Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 1990A G E N D A ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 7, 1990 7:30 P.M. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meetings of July 17, 1990 ACTION All Present Approved MOTION: Read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. Adopted 1. PUBLIC HEARING Confirmation of weed abatement charges as prepared by the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commis- Public Hearing Closed; sioner. Approved 2. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Text Amendment 90 -006, to amend the building height and side yard setback requir ments in the R -M, R -0 and R -1 zones and amending the Administrative Modification and regular modification procedures. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of revisions to the Planning and Building Division fees. RESOLUTION NO. 5544, changing the filing fees, extension fees and appeal fees for General Plan-Amendments, Text Amendments, Zone Changes, Variances /Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Maps, Parcel Map Waivers, Administrative Modifications, Modifications, and R -2 and R -3 Modifications, and repealing Resolution No. 5506. Public Hearing Closed; Approved 30' limit in R -0. -Plan deadline - 30 days to associations, 60 days to City. Public Hearin.- Closed Adopted AGENDA 8/7/90 3 4. 0 • PUBLIC HEARING (continued) RESOLUTION NO'. 5545, changing the fees for Building Code Variances, Building Permits, Grading Plan Checking, Grading Permits, Plumbing Permits, Plumbing Plan Checking, Electrical Permits, Mechanical Permits, Mechanical Plan Checking, Move Examination, Relocation Permits, Removal Permit, Demo- lition Permit, Sign Permit and Swimming Pool Permit, and repealing Resolution No. 5507. Adopted ACTION Time reserved for those in the audience who wish Robert Caldwell to address the City Council (five- minute time Ed Zareh limit per person). 5. RECESS CITY COUNCIL 6. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY a. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb, Harbicht and Young All Present b. MINUTES of the Study Session and the regular meeting of July 17, 1990 Approved C. Consideration of Exclusive Right to Negotiate with WLA /Arcon /Schaefer Brothers (Southwest Corner Project). Approved d. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., August 21, 1990 7. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 8. CONSENT ITEMS a. Consideration of an appeal for the approval of Conditional Use Permit application 90 -010, a 40 -lot residential planned develop- ment at 702 -822 N. First Avenue and 105 -119 Haven Avenue (John E. Plount, appellant - PUBLIC HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED). Public Hearing 8/21/90 b. Consideration of 14 -unit resident 748 -756 Naomi (L of Fu -Nsan Chen, site). Final Map 47410, for a ial condominium project at & D Engineering on behalf owner /developer of the Approved -2- AGENDA 8/7/90 8. CONSENT ITEMS (continued) ACTION C. Consideration of Final Map 48282, for a 5 -unit residential condominium project at 601 S. Fifth (Loren Phillips & Associates on behalf of Ming - Nang Chen, owner /developer of the site). Approved d. Recommendation for award of contract for Improvement of Railroad Bridge at Second Avenue and Huntington Drive - Job No. 656. Approved e. Recommendation for authorization to prepare plans and specificationsand call for bids for Improvement of Median Islands, Colorado Street at Colorado Place (Upper Y) - Job No. 508. Continued f. Report and recommendation for the purchase of water meters for the Water Division of the Public Works Departmgnt. Approved g. Request to reduce Business License fees for amusement rides for the Chamber of Commerce County Fair. Withdrawn by applicant h. Recommendation regarding Southern California Rapid Transit District's proposed County -wide 1/2¢ sales tax for transit operations. Tabled i. Request for contribution to the San Gabriel Valley Senior Babe Ruth All Stars. Approved 9. CITY ATTORNEY a. ORDINANCE NO. 1924 - For Adoption - Amending Chapter 9 of the Building Code setting forth regulations for the reduction of earthquake hazards in existing buildings. Adopted b. ORDINANCE NO. 1925 - For Adoption - Approving Text Amendment 90 -004, amending the building height regulations in the R -M, R -0 and R -1 zones to provide an exception to allow wire- less radio masts, towers or antennas to be a maximum height of 35' -0 ". Adopted -3- AGENDA 8/7/90 0 0 0 9. CITY ATTORNEY (continued) ACTION C. ORDINANCE NO. 1926 - For Adoption - Approving Zone Change Z -90 -001, changing the existing zone of PR -3 (Multiple - Family Zone with Automobile Parking Zone) to C -2 & D (General Commercial Zone with Architectural Design Zone) for the lots located at 311 and 325 East Live Oak Avenue and 261.6 South Third Avenue, west of Fourth Avenue and south of the alley. Adopted d. RESOLUTION NO. 5546, amending Resolution No. 5521 by adding certain requirements to the adopted Procurement Protest Procedures, as required by the Federal Urban Mass Transit to qdo Administration (UMTA). Adopted 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF 11, MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS 12. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., August 21, 1990 Mayor Pro Tem Gilb designated as voting alternate for the League of California Cities annual conference. Lopez Letter to Bushey re: soundwalls Joint meeting with Planning Commission - October 2 at 5:00 p.m. -4- AGENDA 8/7/90 w Memotan*clum Date ____.August 7,_ 19 9 0 TO: City Council (� I FROM: George J. Watts, City Manager SUBJECT: Request from San Gabriel Valley Senior Babe Ruth All Stars The attached request was received from the Mayor of E1 Monte asking that the City of Arcadia con- tribute $100 to the San Gabriel Valley Senior Babe Ruth All Stars to help offset tournament expenses. It is recommended that the City Council authorize this expenditure from the General City fund. cr Attachment LASER IMAGED r July 26, 1990 Mayor Mary Young City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91106 CITY HALL EAST • 11333 VALLEY BLVD, EL M O N T E , C A L I FOR N IA 91 7 31 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 1 8 ) 5 8 0 - 2 0 0 1 F A X ( 8 1 8 1 5 8 0 - 2 0 6 8 ;11TY OF ARCAW JUL 27 1990 MAYOR RE: REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION FOR SAN GABRIEL VALLEY SENIOR BABE RUTH ALL STARS Dear Mayor Young: CITY COUNCIL DON McMILLEN MAYOR JACK CRIPPEN, vicE MAYOR DAN MORGAN JACK THURSTON PATRICIA A WALLACH CITY CLERK KATHLEEN KAPLAN The San Gabriel Valley Senior Babe Ruth All Stars recently captured the 1990 Southern California Baseball Championship. They are preparing to travel to San Leandro, California, August 4th through August 10, 1990, to compete for the Pacific Southwest Regional Tournament. The winner of that tournament will travel to Niles, Michigan for the World Series. This team consists of eighteen Gail y=ffg stem, $0-W yeaA who represent eleven (11) cities from throughout the San Gabriel Valley. illness eTties are as follows; Arcadia Baldwin Park Covina Diamond Bar El Monte Glendora La Verne San Gabriel South El Monte Temple City West Covina I am requesting that each City contribute $100 to help with expenses such as equipment, uniforms, travel, meals, hotel and miscellaneous expenses. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. If yea have any questions or suggestions regarding the ball club please eantaet me at (MB) aSWW4. Very truly yours, DON McMILLEN, MAYOR City of El Monte DMcM /KW /dr/wp/Young (11111t 9- glandry er --Mon& LASER MGM' August 7, 1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REVISED PLANNING AND BUILDING DIVISION FEES This public hearing has been scheduled for the consideration of increasing the Planning Division fees and Building Division fees. The Planning Department is recommending that the fees charged for processing the various Planning applications and Building Permit fees be increased 6 %. This increase corresponds to the overall increase in the 1990 -91 City Budget. Attached for the City Council's consideration are Resolutions 5544 and 5545 setting forth the proposed Planning and Building Division fees. If the resolutions are adopted at tonight's meeting, the effective date for the revised fees will be September 3, 1990. ACTION If the City Council determines that the fees should be adjusted as set forth in the attached resolutions the Council should read the title of the resolutions then adopt said resolutions. If the City Council determines that fees other than those set forth in the resolutions should be adopted, the Council should first decide what specific fee changes should be made to the resolutions then read the titles and the adopt the resolutions. Approved: Ge ge J. W s City Manager Planning and Building Fees October 17,1989 LASER IMAGED Page 1 O V 1/10 o Memotan m Date __ AUGUST _7, 1990 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JUNE ALFORD, CITY CLERK SUBJECT: 1989 -90 WEED ABATEMENT CHARGE LIST - PUBLIC HEARING The Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner has submitted the attached list of charges in connection with the cost of abating weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land as listed. The addresses have been inserted. The list has been posted as required and is now before you to hear any objections to the charges. If an objection is lodged, you may want to have the matter investigated by the Fire Department or over- rule the objection and the following minute motion would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: MOVE TO CONFIRM THE LIST AS SUBMITTED AND DIRECT THAT THE COUNTY AUDITOR BE INSTRUCTED TO ENTER THE AMOUNTS OF THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AS THEY APPEAR ON THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT ROLL. LASER IMAGED f REPORT ON COST OF ABATING NOXIOUS WEEDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA W77va - ,- Pursuant to an order heretofore made by your Honorable Body instructing this Department to abate noxious or dangerous weeds and rubbish under the provisions of the Government Code, we respectfully submit the following report on the cost of abating such noxious weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land, showing the cost of removing such weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land, or in front thereof, or both, to -wit: (see attached) LASER IMAGED 4_Y JUL 1 '1 199U Cay OF ARCACIA M66S TEED AOATEMENT CHARGES SY NEED KEY 07113/10 PAGicLVii ostD MAP60CR PAGE PARCEL IGNE CITY TOTAL KEY CODE CHARGES __ 7 5383 031 014 02 03S 23043 756 Naomi Ave. Fu Nan Chen 7 5765 002 012 02 03S 3kZ.s1k Santa Anita Canyon Rd. William Martin Tr. 7 S765 002 013 02 035 230413 Santa Anita Canyon Rd. Lilia-no Trust 7 5765 030 DIG 02 4135 23083 Highland Vista Dr. Vida Trust 7 S772 006 030 Be 035 4230aa 723 N. First Ave. Foursquare Gospel Church 7 5773 004 006 02 03S 23.43 Second & Santa Clara Chandler Investment 7 S773 1014 011 02 03S 113071 151 Alta St. Zahir & Younaei 7 S77S 02S 02S 041 03S 133.86 _ Santa Clara /w Santa Anita Ellsworth Dahl ren _ 7 5777 026 022 02 O3S 214024 -7 r W. Huntington Dr. Maier Brewing 7 5777 036 002 02 035 169.26 1045 W. Huntington Dr. Maier Brewing 7 S7a4 020 G I % 02 03S 166.19 Rear of 324 E. Le Roy George Kolovos 7 SUS 002 067 02 O35 23.83 513 W. Winme Way Albert & Doug as Knutsen 7 SUS 020 073 02 035 23043 202 W. Wistaria Ave. Title Insurance & Trust 7 3748 014 013 02 03S 323.92 End_ of Briargate Lane Louis Nassaney 7 57a9 021 G11 G2 03S 169.46 -b7 E -� TTve a ve. Honda America Development 7 -16S32 cis OFil 02 03S S07056 12009 E. Clark St. Gifford Hill Cement Co. 7 6532 Ols 006 U2 035 470•SO Cogswell Road Chi Seen Hsu 7 4532 01S 007 02 Ols 306027 - CogswelT Road-- i Seen Hsu 7 4532 OILS 010 02 Ills %45.71 Cogswell Road Chi Seen Hsu 7 8532 016 001 02 03S 277.11 Clark Street Livingston_ Graham 7 8532 016 003 02 G35 106.27 Clark rei -- et - Livingston Graham 7 6532 016 005 02 035 231.57 Clark Street Gifford Hill Cement Co. 7 6532 O16 007 02 03S 340.76 Clark & Varus Micro -Tek Associates 7 8 016 0 2 S S •211 - -- TI9IrGoTdring oaT- Tlia -_. Contreras 7 8532 017 004 02 035 146.63 Clark Street San Gabriel Valley Water Co. 7 4532 037 001 02 03S 109.07 La Salle Street Consolidated Rock Products 7 aS32 017 OILl 02 03S 3140.24 Gd1d1f1ng-lZ6ad f is ar on rer sa 7 8532 017 0166 02 O3S 114.66 La Salle Street Xavier A. Contreras 7 8532 0.17 049 02 03S 114.66 Goldring Road Xavier A. Contreras 7 8 017 OSO 02 35 177.65 � oldring Road - Xavier A. --- Contreras 7 6S32 018 