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