Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081987 - 1200 MINUTES Joint Meeting of Contra Costa County and Solano County Board of Supervisors December 8, 1987 George Gordon Center 500 Court Street, Martinez, California 94553 Supervisor McPeak, Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, convened the joint meeting of the Solano County and Contra Costa County Boards of Supervisors. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, Contra Costa County, advised of Senator Bergeson's effort to establish a Local Government Committee to correct many of the inequities in SB 709, the Trial Court Funding Bill, which also provides for the reallocation of property tax funds to cities with no- or low- property taxes (below the 10 percent level) . He noted that Supervisor McPeak and representatives from Ventura and Riverside counties have been invited to Sacramento to testify on the deleterious impact of SB 709 . Mr. Batchelor reported that 16 counties are in financial trouble as a result of this legislation and that 12 of the 16 counties impacted will receive the smallest percentage of the property tax dollar. He noted that within 15 years Contra Costa County will have lost $128 .million cumulative gross amount in property taxes of which $52 million would have been for trial court funding. He advised that at the recent annual meeting of the County Supervisors Association (CSAC) in Monterey counties (including those not impacted by SB 709) agreed to join together to correct the inequities of this legislation. As an example of the county's financial problems, Mr. Batchelor advised that the new detention facility in west Contra Costa County is scheduled to open in 1989 and that the $10 million for operating costs has not been identified. Richard Watson, County Administrator, Solano County, spoke on the need for SB 709 cleanup legislation and the need to determine the amount of fines and forfeiture fees that will be lost and the extent of the discretionary power of the State Auditor-Controller to allocate those funds. He noted that Solano County's new jail is scheduled to open and that $3 . 5 million is needed. Mr. Watson advised that he will recommend amending SB 709. Following discussion, the two Boards requested the County Administrators of Solano and Contra Costa counties to solicit input from other county administrators to compile a list of issues for legislative reform on SB 709. The two County Administrators were requested to present this data to each of their respective Boards in January 1988 . Dan Bergman, Ph.D. , Director of Environmental Health, Contra Costa County, reported on the closure of the IT Corporation toxic waste ponds in Martinez. He advised that his department is doing site inspections at the IT facilities including the manifests to see what they are doing with their waste stream. Dr. Bergman advised that a detailed report will be submitted to his Board in January 1988 . Supervisor McPeak commented on the work of the Hazardous Waste Task Force in developing the Hazardous Materials Ordinance (No. 87-84) adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 13 , 1987 . Supervisor Sturn of Solano County requested a copy of that Ordinance and the recommendations of the Task Force. Phil Batchelor advised that IT had agreed to meet with repre- sentatives of Contra Costa County to discuss the waste ponds closure impact on the industrial community. He suggested Dr. Bergman and Bob Pendoley meet with IT representatives and prepare a written report for distribution to the two Boards. 1 i• There was discussion on the need to identify where the gener- ators of hazardous waste are disposing of their toxic material since it is no longer being accepted by IT; the need for aggressive enforcement in the identification and disposition of toxic waste as well as prosecution of violators; the need for a procedure to control and reduce household hazardous waste; and potential conse- quences to a county because of improper or inadequate cleanup of toxic disposal ponds. Dave Okita, Environmental Control, Contra Costa County, gave a status report on hazardous waste management planning in compliance with provisions of the Tanner Bill. He noted that with the closure of the IT ponds in Martinez, the position of Contra Costa County has changed from being an importer of hazardous waste to that of an exporter. He advised that serious consideration is being given to source reduction and waste minimization programs including the identification of sites and appropriate places to locate these types of facilities. He spoke of his participation with Bob Pendoley at the monthly meetings of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and of the cooperation and coordination efforts with other Bay Area counties in developing a regional plan. Mr. Okita spoke of statewide issues that need to be addressed, such as: siting for facilities beyond a county's needs; conflict in state laws on the siting issue; siting criteria; local control of haz- ardous waste facilities particularly as it applied to privately owned facilities. Supervisor Craddle of Solano County advised that his County is concentrating on the generators to encourage them to neutralize their hazardous waste on site: Bob Pendoley presented a status report on the development of the hazardous waste plan for Solano County. He noted that his county is in the same stage as Contra Costa County in this endeavor. He advised that since 1985 there has been a trend toward recycling materials, particularly among the large generators in his county. Mr. Pendoley spoke on the need to develop a policy on the issues associated with the disposition of hazardous waste with the