The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07082003 - SD2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP v Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: Jul 8, 2003 � Y r :SUBJECT: REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MEASURE C TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT report from the Community Development Department on the status of activities to reauthorize the Measure C Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. FISCAL IMPACT Nene. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On April 15, 2003, the Board of Supervisors adapted resolution 2003/220 supporting the process to place the reauthorization of Measure C transportation sales tax(Measure C-88)on future ballots. At that time the Board also directed the Community Development Department to provide the Board of Supervisors with quarterly reports on the activities in support of reauthorizing the measure. This status report responds to that direction. Currently, eight cities have joined the Beard and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) in supporting the process to place the reauthorization of Measure C-88 on future ballots. This process establishes the policy that, before the new Measure C-88 is placed on the November 2004 ballot,the measure must obtain the support of two-thirds of the members of the Authority, a majority of the Board of Supervisors, and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population of the incorporated areas of Contra Costa. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUR } RFCOMMEMATION of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ION OF BOARD COMMS EE APPROVE . OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Iv } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:_ NOES: AND ENTERED ON TIME MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE DIM= Tex SW VW-Wr SHOWN. Contact: Steven Goetz (925/335-1240) cc: Community Development ATTESTED JMY 8 2003 Public Works JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P. Branson, EHSD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contra Costa Transportation Authority (via CDD) =:-,�DEPUTY BYE .=€,.= t a:ltranst)ortation\stevetboisentlmeasuree.7.doc REAUTHORIZING THE MEASURE C TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX July 8, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) Since April, the following activities have occurred: • The results of phone surveys completed in March 2003 were released that tested voter opinions, potential ballot language and the popularity of various transportation projects and programs. • The Board and the Authority held public workshops on the renewal of Measure C-88 in each supervisorial district. • Dozens of Contra Costa local elected officials, business and labor representatives, environmental advocates and other community leaders were interviewed and questioned regarding Measure C reauthorization. • A 17-member Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee was established to coordinate the participation of various interest groups in the reauthorization effort. • Each regional transportation planning committee and the Authority's Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee submitted proposals for projects and programs to be considered for funding in a new Expenditure Plan. As you know, these activities are culminating in a workshop for elected officials on the reauthorization of Measure C-88 hosted by the Board and the Authority. The workshop is scheduled for Saturday, July 12 from 8:30 to noon at the Concord Holiday Inn. It's purpose is to allow elected officials from each jurisdiction to share their opinions on the proposed Expenditure Plan options to be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the sales tax renewal. Pursuant to Resolution 2003/220,the Board,the cities,and the Authority will be asked to review and approve the new Expenditure Plan prior to submitting it to the voters in November 2004. Attached to this report are a number of items that provide additional information on the status of reauthorization activities. Exhibit A is an agenda and logistical information on the workshop, as well as an overview of measure C-88 and the renewal process, and summaries of the public outreach activities. This agenda was mailed to all Board members, city council members and planning and transportation officials in Contra Costa. Exhibit B is a summary of the Expenditure Plan proposals submitted by the regional transportation planning committees,the Authority's Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee,and two special interest groups. Exhibit C is a copy of a letter from