HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02122014 - TWIC Agenda Pkt
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
February 12, 2014
1:00 P.M. REVISED 11:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2. Administrative Items
3.ACCEPT public comments on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not
on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
4. APPROVE record of meeting for December 5, 2013.
5. RECEIVE correspondence and communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
6. REVIEW referrals to the Committee for consideration in 2014, ADOPT 2014 meeting
calendar, and REVISE the Committee mailing list as appropriate.
7. RECEIVE report regarding Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management Program (IMP)
and FORWARD to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and approval to send a
letter to the State Fire Marshal requesting a review of the IMP for the Kinder Morgan
pipeline in Central and South Contra Costa County.
8. CONSIDER Report on State Transportation Legislative Issues and DIRECT staff as
appropriate.
9. CONSIDER Report on Federal Transportation Legislation Issues and DIRECT staff as
appropriate.
10. CONSIDER accepting a report from the Department of Conservation and Development
on the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority's Mobility Management Plan and
DIRECT staff as appropriate.
11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM.
12.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff
person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that
meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and
Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County
has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its
Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in
presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOB Area of Benefit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County)
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water)
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
DCC Delta Counties Coalition
DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
DPC Delta Protection Commission
DSC Delta Stewardship Council
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
HOT High-Occupancy/Toll
HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle
HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCC League of California Cities
LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MAF Million Acre Feet (of water)
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
PDA Priority Development Area
PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department
RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties
RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposals
RFQ Request For Qualifications
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SR2S Safe Routes to Schools
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 2.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Administrative Items
Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
Referral History:
Administrative Items.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
None.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: n/a
Referral Name: Record of Action
Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
Referral History:
n/a
Referral Update:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205[d]) requires that each
County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee staff is transitioning to the Agenda Quick
system for management and distribution of agendas and minutes. In future meetings the minutes
will be formatted using the new system.
Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page:
www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/twic
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Review and approve record of meeting for December 5, 2013 with revisions as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
DRAFT Record of 12/5/13 TWI Meeting
* This meeting record is provided pursuant to Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-2.205(d) of the Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code.
G:\Conservation\TWIC\2014\2-12-2014\TWIC_Mtg_Record_12-5-13.doc Page 1 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’
TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE (TWI) COMMITTEE
DRAFT Record of Meeting DRAFT
1:30 AM, Thursday, December 5, 2013
Chair Andersen and Vice-Chair Piepho were in attendance.
1. Introductions. (See attached signup sheet).
2. Administrative Items
3. Accept public comments on any item under the jurisdiction of the Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure (TWI) Committee and not on this agenda.
4. Review record of meeting for October 3, 2013. The record was approved as submitted.
5. Receive Integrated Pest Management Program Annual Report. Michael Kent provided the annual
report with assistance from Vincent Guise (Agriculture/Weights and Measures) and Joe Yee (Public
Works) and responded to questions. The Committee directed TWI and Health Services Department (HSD)
staff to put information previously submitted by members of the public on the TWI website and directed
HSD staff to 1] research and make recommendations on implementing open public meeting protocol/rules
for the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee, and 2] report back on outstanding inquiries from
the public1. (Michael Kent, Health Services Department)
6. Receive report on 2013/2014 transportation legislative and related activities and take action as
appropriate. The Committee received the report and 1] provided direction to staff regarding coordination
between legislative advocates on any CEQA legislation in 2014, 2] directed staff to bring federal
bicycle/pedestrian safety bills to the BOS, and 3] approved the state and federal legislative platforms (with
changes as submitted), with 4] the additional direction to DCD staff to research and insert the appropriate
language/program to address rail safety concerns in both the federal and state platforms. (John
Cunningham, DCD)
7. Receive Report on PG&E Coordination with Cities and County for Street Light Maintenance. The
Committee received the report and 1] requested that Public Works staff consult with Danville staff on the
LED conversion program, 2] directed staff to submit this annual update to the Board of Supervisors and 3]
to report back to TWI Committee at their June 2014 meeting on AB 719, LED conversations. (Susan
Cohen, Public Works Department)
8. AUTHORIZE the Director of Public Works on behalf of the County to submit to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) the Transportation Development Act (TDA) 2014/2015 funding
cycle grant applications. The Committee provided the requested authorization. (Mary Halle, Public
Works Department)
9. Consider report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee for 2013. The
Committee approved the report as submitted and directed DCD staff to bring the report to the Board of
Supervisors. (John Cunningham, DCD)
10. Consider recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2014. The Committee approved the
referrals as submitted and directed DCD staff to bring the list to the Board of Supervisors. (John
Cunningham, DCD)
1 Posting use of pesticide online, posting maps of pesticide use online, respond to claims that other counties use less pesticides, input
from Public Health officials/toxicologists on County pesticide use, provide Contra Costa County policy regarding gifts from private
sector contractors, implement rules on conduct of IPM Advisory Committee public meetings, and document contracts/invoices with
pest control contractors or pesticide suppliers.
Page 2 of 2
11. Adjourn to 2014 at a day and time to be determined/announced.
Attachments
A. Sign in Sheet
B. Comments/documents provided by members of the public at the meeting
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Correspondence
Presenter: John Cunningham, Conservation &
Development Department
Contact: John Cunningham,
925-674-7833
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
Attached is correspondence directed to the Committee and/or other communication that may be of
interest.
2/5/14 Memo from the Department of Agriculture to the Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee
1.
11/22/13 Letter from the Department of Agriculture to Parents for a Safer Environment2.
Flyer/Meeting Announcement from the Association of California Water Agencies re: an
upcoming event, "2014 Drought Briefing – Impacts and Actions: What You Need to Know"
3.
1/15/14 Memo from County Counsel to the County Administrator, et al re: recent
amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act.
4.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Accept correspondence and communication and direct staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
Ag Dept Response Dtd Feb 2014
PSfE Response Ltr to Kestrel Study 11-22-2013a
Drought Briefing flyer
Brown Act Ammendment RE: Votes
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Review 2014 Referrals
Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
The Committee should review referrals to the Committee for consideration in 2014, adopt
meeting calendar for 2014, and revise the Committee mailing list as appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and APPROVE; the 2014 referrals, the 2014 calendar, and the
Committee mailing list.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
TWIC List of Referrals for 2014
Draft TWIC 2014 Meeting Schedule
2014 TWIC Mailing List
g:\conservation\twic\2014\twic referrals 2014.doc
2014 Referrals to the
Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
(From January 14, 2014 Board Order with track changes removed)
1. Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
2. Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works
and Conservation and Development Departments.
3. Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority including efforts to implement Measure J.
4. Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities.
5. Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to
Delta levees, flood control, dredging, drought planning, habitat conservation, development of an ordinance
regarding single-use plastic bags and polystyrene, and water quality, supply and reliability.
6. Review issues associated with County flood control facilities.
7. Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues.
8. Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy.
9. Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues.including, but not limited to, transfer of some County
park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants and
expenditure plan.
10. Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.
11. Review the ability to revise the County design standards for residential streets to address traffic calming
and neighborhood livability issues when these roads are built.
12. Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program.
13. Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights
in Contra Costa.
14. Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that
proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases, safety of freight trains and trucks
that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; and the deepening of the
San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel.
15. Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program.
16. Monitor and report on the eBART Project.
17. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low
Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area,
Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, Contra Costa County
Mobility Management Plan, and the work of Contra Costans for Every Generation.
18. Monitor issues of interest in the provision of general transportation services, including but not limited to
public transportation and taxicab services
19. Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Vice Chair
2014 Meeting Schedule
DATE ROOM TIME
February 12 Room 101 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
March 6 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
April 3 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
May 1 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
June 5 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
July 3 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
August 7 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
September 4 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
October 2 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
November 6 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
December 4 Room 101 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
The Agenda Packets will be mailed out prior to the meeting dates.
For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 674-7833
John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
DRAFT
0
BGO/Chron
0
Clerk of the Board
0
CCC Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, 1st Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Sharon Anderson 0
CCC County Counsel's Office
651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Jerry Brown 0
Contra Costa Water District
1331 Concord Ave. PO Box H20
Concord, CA 94524-2099
Julie Bueren 0
CCC Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Lea Castleberry 0
Contra Costa County, BOS District III
3361 Walnut Blvd., Suite 140
Brentwood, CA 94513
Terrance Cheung 0
District I - Supervisor Gioia
11780 San Pablo Ave, Ste D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Lara Delaney 0
CCC County Administrators Office
651 Pine St
Martinez, CA 94553
Federal Glover 0
CCC Board of Supervisors
315 E Leland Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Mary Nejedly Piepho 0
2230 Sunset Point
Discovery Bay, CA 94514
Randall Sawyer 0
Environmental Health
2110 Diamond Blvd, Suite 200
Concord, CA 94520
Mark Seedall 0
Contra Costa Water District
1331 Concord Ave. PO Box H20
Concord, CA 94520
Cece Sellgren 0
Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Lisa Vorderbrueggen 0
Contra Costa Times
2640 Shadelands Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
-1
AC Transit
1600 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
-1
Alamo Improvement Association
PO Box 156
Alamo, CA 94507
Danny Akagi 0
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94702
Mehria Albert 0
Contra Costa Water District
1331 Concord Avenue
Concord, CA 94520
Candace Andersen 0
CCC Board of Supervisors
651 Pine St., 1st Floor, Rm 108A
Martinez, CA 94553
Charles Anderson 0
WestCAT
601 Walter Ave
Pinole, CA 94564
Mitch Avalon 0
CCC Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Brian Balbas 0
Public Works
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Linda Best 0
Contra Costa Council
1355 Willow Way, Suite 253
Concord, CA 94520
Bette Boatmun -1
Contra Costa Water District
PO Box H20
Concord, CA 94524
TWIC
***
***
**
***
*Full Packets Mailed
**
*
-1John Dalrymple
Central Labor Council
P O Box 389
Martinez, CA 94553
-1Rick Ramacier
County Connection
2477 Arnold Industrial Way
Concord, CA 94520
-1Tim Tucker
City of Martinez
525 Henrietta Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Josh Bradt 0
SFEU
Lewis T. Broschard III 0
Contra Costa County Fire Protection Distric
2010 Geary Road
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
John Burgh 0
Contra Costa Water District
1331 Concord Ave. PO Box H20
Concord, CA 94524-2099
Lauri Byers 0
CCC Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Ste 108A
Martinez, CA 94553
Jenna Caldwell 0
CCC Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Mike Carlson 0
CCC Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Dr.
Martinez, CA 94553
Anne Cavazos 0
Contra Costa County Climate Leaders
Gregory Chan 0
East Bay Municipal Utility District
375 11th St.
Oakland, CA 94607
Allison Chan 0
Save the Bay
Joe Ciolek 0
Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust of
Contra Costa County
5554 Clayton Rd., #2
Concord, CA 94521-4180
Susan Cohen 0
Public Works
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Mariana Corona 0
Lois Courchaine 0 Bob Cowan 0
Grand Jury
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553
John Cunningham 0
CCC Dept. of Conservation & Development
651 Pine St, 4th Flr, N Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Aron DeFerrari 0
Alamo Improvement Association
Lynda Deschambault 0
Contra Costa County Climate Leaders
Tanya Drlik 0
Health Services Department, Contra Costa
County
4585 Pacheco Blvd.
Martinez, CA 94553
Peter Duncan 0
Sierra Club, Mt. Diablo Group Executive
Committee
112 Roble Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
John Fuller 0
City of Pittsburg
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Matthias Gafni 0
Contra Costa Times/Oakland Tribune
2640 Shadelands Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Mike Gibson 0
Alamo Improvement Association
70 Sara Lane
Alamo, CA 94507
Rick L. Gilmore 0
Byron Bethany Irrigation District
7995 Bruns Road
Byron, CA 94514
John Gioia 0
CCC Board of Supervisors
11780 San Pablo Ave, Ste D
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Cliff Glickman 0
Supervisor District IV Office
2151 Salvio St., Suite R
Concord, CA 94520
Bob Glover 0
Building Industry Association of the Bay
Area
101 Ygnacio Valley Rd., Suite 210
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Javier Gonzalez 0
California Restaurant Association
Tom Guarino 0
PG&E
3480 Buskirk Ave, Suite 150
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Vince Guise 0
CCC Department of Agriculture
2366 A Stanwell Circle
Concord, CA 94520-4807
Nora Harlow 0
East Bay Municipal Utility District
375 Eleventh Street MS 802
Oakland, CA 94607
Ryan Hernandez 0
CCC Dept. of Conservation & Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Sheila Hill 0
Sustainable Contra Costa
1540 Marchbanks
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Brian Hooker 0
Congressman John Garamendi, CA-3
609 Jefferson Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Brian Hooker 0
Office of Congressman John Garamendi
609 Jefferson Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Ryan Huff 0
Contra Costa Times
2640 Shadelands Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Kris Hunt 0
Contra Costa Taxpayer's Association
PO Box 27
Martinez, CA 94553
Kris Hunt 0
2632 Cherry Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Timothy James 0
Callifornia Grocers Association
1215 K Street, #700
Sacramento, CA 95814
Lorin Jensen 0
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Susan Junfish 0
Parents for a Safer Environment
PO Box 6673
Moraga, CA 94556
Marjorie Koll 0
John Kopchik 0
Dept. of Conservation & Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Steve Kowalewski 0
Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Jeanne Krieg 0
Tri Delta Transit
801 Wilbur Ave
Antioch, CA 94509
Catherine Kutsuris 0
Dept. of Conservation & Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Warren Lai 0
CCC Public Works Dept
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
M J Lanni 0
CCC Administrator's Office
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Grant McClennan 0
Kinder Morgan
Karen Mitchoff 0
CCC Board of Supervisors
2151 Salvio Street, Ste R
Concord, CA 94520
Don Mount 0
1309 Gragg Lane
Concord, CA 94518
Mary Neher 0
Contra Costa Water District
1331 Concord Avenue
Concord, CA 94520
Kathleen Nimr 0
Sierra Club, Mt. Diablo Group
2204 Olympic Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Alison Olsen 0
District III Supervisor's Office
3361 Walnut Blvd., Suite 140
Brentwood, CA 94513
Maureen Parkes 0
Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Walter Pease 0
City of Pittsburg
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Larry Preston 0
East CC Irrigation District
1711 Sellers Avenue
Brentwood, CA 94513
Judy Prieve 0
Contra Costa Times Metro Desk
2640 Shadelands Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Luis A. Quinonez 0
Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla
State Capitol, Room 2188
Sacramento, CA95814
Jill Ray 0
Office of Disrict II Supervisor
309 Diablo Road
Danville, CA 94526
Coire Reilly 0
Community Wellness and Prevention
Program, Contra Costa Health Services
597 Center Ave., Suite 100
Martinez, CA 94553
Rossana Riggs 0
Contra Costa Water District
1331 Concord Ave. PO Box H20
Concord, CA 94524-2099
Joyce Ring-Reaves 0
Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Pam Romo 0
Friends of the Creeks
1929 Glenhaven Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Grace Schmidt 0
2394 Ironwood Place
Alamo, CA 94507
Karen Schuler 0 Shirley Shelangoski 0 Terry Shoaff 0
Contra Costa Council
1355 Willow Way, Suite 253
Concord, CA 94520
Corey Simon 0
City of Martinez
525 Henrietta Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Ellen Smith 0
BART Planning Department
300 Lakeside Drive, 16th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-2688
Robert Vaclav 0 Tomi Van de Brooke 0
11th Assembly District
2151 Salvio Street, Suite 395
Concord, CA 94520
Kerri Watt 0
Private Island Homes
1499 Danville Blvd, Ste 200
Alamo, CA 94507
Mark Watts 0
Smith, Watts & Company
1111 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Jack Weir 0
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant, CA 94523
Mike Yeraka 0
Diablo Water District
PO Box 127
Oakley, CA 94561
Linda Zimmerman 0
CCC Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 15
Referral Name: RECEIVE report regarding Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management
Program (IMP)
Presenter: Carrie Ricci, Pulblic Works Department Contact: (925)
313-2235
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
RECEIVE report regarding Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management Program (IMP) and forward
to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and approval to send a letter to the State Fire
Marshal requesting a review of the IMP for the Kinder Morgan pipeline in Central and South
Contra Costa County.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Forward the report to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and approval to send a letter to
the State Fire Marshal requesting a review of the IMP for the Kinder Morgan pipeline in Central
and South Contra Costa County.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
Kinder Morgan IMP Attachment
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and
infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list.
Referral Update:
In developing state legislative items to bring forward for the Committees consideration, staff
considers the County's adopted 2014 State Legislative Platform (attached), consults with our state
legislative advocate (Mark Watts - Smith, Watts & Martinez LLC), and coordinates with partner
agencies and organizations.
In addition to the report provided by Mr. Watts below, the following is attached for the
Committees consideration:Attached are items relevant to the subject item for the Committees
consideration and reference:
Contra Costa County Adopted 2014 State Legislative Platform1.
DRAFT - Contra Costa County School Siting and Safety Initiative2.
CSAC/CEAC Budget Proposal – Transportation Items3.
Table: Active Transportation Program Proposal Fund Estimate4.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) State Legislative Advocacy Platform5.
School Siting (See attached white paper/policy proposal, "Contra Costa County School Siting
and Safety Initiative")
The California Department of Education reports that the state needs anywhere from $6 billion to
$12.3 billion in school-construction dollars, according to the report, and about $4.7 billion in
modernization funding.
California’s school bond money from state sources may be tapped out, but local schools and
districts have more than $37 billion in authorized – but unspent – school-construction bonds,
according to a recent report by the state’s debt commission. State law requires local school
districts to have enough revenue to make payments on the borrowing. But the recession likely
upended that math and put a chill on bond sales. A key reason for locals’ reticence to sell bonds
was a lack of state matching funds, according to a report by a committee assisting the
Superintendent of schools.
Any plan for a new state GO Bond would have to win over Gov. Jerry Brown. In his proposed
budget earlier this month, Brown voiced skepticism about local school projects relying on
significant help from the state…“any future program should be designed to provide districts with
the tools and resources to address their core facility gaps, but should also avoid an unsustainable
reliance on state debt issuance that characterizes the current school facilities program,” the budget
summary reads.
The key measure shaping up at this point is a spot bill introduced by Assembly Member
Buchanan, AB 1581, and others are anticipated to be introduced in the coming month.
The expected pressure to move a GO Bond to the ballot presents an opportunity to incorporate
elements of the adopted county-adopted Legislative Platform related to School Siting into the
measure.
Iron Horse Update
Mark Watts has a session scheduled with the new Chair of the California Transportation
Commission later in February to introduce the Iron Horse Trail matter.
Voter Tax Threshold Effort
The Governor has not signaled support for a measure in 2014 for voter approval to be place on the
General Election ballot in November. Moreover, he has limited his policy in the general area to
supporting a modification of the vote requirement related to Infrastructure districts.
Transportation Secretary Kelly has indicated in the context of his the California Transportation
Infrastructure Priorities Work Group (CTIP) that any measure that is intended to provide voter
threshold reduction for transportation entities should be required to be accompanied by a measure
that addresses additional funding for state transportation lifetime costs related to improvement
projects on the state system.
As described previously, there are 8 measures in the legislature that would seek to change the
constitution to reduce the voter approval threshold for a variety of local taxes, including 3 that are
directly applicable to local transportation taxes. However, beyond the challenges represented
above, there is a critical political overlay to consider. Recent polling performed by statewide
transportation coalitions, which track public attitudes on the voter threshold matter clearly
demonstrate that voters are not ready to approve such a concept. The following table reflects this:
Q: Would you favor or oppose a statewide ballot measure to allow local taxes to be approved by a
55% vote, rather than the current two-thirds vote requirement?
Favor Oppose No Opinion Margin
Nov., 2012 45 45 10 0
Feb., 2013 41 50 9 -9
Active Transportation Program
Guidelines
The guidelines for an initial two-year program of projects available through 2015 must be adopted by March 26,
2014. No later than 45 days prior to adopting the initial set of guidelines for the Active Transportation Program, the
Commission must submit the draft guidelines to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
Schedule
The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development and adoption of the 2014 Active
Transportation Program:
Commission adopts Fund Estimate Completed December 11, 2013
Guidelines hearing, South Completed January 22, 2014
Guidelines hearing, North Completed January 29, 2014
Guidelines submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee Completed February 3, 2014
Commission adopts Active Transportation Program Guidelines March 20, 2014
Call for projects Key Date March 21, 2014
Project applications to Caltrans Key Date May 21, 2014
Large MPOs submit optional guidelines to Caltrans May 21, 2014
Commission approves or rejects MPO guidelines June 25, 2014
Staff recommendation for statewide and rural/small urban portions of the program August 8, 2014
Commission adopts statewide and rural/small urban portions of the program August 20, 2014
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
The following entities, within the State of California, are eligible to apply for Active Transportation Program funds:
• Local, Regional or State Agencies- Examples include city, county, MPO, and Regional Transportation
Planning Agency.
• Caltrans
• Transit Agencies - Any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds under the
Federal Transit Administration.
• Natural Resource or Public Land Agencies - Federal, Tribal, State, or local agency responsible for natural
resources or public land administration.
Active Transportation Program - Example Projects And CTC Fund Estimate
Example Projects
Below is a list of projects considered generally eligible for Active Transportation Program funding. This list is not
intended to be comprehensive; other types of projects that are not on this list may also be eligible if they further the
goals of the program.
Development of new bikeways and walkways that improve mobility, access, or safety for
nonmotorized users.
Improvements to existing bikeways and walkways, which improve mobility, access, or
safety for non-motorized users.
Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways and walkways.
Preventative maintenance of bikeways and walkways with the primary goal of
July, 2013 37 57 6 -20
Oct., 2013 39 55 6 -16
Nov. 2013 35 57 8 -22
Preventative maintenance of bikeways and walkways with the primary goal of
extending the service life of the facility.
Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Safe Routes to School projects that improve the safety of children walking and bicycling to
school, in accordance with Section 1404 of Public Law 109-59.
Safe routes to transit projects, which will encourage transit by improving biking and walking
routes to mass transportation facilities and school bus stops.
Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, rail and transit stations,
and ferry docks and landings.
Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit, including rail and ferries.
Establishment or expansion of a bike share program.
Recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to
nonmotorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails.
Development of a bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or active transportation plan in a
disadvantaged community.
Education programs to increase bicycling and walking, and other non-infrastructure
investments that demonstrate effectiveness in increasing active transportation, including but
not limited to:
Development and implementation of bike-to-work or walk-to-work school day/month
programs.
Conducting bicycle and/or pedestrian counts, walkability and/or bikability assessments
or audits, or pedestrian and/or bicycle safety analysis to inform plans and projects.
Conducting pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.
Development and publishing of community walking and biking maps, including school
route/travel plans.
Development and implementation of walking school bus or bike train programs.
Components of open streets events directly linked to the promotion of a new
infrastructure project.
Targeted enforcement activities around high pedestrian and/or bicycle injury and/or
fatality locations (intersections or corridors). These activities cannot be general traffic
enforcement but must be tied to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
School crossing guard training.
School bicycle clinics.
Development and implementation of programs and tools that maximize use of
available and emerging technologies to implement the goals of the Active
Transportation Program.
2014-15 State Budget
Overview
The new budget proposed by Governor Brown calls for spending $154.9 billion from all funds, about a 5 percent
increase over the current year, including $106.8 billion from the general fund. It projects spending on K-12 schools
will grow to almost $70 billion, an increase of $22 billion from 2011-12.
In general state general fund revenues increase from $100 million in the current year to more than $104 million in
the budget year, which combined with a healthy carry-over balance permits proposed general fund spending of
$108 million, up from $102 million. Also, the proposed budget continues to display a healthy reserve of $1.9 billion
and a jump start on the proposed “Rainy Day fund” of $1.6 billion.
Due to the lack of detail available at this time this review relies on the Governor’s Budget Summary for
information; as more details are available I will update this report.
Key Budget Highlights:
Key Budget Highlights:
• $11 billion spent on debt reduction, over the next 3 fiscal years
• Transit and rail receive new funding and SHOPP and local roads maintenance benefit from early repayment of
outstanding loans to the General fund
• Motor Vehicle Fuels sales continue to decline
• New “rainy-day fund” plan for November ballot
• Spending on K-12 schools will grow to almost $70 billion, an increase of $22 billion from 2011-12.
• 4.2 percent funding increase for UC, CSU; no tuition increases
• 5 percent welfare grant increase
Transportation
The Budget includes total funding of $15.3 billion ($83 million General Fund and $15.2 billion other funds) for all
programs administered within the CalSTA Agency.
Appropriation of Proposition 1B Bond Funds — The Budget proposes $1.1 billion in bond funds and
administrative cost savings that Caltrans has generated in its management of the bond program.
The funding includes $793 million to support local transit operators, $160 million for intercity rail, and $113
million for additional state highway projects.
Cap and Trade Funding for Transportation — The Budget includes Cap and Trade funds for programs that
will be administered in full, or in part, by Caltrans (see more detailed under Cap and Trade information, below).
• Rail Modernization — The Budget proposes $300 million in new funding for rail modernization; including
$50 million for Caltrans and $250 million for the High?Speed Rail Authority.
The $50 million in the Caltrans budget will fund competitive grants for existing rail operators to integrate rail
systems and to provide connectivity to high?speed rail. The program will be managed by the Transportation
Agency, and the work of southern and northern California rail partner groups will be considered in making
project selections.
• Sustainable Communities Strategies — The Budget proposes $100 million for the Strategic Growth
Council support implementation of SB 375 sustainable communities strategies. The program will fund transit
and transit oriented development that includes low?income housing; active transportation; agricultural land
preservation; and related planning..
Repayment of General Fund Loans — The Budget includes $351 million in early General Fund loan
repayments. Of the total to be repaid, $337 million will be used to accelerate preservation and maintenance projects
on both state highways and local roads that would otherwise be funded in 2015?16 or thereafter. Accelerating
existing projects will allow for new projects to be added to the SHOPP in future years.
