) 42
Transportation. Development Act 5
Transportation. Planning & Development 5,
Ac c ount (State: )
Treasurer (State) 3
Truck Weight Fee. (see Weight. Fee)
Unified Transportation Fund (Local.)
User. Charges
Vehicle Registration Fee ,-(State)
25,
28, 30_
Vehicle Code Fees (State) 25, 26, 27,
30, 31, 32,
34, 35, 36,
3$, 39'
Weight Fee (State Commercial Vehicle Weight 1, 31, 32,
Fee) 34, 38
Weight Fee Revenue Monthly Transfer (State) 3$
FEB 2 5 1982
KEY EFFECTIVE DATES FOR SB 215
Action
• Resolutions supporting the state MV 81-82 11-15-tl
fuel tax increases ` are due to the
Governor from county boards of
supervisors.
•
Increase
stave. fee rates for al -$2 2
driver's licenses
vehicle registrations
commercial vehicle weights ` (1st stage
mi.scelianeous DNIV fees
+ctio a
Fisca Year Specific Date
• Place an annual ceiling on "spillover" 81®$2 41111 qtr`'
transfers to the State General Fund
o'Y'
from state gasoline sales tax revenue.
(Ceiling
varies with each fiscal year
thru 85-86.)
Transfer annually to the. State 81-82 4th qtr.
Highway Account and the State
of`r.v.
TP&D Account, the gasoline sales
tax "spillover" revenue that ',gas
'formerly transferred to. the Stat.e
General Fund.
Distribute
to the cities and counties,escounties,$2-83 7-82
•
during $2-$3 FY only, an added $100
million from the state gasoline excise
tax revenue._ ��}} '•{{ dd
Deposit monthly into the State Highway
82-83 .
Q�•�'02
Account all revenue (less cost of
collection) obtained obtained from the state
commercial vehicle weight fee..
• Increase the
state gasoline excise 82--83 —1-53
tax rate and diesel excise tax. rate _
by 20 per gallon.
the monthly a portionment $3-$� 7--1--33
o Increase P
that is distributed to the cities
and counties from the state:, gasoline
excise tax revenue.
-20
a Provide a monthly apportionment $3®$4 -1-$3
to the cities and counties from
the State diesel excise tax revenue.
go Allocate and expend State Highway
Account capital. -outlay funds 83 -$4®1-
w -thin specified county minimums
for each. of the northern and the
southerncounties.
Increase `. the state commercial 84-4 =1-
vehicle weight fee rates (2nd stage
�s
Terminate "spillover" transfers to $647 1-86
the State General Fund from the
sales tax on gasoline.
21 -
Compiled by the Division of
Budget Development.
FEB 2 5 1982 iTEM
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary
of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
BURGLARY AND ROBBERY PUNISHMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Adds sec-
tions to the Penal Code increasing the terms of punishment for the crimes of robbery,
burglary, and attempts to commit the crimes of robbery and burglary. Designated years
of imprisonment, ranging from 5 to 20 years, are specified for various of these crimes.
Provides that probation shall not be granted nor execution or imposition of sentences be
suspended for any person convicted of these crimes. Provides the Legislature may not
lessen or decrease the specified terms of punishment for these crimes. Fiscal impact on
state and local governments: The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance advise:
The increases in costs that enactment of this measure would require is unknown, but
estimated to be substantial. Annual custodial costs could increase to 260 million dollars
per year by 1985. Capital outlay costs of constructing permanent prison facilities could
be over 1 billion dollars. Other cost increases could occur. Therecould be savings in
prison costs if the measure has a deterrent effect and in the operation costs of local. jails.
PROPOSED LAW TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY_ TO THE VOTERS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4.55 (commencing with section 1175) is added to part 2 of the penal code, to read:
Chapter 4.55. Enhanced Criminal Punishment.
Section 1175. We, the people of the State of California, do hereby increase the term of punishment for the crimes of robbery,
burglary and attempts to commit crimes of robbery and burglary.
Section 1175.1 This chapter may be cited as the BOOKSTON initiative.
