San Mateo County

Chamber of Commerce Alliance

Included In This Legislative Report:

1. California Voters FIRST Act

2. H. R. 5102 (Calvert) ON TIME Act

February 2008

Legislative Report #2

Prepared by:

Shaun Lumachi

shaun@chamberadvocacy.biz

562.843.0947

1. California Voters FIRST Act

California Voters FIRST Act is a proposed ballot measure that is pending count of signatures by the Office of the Secretary of State for the November 2008 ballot. Once confirmed, the measure will be given a Proposition number complete with title.

Summary

1. Every 10 years, after the census, new boundary lines for the United States Congress and California Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization districts are drawn. Currently, the California State Legislature draws those lines. This is viewed as a major conflict of interest.

2. The California Voters FIRST Act aims to eliminate the conflict of interest.

3. A 14-person citizens redistricting commission would be created. The California Voters FIRST Act would create a politically balanced Commission - 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others. Commissioners would be chosen for their impartiality, skills, and to reflect our State’s demographic and geographic diversity.

4. The Act would protect communities, cities, and counties. The California Voters FIRST Act would create a list of prioritized mapping criteria for the Commission to follow. This would ensure that our Constitution, federal and state laws are followed. California’s communities, cities, and counties must be respected.

5. The process would be open and public. The Commission would hold hearings to receive public input. The California Voters FIRST Act would end the closed-door political deals by legislators to draw districts that protect themselves.

6. The Act will be placed on the November 2008 ballot pending count of signatures by the Office of the Secretary of State.

Background

1. California Voters FIRST Act is pending count of signatures by the Office of the Secretary of State.

2. The Commission would be formed by inviting California registered voters to participate. A pool of 60 (20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 20 others) is selected based on their skills, ability to be impartial, and diversity by a review panel of state auditors (1 Democrat, 1 Republican, 1 other).

3. The 4 Legislative Leaders can strike up to 24 people from the pool. Out of the remaining pool, 8 Commissioners are randomly picked - 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 2 others.

4. The final 6 Commissioners (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 2 others) are chosen by the 8 Commissioners from the remaining pool based on the balance of skills and diversity they would bring.

5. The mapping criteria for the Commission to follow include, which are ranked in order, are:

· Districts shall comply with the US Constitution, including equal population requirements.

· Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act.

· Districts shall be geographically contiguous.

· The geographic integrity of any city, county, or city and county, neighborhoods, or communities of interest shall be respected. Communities of interest shall not be defined as having a relationship with incumbents, candidates, or parties.

· To the extent possible, after the above criteria have been satisfied, districts shall be compact.

· To the extent possible, after the above criteria have been satisfied, districts shall be nested.

6. Incumbent residences may not be considered; districts may not be drawn to favor politicians or parties.

7. The scope of the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission includes the district drawing of the California Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization seats in the next redistricting cycle in 2011 and after each decennial census.

8. The State Legislature will draw Congressional seats, following the same mapping criteria and hearing requirements as the Commission.

9. According to California Common Cause (also supporter of the Act):

· 66% support creating an independent redistricting commission to draw district lines instead of incumbent legislators.

· 86% want an open process and an end to back room deals in redistricting.

· 78 - 81% want a redistricting process that keeps their neighborhoods and cities together and divided as little as possible.

For more information, contact:

Kathay Feng

California Common Cause

kfeng@commoncause.org

(213) 252-4552

2. H. R. 5102 (Calvert) ON TIME Act

A Federal piece of legislation introduced on January 23, 2008 by Representative Ken Calvert.

Summary

1. The ON TIME Act is the Our Nation’s Trade Infrastructure, Mobility and Efficiency Act. In its current form, this legislation will provide a trade-based funding stream dedicated to high priority projects that will alleviate congestion in the nation’s trade corridors.

2. Examples of trade corridor improvements include truck-only freeway lanes (designed to free up other lanes) and underpasses or overpasses at train crossings so vehicles would no longer have to wait as trains crawl by.