the County Advisory Council on Aging to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority regarding the need to adequately fund transit services for senior citizens and persons with disabilities in any Expenditure Plan submitted to the voters. Exhibit D is an excerpt from the June 2,2003 report to the Authority's Planning Committee that describes options for the Growth Management Program. These options will be evaluated in the EIR for potential inclusion in the new Expenditure Plan. At this time the Authority has not determined whether Return-to-Source revenue will continue to be linked with a jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Program. These options include a requirement that each locality adopt an urban limit line. The Authority is also considering the Board's request to include an incentive program that will encourage localities to grow in a way that reduces or shortens trips made by car (i.e. smart growth) In the near future, the Authority will issue a Notice of Preparation for the EIR that will be prepared on the update of their Countywide Transportation Plan. The EIR will evaluate a range of transportation projects and programs that could be funded by an extension of the transportation sales tax. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Board of Supervisors is a Responsible Agency under this EIR, and will be expected to use this EIR in making a determination on whether to submit a new Expenditure Plan to the voters. The next status report to the Board will cover the environmental review process in more detail. EXHIBIT A y r . fv:•A . �.,.. III RENEWING MEASURE C A Workshop for Conga Costa's Elected Officials Sponsored by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Saturday, July 12th, 2003 + 8:30 a.m. to Noon Holiday Inn Concord • Banquet Room • 1050 Burnett Avenue • Concord, California CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ............. .................... .................................................................................................................................................................... .............................. CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Dear Friends: Since 1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has improved our county's ability to address traffic congestion and plan for the transportation needs of our residents. That year, Contra Costa voters passed Measure C, a comprehensive 'Transportation Improvement,and Growth Management Fxpenditure Plan funded by a half-cent sales Lax. As you know, Measure C is due to expire in 2009. kVc'vc been able to accomplish much over the past fifteen years to improve not only out, transportation infrastructure, but also the way our communities work together to handle issues related to growth. However, much remains to be done. That's why for the last six months we have been engaged in a process to place a new Expenditure Plan on the ballot in 2004 and ask voters for a renewal of this essential funding program. This process has included public meetings, public opinion research, stakeholder interviews with local community leaders, five local public workshops, and the appointment of all Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee. We'd like you to help make sure we're on the right track as we move ahead with this process. On Saturday, July 12, 2003, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will host a workshop for local elected officials to examine and provide Input on proposed Expenditure Plan options to be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on our next update of the Countywide transportation Plan (CTP). Our goal is to end up with an Expenditure Plan that is balanced, addresses the needs Of all out, Constituents and regions, and has the best possible chance of earning the two-thirds vote necessary for approval. That's why your participation in this open and collegial process is so critical. Enclosed please find an agenda and logistical information on the workshop, as well as an Overview Of Measure C and the renewal process, and summaries of the public input we've obtained to date. To help us plan for an efficient and productive workshop, we ask your cooperation in letting us know in advance if you'll be able to attend. Please either email Anita 11"itzgibbons at anita@ccta.nct or fill out and send back the enclosed reply car(]. Thank you in advance for your participation and please feel free to call Arielle 11ourgari,at 925/256-4728 if you have any questions. We look forward to seeing you on July 12th. Sincerely. Julie Pierce. Chair Mark DeSaulnier, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors -2- ....................... ................ ... ... ...................................... ................................................................ ................................ ................ RENEWING MEASURE A Workshop for Contra Costa's Elected Officials Saturday, July 12th, 2003 • 8:30 a.m. to Moon AGENDA 8:30 Coffee and Continental Breakfast. 9:00 Introductions, Background, and Workshop Overview 9:30 Presentation of Alternatives 10:00 Break 10:10 Discussion: "Weighing the Alternatives" 11:40 Wrap-Up: "Where Do We Go from Here?" 19:50 Public Comment Noon Adjourn LOGISTICS Directions to the holiday Inn,1050 Burnett Avenue, Concord: From I-680 heading North Exit Burnett Avenue Stay to the right and enter hotel parking at right From I-680 South Exit Concord Pacheco Turn left on Contra Costa Boulevard Turn Left on Concord Avenue Turn right on Diamond Boulevard and enter hotel parking at right (corner of Burnett Avenue) There is ample parking at the Holiday Inn. Holiday Inn telephone: 925/682-5501 F: N v, Goff Club Rd MEASURE C RENEWAL When Contra Costa voters Now the Authority and stakeholders throughout the county 7 approved Measure C in must fashion a new Measure C Lx endit,ure Plan that will keep pp p v 1988, the Put in lace a u� with our transportation needs in the face of future growth. � P P I p g 20-year Transportation The new Expenditure flan is being developed as part of the Improvement and Growth 2004 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Management Expenditure plan (CTP). The Expenditure Plan will include a new set of Plan funded by a half-cent specific capital projects, a variety of transportation programs Route 4 at Bailey Improvement sales tax, and a growth management component. It is the goal of the 'Through creative financing Contra Costa Transportation Authority to ask voters to renew and the leveraging of additional state and federal matching Measure C on the November 2004 ballot. dollars, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority helped In order to do that, significant planning and consensus building generate over a billion dollars to address traffic congestion must Lake place. Much of it is already under way. and plan for future growth. The results for the county are stunning: • Improvements on Interstate 680,Highways 4 and 242 • Expansion of BART to Pittsburg and Bay Point • More commuter lanes, carpool lots and traffic , reductionro rams .�:. p g W • Construction of the Richmond Parkway =r� • Better,bus service and special services for seniors and disabled • Better local street and road maintenance • Expanded bike and pedestrian trails • Implementation of an historic Growth Management Program r z Ultimately, passage of Measure C enabled the completion of some of the county's most critical transportation projects that San Ramon Transit Center otherwise might not have been possible. Measure C also established a Growth Management Program to which local jurisdictions must conform to receive their share of Measure C revenues. Under this program, jurisdictions must. • Work together to solve growth management and transportation issues in their regions • Establish fees on new development to fund facilities needed to serve that development, • Set performance standards to guide growth and transportation decisions West County Rte 4 in Hercules —a- ................... VINTER-SPRING 2003 . I WIG ft do, up of in, ividu s represeating"IT, Xpe un, flan r e PI mi d al ARE ndtft YAM ce,ma key issue areas, as convened tt advise the Authority:carr.prioritizing 0 funds that vould:b6generated by Wasure C renewal Comm fttees %ere6*6d to:submit reeornmendations voice their GGRcerns Metalled sal er imOrviews eight reif) al tom group,and exwllsive POIJOW:::�: d.by tie'k. OrIty to:gWnlight to, what pro ects and programs resonate with county residents. Geary Road, Walnut Creek Five public Workshops were held to give,pea 6,a form where,ftywere 3410 to directly haik they would send our liMitedArAnsportation dollars" Th6:nt,t steps,will bring knevuXpedIture Plan stir future sales tax venuk s.arrdproposed:modlfioationg to t#lll current brt7Svtl3 manage meat program.gra . JULY 12, 20 A jow t workshopexchange sabout.altemativeExpondittire Plans for :evaluatiou tlthe 2004 Countym&:'Ira 8p ortation:Plan U date fi Willow Pass Grade on Hwy 4 :gas 2003 LY special Meet' of tie Auth'' b y to decide on altera tive to be in the Deport(KIR) NOVEMBER 200 JANUARY 2004 flraft 2OGI:GTP andDraft:Elly ted for,comment : . ............. EBRUARY 2004 North Concord BART Station A uth or,ilty'revle-ws.1 C I Qj I M I MentS OR Draft 2004,CTP Update and Draft EIR MARCH 2004 ............ Authorityadopts2,004:GYP Updateincluding E endtftfre?lm rMeas xp ovde C kenewalballot measure, NOVEMBER2004 Election Concord Avenue/242 interchange ................................I........I.............-.... .......... MEASURE C REAUTHORIZATION i Note.,Except for TRANSPAC,none of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees as of June 20th have taken action on their staff proposals Amounts are in Millions of 2002 Dollars DRAFT RY i Project/Program SUMMA i 1.Hig1tways Caldecott Tunnel" OF FINANCIALLY 1-680 HOV Completion in Central County(N.Main to 242 NO,N.Main to Uvorna SB) RI-680/-SM42/SR4 Corridor Improvements in Central County CONSTAINED 1-680/SR4 Interchange OPOSALS 1-80 HOV Cap Closure "STAFF" PR 1-80 Interchange Improvements Ricl-unond Parkway Upgrade SR 4 By-pass/Non-Freeway SR 4 Improvements An updated sup�mary will be distributed at Workshop SR 4 East Improvements} Vasco Road' Subtotal The matrix at right contains the most current Expenditure 2.Rait/Ferry Total Plan recommendations from the Regional Transportation eBART Planning Committees. the Contra Costa Council, and the 1-80 Corridor Rail Service Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC).These, Richmond,Hercules/Rodeo Ferry Service" recommendations were solicited by the Authority to use as BART Access&Smart Growth Project a basis for developing alternative Expenditure Plans for BART Seismic future study and consideration. Hercules Rail Station Martinez Intermodal/Ferry Project Subtotal Notes: 3.Bus Transit 1. Based on original revenue estimate of$864M Fxpress Bus Program` in 1988 $, of which $807M was committed in the Expanded Local and Feeder Bus Service/Improve Transit Connections original Expenditure Plan.Also reflects later 1-680 Express Bus/HOV in San Ramon Valley commitment of$8M to Lamorinda School bus Subregional Local Bus Improvements Contra Costa Regional Comntuterway program from Gateway/Lamorinda category. Subtotal $57M contingency shown as"Other." 2. EPAC proposal is not vet available. 4.Paratransit 3. In SWAT submittal, $20M was set aside for Paratransit for Elderly and Disabled People Caldecott/eBART/1-680 HOV/Express Bus in San Subtotal Ramon Valley under the lower funding level, and $60M under the higher level. For comparison S.Streets&c Roads purposes, CCTA staff divded the amounts equally Maintain local streets and roads between projects. In WCCTAC submittal, $80M' Subregional Local Streets and Roads Projects was set aside for Caidecott/eBART/Rte 4 East Subtotal Widening/and 1-680/SR4 Interchange. For comparison PedestrianiBicycle Projects purposes,CCTA staff divided the amounts equally 6. improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities between projects. Improvements for safer routes to schools(or Community/School Improv.) 4. In TRANSPLAN submittal: SR4/1-680 Interchange Subregional Ped/Bike Projects will qualify under this category. In Contra Costa Subtotal Council submittal,funds to be used also for Rte 4 West Improvements. 7.Student Transportation school Bus Program/Student Transportation 5. Contra Costa Council proposal includes funds Subtotal for Byron Highway Improvement. 6. In SWNI'submittal, funds to be shared with 8.Growth Management Lafayette Downtown BART Shuttle. In TRANSPAC Growth Management/Regional Planning submittal, funds to be shared by buses, signal Smart growth Programs' management and additional bus facilities. Subregional Smart Growth programsSubtotal 7. In TALC proposal, $80M to be used for open space mitigation. 9,TDM 8. In TRANSPAC &TRANSPLAN submittals, this Additional Park&Ride Lots project is combined with CCCAN. Transportation Demand Management(or CCCAN) Carpools,Vw-ivools and Park&Ride Lotss 9.TALC proposal includes funding for Martinez Subtotal and Antioch ferries. 10. Each regional committee was asked to prepare 10.0ther priorities based on their respective 70% & 130% Subtotal population based share. Grand Total —4 ........... ............. ............................. .............................. Expenditure Pian Transportation Advisory 8r Land Use (sting Southwest County Central County East County West County Committee Contra Costa Coalition sure C' (SWAT) (TRANSPAC) CrRANSPLAN) (WCCTAC) COUNTYWIDE (EPAC)a Council ('TALC) RANGE" RANGE10 RANG100 RANGEY° RANGE" Proposed $ Proposed $ Proposed$ 5 20 20 70 - 20 25 110 150 6 18 6 18 25 40 25 40 35 50 - 20 35 70 - 10 - 10 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 36 66 36 66 5 15 89 166 - 20 94 201 750 7 13 7 13 150 324 5 20 91 193 132 246 19 87 247 546550 160 7.5% 2.41 5.2% 28.2"b 32.1%, 41.2% 41.2% 7.0% 17.4% 35.5% 10.0% 5 20 5 15 89 166 - 20 99 221 150 160 9 4. 9 9 100 31 31 31 31 80 #p 20 10 10 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 10 18 10 18 184 5 20 15 33 89 166 58 78. 