OOS 02 03S 146.63 La Salle Street Kardashian Enterprises 7 8532 Ole 011 02 03S 346.63 Randolph Street Kardashian Enterprises 7 8532 1716 0l5 02 035 23.63 Randolph Street spor is International 7 6532 Old 01a 02 035 23.63 Randolph Street Xavier A. Contreras 7 6532 016 019 02 03S 23.113 Randolph Street Xavier A. Contreras 7 6532 016 tj20 02 035 _ 277.28 11728 Goldring Road U. Uuyang reis er 7 8532 018 021 02 035 1452.00 Goldring Road Wang Associates 7 8532 019 024 02 03S 359•aS Goldring Road Anthony & Domenic Zoccol i _ C/D 7 6532 019 025 02 035 109.07 an o p ree n ony omenic occoTi M 7 6S32 014 626 02 03S 111.86 Goldring Road Anthony & Domenic Zoccol i 7 6532 019 G27 ue 635 106.27 Randolph Street Anthony & Domenic Zoccoli RZ 7 6532 039 026 02 03S 110.04 o ring oa Randolph Street ---Robert yers Robert J. Myers 7 8532 019 021 02 035 130.36 7 6s4S 024 004 02 Ills 5S8.53 Lower Azusa Road Rodeffer Investments 7 65145 6241 Ou5 G2 035 469011 ower zusa oa _Ro_ efter Investments m 0 -- TOTAL PARCELS = 4S /TOTAL CNARGES = 9�ILa0.50 - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - - Tnemotan Jum "-51'-2W1n5 AW_ +cO +�ousso- �o DATE: August 2, 1990 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: "David Feinberg, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Additional Procedures for Competitive Procurements Using Urban Mass Transportation Administration Funds The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) recently performed a triennial review of the operations of the Arcadia Dial -A -Ride. One of the findings of the review found that the City must have in place protest procedures on competitive procurements paid for with UMTA funds. In response to the finding, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5521 which laid out such protest procedures. After submitting Resolution No. 5521, UMTA responded by stating that the Resolution neglected to specifically address four procedural issues. Specifically, they asked the procedures to identify the formal decision -maker in the process (the City Council), to provide a formal record of the process (the City Clerk), when the decision is considered final (the vote of a majority of the Councilmembers) and make sure all prospective bidders are aware the procedures are in place. Resolution No. 5546 addresses each of the concerns. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5546, a Resolution amending Resolution No. 5521 by adding certain requirements to the adopted procurement protest procedures, as required by the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). Attachments Approved: G r e J. t, 1 y Manager LASER WAGED nFl 30 — 70 s� R r.0r Vemorandum DATE: August 2, 1990 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:�David Feinberg, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Recommendation regarding Southern California Rapid Transit District's proposed County -wide 1/2 cent sales tax for transit operations Recently, the City received a proposal from the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) about the possibility of increasing the sales tax by 1/2 of a percent in Los Angeles County to improve transit. Background Proposition T would disburse money to transit operators in order to respond to the increased need for transportation in Los Angeles County. Specifically, the SCRTD believes the increase in revenues would allow operators to expand bus service, purchase clean fuel vehicles, service the growing rail system and help to hold down bus fares. The breakdown of the funds is as follows: 1) Not less than 10% to the LACTC for capital funding of "clean air" equipment and facilities. 2) Not more than 9% to the LACTC to be used for special projects and demonstrations. 3) Not less than 80% to transit operators on a formula basis. 4) Not more than 1% to the LACTC to fund activities to create a Countywide Transit Plan. Analysis As the Proposition is currently written it states that formula allocations to operators will be given to "Public Agencies providing or overseeing the provision of fixed route public transit services, that are designated by the LACTC as eligible recipients." In a discussion with SCRTD staff it was learned that it was not the intent of the Proposition to exclude municipal operators who provide general public dial -a -ride service. Thus, revised language on the formula allocations including the Arcadia Dial -A -Ride would be necessary in order to support the Proposition. LASER IMAGED Half -Cent Sales Tax August 2, 1990 Page Two Also, staff would like modifications of the proposed formula for dividing the formula allocation between the SCRTD and the other public agencies. The eligibility list of the formula allocation criteria strongly favors factors which would increase the allocation of revenues to the SCRTD at the expense of the other public agencies. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council oppose Proposition T unless wording changes are made to assure that the Arcadia Dial -A -Ride would be included in all funding allocations and modifications are made to formula allocation eligibility list to include factors which take into account the uniqueness of dial -a -ride systems. Attachments i Approved: Geordie J. �atts, City Manager LASER IMAGED nm `1 =' Nick Patsaouras Director Dear City Official: July 12, 1990 CITY OF ARCADIfi JUL 1 g 1990 MAYOR The recent passage of Propositions 108, 111, and 116 insures that Los Angeles County residents will benefit from a variety of transportation infrastructure improvements. The new revenues will accelerate the building of a network of urban rail lines. By the year 2001 over half of the 150 miles of the network envisioned ten years ago will be completed. In addition, intercity and commuter rail links will be added to the mix, as will HOV lanes on a number of highway facilities. The propositions serve Statewide interests by allowing capital investment in transportation infrastructure; an investment that might not have been afforded by many localities. While they do provide operating support for major roads and arterials, they provide very little support for transit operations. Presumably, the localities are to provide this support. The District has been investigating ways to fund operation of this expanded transit network. A Countywide 1/2 cent sales tax is the most promising of the alternatives. If submitted to the voters by the LACTC, as a transit measure, a simple majority would be needed for approval. The resulting revenues would allow all operators to expand bus service, purchase clean fuel vehicles, and service the rail system, while holding down fares. The attached report includes both suggested language for the proposition and background information. In order to meet the goals of SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan and the AQMD's Air Quality Management Plan we will have to increase service by 170% over the next twenty years. This proposal would make these ambitious requirements feasible. We will be able to field a transit alternative that could compete with the automobile. To do otherwise is not attractive. We will not be able to offer expanded service as an alternative to driving. Beyond that, service cuts or fare increases are always unpalatable choices whenever operating funds do not meet operating expenses. These would hardly allow transit to alleviate pollution and congestion. We could end up with a magnificent rail system open only to those who could afford the fares, and whose schedules coincide with the less than optimum schedules offered by the underfunded system. It seems to me that a local sales tax for locally operated transit service is the best way to generate funds. Of course, the proposal includes rewards for cost efficiency and encourages funding from other (prim- arily private) sources. But if we are to meet the regional goals of reducing pollution and congestion, then the transit service expansion that necessarily goes with it will need funding from public sources as well. I would appreciate your reactions to the proposal. Asaouras President LASER IMAGED Southern California Rapid Transit District 425 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 972 -4300 June 5, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Alan F. Pegg SUBJECT: PROPOSITION T: A HALF -CENT SALES TAX FOR TR L4,NSrr RECOMMENDATION This proposal responds to the Board's request for a way to fund the comprehensive program of transit expansion and improvement that is required by the region's plans to provide a real alternative to the automobile. It is recommended that the Board endorse a proposed funding measure based on a half -cent sales tax (Appendix 1), to be put before the voters using the same legal procedures used in 1980 for Proposition A Further, that the Board authorize staff to forward this proposal to the LACTC, along with any supporting information deemed necessary, with a request that it be placed on the November 1990 ballot. DISCUSSION The District's adopted Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) describes regional transit needs over the next 20 years, and how the District intends to meet those needs. In order to meet the goals for reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality that are set forth in SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, a stable funding source must be identified. The proposed funding mechanism would utilize provisions of LACTC enabling legislation (AB 1246 — 1976), which allows the Commission to place a sales tax increase on the ballot "for public transit purposes" (PUC Section 130354). This is the approach used to initiate Proposition A and it requires a simple majority voter approval to pass. The LACTC has already proposed an additional one -half cent sales tax to support street and highway projects contained in their "On the Road to the Year 2000" plan. The LACTC proposal LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 2 uses different enabling legislation (SB 142 — 1988), allowing the imposition of an additional sales tax increment for funding any transportation purpose. Like the mechanism used for Proposition A, the SB 142 process requires a simple majority voter approval to pass. Unlike the Proposition A process, the SB 142 process requires prior approval by the Board of Supervisors and by city councils representing both the majority of the cities and the majority of the population in incorporated areas of the County, before the measure can be placed on the ballot. The LACTC to date has not won support for their proposal from the requisite number of cities in order to place it on the ballot. If the pending LACTC proposal were to be placed on the ballot and approved by the voters, it would preclude the opportunity of a sales tax for transit expansion since state law allows a maximum of one cent local sales tax above the six cents collected by the state. Thus, the current District proposal is offered as an alternative that may more readily be placed upon the ballot, and maximizes the county's "bang for the buck" by supporting expansion of transit rather than continued accommodation of automobile travel. Consider, too, that pending ballot measures, Propositions 108, 111 and 116, provide significant highway funds, as well as capital funds for commuter and urban rail, but relatively little for rail or bus operations which need to be expanded considerably. The proposed 1R cent sales tax is the only other readily available alternative for operating funds. IMPACT ON BUDGET AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES This proposal is central to attainment of the District's fundamental objective of providing a viable alternative to the automobile, as outlined in the FY 91 — FY 95 Business Plan. It is aimed at providing a dependable revenue stream. BACKGROUND Although tax funds are not the only means being examined of financing transit expansion, any reasonable strategy for supporting expansion must include increased public revenues. Transit insufficiency is, in part, a result of entrenched policies favoring automobile travel. The District has been active in seeking changes to such policies. In advocating more enlightened policy directions, however, we are frequently brought full circle, to be told that auto accommodation must continue because a real transit alternative in Los Angeles is not readily available. In the meantime all new statewide funding measures propose major capital funds for highway and transit projects. None of these proposals provide operation funds to provide and maintain services on these new facilities. Additional public