Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09232003 - C.50 TO: ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f Contra FROM: Transportation, Water And Infrastructure CommitteejCosta (Supervisors John Gioia, Chair) County DATE: September 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Committee Report On Transportation Legislation SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT this report from the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on transportation legislation. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on September 15 received its final report from staff for the 2003 state legislative session, in regard to transportation legislation. This report summarizes the Committee's discussion. No actions or positions are recommended on the bills in this report because the legislative session has ended. No action or position is recommended on the one ballot measure in this report, because the date of the recall election — at which time the measure would have gone to the ballot— is now in question. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ervlsor Jahn Gioia Supervisor Millie Greenber ACTION OF BOARD ON septr 23, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT rlor ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Greitzer(925/335-1201) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED September 23, 2003 Public Works Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR F + {I 12 BY # ' ' , DEPUTY JG1 gttwlclbo\03lsept 23 leg report f:lTranarnrtatinnYTlAfi(`.1Rnarrl PSrv1are\`J()n1\a f'I"2 Ian rannrf rinr REPORT ON LEGISLATION FROM TRANSPORTATION,WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) Proposition, 53 The special election on the recall of the Governor also will include two referenda. Proposition 53, which would create a state infrastructure improvement fund, is described here. The other measure on the ballot is Proposition 54, commonly referred to as the Racial Privacy Initiative. This measure is outside the scope of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee and therefore is not covered here. Proposition 53 was placed on the ballot through the Legislature's approval of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11 (Richman, R-Northridge)in 2002. The measure it placed on the ballot will address infrastructure financing by dedicating a certain percentage of the General Fund to state and local government infrastructure investment. Under the measure, eligible infrastructure improvements include transportation, water resources, education, natural resources, criminal justice, health services, and state office space. The total General Fund set-aside for these infrastructure investments would start at one percept of the General Fund in FY 2006/07, increasing by an addition 0.3 percent each year until it reaches a total of three percent. It would remain at three percent thereafter. The set-aside percentage could increase, decrease or be suspended depending on revenue fluctuations. The measure requires that half of the fund would be spent on state- owned facilities and half on locally owned facilities. The measure doesn't specify the amount of infrastructure funds that would go to transportation, health services, or any of the other categories. Nor does the measure include any specific projects. However, Assemblymember Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg) and Assemblymember Richman introduced AB 1011,which would have specified that half of the Proposition 53 funds would go for transportation capital improvement projects,to be programmed through the biannual State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. The bill did not pass the legislature. It may be taken up in the 2004 session if Proposition 53 passes at the ballot box. Like the ballot measure, AB 1011 did not specify any particular projects for funding. The Board of Supervisors in the past has expressed concern over any additional claims on the General Fund beyond those already in statute. The Board in recent years has chosen not to support legislation that would make such additional claims on the General Fund. Proposition 53 has received support from the County Supervisors Association,the League of California Cities, some local governments, and the contracting and construction industries. Opponents include the Congress of California Seniors, the Service Employees International Union,the California Tax Reform Association,and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. AB 427 (LongvI11% [ -San Bernardino) This bill was introduced to provide local agencies with the ability to develop transportation sales tax measures that are not limited to a 20-year life, as was previously required by state law. The bill has been approved by the Legislature, signed by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State. Local agencies now have the flexibility to specify the desired duration of a sales tax measure. The primary significance of the bill is that by allowing transportation sales tax measures to have a longer duration, the measures can include a larger list of transportation improvements since they can have additional years of life in which additional revenue will be generated. AB 427 also shortened by ten days the lead time before a measure passed by voters can take effect. The old law specified a sales tax measure can take effect no sooner than 121 days after approval by voters. The new law reduces the lead time to a minimum of 111 days. This change enables a tax measure to take effect in the fiscal