HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12021986 - 2.1 ztl
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: December 2, 1986
SUBJECT: Transportation Systems Management (TSM) - Report (Part I)
Work Plan
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the work plan.
2.. Direct the Community Development Department to develop a work program and
evaluate staff requirements for implementing the work program.
3. Approve the recommendations in Part II of the report regarding the use of
County vehicles for employees commute pools.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The work plan represents an increased commitment to TSM that cannot be accom-
plished without a commensurate increase in resources. The Community Development
Department has budgeted over 1900 hours of staff time to TSM activities in fiscal
year 1986-87. As of October 31, 25% of this staff time has been used. If the
Board approves the work plan, staff will prepare a detailed work program and
staffing requirements for Board consideration. Augmentation of the Department's
budget will depend on the time frame for accomplishing certain tasks and the
availability of funds.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
To meet the challenge of the increasing traffic during peak hours, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a policy to promote Transportation System Management (TSM)
techniques with the intent of improving traffic conditions during peak hours
without capital intensive investments.
In June 1986, at the direction from the Board, the Community Development
Department initiated a major effort to develop TSM plans and programs. The main
focus of the countywide effort is to minimize the numberf motor-vehicle trips
during peak hours, to reduce the peak hour rush by spreadi g the peak over longer
periods, to minimize the parking demand around the Co4non
if JoE
d to nimize
the need and length of the trips.
Continued on attachment: X Yes Signatur
_ Recommendation of County Administrator _ Recomm Committee
Approve Other:
Signature(s):
Action of Board on: December 2, 1986 Approved as Recommended Other X
REAFFIRMED approval of the Transportation Systems (TSM) Work Plan with the .
exception of Part II on employee use of County cars for carpooling purposes.
DIRECTED Community Development ;Transportation Division to develop a pilot
program for employee commute pools using County vehicles and report to the Board
on December 16, 1986.
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain: /�
Attested A"u" ig1 a. /P86
Orig.Div. : CDD T/P PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
cc: Community Development AND RWNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Administrator
By Wwg
EPUTY CLERK
r �
Progress on TSM plans, since our report to the Board on July 22, 1986, is as
follows:
A. A working paper on TSM for Contra Costa County was prepared in August '86
and presented to the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) ,
the Urban Systems Technical Advisory Committee (USTAC) , the Board of
Supervisors and the Mayor's Conference. The Mayor's Conference is expected
to respond to the Working Paper on TSM at their meeting in December 1986.
Other committees and the Board of Supervisors endorsed the paper.
B. Work on the identification of the County employees' office locations and
their respective residential areas by postal zip code was completed in
September 1986. Analysis of this data is currently in progress.
C. Use of County. vehicles for employees' commute pools was approved by the
Board in concept on July 22, 1986. Several issues with respect to
liability, legality and cost reimbursement have been resolved. Part II of
this report is on "The Use of County Vehicles for Employees' Commute Pools"
and the Board is requested to authorize use of County cars.
D. A tentative TSM work plan has been developed to achieve the objectives of
the TSM Model Ordinance presented to the Board on October 21, 1986.
E. The Model TSM ordinance was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors on October
21, 1986. In accordance with the direction from the Board, comments are
being solicited to modify the ordinance for adoption and implementation in
the unincorporated areas outside the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area.
F. A survey of public schools and colleges is under way to determine if the
mode and time of arrivals can be modified to reduce peak hour congestion.
G. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area TSM ordinance was adopted on June 24,
1986. In response to the ordinance, TSM programs submitted by complex
sponsors and employers are now under review.
H. As a follow-up to the Dimmick Lawsuit settlement agreement, the Contra Costa
TSM Committee is being appointed to determine its most effective role in the
County-wide effort.
For more detailed description of items E, G and H, see attachments to this
report.
The work plan to promote TSM efforts is described below. Staff requirements
will be evaluated after the approval of the Board on the proposed plan.
1. EFFORT: Develop and Analyze Data Base
Tasks
1.1 Develop the data base on employees' work locations with their
respective residential zip codes.
1.2 Develop the data base on current commute modes, needs, work hour
and flexibility.
1.3 Evaluate current commute patterns by traffic surveys and sampling
techniques.
1.4 Analyze the data to formulate priorities, to maximize
effectiveness of TSM program and make comparative analyses of
conditions at various stages of the TSM program.
2. EFFORT: Encourage Ridesharing
Tasks
2.1 Arrange meetings of employees with common work locations and
common residential neighborhoods.
2.2 Provide ride-matching service on an on-going basis.
r �
2.3 Issue parking permits for carpool lot(s) and reserve another lot
if necessary.
2.4 Test feasibility of custom commute, i.e. , a chauffeur-driven
limousine for department heads or other participating employees.
2.5 Develop flex-pools (hitch-hike pools) wherever needed by making
use of Park and Ride lots and other suitable locations.
2.6 Provide and encourage the use of County vehicles for employees'
commute pools.
2.7 Establish cooperative matching efforts with RIDES organization.
2.8 Work with Caltrans and local agencies to develop a countywide
commuter lane network.
2.9 Reduce the number of commuting employees' single-occupant vehicles
by 75 in one year and then in accordance with the objectives
indicated in the TSM Model ordinance.
3. EFFORT: Reduce Peak Rush by Longer Spread
Tasks
3.1 Develop and implement plans for 9-80 work weeks, with 9 am - 3 pm
core hours, in consultation with the department heads and
collective bargaining units. Start with the Community Development
Department as a test case.
3.2 Develop and implement a staggered/flex work hours plan, as
appropriate, in consultation with the department heads.
3.3 Assist department heads to develop policies to discourage starting
or ending interoffice meetings and whenever possible, interagency
meetings, during peak hours.
4. EFFORT: Minimize Parking Needs in the Martinez Civic Center Area
Tasks
4.1 Evaluate parking supply/demand situation for the Martinez Civic
Center area by a study jointly sponsored by the County, the City
of Martinez and the Community College District.
4.2 Determine availability and financial feasibkrity.df.:use of Marina
Park parking during business hours and the possibility of a
pedestrian overpass connecting the spaces to the Civic Center
area.
4.3 Undertake a feasibility analysis for providing a shuttle service
for Martinez residents who drive to work and for jurors who may be
assigned reserved parking across the railroad tracks.
4.4 Evaluate the possibility of using consenting employees' cars for
County use during the office hours by paying reasonable charges to
car owners.