funding is needed to break out of this circle. The need for additional public funds for transit growth doesn't necessarily signify greater relative dependence on tax support. Although the size of the transit infrastructure will require more public funds in the aggregate, the public share in the future will be reduced, with greater proportional reliance on the user and on third parties such as employers. A recent SCAG survey Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 3 indicates strong public support for employers to provide free or subsidized transit passes to their employees. The proposed ordinance will address this issue by requiring a Countywide Transit Plan that encourages - higher contributions from non - public sources. At the same time that local trends and air quality mandates demand much more transit service, federal funds are diminishing. The new national transportation policy suggests further narrowing of the federal role, and the need for greater local self- reliance. The proposed ordinance will allow operators to substitute local funds for lost Federal revenues. According to a LACTC legal opinion, the Commission has authority, under existing law, to place on the ballot a sales tax measure to collect up to an additional half -cent tax, in Los Angeles County, to be used for public transit purposes. This authority requires neither voter signatures nor approval from other government agencies in order to be placed on the ballot, and a simple majority of "yes" votes would provide for approval. The District recommends that the LACTC use this authority to place a measure on the November 1990 ballot with the increased rate to become effective no later than July 1, 1991. Such action is recommended now because the longer that transit expansion is delayed, the more difficult it will become to clean the air or achieve regional mobility objectives. The adopted Business Plan calls for an expansion of all regional services; the Desired Plan can only be achieved with increased public and private support. WHAT THE MONEY WOULD BUY If implemented July 1, 1991, an additional one -half cent sales tax would generate over 5400 million in FY 92. Revenues would increase in later years in response to inflation and to population and economic growth and are estimated to reach $670 million annually in the year 2000 and $ 1.15 billion in 2010. Total cumulative revenues from FY 92 through FY 2010 are estimated at $14.2 billion. To have a chance of political acceptance, the sales tax measure must offer benefits to all county residents. Proposition A. as passed in 1980, provides an example. Prop A included the 25% Local Return Program, the three -year Fare Reduction Program, the Rail Fund, and the Discretionary Fund which has been used to support bus operations after the end of the reduced fare period In summary- 1. Proposition T will provide the ability to both strengthen existing transit services, and to provide the new services needed to attract riders who have not previously found transit convenient through allocations to transit operators and the LACTC. 2. Proposition T will also provide the source of operating subsidies needed to make the emerging rail system a success. Additional rail capital revenues will allow accelerated LASER IMAGED -, Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 4 development of future rail system links, hastening the day when a full rail network will be in place. 3. Proposition T will also enable Los Angeles County to proceed with procurement of "clean -air" bus technologies and with potential electrification of high volume bus lines, as required to assure healthy air for residents of this region. The availability of local matching funds will help the County qualify for state and federal grants for clean -air investment, rail expansion, and other capital projects. The Business Plan indicates a need for a S1.6 billion investment in electrification of high volume lines. An important selling point for Proposition T would be the promise to patrons that fares will be frozen for at least 3 years, and that increases for the ensuing 3 years will be restricted to the overall economy's rate of inflation. While 6 years is a very long time to freeze or restrict fares (twice the length of time that was stipulated by Proposition A), a freeze /restriction period will be far less disruptive to service planning than the sudden increase and decrease in demand that resulted from Proposition A's 3 years of fare reduction. The proposition would also insure that most of the funds will be used for service improvements or expansion. It will do so, in part, by insuring that an included operator's farebox revenue per passenger mile must be equal or greater than 3/4 the countywide average. In order to avoid alienating municipal and other highly subsidized operators, local return funds subsidizing local operations would be included in the calculation of farebox revenue. The proposed equation for formula allocation also serves the dual u p rpose of insuring efficiency in expansion, and providing predictability and stability in the revenue stream. It does so by partially discounting such measures of productivity as passenger miles and boardings by these measures' unit costs, while basing calculations on 3 -year averages. A cost efficient producer of service would be rewarded by the formula. But all operators should realize that Proposition T funds will substantially augment existing sources, that all parties will substantially benefit regardless of share. The stability of formula shares will also allow operators to more effectively plan the provision and expansion of services. In terms of service, revenues from the additional half -cent sales tax would support a 170% transit service expansion over the next 20 years. By 2001 the waiting time between buses on most lines would be significantly shortened; even on lightly traveled lines the maximum waiting time between buses would be no more than 20 minutes during offpeak hours. By that time the region would have over 75 miles of rail service as the new transit backbone. Overall service quality would be improved, and air quality would be enhanced by a changeover to clean fuel buses and electric vehicles. Given concerns about productivity and efficiency in expenditure of public funds, Proposition T will contain assurances to the public and to other agencies that all funds will be spent wisely. An explicit process would be set up for annual planning, review and approval of projects, and Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page S accounting for expenditures, with public hearings on spending proposals. Opportunities for private provision of transit services would be a significant element, particularly for new transit services. The LACTC would have the central role in administration of funds including review and evaluation of operator performance. PROPOSED FUNDING ALLOCATION The basic apportionment of Proposition T funds is proposed to be as follows: ■ Not less than 10% to the LACTC for capital funding of "clean -air" equipment and facilities needed to assure that transit operations meet all emissions reductions targets. Examples of expenditures would be conversion of existing buses and fuel storage and dispensing equipment to use alternative fuels, additional capital costs of buying new alternative fuel vehicles, costs of retrofitting diesel buses with particulate traps, and costs for electrification of existing bus lines or construction of new, electrified bus facilities on exclusive rights -of -way. ■ Not more than 9% to the LACTC to be used for special projects and demonstrations. For example, the LACTC could expend the funds necessary to establish a "smart card" fare system that would provide county residents a convenient means of utilizing any publicly funded transit system, while retaining local control by preserving transit operators' abilities to set their own fares. Other projects might include funding operating facilities such as transit malls. ■ Not less than 80% to transit operators on a formula basis. These funds would be dedicated primarily to expansion of existing transit services, provision of new services, operating support of new rail services, as well as operating support of clean fuel vehicles to the extent that they are more expensive to operate than traditional alternatives. The operators' formula shares would also serve as a contingency to make up for any declines in federal or state subsidies, and to delay or ameliorate fare increases. The specific formula to be used for funding allocation to transit operators would recognize the service utilized by riders (boardings, passenger miles) and the service efficiencies sustained by operators (cost per passenger mile, cost per boarding). The current LACTC allocation formula reliance on "fare units" is obscure, does not provide adequate recognition of operator productivity and service utilization, and is excessively sensitive to fluctuation based on the level of the base fare. A requirement that formula allocation be based on 3 year averages would eliminate the grosser fluctuations. ■ Not more than 1% to the LACTC to fund -activities that will result in a strategic Countywide Transit Plan. Ongoing general public participation would also be supported with these funds. LASER IMAGED" Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 6 THE COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT PLAN Voters are likely to approve collection of additional taxes for transportation if they believe they will get their money's worth. They will want to be assured that the tax revenue isn't being wasted by the transit operators, and that the benefits are to be fairly distributed. Since the primary purpose of the additional half -cent sales tax is to expand and improve service, the additions and improvements should be visible, and there should be confidence that they are real, not subtle manipulations of the service base. The elements of program administration should include mechanisms for providing the necessary assurances. The keystone is an integrated planning and implementation process for transit improvements, that is locally focused and regionally coordinated. The integration will be accomplished through the development of a Countywide Transit Plan, a strategic plan prepared by the LACTC. While focusing on transit, it would take a broad perspective encompassing all transportation, and would attempt to point the way to a level playing field for all modes. It would strategically consider how transit is impacted by land development, air quality, traffic congestion, mobility and access, and the many related plans, such as any of the congestion management plans, the Air Quality Management Plan, and Regional Mobility Plan. Each recipient of Proposition T funds would be responsible for an annual plan of improvements that would contribute to the Countywide Transit Plan. These plans could be prepared by each operating entity, or could be prepared jointly by operator agreement. The primary focus would be on intentions for additional or improved service. Service providers would be required to describe existing service levels and service quality and to explain how proposed expenditures would impact the service levels and service quality described. PUBLIC ADVISORY CO ES Another important selling point to voters will be assurance that transit user representatives will have their say on an ongoing basis. Hearings are a necessary forum for public input into the service development process, but are not necessarily sufficient by themselves. They should be regarded as the formal culmination of a continuous planning and monitoring effort carried out jointly by the operators and users of the transit services. The bodies responsible for the interface between service providers and consumers will be the proposed Service Advisory Committees that will work with each operator. In order to assure effective, continuing input from the transit users, the operators would provide technical and logistical support to the Committees. The Commission will provide Proposition T funds to providers to support these activities. Board of Directors June S, 1990 page 7 CONCLUSION Proposition T will serve many purposes, which are concisely summarized in t Ordinance text: "purpose of Tax. This tax is being posed to im imposed he proposed public transit Countywide, to moderate fare increases, prove and expand existing to compensate for federal operation gsubsidy reductions, to develop energy efficient means of State and Federal funds. benefit assessments. and fares. "n It rwi111beaveryr dt more t to use grf these purposes without the benefit of this kind of tax. In light of the Statewide achieve many fund capital but not operating projects, the timing is right for the District to rode proposals to oriented tax to the Commission. propose this transit Enclosure JS /er PROPTSB.BOD Respectfully, Z.6/� 4 Alan F. Pegg 5. Gary S Spivac Interim Assist: Plannin and ruouc Awau= Dana A. Woodbury Interim Director of Planning LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 1 Appendix 1: Proposed Ordinance Language The following u presented for discussion purposes. The proposed text is based on the original language of Proposition A. Most of the language of Proposition A could remain intact with minor revisions (such as references to dates and Revenue and Taxation Code section numbers which have changed). Section 5, "Use of Revenues Received From Imposition of the Transactions and Use Tax" would have to be entirely rewritten. Only Sections 1 and 5 have been substantially modified They have not been reviewed by legal counsel for form. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT PURPOSES The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission do ordain as follows: SECTION I A retail Transaction and Use Tax is hereby imposed in the County of Los Angeles as follows: SECTION I. DEFINITIONS. The following words, whenever used in this Ordinance, shall have the meanings set forth below: (a) "Commission" means the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission or any successor entity. (b) "County' means the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles. (c) 'Transaction" or 'Transactions" have the same meaning, respectively, as the words "Sale" or 'Sales'; and the word Transactor' has the same meaning as 'Seller', as "Sale" or "Sales" and "Seller' are used in Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (d) "Funds ", unless modified by the words "State" or "Federal ", means the revenues received from the imposition of the additional transactions and use tax specified in this ordinance. (e) "Farebox revenue" means out -of- pocket fare payment by patrons, fare subsidies paid to patrons by private or public third parties, and private or municipal payments made directly to operators to effect fare reductions. SECTION ?. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS TAX. There is hereby imposed a tax for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail upon every retailer in the County at a rate of one. half of 1% of the Sross receipts of the retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold by him at retail in the County. SECTION 3. F.MPOSMON OF USE TAX. There is hereby imposed a complementary tax upon the storage, use or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer for storage, use or other consumption in the County. Such tax shall be at a rate of one -half of 1 % of the sales price of the property whose storage, use or other consumption is subject to the tax. SECTION 4. APPLICATION OF SALES AND USE TAX PROVISIONS OF REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. The provisions contained in Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Sales and Use Taxes, commencing with Section 6001), insofar as they relate to sales or use taxes and are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Cade (Transactions and Use Taxes, commencing with Section 7251), shall apply and be part of this Ordinance, being incorporated by reference herein, except that: (a) The Commission, as the taxing agency, shall be substituted for that of the State; (b) An additional transactors permit shall not be required if a seller's permit has been or is issued to the transactor under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; and (c) The word "County' shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase, "Retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and in the definition of that phrase. A retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchase of tangible personal property unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property; including, but not limited to soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, or subsidiary or person in the County under authority of the retailer. All amendments subsequent to January 1. 1991, to the above cited Sales and Use Taxes provisions relating to sales or use taxes and not consistent with this Ordinance shall automatically become a part of this Ordinance; provided, hoaever,that no such amendment shall operate as to affect the rate of tax imposed by the Commission. SECTION 5. USE OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM IMPOSMON OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. The revenues received by the Commission from the imposition of the transactions and use tax shall be used for public transit purposes, as follows: (a) Purpose of Tax. LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 3 This tax is being imposed to improve and expand existing public transit Countywide, to moderate fare increases, to compensate for federal operating subsidy reductions, to develop energy efficient means of providing transit, and to more effectively use State and Federal funds, benefit assessments, and fares. (b) Use of Revenues Revenues will be allocated as follows: 1. Discretionary allocations a. Not more than nineteen (19) percent, calculated on an annual basis, to the Commission for capital funding of clean -air equipment and facilities and for special projects and demonstrations. (1) The majority of these allocations, not less than ten (10) percent, is to be allocated to clean -air equipment and facilities. b. Not more than one (1) percent, calculated on an annual basis, to the Commission for expenditures related to development of a Countywide Transit Plan, operator expenditures related to documentation of existing levels of service, service quality and impacts of proposed expenditures on service levels and quality, and expenditures in support of Service Advisory Committees of Users and Providers. 2. Formula allocations to operators a. Not less than eighty (80) percent calculated on an annual basis, to be divided by formula among: (1) The Southern California Rapid Transit District (District) or any successor entity, and 30* (2) Public Agencies providing or overseeing the provision of fixed route public transit services, that are designated by the Commission as eligible recipients. 3. Scope of Use L Revenues can be used for capital or operating expenses. (c) Commission Policy. I. Relative to the Discretionary Component: a. Allocation of funds to operators and local jurisdictions shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) Submission to the Commission of a description of intended use of the funds, in order to establish legal eligibility. Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 4 (2) Recipients shall account annually to the Commission on the use of such funds. 2• Relative to the Formula Component: a. The Commission shall publicly develop objective criteria for determining the list of eligible Public Agencies (specified in Section 5(b)2.a.(2) above). Minimum criteria for eligibility shall include: (1) Provision or oversight of fixed route public transit service for the 3 vears previous to application for eligibility. (2) A completed application for eligibility to the Commission, which shall include an expenditure plan. (a) The expenditure plan shall include a method of evaluating private bids for any new service included in the plan. Restructured services for clean air solutions are exempted from this sub - section. (b) Eligible expenditures shall include new service, existing service expansion, service quality improvements, rail operations, clean -air vehicle operation, compensation for federal operating subsidy reductions, matching requirements for State and Federal funds, transit interface and intermodal interface projects, and reduction of fare increases. Capital expenditures associated with service expansion and service improvement shall also be eligible. (c) The expenditure plan shall be submitted to public review and comment prior to submission to the Commission. Public comment shall be included in the submittal. b. Funds shall be divided between the District and the Public Agencies on the eligibility list by the following formula: (1) The operator's passenger miles divided by the operator's operating cost per passenger mile, and (2) The operator's boardings divided by the operator's operating cost per boarding. (3) Each of the two components of the formula shall be weighted equally such that each operator's share can be represented in a standard equation by, f'((Psg.mi.jcost per psg.mi.;)/E(psg.mi. /cost per psg.mi.)) + f *((brdings.jcost per brding;)/Z(psg.mi. /cost per brding)) LASER IMAGED { Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 5 where terms under the summation signs represent statistics for all operators, and terms with an , subscript represent the individual operator's statistics. (3) The components of the Formula shall be calculated on the basis of 3 year averages of audited data to reduce excessive fluctuation in funding levels. C. All funds shall be allocated to the District and other eligible Public Agencies within 1 year of collection. Eligible recipients may carry over unexpended funds to subsequent years without penalty. 3. Relative to the Countywide Transit Plan a. The Commission shall publicly develop a Countywide Transit Plan (CT?), updated annually, that will integrate operator expenditure plans into a countywide strategy for transit system improvement. The Countywide Transit Plan will address both operational issues and the impact of public policy issues (such as land development, air quality, traffic congestion, mobility and access) on transit system development. b. The District and all other recipients of funds shall submit to the Commission documentation of service levels, as well as projections of how proposed expenditures from the funds collected under this ordinance will impact service levels and and passenger convenience. C. The District and all other recipients of funds shall annually submit to the Commission a list of the fares charged to passengers and a projection of the ensuing year's average farebox revenue per passenger mile. (1) In the first 3 years after implementation of this ordinance fares shall remain equivalent to those charged on July 1, 1990. (2) In the 3 subsequent years fares will not be allowed to rise beyond the rate of inflation for the overall economy, with July 1, 1993 serving as the baseline for calculation. (3) An operator may change its fare structure during these first 6 years if the Commission determines that the average fare per passenger mile is not increased during the first three years and not increased beyond the rate of inflation in the ensuing three years. d. In the sixth year of implementation, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall calculate the prior year's average farebox revenue per passenger mile for eligible operators. Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 6 (1) Each operator's projection of farebox revenue per passenger mile shall be equal to or greater than 3/4 of that prior year's countywide average. (2) If the operator's previous year's farebox revenue per passenger mile failed to at least equal 3/4 of the countywide average then the operator shall specify the changes in fare structure or operations necessary to achieve 3/4 of the prior year's countywide average. The Commission will determine if the proposed actions will achieve this requirement. (a) Operators will be given the opportunity to revise their submittals. (b) The Commission's determination that the proposed actions will not achieve 3/4 of the Countywide average will make the operator subject to formula reductions if the operator fails to attain the required farebox revenue to passenger mile ratio in the year for which the projection was made. The operator's formula allocation will be reduced by its passenger miles times the difference between its farebox revenue per passenger mile and the Countywide average. The reduction would be effective only for the year after it is concluded that 3/4 of the Countywide average was not achieved, that is, in the second year following the year of non - attainment. (c) Any funds not allocated to an operator as a result of the application of this subsection shall be added to the pool of funds to be allocated to all operators in the following year. e. The Countywide plan shall encourage increased non -public contributions to the transit system. 