quarter following the election, rather than having to wait until two quarters after the election. The change was requested by the State Board of Equalization. REPORT ON LEGISLATION FROM TRANSPORTATION,WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 15,2003 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) The Centra Costa Transportation Authority supported AB 427, as did the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. OCTA is expected to discuss the possibility of a thirty-year measure in the context of the Measure C Reauthorization Effort. The Committee discussed the possibility of suggesting that the environmental impact report for the Measure C Reauthorization Effort include a thirty-year measure as one of the alternatives to be analyzed. SB 916 fPerata D-Oakland) SB 916 has passed the legislature and awaits the Governor's signature. It will place Regional Measure 2 before the voters on March 2, 2004. The measure will ask Bay Area voters whether to increase bridge tolls by one dollar on the region's seven state-owned bridges,to pay for specified transportation projects and services. The seven state-owned bridges include all Bay Area bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge, SB 916 was most recently amended on September 4 to include $50.5 million for construction of the fourth bore of the Galdecott Tunnel. Earlier amendments to the bill added Tri Delta Transit and County Connection as eligible recipients of transit funds,and— at the request of the Board of Supervisors and City of Richmond -- a Richmond ferry project was added as a conditional recipient if a Berkeley/Albany ferry project doesn't develop by 2010. Specifically,the measure states$12 million in funds will be transferred to the City of Richmond for ferry facility improvements, if the Water Transit Authority doesn't have an entitled ferry site in the Berkeley/Albany area by 2010. The bill doesn't include another amendment requested by the County—funding for safety and security improvements at transit stations. SB 916 requires that the carpool occupancy requirement for all seven bridges will be three persons or more per vehicle(except in two-seater vehicles,for which two persons will qualify as a carpool). However, the bill preserves the right of the Bay Area Toll Authority to alter those requirements. The Toll Schedule established by the Toll Authority already requires three-plus occupancy for carpools on all of the bridges except the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges, which allow two persons per vehicle. The bill includes the following Contra Costa projects: • Interstate 80 High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane(gap closure project)from State Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge, ($50 million); • Improvements to the Richmond Parkway Transit Center($16 mullion); • Direct HOV lane connectorfrom 1-680 to the Pleasant Hill or Walnut Creek BART station, or an extension of the southbound 1-680 HOV lane from North Main Street to Livorna Road ($15 million, once the preferred alternative has been determined); • eBART rail extension from the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station to Byron ($96 million); • Central Contra Costa BART Crossover Tracks near Pleasant Hill BART Station ($25 million); • Benicia-Martinez Bridge ($50 million); and • Regional Express Bus North, a competitive grant program for bus transit infrastructure projects such as park-and-ride lots and acquisition of buses ($20 million for numerous eligible bus agencies including Tri Delta Transit, County Connection and WestCAT). In addition to the Contra Costa: projects,the following projects in Solano County may affect traffic volumes on Contra Costa County's freeways: • Vallejo Station intermodal transit hub for bus and ferry service including parking structure ($28 million); REPORT ON EEGISLATION FROM TRANSPORTATION,WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Page 4 BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Continued • Solana County Express Sus Intermodal Facilities in Benicia, Fairfield and Vacavillle($20 million); and • 1-8011-680 interchange at Cordelia ($100 million). AB 453 (Yee, D-San Francisco) This bill pertains to cases in which the awarding of a public works contract is challenged. The bill would enable the public entity to enter into the contract while the legal challenge is being considered. If the contract award is later determined to be invalid due to a problem with the competitive bidding process caused solely by the public entity,the bill entitles the contractor to be reimbursed by the public entity for actual expenses incurred. County staff informed the Committee they don't believe this bill will have any implications for the County, as it is unlikely the County would proceed to award a contract if a legal challenge has been issued. ACA 7'('Dutra. D-Fremont) This bill would have reduced the voter majority threshold to 55 percent for passage of transportation sales tax measures. It did not pass the legislature. ACA 11 (Levine, D-'Ilan Nuys) This bill began as the so-called "Flip flop" bill, which would have switched the voter thresholds needed for passage of special taxes and passage of general taxes. The general tax threshold,which now is a simple majority,would have increased to a two-thirds requirement while the special tax threshold would have dropped to a simple majority. The bill was later amended to a 55-percent majority requirement for voters to approve bonded indebtedness and did not survive the legislature.