5. EFFORT: Encourage Bike Riding
Tasks
5. 1 Update the inventory of bike paths/lanes/routes between
residential areas, work locations and transit stops.
5.2 Identify critical missing links in bike paths/lanes and pursue
means for developing contiguous bike paths/lanes between the
points of origin/destination and transit stations/stops in
conjunction with city staffs and MTC.
5.3 Encourage Park'N Lock facilities for bikes at transit stations,
work locations, and residential areas (apartments, condos,
townhouses) .
5.4 Analyze the feasibility of building covered bike paths on critical
linkages with a high potential for bike riders throughout the
year.
5.5 Develop plans for bike zones where bike travel may be faster and
more attractive than car travel.
5.6 Seek funding to improve bike paths/lanes for better and safer
ride.
5.7 Seek to improve intersection design and signals for safer and more
efficient bike traffic operations.
6. EFFORT: Encourage Walking
Tasks
6.1 Develop pedestrian zones in urban areas within which high-rise
buildings may be interconnected at the third level.
6.2 Develop covered walkways connecting busy transit stops with major
activity centers (MACS) within walking distance.
7. EFFORT: Encourage Transit Riding
Tasks
7.1 Evaluate the available existing transit services with respect to
County employees needs.
7.2 Analyze opportunities to provide additional transit services for
County employees.
7.3 Have monthly transit tickets and service schedules available to
employees at offices and other convenient locations.
7.4 Encourage developments in areas serviced by transit.
7.5 Work with transit districts to support development plans for
transit lanes and signals favorable to transit vehicles.
7.6 Encourage developing BART carpools and shuttle service between
BART stations and major activity centers.
7.7 Encourage developing of convenient and weather-protected transit
stops.
8. EFFORT: Encourage Development of Transportation System Linkages
Tasks
8.1 Evaluate the need to increase capacity between certain points of
origin and destination.
8.2 Evaluate the existing and potential capacity of various
transportation facilities and modes in service.
8.3 Assist the development of strong linkages between various
transportation modes and facilities on a Countywide basis to
increase the capacity of the transportation system.
8.4 Support the development of intermodal stations or passenger
transfer facilities with comfortable and weather-protected waiting
areas.
8.5 Assist the cities and transit districts in developing local Park'N
Ride facilities.
8.6 Evaluate the possibility of developing water surface
transportation (ferry boat) between Benicia and Martinez.
9. EFFORT: Reduce Trip Length and Need
Tasks
9.1 Review land development policies and plans.
9.2 Develop policies and plans that would encourage closer development
of employment centers and residential areas.
9.3 Explore means and incentives for people to move closer to their
jobs.
10. EFFORT: Develop Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation
Tasks
10.1 Establish and maintain a liaison with transportation operators
in Contra Costa County and coordinate their efforts.
10.2 Maintain a liaison with Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) .
10.3 Evaluate obstacles in the way of developing joint TSM plans and
programs and develop means, policies and procedures to eliminate
the obstacles.
10.4 Develop joint TSM plans and programs.
10.5 In consultation with the School/College Districts in the County
develop and implement plans for staggered class shours wherever
desirable and possible.
10.6 Analyze the feasibility of developing shuttle service between
certain points such as transit stations and the schools/colleges
to minimize the number of vehicle trips on congested roads.
11. EFFORT: Initiate and Follow Up Action to Develop Favorable Legislation
at the State and Federal Level
Tasks
11.1 Identify legal and insurance problems not favoring TSM plan and
programs.
11.2 Identify incentives that may be offered through favorable tax
and insurance laws to encourage development and implementation
of TSM plans and programs.
12. EFFORT: Persuade State and Federal Governments to Allocate Funds For
TSM Plans and Programs
Tasks
12.1 Evaluate current sources and conditions to qualify for funds.
12.2 Develop justifications for Federal and State funding for
developing and implementing TSM plans and programs.
13. EFFORT: Perform TSM Coordination Functions
Tasks
1.3.1 Work with developers of the Pleassant Hill BART Station Area to
implement the TSM ordinance for the area adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on June 24, 1986.
13.2 Follow up the Dimmick lawsuit Agreement and use the available
funds to implement TSM programs • in accordance with the
agreement.
13.3 Develop TSM plans and programs to meet the objectives indicated
in the recently developed TSM Model Ordinance and presented to
the Board of Supervisors on October 21, 1986, including the
requirement of TSM plans and programs as a condition on new
development
14. EFFORT: Marketing of TSM Plans and Program
Tasks
14.1 Publicize TSM plans, programs and progress through County
employees newsletters.
14.2 Hold educational seminars.
14.3 Organize group meetings and Seminars to invite innovative ideas.
14.4 Encourage the general public and other employers/employees
through newspapers and the local media to support and
participate in TSM programs.
14.5 Continuously develop and advertise TSM incentive plans and
programs.
NOTE: The marketing effort will be the most significant part of the TSM work
program.
15. EFFORT: Present Periodic Reports to the Board of Supervisors
Task
15.1 Present reports to the Board on the progress of the plan's
implementation and seek authorization and direction whenever
necessary.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
TSM offers an opportunity to implement cost effective programs to assist
resolution of the County's transportation and air pollution problems. The
proposed work plan is intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of TSM as a tool
to more effectively utilize the transportation network.
TSK:emh
DP4:TSMWkP1n.T15
-,.. _ ..- f-...- �' .. ..'..._� ...-� __� .vim:-..-ter •.�e.r�.---_,a.vr..- .:ate.« >p'-..
j +,>'i'� P,±....•�" ^�" �t�""--'�` `Ty�e; .�'�-3:�n .ir`.,A. ''� �,:. -� t -'i'sda r:✓•f...c H-. h•�.-'a�'^67+}i�i<++"',f�*'.. _q.-^?!��+s.:=�ci='=.
r -^'.,"�--x .,rl } -vim•J-�+rC._iv_"_f- .tir .e` ,_� r_ .. ..+�
u /- :r f . y e .++.0 - t<Y-K. i� i':n` ",4�r�:�b"' �'r'.n � I SAH T^.:.+. x•u:�.,-+ v- -� - -.
V
f'.L'•�Tu�'°-t'vi J�''°Cx�M.�1-C 'GY�T T 7 ���>�Y.}�i7G♦r� i�' ".",='
M.. ... is'G'-Y..