4. Relative to Service Advisory Committees a. The Commission, District and all eligible providers shall jointly and individually set up Service Advisory Committees of Users and Providers to facilitate community supported service expansion and service quality improvements. The Committees shall meet regularly to discuss service changes and service quality in terms of local and countywide transit needs. SECTION 6. EXCLUSION OF TAX IMPOSED UNDER BRADLEY BURNS UNIFORM LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX LAW The amount subject to tax under this Ordinance shall not include the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or LASER IMAGED i2 Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 7 county, pursuant to the Bradley -Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, or the amount of any State - administered transactions or use tax. SECTION 7. EXEMPTIONS FROM RETAIL TRANSACTIONS TAX. (a) There are exempted from the tax imposed by this Ordinance the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property to operators of waterborne vessels to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the carriage or persons or property in such vessels for commercial purposes. (b) There are exempted from the tax imposed under this Ordinance the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property to the operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made, and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. (c) Sales of property to be used outside the County which are shipped to a point outside the County pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point, are exempt from the tax imposed under this Ordinance. For purposes of this Section, "delivery" of vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, the aircraft license in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code and undocumented vessels registered under Article 2 (commencing with Section 680) of Chapter 5 of Division 3 of the Harbors and Navigation Code shall be satisfied by registration to an out-of -County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his principal place of residence. "Delivery' of commercial vehicle shall be satisfied by registration to a place of business out of County, and a declaration under penalty of perjury signed by the buyer that the vehicle will be operated from that address. (d) The We of tangible personal property is exempt from tax, if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property is exempt from tax for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance. For purposes of this Section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any parry Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 8 to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. SECTION S. EXEMPTIONS FROM USE TAX. (a) The storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property, the gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transaction tax under any State administered transactions and use taxes ordinances, shall be exempt from the tax imposed under this Ordinance. (b) The storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased by operators of waterborne vessels and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the carriage of persons or property in such vessels for commercial taxes is exempt from the use tax. (c) In addition to the exemption provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, United States, or any foreign government, is exempt from the use tax. (d) The storage, use, or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property is exempt from the use tax imposed under this Ordinance if purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of the Ordinance. The possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property is exempt from tax for any period of time for which a lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Section, storage, use or other consumption, or possession, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. SECTION 9. PLACE OF CONSUMMA'T'ION OF RETAIL TRANSACTION. For the purpose of a retail transaction tax imposed by this Ordinance, all retail transactions are consummated at the place of business of the retailer, unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of -State destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of -State destination. The LASER IMAGED I - °, Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 9 gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the State sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State, or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated for the purpose of the transactions tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 10. DEDUCTION OF LOCAL TRANSACTIONS TAXES ON SALES OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL. The Controller shall deduct local transactions taxes on sales of motor vehicle fuel which are subject to tax and refund pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 7301) of this division, unless the claimant establishes to the satisfaction of the Controller that the claimant has paid local sales tax reimbursement for a use tax measured by the sale price of the fuel to him. If the claimant establishes to the satisfaction of the Controller that he has paid transactions tax reimbursement or Commission use tax measured by the sale price of the fuel to him, including the amount of the tax imposed by said Pan 2, the Controller shall,repay to the claimant the amount of transactions tax reimbursement or use tax paid with respect to the amount of the motor vehicle license tax refunded. If the buyer receives a refund under this Section, no refund shall be made to the seller. SECTION 11. ADOPTION AND ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE. This Ordinance is hereby adopted by the Commission and shall be enacted upon authorization of the electors voting in favor thereof at the special election called for November J 1990, to vote on the measure. SECTION 12. OPERA DATE. This Retail Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance shall be operative the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing not less than 180 days after the adoption of said Ordinance. SECTION 13. ME= DATE The effective date of this Ordinance shall be , 1990. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission this _th day of 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: , ABSENT: Board of Directors June S. 1990 page 10 The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission By ATTEST: Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Chairman I hereby certify that at its meeting of 1990, the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. APPROVED AS TO FORM; County Counsel By Pnncipal Deputy County Counsel Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission LASER IMAGED ; a oft 3a — 70 Memotandum +c�O+94Sf9 ..o DATE: August 2, 1990 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:f�David Feinberg, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Recommendation regarding Southern California Rapid Transit District's proposed County -wide 1/2 cent sales tax for transit operations Recently, the City received a proposal from the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) about the possibility of increasing the sales tax by 1/2 of a percent in Los Angeles County to improve transit. Background Proposition T would disburse money to transit operators in order to respond to the increased need for transportation in Los Angeles County. Specifically, the SCRTD believes the increase in revenues would allow operators to expand bus service, purchase clean fuel vehicles, service the growing rail system and help to hold down bus fares. The breakdown of the funds is as follows: 1) Not less than 10% to the LACTC for capital funding of "clean air" equipment and facilities. 2) Not more than 9% to the LACTC to be used for special projects and demonstrations. 3) Not less than 80% to transit operators on a formula basis. 4) Not more than 1% to the LACTC to fund activities to create a Countywide Transit Plan. Analysis As the Proposition is currently written it states that formula allocations to operators will be given to "Public Agencies providing or overseeing the provision of fixed route public transit services, that are designated by the LACTC as eligible recipients." In a discussion with SCRTD staff it was learned that it was not the intent of the Proposition to exclude municipal operators who provide general public dial -a -ride service. Thus, revised language on the formula allocations including the Arcadia Dial -A -Ride would be necessary in order to support the Proposition. LASER IMAGED Half -Cent Sales Tax August 2, 1990 Page Two Also, staff would like modifications of the proposed formula for dividing the formula allocation between the SCRTD and the other public agencies. The eligibility list of the formula allocation criteria strongly favors factors which would increase the allocation of revenues to the SCRTD at the expense of the other public agencies. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council oppose Proposition T unless wording changes are made to assure that the Arcadia Dial -A -Ride would be included in all funding allocations and modifications are made to formula allocation eligibility list to include factors which take into account the uniqueness of dial -a -ride systems. Attachments Approved • Geor a J atts, City Manager LASER IMAGED Ash. `1 RTO Nick Patsaouras Director Dear City Official: July 12, 1990 CITY OF ARCADIA JUL 1 g 1990 MAYOR The recent passage of Propositions 108, 111, and 116 insures that Los Angeles County residents will benefit from a variety of transportation infrastructure improvements. The new revenues will accelerate the building of a network of urban rail lines. By the year 2001 over half of the 150 miles of the network envisioned ten years ago will be completed. In addition, intercity and commuter rail links will be added to the mix, as will HOV lanes on a number of highway facilities. The propositions serve Statewide interests by allowing capital investment in transportation infrastructure; an investment that might not have been afforded by many localities. While they do provide operating support for major roads and arterials, they provide very little support for transit operations. Presumably, the localities are to provide this support. The District has been investigating ways to fund operation of this expanded transit network. A Countywide 1/2 cent sales tax is the most promising of the alternatives. If submitted to the voters by the LACTC, as a transit measure, a simple majority would be needed for approval. The resulting revenues would allow all operators to expand bus service, purchase clean fuel vehicles, and service the rail system, while holding down fares. The attached report includes both suggested language for the proposition and background information. In order to meet the goals of SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan and the AQMD's Air Quality Management Plan we will have to increase service by 170% over the next twenty years. This proposal would make these ambitious requirements feasible. We will be able to field a transit alternative that could compete with the automobile. To do otherwise is not attractive. We will not be able to offer expanded service as an alternative to driving. Beyond that, service cuts or fare increases are always unpalatable choices whenever operating funds do not meet operating expenses. These would hardly allow transit to alleviate pollution and congestion. We could end up with a magnificent rail system open only to those who could afford the fares, and whose schedules coincide with the less than optimum schedules offered by the underfunded system. It seems to me that a local sales tax for locally operated transit service is the best way to generate funds. Of course, the proposal includes rewards for cost efficiency and encourages funding from other (prim- arily private) sources. But if we are to meet the regional goals of reducing pollution and congestion, then the transit service expansion that necessarily goes with it will need funding from public sources as well. I would appreciate your reactions to the proposal. t cerely NI k Patsaouras President LASER IMAGED Southern California Rapid Transit District 425 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 972 -4300 -0 ^ 9 June 5, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Alan F. Pegg SUBJECT: PROPOSITION T: A HALF -CENT SALES TAX FOR TRANSIT' RECOMMENDATION This proposal responds to the Board's request for a way to fund the comprehensive program of transit expansion and improvement that is required by the region's plans to provide a real alternative to the automobile. It is recommended that the Board endorse a proposed funding measure based on a half -cent sales tax (Appendix 1), to be put before the voters using the same legal procedures used in 1980 for Proposition A. Further, that the Board authorize staff to forward this proposal to the LACTC, along with any supporting information deemed necessary, with a request that it be placed on the November 1990 ballot. DISCUSSION The District's adopted Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) descn1m regional transit needs over the next 20 years, and how the District intends to meet those needs. In order to meet the goals for reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality that are set forth in SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, a stable funding source must be identified. The proposed funding mechanism would utilize provisions of LACTC enabling legislation (AB 1246 — 1976), which allows the Commission to place a sales tax increase on the ballot "for public transit purposes" (PUC Section 130354). This is the approach used to initiate Proposition A and it requires a simple majority voter approval to pass. The LACTC has already proposed an additional one -half cent sales tax to support street and highway projects contained in their "On the Road to the Year 2000" plan. The LACTC proposal LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 2 uses different enabling legislation (SB 142 — 1988), allowing the imposition of an additional sales tax increment for funding any transportation purpose. Like the mechanism used for Proposition A, the SB 142 process requires a simple majority voter approval to pass. Unlike the Proposition A process, the SB 142 process requires prior approval by the Board of Supervisors and by city councils representing both the majority of the cities and the majority of the population in incorporated areas of the County, before the measure can be placed on the ballot. The LACTC to date has not won support for their proposal from the requisite number of cities in order to place it on the ballot. If the pending LACTC proposal were to be placed on the ballot and approved by the voters, it would preclude the opportunity of a sales tax for transit expansion since state law allows a maximum of one cent local sales tax above the six cents collected by the state. Thus, the current District proposal is offered as an alternative that may more readily be placed upon the ballot, and maximizes the county's "bang for the buck" by supporting expansion of transit rather than continued accommodation of automobile travel. Consider, too, that pending ballot measures, Propositions 108, 111 and 116, provide significant highway funds, as well as capital funds for commuter and urban rail, but relatively little for rail or bus operations which need to be expanded considerably. The proposed 12 cent sales tax is the only other readily available alternative for operating funds. IMPACT ON BUDGET AND DISTRICT OB IECI'IVES This proposal is central to attainment of the District's fundamental objective of providing a viable alternative to the automobile, as outlined in the FY 91 — FY 95 Business Plan. It is aimed at providing a dependable revenue stream. BACKGROUND Although tax funds are not the only means being examined of financing transit expansion, any reasonable strategy for supporting expansion must include increased public revenues. Transit insufficiency is, in part, a result of entrenched policies favoring automobile travel. The District has been active in seeking changes to such policies. In advocating more enlightened policy directions, however, we are frequently brought full circle, to be told that auto accommodation must continue because a real transit alternative in Los Angeles is not readily available. In the meantime all new statewide funding measures propose major capital funds for highway and transit projects. None of these proposals provide operation funds to provide and maintain services on these new facilities. Additional public funding is needed to break out of this circle. The need for additional public funds for transit growth doesn't necessarily signify greater relative dependence on tax support. Although the size of the transit infrastructure will require more public funds in the aggregate, the public share in the future will be reduced, with greater proportional reliance on the user and on third parties such as employers. A recent SCAG survey Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 3 indicates strong public support for employers to provide free or subsidized transit passes to their employees. The proposed ordinance will address this issue by requiring a Countywide Transit Plan that encourages - higher contributions from non - public sources. At the same time that local trends and air quality mandates demand much more transit service, federal funds are diminishing. The new national transportation policy suggests further narrowing of the federal role, and the need for greater local self - reliance. The proposed ordinance will allow operators to substitute local funds for lost Federal revenues. According to a LACTC legal opinion, the Commission has authority, under existing law, to place on the ballot a sales tax measure to collect up to an additional half -cent tax, in Los Angeles County, to be used for public transit purposes. This authority requires neither voter signatures nor approval from other government agencies in order to be placed on the ballot, and a simple majority of "yes" votes would provide for approval. The District recommends that the LACTC use this authority to place a measure on the November 1990 ballot with the increased rate to become effective no later than July 1, 1991. Such action is recommended now because the longer that transit expansion is delayed, the more difficult it will become to clean the air or achieve regional mobility objectives. The adopted Business Plan calls for an expansion of all regional services; the Desired Plan can only be achieved with increased public and private support WHAT THE MONEY WOULD BUY If implemented July 1, 1991, an additional one -half cent sales tax would generate over 5400 million in FY 92. Revenues would increase in later years in response to inflation and to population and economic growth and are estimated to reach $670 million annually in the year 2000 and $ 1.15 billion in 2010. Total cumulative revenues from FY 92 through FY 2010 are estimated at $ 14.2 billion. To have a chance of political acceptance, the sales tax measure must offer benefits to all county residents. Proposition A, as passed in 1980, provides an example. Prop A included the 25% Local Return Program, the three -year Fare Reduction Program, the Rail Fund, and the Discretionary Fund which has been used to support bus operations after the end of the reduced fare period In summary: I. Proposition T will provide the ability to both strengthen existing transit services, and to provide the new services needed to attract riders who have not previously found transit convenient through allocations to transit operators and the LACTC. 2. Proposition T will also provide the source of operating subsidies needed to make the emerging rail system a success. Additional rail capital revenues will allow accelerated LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June S, 1990 page 4 development of future rail system links, hastening the day when a full rail network will be in place. 3. Proposition T will also enable Los Angeles County to proceed with procurement of "clean -air" bus technologies and with potential electrification of high volume bus lines, as required to assure healthy air for residents of this region. The availability of local matching funds will help the County qualify for state and federal grants for clean -air investment, rail expansion, and other capital projects. The Business Plan indicates a need for a $1.6 billion investment in electrification of high volume lines. An important selling point for Proposition T would be the promise to patrons that fares will be frozen for at least 3 years, and that increases for the ensuing 3 years will be restricted to the overall economy's rate of inflation. While 6 years is a very long time to freeze or restrict fares (twice the length of time that was stipulated by Proposition A), a freeze /restriction period will be far less disruptive to service planning than the sudden increase and decrease in demand that resulted from Proposition A's 3 years of fare reduction. The proposition would also insure that most of the funds will be used for service improvements or expansion. It will do so, in part, by insuring that an included operator's farebox revenue per passenger mile must be equal or greater than 3/4 the countywide average. In order to avoid alienating municipal and other highly subsidized operators, local return funds subsidizing local operations would be included in the calculation of farebox revenue. The proposed equation for formula allocation also serves the dual purpose of insuring efficiency in expansion, and providing predictability and stability in the revenue stream. It does so by partially discounting such measures of productivity as passenger miles and hoardings by these measures' unit costs, while basing calculations on 3 -year averages. A cost efficient producer of service would be rewarded by the formula. But all operators should realize that Proposition T funds will substantially augment existing sources, that all parties will substantially benefit regardless of share. The stability of formula shares will also allow operators to more effectively plan the provision and expansion of services. In terms of service, revenues from the additional half -cent sales tax would support a 170% transit service expansion over the next 20 years. By 2001 the waiting time between buses on most lines would be significantly shortened; even on lightly traveled lines the maximum waiting time between buses would be no more than 20 minutes during offpeak hours. By that time the region would have over 75 miles of rail service as the new transit backbone. Overall service quality would be improved, and air quality would be enhanced by a changeover to clean fuel buses and electric vehicles. Given concerns about productivity and efficiency in expenditure of public funds, Proposition T will contain assurances to the public and to other agencies that all funds will be spent wisely. An explicit process would be set up for annual planning, review and approval of projects, and Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 5 accounting for expenditures, with public hearings on spending proposals. Opportunities for private provision of transit services would be a significant element, particularly for new transit services. The LACTC would have the central role in administration of funds including review and evaluation of operator performance. PROPOSED FUNDING ALLOCATION The basic apportionment of Proposition T funds is proposed to be as follows: ■ Not less than 10% to the LACTC for capital funding of "clean -air" equipment and facilities needed to assure that transit operations meet all emissions reductions targets. Examples of expenditures would be conversion of existing buses and fuel storage and dispensing equipment to use alternative fuels, additional capital costs of buying new alternative fuel vehicles, costs of retrofitting diesel buses with particulate traps, and costs for electrification of existing bus lines or construction of new, electrified bus facilities on exclusive rights -of -way. ■ Not more than 9% to the LACTC to be used for special projects and demonstrations. For example, the LACTC could expend the funds necessary to establish a "smart card" fare system that would provide county residents a convenient means of utilizing any publicly funded transit system, while retaining local control by preserving transit operators' abilities to set their own fares. Other projects might include funding operating facilities such as transit malls. ■ Not less than 80% to transit operators on a formula basis. These funds would be dedicated primarily to expansion of existing transit services, provision of new services, operating support of new rail services, as well as operating support of clean fuel vehicles to the extent that they are more expensive to operate than