Amendment
Passed on 10/13/25
This bill appears to amend existing California law related to local transportation funding mechanisms, particularly for Sacramento County. It expands the authority of local transportation agencies to impose taxes, issue bonds, and fund infrastructure projects in portions of counties rather than county-wide. The legislation aims to provide more flexibility in raising and allocating transportation funds at the sub-county level, while maintaining oversight and approval requirements. Key objectives include supporting infill development, transit-oriented projects, and infrastructure that advances state greenhouse gas reduction goals.
The bill authorizes local transportation authorities to impose transactions and use taxes in areas smaller than their full jurisdiction, subject to approval requirements. It allows for the issuance of bonds to finance transportation projects, with revenues from these taxes supplementing existing transportation funding. The legislation expands the definition of 'infrastructure' to include transportation facilities as well as water, stormwater, wastewater, and other utility-related facilities. However, it caps expenditures on non-transportation utility facilities at 5% of tax revenues. The bill specifically empowers the Sacramento Transportation Authority to impose taxes and issue bonds for projects in portions of Sacramento County, subject to approval from the board of supervisors and city councils. It also allows for funding of infrastructure supporting infill or transit-oriented development that advances state greenhouse gas reduction objectives.
The bill requires approval from county boards of supervisors and city councils representing both a majority of cities and population in the affected area for sub-county tax measures. Local transportation authorities are responsible for adopting expenditure plans and objective eligibility guidelines for defining 'primary benefit' in areas where taxes are imposed. These plans and guidelines must be made readily accessible to voters. The legislation allows for the issuance of bonds, which must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the governing board. For Sacramento County specifically, the Sacramento Transportation Authority is empowered to implement these provisions. The bill does not specify particular funding mechanisms beyond the transactions and use taxes, nor does it detail specific reporting or enforcement provisions.
The primary beneficiaries of this legislation are local transportation authorities, particularly in Sacramento County, who gain increased flexibility in funding transportation and infrastructure projects. The bill potentially impacts residents and businesses in areas where new taxes may be imposed, as well as those who benefit from resulting infrastructure improvements. While specific cost estimates are not provided, the bill allows for significant financial impacts through new taxes and bond issuances. The administrative burden falls primarily on local transportation authorities to develop, approve, and implement tax measures and expenditure plans. Expected outcomes include increased funding for transportation and infrastructure projects, particularly those supporting infill development and transit-oriented projects. The bill does not appear to include sunset provisions for these new authorities.
The bill operates within the existing legal framework for local transportation authorities in California, amending and expanding their statutory powers. It builds upon existing provisions in the Public Utilities Code and Revenue and Taxation Code. The legislation does not appear to preempt state or local laws, but rather provides additional options for local authorities. It does not explicitly address judicial review provisions. The constitutional basis for these changes is not directly addressed in the available information, but presumably relies on the state's authority to delegate taxing and bonding powers to local entities.
Several critical issues emerge from this legislation. There may be constitutional concerns regarding the delegation of taxing authority to sub-county areas and the potential for unequal taxation within a county. Implementation challenges could arise in defining and applying the 'primary benefit' criteria for expenditure plans, especially in areas with diverse transportation needs. The bill's allowance for non-transportation infrastructure funding, albeit limited, may face opposition from those who believe transportation taxes should be used exclusively for transportation projects. There are also potential equity concerns if wealthier areas of a county are able to fund better infrastructure than less affluent areas. The long-term fiscal implications of increased bonding authority and the impact on overall county debt levels may raise concerns about financial sustainability.