-i r Y - -.- -✓ ' � ry:<-:�. !r' ^x . 4te' `'^' rYv.[crw7'Wq+'T:.-w"�2,.'"'^"+'e'.., .sr *it:'1'-. `^'.` e - r..-
-i+t�'y4 �'✓ a..:•.+.nra.s .r _t�:.4•w '�-"F.... . a�,f x �'�v+�.�:w . �:a'.�.yes:''a�+'i`�ta5'.�:II-�'�ia�iitu-,,�-..i�.sr..
s
• ATTACHMENT TO THE TSM WORK PLAN REPORT - (PART I)
November 18, 1986
INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF THE VARIOUS
TSM PROGRAMS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES
AND THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PLEASANT _HILI TSM PARTNERSHIP CONTRA COSTA TRANSPAC
SPECIFIC PLAN COUNTY TSM (6 IN 1 STUDY)
COMMITTEE LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION
STUDIES
PLEASANT HILL MODEL ORDINANCE MODEL ORDINANCE MODEL ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE (COUNTY) PRESENTED TO
TRANSPAC 10/29
MEETING
COUNTY COUNTY
TSM COORDINATOR TSM COORDINATOR
TSM ADVISORY COMM CENTRAL COUNTY
(APPEALS ONLY) LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION
ISSUES
TSM PLAN REVIEW/ 80K
APPROVAL COMMER-
CIAL/RESIDENTIAL
TSM FOR COUNTY PRIVATE SECTOR
_ EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION
COORDINATORS
GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
RC:dsp( 10.7 .86)
dp2:cntgptsm
ra`%'-a`.^ rrC`r. 'a^Q-.- • Y'..a..:+:-ms's y,-+Y�`•�: f3; -. J '.1 eaux W t 1 g_ ''y-"'.ay- y, '{
- ._.i .. ..._ .. .. .. �- �• .. rte..
�C�1��l2�e.foi y —sracve✓w[ .: ��.�v�,Z-�� _. 1 �5xr° 'r "[-.f u'i< �',.r Y t '."3� .r, � � �. ,f r��.�
�'�.. ''� c e...'�`!�r�iw'a^'ni`FC�:' u K°+ Yx � Mac »"t +'�a"`• �` C 't' 7E t. `C _i'v ��"t ��'�]Y�"~�� tii�4?+' +�/ GSa ��
tiL'L K.n.T` ` �nn�C'T S_• �1i.�'y yl 1 x'4'4-i.\ \1}�-i .'Y �Yu-5 s ... Ikl .(_%n STC ri".) .�.,+Y Y..c'L.+v X+1 K _:_.�i ...: .
� Rap. PanA- I
TSM ORDINANCE ACTIVITIES
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA TSM ORDINANCE
In June of this year the County enacted a TSM ordinance for the unincorporated area
adjacent to the Pleasant Hill BART station. The ordinance requires the implementation
of TSMprograms by existing and future development: The objective of these programs
is to limit the percentage of employees that drive alone to work.
All existing employers and office complexes, except for Hookston Square complex, have
submitted a joint TSM program through the Contra Costa Centre Association. The
Hookston Square sponsor (owner) and the employers located in that complex are
submitting their own TSM programs. Staff is helping developers prepare TSM programs
for several planned residential complexes.
The ordinance requires the Director of Community Development, through an appointed TSM
Coordinator, to review and approve all TSM Programs, assist employers and complex
sponsor in compliance efforts, monitor progress and report. on this progress to the
Board of Supervisors. A TSM Advisory Committee is to be appointed by the Board to
assist and monitor the activities of the TSM Coordinator, and to advise the Board and
disputes between the TSM Coordinator and employers/complex sponsors.
During this first year of implementation, county staff is concentrating on informing
employers and complex sponsor of the ordinance requirements, educating these parties
on developing the resources for effective TSM programs, and establishing base date in
the commute pattern of workers and residents in the Pleasant Hill BART station area.
Objective
Assist employers, business complexes, and residential projects in developing and
implementing effective TSM Programs.
Tasks
1. Appoint representatives to the TSM Advisory Committee and activate the Committee.
2. Develop rules, regulations, forms, guidelines, and procedures for the submittal
of transportation surveys, annual reports, and TSM Programs.
3. Review and: approve TSM Programs.
4. Conduct seminars for employers and complex sponsors on the techniques for
developing effective TS14 programs.
5. Review the findings of annual transportation surveys and TSM reports, and prepare
an annual progress report to the TSM Advisory Committee and the Board of
Supervisors.
6. Develop and recommend proposals for cooperative actions with neighboring cities.
rw.M.ac...,,-.-- �. .. �G.o.-...c.�'..ow.-..cp;.:vsee.+�.-•a+a-'T-s.c.sai;�...+-�.�.r... -
�4��'� •r�,��e,,.cx w�"...,,r:/' hv^Y"+dth'aa'-`.-+3-'�•4.'�_',r.rha+-�..,G.'."r n.r•-�s—�L+s.4isL>+-� ��F'ss"'z 'P%�,'iX+na`.s�1' :e4�i+r,'sy. �rr*,-._ -�r.�fK''4'`:5�^J ..
""Y�G•"r^... �.'[..-.W"W,G�`-a..:-t "� y 1 rale tc w.v�. " x.:ia. 'r �'! '� �.v ~ �. rA�. d.ry -��^ �r
_ e
rp.. �' '.+RY7ny
vy�ry.�,.—,.*L fix v:'�-r�+�t'.++°1WMS"r�°w�,.., ^..`l",.'R-lYl.r .nrs.tl'K•'wwn"`eaC's'f�^�.t" :.' 't" n r _ .
w w`
'�:.�5'-"-q� �.w�`; ,++�'q'w'�r+`a^}i'rc ..:. C ''`Y �`.�-. ;: ..,, ..0�rte=+{:i 7 .•c'r,< s s x ,�y >�'r,,,,,,. _- � i rc —.. a f�'\-.'' �.
Rap . Pont I
MODEL-TSM ORDINANCE
In October, the Board of Supervisors endorsed a model TSm ordinance developed by CCTAC
in conjunction with theLL TSM Partnership. The model format provides the basic
components of a TSM ordinance which local jurisdictions can use in developing their
own TSM ordinance. The ordinance is similar to that enacted in the Pleasant Hill BART
station area and provides the opportunity for some standardization in the TSM
requirements of neighboring cities.
