HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07242007 - C.45 StA/
TO: Board of Supervisors
Con t ra
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee j Costa
(Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair
��-...��s-.-.�f� County
-rrc'{
Cox]
DATE': July 9, 2007
- us
SUBJECT: Support for SB 748 (Corbett) regarding Proposition 1 B transportation funding
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND.JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT a position of"support"for SB 748 (Corbett, D-San Leandro)and AUTHORIZE the Chair
to sign a letter expressing this position to the County's legislative delegation.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE to the General Fund. If the bill passes it will improve the County's competitiveness for
grants from one of the Proposition 1 B funding programs, as described in this report.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
When the voters approved the $19.9 billion Proposition 1 B in November 2006, the measure
created new funding programs for various transportation needs. One of the programs is the $1
billion State-Local Partnership Program, which will provide grants to local jurisdictions who can
provide 50-percent local matching funds for specific transportation projects.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
I 5�t
SIGNATURES : Su PAN le B. Uilkema upervisor Federal D. Glover
ACTION OF BOARD ON o APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 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
J. Bueren, PWD JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF
L. Delaney, CAO THE BOA OF SUPERVISORS
AND CO T ADMINISTRATOR
G:\Transportation\TWIC\2007\Board Orders\TWIC SB 748 support for July 24 BOS.doc BY DEPUTY
Support for SB 748
JULY 9, 2007
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
The legislature is responsible for developing the specific process and guidelines for allocation of
the State-Local Partnership Program funds. One of the key issues in Sacramento concerns the
types of local funds that will qualify as matching funds. Counties such as Contra Costa County
and Alameda County have several types of local transportation funding programs, including
voter-approved transportation sales taxes, and uniform regional development impact fees.
Other counties, notably Los Angeles County, only have a transportation sales tax. The latter
counties seek to restrict the definition of matching funds to transportation sales taxes only.
It would work to Contra Costa County's advantage to have both the sales taxes and the uniform
regional development impact fees qualify as matching funds for the State-Local Partnership
Program. This would help improve the County's competitiveness for the grants.
SB 748, introduced by Senator Ellen Corbett, would accomplish this by specifically designating
uniform regional development impact fees as eligible for local match purposes. A competing bill
introduced by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine of Los Angeles, AB 1351, would do the opposite
and restrict the eligible match to transportation sales taxes only.
SB 748 has passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
The County's transportation advocate in Sacramento, Mark Watts of California Strategies and
Advocacy, discussed SB 748 with the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on
July 9. As a result of the discussions, the.Committee recommends the Board adopt a position of
support for SB 748 and authorize the Chair to sign a letter of support for transmittal to the
legislature.
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the League of California Cities (LCC), and
the Regional Council of Rural Counties have sent a joint letter of support for the bill to the
legislature. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission also supports the bill.
Exhibit A is the letter for the Chair's signature.
Exhibit B is the full text of SB 748.
Exhibit C is a joint letter of support for the bill from CSAC, LCC, and the Rural Counties.
EXHIBT A
The Board ot'Supervisors Contra John Cullen
(aerk rn'ihu Board
Costa andCounty \dministratiol Buddim, C'QU111F"Adminislralor
651 fine Street, Room 106 County
(qr�)3;5 19or.t
tiiartinez, Calili)rnia 94553-4068
John(Aoia,I)isu ic.l I
Gayle 13.Vilkemn,I)istrict II ,.
Mal") N. Vie llo,I)isiricl lll'
susall Ronill:t, I)isojel I1ji m..,<.,
Federal I).(Am cr, I islrio
J`
July 24, 2007
The Honorable Ellen D. Corbett
Senator, 101h District
State Capitol, Room 3092
Sacramento;CA 95814
Dear Senator Corbett:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors today adopted a position of support for your bill, SB 748,
which would specify the types of local transportation funds that would qualify as eligible match for the
State-Local Partnership Program created by the passage of Proposition 1B in November 2006.
The State-Local Partnership Program will provide valuable grants to local jurisdictions that can provide
50-percent local matching funds. Contra Costa County and its cities have worked hard over the years to
create a number of local transportation funding sources, so we can fund our extensive transportation
needs. There is a voter-approved countywide transportation sales tax, and we also have several uniform
regional developer impact-fee programs which raise funds for specific transportation projects that are
necessitated by new development.