Section 1175.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 211(a), 213, 461 and 464, the punishment for the crimes listed below
is imprisonment in the state prison for 12, 16, or 20 years:
robbery committed by a person armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon, or who while in the commission of such robbery
arms himself with a deadly or dangerous weapon, or who while in the commission of such robbery assaults any person;
burglary in the first degree, burglary with explosives, and burglary committed by a person armed with a deadly or dangerous.
weapon, or whilein the commission of such burglary arms himself with a deadly or dangerous weapon or who while in the
isoesmo commission of such burglg assaults any person.
8L59 -58L (£2) :euotid • 80t71-6 eluwo4n1e0 `sAnN uuA `655 xog `6opyo;eM sleAedxel
Jo
1.089'09e (£LZ) :euoyd . t4 .6 elwol!fn0 `siflH epeuei9 `pa19 noglee SUM `e8niwwo3 uomoos :01 NO11113d NS(11311
(a3A0) :smoliol se spec, (amseaw to 1xe1 pue a!i!i !!nl) luewpuewe fuoinleis pesodoid au •Mei. /id paw
-aid espiaylo .co uollosia lesaue6 Qey1 of JopJd uo!l0018 epimalels iepeds Aue le Jo uoiloa!a !eiauab Bulpaaoons ixeu eyl
le uo! oafs.! Jo uo!ldope 1!ayt IN e!wol1leo to sialon ayl of awes aye i!wgns 01 ems to AieleneS 041 uo!iiled pue `A 1ei6ing
pue Aiaggoji to wawys!und ay; of fiu!4eIei `elwoiiteo to uo!in !lsuo0 ay; of sluewpuawe esodoid Aqa ay (A;unoo pue Allo
Jo) Alunoo' to wawa! `elwotileO 40 slaloa pain!enb `pa,als!6a `pau6!saaoge ay; `am X
VINtIO3f1V3 d0 31Y1S 30 Ad1/131303S 318VaONOH'314101 CO,
d!Z Mel U!) Apo eweN lu1d ISIX
X X 0.1-
lole!nai!3 pa emleuB!g r
X 1p4
'Well ° Jotesnlpa!O_10 uoileis ea uB s osle isnw euoewos 1p10A eq o* uoatgled spit JO; aepio ul :31ON
cocintil0
pe1els!6ei se sseippy
X
iee,t/AeplLluok/
X
JesApteplgluow
•loammoo ue anj} s! 6u!o6aJo1 eyt win ()tn(Jad to !}ieued iapun aJefaap
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary
of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
BURGLARY AND ROBBERY PUNISHMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Adds sec-
tions to the Penal Code increasingthe terms of punishment for the crimes of robbery,
burglary, and attempts to commit the crimes of robbery and burglary. Designated years
of imprisonment, ranging from 5 to 20 years, are specified for various of these crimes.
Provides that probation shall not be granted - nor execution or imposition of sentences be
suspended for any person convicted of these crimes. Provides the Legislature may not
lessen or decrease the specified terms of punishment for these crimes. Fiscal impact on
state and local governments:. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance. advise:
The increases in costs that enactment of this measure would require is unknown,. but
estimated to be substantial. Annual custodial costs could increase to 260 million dollars
per year by 1985. Capital outlay costs of constructing permanent prison facilities could
be over 1 billion. dollars. Other cost increases could occur. There could be savings in
prison costs if the measure has a deterrent effect and in the operation costs of local jails.
PROPOSED LAW TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS:
SECTION 1.. Chapter 4.55 (commencing with section 1175) is added to part 2 of the penal code, to read:
Chapter 4.55. Enhanced Criminal Punishment.
Section 1175. We, the people of the State of California, do hereby increase the term of punishment for the crimes of robbery,
burglary and attempts to commit crimes of robbery and burglary.
Section 1175.1 This chapter may be cited as the BOOKSTON initiative.
Section ` 1175.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 211(a), 213, 461 and. 464, the punishment for the crimes: listed below
is imprisonment in the state prison for 12, 16, or 20 years:
robbery committed by a person armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon, or who while in the commission- of such robbery
arms himself with a deadly or dangerous weapon, or who while in the commission of such robbery assaults, any person;
burglary in the first degree, burglary with explosives, and burglary committed by a person armed with a deadly or dangerous
weapon, or while in. the commission of such burglary anus himself with a deadly or dangerous weapon or who while` in: the
commission of such burglary assaults any person..