The Board has directed staff to gather input that can be. used to modify the model
ordinance for implementation in the unincorporated areas outside the Pleasant Hill
BART station area. The ordinance- is to be reviewed jointly with interested cities,
where possible, so that the County's ordinance will be compatible with adjacent
jurisdictions. This activity is consistent with the conditions of the settlement
agreement for the lawsuit filed by E. A. Dimmick against the County and several
developers of projects in the Pleasant Hill BART station area. That agreement
establishes the Contra Costa TSM Committee, which is composed of representatives of
the plaintiffs, the Sierra Club, and Citizens for a Better Contra Costa, and provides
the Committee with $80,000 to promote the adoption of TSM ordinances in the county.
Staff has also been directed to encourage adjacent counties and regional agencies to
review the model TSM ordinance. This activity is consistent with the goals of the TSM
Partnership which is comprised of local and regional organizations that represent
public and private interests advocating the use of TSM strategies to help reduce
traffic congestion.
Objective
Revise the model TSM ordinance for adoption by the County, and promote the review and
adoption of TSM ordinances by neighboring jurisdictions.
Tasks
1. Convene the Contra Costa TSM Committee to assist the County
in the following activities:
1.1 Prepare an information packet on the model TSM ordinance for distribution to
interested individuals and groups.
1.2 Identify the names and locations of businesses that may be subject to the
TSM ordinance requirements.
1.3 Sponsor public forums for review of the model TSM ordinance to gather
comments for the preparation of the final draft TSM ordinances for the
County and the cities.
1.4 Make presentations to interested business groups and labor organizations on
the model TSM ordinance.
2. In conjunction with CCTAC and the TSM Partnership, transmit the model TSM
ordinance and other informational materials to public and private sector
organizations in the Bay Area.
.-,�vsV�.0 '... - - T� .-yam may-.__.- 'I(/r%_.-ati-��.-•ate } a �..v-J' A ham^.--air �����Sr-. _ ..
x�..Y'•Y'-aY`"d ia;:$Jat'^ �:+v-<S-' -�'•'iFA- :-Jfk"•-l'..'...�wF `..a�'� .a�g1c.I�+�.S+*`�"Y rY,.' Y rrY .;. �`^^c ,�'v2�'s..hv Jg.yl�SsSTyai'.3..ti- ....�.a:.
�y � wd.'Y" �.� <"�`f t w a �s "-w+L'�xr� ♦t x r•£ "a:at+ i cr w:� "` a _ :"�y YwI _.
w_-. .^x-- _:.ti,_. :..�... - .=� . . ' ': .._.•-•� rC'"" r..- n..n. _.. :..i°: _c!^.,a�•t �sGti•'am 5 fa-+..w.+.r-� ,
q��h�'�tw`�'��"y� H�, IJ�YTbf '�'•$•h"'�PrS .�afT�" lv� �� tiv'S r"�''3
�s.T.xy£'y�l`an2Swz�-z'Y...�.3-- ''t.�_..'I.�.aa�.�+{.�:�n•�"�tra�s.•�/`wr�� +w�3e�.xk..+a': e�..-.�rc.2-'1....-,nGe���c�.2—e� `�.�.,._-.�i.y�.'S`v '�""•:t:.+.;..:-s,c>....r:4:.a��...r_...,.
TSN ORDINANCE MR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OUTSIDE THE PL ASANT HILL BART-STATION AREA
A draft TSM ordinance for the unincorporated area outside the Pleasant Hill BART
station area will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for adoption in early 1987.
In the interim, the Board has directed staff ti require all new development to prepare
and implement TSM programs as a condition of approval.
It is anticipated that the adopted ordinance wiill contain requirements similar to the
model TSM ordinance and that the ordinance .l will be implemented unilaterally by the
County. Recognizing the geographic characteristics of the employment centers in the
unincorporated area, :one TSM Advisory Committee would be created to cover the
industries along the county'swestern and no perimeter, and one TSM Advisory
Committee would be formed to cover the south-central business complexes. The
ordinance would not affect existing development for 12 months after its adoption,
allowing staff' to concentrate its activities on assisting new development in
compliance efforts and orienting existing emiployers and complexes to the ordinance
requirements. The objective and tasks would be similar to those described for the
Pleasant Hill BART station area TSM ordinance.
SLG:dsp
dp4:TSMowp.tll
r ,
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: December 2, 1986
SUBJECT: Transportation System Management (TSM) - Report (Part II)
Use of County Vehicles for Employees Commute Pools
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the use of county vehicles for employees commute pools for the
amounts proposed in the report.
2. Allow the use of county vehicles for commute pools for employees residing
outside the county limits.
3. Authorize the General Services Department to make County vehicles available
for employees commute pools, without hindering normal operations, on a
reimbursement basis in accordance with the monthly charges recommended in
the report.
4. Authorize the Community Development Department to promote an employees
commute pools program and report evaluation after six months.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The county employees' commute pools program includes a 20% discount in cost
reimbursement from the participants as an incentive measure to encourage county
employees for commute pools. The cost to the county on the average will not
exceed $35.00/month per commute pool.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
In June 1986, a major effort to develop and implement a Transportation System
Management (TSM) program was initiated. On July 22, 1986, on recommendation of
the Community Development Department, the Board approved, in principle, the use
of county vehicles for employees commute pools for reasonable charges.
Several public agencies have been contacted since then with a view to gain
benefit of their experience in allowing the use of official vehicles for
employees' commute pools. It was found that Caltrans has allowed the use of
official vehicles for employees commute pools program for over ten years on
reimbursement basis.
At our request, Al Cox and Charles Smith of -.Cal:tran ;• -wha�-are.-directly-
responsible for administering the program, visited us on ctobe 2 1986 and
made a presentation of their program. Besides the c my Supervisor
Fanden also attended the presentation.
Continued on attachment: X Yes Signature-
Recommendation of County Administrator _ Recomtnla ion Boar ommittee
Approve Other:
Signature(s) :
Action of Board on: Approved as Recommended Other_
I
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: _ Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent Abstain:
Attested
Orig.Div. : CDD.T/P (BOCoVeh.tll) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
cc: County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
General Services Dept.
Risk Management - Personnel Dept. By
DEPUTY CLERK
In Caltrans District 4, 19 carpools and 12 vanpools are serving over 270 state
employees in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Caltrans vehicles for
carpools/vanpools are used for office business during the working hours and
stored at employees' residences overnight and on weekends.
