BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 2511 - Dutra Hearing Date:
June 25, 2002 A
As Amended: June 24, 2002 Non-FISCAL
B
2
5
1
1
DESCRIPTION
This bill authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) to take over utility relocation work related to
a transit or transportation capital improvement project within
its jurisdiction under the following circumstances:
1.VTA has a relocation agreement with the utility which allows
VTA to assume the relocation work.
2.The utility has abandoned the relocation work.
This bill authorizes VTA to hire workers other than the
utility's employees to do the relocation work. If working for
VTA is permitted by the applicable collective bargaining
agreement, the utility is required to offer a right of first
refusal to the utility's employees. If the utility's employees
elect not to contract with VTA, VTA is then required to hire
workers from a list provided by the utility and its collective
bargaining representative, if they choose to provide a list.
BACKGROUND
A transportation project, like many other development projects,
may require electric, gas, telephone or water utility
facilities, or cable facilities to be relocated. These
facilities are utility property and, ordinarily, the utility is
responsible for relocating them. Sometimes a formal agreement
with the project proponent is necessary, particularly if the
project proponent will bear some of the expense. Utility
facilities are typically located in public rights of way or in
utility-held easements on private property.
According to the author, transportation projects undertaken by
VTA have been delayed because of utilities' inability or
unwillingness to relocate utility facilities in a timely manner.
Those particular issues have since been resolved, but VTA
anticipates similar problems with future projects. According to
the proponents, this bill is necessary because, while nothing in
the law specifically prohibits VTA from undertaking utility
relocation work, neither does VTA have specific statutory
authority to do it.
COMMENTS
1)Does VTA need any authority to do this? The VTA's enabling
statute (Public Utilities Code Section 100000, et seq.) does
not grant VTA specific authority to relocate utility
facilities, but it does grant VTA fairly broad powers which
would appear to include relocating utility facilities pursuant
to an agreement with the utility that owned those facilities,
or perhaps even pursuant to eminent domain if necessary. For
example:
100115. The district may exercise any and all powers granted
by any other law that, by its terms, is applicable to transit
districts generally, to public agencies generally, or to any
classification of districts or public agencies that includes a
district of the type provided for in this part, but the
district shall not exercise any power contrary to an express
provision of this part. (No express provision of Part 12 of
Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code prohibits VTA from
relocating utilities.)
100120. The district may make contracts and enter into
stipulations of any nature whatsoever, either in connection
with eminent domain proceedings or otherwise, including,
without limiting the generality of the foregoing, contracts
and stipulations to indemnify and save harmless, to employ
labor, and to do all acts necessary and convenient for the
full exercise of the powers granted in this part.
While there doesn't appear to be any limitation on VTA's
powers which would prevent it from undertaking utility
relocation work, VTA might argue that an express provision in
statute would give it some comfort and perhaps save some time
or avoid litigation.
2)Who should offer the right of first refusal? In the case of
relocation work assumed by VTA, if working for VTA is
permitted by the applicable collective bargaining agreement,
this bill requires the utility to offer a right of first
refusal for the work to the utility's employees. Since VTA
would be the one offering the contract, not the utility, it
seems more appropriate to require VTA to offer the right of
first refusal, unless the intent is to have VTA contract with
the utility, rather than directly with its employees. The
author and the committee may wish to consider amending the
bill to clarify this issue.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (67-0)
Assembly Transportation Committee (17-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Support:
California State Association of Counties
California Transit Association
City of Moreno Valley
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Orange County Transportation Authority
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
Self-Help Counties Coalition
Sempra Energy
Oppose:
City of Dana Point
Lawrence Lingbloom
AB 2511 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 25, 2002