167 296 250 210 1.2% 2.44, 5.21% 4.6'in 5.41. 27.81/. 27.81% 21.5% I5SM1. ::; 16.1%, 15.G,/. 19 22 15 49 8 8 42 79 150 150 42 10 19 23 4fi 22 42 27 50 82 157 240 5 20 5 20 200 50 50 50 50 46 - 88 34 60 38 95 22 42 85 108 180 305 350 390 Q 16.6`!4> 15.8". 11.8 35.9°1. 7.0%a 7.0% 31.5% 21.6%, 22.6% 24.4% 10 19 12 23 10 18 27 50 59 110 100 200 26 10 19 12 23 10 i8 27 50 59 110 100 200 3.0% 5.0% 5.01/. 3.71/. 3.W1. 3.0111 3.0'%r 10.01% 10,0% 6.5% 12.5"% 156 37;> 69 83 83 61 113 49 90 230 356 300 160 34 91 55 138 11 20 99 249 156 71 160 138 221 61 113 59 110 329 604 300 160 $.Q% 34.51% 41.W% 42.6% 36.81/ 19.0% 19.(YY. 22-0% 22.0% 19.4% 10.01% 3 2 2 5 9 3 6 8 15 18 32 80 8 15 7 8 15 23 5 10 5 10 3 15 27 11 17 3 6 8 15 38 65 80 03% 7.3% 7.1% 3.4/o 2.81/. 1.0`d, 1.01/1, 3.0'% 3.0°/1, 5.00% 8 61 72 7 8 68 80 80 8 61 72 7 8 68 80 80 0.9`!0 29.6% 18.8`.' 2.01% 1.31Y. 5.01/0 10 2 2 3 5 5 7 14 25 14 25 240 8 15 8 15 10 2 2 24 45 26 47 240 1.2% 1.01Ya 0.5% 9.0°10 9.0% 15.01/. 4 5 2 2 12 12 7 13 21 26 50 3 6 3 6 9 2 2 12 12 3 6 7 13 24 32 50 1.01/1 1.0% 0.5% 3.6% 1.91%, 1.91/. 1.01% 23% 2.5% 3.1% 57 6WX, 864 206 382 323 599 321 597 288 507 1137 2085 1,550 1,600 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 107% 101% PUBLICINPUT, OUTREACH AND OPINION-RESEARCH The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has spent the last six months seeking public input and gaugingvoters'opinions on Measure C anc€tine mo}t essetitlal transportation needs for Contra Costa.These activities included: i{iV0 public workshops Interviews with key county stakeholders • Eight focus groups with Contra Costa voters A comprehensive phone survey of Contra Costa voters PUBLIC WORKSHOPS STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW =Ihe public workshops held itt Antloch, Lafayette,Pleasant Dozens of Contra Costa local elected officials, business and Hill,San Pablo and San Ramon— were open forums to allow labor representatives,environmental advocates and other Contra Cosh residents to examine Measure C accomp- community leaders were interviewed and questioned regarding lishments and future goals, and decide how they would fund Measure C and the renewal. the many components of a new Measure C Expenditure Plan. Overall, the existing Measure C program is viewed as a While participants at the five workshops expressed a variety of success. The existing Measure C program is perceived to.have apinidns, they generally agreed strongly On the overall relative done a very good job is delivering the projects included in the proportions of funding that should be allocated to the various Expenditure flan adopted by voters M 1988. Particular expenditure categories,There was consistent support by projects of irate include: workshop participants in all regions for particular protects of . Hwy 4 widening into bast County,as well as the countywide significance, including, elimination of unsafe conditions on Route 4 in Hercules • eBAET{extension of DART service in East County] + . BART to Pittsburg and Bay Point + Caldecott iinnel{4th bore] interstate 6801 improvements • Highway 4 East (completion of the widening from • Richmond Parkway Pittsburg td R0,uto IFrf#) Most believe the Measure C Growth Management Program Transit services for senior citizens and people with disabilities provides benefits such as the redluiremen that each public agencyinclude a growth management el�ntent in its General The:gable helow shores each wo'rkshop's allocation tsf funds to Plan, that development pay its owia ��}ay; and tf€at agenei s pro}ects and programs for measure C renewal, plan cooperatively,While there is support for,the continuation of the program, many stakeholders believe ii should be A$rengtlienedl i �fgGts San Ramon 1h8'tnost 1portant projects mentioned as priorities far Freeways/ 'fl 30% Measure C renesvai include: HOV and Roads ,.,..... Rail and Ferries �` 21% # Widening of Hwy 4 further into Easy County Bus Transit s 10% ' eBART(extension of BART service in East County) Seniors/Disabled Caldecott Tunnel (4th bore) Persons x � 610 + A countywide express bus system Local Streets 18% + Transit services for senior citizens and people with Bicycle and o Pedestrian 6/0 disabilities Trip Reduction ' , ' >: 3% The mp+nrtanee of developi�t��ut�stan� enlrly Smart Growth ° ait4Cl[#1 tL 8 1AE !t l jj#e €ell<�►ld vs:FvaB teaag 4/o 6 l° incentives e)11phasjzed.A few stakeholders would like to see the governing beard expanded to represent more communities. OPINO RESEARCH BALLOTPROPOSED QUESTION: FXUS GROUPSl�ansportat�pn was the votei tap response to thisll • Band:on eight factts groups held in different regions of Lantra - of question,outpolifng costa county early in:2003,We learned that while the economy fseducation,the eccsnon�, Expenditure the number cine caneern,there is strong vator support far and rawth,and 84t�of " renewing measure if,the projects in the new i;xpenditture Plan the respottdetts beifetieation1 County's 1/2 cent transport, will reduce traffic congestion.Many Centra Costa residents werethat traffic in the county sales tax to the following? surprised that Measure is esponsibie for hfgh-�pOffie proJects his grown wt�ese over theservice to Pittsburg they adily recognise.. ThYs response Indicates a need to promotelast few years. and Antioch and publicize)Measureaggressively. Expand feeder bus • BART The survey sYrowed high parking Similar to the findings of thepublic workshops, participants In lever of support for the Wi • • improve Higi way 24, nil eight focrs groups stressed the importance of key caunty�uide ; county's priorit�r Interstate 'i r • projects such as: transpHighway 4 artaton protests; Exp#nsan ofAf and BEiparkfttg inciudtng: Transit erviresforsen:orsand « Hig way imp Orn to Fednce congestion * 8i forpersons maintaining « Bever bus service local streets + i`ransit services for sr�ior citizensand people with and reeds dlsul3illtles + 79%to provlding transit nervices for senior citizens The most sig lficant difference in priority projects vas fn gest and people with di abf WOWS where partfclpants alt stressed the importance of + 76far providing sofa routes to schools fur fids reducing traffic on:l 8011, ka 73%for extending SART commuter rail service to Pittsburg and Antioch POLLING, WHAM W i NQ ABOUT VOTER SENTIMENT + 72%for constructing a nth bore of the flatdecatt ftFnnel 'have surve s completed in iwlarch 200:0nfirmed what most transpw, Ion advocates believe=that there is strong support 71 far widening highway 4 for renewal ofeasure if the ballot quesGicn includes the topThere is also strong voter support for renewal of Leasure Yr c nnty praje ts. thrattghout the county and across alt demographics based on the After being read oni the ballot question (shown tap right); understanding: that renewal of the program will not increase taxes: • 9°lea of the graters iii the poll would vats yos to resew rleusure C,and ala would can tr�vards voting yeas * 7A4rt in Easy bounty • Only 22Ru said they would vote na or leaned towards + 'in Ess fount r voting no and 3%were undecided * 729 am mg men, 78%among women. �►' 72%atnong;Detnocrats Reasons for the bigh 10W,b poort: among Republicans The bhllot lariguag tested In the phor c survey was fused upon « 731 amtrng independent�°eters the successful bailat tangua developed fctr the 2fl0tl renewal of Renewal N supported by at least two thirds of almost every Aia�ndaount�s Measure 13ranspertation Expenditure Pian 0:1,9.roll group,jby strspg ertvYranmettlist titins and non- and sales tax. envfrnrlmeutalist voters, ksy tiro-growth andanti-growth1ars. lan ptsrtatiop is the top condern. iu an ope€t-ended questftn In aditian.7 of high-prpensfty =oters and6 of 40/0 mentioned traffic,transportation, or roads as the most aecasfottal voters would renow Measure G, suggesting that important problem facing Contra Costa County. pr�aspects far rene�vai are goad In etttex a High turnout election, such:a the Tovenibr 20() presidetstfal election,or a iawor turnout election,sunt as the March>2 flu prlmary_eleotian ......... ......... ......... ......... ..._... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....._.. . ......._.............. _..... ............................................. .._. What we learned about voter sentiment: THE CHALLENGE While the general environment for renewal of Measure L' Renewal of Measure C is a challenge. In addition to the public appears promising, a number of possible obstacles loom on the horizon. opinion research showing voters' concerns with the state budget and the economy, the ability to renew a transportation Less than 50% would renew Measure C if the legislature sales tax measure gat tougher in 1996 when California voters passed a 1% increase to the state sales tax. Renewal also passed Proposition 218, requiring new tax measures—and appears vulnerable to a ballot crowded by other tax measures, renewals—be approved by a two-thirds majority. particularly those that would stop budget cuts—or boost funding—to education and local government services or Alameda and Santa Clara Counties were successful in balance the state budget. achieving the two-thirds threshold when their renewals appeared on the November 2000 ballot. Last year, only Continued deterioration of the economy and the Riverside County successfully passed a transportation state's budget