3. The fee would be three-quarters of 1 percent of the value of each import or export shipment and capped at $500 per shipment. A shipment could be one or more cargo containers.

4. It is estimated that the fee could raise $3 billion to $5 billion a year annually during the 10-year life span of the bill. This includes up to $500 million a year for projects in Southern California.

5. The Act establishes an 80% federal, 20% non-federal funding matching requirement for projects within each state.

6. The ON TIME Act would sunset in 10 years.

Background

The Goods Movement Challenge

1. The U.S and global economies continue to experience tremendous growth – driven largely by increases in international trade.

2. Increases in U.S. trade have and will continue to result in an exponentially greater rise in the amount of goods moved into and out of our nation’s ports of entry.

3. The growth in the amount of goods moving to and from our ports of entry increasingly concentrates transportation impacts in our nation’s trade corridors.

4. Our nation lacks a national goods movement policy. Current funding mechanisms are inadequate to address these specific challenges.

Proposed Solution

1. The ON TIME Act would:

o Directs Department of Transportation (DOT) to define National Trade Gateway Corridors;

o Establishes strict and meaningful project eligibility;

o Sets forth a .075 % fee (capped at $500) on the value of freight moving in and out of our nation’s ports of entry, all of which is dedicated to transportation projects in the Corridor in which it is collected;

o Empowers state transportation agencies to prioritize and select eligible projects;

o Requires an 80% Federal, 20% Non-Federal match; and Sunsets in 10 years.

2. No more than 2% of the revenue generated by the fee will be set aside for administration of the fee. 2/3 of that 2% will go to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect the fee on the import side. 1/3 of that 2% will go to DHS and the Department of Commerce to collect the fee on the export side.

3. The Act apportions collected funds to State departments of transportation at a level equal to the annual amount of fees generated by the ports and gateways in each State.

4. Each State shall apportion its annual allotment of fees to eligible projects within the boundaries of the National Trade Gateway Corridor Fund.

5. Annual apportionments to eligible projects within the boundaries of a National Trade Gateway

6. Corridor must total the amount of fees collected at the Corridor’s corresponding port or gateway.

7. If a corridor within the boundaries of one or more state the money will be distributed; 50% going to the total lane miles of Federal-Aid Highways and 50% going to the total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on Federal-Aid Highways.

8. The projects will be chosen by directing the Secretary to establish project selection guidelines which a State department of transportation shall follow in providing funds to eligible projects.

9. The selection guidelines shall include, but not be limited to, a requirement that a State department of transportation:

o Consult with local governments, port authorities, regional planning organizations, as well as public and private freight stakeholders during the project selection process.

o Adhere to already established metropolitan and/or statewide planning processes. Develop a selection process that is transparent, in writing, and publicly available.

o Establish a process for rating proposed projects that clearly identifies the basis for rating projects in accordance with the purpose of this act.

10. The Secretary of Transportation shall allocate money to State transportation departments for eligible projects.

11. The National Trade Gateway Corridor defines that corridors cannot extend more than 300 miles from a port of entry.

12. The Secretary can determine that only a single corridor is necessary for multiple ports of entry.

13. The Secretary shall release its proposed National Trade Gateway Corridors no later than 180 days after the enactment of this law.

14. The Secretary will allow for 45 days of public comments by the public to receive comments regarding the boundaries of the corridors

15. The Secretary shall release its final National Trade Gateway Corridors no later than 360 days after the enactment of this law.

16. Directs the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the objectives of the Act no later than one year after enactment.

17. Defines “eligible project” as a project or activity eligible for assistance under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, or a publicly-owned intermodal freight transfer facilities, access to the facilities, and operational improvements for the facilities (including capital investment for intelligent transportation systems), except that projects located within the boundaries of port terminals shall only include the surface transportation infrastructure modifications necessary to facilitate direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and out of the port.