During fiscal year 1984-85, Caltrans employees commute pools program in District
4 caused a reduction of 3,023,865 vehicle miles of travel, conserved 194,200
gallons of gas, reduced air pollution by 206,000 lbs, of pollutants and reduced
parking needs for 234 spaces. At the same time, the participating employees
saved $629,600.
Considering the success of Caltrans' program, it appears that a similar program
in our county should also be successful.
Legal and risk management issues involving the proposed use of county vehicles
for employees' commute pools have been resolved. Copies of memos from the County
Counsel's office and Risk Management Division are attached.
In consultation with the General Services Department and the Risk Management
Division, actual cost, including insurance, for using the county vehicles, nine
1978 Ford Pinto vehicles and five 1978 Ford Fairmont vehicles, has been computed.
The cost figures are:
Distance between employee's Cost per
Zone residence and the office Month/Vehicle
1. 15 - 20 miles $136.00
2. 20 - 25 miles $168.00
3. 25 - 30 miles $200.00
4. 30 - 35 miles $230.00
5. 35 - 40 miles $262.00
It may be noted that the county employees' commute pools program will:
- Be Beneficial to the general public in terms of reduced air pollution,
reduced noise and conservation of energy;
Minimize congestion, accidents, road widening needs, parking needs and
maintenance needs of transportation facilities; and
- Contribute towards improving the general flow of traffic and savings in
travel time for all commuters.
In view of the above benefits to the society at large and considering the fact
that the county vehicles to be used for the program- are:old and not equipped
with air conditioning or radio, some incentive to encourage participation of
county employees in the program seems essential.
A 20% reduction in charges is recommended as an incentive. Based on charges
reduced by 20%, monthly charge per person for each zone is recommended as
follows:
Monthly Charge per Person
Residential Zone (one- Four - Three - Two -
way distance from office) Person Pool Person Pool Person Pool
I. 15 - 20 miles $ 27.00 $ 36.00 $ 55.00
II. 20 - 25 miles 34.00 45.00 67.00
III. 25 - 30 miles 40.00 53.00 80.00
IV. 30 - 35 miles 46.00 61.00 92.00
V. 35 - 40 miles 52.00 70.00 105.00
Since a large number of county employees reside outside the county, it is
requested that they may also be allowed to use county vehicles for the purpose of
employees' commute pools.
> M .
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Transportation System Management (TSM) offers cost effective solutions to the
county's transportation and air pollution problems. The proposal of the
employees' commute pools in county vehicles constitutes a significant element of
TSM.
TSK:dsp(BOCoveh.tll)
11.7.86
"v}3.�1i+s7`�aS'�..rxfSYL��'�'A, �w�e-."�'��'Y�1r.� ��C�Y rr' "t-'4t.^�uyw'Tc-=a1M. kf`.t+c.�_.�'v�'�'�`-- .`„,."_.• �N"'��-�`a'�P.5,�t-•�-`
c
-"��.*rx'1 r,.•t-va..rsc...r...nee+.-. _ , _ _ ,' -i.'�'"-'.�9'�e.gx"r^«.rr-c-�-'�.,-•--
�bSt'�ff'r�iY''^w9�y,
r.
t t _ �,y yam. .! t ti..`cY Y 1f ::i -ice s• h..9+ irr-' - :»':....-
aJ.
P464 U
-
c yyy�y
W3 ``F .7 f.-a...�... ,..b..v'rv."Cotre->^^,47p'r�""v_a"'\'dfT"' y,-. .t: fes^"#y�y ! -ww.,pm^4' .c..r 7°`-• x p _
,y' '� .” Y.... :� .dL y �"iYi.�.7�^'^`. : ).'wr`.api ui7 L r�sev ;SG, .It.,.`a�:... 1 «G-.:.�'• - i-..-. -.Y.3.1.�L.r^-"%:.... .1s_-:
OFFICE OF: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martine:, California
To: T. S. Khanna, Date: November 3, 1986
Transportation Planning Division
Sandra Van S1yke,V County Cars/Van Pools
From: sr. Insurance. Analyst Subject: Insurance
Automobile Liability
In an effort to assist you in the development of a very
attractive employee car pool rate, Risk Management will assess a
reasonable liability insurance charge which will be paid for by
each participant of the car pool. The charge will be credited to
the County' s self-insurance automobile liability trust fund and
members will receive the same insurance coverages the County has
under this self-insurance program.
This; automobile liability insurance will protect the
participants against third party liability and County vehicles
against physical damage.
The insurance will be charged as a flat fee on a monthly
basis. The annual charge is $400 for liability plus an average
of $36 for physical damage per vehicle. The monthly charges will
be $22 for liability and $1 for physical damage per vehicle.
Workers ' Compensation Exposure
The thrust of the car pool program is to provide vehicle
only and no costs associated with the operation of the program.
A workers ' compensation exposure does not exist.. It is important
to clarify the County' s position on workers ' compensation. The
car pool program is intended to be a voluntary program for the
purpose of commuting to and from work. During this commute and
while the vehicle is in the possession of the participant, the
car pool. participants will not be considered County employees
acting in the course of County business . It is to be clearly
defined in the car pool contract that no car pool participant
shall use the vehicle during commute time to conduct County
business of any kind.
The: County will not recognize or accept any potential
workers ' compensation claims that may arise from any injury
connected with or resulting from the use of a vehicle in
connection with the County employee van pool program.
SV:py
a
.1 k�
>.�"r. `_ .?a �Y'-y"�' X.,-v. %-u�- .--..t. ..s.•:=�.-,.: .,�..�Y-c ,=�s.. »� �9' •:.�}:+�'a,.s -2
. �_'Yc virf.✓ S. t 'GFS '11 .y,.� tiwf\war r+�:''Yf`t'�'f .r'v' 1 'i'ttay.•�''...+ �5 ..ity=etA�5^ Yy.--_�3`LY3i.-v.[l�;`^'/♦ ..."`gYHC'rs+_+`YM�JM"° .�d .r
��,$rty,.,� wY ••w.s. ..�� .*�, .�.L3'�,,.'�r�1«.r �.rY'`a '`rrr'.e>',:.t�.. "`-i P...�^,,�, �.;g�.:+n Y��ef - t..'" +,•+t".�c,��+ 'x�-ia�'k NOW �
„' -a4,y'�F' '4�t-: ''k.'^'- ',{. *ax'p+,�L:h .Y�'' R�S�"rsjS.�'3?s ".,', ''"> ''1�3•,ja ^ `Fl`�i' `s�';' 1^-`" ""?�i ,,.av.. `��a-�.Wtl,,
� ... r. �' i PF r. r ,c � -•- rC�'s'2"'+tvay.r
-Y r
�.eN'C ��-f"'�yMt1i4+.�nYt-xv"'n }.� ?`^.fT• r'y..f". [ -...+..cY y`[.`•a.r"H"..`..'n - -iw.�a.Y`ar..�'�''C'.+rcx. 4kt�kn�.s+ r'ywywy+a;w1 'yk_,y1MJa..�.}! a•r�
ma'+a`1fii''ur+ai••'�N':Yaiuw"s—:Sa.r:o.Y�al�ois•t3�eCPt max.. ...:li .�f'_� •'.1..., .s ,. _ •r. � rw t'
RQp.'PW%.e ]I.