Our local jurisdictions created these funding programs to help us leverage federal and state funds. It is
important that Contra Costa County and its cities be able to use all of these funds as local match in
applying for State-Local Partnership Program grants. SB 748 would accomplish this by specifically
designating uniform development impact fees, and transportation sales taxes, as eligible matching funds.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appreciates your efforts in developing fair guidelines for
the allocation of State-Local Partnership Program funds. if you have questions about our position on this
measure, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
MN P\JG
C: Members, Board of Supervisors
The Hon. 11.Nava,Assembly Transportation Committee Chair
The Hon. M. DeSaulnier, 11"'Assembly District
The Hon. G.Houston,.l 5°i Assembly District
The Hon. L. Hancock, 14th Assembly District
D. Baker, California State Association of Counties
D. Barry,Community Development Director
J. Cullen, County Administrator
M. Shiu,Public Works Director
M.Watts,California Strategies&Advocacy
EXHIBIT B
AMENDED.IN SENATE JUNE 5, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 4, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 10, 2007
SENATE BILL No. 748
Introduced by Senator Corbett
(Principal coauthor: Senator Lowenthal)
(Coauthors:Senators Drrcheuy and Perata)
February 23, 2007
An act to add Article 8.(commencing with Section 228) to Chapter
1 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to.
transportation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 748,as amended,Corbett.Transportation: state-local partnerships...
Proposition 1 B,approved by the voters at the'November 2006 general
election, enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality,
and Port Security"Bond Act of 2006, which authorizes the issuance of
$19.925 billion of general obligation bonds for various transportation
purposes, including$1 billion for the State-Local Partnership Program,:
to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission to eligible.
transportation projects nominated by transportation agencies, subject.
to appropriation by the Legislature. Existing law requires a
dollar-for-dollar match of local funds for projects funded with these:
bond funds.
This bill would state the purposes of the State-Local Partnership
Program and would require the California Transportation Commission
to adopt guidelines for the program.The bill would define eligible local.
matching funds under the program for purposes of the required
96
SB 748 —2—
dollar-for-dollar match, and would establish an application procedure
for eligible applicants to nominate projects. The bill would limit the
amount of bond funding fora single project to 525,000,000 in a single
funding cycle. The bill would describe the categories of projects that
may be funded through the program, would establish timelines for
expenditure of the funds, and would provide for the reallocation of
ftmding if those timelines are not met. The bill would require the
commission to include in its annual report to the Legislature a summary
of its activities related to the program, as specified.
Vote: majority: Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of Califof'nla do enact as follovt�s.
I SECTION 1. Article 8(commencing with Section 228)is added.
2 to Chapter Lof Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code, to
3 read:
4.
5 Article 8. State-Local Partnership Program
6
7 228. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature, pursuant to '
8 subdivision (g) of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code, to
9 establish criteria and conditions for use of the funds in the.
10 State-Local Partnership Program Account in the Highway Safety,
. 11 Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Fund of 2006.'
12 These criteria and conditions shall include,but need not be limited
13 to, eligibility of applicants, eligibility of projects, timely use of
14 funds, and relationship of funds in the account to other Rinds for
15 transportation purposes.
.16 (b) The purpose of the State-Local Partnership Program is to
17 do both of the following:
18 (1) Reward"self-help"counties,cities,and Fegions districts, oj•
19 regional.ti-ahsportation agencies in which voters have approved
20 fees or taxes.solely dedicated to transportation improvements.
21 (2) Provide funds for a wide variety of capital projects that are
22 typically funded in local or regional voter-approved expenditure
23 plans and that provide mobility,accessibility,system connectivity,
24 safety, or air quality benefits.
25 228.1. An eligible applicant under the program shall be a local
26 or regional transportation agency that has responsibility for
96
-3— SB 748
1 funding, procuring; or,constructing transportation improvements
2 within its jurisdiction and that is ,
3 distriet, or region that has sought and received voter approval.for.