situation appear to be the most Expenditure Plan renewal by a two-thirds majority. Fresno and significant threats to a successful renewal vote. Madera Counties' renewal measures along with Merced and The phone survey was conducted shortly before the start of Solano Counties' first-time measures—even though they hostilities in Iraq, but absent significant further deterioration garnered over 50%—all failed. Historically, out of 37 of the economy and the state budget situation, an increase in measures that have been on the ballot, only 5 have achieved the state sales tax, or significant organized opposition, the two-thirds threshold. Nonetheless, if we have consensus, prospects for renewal of Measure C appear to be solid. polling indicates that we have the opportunity to be successful. And we must be successful if Contra Costa is to keep pace For Contra Costa leaders, the challenge now is to with its growing transportation needs. The ability to deliver bring a measure to the ballot that is relatively free of key projects such as BART, bus and rail transit, highway controversy, is supported by a strong stakeholder improvements and local street and road maintenance, all consensus, and reflects the transportation priorities depend on local sales tax funds that would be generated by a of Contra Costa voters. renewal of Measure C. Complete findings of the public opinion research are available Collectively, Contra Costa jurisdictions have identified over $4 on the OCTA website at www.ccta.net. billion in project and program needs over the next 20 years. The renewal of Measure C would generate $1.6 billion over ZO years. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission predicts a decline in federal transportation funds over the next 25 years, and given the ongoing state funding crisis, the necessity for Contra Costa to maintain ongoing funding from xx °^�" }� ' local transportation sales taxes is even more critical. Moreover, "self help counties"—those that have imposed . , local transportation sales taxes—are often in a strong "$ w; position to advocate successfully for additional state and federal discretionary funds, by virtue of having local matching funds to "put on the table.,. 10- ......................... FOR MORE INFORMATION. CONTACT: Contra Costa TI al sportation Authority 3478 Bukirk i enue Suite 100 Pleasant Rill,CA 4523< Phone,9251407x0121 Fax,925/407-0128 www.ceta.net. OCTA STAFF m WC Em, ExEcums KU,MAXWELL, Ulu DEIPM DR cTOR DmiMmm, Cxlpr 1'INAN AL I OFFICER MAGER SUSAN His k:m N}cfm1, E I I N ITE BI a Ia, L'l�iCtR Um FORMON.PLAN BASEA:, NAGE n HI1YMAN 8n 40'ARA' ll L, y�ANIT{�: l`:fz�},spl�GINsir.�pl� ECUTI�fE::(ECRETAW s -.��_t�.,K W L,soN ,G: fvt3:YiJ i;:4'tr J� 4t7'13k ii4lF U JANE PENN"NGTGN,:ApM.- a ASSISTANT, P Itvc Gra ow 400 dell As cia.e it n van /Mezu h Irlc. BMW% 1' r 77 1 ' 8 Nblis{{dh8818� a —11— ..._..... ............._..__.. ___ __ .................................................... Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 CCTA Cum.wssjoNr:Rs JllI,H; PIH,RC€;. C.{A€R AMY Woi,,ni, Vlci,, CHAIR JANI A:31',i,SON CHARI,ii'; ABRAMS MARIA Ai,F,GRiA DONALD P. F REITAS JOHN M. GIOIA FI+:€E'RAL GL('mVf ti BRAT) NA NANCY TM'ARKA KRiS Vv,S',m) CON"RA COSTA COUNTY BJARD OF Sui'KRViSORS MARK 1)NSA0I,NEEiZ, CHAIR, 4'."H Dis,rkTcT JOHN M. GIOIA, 1si, lhssrRlc GAYLE B. tirl,KsuA, 2M) DISTRICT 11'r;;) ,RAi, Gt, mR, 5,'.. DISIMIU: _0 0 U) C7 C:) DD 0 cz !r ;f+ z LS --3 --g — 0 F 7y w LA o >< z il co w o r) > �.n -,:� �3 " 5 z Irl ID n L r7cl. -) — U) M" n < < 0 > C, M CL , , t- C) 0 (t '0 '-J W co fTln 51, A > m > > > r. M a CL > r) ::F- 0 rD r- < 0 �j cr r) 0 YD ;o m O,�- m :3 M 5 a-,zi " " ; n --2- CL r) 0 U) z o CD M 7, =' zi ft CD P, r) ft m 4�n ro Z) N ro -n �Y- 0 CL tu (A ft 0 rL > 00 ul (Drt 0 rD P < , 6; o" Z; CLCL CL W rt, Cr 0rc 4LA rb F" Z CL ri ro w W z C) ru rt g 91 et CL D, > ril l< 0� a- d 5 :1 �n — w = r- t, =-0 - �3 m 9 ro 0' �j, -- :: :n w z W 0) L� m m C) " w C� n3 w rD < 0`4 '• --3- :� �3 . 9 S ti. ri 00 w CL 1:!,. 