While the bills are similar, they are not identical. For purposes of brevity and clarity, this report focuses on the differences between the bills. Background information such as the well-established need for the bills, supporting data and rationale, the implications of not securing a transportation funding solution, etc., can be found in the January 17, 2017 report to the Board of Supervisors available here:  
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170117_872/882_01-17-17_1438_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=758  
  
  
  
SB 1/AB 1 Revenue Difference Summary Table:

Legislation Description and SB 1-AB 1 Differences   
Below is a summary of the subject bill developed by Mark Watts, the County's legislative advocate. Where they exist, differences between SB 1 and AB 1 (2017), and AB X 1-26 (2016) are noted:

  
Senate Bill 1 (Beall) Transportation Funding Package

• An approximately $6.1 billion (was $7.4 in 2016's AB X 1-26)) annual funding package to repair and maintain our state and local roads, improve our trade corridors, and support public transit and active transportation.
• A $706 million repayment of outstanding transportation loans for state and local roads.
• Eliminates the BOE “true up” that causes funding uncertainty and is responsible for drastic cuts to regional transportation projects.
• Indexes transportation taxes and fees to the California CPI in order to keep pace with inflation.
• Includes reforms and accountability for state and local governments to protect taxpayers.
• Streamlines transportation project delivery to help complete projects quicker and cheaper.
• Protects transportation revenue from being diverted for non-transportation purposes.*
• Helps local governments raise revenue at home to meet the needs of their communities.*

New Annual Funding

• State -- $1.9 (Was $2.9 in 2016's AB X 1-26) billion annually for maintenance and rehabilitation of the state highway system.
• Locals -- $2.4 (Was $2.5 billion in 2016's AB X 1-26) annually for maintenance and rehabilitation of local
• streets and roads.
• Regions -- $577 (Was $534 million in 2016's AB X 1-26) annually to help restore the cuts to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
• Transit -- $603 (Was $516 in 2016's AB X 1-26 and $563 in AB1 (2017)) million annually for transit capital projects and operations.
• Freight -- $600 (Was $900 in 2016's AB X 1-26) million annually for goods movement.
• Active Transportation -- $80 million annually, with up to $150 million possible through Caltrans efficiencies, for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
• Constitutional Amendment to help locals raise funding at home by lowering the voter threshold for transportation tax measures to 55 percent.*

Reforms and Accountability

• Restores the independence of the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
• Creates the Office of Transportation Inspector General to oversee all state spending on transportation programs.
• Increases CTC oversight and approval of the State Highway Operations and Protection (SHOPP) program.
• Requires local governments to report streets and roads projects to the CTC and continue their own funding commitments to the local system.

Streamlining Project Delivery

• Permanently extends existing CEQA exemption for improvements in the existing roadway.
• Permanently extends existing federal NEPA delegation for Caltrans.
• Creates an Advance Mitigation program for transportation projects to help plan ahead for needed environmental mitigation.

• Gasoline Excise Tax -- $1.8 billion (12 cents per gallon increase). This is a decrease from 2016's AB X 1-26 which was $2.5 billion (17 cents per gallon increase).
• End the BOE "true up" -- $1.1 billion
• Diesel Excise Tax -- $600 million (20 cents per gallon increase). This is a decrease from 2016's AB X 1-26 which was $900 million (30 cents per gallon increase)
• Vehicle Registration Fee -- $1.3 billion ($38 per year increase). This is identical to 2016's AB X 1-26
• Zero Emission Vehicle Registration Fee (1) -- $13 Million (AB1 2017 = $21 million) ($165 per year starting in 2nd year) (Was $16 million ($165 per year starting in 2nd year) in 2016's AB X 1-26)
• Truck Weight Fees -- $500 million (return to transportation over five years). This is a decrease from 2016's AB X 1-26 which was $1 billion.
• Diesel Sales Tax -- $303 million (AB1 2017 = 263) (increase increment to 5.25%). This is an increase from 2016's AB X 1-26 which was $216 million (3.5% increase).
• Cap and Trade -- $300 million (from unallocated C&T funds)
• Miscellaneous transportation revenues (2) -- $185 million (Was $149 million in 2016's AB X 1-26)