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA C E I V E p
Dare: July 31, 1986
JUL 31 1986
TO: Community Development Department TRANS PLAN
Attn: Bar;4,e
dter , Deputy Director
From: Victor J. o ty Counsel
By: �%
-County Counsel
Re: Car/Van /ol in vehicles
In response to your memorandum of July 10, 1986 regarding car pools using
County vehicles, we have found no express authority permitting the County to
allow County employees to use County vehicles as commute vehicles. In general
counties have only the authority granted to them by the California Constitution
or by statute. Government Code 526002 authorizes the County to "layout, main-
twin, control.,. . ." public transportation. In our opinion No. 74-33A, (copy
attached) we opined that 526002 allowed the County to provide bus transportation
for County employees. We see no legal, difference in providing bus transpor-
tation or allowing the use of County vehicles for commute purposes.
Also, given the County's wide latitude in providing employee benefits, we
see no reason why it cannot authorize the use of County vehicles for commute
purposes, with or without compensation, as a term or condition of employment but
if provided to represented employees, the County must give notice and meet and
confer if requested with employee organizations before implementation. Allowing
the case of County vehicles for commute purposes could be a benefit taxable to
the employees to the extent it- reduces their commute costs unless they reimburse
the County an equivalent sum . The documents submitted mention that the City of
Concord has provided for car pools using City vehicles. The Concord City
Attorney told us that he has not looked into the legality of the plan, but that
because of !Internal Revenue Service regulations attributing income to the .
employee of $3.00 per day for use of vehicles, the program was no longer in
significant, if any, use.
The program has significant implications with respect to liability and
worker's compensation exposure that are not discussed herein. We assume that
the Risk Manager will advise you or has advised you with respect to these
matters.
EVL:ls
cc: Joe Tonda , Risk Manager
t
• ,•��p/��,.,, .. ��'1T.�/.� .��.},] y..g� b�.'M.- T ,may? � ��Zy--'T�yy�� -
tea- �-��gL'�'7t�`�<4��'�-aC&'3..1s'_ 1 J�t`y `7='�t'cQ"tx;i.-,4,r i.4�•r.G�.=*�.,5 J'.� R'�][.'L j. 1..<YS.'-�..� J'yr.-��i
_
♦ � K -Y r`.. � '<. < LL' \ 4. < '..; ;..c � S-: d of
r.+-G.tt-y--"�� .»'t'�•..�.y�`4 ..,+�.��S•a.-J n ,:{':>v. -fix' ,f �.r, a r= . v. i-�s.-.sF'r'• -ry -x•`�... 4 J''J;G �;.*+n�s..Cs _
`• '•'-"moi' '��5 *•
F.�J`+ "` ♦. � �YX7 •-.gig*%�'.�•4'_
✓ �•A G h
a•^•K.w`a._"'ya w•S'+�'er'f:-Vc' iii'-�•n`..y�"�la°d`,r 3a41a♦"' .J-• F ii+A -t .' 'fi :: r y' :. .< ..-. � r.v1� - <-.-
� - - .-.x:.. -_;�h- "-'-"�„'��SC`; asL �'.♦.�i:.-xzj:L^�::�'.,3'�..-'"�a-a"�.a>,.•:t.•iZ��Yuk^ucd.:t!w.'$y-`_' �4 c,r.c,.s
Rap. Pa, 11
April 10, 1974
/ J. llcBricn, County Admini:,trator
(` John B. Clausen, County Counsel
t•:'` Ily: victor J. Westman, Assir.tant. County Counsel
�!
q Proposed buses for Count
- Y employees '
7
4 This is in reply to
P Y your memorandum of !-larch 28, 1974 , concerning
the above—entitled matter in which our Office is asked the following
questions :
1. Can the County legally contract for a subscription bus ser—
vice for countyemployees which is wholly paid for by the employees?
2. Can the County legally contract for a subscriPtion bus ser—
vice for county employees which is partially subsidized by the.
County?
3. Can the County legally operate a subscription bus system in
conjunction with the Federal Government (tiaval Weapons Station and
Veterans Hospital) and/or a private employer (Shell 011, U.S. Steel,
As a generality , our answer to all of the foregoing questions is yes
•
Authority for the County to provide passenger transportation services
• Zr2rt and facilities is found in Government Code 526002 which provides, in
part , as follows:
1126002. Unless otherwise provided by law, the board
(County Board of Supervisors) may lay out , maintain,
control, construct , repair, and manage public
ferries , . . .other shipping facilities , and passenger
transportation facilities within the county and may
.`..•4 cooperate with any city in so doing. . . "
We must caution you that any specific transportation arrangement
:.! when proposed may present problems requiring further consideration.
For example, the implementation of the proposals outlined in Question `
Nos . 1 and 2 above may involve matters which are subject to the "meet
77 and confer process".
"i In connection with Question No.
:-) 3, as you are aware under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act (Gov. C. §56500 et seq. ) , it is not possible
j for the County to enter a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with a
-'. private party. We assume when p parties
in question 190. 3 You make reference to private
, you are considering an arrangement where, should
the County be operating a passenger transportation system, it would
consider entering some sort of group rate or other fee arrangement
with a private employer as to his employees . Any ouch fee arrange—
ment with a private employer would, of course, have to be done in a
manner which would not amount to a gift of public funds . In this connection a problem may be created if the system is opened to a
limited portion of the public (as distinguiclied from Just County
employees ) and denied others .
Until the specl ^lc details of a proposed
1
arrangement havc been developed , it is not Possible tatnthis Point
to
anticiputr_ .�t at ,);,rticslar leral problems cou] c' be pre:,e..^.L edpbyth t
nrono�cl
.S.'G.: .. _ ♦:t. `>:.: ..::7i:.:.._2..'�3.G.-_,a. v.d y' Gv4. v -d'---.
r
In Caltrans District 4, 19 carpools and 12 vanpools are serving over 270 state
employees in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Caltrans vehicles for
carpools/vanpools are used for office business during the working hours and
stored at employees' residences overnight and on weekends.
During fiscal year 1984-85, Caltrans employees commute pools program in District
4 caused a reduction of 3,023,865 vehicle miles of travel, conserved 194,200
gallons of gas, reduced air pollution by 206,000 lbs. of pollutants and reduced
parking needs for 234 spaces. At the same time, the participating employees
saved $629,600.
Considering the success of Caltrans' program, it appears that a similar program
in our county should also be successful.
Legal and risk management issues involving the proposed use of county vehicles
for employees' commute pools have been resolved. Copies of memos from the County
Counsel's office and Risk Management Division are attached.
In consultation with the General Services Department and the Risk Management
Division, actual cost, including insurance, for using the county vehicles, nine
1978 Ford Pinto vehicles and five 1978 Ford Fairmont vehicles, has been computed.
The cost figures are:
Distance between employee's Cost per
Zone residence and the office Month/Vehicle
1. 15 - 20 miles $136.00
2. 20 - 25 miles $168.00
3. 25 - 30 miles $200.00
4. 30 - 35 miles $230.00
S. 35 - 40 miles $262.00
It may be noted that the county employees' commute pools program will:
- Be Beneficial to the general public in terms of reduced air pollution,
reduced noise and conservation of energy;
- Minimize congestion, accidents, road widening needs, parking needs and
maintenance needs of transportation facilities; and
Contribute towards improving the general flow of traffic and savings in
gravel time for all commuters.
In view of the above benefits to the society at large and considering the fact
that the county vehicles to be used for the program are old and not equipped
with air conditioning or radio, some incentive to encourage participation of
county employees in the program seems essential.
A•20% reduction in charges is recommended as an incentive. Based on charges
reduced by 20%, monthly charge per person for each zone is recommended as
follows:
Monthly Charge per Person
Residential Zone (one- Four - Three - Two -
way distance from office) Person Pool Person Pool Person Pool
I. 15 - 20 miles $ 27.00 1, 36.00 $ 55.00
II. 20 - 25 miles 34.00 45.00 67.00
III. 25 - 30 miles 40.00 53.00 80.00
IV. 30 - 35 miles 46.00 61.00 92.00
V. 35 - 40 miles 52.00 70.00 105.00
Since a large number of county employees reside outside the county, it is
requested that they may also be allowed to use county vehicles for the purpose of
employees' commute pools.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Transportation System Management (TSM) offers cost effective solutions to the
county's transportation and air pollution problems. The proposal of the
employees' commute pools in county vehicles constitutes a significant element of
TSM.
TSK:dsp(BOCoVeh.tll)
11.7.86
" r•f�'t ,[�- "9"Yi.Jct«+" °d+.i.''�^''i'h'. -. 'yy#•eCr �;+'td`5-^•>-R„�;.-cr. .,. ,:7sS.it',,,,;, _:.rr,,.' ..C"'�G"r_•yo..b'•r..�z'' w7.2zrr•_'.
-;�.rx'''4_��"+`�ie..rS+{-�.e+•-,oea.. ..,: _ •. _ '9'L+ry...a+�;^«'�.,r...^�ao: .v....-.�•
•."...14(%rT}jvAfi'r+iSS'ti.u^a4. aa+M"' e::.ttr '.d:c.tiy ,.�Hw - ,y .Y ...,. r
tir . :....t. :t. i 1 w.r ./t�: i t :: f+'.,e¢,. 'n!-...•... -.'.v.., .._n.,.ar^r-.:e,r, ' +' i .c; ,r i
.v'4.
+., .�-/n.}h -`';r,.c�.......s-+`.r r'r�,.n..t.w`?b`+^.t ..."...^:I".+.�...:.-'::G).r'W�_.'.+erns•r. ,:+rS$'�"�".yoS+t•�:.c.,,.Z,"^'�: �'�" ^* -�.` -,,. '. . .....-.�
r.�'rc""jr,.."+�.(..� ?iS..r aye, ''` i .. +✓
-- .�..ti. rn._. .wi.�W 4 i+.�`,� IJ..e,1'y tii•G-vkt. vXe-�.�. ! +i-;.,..,.. A» �i
- - �.-..�ui..1.i"Y�..'�, '��M� .,�... �-�_. 'mer7:�t.�F����1��..�h.'�..�.r.'�. •.:atm�..�..•
R JL Pw�l
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: T. S. Khanna, Date : November 3, 1986
Transportation Planning Division
Sandra Van S1yke,V County Cars/Van Pools
From: Sr. Insurance Analyst Subject: Insurance
Automobile Liabilitv
In an effort to assist you in the development of a very
attractive employee car pool rate, Risk Management will assess a
reasonable liability insurance charge which will be paid for by
each participant of the car pool. The charge will be credited to
the Country' s self-insurance automobile liability trust fund and
members will receive the same insurance coverages the County has
under this self-insurance program.
This automobile liability insurance will protect the
participants against third party liability and County vehicles
against physical damage.
The insurance will be charged as a flat fee on a monthly
basis. The annual charge is $400 for liability plus an average
of $36 for physical damage per vehicle. The monthly charges will
be $22 for liability and $1 for physical damage per vehicle.
Workers ' Compensation Exposure
The thrust of the car pool program is to provide vehicle
only and no costs associated with the operation of the program.
A workers ' compensation exposure does not exist. It is important
to clarify the County' s position on workers ' compensation. The
car pool program is intended to be a voluntary program for the
purpose of commuting to and from work. During this commute and
while the vehicle is in the possession of the participant, the
car pool participants will not be considered County employees
acting in the course of County business. It is to be clearly
defined in the car pool contract that no car pool participant
shall use the vehicle during commute time to conduct County
business of any kind.
The: County will not recognize or accept any potential
workers ' compensation claims that may arise from any injury
connected with or resulting from the.use of a vehicle in
connection with the County employee van pool program.
SV: py
w !'SjC�- o+�r,.'.;r,i Vii..R.�tf"�.'r t= nom.^.�''- /;: .i- s w_ �._. "J'4.•. !:.. '� ) ,v[..,. ?-ter- '. .qY:,�...r 1. 3
J'?u.�.c.v t+'. �..�? rf sG,.: 'st:...r- 'ti..�-A* �: -•M'1 i a h•( ��+ ix�5 -ri'.;� tK"n y5^}'N'-tY.+'•.-r �^r +. .w.S�xM'✓+..:..:.`vf«.\JM"'.•..'J .
16*
L f•-.}`t wr`.".,'`'iw �yy 'cN S-a.L. ..w: •+'+. �r.:.-rya ^'� 37o-✓•"' J':..4-rxw �� " n f.�.'Af:LC'. nf.�-�':"- � e,R,v
'iV^dF'>^r-t1"+Cli+r'1a.".S"s 3^1"hyk.`^�" w�,v+ •.f.rra..-.�7;uy-MJq•..::.'":`y.X.`ti .x, Y+.'..'w1":..�Y.'.w`.`'""w�"«,w.r�.-c....jrr-.tea. r!^r'�.�f+. - i. t..•'... ?.n �..
�1mS'1�i.'` 1. ^x- . ...,- �1L
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIAF C E Y E
Dote: July 31, 1986
JUL 31 1986
TO, Community Development Department TRANS PLAN
Attn: Barbaraeee
dter , Deputy Director
From: Victor Jr, ty Counsel
By: � 7.nty
ounty Counsel
Re: Car/Van fool in vehicles
In response to your memorandum of July 10, 1986 regarding car pools using
County vehicles, we have found no express authority permitting the County to
allow County employees to use County vehicles as commute vehicles. In general
counties have only the authority granted to them by the California Constitution
or by statute. Government Code 526002 authorizes the County to "layout, main-
tain, control.,.. ." public transportation. In our opinion No. 74-33A, (copy
attached) we opined that 526002 allowed the County, to provide bus transportation
for County employees. We see no legal, difference in providing bus transpor-
tation or allowing the use of County vehicles for commute purposes.
Also, given the County's wide latitude in providing employee benefits, we
see no reason why it cannot authorize the use of County vehicles for commute
purposes, with or without compensation, as a term or condition of employment but
if provided to represented employees, the County must give notice and meet and
confer if requested with employee organizations before implementation. Allowing
the case of County vehicles for commute purposes could be a benefit taxable to
the employees to the extent it reduces their commute costs unless they reimburse
the County an equivalent sum . The documents submitted mention that the City of
Concord has provided for car pools using City vehicles. The Concord City
Attorney told us that he has not looked into the legality of the plan, but that
because of Internal Revenue. Service regulations attributing income to the
employee of $3.00 per day for use of vehicles, the program was no longer in
significant, if any, use.
The program has significant implications with respect to liability and
worker's compensation exposure that are not discussed herein. We assume that
the Risk Manager will advise you or has advised you with respect to these
matters.
EVL:is
cc: Joe Tonda, Risk Manager
�y
n.ec.jYEs/.,t:�r'n.'. . �'24-xx,. n•,n,'„•s�"�"�+�sa?JC�=d^C`.,'�pa"'.�'"�r4�.."'r°'k-'isi _
'v _ ♦ o al•r+ u se`F'.' /.t /.. t .a:.rr..s..t
ti+r"•*YZ.,yy.Tt-I :'•..Y- F� ...1 I t y 1- _ ., . . /. .. ...
�,II:..y,l,l-�)P'Ttlf'C"rfnr.af-�"�,.""rS"�^ .-raw..,. Y .. :. ..v. -, �•
L.rY - .^ '^•• '; 'q w iS� "!q?F?y��^ ': faCnv ..'t�: �}:v -a, '" ��. s ��i ���r
;.'Cn Y4.^S r,.' ii r x:Kti � -:. + i / �'F � `� ye -',. � .h. .: ✓ -.ii.,.f"S-a ':: ,,.
a +.,.re: !.k_','/GJ'd'p�''�'�`:t.1 s""ya•�"S.i+.., ,y��',,�„s , 3 t -- ,.a^.uf`s'._'a .�a:,SY::::dt`u�.L,� �`�.as�+::��ga�'�'s:i,. :C�Svr�•�,
_ M Rap. P&SUr L11 ,
t ,1 April 10, 1974
J. C. Mcbrien, County Administratol-
John B. Clausen, County Counsel
. By: Victor J. 1lcst�an, Assintant: County Counsel
Proposed buses for County er!ployces
i
This is in reply to your memorandum of !larch 2$, 1974 , concerninG
the above-entitled natter in which our office is asked the following
questions :
1. Can the County legally contract for a subscription bus ser-
vice for county employees which is wholly paid for by the employees?
2. Can the County legally contract for a subscription bus ser-
vice for county employees which is partially subsidized by the.
County?
3. Can the County legally operate a subscription bus system in
conjunction with the Federal Government (Naval Weapons Station and
Veterans Hospital) and/or a private employer (Shell Oil, U.S. Steel,
etc.)?
As a generality , our answer to all of the foregoing questions is yes .
Authority for the County to provide passenger transportation services
and facilities is found in Government Code $26002 which provides', in
%
part , as follows:
"26002. Unless otherwise. provided by law, the board
(County Board of Supervisors) may lay out , maintain,
ei control, construct , repair, and manage public
ferries , . . .other shipping facilities, and passenger
transportation facilities within the county and may
cooperate with any city in so doing. . ."
` We nust caution you that any specific transportation arrangement
when proposed may present problems requiring further consideration.
For example, the implementation of the proposals outlined in Question
110s. 1 and 2 above may involve matters which are subject to the "meet
and confer process",
?; In connection with Question 210. 3, as you are aware under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act (Gov. C. §56500 et seq, ) , it is not possible
a for the County to enter a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with a
private party. We assume when you make reference to private parties
in question Ito. 3, you are considering an arrangement where, should
:Gi the County be operating a passenger transportation system, it would
i consider, entering some sort of group rate or other fee arrangement
with a private employer as to his employees . Any such fee arrange-
ment with a private employer would, of course, have to be done in a
manner which would not amount to a gift of public funds . In this
connection a problem may be created if the system is opened to a
limited portion of the public (as distinfuig2ied from just County
employees) and denied others .
,
Until the sped ,01c details of a propone� paaccnCnr transportation
arrangement hauz been developed , it is not poucible at this point to
" anticipate w ha. ,articular lernl prohlems could be preaented by that