2. p 9 - G) ;a, ro rD M, ro -- r 0 rL M I CL Lpro �7j r, ni C: 4p CL D3 :j 0, ul-�j > (4A cr 00 a (P rt 0 rl n ro - - mri N �n m '5�' n - lu, m rri :1 0 r- e� e r) ;I 1p (D W w S' -�j CL 0 ,, N ::V to C) -1 T, 0- U, = x I T, 9 " CL > EL — ci r. w (" 0 -p 91 n Ij �41 r) - m 0- - to Ul ::I w CA Ul OV r) rb is m 7r CL Ix, M Ul CD M ro r) cr 0 0 r) �; et G N - 5 C19 r) LA CL w ft SI; El 91 to N (.A -Z) r r no cr t rw-• ca 'n J) 3" LT 0 1 P. �-E , 5, E; 9 > > tz 2: 70 tr cm y. = g 2 rm trH y, �j , < C, ¢ t r) Er Z oc s 'm 0 16' =r A y o' r n 0 CL CL < :3 Q W u, w 4- cc r tj �4 C. Wul u—, U, 0 vt U, vl ul > w n U-1 a UI U-. C. -2 131 tj at U� -4 'J 4j) 10 m bo tlb W tJ > y. 10 a, (A ct Ll c N 4 4 4 N tQ U, U, un 19 U, m ol w u 'Zoo r UI rm ro 90 U4 p w C 91 Iz r) ul 6R C) "I r) > v VI U, U lo EXHIBIT C Advisory Council on Aging Contra AREA AGENCY ON AGING Costa 2530 Amold Drive,Suite 300 County Martinez,California 94553-4359 (925)335-8700 FAX(92yan,8y4a3 Chairperson Julie Pierce and Commissioners Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Ave.,Suite 100 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Bear Chairperson Pierce: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging,I am writing to express our interest in being involved in the decisions regarding the new Measure C. I urge OCTA to use this once�in-a- generation opportunity to present the voters with a plan that will expand our transportation choices, particularly for the County's rapidly growing elderly and disabled population. As a member of the Senior and Disabled Stakeholders' Group,the Advisory Council on Aging supports the Stakeholder's position that the new Measure C should increase funding for elderly and disabled transportation to 15%of the revenues. We understand that the Authority's own Paratransit Coordinating Council also supports an increase in Measure C funding of these programs to 15%. All the demographics clearly point to the fact that in the next 20 years,the county's disabled and over-65 populations will expand at a much faster growth rate than the population as a whole. Without an equivalent growth in transportation services,the elderly and disabled will experience increased difficulty in traveling to basic services. The results will include: unmet daily needs,social isolation, an increase in health problems and an overall diminished duality of life. At 15%,the new Measure C will provide better transportation service for the growing ADA disabled population,and also offer service to the soaring population of senior citizens and persons with disabilities who do not qualify under the ADA, but who need special transportation assistance to help there remain independent and productive members of our community. We certainly understand that the new Measure C will include a variety of projects and services of value to our community. As you weigh the potential components to include,please keep in mind the transportation needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens,the elderly and disabled. From the initial polling,we also know that voters in the county favor a measure that improves services to this population, and we ask you to keep this in mind as you develop the new Measure C. Sincerely, Gerald Sharrock,President Advisory Council on Aging Cc: Newspapers,OCTA Commissioners,Members of Board of Supervisors, Robert McCleary,Regional Group Chairs, Stakeholders Group,TALC, Bob Sessler THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING IS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ADVISE THE AREA AGENCY ON ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AN14M AREA-AGENCY PLAN AND OPERATIONS CONDUCTED THEREUNDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANDATES FROM THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT.ANY COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COUNCIL OR ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS DO NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE COUNTY OR ANY OF ITS OFFICERS. EXHIBIT D CCTA—Planning Committee July 2,2003 Table 2 —Options for the Growth Management Program GMP Component Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 0. Reward System 1. Growth Management Element 4. Development Mitigation CONTINUE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS Program 5. Cooperative,Multi- Jurisdictional Planning 6. Five-Year CIP 8 TSM Ordinance or Resolution 3. Performance Standards Eliminate,but encourage Eliminate (Fire,Police,Parks, Continue "best practices" for Sanitary,Water, and Transportation Oriented Flood) Development(TOD) 7. Housing Options and Job Continue Eliminate Opportunities Achieve goals, show progress -T Additional Components None. Existing County, or locally adopted ULLs, or new, jointly accepted ULL 2. Traffic LOS Standards Eliminate LOS Standards Eliminate and TSOs Continue,with on non-regional routes. LOS Keep ISOs on Regional exemptions for Routes,with exemptions TOD and/or for TOD and/or traffic traffic metering metering. Separate Smart Growth Compliance with the GMP could be linked to this program,or it could Incentive Program be entirely separate. s Percentage of funds dedicated to Local Street Maintenance and Improvements to be determined through the Expenditure Plan(currently 18%). C:'uMy Documents\CCTA Piles\t.Planning\PC\2003\07\Refining The GMP Options Paper.Doc 8-4