4 the imposition of taxes or fees solely dedicated to transportation
5 improvements, or•has imposed un for•rn developer-fees, as ti,.fined
6 in Section 228.2. For purposes of this section and Section 228.2, .
7 "transportation improvements" includes capital investments or
8 services, or both.
9 228.2. Eligible local matching fiords required to obtain funding
10 under the program shall be obtained from revenues from any .
11 voter-approved local or regional tax or fee .solely dedicated to
12 transportation improvements, Or f-om 11ngbt-ni developel•fees.Tax-
13 or fee for purposes of this section means a countywide sales tax,'
14 a property or parcel tax in a county or counties or district,—altd
15 voter-approved bridge tolls or voter-approved fees dedicated to.
16 specific transportation improvements, and uniform developer—fees.
17 As used in this section, "unifor•nl developerfees"ideals developer
18 fees imposed pinsuant to existing.statutory authority, inchl.ding,
19 but not limited to, Chapter S (corrinleneing with Section 66000)of
20 Division I of Title 7.of,' and Article 5 (commencing with Section
21 66483) of'Chapter• 4 of Division 2 of Title 7 Of, the Gover•nlnent.
22 Code. The developer fees must be imposed by a local orzlinance.
23 or res'011ltlon adopted by a city, COalrll}V, or• city and, county and
24 insist be dedicated to transpor•tallon purpose's to address Calrrlallalive
25 transpol•tation impacts. The. developer-fees must be uniformly.
26 applied to new development within a defined area or jalr•isdic•tion,.
27 except in cases in which fees are waived, such as for affordable
28 holls'ing develOpmenl. Developer'fees imposed to millgate onsite.
.29 impacts related to a specific development project do not qualify
30 as unif n-tn developer-fees under this section.
31 228.3. An eligible project funded pursuant to this article shall
32 require a match of one dollar(S 1)of eligible local matching funds
33 pursuant to Section 228.2 for each dollar of state funds made.
34 available under the program. An applicant may propose to use
35 other funds for the same project, including private, local, federal;
36 or other state funds, however, those other funds shall not be
37 counted toward the match required by this section.
38- 228.4. (a) In order to be eligible for funding under this article,
39 a project shall be a transportation capital project estimated to cost
40 at least five
96
i
SB 748 —4—
I
4—I million dollars ($5,000,000) that is consistent Mth the adopted .
2 regional transportation plan covering the jurisdiction of the
3 applicant, and the project sponsor shall identify the source of
4 eligible matching funds for the project required pursuant to Section.
5 228.3.
6 (b) Eligible projects shall include all of the following:
7 (1) Improvements to the state highway system, including, but
8 not limited to, all of the following:
9 (A) Major rehabilitation of an existing segment that extends the
10 useful life of the segment by at least 15 years.
1 1 . (B) New construction to increase capacity of a highway segment
12 that improves mobility or reduces congestion on that segment.
13 (C) Safety or operational improvements on a highway segment
14 that are intended to reduce accidents.and fatalities or improve
15 traffic flow on that segment.
16 (2) Improvements to transit facilities, including guideways,that
17 expand transit services, increase transit ridership, enhance access
18 or convenience. of the traveling public,.or otherwise provide or
19 facilitate a viable alternative to driving.
20 (3) The acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock,
21 buses, or other transit equipment, including, but not limited to,
22 maintenance facilities,transit stations,passenger shelters,and fare
23 collection equipment with a useful life of at least+510 years.The
24 acquisition of vans, buses, and other equipment necessary for the
25 provision of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities
26 by transit and other local agencies is an eligible project under this
27 paragraph.
28 (4) Improvements to the local road system, including, but not
29 limited to, both of the following:
30 (A) Major roadway rehabilitation,resurfacing,or reconstruction
31 that extends its useful life by at least 15 years.
32 (B) New construction and facilities to increase capacity,improve
33 mobility, or enhance safety.
34 (5) Improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility
35 with a useful life of at ]cast 15 years.
36 (6) Improvements to mitigate the environmental impacts of new
37 transportation infrastructure on a locality's or the region's water
38 quality, commonly known as "urban runoff," including, but not
39 limited to,the installation of catch basin screens,filters,and inserts,
96
-5— SB 748
1 or other best management practices for capturing or treating urban
2 runoff.