traditional alternatives. The operators' formula shares would also serve as a contingency to make up for any declines in federal or state subsidies, and to delay or ameliorate fare increases. The specific formula to be used for funding allocation to transit operators would recognize the service utilized by riders (boardings, passenger miles) and the service efficiencies sustained by operators (cast per passenger mile, cost per boarding). The current LACTC allocation formula reliance on "fare units" is obscure, does not provide adequate recognition of operator productivity and service utilization, and is excessively sensitive to fluctuation based on the level of the base fare. A requirement that formula allocation be based on 3 year averages would eliminate the grosser fluctuations. ■ Not more than 1% to the LACTC to fund - activities that will result in a strategic Countywide Transit Plan. Ongoing general public participation would also be supported with these funds. LASER IMAGED " Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 6 THE COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT PLAN Voters are likely to approve collection of additional taxes for transportation if they believe they will get their money's worth. They will want to be assured that the tax revenue isn't being wasted by the transit operators, and that the benefits are to be fairly distributed. Since the primary purpose of the additional half -cent sales tax is to expand and improve service, the additions and improvements should be visible, and there should be confidence that they are real, not subtle manipulations of the service base. The elements of program administration should include mechanisms for providing the necessary assurances. The keystone is an integrated planning and implementation process for transit improvements, that is locally focused and regionally coordinated. The integration will be accomplished through the development of a Countywide Transit Plan, a strategic plan prepared by the LACTC. While focusing on transit, it would take a broad perspective encompassing all transportation, and would attempt to point the way to a level playing field for all modes. It would strategically consider how transit is impacted by land development, air quality, traffic congestion, mobility and access, and the many related plans, such as any of the congestion management plans, the Air Quality Management Plan, and Regional Mobility Plan. Each recipient of Proposition T funds would be responsible for an annual plan of improvements that would contribute to the Countywide Transit Plan. These plans could be prepared by each operating entity, or could be prepared jointly by operator agreement. The primary focus would be on intentions for additional or improved service. Service providers would be required to describe existing service levels and service quality and to explain how proposed expenditures would impact the service levels and service quality described. PUBLIC ADVISORY CO ES Another important selling point to voters will be assurance that transit user representatives will have their say on an ongoing basis. Hearings are a necessary forum for public input into the service development process, but are not necessarily sufficient by themselves. They should be regarded as the formal culmination of a continuous planning and monitoring effort carried out jointly by the operators and users of the transit services. The bodies responsible for the interface between service providers and consumers will be the proposed Service Advisory Committees that will work with each operator. In order to assure effective, continuing input from the transit users, the operators would provide technical and logistical support to the Committees. The Commission will provide Proposition T funds to providers to support these activities. Board of Directors June S, 1990 page 7 CONCLUSION Proposition T will serve many purposes, which are concisely summarized in the Ordinance tact: 'purpose of Tax Thus tax is being imposed to improve and expand existing public transit Countywide, to moderate fare increases, to compensate for federal operation subsidy reductions, to develop energy efficient means of Y providing transit, and to more effectively use State and Federal funds, benefit assessments. and fares." It will be very difficult to achieve man gf these purposes without the benefit of this kind of tax In light of the Statewide y fund capital but not operating projects, the timing is right for the District to ro Proposals to oriented tax to the Commission. P pose this transit Enclosure JS /er PROPTBB.BOD Respectfully, Z44� 4 Alan F. Pegg AS Spivac Assist. n and ruouc -Awaus A.". '::� wivolt . Dana A. Woodbury Interim Director of Planning LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 1 Appendix is Proposed Ordinance Language The following is presented for discussion purposes. The proposed text is based on the original language of Proposition A. Most of the language of Proposition A could remain intact with minor revisions (such as references to dates and Revenue and Taxation Code section numbers which have changed). Section 5, "Use of Revenues Received From Imposition of the Transactions and Use Tax" would have to be entirely rewritten. Only Sections 1 and S have been substantially modified They have not been reviewed by legal counsel for form. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT PURPOSES The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission do ordain as follows: SECTION I A retail Transaction and Use Tax is hereby imposed in the County of Los Angeles as follows: SECTION 1. DEFTNMONS. The following words, whenever used in this Ordinance, shall have the meanings set forth below: (a) "Commission" means the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission or any successor entity. (b) "County" means the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles. (c) "Transaction" or 'Transactions" have the same meaning, respectively, as the words "Sale" or 'Sales'; and the word Transactor" has the same meaning as "Seller ", as "Sale" or 'Sales" and 'Seller' are used in Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (d) "Funds ", unless modified by the words "State" or "Federal ", means the revenues received from the imposition of the additional transactions and use tax specified in this ordinance. (e) "Farebox revenue" means out -of- pocket fare payment by patrons, fare subsidies paid to patrons by private or public third parties, and private or municipal payments made directly to operators to effect fare reductions. SECTION ?. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TR kNSACT 0NS TAX. There is hereby imposed a tax for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail upon every retailer in the County at a rate of one - half of 1% of the Gross receipts of the retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold by him at retail in the County. SECTION 3. FNIPOSMON OF USE TAX There is hereby imposed a complementary tax upon the storage, use or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer for storage, use or other consumption in the County. Such tax shall be at a rate of one -half of 1% of the sales price of the property whose storage, use or other consumption is subject to the tax. SECTION 4. APPLICATION OF SALES AND USE TAX PROVISIONS OF REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. The provisions contained in Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Sales and Use Taxes, commencing with Section 6001), insofar as they relate to sales or use taxes and are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Transactions and Use Taxes, commencing with Section 7251), shall apply and be part of this Ordinance, being incorporated by reference herein, except that: (a) The Commission, as the taxing agency, shall be substituted for that of the State; (b) An additional transactors permit shall not be required if a seller's permit has been or is issued to the transactor under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; and (c) The word "County" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase, "Retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and in the definition of that phrase. A retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchase of tangible personal property unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, or subsidiary or person in the County under authority of the retailer. All amendments subsequent to January 1, 1991, to the above cited Sales and Use Taxes provisions relating to sales or use taxes and not consistent with this Ordinance shall automatically become a pan of this Ordinance; provided, however,that no such amendment shall operate as to affect the rate of tax imposed by the Commission. SECTION 5. USE OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM IMPOSITION OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. The revenues received by the Commission from the imposition of the transactions and use tax shall be used for public transit purposes, as follows: (a) Purpose of Tax. LASER IMAGED,;, Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 3 This tax is being imposed to improve and expand existing public transit Countywide, to moderate fare increases, to compensate for federal operating subsidy reductions, to develop energy efficient means of providing transit, and to more effectively use State and Federal funds, benefit assessments, and fares. (b) Use of Revenues Revenues will be allocated as follows: 1. Discretionary allocations a. Not more than nineteen (19) percent, calculated on an annual basis, to the Commission for capital funding of clean -air equipment and facilities and for special projects and demonstrations. (1) The majority of these allocations, not less than ten (10) percent, is to be allocated to clean -air equipment and facilities. b. Not more than one (1) percent, calculated on an annual basis, to the Commission for expenditures related to development of a Countywide Transit Plan, operator expenditures related to documentation of existing levels of service, service quality and impacts of proposed expenditures on service levels and quality, and expenditures in support of Service Advisory Committees of Users and Providers. 2. Formula allocations to operators a. Not less than eighty (80) percent calculated on an annual basis, to be divided by formula among: (1) The Southern California Rapid Transit District (District) or any successor entity, and AD* (2) Public Agencies providing or overseeing the provision of fixed route public transit services, that are designated by the Commission as eligible recipients. 3. Scope of Use L Revenues can be used for capital or operating expenses. (c) Commission Policy. 1. Relative to the Discretionary Component: a. Allocation of funds to operators and local jurisdictions shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) Submission to the Commission of a description of intended use of the funds, in order to establish legal eligibility. Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 4 (2) Recipients shall account annually to the Commission on the use of such funds. 2. Relative to the Formula Component. a. The Commission shall publicly develop objective criteria for determining the list of eligible Public Agencies (specified in Section 5(b)2.a.(2) above). Minimum criteria for eligibility shall include: (1) Provision or oversight of fixed route public transit service for the 3 years previous to application for eligibility. (2) A completed application for eligibility to the Commission, which shall include an expenditure plan. (a) The expenditure plan shall include a method of evaluating private bids for any new service included in the plan. Restructured services for clean air solutions are exempted from this sub - section. (b) Eligible expenditures shall include new service, existing service expansion, service quality improvements, rail operations, clean -air vehicle operation, compensation for federal operating subsidy reductions, matching requirements for State and Federal funds, transit interface and intermodal interface projects, and reduction of fare increases. Capital expenditures associated with service expansion and service improvement shall also be eligible. (c) The expenditure plan shall be submitted to public review and comment prior to submission to the Commission. Public comment shall be included in the submittal. b. Funds shall be divided between the District and the Public Agencies on the eligibility list by the following formula: (1) The operator's passenger miles divided by the operator's operating cost per passenger mile, and (2) The operator's boardings divided by the operator's operating cost per boarding. (3) Each of the two components of the formula shall be weighted equally such that each operator's share can be represented in a standard equation by, f'((Psg.mi.;/eost Per psg.mi.;)/E(psg.mi. /cost per psg.mi.)) + f *((brdings.,/cost per brding,)/Z(psg.mi. /cost per brding)) LASER IMAGED { Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 5 where terms under the summation signs represent statistics for all operators, and terms with an , subscript represent the individual operator's statistics. (3) The components of the Formula shall be calculated on the basis of 3 year averages of audited data to reduce excessive fluctuation in funding levels. C. All funds shall be allocated to the District and other eligible Public Agencies within 1 year of collection. Eligible recipients may carry over unexpended funds to subsequent years without penalty. 