Will OCTA Directors Support A New Tax?

This Monday, the OCTA Board of Directors will vote on whether to put themselves and the agency on record as supporting a new tax: SB 974 by Democratic state Sen. Alan Lowenthal.

SB 974 would impose a tax on containers coming into three California ports:

This bill would require the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland to collect a user fee on the owner of container cargo moving through the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, or the Port of Oakland at a rate of $30 per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU).

The funds would be earmarked for mitigating port pollution and funding transportation measures for container cargo.

Support it or oppose it, it's a new tax -- and one that will add to the cost of importing goods into this country.

The question is, will the almost completely Republican Board of Directors vote to support the imposition of a new tax?

OCTA brought SB 974 before the OCTA's Legislative and Government Affairs Committee (Pat Bates, Paul Glaab, Peter Buffa, Bill Campbell, Allan Mansoor, and Mark Rosen) this spring, and the committee voted against supporting the tax.

OCTA staff subsequently brought the matter to the Executive Committee -- Carolyn Cavecche, Chris Norby, Pat Bates, Bill Campbell, Curt Pringle, Mark Rosen and Greg Winterbottom. Staff neglected to inform the committee members of the Leg Committee's earlier vote (that fell to Mark Rosen, who serves on both committees). Still, the committee voted 6-1 (Rosen opposed) to support the SB 974 with amendments:

A. Adopt a Support with Amendments position on SB 974 (Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) with the following amendments to be included:

a. Eliminate the air quality attainment requirement for the congestion relief funds;

b. Formula for equitable distribution defined in the bill outside of the California Transportation Commission process; and

c. An ongoing updating of projects, as opposed to a one-time list of projects.

B. Chairman to draft a letter to the Governor encouraging support if amendments are made or urging a veto if amendments are not incorporated.

The opposition to SB 974 is being led by the California Chamber of Commerce. When it was voted on in the Senate, 12 Republicans -- including OC's three Republicans -- voted against it. Only 1 Senate Republican -- Bob Margett -- voted in favor of it. Senators Lou Correa and Ron Calderon were the lone Democratic "no" votes.

SB 974 has been voted on in two Assembly committees -- and every Republican member of those committee has opposed it, including former OCTA Director Mike Duvall. For the record, OC's Democratic Assemblyman Jose Solorio voted in favor of the new tax.

We shall see what happens when the recommendation to support a new tax comes before the OCTA Board of Directors on Monday morning.

Comments

[Curt Pringle]

Jubal-
Thanks for bringing this issue forward. But to characterize the vote Monday as "for or against" a tax is inappropriate.

There are many fees that users of government services pay, and this charge per container of cargo shipped into the LB and LA Ports is a fee. This determination is a legal one and has been made by state Legislative Counsel.

Further, the OCTA board wanted OC Tax to review this to insure that they would justify this as a fee, and in fact they have.

So the question should be: "will the board support a fee that will cover costs and impacts throughout the port distribution system?"

The ports have imposed similar fees in the past, however those revenues are used in those cities that impose the fee, i.e. Long Beach and Los Angeles. If this fee is imposed through state statute, then all counties in So Cal that are impacted by freight distribution, LA, OC, Riverside, and SB will get their share.

For example, when the railroads add rail lines and cargo that passes through our communities, should those necessary grade seperations be paid for by local communities or by the cause of the impact.

Well, not all of the 150 grade seperations along the Alameda Corridor East, which runs through all four counties and OC cities - Fullerton, Placentia, Anaheim and YL - can be funded by this small fee, but some can.

One grade seperation in Anaheim/Yorba Linda that is currently under construction at Imperial Hwy. will cost over $40 million. These dollars come from OC taxpayers and state transportation funds that are destined for OC.

When local transportation dollars are directed to this degree for port impacts, other local projects throughout the county are delayed or not funded at all.

I dont think it is wrong in some clear instances to ask users of government services to pay a portion of their impacts. And that is why I will be voting for the OCTA Executive Committee recommendation to support SB 974, if the author accepts some key amendments.

Curt Pringle

[redperegrine]

And the cost of the tax, er, fee, will eventually be passed on to consumers as a hidden tax, er, fee. Meanwhile who really knows how the State will divvy up the dough? Good thing we've got all that Measure M gravy to slurp up.

BTW, wasn't the big rationale for Measure M the fact that the State won't fund OC transportation projects? And here we go enabling the State to raise revenue while they stiff OC.

[Miranda]

A very reasonable response from Curt Pringle. I'm not convinced, but he should be respected for explaining his stand. I'm glad Jubal brought this up too, cuz it'll be fun to watch who sticks to their guns, and which directors were only going to vote for a tax/fee if no one was paying attention.