largest issue being a permanent repository of hazardous waste and the smaller issue being the handling of household hazardous waste. He noted that the law does not allow a county to regulate hazardous waste as it does solid waste. He commented on the need to get that regulatory authority. It was agreed that it was too early in the plan development stage to determine regional needs. Mark Finucane, Director Of Health Services, Contra Costa County, commented on the status of the State Budget relative to mandated programs for health care and of the possibility of a $150 million deficit in the MediCal Budget. He reported on the increase in MediCal patients and the possibility that counties may be asked to cut back on some services because of fiscal limitations. He spoke on the work of the Coalition of Bay Area Health Officials in developing legislation for a Short-Doyle type program to fund the treatment of AIDS patients. Mr. Finucane advised that he will be presenting to his Board a three-year plan on the AIDS problem. There was discussion on impact of AIDS patient caseload on the MediCal Program; the unsuccessful attempts of some insurance companies in seeking relief from the burden of funding treatment for AIDS patients; the leadership role of Pacific Bell in sponsor- ing an educational program on AIDS; the need for an organized effort of public officials, health care providers, health care officials, and the general public to bring to the Governor's attention the need to address the AIDS epidemic. The two Boards established a joint committee (task force) comprised of representatives of Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano County Boards of Supervisors and Health Officers to develop legis- lation to provide funds to address the AIDS epidemic to include not only the treatment of AIDS patients but an educational component 2 i• , aimed at prevention. Supervisor Osby Davis agreed to represent Solano County; Supervisor Fanden agreed to represent Contra Costa County with Supervisor McPeak designated as her alternate. Dr. Lopez, Health Director of Solano County, spoke about the success of the perinatal clinic. He noted that 15 to 18 patients per month will have their babies delivered at Merrithew Memorial Hospital. He advised of discussions to establish in Solano County specialty care clinics, such as' cardiology, pediatrics, and ortho- pedics. The two Board then considered the adoption of a joint resolu- tion (Draft I - IV) relating to the transportation, capital and traffic management needs of Contra Costa and Solano counties. Included in the resolution were the following sections: I. Traffic capital improvements across the Carquinez Straits; II. Comprehensive Bay Area toll bridge legislation; III. Coordination of transportation and land use planning; and IV. Port development and the Baldwin Ship Channel. Also submitted for consideration were three draft resolutions which would allow agreement on the specific issues if total agree- ment was not forthcoming on the former. These three drafts are listed as follows: A. Joint resolution relating to daily toll-free high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on the Carquinez and Martinez-Benicia Bridges; B. Joint resolution relating to increased Bay Area bridge tolls for traffic mitigation; and C. Joint resolution relating to the collection of tolls on the Benicia-Martinez Bridge during the Friday afternoon peak period and to the location of toll plazas. Supervisor Davis commented on Draft I-IV and explained the reasons for the proposed amendments as noted. There was discussion on Section III relative to coordination of transportation and land use planning; the difficulties that might be encountered in attempting to coordinate land use planning and transportation planning between the two counties to promote balance of jobs and housing to reduce traffic congestion; the role and actions of the cities within each county relative to land use planning; and the diversity of the general plan of the two coun- ties. It was agreed that Section III of Draft I-IV would be set for discussion for a future meeting. Supervisor Davis proposed amending Section III-B by deleting the reference to land use planning so that this section reads: "Coordination of transportation planning so as to reduce resultant traffic congestion. " There was discussion on the proposal for a toll-free period (3 : 30 p.m. to 6: 30 p.m. ) on Friday afternoons in order to expedite the flow of traffic across the Martinez-Benicia Bridge; the pro- posal for designation of high occupancy vehicles/vanpool lanes; the impact of lost toll revenue on repaying the bonded indebtedness; and the need to take into consideration the needs of the constitu- ents of both counties who use the bridge. 3 iu The Boards focussed their attention on Draft A. On motion of Supervisor Pippo, seconded by Supervisor Powers, the Board approved Draft A which requests the California Transportation Commission, State Department of Transportation, and the counties' State Legis- lative Delegation to take all appropriate action to implement free tolls for carpools, vanpools, and transit companies, and dedication of high occupancy vehicle lanes during the peak hours as soon as feasible on the existing Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Supervisor Fanden abstained from voting on the motion. She expressed concern that it did not include a provision for a toll- free period on Friday afternoons. She commented on the adverse impact it would have on truckers and single occupant vehicles being limited to one lane. She expressed concern that the lane configu- ration of the present bridge does not appear practical for