3. Relative to the Countywide Transit Plan a. The Commission shall publicly develop a Countywide Transit Plan (CTP), updated annually, that will integrate operator expenditure plans into a countywide strategy for transit system improvement. The Countywide Transit Plan will address both operational issues and the impact of public policy issues (such as land development, air quality, traffic congestion, mobility and access) on transit system development. b. The District and all other recipients of funds shall submit to the Commission documentation of service levels, as well as projections of how proposed expenditures from the funds collected under this ordinance will impact service levels and and passenger convenience. Q The District and all other recipients of funds shall annually submit to the Commission a list of the fares charged to passengers and a projection of the ensuing year's average farebox revenue per passenger mile. (1) In the first 3 years after implementation of this ordinance fares shall remain equivalent to those charged on July 1, 1990. (2) In the 3 subsequent years fares will not be allowed to rise beyond the rate of inflation for the overall economy, with July 1, 1993 serving as the baseline for calculation. (3) An operator may change its fare structure during these first 6 years if the Commission determines that the average fare per passenger mile is not increased during the first three years and not increased beyond the rate of inflation in the ensuing three years. d. In the sixth year of implementation, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall calculate the prior year's average farebox revenue per passenger mile for eligible operators. Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 6 (1) Each operator's projection of farebox revenue per passenger toile shall be equal to or greater than 3/4 of that prior year's countywide average. (2) If the operator's previous year's farebox revenue per passenger mile failed to at least equal 3/4 of the countywide average then the operator shall specify the changes in fare structure or operations necessary to achieve 3/4 of the prior year's countywide average. The Commission will determine if the proposed actions will achieve this requirement. (a) Operators will be given the opportunity to revise their submittals. (b) The Commission's determination that the proposed actions will not achieve 3/4 of the Countywide average will make the operator subject to formula reductions if the operator fails to attain the required farebox revenue to passenger mile ratio in the year for which the projection was made. The operator's formula allocation will be reduced by its passenger miles times the difference between its farebox revenue per passenger mile and the Countywide average. The reduction would be effective only for the year after it is concluded that 3/4 of the Countywide average was not achieved, that is, in the second year following the year of non - attainment. (c) Any funds not allocated to an operator as a result of the application of this subsection shall be added to the pool of funds to be allocated to all operators in the following year. e. The Countywide plan shall encourage increased non - public contributions to the transit system. 4. Relative to Service Advisory Committees L The Commission, District and all eligible providers shall jointly and individually set up Service Advisory Committees of Users and Providers to facilitate community supported service expansion and service quality improvements. The Committees shall meet regularly to discuss service changes and service quality in terms of local and countywide transit needs. SECTION 6. EXCLUSION OF TAX IMPOSED UNDER BRADLEY-BURNS UNIFORM LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX LAW The amount subject to tax under this Ordinance shall not include the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 7 county, pursuant to the Bradley -Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, or the amount of any State - administered transactions or use tax SECTION 7. EXEMPTIONS FROM RETAIL TRANSACTIONS TAX. (a) There are exempted from the tax imposed by this Ordinance the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property to operators of waterborne vessels to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the carriage or persons or property in such vessels for commercial purposes. (b) There are exempted from the tax imposed under this Ordinance the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property to the operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made, and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. (c) Sales of property to be used outside the County which are shipped to a point outside the County pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point, are exempt from the tax imposed under this Ordinance. For purposes of this Section, "delivery' of vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, the aircraft license in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code and undocumented vessels registered under Article 2 (commencing with Section 680) of Chapter 5 of Division 3 of the Harbors and Navigation Code shall be satisfied by registration to an out -of -County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his principal place of residence. 'Delivery' of commercial vehicle shall be satisfied by registration to a place of business out of County, and a declaration under penalty of perjury signed by the buyer that the vehicle will be operated from that address. (d) The sale of tangible personal property is exempt from tax, if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this Ordinance. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property is exempt from tax for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance. For purposes of this Section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any parry Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 8 to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. SECTION 8. EXEMPTIONS FROM USE TAX. (a) The storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property, the gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transaction tax under any State administered transactions and use taxes ordinances, shall be exempt from the tax imposed under this Ordinance. (b) The storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased by operators of waterborne vessels and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the carriage of persons or property in such vessels for commercial taxes is exempt from the use tax. (c) In addition to the exemption provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, United Sta tes, or any foreign government, is exempt from the use tax. (d) The storage, use, or other consumption in the County of tangible personal property is exempt from the use tax imposed under this Ordinance if purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of the Ordinance. The possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property is exempt from tax for any period of time for which a lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Section, storage, use or other consumption, or possession, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. SECTION 9. PLACE OF CONSUMMATION OF RETAIL TRANSACTION. For the purpose of a retail transaction tax imposed by this Ordinance, all retail transactions are consummated at the place of business of the retailer, unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of -State destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of -State destination. The LASER IMAGED Board of Directors June 5, 1990 page 9 gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the State sales and use tax. regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State, or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated for the purpose of the transactions tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 10. DEDUCTION OF LOCAL TRANSACTIONS TAXES ON SALES OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL. The Controller shall deduct local transactions taxes on sales of motor vehicle fuel which are subject to tax and refund pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 7301) of this division, unless the claimant establishes to the satisfaction of the Controller that the claimant has paid local sales tax reimbursement for a use tax measured by the sale price of the fuel to him. If the claimant establishes to the satisfaction of the Controller that he has paid transactions tax reimbursement or Commission use tax measured by the sale price of the fuel to him, including the amount of the tax imposed by said Part 2, the Controller shall.repay to the claimant the amount of transactions tax reimbursement or use tax paid with respect to the amount of the motor vehicle license tax refunded. If the buyer receives a refund under this Section, no refund shall be made to the seller. SECTION 11. ADOPTION AND ENACTkMNT OF ORDINANCE. This Ordinance is hereby adopted by the Commission and shall be enacted upon authorization of the electors voting in favor thereof at the special election called for November � 1990, to vote on the measure. SECTION 12 OPERA DATE. This Retail Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance shall be operative the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing not less than 180 days after the adoption of said Ordinance. SECTION 13. MIIT DATF— The effective date of this Ordinance shall be , 1990. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission this _th day of 1990, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: , ABSENT: A01k. Board of Directors June S, 1990 page 10 The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission By ATTEST: Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Chairman I hereby certify that at its meeting of 1990, the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. APPROVED AS TO FORM; County Counsel By Principal Deputy County Counsel Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission LASER IMAGEDA Memotat.'"Jum x/1.7111 's DATE: August 2, 1990 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: "David Feinberg, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Additional Procedures for Competitive Procurements Using Urban Mass Transportation Administration Funds The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) recently performed a triennial review of the operations of the Arcadia Dial -A -Ride. One of the findings of the review found that the City must have in place protest procedures on competitive procurements paid for with UMTA funds. In response to the- finding, the City Council approved Resolution No. 5521 which laid out such protest procedures. After submitting Resolution No. 5521, UMTA responded by stating that the Resolution neglected to specifically address four procedural issues. Specifically, they asked the procedures to identify the formal decision -maker in the process (the City Council), to provide a formal record of the process (the City Clerk), when the decision is considered final (the vote of a majority of the Councilmembers) and make sure all prospective bidders are aware the procedures are in place. Resolution No. 5546 addresses each of the concerns. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5546, a Resolution amending Resolution No. 5521 by adding certain requirements to the adopted procurement protest procedures, as required by the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). Attachments Approved: .G r e J. d i y Manager LASER IMAGED