Additionally, the proposed repayment includes support for sustainable communities through funding of active
transportation and environmental mitigation. Funds from the repayment of General Fund loans will be allocated as
follows:
• $110 million to fund pavement rehabilitation projects on state highways.
• $100 million to cities and counties for preservation of local streets and roads.
• $100 million for traffic management mobility projects.
• $27 million for highway pavement maintenance.
• $9 million for active transportation projects.
• $5 million for environmental mitigation.
Capital Outlay Support Program — The Capital Outlay Support program provides the resources necessary
for design, environmental review, right of way, and construction oversight work for Caltrans’ capital projects.
This year’s budget continues the efforts to bring workload review and zero-based budgeting to key department
programs. While Caltrans will continue to explore longer term improvements to both its processes and its internal
controls, the Administration is putting forward the following recommendations:
controls, the Administration is putting forward the following recommendations:
(1) Improve project budgets through the development of a predictive tool to help establish initial project budgets
that account for various factors like project types, environmental permits, and location,
(2) Create a methodology for the use of flexible resources to meet overall staffing needs,
(3) Increase accountability and transparency by aligning support cost guidelines currently used for the State
Transportation Improvement Program and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program,
(4) Consolidate and streamline statewide program management manuals and directives to increase project
management efficiency and consistency across all 12 districts.
High Speed Rail Authority
Cap and Trade Funding — The Budget includes $250 million in Cap and Trade expenditures for Phase I
project planning ($58.6 million) and construction and right of way acquisition for the first phase of the Initial
Operating Section ($191.4 million).
According to the Governor, this is part of Rail Modernization, which also includes $50 million for urban, commuter
and intercity rail operators. Proposed legislation establishes an ongoing state commitment of Cap and Trade
proceeds to high-speed rail, which will facilitate future phases of the initial operating segment.
In addition to previously identified federal and Proposition 1A bond funds, the new Cap and Trade funds are critical
to addressing the overall funding needs for the initial operating segment, leveraging additional funding
opportunities, and moving the project forward while legal issues surrounding Proposition 1A are being resolved.
Moving the project forward with Cap and Trade funds will help meet the state matching requirements in the federal
grant agreement and will help avoid long-term project escalation costs
Cap and Trade
The Air Resources Board has held five auctions to date. The remaining two auctions for
2013-14 will occur in February and May 2014. Currently, GHG emissions from electricity and large industrial
sources are subject to the cap. The sale of allowances consigned to auction by electric distribution utilities resulted
in proceeds of $836 million, to be used as directed by the California Public Utilities Commission or governing
boards for ratepayer benefits consistent with the goals of AB 32. In addition, the five auctions to date have
generated $532 million in state auction proceeds.
The Budget proposes to invest $850 million of Cap and Trade proceeds to support existing and pilot programs that
will promote GHG reductions and meet SB 535 goals. This amount includes repayment of $100 million of the 2013
Budget loan, with the remaining balance being repaid within the next few years.
The Budget proposes to invest in both near-term emission reductions and projects that support California’s
longer-term climate targets. Finally, these programs improve air and water quality, invest at least $225 million for
the benefit of disadvantaged communities, and create jobs.
Specifically, the Cap and Trade Expenditure Plan proposes investments in the following programs:
Sustainable Communities and Clean Transportation
• Rail Modernization — $300 million to continue the work of modernizing and integrating rail transportation.
These funds will continue the work begun in 2012, when the Legislature approved Chapter 152, Statutes of 2012
(SB 1029), which provided $7.8 billion in state and federal funds to start construction of high-speed rail and to
modernize existing rail systems across the state. The Budget proposes the following allocation:
• High-Speed Rail — $250 million for the High-Speed Rail Authority for construction of the Central Valley initial
construction segment and further environmental and design work on the statewide system. Proposed legislation
provides an ongoing state commitment of Cap and Trade proceeds to high?speed rail, which will leverage
additional federal support for the project and facilitate future phases of the initial operating segment from Merced to
the San Fernando Valley.
• Integration of Rail Systems — $50 million for the Department of Transportation to administer a competitive grant
program for existing rail operators for capital improvements to integrate rail systems, including those located in
disadvantaged communities, and provide connectivity to the high?speed rail system.
• Sustainable Communities — $100 million in local assistance funding to support regions in the implementation of
the sustainable communities strategies required by SB 375, and to provide similar support to other areas with GHG
reduction policies, but not subject to SB 375 requirements.
The Strategic Growth Council will coordinate this program with consultation with a multi-agency team of
departments, including Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, the Department of Housing and
Community Development, and the Natural Resources Agency. Selected projects will prioritize disadvantaged
communities and will reduce GHG emissions by increasing transit ridership, active transportation (walking/biking),
affordable housing near transit stations, preservation of agricultural land, and local planning that promotes infill
development and reduces the number of vehicle miles traveled.
• Low Carbon Transportation — $200 million for the Air Board to accelerate the transition to low carbon freight
and passenger transportation, with a priority for disadvantaged communities. This investment will support the
state’s clean air and climate change goals, as well as the Administration’s goal to deploy 1.5 million zero-emission
vehicles in California by 2025. The Air Board administers existing programs that provide rebates for zero-emission
cars and vouchers for hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses. This proposal will respond to increasing demand
for these incentives, as well as provide incentives for the pre-commercial demonstration of advanced freight
technology to move cargo in California, which will benefit communities near freight hubs.
• Other Activities - $140 million for other activities ranging form Water Action Plan/Wetlands and Coastal
Watersheds, Fire Prevention and Urban Forests, to Waste Diversion.
Local government
Infrastructure Finance District Modernization
Specifically, the Governor proposes legislation to do the following:
• Expand the types of projects that IFDs can fund to include military base reuse, urban infill, transit priority
projects, affordable housing, and associated necessary consumer services. The goal is to maintain the IFD focus on
projects which have tangible quality-of-life benefits for the residents of the IFD project area.
• Allow cities or counties that meet specified benchmarks to create these new IFDs, and to issue related debt,
subject to receiving 55-percent voter approval.
• Allow new IFD project areas to overlap with the project areas of the former RDAs, while strictly limiting the
available funding in those areas to dollars available after payment on all of the former RDA’s approved obligations.
• Maintain the current IFD prohibition on the diversion of property tax revenues from K-14 schools, which will
ensure any usage will have no state General Fund impact, and require entities that seek to establish an IFD to gain
the approval of the county, cities, and special districts that would contribute their revenue, including residual
revenue, to the IFD.
State Fuel Sales
The state continues to see a declining usage and sales of motor vehicle fuels. The gallons of gasoline consumed
were down 0.74 percent in 2012-13 when compared to the prior fiscal year.
Gasoline consumption is expected to decrease 0.67 percent in both 2013-14 and 2014-15. Because most diesel fuel
is consumed by the commercial trucking industry, the gallons consumed are affected most significantly by general
economic conditions. A recovering economy is expected to contribute to growth of 2 percent in diesel consumption
per year in 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenue
(Dollars in Thousands)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Preliminary Forecast Forecast
Gasolin e $5,170 ,066 $5,684 ,733 $5,208 ,178
Diesel 320 ,576 327 ,082 333 ,721
Total $5,490 ,642 $6,011 ,815 $5,541 ,899
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
CC County School Siting and Safety Initiative
Active Transportation Program Proposed Fund Estimate
CSAC/CEAC Budget Proposal – Transportation Items
CCTA State Leg Priorities
DRAFT Contra Costa County School Siting and Safety Initiative (12/17/13)
Schools have a large and enduring effect on the character and safety of the surrounding community due to the intensity of
activity at the site and the vulnerable nature of the population served. Currently, the process by which schools are located
and designed can result in adverse safety, community development, and public health outcomes. The State has
acknowledged some of these issues in recent studies 1 and intends on addressing them in 2014 2. Interested agencies and
organizations will need to engage in the 2014 legislative and policy development process in order to ensure reforms are
adequate. This paper provides an overview of the issue, identifies existing processes, and potential reforms.
The current process of selecting and developing new school sites in California has substantial flaws. This flawed
process can result in poorly functioning school sites, some of which have been acknowledged by the state in
recent reports1. Examples of poor school site function are:
• Inadequate or ill-conceived transportation infrastructure 3 which causes avoidable congestion and/or chaotic circulation
patterns both of which ultimately result in unsafe conditions.
• School locations that have no or limited access to critical municipal services (e.g., fire, sewer, water) and/or are too
distant from the population served to support walking & biking 4.
• School locations that undermine local/state policies such as sites that are outside urban limit line/urban growth
boundary, in agricultural areas, preclude access by walking and cycling, undermine AB32/SB375 goals, etc.
• The safety and access issues mentioned above drain very limited Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds, and
• Certain sites are contentious and strain relations between City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and School Boards.
The current process has local school districts largely responsible for school siting and design. Unfortunately, school
districts have limited policies, authority, and expertise that would ensure that school sites have positive outcomes
related to safe access and broader community development goals. It is the cities/counties, and the State that carry
out these duties. In more detail:
• The state has substantial statutes and polices 5 that should inform school siting and design but school districts are not
compelled to reflect these policies in their school siting decisions.
• Under state law, cities and counties are granted land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties have little
ability to influence the selection and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt
themselves from local land use planning authority6.
• Local school districts develop and design school sites independent 6 of the aforementioned state and local land
development policies. This disconnect is acknowledged by the state in their recent studies1.
This disconnect can be addressed through regulations tied to a state school construction and modernization bond
that is anticipated in 2014. This approach has been suggested by the State during their December 2012 Policy
Symposium 7 and in the Governors 2013-14 Budget Proposal2. The following are draft concepts to be considered in
addressing school siting and design requirements attached to the proposed 2014 bond or with legislation
developed in parallel: (next page)
1 2012 - California’s K-12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable
Communities, Report to the CA Department of Education by UC Berkley Center for Cities and Schools, and 2011 - Schools of the Future Report,
Tom Torlakson/State Superintendent of Public Instruction
2 Governor’s 13-14 Budget Report, “…now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities…”/“School districts
and their respective localities should have appropriate control of the school facilities construction process and priorities.”
3 Little to no bicycle/pedestrian supportive infrastructure, school sites in a cul-de-sac or with single points of access, etc.
4 “…studies show that the distance between home and school is the strongest predictor of whether students walk/bike to school.” Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 2012 “School Site Selection and Off-site Access”
5 AB32/SB375, The Complete Streets Act, Safe Routes to School concepts, and the Health in All Policies Initiative
6 Government Code §53091(a)-53097.5: This section allows school district preemption from local zoning ordinances.
7 Partnering with K-12 in Building Healthy, Sustainable, and Competitive Regions: Policy Symposium: Proceedings Summary & Next Steps:
“These efforts will inform the legislative debates over the possibility—and priorities—of a future statewide K-12 school construction bond.”
John Cunningham, Sr. Transportation Planner | Contra Costa County-Dept. of Conservation and Development|john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
• Limit the ability of school districts to preempt local zoning ordinances6. This would bring schools under the influence
of SB375 given that the cities and counties ultimately implement the sustainable communities strategy.
• Whether new school siting policies are advisory or more prescriptive is critical. Considering that there are existing
advisory documents that should result in high quality school sites (but don’t) it suggests that new policies will need to be
compulsory in order to have the desired effect.
• Coordination of attendance boundaries between school districts, cities/counties should be compulsory.
• Statutes for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) provide a role for LAFCOs in school site
development 8 and could be expanded. At a minimum, 1) school districts should be required to consult with LAFCO
when a new school site is being proposed, and 2) LAFCO should discourage the extension of municipal services to
school sites located in agricultural and open space areas pursuant to LAFCO law. More prescriptive requirements
should be considered in areas with an adopted Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary.
• Legislation should require revised School Site Selection and Approval Guide and Guide to School Site Analysis and Development.
Critical revisions should be moved from guidance to statutes. [revisions are too voluminous to list here]
• School districts, when approving a new site must 1) make findings, w/evidence, that the decision is consistent with
relevant requirements in statute, 2) provide a full-cost accounting (construction, land, off-site infrastructure
[utility/transportation], costs borne by other agencies, community, etc.), of site options, and 3) the approval must
include a comprehensive (auto & active modes) circulation plan signed and stamped by a traffic engineer.
• The State acknowledges a greater share of bond proceeds should be directed to modernization programs than in new
school construction7. Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive
School Area Safety Initiative and include the following which would modernize existing schools:
SR2S 9 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.
Redefinition of School Zone in state law: Currently, in the vehicle code, school zone signage is limited to 500’ and
1000’. These limits are not reflective of actual pedestrian/bicycle access patterns at K-12 schools and inconsistent
with SR2S funding/projects/concepts and the State’s Health in All Policies Initiative. The prescriptive figures should
be increased (1320’ minimum) and local agencies should have discretion to further expand the zone based on
knowledge of attendance boundaries, travel sheds, as established in a traffic study.
Reauthorize and fund implementation of Double Fine School Zone (DFSZ) statute: In 2002 AB 1886 was
passed which implemented a DFSZ as a pilot in specified areas 10. The statute was allowed to sunset in 2007.
Implement a Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Protection Law: VRU protection laws establish the concept
“whoever can do the most damage has an obligation to be the most careful”. Oregon has such a statute and the
League of American Bicyclists has drafted model legislation 11.
Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet
Common Core State Standards and include in-class and in-field lessons with a dual benefit of decreased
injuries/deaths and increased walking/biking. California already has numerous communities implementing this
and would be a natural leader to implement a statewide effort.
The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on automobile speeds: The study will 1) document the change
in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to vast improvements in vehicle technology, and 2)
document how that (assumed) change in speed has impacted other road users.
8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.
9 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is typically a program that has a goal of making it safe and convenient children (K-12) to bicycle and walk to
school. Strategies typically fall in to the “Five E’s”; evaluation, education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement and can include capital
projects (sidewalks/paths), bicycle safety/rules of the road training, increased police presence, crossing guards, etc.
10 The post-mortem report to the legislature on the program (by CHP) did not endorse it and gave a negative review of the program. The lack of
success was likely related to the fact that little to no resources were devoted to implementation.
11 801.608 “Vulnerable user of a public way”: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors801.html
http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/bikeleague.org/files/bikeleague/bikeleague.org/action/images/vru_story.pdf
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) PROPOSAL
FUND ESTIMATE
(S in thousands)
2-Year
201 3-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
RESOURCES
ST ATE RESOURCES
Beginning Balance $0
State H ighway Account 34,200 34,200 3 4,200 68,400
State Res ources S ubtotal $34,200 $34 ,200 $34,200 $68,400
FEDERA L RES OURCES
Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) $63,650 $63,650 $63,650 $127,300
TAP Recreational Trails 1,900 1,900 1,900 3,800
Other Federal 19,950 19,950 19,950 39,900
Federal Resources Subtotal $85,500 $85,500 $85,500 $171,000
TOTAL R ESO UR CES AVAILABLE Sll 9,700 I Sl19,700 Sll9,700 I $239 400 I
DISTRIBUTION
URBAN REGIONS (MPO Administered)
State ($13,221) ($13,221) ($13,221) ($26,442)
Federal (34,659 (34,659) (34,659 (69,318)
Urban R ee:ions S ubt otal ($47,880 ($47,880) ($47 880 ($95,760
SMALL URBAN & R URAL REGIONS (State Administered)
State ($4,829) ($4,829) ($4,829) ($9,658)
Federal (7,141) (7,141) (7,141) (14,282
S mall Urban & Rural Regions Subtotal ($11 ,970 ($11 ,970) ($11 ,970 ($23,940
STATEWIDE COMPETITION (State Administered)
State ($16,150) ($16,150) ($16,150) ($32,300)
Federal (43,700) (43,700) (43,700) (87,400)
S tatewide Competition S ubtotal ($59,850 ($59,850) ($59,850 ($119,700
TOTAL DIS BURSEMENTS ($119 700\1 ($119 700\ ($11 9 70(1\1 ($23 9 400\l
3-Year
Total
so
102,600
$102,600
$190,950
5,700
59,850
$256,500
$359100
($39,663)
(103,977)
($143,640
($1 4,487)
. (21 ,423
($35,910
($48,450)
(1 31,100)
($179,550)
($359 100\
Notes: Individu al numbers may not add TO total due to independent rounding. Final dollar amounts may vary based oo aclual appMionmenl and obtigatiooal
authority by FHW A or any changes in Federal guidance.
To: County Public Works Directors
CEAC Transportation Committee
From: Kiana Buss, CSAC Legislative Representative
Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst
RE: FY 2014‐15 January Budget Proposal – Transportation Budget Items
Summary
Consistent with the Governor’s overarching theme to address remaining budgetary debt and long
term funding liabilities, the Governor’s FY 14‐15 January State Budget Proposal directs $1.7 billion in
additional funding over the current budget year to transportation infrastructure. As described in
detail below, this revenue comes from two key sources including appropriation of Cap and Trade
auction revenue and the early repayment of transportation loans, which counties will benefit from
in part.
Highway User Tax Account Funding
Pursuant to the 2011 Transportation Tax Swap, which replaced the sales tax on gasoline with an
additional increment of annually adjusted gasoline excise tax, the Governor’s proposed budget
estimates that the tax rate will decrease in FY 14‐15 by 3.1‐cents from 39.5‐cents to 36.4‐cents.
Citing reduced consumption in fuel revenues, a reduction in the tax rate will provide
correspondingly reduced revenues to counties and cities for local street and road maintenance as
well as to the State for highway preservation. To be clear, the reduction in revenues is not the result
of state borrowing or taking of local revenue. CSAC staff is investigating further details to better
prepare counties for the anticipated reduction in funding and will share allocation amounts as soon
as they are available.
California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities Working Group
Last year’s budget directed the Secretary of Transportation to convene the California Transportation
Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP) Working Group, which included representation from CSAC, to discuss
and prioritize the state’s transportation expenditures. The Governor’s 2014‐15 budget tiers off those
stakeholder discussions and identifies the Administration’s priorities, specifically:
Maintaining the State's existing transportation infrastructure,
Modernizing rail services, and
Supporting local governments as they implement SB 375.
In support of those priorities, the Governor proposes investing Cap and Trade proceeds for high‐
speed rail and rail integration and local implementation of sustainable communities projects. The
Governor also proposes continued appropriation of Proposition 1B bonds funds, although bond
funds for local streets and roads agencies have already been appropriated, and the early repayment
of $351 million in previous transportation loans to the General Fund, including $100 million in
repayments to cities and counties.
The CTIP Working Group will continue to meet in 2014 with a focus on larger structural issues,
including implementation of recommendations from the upcoming external review of CalTrans,
implementation of goods movement strategies, and discussion of alternatives to address declining
revenues from fuel excise taxes.
Early Repayment of Transportation Loans
The Governor’s budget proposes debt reduction of $11 billion in 2014‐15, including early repayment
of $351 million in General Fund borrowing from transportation funding. This loan from FY 2010‐11
was most recently set to be repaid in FY 2020‐21. The Governor proposes to appropriate $100
million to counties and cities for preservation projects on the local street and road system. The loan
repayment will go through the base gas tax formula, allocating $31.5 million to counties through
Streets and Highways Code Section 2104, and $32 million and $16 million to cities and counties
through Streets and Highways Code Section 2105 and 2106, respectively, and $20 million to cities
through Streets and Highways Code Section 2107.
In addition to the city and county share, $137 million is allocated to state highway pavement
maintenance and rehabilitation, $100 million to traffic management mobility projects, $9 million to
bicycle and pedestrian projects and $5 million to environmental mitigation.
Cap and Trade for Sustainable Communities
The Governor's FY 2014‐15 January Budget proposes to appropriate $850 million in Cap and Trade
revenues. $100 million of this is a partial repayment of the $500 million FY 13‐14 Cap and Trade
loan. The proposed allocation is as follows:
Investment Category Department Program Amount
Sustainable Communities
& Clean Transportation
High Speed Rail Authority Rail Modernization $300
Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities $100
Air Resources Board Low Carbon Transportation $200
Energy Efficiency & Clean
Energy
Dept. of Community
Services and
Development
Energy Efficiency Upgrades &
Weatherization
$80
Dept. of General Services Green State Buildings $20
Dept. of Food & Ag Agricultural Energy &
Operational Efficiency
$20
Dept. of Water
Resources
Water Action Plan ‐ Water &
Energy Efficiency
$20
Natural Resources &
Waste Diversion
Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Water Action Plan ‐ Wetlands
& Watershed Restoration
$30
Dept. of Forestry & Fire
Protection
Fire Preservation & Urban
Forestry Projects
$50
Cal Recycle Waste Diversion $30
TOTAL $850
Under the Governor’s budget proposal, there is no specific local government funding category for
Cap and Trade revenues as CSAC has been advocating for. However, local governments will likely
have access to portions of several different funding categories‐‐ sustainable community funding as
well as a portion of the energy efficiency and natural resource categories.
While the details released in the budget are limited, counties are expected to have access to the
$100 million in Cap and Trade funds proposed for sustainable communities for specified
transportation purposes, such as active transportation. The Governor intends to allocate this
funding to the Strategic Growth Council, which will make grants to regional and local agencies.
Based on statements from the State Transportation Agency, CSAC believes that counties outside of
the large Metropolitan Planning Organizations that were required to develop Sustainable
Communities Strategies pursuant to SB 375 will also be able to apply for grant. According to the
budget, eligible projects will include transit and transit‐oriented development that includes
affordable housing, bike and pedestrian projects, agricultural land preservation, and related
planning. It is unclear at this time whether local street and road maintenance is an eligible use under
the Governor's plan.
High‐Speed Rail
The High‐Speed Rail Project – the development of a high‐speed passenger train connecting San
Francisco to Long Angeles/Anaheim with extensions to San Diego, Sacramento, and points in
between – will continue to move forward under the Governor’s FY 14‐15 January Budget Proposal.
As noted above in the Cap and Trade Section, the Governor’s proposal directs $300 million in
auction revenues to the Project, $50 million of which is for competitive grants for existing rail
connectivity projects. The remaining $250 million is for planning, right‐of‐way acquisition, and
construction for the Initial Operating System. The budget also notes that in light of the overall price
tag and legal difficulties with the High‐Speed Rail bond, the Governor is making an on‐going
commitment of Cap and Trade revenues to the project.
Five‐Year Infrastructure Plan
The Administration intends to release a Five‐Year Infrastructure Plan in conjunction with the January
State Budget Proposal, although the full plan is not available at the time of this writing. The budget
summary indicates that given the State's increased debt burden and General Fund constraints, the
plan will not rely heavily on new lease‐revenue bonds to solve the State's infrastructure crisis.
However, the Administration is committed to beginning to address the deferred maintenance of the
State’s expanse of critical infrastructure in the next fiscal year. Overall, the budget proposes $815
million in one‐time investments in maintenance of the State's infrastructure including roads and
highways, schools, public safety/corrections facilities, state hospitals, etc. as follows:
Highway User Tax Account Loan Repayment: $337 million
K‐12 Schools Emergency Repair Program: $188 million
California Community Colleges: $175 million
Department of Parks and Recreation: $40 million
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: $20 million
Judicial Branch: $15 million
Department of Developmental Services: $10 million
Department of State Hospitals: $10 million
Department of General Services: $7 million
State Special Schools: $5 million
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: $3 million
California Military Department: $3 million
Department of Food and Agriculture: $2 million
Caltrans Zero‐Based Budgeting Review
Pursuant to an Executive Order, the Department of Finance and Caltrans began in 2013 a multi‐year
plan to conduct a zero‐base budget analysis of all Caltrans programs. In 2013, the review focused on
Caltran’s Capital Outlay Support Program, which provides the resources for design, environmental
review, right of way, and construction oversight for Caltran’s capital projects, and the Caltrans
Aeronuatics Program.
For the Capital Outlay Program, the review suggested changes to improve the development of initial
project budgets through the creation of a predictive tool with inputs for project type, etc; creation
of a methodology to allow flexible staff resources; increasing accountability by aligning STIP and
SHOPP support cost guideline; and consolidating and streamlining statewide program management
manuals and directives across all 12 Caltrans districts.
The review found that the Aeronautics Program had appropriate staffing to complete it’s duties, the
budget recommends transferring funding from an undersubscribed loan program to provide
additional state matching funds for federal aviation grants for local airports.
Proposition 1B
The budget proposes allocation of $1.1 billion in Proposition 1B funds in 2014‐15. The vast majority
of the funding, $793 million, will go to transit operators under the Public Transportation
Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Program, but there are also
significant allocations for intercity rail ($160 million) and state highway projects ($113 million), and
$10 million for local bridge seismic retrofitting.
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and
infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list.
Referral Update:
In developing items to bring forward for the Committees consideration, staff considers the
County's adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform (attached), consults with our federal
legislative advocate (Paul Schlesinger - Alcalde & Fay), and coordinates with partner agencies
and organizations. At this time staff is highlighting the items below for the Committees
consideration:
MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) Reauthorization
MAP-21, the current surface transportation funding bill, is scheduled to expire in September of
this year. While the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has initiated the process
to reauthorize, there are no specific proposals to respond to at this time. Staff will continue to
monitor progress on this effort and bring specific issues to your attention as they arise.
Attached are items relevant to the subject item for the Committees consideration:
Contra Costa County Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform1.
Reports from Alcalde & Fay on 1) MAP-21 Reauthorization and 2) proposed Omnibus
Spending Bill
2.
Communication from California State Association of Counties re: potential revenue options
(gas tax/vehicle miles traveled fee) and priorities for reauthorization.
3.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Federal Legislative Advocacy Platform
(CCTA has not had a federal platform in the past)
4.
As the reauthorization effort proceeds, and the platform of our partner agencies/organizations
become available or are revised, staff will bring specific issues for the Committees consideration
and action.
and action.
In the past this item would include consideration of requests for federal funding earmarks for
specific transportation projects. These requests are no longer included given the moratorium on
earmarks.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
CSAC Communication Re Federal Leg Priorities
A&F Federal Update
DRAFT Federal Legislative Advocacy Platform-2014
CCC 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
1
John Cunningham
From:Chris Lee <clee@counties.org>
Sent:Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:37 PM
To:Chris Lee
Cc:Kiana Buss
Subject:RE: MAP 21 Reauthorization Priorities - transportation revenues
To: CEAC Transportation Committee
Public Works Directors
We wanted to share this article as background information related to our highest priority for transportation
reauthorization. Our federal advocates point out that while the Chairman opposes a gas tax increase, he has indicated
that he favors a VMT fee.
February 04, 2014, 10:44 am
House Transportation chairman opposes gas tax hike
By Keith Laing
The chairman of the House Transportation Committee on Tuesday ruled out an increase in the federal gas tax this year to pay for transportation
projects.
Transportation advocates argue that increasing the federal gas tax from 18.4 cents per gallon would be the easiest way to shore up the trust fund that
Congress uses to pay for road and transit projects.
But Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said Tuesday during an event hosted by the Washington, D.C.-based Building America’s Future group that
"economically, it's not the time" to raise the gas tax.
He added that he was not sure there was enough support from lawmakers or the public to move forward with such a proposal.
The Department of Transportation has projected that the Highway Trust Fund, which is facing a $20 billion shortfall, would run out of money in
September without additional congressional action.
Shuster is pushing for passage of a new transportation funding bill this year, and had previously said he would be open to any option for shoring up
the trust fund’s finances.
The gas tax has not been increased since 1993, and its revenue stream has been dwindling as Americans drive less and choose more fuel-efficient
vehicles.
The idea of increasing the gas tax to pay for more transportation projects has drawn rare consensus from business and labor groups.
The sponsor of a bill in the House to nearly double the tax to 33.4 cents per gallon, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), told The Hill he was
disappointed in Shuster’s decision to oppose the tax increase.
“I’m not surprised he doesn’t like the gas tax. I don’t like the gas tax,” Blumenauer said in a statement. “That’s why I would like the phased in gas
tax increase to be the last time Congress acts to raise the gas tax. But, we need something to bridge the gap until we get a sustainable fee system like
VMT [Vehicle miles traveled] in place or transportation funding will come to a standstill at the end of September.”
Blumenauer said he is “glad [Shuster’s] engaged in this conversation” and that he'd be “eager to hear his other ideas.”
2
The current surface transportation funding bill, which includes the authorization of the gas tax at its current level, is scheduled to expire in
September. The date coincides with the Department of Transportation’s projected bankruptcy deadline for the Highway Trust Fund.
The expiring transportation measure was passed in 2012. It provided only two years of funding, compared to previous five- or six-year appropriation
bills, because lawmakers struggled to close a shortfall between the gas tax collections and infrastructure spending.
Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said at Tuesday’s event that the easiest way to provide the additional funding would be to increase the
gas tax.
“Nothing is going to create the kind of money that increasing the gas tax and indexing does,” the former DOT chief said. “And then use tolling, raise
TIFIA [the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act], do more TIGER [Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery]
money, do all of these things. But only do it after you replenish the fund that has built America and put America back to work.”
LaHood, who served as Transportation secretary when Congress passed its last transportation bill, called the 2012 measure a “joke.”
"We need someone to step up and say we need a six-year bill; we need to increase the gas tax; we need to index it," LaHood said. "I would increase it
10 cents."
Shuster said during his remarks he was hoping for a long-term transportation bill as well, despite his opposition to increasing the federal gas tax.
LaHood said lawmakers should at least consider indexing the gas tax to future inflation rates.
"The idea of indexing is so critical to the future," he said. "If they'd have indexed it in '93, I don't think we'd be having this conversation."
Other ideas that have been floated by transportation advocates include replacing the gas tax on drivers altogether in favor of a fee that is paid by oil
wholesalers.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said last fall that it was worth exploring
the possibility of doing away with the gas tax after states such as Virginia had experienced success in making similar switches.
— This story was last updated at 5:44 p.m.
From: Kiana Buss
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 3:32 PM
To: Kiana Buss
Cc: Chris Lee
Subject: MAP 21 Reauthorization Priorities - Final Draft - Last Chance to Provide Input
To: CEAC Transportation Committee
County Public Works Directors
From: Kiana Buss, CSAC Legislative Representative
Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst
Re: MAP 21 Reauthorization Priorities ‐ Final Draft ‐ Last Chance to Provide Input
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21), the federal surface transportation authorization measure,
is set to expire on September 30, 2014. Congress has already started to hold informational hearings to consider policy
and fiscal issues for the next reauthorization. For our part, in order to effectively advocate on behalf of counties during
these reauthorization discussions, CEAC/CSAC has developed the attached priorities for MAP 21 reauthorization. Staff
will take the MAP 21 reauthorization priorities to the CSAC Board of Directors for approval at their February 20th
meeting.
3
Staff has circulated this document to the CEAC Transportation Committee a number of times via email and at committee
meetings over the past year. This version is substantially similar to previous versions. The only notable difference is the
Highway Bridge Program priority now includes an option to reestablish the bridge program OR dedicate a set‐aside for
local on‐system bridge projects. The MAP 21 reauthorization priorities are consistent with existing CEAC/CSAC policy and
our previous federal transportation funding efforts. However, please let us know if you have any questions or final
comments regarding the final draft policy before the CSAC Board meeting on February 20th.
Thanks in advance for your attention to this issue.
Kiana Buss
Legislative Representative
Housing, Land Use, & Transportation Policy
California State Association of Counties
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 327‐7500 ext. 566
Fax: (916) 321‐5061
kbuss@counties.org
See: Web / Facebook / Twitter / The County Voice
California State Association of Counties
***DRAFT***
CSAC PRIORITIES FOR MAP 21 REAUTHORIZATION
Pending Approval by CSAC Board of Directors
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Increase Federal Revenues for Transportation Infrastructure
Without immediate, bold action by Congress, the Highway Trust Fund will continue to face insolvency.
Existing federal revenues continue to fall short of meeting the funding needs to bring our nation’s surface
transportation infrastructure into the next century. Our future economic prosperity, our commitment to
progressive environmental stewardship, and our dedication to the health, safety, and welfare of the
traveling public and all Americans demands a significant reinvestment into the transportation network.
CSAC urges Congress to enhance revenues for investment in our national transportation infrastructure.
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) – the unified voice of California’s 58 counties –
believes that until the funding issue is addressed, we will not make significant progress in improving our
critical transportation infrastructure. California’s counties and cities are facing an $82 billion funding
shortfall over the next ten‐years for the maintenance and preservation of the local system, let alone other
vital modal needs. On average, pavement conditions are “at risk” and without a surge of new revenue, 25‐
percent of California’s local roads will be in failed condition by 2022. News article after news article
discusses staggering figures about the condition of the nation’s bridges – an estimated 8,000 bridges
nationally are structurally deficient or fracture critical. In California, 950 bridges need replacement and
over 1,800 are in need of rehabilitation.
The demands on our infrastructure are relentless – Californians log 300 million vehicle miles traveled
annually, which is more than the current system was ever intended to accommodate. At the same time,
our existing sources of revenue are declining due to necessary improvements in fuel economy and hybrid,
electric, and alternative fuel vehicle technology. In order to address pressing environmental concerns,
ranging from air quality and climate change to impacts on our water resources and energy demands, the
nation must continue its work to advance technological improvements in fuel economy, alternative
vehicles such as zero emissions vehicles, and reduce the amount people must drive to access work,
school, home, services, and recreation. These challenges will only exacerbate our current funding
dilemma.
CSAC’s policy supports a variety of new revenues sources from increasing the federal gas tax to assessing
a user fee that more accurately charges motorists for their use of the system than traditional revenues
sources. Failing to address the severe funding issue within the next reauthorization effort will only
negatively impact the condition of our system, our economy, our environment, and the overall quality of
life for Americans. Increased revenue is our highest priority for MAP 21 reauthorization.
In addition to the preeminent priority of addressing the ongoing revenue shortfall, CSAC submits the
following additional policy and programmatic priorities for consideration by Congress.
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Restore the Highway Bridge Program
Provide dedicated revenue for on‐system highway bridge projects, either by creating a set‐aside
similar to the off‐system highway bridge set‐aside or restoring the Highway Bridge Program as a core
program. Increase dedicated funding for preventative maintenance on, and replacement of, bridges.
This is a critical safety issue.
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Focus on Safety
Increase funding for safety infrastructure projects on the existing transportation system.
Programs/projects must be aimed at reducing the greatest number of fatalities regardless of
ownership of the system.
Ensure the rural road system, where fatality rates are the highest, retains dedicated funding.
Promote and increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and programs.
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Fix‐it‐First
Provide increased funding for maintenance and preservation of the existing system. Reinvesting in the
system now prevents exponentially higher costs down the road.
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Improve Environmental Stewardship & Address Climate Change
Provide financial incentives to States that adopt and set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions
targets and programs to accomplish those targets.
Provide incentives in current programs and/or provide new funding sources for climate change
neutral or friendly transportation projects and programs.
Provide financial incentives for rural sustainability.
Provide financial support for regional and countywide planning processes that integrate
transportation and land use planning to reduce GHG emissions.
Provide funding for retrofitting equipment and for alternate fuel infrastructure.
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Streaming Project Delivery & Environmental Review
Approve a state‐federal environmental reciprocity pilot program.
Support streamlining of federal regulations to facilitate more expeditious project delivery.
Ensure that federal project oversight is commensurate to the amount of federal funding.
MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Increase Flexibility to Meet State, Regional, and Local Needs
Maximize the use and flexibility of federal funds by not requiring minimum federal matches.
Eliminate the need to program multiple phases for small projects.
Eliminate need for TIP programming for air quality neutral projects.
CSAC MAP 21 Reauthorization Priority: Assistance for Data Collection
Provide funding, training, tools, and uniform standards for the collection of roadway and traffic data
specifically for the local and rural roadways.
Provide assistance for data collection, and determining and quantifying GHG emissions, and other
important data for addressing climate change in long‐range transportation plans.
For more information regarding these priorities and principles, please contact:
Joe Krahn, Waterman & Associates, (202) 898‐1444
Kiana Buss, California State Association of Counties, (916) 327‐7500 ext. 566
January 24, 2014
MEMORANDUM
Building the Foundation for Surface Transportation Reauthorization
______
On January 14, 2014, the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee
held a hearing entitled, “Building the Foundation for Surface Transportation
Reauthorization,” to receive testimony from witnesses representing both the public and
private sectors regarding their priorities for the next surface transportation
reauthorization bill. During the hearing, the Committee examined several critical
aspects of the reauthorization bill, including the following: the proposed process and
timeline for drafting and advancing a bill through Congress; potential strategies for
updating the funding mechanism for transportation projects; and the role of the federal
government in funding transportation projects with specific focus given to transit
projects.
The full list of witnesses testifying before the Committee is included below, along with
links to their corresponding testimony:
Honorable Mary Fallin, Governor, State of Oklahoma (on behalf of the National
Governors Association)
o Testimony
Mr. Stuart Levenick, Group President, Caterpillar Inc.
o Testimony
Honorable Kasim Reed, Mayor, City of Atlanta (on behalf of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors)
o Testimony
Mr. Lawrence Hanley, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union
o Testimony
In his opening remarks, Chairman Bill Shuster (R‐PA) announced that it was his
intention to have a bill drafted and ready for Committee action by the “late spring or
early summer,” and that in the interim there would be several additional hearings and
roundtable discussions so that the Committee members could meet with stakeholders to
page 2 of 4
hear their “policy priorities and concerns.” The Chairman said it was his hope to have
the bill approved by the Committee and on the House floor before the August recess in
order to provide adequate time to conference with the Senate on their version.
As you recall, the current authorization bill, MAP‐21, which was signed into law in the
summer of 2012, was essentially a two‐year bill and is currently scheduled to expire on
September 30, 2014. The short timeline is compounded by the fact that the Highway
Trust Fund (HTF), which has been the primary source of federal funding for highway,
highway safety, and transit projects, has faced a growing shortfall in recent years as the
revenue it generates from gasoline (primiarily), tire, and heavy truck taxes has suffered
a steady decline. Despite a transfer of nearly $19 billion from the general fund, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the HTF will not be able to meet its
obligations to states by early Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. As such, Congress will need to
modify the existing financing program or use new and innovative revenue‐generating
methods, to provide sufficient funding for surface transportation. Despite these
concerns, the Chairman was optimistic that the Committee and Congress could
duplicate the bipartisan efforts surrounding the pending reauthorization of WRDA in
order to advance a bill prior to the deadline.
In their testimony and responses to questions from Committee members, the witnesses
did agree that a longer‐term bill was needed in order to provide state and local entities,
and in turn private companies, with the certainty needed to institute long‐term
transportation planning efforts. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin noted that there was a
bipartisan consensus among Governors across the country that the bill needed to
provide “long‐term vision and funding stability,” in order to better meet the nation’s
“diverse mobility needs.” This sentiment was echoed by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed,
who specifically called for a six‐year bill, saying that while MAP‐21 made several
important reforms, “a two‐year bill doesn’t help us very much.” When asked by
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes‐Norton (D‐DC, ranking Democrat of the Highway
and Transit Subcommittee) about the need for a long‐term bill, Mayor Reed also
suggested that with regard to the nation’s competitiveness in the global economy, as
well as the competitiveness of cities in the regional and national economies, “without
long‐term planning, we’re just giving it (our competitiveness) away.” He also stressed
that mayors need to be at the table in discussions on this bill, suggesting that they know
best what works and does not work at the local level and so could provide the
Committee with new and innovative ideas to incorporate into the reauthorization bill.
Another key point of agreement among several of the witnesses was on the issue of
public‐private‐partnerships (PPP) and the role they might play in financing
transportation projects. Governor Fallin commended the Committee for its role in
page 3 of 4
securing MAP‐21’s increase in funding and support for TIFIA (Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act), which she heralded as a strong tool for
leveraging private dollars. When asked by Congressman André Carson (D‐IN) for his
thoughts on partnering with the private sector on transportation infrastructure, Mayor
Reed said that PPPs “are going to have to be part of the solution, because you have so
much wealth that is prepared to invest.” However, he cautioned that we should not
allow PPP solutions to crowd out access for “traditional labor,” suggesting again that it
was critical when undertaking these projects “to have everyone at the table to show that
you can compete.” Speaking from his experience in his role as President of the
Amalgamated Transit Union, Mr. Lawrence Hanley provided an opposing view, stating
that private companies brought with them certain risks and outside influences that
could negatively affect transit, and that “government can effectively run transit and
government does effectively run transit.” Speaking on the topic of seeking more
involvement by private companies into public transit, Mr. Hanley further explained
that “as we seek to improve transit by injecting the importance of a profit motor for
private companies, we will fail.”
On the issue of the federal role in funding public transit, Congressman Richard Hanna
(R‐NY) questioned Mr. Hanley about why people who use mass transit do not pay
something to the federal government, as do highway users who pay through a gas tax.
Congressman Hanna noted that there “is currently no quid pro quo” for these people,
and that it was especially important since Mr. Hanley was there “asking for more
money.” In response, Mr. Hanley said that people using public transit already pay for
this service because, “they pay huge fares, they pay incomes taxes, they pay real estate
taxes … all fund transit.” However, Congressman Hanna again noted that “people who
use the rest of the transportation system have historically paid directly,” without a
subsidization, unlike the current system for transit financing. Subsequently in the
hearing, Chairman Shuster took a conciliatory tone with both sides of the transit
funding debate, clarifying that public transit did provide benefits to the overall system
and that the federal government does provide funding for highways, with the
difference being that unlike transit it’s a “user‐based system … so if you use it you pay
for it.ʺ However, he also suggested the issue of subsidization for public transit should
be discussed further and in greater detail in order to close the gap between the current
model and making public transit profitable. Recalling his own experiences on Amtrak,
the Chairman admitted that whenever he saw the ticket price and then sat down and
factored in “gas, tolls, parking, my productivity goes from zero when I’m driving to 100
percent,” he knew he should be paying more.
Also of interest was Q&A regarding the broader role of the federal government in
providing funding for transportation infrastructure, and whether there was merit to
page 4 of 4
“devolution”; eliminating most federal assistance for transportation through a
reduction of transportation‐related revenue and a transfer of responsibility over federal
highway and transit programs away from the federal government and to the states and
municipalities. The idea of devolution was raised in the House during deliberations on
MAP‐21, and Congressman Tom Graves (R‐GA) and Senator Mike Lee (R‐UT) have
introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act in both the House and Senate (H.R.
3486 and S. 1702, respectively). However, all four witnesses agreed that while there was
certainly room to improve programs, increase flexibility, and in some cases leverage
private funding; the federal government needed to have a major role in financing
transportation projects. Governor Fallin went so far as to clarify that she did not want
her comments in support of utilizing innovative state plans to be viewed as a signal to
devolve funding back to the states, instead saying that “states can’t pick up the load by
themselves and we need to have a national vision for a national transportation
infrastructure system.” When asked for further clarification by Ranking Member Nick
Rahall (D‐WV), the Governor again stressed that there needs to be a “partnership
between federal, state and localities to work together.”
Similarly, Congressman Peter DeFazio (D‐OR) asked Caterpillar Inc.’s Group President
Stuart Levenick about his opinion of devolution. Mr. Levenick said that Caterpillar does
not support such proposals and that in fact, “the federal government has always had a
constitutional role in creating a national system of transportation that supports the
common good, and we couldn’t agree with that more.” Mr. Levenick also commended
states for developing their own innovative financing systems and recommended that
Congress thoroughly review such plans when developing the next reauthorization bill
as they could be used to strengthen the national transportation network. However, he
emphasized that devolution was not a practical solution due to its negative impacts on
the national transportation network, suggesting that if devolution were implemented
and the country ultimately ended up with “a patchwork of 50 different solutions, you
don’t have a network.”
We will continue to follow progress on the reauthorization of the nation’s surface
transportation programs and provide updates accordingly. If we may answer any
questions or provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
January 2014
ALCALDE & FAY
FISCAL YEAR 2014 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Congressional appropriators this week released details of a $1.012 trillion bipartisan spending
package (HR 3547, The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014), which incorporates all 12
annual appropriations bills into one “Omnibus” bill and funds the government through the
remainder of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 which ends on September 30, 2014.
The Omnibus bill is reflective of the budget agreement that passed in December which set
overall discretionary spending levels for FY 2014 and 2015 and partially restored funding cut
by sequestration. The measure would provide a 2.6 percent increase in discretionary spending
from the $986.3 billion, sequester‐set level for FY 2013. Under pressure from leadership, the
measure keeps a tight rein on new funding and effectively freezes appropriations for President
Obamaʹs healthcare program at the reduced, post‐sequester level. Despite these reductions, the
Administration announced its support for the spending package and the President is expected
sign the bill into law once Congress approves the measure later this week.
Proposed funding levels for programs generally of interest to local governments have been
highlighted below as provided in the explanatory statements accompanying the omnibus bill,
as well as the House and Senate Appropriations Committee summaries. Please let us know if
you have any questions or would like additional information on specific agreement details not
provided below.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The bill provides $20.9 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Agriculture, $350
million above the FY 2013 enacted level.
Water and Waste Disposal Program
$1.752 billion, $248 million above FY 2013 for the water and waste disposal program, which
provides loans and grants to assist communities in obtaining clean water and sanitary waste
disposal systems.
Community Facilities Program
$2.288 billion to assist rural communities with essential community facilities, including:
hospitals, schools, health clinics, libraries, day care centers, public safety buildings and
equipment.
page 8
Job Corps
$1.7 billion, $14 million less than the FY 2013 enacted level, is provided to help unemployed,
young Americans receive education, job training, and employment assistance
Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS)
$269.5 million, which is $5.1 million above the FY 2013 enacted level, is included for VETS.
This includes $14 million for the Transition Assistance Program to help new veterans receive
training for civilian employment and job search assistance.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The bill includes $17.8 billion in discretionary appropriations, $164 million below the FY 2013
enacted level. Key program funding includes:
TIGER Discretionary Program
$600 million is provided for TIGER grants, which is $126 million more than the FY 2013 level.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
$41 billion in obligation limitation funding for the Federal Highway program, which reflects
level authorized in the MAP‐21 transportation authorization legislation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
$12.4 billion is provided for the FAA, $168 million below the FY 2013 enacted level, to
support the full operations of the air traffic control system, including the hiring and training
of air traffic controllers and safety inspectors. Funding is preserved for the FAA’s Next
Generation air transportation systems (NextGen), and $3.35 billion in “obligation limitation”
funding is provided for airport construction projects. However the omnibus bill does not
include the Administration’s proposals for new passenger facility fees.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
$1.6 billion is provided for FRA programs, which $34.6 million below the FY 2013 enacted
level for railroad assistance and rail safety programs. Also no funding is provided for High
Speed Rail initiatives.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
$2.15 billion, a decrease of $100 million below the FY 2013 enacted level, is included for FTA
programs. The bill allows $8.6 billion in state and local transit grant funding from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, which is consistent with MAP‐21, in order to
help local communities build, maintain, and ensure the safety of their mass transit systems.
$1.942 billion is provided for Capital Investment Grants (“New Starts”), full funding for state
and local “Small Starts,” and funding for all current “Full Funding Grant Agreement”
page 9
projects. When combined with available prior year transit funds, $2.132 billion is available
for all New Start programs.
OTHER AGENCIES
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Army Corps of Engineers is funded at $5.5 billion, an increase of $487 million above the
FY 2013 enacted level, focusing funding on navigation and flood control projects to advance
public safety, boost U.S. export ability, create jobs, and help ensure our waterways stay open
for business. Within the total, the bill provides: $642 million above the request for essential
flood control and navigation projects; $2.3 billion for navigation projects and studies; more
than $1 billion in funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and $1.6 billion for public
health and flood and storm damage reduction activities, including $247 million for critical dam
safety improvements.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (EDA)
The bill provides $247 million, $28 million more than the FY 2013 enacted level, for
investments that will leverage regional assets to support the implementation of regional
economic development strategies designed to create jobs, leverage private capital, and
encourage economic development.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
The bill provides $8.2 billion for the EPA, which is $143 million below the FY 2013 enacted
level, and includes approximately $2.35 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds, which provides grants to states for local drinking water and sewer
construction projects.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
The NSF is funded at $7.2 billion, a decrease of $82 million below the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. This funding is targeted to programs that help strengthen U.S. innovation and economic
competitiveness, including funding for an advanced manufacturing science initiative, and for
research in cybersecurity and cyber‐infrastructure.
ATTACHMENT B 14-5
ATTACHMENT B 14-6
Adopted 2014 Federal Platform
ADOPTED 2014 FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE
PLATFORM
Contra Costa County
January 14, 2014
2
2014 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts a Federal Legislative Platform that establishes
priorities and policy positions with regard to potential federal legislation and regulation. The
2014 Federal Legislative Platform identifies 10 funding needs for FFY 2015; 4 requests for the
reauthorization of the federal transportation act; and 6 requests for the reauthorization of the
Water Resources Development Act.
FEDERAL RELATED FUNDING NEEDS
The following list is a preliminary ranking in priority order. Adjustments to the priority order may be appropriate
once the President releases his budget. The current priority ranking gives preference to those projects that we know
will not be included in the President’s budget, with lower priority to Army Corps of Engineers projects which may
be in the budget. Also, Army Corps project requests will be adjusted to be consistent with Corps capability.
1. Delta LTMS-Pinole Shoal Management, CA – $3,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers
to continue a Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for levee rehabilitation, dredging and
sediment reuse in the Delta, similar to the effort completed in the Bay area. Levee work, reuse of
dredged sediments, dredging and other activities have been difficult to accomplish due to
permitting problems and a divergence of priorities related to water quality. Significant levee
rehabilitation is critical to the long term stability of these levees and to water quality and sup ply
for the 23 million Californians who depend upon this water. Stakeholders from the Department
of Water Resources, Ports, Army Corps, levee reclamation districts, local governments and other
interested parties are participating in the LTMS. A Sediment or Dredged Material Management
Office will be established, and in the longer term, preparation of a Sediment Management Plan
will consider beneficial reuse of dredged materials as one potential source of sediment for levees.
(Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2005; $225,000 for FFY 2006; $500,000 for FFY 2007; $462,000
for FFY 2008; $235,000 for FFY 2009; $100,000 for FFY 2010; $0 since.)
2. Safe and Bright Futures for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence – $400,000 to
implement the federally funded plan to diminish the damaging effects of domestic violence on
children and adolescents and to stop the cycle of intentional injury and abuse. A three year
assessment and planning process resulted in a program plan that is working to align and create a
system responsive to the needs of children exposed to domestic violence through identification,
early intervention; raising awareness; training professionals; utilizing and disseminating data;
establishing consultation teams to support providers in intervening and using best practices; and
developing targeted services. Exposure to domestic violence reshapes the human brain and is the
primary cause of trauma in children’s lives. It influences personality, shapes personal skills and
behaviors, impacts academic performance, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law
enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. Exposure to domestic violence is
associated with greater rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and adverse health outcomes in
adulthood, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law enforcement, civil/criminal
justice and social services. (Note: $428,000 appropriated for FFY 2009; $550,000 for FFY 2010.)
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
3
3. Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean-up – $483,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to
complete the Technical Planning Process for the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean-up Project.
The project will clean up the mine in a cost effective, environmentally-sound manner with
minimal liability exposure for the County and involving all stakeholders through an open
community-based process. The Corps initiated a Technical Planning Process in June 2008 to
develop a preliminary remediation plan, identify applicable permit and environmental data
requirements and complete a data collection and documentation program for the clean -up of the
Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. Several phases of the planning process have been completed, and this
appropriation will allow the Corps to continue the planning process, which will include looking
at watershed issues downstream of the mercury mine. The mine site is located on private
property on the northeast slope of Mt. Diablo at the upper end of the Marsh Creek watershed.
(Note: $517,000 appropriated in FFY 2008.)
4. Bay-Delta Area Studies, Surveys and Technical Analysis – $2,500,000 for the Delta Counties
Coalition to carry out technical analysis and planning associated with participation in the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) or implementation of any projects resulting from the Plan. The
technical analysis and planning will focus on issues related to the planning of water delivery
projects and conservation plans that are included in the BDCP.
5. CALFED Bay Delta Reauthorization Act Levee Stability Improvement Program (LSIP) –
$8,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for levee rehabilitation planning and project
implementation. The CALFED Reauthorization Act, passed in January 2004, authorized $90
million, which may be appropriated for levee rehabilitation work. The Corps has prepared a
“180-Day Report” which identifies projects and determines how these funds would be spent.
Since that time, the breakdown of CALFED, coupled with the Army Corps’ attempts to define an
appropriate and streamlined process, has delayed funding and resultant levee work. (Note:
$500,000 appropriated for FFY 2006; $400,000 for FFY 2007; $4.92 million for FFY 2008; $4.844
million for FFY 2010.)
6. Suisun Bay Channel/New York Slough Maintenance Dredging – $11,000,000 for the Army
Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging of this channel to the authorized depth of minus 35
feet. Continued maintenance is essential for safe transport of crude oil and other bulk materials
through the San Francisco Bay, along the Carquinez Straits and into the Sacramento/San Joaquin
Delta. Dredging for this channel section is particularly costly due to requirements on placement
of dredged materials in upland environments. An oil tanker ran aground in early 2001 due to
severe shoaling in a section of this channel, which creates a greater potential for oil spills (Note:
$4.559 million appropriated for FFY 2005; $4.619 million for FFY 2006; $2.82 million for FFY 2007;
$2.856 million for FFY 2008; $2.768 million for FFY 2009; $3.819 million for FFY 2010.)
7. San Pablo/Mare Island Strait/Pinole Shoal Channel Maintenance Dredging – $2,500,000
for the Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging of the channel to the authorized
depth of minus 35 feet. The Pinole Shoal channel is a major arterial for vessel transport through
the San Francisco Bay region, serving oil refineries and bulk cargo which is transported as far
east as Sacramento and Stockton. (Note: $1 million appropriated for FFY 2005; $2.988 million for
FFY 2006; $896,000 for FFY 2007; $1.696 million for FFY 2008; $1.058 million for FFY 2009; $2.518
million for FFY 2010.)
4
8. San Francisco to Stockton (J. F. Baldwin and Stockton Channels) Ship Channel
Deepening – $2,900,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the Deepening Project.
Deepening and minor realignment of this channel will allow for operational efficiencies for
many different industries, an increase in waterborne goods movement, reduced congestion on
roadways, and air quality benefits. Phase one work focused on establishing economic benefit to
the nation and initial salinity modeling in the channel sections. The second and final phase
includes detailed channel design, environmental documentation, cost analysis, additional
modeling, and dredged material disposal options. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2005;
$200,000 for FFY 2006; $200,000 for FFY 2007; $403,000 for FFY 2008; $1.34 million for FFY 2009;
$0 for FFY 2010; $0 for FFY 2011; $800,000 for FFY 2012.)
9. State Route 4 / Old River Bridge Study – $1,000,000 to work with San Joaquin County and
the State of California on a study of improving or replacing the Old River Bridge along State
Route 4 on the Contra Costa / San Joaquin County line. The study would determine a preferred
alternative for expanding or replacing the existing bridge, which is part of State Route 4. The
existing bridge is narrow, barely allowing two vehicles to pass each other, and is aligned on a
difficult angle relative to the highway on either side, requiring motorists to make sharp turns onto
and off of the bridge. The project would improve safety and traffic flow over the bridge. (Note:
no appropriations for this project as yet.)
10. Knightsen/Byron Area Transportation Study - $300,000 to re-evaluate the Circulation
Element of the County General Plan (GP) to improve its consistency with the Urban Limit Line
(ULL) and related policies that ensure preservation of non-urban, agricultural, open space and
other areas identified outside the ULL. Policies will be evaluated to provide a more efficient and
affordable circulation system for the study area, serve all transportation user-groups, support the
local agricultural economy and accommodate the commuter traffic destined for employment
centers outside the study area. Zoning and development regulations would be updated to
implement the study recommendations.
REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
expired in 2009. SAFETEA-LU was renewed on ten occasions until the new program, Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century (MAP-21) - a two year bill – was signed into law on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 is a 27-month bill that
will expire September 30, 2014. The following are priority projects for which funding will need to be secured in the
next multi-year transportation bill.
1. Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project -- $18 million for improvements to a 2.5-mile
accident-prone section of Vasco Road. Project components include widening the roadway to
accommodate a concrete median barrier and shoulders on either side of the barrier, construction
of the barrier, and extension of an existing passing lane. The project will eliminate cross -median
accidents which have caused numerous fatalities in recent years, and will provide increased
opportunities for vehicles to safely pass (unsafe passing is a major cause of accidents and
fatalities on this segment of the increasingly busy two-lane undivided road). The project will
include provisions for wildlife undercrossings to preserve migration patterns. The proposed
improvements will complement a $10 million completed project that was funded with American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
5
1.b Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project Continuation -- $30 million for improvements to
the remaining 9 miles of accident-prone sections of Vasco Road. Alameda County has been
working on constructing improvements in their jurisdiction and it would be desirable for the two
counties to work together to complete the gap left in the concrete median barrier near the County
line. In addition to completing this gap, Contra Costa desires to extend the concrete median
barrier further north of the recently completed median barrier project to the Camino Diablo Road
intersection.
2. North Richmond Truck Route -- $25 million to construct a new road or other alternate
access improvements that will provide truck access between businesses and the Richmond
Parkway, moving the truck traffic away from a residential neighborhood and elementary school.
This project will increase safety, improve public health around the school and residential area by
reducing diesel particulate emissions from those areas, increase livability of the neighborhood,
improve local access to the Wildcat Creek Regional Trail, stimulate economic development in
the industrial area of the community and provide a better route for trucks traveling to and from
the Richmond Parkway. Several potential alignments have been identified, one of which was
developed through a community planning process funded through an Environmental Justice
planning grant from Caltrans.
3. Eastern Contra Costa Trail Network -- $10 million for a joint planning, environmental
review, right-of-way acquisition and constructions of a coordinated network of trails for walking,
bicycling and equestrian uses in eastern Contra Costa County including facilities and projects
improving access to existing or planned transit stations. Eligible trails include, but are not
limited to, (1) the Mokelumne Trail overcrossing of the State Route 4 Bypass ($6 million); (2)
Contra Costa segments of the Great California Delta Trail ($3 million); and (3) a transit
supportive network of East Contra Costa trails in unincorporated County areas and the cities of
Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley and Pittsburg ($1 million).
4. eBART Extension Next Phase Study/Environmental and Engineering -- $10 million for
environmental review and engineering work on the project identified in the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District’s (BART) eBART Next Segment Study in eastern Contra Costa County. With
regard to additional stations and eBART rail corridor alignment tasks may include, but not
necessarily be limited to, completion of environmental review, and partial completion of
engineering. Additional work may include, but not necessarily be limited to, evaluation and
refinement of alignment and stations, development of capital and operating costs, land use
analysis, completion of environmental review including appropriate mitigations, development of
preliminary engineering, and public outreach. (Potential Program: FTA – New Starts, FHWA/FTA
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality)
Rural Road Funding Program – The County supports the creation of a new funding program
that will provide funds for converting or upgrading rural roads into more modern and safer roads
that can better handle increasing commuter traffic in growing areas, such as East County. These
roads do not often compete well in current grant programs because they do not carry as many
vehicles as roads in more congested urban or suburban areas. As a result, improvements such as
widenings (turn lanes, clear zone/recovery areas, etc.), realignments, drainage improvements and
6
intersection modifications often go unfunded, leaving such roads with operational and safety
problems as well as insufficient capacity.
Transportation Funding for Disabled, Low-income, and Elderly Persons – Transit services for
elderly, disabled, and low-income persons are provided by the County, by some cities, by all of
the bus transit operators, and by many community organizations and non-profits that provide
social services. Increased funding is needed to provide and maintain more service vehicles,
operate them longer throughout the day, upgrade the vehicle fleet and dispatching systems,
improve coordination between public providers and community groups that also provide such
services to their clients, and expand outreach programs to inform potential riders of the available
services, among other needs. The County supports continuation and increased funding levels for
federal funding programs dedicated to transit services for these population groups. All of the
demographic trends point to a growing need for such services in the future. For example, the 65-
and-older population in the Bay Area is projected to more than double by the year 2030.
Surface Transportation Program/Highway Bridge Funding – The County supports the
continuation of funding levels consistent with the Highway Bridge funding program in
previous transportation funding bills that will provide funds for rehabilitating and replacing
our aging bridges. The County has several aging bridges with deficient sufficiency ratings.
Without federal transportation funding, these expensive projects would be deferred because
they often exceed the County’s funding capacity. Many of the bridges a re on critical
commute corridors, goods movement corridors, inter-regional routes, and farm to market
routes. Failure of these important transportation assets can cause major disruptions to the
transportation network.
REAUTHORIZATION OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRDA)
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 became law in November, more than seven years after the last
authorization bill. A new WRDA bill is anticipated in 2014. The following are prioritized projects the County
would submit for inclusion as the bill moves forward.
1. Army Corps Vegetation Policy – Proposed amendments to 1996 Water Resources
Development Act, Section 202: Flood Control Policy, (g) Vegetation Management Guidelines
include the following: Engineering Technical Letter 1110-2-571 is suspended until that time a
new policy is adopted. The policy guidelines shall be revised in accordance with the following:
(A) Levee vegetation management guidelines shall represent regional variations based on a
process that includes consultation with federal and state resource agencies, and preparation with
local and state flood control agencies and corps districts. (B) Guidelines must undergo
independent peer review which evaluates the structural and natural resource functions of
vegetation on levees and the risks and benefits to the levee structure. (C) Guidelines and
exemptions to them shall provide for protection of riparian and aquatic resources, reduction of
costs and other community impacts in balance with public safety. (D) Existing projects in which
the Corps has integrated vegetation into levees and floodwalls to meet project objectives and
regulatory requirements shall be exempt from the guidelines.
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
7
2. Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean-up – Authorize the Army Corps of Engineers, through their
Remediation of Abandoned Mine Site program (RAMS), to perform and complete the Technical
Planning Process and site characterization of the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine in Contra Costa
County as a demonstration project with no local match, and authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to construct the clean-up project at the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. This authorization
will allow the Corps to fund elements of the mine remediation project that any responsible
parties cannot. This would also allow the Corps’ RAMS program to resolve liability issues
associated with a clean-up project on private property and address mercury pollution on a
watershed basis. Since this is a demonstration project, the Corps would fund the full Technical
Planning Process, Remedial Investigation, design and project construction.
A 1995 study of Marsh Creek indicated the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine tailings are responsible for
88% of the mercury in Marsh Creek. In addition, mercury levels in fish in Marsh Creek
Reservoir downstream of the mine exceed the health standard concentration of 0.5 ppm.
3. Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Infrastructure Improvements – Contra Costa County,
together with the four other Delta counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo, has
requested authorization for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair infrastructure in the Delta.
This includes levees rehabilitation projects in the Delta as part of an overall system, rather than
on a county-by-county or island-by-island basis. As the Administration has recognized, this
ecosystem is among the most important in the nation, providing a source of drinking water for
more than 25 million people, supporting a $28 billion agricultural industry, and fostering a
thriving commercial and recreational fishing industry that contributes millions to the California
and national economies. The project is an authorization of $2.5 billion for the Army Corps of
Engineers to upgrade the levee system, including stockpiling rock to rebuild collapsed levees for
emergency response purposes at selected areas of the Delta. Because of the importance of the
Delta to the nation’s agriculture and economy, the request includes a modification of the
Federal/local cost share to 90% federal and 10% local.
4. Rodeo Creek, Section 1135 Project – The Contra Costa Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is seeking an 1135 project authorization for the Army Corps of Engineers
to prepare a study of the feasibility of restoring and enhancing wildlife resources in Rodeo Creek
between San Pablo Bay and Highway 80. The channel was designed and constructed to provide
adequate flood protection for the community of Rodeo and to control erosion of the creek. The
channel currently does this, but requires extensive, environmentally insensitive maintenance to
keep the channel functioning properly. In addition, the current channel design includes barriers
to migration of anadromous fish. The Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation
District would like to partner again with the Corps of Engineers under the Corps' 1135 program
to transform this outdated design into a sustainable, environmentally sensitive facility that better
serves the community and the environment.
5. Rheem Creek, Section 1135 Project – The Contra Costa Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is seeking an 1135 project authorization for Rheem Creek between the
mouth at San Pablo Bay and Giant Road. The Army Corps of Engineers' existing flood
protection project on Rheem Creek protects a number of commercial, industrial, residential and
open space areas in the Richmond / San Pablo area of Contra Costa County. Surrounding the
8
mouth of the creek is a large undeveloped parcel (Brunner Marsh) which has been acquired by
the East Bay Regional Park District for a future public park. Development of the adjacent lands
as a regional park provides a unique opportunity for an enhanced creek environment in an area
that will be very visible to the public.
6. Walnut Creek, Select Deauthorization – The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is seeking to deauthorize the downstream portion of the Corps’ Walnut
Creek project. The Flood Control District has been working with the Corps since 2002 on a
Feasibility Study to re-evaluate and modify the lower portion of the Walnut Creek channel.
Deauthorization of a select portion of the Corps’ Walnut Creek project would allow the Flood
Control District to move forward with a more cost effective modification project than through
the Corps process to modify this same portion of the channel.
APPROPRIATIONS AND GRANTS – SUPPORT POSITIONS
The following support positions are listed in alphabetic order and do not reflect priority order. Please
note that new and revised positions are highlighted.
Buchanan Field Airport – The County approved a Master Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport
in October 2008, which includes a Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Study and a
Business Plan for project implementation. The comprehensive planning effort has ideally
positioned Buchanan Field Airport for future aviation (general aviation, corporate aviation and
commercial airline service) and aviation-related opportunities. To facilitate the economic
development potential, the Business Plan prioritizes necessary infrastructure improvements for
Buchanan Field Airport (including potential replacement of the 60 year old control tower).
Further, as the Airport is surrounded by urban residential uses, enhancing the noise program
infrastructure is deemed essential for balancing the aviation needs with those of the surrounding
communities. The Federal government, primarily through the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), provides funding for planning, analysis, and infrastructure improvements. The County
will support funding in all these areas for protection and enhancement of our aviation facility and
network.
Byron Airport – The Byron Airport is poised for future general and corporate aviation and
aviation-related development, but that future growth and full build out of the airport as shown in
the Master Plan is dependent upon utility and infrastructure improvements both on and around
the Airport. The Byron Airport Business Plan prioritizes infrastructure and possible additional
land acquisition to assist the Byron Airport in fulfilling its aviation and economic development
potential. The Federal government, primarily through the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), provides funding for planning, analysis, infrastructure improvements and aviation land
acquisition. The County will support funding in all these areas for protection and enhancement of
our aviation facility and network.
East Bay Regional Communication System (EBRCS ) – A project to build the East Bay
Regional Communication System (EBRCS), a P25 Radio System infrastructure for Contra Costa
and Alameda County. This system will provide interoperable voice communication in both the
800 MHz and 700 MHz frequencies to all public safety and public services agencies within
Contra Costa County and Alameda County.
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
9
EBRCS will allow for interoperable voice communication within the region that can be
integrated with other P25 radio systems outside the geographical area of the EBRCS, for
example, with San Francisco. This project will provide Level 5 communications which is the
highest level of interoperable communications. This project will allow for everyday
interoperable communications, not just various levels of interoperability during big events or
disasters in which radio caches are deployed or gateway devices used.
Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program – Advocate/support
funding up to or above the authorized amount of $2 billion for the EECBG Program established
and authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The County’s
ability to continue offering programs/services improving energy efficiency and conservation
while also creating jobs is contingent upon additional federal funding being appropriated to the
EECBG Program in 2012 and beyond. Contra Costa and other local governments have identified
and designed many successful programs and financial incentives targeting both the private and
public sector which are now being implemented using EECBG funding authorized through the
ARRA of 2009. Funding for the EECBG program is necessary to ensure the nation’s local
governments can continue their leadership in creating clean energy jobs, reducing energy
consumption and curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lanes – $4.5 million for constructing northbound and $20
million for constructing southbound truck climbing lanes on Kirker Pass Road, a heavily used
arterial linking residential areas in eastern Contra Costa with job centers and the freeway system
in central Contra Costa. The truck climbing lanes are needed to improve traffic flow and will
also have safety benefits. The $4.5 million will close a funding gap and augment secured
funding: $6 million in Measure J (local sales tax measure) funds and $2.6 million in State
Transportation Improvement Program funds. The $20 million is the total cost of the southbound
truck climbing lane segment.
Regional Habitat Planning and Conservation – $85 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s “Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund” to keep pace with land costs
and the increasing number of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) throughout the country. The
County will support funding for the Fund to be restored to $85 million, the 2010 funding level.
This will provide much needed support to regional HCPs in California and nationally, including
the East Contra Costa County HCP. Given the prolific growth in the number of regional HCPs,
the Fund needs to be increased even more substantially in subsequent years. The East Contra
Costa County HCP has received $33.5 million from the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund in the past seven years and continuing this grant support is of vital
importance to the successful implementation of that Plan. The County will pursue increasing
appropriations to the Fund in partnership with numerous counties in northern and southern
California and will support requests of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition to
increase the Fund up to $85 million. The County will also request that the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC) include this Fund increase as a priority on CSAC’s federal
platform.
10
San Francisco Bay Improvement Act – $1 billion restoration bill authored by Congresswoman
Jackie Speier in 2010 but not passed. The bill, if passed, will help finance restoration of more
than 100,000 acres of the Bay's tidal wetlands. Funds from the bill would implement a
restoration plan that was adopted in 1993. In addition to benefits for fish and wildlife, wetlands
restoration will create new jobs and provide regional economic infusions, as well as protect
against the effects of sea level rise on the Bay's shores.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area – a bill authored by Senator Dianne
Feinstein in 2010 but not passed. The bill, if passed, will authorize and fund a National Heritage
Area (NHA) for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The NHA designation would be a first step in
providing federal resources to agencies in the Delta for economic development and environmental
protection. Contra Costa County supports the legislation and participated in a feasibility study
for the NHA through our seat on the Delta Protection Commission, which completed the study in
2012.
Vasco Road-Byron Highway Connector – $30 million for design, engineering and construction of
an east-west connector road between two major arterials that link Contra Costa County with
Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. The Vasco Road-Byron Highway Connector will improve
traffic circulation and linkages in the southeastern portion of the County and will provide a new
route for truck traffic that will remove a significant portion of truck trips which currently pass
through the rural community of Byron. Vasco Road is designated as State Route 84, and Byron
Highway is under study as the potential alignment for future State Route 239.
2014 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM POLICY POSITIONS
The following support positions are listed in alphabetic order and do not reflect priority order. Please
note that new and revised policy positions are highlighted.
Affordable Housing and Homeless Programs –For Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s
Homeless Assistance Grants, the County will support funding that does not include set-asides or
other requirements that limit local communities’ ability to respond to the particular needs in their
areas. For the Housing Assistance for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program, the County will
support legislation to update the formula used to allocate HOPWA grants to reflect local housing
costs as well as the number of AIDS cases.
The County supports full funding for HUD homeless assistance programs and funding for full
implementation of the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of
2009.
The County supports funding the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Resources made
available through the Trust Fund should be accessible to local housing and community
development agencies, including public housing authorities. As the present home mortgage
crisis demonstrates, homeownership is not for everyone. While we value and support the role
that homeownership plays in meeting affordable housing needs, any new production program
should prioritize efforts to address our nation’s acute shortage of affordable rental housing.
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
11
Agricultural Pest and Disease Control – Agriculture and native environments in Contra Costa
County continue to be threatened by a variety of invasive/exotic pests, diseases and non-native
weeds. The Federal government provides funding for research, regulation, pest exclusion
activities, survey and detection, pest management, weed control, public education and outreach.
The County will support funding in all these areas for protection of our agricultural industry and
open space. Consistent with the policy position, the County will also support legislation which
would authorize and direct the USDA to provide state and local funding for High Risk
Prevention programs (also called Pest Detection Funding).
Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials – As the beneficial reuse of dredged materials has a clear
public benefit, particularly in the Delta, the County will continue to support beneficial reuse in
general and also continue to advocate for funding for a federal study to determine the feasibility
of beneficial reuse, considering the benefits and impacts to water quality and water supply in the
Delta, navigation, flood control damage, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. The study would
include the feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for the dredged material, for
levee maintenance and/or ecosystem restoration. Language to authorize the study was included
in the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) which was passed into law on November
8, 2007.
Child Care – Research continues to show that quality, affordable childcare is a necessity to
ensuring a family’s stability and economic success. Currently in Contra Costa County, there are
over 10,000 low-income children eligible for affordable childcare services, yet only 29% of that
need is met. Research also shows that in addition to a child’s long-term success with school and
employment, investing in high-quality early care and education results in a higher than average
return on investments in the areas of crime reduction and positive health, education and
economic outcomes.
With regards to childcare, the County will support the President’s “Preschool for All” Initiative
meant to close America’s school readiness gap and ensure all children have access to quality care
by expanding high quality learning opportunities for children 0-5. This proposal includes:
An increase of over 100,000 new childcare slots and $12 billion over the next 10 years;
A focus on children and their families who are at or below 200% of poverty;
Financing through a new cost-sharing partnership with states, already a proven successful
model with Head Start in Contra Costa County.
The County will also advocate for the following federal actions:
Increase funding to support employment of low-income families through greater access
to child care subsidies, and increase the access of children from eligible families to high-
quality care that supports positive child development outcomes.
Provide flexibility at the state and local levels so that quality care can be balanced with
access and parental choice.
12
Child Support –The County will advocate for the following federal actions:
Eliminate the $25 fee for non-IV-A families.
Restore the incentive match payments that were prohibited in the Deficit Reduction Act.
Allow the automatic use of cash medical support to reimburse Medicaid expenditures.
Allow IV-D agencies to access Health Insurance records for the purposes of Medical
Support.
Child Welfare and Well-being –The County will advocate for the following federal actions:
Provide states with financial incentives, as opposed to monetary penalties, under the
Child and Family Services Reviews and minimize the significant administrative burden
associated with the review process.
End Title IV-E disallowances from federal audits that take away funds from an already
resource-strapped child welfare system. Allow states to reinvest these funds in preventing
child abuse and neglect.
Increase prevention dollars to help maintain children safely in their own homes. Federal
funding currently gives disproportional support to out-of-home care rather than to
preventing children from coming into care.
Any increase in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage should include an associated
increase in the Title IV-E matching rate to help support children in foster care.
Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs – The County’s ability to
continue funding to a variety of nonprofit agencies that provide critical safety net services to
lower income residents, including financing the development of affordable housing is threatened
by further cuts as part of the Budget Control Act (Act) passed by Congress in July 2011. The Act
established mandatory spending caps on most federal programs through 2021, and arranged
additional across-the-board annual spending cuts to federal defense and non-defense
discretionary (NDD) programs over this same period.
Included in non-defense discretionary programs are critical local government oriented programs
including the CDBG and HOME programs. These programs are successful and productive,
leveraging significant funding from non-federal sources to help spur economic development. The
County agrees that reducing the federal deficit is an important component of achieving long-term
national economic stability, but targeting solely NDD programs like the CDBG and HOME
programs will not achieve significant reductions and will hinder the County’s ability to provide
critical services to its most vulnerable populations. The County will continue to oppose any
further reductions in the CDBG and HOME programs as part of the Budget Control Act or any
other means.
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
13
Cost Shifts to Local and State Government – Contra Costa County performs many of its
services and programs pursuant to federal direction and funding. Other services and programs
are performed at the behest of the state, which receives funding through the federal government.
In the past, the Administration’s budget has contained significant cuts to entitlement programs
and/or caps on entitlements. Such actions could shift cost of services from the federal
government to the state and/or local governments (and to the extent that costs would shift to the
state, it is highly likely that these would be passed on to the County). The County will oppose
any actions that would result in cost shifts on federal entitlement programs or which would result
on greater dependency on county funded programs. In addition, the County will support federal
and state financial assistance to aid county and local government efforts to meet unfunded
federal mandates, such as those contained in the National Response Plan (NRP), the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), and the National Incident Management System.
Criminal Debt Collection – Nonpayment of court-ordered victim restitution, fines and fees is a
problem of epidemic proportions for all jurisdictions. Literally billions of dollars go uncollected
each year across the country, resulting not only in financial suffering of victims, but also the loss
of public revenue. Many states already allow for the offset of State Tax Refunds, and these
programs are successful in achieving revenue recovery. Federal Tax Refunds are already being
successfully offset to pay for delinquent child support. The County will support amendments to
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an offset against income tax refunds to pay for
court-ordered debts that are past-due.
Designation of Indian Tribal Lands and Indian Gaming – The Board of Supervisors has
endorsed the California State Association of Counties’ (CSAC) policy documents regarding
development on tribal land and prerequisites to Indian gaming. These policy statements address
local government concerns for such issues as the federal government’s ability to take lands into
trust and thus remove them from local land use jurisdiction, absent the consent of the state and
the affected county; the need for tribes to be responsible for all off-reservation
impacts of their actions; and assurance that local government will be able to continue to meet
its governmental responsibilities for the health, safety, environment, infrastructure and general
welfare of all members of its communities. The County will continue to advocate for federal
legislation and regulation that supports the CSAC policy documents.
The County will also advocate for limitations on reservation shopping; tightening the definition
of Class II gaming machines; assuring protection of the environment and public health and
safety; and full mitigation of the off-reservation impacts of the trust land and its operations,
including the increased cost of services and lost revenues to the County.
The County will also advocate for greater transparency, accountability and appeal opportunities
for local government in the decision-making processes that permit the establishment of Indian
gaming facilities. This includes sequencing the processes so that the Indian Lands
Determination comes first, prior to initiation of a trust land request and associated environmental
review.
The County will also consider support for federal action and/or legislation that allows Class III
gaming at the existing gaming facility only if it can be shown that any change would result in a
14
facility that would be unique in nature and the facility can demonstrate significant community
benefits above and beyond the costs associated with mitigating community impacts.
Economic Development Programs – Congress should fund all the complementary programs
within HUD’s community and economic development toolkit, ensuring that HUD does not lose
sight of the development component of its mission. To that end, the County will support
continued funding for the Section 108 loan guarantee program, the Brownfields Economic
Development Initiative and the Rural Housing and Economic Development program. Each of
these programs plays a unique role in building stronger, more economically viable communities,
while enabling communities to leverage external financing in a way the CDBG program alone
cannot do.
Federal “Statewideness” Requirements – For many federally funded programs, there is a
“statewideness” requirement; i.e., all counties must operate the specific program under the same
rules and regulations. This can hamper the County’s ability to meet local needs, to be cost
effective and to leverage the funding of one program to reduce costs in another program. Contra
Costa County cannot negotiate for federal waivers or do things differently because it is not a
state, yet its population is greater than seven states. Recognizing this is a very long-term effort,
the County will advocate for relaxation of the “statewideness” rule to allow individual counties
or a consortium of counties to receive direct waivers from the federal government and/or adopt
the rules and regulations currently in use in another state for specific programs.
Habitat Conservation Planning – The County will advocate for elevating the profile of Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs) such as the East Contra Costa County HCP within Congress and
Administration so that these critical federal/state/local partnerships can receive necessary
attention and support. HCPs are flagship programs for the federal gove rnment and supporting
effective implementation of approved HCPs should be a top priority for the U.S. Department of
the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and HCPs should be a key tool in any federal
climate change or economic stimulus legislation.
Health – The County will advocate for the following actions by the federal government: provide
enhanced Medicaid FMAP ("FMAP" is the "Federal Medical Assistance Percentage") for
Medicaid. It is the federal matching rate for state Medicaid expenditures. Increasing the federal
matching rate for states would free up state general fund money for other purposes and would
help counties as well.); suspend the Medicare “clawback” rule; suspend the “60-day rule” that
requires states to repay the federal government overpayments identified by the state prior to
collection, and even in instances where the state can never collect; ease the ability to cover those
eligible for Medicaid by making documentation requirements less stringent; and prevent the
implementation of the following seven federal regulations:
Outpatient hospital
Case Management
School Based Administration & Transportation
Public Provider Cost Limit
Graduate Medical Education
Rehabilitation Services Option
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
15
Provider Tax
Levee Restoration and Repair – The County will support legislation such as H.R. 6484, the
SAFE Levee Act (Garamendi) in 2012, which will authorize the U.S. Department of the Interior
to invest in Delta levee repairs, for all levees that are publicly owned or publicly maintained.
The bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis for the tunnel project being planned as part of the
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
Pension – The County will support legislation that would modify the Internal Revenue Code and
corresponding regulations to permit public employees to make an irrevocable election between
their current pension formula and a less rich pension formula.
In 2006, Contra Costa County and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association jointly obtained state
legislation that would allow members of the Association to make a one-time irrevocable election
between their current pension formula and a less rich pension formula, called Tier C . Orange
County and its labor organizations obtained similar legislation in 2009. However, neither
County has been able to implement this state legislation because such elections currently have
negative tax consequences for employees and for retirement plans under federal tax law as
interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service.
Like many local government entities nationwide, the County’s fiscal position would benefit
greatly from reduced pension costs. Allowing local government entities to implement collective
bargaining agreements and state legislation that permits employees to elect less rich pension
formulas would be a significant step in reducing pension costs.
Public Housing Programs – The County will support legislation that results in the
transformation of existing programs to improve their effectiveness and efficiency, in tandem
with the design of new and innovative responses, both to build upon recent progress and address
outstanding issues.
The County will support legislation to protect the nation’s investment in Public Housing:
Enact affordable housing industry proposal to allow public housing agencies (PHAs)
to voluntarily convert public housing units to Section 8 project-based rental assistance
in order to preserve this vital component of the national infrastructure
Oppose the Administration’s proposal to impose a $1 billion offset against the
operating reserves of responsible, entrepreneurial PHAs
Support the revitalization of severely distressed public housing units
Address safety and security concerns connected to drug-related crime
The County will support legislation to preserve vital community and economic development
programs:
16
Fully fund the Community Development Block Grant Program in order to create and
save jobs, revitalize local economies, and support critical services for vulnerable
populations
Maintain funding for HUD’s cost-effective economic development tools
The County will support legislation to strengthen and simplify the Section 8 Rental Assistance
programs:
Provide adequate funding for Housing Assistance Payment contract renewals and
ongoing administrative fees
Enact the Section Eight Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA)
Implement overdue regulatory and administrative revisions that ensure the efficient
use of program funds
The County will support legislation to expand Affordable Housing Opportunities and combat
homelessness:
Fully fund the Home Investment Partnerships Program and HUD’s homeless
assistance programs
Capitalize the Housing Trust Fund through a revenue-neutral approach
Preserve and strengthen the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
The County will support legislation to foster innovation, increase efficiency, and streamline the
regulatory environment:
Promote reasonable and flexible federal oversight
Incentivize green building and increased Energy Efficiency
Support HUD’s ongoing transformation efforts
Ensure that HUD releases and distributes federal funding in a timely manner
Eliminate statutory and regulatory barriers that prevent PHAs and redevelopment
authorities from accessing federal programs they are qualified to administer.
Retiree and Retiree Health Care Costs – The County operates many programs on behalf of the
federal government. While federal funding is available for on-going program operations,
including employee salaries, the allocation is usually capped, regardless of actual costs. For
retiree and retiree health care, the County’s ability to contain costs is extremely limited. The
County will advocate for full federal financial participation in funding the County’s retiree and
retiree health obligations.
San Luis Drain – The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation is under a court injunction to evaluate and
implement options for providing drainage services for the west side of the San Joaquin
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
17
Valley. Drainage water from this area contains toxic concentrations of selenium and other
hazardous substances. The San Luis Drain is one of the options studied. The Drain would pass
through Contra Costa County to discharge in the Delta. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has
determined to address the problem without building the Drain, but Congress would need to
appropriate the funds before this alternative could be implemented. The injunction requiring
provision of some type of drainage service still looms. The County will continue to oppose the
San Luis Drain option and support, instead, drainage solutions in the valley, such as reducing the
volume of problem water drainage; managing/reusing drainage waters within the affected
irrigation districts; retiring lands with severe drainage impairment (purchased from willing
sellers); and reclaiming/removing solid salts through treatment, bird safe/bird free solar ponds
and farm-based methods.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) – On May 23, 2012, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) announced a change in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) that
will prohibit SCAAP funds from being used to reimburse localities for foreign-born criminal
aliens housed in jails that have been classified as “unknown inmates” by the Department of
Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. This is a significant
change to the SCAAP reimbursement formula and will heavily impact counties across the nation.
The County will support the rescinding of this decision and a reinstatement of the previous
reimbursement practice, which would more equitably reimburse jurisdictions for the costs of
housing undocumented individuals, including those inmates whose status may be unknown to the
Department of Homeland Security.
Second Chance Act – The County will support funding for the Second Chance Act, which helps
counties address the growing population of individuals returning from prisons and jails. Despite
massive increases in corrections spending in states and jails nationwide, recidivism rates remain
high: half of all individuals released from state prison are re-incarcerated within three years.
Here in California, unfortunately, the recidivism rate is even higher. Yet there is reason for
hope: research shows that when individuals returning from prison or jail have access to key
treatments, education, and housing services, recidivism rates go down and the families and
communities they return to are stronger and safer.
The Second Chance Act ensures that the tax dollars on corrections are better spent, and provides
a much-needed response to the "revolving door" of people entering and leaving prison and jail.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – The County will advocate for the
following federal actions:
Increase SNAP benefits as a major and immediately available element of economic
stimulus.
Suspend the restrictions applying to ABAWDs. ("ABAWDs" stands for "Able-Bodied
Adults without Dependents" and pertains to adults receiving food stamps who are
considered employable.) They are subject to strict time limits on how long they can
18
receive food stamps. It is difficult administratively to track this, and when unemployment
is high, it can result in more adults going hungry.
Remove the current federal barriers that prevent some nutrition programs from
employing EBT technology.
Streamlining Permitting for Critical Infrastructure, Economic Stimulus, and Alternative
Energy Projects –“Green” Job Creation – Request that Congress and the Administration
recognize the value of Habitat Conversation Plans (HCPs) as a reliable way of streamlining
critical infrastructure, economic stimulus, and alternative energy project permitting in a manner
that is consistent with federal environmental regulations. HCPs not only facilitate such projects
through permit streamlining, but the planning, implementation, management, and monitoring
needs associated with regional HCPs plans also create many quality “green” jobs.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Revisions – The Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs
local government’s role in telecommunications, primarily broadband cable that uses the County’s
right-of-way as well as consumer protections. As Congress works to update the Act, the County
will continue to advocate for strengthening consumer protections and local government oversight
of critical communications technologies; local access to affordable and reliable high speed
broadband infrastructures to support the local economy; the right of local municipalities and
communities to offer high-speed broadband access: coordination and integration of private
communication resources for governmental emergency communication systems; preservation of
local government’s franchise fees; preservation of the local community benefits, including but
not limited to public, education and governmental (PEG) access channels; authority for provision
of municipal telecommunication services; preservation of local police powers essential for
health, safety and welfare of the citizenry; preservation of local government ownership and
control of the local public rights-of-way; and support for ensuring that communication policy
promotes affordable services for all Americans.
The Community Broadband Act of 2007, S.1853, encourages the deployment of high speed
networks by preserving the authority of local governments to offer community broadband
infrastructure and services. The County will oppose all bills that do not address the County’s
concerns unless appropriately amended. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has proposed rule-making (FCC Second Report and Order Docket 05-311 “Franchising
Rules for Incumbents”) that, in the opinion of local government, goes beyond the scope of their
authority in this area. The County will oppose all such rule making efforts.
Telecommunications Issues – Support the Community Access Preservation (CAP) Act
introduced in 2009 by Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. The CAP Act addresses the
challenges faced by public, educational and government (PEG) TV channels and community
access television stations. The CAP Act addresses four immediate issues facing PEG channels.
The CAP Act would: Allow PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purpose; require PEG
channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; require the FCC to study
the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG; require operators in states that adopted
statewide franchising to provide support equal to the greater of the support required under the
Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
19
state law or the support historically provided for PEG; and make cable television-related laws
and regulations applicable to all landline video providers.
In addition, the County should support the widespread deployment and adoption of broadband,
especially as it serves to connect the educational community and libraries.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – The County will advocate for the following federal
actions:
Relieve states of work participation rate and work verification plan penalties for fiscal
years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in recognition of the serious downturn in the national
economy and the succession of more “process-based” regulations issued in the last few
years.
Permanently withdraw the August 8, 2008, proposal that would have repealed the
regulation that enables states to claim caseload reduction credit for excess MOE
expenditures.
Rescind the May 22, 2008, HHS guidance that effectively eliminated the ability o f states
to offer pre-assistance programs to new TANF applicants for up to four months.
Rescind the final Deficit Reduction Act regulation restricting allowable state
maintenance-of-effort expenditures under TANF purposes 3 and 4.
End federal efforts to impose a national TANF error rate.
Veterans Halls – The County will support legislation to provide America’s veterans
organizations with resources to make necessary repairs to their meeting halls and facilities.
Across America, the meeting halls and posts of Veterans Service Organizations such as the
American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars serve as unofficial community centers.
Unfortunately, many of these facilities have deteriorated in recent years due to declining
membership and reduced rental revenues as a result of the economic downturn.
The County will support legislation that would create a competitive grant program for veterans’
organizations, classified by the IRS as 501c19 non-profit organizations and comprised primarily
of past or present members of the United States Armed Forces and their family members, to use
for repairs and improvements to their existing facilities.
Volume Pricing – The National Association of Counties supports greater access for local
governments to General Services Administration (GSA) contract schedules. These schedules
provide volume pricing for state and local governments and make public sector procurement
more cost effective. However, current law does not provide full access to state and local
governments for GSA schedules. The County will support legislation that gives local
governments access to these schedules and provides the option of purchasing law enforcement,
security, and other related items at favorable GSA reduced pricing.
20
Water Quality, Quantity and Delta Outflow – Congress may consider legislation that could
adversely affect water quality, quantity and flows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the
detriment of the County residents, economy and resources. The Board of Supervisors will rely
on its adopted Delta Water Platform to determine the appropriate response to federal legislative
issues brought to the Board’s attention.
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Reauthorization – Congress may again consider
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act in 2014. The County will support
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act at current funding levels or higher; keeping the
program at the federal level rather than block granting it; maximizing local control, so that we
can meet local needs; and establishing reasonable performance measures. In addition, any
reauthorization or new workforce legislation should: retain private sector led state and local
Workforce Investment Boards (local boards) as governing bodies; expand, enhance and simplify
the WIA Youth Program; redesign the Dislocated Worker program to reflect the new economy;
and redesign how the funding of One-Stop facilities is structured.
Resolution No.
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.
Meeting Date:02/12/2014
Submitted For: Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 17
Referral Name: Review transportation plans and services for specific populations,
including but not limited to...Contra Costa County Mobility Management
Plan...
Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
Referral History:
This issue was first referred in 2014.
Referral Update:
Background
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA – County Connection) and Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) staff brought the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan to
the CCTA Board at their January 15, 2014 meeting. Recommendations included adoption of the
plan and subsequent implementation tasks.
After considerable discussion, The CCTA Board declined to formally adopt the plan. They did
adopt the plan in concept, but directed staff to bring the plan back through the established local
agency consultation process by way of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs). In preparation for this consultation I am bringing the plan to the Transportation, Water,
and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee for discussion and possible action.
The TWI Committee and the Board of Supervisors have established an interest in this issue as
follows:
1. The issue of the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan is on the 2014 referral list for the
TWI Committee {1}.
2. While not directly related to this local initiative, both the State and Federal Contra Costa
County Legislative Platforms refer to improvements in paratransit service{2}.
3. The Board of Supervisors has previously gone on record with CCTA as supporting the mobility
management concept. At the conclusion of the CCTA’s Paratransit Improvement Study in 2004
the Board of Supervisors sent a letter to then CCTA Chair Amy Worth supporting certain
recommendations of that study. Included in that support was the following which was a
recommendation of that 2004 plan, “Establish a Coordination/Mobility Manager Function”.
Discussion
I have identified the following items that the TWI Committee may wish to discuss at our
February meeting:
1. Dialog at the January 15, 2014 CCTA Board Meeting: A summary of the Mobility
Management discussion item is in the attached 1/17/14 memo from the CCTA Executive
Director. That memo is brief and is not intended to capture the complete tone or content of the
discussion. I can provide additional information at the February TWI on the following issues that
were discussed at the CCTA:
The county is facing a “silver tsunami” which begs a response.
Existing community based, and private providers have grown organically. While these
organizations can provide good service in a cost effective manner this model is not stable in
the long term. (JC: The County needs a system or model that is scalable in order to be
reliably responsive to the “silver tsunami”.)
Overall, the tone at the meeting indicated the willingness to move ahead with the plan but
not necessarily be constrained by the recommendations; the possibility of more fundamental
changes in service structure/provision was alluded to.
2. County Specific Obligations: The County may have transportation obligations that are unique
relative to the Cities and CCTA. It is not likely that these issues will be brought up in any other
forum.
In order to receive the best available information on these matters, I have contacted staff from
Aging & Adult Services and the Contra Costa Health Plan requesting that they either provide
material for consideration by the TWI Committee and/or appear at the February meeting to
participate in the discussion.
3. County Staff Comments on the March 1, 2013 Draft Mobility Management Plan (Attached): Not all comments were addressed in subsequent versions of the plan. The TWI Committee may benefit from a discussion on some of the more critical issues and should consider bringing them to a future Board of Supervisors meeting and/or including them in a comment letter to CCTA (the number below corresponds to the numbering in the attached comment letter):
(Attached): Not all comments were addressed in subsequent versions of the plan. The TWI
Committee may benefit from a discussion on some of the more critical issues and should consider
bringing them to a future Board of Supervisors meeting and/or including them in a comment letter
to CCTA (the number below corresponds to the numbering in the attached comment letter):
[1] Emphasizing or implementing “refined” eligibility protocols without accompanying service improvements may
have outcomes that should be discussed with decision makers.
[3] This comment was made considering the study has countywide implications but the lead agency (County
Connection) only has authority in central county. This information would have provided insight as to the
countywide interest in, or viability of the plan.
[5 & 12] This issue was brought up during the recent discussion at CCTA. The proximity and success of the Santa
Clara operation may warrant further examination.
[11] This comment was meant to gauge the support of other affected transit agencies and hopefully result in a more
coherent process by which to move the plan forward. In addition, the composition of the proposed “Oversight
Board” (page 34 of the attached Mobility Management Plan), and direction to that body should be discussed.
{1}2014 TWIC Referrals : 17. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations,
including but not limited to County Low Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human
Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area, Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point
Community Based Transportation Plan, Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan, and
the work of Contra Costans for Every Generation.
{2} State Platform: “140. SUPPORT regional coordination that provides for local input in
addressing transportation needs. Coordinated planning and delivery of public transit, paratransit,
and rail services will help ensure the best possible service delivery to the public. Regional
coordination also will be needed to…” Federal Platform: "Transportation Funding for Disabled,
Low-income, and Elderly Persons – Transit services for elderly, disabled, and low-income
persons are provided by the County, by some cities, by all of the bus transit operators, and by
many community organizations and non-profits that provide social services. Increased funding is
needed to provide and maintain more service vehicles, operate them longer throughout the day,
upgrade the vehicle fleet and dispatching systems, improve coordination between public
providers and community groups that also provide such services to their clients, and expand
outreach programs to inform potential riders of the available services, among other needs. The
County supports continuation and increased funding levels for federal funding programs
dedicated to transit services for these population groups. All of the demographic trends point to a
growing need for such services in the future. For example, the 65-and-older population in the Bay
Area is projected to more than double by the year 2030."
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE report from staff and take action as appropriate including one or more of the
following:
DIRECT staff to bring the Mobility Management Plan to the Board of Supervisors for
further discussion and action, and/or
1.
DIRECT staff to draft comment letter on the Mobility Management Plan to the Board of
Supervisors for consideration.
2.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate, direct fiscal impact to the County. The aging population is projected to result in
a substantial increase in the demand for ADA paratransit type of transit service in the future. The
subject plan is in the very early stages but is intended to control associated costs and improve
service quality.
Attachments
1-15-14 CCTA rtp & MMP
5/13/13 Email from Contra Costa County (John Cunningham) to County Connection (Laramie Bowron) re: the
March 1, 2013 Draft of the Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan
• 1/17/14 Letter from CCTA (Randell H. Iwasaki) to RTPC Managers Summarizing Discussion at the 1/15/14
CCTA Board Meeting.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 15, 2014
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
Subject Presentation Regarding the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
Summary of Issues The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) prepared and
adopted a Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan and will
present it to the Authority for its consideration and adoption. The plan
identifies a need and provides a blueprint for Contra Costa to establish a
Mobility Management function.
Recommendations 1. Adopt the Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan as a blueprint
for a countywide mobility management function for
implementation;
2.Authorize Authority staff to work with MTC staff to redirect an
awarded New Freedom Cycle 3 Grant to begin implementation of
the mobility management function; and
3.Bring back to the Authority in Spring of 2014 details and options
for implementing the Mobility Management Plan.
Financial Implications The Authority was awarded a Federal New Freedom grant by MTC for
$96,000. The recommendation would redirect the use of these funds
from a web enabled database to the implementation of the Mobility
Management Plan.
Options 1.Adopt the plan with recommended revisions.
2.Adopt any combination of the three stated recommendations
3.Do not approve any recommendations
Attachments A.Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
Changes from
Committee
N/A
3.B.2-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 4
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
Background
In FY 2007-08 CCCTA was awarded a Cycle 2 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5317
“New Freedom” grant in the amount of $80,000 to develop a Mobility Management Plan to
include recommendations, goals, objectives, actions, timeline, and a funding plan for the
establishment of a Mobility Management Center. CCCTA applied for the funding on behalf of
multiple agencies countywide which met bi-monthly under the auspices of the Transportation
Alliance. The Transportation Alliance included all of the public transit operators that operate in
Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Health and Human Services staff, RTPC staff, and
staff from various social service agencies that provide transportation and CCTA. The purpose of
the group was to coordinate services and better transportation options for seniors, people with
disabilities, and low income families.
CCCTA agreed to submit an application with the understanding that the plan was to be a
countywide effort and not be restricted to the CCCTA service area. Matching funds to the grant
were provided by CCCTA, East Contra Costa Transit Authority (ECCTA) and West Contra Costa
Transit Authority (WCCTA).
What is Mobility Management?
“Mobility Management is the utilization of a broad mix of service delivery and support
strategies that are directed primarily at the travel needs of seniors, persons with disabilities,
and low income individuals. These strategies often integrate with and support other public
service solutions provided to the larger public transit and paratransit rider populations.
Mobility Management is not one solution but a toolkit of solutions that are tailored to the
service needs of the special population groups.”
Effective mobility management has been shown to reduce costs and increase service through
coordination of existing resources and the establishment of new programs, when necessary, to
enhance travel options for these populations. It is because of this that the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) has embraced the development and implementation of
mobility management throughout the Bay Area.
MTC, the programming agency for Federal New Freedom funds, has made mobility
management a priority in its criteria for evaluating New Freedom project applications. MTC has
also identified mobility management as a primary principle in addressing coordination and
efficiencies in paratransit services in its recommendations regarding sustainable paratransit
services in its Transit Sustainability Plan adopted by the Commission in May 2012.
3.B.2-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 4
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
The Mobility Management Plan
In January 2012, the County Connection entered into an agreement with Innovative Paradigms
to complete the resource inventory and develop a Mobility Management Plan. Since then,
Innovative Paradigms has conducted significant outreach including: interviews with transit
agencies, human service agencies, and advocates for seniors and the disabled. Additionally,
three countywide transportation summits were held and input was received from the public,
city and County staff, and the Contra Costa County Paratransit Coordinating Council. CCTA
staff worked closely with CCCTA throughout the Plan’s development.
Mobility management relates to administering functions associated with the mobility needs of
seniors and those with disabilities. These functions can include: travel training, improved ADA
eligibility, centralized maintenance, volunteer driver programs, centralized information,
technical assistance, etc.
To implement mobility management in Contra Costa County, the report recommends the
establishment of a Mobility Management Oversight Board to be staffed with executives from
County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, Contra Costa Transportation
Authority, BART, and three executives representing human service agencies. This Board will
guide the formation of a mobility management program and will be responsible for securing
funding, hiring a mobility manager, and establishing by-laws and performance standards.
Ultimately it is envisioned that the mobility management “center” could implement several
programs that could aid in improving coordination and operating efficiencies of multiple
transportation providers.
Potential mobility management functions described in the plan include:
Travel Training: Create a program to teach bus riding skills on all county transit systems.
Improved ADA Eligibility Process: Institute a refined countywide ADA eligibility process,
possibly an in-person assessment approach, to improve the accuracy of the eligibility
determinations.
Agency Partnerships: Work with human service agencies so they can provide
transportation to their clients who currently use the ADA paratransit service operated
by the transit agencies.
Centralized Maintenance: Evaluate the viability of a centralized maintenance program
directed at serving the unique needs of the human service community who are
operating a variety of vehicles in their programs.
3.B.2-3
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2014
Page 4 of 4
\\Cctasvr\common\03-Authority Packets\2014 ccta\011514 CCTA Mtg\Planning - PC Items\03B2-Brdltr.Mobility Management.doc
Volunteer Driver Program: Expand volunteer driver programs throughout the County as
an inexpensive means of serving difficult medical and other trip needs for seniors and
persons with disabilities.
Central Information Program: Expand information availability by making meaningful
resource information available through a central referral mechanism.
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management: Determine the level of advocacy appropriate
for a new Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) in Contra Costa County
and include the new agency in all transportation planning processes.
Technical Assistance Program: Include technical support as one of the services of the
newly created CTSA to assist the human service community and other agencies in
planning, grant management, and other technical functions.
Driver Training Program: Establish a professional and consistent driver training program
for human service agencies; offer driver training services relating to special needs
populations to existing paratransit providers.
Prior to implementation of any of the above services, a dedicated source of funding will need to
be identified to administer the program and pay for any services implemented. An initial role of
the Mobility Management Oversight Committee will be to identify long term funding
opportunities as well as a permanent agency structure.
CCCTA, as the grantee and lead agency on the development of the plan, adopted the Plan on
October 10, 2013.
Next steps
CCCTA has requested that the Authority adopt the mobility management plan and foster the
development of the mobility management function to the next step. Some seed funding has
been identified for this first step including a previously approved Cycle 3 New Freedom grant
awarded to CCTA. The grant was awarded to convert a database of county service providers
into a user-friendly web-enabled data resource. With the opportunity to seed the formation of
a true mobility management function in the county, it might make more sense to redirect those
funds. CCCTA also has some Cycle 2 funds that could be redirected to move the project
forward.
If authorized by the Authority, staff will develop more defined options for the implementation
of a mobility management function and present them for Authority consideration this Spring.
3.B.2-4
County Connection
Contra Costa County Mobility
Management Plan
Final Draft
October 17, 2013
3.B.2-5
Attachment A
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
2
Contra Costa County
Mobility Management Plan
October 17, 2013
Prepared for
County Connection
by
Innovative Paradigms
3.B.2-6
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 6
Background..................................................................................................................6
Methodolgy and Outreach............................................................................................ 6
Chapter 2: MOBILITY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS ................................ 8
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency ............................................................ 9
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Models.............................................. 11
Legal Setting.............................................................................................................. 13
Governing Structure................................................................................................... 14
Sample Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Operating Budget ................ 15
Chapter 3: FUNCTIONS ............................................................................................. 19
Travel Training........................................................................................................... 19
ADA Eligibility Process............................................................................................... 20
Agency Partnerships.................................................................................................. 24
Coordinated Vehicle Maintenance ............................................................................. 25
Volunteer Driver Programs......................................................................................... 26
Central Information Program...................................................................................... 28
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management.................................................................... 29
Technical Support...................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS ...................................................................... 32
Phase I: Adoption of Plan........................................................................................... 32
Phase II: Mobility Management Oversight Board....................................................... 33
Phase III: Form CTSA................................................................................................ 34
Phase VI: Functional Programs ................................................................................. 35
Implementation Timeline............................................................................................ 36
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Planning Group ................................................................ 37
Appendix 2: Case Studies .......................................................................................... 38
3.B.2-7
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) has taken the lead in
managing the planning process for the development of a mobility management plan for
the entire County. This Plan resulting from that effort is meant to guide implementation
of a broad array of services under the mobility management framework. The starting
point for the planning process is the definition of the concept.
Mobility Management is the utilization of a broad mix of service delivery
and support strategies that are directed primarily at the travel needs of
seniors, persons with disabilities, and low income individuals. These
strategies often integrate with and support other public service solutions
provided to the larger public transit and paratransit rider populations.
Mobility Management is not one solution but a toolkit of solutions that are
tailored to the service needs of the special population groups.
This Plan recommends the formation of an organization to take the lead in implementing
a broad range of mobility management strategies. Specifically, a Consolidated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) is recommended for Contra Costa County. A
CTSA in the County would provide the vehicle through which the list of desired services
could be deployed. The creation of a Mobility Management Oversight Committee is
recommended to undertake the tasks needed to establish the CTSA. Options for
funding the program are identified. A draft startup budget and a draft sample initial
annual operating budget are included in the Plan. An initial budget of $325,000 is
proposed for each of the first two years of full operation following the formation phase.
The Plan acknowledges the contributions and relationships of the existing human
service agencies in the County. It recommends careful attention to the roles of these
organizations relative to the new CTSA and that funding considerations always be
based upon a thorough analysis of the impacts of coordinating efforts between these
existing organizations and the new agency.
The Plan suggests a number of service strategies responding to transportation needs
identified in the planning process. These gaps were vetted through outreach efforts
with community stakeholders that work with seniors, persons with disabilities, and
persons with low-income. The specific strategies proposed for Contra Costa County are
listed on the following page:
3.B.2-8
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
5
Travel training: Create a program to teach bus riding skills on all county transit
systems.
Improved ADA Eligibility Process: Institute a refined countywide ADA eligibility
process, possibly an in-person assessment approach, to improve the accuracy of
the eligibility determinations.
Agency Partnerships: Work with human service agencies so they can provide
transportation to their clients who currently use the ADA paratransit service
operated by the transit agencies.
Centralized Maintenance: Evaluate the viability of a centralized maintenance
program directed at serving the unique needs of the human service community
who are operating a variety of vehicles in their programs.
Volunteer Driver Program: Expand volunteer driver programs throughout the
County as an inexpensive means of serving difficult medical and other trip needs
for seniors and persons with disabilities.
Central Information Program: Expand information availability by making
meaningful resource information available through a central referral mechanism.
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management: Determine the level of advocacy
appropriate for a new CTSA in Contra Costa County and include the new agency
in all transportation planning processes.
Technical Assistance Program: Include technical support as one of the services
of the newly created CTSA to assist the human service community and other
agencies in planning, grant management, and other technical functions.
Driver Training Program: Establish a professional and consistent driver training
program for human service agencies; offer driver training services relating to
special needs populations to existing paratransit providers.
3.B.2-9
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
6
Chapter 1: METHODOLOGY
Background
The Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan was commissioned by the County
Connection. It was derived from a Countywide outreach process, involved agencies
throughout the entire County, and offers strategies applicable to the entire County. The
Plan’s technical basis is derived from input from transportation experts representing
many agencies and the experience of the consulting team.
The Plan is intended to guide long term development of mobility management projects
that fill gaps in existing transportation services and are sustainable both on the basis of
organizational structure and funding. Traditional transportation services, such as public
transit, are increasingly challenged to meet the needs of a diverse population. Public
transit or “mass transit” is designed to carry large amounts of riders. Public transit
includes fixed-route bus and rail service for the general public and paratransit bus
service for disabled individuals in the community as described in the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Although public transit provides an appropriate means of
transportation for a majority of riders, there is an increasing population that requires
specialized transportation. The result is increased emphasis on specialized programs
that enhance transportation services and provide alternatives to fill gaps that seniors,
persons with disabilities, and persons with low-income face. These are broadly defined
as mobility management strategies. Effective mobility management strategies are those
that coordinate with existing transportation services including: public transit, community
based, and human service transportation programs. These strategies fill gaps often lost
through public transit and will vary based on the demographic group being served.
Examples of mobility management strategies specific to Contra Costa County are
detailed in Chapter 3.
The identification and pursuit of these service delivery strategies is not enough to meet
the need. Only through institutional commitment and appropriate institutional structures
can these unique delivery strategies be provided. A CTSA will provide the framework
for that process in Contra Costa County.
Methodology and Outreach
The process used to construct the Plan involved the following steps:
Establish overall project direction and objectives: This initial planning stage involved
discussions with the agencies managing the planning process, in particular County
3.B.2-10
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
7
Connection and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). The result was the
broadening of the objective of the project to include consideration of the full range of
mobility management options and structures for the County as opposed to a “one-stop”
information referral project.
Identify appropriate mobility management functions and service delivery structures
through technical analysis and community input : The analytical portion of the planning
process was strongly supported by extensive community input. Activities involved
meetings with community agencies to identify needs and to present technical options.
The results of this process became the list of strategies included in the Plan.
Formal advisory input: The planning process was supported by two levels of advisory
input. The first was the formation of an ad hoc Stakeholders Advisory Committee. This
group represented varying interests throughout the County and included a cross section
of agency types and geographic perspectives. The direction provided by this group was
invaluable to the direction of the Plan. Among the most important outcomes of the
advisory committee was recognition that an institutional framework was necessary to
deliver the creative service options that are needed. The Plan defines both the
structure recommended and the functional programs that were identified by the
community and Advisory Committee.
The second level of advisory input was in the form of three Summit meetings held
throughout the County. These Summits were structured to solicit input and feedback on
specific mobility management options. Input from the participants was extremely helpful
in defining the elements of this Mobility Management Plan.
Throughout the outreach process, stakeholder input was elicited to identify the
challenges that their target population face when traveling throughout Contra Costa
County. These findings were used to design strategies to fill the gaps that are detailed
in Chapter 3. Throughout the outreach process the overarching theme was the lack of
coordination amongst human service agencies, transit operators, and
private/public/non-profit agencies. Although there are many providers of transportation,
there is no central focal point for coordination, implementation, and enhancement of
transportation options for these special needs populations. The recommendations in
this Plan provide a comprehensive approach to address the challenges identified
through outreach to the community.
3.B.2-11
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
8
Chapter 2: MOBILITY MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
Mobility management is one part of a complex matrix of transportation services in any
urban area. The “public transportation system” is made up of a number of elements that
interact and often overlap. The major components of a public transportation system
are: fixed-route bus service for the general public, paratransit bus service for individuals
with disabilities as described in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and mobility
management/human service transportation serving the specialized transportation needs
of the population. These three elements have traditionally operated independently of
each other.
In a coordinated transportation system, the three elements work in a more integrated
fashion to serve certain targeted populations, specifically individuals with disabilities, the
elderly, and persons of low income. This can result in service and cost efficiencies that
yield benefits for the individual riders, public agencies, and smaller human service
transportation providers. Within a coordinated transportation system, public transit,
community based and human service agencies work with one another to refer riders to
the service that is most appropriate for their functional abilities. Presently there are
agencies in Contra Costa County that refer riders, but throughout the planning process
there has been an emphasis on expanding and enhancing these efforts in a coordinated
fashion. The quantitative and qualitative impacts of integrating a coordinated
transportation system are captured in this Plan.
Though “mobility management” has often been defined narrowly to focus on one -stop
call centers, this Plan takes a broader view. The concept goes far beyond minimal trip
planning efforts for individuals to much broader strategies capable of improving service
delivery to much larger numbers of individuals. No one strategy can serve all of the
needs of the special needs groups targeted and for this reason the Plan consists of a
variety of programs each meeting some aspect of the overall demand. This Plan
includes strategies that exceed available funding and sets forth a list with recommended
priorities. It also suggests approaches to funding intended to create a viable and
sustainable program.
3.B.2-12
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
9
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency
Elements embodied in the concept of mobility management have been a part of the
transportation service delivery framework for many years. Only recently have these
elements been referred to as mobility management. Federal coordination requirements
are now placing renewed emphasis on strategies to increase coordination in California
such as the formation of CTSAs.
When the State passed AB 120, the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act, it
allowed county or regional transportation planning agencies to designate one or more
organizations within their areas as Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies
(CTSAs). The goal was to promote the coordination of social service transportation for
the benefit of human service clients, including the elderly, disabled individuals, and
persons of low income. AB 120 specified the following strategies of service
coordination through the use of CTSAs:
Cost savings through combined purchasing of necessary equipment.
Adequate training of drivers to insure the safe operation of vehicles. Proper
driver training to promote lower insurance costs and encourage use of the
service.
Centralized dispatching of vehicles to efficiently utilize rolling stock.
Centralized maintenance of vehicles so that adequate and routine vehicle
maintenance scheduling is possible.
Centralized administration of various social service transportation programs to
eliminate duplicative and costly administrative functions. Centralized
administration of social service transportation services permitting social service
agencies to respond to specific social needs.
Identification and consolidation of all existing sources of funding for social service
transportation. This can provide more effective and cost efficient use of scarce
resource dollars. Consolidation of categorical program funds can foster eventual
elimination of unnecessary and unwarranted program constraints.
The CTSA structure is unique to California. While other states are beginning to
implement coordinated transportation projects, only California has the state legislated
model of the CTSA. Thus, for three decades, initiatives to coordinate human service
transportation programs in California have been largely guided by AB 120. There is a
new focus on CTSAs as the appropriate entity to implement the programs embodied in
the federal legislation that provides funding for mobility management projects. Other
communities are seeking to create new CTSAs or designate existing organizations as
CTSAs to combine the State and federal legislation into service delivery mechanisms
3.B.2-13
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
10
that have resources and focus to achieve real coordination. A significant dialogue is
underway throughout California regarding the role of the CTSA and its ability to meet
both the federal and State coordination requirements.
In January 2013, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) circulated a Draft
Coordinated Public Transit –Human Services Transportation Plan Update which
recommends the designation of CTSAs to facilitate sub-regional mobility management
and transportation coordination efforts.
What is a CTSA Intended to Do?
While no two CTSAs are structured the same way or provide exactly the same services,
there are common objectives to be found in all CTSA activities:
Increase transportation options for seniors, the disabled, and persons of low
income.
Reduce the costs for public transportation.
Identify and implement efficiencies in community transportation operations.
What Can a CTSA Look Like and Accomplish?
CTSAs in California have taken on a variety of forms and within those various forms
they provide a range of services. The most successful CTSAs have embraced the
concept of human service coordination and mobilized efforts to creatively use resources
to accomplish great things in their local communities. While all forms of CTSA have the
potential to achieve the objectives of the concept, evidence provided through a review
of available CTSA documentation and case studies indicates that certain structures may
be more conducive to successful project implementation than others.
AB 120, the California legislation creating CTSAs along with the subsequent federal
guidance on human service transportation coordination offers a general concept of a
mobility management agency. Within that guidance is great latitude to mold the concept
to the unique circumstances of a local community. The most successful CTSAs have
built a creative array of programs serving a broad population of persons in need. The
typical target populations include the disabled, elderly, and low-income individuals.
Many studies including planning efforts in Contra Costa County have documented the
substantial unmet needs of these groups and the need for additional specialized
transportation capacity programs capable of targeting these potential riders. As the
definition of need is broadened to include young children and possibly other groups, the
volume of need becomes even more extensive.
3.B.2-14
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
11
Well refined CTSAs have addressed the broad variety of needs in creative ways. They
have typically used limited funds in creative ways to achieve substantial results. For
example, efforts in other counties have included joint funding of service provided by
human service agencies for their own client populations. Some communities combine
funding for transportation programs with other sources. Examples of non-transportation
funding that are sometimes used to support transportation services include Regional
Centers, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Area Agency on Aging.
An effective CTSA is an organization that serves as a broad facilitator –or champion -
of transportation coordination. The role typically means that the agency is well
connected in the transportation and human service community and is a leader in
creating solutions to travel needs. This is often accomplished through negotiating
cooperative agreements between agencies to coordinate the use of funds, acquiring
capital assets (e.g. vehicles, computer equipment, etc.), and buying fuel and electricity
for vehicles (e.g. joint fuel purchase). Service delivery can range from: coordinating a
volunteer driver program to managing a travel training program for fixed-route service
and can include the facilitation of direct service delivery through contracts with social
service agencies. An important consideration is that most functions that a CTSA can
perform can be offered through any of a variety of structural models.
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Models
AB 120 requires that CTSAs be designated by a transportation planning agency. In
Contra Costa County, this entity is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
According to statute, each CTSA designated must be an agency other than the planning
agency. The range of options for CTSA designation as defined in law are:
A public agency, including a city, county, transit operator, any state department
or agency, public corporation, or public district, or a joint powers entity created
pursuant to the California Government Code Section 15951.
A common carrier of persons as defined in Section 211 of the Public Utilities
Code, engaged in the transportation of persons, as defined in Section 208.
A private entity operating under a franchise or license.
A non-profit corporation organized pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with
Section 9000) of Title 1, Corporations Code.
Within these broad legal definitions, a number of alternative CTSA structure models
have emerged. These or possible variations are open for consideration for application
in Contra Costa County. The following are the principal structural options for CTSA
organizations in the County.
3.B.2-15
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
12
Single Purpose Non-profit Agency: In California there are limited examples of
non-profit agencies that have been designated as a CTSA that provide a wide
range of transportation programs and services. Noteworthy examples of existing
non-profit CTSAs are Outreach in Santa Clara County, Valley Transportation
Services in San Bernardino County, and Paratransit, Inc. in Sacramento County.
Outreach and Escort of Santa Clara County served as the CTSA in the County
for several years before its designation was rescinded by MTC. It was recently
re-designated by MTC and is currently the only CTSA in the nine county Bay
Area. Among the provisions associated with this re-designation was an
agreement that Outreach would not submit a claim for TDA Article 4.5 funds.
Access Services in Los Angeles was created largely to manage the ADA
paratransit program in LA County but was also designated the CTSA. It was
created through action by public agencies to address ADA and coordination
issues.
Multi-Purpose Non-profit Agency: There are examples in California where a
multi-purpose non-profit agency has been designated the CTSA. This is typically
a situation where a strong non-profit organization with an effective infrastructure
wishes to champion transportation issues and adds those functions to a broader
list of agency activities. Ride-On of San Luis Obispo is an example of this form
of organization. Ride-On was originally the United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) affiliate
in San Luis Obispo and still serves in that capacity in addition to its transportation
responsibilities. There are many examples of non-profit organizations that have
created major transportation programs under an umbrella that includes nutrition
services, housing programs, food banks, and other common human service
functions.
County Government: In many rural California counties, transportation services
are provided by the County. Often this includes providing public transit services.
This is a common structure in smaller or rural counties. Several counties have
been designated CTSAs. Often, though not always, transportation services are
provided through the public works department. Counties such as Glenn and
Colusa are examples of this form of CTSA.
Public Transit Agency: In some California counties the local public transit agency
has been designated the CTSA. This applies to both legislated transit districts
and Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agencies. It is typically in smaller counties that
the transit agency has been designated. Examples of transit agencies that are
3.B.2-16
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
13
CTSAs are El Dorado Transit, Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (Bishop), and the
Mendocino Transit Authority. All of these are JPAs.
Of the models presented above the non-profit agency model has historically been the
most notable in terms of implementing programs with long-term sustainability. Non-
profit agencies such as Outreach and Escort, Ride-On, and Paratransit, Inc. have
delivered successful coordinated transportation programs throughout California for
many years. Each of these organizations continues to evolve to meet the needs of the
communities they serve. Non-profit organizations have typically been the most
successful CTSA model for a number of specific reasons. These include:
Specific Mission: Non-profit CTSAs have been established with a human
services perspective focused on special needs populations and programs
dedicated to fulfilling these unique needs. This differs from public transit
agencies whose primary mission is to serve large groups of travelers (“mass”
transportation). Human service transportation often plays a very small part in
an organization with a mass transit mission.
Entrepreneurial style: Non-profit CTSAs have often been created by
transportation professionals seeking to apply creative approaches to the hard
to serve needs of special population groups.
Flexibility: Non-profit CTSAs typically have more flexibility to create and
operate new programs than governmental agencies.
Applicable laws: Non-profit corporations are subject to different laws than
public agencies such as labor laws. This fact can provide more latitude to
structure services with unique operating characteristics than most public
agencies.
Access to funds: Non-profit corporations may be eligible for funds that are
not available to other organizations. Such funds may contribute to fulfilling
the mission of the agency. An example would include the priority given to
non-profit corporations applying for FTA Section 5310 funds.
Legal Setting
The legal basis for establishing and managing CTSAs is contained in the California
enacted Transportation Development Act (TDA). This broad set of California laws and
regulations concerning transportation funding and management contains the various
provisions governing CTSAs. The CTSA portion of the TDA is a relatively small part of
a much larger law concerning funding for all modes of transportation and certain specific
funding sources available to all counties for transportation purposes.
3.B.2-17
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
14
The two funding sources included in TDA are:
Local Transportation Fund (LTF): derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax
collected within the county and
State Transit Assistance Fund (STA): derived from the statewide sale tax on
gasoline and diesel fuel.
The portion of the TDA creating CTSAs states that such agencies are eligible to claim
up to 5% of the LTF for community transportation purposes.
The Act also specifies the process through which a CTSA may be designated. The
designating agency may promulgate regulations specific to the CTSA as well as the
duration of the designation. The length of CTSA designation varies throughout
California. For a number of CTSAs, the term of designation has evolved over time. For
example, Paratransit, Inc. in Sacramento was designated the CTSA in 1981 for a one
year period. This designation was reviewed and extended later in multi-year
increments. In 1988, the designation was extended “without a time limitation”and has
retained designation to this day.
The oversight of claimants for TDA funds including CTSAs are subject to two audits.
The first is an annual fiscal audit that must be submitted within 180 days of the close of
each fiscal year and the second is a triennial performance audit. This periodic audit
conducted according to specific guidelines, evaluates the performance of a TDA
claimant and could serve as the basis for determining the future of a CTSA.
Governing Structure
An area of CTSA oversight that is not contained in the TDA law and regulations is the
local governing structure of the designated agency. If a CTSA is a public agency, the
governing board of that agency would traditionally oversee receipt and expenditure of
public funds. Since a CTSA can be a County, a transit agency, or other government
agency, it would be subject to the scrutiny of a board that is otherwise responsible for
fiduciary oversight. A CTSA may also be a non-profit corporation. The governing
structure may vary substantially among non-profit corporations. Many traditional
charitable non-profit corporations have self-appointing boards. This typically means
that interested members of the community may be appointed to the board by the sitting
board members. Ride-On in San Luis Obispo is an example of this type of governing
structure.
3.B.2-18
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
15
There is precedent in California for a non-profit corporation to have a board of directors
whose make-up is governed by political agreement associated with its structure.
Paratransit, Inc. began as a traditional non-profit corporation with a self-appointing
board. Later in its evolution, local public agencies formed an agreement associated
with Paratransit’s designation as a CTSA that included specific appointing authority to
local governmental jurisdictions. This revised structure provided the desired level of
oversight and representation.
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans) in San Bernardino County was created in 2010
to serve as the CTSA for the San Bernardino urbanized area. The Bylaws of this newly
created non-profit agency specified that its Board of Directors be appointed by San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Omnitrans (the public transit agency),
and by San Bernardino County. This publicly appointed governing board structure
reflected the importance of oversight in a case where large amounts of public funding
are made available to a non-profit agency. VTrans, as the designated CTSA, is eligible
to receive an allocation of local sales tax Measure I for transportation purposes.
An effective and functional Board of Directors for a new non-profit CTSA should be
made up of approximately seven to nine members. Because of the management of
large amounts of government funds, it is appropriate that public agencies appoint
members to the new Board. A typical structure might include appointments by CCTA,
Contra Costa County, each transit agency, and some human service agency
representatives. Appointing agencies can usually appoint from their own membership
or from the community. In some cases, governance structure formats are established to
require representatives of the service population (e.g. disabled representatives or
seniors). These decisions would be debated by the Oversight Board recommended as
a key implementation step.
Phased Implementation: Sample Consolidated Transportation Service Agency
Operating Budget
Various phases will be necessary to achieve full implementation of a CTSA in Contra
Costa County. Each phase in the process will have its own budget. This will allow for
clear delineation of the costs of each phase. The first phase is preparatory to
establishing an operational CTSA. It consists of the formation of an Oversight Board to
guide development of the CTSA concept, establish its legal framework, determine a
governance structure, and make final budget and operating decisions. The Oversight
Board phase of the project is proposed to be funded by two sources: 1) funds
remaining on the Innovative Paradigms Mobility Management planning contract and, 2)
reallocation of New Freedom funds that had been granted to the Contra Costa
3.B.2-19
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
16
Transportation Authority for phase 3 of initial planning process. In combination, these
funding sources provide adequate funding for formation functions.
Once the functions to be performed by a new CTSA are determined, a budget for the
early operation of the organization can be developed. The budget will depend on
whether a new agency is created or the CTSA designation is added to an existing
organization. This will determine whether the entire infrastructure of an organization is
necessary or if staff and other support services are added onto an existing agency.
Administrative overhead will be an important element to identify. The staff capacity of
the CTSA will have an impact on the organization’s ability to build programs and to
manage the range of functions that a CTSA is capable of performing.
In the growth stage of a CTSA, considerable time and effort (staff resources) will be
necessary to forge partnerships with other organizations, prepare grant applications,
implement service functions, etc. For discussion purposes, two CTSA budgets for
Contra Costa County are presented below. The first is a startup budget intended to
capture the cost of organization formation, creation of basic organization infrastructure
such as accounting and business management functions, and early staffing functions
that eventually lead to dedicated management. The second budget is a pro forma first
year operating budget. It presents a basic structural budget for the first year of
operation. It does not present operating costs for the various programs that might be
operated. The initial organization budget is to support the pursuit of operating programs
with their necessary funding and interagency coordination.
It presents general cost estimates for overhead but does not include costs for individual
program elements. Significant refinement would be necessary with actual
implementation. However, the sample budget serves as a presentation of basic cost
items to guide decision making relative to structure options. This draft budget is based
on the premise that a new stand-alone agency would be created to operate the CTSA.
The budget therefore includes the financing necessary to lease office space, equip and
staff the office, and initiate selected startup service delivery projects.
3.B.2-20
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
17
COST CATEGORY Cost Estimate Notes
Professional Services
Management Consulting $75,000 Temporary management
Legal Services $40,000 Legal: document prep, filing
Accounting Services $40,000 Tax filings; accounting setup
Temporary Operating Expenses
Office space $0 Possibly donated by agency?
Misc. office expense $10,000 Materials; travel; Bd expense
Filing fees; etc $2,000 Incorporation, etc.
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $167,000
Innovative Paradigms Contract $20,000
New Freedom Grant (CCTA) $147,000
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $167,000
CTSA Formation Budget
[Estimated formation expense; approximately 6 months]
FUNDING SOURCES (existing)
3.B.2-21
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
18
COST CATEGORY Cost Estimate Notes
Staff
Executive Director $140,000 Salary, taxes, benefits
Administrative Assistant $49,000 Salary, taxes, benefits
Direct Expenses
Office Space $72,000 2000 sq ft @$3 / sq ft
Utilities $5,400 $450 / mo
Professional Services $35,000 legal; accounting
Phone $3,600 $300 / mo
Supplies $3,600 $300 / mo
Insurance $3,000 $3,000/ yr
Travel $1,000 $1,000 / yr
Misc Expense $12,000
Functional Programs
Travel Training Cost to be determined
ADA Eligibility Process Cost to be determined
Agency Partnerships Cost to be determined
Coordinated Vehicle Maintenance Cost to be determined
Volunteer Driver Programs Cost to be determined
Central Information Program Cost to be determined
Advocacy Role Cost to be determined
Technical Support Cost to be determined
Reserve
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $324,600
MTC Grant $205,000
Other $120,000
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $325,000
CTSA Operating Budget: New Nonprofit Corporation
FUNDING SOURCES (potential)
3.B.2-22
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
19
Chapter 3: FUNCTIONS
The actual functions or services provided by CTSAs and the methods through which
they are delivered can vary widely. One major influence on the overall effectiveness of
a CTSA is the amount of available funding that the organization has to manage or
direct. Some funds do not have to actually flow through the agency. Other funds are
directly managed by the agency and can be used to provide direct services or to “seed”
projects through other agencies using various grant management strategies.
The service functions that were supported by the stakeholders and the public in Contra
Costa County are defined below. Some of these have been under consideration by the
community for several years. Others emerged as priorities through the planning
process. A subsequent implementation step would be to set priorities among the listed
strategies and prepare precise implementation plans and budgets.
Travel Training
Existing Travel Training Programs in Contra Costa County
Some travel training programs currently operate in Contra Costa County. These
programs have limited scope both geographically and relative to the clientele that are
included in the programs.
County Connection has a travel ambassador program but staff time to manage it
has been cut.
Tri-Delta Transit operates a “Transit Orientation Class” four times per year to
familiarize individuals with the fixed-route transit system. The agency also offers
one-on-one travel training upon request. Coordination with high schools that
offer travel training is also done by Tri-Delta.
Contra Costa ARC and Futures Explored provide travel training for their
consumers and receives a stipend from the Regional Center of the East Bay
(RCEB) to provide this service.
Independent Living Resources (ILR) of Solano and Contra Costa Counties has
an informal travel training program for clients of their agency. ILR staff will
provide training to clients on an as needed basis.
3.B.2-23
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
20
Proposed Countywide Travel Training Program
There are several potential elements in a full scale travel training program. Each is
defined below.
Travel Training or Mobility Training –The most intensive level of travel training is
based upon one-on-one instruction for difficult cases. Often the trainees are
developmentally disabled and require extensive and repetitive instruction in order
to achieve transit independence. The trainer will work with a client usually for
several days to instruct them on how to use the transit system to get to their
destination.
Bus Familiarization –This type of training is less intensive and generally can be
done in several hours. Typical bus familiarization training would be for a person
or group to learn how to read transit schedules and/or take a single trip to a
major destination such as a mall. This is also common for physically disabled
individuals who need instruction on the use of the special equipment on standard
transit buses such as wheelchair lifts, kneeling features, audio stop
announcements both internal and external, farebox usage, etc. Bus
familiarization is sometimes done in the field in active transit service. In other
cases, this training is conducted at the transit facility using out-of-service transit
coaches.
Transit Ambassador/Bus Buddy Program –Transit ambassador or bus buddy
programs can take several forms. The program usually matches a trainee with a
trainer. Typically the trainee and trainer will have something in common -
perhaps both are seniors going to a congregate meal site. Transit ambassador
and Bus Buddy programs typically use volunteers to teach transit riding skills.
Financial Implications
Moving riders from the ADA service to fixed-route transit can produce dramatic savings
for transit agencies. For example, a rider traveling to and from a day-program Monday-
Friday using a paratransit service costing $31.00 per one-way trip that is trained to use
fixed-route transit costing $8.00 for the same trip can produce dramatic savings for the
transit operator.
In addition to the financial implications, a rider that transitions from an ADA service to
fixed-route transit has increased mobility and independence. This transition allows a
rider to travel without the need to schedule a ride as required when using paratransit
services. Travel training is an example of a mobility management strategy that
3.B.2-24
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
21
enhances existing public transit by moving riders from paratransit service to the less
expensive option of fixed-route.
ADA Eligibility Process
Eligibility Assessment Options
The FTA does not prescribe a particular eligibility process and a number of models are
in use across the US. Whatever process is selected by a local transit operator must
simply meet the established FTA criteria outlined above. In addition to the paper
application process currently in use by Contra Costa County transit operators, three
other types of eligibility procedures are in use by transit operators in other communities.
The three principal alternative approaches are: telephone interviews/assessments,
web-based assessments, and in-person eligibility assessments. ADA eligibility experts
debate the accuracy of the various assessment models. While telephone and web-
based options are less expensive than an in-person process, the lack of personal
contact and observation and the lack of functional testing make refined eligibility
determinations, or conditional eligibility, difficult to assign. Yet some communities
strongly endorse the telephone and web-based options.
Telephone Based Eligibility
Some agencies rely primarily on telephone interviews for eligibility determinations.
These are usually conducted by high level professionals such as occupational
therapists who conduct a comprehensive conversation on the phone with the applicant,
and in a very few cases where a determination cannot be made, the applicant will be
referred for an in-person assessment. Such assessments can be conducted at an
applicant’s home or other designated site. Eligibility outcomes are relatively similar to
those of in-person assessments, though the ability to apply eligibility conditions is
arguably more challenging.
Web-Based Eligibility
Web-based assessments have been pioneered by a Southern California firm. This
model has been applied in nine paratransit programs, ranging from those in smaller
communities such as Victor Valley and Butte County, CA (population in the 200,000
range) to larger systems such as Richmond, Virginia and North San Diego County
(population in the 600,000 to 800,000 range). The web-based model is based on the
premise that, since most applicants are found fully eligible, and since most systems that
use in-person assessments have yet to apply their eligibility conditions, transit agencies
that are fiscally constrained should not be spending significant sums on transporting
3.B.2-25
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
22
applicants to in-person assessments and burdening applicants with travel to an
assessment location.
Under this model, applicants need to create an on-line account, complete the
application and then mail or e-mail a healthcare form completed by a professional who
is familiar with their abilities. This information is then reviewed by the professional on
the evaluation team who has specific expertise in the disability that is the basis for the
person’s application. Team members include medical doctors, physical and
occupational therapists, registered nurses, social workers etc. Eligibility outcomes are
relatively similar to those from in-person assessments in terms of the breakdown of
eligibility categories, but not in terms of level of detail. On average, about 56% of the
36,000 applications that have been reviewed so far have been determined fully eligible,
38% conditional (includes 11% temporary), and 6% ineligible. In a small number of
cases, if determinations cannot be made remotely, the firm sets up in-person functional
assessments locally. Appeals have remained below 1% of the total number of
certifications.
Assessment costs range from $45 to $70 per application. While the relatively lower
costs of these assessments have been appealing to a number of agencies, some of the
shortcomings that have been cited by paratransit eligibility experts include:
The model relies too heavily on applicants’ ability to use technology (although
these are often completed by caseworkers and other professionals, and
exceptions are available for those who cannot use the web)
There is limited ability to have a discussion with the applicant about the full range
of mobility options afforded by in-person assessments.
The inability to observe applicants ambulate in-person places a significant limit
on the evaluator’s ability to establish reliable and informative eligibility conditions.
An in-person assessment process results in the greatest accuracy. The ability to
personally observe applicants, discuss their functional limitations, and perform
structured functional evaluations results in a much greater level of accuracy. Though
typically more expensive to perform than assessment models, many operators have
determined that the refined ability to introduce conditions for ADA paratransit use make
the additional expense of the assessment cost effective. Most of the major transit
operators in the US have already introduced in-person assessments. Of the top 10
transit agencies, Boston was the last to introduce an in-person process in December,
2012. As interest in applying conditional eligibility as a cost control tool increases, more
agencies are implementing in-person eligibility as the means to achieve that objective.
3.B.2-26
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
23
In-Person Eligibility
An in-person ADA eligibility process typically consists of a number of steps in order to
more precisely evaluate an applicant’s ability to ride the bus, access bus stops, and to
come to a definitive decision as to functional capability. The shift from a paper process
to an in-person approach is based upon the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) focus
on a functional model of eligibility versus a medical model. With a paper process, the
emphasis is typically on the function of the applicant’s disability.
Steps common to an in-person eligibility process include:
1. In-person interview of the applicant during which details of condition can be
established by a trained interviewer.
2. Various transit skill functional tests that help the interviewer verify certain abilities
relating specifically to transit riding.
3. Selected use of professional verification if the interviewer needs further
information to establish details of conditions that are not readily apparent to the
interviewer.
An in-person process usually takes between 30 and 90 minutes to complete depending
upon the nature of the individual’s disability and the resulting need fo r various functional
tests. In order to render consistent and accurate determinations, the interview and any
skills tests are conducted in a very uniform and “scientific” manner. Interviewers are
typically trained to a high level of proficiency in evaluating information provided by the
applicant and in interpreting information gathered during functional tests or from medical
professionals. Thorough documentation of each assessment is then compiled. This
becomes the basis for reviewing any case that is appealed by the applicant.
Financial Implications
Financial implications for an ADA eligibility process vary amongst the models. There is
typically a continuum of costs associated with the various processes with the in-person
assessment being the most expensive. However, transit agencies that transition from a
paper ADA eligibility application process to in-person assessment process typically
realize an approximate 15% drop in applications. The drop in the application rate is one
key method for controlling ADA paratransit costs. Another is the application of trip by
trip eligibility using the conditional determinations made during an in-person process.
With specific conditional information, operators are beginning to direct some ADA trips
to fixed-route if the individual has been determined to be capable of taking that trip on
3.B.2-27
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
24
regular transit. While often starting incrementally, accurate mode assignment can also
become a significant cost control tool.
As important as any cost control factor relating to the introduction of a refined eligibility
process is the consistent application of determinations. At the present time, each
operator in Contra Costa County makes its own eligibility determinations. Yet once
made, the determinations apply to all operators in the Bay Area through the Regional
Eligibility Database (RED) system. The application of determination criteria varies
across operators. A countywide system would begin to standardize the application of
eligibility criteria to result in more consistent eligibility determinations among County
operators and perhaps lead to a more consistent regionwide process.
Agency Partnerships
One of the most effective tools available to CTSAs is partnering with community
agencies to deliver trips more efficiently and at lower cost than those through traditional
ADA paratransit service. An underlying concept in partnership agreements is shared
cost contracting. This concept has proven effective in many communities and is now
being replicated in others both within and outside California. This approach to service
delivery builds on the resources of community agencies and offers partial support of
their transportation through subsidized maintenance, insurance, or other technical
contributions. Another form of community partnership involves the payment to an
agency for the provision of its own transportation service through some combination of
funding sources. The resulting service is far less expensive than traditional door-to-
door service commonly provided today under ADA guidelines. Since virtually all clients
of these agencies are ADA eligible, they could simply be added to the growing numbers
of ADA riders. Instead, agency clients are carried on agency vehicles more efficiently
and at lower cost. Higher quality service for the client also results from the dedication of
the agency to its clients, the stability of routine pick-up and drop-off schedules, and the
often shorter trip length due to the proximity of individuals to programs.
There are two advantages of this program to transit operators.
By moving agency trips off ADA service, the 50% subscription cap in any given
time period on ADA demand response service, which causes service denials
under ADA, can be avoided.
Reporting of CTSA agency trips can bring more federal funding into a region
through formula programs.Some CTSA’s report trips directly into the National
Transit Database (NTD). Counting these trips increases the formula funding
3.B.2-28
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
25
available to a region through 5307. Agency trips typically qualify as part of the
ADA trip total.
Financial Implications
In locations where successful agency trip models have been deployed, cost savings for
moving trips off ADA service are dramatic. Honolulu, Hawaii has such a model where
trips performed by the local ADA service provider at a cost of $38.63 for a one-way trip
are now being completed by a human service agency for $4.85 a one-way trip, with over
55,000 trips performed in the first year of operation.An annual savings of $1,857,900
resulted.
A dramatic result of agency trip programs is the quality of service that riders experience.
Using an agency trip model, the riders are generally transported by program staff. Staff
members are generally familiar with the individual’s disabilities and special needs, which
general public ADA paratransit drivers are often not prepared to manage. Agency trips
also typically exhibit shorter trip length, and routine pick-up and drop-off schedules. The
combination of these factors results in service that is much higher in productivity than
public paratransit services.
Coordinated Vehicle Maintenance
A major program function that can be performed by a CTSA is coordinated vehicle
maintenance. In such a program, a central maintenance provider operates a garage
servicing a broad range of vehicles. Participation in the maintenance program is
voluntary but brings with it such benefits that make it appealing to community agencies
from a business perspective. Typically, there are many advantages to the social service
community in participating in a program designed to meet its unique maintenance
needs. A primary benefit is the overall safety of the CTSA fleet. With services being
provided according to rigorously structured maintenance standards, overall fleet safety
is ensured. The central provider works with agency customers to ensure compliance
with such requirements as CHP inspections and all OSHA regulations.
The beneficial features of a coordinated maintenance program are listed below:
Specialized Expertise
A centralized maintenance program that services paratransit-type vehicles (typically
cutaway buses) develops specialized expertise that is not routinely available in
commercial repair shops. This includes familiarity with wheelchair lifts, cutaway
chassis, brake interlock systems, fareboxes, mobility securement systems, and other
unique features.
3.B.2-29
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
26
Central Record Keeping
A centralized maintenance program normally provides record keeping systems that help
to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations as well as agency specific
reporting on costs, maintenance intervals, life-cycle costs, vehicle replacement
schedules, etc.
Loaner Vehicles
A feature of a centralized maintenance program that is often cited as a “life saver” by
participating agencies is the use of a loaner vehicle that is similar in size and
configuration to the basic vehicles of the participants. This can be very beneficial to
small agencies that do not have many or, in some cases, any backup vehicles.
Specialized Schedules
A common feature of a centralized maintenance program is having business hours that
best serve the client agencies. This can mean operating during evening hours or on
weekends when commercial shops are often closed. Carefully crafted work schedules
can greatly assist agencies by obtaining inspections and repairs when convenient to the
customer.
Fueling
Centralized fueling can also be a great benefit to agencies. It allows for careful
monitoring of the fueling process and fuel usage. It also provides the opportunity for
lower prices due to bulk purchasing and guaranteed availability in times of shortage.
Volunteer Driver Programs
Volunteer driver programs are an efficient method of providing transportation options in
a community. These programs can take various forms, including: curb-to-curb, shared-
ride transportation to common destinations, and highly specialized door-through-door
service to riders with very specific needs. Whatever model is used, these programs are
an important element in a community’s transportation framework. Volunteer driver
programs models can vary significantly depending on the focus of the service. Volunteer
programs typically involve some expense with the level of expense varying depending
upon the service model employed. Two common approaches of volunteer driver
programs include:
Shuttle Model: In a volunteer shuttle operation, the driver is a volunteer but does
not provide transportation with their personal vehicle. Instead, the volunteer
typically drives an agency vehicle with the agency incurring expenses for all
operating costs except the driver. The key cost saving element of this model is
3.B.2-30
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
27
the wages saved through the use of volunteers. Volunteer driver shuttles are
often a curb-to-curb, shared-ride service that transport riders to common
locations. Many shuttle programs require advance reservations, eligibility criteria
(such as age), and a fee to ride.
Volunteer driver shuttles enhance transportation options for their passengers and
assist with moving trips to the service that otherwise may be taken on ADA
paratransit.
Door-through-Door Model: This volunteer model typically involves a volunteer
driving their own vehicle. The driver is not compensated for his time but may be
reimbursed at a mileage rate to cover operating expenses such as use of
personal gas. The door-through-door model is typically used to provide
specialized transportation service for riders that need a high-level of assistance.
In the door-through-door model, the driver may escort the passenger from the
point of origin to the destination and wait for the passenger at the destination.
The service delivery approach for a door-through-door program varies but can
include:
o Matching riders with volunteer drivers
Using this approach the agency recruits volunteers and matches
the volunteer with a rider. Some programs schedule the rides with
the driver and rider, and some “assign”a driver with a rider who
coordinate trips without involving the agency.
o Rider finds their own driver
Using this model the rider finds their own driver and schedules trips
with the driver as necessary.
o Mileage reimbursement
Some door-through-door volunteer driver programs offer mileage
reimbursement for eligible trips. Reimbursement rates vary.
No matter the service delivery approach door-through-door models provide a
highly specialized means of transportation for an often vulnerable population.
These programs fulfill a growing need in communities presently only being
transported by fee-based service providers.
3.B.2-31
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
28
Contra Costa County has a robust volunteer driver network. The County has multiple
examples of both shuttle and door-through-door programs. These programs are
tailored to the niche that they serve and provide an efficient method of transporting
riders. These agencies also work collaboratively with one another to ensure that riders
are provided the service that best suits their functional abilities.
Financial Implications
Contra Costa County volunteer driver programs enhance the transportation matrix by
providing transportation options for residents, moving trips off ADA paratransit, and
offering a highly specialized means of travel for riders that cannot use other
transportation options. These programs, in effect, provide a resource to residents that
would otherwise use ADA paratransit, providing both quantitative and qualitative
benefits to the community.
Central Information Program
A central information program is often considered the heart of a mobility management
program. While this Plan includes an information program as an important element, it is
only one of many forming a complete mobility management program. There are two
primary call center functions: providing simple information referral and more
sophisticated trip planning services.
The simplest call center is a referral service. In this case a caller would be asked
questions by the call taker and referred to the appropriate agency.
Examples of Call Centers in Contra Costa County:
Contra Costa Crisis Center 211 connects callers with community services, such
as food, shelter, counseling, employment assistance, and child care. Callers are
asked a series of questions to determine which services they are eligible for and
then referred to the appropriate agency.
Contra Costa 511 is a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program that promotes alternatives to single occupant vehicles including
carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, biking, public transit, and walking.
Area Agency on Aging (AAA) Information and Assistance (I & A) provides seniors
and their families with information on community services and programs that
solve the problems faced by Contra Costa seniors.
The central information program for Contra Costa County is meant to enhance the
existing call centers and be a resource for persons needing to find information on public,
3.B.2-32
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
29
private, and human service transportation in the County. This could include detailed
transit route and schedule information, eligibility information, fares, as well as
information on private and non-profit transportation providers. The central information
program for Contra Costa County will serve as a point of contact for residents to call to
receive both transportation referral services and trip planning assistance. The call
center was brought up as a helpful mobility management element during discussions
with stakeholder groups.
Advocacy Role of Mobility Management
A mobility management CTSA can play an important role in advocating for the needs of
the population groups that it represents. Because the CTSA works closely with
agencies and individuals in the human services sector, it is often in a strategic position
to advocate for these special needs populations.
There are several alternative approaches or levels of advocacy that the mobility
management program can take. The advocacy role for a mobility manager can vary
widely depending on the existing conditions in the area that is being served. Possible
levels of advocacy are listed below.
Information Source: Mobility Manager serves as a source of “expert” information
for other agencies in the community on issues relating to special needs
population.
Special Needs Representative: Mobility Manager represents special needs
populations in transportation decision making venues.
Active lobbying for special needs populations: Proactive advocacy for special
needs groups including initiating proposals for funding and service
improvements.
The new CTSA in Contra Costa County would have some level of advocacy
involvement simply by the nature of its position in the transportation mix. Such a role is
typically defined by the Board of Directors who represent diverse interests in the
County. A balanced advocacy role contributes to the overall effectiveness of the
agency in the institutional mix in the service area.
3.B.2-33
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
30
Technical Support
Mobility management agencies can provide a variety of support services that benefit
local human service transportation providers. Whether due to lack of staff, technical
experience, or funds, many organizations are not able to fully utilize the resources
available to them. A CTSA has the ability to assist agencies by supplying technical
assistance that can allow for increased funding, expansion of existing programs,
implementation of new projects, and development of a more highly trained staff.
Grant Writing
CTSAs have the potential to significantly impact available transportation services within
their geographic area by supporting local agencies in their efforts to secure grant
funding. Completing grant applications can be confusing and overwhelming. While
larger agencies often have staff dedicated to the preparation of grant applications,
smaller public and non-profit human service agencies usually assign this responsibility
to a program manager or other administrative team member. A human service agency
may not have the time or the expertise to seek out grant opportunities and submit
applications.
Many human service agencies are intimidated by Federal or State grant application
requirements and, although some agencies have projects that could qualify for grant
funds, choose not to apply. Though grant programs are changing as a result of the
passage of MAP-21, the newly enacted federal transit funding program, grants still
contain rigorous requirements for management and reporting. Programs such as 5310
are available to agencies and now can be used in part for operations. Yet such grants
carry complex requirements that a CTSA can help agencies fulfill.
A CTSA can provide the expertise and the technical support necessary to complete
grant applications for local agencies. CTSA staff time can be dedicated to staying
current on specific grant requirements and application instructions. This type of time
commitment is often difficult or impossible for human service agencies to achieve.
CTSA staff can provide assistance through local grant writing workshops, mentoring
local agencies, and physically preparing grant applications.
Grant Management
Grant management is a complex process that often prevents agencies from applying for
funding. The data collection and reporting requirements can be daunting. Often
agencies look at the amount of the grant award and determine that the staff time
necessary to oversee the grant is not worthwhile.
3.B.2-34
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
31
A CTSA can assist human services agencies in its region by providing grant
management services or by offering training in grant management. In either case, the
CTSA staff takes on the role of expert advisor based on its in-depth understanding of
the rules and regulations required by each grantor. It can then provide advice and
assistance in matters such as:
Compliance with grant reporting requirements,
Development of recordkeeping systems,
Data collection techniques,
Understanding of sub-recipient agreements in FTA grants, and
Compliance with DBE and Title VI requirements.
The CTSA can go so far as to prepare and issue reports on behalf of the grant recipient
or sub-recipient, if necessary.
Driver Training and Professional Development
California state law is very specific about the requirements for driver training programs,
including the qualifications for instructors. For a variety of reasons, agencies may have
difficulty operating their own training programs. The driver corps may be small, the
need for training classes may be infrequent, or the agency may not have the resources
to employ a certified driver instructor. A CTSA can help meet the demand for qualified
instruction in a variety of ways:
Employing a fully certified instructor to teach driver training classes, to which
agencies can send new drivers,
Coordinating between those agencies that have their own programs and those
that do not in order to fill available training “slots”, and
Making materials and speakers available so they can be used as part of ongoing
required safety training.
3.B.2-35
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
32
Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Successful implementation of the Mobility Management Plan for Contra Costa County
will require a series of actions crafted to maintain the consensus that has emerged
around the overall concepts contained in the Plan. Success will be evident in the level
of community and agency support for the approach, the ability to obtain the necessary
funds to achieve implementation, and the efficiency of the resulting structure. This Plan
proposes the formation of a CTSA in the County. This has been well documented
throughout the planning process. The basis for this recommendation is the long-running
dialog in the County regarding mobility management activities with little actual
implementation occurring. The planning process identified that a major impediment to
action is the lack of a structural platform to serve as the vehicle through which action is
accomplished. That vehicle has now been identified as a CTSA. Further, careful
consideration has been given to alternative legal structures for a CTSA. The result of
that dialog has been the agreement to pursue a non-profit corporation model. The
principal basis for recommending this structural model is the level of success in other
communities that have adopted this structure.
The steps or phases necessary to achieve successful implementation are defined here.
They are presented in a level of detail consistent with the discussions throughout the
planning process. It is clear that moving forward will require expertise in governance,
finance, mobility management functional tools, and other very specific experience.
Such resources have also been discussed throughout the planning process.
Phase I: Adoption of the Plan
The first step toward implementation of the Plan is its adoption by the Board of Directors
of County Connection. As the sponsor of the planning process, County Connection is
the first level of approval of the Plan and its recommendations. The County Connection
Board should consider the implications of the Plan and adopt it both as the sponsoring
agency and also as one of the key implementing agencies in the County. Concurrence
of the other transit operators particularly WestCAT and Tri-Delta Transit should be
sought to demonstrate the support of the transit community for the Plan. Their support
will strengthen subsequent steps in the implementation process. It will also give the
Transportation Authority what it needs to move the process forward. In adopting the
Plan, County Connection should also officially forward the Plan on to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) as the countywide agency best suited to manage
Phase II of the implementation process.
3.B.2-36
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
33
Phase II: Formation of a Mobility Management Oversight Board
An Oversight Board of critical agency representatives is the appropriate mechanism for
Phase II of the process. This Board should be formed to guide discussion of the critical
details of the CTSA formation process including makeup of the governing board, roles
and responsibilities of the agency, identification and commitment of seed funds to
create the organization, and other legal and procedural details. The Oversight Board is
proposed to include: Executive staff from County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit,
WestCAT, AC Transit, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, BART, and three
executives representing human service agencies.
As a tool for use in guiding the efforts of the Mobility Management Oversight Board, it is
recommended that as set of Guiding Principles be adopted to ensure that the interests
and objectives of the affected agencies are represented and officially noted. Such a
tool can help to keep the efforts of the participants focused and inclusive. A preliminary
set of Guiding Principles is proposed below:
Guiding Principles
Recognize Existing Agencies’ Roles: Many agencies in Contra Costa
County currently provide services under the broad definition of mobility
management. The role and interests of these agencies should be
recognized and included in the formation of a CTSA and in the future
allocation of resources to our through that organization.
Minimize administration: The CTSA will require a management structure
in order to accomplish its mission. In creating such a structure, care
should be taken to minimize administration in order to maximize the
allocation of scarce resources to functional programs.
Broadly Analyze Resource Allocation Decisions: One of the roles of a
new CTSA will be to pursue resources for the implementation or
continuation of functional programs. In so doing, the CTSA should as a
matter of policy prepare an analysis of the impacts of alternative resource
allocation strategies that can be considered by all affected agencies in the
CTSA service area.
3.B.2-37
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
34
Mobility Management Oversight Board Structure and Functions
Oversight Board defines CTSA by-laws, board structure, and performance
standards
Oversight Board serves as advisory body after CTSA has been
established
Oversight Board consists of:
Executive staff representative of each of the following agencies:
County Connection
Tri-Delta Transit
WestCAT
AC Transit
BART
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Three human service agencies
Phase III: Form a CTSA as the Mobility Management Agency
Form a CTSA for Contra Costa County approximately twelve (12) months
following formation of the Mobility Management Oversight Board.
Establish a non-profit corporation to serve as the mobility management
agency for the County.
MTC designate the non-profit corporation as the CTSA for Contra Costa
County
Fund setup and initial operation of the CTSA through a combination of
funding provided by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
and MTC for a minimum period of two years.
Establish a governance structure for the non-profit corporation through
appointment of Directors to the governing Board by public agencies in
Contra Costa County.
Allocate funds for an interim budget to cover agency formation expenses
and initial management activities.
Allocate a combination of funds totaling $300,000 to $400,000 per year for
initial CTSA operation.
Funding
CTSA pursues available grant opportunities.
CTSA works with transit operators to allocate funds to mobility
management programs which move riders from ADA service.
3.B.2-38
County Connection
Tri-Delta Transit
WestCAT
AC Transit
BART
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Three human service agencies
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
35
CTSA works with MTC to identify discretionary funds.
CTSA participates in new funding opportunities to include funding
specifically for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with low-income,
and the CTSA.
CTSA enters into a dialog with the transit operators, MTC, and the
Transportation Authority regarding allocation of TDA Article 4.5 as defined
in statute. Action on this issue would only follow the achievement of
consensus regarding this funding source. The most logical allocation of
TDA to a new CTSA would follow transfer of trips from the transit
operators to services coordinated through the new CTSA.
Phase IV: Functional Programs
Direct the CTSA to establish priorities among the identified functional
programs for Contra Costa County.
Develop grant applications through community partnerships for the
implementation of functional programs.
3.B.2-39
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
36
Implementation Timeline
Date or Time Period Activity
Obtain Transit Operator Support August - October, 2013
CCCTA Board Adoption October, 2013
Form Oversight Board September - October, 2013
CCTA Presentation September - October, 2013
Oversight Board hires Manager January, 2014
Oversight Board conducts performance review January, 2015
CTSA Implementation Time Line
(approximate)
3.B.2-40
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
37
Appendix 1
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
Stakeholder Planning Group
Charlie Anderson WestCAT 510-724-3331 charlie@westcat.org
Christina Atienza WCCTAC 510-215-3044 christinaa@ci.san-pablo.ca.us
Laramie Bowron CCCTA 925-680-2048 bowron@cccta.org
Heidi Branson Tri-Delta Transit 925-754-6622 HBranson@eccta.org
Mary Bruns LaMorinda Spirit Van 925-284-5546 mbruns@ci.lafayette.ca.us
Sam Casas City of Richmond 510-621-1258 Samuel_Casas@ci.richmond.ca.us
Laura Corona Regional Center of the East Bay 510-618-7726 lcorona@rceb.org
Peter Engel CCTA 925-256-4741 pengel@ccta.net
Carol Ann McCrary Contra Costa ARC 925-595-0115 cmccrary@arcofcc.org
Teri Mountford City of San Ramon Senior Center 925-973-3271 tmountford@sanramon.ca.gov
Penny Musante Futures Explored 925-284-3240 pennymusante@futures-explored.org
Ann Muzzini CCCTA muzzini@cccta.org
Joanna Pallock WCCTAC 510-215-3053 joannap@ci.san-pablo.ca.us
Elaine Clark Meals on Wheels 925-937-8311 x 122 eclark@mowsos.org
Kathy Taylor Meals on Wheels 925-937-8311 x 119 ktaylor@mowsos.org
Debbie Toth RSNC Mt. Diablo Center for Adult Day Health Care 925-682-6330 x 111 dtoth@rsnc-centers.org
John Rodriguez Contra Costa Developmental Disabilities Council 925-313-6836 John.Rodriguez@hsd.cccounty.us
Elaine Welch Senior Help Line Services 925-284-6699 elaine@seniorhelpline.net
3.B.2-41
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
38
Appendix 2
CTSA Case Studies
Overview
Case studies can be a useful tool in understanding how the experiences of other
agencies or communities may offer guidance in a current decision process. Relative to
the Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan, a key underlying concept in
implementing creative change in the County is consideration of the formation of a
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). The guidelines within the
Transportation Development Act (TDA) regarding formation of CTSA’s are broad and
offer the opportunity for a variety of approaches regarding their formation and operation.
What follows are illustrative case studies defining the approaches taken by other
California communities to the formation and operation of CTSAs. Each goes into detail
regarding such issues as:
What approach led to the formation of the CSA? (Single agency application,
competitive process, action by a major public agency, etc.)
What is the governing structure of the CTSA?
How is the CTSA funded?
What are examples of the functional programs operated by or funded by the
CTSA?
The CTSAs selected for case studies are:
Paratransit, Inc., Sacramento: This was the first CTSA designated in
California and has served as a model for the formation of others. It is a
501(c)3 non-profit corporation.
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans), San Bernardino: This is among the
newest CTSAs in California incorporated in 2010. It is a 501(c)3 non-profit
corporation. In less than three yeaxrs, VTrans has become a major service
provider in urbanized San Bernardino County.
Access Services, Los Angeles: The Los Angeles CTSA, Access Services,
was formed in 1994. It also is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. It provides a
range of services throughout LA County.
CTSA of Stanislaus County: The CTSA in Stanislaus County was established
in 2010. It is somewhat unique in the fact that the operator of the CTSA was
chosen through a competitive process.
3.B.2-42
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
39
Mendocino Transit Authority: This is a Joint Powers Authority transit agency
in Mendocino County. This agency serves both as the transit operator and
the CTSA. It greatly enhanced its emphasis on human service coordination
with the hiring of a Mobility Management Coordinator in recent years.
3.B.2-43
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
40
Paratransit, Inc. – Sacramento
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 1981
Organization Type: 501(c) 3 corporation
Board Structure: 9 member board of directors, established through an
agreement among governmental jurisdictions
Paratransit, Inc. is a non-profit transportation agency originally incorporated in
July, 1978. The agency’s incorporation, built on the emerging concept of human
service transportation coordination, was an early attempt to demonstrate the
potential benefits of service coordination and the centralization of service delivery
functions and administration under one organization.
Soon after its incorporation, Paratransit, Inc. served as a model for legislation
being authored by the Assembly Transportation Committee to encourage
coordination statewide. Assemblyman Walter Ingalls authored Assembly Bill
(AB) 120, the Social Service Transportation Improvement Act. This landmark
legislation included a provision calling for the designation of a Consolidated
Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) in each California county. Paratransit,
Inc. was the first such agency designated in California.
Approach to Formation
Paratransit Inc. applied directly to SACOG (formerly SRAPC) for designation as
the CTSA. No other agency at the time approached SACOG and no other
agency was considered for designation as the CTSA.
Paratransit was designated the CTSA in the Sacramento area on July 16, 1981.
At the same time it was authorized to claim up to the full 5% of TDA funds
authorized under the law. The initial CTSA designation was for one year. Later
designation periods varied between one and three years with the term typically
becoming longer as the community became confident in the performance of the
organization. In 1988, the CTSA designation was set without time limitation
subject to rescission for performance issues.
3.B.2-44
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
41
Paratransit operates as a non-profit CTSA in a partnership with Sacramento
Regional Transit District (RT). The two organizations are well respected in
regional decision making in the Sacramento area serving together on the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Technical Coordinating
Committee that oversees funding allocations. Paratransit has formal ties to RT
on two levels. First, RT has the authority to appoint two members of the
Paratransit Board of Directors (see Governance below). Further, Paratransit
provides all complementary ADA paratransit service within the RT District under
a collaborative agreement with RT. Paratransit’s operation of the CTSA in
parallel with the ADA service allows for maximum of service through unique
agreements with many other community agencies.
Governing Structure
Paratransit was initially incorporated with a self-selected and appointed Board of
Directors. This model is common among human service organizations. The
initial Board Members were mostly senior staff (Executive Directors in most
cases) of other community organizations in the Sacramento area. These
incorporating Directors had worked through the issues surrounding creation of a
new single purpose transportation organization and thus supported the concept
and direction. Within three years of its incorporation, Paratransit was receiving
increasing amounts of local government funding. The major local jurisdictions
then chose to institutionalize the governance of the agency through what became
known as the Four Party Agreement. Parties to this agreement were the City of
Sacramento, County of Sacramento, Sacramento Regional Transit District, and
the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). This agreement set
forth terms concerning Board structure, financial commitments, asset transfers to
Paratransit, oversight by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, etc. The
Four Party Agreement served as the structural guide to the CTSA until it was
replaced by a new Collaborative Agreement in December, 2012.
The critical provision of the CTSA designation concerned the agency’s governing
structure. The Four Party Agreement set forth the required Board of Directors
makeup and appointing structure. A nine member Board was established to
replace the original self-appointing Board. The Board today is made up as
follows:
3.B.2-45
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
42
Two members appointed by the City Council, representative of the
general public (non users).
Two members appointed by the County Board of Supervisors,
representative of the general public (non users).
Two members appointed by the Board of Directors of the
Sacramento Regional Transit District.
One member appointed by SACOG representing any city or county
with which Paratransit contracts for service.
Two members, one appointed by the City Council and one
appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, representing the
user community.
CTSA Operating Details
Paratransit, Inc. operates a large array of programs under the mantle of the
CTSA. Most are directly related to the objectives for a CTSA outlined in the
original AB 120 legislation.
The most noteworthy of the Paratransit CTSA programs is its partner agreements
with local community agencies. For many years, Paratransit has refined the
concept of shared cost contracting, wherein the partnering organizations each
contribute a portion of the cost of service for specific client populations. Working
with 8 local agencies today, Paratransit contributes some of the funds it derives
from TDA Article 4.5 and the local option sales tax (Measure A) to a funding mix
with the agencies. This results in the agencies transporting their own clients at a
far lower cost and higher service quality than through the standard ADA
paratransit service (which Paratransit, Inc. also operates under contract to Sac
RT). This highly successful program has dramatically increased system capacity
over what could be funded through the traditional ADA paratransit program. It
serves as a cornerstone of Paratransit’s CTSA functions.
In addition to partnership agreements with local human service organizations,
Paratransit has operated a maintenance program for its own vehicles and for
those of other community agencies. Today this operation, dating back 30 years,
provides services for over 50 organizations ranging from local non-profit human
service agencies to Sacramento State University to private Medicaid transport
operators.
3.B.2-46
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
43
For many years, the agency has operated a large travel training program aimed
at training individuals, many developmentally disabled, to ride the fixed-route
transit service. This program has recently expanded in other regions including
Spokane, Washington, San Joaquin and Santa Clara Counties in California, and
Honolulu, Hawaii. Over the years this program has trained thousands of
individuals to ride the bus, thus saving an enormous expenditure on ADA
paratransit service.
3.B.2-47
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
44
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans) – San Bernardino
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 2010
Organization Type: 501(c) 3 corporation
Board Structure: 7 member board of directors, specified in Corporate Bylaws
Valley Transportation Services (VTrans) is among the newest CTSAs in
California. It was designated as the CTSA by the San Bernardino Transportation
Commission (SANBAG) in September, 2010.
Approach to Formation
The concept of a CTSA had been included in the San Bernardino County local
sales tax measure as a recipient of a portion of the tax receipts. Yet at the time
of passage of the tax (Measure I) no CTSA existed in the County. To accomplish
formation of a CTSA, SANBAG commissioned a study of alternative approaches
to a CTSA with the intent that the study would result in a formal recommendation
of the appropriate structure of the CTSA for the San Bernardino urbanized area.
The study considered all structural options and concluded with the
recommendation that a new 501(c)3 corporation be created to be designated as
the CTSA. VTrans incorporation was completed in October, 2010.
The provision of the local sales tax measure calls for the allocation of 2% of the
tax proceeds to the CTSA. Funding began to accrue in 2009 and was made
available to VTrans immediately upon formation. The 2% funding level in the tax
measure provides approximately $2 million per year for VTrans operations.
These local funds have been used very successfully to date as local match to
leverage federal funds (see CTSA Operating Details below).
3.B.2-48
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
45
Governing Structure
The VTrans Bylaws specify its governing structure. The structure is dictated in
part by the large amount of public funding received by the agency and also by
the intent to involve the major governmental organizations in its governance.
The Board of Directors of VTrans consists of the following:
Three appointed by San Bernardino Associated Governments (must be
representative of the San Bernardino Valley)
Two appointed by San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (must be
representative of the San Bernardino Valley area)
Two appointed by Omnitrans –must be representative of designated
population
Both SANBAG and San Bernardino County have chosen to appoint members
from the community. In certain cases, these have been former elected officials
from the area. Omnitrans has chosen to appoint two members of its own Board
of Directors. The Omnitrans Board is made up entirely of elected officials of the
represented jurisdictions. Thus its appointees are elected officials. Also included
in the Bylaws is the right of SANBAG to appoint an ex-officio member. It has
chosen to appoint a senior transportation executive to this post. The original
corporate Bylaws did not provide for staggered terms for Board Members. This
has since been corrected. Board terms are three years with a limit of two
consecutive terms.
CTSA Operating Details
VTrans was interested in beginning operation very quickly following formation. In
order to do so, the agency retained a very experienced CTSA executive on a
contract basis to serve as its initial Executive Director. That individual was
vested with full authority to manage the startup of the agency including money
management, hiring authority, etc. Early startup steps included the selection of
office space, full office setup, establishment of the accounting system,
development of operating policies, and negotiation of initial operating
agreements. The final step in the contract called for the Executive Director to
guide the selection process for a permanent Chief Executive Officer. That
permanent CEO took over in January, 2011.
3.B.2-49
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
46
Among the initial operational steps undertaken by the new agency were the
application for federal funds to create a new travel training program and the
formation of partner agreements with human service agencies to serve as
transportation providers for agency clients. These newly created services took
passenger trips off of the ADA paratransit system and onto a service with agency
vehicles and drivers. Initial response was overwhelmingly positive regarding
both service quality and cost savings.
VTrans has gone on to establish a volunteer driver program, partner on a grant
applications, and expand agency trip participation by bringing in additional
operating agencies. VTrans is presently in the final stages of creating a
maintenance program for human service agencies in the San Bernardino area by
opening its own facility staffed with agency employees.
3.B.2-50
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
47
Access Services (ASI) – Los Angeles
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 1994
Organization Type: 501(c)3 corporation
Board Structure: 9 member board of directors
Approach to Formation
In 1990, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) adopted
an Action Plan and established a CTSA to begin coordination of Social Services
transportation. The adopted plan called for the CTSA to implement and operate
an information and referral service for social services transportation as well as
provide technical assistance and training to local service providers. In 1991, in
response to the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
mission of the CTSA was expanded to include the implementation of a regional
ADA paratransit system for the Los Angeles County region.
In 1994, shortly after its formation, the successor to the LACTC, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) determined that the
mission of the CTSA could best be fulfilled if the CTSA were a stand-alone
independent agency. From this action, Access Services was established and
designated as the CTSA for Los Angeles County per California Government
Code Article 7, Section 6680.
Agency Structure and Functions
Access Services Incorporated (ASI) was established in 1994 and was designated
as the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for Los Angeles
County by LACMTA (Metro). ASI is a public non-profit corporation and as the
CTSA, administers the Los Angeles County Coordinated Paratransit Plan on
behalf of the County’s 43 public bus and rail operators. ASI facilitates the
provision of complementary ADA paratransit services under the name “Access
Paratransit.”
3.B.2-51
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
48
In its role as Access Paratransit, ASI enters into and administers federally funded
regional contracts with independent private transit providers. The agency also
leases vehicles to the regional providers at $1 per month to help facilitate the
provision of service under the contracts. In total, the Access Paratransit system
provides more than 2.3 million rides per year to more than 74,000 qualified
disabled riders in a service area of over 1,950 square miles. Access Services
receives its funding from Proposition C sales tax, Federal 5310 grants, and fare
box revenue.
As the designated CTSA in Los Angeles County, ASI is in charge of the
development and implementation of regional coordination of social service
transportation to seniors, persons with disabilities, youth, and the low-income
populations.
ASI operates as the ADA provider offering complementary service to the fixed-
route operations of LACMTA and local municipal operators. Its governing
structure is separate from that of LACMTA but provides for the transit agency to
appoint one of its Board members.
Governing Structure
ASI is governed by a nine-member board of directors with one appointment by
each of the following.
1. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
2.City Selection Committee’s Corridor Transportation Representatives
3. Mayor of the City of Los Angeles
4. Los Angeles County municipal fixed-route operators
5. Los Angeles County local fixed-route operators
6. Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities
7. Coalition of Los Angeles County Independent Living Centers
8. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
9. Alternating appointment by the municipal and local fixed-route operators
CTSA Operating Details
Access Services performs a variety of functions as the CTSA. In 2009, ASI will
sponsor over a dozen workshops in conjunction with Caltrans, CalACT, the
3.B.2-52
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
49
National Transit Institute, and other organizations. These professional
development opportunities are available to public and non-profit agencies
providing specialized transportation in Los Angeles County and their
employees/affiliates (private sector applicants). Most of these programs are low
or no cost and are subsidized by Access Services CTSA program.
In addition to training and education, ASI provides brokerage services, technical
assistance, joint procurement, and travel training under the auspices of the
CTSA.
For FY 2009-2010, the CTSA portion of the ASI Budget is projected to be
$223,103, which represents 0.24% of the agency’s total operating costs of
$92,350,473.
3.B.2-53
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
50
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency of the Stanislaus Region
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 2010
Organization Type: 501(c)3 corporation
Organizational Approach: Contract with Paratransit, Inc. to serve as CTSA
Approach to Formation
A comprehensive Stanislaus County Transit Needs Assessment was prepared in
2009. This study identified a number of transportation service gaps in the County
and recommended formation of a CTSA to address the variety of identified
needs. The Stanislaus County Council of Governments (StanCOG) sponsored
the study and directed implementation. StanCOG chose to create a CTSA and
prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) defining the responsibilities of the CTSA
and openly solicited proposals for this service. This is a unique approach to the
selection of an agency to serve as a CTSA.
Proposals were received by two agencies to serve as the Stanislaus County
CTSA. One was submitted by Catholic Charities of Stanislaus County. This
local non-profit agency operated a small volunteer driver program in the county in
addition to other human service functions. The other proposal to serve as the
CTSA was submitted by Paratransit, Inc. of Sacramento. This large non-profit
corporation (see case study above) already served as the CTSA in Sacramento
County and had more than 30 years of experience as a CTSA operating agency.
StanCOG chose to designate Paratransit Inc. as the CTSA for Stanislaus
County. StanCOG entered into a three year contract with Paratransit with two
option years. A separate Resolution was also adopted designating Paratransit
as the CTSA for Stanislaus County.
Consolidated
Transportation Services
Agency of the Stanislaus
Region
3.B.2-54
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
51
Stanislaus Governing Structure
Paratransit Inc. is a Sacramento based corporation that does business
throughout California and a number of other States. It has served as the CTSA
in Sacramento County since 1981. Technically, the Stanislaus CTSA is governed
by the Board of Directors of Paratransit, Inc.
To ensure local participation in governance, an advisory committee to StanCOG
was established specifically to oversee the CTSA. This Mobility Advisory
Committee (MAC) meets on a periodic basis to review operations and outcomes
of the CTSA.
CTSA Operating Details
The Stanislaus CTSA has no dedicated funding source. Instead, the CTSA
claims TDA funds under Article 4.5 as provided for in the law. The amount of
funding that is claimed each year is negotiated among the transit operators and
through a review of program objectives with StanCOG. The expectation of the
CTSA as it was formed was that it would use the local TDA allocation to leverage
federal funds to operate agency programs. Within the first year of existence, the
CTSA successfully sought Federal JARC and New Freedom funds to support
operations. Because of the 80% federal share of these programs as mobility
management projects, the CTSA was able to lever an initial $100,000 TDA
allocation into a $400,000 budget is its first year. TDA allocations in subsequent
years have increased along with additional successful grant applications.
The Needs Study that led to the formation of the CTSA established priority
programs for implementation. These specifically included a volunteer driver
program to provide door-through-door service beyond ADA requirements and a
travel training program to operate for all 5 transit operators throughout the
County. Both programs were created within the first year of operation. The
CTSA presently has a full time staff of three. These employees of the CTSA
perform travel training and manage an expanding volunteer program. In addition,
the CTSA staff provides technical assistance to StanCOG and other County
agencies regarding transportation issues and programs.
3.B.2-55
Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan
52
Mendocino Transit Authority
Organization Structure Summary
CTSA Designation: 1981
Organization Type: Joint Powers Authority: Transit Authority
Board Structure: 7 member board of directors as set forth in the JPA
The Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) is a Joint Powers Agency created in
1975 to provide transportation services within Mendocino County. The agency
was designated as the CTSA for Mendocino County in 1981 by the Mendocino
Council of Governments (MCOG).
The designation was accomplished through the use of a Minute Order by the
COG and has been in effect since 1981. MTA has not had to re-apply in order to
maintain its status as CTSA.
Mendocino Transit Authority Governing Structure
The MTA Board has seven appointed members.
3 appointed by the County Board of Supervisors
1 appointed by the City of Ukiah
1 appointed by the City of Point Arena
1 appointed by the City of Willits
1 appointed by the City of Fort Bragg
Membership on the JPA does not require a board member to be an elected
official. Currently, about half of the membership consists of elected officials.
CTSA Operating Details
The Mendocino Transit Authority has substantially enhanced its efforts to provide
a range of mobility management services in recent years. The hiring of a Mobility
Management Coordinator was a major step in this development for the Authority.
3.B.2-56
1
John Cunningham
From:John Cunningham
Sent:Monday, May 13, 2013 12:50 PM
To:Laramie Bowron
Cc:Peter Engel; Cliff Glickman; Gayle Israel; Lauri Byers; Barbara Neustadter; Marjorie Koll;
'John.Rodriguez@hsd.cccounty.us'; Steve Goetz
Subject:Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan: Draft - March 1, 2013
TO:
Laramie Bowron
Manager of Planning
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
2477 Arnold Industrial Way
Concord, CA 94520
File: Transportation > Transit > CCCTA‐CentralCCTransitAuthority > Correspondence
TRANSPORTATION > Chron
Laramie:
I’m following up on my earlier communications. I realize the deadline was Friday, thank you for accepting these late
comments on the subject document:
Page 5: While I realize it is in the summary section, caution is warranted in characterizing (and more importantly
implementing) changes in eligibility protocols, even if described as “refined” or intended to “improve the accuracy”. Cost
controls are achieved more effectively by providing options to clients, and with little chance of discrimination claims.
Later on in the document it describes increased options as an intent of the CTSA. How that intent is fulfilled in the
“proposed strategy section” should be made much more clear. If you choose to continue to include the changes to the
eligibility protocols in the document, all of the possible outcomes need to be described to decision makers.
Page 6: All agencies consulted with and/or who participated need to be identified in an appendix. This will be important
as implementation proceeds.
Page 6: All comments received on this plan should must be published in an appendix including agency & community
input.
Page 7: The membership of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee and attendees at the three summit meetings must be
published.
Page 12: OUTREACH & Escort (OUTREACH) in Santa Clara County is described as a “single purpose nonprofit agency”.
While it may have morphed in to that over the years during the time it took on an increased transportation role it was a
multi‐purpose nonprofit agency providing services to an array of clients. My purpose in bringing this up is that, as the
closest geographic example of a successful CTSA, the OUTREACH model could prove instructive for our decision makers
and they should be aware of the background of the agency.
Page 13: Notably absent from the bullet list describing the reasons for successful CTSAs is the ability to attract additional
funds not available to governmental entities. This may very well be an outgrowth or characteristic of one of the listed
bullets but that is not clear with an initial read.
2
Page 14: The CTSA status of OUTREACH, and the conditions placed on OUTREACH by MTC as a part of that designation,
should be described.
Page 17: Please provide the basis for the budget recommendations.
Page 21: Please provide the source and the original data regarding outcomes of the different eligibility options and any
other quantitative measure, maintenance cost savings, cost per trip, etc.
Page 32: The first paragraph on this page should be revised to be more useful:
“The basis for this recommendation is the long‐running dialog in the County regarding mobility management
activities with little actual implementation resulting.” Shouldn’t the findings in the plan be the primary guidance
on whether or not to establish a CTSA rather than a undocumented, and I assume, casual ongoing dialog?
“That vehicle has now been identified as a CTSA.” This self‐fulfilling proclamation might be premature.
Page 32 & 33: I believe the implementation steps would benefit from some additional steps. After CCCTA adoption and
concurrent with forwarding the plan to CCTA for consideration, all other affected agencies should adopt or otherwise
take a position on the recommendations. At a minimum that should be all of the transit operators in the County. If, in
the following steps, an effective steering committee is to be formed, the participants will need to have clear direction
from their respective boards.
I am concerned with the focus on Paratransit Inc. as a model in this document. I understand the author has a connection
to that entity. However, the utility of the investment of public funds in this study should not be constrained by the
personal experience of a single consultant. As I mentioned earlier, OUTREACH in Santa Clara County is the closest
geographic CTSA example to Contra Costa. In 2012 OUTREACH has won the Community Transportation Association
award for Mobility Management Organization and they have an excellent record of quality of service and cost controls.
Please consider further investigation in to the Santa Clara County model as you move ahead.
In addition, as you move ahead, please be aware that FTA will soon release the study, Accessible Transit Services for All.
This study included a nationwide scan of paratransit properties and will include best practices focusing on cost‐effective
solutions.
Considering the countywide implications of the study and the fact that CCTA is the primary transportation planning and
funding agency in Contra Costa, I support the recommendation that CCTA be involved and invested in this effort as it
proceeds.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
‐ John
______________________________
John Cunningham
Senior Transportation Planner
Department of Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Direct Line: 925‐674‐7833
Main Transportation Line: 925‐674‐7209
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us