the designation of HOV or vanpool lanes across the Benicia- Martinez Bridge. Supervisor Brann voted "no" on the motion. Supervisor Schroder was absent. The Boards then considered Draft I-IV, Section II, the com- prehensive Bay Area toll bridge legislation. Paragraph A was amended to read "high priority for funding the construction of the second span of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. . . " Paragraph C was amended to read, "Increases in the level of funding to improve the flow of traffic including transportation systems management pro- grams. . . " On motion of Supervisor Powers, seconded by Supervisor Pippo, the Board approved Section II as amended of Draft I-IV. Supervisor Fanden abstained from voting on the motion for the reason that this matter was not discussed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. She requested that decision on this matter be deferred one week to allow public discussion by her Board She referred to her reasons for her abstention on the previous motion and advised that those same comments apply to this motion. She advised that even though she supports HOV lanes, she does not believe the configuration of the present Benicia-Martinez Bridge would be adaptable to HOV lanes. She advised that even though CALTRANS is near construction, she would not *want to do anything to delay or jeopardize the two additional lanes being proposed right now on the existing bridge. She stated that she believes public support for toll increases is extremely important, and that if we are going to have public expense and public support for toll-free period, we must start to do something for the public. Supervisor Fanden expressed the belief that a toll-free period on Friday would provide the public with this consideration. Supervisor Powers requested Phil Batchelor to place on the December 15, 1987 agenda of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors the issue of the toll-free period on Fridays across the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Supervisor Fanden commented on location of the toll booths for the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and utilization of a portion of toll revenue for traffic mitigation measures in the two counties. Supervisor Davis proposed that Contra Costa County develop a position on the location of the toll plaza for subsequent presen- tation to the Solano County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor McPeak noted that time constraints precluded discussion on the homeless issue. She requested that this matter be discussed at the next meeting. 4 It was agreed that the two Boards would meet in June 1988. The meeting adjourned at 4 : 06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator, Contra Costa County By O� a.�-•�-� �id `Jeanne O. Maglio Deputy Clerk 5 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND SOLANO COUNTY RELATING TO DAILY TOLL FREE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES ON THE CARQUINEZ AND MARTINEZ-BENICIA BRIDGES WHEREAS the Boards of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and Solano County recognize the importance of joint and coordinated solutions for regional transportation issues of mutual concern; and WHEREAS the seriousness of inter-county transportation issues increases with the growth of traffic between the two counties, as well as the growth of through traffic; and WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and Solano County have agreed to cooperate and coordinate in addressing joint transportation issues specifically impacting the Benicia and Carquinez Bridge corridors; NOW, THEREFORE, BE" IT RESOLVED that the Boards of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and Solano County request the California Transportation Commission, the California Department of Transportation and the State legislative delegation of both counties take all appropriate actions necessary to immediately implement free tolls for carpools, van pools and transit dedication of high occupancy vehicle lanes during the peak hours as soon as feasible on the existing Benicia-Martinez Bridge. If this cannot be accomplished prior to widening of the existing span, then the two new lanes to be added should be reserved as toll free High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes for exclusive use of car pools, van pools, and public transit vehicles during peak traffic periods. ADOPTED AT THE JOINT MEETING ON DECEMBER 8 , 1987 BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT. w B ( Sec.II , I-IV) JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND SOLANO COUNTY RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE BAY AREA TOLL BRIDGE LEGISLATION The Boards of Supervisors of Contra Costa County and Solano County resolve to support comprehensive, regional Bay Area toll bridge legislation including uniform increases for auto and commercial tolls that includes at a minimum the following: A. High priority for funding for construction of the second span of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, including bridge approach improvements on Interstate Route 680 from Willow Pass Road to Interstate Route 80 and I-780 , including the Interchange of 680 and 780 . B. Construction of a replacement bridge for the southbound Carquinez Bridge. C. Increases in the level of funding to improve the flow of traffic including transportation systems management programs. These funds are to be allocated to the local governments for expenditure on the above improvements in each corridor based on bridge traffic in each respective corridor. ADOPTED AT THE JOINT MEETING ON DECEMBER 8, 1987 BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.