Keeping Promises and Protecting Revenues

• One-time repayment of outstanding loans from transportation programs over two years. ($706 million)
• Return of truck weight fees to transportation projects over five years. ($500 million, was $1 billion in 2016's AB X 1-26)
• Constitutional amendment to ensure new funding cannot be diverted for non-transportation uses.*

(1) Zero Emission Vehicle Registration Fees, the revenue increases but the per year/vehicle fee does not. An updated forecast was provided which resulted in the revenue increase.  
(2) Miscellaneous transportation revenues are a combination of funds that [1] accrue to Caltrans from property rentals and the minor sources, and [2] a correction to a misinterpretation by State Controller regarding funds that ought to accrue to the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) (fuel tax funds for local roads) when the Tax that ought to accrue to the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) (fuel tax funds for local roads) when the Tax Swap was enacted. Regarding [2], the misinterpretation has continued to the benefit of the state General Fund, when in fact the subject revenues should be transferred to the HUTA.  
  
  
Additional Information - Governors Office: The Governor released his proposed budget which includes a number of transportation funding reforms and revenue increases. As reported at the January 17th Board of Supervisors meeting, the understanding is that the Governor is open to negotiations on a transportation funding solution so long as the Senate and Assembly continue to make progress with SB 1 and AB 1.

  
* Future Legislation Related to Transportation Revenue Protection and Voter Threshold Reduction

Revenue Protection: On January 18th, Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 (Newman) was introduced. The bill would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state on vehicles or their operation and redirect those funds for non-transportation purposes.  
  
Vote Threshold: At the time this report was submitted, staff understands that draft language to lower the vote threshold from supermajority (2/3rds) to simple majority for local transportation related transactions and use taxes has been submitted for Legislative Counsel's review.  
  
The County's 2016 State Legislative platform includes support for a threshold reduction for transportation taxes:  
General Revenues/Finances: 44. SUPPORT a reduction in the 2/3rd vote requirement to 55% voter approval for locally-approved special taxes that fund health, education, economic, stormwater services, library, transportation and/or public safety programs and services.  
  
  

As additional details become available on the two legislative efforts above, staff will report to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee and the BOS.

  
Support  
Associated General Contractors (AGC)  
California Association of Councils of Governments/Self Help Counties Coalition  
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)  
California Transit Association  
California Transportation Commission  
City of American Canyon  
City of Carpinteria  
City of Chino  
City of Colton  
City of Crescent City  
City of Cupertino  
City of Fort Bragg  
City of Goleta  
City of La Mirada  
City of Lafayette  
City of Lakeport  
City of Lodi  
City of Modesto  
City of Monterey  
City of Moorpark  
City of Morro Bay  
City of Ontario  
City of Palos Verdes Estates  
City of Pico Rivera  
City of Pismo Beach  
City of Point Arena  
City of Rancho Cucamonga  
City of Riverbank  
City of Sacramento  
City of San Carlos  
City of San Jose  
City of San Luis Obispo  
City of Santa Barbara  
City of Sausality  
City of Thousand Oaks  
City of Ukiah  
City of Vernon  
City of Woodland  
County of Humboldt Board of Supervisors  
County of Marin Board of Supervisors  
County of Monterey Board of Supervisors  
County of Napa Board of Supervisors  
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors  
County of Sacramento Board of Supervisors  
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors  
County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors  
County of Yolo Board of Supervisors  
Golden Empire Transit District (GET) in Bakersfield  
Granite Construction Incorporated  
League of California Cities  
Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities  
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC)  
Orange County Business Council (OCBC)  
Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG)  
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)  
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC)  
Silicon Valley Leadership Group  
Siskiyou County Local Transportation Commission  
Town of Danville  
Town of Windsor  
Town of Yountville  
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)  
United Contractors  
Urban Counties of California  
Ventura Council of Governments  
  
Support if Amended  
City of Signal Hill  
  
Oppose Unless Amended  
  
  
Neutral  
Environmental Coalitions  

Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill.