Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07072015 - C.48RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the County's State legislative delegation expressing support for a solution to the problem of unmet maintenance and rehabilitation needs on the local and state transportation system. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: California has been facing a growing transportation funding crisis for some time as documented in the 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report (Attached: Summary/Frequently Asked Questions, "Save California Streets"). Factors contributing to this crisis include: • The state base gasoline excise tax (gas tax) has not been increased since 1994. • The federal gas tax hasn’t been adjusted in 21 years. • Inflationary erosion has compromised purchasing power. • Improvements in fuel efficiency, and the move to alternative fuel and electric vehicles has reduced funding streams. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/07/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Cunningham (925) 674-7833 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 7, 2015 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Lara Delaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator, Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Director - Public Works C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 7, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:Letter from the Board of Supervisors to the County's State Legislative Delegation Regarding Unmet Maintenance Needs on the Transportation System BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Maintenance, preservation, and safety of the multi-modal transportation network have all been in decline due to these factors. During recent budget negotiations, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced a special session of the Legislature to address funding maintenance of infrastructure including roads and highways. In the announcement, the Governor urged the Legislature to implement a comprehensive funding solution for transportation system maintenance to improve trade corridors and compliment local infrastructure investment. At the time of the submission of this report, two Special Sessions had convened; one on Friday, June 19 and another on June 22. Reports on both sessions from the County's state legislative advocate are attached to this staff report. This transportation funding crisis has been discussed at the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) in the past. However, TWIC has not recommended a position regarding the specific solutions to the transportation funding issues proposed during the Special Sessions. Due to the time sensitive nature of the issue, it did not allow for discussion at the Committee and staff is bringing the issue directly to the Board of Supervisors. There are a number of potential solutions being discussed at the Capitol right now which are not specifically addressed in the draft letter (Attached: July 7, 2015 Letter to CCC State Delegation Re Transportation Funding). Rather, the letter focuses on the urgency of the situation and the need for action. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is recommending that the Legislature and Governor agree on a funding plan that returns existing revenues to transportation (through repayment of $1 billion in outstanding loans and an end to the diversion of gas tax swap revenues related to vehicles that do not use public roadways) and creates new revenues through a variety of means, such as an increase in the gas tax and/or a new vehicle registration or license fee. Staff will bring CSAC's position to the TWIC and BOS for discussion and consideration. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. ATTACHMENTS 2014 Local Streets and Roads Report FAQ.pdf DRAFT Letter-BOS to Leg Delegation Re TransFunding July 22 2015 State Legislative Report July 26 2015 State Legislative Report FAQ What is the 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report about? Why is it important? • The goal of the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report is to educate the public, and policy/decision-makers at all levels of government about the infrastructure investments needed to provide California with a seamless, safe, and efficient multi-modal transportation system. • This report reveals the hard data that illustrates the future funding requirements for California’s local streets, bridges, sidewalks and other essential transportation components. • The findings provide data and evidence to inform solutions to address our critical infrastructure needs and the economic and public safety impacts of delaying local street and road maintenance. What are the key findings of the 2014 Report? • There is a significant funding shortfall to bring the local transportation system up-to-date - approximately $78.3 billion over the next 10 years. • As pavement conditions deteriorate, the cost of repair increases exponentially; the longer we wait, the more it will cost. • This report confirms that there has been a steady downward trend in the pavement condition since 2008, when the first comprehensive statewide local street and road pavement study was conducted. • The funding shortfall has grown from $71.4 billion in 2008 to $78.3 billion in 2014 – an increase of nearly $7 billion in just six short years. • The majority of California’s cities and counties now have an average pavement condition rating that is considered “at risk”. Projections indicate that by 2024, a quarter of local streets and roads will be in the “failed” category. • To spend the taxpayer’s money cost-effectively, it just makes sense to preserve and maintain our roads and bridges in good condition rather than let them deteriorate and then pay more to fix them. How large is the transportation network? • There are more than 143,000 centerline miles of local streets and roads maintained by cities and counties. This is nearly 81 percent of the state’s road network. • There are almost 12,000 bridges that are owned and maintained by cities and counties. This is half the bridges in California. FAQ Why is the local street network important? • Local streets and roads hold the state’s entire transportation network together. From the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus stop, we depend on safe, reliable local streets and roads. • Police, fire and emergency medical services require safe reliable roads to respond quickly to emergencies. A few minutes delay can be a matter of life and death. • California is a leader in the fight against global warming. Cities and counties are doing their part to build livable communities which provide multi-modal transportation options to walk, bike, and take transit to move around communities. This reduces stress on our local roads, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and promotes public health benefits of an active lifestyle. • The local street and road system is critical to California’s economy — the 8th largest in the world. The “last mile” for the movement of goods from rail, airports and seaports occurs on the local system. A functioning well maintained local network promotes economic sustainability and vitality. Who participated in this study? • 399 of California’s 540 cities and counties participated in this study, and their responses provided data on more than 140,000 centerline-miles of local streets and roads. This is 99 percent of the total local street network! Who contributed financially to this study? • Appendix A of the 2014 report lists the agencies who have contributed financially to this study. They include: o All 58 counties o 343 out of 482 cities o 43 of 48 California’s regional transportation planning agencies Are state highways included in this study? • No. Only the local transportation system is included in this study. This system includes more than 140,000 centerline miles of roads owned and maintained by cities and counties. • Caltrans has a similar report on the state’s highways. It is located at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/prior_shopp_documents/10yr_SHOPP_Plan/2013_Ten _Year_SHOPP_Plan.pdf FAQ Are other modes of transportation included? • Yes. The study also includes facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Other modes that use roadways, such as buses and taxis, are included in the pavement component. What are the essential transportation components? • The local transportation system isn’t just roads and bridges. All modes of transportation are included, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Also, safety components such as traffic signals, signs, street lights as well as storm water facilities are included in this study. What are the worst countywide pavement conditions? • Alpine, Amador, Lake, Madera, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, San Benito, Sierra and Tuolumne. What are the best countywide pavement conditions? • Contra Costa, Fresno, Placer, Nevada, Orange, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Riverside and Ventura. Why is there a funding shortfall? • An aging infrastructure, rising construction costs, and new regulatory requirements all contribute to the shortfall. • The purchasing power of existing revenue streams is declining and budget constraints have precluded needed maintenance. • Other factors such as heavier vehicles, better vehicle fuel efficiency, increasing traffic and the need to accommodate alternative modes of transportation like buses, bicyclists and pedestrians place increased demands on roads even as funding continues to decline. What is needed to establish stable funding and ensure ongoing repair and maintenance? • New sustainable sources of revenues must be created. The state’s gasoline excise tax has not kept pace with inflation. The 18-cent base excise tax, last adjusted in 1994, is only worth 9-cents today when adjusted for inflation and fuel efficiency. • A significant portion of new revenue should be focused on preservation of the existing road network. Once the system is in a state of good repair, the need for maintenance will be reduced. • Everyone who benefits from local streets and roads – personal and commercial vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians -should bear the cost of restoring and preserving the transportation infrastructure they rely on. FAQ • Californians need to work together to find ways to fund local streets and roads, and push state and local governments to establish sustainable transportation revenues. Who can we contact for more information? Theresa Romell Project Manager Metropolitan Transportation Commission (510) 817-5772 tromell@mtc.ca.gov Kiana Buss Legislative Representative California State Association of Counties (916) 327-7500 ext. 566 kbuss@counties.org Jennifer Whiting Assistant Legislative Director League of California Cities (916) 658-8200 jwhiting@cacities.org To download the report, go to: www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District July 7, 2015 The Honorable **** State Capitol, Room ####, Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator ****, On behalf of the County of Contra Costa, I write to urge you to take action to avert the looming transportation crisis in the State of California and your district by working to find a bipartisan solution in 2015. California has more than 50,000 miles of state highways, 143,000 local streets and roads, and 24,000 bridges. In unincorporated Contra Costa County alone, we own and operate 660 miles of paved roads and 111 vehicle and pedestrian bridges. California’s economic vitality and the mobility of all Californians both depend upon a first–class, multi-modal transportation network. In spite of this fact, the stagnant level of investment into our shared transportation infrastructure has resulted in significant unmet maintenance and rehabilitation needs on both the state and local transportation systems. The 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report found that counties and cities are short $79.3 billion over the next 10 years just to bring the system into a state of good repair, which would minimize future maintenance costs. In Contra Costa County, we currently have $25 million in deferred maintenance. We currently do not have adequate revenues to address our failing local infrastructure. This includes bike lanes, sidewalks, traffic signal lights, traffic signage and striping, and road drainage that are not only critical to active transportation options, but also for the safety of the travelling public. California’s transit operators also rely on local streets and roads as their primary right-of-way. The state highway system is also facing $59 billion in deferred maintenance costs over the next decade. The primary sources of revenue to maintain, preserve, repair, and rehabilitate highways and local roads and bridges are state and federal gasoline excise taxes (gas taxes). Neither the state nor federal gas tax has been increased in more than 20 years. Neither gas tax is adjusted for inflation or increases in the cost of construction. Increases in fuel efficiency, which are critical to reduce costs to motorists and meet our environmental goals, mean that vehicles are travelling more yet paying less for use of the transportation system. Making matters even worse, the recent short-lived decline in the price of David Twa Clerk of the Board          and  County Administrator  (925) 335‐1900  Contra Costa County The Honorable Senator **** July 7, 2015 gas, while good for consumer pocketbooks, will result in a year-to-year reduction of $885 million in transportation revenues. The California Transportation Commission is currently studying alternatives to the state gas tax such as a road user charge that would more accurately charge drivers for their use of the system, but the results of that study are years away. That is why the County of Contra Costa is asking you to take bold action this year to find interim solutions to begin to make much needed improvements in the transportation system. The bottom line is that the longer we wait to address our failing transportation infrastructure, the more it will cost in the long run. We need an immediate solution in 2015 to ensure the problem doesn’t get worse and to bridge the gap while California considers whether to implement longer- term options to replace the gas tax. Sincerely, John M. Gioia, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District I c: The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor, State of California The Honorable Kevin de Leon, President Pro Tem, California State Senate The Honorable Bob Huff, Minority Leader, California State Senate The Honorable Toni Atkins, Speaker, California State Assembly The Honorable Kristin Olsen, Minority Leader, California State Assembly g:\transportation\bos letter-memo\2015\6-22-15 bos to honorables resupport for trans\finaldocs\draft letter-bos to leg delegation re transfunding.docx Smith, Watts & Company, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations 925 L Street, Suite 220  Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508  Fax: (916) 446-1499 June 22, 2015 MEMORANDUM To: Transportation Clients From: Mark Watts Subject: Legislative Report State Budget On June 15, the Legislature approved AB 93, the 2015 State Budget Act. The overall state General Fund expenditure plan for 2015-16 reflected in the bill amounts to $117 Billion. But, in a disagreement with the governor, the legislative general fund budget was based on a higher level of revenue estimates for the fiscal year than the Governor’s Department of Finance has estimated and dedicated the additional revenues to additional program funding. Although it was anticipated that negotiations between the Governor and legislative leadership would take more than a week to conclude an agreement on modifications to the core budget negotiations resulted in significant changes to the budget act that were approved by the Legislature on June 20, along with related trailer bills. Special Session On Transportation and Infrastructure In addition to announcing the budget agreement, the governor also announced two Special Sessions of the Legislature to address (1) how California pays for roads, highways and other infrastructure and (2) Medi-Cal. These would run concurrent with the regular legislative session. The Governor’s proclamation calls for the Legislature to enact permanent and sustainable funding to maintain and repair the state’s transportation and critical 2 infrastructure, improve the state’s key trade corridors and complement local infrastructure efforts. The Governor’s call for a Special Session on Transportation last week was acted upon by the Legislature this past Friday, with the adoption of Special Session Joint Rules by the Senate and the introduction of SCAX1 1(Huff), the first Special Session bill to be introduced. With both Houses meeting Monday, June 20, it is anticipated that additional Special Session legislation may be introduced as well; in fact, it appears that Senator Beall will be moving forward with legislation to be introduced today. In a related development, CalSTA Secretary Brian Kelly conducted a conference call with Transportation stakeholders with the following the key points he made regarding the Special Session: • The Administration's initial focus will be to reach out to the legislative leadership; • The Administration’s overarching objective remains to seek new funding under a “fix it first” theme to address the state’s long-standing deferred maintenance crisis; The Secretary did also underscore that the Special Session proclamation calls for action to streamline project delivery. Transportation Budget Items In addition to the Budget Act, the Legislature approved four trailer bills on June 15, as well, including AB 95 (related to transportation). AB 95 includes several items of interest to the transportation community: Development of CT highway preservation “Shelf” of projects. The budget includes 25 positions to create a $500 million project shelf for the State Highway Operations and Preservation Program (SHOPP). AMTRAK Funding for Intercity rail. The budget fully funds Amtrak contract changes, pursuant to federal government requirements for intercity rail services. Intercity Rail Reporting. Caltrans is required to report, by April 1, 2016, to the Legislature on potential benefits to safety, greenhouse gas reduction, service levels, and operating costs by improving grade separations at key intersections, as defined by the Federal Railroad Administration, along the state's intercity rail system. 3 State Transit Assistance Eligibility Funding. A one-year extension of an exemption to allow transit operators whose cost increases have exceeded the Consumer Price Index to continue using State Transit Assistance funding for both operating and capital expenditures is included in the budget trailer bill. Cap on Clean Air Vehicle Program. Increases the cap on the "green sticker" Clean Air Vehicle program from 70,000 to 85,000. This program allows low-emission and energy- efficient vehicles with a single occupant to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes Cap and Trade Funding The Budget Conference Committee final spending plan incorporated into the final budget sent to the Governor includes staff resources necessary to continue existing workload related to cap-and-trade expenditures, but rejects all of the discretionary expenditure proposals. This conforms to the announced legislative intent that discussions will continue to further refine the state’s expenditure plan for the 40 percent of the cap-and-trade revenues that are not continuously appropriated according to statute enacted last year. However, the existing statutory continuous appropriations remain, so sixty percent of revenue in 2015-16 will be allocated to High Speed Rail, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, Low Carbon Transit Operations, and the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, pursuant to current law. Transportation Loan Repayments The Budget Conference Committee previously added language into their version of the budget related to Pre-Prop 42 loans. These loans have not been characterized by the Governor as part of the state’s “Wall of Debt” and had remained withheld over the past decade due to state budget pressures. The final budget agreement identifies $842 million in Pre-Prop 42 borrowing from 2000-01 as “general fund borrowing” which would qualify the loans for repayment from the Proposition 2 “Rainy Day” funds in a future legislative action. Assembly Transportation Funding Plan 4 Assembly Transportation Committee chair, Jim Frazier is expected to disclose the Assembly plans for legislation to address the state and local road systems repair needs. This follows the release of an initial legislative concept by the Speaker last February. While the Senate has moved SB 16 (Beall) through the committee process and the bill, which generates about $3.5 billion, annually for 5 years, is pending consideration on the Senate floor, the Assembly Democratic leadership has worked together and with their caucus to develop their version to provide funding for roads. Smith, Watts & Company, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations 925 L Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508  Fax: (916) 266-4580 MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Clients FROM: Mark Watts DATE: June 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Special Session #1 Report – Everything you need to know about the Special Session Legislature Special Session The Governor called two special sessions last week: Infrastructure and Healthcare. The Transportation & Infrastructure special session is referred to as the First Extraordinary Session. Call of the Special Sessions: The wording in the proclamation by the Governor is important because the Legislature is limited, in the special session, to the consideration of the matters specified in the Governor’s Proclamation (Art. IV, Sec. 3(b)). This is referred to as the “call of the special session”. “Call” in Transportation Infrastructure Special Session: Legislation to enact pay-as-you-go, permanent and sustainable funding to: a. Adequately and responsibly maintain and repair the state’s transportation and other critical infrastructure; and b. Improve the state’s key trade corridors; and c. Complement local efforts for repair and improvements of local transportation infrastructure 2 Also, to consider and act upon legislation necessary to: a. Establish clear performance objectives measured by the percentage of pavement, bridges and culverts in good condition; and b. Incorporate project development efficiencies to expedite project delivery or reduce project costs.” Committees Created: Yesterday, both the Senate and Assembly announced the committees that will hear special session bills. No committee hearings have been scheduled at this time. Senate Special session #1 Committees Transportation and Infrastructure Development (13 members): Beall (Chair), Cannella (Vice Chair), Allen, Bates, Berryhill, Gaines, Hertzberg, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Pavley, and Wieckowski. Appropriations (7 members): Lara (Chair), Bates (Vice Chair), Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, and Nielsen. Assembly Special Session #1 Committees Transportation And Infrastructure Development (13 members): Frazier (Chair), Achadjian (Vice Chair), Alejo, Burke, Chiu, Dodd, Eggman, Gatto, Hadley, Kim, Linder, Nazarian, and O’Donnell. Finance (9 members): Gomez (Chair), Bigelow (Vice Chair), Bloom, Jones–Sawyer, McCarty, Melendez, Obernolte, Ting, and Weber. Special Session Procedures Some unique aspects of special sessions include: • Bills do not need to wait 30 days in print to be heard. • Extraordinary session bills are exempt from the four/two day file notice requirement, so committees can be scheduled rapidly, as needed. • Majority vote special session bills take effect 91 days after the final adjournment of that special session (Con. Art. IV, Sec. 8(c)(1)) unless they are urgency measures. • Taxes still require a 2/3rds vote 3 Special Session #1 bills Introduced Senate SB X1 1 (Beall): Senator Beall reintroduced his regular session $4 billion roadway repair funding bill proposal (SB 16) in the Transportation Special Session SCAX1 1 (Huff): This bill would constitutionally guarantee that the transportation taxes paid by California drivers annually are only used for transportation purposes and is a reintroduction of SCA 7 in the Regular session. SB X1 2 (Huff): This bill would dedicate cap and trade taxes paid from putting gasoline production under the cap to improving California’s streets and roads. SB X1 2 would direct how approximately $1.9 billion in revenues would be spent. Assembly AB X1 1 (Alejo) This bill is a reintroduction of Mr. Alejo’s AB 227 from regular session. It would transfer truck weight fees back from Prop 1B debt Service to state highway purposes and would also accelerate repayment of outstanding loans back from the General fund. AB X1 2 (Perea) This bill is a reintroduction of Mr. Perea’s AB 1265 relating to Public Private partnerships (P3).