Section 1175.3.Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 213, 461 and 664, the punishment for the crimes listedbelow is
imprisonment in the state prison for 8, 10, or 12 years:
all robberies which are not included in section 1175.2; all burglaries which are not included in section 1175.2; and attempts
to commit the crimes of robbery and burglary as defined in Section 1175.2.
Section 1175.4. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 664, an attempt to commit the crimes of robbery or burglary as
defined in section 1175.3 is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 7, or 9 years.
Section 1175.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1203, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or
imposition of sentence be suspended for any person convicted of violating the crimes listed in sections 1175.2, 1175.3 and
1175.4.
SECTION 2. Thelegislature may not: lessen or decrease the terms ofpunishment imposed by this chapter.
SECTION 3. This chapter is effective immediately upon its approval by the voters.
SECTION 4. If any section, part, clause or phrase -hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining
sections shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect.
BE SURE TO SIGN YOUR PETITION ON OTHER SIDE.
ACT NOW
TO PUT A STOP TO CRIME.
SIGN YOUR PETITIONS
BECOME A VOLUNTEER BEFORE
YOU BECOME A VICTIM_
ALL 'PETITIO► .3 MUST BE RETURNS BY APRIL, 1st
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
The. Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary
of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
BURGLARY AND ROBBERY PUNISHMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Adds sec-
tions to the Penal Code increasing the terms of punishment for the crimes of robbery,
burglary, and attempts to commit the crimes of robbery and burglary. Designated years.
of imprisonment, ranging from 5 to 20 years, are specified for various of these crimes.
'Provides that probation shall not be granted nor execution or imposition of sentences be
suspended for any person convicted of these crimes. Provides the Legislature may not
lessen or decrease the specified terms of punishment for these crimes. Fiscal impact on
state and local governments: The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance advise:
The increases in costs that enactment of this measure would require is unknown, but
estimated to be substantial. Annual custodial costs could. increase -to 260 million dollars
per year by 1985. Capital outlay costs of constructing permanent prison facilities could
be over 1 billion dollars. Other cost increases could occur. There could be savings in
prison costs if the measure has a deterrent effect and in the operation costs of local jails. `
All signers of this petition must be registered in County.
THIS COLUMN
FOR OFFICIAL.
UIE ONLY
SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED
PRINT YOUR NAME AS. REGISTERED
2
ADDRESS AS REGISTERED
SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED
. ADDRESS AS: REGISTERED
3
5
SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED
ADDRESS AS REGISTERED
SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED
ADDRESS AS REGISTERED
SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED
ADDRESS AS REGISTERED
CITY
ZIP
PRINT YOUR NAME AS REGISTERED
CITY.
ZIP
PRINT YOURNAME.AS; REGISTERED':
CITY.
ZIP
PRINT YOUR NAMEAS REGISTERED
CITY
ZIP
PRINT YOUR NAMEAS REGISTERED: -
CITY
ZIP
SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED
PRINT YOUR: NAME AS REGISTERED -4
ADDRESS AS REGISTERED
CITY
ZIP
O DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed AFTER above signatures have been obtained.)
Z I am registered to vote in the County of X Each of the signatures to this petition was
i..rt
signed inmy presence. Each signature of this petition is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the genuine signature of the person,
E -I whose name itpurports: to be. All signatures to this document were obtained between November 5, 1981, and April 5 1982. I certify (or
W;
month/day/year month/day/year
declare under penalty of perjury) that the foregoing is true an correct.
CO U1
NOTE: In order for this petition to be valid, someone must also sign Declaration of Circulator here.
H X x X
IQ Signature of Circulator Monthldaylyear Address as registered
a _
M -i x x
Print Name City (n full) Zip
un TO THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
We, the abovesigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents. of County (or
City and County) hereby propose amendments to the Constitution of California, relating to the Punishment of Robbery and
QG Burglary, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at
O the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election prior to that general election or otherwise pro -
E -1 vided by law. The proposed statutory amendment (full title and text of measure) reads as follows: (OVER)
a• RETURN PETITION TO: Bookston Committee, 10128 Balboa Blvd., Granada Hills, California 91344 • Phone: (213) 360.5801
or
Taxpayers Watchdog, Box 559, Van. Nuys, California 91408 • Phone: (213) 785-6578