3 (c) For purposes of the program, a separate phase or stage of
4 construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the ,
5 project's environmental impacts, including, but not. limited to,
6 soundwal Is,landscaping,wetlands or habitat restoration or creation,
7 replacement plantings, and drainage facilities.
8 228.5. Each fiscal year in which funds are appropriated for the
9 program shall constitute a funding cycle. To ensure that as many
10 eligible applicants as possible may benefit from this program, no
11 single project shall receive more than twenty-five million dollars
12 ($25,000,000) in a single funding cycle in which program funds
13 are allocated by the commission. The commission shall allocate
14 the funds pursuant to Sections 228.6 and 228.7.
15 228.6. (a) Each eligible applicant desiring to participate in the
16 program in any funding cycle shall submit to the commission all
17 of the following:
18 ' (1) A description of the eligible project nominated for funding,
19 including a description of the project's cost, scope, and specific
20 improvements and benefits it is anticipated to achieve.
21 (2) A description of the project's current status, including the
22 phase of construction the project is in at the time it is nominated
23 for funding and a schedule for the project's completion. .
24 (3) A description of how the project would support
25 transportation and land use planning goals within the region.
26 (4) The amount of eligible local matching funds the applicant
27 is committing to the project.
28 (5) The amount of program fund's the applicant seeks from the
29 program for the project.
30 (b) The commission shall review nominated projects and their
31 accompanying documentation to ensure that each nominated project
32 meets the requirements of this article.
33 (c) For each funding cycle, the commission shall adopt a
34 program of projects to receive allocations under this article, with
35 allocations to projects to be initially made no later than the
36 commission's ineeting in January 2008, and to
37 be made no later than the commission's September meeting for
38 subsequent years. An adopted program shall allocate funds tots
39 many eligibleeligible applicants meeting
40 the minimum criteria below and shall include a groupof projects
96
SB 748 =6—
1 that provide cost-effective and multimodal mobility, safety,
2 reliability, and environmental benefits. in allocating funds to
3 specific projects, the commission shall give priority to projects
4 that.meet any orall of the following:
5 (1) Can commence construction or implementation of the project
6 in a manner to provide the public benefit at the earliest possible
7 date.
8 (2) Can enhance the leveragability of bond funds, by utilizing
9 a higher proportion of nonbond funds toward a project's total cost
10 than is otherwise required by this article.
11 (3). Can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements.
12 (d) The commission may allocate funds to a project in more
13 than one funding cycle. The commission shall refer to Section
14 228.5 to adopt the number of funding cycles it will administer to
15 allocate funds pursuant to this article. The commission's adopted
. 16 schedule for the allocation of funds pursuant to this article shall
17 accommodate the strict timely use of fiords policy described in
18 Section 228.7.
19 228.7. Projects receiving an allocation under the program shall
20
21 encumber funds no later than June 30 of the fiscal year in which
22 an allocation is made by the commission. In addition, allocated
23 funds shall be expended within three years of June 30 of the fiscal
24 year in which an allocation is made by the commission. The
25 commission shall rescind an allocation to a project that fails to
26 comply with these requirements. Rescinded allocations of funds
27 shall be reallocated to other projects during the fiscal year
28 following the year in which the applicable timely use of funds.
29 requirement was not met.
30 228.8. The commission shall develop and adopt guidelines to
31 implement this article, and to establish the criteria and process
32 for allocating funds to eligible.projects under the progrprn. Prior
33 to adopting the guidelines, the cornmi.ssion shall hold one public
34 hearing in Northern California and One public hearing in Southern
35 California to review and provide an opportunity for public
36 comment on the proposed guidelines. The cornmi.s.sion may
37 incorporate the hearings into its regular meeting schedule.
38 228.9. The commission shall include in its annual report to the
39 Legislature required pursuant to Section 14535 of the Government
40 Code a summary of its activities related to the administration of
96
-7- SB 748
1 the program. The summary, at a minimum, shall include the
2 description, location, and total cost of each project contained in
3 the program, the amount of bond funds allocated to each project,
4 the status of each project, and a description of the system
5 improvements the program each project is achieving.
O
96
EXHIBIT C
LLEAG U E
l�tp�a,pNw�cpuHp,�uw
01: CALIFORNIA
C I T I ES �_--_-
June 26, 2007
The Honorable Pedro Nava
Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee
California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 2148
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 748(Corbett)—Transportation: State-Local.Partnerships
As amended 6/5/07—SUPPORT
Set for hearing July 2,2007—Assembly Transportation Committee
Dear Assembly Member Nava:
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the League of California Cities (League), and the
Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) support Senate Bill 748 by Senator Ellen Corbett, which is
set for a hearing on July 2, 2007 in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
SB 748 would establish procedures for the allocation of the$1 billion included in Proposition 1 B for a
State-Local Partnership Program. Specifically, the bill as amended on June 5, 2007, would now include
as an eligible local match, uniform developer fees, in addition to voter approved local or regional taxes or
fees solely dedicated to transportation improvements.
Additionally, SB 748 also recognizes that different communities have different transportation needs by
providing that funds can be used for a variety of capital projects that are typically funded in local or
regional voter-approved expenditure plans and that result in mobility, accessibility, system connectivity,
safety, or air quality benefits. We also support provisions of the bill that would begin the program in 2008.
For these reasons, CSAC, the League and RCRC respectfully request an "AYE"vote on SB 748. If you
need additionalinformation regarding our position on this measure, please do not hesitate to contact
DeAnn Baker at CSAC (916.650.8104), Liisa Lawson-Stark at the League (916.658.8249) or Paul Smith
at RCRC (916.447.4806).
Sincerely,
DeAnn Baker Liisa Lawson-Stark Paul Smith
Legislative Representative Legislative Representative Director of Legislation
CSAC League RCRC
cc: Members and Consultants, Assembly Transportation Committee
The Honorable Ellen Corbett, California State Senate
Gregson Porteous, Assembly Republican Caucus
Peter Ackeret, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
County Administration Building ��� � Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street, Room 106 - and
Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Co(925)335-1900unty Administrator
John Gioia, 1st District
Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District
Mary N.Piepho,3rd District
Susan A.Bonilla,4th District ,`!�y-`;•"°
Federal D.Glover,5th District
wZ
July 24, 2007x.
'` '
The Honorable Ellen D. Corbett
Senator, 10ti' District
State Capitol, Room 3092
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Corbett:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors today adopted a position of support for your bill, SB 748,
which would specify the types of local transportation funds that would qualify as eligible match for the
State-Local Partnership Program created by the passage of Proposition 1 B in November 2006.
The State-Local Partnership Program will provide valuable grants to local jurisdictions that can provide
50-percent local matching funds. Contra Costa County and its cities have worked hard over the years to
create a number of local transportation funding sources, so we can fund our extensive transportation
needs. There is a voter-approved countywide transportation sales tax, and we also have several uniform
regional developer impact-fee programs which raise funds for .specific transportation projects that are
necessitated by new development.
Our local jurisdictions created these funding programs to help us leverage federal and state funds. It is
important that Contra Costa County and its cities be able to use all of these funds as local match in
applying for State-Local Partnership Program grants. SB 748 would accomplish this 'by specifically
designating uniform development impact fees, and transportation sales taxes, as eligible matching funds.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appreciates your efforts in developing fair guidelines for
the allocation of State-Local Partnership,Program fu s. If you have questions about our position on this
measure, please contact us at your convenience.
S' cer
Map o, Chair
r !
Co a Costa County
oard of Supervisors
MNPUG
C,: Members, Board of Supervisors
The Hon. P. Nava, Assemblyn
Transportation Committee Chair
The Hon. M'. DeSaulnier, 11l Assembly District 1 \ (�
The Hon. G. Houston, 15"'Assembly District 1 �/�•. �.'t �1 I i
The Hon. L. Hancock, 14th Assembly District ��` ''u 1JV t �l
D. Balser,California State Association of Counties
D. Barry, Community Development Director
J. Cullen. County Administrator
VI. Shiu, Public Works Director-
..M. California Strate-ies S-Advo
�ac y = _
- - _
•r.
.r -